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

[DerekNoleFam1]

Definitely 2011 Djoker for an unknown surface, even on clay that year he only had 1 surprise loss.

 

[John6239]

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.

Obviously nadal is excluded from talking about Federer playing for your life. It is a bad matchup for fed. Nadal leads 10-8 outside of clay.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

I think it matters a lot whether the players knows the stakes. Let's say they were fighting for their own lives or for someone they cared about or even a random person as the question stated.

Then it becomes a combination of ability and skill (stll obviously the prdominant factor), but then also grit and determination when really needed.

I'd have to pick Nadal then, with 2011 Djoko up there. Federer on faster surfaces in peak 2006 form, but would go with Nadal h2h peak for peak if it was "for my life".

 

[Gary Duane]

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!

Because I believe he peaked in 2011, and that is simply when healthy men are at their peak. His peak was probably delayed because of health.

This year is very good. But he's not in God-mode. Most of the greatest players have only one or two absolutely peak years, and after then they try to stay as close to that as they can. And some of the very best hand on very well - Gonzales, Rosewall, Connors, Agassi and now Fed.

This is no criticism of Novak. It's a criticism of mortality!

 

[pc1]

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.

Gonzalez was terrific on clay and won a lot of clay court tournaments. He beat Rosewall and Laver numerous times on clay. Gonzalez enjoyed baseline play.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Ronnie O'Sullivan, even with a busted ankle.

oh wait, wrong sport.

Yeah, I'd have to know where it would be played before I put my life on the line. I could hardly say Roger if it happened to be a match on clay vs Rafa, etc.

To play along, I'll go with Rafa.

 

[Gary Duane]

Gonzalez was terrific on clay and won a lot of clay court tournaments. He beat Rosewall and Laver numerous times on clay. Gonzalez enjoyed baseline play.

Then I'd vote for Pancho, seriously. I only got to see him play when he was nearly 40, and not on clay.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Because I believe he peaked in 2011, and that is simply when healthy men are at their peak. His peak was probably delayed because of health.

This year is very good. But he's not in God-mode. Most of the greatest players have only one or two absolutely peak years, and after then they try to stay as close to that as they can. And some of the very best hand on very well - Gonzales, Rosewall, Connors, Agassi and now Fed.

This is no criticism of Novak. It's a criticism of mortality!

I don't agree, I'd say tennis had an earlier peak age of around 24 or even younger due to burn out (caused by poor fitness training) as well as it being mainly reflex based, which probably is the athletic skill that peaks the youngest.

Faster surfaces may allow for less brute athleticism which allows older players to still have a shot (Federer at W now), but they also reward reflexes which is why the "peak" has tended to be much lower than other sports.

Tennis is still not a strength based sport where the peak age is 30 or over, but I would say it's now about the same as other sports that require athleticism and fitness, which takes some time to build up.

To my eye aside from the mental part of it, Novak is playing about as well as ever, certainly no drop off athletically in my view. Nadal with all the miles admittedly has had some althought it's only spotted occassionally, but has adjusted his play accordingly.

I see the peak age in tennis now the same as most of the North American pro sports: somewhere around 26 to 28.

 

[Gary Duane]

Ronnie O'Sullivan, even with a busted ankle.

oh wait, wrong sport.

Yeah, I'd have to know where it would be played before I put my life on the line. I could hardly say Roger if it happened to be a match on clay vs Rafa, etc.

To play along, I'll go with Rafa.

On clay I'd have to go with Rafa or Borg.

 

[cc0509]

If you told me the opponent would be selected from THIS generation on any surface I would probably pick Nadal to play for my life in a best of five match but since you threw in the caveat that any grand slam champion past or current could be randomly selected on any surface as an opponent I think I would have to stay away from Nadal and pick prime Federer. I can't for example see Nadal beating prime Sampras on 90's grass whereas I can see prime Federer beating him there.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

If you told me the opponent would be selected from THIS generation on any surface I would probably pick Nadal to play for my life in a best of five match but since you threw in the caveat that any grand slam champion past or current could be randomly selected on any surface as an opponent I think I would have to stay away from Nadal and pick prime Federer. I can't for example see Nadal beating prime Sampras on 90's grass whereas I can see prime Federer beating him there.

Agreed.

Now: Nadal

Across generations : Fed (with the caveat that if were Nadal vs Fed, I'd go with Nadal)

Also, 2011 Djokovic would be up there if we could pick a player's peak year.

 

[Gary Duane]

Agreed.

Now: Nadal

Across generations : Fed (with the caveat that if were Nadal vs Fed, I'd go with Nadal)

Also, 2011 Djokovic would be up there if we could pick a player's peak year.

Why not pick a peak year? Even the best of them only had a couple. It's just that for some their non-peak years were closer to their peaks.

 

[ark_28]

I would pick Sir John Isner, because he plays a brand of big man tennis that brings fear to his opponents, added to that the fact that the match would be on his racket would make me feel very comfortable about the situation

 

[kingcheetah]

Prime Federer, no doubt. If he had to deal with Nadal on clay, it was a good run.

Maybe I'd get lucky and get prime Federer vs roddick, or some other potential beat-down.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Just imagine it was a John Isner and Nicolas Mahut situation. Oh great, my man won and saved my life, but the pressure already killed me. What a shame.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Just imagine it was a John Isner and Nicolas Mahut situation. Oh great, my man won and saved my life, but the pressure already killed me. What a shame.

haha! LOL