Grand slam victories are cool but if they don't end up with a title they loose a lof of meaning. I prefer a Davydenko who won several titles beating combination of big 3 players than Berdych who defeated Federer a few time in slams.
I agree with that logic too but only to a point. Davydenko's titles quality more than make up for the bigger total haul of Ferrer, but not Nalbandian, because the difference in total haul is too great, and winning titles is important.
Still these weapons are not sharp enough when a good opponents show up with sharp weapons, they are enough when they show up with dull enough (which is often enough). His H2H against players like Berdych, Wawrinka, Nishikori, is quite poor.
Gonzalez peak is obviously the AO 2007. His QF and SF against Nadal and Haas were fantastic, but he couldn't maintain his level in the final, probably too much pressure. I think one tournament is not enough to call it a true peak though, so although I love him I wouldn't rank him highly. A peak...
What about Gonzalez-Nadal in 2007? Nadal was very unlucky to play Gonzalez and Tsonga in AO 2007 and 2008. They were having the tournament of their life and only blinked during the finals, too much pressure.
1. Davydenko: 21 titles including 1 WTF and 3 M1000 with several victories over combinations of Djokovic, Nadal, Federer.
2. David Ferrer: 27 titles including 1 M1000. Slightly better record in slams than Davydenko but lack bug victories over top players.
3. David Nalbandian: 11 titles including...
Distortion by the medias/ruling organisation is an important component and can strongly influence the perception of a player. Lendl suffered from that, Djokovic too, although to a lesser extend.
At the end Ken suffer from the importance given to peak play over consistent play/longevity. It...