Tsonga has a higher peak than Federer at the Australian open

OldschoolKIaus

Hall of Fame
1. Murray is bad, Soderling is worse.

2. One time one shot wonder Tsonga beat the future one-time AO winner Nadal at his most unsucessfull major.
Federer won 6 AO and even one against Nadal.

3. lololol
 
D

Deleted member 757377

Guest
Khachanov has the second highest peak of the last 5 months.
 

Towny

Hall of Fame
I know this is a bit of a troll thread but I rate Tsonga's performance very highly in this match and he'd obviously push prime Fed hard. But Fed clearly displayed an exceptionally high level in 2004, 2005 and 2007 AO, it's irrelevant that Nadal wasn't around for him to beat in those years.

Beating Nadal AO2008 clearly isn't the same as Nadal AO2009 anyway. Besides, beating Nadal isn't the standard anyway. Beating 4 time defending champion and clay GOAT at RG in his prime is clearly different from beating 0 time previous semi-finalist and 1 time champion overall Nadal at the AO
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.

Federer can only dream of playing like this, especially against somebody like Nadal

Since a match or two is good enough to define peak, which is why Soderling has a higher clay peak than Murray.

Logically the same applies here
Tsonga has a higher peak than Federer at the AO
If anybody disagrees please explain why
I remember this match well. Nadal had no answers.

Indeed, no one would have any answers. If anyone could play volleys like Tsonga did consistently over a whole career, then that player would be a GOAT candidate.

Too bad that Tsonga could not duplicate this level of play against Djokovic in the final. History might be very different.
 
Last edited:
I remember this match well. Nadal had no answers.

Indeed, no one would have any answers. If anyone could play like Tsonga did consistently over a whole career, then that player would be a GOAT candidate.

Too bad, that Tsonga could not duplicate this level of play against Djokovic in the final. History might be very different.

It shows that consistency is more important than peak
Federer doesn't have the highest peak but he still won the most due to his consistency
 
D

Deleted member 757377

Guest
Rome 2011 Murray performance against Djokovic proves he is better than peak Soderling/Nadal.
 

Night Slasher

Semi-Pro
Tsonga's level was insane in that match, everything worked perfectly for him...it's hard to see such volleying on tour these days and winners off both sides as frequently as he hit in that SF. Nadal made four unforced errors in the first two sets and still got demolished.

As for the peak to peak comparison between Tsonga and Rodja, this match proves absolutely nothing. You could argue that peak Tsonga would trouble Nadal more than peak Federer and that's the only conclusion you get get from this performance.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Really?
He sure as hell wouldn't have beaten Nadal like that though no matter how good he was...
Federer has given Nadal beat downs on HC before.

Your second sentence pertains to the match up, which is basically an X factor besides level of play - which kind of defeats your own argument.
 
Federer has given Nadal beat downs on HC before.

Your second sentence pertains to the match up, which is basically an X factor besides level of play - which kind of defeats your own argument.
Where
Only indoors
He only beat him twice outdoors before 2017
That too miami 2005 was due to cheating
 

Subway Tennis

Hall of Fame

Federer can only dream of playing like this, especially against somebody like Nadal

Since a match or two is good enough to define peak, which is why Soderling has a higher clay peak than Murray.

Logically the same applies here
Tsonga has a higher peak than Federer at the AO
If anybody disagrees please explain why
If you look at the match in isolation, yes you're right. But what does it mean when confined to such a small period of time? Just a peak for peak's sake, or is there more significance?

I like where you are going with this in that you love highlighting examples where a player was at their best, but it can be quite bittersweet.

For example, consider the futility of another streaky guy like Gonzalez. If you look at his level in INDIVIDUAL matches, he also has a higher peak than Federer. And yet in his best year at "The Open" (2007) he still lost to Federer in the final.

For what it is worth, thank you for posting this highlight. Having watched the match live, it always gives me goosebumps seeing the broadcast highlights replayed.
 
If you look at the match in isolation, yes you're right. But what does it mean when confined to such a small period of time? Just a peak for peak's sake, or is there more significance?

I like where you are going with this in that you love highlighting examples where a player was at their best, but it can be quite bittersweet.

For example, consider the futility of another streaky guy like Gonzalez. If you look at his level in INDIVIDUAL matches, he also has a higher peak than Federer. And yet in his best year at "The Open" (2007) he still lost to Federer in the final.

For what it is worth, thank you for posting this highlight. Having watched the match live, it always gives me goosebumps seeing the broadcast highlights replayed.

That is the question
Does peak mean only one or two matches or over a whole tournament?
If it's only a couple of matches then someone like Safin can have a higher peak than Federer at the USO despite only 1 title while federer has 5
 

Night Slasher

Semi-Pro
Nothing suggests Federer would beat Nadal outdoors if both are at their peaks
Even if it's true, it still doesn't mean that Tsonga has a higher peak than Federer. You chose a match where Rafa (Rodja's toughest opponent) got destroyed by the other player as the only indicator of his superiority over Federer, like Nadal is the ultimate challenge on all surfaces and beating him (more convincingly than Roger) means that you've found a holy grail. This is not how the things work and you have to consider the different match-ups that also play the role..

Samras lost to Richard Krajicek at Wimbledon in straight sets and has never beaten him on grass, while Andre Agassi held 3-0 record vs Krajicek on the same surface, straight setting him twice at Wimbledon. If we apply your logic, Agassi has a higher peak than Pete at Wimbledon and on grass.
 
Don't think it would make that much difference for Federer's best HC performances versus 2008 Nadal at the AO.
Federer couldn't beat Nadal in 2009 despite playing extremely well

How is he going to easily beat 2008 nadal?

He struggled against baby Nadal when he was at his peak in Miami 2005 Dubai 2006
lol
 
Even if it's true, it still doesn't mean that Tsonga has a higher peak than Federer. You chose a match where Rafa (Rodja's toughest opponent) got destroyed by the other player as the only indicator of his superiority over Federer, like Nadal is the ultimate challenge on all surfaces and beating him (more convincingly than Roger) means that you've found a holy grail. This is not how the things work and you have to consider the different match-ups that also play the role..

Samras lost to Richard Krajicek at Wimbledon in straight sets and has never beaten him on grass, while Andre Agassi held 3-0 record vs Krajicek on the same surface, straight setting him twice at Wimbledon. If we apply your logic, Agassi has a higher peak than Pete at Wimbledon and on grass.

Tsonga still played an extremely high level irrespective of match up
Tsonga destroyed Nadal while Federer can't even beat him
That is way too much of a difference for just match up
 

Subway Tennis

Hall of Fame
That is the question
Does peak mean only one or two matches or over a whole tournament?
If it's only a couple of matches then someone like Safin can have a higher peak than Federer at the USO despite only 1 title while federer has 5
I can understand what you mean but don't forget about Federer's own peak level.
 
D

Deleted member 742196

Guest

Federer can only dream of playing like this, especially against somebody like Nadal

Since a match or two is good enough to define peak, which is why Soderling has a higher clay peak than Murray.

Logically the same applies here
Tsonga has a higher peak than Federer at the AO
If anybody disagrees please explain why
Hey, if we’re looking for objectivity why restrict peak level to matches?

Why not sets? Or games?

Rallies anyone?

Who’s up for some peak rallies????
 
D

Deleted member 742196

Guest
That's exactly my question
What do you define as peak
Yip.

It’s a vague wishy-washy thing people like to go around in circles in this place. Peak this and prime that. You’ll hear an awful lot of it detailing why x and y player is worse or better than the other.

The most thorough approaches trying to capture it might be @Lew who mercilessly uses stats in support of his assertions. The stats in themselves are informative if you have an eye for that sort of thing.

But if you have an eye you also might conclude that stats aren’t everything. We have the sense and proportion of the things in front of us. When Djokovic and Nadal refuse to budge an inch we can feel that through our screens. Or when Nadal pounds and pounds the Federer backhand we can intuitively understand it, and how the tactic works effectively on one surface but quite differently on another.
 

Night Slasher

Semi-Pro
Tsonga still played an extremely high level irrespective of match up
Tsonga destroyed Nadal while Federer can't even beat him
That is way too much of a difference for just match up
As well as Federer did when he beat Delpo 6-3 6-0 6-0 or Roddick 6-4 6-0 6-2, but you chose Tsonga's example simply because he beat Nadal, a player Rodja has been struggling against during his entire career, so it could fit your theory of a peak level.
The problem is you used a record/performance against a single player (and not against the whole field) which is insufficient to draw any relevant conclusion.
 
Top