Tournament of Peaks

[TheMaestro1990]

I have seen various tournaments being voted where the greatest players of all time have "participated". I was thinking of something similiar, but this time around only judging the players' peak year. Only Open Era. Here goes:

[1] Rod Laver 1969

[16] Marat Safin 2000

------------------------------------

[7] Björn Borg 1979

[9] Pete Sampras 1995

------------------------------------

[5] Jimmy Connors 1974

[11] Jim Courier 1992

------------------------------------

[13] Andre Agassi 1999

[3] Djokovic 2015

________________________________________________________

[4] John McEnroe 1984

[14] Stefan Edberg 1990

------------------------------------

[8] Mats Wilander 1988

[12] Boris Becker 1989

------------------------------------

[6] Rafael Nadal 2010

[10] Ivan Lendl 1987

------------------------------------

[15] Lleyton Hewitt 2002

[2] Roger Federer 2006

________________________________________________________

Played in best of 3. First set on grass, second set on clay - deciding on hard.

Who survives the first round?

 

[KG1965]

I have seen various tournaments being voted where the greatest players of all time have "participated". I was thinking of something similiar, but this time around only judging the players' peak year. Only Open Era. Here goes:

[1] Rod Laver 1969

[16] Marat Safin 2000

------------------------------------

[7] Björn Borg 1979

[9] Pete Sampras 1995

------------------------------------

[5] Jimmy Connors 1974

[11] Jim Courier 1992

------------------------------------

[13] Andre Agassi 1999

[3] Djokovic 2015

________________________________________________________

[4] John McEnroe 1984

[14] Stefan Edberg 1990

------------------------------------

[8] Mats Wilander 1988

[12] Boris Becker 1989

------------------------------------

[6] Rafael Nadal 2010

[10] Ivan Lendl 1987

------------------------------------

[15] Lleyton Hewitt 2002

[2] Roger Federer 2006

________________________________________________________

Played in best of 3. First set on grass, second set on clay - deciding on hard.

Who survives the first round?

excuse my ignorance but I do not understand the difference with gold thread

 

[TheMaestro1990]

excuse my ignorance but I do not understand the difference with gold thread

This is about the players' peak year when facing off against each other; not the opinions based on their entire careers.

 

[mattosgrant]

Those wouldnt be my seedings based on their peak years but I will play along and go by those matches. How each would go:

Laver vs Safin- which Safin would show up? Safin at his best has a chance against anyone. Still even if in form Laver probably still would take the grass and clay set, and win in straights before even getting to the hard court set decider.

Borg vs Sampras- Sampras wins the grass set in a tiebreaker, loses the clay set 6-2, then wins the hard court set 7-5.

Connors vs Courier- Connors takes the grass set, Courier takes the clay set comfortably, but Connors takes the hard court set in a close one to move on.

Agassi vs Djokovic- Djokovic takes both the grass and clay set, and the match is over before the best potential set (the hard court set).

McEnroe vs Edberg- McEnroe wins 7-6, 7-5 or something.

Wilander vs Becker- hmmm intersting one. Becker wins the grass court set 6-1, Wilander takes the clay set 6-3, and the hard court set is anyones guess and what is the speed of the hard court, but I am going to go with Becker 9-7 (or 7-6 if it ends in a tiebreaker) to move on.

Nadal vs Lendl- Nadal takes both the clay and grass set, and the match is over before Lendl's best shot (the hard court set). Keeping in mind this is peak Nadal who from 2006-2011 was much better than Lendl ever was on grass.

Hewitt vs Federer- haha do I have to say a thing. I respect Hewitt a great deal but ultimate nightmare match up for him is peak Fed. 90% likely straight set win for Federer, particularly since Hewitt's best chance would be the hard court set.


I am going to move onto the quarters now:

Laver vs Sampras- Sampras wins the grass set, but Laver takes the clay set easily, then the hard court set in a long war to advance.

Connors vs Djokovic- Djokovic takes the grass set in a tiebreaker than the clay set easily to advance.

McEnroe vs Becker- Becker takes the grass set 7-5, but loses the clay and hard court set for McEnroe to advance.

Nadal vs Federer- Federer takes the grass set in a tiebreak, loses the clay set, and also loses the hard court set (Nadal actually has the head to head advantage over their careers on hard courts) to advance.


Now onto the semis:

Laver vs Djokovic- Laver takes the grass set, but loses both the clay and hard court sets as Djokovic moves onto the final.

McEnroe vs Nadal- McEnroe takes the grass set, loses the clay, but takes the hard court set to move on.


Now onto the final:

Djokovic vs McEnroe- McEnroe takes the grass set, loses the clay set, but takes the hard court set 10-8 to win!

McEnroe is the winner. Of the current big 3 Djokvoic is a finals loser, Nadal a semi loser, and Fed a quarters loses (to Nadal). The GOAT Laver falls to Djokovic in the semis.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Those wouldnt be my seedings based on their peak years but I will play along and go by those matches. How each would go:

Laver vs Safin- which Safin would show up? Safin at his best has a chance against anyone. Still even if in form Laver probably still would take the grass and clay set, and win in straights before even getting to the hard court set decider.

Borg vs Sampras- Sampras wins the grass set in a tiebreaker, loses the clay set 6-2, then wins the hard court set 7-5.

Connors vs Courier- Connors takes the grass set, Courier takes the clay set comfortably, but Connors takes the hard court set in a close one to move on.

Agassi vs Djokovic- Djokovic takes both the grass and clay set, and the match is over before the best potential set (the hard court set).

McEnroe vs Edberg- McEnroe wins 7-6, 7-5 or something.

Wilander vs Becker- hmmm intersting one. Becker wins the grass court set 6-1, Wilander takes the clay set 6-3, and the hard court set is anyones guess and what is the speed of the hard court, but I am going to go with Becker 9-7 (or 7-6 if it ends in a tiebreaker) to move on.

Nadal vs Lendl- Nadal takes both the clay and grass set, and the match is over before Lendl's best shot (the hard court set). Keeping in mind this is peak Nadal who from 2006-2011 was much better than Lendl ever was on grass.

Hewitt vs Federer- haha do I have to say a thing. I respect Hewitt a great deal but ultimate nightmare match up for him is peak Fed. 90% likely straight set win for Federer, particularly since Hewitt's best chance would be the hard court set.

Good analysis. I agree with all of these choices. Bad draw for Borg, Lendl and Agassi, although I can see Agassi upsetting Djokovic on clay or grass, but, not on hard.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Those wouldnt be my seedings based on their peak years but I will play along and go by those matches. How each would go:

Laver vs Safin- which Safin would show up? Safin at his best has a chance against anyone. Still even if in form Laver probably still would take the grass and clay set, and win in straights before even getting to the hard court set decider.

Borg vs Sampras- Sampras wins the grass set in a tiebreaker, loses the clay set 6-2, then wins the hard court set 7-5.

Connors vs Courier- Connors takes the grass set, Courier takes the clay set comfortably, but Connors takes the hard court set in a close one to move on.

Agassi vs Djokovic- Djokovic takes both the grass and clay set, and the match is over before the best potential set (the hard court set).

McEnroe vs Edberg- McEnroe wins 7-6, 7-5 or something.

Wilander vs Becker- hmmm intersting one. Becker wins the grass court set 6-1, Wilander takes the clay set 6-3, and the hard court set is anyones guess and what is the speed of the hard court, but I am going to go with Becker 9-7 (or 7-6 if it ends in a tiebreaker) to move on.

Nadal vs Lendl- Nadal takes both the clay and grass set, and the match is over before Lendl's best shot (the hard court set). Keeping in mind this is peak Nadal who from 2006-2011 was much better than Lendl ever was on grass.

Hewitt vs Federer- haha do I have to say a thing. I respect Hewitt a great deal but ultimate nightmare match up for him is peak Fed. 90% likely straight set win for Federer, particularly since Hewitt's best chance would be the hard court set.


I am going to move onto the quarters now:

Laver vs Sampras- Sampras wins the grass set, but Laver takes the clay set easily, then the hard court set in a long war to advance.

Connors vs Djokovic- Djokovic takes the grass set in a tiebreaker than the clay set easily to advance.

McEnroe vs Becker- Becker takes the grass set 7-5, but loses the clay and hard court set for McEnroe to advance.

Nadal vs Federer- Federer takes the grass set in a tiebreak, loses the clay set, and also loses the hard court set (Nadal actually has the head to head advantage over their careers on hard courts) to advance.


Now onto the semis:

Laver vs Djokovic- Laver takes the grass set, but loses both the clay and hard court sets as Djokovic moves onto the final.

McEnroe vs Nadal- McEnroe takes the grass set, loses the clay, but takes the hard court set to move on.


Now onto the final:

Djokovic vs McEnroe- McEnroe takes the grass set, loses the clay set, but takes the hard court set 10-8 to win!

McEnroe is the winner. Of the current big 3 Djokvoic is a finals loser, Nadal a semi loser, and Fed a quarters loses (to Nadal). The GOAT Laver falls to Djokovic in the semis.

Did you see my edit?

 

[mattosgrant]

Did you see my edit?

Yeah I just saw your edit. I actually think Agassi has a much better chance against Djokovic on hard courts (their mutual best surface) than grass or clay. I just think on grass or clay, Djokovic's vastly superior movement and athleticsm would be too much. Along with on grass his superior serve (when both have all time great returns) and clay his superior fitness and patience. On hard courts the superior ball striking of Agassi (despite Djokovic also being an excellent ball striker) and amazing timing and court positioning and taking the ball so early would give him his best chance vs Djokovic I feel.

 

[TheMaestro1990]

Those wouldnt be my seedings based on their peak years but I will play along and go by those matches. How each would go:

Laver vs Safin- which Safin would show up? Safin at his best has a chance against anyone. Still even if in form Laver probably still would take the grass and clay set, and win in straights before even getting to the hard court set decider.

Borg vs Sampras- Sampras wins the grass set in a tiebreaker, loses the clay set 6-2, then wins the hard court set 7-5.

Connors vs Courier- Connors takes the grass set, Courier takes the clay set comfortably, but Connors takes the hard court set in a close one to move on.

Agassi vs Djokovic- Djokovic takes both the grass and clay set, and the match is over before the best potential set (the hard court set).

McEnroe vs Edberg- McEnroe wins 7-6, 7-5 or something.

Wilander vs Becker- hmmm intersting one. Becker wins the grass court set 6-1, Wilander takes the clay set 6-3, and the hard court set is anyones guess and what is the speed of the hard court, but I am going to go with Becker 9-7 (or 7-6 if it ends in a tiebreaker) to move on.

Nadal vs Lendl- Nadal takes both the clay and grass set, and the match is over before Lendl's best shot (the hard court set). Keeping in mind this is peak Nadal who from 2006-2011 was much better than Lendl ever was on grass.

Hewitt vs Federer- haha do I have to say a thing. I respect Hewitt a great deal but ultimate nightmare match up for him is peak Fed. 90% likely straight set win for Federer, particularly since Hewitt's best chance would be the hard court set.


I am going to move onto the quarters now:

Laver vs Sampras- Sampras wins the grass set, but Laver takes the clay set easily, then the hard court set in a long war to advance.

Connors vs Djokovic- Djokovic takes the grass set in a tiebreaker than the clay set easily to advance.

McEnroe vs Becker- Becker takes the grass set 7-5, but loses the clay and hard court set for McEnroe to advance.

Nadal vs Federer- Federer takes the grass set in a tiebreak, loses the clay set, and also loses the hard court set (Nadal actually has the head to head advantage over their careers on hard courts) to advance.


Now onto the semis:

Laver vs Djokovic- Laver takes the grass set, but loses both the clay and hard court sets as Djokovic moves onto the final.

McEnroe vs Nadal- McEnroe takes the grass set, loses the clay, but takes the hard court set to move on.


Now onto the final:

Djokovic vs McEnroe- McEnroe takes the grass set, loses the clay set, but takes the hard court set 10-8 to win!

McEnroe is the winner. Of the current big 3 Djokvoic is a finals loser, Nadal a semi loser, and Fed a quarters loses (to Nadal). The GOAT Laver falls to Djokovic in the semis.

Nice analysis. I figured someone would point out that the seedings very possibly wouldn't suit everyone. No point in taking the seedings too seriously though, this is just an imaginable tournament anyway Just wanna see which guy edges everyone out!

 

[mattosgrant]

Nice analysis. I figured someone would point out that the seedings very possibly wouldn't suit everyone. No point in taking the seedings too seriously though, this is just an imaginable tournament anyway Just wanna see which guy edges everyone out!

The funny thing is if Federer had avoided Nadal in the tournament I suspect I probably would have ended up having him winning the tournament. Maybe you should switch Djokovic and Federer's seedings around so Federer likely avoids Nadal altogether.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Yeah I just saw your edit. I actually think Agassi has a much better chance against Djokovic on hard courts (their mutual best surface) than grass or clay. I just think on grass or clay, Djokovic's vastly superior movement and athleticsm would be too much. Along with on grass his superior serve (when both have all time great returns) and clay his superior fitness and patience. On hard courts the superior ball striking of Agassi (despite Djokovic also being an excellent ball striker) and amazing timing and court positioning and taking the ball so early would give him his best chance vs Djokovic I feel.

In my view, Agassi's groundgame - his uniquely compact windup and hugely powerful ground strokes, and, his ability to play on the baseline with power gives him a natural advantage over all other backcourt players on grass. Djokovic has a slight advantage on serve, Agassi has a slight advantage on return on grass. Add to that Agassi's superior overall net-game, volleys and smash, and I can easily see him upsetting Djokovic on grass. In addition, clay tends to neutralize Djokovic's superior mobility, and Agassi is at once, one of the hardest hitters, and steadiest hitters, in the history of tennis. A little less likely but I can see it on clay, too. However, on hard courts, Djokovic's superior mobility would be a decided advantage that would overcome Agassi's court positioning. As for conditioning, in my opinion, under Gil Reyes, Agassi was as fit as anyone ever was.

PS: Anyway, I would probably call it grass for Agassi, clay and hard for Djokovic.

 

[TheMaestro1990]

The funny thing is if Federer had avoided Nadal in the tournament I suspect I probably would have ended up having him winning the tournament. Maybe you should switch Djokovic and Federer's seedings around so Federer likely avoids Nadal altogether.

I thought about that as well, but even though I'm a Federer fan I didn't want to do that. I believe that his 2006 season is sharper than Djokovic's 2015 and I wouldn't let anyone think otherwise

 

[Limpinhitter]

I thought about that as well, but even though I'm a Federer fan I didn't want to do that. I believe that his 2006 season is sharper than Djokovic's 2015 and I wouldn't let anyone think otherwise

http://www.worldtennismagazine.com/archives/12458

 

[mattosgrant]

I thought about that as well, but even though I'm a Federer fan I didn't want to do that. I believe that his 2006 season is sharper than Djokovic's 2015 and I wouldn't let anyone think otherwise

Well I personally feel Djokovic's 2015 season was the better season anyway (basically it is 2 extra Masters vs 3 500 titles and 1 meaningless RR loss, and for me that is an easy call). Unless you factor in the losses Fed took were to Nadal on clay or overall competition (neither year had good competition at all IMO, but 2006 still above 2015 in that department).

 

[mattosgrant]

In my view, Agassi's groundgame - his uniquely compact windup and hugely powerful ground strokes, and, his ability to play on the baseline with power gives him a natural advantage over all other backcourt players on grass. Djokovic has a slight advantage on serve, Agassi has a slight advantage on return on grass. Add to that Agassi's superior overall net-game, volleys and smash, and I can easily see him upsetting Djokovic on grass. In addition, clay tends to neutralize Djokovic's superior mobility, and Agassi is at once, one of the hardest hitters, and steadiest hitters, in the history of tennis. A little less likely but I can see it on clay, too. However, on hard courts, Djokovic's superior mobility would be a decided advantage that would overcome Agassi's court positioning. As for conditioning, in my opinion, under Gil Reyes, Agassi was as fit as anyone ever was.

PS: Anyway, I would probably call it grass for Agassi, clay and hard for Djokovic.

I can see your points. However Agassi just doesnt have enough results on clay and grass throughout his career to be more convincing to me on those surfaces. Particularly with the resume Djokovic is building up today on grass. For instance between his 92 title and 99 final Agassi managed only 1 semi final and 1 other quarter final at Wimbledon. I am not judging peak level play just by results, but it is hard to ignore a relative lack of results to a significant degree as well.

Although that was the era that had alot more big servers and top notch serve and volleyers on grass than today, and the grass is far more baseliner oriented today, so maybe it isnt a totally fair comparision.

 

[TheMaestro1990]

Well I personally feel Djokovic's 2015 season was the better season anyway (basically it is 2 extra Masters vs 3 500 titles and 1 meaningless RR loss, and for me that is an easy call). Unless you factor in the losses Fed took were to Nadal on clay or overall competition (neither year had good competition at all IMO, but 2006 still above 2015 in that department).

Federer basically lost to two players that year, one of them being one of the most dominating forces tennis has ever seen on a particular surface. Nadal 2006 on clay was pretty darn good. If not for Nadal, Federer would have wound up with both the Rome title and more importantly, the French Open. Djokovic faced a version of Nadal in 2015 that is a shadow of the clay player he was in 2006. Besides, he even lost to Wawrinka in the final, something I believe Federer wouldn't have. I believe we have to look more into the context than only titles when comparing players' peak years. That's my take on the matter.

 

[Limpinhitter]

I can see your points. However Agassi just doesnt have enough results on clay and grass throughout his career to be more convincing to me on those surfaces. Particularly with the resume Djokovic is building up today on grass. For instance between his 92 title and 99 final Agassi managed only 1 semi final and 1 other quarter final at Wimbledon. I am not judging peak level play just by results, but it is hard to ignore a relative lack of results to a significant degree as well.

Although that was the era that had alot more big servers and top notch serve and volleyers on grass than today, and the grass is far more baseliner oriented today, so maybe it isnt a totally fair comparision.

Yes, Agassi played most of his career against natural, "Big Game," players on grass. I'm just saying that against another backcourt player, Agassi has some natural advantages on grass. I also think Agassi has a consistency advantage on clay, but, a bigger mobility disadvantage on hard court.

 

[70sHollywood]

Those wouldnt be my seedings based on their peak years but I will play along and go by those matches. How each would go:

Laver vs Safin- which Safin would show up? Safin at his best has a chance against anyone. Still even if in form Laver probably still would take the grass and clay set, and win in straights before even getting to the hard court set decider.

Borg vs Sampras- Sampras wins the grass set in a tiebreaker, loses the clay set 6-2, then wins the hard court set 7-5.

Connors vs Courier- Connors takes the grass set, Courier takes the clay set comfortably, but Connors takes the hard court set in a close one to move on.

Agassi vs Djokovic- Djokovic takes both the grass and clay set, and the match is over before the best potential set (the hard court set).

McEnroe vs Edberg- McEnroe wins 7-6, 7-5 or something.

Wilander vs Becker- hmmm intersting one. Becker wins the grass court set 6-1, Wilander takes the clay set 6-3, and the hard court set is anyones guess and what is the speed of the hard court, but I am going to go with Becker 9-7 (or 7-6 if it ends in a tiebreaker) to move on.

Nadal vs Lendl- Nadal takes both the clay and grass set, and the match is over before Lendl's best shot (the hard court set). Keeping in mind this is peak Nadal who from 2006-2011 was much better than Lendl ever was on grass.

Hewitt vs Federer- haha do I have to say a thing. I respect Hewitt a great deal but ultimate nightmare match up for him is peak Fed. 90% likely straight set win for Federer, particularly since Hewitt's best chance would be the hard court set.

Yes, I think I would definitely agree with most of this. What type of hard court is a factor though. I would pick Wilander on a slow(ish) court, maybe Courier too, though I am inclined to give Jimbo the benefit of the doubt.

Considering the year for each player I think Agassi v Djokovic is very debatable. I've long thought Agassi in the 99 Wimbledon final was brilliant, the best I've seen someone play in a straight sets defeat. But Djokovic was also very good, the best he has played on grass. On the other hand I was not impressed by his US performance so if it came down to the hard courts I might be tempted to pick Andre.

 

[mattosgrant]

Yes, I think I would definitely agree with most of this. What type of hard court is a factor though. I would pick Wilander on a slow(ish) court, maybe Courier too, though I am inclined to give Jimbo the benefit of the doubt.

Considering the year for each player I think Agassi v Djokovic is very debatable. I've long thought Agassi in the 99 Wimbledon final was brilliant, the best I've seen someone play in a straight sets defeat. But Djokovic was also very good, the best he has played on grass. On the other hand I was not impressed by his US performance so if it came down to the hard courts I might be tempted to pick Andre.

Not sure I would pick Wilander over Becker on a slower hard court. Becker won the Australian Open twice with some fabulous performances. Wilander won it once on slow hard courts, when everyone still wasnt playing the event.

Courier vs Connors, yes I think it is possible Courier would have the edge on a slower hard court but hard to say for sure. Connors definitely on any medium to faster hard court.

I think it is entirely possible Agassi at the U.S Open and on truly fast hard courts might have the edge on Djokovic when playing his very best.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Not sure I would pick Wilander over Becker on a slower hard court. Becker won the Australian Open twice with some fabulous performances. Wilander won it once on slow hard courts, when everyone still wasnt playing the event.

Courier vs Connors, yes I think it is possible Courier would have the edge on a slower hard court but hard to say for sure. Connors definitely on any medium to faster hard court.

I think it is entirely possible Agassi at the U.S Open and on truly fast hard courts might have the edge on Djokovic when playing his very best.

Didn't Wilander win the 83" AO on grass? But, I think peak Becker is definitely the better player on 2 of 3 surfaces.

Still like Agassi's chances against Djokovic on grass, then clay, but not on hard.

Connors would be a tough matchup for Courier. Connors' low, flat, penetrating ball would give Courier problems, in my view.

 

[NatF]

Those wouldnt be my seedings based on their peak years but I will play along and go by those matches. How each would go:

Laver vs Safin- which Safin would show up? Safin at his best has a chance against anyone. Still even if in form Laver probably still would take the grass and clay set, and win in straights before even getting to the hard court set decider.

Borg vs Sampras- Sampras wins the grass set in a tiebreaker, loses the clay set 6-2, then wins the hard court set 7-5.

Connors vs Courier- Connors takes the grass set, Courier takes the clay set comfortably, but Connors takes the hard court set in a close one to move on.

Agassi vs Djokovic- Djokovic takes both the grass and clay set, and the match is over before the best potential set (the hard court set).

McEnroe vs Edberg- McEnroe wins 7-6, 7-5 or something.

Wilander vs Becker- hmmm intersting one. Becker wins the grass court set 6-1, Wilander takes the clay set 6-3, and the hard court set is anyones guess and what is the speed of the hard court, but I am going to go with Becker 9-7 (or 7-6 if it ends in a tiebreaker) to move on.

Nadal vs Lendl- Nadal takes both the clay and grass set, and the match is over before Lendl's best shot (the hard court set). Keeping in mind this is peak Nadal who from 2006-2011 was much better than Lendl ever was on grass.

Hewitt vs Federer- haha do I have to say a thing. I respect Hewitt a great deal but ultimate nightmare match up for him is peak Fed. 90% likely straight set win for Federer, particularly since Hewitt's best chance would be the hard court set.


I am going to move onto the quarters now:

Laver vs Sampras- Sampras wins the grass set, but Laver takes the clay set easily, then the hard court set in a long war to advance.

Connors vs Djokovic- Djokovic takes the grass set in a tiebreaker than the clay set easily to advance.

McEnroe vs Becker- Becker takes the grass set 7-5, but loses the clay and hard court set for McEnroe to advance.

Nadal vs Federer- Federer takes the grass set in a tiebreak, loses the clay set, and also loses the hard court set (Nadal actually has the head to head advantage over their careers on hard courts) to advance.


Now onto the semis:

Laver vs Djokovic- Laver takes the grass set, but loses both the clay and hard court sets as Djokovic moves onto the final.

McEnroe vs Nadal- McEnroe takes the grass set, loses the clay, but takes the hard court set to move on.


Now onto the final:

Djokovic vs McEnroe- McEnroe takes the grass set, loses the clay set, but takes the hard court set 10-8 to win!

McEnroe is the winner. Of the current big 3 Djokvoic is a finals loser, Nadal a semi loser, and Fed a quarters loses (to Nadal). The GOAT Laver falls to Djokovic in the semis.

For a match maybe I could see Nadal topping Federer on HC peak for peak because of the match up, but for one set? I don't think so. Federer is arguably the best player ever over one set. Pit any Nadal against USO 2004 first set Federer and I don't think he comes away from it with it. A one set shoot out on HC actually plays into Federer's hands.

 

[TheMaestro1990]

For a match maybe I could see Nadal topping Federer on HC peak for peak because of the match up, but for one set? I don't think so. Federer is arguably the best player ever over one set. Pit any Nadal against USO 2004 first set Federer and I don't think he comes away from it with it. A one set shoot out on HC actually plays into Federer's hands.

That's an interesting way to see it. Didn't think of that.

 

[Dan Lobb]

There is no reason to restrict this to the "open era", whatever that is.

 

[DMP]

There is no reason to restrict this to the "open era", whatever that is.

In which case my first name would be Hoad. No hesitation or doubt about it ☺

 

[NatF]

In which case my first name would be Hoad. No hesitation or doubt about it ☺

I have some doubts

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

monte viso over matterhorn in 4 sets

 

[Tardigrade]

Safin of US Open 00 would completely kill Laver. What is this nonsense that Laver would beat Safin on HC and clay. Does anyone know how bad Laver serves compared to Sampras? Does anyone remember what Safin did to Sampras' serve that day? Sampras at one point was serving at 78% and was still seeing returns go by him on the regs, Laver would have no chance against a player of Safin's quality. Aside from movement and touch, Safin does pretty much everything else lightyears better than Laver. And before the older guys who tell me I have not seen Laver play; I have seen what footage is available of Laver on youtube. I will say I was very impressed with his movement, touch/guile and that's about it. I had to stop myself from falling asleep.

 

[BobbyOne]

Safin of US Open 00 would completely kill Laver. What is this nonsense that Laver would beat Safin on HC and clay. Does anyone know how bad Laver serves compared to Sampras? Does anyone remember what Safin did to Sampras' serve that day? Sampras at one point was serving at 78% and was still seeing returns go by him on the regs, Laver would have no chance against a player of Safin's quality. Aside from movement and touch, Safin does pretty much everything else lightyears better than Laver. And before the older guys who tell me I have not seen Laver play; I have seen what footage is available of Laver on youtube. I will say I was very impressed with his movement, touch/guile and that's about it. I had to stop myself from falling asleep.

Obviously you have not watched the 1969 AO SF between Laver and Roche!

 

[Tardigrade]

Obviously you have not watched the 1969 AO SF between Laver and Roche!

Why? Because I feel that the guy who literally put a beat-down on Sampras would also happen to beat a player from the stone age. I enjoy living in the past about some players too, but Laver literally has no big weapons to hurt a guy like Safin; He would need Safin to implode, Safin at his best doesn't implode. The only old guy I think would go toe to toe with the best players of the past twenty years was Mcenroe, who is a top tier talent for sure and the only old player in tennis I can actually feel entertained by his game (and antics).

 

[NatF]

There needs to be some mental attempt to equalise equipment because otherwise only Federer/Djokovic/Nadal and maybe Sampras can really be in the discussion.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Safin of US Open 00 would completely kill Laver. What is this nonsense that Laver would beat Safin on HC and clay. Does anyone know how bad Laver serves compared to Sampras? Does anyone remember what Safin did to Sampras' serve that day? Sampras at one point was serving at 78% and was still seeing returns go by him on the regs, Laver would have no chance against a player of Safin's quality. Aside from movement and touch, Safin does pretty much everything else lightyears better than Laver. And before the older guys who tell me I have not seen Laver play; I have seen what footage is available of Laver on youtube. I will say I was very impressed with his movement, touch/guile and that's about it. I had to stop myself from falling asleep.

I don't know why you would think that. Assuming they were using modern equipment, I would pick peak Laver to beat Safin on every surface. Maybe you don't fully appreciate how good Laver was. Yes, on any given day, Safin (like Hoad), could beat anyone, but, if this thread is assuming peak year, then Safin was too erratic to assume that his peak year would be equal to his peak day. In fact, as I recall, shortly after Safin retired he was beaten by a long retired Stefan Edberg in a legends match, on clay.

 

[Limpinhitter]

There needs to be some mental attempt to equalise equipment because otherwise only Federer/Djokovic/Nadal and maybe Sampras can really be in the discussion.

Agreed! And, in my opinion, the wood racquet players' technique and ability to exploit the advantages of modern equipment should be taken into account, in my view.

 

[NatF]

Agreed! And, in my opinion, the wood racquet players' technique and ability to exploit the advantages of modern equipment should be taken into account, in my view.

That's one aspect. I also like to think about their strengths and weakness within their own era's. I assume Rosewall would have a great backhand no matter when he played but also that his serve would be a relative weakness.

 

[BobbyOne]

There needs to be some mental attempt to equalise equipment because otherwise only Federer/Djokovic/Nadal and maybe Sampras can really be in the discussion.

NatF, I agree.

Agreed! And, in my opinion, the wood racquet players' technique and ability to exploit the advantages of modern equipment should be taken into account, in my view.

Why? Because I feel that the guy who literally put a beat-down on Sampras would also happen to beat a player from the stone age. I enjoy living in the past about some players too, but Laver literally has no big weapons to hurt a guy like Safin; He would need Safin to implode, Safin at his best doesn't implode. The only old guy I think would go toe to toe with the best players of the past twenty years was Mcenroe, who is a top tier talent for sure and the only old player in tennis I can actually feel entertained by his game (and antics).

Why? Because I feel that the guy who literally put a beat-down on Sampras would also happen to beat a player from the stone age. I enjoy living in the past about some players too, but Laver literally has no big weapons to hurt a guy like Safin; He would need Safin to implode, Safin at his best doesn't implode. The only old guy I think would go toe to toe with the best players of the past twenty years was Mcenroe, who is a top tier talent for sure and the only old player in tennis I can actually feel entertained by his game (and antics).

****igrade, 1969 was not stone age. Loser Roche many years later beat McEnroe in straight sets.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Why? Because I feel that the guy who literally put a beat-down on Sampras would also happen to beat a player from the stone age. I enjoy living in the past about some players too, but Laver literally has no big weapons to hurt a guy like Safin; He would need Safin to implode, Safin at his best doesn't implode. The only old guy I think would go toe to toe with the best players of the past twenty years was Mcenroe, who is a top tier talent for sure and the only old player in tennis I can actually feel entertained by his game (and antics).

Laver had no big weapons? You must be joking! In my view, Laver had more weapons than any player in the history of tennis, and that view is shared by almost everyone who saw him play. And, yes, I've seen him play, as well as Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Sampras, Agassi, Lendl, Borg, Connors, and many more of the all time greats beginning with Rosewall. In addition, Laver was probably the greatest, most talented athlete in the history of tennis, which is Cliff Drysdale's opinion, too!

Laver was the biggest hitter in the history of tennis with a wood racquet, and, according to Arthur Ashe, Laver would be second to no one in power with a modern frame. Although, I would concede that DelPotro and Soderling would be exceptions to that premise, but, neither of them have anywhere near the talent and overall athletic prowess that Laver had. I don't think you've given this topic enough thought.

 

[Tardigrade]

I don't know why you would think that. Assuming they were using modern equipment, I would pick peak Laver to beat Safin on every surface. Maybe you don't fully appreciate how good Laver was. Yes, on any given day, Safin (like Hoad), could beat anyone, but, if this thread is assuming peak year, then Safin was too erratic to assume that his peak year would be equal to his peak day. In fact, as I recall, shortly after Safin retired he was beaten by a long retired Stefan Edberg in a legends match, on clay.

Going to respond to your other posts later, but I'm not ripping Laver at all; In his day, he was the best, and in terms of achievements, if anyone has a shout to be proclaimed GOAT, it would be him, although it's my personal opinion that the TBE/GOAT does not exist in tennis as there is no player with a perfect resume. Would Rod Laver be a force in todays game with the advances of technology and nutrition? Absolutely, he has arguably the greatest movement I have seen. Would Laver with his stock 60's specs beat Safin? Hell no. He would get completely overpowered.



Laver modernised would be able to beat Marat no doubts. Not denying this. Safin didn't go unbeaten against any top player. I would however back Safin at his best to beat Laver at his best on HC and clay. I'll reply to your other posts after I've eaten.

 

[Tardigrade]

Laver had no big weapons? You must be joking! In my view, Laver had more weapons than any player in the history of tennis, and that view is shared by almost everyone who saw him play. And, yes, I've seen him play, as well as Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Sampras, Agassi, Lendl, Borg, Connors, and many more of the all time greats beginning with Rosewall. In addition, Laver was probably the greatest, most talented athlete in the history of tennis, which is Cliff Drysdale's opinion, too!

Must be right if Cliff Drysdale says so! Bud Collins also said on this forum that Peter Polanksi was a 4.0.


From watching what I possibly can of Laver, he doesn't serve nearly as well as Safin, and Safin's BH is the best backhand I've ever seen. I've seen him completely cripple the likes of Agassi and Nalbandian in BH-2-BH exchanges. He's made Agassi's BH look lightweight at times. Safin had 33 aces and zero double faults against Agassi at AO 2004; Agassi ranked #3 coming off a slam winning year in 2003 and Safin coming into AO 2004 without any form or confidence; He missed 90% of 03.


And no, Laver isn't technically more complete than Safin. Safin is, from a technical standpoint, simply the most complete player I have seen; He could move very well for a guy of his size (in fact Safin is probably the best mover at his height), had a lethal serve, a good FH (but declined due to injuries), a top tier backhand. I did say Safin's BH was the best, but Agassi/Nalbandian/Kuerten/Kafelnikov also deserve mentions (but I would pick Safin's). Safin also had some insane touch for a guy so powerful. Laver moves better than Safin, has better touch and was better at the net. Safin's serve, FH and BH combination was much better.

Laver was the biggest hitter in the history of tennis with a wood racquet, and, according to Arthur Ashe, Laver would be second to no one in power with a modern frame. Although, I would concede that DelPotro and Soderling would be exceptions to that premise, but, neither of them have anywhere near the talent and overall athletic prowess that Laver had. I don't think you've given this topic enough thought.

Here's the problem. Safin hits as hard as those two, and it's not even close on the first serve or the backhand side. Safin also moves a lot better than Soderling, and has a lot better feel and touch than JMDP and Soderling. JMDP does also move well for a guy of his height, but Safin still moved better than both. Soderling's net play is a shambles.




Not given this topic enough thought? Get real. Safin at US Open 2000 was already in front of Sampras when Pete was serving at 78%. Laver does not serve nearly as well as Sampras. I've also seen Safin at 18 years old beat defending FO champion Kuerten and Agassi in back to back matches. I've seen Safin able to beat Federer pretty much at his best in a slam. Seriously, if you think Laver from a technical standpoint has bigger weapons than Safin, then you are completely clueless. Does this mean Safin would beat Laver every time? Hell no, Safin was too damn inconsistent to beat any player 100% of the time. Laver would be favourite on grass, that's it. Safin has too many impressive wins on HC's for me to back against him at his best. I do think Laver would be able to frustrate Safin, but he wouldn't be able to win by overpowering Safin. Safin is the hardest hitter I have seen with such minimal effort. I'm not glorifying power here though; Safin is at his best when he wasn't going for broke on every shot, he was at his best when he was serving well and crafting points.

 

[Djokovic2015]

For a match maybe I could see Nadal topping Federer on HC peak for peak because of the match up, but for one set? I don't think so. Federer is arguably the best player ever over one set. Pit any Nadal against USO 2004 first set Federer and I don't think he comes away from it with it. A one set shoot out on HC actually plays into Federer's hands.

We were talking about 06 Federer vs 10 Nadal weren't we?
06 Fed beat roddick in 4 sets in the USO final
10 Nadal beat djokovic in 4 sets in the USO final

Nadal took the 1st set from fed in two of the three AO matches they had as well.

In my view, Agassi's groundgame - his uniquely compact windup and hugely powerful ground strokes, and, his ability to play on the baseline with power gives him a natural advantage over all other backcourt players on grass. Djokovic has a slight advantage on serve, Agassi has a slight advantage on return on grass. Add to that Agassi's superior overall net-game, volleys and smash, and I can easily see him upsetting Djokovic on grass. In addition, clay tends to neutralize Djokovic's superior mobility, and Agassi is at once, one of the hardest hitters, and steadiest hitters, in the history of tennis. A little less likely but I can see it on clay, too. However, on hard courts, Djokovic's superior mobility would be a decided advantage that would overcome Agassi's court positioning. As for conditioning, in my opinion, under Gil Reyes, Agassi was as fit as anyone ever was.

PS: Anyway, I would probably call it grass for Agassi, clay and hard for Djokovic.

If we are talking about 95 Agassi, nothing really memorable about his grass play in 95 to suggest he would threaten Djokvoic's sublime form through the QF/SF/F of wimbledon there. 95 Agassi I think loses on clay and grass pretty easily to 15 Djokovic, but does give a tough fight on hards. I think 95 was his peak over-all form. I think 99 Agassi as given in the topic though would be more in line with your view of a questionable grass and clay result with Novak controlling it on hards. We have had Agassi himself come out and say Djokovic would beat him on all surfaces though so there is that.

As for the topic I would agree pretty much fully with Mattsogrant, would rank the peak seasons as:
69 Laver
84 McEnroe
15 Djokovic
06 Federer
74 Connors
10 Nadal

Laver, McEnroe, Djokovic in the SF as expected and Nadal beats Federer due to match up to take the last spot.
The format of 1 set per surface is conducive to Djokovic upsetting Laver and then losing to McEnroe.

 

[Djokovic2015]

Those wouldnt be my seedings based on their peak years but I will play along and go by those matches. How each would go:

Think the seedings are pretty good, only change I'd make is swap McEnroe and Fed at 2/4

 

[NatF]

We were talking about 06 Federer vs 10 Nadal weren't we?
06 Fed beat roddick in 4 sets in the USO final
10 Nadal beat djokovic in 4 sets in the USO final

Nadal took the 1st set from fed in two of the three AO matches they had as well.

AO =/= USO and Federer was not peaking in 2009 really, serve was off and he certainly wasn't in 2014.

Federer impressed me more in 2006 than Nadal did in 2010 at the USO. At that point in time Djokovic was not the player he would become, neither the 2010 or 2013 finals were all that - especially not the 2013 final.

 

[Djokovic2015]

AO =/= USO and Federer was not peaking in 2009 really, serve was off and he certainly wasn't in 2014.

Federer impressed me more in 2006 than Nadal did in 2010 at the USO. At that point in time Djokovic was not the player he would become, neither the 2010 or 2013 finals were all that - especially not the 2013 final.

What does AO =/= USO mean? The deciding set is on hard court and that is the only evidence we have of the HC slam matches between them with Nadal winning all 3 and winning 2 first sets. Given that plus Nadal holding the hard court h2h including even a win at dubai during Fed's peak year leads much more evidence to suggest Nadal would win the hard set then Federer.

Djokovic at USO 2010 was beginning his transformation into the player he would become. It took the davis cup win and the off season to channel it and make him consistently able to play high level ball, but 2010 USO was where he first showed evidence of that form in beating Federer, with the entire crowd against him down 2 match points, and then taking Nadal's monster serving display that tournament and breaking it for the first time in the tournament and grabbing a set. Novak didn't play his absolute peak level at either USO final he lost to Nadal, but he played well still and his SF wins of both of those USOs were more impressive than anything Roddick mustered at USO IMO.

 

[Tardigrade]

Haha, even on the former player talk, Djokovic v Federer troll wars exist. Classic TW.

 

[NatF]

What does AO =/= USO mean? The deciding set is on hard court and that is the only evidence we have of the HC slam matches between them with Nadal winning all 3 and winning 2 first sets. Given that plus Nadal holding the hard court h2h including even a win at dubai during Fed's peak year leads much more evidence to suggest Nadal would win the hard set then Federer.

Djokovic at USO 2010 was beginning his transformation into the player he would become. It took the davis cup win and the off season to channel it and make him consistently able to play high level ball, but 2010 USO was where he first showed evidence of that form in beating Federer, with the entire crowd against him down 2 match points, and then taking Nadal's monster serving display that tournament and breaking it for the first time in the tournament and grabbing a set. Novak didn't play his absolute peak level at either USO final he lost to Nadal, but he played well still and his SF wins of both of those USOs were more impressive than anything Roddick mustered at USO IMO.

Apologies I had USO in mind for HC set. I thought you were equating losing the first set at the AO with doing the same at the USO. I think Federer playing his best tennis on HC takes the set. I don't think your view is unreasonable at all though.

Roddick played really well at the USO against a superior player with an edge in terms of match up. Djokovic in 2010 played well, it was a lot better than the 2013 match. But then Federer beat Roddick by a more commanding score. Djokovic seemed noticeably tired at times in 2010 during the final as well IMO. As far as 2013 you're way off the mark, Roddick's 2003 was far more impressive. In the first set in 2013 Djokovic hit something like 4 winners and 13 errors. He fell apart in the 4th as well. Roddick was much better in both his finals there as well as other deeper runs IMO.

 

[Djokovic2015]

Haha, even on the former player talk, Djokovic v Federer troll wars exist. Classic TW.

Don't instigate no trolling between me and Nat just honest discussion.

Apologies I had USO in mind for HC set. I thought you were equating losing the first set at the AO with doing the same at the USO. I think Federer playing his best tennis on HC takes the set. I don't think your view is unreasonable at all though.

Ah I see, no I was just saying evidence of what we have seen on HC lends more credence to Nadal winning the first set and using those HC slam matches where Fed still was playing very well as support.

Roddick played really well at the USO against a superior player with an edge in terms of match up. Djokovic in 2010 played well, it was a lot better than the 2013 match. But then Federer beat Roddick by a more commanding score. Djokovic seemed noticeably tired at times in 2010 during the final as well IMO. As far as 2013 you're way off the mark, Roddick's 2003 was far more impressive. In the first set in 2013 Djokovic hit something like 4 winners and 13 errors. He fell apart in the 4th as well. Roddick was much better in both his finals there as well as other deeper runs IMO.

Federer beat Roddick in 4 sets, dropping one by a break, winning one by a break and winning two by two breaks.
Nadal beat Djokovic in 4 sets, dropping one by a break, winning two by a break and winning one by one break.

I'm not sure its reasonable to characterize a 1 break difference across 4 sets as commanding as opposed to similar.

In regards to 2013, I think you misread my last post. I said Djokovic's SF wins in 2010 and 2013 were more impressive than anything Roddick did at USO, not his performances in those finals. Him coming from behind to win tough 5 setters against high level opponents in business end of slams. I think he was a bit out of gas after dealing with that for both finals and it showed in both 4th sets (not that Roddick was impressive at all in his own 4th set either). In any case set 3 of the 2013 final Novak was playing extremely high level and it still boggles my mind today how Nadal somehow pulled that out.

 

[Tardigrade]

Don't instigate no trolling between me and Nat just honest discussion.



Ah I see, no I was just saying evidence of what we have seen on HC lends more credence to Nadal winning the first set and using those HC slam matches where Fed still was playing very well as support.



Federer beat Roddick in 4 sets, dropping one by a break, winning one by a break and winning two by two breaks.
Nadal beat Djokovic in 4 sets, dropping one by a break, winning two by a break and winning one by one break.

I'm not sure its reasonable to characterize a 1 break difference across 4 sets as commanding as opposed to similar.

In regards to 2013, I think you misread my last post. I said Djokovic's SF wins in 2010 and 2013 were more impressive than anything Roddick did at USO, not his performances in those finals. Him coming from behind to win tough 5 setters against high level opponents in business end of slams. I think he was a bit out of gas after dealing with that for both finals and it showed in both 4th sets (not that Roddick was impressive at all in his own 4th set either). In any case set 3 of the 2013 final Novak was playing extremely high level and it still boggles my mind today how Nadal somehow pulled that out.

Federer broke Roddick's serve three times in the first set in 06.

 

[NatF]

Ah I see, no I was just saying evidence of what we have seen on HC lends more credence to Nadal winning the first set and using those HC slam matches where Fed still was playing very well as support.

Nadal was significantly closer to his top level in those matches than Federer was though. I stand by Federer in this, I think if he plays peak tennis he wins the HC set - across a match is different, even in Dubai and Cincy Federer won the first set both times as well BTW.

Federer beat Roddick in 4 sets, dropping one by a break, winning one by a break and winning two by two breaks.
Nadal beat Djokovic in 4 sets, dropping one by a break, winning two by a break and winning one by one break.

I'm not sure its reasonable to characterize a 1 break difference across 4 sets as commanding as opposed to similar.

Which USO final are you referring to for Djokovic? The 2013 final had more breaks than that so I assume 2010? I was referring to 2013. I'm not being precise enough with my comments I think, I'll endeavour to be more specific if we continue this tomorrow during the day

Federer also broke Roddick a few times in the first set IIRC.

In regards to 2013, I think you misread my last post. I said Djokovic's SF wins in 2010 and 2013 were more impressive than anything Roddick did at USO, not his performances in those finals. Him coming from behind to win tough 5 setters against high level opponents in business end of slams. I think he was a bit out of gas after dealing with that for both finals and it showed in both 4th sets (not that Roddick was impressive at all in his own 4th set either). In any case set 3 of the 2013 final Novak was playing extremely high level and it still boggles my mind today how Nadal somehow pulled that out.

It does seem clear now that you were talking about 2010...

The 2010 win over Federer maybe, because it was Federer - though in terms of level of play that match was not great. The Wawrinka win was no more impressive that Roddick beating Nalbandian IMO.

Djokovic was very good in the 3rd set of the 2013 final, he lacked the killer instinct and intensity while Nadal was strong at the right moments. Roddick played very good tennis in sets 2 and 3 of his final as well though BTW and he didn't suck as bad in sets 1 and 4.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Must be right if Cliff Drysdale says so! Bud Collins also said on this forum that Peter Polanksi was a 4.0.


From watching what I possibly can of Laver, he doesn't serve nearly as well as Safin, and Safin's BH is the best backhand I've ever seen. I've seen him completely cripple the likes of Agassi and Nalbandian in BH-2-BH exchanges. He's made Agassi's BH look lightweight at times. Safin had 33 aces and zero double faults against Agassi at AO 2004; Agassi ranked #3 coming off a slam winning year in 2003 and Safin coming into AO 2004 without any form or confidence; He missed 90% of 03.


And no, Laver isn't technically more complete than Safin. Safin is, from a technical standpoint, simply the most complete player I have seen; He could move very well for a guy of his size (in fact Safin is probably the best mover at his height), had a lethal serve, a good FH (but declined due to injuries), a top tier backhand. I did say Safin's BH was the best, but Agassi/Nalbandian/Kuerten/Kafelnikov also deserve mentions (but I would pick Safin's). Safin also had some insane touch for a guy so powerful. Laver moves better than Safin, has better touch and was better at the net. Safin's serve, FH and BH combination was much better.





Here's the problem. Safin hits as hard as those two, and it's not even close on the first serve or the backhand side. Safin also moves a lot better than Soderling, and has a lot better feel and touch than JMDP and Soderling. JMDP does also move well for a guy of his height, but Safin still moved better than both. Soderling's net play is a shambles.




Not given this topic enough thought? Get real. Safin at US Open 2000 was already in front of Sampras when Pete was serving at 78%. Laver does not serve nearly as well as Sampras. I've also seen Safin at 18 years old beat defending FO champion Kuerten and Agassi in back to back matches. I've seen Safin able to beat Federer pretty much at his best in a slam. Seriously, if you think Laver from a technical standpoint has bigger weapons than Safin, then you are completely clueless. Does this mean Safin would beat Laver every time? Hell no, Safin was too damn inconsistent to beat any player 100% of the time. Laver would be favourite on grass, that's it. Safin has too many impressive wins on HC's for me to back against him at his best. I do think Laver would be able to frustrate Safin, but he wouldn't be able to win by overpowering Safin. Safin is the hardest hitter I have seen with such minimal effort. I'm not glorifying power here though; Safin is at his best when he wasn't going for broke on every shot, he was at his best when he was serving well and crafting points.

I do think that, adjusting for equipment, that Laver had more weapons than Safin. I also think Laver was the greater athlete and the greater talent. If that makes me clueless, so be it.

 

[Tardigrade]

I do think that, adjusting for equipment, that Laver had more weapons than Safin. I also think Laver was the greater athlete and the greater talent. If that makes me clueless, so be it.

I've already Said Laver volleys better, moves better and has better touch. Laver obviously was stronger mentally. I can tell just by watching Laver that Safin had the more potent serve, a better FH and a BH which is leagues above Laver's. Safin was physically stronger and had other tools in his arsenal; A very good lob, one of the best passers ever, good drop shot and improv to boot.

This is simply the one of the best volleys I have ever seen anyone hit. There are also videos of Safin hitting diving volleys, volleys behind his back.



Laver was the greater player. I completely agree. The same way in which Bob Dylan is more of a legend than someone like Buckethead. I fell asleep watching a 10 minute video of Laver. I would literally avoid sleep to watch Safin play a match. Laver was great in his day, but the sport has moved on. But hey, I guess the ARPANET was also more efficient that the internet, right? .

 

[Limpinhitter]

I've already Said Laver volleys better, moves better and has better touch. Laver obviously was stronger mentally. I can tell just by watching Laver that Safin had the more potent serve, a better FH and a BH which is leagues above Laver's. Safin was physically stronger and had other tools in his arsenal; A very good lob, one of the best passers ever, good drop shot and improv to boot.

This is simply the one of the best volleys I have ever seen anyone hit. There are also videos of Safin hitting diving volleys, volleys behind his back.



Laver was the greater player. I completely agree. The same way in which Bob Dylan is more of a legend than someone like Buckethead. I fell asleep watching a 10 minute video of Laver. I would literally avoid sleep to watch Safin play a match. Laver was great in his day, but the sport has moved on. But hey, I guess the ARPANET was also more efficient that the internet, right? .

I disagree! The only shot that Safin hit that was better than Laver's was his serve. And, Laver had a great serve for someone his size, in addition to being a lefty with a big lefty kick and slice.

 

[Tardigrade]

Yep, thanks to TW, I now know that Laver has a better BH than Safin.



Also, Rosewall can hit 100mph slices.

Good to know!

 

[BobbyOne]

Yep, thanks to TW, I now know that Laver has a better BH than Safin.



Also, Rosewall can hit 100mph slices.

Good to know!

Your arrogance is misplaced.