Tsonga has a higher peak than Federer at the Australian open

[Objective observer]

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

 

[OldschoolKIaus]

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

 

[Objective observer]

Such good sports!

One time one shot wonder Tsonga beat the future one-time AO winner Nadal at his most unsucessfull major.

Federer won 6 AO.

Achievements don't matter

This is purely level of play

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Tsonga is up there with Gonzalez, Murray, Ferrer and Berdych.

 

[Objective observer]

Tsonga is up there with Gonzalez, Murray, Ferrer and Berdych.

Murray ferrer beat injured Nadal
Berdych beat worst version of Nadal
Gonzalez beat baby Nadal

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Murray ferrer beat injured Nadal
Berdych beat worst version of Nadal
Gonzalez beat baby Nadal

Excuses excuses

 

[Objective observer]

Excuses excuses

Fine all of them can be better than Federer too if you want

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Fine all of them can be better than Federer too if you want

Better than Djokovic too, who had to play a marathon match against RAFA.

 

[Objective observer]

Better than Djokovic too, who had to play a marathon match against RAFA.

Because he was dead tired after Murray

 

[MasterZeb]

Soderling has a higher peak on clay than Rafa

 

[ADuck]

Soderling has a higher peak on clay than Rafa

Only in 4R encounters

 

[Deleted member 757377]

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

 

[NatF]

Well for one that was an insane performance from Tsomga, and two lol at comparing Murray on clay to Federer at the AO

 

[Towny]

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

 

[Objective observer]

Well for one that was an insane performance from Tsomga, and two lol at comparing Murray on clay to Federer at the AO

It's just a comparison
Anyway do you admit Tsonga in this particular match played at a higher level than Federer ever did?

 

[Objective observer]

Nothing wrong with admitting many players have played at a higher level than Federer

It won't reduce his 20 slams

 

[NatF]

It's just a comparison
Anyway do you admit Tsonga in this particular match played at a higher level than Federer ever did?

No because I think Federer in more than a few matches would have beaten that Tsonga...

 

[hoodjem]

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.

 

[Objective observer]

No because I think Federer in more than a few matches would have beaten that Tsonga...

Really?
He sure as hell wouldn't have beaten Nadal like that though no matter how good he was...

 

[Objective observer]

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

 

[Deleted member 757377]

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

 

[junior74]

 

[Objective observer]

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

LOL yeah
That performance is often forgotten for some reason

 

[Objective observer]

Yes Federer is way better than this Tsonga he totally destroyed Nadal even worse in 2009....

 

[Devin]

Totally objective observation, amirite.

 

[junior74]

Yes Federer is way better than this Tsonga he totally destroyed Nadal even worse in 2009....

And Rosol is the best ever to step onto the Wimbledon grass? Or Brown, perhaps? Or Darcis? Muller, no? Kyrgios?

Life's a long Tsong, as mr. Anderson sings

 

[Objective observer]

Your world must be very fractioned with this form of perception...

Life's a long Tsong, as mr. Anderson sings

Tsonga played insane tennis.
Why can't you see that

 

[Night Slasher]

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]

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.

 

[Objective observer]

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

 

[NatF]

Where
Only indoors
He only beat him twice outdoors before 2017
That too miami 2005 was due to cheating

Nadal got a bad call in Miami but would hardly call it cheating.

Indoors doesn't count?

 

[Objective observer]

Nothing suggests Federer would beat Nadal outdoors if both are at their peaks

 

[Subway Tennis]

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.

 

[Objective observer]

Nadal got a bad call in Miami but would hardly call it cheating.

Indoors doesn't count?

This was about AO which is outdoors

 

[Jonas78]

At least its the highest peak level ever for a thread on this forum...

 

[Objective observer]

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

 

[Objective observer]

If peak is only based on one or two matches there are multiple players better than Federer

 

[Night Slasher]

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.

 

[NatF]

This was about AO which is outdoors

Don't think it would make that much difference for Federer's best HC performances versus 2008 Nadal at the AO.

 

[Objective observer]

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

 

[Objective observer]

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]

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.

 

[junior74]

At least its the highest peak level ever for a thread on this forum...

That's an alternative fact, at best

 

[Deleted member 742196]

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????

 

[Objective observer]

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????

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

 

[Jonas78]

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????

One immediately comes to mind (especially for a Roger-fan):

 

[KINGROGER]

I agree.

Also Bagdhatis >>>> Murray since he took a set off prime Fed. Murray got owned in straights.

 

[Deleted member 742196]

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]

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.

 

[Objective observer]

I agree.

Also Bagdhatis >>>> Murray since he took a set off prime Fed. Murray got owned in straights.

Baghdatis >>>> Federer as he would have beaten Federer if he didn't get tired/injured