Top 5 peak level on each surface

[Incognito]

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.


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.

Even Ljubicic who hates Nadal with a passion said Nadal was weaker in 2011 than the previous year on clay. He almost lost in 1st round of RG that year lol.

Doesn't tear anything at all. And that's because I'm 100% sure Peak djokovic is not better than Peak Federer on any surface.

 

[1477aces]

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.

Yeah, my last sentence is clearly wrong and probably a bad metric anyhow. However, the point remains that Federer doesn't have many impressive victories at RG, really aside from Djokovic 2011 I struggle to think of any. Can't think of any for Djokovic.

 

[Steve0904]

Yeah, my last sentence is clearly wrong and probably a bad metric anyhow. However, the point remains that Federer doesn't have many impressive victories at RG, really aside from Djokovic 2011 I struggle to think of any. Can't think of any for Djokovic.

I just mentioned another one for Federer, Delpo in 2009, and 2012 too, Also Haas, if you're not as worried about the name and more focusing on the situation that Federer found himself in. Not that Haas is a bad player. He's a very good one actually.

 

[1477aces]

I just mentioned another one for Federer, Delpo in 2009, and 2012 too, Also Haas, if you're not as worried about the name and more focusing on the situation that Federer found himself in. Not that Haas is a bad player. He's a very good one actually.

Delpo was barely 20 and hasn't ever even won a masters on clay. Haas is a very good player, but he's not a GREAT player. Again, anyone putting Federer (or Djokovic) over Lendl Wilander or Kuerten for peak level on clay is delusional.

 

[Steve0904]

Delpo was barely 20 and hasn't ever even won a masters on clay. Haas is a very good player, but he's not a GREAT player. Again, anyone putting Federer (or Djokovic) over Lendl Wilander or Kuerten for peak level on clay is delusional.

I'm not worried about what KingRoger says. Delpo played well in both 2012 and especially 2009. Both were good wins for Federer objectively.

 

[Druss]

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

....but was it 'peak' Lendl he beat? I considered putting him at No5, but '95 Muster was better than any version of Wilander IMO.

 

[1477aces]

....but was it 'peak' Lendl he beat? I considered putting him at No5, but '95 Muster was better than any version of Wilander IMO.

The Lendl he beat was better than anyone Muster ever beat on Clay.

 

[6august]

Fast grass vs slow grass

Do you guys have any quantitative criteria to define which one is fast or slow? Any official stats, footage, evidence...?

Why don't divide clay into fast and slow too, because there's surely differences between tournaments?

 

[GabeT]

Fast grass vs slow grass

Do you guys have any quantitative criteria to define which one is fast or slow? Any official stats, footage, evidence...?

Why don't divide clay into fast and slow too, because there's surely differences between tournaments?

All you need to do is look carefully!

 

[SamprasisGOAT]

Only Open era?
No Connors?

Yeh I should have mentioned open era only. And it's harsh on connors but his peak level wasn't as high as the other players mentioned.

 

[SamprasisGOAT]

Why fast grass / slow grass? And no wood era / graphite era ; Nat gut / poly. These change play more than seed type and artificially grown grass. Comparing era's is really silly. Even the misc variance would effect players, for example Nadal in 70s, his bulk would be problematic most points played in 20s no towl down no MTO, no knee reconstructions. Djokovic in 70s, no family on tour, no physio, generally no coach on tour. Federer in 80s, he'd be a S&V and chip and charge, could he really handle the coke?

Well I call 68-04 fast grass and I call 05-16 slow grass.

I think everyone knows what I meant anyway.

 

[SamprasisGOAT]

Clay:

Nadal
Borg
Wilander
Lendl
Guga

Grass
Sampras
Federer
Borg
McEnroe
Becker

Fast Hard-courts

Federer
Sampras
Connors
Lendl
Nadal


Slow hardcourts
Djokovic
Federer
Agassi
Lendl
Sampras

Nice list

 

[SamprasisGOAT]

Peak level?

On each surface?

This thread is gonna be fun.

Nice thread so far. Quite a bit of trolling towards myself but this after all is tennis warehouse forum.

 

[6august]

Clay:
Sampras
Becker
Edberg
Safin
Ivanisevic

Grass:
Lendl
Wilander
Chang
Moya
Costa

Hard:
Kuerten
Bruguera
Panatta
Pietrangelli
Noah

 

[Tornes]

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.

Lets not stop just with 2010 and 2011 and look at longer period for more telling results.

Nadal 2006-2009 vs Nadal 2011-2014 - those are the Nadals Fed competed with the most and Djokovic competed with the most.

Nadal 2006-2009 lost exactly 4 clay matches (Federer, Ferrero, Federer, Soderling). So Fed defeated him in exactly 50 % of his losses.
Nadal was 105:4 (96,3 WP in this period).
Nadal lost 24 sets in this period (0,22 per match), 10 of them to Federer (41,7 % of all sets lost) and 14 to field (0,15 per match).

Nadal 2011-2014 lost exactly 8 clay matches (Djokovic, Djokovic, Verdasco, Zeballos, Djokovic, Ferrer, Almagro, Djokovic). Djokovic defeated him in exactly 50 % of his losses.
Nadal was 115:8 (93,5 WP in this period).
Nadal lost 33 sets in this period (0,27 per match), 11 of them to Djokovic (33,3 % of all sets lost and 22 to field (0,2 per match).

Nadal 2011-2014 was clearly less dominant than Nadal 2006-2009 and not only compared to Djokovic but compared to field as well. Fed did in his period exactly as well as the rest of the field and so did Djokovic in his. Actually if we look at sets, Federer was actually better compared to field then Djokovic was in his.

So yes, Nadals level dropped. Not much but nonetheless. And this drop of level is reason why was Djokovic able to defeat him 4 times and why Nadal lost another 4 times to other players.

 

[Mazz Retic]

Yeh I should have mentioned open era only. And it's harsh on connors but his peak level wasn't as high as the other players mentioned.

Thing about connors though is on any surface I would give him a chance against anyone bar Nadal on clay. His fight, grit, and talent would be hard for anyone to handle. I understand your reasoning though.

 

[GabeT]

Lets not stop just with 2010 and 2011 and look at longer period for more telling results.

Nadal 2006-2009 vs Nadal 2011-2014 - those are the Nadals Fed competed with the most and Djokovic competed with the most.

Nadal 2006-2009 lost exactly 4 clay matches (Federer, Ferrero, Federer, Soderling). So Fed defeated him in exactly 50 % of his losses.
Nadal was 105:4 (96,3 WP in this period).
Nadal lost 24 sets in this period (0,22 per match), 10 of them to Federer (41,7 % of all sets lost) and 14 to field (0,15 per match).

Nadal 2011-2014 lost exactly 8 clay matches (Djokovic, Djokovic, Verdasco, Zeballos, Djokovic, Ferrer, Almagro, Djokovic). Djokovic defeated him in exactly 50 % of his losses.
Nadal was 115:8 (93,5 WP in this period).
Nadal lost 33 sets in this period (0,27 per match), 11 of them to Djokovic (33,3 % of all sets lost and 22 to field (0,2 per match).

Nadal 2011-2014 was clearly less dominant than Nadal 2006-2009 and not only compared to Djokovic but compared to field as well. Fed did in his period exactly as well as the rest of the field and so did Djokovic in his. Actually if we look at sets, Federer was actually better compared to field then Djokovic was in his.

So yes, Nadals level dropped. Not much but nonetheless. And this drop of level is reason why was Djokovic able to defeat him 4 times and why Nadal lost another 4 times to other players.

This is very interesting but your response is not addressing my points. I am not comparing 2006-2009 with 2011-2014. I was comparing Nadal's 2010 season to his 2011 season. Your data does not even include 2010!

 

[Tornes]

This is very interesting but your response is not addressing my points. I am not comparing 2006-2009 with 2011-2014. I was comparing Nadal's 2010 season to his 2011 season. Your data does not even include 2010!

I wanted to compare same period for both player, however I could include it but it would be even worse for you.

In 2010 Nadal lost 2 sets. If I count it too for Fed, we get this:

Nadal 2006-2010 lost 4 matches, 2 with Fed.
Nadal was 127:4 (96,95 WP)
Nadal lost 26 sets, 10 of them to Fed (38,5 % to Fed), 16 to field (0,125 per match).

So yes, Nadal Federer faced was considerably better than Nadal Djokovic faced.

If we compare only 2010 and 2011:
In 2010, Nadal was 22:0. Lost 2 sets (0,09 per match), zero to Djoko or Fed.

In 2011, Nadal was 28:2. Lost 11 sets (0,36 per match), 4 of them to Djokovič, 7 to the rest of the field (0,25 per match).

Look at this numbers and say with straith face that Nadal in 2011 was better on clay than Nadal in 2010. He clearly was NOT.

 

[GabeT]

I wanted to compare same period for both player, however I could include it but it would be even worse for you.

In 2010 Nadal lost 2 sets. If I count it too for Fed, we get this:

Nadal 2006-2010 lost 4 matches, 2 with Fed.
Nadal was 127:4 (96,95 WP)
Nadal lost 26 sets, 10 of them to Fed (38,5 % to Fed), 16 to field (0,125 per match).

So yes, Nadal Federer faced was considerably better than Nadal Djokovic faced.

If we compare only 2010 and 2011:
In 2010, Nadal was 22:0. Lost 2 sets (0,09 per match), zero to Djoko or Fed.

In 2011, Nadal was 28:2. Lost 11 sets (0,36 per match), 4 of them to Djokovič, 7 to the rest of the field (0,25 per match).

Look at this numbers and say with straith face that Nadal in 2011 was better than Nadal in 2010. He clearly was NOT.

There are so many arguments and sub arguments that it gets lost after a while. I never said that 2011 Nadal was better than 2010 Nadal. I was addressing something else.

The argument has been made, over and over, that somehow 2011 Nadal was but a pale version of 2010 Nadal. That is what I was addressing. So I'm not saying that 2011 Nadal is so much better. I am saying that 2010 Nadal was very similar to 2011 Nadal and that, if anything, in 2011 Nadal reached more top tier finals. This if for finals in general. Without Nole 2011 would have been Nadal's best year ever overall.

On clay Nadal reached the finals in the top 4 clay tourneys in 2011, something he had only accomplished twice before (2010 and 2007, if I'm reading this correctly). So he clearly was playing very well. That's my only point.

 

[Tornes]

There are so many arguments and sub arguments that it gets lost after a while. I never said that 2011 Nadal was better than 2010 Nadal. I was addressing something else.

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.

I proved to you that Rafa was considerably better on clay (which was the point of discusion - Fed vs Nole on clay and therefore Rafa on clay) in 2010 than 2011, as well as better 2006-2010 than 2011-2014. So admit it and stop running around.

 

[GabeT]

I proved to you that Rafa was considerably better on clay (which was the point of discusion - Fed vs Nole on clay and therefore Rafa on clay) in 2010 than 2011, as well as better 2006-2010 than 2011-2014. So admit it and stop running around.

You think that sets WL% is an indication of playing better? Really?

So if Nadal, say, wins RG with every match at 5 sets that is "worse" than if Nadal wins the first 6 matches without losing a set and then loses the final in 5? Because using your stats in the fist case Nadal has only won 60% of sets played while in the second scenario Nadal wins 87% of the sets (yet still loses the tournament)

 

[Tornes]

You think that sets WL% is an indication of playing better? Really?

So if Nadal, say, wins RG with every match at 5 sets that is "worse" than if Nadal wins the first 6 matches without losing a set and then loses the final in 5? Because using your stats in the fist case Nadal has only won 60% of sets played while in the second scenario Nadal wins 87% of the sets (yet still loses the tournament)

In this scenario there is really high probability Nadal was playing worse in first case and was lucky and played well and just has really good final opponent (therefore was unlucky) in the second. Much better probability then that he has 7 GOATing opponents in raw in first scenario or that he play badly in second but all of his 6 first opponents play such badly they coud not even took set of him. So yeah, with no other data I would think Nadals level of play was better in second scenario.

Same with Fed. He has insane match WP but just looking at his game and set WP I can tell he does not play nearly as great as match WP would sugest. Going to 5 with Nishi? With Stan on HC? Have to save MPs vs Berdych? That is really not great performance for Feds peak or even prime standarts.

When we are talking about somebody as dominant as Rafa on clay we cant use only matches, because there are to few to be statistically significant. We have to work as well with sets WP and even games WP, because even "bad playing" Rafa rarely lose a set, let alone match on clay. However even match WP sugest that Rafa 2006-2010 ("Feds Rafa") was better than Rafa 2011-2014 ("Noles Rafa").

 

[GabeT]

In this scenario there is really high probability Nadal was playing worse in first case and was lucky and played well and just has really good final opponent (therefore was unlucky) in the second. Much better probability then that he has 7 GOATing opponents in raw in first scenario or that he play badly in second but all of his 6 first opponents play such badly they coud not even took set of him. So yeah, with no other data I would think Nadals level of play was better in second scenario.

Same with Fed. He has insane match WP but just looking at his game and set WP I can tell he does not play nearly as great as match WP would sugest. Going to 5 with Nishi? With Stan on HC? Have to save MPs vs Berdych? That is really not great performance for Feds peak or even prime standarts.

When we are talking about somebody as dominant as Rafa on clay we cant use only matches, because there are to few to be statistically significant. We have to work as well with sets WP and even games WP, because even "bad playing" Rafa rarely lose a set, let alone match on clay. However even match WP sugest that Rafa 2006-2010 ("Feds Rafa") was better than Rafa 2011-2014 ("Noles Rafa").

Ok, then maybe we have different definitions of what it means to play well or not. For me the number one metric, by far and above all else, are tournaments won. The rest comes a far, far second.

 

[Chanwan]

Ok, then maybe we have different definitions of what it means to play well or not. For me the number one metric, by far and above all else, are tournaments won. The rest comes a far, far second.

Now I'm getting confused, I thought your argument was that Rafa of 2011 was equal or better to Rafa of 2010, because he made more big level finals (despite not winning as much because of that one guy).

 

[Tornes]

Ok, then maybe we have different definitions of what it means to play well or not. For me the number one metric, by far and above all else, are tournaments won. The rest comes a far, far second.

Ok. Then by your metric Nadal played far, far better on clay in 2010 then 2011, because he won more tournaments. Happy to agree. Even with different metrics.

 

[GabeT]

Now I'm getting confused, I thought your argument was that Rafa of 2011 was equal or better to Rafa of 2010, because he made more big level finals (despite not winning as much because of that one guy).

The point I was making is that Nadal was reaching the finals, more so than in 2010 (overall, not just clay. Same number of top tier clay finals). So against the whole field, excepting Nole, 2011 Nadal was playing as well and, arguably, better than 2010 Nadal (again, this last point refers not just to clay). So what was different? My argument is that what changed most in 2011 was not Nadal getting worse but Nole getting much much better.

 

[GabeT]

Ok. Then by your metric Nadal played far, far better on clay in 2010 then 2011, because he won more tournaments. Thanks for playing, happy to agree. Even with different metrics.

Why did you feel the need to derail a perfectly good debate with a snark? Can't anyone debate here just for the fun of it, without descending to childish taunts? I really don't get it.

 

[Tornes]

Why did you feel the need to derail a perfectly good debate with a snark? Can't anyone debate here just for the fun of it, without descending to childish taunts? I really don't get it.

Sorry for that.

However I definitely think you are inconsistent in your arguments and you use arguments not to find the truth but to confirm your foredone opinion, which is something I really dont like in debate.

 

[GabeT]

Sorry for that.

However I definitely think you are inconsistent in your arguments and you use arguments not to find the truth but to confirm your foredone opinion, which is something I really dont like in debate.

Ok.

I try to be consistent. Don't always manage it. I thought I was clear but maybe I wasn't.

 

[Chanwan]

The point I was making is that Nadal was reaching the finals, more so than in 2010 (overall, not just clay. Same number of top tier clay finals). So against the whole field, excepting Nole, 2011 Nadal was playing as well and, arguably, better than 2010 Nadal (again, this last point refers not just to clay). So what was different? My argument is that what changed most in 2011 was not Nadal getting worse but Nole getting much much better.

I get it. And I tend to agree (though not quite on clay, I think the stats on sets lost someone just posted above is quite telling).
I remember reading these two articles way back when that discusses that very issue (@NatF):
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...dropped-significantly-in-2011-myth-or-reality
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/888816-rafael-nadal-i-played-worse-than-last-year-is-he-right
Including these two bits:
"post the US Open 2010, he was 55-6 and 7-4 versus top-10. Retract Djokovic and it becomes 59-5 and 13-2 (2011) versus 55-7 and 7-4"

"I do agree with Nadal that he plays a bit worse in tough situations, and that he's doing the small things a little bit worse. But I also agree with Murray that Djokovic has taken the game up a notch and this, in my opinion, is the primary reason for Nadal looking less tough this year.

That said, tennis is also a game of the mind.

And while Djokovic beating Rafa six straight times is a result of him coming up with answers to whatever Rafa throws at him, it is also a virtuous circle that gives Djokovic more confidence and belief with each win, and robs Rafa of the very same, making him less tough in pressure situations"

 

[buscemi]

....but was it 'peak' Lendl he beat? I considered putting him at No5, but '95 Muster was better than any version of Wilander IMO.

Yeah, 1985 was peak Lendl, and Wilander beat him pretty convincingly in the final, 3-6, 6-4, 6-2, 6-2. It was right in between Lendl winning the French in 1984, 1986, and 1987, and Lendl also won the U.S. Open, WTF, and the WCT finals that year.

 

[SamprasisGOAT]

Thing about connors though is on any surface I would give him a chance against anyone bar Nadal on clay. His fight, grit, and talent would be hard for anyone to handle. I understand your reasoning though.

I agree with you there. He's the biggest fighter/underdog in tennis history.

 

[tarutani]

Grass Nadal 2010
Fast HC Nadal 2013
Medium HC Nadal 2010
Slow HC Djokovic 2015
Indoor Djokovic 2012
Clay Nadal 2008