Razer
G.O.A.T.
Who are vacherot and rinderknech? stop comparing mugs to Roddick and Hewitt.
Federer has the highest peak ever
- Thread starter AnOctorokForDinner
- Start date
Who are vacherot and rinderknech? stop comparing mugs to Roddick and Hewitt.
Megafanoftennis100
Hall of Fame
2025 Shanghai Vacherot >> 2005 AO Safin
Rosstour
Talk Tennis Guru
I don’t think there is a player you could just transplant into the modern game and watch them conquer. It’s fun to think about (“they don’t make them like THAT guy anymore!”), but I watched a video of Sampras playing a Davis Cup match on clay a few nights ago and I was stunned at how slow and quaint the rallies look now. Maybe in the 2000s it didn’t look that way but now with an additional 20 years of development and conditioning, all I could think watching it was “the B3 or B2 would absolutely eat these guys for breakfast”
Rosstour
Talk Tennis Guru
Agreed. It makes ppl feel big to talk like that. They can’t play the game so they affect this snobbery and crap all over all but literally a few of the greatest players ever
junkieballer
Legend
Djokovic is 22-2 against Raonic and Isner, and won 7 ATP Finals. He'd find a way to beat Krajicek.
BorgTheGOAT
G.O.A.T.
You prove with every post that you are completely clueless. Isner and Raonic are serve-bots with incredibly bad movement and basically nothing apart from serve. Krajicek (and Goran) cannot be compared to them in any way. Again: Krajicek at his very best had volleys which I have not even seen from Edberg or Rafter, good luck finding that with Raonic or Isner. On top, his ground game, while not elite was still better than Isner/Milos and his movement was way ahead. We are talking Krajicek's very best here (e.g. Wimbledon 1996 or Stuttgart 1998) and here his groundies, passes and returns were also clicking. Add to that, that he was clutch as heck when on.
Please do yourself a favor and stop posting so much uninformed stuff. Watch the matches I mentioned, read what Pete wrote in his book about Krajicek and do not write here based on what Grok tells you.
junkieballer
Legend
Bro calm down. You're on a tennis forum
BorgTheGOAT
G.O.A.T.
Bro my tune is pretty relaxed for TTW standards
RS
Bionic Poster
Sure. I was talking relative speaking.
People assume that the players' best matches came from their victories, not their defeats. That's not all the case, the players tried their utmost, but sometimes came up just short. I give up two examples, Nadal and Djokovic, and against the other.
Nadal's example came in '12 AO final. I hadn't seen him play better. And Djokovic's example came in '13 RG semi-final, which he lost to Nadal.
Federer had been terrific in some of his heart-breaking losses: '08 WB and '11 US. And to incorporate his nouveau back hand, his losses at '14 & '15 WB. In '15 WB, he hadn't lost serve before the final. BTW, I did analysis of the '14 Federer's new backhand, which helped him overcome his nemesis of Nadal, Murray and Berdych.
Last edited:
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
The only thing Federer has the highest of all time are his fans delusions and tinfoil hats 
TTMR
Hall of Fame
In the end, Continuous Dominance is the Threshold of Greatness
And Fed had the longest sustained peak, from 04-07. With only one of those years winning a 'mere' 2 out of 4 slams. This is the reason Federer still "feels" greater in many ways than Novak, whose peaks were sporadic and stretched out over a much longer period of time but otherwise was more of a historically "typical" #1, winning 1 or 2 slams a year. Djokovic had his 2011s and 2021s which were as good as anything Federer did between 04-07 but never in sequence. He ended up getting injured or mysteriously "going away" competitiveness-wise for months and years at a time. Maybe in the end those down periods were good for his longevity and cumulative stats, but in the minds of the casual sports fan make him more of a mundane than legendary figure like Peak Fed.
You can debate stats till the cows come home, but in the end Fed will always "feel" like the larger-than-life player, and you can't debate feelings.
And Fed had the longest sustained peak, from 04-07. With only one of those years winning a 'mere' 2 out of 4 slams. This is the reason Federer still "feels" greater in many ways than Novak, whose peaks were sporadic and stretched out over a much longer period of time but otherwise was more of a historically "typical" #1, winning 1 or 2 slams a year. Djokovic had his 2011s and 2021s which were as good as anything Federer did between 04-07 but never in sequence. He ended up getting injured or mysteriously "going away" competitiveness-wise for months and years at a time. Maybe in the end those down periods were good for his longevity and cumulative stats, but in the minds of the casual sports fan make him more of a mundane than legendary figure like Peak Fed.
You can debate stats till the cows come home, but in the end Fed will always "feel" like the larger-than-life player, and you can't debate feelings.
'04-07 was the land of patsies, with under-age Nadal, Djokovic and Murray. '08 was the beginning of the end for Federer.
TTMR
Hall of Fame
So tiring. If you're going to make that argument about 04-07 then you're going to have to accept the same about 18-22.
Djokovic made his name in '11-15.
That's the difference: Federer made his name in '04-07, the land of patsies.
TTMR
Hall of Fame
Djokovic won one slam a year from 2012-2014 and was not#1 for a decent chunk of it. Not remotely comparable to 04-07 or 19-22
Vincent-C
G.O.A.T.
Nah..
Razer
G.O.A.T.
Djokovic was a total beta from 2012FO till 2014FO in his prime years, later when 90s gen failed to rise from 2014, thats when Novak started to rise again, also due to some help from Boris Becker.
Similar threads
