If you had to pick a player to play for your life--

F

FedExpress117

Rookie
Say if you have to pick a player to play a match for you--with your life on the line. You can choose any player from any year (like 2007 Federer, current Djokovic). The surface on which this match will be played on will be random (grass, clay, indoor hard, outdoor hard). The player which your player will be pitted against will be randomly selected from all past and current Grand Slam champions in the Open Era (that player will be in his prime). Best of 5 sets match. Who would you choose to play for your life?

I would probably choose 2011 Djokovic and pray that the random combination of Nadal and clay isn't selected.
 
I'd pick the same player that I picked in the other 450 threads that asked this exact same question.
 
Either 2006 Federer or 2011 Djokovic. I would obviously pick Nadal if I knew the match were going to be played on clay but he's too too susceptible to lose to lower ranked guys on HC and grass, even at his peak.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
Either 2006 Federer or 2011 Djokovic. I would obviously pick Nadal if I knew the match were going to be played on clay but he's too too susceptible to lose to lower ranked guys on HC and grass, even at his peak.
Click to expand...

When was the last time Nadal lost a BO5 match on hard court to a lower ranked player? On grass in the last 3 years yes but then Federer has also survived a few close matches on grass in the last 5 years such as Benneteau, Falla etc. not to mention Stakhovsky. Besides any version of Federer is highly doubtful against Nadal. Even in 2006, his best year he lost 4 times to Nadal who was only 19-20.
 
I would pick 2005 or 2006 Federer, who was basically unplayable with the exception of Nadal on clay, who would beat anyone ever anyway IMO based on average level on the surface.

2011 Djokovic was only like that for about six months, so if we are saying their level of play averaged across the whole year, Federer would be better.
 
zep said:
When was the last time Nadal lost a BO5 match on hard court to a lower ranked player? On grass in the last 3 years yes but then Federer has also survived a few close matches on grass in the last 5 years such as Benneteau, Falla etc. not to mention Stakhovsky. Besides any version of Federer is highly doubtful against Nadal. Even in 2006, his best year he lost 4 times to Nadal who was only 19-20.
Click to expand...

When Stan rekt him 6-3 6-2 3-6 6-3.
 
It's definitely between peak Federer and peak nadal. Federer is the logical choice because of his dominance of hard court and grass while in his prime nadal only ever managed to dominate hard courts in 2010. But since nadal plays every point as if it was the last and he is a fighter maybe I'd go with him.
 
zep said:
LOL. He did not mean a top 10 player like Wawrinka otherwise Djokovic also lost to him in the same tournament.
Click to expand...

"He did not mean"?
Double accounts?

Anyway, Stan was lower ranked than Nadal.
That's all you asked for. :)
 
Firstservingman said:
"He did not mean"?
Double accounts?

Anyway, Stan was lower ranked than Nadal.
That's all you asked for. :)
Click to expand...


He wouldn't have meant that because Stan also beat Djokovic, his pick. He was obviously talking about lower ranked players, not a top 10 player in the final. Basic common sense really.
 
Anyway my pick would be 2008 Nadal for grass/clay and 2013 Nadal for hard. Indoor no comment. :P
 
zep said:
You are talking about an injured Nadal, had to point that out now that you have the ancient Federer. :)
Click to expand...

Stan was also pummeling Nadal before he got injured.
Also he only injured himself trying to keep up with Stan's onslaught, that isn't Stan's fault.
He won fair and square.

Federer cannot help his age, Nadal's decision to play like he does gives him injuries, so he can often help that.

Nadal lost fair and square to a lower ranked player on HC Bo5 this year.

He also hasn't played many HC slams recently (USO 2012, AO 2013, USO 2014). Considering he skipped them, he wouldn't have won them (or at least he didn't think he would have).
He isn't some kind of HC slam GOAT, please don't make him out to be.

Prime Federer on HC was almost unplayable for several years in Bo5 matches, and went 111-2 in all HC matches at one point.

For HC Federer is the obvious choice.
On grass it is no contest.
Even on clay only Nadal has been able to beat him more often than not.

Federer is a solid choice because he is the GOAT.
It almost isn't fair allowing us to pick Prime Federer as a matter of fact.
 
Pre Open Era: Rosewall 60 (When he was voted tied with Gonzales for #1, because he could win on any surface.)

In the Open Era: Laver 69, Connors 74, Borg 79, Fed 2006, Novak 2011
 
Firstservingman said:
Stan was also pummeling Nadal before he got injured.
Also he only injured himself trying to keep up with Stan's onslaught, that isn't Stan's fault.
He won fair and square.

Federer cannot help his age, Nadal's decision to play like he does gives him injuries, so he can often help that.

Nadal lost fair and square to a lower ranked player on HC Bo5 this year.

He also hasn't played many HC slams recently (USO 2012, AO 2013, USO 2014). Considering he skipped them, he wouldn't have won them (or at least he didn't think he would have).
He isn't some kind of HC slam GOAT, please don't make him out to be.

Prime Federer on HC was almost unplayable for several years in Bo5 matches, and went 111-2 in all HC matches at one point.

For HC Federer is the obvious choice.
On grass it is no contest.
Even on clay only Nadal has been able to beat him more often than not.

Federer is a solid choice because he is the GOAT.
It almost isn't fair allowing us to pick Prime Federer as a matter of fact.
Click to expand...


Nadal has beaten prime Federer at AO 2009. Now don't tell me he got old at 27. :) He has also beaten him before that on grass and not to mention clay. Federer has not beaten Nadal on hard and clay in a GS match and has lost 8 times.
 
Last edited:
zep said:
Nadal has beaten prime Federer at AO 2009. Now don't tell me he got old at 27. :)
Click to expand...
Yes, he did, relatively. The greatest players have peak years before age 27.

Fed peaked between age 23 and 25. Noak peaked at age 24, in 2011.

The difference is that the greatest players have a slow decline.

We can't tell when Nadal's peak should have been - too many injuries. But mostly likely around 2008, when he had a whopping 51% on return games for the whole year on clay.

That's what's is wrong with NOW. Young players have been crap for several years.
 
zep said:
Nadal has beaten prime Federer at AO 2009. Now don't tell me he got old at 27. :) He has also beaten him before that on grass and not to mention clay. Federer has not beaten Nadal on hard and clay in a GS match and has lost 8 times.
Click to expand...

Federer's peak was 2006-2007. AO was changed to a brutally slow Plexicushion surface in 2008 which is why Nadal even had a shot at the title. We all know that Federer (and even less consistent players like Nalbandian) can make a mockery of Nadal on faster (indoor) style courts.

Overall though, prime Federer is the most consistent player across all surfaces and much less likely to lose to a random nobody than prime Nadal. In 2006-2007, the only person Federer really lost to is Nadal and on clay.

If your life is on the line, you choose prime Nadal, and this match ends up on an indoor court....good luck. Prime Davydenko might be all it takes to put an end to you.
 
How can you possibly pose this question. What if one were to choose Mcenroe in 1984? How does technology affect this match? What if chose mac and the player he was drawn was federer or nadal? do they get poly strings, wide body/modern rackets and the slowed surfaces??

You can only go by era.

60's - Laver
70's - Connors/Borg…both great fighters
80's - Mcenroe/Lendl…probably lendl given mac can blow up
90's - Agassi…the reason i didn't pick pete is because he couldn't win on clay. Agassi has a good shot on any surface
2000's - Federer or Nadal - they both have their pros and cons, leaning towards Nadal. Would be more at ease knowing he would fight for every damn ball. hope he doesn't get injured mid match though...
 
There are a few choices but Pancho Gonzalez is a great choice. Jimmy Connors and Bud Collins would pick him.
 
Gary Duane said:
Yes, he did, relatively. The greatest players have peak years before age 27.
Click to expand...

LOL did you see how well Federer was playing at AO that year? Till semi it was one of his better performances there. The same can be said about the 2008 Wimbledon when he did not drop a set from Halle till the Wimbledon semi. But as soon as he loses to Nadal in the final he gets old at 26-27. And the guy is good enough to be world number 2 at 33. Give some credit where it is due. Nadal outplayed him. There was no age factor.
 
zep said:
LOL did you see how well Federer was playing at AO that year? Till semi it was one of his better performances there. The same can be said about the 2008 Wimbledon when he did not drop a set from Halle till the Wimbledon semi. But as soon as he loses to Nadal in the final he gets old at 26-27. And the guy is good enough to be world number 2 at 33. Give some credit where it is due. Nadal outplayed him. There was no age factor.
Click to expand...

Yes, Nadal won, we all saw the matches...now let's get back to the thread.
 
zep said:
LOL did you see how well Federer was playing at AO that year? Till semi it was one of his better performances there. The same can be said about the 2008 Wimbledon when he did not drop a set from Halle till the Wimbledon semi. But as soon as he loses to Nadal in the final he gets old at 26-27. And the guy is good enough to be world number 2 at 33. Give some credit where it is due. Nadal outplayed him. There was no age factor.
Click to expand...

Let's see how Nadal plays when he's 33.
 
shawn1122 said:
Federer's peak was 2006-2007. AO was changed to a brutally slow Plexicushion surface in 2008 which is why Nadal even had a shot at the title. We all know that Federer (and even less consistent players like Nalbandian) can make a mockery of Nadal on faster (indoor) style courts.

Overall though, prime Federer is the most consistent player across all surfaces and much less likely to lose to a random nobody than prime Nadal. In 2006-2007, the only person Federer really lost to is Nadal and on clay.

If your life is on the line, you choose prime Nadal, and this match ends up on an indoor court....good luck. Prime Davydenko might be all it takes to put an end to you.
Click to expand...


When Nadal can win on DecoTurf which is a quicker surface than rebound ace he could have won on rebound ace too. Rebound ace was considered as a slow surface. Hewitt complained about it consistently.

In 2004-07, Federer lost to Nadal many times on hard courts including a fast court in Dubai. Nadal was not good enough to be in hard court slam finals at that time due to his age. In fact Nadal has beaten Federer since 2004 on hard courts. So please cut the crap.
 
Last edited:
pc1 said:
There are a few choices but Pancho Gonzalez is a great choice. Jimmy Connors and Bud Collins would pick him.
Click to expand...
Other than clay he would have been at the top of my list, also Sampras. But I don't know how much clay Pancho played.
 
zep said:
Probably not as good as Federer if he continues till then. That has nothing to do with Federer getting old at 26-27.
Click to expand...

Calling Fed "old" at 26-27 is ridiculous. But as he closed in on his 30s the age factor definitely comes into play.

I'm astonished he's still able to play tennis at his level though.
 
Connors-In-5.jpg
 
zep said:
In 2006-07, Federer lost to Nadal many times on hard courts including a fast court in Dubai. Nadal was not good enough to be in hard court slam finals at that time due to his age. In fact Nadal has beaten Federer since 2004 on hard courts. So please cut the crap.
Click to expand...
Check your stats.

In 2006 and 2007 Fed lost to Nadal one time on HCs , at Dubai.

There were only three meetings those years on HCs.

Fed was ahead 3/2 on HCs in H2H through 2008 (no meeting in 2008).

So please cut the crap.
 
jm1980 said:
Calling Fed "old" at 26-27 is ridiculous. But as he closed in on his 30s the age factor definitely comes into play (ie: the last two AO matches).

I'm astonished he's still able to play tennis at his level though.
Click to expand...

I actually think the best match Federer has played against Nadal at RG was in 2011. His 2012 AO match was also very high quality and he had plenty of chances to get ahead. People overplay the age thingy. This year he has been exceptionally good. At this stage you have to say that Djokovic and Nadal are better than him over BO5, which is natural. Cilic actually played unbelievably well to beat him at US open, there was not much he could have done differently. Otherwise he would have won the title.
 
jm1980 said:
Calling Fed "old" at 26-27 is ridiculous. But as he closed in on his 30s the age factor definitely comes into play.

I'm astonished he's still able to play tennis at his level though.
Click to expand...
At 27 he had already declined a bit. That's the point. It's happening to Novak right now. It happens to ALL these players. Physical peak for males in this sport is somewhere around 23-25.

I don't like it, but that's the way it is.
 
Gary Duane said:
Check your stats.

In 2006 and 2007 Fed lost to Nadal one time on HCs , at Dubai.

There were only three meetings those years on HCs.

Fed was ahead 3/2 on HCs in H2H through 2008 (no meeting in 2008).

So please cut the crap.
Click to expand...

I actually meant 2004-07, it was a typo. So Nadal has been beating him on hard courts even when he was not in his peak and Federer was in his "mythical" peak.
 
Why is this becoming a Federer vs. Nadal thread? Opinions aren't going to change, so I have no clue what it is that you're trying to accomplish.
 
Sirius Black said:
Why is this becoming a Federer vs. Nadal thread? Opinions aren't going to change, so I have no clue what it is that you're trying to accomplish.
Click to expand...

Because everything around here becomes a Federer vs. Nadal thread. Just pray to whatever god you believe in that Nadal doesn't get 4 more RGs and gets to 18 slams.
 
It depends on how the surface is chosen. Modern surfaces or classic surfaces?
And you get to pick players of current decade (after 2003 or so?)
 
zep said:
I actually meant 2004-07, it was a typo. So Nadal has been beating him on hard courts even when he was not in his peak and Federer was in his "mythical" peak.
Click to expand...
Your arguing with the wrong person. I can make a case for either Nadal or Fed being the dominant player, and I can play the peak game too.

But the fact is that Nadal did not finally dominate the H2H game until Fed was beyond his peak.

I would argue that Nadal is past his peak now by a couple years and will be three years beyond it when he turns 28. That's what makes 2013 so impressive.

But I believe that Fed is better on hardcourts, peak to peak. If you want to argue HC dominance, argue Fed vs. Novak. ;)
 
Gary Duane said:
But I believe that Fed is better on hardcourts, peak to peak. If you want to argue HC dominance, argue Fed vs. Novak. ;)
Click to expand...

He maybe better in general. I wouldn't argue against it. But if it's a matchup between peak Nadal vs peak Federer over BO5, personally I would pick Nadal every single time on clay and outdoor hard. It is not a difficult choice for me. On grass (second week) it is an even contest and on indoor hard Federer is the clear favorite.
 
Nadal on clay.

Fed on grass.

Sampras on fast hard.

Novak on slow hard.

Fed for indoors.

Unknown court, unknown conditions - Fed.

Back after a 7 month time out - Rafa.
 
Gary Duane said:
At 27 he had already declined a bit. That's the point. It's happening to Novak right now. It happens to ALL these players. Physical peak for males in this sport is somewhere around 23-25.

I don't like it, but that's the way it is.
Click to expand...

Out of interest, why do you think that Novak is declining right now? His confidence and fitness have never been better and he finished the year with the most titles of any player (7) including 1 Slam (Wimbledon), the WTF and 4 Masters and as the undisputed World #1!
 
In this hypothetical scenario, I would pick those with the most heart. Remember your life is on the line. So, Chang, Nadal, maybe even Connors. You know they don't ever give up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Player to play for your life
2
Replies
87
Views
7K
TJfederer16
TJfederer16
Ash Doyle
Three matches for your life
Replies
2
Views
726
Kevin Patrick
K
Wynter
If You Had to Pick A Player To Play For Your Life
2 3
Replies
115
Views
7K
Federer20042006
Federer20042006
racquet_jedi
Pro to serve/return for your life
Replies
41
Views
4K
jmverdugo
jmverdugo
Leandro2045
If you could pick one player to win one set to save your life ?
2 3
Replies
108
Views
6K
Dan Lobb
D
Back
Top