Agassi: Djokovic is 30 but he has body of a 25 years old man

[Moxie]

The definition of the word "peak" is "highest level" http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/peak So, if Djokovic played less than his best against Federer at 2011 French Open, it means Novak wasn't at his peak that day.

I'm not willing to pile on you, either, but you are obstinately defending some weak points. I don't need a dictionary definition of "peak" to understand what every agrees about a players peak and prime eras. There can be some discussion as to when the are, but no one, I would venture to say, thinks that they get to drop out of "peak" or "prime" for one loss. Sorry to repeat myself, but Nole was on a major winning streak when he lost to Fed at the 2011 RG SF. This is a very peak run of form. You can't describe it otherwise. But streaks end. A corollary: Federer ended Nadal's clay streak at 81 in 2007, and no one would say that that wasn't a peak/prime year for Rafa.

 

[Federberg]

I'm not willing to pile on you, either, but you are obstinately defending some weak points. I don't need a dictionary definition of "peak" to understand what every agrees about a players peak and prime eras. There can be some discussion as to when the are, but no one, I would venture to say, thinks that they get to drop out of "peak" or "prime" for one loss. Sorry to repeat myself, but Nole was on a major winning streak when he lost to Fed at the 2011 RG SF. This is a very peak run of form. You can't describe it otherwise. But streaks end. A corollary: Federer ended Nadal's clay streak at 81 in 2007, and no one would say that that wasn't a peak/prime year for Rafa.

Why is everyone being so veegan today? Sometimes a piling on isn't such a bad thing Maybe he'll learn

 

[Ricardo]

You're an idiot. According to you I'm stupid because I believe Djokovic didn't play his best tennis against Federer at 2011 French Open. Unbelievable.



Are you saying that if majority of posters agree with you, it means you're right?

actually Djoker talked about it, saying he did everything right that day and have no regrets whatsoever, only Roger outplayed him that day....so was peak Djoker there, these things happen. I don't understand these Novak fans, they act like they have to have so much ego truth doesn't matter. Even at USO Fed was a point away from winning, really should've won (up two sets and had two match points) so maybe Novak was always not at his best when trailing?

from what i have seen, Djoker fans have the highest frequency of being delusional....they are completely blind to facts. They only see and say things that favour their idol and nothing else. I actually love Novak, i think he is mostly direct and honest (great qualities imo), and he sincerely congratulates those who beat him, not behave like some sour grapes. He's got great personality and great game that's top drawer historically but let's not pretend he cannot lose a match at his peak......that is just a silly argument going nowhere. also realistically he is not superior to Federer......its just your belief!

 

[Ricardo]

Why is everyone being so veegan today? Sometimes a piling on isn't such a bad thing Maybe he'll learn

i started and you guys followed......so i am going to reverse it and say:

Novak is superior to Federer in every aspect except looking as good. Every match he lost to Roger, he wasn't at his peak. He is only at his peak when beating Roger. Actually this 'peak' rule applies to every match he played. He can't be beaten properly, ever.

 

[mrzz]

He is only at his peak when beating Roger

Well, that´s a good definition of peak!

Seriously (piling on the argument, not the poster), while obviously there are times one player plays quite bellow his usual level (I do not think that´s the case, but obviously that´s debatable), if you can cherry pick matches saying that they are not "peak form", so the corollary is that nobody never beat nobody in peak form.

 

[Obsi]

Clearly you're a bit of a clueless fanboy

How long do you plan to talk nonsense?

Djokovic wasn't allowed to play his best tennis in RG11

Before the semifinal Djokovic didn't play for 5 days because Fognini withdrew from the quarterfinal so it's possible that Novak lost rhythm by the time he played Federer. Can you prove that's not what prevented Novak from playing his best tennis in the semifinal?

That's how you get beaten if you didn't realise

So, Federer's back problem has nothing to do with his losses in 2013? Roger was losing all of his matches in 2013 because his opponents didn't allow him to play best tennis?

To your more interesting question, which by the way utterly exposes you. You ask if the majority of posters agree with me would I be right? Well... first of all they don't have to agree with me to see the utter garbage you write. But the more interesting point is that yet again you're so deeply insecure you seem to require the agreement or support of other posters

It was you who first talked about what most posters think so, actually, you exposed yourself as deeply insecure.

If we say that Roger has never beaten "peak" Novak (understanding that by "peak" s/he means highest level), can we not say the opposite, that Novak has never beaten peak Roger?

Novak has never beaten peak Federer.

I don't need a dictionary definition of "peak" to understand what every agrees about a players peak and prime eras. There can be some discussion as to when the are, but no one, I would venture to say, thinks that they get to drop out of "peak" or "prime" for one loss.

What's the purpose of dictionaries? You say that most people agree with you but bear in mind that appeal to majority is a logical fallacy.

You confuse "peak" and "prime". I've already explained that peak is "highest level". Prime is
"the most successful period" http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/prime Djokovic's prime is from 2011 to 2016 so Roger beat prime Novak.

actually Djoker talked about it, saying he did everything right that day and have no regrets whatsoever, only Roger outplayed him that day....so was peak Djoker there, these things happen. I don't understand these Novak fans, they act like they have to have so much ego truth doesn't matter. Even at USO Fed was a point away from winning, really should've won (up two sets and had two match points) so maybe Novak was always not at his best when trailing?

Maybe Djokovic didn't want to appear arrogant by saying "I lost because I didn't play my best tennis". Players aren't always honest in the interviews.

He is only at his peak when beating Roger.

No. For example, Djokovic wasn't at his peak when he beat Federer at 2012 French Open.

 

[Ricardo]

How long do you plan to talk nonsense?



Before the semifinal Djokovic didn't play for 5 days because Fognini withdrew from the quarterfinal so it's possible that Novak lost rhythm by the time he played Federer. Can you prove that's not what prevented Novak from playing his best tennis in the semifinal?



So, Federer's back problem has nothing to do with his losses in 2013? Roger was losing all of his matches in 2013 because his opponents didn't allow him to play best tennis?



It was you who first talked about what most posters think so, actually, you exposed yourself as deeply insecure.



Novak has never beaten peak Federer.



What's the purpose of dictionaries? You say that most people agree with you but bear in mind that appeal to majority is a logical fallacy.

You confuse "peak" and "prime". I've already explained that peak is "highest level". Prime is
"the most successful period" http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/prime Djokovic's prime is from 2011 to 2016 so Roger beat prime Novak.



Maybe Djokovic didn't want to appear arrogant by saying "I lost because I didn't play my best tennis". Players aren't always honest in the interviews.



No. For example, Djokovic wasn't at his peak when he beat Federer at 2012 French Open.

in other losses Novak specifically how he didn't use his chances, didn't do something well etc etc, and said what he said ONLY for that match so one has to believe that's exactly what he meant.......now i guess his fan doesn't want to believe...which i understand.

 

[Ricardo]

Besides what evidence have you got that Novak is a superior player to Federer? facts are against the claim, unless you can think of something magical...

 

[britbox]

@Obsi - When people discuss a players prime, they generally refer to the halcyon days of a players career - when they are playing their best tennis, not on a match by match basis... i.e. Djokovic was in his prime on Monday, but not on Tuesday... doesn't really make sense in the context.

 

[mrzz]

In the posts above Obsi is making a distinction between "peak" and "prime" -- which we generally use in the same context. He is right in the sense that they´re different things, "peak" in fact can be achieved or not in a match by match basis. However, it is highly subjective -- and in this context almost useless. For example, one can safely argue that no one ever have beaten "peak Wawrinka" (surely not "peak Murray").

 

[El Dude]

I don't think what @Obsi is talking about is what most people think of with the word "peak." If "prime" refers to the plateau of a player's career--between when they break through and before they start seriously declining--then a player's peak is the best portion of that prime, their very best years.

I think what Obsi is talking about is actually what people call "A game" - when a player is firing on all cylinders, hitting all their shots, and basically playing at their best level. A player's prime could be understood as the period of time in which a player discovered their A game, and the peak is the period in which they were most able to play at their A level, that is with greatest frequency. But a player is able to play their A game at any point within their prime. Actually, another way to define prime is that period of time in which they have "access" to their A game; once they lose it, or at least rarely able to find it, they are no longer in their prime.

I'd also further add a couple points: first of all, that a player's greatness is determined by 1) How good their A game is (which determines the height of their peaks), and 2) How frequently and for how long they are able to access it (which determines the depth and length of their prime). Secondly, that a player's legacy is determined almost entirely by their prime years (which, again, include their peak). Once a player declines significantly from their prime years, they no longer add to their legacy (e.g. Lleyton Hewitt after 2005. He still won six titles from 2006 on, but they were all ATP 250s and he didn't ready the top 10 or any Slam SF).

All of these terms are somewhat nebulous, so I think there are valid variations of usage. But the main thing I wanted to get at is that Obsi is using peak more in terms of a player's A game, not their very best years. So in summary:

Prime = span of good years (or "plateau"). For a great player, this might be the span in which they win big titles; for a second tier type, it might be the time in which they were ranked in the top 10.
Peak = best years ("mountains").
A game = highest level of play at any point in their career, but generally only possible in prime.

 

[El Dude]

@mrzz, the problem is that one can argue that any player has never been beaten while in their "peak" (or what I'm calling A game), because you could say that if a player loses--or at least a great player--it is always because they weren't able to find their A game but their opponent was. There's an edge of truth to this, at least in many cases, but it is used a bit too much as a justification for why their favorite lost, when sometimes they were simply out-played. It could also be that when one great player reaches their A game, they neutralize the other from reaching it.

But here's a question: in which matches were members of the Big Five both playing their A games? I think the 2017 AO final was close. Rafa fans will probably say his level wasn't as high as clay season, and/or it dipped in the 5th set. One match that comes to mind is the 2013 Roland Garros final - that was pretty much the A game of both Rafa and Novak, if I remember correctly. 2012 AO final? 2008 Wimbledon final? (I can just imagine Darth and Front shrieking in protest).

 

[mrzz]

@mrzz, the problem is that one can argue that any player has never been beaten while in their "peak" (or what I'm calling A game),

Agreed. It is basically what I meant in

if you can cherry pick matches saying that they are not "peak form", so the corollary is that nobody never beat nobody in peak form

As for your question, which is a good one, I guess that we will never get to consensus. I don´t think Nadal was at his peak at AO 2017, neither that Federer was at his at Wimbledon 2008 (but he surely was still close enough to his prime, and he was rightfully dethroned there). I guess you could find parts/periods of matches where both players are close to their peaks. AO 2009 for me has a lot of those periods, but sadly Federer´s level simply disappear at the begging of the fifth.

Good candidates would be the Wawrinka x Djokovic marathons...

 

[Moxie]

Prime = span of good years (or "plateau"). For a great player, this might be the span in which they win big titles; for a second tier type, it might be the time in which they were ranked in the top 10.
Peak = best years ("mountains").
A game = highest level of play at any point in their career, but generally only possible in prime.

This is a great distinction. The addition of "A-game" helps clarify when the odd match is dropped in a peak run.

As for your question, which is a good one, I guess that we will never get to consensus. I don´t think Nadal was at his peak at AO 2017, neither that Federer was at his at Wimbledon 2008 (but he surely was still close enough to his prime, and he was rightfully dethroned there). I guess you could find parts/periods of matches where both players are close to their peaks. AO 2009 for me has a lot of those periods, but sadly Federer´s level simply disappear at the begging of the fifth.

Good candidates would be the Wawrinka x Djokovic marathons...

I also don't think that Nadal was peak at the AO 2017. I found him mostly flat and tired looking. I know we'll never agree on the 2008 Wimbledon, though I think there was a lot of great play from each, but probably the time when they both brought the A-game, and Federer still had belief against him on clay was the 2006 Rome final. That was a top-drawer match. And no one can say that they weren't both around peak years then.

As to Novak never beating Roger in his prime/peak years, what about 2007 in Canada? He beat him in the final. And I know folks cry "mono" in the 2008 AO, so, OK. Anyway, I still say that Roger beat a very peak Novak at RG in 2011, whether Novak had his A-game that day, or not. Streaks begin to take on their own lives, and Novak's had run out. Roger played very well that day to beat him.

 

[mrzz]

Federer still had belief against him on clay was the 2006 Rome final

I was thinking about that match too. And also about the 2011 RG final -- I will always think that if that drop shot on a break point (for a second break) in the first set had landed in (it was painfully close), Federer could have won that match (the second and third sets were extremely competitive).

 

[Moxie]

I was thinking about that match too. And also about the 2011 RG final -- I will always think that if that drop shot on a break point (for a second break) in the first set had landed in (it was painfully close), Federer could have won that match (the second and third sets were extremely competitive).

Federer could absolutely have taken that 2011 final to a fifth. And Rafa was tentative that year. Ifs/buts, though.

 

[Obsi]

in other losses Novak specifically how he didn't use his chances, didn't do something well etc etc, and said what he said ONLY for that match

Can you prove it?

Besides what evidence have you got that Novak is a superior player to Federer? facts are against the claim, unless you can think of something magical...

What facts prove Federer has superior game to Djokovic's?

@Obsi - When people discuss a players prime, they generally refer to the halcyon days of a players career - when they are playing their best tennis, not on a match by match basis... i.e. Djokovic was in his prime on Monday, but not on Tuesday... doesn't really make sense in the context.

Read again my previous posts. I said Federer beat prime Djokovic in 2011. I said there is a difference between "peak" and "prime". I said Roger didn't beat peak Novak in 2011. And I will repeat again that appeal to majority is a logical fallacy (i.e. if most people agree with you it doesn't mean you're right).

I don't think what @Obsi is talking about is what most people think of with the word "peak."...I think what Obsi is talking about is actually what people call "A game" - when a player is firing on all cylinders, hitting all their shots, and basically playing at their best level.

Yep. That's what I mean.

 

[mrzz]

Federer could absolutely have taken that 2011 final to a fifth. And Rafa was tentative that year. Ifs/buts, though.

Oh, surely. My point was not about the ifs themselves (the result is there), but about the match being competitive at a high level.

 

[britbox]

Can you prove it?

What facts prove Federer has superior game to Djokovic's?

Read again my previous posts. I said Federer beat prime Djokovic in 2011. I said there is a difference between "peak" and "prime". I said Roger didn't beat peak Novak in 2011. And I will repeat again that appeal to majority is a logical fallacy (i.e. if most people agree with you it doesn't mean you're right).

Yep. That's what I mean.

You seem to be asking a lot of people to "prove" you're wrong... can you prove you're right? Can you prove Djokovic is a 25 year old in a 30 year old body? Can you prove Djokovic is a superior player to Federer?

Of course you can't because things are based on opinion... opinions largely formed on things like an athletes overall body of work... and in the case of 25 year old bodies, your argument is kind of "well, 25 year olds can get injured"... fact is Novak is showing signs of being an older athlete rather than a younger one. He's lost some of his mental edge and his body is breaking down. I don't know if it's terminal, we shall see.

 

[Ricardo]

Can you prove it?



What facts prove Federer has superior game to Djokovic's?



Read again my previous posts. I said Federer beat prime Djokovic in 2011. I said there is a difference between "peak" and "prime". I said Roger didn't beat peak Novak in 2011. And I will repeat again that appeal to majority is a logical fallacy (i.e. if most people agree with you it doesn't mean you're right).



Yep. That's what I mean.

I read the interviews, you would know if you have too.

now you are the one who claimed Djoker to have superior game so you should be the one to prove your claim. however i'll be generous by providing simple facts that you cannot deny:

Fed is further away from his peak years than Djoker, and yet has remained competitive against Djoker in his peak years. You cannot have an ageing player do that unless his game is better. Apart from just looking at Fed vs Djoker, Fed still has significant edge in career achievement......which is used to judge players. Just combine the two, less achievements and regularly lost to a very old player in his prime.....your turn to 'prove' if you can, nothing delusional please.

now i don't know if Novak fans automatically turn blind when he doesn't win, but i watched the RG 2011 semi and Novak had every shot working that day......he played as well as he could, all cylinders were firing. It just came down to Fed was playing unbelievable, and its not out of nowhere as commentators were saying Fed and Djoker were playing the best tennis at RG that year. It's similar in a few Djoker vs Stan matches, where Novak played great but just ran into Stanimal whose level was so high. You can't say he wasn't peak after he dispatched other top players with ease but happened to drop his level only against Federer, (or Stan).