AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
or why the whole business is futile because unfalsifiable.
Consider a following list for who had the highest AO peak in the Open era:
1. Federer (07)
2. Safin (05)
3. Edberg (90 pre-injury)
4. Agassi (95)
5. Sampras (94)
6. Djokovic (11)
Djokovic is placed as the 6th best - funny, isn't it? - and there's no way to prove this wrong or unreasonable since all of those guys played extremely well indeed. Does that mean this ranking has to be considered? No it doesn't, whether you think Djovak's peak is best or 6th best is of no import, the stat that matters is 6 titles for joint most with Federer (and good time to add some more); whatever his peak placement, he's had far greater consistency than anyone in the list except Federer, hence greater success too, all deserved.
Let's do this for Wimbledon too:
1. Krajicek (96)
2. Cash (87)
3. McEnroe (84)
4. Sampras (94)
5. Borg (76)
6. Federer (03, 06)
Can't prove this wrong either, lol. Remember, Krajicek straight-setted prime PETE, how do you know that wasn't the highest level ever, eh? Yet Fedr is the goat grasscourterer regardless because he maintained a great level for a crazy ton years leading to the best results, no matter if someone else may have had the hypothetical greatest peak.
The crazy case of Nadal means he can't possibly be moved below 2nd (behind Borg) for peak on clay with the most fanatical reasoning, but elsewhere his position could really suffer, e.g. Wimbledon - in chronological order:
Laver, Newcombe, Ashe, Borg, McEnroe, Becker, Cash, Edberg, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Federer, Roddick, Murray, Djokovic could be theorised to have displayed a higher peak, thus putting RAFA down as far as 15th in the OE, which doesn't matter as he's still the greatest of 1-2 titlists along with Edberg based on results and the fight displayed.
Summary: arguing peak leads nowhere, respect results and the scorelines attached, m'kay, no?
Consider a following list for who had the highest AO peak in the Open era:
1. Federer (07)
2. Safin (05)
3. Edberg (90 pre-injury)
4. Agassi (95)
5. Sampras (94)
6. Djokovic (11)
Djokovic is placed as the 6th best - funny, isn't it? - and there's no way to prove this wrong or unreasonable since all of those guys played extremely well indeed. Does that mean this ranking has to be considered? No it doesn't, whether you think Djovak's peak is best or 6th best is of no import, the stat that matters is 6 titles for joint most with Federer (and good time to add some more); whatever his peak placement, he's had far greater consistency than anyone in the list except Federer, hence greater success too, all deserved.
Let's do this for Wimbledon too:
1. Krajicek (96)
2. Cash (87)
3. McEnroe (84)
4. Sampras (94)
5. Borg (76)
6. Federer (03, 06)
Can't prove this wrong either, lol. Remember, Krajicek straight-setted prime PETE, how do you know that wasn't the highest level ever, eh? Yet Fedr is the goat grasscourterer regardless because he maintained a great level for a crazy ton years leading to the best results, no matter if someone else may have had the hypothetical greatest peak.
The crazy case of Nadal means he can't possibly be moved below 2nd (behind Borg) for peak on clay with the most fanatical reasoning, but elsewhere his position could really suffer, e.g. Wimbledon - in chronological order:
Laver, Newcombe, Ashe, Borg, McEnroe, Becker, Cash, Edberg, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Federer, Roddick, Murray, Djokovic could be theorised to have displayed a higher peak, thus putting RAFA down as far as 15th in the OE, which doesn't matter as he's still the greatest of 1-2 titlists along with Edberg based on results and the fight displayed.
Summary: arguing peak leads nowhere, respect results and the scorelines attached, m'kay, no?