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

[Kieran]

^ 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

Crikey! Calm down, brother, but beating Roger and dropping only FOUR games is much better than that...

 

[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

Crikey! Calm down, brother, but beating Roger and dropping only FOUR games is much better than that...

No, I don't agree actually. Monaco played a better match if you watch it again. Probably no links online though. As brutal as the scoreline was against Monaco it wasn't like he lost all those games 40-0.

 

[Front242]

Beating Roger and dropping 4 games is impressive if it were Roger he was playing but the guy that played that day was more like a challenger event rookie.

 

[Kieran]

Beating Roger is always more impressive than beating Monaco - unless it's when he beats Monaco in Monaco! That can't be done with Roger!

 

[brokenshoelace]

^ 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).

He crushed Roger, Almagro and Verdasco at RG 2008 pretty much the same way he did to Monaco (give or take a few games).

You could say he didn't need to do anything in the 2008 RG final, but the he DID. Whether he needed to is irrelevant. His level of play in that match (over 40 winners, 6 unforced errrors) was insane.

 

[Front242]

^ As I said above, normally I'd agree but that was not Roger Federer playing in the RG 2008. He was downright pathetic and Toni Nadal said so too.

 

[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).

He crushed Roger, Almagro and Verdasco at RG 2008 pretty much the same way he did to Monaco (give or take a few games).

You could say he didn't need to do anything in the 2008 RG final, but the he DID. Whether he needed to is irrelevant. His level of play in that match (over 40 winners, 6 unforced errrors) was insane.

Undeniably great level alright but equally so Federer was pathetic that day. I'd say Monaco's stats were better in 2012. Seriously.

 

[Kieran]

^ As I said above, normally I'd agree but that was not Roger Federer playing in the RG 2008. He was downright pathetic and Toni Nadal said so too.

NOW you believe Toni! NOW?! Why not all the other times, eh?

 

[brokenshoelace]

^ 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).

He crushed Roger, Almagro and Verdasco at RG 2008 pretty much the same way he did to Monaco (give or take a few games).

You could say he didn't need to do anything in the 2008 RG final, but the he DID. Whether he needed to is irrelevant. His level of play in that match (over 40 winners, 6 unforced errrors) was insane.

Undeniably great level alright but equally so Federer was pathetic that day. I'd say Monaco's stats were better in 2012. Seriously.

Monaco's stats were better (if that's the right word. More like, less horrible) because he didn't have weapons, if that makes sense. In other words, there was nothing he can do but try to hang in there. Whereas Roger felt like he had to push even more, attack the net even more, and he obviously had the weapons to do so. Of course, that all out approach is suicide against Nadal on clay, especially in the kind of form he was in.

 

[Front242]

Seeing as this thread is about high(est) levels of play. Here's a good example of clay ownage. He was actually better against Berdych in the semi but I can't find clips anywhere.

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Oy9LWBeMTI&feature=player_detailpage[/video]

 

[Front242]

^ As I said above, normally I'd agree but that was not Roger Federer playing in the RG 2008. He was downright pathetic and Toni Nadal said so too.

NOW you believe Toni! NOW?! Why not all the other times, eh?

Because he was actually right for once

 

[huntingyou]

^ 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).

In that final that you are quick to dismiss....Nadal hit 42 winners against 6 UFE.

I want you to take time and try digest what 42/6 ration means over three sets ON CLAY in a slam final.

Roger was garbage yes, but a LOT has to do with Rafa's insane level. He couldn't miss that day, his backhand was just perfect, the forehand was kicking like a mule and he was moving like a prima ballerina in Bolshoi. No need to downplay Rafa just to say face with Roger......

 

[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).

In that final that you are quick to dismiss....Nadal hit 42 winners against 6 UFE.

I want you to take time and try digest what 42/6 ration means over three sets ON CLAY in a slam final.

Roger was garbage yes, but a LOT has to do with Rafa's insane level. He couldn't miss that day, his backhand was just perfect, the forehand was kicking like a mule and he was moving like a prima ballerina in Bolshoi. No need to downplay Rafa just to say face with Roger......

I'm not quick to dismiss it if you read my reply to Broken.

"Undeniably great level alright but equally so Federer was pathetic that day. I'd say Monaco's stats were better in 2012. Seriously."

 

[Front242]

Roger didn't even try in set 3 so that's why the winners to ufes ratio is overstated.

 

[Front242]

At least Monaco had the decency to try and play even in the final set.

 

[Front242]

Enjoying re-watching Soderling man handle Ferrer here.

 

[El Dude]

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.

Huh? Really?! Where am I fetishizing statistics in this dialogue? All I did was present the match-up. Is that fetishizing or are you pulling out a red herring?

Yes, when players play at their very best is the topic of this thread, or at least it was. But you came out with that doozy of a statement, that Novak's highest level is better than Rafa's based on one match - and I challenged that, and still do. You need more than one Masters match to back that up, otherwise you're committing Cali-ism.

I'm not dissing Novak by any means. Actually, it seems clear that his very best year, 2011, is better overall than any year Rafa has had - including his three great ones: 2008, 2010, and 2013. Novak sustained a level of dominance in 2011, or really from late 2010 to early 2012 that Rafa hasn't quite matched. But that's not what I was challenging.

 

[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.

Huh? Really?! Where am I fetishizing statistics in this dialogue? All I did was present the match-up. Is that fetishizing or are you pulling out a red herring?

Yes, when players play at their very best is the topic of this thread, or at least it was. But you came out with that doozy of a statement, that Novak's highest level is better than Rafa's based on one match - and I challenged that, and still do. You need more than one Masters match to back that up, otherwise you're committing Cali-ism.

I'm not dissing Novak by any means. Actually, it seems clear that his very best year, 2011, is better overall than any year Rafa has had - including his three great ones: 2008, 2010, and 2013. Novak sustained a level of dominance in 2011, or really from late 2010 to early 2012 that Rafa hasn't quite matched. But that's not what I was challenging.

Yes, exactly. We're not talking averages here. Best level to beat the other guy's best level. There is no other way of looking at it. As front pointed out, it's subjective. But Nadal's level was as good as it gets 2008-2011 and he got beaten fair and square by Novak on many occassions in 2011. 2011 Rome stood out IMO.

Again, if we're talking averages there is no disputing Nadal is the better player, but that was not the point of the thread now was it?

 

[Denis]

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."

Just try and take your focus of Nadal for a moment and give Novak some credit.

 

[Kieran]

Nole has always gotten credit for what he achieved in 2011, there's never been dissent from that. It was a hot run. But his greatest achievement was making sure Rafa DIDN'T play at his best level. Rafa's best level on clay beats Nole, as we've seen so often. Nole spooked young Ralph and sent him into a worried tailspin. It was well-earned and nobody has ever denied this...