Does any player every play at his highest level? Ever?!

[Kieran]

^ Hey, I'd gladly solve that for you with a chainsaw if I could

I bet you would. I heard that's how they carve the Christmas turkey down there in Cork - with a giant chainsaw. Fair enough, it's different - but you're meant to kill the bleeding turkey first!! :snigger

 

[Front242]

^

 

[brokenshoelace]

Problem here is the Nadal fans will say that wasn't his highest level since he lost and likewise when Nadal beat Djokovic the following year in Rome the opposite will be claimed. It's a pointless debate really.

True. But I thought that was the point. In 2011 Rome, I really saw nothing below what I saw Nadal do in the 2008 RG final or equivalent matches. He was just outplayed. Moonballs? Nadal always plays moonballs, just crazy ferocious deadly spinning moonballs.

crylaydownlaughing:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing

PS: He WAS outplayed. I don't understand why that's even worth mentioning. The scoreline and the rallies indicate as much.

"Nadal always plays moonballs."

No, you don't understand what a moonball is. Nadal plays with a lot of spin. There's a huge difference between that and virtually LOBBING the ball back in play with your backhand.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Really surprised nobody has brought up Rome 2011. Clearly demonstrates that Djokovic is the superior player to Nadal if they both play at their very best. It was after this match that Nadal started severely doubting himself as he knew he was going to get his ass kicked at RG. Unfortunately, the Fedster helped Rafa there.

....

Lame excuses about Rafa being mentally injured in that match by Rafa fans will probably follow now.

Out of curiosity, is this a deliberate trolling attempt or are you really that much of a Djokovic apologist?

If "Djokovic is the superior player to Nadal if they both play a their very best," can you answer two questions?

1. Why is the career matchup 22-17, Nadal?
2. Why is Djokovic only 3-6 against Nadal in their last 9 matches?

Now Novak has wont the last two matches against Rafa, but they were on hard-court. And please don't tell me its a "matchup problem" as Novak, unlike Roger, has proven he can get around the Rafa Onslaught.

I personally think its clear that Novak has the edge on hard-courts, Rafa on clay, and its a toss-up on grass. Here's the break-down:

hard: Novak, 13-7
clay: Rafa, 13-3
grass: Rafa, 2-1

Or am I just feeding the troll?

No, you're either not a careful reader or twisting my argument. This is not about averages or statistics even. It's about two players playing at their highest possible level. Rome 2011. Take a look at the video.

I just find it hilarious that someone honestly believes a straight set loss on clay was an 8 time FO winner's "highest possible level."

 

[Front242]

Not defending the above, but one could argue he didn't need to be near his best to win a good few of those RG titles in the finals at least against a certain fella who has the 2nd best clay results of his generation. Nowhere near it in fact.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Problem here is the Nadal fans will say that wasn't his highest level since he lost and likewise when Nadal beat Djokovic the following year in Rome the opposite will be claimed. It's a pointless debate really.

It's not because he lost. Actually scratch that, part of it is because he lost. As I said in my post on page 1: Given how good these guys are, do you really think they can lose if they play their HIGHEST POSSIBLE LEVEL in the strictest sense of the word? For instance, Nadal on clay is probably the most unbeatable thing in the history of tennis. You really think his highest possible level gets him trounced in straights?

Now, that is not to say he didn't play well. And that's the distinction Denis isn't making. Nadal played well in that Rome match. Well enough to beat anyone else (no exaggeration. He would have beaten anyone else). Novak outplayed him. But to say that lobbing routine rally balls back off of his backhand side (which usually Nadal's flatter shot, actually) is Nadal playing his best, and serving like a WTA top 20 player is Nadal playing his best, then we have a problem.

The moonball thing was actually a big issue back then, so much so that Nadal was asked about it in the press conference (I doubt he would have been asked about it had it been something he does in every match, as Denis claimed).

My biggest issue with a lot of these debates is that people are not willing to carefully analyze matches and just form biased opinion.

PS: Novak's level in that match was among the highest I've seen anyone play in history. That doesn't change the fact that Nadal didn't play "at his highest possible level." This normally wouldn't be brought up, since Nadal actually played well and lost. But this thread is specifically about losing while playing your highest possible level. The Rome 2011 was brought up as an example. And I can't agree with that.

PPS: I don't think either Nadal or Djokovic played that great the subsequent year in Rome.

 

[brokenshoelace]

No, you're either not a careful reader or twisting my argument. This is not about averages or statistics even. It's about two players playing at their highest possible level. Rome 2011. Take a look at the video.

But if you're talking about one match, all you're doing is, well, talking about one match. I don't think one match can equate with "highest possible level" in any meaningful way, otherwise we venture into Cali territory ("For that one point, David Nalbandian was the best player in the history of tennis").

All you're saying is that Novak out-played Rafa for one match in which they both played very well. I don't think one match is enough to say that Novak is better than Rafa at their highest possible levels.

This.

This.

This.

Otherwise, I can easily say Tsonga's best level > Nadal's best level. 2008 AO semi final being the example.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Not defending the above, but one could argue he didn't need to be near his best to win a good few of those RG titles in the finals at least against a certain fella who has the 2nd best clay results of his generation. Nowhere near it in fact.

Absolutely. Though how is that relevant to this topic? The fact is, we HAVE seen Nadal at his best on clay. Perhaps not in all the finals against Roger, because he didn't need to (though we saw what happened in the one final in which he was), but we saw Nadal in full flight on clay, including matches against Novak. Neither of us seriously believes Nadal played just as well in the 2011 Rome final.

 

[Front242]

I thought Nadal both served and played better in the final of Monte Carlo 2012. His serving was great that day in particular to the deuce court but of course Djokovic didn't play that well that day so it wasn't both playing their best. Agree that Rome 2012 wasn't that high quality from either. The US Open 2011 final remains imo their highest intensity levels against each other overall.

 

[Front242]

Not defending the above, but one could argue he didn't need to be near his best to win a good few of those RG titles in the finals at least against a certain fella who has the 2nd best clay results of his generation. Nowhere near it in fact.

Absolutely. Though how is that relevant to this topic? The fact is, we HAVE seen Nadal at his best on clay. Perhaps not in all the finals against Roger, because he didn't need to (though we saw what happened in the one final in which he was), but we saw Nadal in full flight on clay, including matches against Novak. Neither of us seriously believes Nadal played just as well in the 2011 Rome final.

It was in reference to how can a straight sets loss at the hands of Djokovic in Rome 2011 be Nadal's highest level since's he's won 8 French Opens. I just thought it was relevant seeing as he won many of those RG titles where he didn't need to play his best against Roger so it's not the same as facing Djokovic in peak form as he was in 2011. Aside from Rome 2006 he's never had it that tough from Roger and Novak in peak form is a totally different kettle of fish. But I'm not in any way claiming Djokovic's best is better than Nadal's. Merely that if he'd faced Djokovic 2011 in 5 RG finals, I'm quite sure he'd have lost a few. But then I'm sure most Nadal fans would agree with that hypothetical situation anyway.

 

[Kieran]

Fact is, he didn't even face 2011-Nole in the 2011 RG final...

 

[Denis]

No, you're either not a careful reader or twisting my argument. This is not about averages or statistics even. It's about two players playing at their highest possible level. Rome 2011. Take a look at the video.

But if you're talking about one match, all you're doing is, well, talking about one match. I don't think one match can equate with "highest possible level" in any meaningful way, otherwise we venture into Cali territory ("For that one point, David Nalbandian was the best player in the history of tennis").

All you're saying is that Novak out-played Rafa for one match in which they both played very well. I don't think one match is enough to say that Novak is better than Rafa at their highest possible levels.

I thought that this was exactly what the thread was about: when do players play each other at their very best. I gave 2011 Rome as an example. Now you are turning it into your statistics fetishism.

 

[Front242]

Fact is, he didn't even face 2011-Nole in the 2011 RG final...

Thankfully and also not unfortunately. While I'm happy Roger got that mighty win it also meant another slam dunk for the Nadster so it's not all roses :s Will Djokovic ever get back in that form again? Who knows. I hope so but right now he's pretty far off that level.

 

[Denis]

Problem here is the Nadal fans will say that wasn't his highest level since he lost and likewise when Nadal beat Djokovic the following year in Rome the opposite will be claimed. It's a pointless debate really.

True. But I thought that was the point. In 2011 Rome, I really saw nothing below what I saw Nadal do in the 2008 RG final or equivalent matches. He was just outplayed. Moonballs? Nadal always plays moonballs, just crazy ferocious deadly spinning moonballs.

crylaydownlaughing:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing

PS: He WAS outplayed. I don't understand why that's even worth mentioning. The scoreline and the rallies indicate as much.

"Nadal always plays moonballs."

No, you don't understand what a moonball is. Nadal plays with a lot of spin. There's a huge difference between that and virtually LOBBING the ball back in play with your backhand.

Meh. You didn't get my point. I was making fun of the moonballs example. Nadal was not hitting any moonballs that match. Just the usual ferocious topspin stuff.

Judging by your reaction, I see I have hit a sensitive spot, so I feel comforted in your acknowledgment that Djokovic on his highest level can beat Nadal playing at his highest level.

 

[Denis]

Fact is, he didn't even face 2011-Nole in the 2011 RG final...

Thankfully and also not unfortunately. While I'm happy Roger got that mighty win it also meant another slam dunk for the Nadster so it's not all roses :s Will Djokovic ever get back in that form again? Who knows. I hope so but right now he's pretty far off that level.

With hindsight, it was outright stupid. He gifted Nadal another Slam which might cost him dearly in the GOAT-race in the end.

He should have hit the bars at boulevard Montparnasse with Stan the night before the match with Novak.

 

[Kieran]

Well, I hope you're not suggesting Roger was "stupid" to win a slam semi...

 

[Front242]

Fact is, he didn't even face 2011-Nole in the 2011 RG final...

Thankfully and also not unfortunately. While I'm happy Roger got that mighty win it also meant another slam dunk for the Nadster so it's not all roses :s Will Djokovic ever get back in that form again? Who knows. I hope so but right now he's pretty far off that level.

With hindsight, it was outright stupid. He gifted Nadal another Slam which might cost him dearly in the GOAT-race in the end.

He should have hit the bars at boulevard Montparnasse with Stan the night before the match with Novak.

There's no saying Novak would've won but he may have. But in any case, beating Djokovic in his 2011 form was a huge scalp for Roger anyway and a more than decent consolation prize. Better any day than the miserable few bob he probably wipes his arse with in prize money and the runner's up trophy. He has loads of those already.

 

[huntingyou]

MC 2010
RG 2008

Those two tournaments show what Rafa can or could do at full flight on clay. Novak can't get close to that level of tennis on. Nobody it's unbeatable but Rafa on clay it's the closest thing to that.

In Rome 2011 and MC 2013, Novak beat a fully fit Rafa playing good clay court tennis to his standards which is enough to win all events. It wasn't good enough to beat Novak though which speak volumes about Novak's insane level in those two matches.

 

[Front242]

^ It's all subjective really. I mean Nadal didn't crush anyone as much in 2008 as he did in 2012 against Monaco who scored a whole 2 games in 3 sets in best of 5 at RG. Maybe he played better in some matches in RG 2008 but not all of them. Monte Carlo 2010 final against Verdasco I'd say he played better than RG 2008 to be honest. He didn't need to do anything to win the final for one thing his opponent was so bad that day (RG '08).

 

[brokenshoelace]

Problem here is the Nadal fans will say that wasn't his highest level since he lost and likewise when Nadal beat Djokovic the following year in Rome the opposite will be claimed. It's a pointless debate really.

True. But I thought that was the point. In 2011 Rome, I really saw nothing below what I saw Nadal do in the 2008 RG final or equivalent matches. He was just outplayed. Moonballs? Nadal always plays moonballs, just crazy ferocious deadly spinning moonballs.

crylaydownlaughing:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing

PS: He WAS outplayed. I don't understand why that's even worth mentioning. The scoreline and the rallies indicate as much.

"Nadal always plays moonballs."

No, you don't understand what a moonball is. Nadal plays with a lot of spin. There's a huge difference between that and virtually LOBBING the ball back in play with your backhand.

Meh. You didn't get my point. I was making fun of the moonballs example. Nadal was not hitting any moonballs that match. Just the usual ferocious topspin stuff.

Question: When was the last time you re-watched that Rome match?

Question 2: Are you being stubborn just to protect your view or do has it been a while since you watch it?

Because if I'm going to engage in argument with you about the moonball issue, it's starting on the wrong note. You are claiming something that is factually incorrect. Because I'm willing to bet you (let's just say I'll disappear for a month if I'm wrong) that Nadal played a ton of backhand moonballs in that match.

So if I rewatch the match today and count you the numbers of moonballs Nadal hits (with video proof), would that satisfy you? I'm serious, I have time on my hands later tonight.

Now, once we get that out of the way, then I'm ready to discuss the match with you. But when you're just making up facts, there's no point.