Top 5 peak level on each surface

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
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.
Sorry. I don't buy the "you just need to see them play" arguments. I work as an analyst (no, not tennis!) and there are many, many studies on how people fool themselves into seeing what they want to see. That's why I base it on data.

The point about surfaces was to point that Nadal was not getting worse post 2010 and, if anything, he was getting better. As others pointed out his highest clay wL% was in 2012 (didn't check that stat myself). He was reaching all the clay finals in 2011 and 2013. So his level was very similar to the past. It's just that Nole was playing much better.

Grass is almost a niche surface, so wasn't focusing too much on that.
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
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.
Only tournament he was better in 2011 than 2010 was Miami. 2011 IW the toughest opponents he faced were Delpo on the comeback trail and Ivo (who he almost lost to). Everyone else was a total mug. No better than 2010. And his performance in the last couple sets against Djoko in 2011 was absolute garbage. Around 35% first serve percentage, 8 winners 20 UFE. Ljubicic would have beaten that version of Nadal too.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
In 2010 Nadal reaches 3 slam finals and wins them all

In 2011 he reaches the same three finals and loses two of them to Nole

In 2010 Nadal reaches the three clay masters finals and wins them all

In 2011 Nadal reaches those same three clay finals, plus two other HC masters finals. He only wins one of the five finals, losing the other four to Nole

Nadal wasn't playing worse in 2011. If that were the case he wouldn't have been reaching more finals. He was just playing a better Nole.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Sorry. I don't buy the "you just need to see them play" arguments. I work as an analyst (no, not tennis!) and there are many, many studies on how people fool themselves into seeing what they want to see. That's why I base it on data.

The point about surfaces was to point that Nadal was not getting worse post 2010 and, if anything, he was getting better. As others pointed out his highest clay wL% was in 2012 (didn't check that stat myself). He was reaching all the clay finals in 2011 and 2013. So his level was very similar to the past. It's just that Nole was playing much better.

Grass is almost a niche surface, so wasn't focusing too much on that.

So you think Federer's play now is comparable to his best years then I guess?

Stats against different fields as well I might add. Nadal's highest win/loss records were in 2006 and 2010 when he was undefeated. In the end winning matches is what counts and Nadal's win loss recorda across those different stretches of years favours the earlier period. In the end sets, games and points won are less important than winning matches.

And reaching all clay finals is not necessarily indicative of Nadal being close to his best - unless he needs to be close to his best to beat the field on clay. His level in say the Monte Carlo final in 2013 was clearly substantially lower than any of his 05-08 performances (even accounting for how well Djokovic played). But he still made the final.

The atp data is pretty suspect as well btw. You do enough cross checking and you can see all sorts of issues.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
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.
Dearie dearie me :oops::oops:
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
So you think Federer's play now is comparable to his best years then I guess?

Stats against different fields as well I might add. Nadal's highest win/loss records were in 2006 and 2010 when he was undefeated. In the end winning matches is what counts and Nadal's win loss recorda across those different stretches of years favours the earlier period. In the end sets, games and points won are less important than winning matches.

And reaching all clay finals is not necessarily indicative of Nadal being close to his best - unless he needs to be close to his best to beat the field on clay. His level in say the Monte Carlo final in 2013 was clearly substantially lower than any of his 05-08 performances (even accounting for how well Djokovic played). But he still made the final.

The atp data is pretty suspect as well btw. You do enough cross checking and you can see all sorts of issues.
But Fed's stats are not better today than they were in his peak years. Unless you only focus on the last three months, but I wouldn't do that.

There may be small differences but I don't see much difference in the data. Nor much reason why Nadal's level would have come down so much post 2010. He was what, 24? He clearly wasn't old.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
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.
Without Nadal, Djokovic's accomplishments on clay would still be greater than Federer's KR. Sorry to tell you that mate ;)
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
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.
That was peak Federer that day :rolleyes:
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
But Fed's stats are not better today than they were in his peak years. Unless you only focus on the last three months, but I wouldn't do that.

There may be small differences but I don't see much difference in the data. Nor much reason why Nadal's level would have come down so much post 2010. He was what, 24? He clearly wasn't old.

What about 2015?

Whether you can see a reason doesn't matter man, Nadal's play was worse these guys aren't machines. Maybe some of it was mental and credit to Novak for making Nadal play like a scared boy but you can't tell me you think Nadal was the same player at the USO in both years for example.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
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.
Not in the RG final that year he hadn't.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
What about 2015?

Whether you can see a reason doesn't matter man, Nadal's play was worse these guys aren't machines. Maybe some of it was mental and credit to Novak for making Nadal play like a scared boy but you can't tell me you think Nadal was the same player at the USO in both years for example.
2015? You mean for Fed? Or am I misunderstanding you?

As for 2010 Nadal vs 2011 Nadal: 2011 Nadal reached more finals. And only lost to one guy in those finals. Don't see how that supports the idea that he played worse in 2011.
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
in no particular order :

clay : nadal ,borg, kuerten, federer lendl
grass : federer, sampras, mcenroe, becker, borg
slow HC : federer, safin, djokovic, agassi,lendl/sampras
fast HC : federer, sampras, mcenroe, connors, lendl
indoors : federer, sampras, becker, lendl, mcenroe
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Have to say it always makes me laugh when classic Djokovic haters(yes Incognito, I'm looking at you) go liking posts whenever some claims Djokovic faced a much weaker Nadal(which he didn't) than Federer did. I mean, does she or anyone else seriously think the record books give a rat's arse who beat who over the years to earn their trophies? People like her must really seethe with a passion if even the thought of Novak being greater than Saint Roger on one of the three surfaces tears her up inside so much.
Sad.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
2015? You mean for Fed? Or am I misunderstanding you?

As for 2010 Nadal vs 2011 Nadal: 2011 Nadal reached more finals. And only lost to one guy in this finals. Don't see how that supports the idea that he played worse in 2011.

Yeah I mean 2015 for Federer, his stats that year were comparable to his best on HC. What's your opinion on that?

As far as more finals goes Nadal didn't play his pet event Barcelona in 2010 which is the difference there. Again if you want to believe a guy can go from 7-2 in finals to 3-7 in finals while improving then be my guest :D Sometimes you just need to watch the matches man, Nadal was worse in 2011 in the big matches - which is what really counts.
 

KINGROGER

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.

Top 3 in peak level. He'd win 4-6 RG in any era without Nadal.
 
Last edited:

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Yeah I mean 2015 for Federer, his stats that year were comparable to his best on HC. What's your opinion on that?

As far as more finals goes Nadal didn't play his pet event Barcelona in 2010 which is the difference there. Again if you want to believe a guy can go from 7-2 in finals to 3-7 in finals while improving then be my guest :D Sometimes you just need to watch the matches man, Nadal was worse in 2011 in the big matches - which is what really counts.
Which isn't to say 2011 Djokovic wouldn't have still got the better of him (except perhaps at RG) :)
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
Without Nadal, Djokovic's accomplishments on clay would still be greater than Federer's KR. Sorry to tell you that mate ;)

What? With no Nadal, Fed would have 6 RG titles and a 3-1 RG H2H vs Nole (2 extra wins in 07 and 08). Nole on the other hand only gains wins in 2012 - 2014 giving him 4 RG which is less than 6!
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Yeah I mean 2015 for Federer, his stats that year were comparable to his best on HC. What's your opinion on that?

As far as more finals goes Nadal didn't play his pet event Barcelona in 2010 which is the difference there. Again if you want to believe a guy can go from 7-2 in finals to 3-7 in finals while improving then be my guest :D Sometimes you just need to watch the matches man, Nadal was worse in 2011 in the big matches - which is what really counts.
But Nadal reached more top tier finals (both clay and not clay) in 2011 than in 2010 (not looking at smaller events). So he played better than 2010 on his way to the finals but then played worse at the finals, all of them against the same guy? it seems that's a complicated explanation. Much simpler to say that he was playing as well or better but that only one player could stop him, and that was a GOATing Nole.

As for Fed, his 2015 HC stats are comparable to his best ones? Really? That's strange since he only reached one HC slam final and two HC masters finals in 2015.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Even if it is a fact it still doesn't take anything away from what Novak achieved that year :)

That's not what I'm doing man...

Nadal was clearly at prime/peak levels and Novak's year will forever be legendary. But this myth about Nadal being in his best ever form doesn't need to be perpetuated to further boost up the year.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
But Nadal reached more top tier finals (both clay and not clay) in 2011 than in 2010 (not looking at smaller events). So he played better than 2010 on his way to the finals but then played worse at the finals, all of them against the same guy? it seems that's a complicated explanation. Much simpler to say that he was playing as well or better but that only one player could stop him, and that was a GOATing Nole.

As for Fed, his 2015 HC stats are comparable to his best ones? Really? That's strange since he only reached one HC slam final and two HC masters finals in 2015.

It wouldn't seem complicated if you watched those matches with an open mind and no agenda ;) :p

Anyway let's agree to disagree.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
Haha, I don't think so my friend ;)

2005 - beats Puerta
2006 - beats Ljubicic
2007 - beats Nole
2008 - beats Nole
2009 - won
2011 - beats Murray

That's 6. But then in the hypotheticals things could be different. Say if Fed won 05-08 he might drop the Haas match in 09 due to motivation issues.
 

Noelan

Legend
It's nice to see some people have mentioned Safin, good memory guys. :)

Btw, as soon as I saw the title I knew there would be a Fed-Novak clay discussion. :D
Its clay obsession now all over the board. Some fans just can't have it all and can't stand it. :D
 

TripleATeam

G.O.A.T.
2005 - beats Puerta
2006 - beats Ljubicic
2007 - beats Nole
2008 - beats Nole
2009 - won
2011 - beats Murray

That's 6. But then in the hypotheticals things could be different. Say if Fed won 05-08 he might drop the Haas match in 09 due to motivation issues.
Probably beats Nole in 07, but maybe not in 08. In 2011, Murray also led the Fed Murray H2H 8-6. Might not have beat Murray either.

Just saying.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
Probably beats Nole in 07, but maybe not in 08. In 2011, Murray also led the Fed Murray H2H 8-6. Might not have beat Murray either.

Just saying.

Can't see Nole beating Fed in 08 who was playing quite well. Probably 4 sets. Murray wouldn't beat 2011 RG Fed at a slam.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Probably beats Nole in 07, but maybe not in 08. In 2011, Murray also led the Fed Murray H2H 8-6. Might not have beat Murray either.

Just saying.

you are kidding about murray in 2011,right ?
federer had straight-setted him in their slam meetings in USO 08, AO 10.

he was just coming off beating djokovic on a 43 match streak and you think he loses to Murray ? really ?
 

TripleATeam

G.O.A.T.
you are kidding about murray in 2011,right ?
federer had straight-setted him in their slam meetings in USO 08, AO 10.

he was just coming off beating djokovic on a 43 match streak and you think he loses to Murray ? really ?
It could happen. Did anyone predict Novak's loss in Monte Carlo 2016?
 
C

Charlie

Guest
It never ceases to amaze me just how greedy Fed fans are :eek:
A lot of people use personal preference when talking about peak level. You have seen a lot of times how people complain that Djokovic's game isn't fun to watch. I think that is one of the reasons why Djokovic (and Murray among lower Tier players) doesn't get rated as highly as he should, especially outside of his favorite hard courts, despite being tremendous on all surfaces. Of course the main reason for the underrating is actually the hatred because he had a lot of success at the expense of his two extremely popular rivals.
 

TripleATeam

G.O.A.T.
very unlikely. No point in mentioning very unlikely scenarios.
and Monte Carlo is not a slam.
No, but upsets occur. I'm just trying to be fair to Murray. He led the Fed H2H until 2012.

And it's not less likely to happen in a slam, by the way. Slams just happen less often, so you see more upsets at lower levels.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
No, but upsets occur. I'm just tryong to be fair to Murray. He led the Fed H2H until 2012.

And it's not less likely to happen in a slam, by the way. Slams just happen less often, so you see more upsets at lower levels.

yeah, it is less likely to happen in a slam :

1. Bo5 vs Bo3
2. the pressure is more in a slam which tells on the lesser ranked/lesser experienced player - which is Murray, in this case.

It is not a question of being fair, it is a question of assessing correctly. Just that in a slam, it is very unlikely that Murray would beat federer in 2011 , even more so at RG when federer beat peak djokovic on a 43 match streak.
 

TripleATeam

G.O.A.T.
yeah, it is less likely to happen in a slam :

1. Bo5 vs Bo3
2. the pressure is more in a slam which tells on the lesser ranked/lesser experienced player - which is Murray, in this case.

It is not a question of being fair, it is a question of assessing correctly. Just that in a slam, it is very unlikely that Murray would beat federer in 2011 , even more so at RG when federer beat peak djokovic on a 43 match streak.
1. Okay, yeah, forgot about that.
2. Maybe not. It could be the person trailing in H2H that feels more pressure gainst that specific opponent.
I wouldn't put Murray's chances at over 50%, but they are over 25%. Maybe 35%.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
1. Okay, yeah, forgot about that.
2. Maybe not. It could be the person trailing in H2H that feels more pressure gainst that specific opponent.
I wouldn't put Murray's chances at over 50%, but they are over 25%. Maybe 35%.

no, the h2h was more so a case of :

a) Federer playing worse in Bo3 in 2008-09 ( he won only one masters in 2 years )
b) Murray playing well in Bo3 in 2008-09
c) Murray being clearly worse off in slams before 2012.

the matches in the non-slam events were basically close to irrelevant to their slam matches.

Murray was 2-1 before USO 08. Federer completely dominated him in USO 08 final.

Murray won 4 in a row to make it 6-2 before cincy 09. then fed won cincy 09 to make it 6-3 in Murray's favour. then when they met at a slam, AO 10, federer dominated him completely.

I'd give Murray about 10-15% chance vs federer of RG 2011 before it started. Given that federer beat peak djokovic, I'd reduce that to 7-8% in a non-final match and about 4-5% in a final match.
 
Last edited:

1477aces

Hall of Fame
Have to say it always makes me laugh when classic Djokovic haters(yes Incognito, I'm looking at you) go liking posts whenever some claims Djokovic faced a much weaker Nadal(which he didn't) than Federer did. I mean, does she or anyone else seriously think the record books give a rat's arse who beat who over the years to earn their trophies? People like her must really seethe with a passion if even the thought of Novak being greater than Saint Roger on one of the three surfaces tears her up inside so much.
Sad.

Surely you don't think it's unreasonable to claim that Fed's peak level is higher on clay than Djokovic. Way I see it, there's no real clear answer.

Surely you would aherr
Top 3 in peak level. He'd win 4-6 RG in any era without Nadal.

Yes, and remove Wilander or Lendl and each would have many more RG titles as well. This type of excuse making is pretty pointless. Aside from Djokovic in 2011, fed hasn't even beat a single RG champion There in his career.
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
Have to say it always makes me laugh when classic Djokovic haters(yes Incognito, I'm looking at you) go liking posts whenever some claims Djokovic faced a much weaker Nadal(which he didn't) than Federer did. I mean, does she or anyone else seriously think the record books give a rat's arse who beat who over the years to earn their trophies? People like her must really seethe with a passion if even the thought of Novak being greater than Saint Roger on one of the three surfaces tears her up inside so much.
Sad.
I've lost count of how many times this guy had made this exact same boohoo run home to mommy post.
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
Surely you don't think it's unreasonable to claim that Fed's peak level is higher on clay than Djokovic. Way I see it, there's no real clear answer.

Surely you would aherr


Yes, and remove Wilander or Lendl and each would have many more RG titles as well. This type of excuse making is pretty pointless. Aside from Djokovic in 2011, fed hasn't even beat a single RG champion There in his career.
Moya in 2005. Stan in 2011. Thanks for playing. Not that this metric means anything, it's completely useless.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
Surely you don't think it's unreasonable to claim that Fed's peak level is higher on clay than Djokovic. Way I see it, there's no real clear answer.

Surely you would aherr


Yes, and remove Wilander or Lendl and each would have many more RG titles as well. This type of excuse making is pretty pointless. Aside from Djokovic in 2011, fed hasn't even beat a single RG champion There in his career.

I agree, that type of excuse making is pointless, but your own line of logic has huge holes in it as well. One could argue that Delpo would be a RG champion had Federer himself not stopped him in 2009 for example. Or you could look at a match up like Djokovic-Wawrinka and say Wawrinka is a RG champion only because he beat Djokovic (in an upset no less). So then does that mean if Djokovic beats Wawrinka this year he somehow gets extra credit because he beat a RG champion?

And clearly, as metsman pointed out you're wrong anyway.
 
Top