Top 5 at each slam for the top 5 of the open era

[abmk]

Rating the top 5 events at each slam for these guys (including combination of actual performance and peak/highest level possible)

Federer:

AO: 2007,2004/2005,2010,2009
RG: 2006,2007,2011,2005/2009
Wim: 2006,2005/2003,2004,2007
USO: 2006,2004,2005,2007,2008

Nadal:

AO: 2009,2012, 2017, 2014/2019
RG: 2008,2007,2012,2010,2017
Wim: 2008,2007,2010,2018,2006/2011 (tough to seperate)
USO: 2010,2013,2011,2017,2019

Djokovic:

AO: 2011,2008/2019,2013/2016
RG: 2011,2013/2016,2014/2008/2012/2015 (pick any 2 out of the 4)
Wim: 2015,2011/2014,2018,2012
USO: 2011,2015,2018/2012,2008

Sampras:

AO: 1994,1997,2000,1995,1993
RG: 1996/1994,1993,1992,1997
Wim: 1994,1997,1995,1999,1993
USO: 1993,1995,1996,1990,2000/2002 (tough to seperate, clearly better final in 02 obviously, but then didn't face a marauding Safin and went 5 vs rusedski in 02, beat Krajicek&Hewitt in 00)

Borg:

RG: 1978,1980,1975,1981,1979
Wim: 1976,1978,1980,1979,1977
USO: 1980,1981,1976,1978,1979
4th best event of the year: 1981 Masters/1980 Masters, 1978 Masters, 1975 Masters, 1974 WCT (81 Masters more impressive than 80 Masters in that he beat Lendl so handily, but he did tank vs Gene Mayer and was unbeaten in 1980 Masters)

 

[RS]

Gonna leave out Borg since I have less knowledge of that era sadly.

Nadal
AO 2009,2012 , 2017 , 2014 , 2019
RG 2008,2012,2007,2017,2010
Wim 2008,2007,2010/2018,2006/2011
USO 2010,2013,2011,2017,2019

Federer
AO 2007,2004/2005,2009/2010
RG 2011,2006/2007/2009 ,2005
Wim 2005/2006,2003,2004,2007
USO 2006 , 2004 , 2005/2007/2008

Djokovic
AO 2011 , 2008 , 2019 ,2016 ,2012
RG 2011/2013/2016,2015,2014
Wim 2015 , 2011/2018,2014, 2012
USO 2011,2015/2018 , 2012 , 2007

Sampras
AO - 1994 , 1997 , 2000 , 1995 , 1993
RG - 1994 , 1996 , 1993 , 1992 , 1997
Wim - 1994 ,1999,1997,1995,1993
USO - 1993 , 1995 ,1996 , 1990 , 2002 , 2000

 

[InsideOut900]

Rating the top 5 events at each slam for these guys (including combination of actual performance and peak/highest level possible)

Federer:

AO: 2007,2004,2005,2010/2009
RG: depends on perspective, 2006 for the whole run, but rather subpar final; 2009 so-so run, fantastic final; 2011 best SF+F combo
Would say 2011, 2009, 2006, 2007, 2005
Wim: 2006,2005/2003,2004,2007 yes
USO: 2006,2004,2005,2007,2008 yes

Nadal:

AO: 2009,2012, 2017, 2014/2019 yes
RG: 2008,2007,2012,2010,2017 yes
Wim: 2008,2007,2010,2006/2011,2018 (he was in better physical shape during 2006/2011 and the 2006 SF was a really good performance,ditto 4R and SF in 2011)
USO: 2010,2013,2017,2011,2019(2017 underrated for me, barely worse than 2013)

Djokovic:

AO: 2011,2008,2013,2019/2016 (2013 was better in every single round compared to 2016 from 1R to even the SF, F slightly better in 2016, more consistent, but reached lesser heights, 2008 was very good start to finish, only dropped a set to a well playing Tsonga)
RG: 2011,2013/2016,2014/2008/2012 (pick any 2 out of the 3) yes, more or less since we only got to see a single relevant match in 2011, which was excellent
Wim: 2015,2011/2014,2018,2012 yes
USO: 2011,2015,2018/2012,2008 2012 ahead of 2018, got screwed by the conditions, was very close to 2011 form

Sampras:

AO: 1994,1997,2000,1995,1993 yes
RG: 1996,1994,1993,1992,1997 I guess...
Wim: 1994,1997,1995,1999,1993 yes
USO: 1993,1995,1996/1990,2000/2002 (2001 could be in the mix at the bottom, maybe he performs better in the F in another match-up)

 

[abmk]

For me Fed AO 2010 above AO 2009 for sure. He actually served well in the 2010 final unlike in 2009 final and was just as good off the ground.
Had 2 excellent matches in AO 2010 4R&semi like in AO 2009 QF/SF.

Berdych&Davy matches more or less the same level, berdych match a tad worse IMO.

Yeah, some struggle vs Andreev in 1R in 2010, but he didn't face an opponent like that in 2009. So.

 

[abmk]

@InsideOut900 :

Federer:
1. Can't rate 2009 that highly given the Haas&Acusaso matches.
2. Already commented about AO 2009 and 2010 above

Nadal :
1. nadal played clean tennis vs Murray in Wim 11 SF, but Murray collapsed after missing a simple FH sitter, so don't rate it as highly as you do.
2. Nadal struggled a bit early on in USO 2017. Played excellent vs dolgo (watched it live), allowed Rublev to self-destruct. Lost the only set where delpo played well. granted delpo would've lost 2nd set anyways. But if delpo was fresh, match could've gone either way. In the final, Nadal played well, but Anderson made him look like Ivanisevic and was serving absolutely dumb (serving more down the T than wide though Nadal was returning from Antarctica).
Question is this: would a healthy 2017 fed have beaten him at that USO? I'd say yes. Would 2017 fed beat 2011 USO Nadal there? I think he'd lose.
2011 over 2017 even with mediocre serving in the 2011 final.

For djokovic:
1. 2012 USO should be ahead of 2018, but given the conditions were what they were, had to put them equal.
2. I watched a big chunk of RG 11 b/w djokovic&delpo as well. Djokovic won the first set comfortably. Delpo was threatning at the end of day by taking set2. But darkness fell and once they resumed, djokovic took over. Also djokovic handled gasquet comfortably in R4.
3. Gotta put AO 2016 semi ahead of AO 2013 semi. But I had temporarily forgotten about djoko not being good in the 2016 QF vs Nishi.
2008 AO - If tsonga had been a tad more sharp, could've easily gone to a 5th set. outside of that bad stretch, fed was about equal to or tad better than djoko. Rearranging AO for Djoko.

For Sampras:

1. @RS puts an interesting point. 94 RG could be argued to be ahead/equal to 96 RG.
2. yeah, even I was thinking USO 2001 could also be there, but final makes it questionable, so I left it.

 

[abmk]

@RS :

Wim 99 gets over-rated due to the final. Sampras was down a set to Scud before Scud had to retire due to injury. Sampras' returning wasn't as sharp post 97 as it used to be.
Wim 97 was better.
95 final was anyways on the same level as 99 final.

 

[Nadal_Django]

Rating the top 5 events at each slam for these guys (including combination of actual performance and peak/highest level possible)

Federer:

AO: 2007,2004/2005,2010,2009
RG: 2006,2007,2011,2005/2009
Wim: 2006,2005/2003,2004,2007
USO: 2006,2004,2005,2007,2008

Nadal:

AO: 2009,2012, 2017, 2014/2019
RG: 2008,2007,2012,2010,2017
Wim: 2008,2007,2010,2018,2006/2011 (tough to seperate)
USO: 2010,2013,2011,2017,2019

Djokovic:

AO: 2011,2008/2019,2013/2016
RG: 2011,2013/2016,2014/2008/2012/2015 (pick any 2 out of the 4)
Wim: 2015,2011/2014,2018,2012
USO: 2011,2015,2018/2012,2008

Sampras:

AO: 1994,1997,2000,1995,1993
RG: 1996/1994,1993,1992,1997
Wim: 1994,1997,1995,1999,1993
USO: 1993,1995,1996,1990,2000/2002 (tough to seperate, clearly better final in 02 obviously, but then didn't face a marauding Safin and went 5 vs rusedski in 02, beat Krajicek&Hewitt in 00)

Borg:

RG: 1978,1980,1975,1981,1979
Wim: 1976,1978,1980,1979,1977
USO: 1980,1981,1976,1978,1979
4th best event of the year: 1981 Masters/1980 Masters, 1978 Masters, 1975 Masters, 1974 Masters (81 Masters more impressive than 80 Masters in that he beat Lendl so handily, but he did tank vs Gene Mayer and was unbeaten in 1980 Masters)

Federer's best performances concentrated basically in a span of just 3-4 years, in this age of mammoth medicine, training and technological advancements doesn't look very Goatesque to me tbh. Not to mention the highly questionable quality of his main opposition during those 3-4 years...

Especially when according to your list Nadal's best performances spans from 2007 to 2019( 13 years) and Djoker's from 2008 to 2019 (12 years)

Not good for Feddy... Not good at all...

 

[NonP]

For Sampras:

1. @RS puts an interesting point. 94 RG could be argued to be ahead/equal to 96 RG.
2. yeah, even I was thinking USO 2001 could also be there, but final makes it questionable, so I left it.

In absolute terms '93 RG was most likely Pistol's best. That was his only FO with over 60% of games won, and the fact that he was able to steal a set from a uber-dominant Bruguera and make the rest of the match mostly competitive (yes, I know he also ate a breadstick) all but clinches it. His '96 run does have the big motivational factor, but it's probably more than offset by his mediocre return (game).

And as you may recall Pete was gassed in the '01 USO final. Doubtful any kind of matchup would've helped a lot there.

@RS :

Wim 99 gets over-rated due to the final. Sampras was down a set to Scud before Scud had to retire due to injury. Sampras' returning wasn't as sharp post 97 as it used to be.
Wim 97 was better.
95 final was anyways on the same level as 99 final.

I know I'm already past the broken-record threshold on this but '95 Pete beats his older, slower '99 self on the Centre Court more often than not. It really felt like Pete could break Boris at will in the '95 final, while his return errors vs. Dre in '99 looked less nonchalant than sloppy. Plus the guy made zero UFEs apart from 7 DFs in the '95 final, which is in a way even more impressive than Mac's famous feat of only 3-4 UFEs (depending on the source) in the '84 final.

The only thing that gives me pause about his '95 masterclass is his 54% on 1st serves (though it was close to his subpar average that year), but I'm assuming he'd be using one of today's sticks in both cases which should boost the %s a bit.

 

[InsideOut900]

Federer:
1. Can't rate 2009 that highly given the Haas&Acusaso matches.

Guess we are always gonna disagree on weighting match importance by round.
The Acusaso dude played really well for a 2R opponent and could take a lot of players by surprise.
You also rated 2016 AO pretty high, in spite of the 4R performance.

1. nadal played clean tennis vs Murray in Wim 11 SF, but Murray collapsed after missing a simple FH sitter, so don't rate it as highly as you do

Well, it's arguable, but I don't see 2018 as a definite better.
BH aside, his game was better in 2011.
Serve aside, his game was better in 2006. I don't see 2018 doing better in the 2006/2011 draws honestly.

2. Already commented about AO 2009 and 2010 above

Sure, fair assesment.

3. Gotta put AO 2016 semi ahead of AO 2013 semi. But I had temporarily forgotten about djoko not being good in the 2016 QF vs Nishi.

3R against Harrison, considerably better, 4R classic against Stan vs Simon disaster.
2 breadsticks against Berdych, in one of his most underrated performances vs the Nishi QF.

SF he played a tad better for 2 sets in 2016, but after that he played outstanding in the 3rd set during 2013. I can rate it ahead for sure.

2013 F: made like 20 UE in the 1st set, but last 3 sets were solid, he stabilized his game.

2016 F: great 1st set, rather error filled 2nd from both, solid 3rd set from both.

2013>2016 and 2019 clearly(especially since you yourself rate people based off 7 rounds, not just SF+F like in 2019)

2008 was better in the 4R and F compared to 2013.
2013 had a bad start against Stan, but recovered afterwards.

2013 better in the SF, but 2008 SF was a masterclass too, outstanding serve clutchness the whole match and a great level in the 2nd.

Rest of the rounds comparable between 2008 and 2013.

So 2008>2013 by a bit, both peak Djokovic

 

[RS]

@RS :

Wim 99 gets over-rated due to the final. Sampras was down a set to Scud before Scud had to retire due to injury. Sampras' returning wasn't as sharp post 97 as it used to be.
Wim 97 was better.
95 final was anyways on the same level as 99 final.

Yeah I think 95/97/99 is debatable and can be switched in places of order. Sampras was impressive in the last 3 sets vs Becker in 95 and in 97 the Korda match made me blink.

 

[abmk]

In absolute terms '93 RG was most likely Pistol's best. That was his only FO with over 60% of games won, and the fact that he was able to steal a set from a uber-dominant Bruguera and make the rest of the match mostly competitive (yes, I know he also ate a breadstick) all but clinches it. His '96 run does have the big motivational factor, but it's probably more than offset by his mediocre return (game).

I think Sampras was better on clay in 94 than 93 in general. But I guess you could put 93 RG up there as well.

And as you may recall Pete was gassed in the '01 USO final. Doubtful any kind of matchup would've helped a lot there.

Yeah, draw was really tough. Against another finalist, Sampras may not have necessarily won, but would've been considerably more competitive for sure. Hewitt was the worst matchup for late career SnV Sampras.

I know I'm already past the broken-record threshold on this but '95 Pete beats his older, slower '99 self on the Centre Court more often than not. It really felt like Pete could break Boris at will in the '95 final, while his return errors vs. Dre in '99 looked less nonchalant than sloppy. Plus the guy made zero UFEs apart from 7 DFs in the '95 final, which is in a way even more impressive than Mac's famous feat of only 3-4 UFEs (depending on the source) in the '84 final.

nah, I didn't feel like Pete couldn't break Boris at will in that final, but he was returning better in 95 than in 99. Boris' DFs didn't help his cause either.
Not so sure of the zero UFes apart from the DFs part either.

 

[abmk]

Yeah I think 95/97/99 is debatable and can be switched in places of order. Sampras was impressive in the last 3 sets vs Becker in 95 and in 97 the Korda match made me blink.

Fair enough. Korda could be dangerous when on. But Sampras was up 2 sets to love anyways and lost 2 TBs - one of which was very close. Wasn't broken for a long time at that Wimby.

 

[NonP]

I think Sampras was better on clay in 94 than 93 in general.

'94 was another (and last) 60+% season for Pete but at RG he underperformed with only 56.0% won. Guess you could say that's because he had Costa and Rios in the 1st two rounds (and I can confirm Costa was already showing flashes of brilliance and that match was closer than the scoreline suggests), but my take is that '93 Pete pushes '94 Courier to 5 (if not quite upset him).

Yeah, draw was really tough. Against another finalist, Sampras may not have necessarily won, but would've been considerably more competitive for sure. Hewitt was the worst matchup for late career SnV Sampras.

With an easier draw he probably would've been fresher for the final, yes, but such what-ifs kinda defeat this whole exercise, no?

nah, I didn't feel like Pete couldn't break Boris at will in that final, but he was returning better in 95 than in 99. Boris' DFs didn't help his cause either.
Not so sure of the zero UFes apart from the DFs part either.

Maybe a bit hyperbolic to say Pete could break at will (after all we're talking about Boris on grass), but clearly less sloppy on return.

And 7 is actually the official UFE count:

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/stats-for-1995-wimbledon-final-sampras-becker.252182/#post-3248948

Of course Wimby has been rather generous with this stat for a while now and maybe the same applies here, but none other than @krosero says it's believable and that's good enough for moi.

Fair enough. Korda could be dangerous when on. But Sampras was up 2 sets to love anyways and lost 2 TBs - one of which was very close. Wasn't broken for a long time at that Wimby.

Almost missed this. Yeah the guy held serve 116/118 times. He was definitely going for max topspin during that stretch, which naturally brought down his ace tally a bit but also allowed him to win a whopping 98% of his service games for the summer into the 2nd Korda 5-setter... which he lost.

 

[abmk]

Guess we are always gonna disagree on weighting match importance by round.
The Acusaso dude played really well for a 2R opponent and could take a lot of players by surprise.
You also rated 2016 AO pretty high, in spite of the 4R performance.

Well, it's arguable, but I don't see 2018 as a definite better.
BH aside, his game was better in 2011.
Serve aside, his game was better in 2006. I don't see 2018 doing better in the 2006/2011 draws honestly.

Sure, fair assesment.

3R against Harrison, considerably better, 4R classic against Stan vs Simon disaster.
2 breadsticks against Berdych, in one of his most underrated performances vs the Nishi QF.

SF he played a tad better for 2 sets in 2016, but after that he played outstanding in the 3rd set during 2013. I can rate it ahead for sure.

2013 F: made like 20 UE in the 1st set, but last 3 sets were solid, he stabilized his game.

2016 F: great 1st set, rather error filled 2nd from both, solid 3rd set from both.

2013>2016 and 2019 clearly(especially since you yourself rate people based off 7 rounds, not just SF+F like in 2019)

2008 was better in the 4R and F compared to 2013.
2013 had a bad start against Stan, but recovered afterwards.

2013 better in the SF, but 2008 SF was a masterclass too, outstanding serve clutchness the whole match and a great level in the 2nd.

Rest of the rounds comparable between 2008 and 2013.

So 2008>2013 by a bit, both peak Djokovic

I rate the later rounds higher obviously. I don't bother so much about losing one set at the end a little bit sloppily like Djoko vs Shapo in AO 19 or fed vs kohly in Wim 09 in the earlier rounds.
Acusaso did play well for a 2nd round opponent. But fed let the 2nd set slip (when he could have taken it) and then
Went down 1-5 in the 3rd set and had to scramble to get back from there. Hence the problem. And obviously while he played well enough vs delpo in RG 2009 semi, it wasn't a clinic overall, unlike the 2019 AO SF+F combo.

I already put 2008 AO ahead of 2013/2016 AO anyways.

Its just clearly tougher to touch that level vs a below par fed compared to below par ferrer, let alone surpass it - in particular the returning. Djoko surpassed it. Even with dip in the 3rd set, I'll still go with the 2016 AO semi.

2013 AO final, didn't Djokovic face BPs early on in the 2nd set? Neither he nor Murray returned that well in the 1st 2 sets.

Re: nadal at wimbledon. the mental aspect? clearly better in Wim 18 semi than in Wim 11 final. that matters. Yeah, he had lost 4 matches in a row to Djoko, but had also won RG to get atleast some of the confidence back in general. djoko was dominating initially in the 18 semi. Nadal came back. and some amazing clutch serving in the 5th set. Also had the gall to play a dropshot to save MP. Did all this under indoor conditions. Gotta put the 18 match ahead.

 

[abmk]

'94 was another (and last) 60+% season for Pete but at RG he underperformed with only 56.0% won. Guess you could say that's because he had Costa and Rios in the 1st two rounds (and I can confirm Costa was already showing flashes of brilliance and that match was closer than the scoreline suggests), but my take is that '93 Pete pushes '94 Courier to 5 (if not quite upset him).

yeah, I was gonna say Costa&Rios.

With an easier draw he probably would've been fresher for the final, yes, but such what-ifs kinda defeat this whole exercise, no?

yeah, I didn't put 2001 USO in the list for that reason. Just couldn't because of the final performance.

Maybe a bit hyperbolic to say Pete could break at will (after all we're talking about Boris on grass), but clearly less sloppy on return.

And 7 is actually the official UFE count:

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/stats-for-1995-wimbledon-final-sampras-becker.252182/#post-3248948

Of course Wimby has been rather generous with this stat for a while now and maybe the same applies here, but none other than @krosero says it's believable and that's good enough for moi.

fair enough, but krosero does say probably/quite believable.

 

[brc444]

What about Federer at AO 2017?

 

[metsman]

Guess we are always gonna disagree on weighting match importance by round.
The Acusaso dude played really well for a 2R opponent and could take a lot of players by surprise.
You also rated 2016 AO pretty high, in spite of the 4R performance.

Well, it's arguable, but I don't see 2018 as a definite better.
BH aside, his game was better in 2011.
Serve aside, his game was better in 2006. I don't see 2018 doing better in the 2006/2011 draws honestly.

Sure, fair assesment.

3R against Harrison, considerably better, 4R classic against Stan vs Simon disaster.
2 breadsticks against Berdych, in one of his most underrated performances vs the Nishi QF.

SF he played a tad better for 2 sets in 2016, but after that he played outstanding in the 3rd set during 2013. I can rate it ahead for sure.

2013 F: made like 20 UE in the 1st set, but last 3 sets were solid, he stabilized his game.

2016 F: great 1st set, rather error filled 2nd from both, solid 3rd set from both.

2013>2016 and 2019 clearly(especially since you yourself rate people based off 7 rounds, not just SF+F like in 2019)

2008 was better in the 4R and F compared to 2013.
2013 had a bad start against Stan, but recovered afterwards.

2013 better in the SF, but 2008 SF was a masterclass too, outstanding serve clutchness the whole match and a great level in the 2nd.

Rest of the rounds comparable between 2008 and 2013.

So 2008>2013 by a bit, both peak Djokovic

To be Haas is the only real blemish on 09 RG. Acusaso and Mathieu are far tougher than the standard early round opponent so unless you are in truly peak top form it's not that unnatural to struggle with them a bit because no one peaks for the early rounds. That being said, while the Mathieu match was fine Federer did make things quite a bit too complicated against Acusaso.

 

[metsman]

For Fed, RG/Wimby/USO are obvious, for AO need to pick 2 of 06, 09, 10.

For Nadal, AO is obvious besides picking between 08 and 19 for the last spot (obviously Tsonga would have massacred 19 Nadal as well). RG you only need to pick the last spot, first 4 are clearly 07, 08, 10, 12. Wimby is obvious (06-08, 10-11, don't get cute with 18 please). USO the first 4 is probably clear (10, 11, 13, 17) but for the last you could go between 08 and 19.

For Djok, AO is a pretty easy choice for me (08, 11-13, 16), RG, 11, 16, and 13 are definitely 3, 08 is maybe fourth, and then you have to pick 1? Wimby you can go 11-12, 14-15, 18 (13 was better than 18 as a player but played too big a disaster in the final). USO is the toughest for Djokovic, 11 and 15 are obvious but beyond that he was really good in the 12 tournament but bad in the final. 13 he wasn't great in either SF/F. 14 has to be disqualified. 11-13, 15, 18 is likely the call, but Djok probably played better in some of his earlier losses than 12-13 losses, and I'm not sold on oldovic 2018 level over earlier versions.

PETE: AO is easy (93-95, 97, 00), RG there's only 4. Wimby the first 4 are easy (93-95, 97). After that, 98 was better pre final, 99 better in the final, but 99 Pete could easily have gotten botted in a couple sets by Goran. USO I think you can easily select his 5 title winning runs. 01 you unfortunately have to discard due to the final, 02 he was playing S&V too well to go down like 00.

Borg I think you can fairly easily select his 5 Wimby runs, last 5 RG runs, and USO his 5 runs are pretty clear.

 

[Lew II]

Rating the top 5 events at each slam for these guys (including combination of actual performance and peak/highest level possible)

Federer:

AO: 2007,2004/2005,2010,2009
RG: 2006,2007,2011,2005/2009
Wim: 2006,2005/2003,2004,2007
USO: 2006,2004,2005,2007,2008

Nadal:

AO: 2009,2012, 2017, 2014/2019
RG: 2008,2007,2012,2010,2017
Wim: 2008,2007,2010,2018,2006/2011 (tough to seperate)
USO: 2010,2013,2011,2017,2019

Djokovic:

AO: 2011,2008/2019,2013/2016
RG: 2011,2013/2016,2014/2008/2012/2015 (pick any 2 out of the 4)
Wim: 2015,2011/2014,2018,2012
USO: 2011,2015,2018/2012,2008

Federer 2003-11 --> 8 years
Djokovic 2008-19 --> 11 years
Nadal 2006-19 --> 13 years

Fed's peak was so short and limited to the Gravonginabis era

 

[Lew II]

Federer's best performances concentrated basically in a span of just 3-4 years, in this age of mammoth medicine, training and technological advancements doesn't look very Goatesque to me tbh. Not to mention the highly questionable quality of his main opposition during those 3-4 years...

Especially when according to your list Nadal's best performances spans from 2007 to 2019( 13 years) and Djoker's from 2008 to 2019 (12 years)

Not good for Feddy... Not good at all...

Slams won aged 28-34:

Djokovic 9
Nadal 7
Short-peakerer 2

 

[Deleted member 777746]

Federer's best performances concentrated basically in a span of just 3-4 years, in this age of mammoth medicine, training and technological advancements doesn't look very Goatesque to me tbh. Not to mention the highly questionable quality of his main opposition during those 3-4 years...

Especially when according to your list Nadal's best performances spans from 2007 to 2019( 13 years) and Djoker's from 2008 to 2019 (12 years)

Not good for Feddy... Not good at all...

Its also an interesting coincidence that Federer's rise coincided with the rise of Roddick, Safin, Philippousis, Baghdatis, Gonzales and his slowdown coincided with the rise of Nadal, Nole and Murray. Hmmm...

 

[King No1e]

Nadal:
AO 09,12,14,17,19
RG 08,12,17,10,20
W 08,10,07,11,18
USO 10,13,17,11,19

Djokovic:
AO 11,08,16,12,19
RG 12,13,16,15,14
W 11,15,14,18,19
USO 11,15,13,18,10

Federer:
AO 07,04,10,06,09
RG 11,07,09,06,05
W 03,05,06,04,12/09
USO 04,06,05,07,08

 

[Druss]

Nadal:
AO 09,12,14,17,19
RG 08,12,17,10,20
W 08,10,07,11,18
USO 10,13,17,11,19

Djokovic:
AO 11,08,16,12,19
RG 12,13,16,15,14
W 11,15,14,18,19
USO 11,15,13,18,10

Federer:
AO 07,04,10,06,09
RG 11,07,09,06,05
W 03,05,06,04,12/09
USO 04,06,05,07,08

2005 AO Fed was way better than '06. Not sure why you included 2020 RG Nadal and not 2013. In fact I'm surprised hardly anyone is mentioning 2013 RG for Nads: There is no way 2020 Rafa is beating 2013 Djoko at RG.

 

[Incognito]

Nadal RG: 08, 07, 06, 05, 10

 

[Lew II]

Nadal:
AO 09,12,14,17,19
RG 08,12,17,10,20
W 08,10,07,11,18
USO 10,13,17,11,19

Djokovic:
AO 11,08,16,12,19
RG 12,13,16,15,14
W 11,15,14,18,19
USO 11,15,13,18,10

Federer:
AO 07,04,10,06,09
RG 11,07,09,06,05
W 03,05,06,04,12/09
USO 04,06,05,07,08

Over30 Nadal --> 7 mentions
Over30 Djokovic --> 4
Over30 Federer --> 1

 

[RS]

Over30 Nadal --> 7 mentions
Over30 Djokovic --> 4
Over30 Federer --> 1

Opinion?

 

[Lew II]

Opinion?

Federer had some of his best performances in his 30s too, but few Fed fans acknowledge it because it would mean giving credit to Djokovic and Nadal for beating him.

 

[RS]

Federer had some of his best performances in his 30s too, but few Fed fans acknowledge it because it would mean giving credit to Djokovic and Nadal for beating him.

TBH this is still your opinion too just like the people on this thread as non of it can be 100% proven.

I would like to see your one for the big 3 even.

 

[mehdimike]

Federer had some of his best performances in his 30s too, but few Fed fans acknowledge it because it would mean giving credit to Djokovic and Nadal for beating him.

Some players peak earlier some later. It's not strange to me. That's the case in almost all sports. Not every 19 years old is going to be Nadal or Messi or Carlsen or O'Sullivan.

 

[mehdimike]

TBH this is still your opinion too just like the people on this thread as non of it can be 100% proven.

I would like to see your one for the big 3 even.

I think it's combination of many factors such as age, form, competition, luck, injury, draw and motivation. There could be other factors.

 

[Deleted member 777746]

Federer had some of his best performances in his 30s too, but few Fed fans acknowledge it because it would mean giving credit to Djokovic and Nadal for beating him.

Federer's best mental performance in a slam came at the 2017 Australian Open final because he actually won a slam encounter against a non-teen Nadal and came back from a break down in the fifth to do it. Sure, he was still aided by conditions and a vastly less demanding 5 setter the round before, but still fair is fair. "Prime" Fed would have collapsed like a cheap tent being UP a break in the fifth. Just imagine what would have happened from a break down.

His serve was also unusually effective against Nadal, and he never hit his backhand better - ever.

Of course, just like his fans, Roger gave credit where credit was due. He duly thanked and credited Ivan Ljubicic for turning his game around and giving him a prayer of a chance against Nadal. Oh...wait....

 

[abmk]

Federer 2003-11 --> 8 years
Djokovic 2008-19 --> 11 years
Nadal 2006-19 --> 13 years

Fed's peak was so short and limited to the Gravonginabis era

Nope, its just that
1. Fed at his peak was better&more consistent than either of the nadal/djokovic
2. fed's 7th best AO (2017) was good enough to beat Nadal's 3rd best AO (2017) in 5 sets
3. Fed's 8th best Wim (2012) was good enough to beat Djokovic's 5th best Wim (2012) in 4 sets

etc.

 

[The Guru]

I'll give this a shot

Nadal:
AO: 09/12, 17, 20, 19
RG: 08, 12, 10, 17, 07 (20 could be somewhere here I need to rewatch the F)
W: 08, 07/10, 18, 11
USO: 10, 13, 11, 17, 19

Djokovic:
AO: 11, 08/16/19, 12/13
RG: 13, 16, 12, 11, 14/15
W: 15, 11, 14/18, 12
USO: 11, 15, 18, 12, 13

Federer:
AO: 07, 04, 05, 09/10
RG: 11, 07, 09, 06, 05
W: 06, 03, 05, 04, 12
USO: 04, 06, 08, 07, 05

 

[mike danny]

Some players peak earlier some later. It's not strange to me. That's the case in almost all sports. Not every 19 years old is going to be Nadal or Messi or Carlsen or O'Sullivan.

Age matters the least in a game like Snooker because it's not even a sport.

 

[mike danny]

I'll give this a shot

Nadal:
AO: 09/12, 17, 20, 19
RG: 08, 12, 10, 17, 07 (20 could be somewhere here I need to rewatch the F)
W: 08, 07/10, 18, 11
USO: 10, 13, 11, 17, 19

Djokovic:
AO: 11, 08/16/19, 12/13
RG: 13, 16, 12, 11, 14/15
W: 15, 11, 14/18, 12
USO: 11, 15, 18, 12, 13

Federer:
AO: 07, 04, 05, 09/10
RG: 11, 07, 09, 06, 05
W: 06, 03, 05, 04, 12
USO: 04, 06, 08, 07, 05

Still don't understand why 2005 USO is so lowly ranked for Fed. Only the absolute best versions of Djokovic and Nadal can beat that Fed, but the other versions would all lose to him.

 

[mehdimike]

Age matters the least in a game like Snooker because it's not even a sport.

Still, understanding of the game at elite level requires lots of practice and experience. Age matters, otherwise all players would peak at 18-19-20.

 

[Biotic]

Djokovic:
AO: 11, 16, 19, 13, 12/08
RG: 13, 16, 12, 11, 14
W: 15, 11, 14, 18, 13/19
USO: 11, 15, 12, 18, 13

Nadal:
AO: 09, 12, 14, 17, 19
RG: 08, 12, 10, 17, 07
W: 08, 07, 10, 18, 11
USO: 10, 13, 11, 17, 19

Federer:
AO: 07, 04, 05, 09, 10
RG: 11, 07, 09, 06, 05
W: 06, 03, 05, 04, 07
USO: 06, 05, 04, 08, 07/09

 

[RS]

I'll give this a shot

Nadal:
AO: 09/12, 17, 20, 19
RG: 08, 12, 10, 17, 07 (20 could be somewhere here I need to rewatch the F)
W: 08, 07/10, 18, 11
USO: 10, 13, 11, 17, 19

Djokovic:
AO: 11, 08/16/19, 12/13
RG: 13, 16, 12, 11, 14/15
W: 15, 11, 14/18, 12
USO: 11, 15, 18, 12, 13

Federer:
AO: 07, 04, 05, 09/10
RG: 11, 07, 09, 06, 05
W: 06, 03, 05, 04, 12
USO: 04, 06, 08, 07, 05

In big doubt 2020 would be in the top 5 for Rafa at RG.

 

[The Guru]

In big doubt 2020 would be in the top 5 for Rafa at RG.

My guess is it's not but I saw the highlights yesterday and I think Djokovic might've been a lot better than I thought and my bias of being pissed effected my judgment of the quality. 07 RG is a high bar to cross though.

 

[The Guru]

Still don't understand why 2005 USO is so lowly ranked for Fed. Only the absolute best versions of Djokovic and Nadal can beat that Fed, but the other versions would all lose to him.

If I was being honest I probably wouldn't have included it but I've discussed that tournament to death on here and don't really want to anymore.

 

[RS]

My guess is it's not but I saw the highlights yesterday and I think Djokovic might've been a lot better than I thought and my bias of being pissed effected my judgment of the quality. 07 RG is a high bar to cross though.

I think a few Djokovic fans pointed it out too during the play. First set was very close for a 6-0 set.

 

[The Guru]

I think a few Djokovic fans pointed it out too during the play. First set was very close for a 6-0 set.

Yeah maybe I was hoping he was playing like **** so I'd have hope for next year if he could not play like ****. Looking at those highlights though I have to say he looked pretty solid but they were highlights so I'd need to see the match again. Not sure I'm up for putting myself through that again anytime soon.

 

[mike danny]

If I was being honest I probably wouldn't have included it but I've discussed that tournament to death on here and don't really want to anymore.

I've missed all those discussions anyway. Still don't understand why. It was worse than 2004 and 2006, but not really worse than the others, IMO.

 

[JoelSandwich]

Djokovic
AO: 11, 08, 13/16, 12
FO: 11/13/16, 15, 08
W: 15, 11/14, 12, 18
USO: 11, 15, then idk 07-09 isn’t much different than 12-13 for me, 18 was pretty good too

Fed
AO: 07, 04, 05, 09, 10/06 (can’t choose between them)
FO: dunno the order but it’s obviously 05-07, 09, 11
W: 03, 05, 06, 04, 07
USO: 04/06, 05/07, 08

Ned
AO: 09, 12, 14, 17, 08
FO: 08, 07, 10/12, 05
W: 08, 07, 10, 06, 11
USO: 10, 13, 11, 17, then 19 or 08

dunno enough about Borg and Sampras to rate them

 

[Phenomenal]

I would say for Nadal because watched him most and didn't know much about level of Djoko and Fed before 2010/2011 But i can write post 2011. Anyway

Nadal:
AO: 09, 12, 14, 17, 19
RG: 08, 12, 07, 17/10 (I m not sure about 17-10 but I rate 17 higher but it might very well be the opposite)
W: 08, 07, 10, 18, 11 (Also tough to decide between last 2)
USO: 10, 13, 11, 19/17(This is also tough to seperate but ı would rate 19 above because of the better opponent in the final and also earlier. in 17 only Del potro match was a difficult. In 2019 other than Berrettini every opponent was more difficult than previous one. Regarding his form Medvedev was the best possible opponent other than Djoko and Fed.

I think Novak's 2012 was his maybe best level at RG I know tsonga match where tsonga didn't convert the match point but to me there is no much difference between 2012 and 2013 but 2012 is above even if he take more sets in 2013 semi final against Nadal.
For Federer maybe 2007-2006 or 2011 RG are the best level with no order.

 

[Druss]

Nadal
AO: 2009, 2012, 2014*, 2017, 2008^
RG: 2008, 2007, 2010, 2012, 2013/17
W: 2008, 2007, 2010, 2011, 2006
US: 2010, 2013, 2011, 2017, 2009


2014 Nadal had a very tough draw (Le Monfs, Nishi, Dimi, Fed) and I was really impressed as well as upset, that he despatched Fed fairly easily in SF.
2008 Seems like some are forgetting how good Nadal was here. I think his level was almost as good, if not as good as any of his USO victories (barring 2010). He was unlucky to bump into a zoning Tsonga.
2013 I'm discounting his first two rounds. IMO from R3 on he was a fraction better than 2017. But if we have to incl all 7 rounds, then it's 2017.

 

[The Guru]

I've missed all those discussions anyway. Still don't understand why. It was worse than 2004 and 2006, but not really worse than the others, IMO.

I think his level was unconvincing throughout the tournament especially against Agassi. Very similar to 06 AO imo

 

[JoelSandwich]

I think his level was unconvincing throughout the tournament especially against Agassi. Very similar to 06 AO imo

I think in both tournaments he had enough patches of ridiculous play to overlook some of the flaws/lapses
I still think he’d be able to beat some great opponents (he already did but ya know what I mean) and when he was firing on all cylinders he was untouchable like the first two sets vs Haas or the first set vs Agassi for example

 

[The Guru]

I think in both tournaments he had enough patches of ridiculous play to overlook some of the flaws/lapses
I still think he’d be able to beat some great opponents (he already did but ya know what I mean) and when he was firing on all cylinders he was untouchable like the first two sets vs Haas or the first set vs Agassi for example

I think that's reasonable but that's also a level that later USO Feds was also at like 09 and 11. It's also a standard he was at at many later AOs. I just take issue with it being placed as in the same tier as 04 and 06 which I think it clearly isn't. It's funny to me that Fed beating a 35 year old Agassi in 4 moving like a tortoise in his last ever tournament ever even at a semi-competitive level is like this amazing peak stuff while Novak beating 35 year old Fed in 4 (a much better player than Agassi) who would go on to reach number 1 a couple years later and stay competitive for another 4 years was like this wholly unimpressive performance. Especially considering their respective forms coming in and how they performed in the final it's just absolutely ludicrous to me. I mean Agassi went 5 with 3 straight unseeded players and was already on his last legs and the degree to which Fed struggled with him after all that is kinda embarrassing for a supposedly peak Fed.

 

[JoelSandwich]

I think that's reasonable but that's also a level that later USO Feds was also at like 09 and 11. It's also a standard he was at at many later AOs. I just take issue with it being placed as in the same tier as 04 and 06 which I think it clearly isn't. It's funny to me that Fed beating a 35 year old Agassi in 4 moving like a tortoise in his last ever tournament ever even at a semi-competitive level is like this amazing peak stuff while Novak beating 35 year old Fed in 4 (a much better player than Agassi) who would go on to reach number 1 a couple years later and stay competitive for another 4 years was like this wholly unimpressive performance. Especially considering their respective forms coming in and how they performed in the final it's just absolutely ludicrous to me.

I think 04 and 06 are clearly the best and then the other 3 I think you can put in basically any order
07 had the best match vs Roddick but as a tournament I’d take 05
Then 08 had some hiccups but the last two rounds were very good
I think old agassi on hard court is better than old fed so gonna have to disagree there
Think fed has the serve advantage but I just don’t think he could keep that up
Agassi was just a better ballstriker at that age