Federer has the highest peak ever

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
it would be a bit strange that hypothetical peak Fed is GOAT in so many tournaments yet of the three surfaces he may end up as GOAT of only one, and of the one that is played the least.
Even if that is the case, it is difficult to be GOAT on a surface that is played least than the ones where players play day in day out. LMAO
 
He played peak Mode in 2005 at AO against Peak Safin and lost. So its NOT the highest peak ever. There there the countless losses to Nadal when he was at his peak. . Maybe most consistent highest level ever. but not the "highest" But Nadal, Djokovic, Sampras' "peaks" are clearly higher. They don't lose when they're in peak mode.
 

Djokodalerer31

Hall of Fame
As far as their respective peak levels go its this order - Novak -> Rafa -> Roger...end of discussion, like it or not, but its time to face it, that 2011 of Novak Djokovic was the strongest level anyone EVER performed! This is like a universal agreement amongst vast majority of tennis pundits, this is not even up to the argument! So Novak's 2011 - Rafa's 2010 -> Roger's 2006! As simple as that!
 
As far as their respective peak levels go its this order - Novak -> Rafa -> Roger...end of discussion, like it or not, but its time to face it, that 2011 of Novak Djokovic was the strongest level anyone EVER performed! This is like a universal agreement amongst vast majority of tennis pundits, this is not even up to the argument! So Novak's 2011 - Rafa's 2010 -> Roger's 2006! As simple as that!

Guess it depends on how you look at it when you take surface speeds into account :).

Would 2011 Djokovic win the USO/Wimbledon/AO under polarized conditions? Then we would have to put up 2011 Wimbledon against 1999 Sampras on fast grass. LOL
 

GabeT

Legend
Even if that is the case, it is difficult to be GOAT on a surface that is played least than the ones where players play day in day out. LMAO
So you are saying it’s more difficult to be GOAT in the surface where the competition is weakest? :unsure:
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
The most intense baseline battle. A good deal of errors though, and mid-match was less intense that the first and last sets as Djokovic found the rhythm holding serve. 2018 Wimbledon is the best, I say, as it featured not only solid rallies, but great serving from both under pressure, and the match was super tight after the first set.
They were more athletic in 2012 though and the athleticism in that match was off the charts which is why I rate it over Wimbledon 2018. Wimbledon 2018 was a cleaner match but I felt the highs in the AO match, when they both were playing well at the same time, surpassed that one.
 
D

Deleted member 743545

Guest
Peak federer is lower than peak Nadal on clay, peak Djokovic on slow hard and peak Sampras on grass.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Every tennis player grows up playing HC or clay. No one grows up playing grass. Where do you think players will develop more?
Again, the conclusion one can draw from that the player(s) levels on HC may be higher but how do you make the conclusion that the least played surface has the least competition ?
 

GabeT

Legend
Again, the conclusion one can draw from that the player(s) levels on HC may be higher but how do you make the conclusion that the least played surface has the least competition ?
Maybe I misunderstood your point but I thought that YOU were arguing that it was more difficult to be GOAT of the surface least played. See below:

Even if that is the case, it is difficult to be GOAT on a surface that is played least than the ones where players play day in day out. LMAO
I think if we are going to rank surface competition by how much they are played the most difficult one will be the surface that is played the most. If the average player practices 70% of the time in HC, 25% in clay, and 5% in grass i would think his HC skills will be the most developed of all.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Maybe I misunderstood your point but I thought that YOU were arguing that it was more difficult to be GOAT of the surface least played. See below:



I think if we are going to rank surface competition by how much they are played the most difficult one will be the surface that is played the most. If the average player practices 70% of the time in HC, 25% in clay, and 5% in grass i would think his HC skills will be the most developed of all.
That only tells that the players will play better on HC as compared to grass. Does not tell anything about the competition.

So your post about trying to diminish Federer for just being the GOAT of a surface that is played least is actually "praising" him for being a GOAT on a surface where players hardly get a chance to practice, play and succeed.
 

GabeT

Legend
That only tells that the players will play better on HC as compared to grass. Does not tell anything about the competition.

So your post about trying to diminish Federer for just being the GOAT of a surface that is played least is actually "praising" him for being a GOAT on a surface where players hardly get a chance to practice, play and succeed.
well, if you think that signaling that Fed could end up being GOAT of the surface least practiced is praising him...
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
well, if you think that signaling that Fed could end up being GOAT of the surface least practiced is praising him...
Let us start afresh .. (a) How do you draw the conclusion that the least played surface has the least competition ? (b) doesn't it take more talent to be the GOAT on a surface that you don't get a chance to practice as much ?
 

GabeT

Legend
Let us start afresh .. (a) How do you draw the conclusion that the least played surface has the least competition ? (b) doesn't it take more talent to be the GOAT on a surface that you don't get a chance to practice as much ?
I think you are reading more into my original post than was intended. I was simply pointing out that there is a chance that Fed will end up as GOAT only of the surface that is the least relevant in the pro circuit (measured by the number of tournaments in that surface). I think that's relevant for any GOAT discussion (others may disagree).

Fed is a grass god and chances are he would have done very well against any competition but I don't see why it's so controversial to argue that if players train only a small portion of their time on grass they will develop a lot less than if they played more.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
I think you are reading more into my original post than was intended. I was simply pointing out that there is a chance that Fed will end up as GOAT only of the surface that is the least relevant in the pro circuit (measured by the number of tournaments in that surface). I think that's relevant for any GOAT discussion (others may disagree).

Fed is a grass god and chances are he would have done very well against any competition but I don't see why it's so controversial to argue that if players train only a small portion of their time on grass they will develop a lot less than if they played more.
Players developing a lot less on grass does not mean competition is not healthy. All players have the same level playing field.

Anyone that knows tennis understands Wimbledon is the most prestigious out of the 4 for eons and it will continue to be so. So saying grass is least relevant by measuring the number of tournaments is hollow. Rather the limited number of tournaments makes the 3 weeks of Queens / Halle and Wimbledon so much extra special.
 

GabeT

Legend
Players developing a lot less on grass does not mean competition is not healthy. All players have the same level playing field.

Anyone that knows tennis understands Wimbledon is the most prestigious out of the 4 for eons and it will continue to be so. So saying grass is least relevant by measuring the number of tournaments is hollow. Rather the limited number of tournaments makes the 3 weeks of Queens / Halle and Wimbledon so much extra special.
Wimbledon is the most prestigious but that doesn't change the fact that grass is the least important surface. That's easily measured by the amount of time players dedicate to training in each surface.

And Wimbledon's prestige, while real, doesn't mean much in the real world. Does anyone argue that Murray's slam count is greater than Wawrinka's just because he has 2 Wimbledon's? Is Nole's Slam count the same as Nadal's because of his superior results at Wimbledon?
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Wimbledon is the most prestigious but that doesn't change the fact that grass is the least important surface. That's easily measured by the amount of time players dedicate to training in each surface.

And Wimbledon's prestige, while real, doesn't mean much in the real world. Does anyone argue that Murray's slam count is greater than Wawrinka's just because he has 2 Wimbledon's? Is Nole's Slam count the same as Nadal's because of his superior results at Wimbledon?
The slam counts are completely irrelevant..

You made two "baseless" statements - grass has less competition because it is played lesser, grass tournaments are least relevant because they are less in number.

Both are DUMB
 

GabeT

Legend
The slam counts are completely irrelevant..

You made two "baseless" statements - grass has less competition because it is played lesser, grass tournaments are least relevant because they are less in number.

Both are DUMB
we were doing well without insults. let's not ruin that.

I think most would agree that competition is less in the surface that is played the least. What's the competition like today in carpet? What was it like in the past, when players practiced in that surface?

As for the relevance of grass ask any pro player how much he or she trains on it. There was a time when three of the four slams were grass. That time is long gone.
 
Last edited:

Flash O'Groove

Hall of Fame
I disagree. TTW is so pro-Federer that a statement like "Djokovic is the GOAT" is considered to be Federer-bashing, which is not. Both Lew and Spencer Gore are excellent posters that greatly contribute to TTW. There is strong mathematical evidence to suggest that Nadal and Djokovic played more difficult field than Federer and indicating that is also not Federer bashing. Bashing is when you call a player mug, doper, cheater, abuser etc. I can't count number of times I was plainly insulted just for having a different opinion.
On TTW there is one constant: new tennis star bring new fans who were hooked in tennis by these stars. These fans are typically not aware of the history of tennis and can only look at past achievements by studying wikipedia pages or other tennis stats websites. That's why they will so easily despise former player's opposition. They will look at results only and judge that the player who was not ranked high or didn't achieve much was a bad player and a non-legit competitor, which is simply wrong.
 

Terry Tibbs

Professional
Disagree with OP. Fed is the GOAT because of his titles and records but in terms of highest ever peak performance, I feel Djokovic takes this. Most unbeatable player I have ever seen when at his best.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
it would be a bit strange that hypothetical peak Fed is GOAT in so many tournaments yet of the three surfaces he may end up as GOAT of only one, and of the one that is played the least.
Except he would be GOAT on a surface rules by other GOATS/ATGs.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
He played peak Mode in 2005 at AO against Peak Safin and lost. So its NOT the highest peak ever. There there the countless losses to Nadal when he was at his peak. . Maybe most consistent highest level ever. but not the "highest" But Nadal, Djokovic, Sampras' "peaks" are clearly higher. They don't lose when they're in peak mode.
:-D:-D:-D
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
Wimbledon is the most prestigious but that doesn't change the fact that grass is the least important surface. That's easily measured by the amount of time players dedicate to training in each surface.

And Wimbledon's prestige, while real, doesn't mean much in the real world. Does anyone argue that Murray's slam count is greater than Wawrinka's just because he has 2 Wimbledon's? Is Nole's Slam count the same as Nadal's because of his superior results at Wimbledon?
Well, Novak is the GOAT of a slam that used to be skipped a lot by top players in the past, so it has been easier to build a big count on it as a result.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
we were doing well without insults. let's not ruin that.

I think most would agree that competition is less in the surface that is played the least. What's the competition like today in carpet? What was it like in the past, when players practiced in that surface?

As for the relevance of grass ask any pro player how much he or she trains on it. There was a time when three of the four slams were grass. That time is long gone.
Federer's competition at Wimb has been fine. Defeated many Wimb champions and multiple Wimb finalists. He even faced the world no.2 plenty of times to win Wimb. Lots of top 10 wins too.

And he also has HC dominance for good measure.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
Disagree with OP. Fed is the GOAT because of his titles and records but in terms of highest ever peak performance, I feel Djokovic takes this. Most unbeatable player I have ever seen when at his best.
It's a shame he is not at his best that often.
 

GabeT

Legend
Well, Novak is the GOAT of a slam that used to be skipped a lot by top players in the past, so it has been easier to build a big count on it as a result.
Agree, but my focus here wasn't on slam count but on surface dominance. Nole's AO wins are very important but his HC career is more than that (USO, WTF, Masters)
 

GabeT

Legend
Federer's competition at Wimb has been fine. Defeated many Wimb champions and multiple Wimb finalists. He even faced the world no.2 plenty of times to win Wimb. Lots of top 10 wins too.

And he also has HC dominance for good measure.
My point wasn't to diminish Fed's accomplishments. 20 slam winner with over 300 weeks at number 1 is beyond reproach. My point was to point out that grass, as a surface, is today the least relevant. It wasn't always the case but it's how tennis is played today.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
My point wasn't to diminish Fed's accomplishments. 20 slam winner with over 300 weeks at number 1 is beyond reproach. My point was to point out that grass, as a surface, is today the least relevant. It wasn't always the case but it's how tennis is played today.
If you look at the best players of the last 20 or so years grass has tended to be their best or second best surface regardless of the lack of grass tournaments e.g. Federer, Djokovic, Murray, Hewitt and Roddick, really it's only Nadal and Wawrinka who don't hold grass as one of their best surfaces and even then it's easy to forget that Nadal hit his stride on grass earlier than HC.
 

King No1e

Legend
Novak is God. He didn't walk over mugs like Baghdatis and Gonzalez to win AO 7 times. He is 10-0 against the rest of the Big 4, including 3-0 against false GOAT Fraudderer. 9-1 in sets won too. Now Fed has a higher peak level when he won in a MUG era while getting completely destroyed when a REAL opponent challenged him? Gimme a break ROFLMAO.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
My point wasn't to diminish Fed's accomplishments. 20 slam winner with over 300 weeks at number 1 is beyond reproach. My point was to point out that grass, as a surface, is today the least relevant. It wasn't always the case but it's how tennis is played today.
That's the problem of the coaches, not the surface itself.

And besides, it takes skill to succeed on grass so it stands to reason why not everyone can succeed on it.
 

Backspin1183

G.O.A.T.
It's tongue-in-cheek all in good humour, no?
Oh ok. You are not entirely wrong in saying sustained peak level going to Federer though. I was about to create a thread like that about the Fedr.

If you talk about a tournament or two, you get many different peak versions of ATG players. Like even Nadal at 2010 USO for instance. But when you talk about sustained peak level for a season and beyond, Federer has got to be the one you choose.

He was virtually unbeatable during 2004-2007. I don't know if anyone else has that kind of sustained peak level in tennis before or since.
 
Top