Big 3 peak for peak

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
Peak as it is typically defined on here is not nearly as important to greatness as people think. Best way to measure greatness at slams is to attach like a slam winning level probability to every level they brought every year and add them up or at least that’s how it should be conceived.
Yes this is true but the peak argument is less easy to prove but also less easy to disprove, so this is why people latch onto this because it's completely hypothetical. If a player has the results, this angle is not really needed. To me, I agree that greatness is way more important and in fact something tangible supported by actual results.
 

fedfan24

Hall of Fame
What? Federer 05-08 would crush Djokovic (Except maybe 08). Post-prime version of Federer in 2011 beat the peakiest version ever of Djokovic on clay.
don’t know about crush but i think peak fed has the edge more often than not. his defence was just as elite and his huge fh with the spin and depth would dominate the court. djokovic for example defeated a decent fed at rome 09 but I think 06-07 versions on clay were an notch above for federer
 

The Blond Blur

G.O.A.T.
Peak vs peak to me means the absolute best version of a player vs another player’s absolute best. So, not a hypothetical 10 match series, sorry @RS

Based on that I’d go:

AO: Joker > Ol’ Rog > RAFA
RG: RAFA > Ol’ Rog > Joker
WB: Ol’ Rog > RAFA > Joker
USO: Ol’ Rog >= RAFA > Joker
Olympics: RAFA > Ol’ Rog > Joker
YEC: Ol’ Rog > Joker > RAFA
 

RelentlessAttack

Hall of Fame
If we do 11-14 Djok vs 05-08 Nadal, he would certainly do better than Fed did (3 total sets across 4 matches from 05-08) but that’s about it, and I could totally see Nadal winning every one. The better question is whether Djok would even get to face Nadal tbh, it is very unclear how 2011-14 Djokovic would cope with 05-08 Federer at RG.

In 10000 simulations, Nadal 05-08 would win all 4 encounters something like 9999 times
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
The Baghdatis Brigade

RPW % Stats say that Roger's win at RG is the weakest as his rival was a rookie.

2005 SF - Nadal 46.22%, Federer 41.67%
2006 F - Nadal 37.82 %, Federer 31.53%
2007 F - Nadal 38.14%, Federer 33.58%
2008 F - Nadal 59.74%, Federer 31.34%
2009 F - Federer 39.56% Soderling 21.52%

2011F - Nadal 42.06%, Federer 38.78%
2012F - Nadal 45.53%, Djokovic 41.53%
2013SF - Nadal 39.43%, Djokovic 32.5%
2014F - Nadal 40.48% Djokovic 34.17%
2016F - Djokovic 48.62% Murray 37%


In 10000 simulations, Nadal 05-08 would win all 4 encounters something like 9999 times

In the above iteration 2006 Nadal is on 38% while 2012 Novak is on 41%, this iteration Novak can win.

Other iterations don't look very good for Novak.
 
Last edited:

fedfan24

Hall of Fame
RPW % Stats say that Roger's win at RG is the weakest as his rival was a rookie.

2005 SF - Nadal 46.22%, Federer 41.67%
2006 F - Nadal 37.82 %, Federer 31.53%
2007 F - Nadal 38.14%, Federer 33.58%
2008 F - Nadal 59.74%, Federer 31.34%
2009 F - Federer 39.56% Soderling 21.52%

2011F - Nadal 42.06%, Federer 38.78%
2012F - Nadal 45.53%, Djokovic 41.53%
2013SF - Nadal 39.43%, Djokovic 32.5%
2014F - Nadal 40.48% Djokovic 34.17%
2016F - Djokovic 48.62% Murray 37%




In the above iteration 2006 Nadal is on 38% while 2012 Novak is on 41%, this iteration Novak can win.

Other iterations don't look very good for Novak.
maybe the final, but fed earned it with tough wins over haas and del potro. murray was a joke in 2016 after 1 set, did djokovic a favour taking out stan
 

Holmes

Hall of Fame
maybe the final, but fed earned it with tough wins over haas and del potro. murray was a joke in 2016 after 1 set, did djokovic a favour taking out stan
They both received favors, my fellow friend in Fed, but absolutely no favor compares to having Nadal taken out for you by another player.
 

RelentlessAttack

Hall of Fame
RPW % Stats say that Roger's win at RG is the weakest as his rival was a rookie.

2005 SF - Nadal 46.22%, Federer 41.67%
2006 F - Nadal 37.82 %, Federer 31.53%
2007 F - Nadal 38.14%, Federer 33.58%
2008 F - Nadal 59.74%, Federer 31.34%
2009 F - Federer 39.56% Soderling 21.52%

2011F - Nadal 42.06%, Federer 38.78%
2012F - Nadal 45.53%, Djokovic 41.53%
2013SF - Nadal 39.43%, Djokovic 32.5%
2014F - Nadal 40.48% Djokovic 34.17%
2016F - Djokovic 48.62% Murray 37%

In the above iteration 2006 Nadal is on 38% while 2012 Novak is on 41%, this iteration Novak can win.

Other iterations don't look very good for Novak.

Maybe if the court turns into wet mud again. Other than that stretch of rain 2012 wasn’t that close
 

TheFifthSet

Legend
Never quite understood the argument for Nadal over Federer at the US Open. Federer won 5 in a row compared to 4 total for Nadal, and had more/better quality wins in his.

Nadal was great in the '10 Open, but his pre-finals opponents were, to put it mildly, not so threatening. Federer had a combined 54-2 record against them for his career. Two of 'em played long matches before their tussles with Rafa, and Nando was in the midst of a pretty bad funk. He also double-faulted and error-spammed his way out of a break lead and receded into the night afterward.

‘13 US Open, similar story. All told, Fed has a combined 101-5 H2H against Nadal's 12 pre-finals USO opponents from both years. Additionally, both times, his finals opponent was probably slightly overcooked from navigating through tougher draws (Fed in '10, an inspired Wawa in '13, better opponents that produced gruelling five-setters).

They were amazing runs. Awesome. Historic. But comparable to Federer's peak? Stretches the bounds of credulity to think so.
 
Last edited:

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
Never quite understood the argument for Nadal over Federer at the US Open. Federer won 5 in a row compared to 4 total for Nadal, and had more/better quality wins in his.

Nadal was great in the '10 Open, but his pre-finals opponents were, to put it mildly, not so threatening. Federer had a combined 54-2 record against them for his career. Two of 'em played long matches before their tussles with Rafa, and Nando was in the midst of a pretty bad funk. He also double-faulted and error-spammed his way out of a break lead and receded into the night afterward.

US Open, similar story. All told, Fed has a combined 101-5 H2H against Nadal's 12 pre-finals USO opponents from both years. Additionally, both times, his finals opponent was probably slightly overcooked from navigating through tougher draws (Fed in '10, an inspired Wawa in '13, better opponents that produced gruelling five-setters).

They were amazing runs. Awesome. Historic. But comparable to Federer's peak? Stretches the bounds of credulity to think so.

Bc Federer didn't beat Nadal in an outdoor BO5 for a decade.
 

TheFifthSet

Legend
Bc Federer didn't beat Nadal in an outdoor BO5 for a decade.

There’s more to the discussion than just that H2H, but yes Federer did have difficulty v Nadal on outdoor HC’s. That said they only played three matches on outdoor HC (TOTAL, not just BO5) by the time Fed reached the age Nadal was at the ‘13 Open. Federer’s peak on outdoor is generally acknowledged to be from 2004-2007.

The 2009 AO actually marked the second time they played a BO5 outdoor HC, 2012 AO (on a court much slower than Ashe) the third.
 

ADuck

Legend
Never quite understood the argument for Nadal over Federer at the US Open. Federer won 5 in a row compared to 4 total for Nadal, and had more/better quality wins in his.

Nadal was great in the '10 Open, but his pre-finals opponents were, to put it mildly, not so threatening. Federer had a combined 54-2 record against them for his career. Two of 'em played long matches before their tussles with Rafa, and Nando was in the midst of a pretty bad funk. He also double-faulted and error-spammed his way out of a break lead and receded into the night afterward.

US Open, similar story. All told, Fed has a combined 101-5 H2H against Nadal's 12 pre-finals USO opponents from both years. Additionally, both times, his finals opponent was probably slightly overcooked from navigating through tougher draws (Fed in '10, an inspired Wawa in '13, better opponents that produced gruelling five-setters).

They were amazing runs. Awesome. Historic. But comparable to Federer's peak? Stretches the bounds of credulity to think so.
Federer may have peaked higher, but Nadal's peak is still up there and I think you're making the mistake of treating the competition as more important than the level of play Nadal attained there. It's close enough that I see it difficult that Federer win against him without it being a huge struggle. There may also be some differences between the surface in the 2000's and the 2010's which we are not accounting for.
 

Third Serve

Talk Tennis Guru
They both received favors, my fellow friend in Fed, but absolutely no favor compares to having Nadal taken out for you by another player.
that was the second biggest favor for that tournament

the biggest was Nadal getting injured as he was climbing back to form
 

Holmes

Hall of Fame
that was the second biggest favor for that tournament

the biggest was Nadal getting injured as he was climbing back to form
Comparing Novak's experience against Nadal to Roger's on clay isn't exactly a 1:1, 2 or 5 exercise, is it? Nadal in the draw doesn't guarantee an outcome for Novak. As us Fedfans sadly know all too well, for Roger it does.
 

TheFifthSet

Legend
Federer may have peaked higher, but Nadal's peak is still up there

Maybe I went too far in saying they're not comparable, if only because things should nearly always be "close" among the top performers, and Nadal's got a great peak to fall back on. I think it's relatively "close" in absolute terms, but clear enough for us to give Federer the definitive edge here. Every argument for Nadal might narrow the gap, but they all fall short of bringing him level. I'll amend my statement by saying it's more accurate to state it stretches credulity to argue his peak was on par or better.


and I think you're making the mistake of treating the competition as more important than the level of play Nadal attained there.

I don't know if I do, after all I still call his peak properly great. This is despite him likely having the worst average SOS of any 4+ time winner in any major aside from MAYBE Agassi at the AO (and even there...doubt....'00 AO was a very tough draw, '95 was no cakewalk either).

But still, take Federer, Djokovic and Nadal's 12 USO wins...whose runs would occupy the bulk of the bottom five, competition-wise? I think at least 3 of Nadal's 4 do. Djokovic, for as maligned as his USO peak is, probably had toughest competition in any one run, in '11, though he was perhaps a bit fortunate to get past Federer (but then again, which win does Nadal have that's better than '11 Fed? And that's without Djokovic having a considerable match-up advantage). Those 12 collective '10/'13 pre-finals opponents have a combined 20-188 record against Djokovic and Federer and both at or near their best would be likely to dismiss these guys with similar aplomb (yes, even the Verdasco's, Feli's and Istomin's, considering how they actually played).

I wouldn't rail on about any of this if it wasn't for these two rampages being used by some as incontrovertible evidence that Nadal's peak is superior to Djokovic's at the USO (much less Federer's)...though at least v Djoko a plausible argument can be made, even if i disagree with it. I think in Nadal's case, some frame-of-reference bias also creeps in with '10 because of how dramatically his form improved overnight and wowed everyone. Does '10 Nadal win with '11 Djoko's draw? Probably, but he's made to look a lot more mortal.
 
Last edited:

RelentlessAttack

Hall of Fame
Comparing Novak's experience against Nadal to Roger's on clay isn't exactly a 1:1, 2 or 5 exercise, is it? Nadal in the draw doesn't guarantee an outcome for Novak. As us Fedfans sadly know all too well, for Roger it does.

It did guarantee the same thing for Novak at RG for as long as Nadal was prime. 2015 Nadal was a nothing win and the second, properly hard fought victory came 16 whole years after the Fedal era began - not comparable or informative as to what Federer faced at RG in his prime
 

StrongRule

Talk Tennis Guru
It did guarantee the same thing for Novak at RG for as long as Nadal was prime. 2015 Nadal was a nothing win and the second, properly hard fought victory came 16 whole years after the Fedal era began - not comparable or informative as to what Federer faced at RG in his prime
Not to mention that he also lost to Federer and Wawrinka in RG. In 2016 he didn't face anyone worth mentioning.
 
B

Beerus

Guest
2005_US_Open_Federer_vs_AgassiHD60FPS.gif
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
9th best federer held mp’s vs peak number 1 version of djokovic . 7>3 generous :whistle:

9th best? Federer in 2011 USO had the best return stats by FAR out of any of his winning editions. Furthermore only 2004 and 2006 did he have higher percentage of games won. Just lol at the trickery.
 

StrongRule

Talk Tennis Guru
9th best? Federer in 2011 USO had the best return stats by FAR out of any of his winning editions. Furthermore only 2004 and 2006 did he have higher percentage of games won. Just lol at the trickery.
These are just cherry picked stats. 2011 Federer was his best USO version in the 2010's, but it's not even serious to claim he was better than any of his 2004-2009 versions.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
These are just cherry picked stats. 2011 Federer was his best USO version in the 2010's, but it's not even serious to claim he was better than any of his 2004-2009 versions.

I was adressing the claim it was his 9th best. I can't let such claims slide. The evidence says otherwise. In most key areas his stats were better in 2011 than in 05, 07, 08 and 09. It's pretty disrespectful to act like it was a lower version of Fed to support the usual narrative when in reality he was playing really high level tennis. It's just bollocks that we see from the likes of you and others all the time here.
 

RS

Bionic Poster
I was adressing the claim it was his 9th best. I can't let such claims slide. The evidence says otherwise. In most key areas his stats were better in 2011 than in 05, 07, 08 and 09. It's pretty disrespectful to act like it was a lower version of Fed to support the usual narrative when in reality he was playing really high level tennis. It's just bollocks that we see from the likes of you and others all the time here.
USO 2011 Djokovic vs USO 2015 Djokovic 10 match series?
 

StrongRule

Talk Tennis Guru
I was adressing the claim it was his 9th best. I can't let such claims slide. The evidence says otherwise. In most key areas his stats were better in 2011 than in 05, 07, 08 and 09. It's pretty disrespectful to act like it was a lower version of Fed to support the usual narrative when in reality he was playing really high level tennis. It's just bollocks that we see from the likes of you and others all the time here.
Not 9th best, but below his winning versions for sure. It can't be ignored how he was totally destroyed in the third and fourth sets, and then collapsed in Murray's style after one good return from Djokovic. Can't imagine this happening in earlier years.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru

Both editions were strong with stats through the roof. Djokovic improved his service game alot throughout those years so it depends where his 15 level will be at in those particular days they are playing. That's why these hypotheticals are tough. It would depend alot on 15 version more than 2011 cause in the space of those 4 years Djokovic added additional elements to his game like I pointed out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS

Third Serve

Talk Tennis Guru
I was adressing the claim it was his 9th best. I can't let such claims slide. The evidence says otherwise. In most key areas his stats were better in 2011 than in 05, 07, 08 and 09. It's pretty disrespectful to act like it was a lower version of Fed to support the usual narrative when in reality he was playing really high level tennis. It's just bollocks that we see from the likes of you and others all the time here.
It was a lower version of Fed, but a lower version of Fed is still capable of playing very high quality tennis. Just not the astronomically high level he displayed during his winning runs.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I was adressing the claim it was his 9th best. I can't let such claims slide. The evidence says otherwise. In most key areas his stats were better in 2011 than in 05, 07, 08 and 09. It's pretty disrespectful to act like it was a lower version of Fed to support the usual narrative when in reality he was playing really high level tennis. It's just bollocks that we see from the likes of you and others all the time here.

Don't think that's the case there. Some of the stats for 2011 are indeed better than 2008/2009 but he took a while to round into form in 2008 and 2009 is hurt by a weaker final - I would probably agree that Fed played better in 2011 SF than the 2009 F with the caveat that the SF and earlier in 2009 was on the whole better.
 
Last edited:

StrongRule

Talk Tennis Guru
Don't think that's the case there. Some of the stats for 2011 are indeed better than 2008/2009 but he took a while to round into form in 2008 and in 2009 is hurt by a weaker final - I would probably agree that Fed played better in 2011 SF than the 2009 F with the caveat that the SF and earlier in 2009 was on the whole better.
The third and fourth sets in USO 2011 were some of the worst beatdowns he ever received on court. And the total collapse at the end of the fifth set also doesn't help. Not sure how USO 2009 final was worse, unless you mean only peak level.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
The third and fourth sets in USO 2011 were some of the worst beatdowns he ever received on court. And the total collapse at the end of the fifth set also doesn't help. Not sure how USO 2009 final was worse, unless you mean only peak level.
USO 2009 F was certainly worse serving wise.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
The third and fourth sets in USO 2011 were some of the worst beatdowns he ever received on court. And the total collapse at the end of the fifth set also doesn't help. Not sure how USO 2009 final was worse, unless you mean only peak level.

I'm talking level, the fifth set in 2009 was awful and the whole match was punctuated by poor serving with big spats of DF's. The dips in sets 3&4 of the 2011 SF were bad but they came when he was up 2-0 and he raised his game again in the fifth to nearly take it compared to going 6-2 in the fifth in 2009.
 

Third Serve

Talk Tennis Guru
I'm talking level, the fifth set in 2009 was awful and the whole match was punctuated by poor serving with big spats of DF's. The dips in sets 3&4 of the 2011 SF were bad but they came when he was up 2-0 and he raised his game again in the fifth to nearly take it compared to going 6-2 in the fifth in 2009.
It’s so strange how marvelous Fed’s serving was in the Slam finals he won in 2009… and how poor it was it the finals he lost.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Real Jekyll and Hyde stuff tbh. Don't know if Federer would swap the results though, if given the option.
In hindsight, it would create different narratives altogether.

Fed wins AO 2009, but loses RG -> he gets revenge on Nadal and improves his reputation in the rivalry, but 14 years later he is out of the GOAT debate for good with no career slam.

Fed wins USO 2009 and loses Wimb -> he never gets the Wimb record and Roddick's reputation improves, but 14 years later he'd still have the most USO titles which would be the all-time record that would still last for a long time.
 
Top