Peak Federer vs peak Panatta on clay?

[axlrose]

Another hypothetical match-up, boring as hell.

Panatta beat peak Borg, the co-GOAT on clay.

Meanwhile, Fred beat Soderling, the man who beat another co-GOAT, to claim his Career GS.

Who wins?

 

[NEW_BORN]

If there's one thing that i've learnt over the years, it's that Federer wins ALL hypothetical matches. Period.

 

[Dilexson]

No sausage? much disappoint.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Panatta had the highest peak on clay (followed by Söderling) so he wins.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Judging by the OP's posting history, the only correct answer is Panatta.

I share the sentiment about the sausage, and where the hell went Murray's dog?

 

[Phoenix1983]

Fedr.

 

[helterskelter]

If there's one thing that i've learnt over the years, it's that Federer wins ALL hypothetical matches. Period.

He even beats peak uninjured moral champion Nadal? Surely you jest!

 

[Sysyphus]

He even beats peak uninjured moral champion Nadal? Surely you jest!

This is a tricky paradox I have grappled with before.

What happens when you try to calculate the outcome of uninjured Nadal versus peak hypothetical Federer:

(peak hypotheticalerer won the accompanying poll, though)

 

[ABCD]

Anyone who asks this question did not watch Panatta as I assume that you watched Federer. You can maybe discuss whether Panatta would be able to take a a point or 2 points in a row against Federer.

 

[Sport]

Panatta had the highest peak on clay (followed by Söderling) so he wins.

2010 RG refutes your claim.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

2010 RG refutes your claim.

How? No one displayed as high of a peak level as Panatta in 1976 or Söderling in 2009 when they beat the clay GOATs.

 

[Sport]

How? No one displayed as high of a peak level as Panatta in 1976 or Söderling in 2009 when they beat the clay GOATs.

Nadal 2010 displayed a higher level.

 

[helterskelter]

Nadal 2010 displayed a higher level.

Don't know about that. I mean Nadal of 2008 was clearly better. And Nadal of 2007 and 2012 probably better. (Losing one set shouldn't be the difference, bearing in mind the lost set was against Federer/Djokovic and the 2010 Nadal didn't play either and had to go to two tiebreaks against Almagro and one against Melzer. Nadal was actually in great form in 2009 apart from that one bad day.

 

[buscemi]

If we're going for a single match peak, Panatta's peak might actually be his 1975 win over Bjorn in Madrid and not his French Open win the next year. In Madrid, he beat Borg, 7-5, 6-0, 6-2.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Nadal 2010 displayed a higher level.

RAFA didn't beat anyone on RAFA's level.

 

[True Fanerer]

Nadal 2010 displayed a higher level.

How do you even get your own fav player's years wrong?

 

[ibbi]

Panatta beat Borg by bringing him to net with drop shots and feeding him junk, I don't think either of those things will cause Fed much trouble.

 

[NEW_BORN]

He even beats peak uninjured moral champion Nadal? Surely you jest!

Nadal, uninjured? That's an oxymoron if ever i saw one.

 

[axlrose]

Panatta beat Borg by bringing him to net with drop shots and feeding him junk, I don't think either of those things will cause Fed much trouble.

Why? I believe Borg is faster than Federer, solid at both wings so if drop shots and junk balls trouble him, they trouble Fed too.

I think Panatta played a very varied game. He used junk balls, he pulled Borg to he net and approached the net whenever had a chance, he turned from deffence to offence so fast.

 

[ibbi]

Why? I believe Borg is faster than Federer, solid at both wings so if drop shots and junk balls trouble him, they trouble Fed too.

I think Panatta played a very varied game. He used junk balls, he pulled Borg to he net and approached the net whenever had a chance, he turned from deffence to offence so fast.

Well, Federer is more comfortable at net, so unlikely to be put off by going in there in the way that was a (relative) weak spot of Borg's to be exploited. He's also a more aggressive player, more happy generating his own pace.