NatF
Bionic Poster
* emphasis on name was intentional
I'll begin by saying that I do believe those factors mentioned in the thread title matter, but only in terms of being factors that affect form - they do not by themselves dictate the form of a player in a year, tournament or especially match. This was partly inspired by something @-NN- said which is that Federer has peaked 19 times, Nadal 16 and Djokovic 12.
I think our definition of a players peak should be expanded, peak shouldn't be a locked period of time e.g. a period of years, we should think of it in terms of tournaments and matches. The generally acknowledged time periods that we speak of in terms of peak such as Djokovic 2011-2016, Federer 2004-2007 and so on are simply when there was a pattern of peak matches and tournaments from the player in question. Anything we say about the relative level of play should still be informed;
1) By watching the tennis matches
2) A little stat looking to supplement what we've viewed
Assumptions based on age and name are simply that assumptions. Players raise their level and drop it from match to match.
There's also an emphasis on here about the completeness of a players game - usually this is accompanied by saying such and such player was a baby. IMO having a complete game matters less than executing on a given day and playing the big points well. If you win your points with just the serve and forehand rather than off both wings it doesn't matter, what matters is the net gain in terms of winning points. Likewise if a player is older but the serve is clicking and they're cleaning the lines off the ground it doesn't matter if their movement is below par because they're controlling the baseline.
Matches and tournaments should be evaluated case by case independent of any assumptions about the players involved. This is especially true of name and career accomplishments, more accomplished players are of course more likely to go on court and play at a high level - but they still need to go on and do it. An ATG is mainly an ATG because of their ability to bring a high level on a consistent basis, the margins in tennis are small and lesser players can play at the same high levels in a more hit and miss way.
Basically people on here are too rigid and superficial in the way they judge players and matches. I had a lot I wanted to say so may have forgotten some of it...
I'll begin by saying that I do believe those factors mentioned in the thread title matter, but only in terms of being factors that affect form - they do not by themselves dictate the form of a player in a year, tournament or especially match. This was partly inspired by something @-NN- said which is that Federer has peaked 19 times, Nadal 16 and Djokovic 12.
I think our definition of a players peak should be expanded, peak shouldn't be a locked period of time e.g. a period of years, we should think of it in terms of tournaments and matches. The generally acknowledged time periods that we speak of in terms of peak such as Djokovic 2011-2016, Federer 2004-2007 and so on are simply when there was a pattern of peak matches and tournaments from the player in question. Anything we say about the relative level of play should still be informed;
1) By watching the tennis matches
2) A little stat looking to supplement what we've viewed
Assumptions based on age and name are simply that assumptions. Players raise their level and drop it from match to match.
There's also an emphasis on here about the completeness of a players game - usually this is accompanied by saying such and such player was a baby. IMO having a complete game matters less than executing on a given day and playing the big points well. If you win your points with just the serve and forehand rather than off both wings it doesn't matter, what matters is the net gain in terms of winning points. Likewise if a player is older but the serve is clicking and they're cleaning the lines off the ground it doesn't matter if their movement is below par because they're controlling the baseline.
Matches and tournaments should be evaluated case by case independent of any assumptions about the players involved. This is especially true of name and career accomplishments, more accomplished players are of course more likely to go on court and play at a high level - but they still need to go on and do it. An ATG is mainly an ATG because of their ability to bring a high level on a consistent basis, the margins in tennis are small and lesser players can play at the same high levels in a more hit and miss way.
Basically people on here are too rigid and superficial in the way they judge players and matches. I had a lot I wanted to say so may have forgotten some of it...