How peak was Rafa's peak?

[djokerer]

Match up or not, he tamed an arguably Goat candidate.
I mean Federer at 34 was no 2. I could only imagine how much of a beast of a player when he was young. From 2008-2010, Federer was 26-29. And Rafa in his absolute peak put away Federer on all surfaces.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 716271]

On clay the best ever by far without any shadow of doubt, off clay good enough to be considered a great but not all time great, however the fact he was able to win on all surfaces and beat Federer in his mid 20's on all surfaces is highly, highly impressive.

 

[djokerer]

On clay the best ever by far without any shadow of doubt, off clay good enough to be considered a great but not all time great, however the fact he was able to win on all surfaces and beat Federer in his mid 20's on all surfaces is highly, highly impressive.

I keep hearing Federer's goat forehand goat backhand goat footwork back in the day. Clearly Rafa must be a beast on all surfaces if he tamed the goat.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

I keep hearing Federer's goat forehand goat backhand goat footwork back in the day. Clearly Rafa must be a beast on all surfaces if he tamed the goat.

At his peak, I guess yeah. He was definitely Fed's daddy everywhere but some attribute that to "matchup"

 

[Sentinel]

I keep hearing Federer's goat forehand goat backhand goat footwork back in the day. Clearly Rafa must be a beast on all surfaces if he tamed the goat.

I hear Rafa's peak was greater than Djoker's peak as well. Is that true ?

However, comparisons with Fedr are unfair since I hear from some Joker fans that Fedr is getting better than he ever was. So his peak/prime is yet to come.

 

[Man of steel]

How peak was rafa's peak.............................peak

 

[djokerer]

I hear Rafa's peak was greater than Djoker's peak as well. Is that true ?

However, comparisons with Fedr are unfair since I hear from some Joker fans that Fedr is getting better than he ever was. So his peak/prime is yet to come.

You can beat around the bush all you want. Fact is , the question in op makes you uncomfortable

 

[Sentinel]

Match up or not, he tamed an arguably Goat candidate.
I mean Federer at 34 was no 2. I could only imagine how much of a beast of a player when he was young. From 2008-2010, Federer was 26-29. And Rafa in his absolute peak put away Federer on all surfaces.

You can beat around the bush all you want. Fact is , the question in op makes you uncomfortable

Well, considering you were not watching tennis before 2010 as per your own admission (since you are imagining how he was), therefore I don't see how your question can make me uncomfortable.

Yes, Rafa certainly was a beast. Your imagination is just fine

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Federer's peak:

Clay - 88
Grass - 97
Hard - 95

Nadal's peak:

Clay - 100 (or more)
Grass - 89
Hard - 91

Djokovic's peak

Clay - 90
Grass - 91
Hard - 97

TY plz come again

I think Djokovic will go down as the greatest player on HC ever.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Federer's peak:

Clay - 88
Grass - 97
Hard - 95

Nadal's peak:

Clay - 100
Grass - 89
Hard - 91

Djokovic's peak

Clay - 90
Grass - 90
Hard - 97

TY plz come again

I think Djokovic will go down as the greatest player on HC ever.

Fedal peaks =280

Djokovic=277

Sounds about right to date. I think for Novak to be only 3 behind is pretty darn good considering his consistency. As far as HC, probably, especially if he can somehow grab 2 more USO's, not a necessity, but would be nice.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Fedal peaks =280

Djokovic=277

Sounds about right to date. I think for Novak to be only 3 behind is pretty darn good considering his consistency. As far as HC, probably, especially if he can somehow grab 2 more USO's, not a necessity, but would be nice.

Although, I should either lower the scores to make Nadal's 100 for clay more reasonable, or boost Nadal's clay score beyond 100. In other words, Nadal is probably worth more than being 3 better on clay than Federer and Djokovic are on grass and HC.

 

[Jonas78]

Rafa was the better one when they met head-to-head (i say this as a Federer fan, and partly a Nadal fan), although the 11-23 numers are inflated. 50% of their matches were on clay, and that was often because on other surfaces Rafa lost to a lower ranked player too early to meet Federer. The years you are refering to (2008-2010) they met 8 times, 5 times being on clay. Why do you think 5 of their 8 meetings are on clay? In the same years (which are Rafas absolute best slam-wise) Federer won 4 slams and Rafa 6. It was clearly not a one man show.

Peak-Rafa was awesome. On clay or when he smelled a slam-trophy he was almost unstoppable. But he was (and is) much more inconsistent than Federer. You are allowed to disagree, but in the end, what matters is titles won! And Nadal will probably never reach Federers 17 slams or 88 career titles.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Rafa was the better one when they met head-to-head (i say this as a Federer fan, and partly a Nadal fan), although the 11-23 numers are inflated. 50% of their matches were on clay, and that was often because on other surfaces Rafa lost to a lower ranked player too early to meet Federer. The years you are refering to (2008-2010) they met 8 times, 5 times being on clay. Why do you think 5 of their 8 meetings are on clay? In the same years (which are Rafas absolute best slam-wise) Federer won 4 slams and Rafa 6.

Peak-Rafa was awesome. On clay or when he smelled a slam-trophy he was almost unstoppable. But he was much more inconsistent than Federer. You are allowed to disagree, but in the end, what matters is titles won! And Nadal will probably never reach Federers 17 slams.

Djokovic's consistency is well reflected in his time spent at number one, and Nadal's ability to peak in the number of Slams he's won. Nadal probably has the best peak aggregate across surfaces when he really puts it all together but Djokovic currently maintains an almost as high level across the surfaces almost unrelentingly. He's incredibly at sustaining an A level game whereas Nadal reached A+ more often, crudely speaking (14>11).


Will the tortoise beat the hare.

 

[Jonas78]

Djokovic's consistency is well reflected in his time spent at number one, and Nadal's ability to peak in the number of Slams he's won. Nadal probably has the best peak aggregate across surfaces when he really puts it all together but Djokovic currently maintains an almost as high level across the surfaces almost unrelentingly. He's incredibly at sustaining an A level game whereas Nadal reached A+ more often, crudely speaking (14>11).


Will the tortoise beat the hare.

I agree on the consistency level regarding Djokovic/Nadal. Both Djokovic and Federer have choked away too many slam-titles. If Nadal smelled the trophy he almost always took it. Nadal often was best when he had to be.

I mainly discussed Rafa and Fed in my post, because of what the OP wrote. Djokovic 2011 - now has shown a consistency and domination only Federer (2004-2007, partly also 08-09) has shown before him. If Djokovic can continue this run into his thirties he will much likely beat all Federes records. I really cant see a player holding such a consistency for 10 years, the question is for how much longer he can do it. Then Federer is still a moving target, and we dont know if or when some new players can put up a fight. If Noles main target is the slam-record, i think he cant continue to reach the finals in every master, it costs too much. So maybe what happened in MC was a good thing

 

[djokerer]

Federer's peak:

Clay - 88
Grass - 97
Hard - 95

Nadal's peak:

Clay - 100
Grass - 89
Hard - 91

Djokovic's peak

Clay - 90
Grass - 90
Hard - 97

TY plz come again

I think Djokovic will go down as the greatest player on HC ever.

If those numbers are close to truth, explain to me how Nadal was close to beating Federer in 2007 Wimbeldon in a 5 setter( I read Nadal played last 4 matches in span of 5 days) and he beat him in 2008. Also Nadal beat him in hard court slams. He sure as hell would have beaten Federer in uso 2010 if they met.
So do you honestly believe Federer is so off his peak in 2008-2010? Like he dropped from 97 in grass to less than 89 and less than 91 in hard courts? I am curious to hear from you not Fed fanatics.
And if that's case , what do you attribute his loss in peak to?

 

[djokerer]

Djokovic's consistency is well reflected in his time spent at number one, and Nadal's ability to peak in the number of Slams he's won. Nadal probably has the best peak aggregate across surfaces when he really puts it all together but Djokovic currently maintains an almost as high level across the surfaces almost unrelentingly. He's incredibly at sustaining an A level game whereas Nadal reached A+ more often, crudely speaking (14>11).


Will the tortoise beat the hare.

You are close to mark on this one though

 

[Jonas78]

If those numbers are close to truth, explain to me how Nadal was close to beating Federer in 2007 Wimbeldon in a 5 setter( I read Nadal played last 4 matches in span of 5 days) and he beat him in 2008. Also Nadal beat him in hard court slams. He sure as hell would have beaten Federer in uso 2010 if they met.
So do you honestly believe Federer is so off his peak in 2008-2010? Like he dropped from 97 in grass to less than 89 and less than 91 in hard courts? I am curious to hear from you not Fed fanatics.
And if that's case , what do you attribute his loss in peak to?

This is where you are getting way to subjective! First of all, Federer leads their Wimbledon meetings 2-1. In the years 2004 until now they have just met three times in HC-slams. Just one of the matches before Federers less succesful years (post AusOpen 2010), and this was a tight 5-setter at AusOpen 2009. In the same years (2004 - now), Federer has won 9 HC-slams and Nadal 3! Now lets see how Nadal and Djokovic will do between age 29-35 first, before you get to tough on Roger

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

If those numbers are close to truth, explain to me how Nadal was close to beating Federer in 2007 Wimbeldon in a 5 setter( I read Nadal played last 4 matches in span of 5 days) and he beat him in 2008. Also Nadal beat him in hard court slams. He sure as hell would have beaten Federer in uso 2010 if they met.
So do you honestly believe Federer is so off his peak in 2008-2010? Like he dropped from 97 in grass to less than 89 and less than 91 in hard courts? I am curious to hear from you not Fed fanatics.
And if that's case , what do you attribute his loss in peak to?

match-up

I don't seriously consider Nadal's grass peak effectiveness to be quite in league with Federer or Sampras, but do consider him to have the overall best aggregate of peak across the Slam surfaces, because he's impressive enough on his weaker surfaces but holds a more overwhelming advantage on his strongest surface.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

This thread is actually fairly sensible and interesting except for OP's not-so-subtle pre-occupation with belittling Federer throughout.

It's all like "sure, but was Fed really that good?"
Yes. Now just stop it.

@Nathaniel_Near - those numbers are pretty good I reckon. All three are very close in terms of level.

 

[djokerer]

match-up

I don't seriously consider Nadal's grass peak effectiveness to be quite in league with Federer or Sampras, but do consider him to have the overall best aggregate of peak across the Slam surfaces, because he's impressive enough on his weaker surfaces but holds a more overwhelming advantage on his strongest surface.

So you are saying a 89 can beat a 97 due to match up? I get the concept of match up but in that case should you call that 97 a 97?

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

So you are saying a 89 can beat a 97 due to match up? I get the concept of match up but in that case should you call that 97 a 97?

I believe so. Federer has reached 10 Wimbledon finals winning 7. There's just way too big a discrepancy in results there between the likes of Federer and Sampras as compared to Nadal and Djokovic. I actually prefer Djokovic's peak on grass to Nadal's, but it's close. Federer's ability on grass has been proved against every worthwhile opponent on grass from the era. Nadal's results don't really compare and even in his best years, he was much more susceptible against the field than Federer. Of course, Nadal has that special trump card of being the best big match player of the era, so when he reaches the final stages he tends to win almost all his SF and F matches. Nonetheless, this doesn't quite translate so well on grass for Nadal (2 out of 5 finals wons), so I think the scores are justified.

 

[Jonas78]

To be fair, although you are using different angles in your posts, they really all are about the same.

You think that Federers game has been pretty much same level from 2004 until now, maybe with an exception of 2013. Therefore you think that the years from 2004-2007 must have been weak, because as Rafa, Murray and Djovovic started to peak, Federers results wasnt as good as 2004-2007. All your posts are about just that, and thats ok. Its just that its not going anywhere, there are way too many subjective meanings and angles regarding this to ever agree.

But... Keep posting, thats why we are here

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Although, I should either lower the scores to make Nadal's 100 for clay more reasonable, or boost Nadal's clay score beyond 100. In other words, Nadal is probably worth more than being 3 better on clay than Federer and Djokovic are on grass and HC.

that would make Nadal the best

Not totally unreasonably by peak level

I think Fed might still be 1 though, not sure, it's difficult with the surfaces and matchups etc.

I think all 3 are huddled closely, and Novak has a reasonable shot at leapfrogging both of them.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

that would make Nadal the best

Not totally unreasonably by peak level

I think Fed might still be 1 though, not sure, it's difficult with the surfaces and matchups etc.

I think all 3 are huddled closely, and Novak has a reasonable shot at leapfrogging both of them.

This era will be fascinating to look back on in 20 years time. How the future will shape and nest this era will be very interesting.

 

[Jonas78]

[QUOTE="125downthemiddle, post: 10216027, member: 716271"]that would make Nadal the best

Not totally unreasonably by peak level

I think Fed might still be 1 though, not sure, it's difficult with the surfaces and matchups etc.

I think all 3 are huddled closely, and Novak has a reasonable shot at leapfrogging both of them.[/QUOTE]
You REALLY think the Djokovic-clan under any circumstances would agree to that?

 

[djokerer]

I believe so. Federer has reached 10 Wimbledon finals winning 7. There's just way too big a discrepancy in results there between the likes of Federer and Sampras as compared to Nadal and Djokovic. I actually prefer Djokovic's peak on grass to Nadal's, but it's close. Federer's ability on grass has been proved against every worthwhile opponent on grass from the era. Nadal's results don't really compare and even in his best years, he was much more susceptible against the field than Federer. Of course, Nadal has that special trump card of being the best big match player of the era, so when he reaches the final stages he tends to win almost all his SF and F matches. Nonetheless, this doesn't quite translate so well on grass for Nadal (2 out of 5 finals wons), so I think the scores are justified.

Now you are rambling. I thought the numbers represented peak play even if that's for a single tournament.. You seem to bring consistent results into the mix.
All those numbers are subjective. Yours don't stand out though. They are as good as someone else's who weighs the peaks including the match ups. I can totally see some other system where a 89(lower number) can never beat a 97(or a higher number)
I saw the Nadal wawa match today. Nadal is crap outside the baseline. He doesn't have the footwork to slug it out in rallies. He doesn't get into good positions duking out in rallies. But whenever the ball is short and whenever he steeped in, his forehand is as lethal as it always been. It's unfair to bring in Djokovic now to post prime Nadal, but Djoker now will not give that many opportunities for Nadal to step in. Hence Djoker will always beat Nadal for atleast sometime in the future now.
Point is, if you are good enough, you have to beat the lesser player. If not, you are the lesser player.
If Federer lost to Nadal in 2008 Wimbeldon, that's because he could not beat Nadal in his game.(for Christ's sake, Nadal in 2008 doesn't even serve well and this is grass we are talking about)
No way in hell you can rate Federer something like 97 and Nadal 89 and say he lost because of match up. The numbering system is wrong there.

 

[Bender]

You don't need to imagine how beast of a player Fed was when he was young--plenty of videos on YouTube...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 716271]

I believe so. Federer has reached 10 Wimbledon finals winning 7. There's just way too big a discrepancy in results there between the likes of Federer and Sampras as compared to Nadal and Djokovic. I actually prefer Djokovic's peak on grass to Nadal's, but it's close. Federer's ability on grass has been proved against every worthwhile opponent on grass from the era. Nadal's results don't really compare and even in his best years, he was much more susceptible against the field than Federer. Of course, Nadal has that special trump card of being the best big match player of the era, so when he reaches the final stages he tends to win almost all his SF and F matches. Nonetheless, this doesn't quite translate so well on grass for Nadal (2 out of 5 finals wons), so I think the scores are justified.

If I had to make any alteration to your numbers, I might lower Fed or raise the others a bit on grass by peak level.

I would also raise Fed on hard though by a bit to equal Novak.

Consider on grass, even discounting Nadal's matchup advantage vs. Fed, both Rafa and Novak have shown some rather high levels. Not classic grass court play, but on the modern grass courts, Novak's level the last 2 years was pretty darn good. I also agree a bit with djokerer that the matchup isn't quite enough to discount how well Nads did on grass at his peak. (I don't consider you rambling tho ) He made 5 of 6 Wimby finals in a row and all 5 he participated in during his peak grass run. Spanked Murray a couple times who many praise on grass as well.

On the other hand, I think Federer has been pretty great on HC. I prefer his peak level on HC to his grass peak so if you raised him a couple points to equal Djokovic, I wouldn't mind.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Now you are rambling. I thought the numbers represented peak play even if that's for a single tournament.. You seem to bring consistent results into the mix.
All those numbers are subjective. Yours don't stand out though. They are as good as someone else's who weighs the peaks including the match ups. I can totally see some other system where a 89(lower number) can never beat a 97(or a higher number)
I saw the Nadal wawa match today. Nadal is crap outside the baseline. He doesn't have the footwork to slug it out in rallies. He doesn't get into good positions duking out in rallies. But whenever the ball is short and whenever he steeped in, his forehand is as lethal as it always been. It's unfair to bring in Djokovic now to post prime Nadal, but Djoker now will not give that many opportunities for Nadal to step in. Hence Djoker will always beat Nadal for atleast sometime in the future now.
Point is, if you are good enough, you have to beat the lesser player. If not, you are the lesser player.
If Federer lost to Nadal in 2008 Wimbeldon, that's because he could not beat Nadal in his game.(for Christ's sake, Nadal in 2008 doesn't even serve well and this is grass we are talking about)
No way in hell you can rate Federer sometime like 97 and Nadal 89 and say he lost because of match up. The numbering system is wrong there.

I never claimed to have defined an ultimate system, nor have even detailed the gradient of the numbers. I wouldn't say I'm rambling. You asked a question and I answered it as best I could. It boils down to Nadal's demonstrations of grass peak not consistently achieving the ultimate prize on grass, so I rated him as I did, which is clearly below Federer and a tiny bit below Djokovic, though that's debatable. The only meaningful point regardless of the specific numbers is how they stack up relatively, and that I think Nadal probably has the best aggregate across the surfaces regarding peak. You see the numbers as wrong because of how you're personally envisaging the difference between 97 and 89, which might be different in your head than mine. Provide your own numbers.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

If I had to make any alteration to your numbers, I might lower Fed or raise the others a bit on grass by peak level.

I would also raise Fed on hard though by a bit to equal Novak.

Consider on grass, even discounting Nadal's matchup advantage vs. Fed, both Rafa and Novak have shown some rather high levels. Not classic grass court play, but on the modern grass courts, Novak's level the last 2 years was pretty darn good. I also agree a bit with djokerer that the matchup isn't quite enough to discount how well Nads did on grass at his peak. (I don't consider you rambling tho ) He made 5 of 6 Wimby finals in a row and all 5 he participated in during his peak grass run. Spanked Murray a couple times who many praise on grass as well.

On the other hand, I think Federer has been pretty great on HC. I prefer his peak level on HC to his grass peak so if you raised him a couple points to equal Djokovic, I wouldn't mind.

I straight up think Djokovic is a better HC player than Federer overall and that it will show in Slam titles and other HC titles by the end of their careers. If I drop the grass score for Fed but raise the HC score, it would suggest that Federer is better on HC than grass, which might be true but I don't believe that. I think Fed's grass level is about the same as Djokovic's HC level and his extra finesse is especially fruitful on grass, where as the sheer solidity of Djokovic's game is a perfect match for the hard-courts. Federer can and does blitz spectacularly on the hard-courts but lacks that extra level of solidity which HC tends to demand quite a bit more than grass. The more consistently impenetrable nature of Djokovic's game on HC should lead him to at least tie Fed's HC Slam record and win more HC titles in his career #predictions. Note that I gave Djokovic a higher score on clay despite him not winning RG, but I'm not so sure on this.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

[QUOTE="125downthemiddle, post: 10216027, member: 716271"]that would make Nadal the best

Not totally unreasonably by peak level

I think Fed might still be 1 though, not sure, it's difficult with the surfaces and matchups etc.

I think all 3 are huddled closely, and Novak has a reasonable shot at leapfrogging both of them.

You REALLY think the Djokovic-clan under any circumstances would agree to that? [/QUOTE]

Well all 3 are very close I think by peak level aggregate, Novak is the most consistent (certainly more than Rafa) and he's getting to the point where he is also more than Fed week in week out (this week being a notable exception) What really matters is who finishes with the most meaningful accomplishments. Novak has a chance to surpass both Nadal and yes, Federer....imo of course

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Further, I gave Nadal 1 more on grass than I did for Federer on clay, which contradicts what I typically have stated in the past, where I typically give Federer a marginal edge on their weakest surfaces. A difference of 1 either way or tied seems fair, though.

 

[djokerer]

I think Nadal probably has the best aggregate across the surfaces regarding peak.

Take a chill pill. You don't need subjective numbers to indicate success. There are many records for that.
I was only talking about peak play from the beginning. You are clearly rating a different thing.
The only thing I agree with you is the quoted part.
If you have to quantify only that aspect though, how do you rate all three of them?

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Take a chill pill. You don't need subjective numbers to indicate success. There are many records for that.
I was only talking about peak play from the beginning. You are clearly rating a different thing.
The only thing I agree with you is the quoted part.
If you have to quantify only that aspect though, how do you rate all three of them?

Bolded:

Lol?

**

I used the records and successes to come up roughly with the numbers. I'm rating peak play (without only relying on match-ups between the Trifecta).

 

[Deleted member 716271]

I straight up think Djokovic is a better HC player than Federer overall and that it will show in Slam titles and other HC titles by the end of their careers. If I drop the grass score for Fed but raise the HC score, it would suggest that Federer is better on HC than grass, which might be true but I don't believe that. I think Fed's grass level is about the same as Djokovic's HC level and his extra finesse is especially fruitful on grass, where as the sheer solidity of Djokovic's game is a perfect match for the hard-courts. Federer can and does blitz spectacularly on the hard-courts but lacks that extra level of solidity which HC tends to demand quite a bit more than grass. The more consistently impenetrable nature of Djokovic's game on HC should lead him to at least tie Fed's HC Slam record and win more HC titles in his career #predictions. Note that I gave Djokovic a higher score on clay despite him not winning RG, but I'm not so sure on this.

I'm considering peak as not just 1 match or 1 brief spurt but sustained good play that we've seen maybe once for a long run and probably at least twice (Novak's 2011, and 2015 for instance).... But still not the same as saying overall play, which would mean an average level over many years...basically how "good" was a player when playing his best on a particular surface, so not the same as overall level, but not quite just a brief run peak, either (i.e. Soderling in 2009, Wawrinka in 2015 at FO). Not that you directly contradicted that, just airing that out because I want to make sure we're speaking of the same thing.

With that out the way, I agree that Federer is a more natural grass court player than Novak and that Novak's game seems best suited to hard courts. However, in practice, I believe Federer's best play has come on hard courts, particularly faster ones that we see in North America in late summer and the older Year End Championships. I think splitting up fast and slow hard courts is needless and complicates things, and I think that Novak will end a more accomplished hard court and a greater one. But I believe their peak level was about equal to date. I think Novak's peak level on slow HC is pretty close to Nadal on clay, which sounds crazy, but think about the AO-IW-Miami runs, reminds me a bit of Nadal's clay seasons. But Federer's peak on the faster HC was sublime. His best ever tennis to me was not at Wimbledon, even though Wimbledon/grass is his most accomlished surface/slam.

Conversely, I do think you have to consider Novak's peak level on this slow grass as quite high...Federer was playing rather incredibly last year and I don't think fatigue played a major factor. What was the difference between the SF and the F. Was it really only because Fed had a good day at the office vs. Murray?

Novak has some tools on grass that aren't immediately obvious, but just think of the fact that both the serve and return are the 2 most important shots on grass. Novak's serve has become very good (not as good as Federer's but better than almost everyone else besides the servebots), and his return is the best ever.

I agree with Nadal being better on grass than Federer on clay (as well as being better on clay than Federer is on grass.)

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

I'm considering peak as not just 1 match or 1 brief spurt but sustained good play that we've seen maybe once for a long run and probably at least twice (Novak's 2011, and 2015 for instance).... But still not the same as saying overall play, which would mean an average level over many years...basically how "good" was a player when playing his best on a particular surface, so not the same as overall level, but not quite just a brief run peak, either (i.e. Soderling in 2009, Wawrinka in 2015 at FO). Not that you directly contradicted that, just airing that out because I want to make sure we're speaking of the same thing.

With that out the way, I agree that Federer is a more natural grass court player than Novak and that Novak's game seems best suited to hard courts. However, in practice, I believe Federer's best play has come on hard courts, particularly faster ones that we see in North America in late summer and the older Year End Championships. I think splitting up fast and slow hard courts is needless and complicates things, and I think that Novak will end a more accomplished hard court and a greater one. But I believe their peak level was about equal to date. I think Novak's peak level on slow HC is pretty close to Nadal on clay, which sounds crazy, but think about the AO-IW-Miami runs, reminds me a bit of Nadal's clay seasons. But Federer's peak on the faster HC was sublime. His best ever tennis to me was not at Wimbledon, even though Wimbledon/grass is his most accomlished surface/slam.

Conversely, I do think you have to consider Novak's peak level on this slow grass as quite high...Federer was playing rather incredibly last year and I don't think fatigue played a major factor. What was the difference between the SF and the F. Was it really only because Fed had a good day at the office vs. Murray?

Novak has some tools on grass that aren't immediately obvious, but just think of the fact that both the serve and return are the 2 most important shots on grass. Novak's serve has become very good (not as good as Federer's but better than almost everyone else besides the servebots), and his return is the best ever.

I agree with Nadal being better on grass than Federer on clay (as well as being better on clay than Federer is on grass.)

I agree with your approach regarding peak play. I also agree that it is possible (though still not sure I agree) that Federer's play on faster HC is as good or better than his play on grass, but I'm taking HC as a whole and have voiced in the past that I find Federer to be overrated on slower hard-courts, with his results diminishing greatly on them smack in the middle of his prime when the next generation started to flourish. If we crudely split HC into fast and slow, then I also agree that we see Djokovic's best on slow HC start to seriously approach Nadal's clay peak - I don't think it sounds remotely crazy. I think my score for Djokovic on grass is fair currently, if we just judge the numbers in the relative sense to the judgements for the players across the surfaces rather than trying to read too much into how much better exactly is 97 than 90 - which is to say that he's better on grass than Federer is on clay or Nadal is on grass. Is he better on grass than Nadal in on HC, where I've given Nadal a 1 point edge? Maybe. Good post bro.

**

Also, currently I have Djokovic's clay and grass numbers equal, yet Djokovic has 2 Wimbledon titles and 0 RG titles. I do think it's more or less equal, but that fact is still compelling evidence to boost his grass score a bit. I just tend to think though that the pure strength of Nadal at RG is the main reason for that discrepancy. The problem with this argument is Stan Wawrinka.

**

3 Wimbledon titles and 0 RG titles.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

I agree with your approach regarding peak play. I also agree that it is possible (though still not sure I agree) that Federer's play on faster HC is as good or better than his play on grass, but I'm taking HC as a whole and have voiced in the past that I find Federer to be overrated on slower hard-courts, with his results diminishing greatly on them smack in the middle of his prime when the next generation started to flourish. If we crudely split HC into fast and slow, then I also agree that we see Djokovic's best on slow HC start to seriously approach Nadal's clay peak - I don't think it sounds remotely crazy. I think my score for Djokovic on grass is fair currently, if we just judge the numbers in the relative sense to the judgements for the players across the surfaces rather than trying to read too much into how much better exactly is 97 than 90 - which is to say that he's better on grass than Federer is on clay or Nadal is on grass. Is he better on grass than Nadal in on HC, where I've given Nadal a 1 point edge? Maybe. Good post bro.

**

Also, currently I have Djokovic's clay and grass numbers equal, yet Djokovic has 2 Wimbledon titles and 0 RG titles. I do think it's more or less equal, but that fact is still compelling evidence to boost his grass score a bit. I just tend to think though that the pure strength of Nadal at RG is the main reason for that discrepancy. The problem with this argument is Stan Wawrinka.

3

 

[djokerer]

Bolded:

Lol?

**

I used the records and successes to come up roughly with the numbers. I'm rating peak play (without only relying on match-ups between the Trifecta).

I guess we can never agree then. I am fine if you rope in sustained success into the equation , as long as the assumption is , if a player A wins against Player B then for that point of time, Player A is rated higher than Player B. If you say Feds peak at some point is 97 but somehow it dropped to less than 89 in 2008 Wim and that's how Nadal was able to beat Fed with his peak 89, I can accept the system.
Otherwise the numbers presented are utter nonsense to me.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

I guess we can never agree then. I am fine if you rope in sustained success into the equation , as long as the assumption is , if a player A wins against Player B then for that point of time, Player A is rated higher than Player B. If you say Feds peak at some point is 97 but somehow it dropped to less than 89 in 2008 Wim and that's how Nadal was able to beat Fed with his peak 89, I can accept the system.
Otherwise the numbers presented are utter nonsense to me.

I mean, I accept your views. I don't think you're wrong and I'm hardly convinced I'm right. I just tend to enjoy a lot of these trivial discussions. I'm settled on my interpretation but it's just one of many and I'm above nobody. Good to discuss with you.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

3

LOL.

3.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

I agree with your approach regarding peak play. I also agree that it is possible (though still not sure I agree) that Federer's play on faster HC is as good or better than his play on grass, but I'm taking HC as a whole and have voiced in the past that I find Federer to be overrated on slower hard-courts, with his results diminishing greatly on them smack in the middle of his prime when the next generation started to flourish. If we crudely split HC into fast and slow, then I also agree that we see Djokovic's best on slow HC start to seriously approach Nadal's clay peak - I don't think it sounds remotely crazy. I think my score for Djokovic on grass is fair currently, if we just judge the numbers in the relative sense to the judgements for the players across the surfaces rather than trying to read too much into how much better exactly is 97 than 90 - which is to say that he's better on grass than Federer is on clay or Nadal is on grass. Is he better on grass than Nadal in on HC, where I've given Nadal a 1 point edge? Maybe. Good post bro.

**

Also, currently I have Djokovic's clay and grass numbers equal, yet Djokovic has 2 Wimbledon titles and 0 RG titles. I do think it's more or less equal, but that fact is still compelling evidence to boost his grass score a bit. I just tend to think though that the pure strength of Nadal at RG is the main reason for that discrepancy. The problem with this argument is Stan Wawrinka.

Thanks, likewise.

I think that is a very interesting question. I'm trying to think whether I prefer Nadal's AO 09/USO '10/USO '13 levels which were all quite high vs. Novak's 3 Wimbledons which were also all quite high. All 6 of those slams were representative of both player's peaks on the respective surfaces, imho.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Peaks at Wimbledon;

(Out of 10 instead of 100).

Federer - 9.5
Nadal - 9
Djokovic - 9.25

It's that close because differences in tennis are fairly slight.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

I hear Rafa's peak was greater than Djoker's peak as well. Is that true ?

However, comparisons with Fedr are unfair since I hear from some Joker fans that Fedr is getting better than he ever was. So his peak/prime is yet to come.

Federer will attain his peak after he dies, when his spirit will come back to bagel the full Wimbledon 2094 lineup after being summoned with a Ouija in a seance organized by an aging TMF.

In contrast, Nadal peaked early as a fetus, and has been declining ever since.

Djokovic will never peak, as he will continue getting better and better until he is canonized by the Serbian church, fulfilling his dad's prophecy.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Thanks, likewise.

I think that is a very interesting question. I'm trying to think whether I prefer Nadal's AO 09/USO '10/USO '13 levels which were all quite high vs. Novak's 3 Wimbledons which were also all quite high. All 6 of those slams were representative of both player's peaks on the respective surfaces, imho.

I probably find Djokovic's runs more trustworthy regarding the draws, but this is compensated by the level of dominance Nadal showed at times in his USO runs. I'll notch Djokovic's grass score up to tie it, besides 3-0 Wimbledon-RG is a massive discrepancy.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Peaks at Wimbledon;

(Out of 10 instead of 100).

Federer - 9.5
Nadal - 9
Djokovic - 9.25

It's that close because differences in tennis are fairly slight.

Good scores. Ratings for RG, AO and USO?

 

[RF-18]

I guess we can never agree then. I am fine if you rope in sustained success into the equation , as long as the assumption is , if a player A wins against Player B then for that point of time, Player A is rated higher than Player B. If you say Feds peak at some point is 97 but somehow it dropped to less than 89 in 2008 Wim and that's how Nadal was able to beat Fed with his peak 89, I can accept the system.
Otherwise the numbers presented are utter nonsense to me.

Yea but I think he was looking at it how they stack up against the field.

Fed has 7 wimby titles to Nadals 2. Now 97 to 89 maybe makes more sense to you?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Good scores. Ratings for RG, AO and USO?

Roland Garros -
Nadal - 10
Djokovic - 9.5
Federer - 9.3

Australian Open -

Djokovic - 9.5
Federer - 9.2
Nadal - 9

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Peaks at Wimbledon;

(Out of 10 instead of 100).

Federer - 9.5
Nadal - 9
Djokovic - 9.25

It's that close because differences in tennis are fairly slight.

I don't quite agree. Nadal in 2007/2008 was an even match with Federer, and Federer was surely nearer his peak in 2007 than he was in 2014, when Djokovic had to take 5 sets to beat him. As a matter of fact, the first 4 sets of the 2007 Final are more positive for Nadal than the frst 4 sets of the 2014 Final are for Djokovic. Old Fed in 2014 caved in the 5th set due to age.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Peaks at Wimbledon;

(Out of 10 instead of 100).

Federer - 9.5
Nadal - 9
Djokovic - 9.25

It's that close because differences in tennis are fairly slight.

I agree with this. But put Fed at 9.75.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Roland Garros -
Nadal - 10
Djokovic - 9.5
Federer - 9.3

Australian Open -

Djokovic - 9.5
Federer - 9.2
Nadal - 9

Does your AO Open score take into account how you imagine Djokovic would do on RAce? I think he'd still win it even though it's less conducive to sliding. It seems that most of us (so far) agree that Djokovic has the edge over Federer on clay.