Top 5 peak level on each surface

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
What's the distribution of surfaces in the pro Tour? The answers on the four surfaces (clay, grass, slow and fast HC) read as if they were all equal in relevance. But aren't slow HC tourneys like 60% of all tennis tournaments?
 

Druss

Hall of Fame
Accomplishments he's top 10 but going off peak level he's definitely top 5.

How many players could beat 06 or 11erer on clay except peak Nadal? Not many I'd bet.

'I'm certain '95 Muster amongst others I mentioned in my top 5 would beat peak Fed on clay. Even as Federer Fans, we do need to have unbiased opinions.
 
1

1HBH-DownTheLine

Guest
I took a peak crap last night. Does that count for slow clay courts?
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
You didn't want to break down the grass between slow and hard grass courts?

Fast grass:

Sampras
Borg
Becker
Edberg
McEnroe

(No idea where to rank Fed as we only have Halle and Wimbledon 2001 to go off but I'm positive peak Fed would dominate fast grass too)

Slow grass:
Federer
Nadal
Roddick
Murray
Djokovic


As for Fed vs Nole on clay. Nole has marginally better achievements, Federer's peak level is higher.
 

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil

Talk Tennis Guru
Given that Nole won more on clay than Fed and was a much bigger threat to Nadal on clay than Fed ever was this should not be debatable.
It's quite clear Novak is greater, more accomplished on clay. However that peak level of play is quite a sensitive subject if you talk about it with hardcore Federer supporters. You'd think the guy is one of the biggest underachievers ever considering how highly his level is rated at some events where he had a bit less success.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
It's quite clear Novak is greater, more accomplished on clay. However that peak level of play is quite a sensitive subject if you talk about it with hardcore Federer supporters. You'd think the guy is one of the biggest underachievers ever considering how highly his level is rated at some events where he had a bit less success.
Yeah. Plus, this whole "peak play' debate is mostly unmeasurable blather.
 

Mr Feeny

Hall of Fame
Given that Nole won more on clay than Fed and was a much bigger threat to Nadal on clay than Fed ever was this should not be debatable.

Djokovic faced a washed up version of Nadal and still lost to him handedly. Federer faced a greater Rafa. This isn't about who won more because it wasn't against the same Nadal.
You're right. It isn't debate able. Or anywhere near debatable. Peak for peak, Federer creams Novak.
 

Incognito

Legend
Borg belongs well above Nadal on clay, peak to peak. Nadal's relative greatness has to do with longevity. He NEVER dominated RG the way Borg did at his peak, nor even close.

Bull***t!
-most titles at RG
-won RG at his 4 first attempts
-has the two longest winning streaks at RG
-won the tournament twice without losing a set, I think Borg has 3 (Not sure).
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Djokovic faced a washed up version of Nadal and still lost to him handedly. Federer faced a greater Rafa. This isn't about who won more because it wasn't against the same Nadal.
You're right. It isn't debate able. Or anywhere near debatable. Peak for peak, Federer creams Novak.

Ah, the dear old weak era argument. I'm going to start timing how long it takes before someone brings up that silly logic! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil

Talk Tennis Guru
What's confusing to you?
If you think 2012-2014 Nadal was anywhere near his peak self, then there's nothing to even discuss.
You can time everything all you want. If you make a dumb claim that because Djokovic has accomplished more, he's a better all time clay player than Federer, people are going to educate you about why you're wrong.

If it's too complex for you, I'll dumb it down.
If it's not what you want to hear, go cry about it.
He wasn't far worse to be fair. 2012dal in particular was an absolute beast.
 

Mr Feeny

Hall of Fame
He wasn't far worse to be fair. 2012dal in particular was an absolute beast.

Don't you think he regressed as the years went by?
By 2012, he was clearly a step behind on all surfaces and didn't have the speed he used to. He began struggling outside of clay and got worse year by year.
It showed more on his weaker surfaces and wasn't as conspicuous on clay as on grass obviously, because he was still Rafa. And a even a diminished Rafa was better than anyone in tennis on clay.
 

Mr Feeny

Hall of Fame
Without Nole 2011 would have been, by far, Nadal's best season ever. And the idea that 2013 Nadal was bad is just laughable.

2013 nadal wasn't even close to peak Nadal. Again, don't waste my time derailing the thread with idiocy. Strawman argument have no place.

Either find a post by me or anyone in this thread saying that 2013 nadal is bad, or shut up like a good boy.

We aren't discussing whether nadal was good or not in 2013. We're comparing him to his peak level (the level Federer faced) and anyone who understands tennis can see that 2013 Rafa wasn't a patch on his former self.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
The only reason Djokovic has the 2 extra clay masters is the open field he's faced since 2014 or 2015.

Federer faced the much tougher 2005-2009 version of Nadal otherwise he'd have 6 RG titles, 3 MC, 2 Rome, 8 Hamburg/Madrid.

Without Nadal, Djokovic would only have 4 RG. Federer won their definitive clay match in 2011 and past his prime was an even match for peak Nole. Prime Fed is a higher level so would dominate that rivalry.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
It's quite clear Novak is greater, more accomplished on clay. However that peak level of play is quite a sensitive subject if you talk about it with hardcore Federer supporters. You'd think the guy is one of the biggest underachievers ever considering how highly his level is rated at some events where he had a bit less success.

Yeah, this is the key point. And the only one we can really measure.
 

Mr Feeny

Hall of Fame
The only reason Djokovic has the 2 extra clay masters is the open field he's faced since 2014 or 2015.

Federer faced the much tougher 2005-2009 version of Nadal otherwise he'd have 6 RG titles, 3 MC, 2 Rome, 8 Hamburg/Madrid.

Without Nadal, Djokovic would only have 4 RG. Federer won their definitive clay match in 2011 and past his prime was an even match for peak Nole. Prime Fed is a higher level so would dominate that rivalry.

Everything needs to be looked at with context. If Federer had faced the severely diminished Rafa that Novak did, his clay resume would look a lot different.
A past his prime Federer knocked out the very best version of djokovic in 2011. Peak federer would have ran roughshed.
 

Incognito

Legend
Without Nole 2011 would have been, by far, Nadal's best season ever. And the idea that 2013 Nadal was bad is just laughable.

Nadal hardly broke sweat when he won RG in 08.

In 2011, he almost lost in the first round. Yeah best season:rolleyes:

Chokedal was not that good on clay in 2013.
 

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil

Talk Tennis Guru
Without Nole 2011 would have been, by far, Nadal's best season ever. And the idea that 2013 Nadal was bad is just laughable.
Yeah it is. And since most reasonable people say that level displayed on the day is more important than the player's name or his general season results, I think that should be done here as well. It took Nadal some time to find form but once he got far he was amazing. Unfortunately that's the guy Djokovic was up against most of the time.
Don't you think he regressed as the years went by?
By 2012, he was clearly a step behind on all surfaces and didn't have the speed he used to. He began struggling outside of clay and got worse year by year.
It showed more on his weaker surfaces and wasn't as conspicuous on clay as on grass obviously, because he was still Rafa. And a even a diminished Rafa was better than anyone in tennis on clay.
Most players regress as years go by. Nadal was faster in younger days, I agree. He did turn a bit more aggressive with time though IMO and still played quite clean tennis, which brought him just as much success as before. His 2013 season on hard courts is one of his finest achievements, considering his doubters called him just some clay court specialist and some still do to this day. He was average in early clay rounds but got up most of the time he met Djokovic, Murray or other quality clay courters.

He has been irrelevant for 4 years now on grass though.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
W/L % for Nadal, by seasons

2010 88%
2011 82% (wonder what happened here?)
2012 88%
2013 91% (career high)
 

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil

Talk Tennis Guru
So beastly, he lost to Verdasco in Madrid:cool:
So losing to Verdasco on blue clay means Djokovic had a great opportunity to beat him at Roland Garros that year, whoopty dooo.
Everything needs to be looked at with context. If Federer had faced the severely diminished Rafa that Novak did, his clay resume would look a lot different.
A past his prime Federer knocked out the very best version of djokovic in 2011. Peak federer would have ran roughshed.
Oh come on now, that's one of the best matches Federer ever played on clay. There are no matches where he was a level above that.
 

Mr Feeny

Hall of Fame
So losing to Verdasco on blue clay means Djokovic had a great opportunity to beat him at Roland Garros that year, whoopty dooo.

Oh come on now, that's one of the best matches Federer ever played on clay. There are no matches where he was a level above that.
So losing to Verdasco on blue clay means Djokovic had a great opportunity to beat him at Roland Garros that year, whoopty dooo.

Oh come on now, that's one of the best matches Federer ever played on clay. There are no matches where he was a level above that.

Come on Herrera lover! 2006 vs nadal. 2009 vs Solderling (up till the 5-3 game in the 3rd, atleast). Etc etc.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
So losing to Verdasco on blue clay means Djokovic had a great opportunity to beat him at Roland Garros that year, whoopty dooo.

Oh come on now, that's one of the best matches Federer ever played on clay. There are no matches where he was a level above that.

I do agree 2011 was a high level for Fed at RG but his 06 level was absolutely incredible at all tournaments. Criminal that he didn't win anything on clay that year.
 

Incognito

Legend
In 2010 Nadal won all big four clay tournaments. So that would be 100%. Only time he managed this. (Not including smaller events here)

In 2011 and 2013 he also would have won all four big clay tournaments, if not for Nole.

Nadal 2010 despite winning everything on the surface was no better than his (european clay court season)2005-2008 versions. He's only gotten worse since then:eek:
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Nadal 2010 despite winning everything on the surface was no better than his (european clay court season)2005-2008 versions. He's only gotten worse since then:eek:
In 2008 Nadal lost in Rome in the second round. A fluke? Perhaps.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Nadal 2008 vs Nadal 2013

W/L% 88 vs 91
Slam wins : 2 each (08 had two semis but Nadal did not play the AO in 2013)
Masters wins: 3 and 1 final vs 5 and 1 final
 

buscemi

Hall of Fame
If we're talking peak, I think I'd put Noah above Wilander and Lendl. Noah was pretty much unstoppable at the 1983 French Open, straight setting Wilander in the final after beating Lendl, 6-0 in the fourth set, in the quarterfinals. I can't really think of a version of Wilander or Lendl that takes down that version if Noah.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
In 2010 Nadal won all big four clay tournaments. So that would be 100%. (Not including smaller events here)

In 2011 and 2013 he also would have won all four big clay tournaments, if not for Nole.

He would've done the same in 05 and 07 of it weren't for Federer at Hamburg and in 05-06 if the finals weren't BO5 (since Fedal dropped from Hamburg after their gruelling Rome final).
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
He would've done the same in 05 and 07 of it weren't for Federer at Hamburg and in 05-06 if the finals weren't BO5 (since Fedal dropped from Hamburg after their gruelling Rome final).
Don't disagree. Simply pointing out that the numbers don't support the idea that Nadal's clay level dropped starting 2011.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Don't disagree. Simply pointing out that the numbers don't support the idea that Nadal's clay level dropped starting 2011.

His level in 2011 was clearly lower than say 2007-2008 and 2010 from the years before at the very least. His 2012 level on clay was arguably his best ever overall - though in terms of pure FO level 2008 was better. Clearly 2014 was a step down from the years prior, though his level at the FO was still very good. Overall I would say 05-08 > 11-14.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
His level in 2011 was clearly lower than say 2007-2008 and 2010 from the years before at the very least. His 2012 level on clay was arguably his best ever overall - though in terms of pure FO level 2008 was better. Clearly 2014 was a step down from the years prior, though his level at the FO was still very good. Overall I would say 05-08 > 11-14.
Glad to look at data that supports this. The numbers I looked at don't. But I'm sure I missed some.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Glad to look at data that supports this. The numbers I looked at don't. But I'm sure I missed some.

You another Meles or something? :p

Some statistics;

Win/loss in 05-08: 131-4 (97%)
Win/loss in 11-14: 115-8 (93.5%)

That supports it right? You can blame Djokovic sure but then we get into circular arguments where one of us claims Djokovic is responsible and the other claims Nadal's level slipped. I don't think the difference is big or anything...
 

1477aces

Hall of Fame
its debatable in terms of clay accomplishments over a career. But for peak level? I think he's up there, only obviously below Nadal and Borg.

Meh he only bagged 1 RG losing a set to Murray LOL got blasted off the court by Federer and Wawrinka in his two best seasons. Fed similarly barely beat 20 year old Delpo and has been tommy haase to win his FO. Lendl and Wilander beat each other to win RG, and Lendl pushed Borg to five sets as a 21-year old, and broke through by beating McEnroe in his best ever season. Federer couldn't even beat teenage Nadal, and Djokovic couldn't even beat 2014 Nadal who had declined severely. Guga might be debatable, but I still put him above Djokovic and Federer on clay.
 

1477aces

Hall of Fame
Clay:
1. Nadal
2. Borg
3. Federer
4. Djokovic
5. Kuerten/Lendl/Wilander

Grass:
1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Borg
4. Becker
5. McEnroe/Edberg

Slow HC:
1. Federer=Djokovic (AO 05, 07, 10 vs 11)
2. Nadal
3. Agassi
4. Sampras
5. Safin

Fast HC:
1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Lendl
4. Agassi
5. McEnroe/Edberg/Becker

Federer at 3rd on clay is delusional, but I'm not going to address that as others have done so.

Lendl should be ahead of Sampras and Nadal on slow hard courts. Won 2 slams on rebound ace even though they didn't switch to rebound ace till his age 28 season.
 

1477aces

Hall of Fame
Clay

Nadal
Borg
Lendl
Kuerten
Muster

Grass

Federer
Sampras
McEnroe
Becker
Borg

Fast HC

Federer
Sampras
Lendl
McEnroe
Connors

Slow HC

Djokovic
Agassi
Federer
Nadal
Safin

Surely Wilander is in top 5 on clay ... he beat Lendl on the way to all 3 of his FO titles.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
You another Meles or something? :p

Some statistics;

Win/loss in 05-08: 131-4 (97%)
Win/loss in 11-14: 115-8 (93.5%)

That supports it right? You can blame Djokovic sure but then we get into circular arguments where one of us claims Djokovic is responsible and the other claims Nadal's level slipped. I don't think the difference is big or anything...
This is clay results, right?

Well, yes, if we are only talking about a few matches difference and Nole is responsible for most (all?) of them, then yes, I would posit that Nole is responsible more than Nadal slipping.

Absent Nole Nadal's 2011 season would have been the best in his career. Absent Nole Nadal wins all the major clay tourneys in 2011 and 2013. I can't look at that data and not reach the conclusion that it was Nole's fault. ;);););)
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
This is clay results, right?

Well, yes, if we are only talking about a few matches difference and Nole is responsible for most (all?) of them, then yes, I would posit that Nole is responsible more than Nadal slipping.

Absent Nole Nadal's 2011 season would have been the best in his career. Absent Nole Nadal wins all the major clay tourneys in 2011 and 2013. I can't look at that data and not reach the conclusion that it was Nole's fault. ;);););)

Of course.

Nole is responsible for 4 of those defeats. So 05-08 would still lead ever so slightly...

Regardless, Nadal in 05-08 also had to deal with a Federer who was just as dominant against the field as Djokovic was - except he didn't drop as many matches to him. I can't look at that data without thinking that maybe Nadal's drop in level had something to do with it ;)
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
Federer at 3rd on clay is delusional, but I'm not going to address that as others have done so.

Lendl should be ahead of Sampras and Nadal on slow hard courts. Won 2 slams on rebound ace even though they didn't switch to rebound ace till his age 28 season.
those weren't the strongest of wins, edberg played the 1990 final injured and had to pull out. Granted, peak Lendl on slow hard may have been, maybe even probably, one of the greats but we don't know for sure. Same for Borg.
 

TheFifthSet

Legend
So beastly, he lost to Verdasco in Madrid:cool:


Don't you think he regressed as the years went by?
By 2012, he was clearly a step behind on all surfaces and didn't have the speed he used to. He began struggling outside of clay and got worse year by year.
It showed more on his weaker surfaces and wasn't as conspicuous on clay as on grass obviously, because he was still Rafa. And a even a diminished Rafa was better than anyone in tennis on clay.


Nadal posted his best clay stats ever in 2012, in terms of game winning %, point % and only lost two sets all CC season going into the RG final. It was absolutely one of his best years on clay.

The Madrid match that year (on faster, blue clay mind you) was as disinterested as you'll see Nadal look on clay. If you'll recall, a couple days prior to that loss he complained about the slipperiness of the new courts and said that he would not play the following year if they remained blue. I'm not sure he even wanted to win the tournament considering the tension and how awkward the trophy presentation would be amidst all that.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Of course.

Nole is responsible for 4 of those defeats. So 05-08 would still lead ever so slightly...

Regardless, Nadal in 05-08 also had to deal with a Federer who was just as dominant against the field as Djokovic was - except he didn't drop as many matches to him. I can't look at that data without thinking that maybe Nadal's drop in level had something to do with it ;)
Maybe. But if so it's a very small difference.

If I look at 2011, for example, it was Nole that stopped Nadal. But that wasn't true for Fed in 2007 or 2006. In those years Nadal was losing to players like Gonzalez at the AO and Youzhny in the US Open.

So, for me, Nadal was, if anything, improving across time, not getting worse. 2010 was a great year for Nadal. 2011 would have been his best year ever, but he ran into a GOATing Nole.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Maybe. But if so it's a very small difference.

If I look at 2011, for example, it was Nole that stopped Nadal. But that wasn't true for Fed in 2007 or 2006. In those years Nadal was losing to players like Gonzalez at the AO and Youzhny in the US Open.

So, for me, Nadal was, if anything, improving across time, not getting worse. 2010 was a great year for Nadal. 2011 would have been his best year ever, but he ran into a GOATing Nole.

You only need to look at Nadal's play in 2011 to see it was worse generally worse than in 2010. Just about the only tournaments that were better in 2011 were IW and Miami.

Gonzalez probably would have beaten Nadal at the AO in 2011 as well BTW.

And unless you believe surfaces are very similar your argument about Nadal improving across all surfaces doesn't necessarily follow. Besides that you need only look at grass to see that's nonsense.
 
Top