Discuss the Peak levels of players And rate their level out of 100 on each surface

[KINGROGER]

It’s Fed’s fault for being a terrible match up for Ned on clay

How in the world does he have a higher clay peak?

2006 Rome
2011 RG

 

[jm1980]

Why are Fed's losses to Nadal being dismissed due to "match-up issues" but his wins over Novak, against whom he has a match-up advantage, taken at face value?

 

[KINGROGER]

Djokovic's won every clay Masters twice, while Fed is missing both MC and Rome

Unique Masters is bogus since Madrid is in the same slot as Hamburg, an event Djokovic never got to play at his peak

Unfortunately for Fed he never had 2014-2016 mug field and he generally sucked at Rome apart from 2006.

I’d give Djokovic higher general sustained level at Rome but everywhere else I’d take Fed.

 

[RF-18]

lol, after getting caught in your own web of lies&BS and owned big time, you are under such fancy delusions .
you can't even see the difference b/w 1 loss in 6 years and 1 loss in 7 years ?
federer didn't just 'play' for 1 more year, he won it one more time.

Still Only one loss.

 

[RF-18]

That only determines accomplishments since he was a major roadblock.

Due to match ups, it isn’t accurate to compare how Fed and Djokovic did vs Nadal. Fed has the higher clay peak.

Match up problem is no excuse really. Its up to Federer to solve it, if you have a match up issue with someone, you don't just let it be like that. You train and adjust your game so that you can match up better. Nadal found a good tactic to beat Federer. Federers job is to counter it.

 

[abmk]

Still Only one loss.

Ok, let me put in a way that you cannot try to pretend you don't understand.

For a 7 year period :

federer : 03-09 --- 1 loss, record of 47-1 at Wimbledon
djokovic : 10-16 --- 2 losses, record of 43-2 at the AO.

 

[EloQuent]

Problem with these "scores" is (asides from the ludicrous randomness off judging out of 100) - are we judging at peak? Over career?

Everyone talks about Rafa's dominance on clay, and rightly so, but nobody talks about how Federer went 5 years undefeated on grass. In fact, from 2003-2010 he had only one loss, a tight 5 setter that nobody even remembers (/s).

 

[RF-18]

Ok, let me put in a way that you cannot try to pretend you don't understand.

For a 7 year period :

federer : 03-09 --- 1 loss, record of 47-1 at Wimbledon
djokovic : 10-16 --- 2 losses, record of 43-2 at the AO.

Its 11-16 seasons for Djokovic. There he has one loss.

Anyways, you said it's not close of being a toss up. It is pretty close if we check these stats to determine level/dominance wich was the original discussion here even if we include 2010 for Djoko.

 

[abmk]

Its 11-16 seasons for Djokovic. There he has one loss.

Like I said, federer has one more year where he won in that stretch.
I could also pick a 5 year period for Federer where he had no loss. (03-07).

Anyways, you said it's not close of being a toss up. It is pretty close if we check these stats to determine level/dominance wich was the original discussion here even if we include 2010 for Djoko.

umm, its not.

Even for 6 years, 11-16 and 03-08 respectively
Djoko went 5 sets 6 times
Federer went 5 sets 2 times

Djoko lost 18 sets in those 6 years
Federer lost 11 sets in those 6 years

field is deeper on HC
but you tend to lose random sets on grass due to the nature of the surface.

So yeah, federer's dominance is clearly better.

 

[Zhilady]

First you mentioned losses in their prime, now that I owned you

No, I was comparing records. I literally asked you what Djokovic's record on slow hardcourts was. I said nothing about how many losses he had:

What was prime Djokovic’s record on slow hardcourts?

you go with wins cause Fed played for one more year

Even if we removed the one additional win (which I'm not sure why we'd have to, but okay), Federer still has a better record in 6 years with 40-1 > 39-1. Objectively.

Still as I said, pretty similar eh. Only one loss. Over.

47-1 > 39-1. Also, you didn't answer my question, like the weasel you are. What is the objective determining factor for who had the higher peak at a tournament?

 

[Zhilady]

Still Only one loss.

47-1 > 39-1. Objectively.

Also, what is the objective determining factor for who had the higher peak at a tournament?

 

[Zhilady]

Its 11-16 seasons for Djokovic. There he has one loss.

Anyways, you said it's not close of being a toss up. It is pretty close if we check these stats to determine level/dominance wich was the original discussion here even if we include 2010 for Djoko.

In a 5-year stretch, Federer's 34-0 > Djokovic's 32-1.

In a 6-year stretch, Federer's 40-1 > Djokovic's 39-1.

In a 7-year stretch, Federer's 47-1 > Djokovic's 43-2.

How are you going to embarrassingly spin this now?

 

[Zhilady]

Anyways, you said it's not close of being a toss up. It is pretty close if we check these stats to determine level/dominance wich was the original discussion here even if we include 2010 for Djoko.

LOL, what? How is it close? Peak Federer on grass is better than Peak Djokovic on slow hardcourts in every statistical way.

Slam titles: 8 > 6
Slam finals: 11 > 6
Winning without dropping a set: 1 > 0
34-0 > 32-1, 40-1 > 39-1, 47-1 > 43-2

It's a Slam Dunk. And that's not even talking about their records outside of Slams. Not even close to being a toss-up. Signed, sealed, delivered, unpacked, and used. Federer on grass > Djokovic on slow hardcourts.

 

[RF-18]

In a 5-year stretch, Federer's 34-0 > Djokovic's 32-1.

In a 6-year stretch, Federer's 40-1 > Djokovic's 39-1.

In a 7-year stretch, Federer's 47-1 > Djokovic's 43-2.

How are you going to embarrassingly spin this now?

Read the original discussion. Abmks statement was "not close of being a toss up" regarding Djokos level on slow hard vs feds on grass. I disagreed, and the stats you are using shows it is very close. So read more carefully next time

 

[Zhilady]

Read the original discussion. Abmks statement was "not close of being a toss up" regarding Djokos level on slow hard vs feds on grass. I disagreed, and the stats you are using shows it is very close. So read more carefully next time

LOL, it's a toss up when each of them has equally important stats that favor them. It's not a toss up when it's a white wash for Federer in pretty much every statistic.

 

[Standaa]

Federer :

slow HC : 94
medium fast to fast HC : 96
clay : 86
grass : 98
indoors : 96

total = 470/500

Nadal :

slow HC : 89
medium fast to fast HC : 87
clay : 100
grass : 91
indoors : 78

total = 445/500

Djokovic :

slow HC : 94
medium fast to fast HC : 91
clay : 84
grass : 91
indoors : 92

total = 452/500

Nice! Do you also have ratings for Kevin Anderson?

 

[SuperSpinner]

You give Nadal 99/100 on clay because of one Soderling match but you give Roger 100/100 on grass.

Congratulations, you’re mentally ********.

No, sorry but you are. Nadal lost at his peak on clay to a journeyman in best of 5. Fed did not lose at his peak at W. In 2008, Fed was having a terrible year and it took an all time great playing his best peak to barely edge it out in 5. Nadal got crushed in 4 by a relative nobody. Sorry, but it's you that's mentally ********.

 

[RaulRamirez]

I was thinking of posting the following non-controversial statement:
"Tennis balls are bouncier than bowling balls."

On second thought, I nixed the idea, as:
a. I thought it would bring out too much partisan fighting.
b. I didn't consider that a modern day bowling ball actually - at its very peak - once bounced higher than an off-peak tennis ball in the 90s.

 

[abmk]

Nice! Do you also have ratings for Kevin Anderson?

eh, not really.
I just had the order in mind :

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...t-of-100-on-each-surface.631749/post-12906726

put the points out of 100 after seeing this thread and thinking.

 

[Standaa]

No, sorry but you are. Nadal lost at his peak on clay to a journeyman in best of 5. Fed did not lose at his peak at W. In 2008, Fed was having a terrible year and it took an all time great playing his best peak to barely edge it out in 5. Nadal got crushed in 4 by a relative nobody. Sorry, but it's you that's mentally ********.

I seem to remember Nadal having 11 RG titles, being like 100something-2 on clay in Bo5, prime or post-prime. Plus you can’t tell me he was playing his peak tennis in the Soderling match. He played fine, but Soderling just put on a once in a lifetime show. And frankly no one has put up a performance like that against peak Fed on grass.

 

[Standaa]

eh, not really.
I just had the order in mind :

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...t-of-100-on-each-surface.631749/post-12906726

put the points out of 100 after seeing this thread and thinking.

Yeah it was a joke. I didn’t expect you to do it

 

[SuperSpinner]

I seem to remember Nadal having 11 RG titles, being like 100something-2 on clay in Bo5, prime or post-prime. Plus you can’t tell me he was playing his peak tennis in the Soderling match. He played fine, but Soderling just put on a once in a lifetime show. And frankly no one has put up a performance like that against peak Fed on grass.

Much harder to win Wimbledon where the chance of upset is higher. That Nadal got upset there at his peak speaks volumes. Yes he was playing his peak in Soderling match. Soderling just better that day, you morons just need to be honest about some things.

 

[sallyhand]

Djokovic's won every clay Masters twice, while Fed is missing both MC and Rome

Unique Masters is bogus since Madrid is in the same slot as Hamburg, an event Djokovic never got to play at his peak

FO slam finals versus FO title holders
Nadal 7
Federer 5
Djokovic 3

out of interest:
AO slam finals versus AO title holders
Federer 4
Nadal 4
Djokovic 1 (WHAAAA)

 

[sallyhand]

Match up problem is no excuse really. Its up to Federer to solve it, if you have a match up issue with someone, you don't just let it be like that. You train and adjust your game so that you can match up better. Nadal found a good tactic to beat Federer. Federers job is to counter it.

Dont disagree with what your saying, but at best Novak faced a far less version of Nadal on clay and at RG, just as Fed is as hopeless against a healthy nadal as fed

 

[Towny]

FO slam finals versus FO title holders
Nadal 7
Federer 5
Djokovic 3

out of interest:
AO slam finals versus AO title holders
Federer 4
Nadal 4
Djokovic 1 (WHAAAA)

What do you mean exactly? Fed hasn't faced 4 AO title holders in AO finals - he's faced 3. And he's had 4 FO finals against FO title holders, not 5 - Please tell me if I'm misunderstanding what you meant

 

[jm1980]

FO slam finals versus FO title holders
Nadal 7
Federer 5
Djokovic 3

out of interest:
AO slam finals versus AO title holders
Federer 4
Nadal 4
Djokovic 1 (WHAAAA)

What do you mean exactly? Fed hasn't faced 4 AO title holders in AO finals - he's faced 3. And he's had 4 FO finals against FO title holders, not 5 - Please tell me if I'm misunderstanding what you meant

What a contrived stat, and you couldn't even get it right!

It also needs to be adjusted so only title holders at the time of the match are counted.

 

[Towny]

What a contrived stat, and you couldn't even get it right!

It also needs to be adjusted so only title holders at the time of the match are counted.

Adjusted would give:

FO slam final versus FO title holders
Federer 4 (Nadal 06/07/08/11)
Nadal 2 (Federer 11, Wawrinka 17)
Djokovic 2 (Nadal 12/14)

AO slam finals versus AO title holders
Nadal 3 (Federer 09/17, Djokovic 12)
Djokovic 1 (Nadal 12)
Federer 1 (Nadal 17)

Pretty contrived stat as you say. I think the poster is trying to do her/his best Lew impression however

 

[Deleted member 757377]

peak: Fed 2015, Djoko 2015, Nadal 2013

Hard: Djoko > Fed > Nad
Clay: Nad >> Djo > Fed
Grass: Fed > Djo > Nad

Overall: Djoko > Fed/Nad

 

[RF-18]

Dont disagree with what your saying, but at best Novak faced a far less version of Nadal on clay and at RG, just as Fed is as hopeless against a healthy nadal as fed

I wouldn't say Nadal was ''far lesser'' from 11-14. In this period they went 5-4 on clay in favour of Nadal. That Nadal was as good as he could be.

In RG, Nadal has had it pretty comfortable against Novak except 2013 and 2015, but even in these ''comfortable'' wins, Djokovic was stilll much better than Fed against Nadal there. Better than anyone Nadal has faced on clay in fact.

 

[KINGROGER]

peak: Fed 2015, Djoko 2015, Nadal 2013

Hard: Djoko > Fed > Nad
Clay: Nad >> Djo > Fed
Grass: Fed > Djo > Nad

Overall: Djoko > Fed/Nad

Peak Fed 2006 > peak 2015ovic everywhere but slow HC.

 

[abmk]

I wouldn't say Nadal was ''far lesser'' from 11-14. In this period they went 5-4 on clay in favour of Nadal. That Nadal was as good as he could be.

as good as he could be ?
only in 12.
11, clearly weaker than 05-10 Nadal
14 was losing to almagro, ferrer and to nishi (if not for injury). probably his worst RG winning form ever. obviously worse than even 11.
13 was good, but still worse than most of the years from 2005-10 on clay, if not all.

In RG, Nadal has had it pretty comfortable against Novak except 2013 and 2015, but even in these ''comfortable'' wins, Djokovic was stilll much better than Fed against Nadal there. Better than anyone Nadal has faced on clay in fact.

oh you mean in 2008 when djoko was straight-setted or in 2012 , when he was taken out in 4 sets or in 2014, when again taken out in 4 sets.
yeah, he was much better than fed in RG 05, 06, 07 and 11.......

I'm sure that Djokovic was also better than Soderling of RG 09 that Nadal faced.

 

[RF-18]

oh you mean in 2008 when djoko was straight-setted or in 2012 , when he was taken out in 4 sets or in 2014, when again taken out in 4 sets.
yeah, he was much better than fed in RG 05, 06, 07 and 11.......

I'm sure that Djokovic was also better than Soderling of RG 09 that Nadal faced.

Djokovic of 2008 took 12 games of Nadal in the SF. Federer got bageled and took 3 games in the other 2 sets.

2014 and 2012, agreed, not particurarly hard for Nadal but overall Djokovic was still the tougher opponent.

 

[abmk]

Djokovic of 2008 took 12 games of Nadal in the SF. Federer got bageled and took 3 games in the other 2 sets.

did you even read properly ? I said 05,06,07, 11 for Fed. Not 08.

2014 and 2012, agreed, not particurarly hard for Nadal but overall Djokovic was still the tougher opponent.

tougher than what/whom ?

not tougher/better than fed of RG 05, 06,07, 11.

even more so in 14, probably Nadal's worst RG winning form ever.
12 atleast Djoko played great under helpful conditions from down a break in the 3rd set.
under normal conditions, he was getting beat convincingly.


-------

Let us also know how Djokovic of 08/12/14 was also better than Soderling of RG 09 that Nadal faced.

P.S. yeah, djoko did better in RG 2013 by going 5.. overall was better vs Nadal by some extent, but not by much if we consider vs a good enough Nadal only (that excludes 2015 RG)

 

[Purplemonster]

Federer

Fast Grass - 100/100
Slow Grass - 100/100

Clay - 100/100

Fast Hard Court - 100/100
Slow Hard Court - 100/100

Pretty sure that's right. If he is the undisputed GOAT then that must be right.

 

[Raining hopes]

peak: Fed 2015, Djoko 2015, Nadal 2013

Hard: Djoko > Fed > Nad
Clay: Nad >> Djo > Fed
Grass: Fed > Djo > Nad

Overall: Djoko > Fed/Nad

I won't argue about Fred.

But If you think 2013 Nadal was better than 2008,2010 and 2012(first half) and significantly greater on Clay than 2007 version then you are dead wrong.

2012,2008 Nadal were invincible monsters on Clay. 2008,2007,2010 were all better on Channel slam stretch.
2010 was a pure invincible monster in USO.

 

[Druss]

Federer

Slow HC - 90/100
Fast HC - 96/100
Grass - 99/100
Clay - 86/100
Indoor - 95/100
Total - 466/500

Nadal

Slow HC - 91/100
Fast HC - 85/100
Grass - 93/100
Clay - 100/100
Indoor - 82/100
Total - 451/500

Djokovic

Slow HC - 98/100
Fast HC - 91/100
Grass - 92/100
Clay - 86/100
Indoor - 93/100
Total - 460/500

Sampras

Slow HC - 89/100
Fast HC - 97/100
Grass - 98/100
Clay - 72/100
Indoor - 94/100
Total - 450/500

 

[Subway Tennis]

The "reveal your biases" thread. Truly some hilarious ratings in here.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

If we are saying that Rafa is 100 out of 100 on clay then no one else should really get anywhere near that number. He has been utterly dominant and dropped a staggering few sets let alone matches at RG over a 14 year span.

 

[Raining hopes]

If we are saying that Rafa is 100 out of 100 on clay then no one else should really get anywhere near that number. He has been utterly dominant and dropped a staggering few sets let alone matches at RG over a 14 year span.

That's why he is 110/100 in my book, RGdal is a pure invincible force