Who is better, peak Safin or pick Federer?

[Morj]

And again, like I said... look how many times Rafa beat peak Fed... yet none of them would argue his case? Smells fishy to me.

Well most people would agree that Nadal, while certainly a GOAT candidate, is not necessarily one of the best when looking at peak play. Besides on clay, peak Nadal doesn't usually hit unplayable levels like Fed/Sampras types can.

This is because Nadal plays disruptive tennis. His style is preventing the opponent from executing their game. When the rally is neutral, Nadal's topsin-heavy Forehand makes it difficult for opponents to start an attack. Then when the opponent is playing attacking, Nadal defends till he finds the right moment for a passing shot.

So Nadal usually doesn't blast players off the court, which is why his peak isn't "unplayable", rather he makes it near impossible for his opponents to play their game. Yes he usually beat peak Fed, but because Fed's game has an exploitable flaw (backhand). When Nadal is put up against a player without an exploitable hole such as Djokovic, then Nadal's peak play does not quite match his peak play.

The simplest evidence of this is that when Nadal runs into a big hitter who is playing their best tennis, then his disruptive tactics don't always work. His topspin FH gets blasted back at him and he's pushed around on defense till he loses the point. Examples are Tsonga AO '08, Soderling FO '09, Del Po USO '09, Rosol Wimby '12. Nadal has difficulty dealing with opponents who are painting the lines because he can't respond with tennis of that caliber, he specializes in making sure his opponents dont get to go for winners. Federer or even Djokovic can respond to this level of tennis with their own offense, which is why they hold their own against big hitters.

However, Nadal is possibly the best at maintaining a high level throughout a match, which is why he still leads a H2H with everyone. He's more consistent over the course of a match. So lets say Djokovic can hit a peak level of 10 and Nadal can hit a peak level of 9. If both are playing peak, Djokovic will likely win. However, Nadal still gets more wins because even when Nadal is playing poorly, he has a higher margin for error and is disrupting the opponent's game. So in a match, Nadal may not be playing his best but still be playing at an 8, whereas Djokovic could drop to a 6 or 7. Not bashing Nadal, this just the way that he plays the game and its highly effective most of the time!

 

[Backspin1183]

Peak for peak, Safin > Federer. AO 2005 was peak Safin vs peak Fed and we know the Russian was too good for the Swiss.

Peak Safin was not seen again in their other matches that peak Fed won.

 

[Backspin1183]

Well most people would agree that Nadal, while certainly a GOAT candidate, is not necessarily one of the best when looking at peak play. Besides on clay, peak Nadal doesn't usually hit unplayable levels like Fed/Sampras types can.

This is because Nadal plays disruptive tennis. His style is preventing the opponent from executing their game. When the rally is neutral, Nadal's topsin-heavy Forehand makes it difficult for opponents to start an attack. Then when the opponent is playing attacking, Nadal defends till he finds the right moment for a passing shot.

So Nadal usually doesn't blast players off the court, which is why his peak isn't "unplayable", rather he makes it near impossible for his opponents to play their game. Yes he usually beat peak Fed, but because Fed's game has an exploitable flaw (backhand). When Nadal is put up against a player without an exploitable hole such as Djokovic, then Nadal's peak play does not quite match his peak play.

The simplest evidence of this is that when Nadal runs into a big hitter who is playing their best tennis, then his disruptive tactics don't always work. His topspin FH gets blasted back at him and he's pushed around on defense till he loses the point. Examples are Tsonga AO '08, Soderling FO '09, Del Po USO '09, Rosol Wimby '12. Nadal has difficulty dealing with opponents who are painting the lines because he can't respond with tennis of that caliber, he specializes in making sure his opponents dont get to go for winners. Federer or even Djokovic can respond to this level of tennis with their own offense, which is why they hold their own against big hitters.

However, Nadal is possibly the best at maintaining a high level throughout a match, which is why he still leads a H2H with everyone. He's more consistent over the course of a match. So lets say Djokovic can hit a peak level of 10 and Nadal can hit a peak level of 9. If both are playing peak, Djokovic will likely win. However, Nadal still gets more wins because even when Nadal is playing poorly, he has a higher margin for error and is disrupting the opponent's game. So in a match, Nadal may not be playing his best but still be playing at an 8, whereas Djokovic could drop to a 6 or 7. Not bashing Nadal, this just the way that he plays the game and its highly effective most of the time!

Great work of fiction. Check Nadal's h2h record vs big hitters. The best possibly.

 

[Morj]

Great work of fiction. Check Nadal's h2h record vs big hitters. The best possibly.

I felt like I addressed this in my post...I listed some examples of big hitters at their peak beating Nadal.

But I also explained that Nadal plays at a consistently high level throughout a match with a high margin for error. Even though at his absolute best he's not painting the lines like some guys, it doesn't matter because in general he'll win anyway due to his ability to sustain a high level of play. For a big hitter to beat him they need to be at their absolute best, painting the lines and consistently blasting the ball.

I don't see how this is an insult to Nadal. I believe he's a GOAT candidate, the best match player tennis has ever seen, that his game is an excellent matchup against pretty much everyone else's, and that 9 times out of 10 he will beat the big hitter.

All I'm saying is that Nadal's absolute peak isn't quite as devastating as some other players. If this does not satisfy you, I will also say that peak Nadal on clay is probably the highest clay peak ever.

 

[Backspin1183]

I felt like I addressed this in my post...I listed some examples of big hitters at their peak beating Nadal.

But I also explained that Nadal plays at a consistently high level throughout a match with a high margin for error. Even though at his absolute best he's not painting the lines like some guys, it doesn't matter because in general he'll win anyway due to his ability to sustain a high level of play. For a big hitter to beat him they need to be at their absolute best, painting the lines and consistently blasting the ball.

I don't see how this is an insult to Nadal. I believe he's a GOAT candidate, the best match player tennis has ever seen, that his game is an excellent matchup against pretty much everyone else's, and that 9 times out of 10 he will beat the big hitter.

All I'm saying is that Nadal's absolute peak isn't quite as devastating as some other players. If this does not satisfy you, I will also say that peak Nadal on clay is probably the highest clay peak ever.

You picked examples where Nadal didn't that good and got punished by a on fire big hitter. If I use this same logic, Djokovic got blasted off the court by guess who? Nadal in Montreal and Murray at Wimbledon. Also Djokovic has a hard time against big servers like Isner but Nadal seldom loses to such guys.

 

[roberttennis54]

I don't know how this question keeps being brought up. Safin was only equal to Federer on rebound ace and indoors. On every other surface Federer was the better player and even indoors and on rebound ace he had the advantage. That being said peak Safin is definitely one of the best players I have ever seen.

If I was naming a top 5 from the 90s onwards it would be
1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Safin
4. Nadal
5. Agassi

 

[Gonzo_style]

You don't think Safin could go toe to toe with Federer at FO if both were at their best? Keep in mind Safin has actually beaten more FO champions at FO than Federer has. Out of curiosity, How many FO champions has Federer beaten at FO?

0? LOL didn't know that...but I think former champion should be at least in top 10, or top 20, otherwise victory isn't that important...I mean who cares that Paul Henry Mathieu beat Kuerten in 2008 at RG...just my 2c...

 

[MonkeyBoy]

0? LOL didn't know that...but I think former champion should be at least in top 10, or top 20, otherwise victory isn't that important...I mean who cares that Paul Henry Mathieu beat Kuerten in 2008 at RG...just my 2c...

Fed actually beat Moya in 05.

 

[Gonzo_style]

Fed actually beat Moya in 05.

MonkeyBoy is right (although I'm not sure but I would like to be in your signature )

 

[rockandroll]

I don't know how this question keeps being brought up. Safin was only equal to Federer on rebound ace and indoors. On every other surface Federer was the better player and even indoors and on rebound ace he had the advantage. That being said peak Safin is definitely one of the best players I have ever seen.

If I was naming a top 5 from the 90s onwards it would be
1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Safin
4. Nadal
5. Agassi

Well based on his 2000 U.S Open final performance you would have to add decoturf or fast hard courts as another surface Safin would be very close with Federer both playing in peak form (not day in, day out level, but that isnt what this thread is about anyway). I would even argue clay given that Safin has taken down and played peak Kuerten evenly in some amazing matches on clay. Something who can do that is atleast up with peak Federer on clay (again just talking peak level, day in, day out performance Safin would be even further behind Roger on clay than hard courts). Only grass would peak Safin be nowhere close.

 

[Morj]

Well based on his 2000 U.S Open final performance you would have to add decoturf or fast hard courts as another surface Safin would be very close with Federer both playing in peak form (not day in, day out level, but that isnt what this thread is about anyway). I would even argue clay given that Safin has taken down and played peak Kuerten evenly in some amazing matches on clay. Something who can do that is atleast up with peak Federer on clay (again just talking peak level, day in, day out performance Safin would be even further behind Roger on clay than hard courts). Only grass would peak Safin be nowhere close.

True, but Fed's beaten Nadal on clay... Beating Kuerten pales in comparison.
Also, pre-prime Fed has beaten Safin in both their clay encounters, both in Tournament Finals (if Safin reached the finals that should at least indicate he's in-form).

Plus Federer's game is a little more adapted to clay, Safin isn't the best mover. It would be harder even for peak Safin to continuously just hit through peak Fed on clay. I'd say peak Fed vs peak Safin on Hard: 50-50, Clay: 70-30, Grass: 100-0

 

[rockandroll]

True, but Fed's beaten Nadal on clay... Beating Kuerten pales in comparison.
Also, pre-prime Fed has beaten Safin in both their clay encounters, both in Tournament Finals (if Safin reached the finals that should at least indicate he's in-form).

Plus Federer's game is a little more adapted to clay, Safin isn't the best mover. It would be harder even for peak Safin to continuously just hit through peak Fed on clay. I'd say peak Fed vs peak Safin on Hard: 50-50, Clay: 70-30, Grass: 100-0

The two times Federer beat Nadal on clay he was in far below average form (I am not even talking peak, I mean average). IMO Federer`s most impressive clay performance by far was Rome 2006 and taking a pretty good pre prime Nadal to the brink of defeat. The times Safin beat or was on had wars with Kuerten on clay Kuerten was actually playing great tennis.

 

[Morj]

The two times Federer beat Nadal on clay he was in far below average form (I am not even talking peak, I mean average). IMO Federer`s most impressive clay performance by far was Rome 2006 and taking a pretty good pre prime Nadal to the brink of defeat. The times Safin beat or was on had wars with Kuerten on clay Kuerten was actually playing great tennis.

Fair enough, although I'd actually argue that FO 2011 semis was an even more deadly Federer on clay than even Rome 2006.

More importantly I feel their h2h matches on clay should be looked at, since a hypothetical h2h is what we are actually discussing. If Safin got straight-settled twice in clay finals by baby Fed then I believe peak Fed would take a majority against peak Safin.

Also Feds an excellent mover on clay, Safin would have a harder time hitting through him than on HC's, plus Safins not too great a mover himself so he would have trouble on defense. I think peak v peak on clay Fed would win more often than not

 

[rockandroll]

Fair points. One thing I would disagree with though is that if Safin is in the final it must mean he is playing close to peak form. It should mean that but Safin can play great tennis to reach a final and literally not show up even for that. The 2002 Australian Open final debacle vs Tomas Johansson for instance. I dont remember the 2002 Hamburg final so I cant comment one way or another there.

 

[TTMR]

As I said in the former pro player section, I challenge the skeptics out there to find a level of play even approaching that of Safin at the 2000 USO. I doubt there is a player in tennis history that could win a set off of him in that form. Maybe Nadal at the French. That's it.