If all current players were at the peak of their powers

joeri888

G.O.A.T.
And also played to the best of their abilities
What would the top 10 look like?

Mine:
1. Federer
2. Djokovic
3. Nadal
4. Hewitt
5. Nalbandian
6. Roddick
7. Murray
8. Davydenko
9. Del Potro
10. Ferrero
 

PSNELKE

Legend
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Djokovic
4. Del Potro
5. Hewitt
6. Muzz
7. Nalbandian
8. A Rod
9. Denkp
10. Tsonga or Birdclown but I tend to Jo

The order could change from the second spot to the 10th.
Fed is obviously at #1.
I don't see any other players but these in the Top10.
 
For sure, it'd be a strong list.

TBH, guys like Fish, Ferrer and Wawrinka just don't really strike me as Top 10 material players.
 

Andres

G.O.A.T.
Let's see

2004 Federer
2010 Nadal
2012 Djokovic
2007 Nalbandian
2011-Current? Murray
2001-2002 Hewitt
2009 Del Potro
2003-2004 Roddick
2007 Davydenko
2003 Ferrero.

So my ranking would be something like:

1. Federer (2004)
2. Nadal (2008 / 2010)
3. Djokovic (2011)
4/5. Hewitt (2001-2002)
5/4. Nalbandian (2007)
6. Roddick (2003-2004)
7. Del Potro(2009)
8. Murray (Current)
9. Ferrero (2003)
10. Davydenko (2007)

Honorable mention to Ljubicic (2006)
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
If they were all playing at their absolute peak and were all doing so consistently, day in and day out, I think:

1. Nadal
2. Federer
3. Djokovic
4. Murray
5. Del Potro
6. Nalbandian
7. Roddick
8. Hewitt
9. Tsonga
10. Davydenko

Still see the current top 4 there although I put Nadal as no.1 because he was still leading the H2H with Federer even in the latter's peak years (2004-7). Djokovic is down to no.3 because I still think he would be edged even now by peak Nadal and peak Federer. I'm guessing Murray stays at no.4 because he was beating the likes of Del Potro when the latter was at his peak (2009) and was beating Hewitt and Roddick when they were both not too far from their peak years (2006 or so).

Just my twopennyworth.
 
H2H was skewed during Fed's peak years by clay. If Fed tanked clay surface to make it look like he was bad as Pete on clay, the H2H would be close to even and your list changes.
 
1-nadal
2-federer
3-djokovic
4-roddick
5-del potro
6-murray
7-hewitt
9-tsonga
10-this one i couldn't decide between soderling or berdych...i think they both have loads of talent, just not together mentally.
 

PSNELKE

Legend
H2H was skewed during Fed's peak years by clay. If Fed tanked clay surface to make it look like he was bad as Pete on clay, the H2H would be close to even and your list changes.

You can't say that dude.
I say the H2H was skewed by HC in favor of Fed.
How bout that?
 

Wilander Fan

Hall of Fame
2011 Nadal was better than 2010 Nadal's IMO. He made the finals of just about everything but just kept running into Novak. If not for Novak, Nadal probably has a 75% shot at the GS. Nadal almost definitely beats Tsonga at WB and Fed at AO...the only question would have been Fed at USO. Nadal probably also has a clay court sweep and 2 more HC1000s. In short, Nadal would have had the greatest single season ever.

For that reason, you dont have to speculate about prime Novak and prime Nadal. Novak is clearly better at his peak on all surfaces.
 
2011 Nadal was better than 2010 Nadal's IMO. He made the finals of just about everything but just kept running into Novak. If not for Novak, Nadal probably has a 75% shot at the GS. Nadal almost definitely beats Tsonga at WB and Fed at AO...the only question would have been Fed at USO. Nadal probably also has a clay court sweep and 2 more HC1000s. In short, Nadal would have had the greatest single season ever.

For that reason, you dont have to speculate about prime Novak and prime Nadal. Novak is clearly better at his peak on all surfaces.

Quoted for truth.
 

PSNELKE

Legend
Well let's compromise and say that they meet 10 times. 5 times on indoor hard and 5 times on clay. What would you predict the H2H will be then?

Honestly I would rate Nadal's chances on beating Fed on indoor HC higher than Fed beating Nadal on clay.

I would rate the whole thing at 5-5 though.
 
Honestly I would rate Nadal's chances on beating Fed on indoor HC higher than Fed beating Nadal on clay.

I would rate the whole thing at 5-5 though.

Well maybe Fed would have a better chance of beating Fed on indoor, notwithstanding the actual data showing instances of Fed beating Nadal on clay, but no instances of Nadal beating Fed on indoor HC.

But let's not even consider that. In any case you agree that the H2H would be 5-5 if their meetings were more evenly distributed on their best surfaces. Which was not the case in 2004-2007. Hence the skew.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
H2H was skewed during Fed's peak years by clay. If Fed tanked clay surface to make it look like he was bad as Pete on clay, the H2H would be close to even and your list changes.

It's difficult to compare. In 2004-7, Fed's peak years, he was dominant over Nadal on 2 of the 3 surfaces. But in Nadal's peak years which were a bit later, 2007-10 or thereabouts, he gets better on HC and grass and starts to dominate on those surfaces as well. So peak Nadal (2007-10) would probably still have the upper hand over peak Federer (2004-7) IMO.
 
Last edited:
It's difficult to compare. In 2004-7, Fed's peak years, he was dominant over Nadal on 2 of the 3 surfaces. But in Nadal's peak years which were a bit later, 2007-10 or thereabouts, he gets better on HC and grass and starts to dominate on those surfaces as well. So peak Nadal (2007-10) would still have the upper hand over peak Federer (2007-7) IMO.

Well really it comes down to comparing these two:

pre prime Nadal to peak Fed
post prime Fed to peak Nadal.

The data indicate that preprime Nadal was closer to his peak in terms of stats than postprime Fed is to his peak stats. So really you cannot mix the two.

In any case, the point of this thread is ranking, where one must dominate the entire field, not just one player. On that basis alone, it seems to me Fed far exceeds Nadal. Just compare their peak year losses to the field.
 
M

monfed

Guest
Gosh this is too tough to call but if I really had to stick my neck out I'd put Fed at the top of the pile. Not sure about the rest.
 

Andres

G.O.A.T.
#1 ranking means you have to be better than the whole field.
Tanking the clay season wouldn't make Fed a better player. Yes, he'd have a better H2H with Nadal, but he would lose 3,000 points a season for not reaching the usual Monte Carlo, Rome and/or Hamburg finals, and the French Open.

Without those points, Fed wouldn't be #1. Logical phallacy.
 
Tanking the clay season wouldn't make Fed a better player. Yes, he'd have a better H2H with Nadal, but he would lose 3,000 points a season for not reaching the usual Monte Carlo, Rome and/or Hamburg finals, and the French Open.

Without those points, Fed wouldn't be #1. Logical phallacy.

Well he could reach the semis for all clay events, does that equate to a loss of 3000 points? Even so, wouldn't winning the other 3 slams all of those years still give him the #1 ranking?
 
M

monfed

Guest
Tanking the clay season wouldn't make Fed a better player. Yes, he'd have a better H2H with Nadal, but he would lose 3,000 points a season for not reaching the usual Monte Carlo, Rome and/or Hamburg finals, and the French Open.

Without those points, Fed wouldn't be #1. Logical phallacy.

Actually, Fed could've just tanked after reaching the semis of all clay events, he'd still make enough points to keep his number 1 ranking provided he dominated the other events so its not a logical fallacy.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Well really it comes down to comparing these two:

pre prime Nadal to peak Fed
post prime Fed to peak Nadal.

The data indicate that preprime Nadal was closer to his peak in terms of stats than postprime Fed is to his peak stats. So really you cannot mix the two.

As I understand it, the OP is asking us to compare them as if both were still playing at their respective peaks (whenever that happened to be). Its all very hypothetical and guessy of course, but IMO peak Nadal would edge peak Federer on ALL surfaces.

In any case, the point of this thread is ranking, where one must dominate the entire field, not just one player. On that basis alone, it seems to me Fed far exceeds Nadal. Just compare their peak year losses to the field.

Fair point. I don't have the stats to hand to compare. Did Nadal lose to more players than Federer did in their peak years? I still think that the peak no.1 should be able to dominate the peak no.2 though. It looks a bit odd to me if he can't. But that's just my take.
 

PSNELKE

Legend
Well maybe Fed would have a better chance of beating Fed on indoor, notwithstanding the actual data do show instance of Fed beating Nadal on clay, but no instance of Nadal beating Fed on indoor HC.

But let's not even consider that. In any case you agree that the H2H would be 5-5 if their meetings were more evenly distributed on their best surfaces. Which was not the case in 2004-2007. Hence the skew.

The H2H ain't scewd. Fed's best surface is HARDCOURT, you can't say let's compare the on clay and INDOOR HC.

As I said even with the IHC-CC stuff i would give Nadal the edge over 10 meetings.
Fed beat Nadal how many times in 18 occasions or so, they didn't play as much on IHC.
 
Best year's play?
1 Federer
2 Djokovic
3 Nadal
4 Hewitt
5 Roddick
6 Davydenko
7 Murray
8 Nalbandian
9 del Potro
10 Soderling

If they are all constantly in god mode
1 Federer
2 Davydenko
3 Nalbandian
4 Murray
5 Wawrinka
6 Tipsarevic
7 Djokovic
8 Nadal
9 Soderling
10 Tsonga
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
As I understand it, the OP is asking us to compare them as if both were still playing at their respective peaks (whenever that happened to be). Its all very hypothetical and guessy of course, but IMO peak Nadal would edge peak Federer on ALL surfaces.

Hell no. Only on clay and that's include his immense matchup advantage.

Oh, you totally forgot he's winless against Fed on indoor, which is why Fed has 6 WTF to Nadal 0 !
 
The H2H ain't scewd. Fed's best surface is HARDCOURT, you can't say let's compare the on clay and INDOOR HC.

As I said even with the IHC-CC stuff i would give Nadal the edge over 10 meetings.
Fed beat Nadal how many times in 18 occasions or so, they didn't play as much on IHC.

Fair enough. But in his peak you could say Fed's best surface was grass, not HC. What was the distributions of their meetings on grass vs clay during those years?
 

FlashFlare11

Hall of Fame
Best year's play?
1 Federer
2 Djokovic
3 Nadal
4 Hewitt
5 Roddick
6 Davydenko
7 Murray
8 Nalbandian
9 del Potro
10 Soderling

If they are all constantly in god mode
1 Federer
2 Davydenko
3 Nalbandian
4 Murray
5 Wawrinka
6 Tipsarevic
7 Djokovic
8 Nadal
9 Soderling
10 Tsonga
I don't know if Wawrinka should be listed so highly in your "God mode" list, but the rest of them can beat anyone on tour when they get hot!
 
Fair point. I don't have the stats to hand to compare. Did Nadal lose to more players than Federer did in their peak years? I still think that the peak no.1 should be able to dominate the peak no.2 though. It looks a bit odd to me if he can't. But that's just my take.

Well as far as I remember there is not one year that Nadal has less than double digit losses. Whereas Federer in his best years had 6, 4 and 5 losses. So of course you can believe Nadal may edge Fed on all surfaces, but dominating the field it what secures the #1 ranking, not just 1 player.
 

PSNELKE

Legend
Fair enough. But in his peak you could say Fed's best surface was grass, not HC. What was the distributions of their meetings on grass vs clay during those years?

We saw what Nadal was able to do when he matured as a player.
i.e Wimbledon 2007 he was well able to beat Fed who was at his peak.
 
We saw what Nadal was able to do when he matured as a player.
i.e Wimbledon 2007 he was well able to beat Fed who was at his peak.

Federer was also well able to beat Nadal on clay in 2006. In any case, the point is the # of meetings. on various surfaces. You say HC is Fed's best surface, well how many times did they meet on HC from 2004-2007? Compare that with clay and you will see a skew.
 

PSNELKE

Legend
Federer was also well able to beat Nadal on clay in 2006. In any case, the point is the # of meetings. on various surfaces. You say HC is Fed's best surface, well how many times did they meet on HC from 2004-2007? Compare that with clay and you will see a skew.

2004-2007 Nadal wasn't at his prime.
There is no skew man, the H2H just is how it is.

You like to do that prime, not prime stuff, with some Player1.0, Player 1.5, Player2.0 stuff which is nonsense to me.
 
The H2H ain't scewd. Fed's best surface is HARDCOURT, you can't say let's compare the on clay and INDOOR HC.

As I said even with the IHC-CC stuff i would give Nadal the edge over 10 meetings.
Fed beat Nadal how many times in 18 occasions or so, they didn't play as much on IHC.

No but what you can compare is the fact over 50% of their meetings have been on clay despite it being about 1/3 of the tournaments on the ATP tour.

Keep digging though. The more you say that Nadal would have a better chance of beating Federer on indoor hard just keeps reinforcing the fact that if a surface doesn't take Nadal's spin well he is vulnerable.
 
2004-2007 Nadal wasn't at his prime.
There is no skew man, the H2H just is how it is.

You like to do that prime, not prime stuff, with some Player1.0, Player 1.5, Player2.0 stuff which is nonsense to me.

You gotta be kidding me. 2007 Nadal has already won 3 slams by Wimby time, reaches the final, almost beats Fed, and he's not prime? What a joke. And you know it.
 

kragster

Hall of Fame
Against the field no question, peak Fed is a lot better than peak Rafa. In fact post peak Fed still dismantles any one outside the top 4.

Against each other peak Rafa wins the majority. Although the H2H is skewed because of the predominance of clay meetings, an even surface distribution is illogical because the tour is not designed evenly. A logical surface meetings distribution would follow the year schedule. Basically something like 40% meetings on slow HC, 20% on fast HC, 30% on clay and 10% on grass.

Slow HC Rafa 3- Fed 1
Fast HC Fed 2, Rafa 0
Clay Rafa 3- Fed 0
Grass Fed 1 - Rafa 0

Overall 6-4 in favor of Rafa. Repeat this over about 30 meetings and the normalized H2H should be something like 18-12. So instead of 2:1 (current) it should be more like 1.5:1. That diversion aside I think the intent of this topic was performance against the field. And its really no contest there, Fed is just too good against the field.
 
Last edited:
M

monfed

Guest
We saw what Nadal was able to do when he matured as a player.
i.e Wimbledon 2007 he was well able to beat Fed who was at his peak.

Wait,what? Fed wasn't at his peak in Wimby 07. Prime? Sure.
And Nadal lost quite convincingly in the 5th set,6-2 in that final.
 
No but what you can compare is the fact over 50% of their meetings have been on clay despite it being about 1/3 of the tournaments on the ATP tour.

Keep digging though. The more you say that Nadal would have a better chance of beating Federer on indoor hard just keeps reinforcing the fact that if a surface doesn't take Nadal's spin well he is vulnerable.

This is actually the definitive proof that it's simply a matchup advantage in the Fed vs Nadal case. The ****s always counter with why Fed has no problem with any other lefties, and the data indicate, take away the awesome spin from Nadal and he becomes useless against Fed. Keep that awesome spin for Nadal and make him right handed and he becomes useless against Fed. Only with the combination of awesome spin and lefty does he have a chance against Fed, and all of that could only be realized on clay for the most part.
 
Against the field no question, peak Fed is a lot better than peak Rafa. In fact post peak Fed still dismantles any one outside the top 4.

Against each other peak Rafa wins the majority. Although the H2H is skewed because of the predominance of clay meetings, an even surface distribution is illogical because the tour is not designed evenly. A logical surface meetings distribution would follow the year schedule. Basically something like 40% meetings on slow HC, 20% on fast HC, 30% on clay and 10% on grass.

Slow HC Rafa 3- Fed 1
Fast HC Fed 2, Rafa 0
Clay Rafa 3- Fed 0
Grass Fed 1 - Rafa 0

Overall 6-4 in favor of Rafa. So instead of 2:1 (current) it should be more like 1.5:1. That diversion aside I think the intent of this topic was performance against the field. And its really no contest there, Fed is just too good against the field.

This is a very fair and unbiased assessment from a *********. I pretty much agree with this except that I think slow HC would be tied or maybe 3-2 for Nadal. Don't think Fed can ever lead the H2H against Nadal because of the matchup, but there is no doubt with anyone with half a brain that the H2H is indeed skewed as it stands.
 

PSNELKE

Legend
You gotta be kidding me. 2007 Nadal has already won 3 slams by Wimby time, reaches the final, almost beats Fed, and he's not prime? What a joke. And you know it.

Nadal was at his prime in freakin 2007??
Sweet lord he had yet to reach a HC Semifinal and you think he was in his prime??
Holy fckin cow, this is ridiculous.
 
Top