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

[Ricardo]

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...

young Rafa? alright

yet his only saving grace in 2011 (RG) was only possible with the help of his bogeyman..... he was not in any shape or form to win against red hot Novak.

 

[Kieran]

Well, he wasn't so red hot in the semis, eh?

But isn't it interesting that it's commonly taken for granted that Nole would have won the final had he reached it (and it would be a huge assumption and probable mistake to take this for granted), but when Rafa went lame in Oz, there was a determined insistence that he would most likely have lost in any case.

As Denis says, these things are subjective. In other words, they depend on your relation to each player...

 

[Moxie]

^ 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."

Front, if some Nadal fan had brought up Monaco as a comparison with Nadal in order to take down Federer's level in a match against him, Federer fans would be howling him off the boards. Anyway, it's probably impossible to compare performances when in both the player is playing at a very high level, likely close to 100% the whole match. But it is a bit rich that some Feddies will always say that Roger played "crap" when he loses to Nadal in a big match, not that Rafa was great. Obviously, you can't avoid it when talking of RG 2008, but still you want to bring down Rafa's level, comparing him to a higher one you've picked out. But if Nadal fans suggest impairment, it's excuse-making. I don't see it as that much different.

But, for the record, Toni did say that Roger had given up on that match. Still, I think Rafa played a very sustained high level during that whole tournament. As did Roger during the AO 2007, when he didn't drop a set. As did Djokovic during his great 2011. Since the question is: does a player play it his highest level ever…I'd say those are examples of very close to it.

 

[Moxie]

Well, he wasn't so red hot in the semis, eh?

But isn't it interesting that it's commonly taken for granted that Nole would have won the final had he reached it (and it would be a huge assumption and probable mistake to take this for granted), but when Rafa went lame in Oz, there was a determined insistence that he would most likely have lost in any case.

As Denis says, these things are subjective. In other words, they depend on your relation to each player...

In fairness, Front did mention that you can't take that for granted, but yes, plenty like to make the snide comments such as the above. I'll be the first to say that Nadal may well have dodged a bullet in that one, but, as you say, you have to be in the final to win it. It's far more plausible to speculate that Nadal might have won this past AO, which he did participate in, than to speculate about the RG 2011 final, in which Djokovic didn't play.

 

[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."

Front, if some Nadal fan had brought up Monaco as a comparison with Nadal in order to take down Federer's level in a match against him, Federer fans would be howling him off the boards. Anyway, it's probably impossible to compare performances when in both the player is playing at a very high level, likely close to 100% the whole match. But it is a bit rich that some Feddies will always say that Roger played "crap" when he loses to Nadal in a big match, not that Rafa was great. Obviously, you can't avoid it when talking of RG 2008, but still you want to bring down Rafa's level, comparing him to a higher one you've picked out. But if Nadal fans suggest impairment, it's excuse-making. I don't see it as that much different.

But, for the record, Toni did say that Roger had given up on that match. Still, I think Rafa played a very sustained high level during that whole tournament. As did Roger during the AO 2007, when he didn't drop a set. As did Djokovic during his great 2011. Since the question is: does a player play it his highest level ever…I'd say those are examples of very close to it.

I actually said that Nadal did play great and it's blatantly obvious that Federer also played crap. It can and in this case was the case that one played very well and the other played abysmal. Toni said "Roger did not play well today". That should win understatement of the year award. I can't see where I wanted to bring down Rafa's level anywhere? It was definitely higher to me against Monaco and that's my opinion but the scoreline backs it up too. Monaco's a very good clay courter and was very much in form back then and while straight sets was probably always on the cards, that scoreline in the 2012 RG match most definitely wasn't. I definitely maintain Nadal played better there. He was extremely aggressive and poor Monaco is even a good friend of his and got destroyed.

What was more admirable was that even after the terribly lopsided first 2 sets, Monaco continued to play his heart out till the very end and the same could not be said of Roger who gave up after set 2 of RG '08 and Toni said as much. That ended up skewing the winners/ufes ratio that was being boasted earlier. They were always going to be great numbers for Rafa but Roger's complete lack of effort in set 3 clearly contributed to those numbers a lot.

In full agreement Nadal played a fantastic tournament at RG 2008, when did I ever dispute that? I merely said the opponent in the final was completely pathetic which is true. In all their matches at RG besides that one, Roger has played much, much better. Toni knows it, Nadal knows it and so do the respective fanbases. It is possible for one guy to play great and the other absolutely awful and not only because of his opponent but just plain awful. His gameplan that day was terrible if he even had one. By all accounts he was awful at this year's AO against Nadal too but nowhere near THAT bad.

Ps: yup, all the examples you cited in your last paragraph are good examples of all three guys playing sustained very high level all tournament.

 

[Moxie]

^ I agree with much of this, Front. But you fail to address the notion that Fed fans always claim that Fed is playing terribly when he loses. You can't confront the notion that Nadal, in that match, for example, made Federer look pedestrian. I think that's why he gave up. Perhaps he didn't have a game plan, beyond playing his game, which was for naught against a Nadal swinging that freely. I do think that match forced him to readjust his game against Rafa, and he's had some better results since. But the bottom-line is: Nadal was in the zone in that tournament and that match. It's not a question of Federer playing poorly. He didn't have a shout, imo. The Monaco comparison is a lost-leader.

 

[Front242]

Well given he had 2 mps against him in Rome just 2 years prior, Federer clearly knew he had it in him to play much better than he did and therefore I think he just had a really bad game plan going in and maybe he only had plan A and was so sure it would work that he didn't even have a plan B. When you see Federer winning sets and flying out in front in sets and then throwing in one poor service game and going back to just pointless, passive rallying he's toast. That clearly wasn't the case there as he wasn't exactly off to a flying start He seemed to have some stupidly aggressive game plan that obviously was crap and had no fall back plan B. Imo he was so fed up that his game plan failed so miserably that he just gave up after set 2. Quite why I don't know as he was making some progress mid set 2.

In recent years I must say I've seen many matches Fed lost when he was indeed playing terribly. Look at Brisbane this year against Hewitt. Thankfully nothing that bad has happened since. Who said I can't confront the notion that Nadal made Fed look pedestrian? I admitted as much by saying Nadal played great and Fed played horribly badly as anyone would acknowledge so it's only natural for the greater player that day to make the other look completely pedestrian by comparison.

Federer wasn't ever going to win anyway but we all know he can play a whole lot better than he did that day. You can lose with dignity 7-6 6-4 6-3 and it's still straight sets but hardly as bad as how he played that day. To not even try in set 3 was pretty bad for the fans too.

 

[Moxie]

Well given he had 2 mps against him in Rome just 2 years prior, Federer clearly knew he had it in him to play much better than he did and therefore I think he just had a really bad game plan going in and maybe he only had plan A and was so sure it would work that he didn't even have a plan B. When you see Federer winning sets and flying out in front in sets and then throwing in one poor service game and going back to just pointless, passive rallying he's toast. That clearly wasn't the case there as he wasn't exactly off to a flying start He seemed to have some stupidly aggressive game plan that obviously was crap and had no fall back plan B. Imo he was so fed up that his game plan failed so miserably that he just gave up after set 2. Quite why I don't know as he was making some progress mid set 2.

In recent years I must say I've seen many matches Fed lost when he was indeed playing terribly. Look at Brisbane this year against Hewitt. Thankfully nothing that bad has happened since. Who said I can't confront the notion that Nadal made Fed look pedestrian? I admitted as much by saying Nadal played great and Fed played horribly badly as anyone would acknowledge so it's only natural for the greater player that day to make the other look completely pedestrian by comparison.

Federer wasn't ever going to win anyway but we all know he can play a whole lot better than he did that day. You can lose with dignity 7-6 6-4 6-3 and it's still straight sets but hardly as bad as how he played that day. To not even try in set 3 was pretty bad for the fans too.

(Bolded above.) I don't see how that doesn't prove that Nadal was in the zone that day. Wouldn't have mattered what Roger did. I think you have to forget about what Federer did or didn't do. He didn't play poorly, and he was capable before, and has been since since, of playing Rafa closer on clay. The difference in that match was not that Roger was poor, but that Rafa was in full-flight on clay. That's why he gave up in the 3rd. And so should you on this argument. :angel:

The point of the thread is when/if a player plays to the best of their potential. I think Nadal was at his best that day, and basically that whole tournament. I really don't think there's much Roger could have done.

 

[Front242]

I agree Nadal was playing very high level that day but I've seen better from him and also agree and said already that Roger wasn't going to win anyway bu equally so you can't say Federer didn't play poorly. Even Toni Nadal said "Roger was not good today" as I posted earlier. I pretty much had given up and was just replying to your post. I still maintain Nadal has played better than that, was regardless playing extremely high level tennis that day, Federer was not and I also said Fed gave up in set 3 too. Rafa's been full flight on clay against Fed many times before and Federer played way better so I really can't see how anyone could say he didn't play poorly when the coach of his opponent even said he did. Fed was plain awful that day and Rafa was great. A recipe for disaster for any match.

Ebden and Murray were both awful today but Ebden was even worse than Murray, so he lost by an embarrassing score save for set 1. Murray didn't do anything special tonight in sets 2 and 3, his opponent was just plain crap except for maybe 3 or 4 points in the last 2 sets. Pretty similar to the RG '08 final except Fed didn't win any sets there. The difference obviously being Murray didn't play great and still won 2 sets by an embarrassing scoreline for his opponent as he was so bad, whereas Nadal was playing great but also his opponent was very poor. Anyway, bedtime for me.

 

[Moxie]

I agree Nadal was playing very high level that day but I've seen better from him and also agree and said already that Roger wasn't going to win anyway bu equally so you can't say Federer didn't play poorly. Even Toni Nadal said "Roger was not good today" as I posted earlier. I pretty much had given up and was just replying to your post. I still maintain Nadal has played better than that, was regardless playing extremely high level tennis that day, Federer was not and I also said Fed gave up in set 3 too. Rafa's been full flight on clay against Fed many times before and Federer played way better so I really can't see how anyone could say he didn't play poorly when the coach of his opponent even said he did. Fed was plain awful that day and Rafa was great. A recipe for disaster for any match.

Ebden and Murray were both awful today but Ebden was even worse than Murray, so he lost by an embarrassing score save for set 1. Murray didn't do anything special tonight in sets 2 and 3, his opponent was just plain crap except for maybe 3 or 4 points in the last 2 sets. 100% same thing as RG '08 final except Fed didn't win any sets there.

You will just embarrass yourself if you try to compare Murray v. Ebden, today, or any day, against Federer v. Nadal. Come on.

Let's say this, and I think it's fair: Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have probably had more than their fair share of matches playing at pretty close to their maximum. It's difficult to compare one "top" performance to another, because they've played different opponents, with different levels of competency. But they've each had at least one against the other, I think. (The one I'm not sure of is Djokovic completely zoning over Federer. Anyone?)

 

[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."

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

I did. In my very first reply to your post. I told you that Novak's level was so outstanding in that match, that he prevented Nadal from playing his best. I also told you that Nadal would have beaten anyone else playing the same way he did in the final.

 

[brokenshoelace]

You can't compare a match between an elite player against a vastly inferior one to a match between two elite players.

Nadal beating Federer 1, 3, 0 cannot be compared to him beating Monaco (or Murray against some dude I've never heard of), since no matter how poorly Roger played (and he did play bad, especially from a strategy standpoint), it would still require an out of this world performance for him to lose with such a scoreline. Let's put it that way, Roger's played pretty terrible in many matches throughout his career, especially in the past few years, and yet, he never came close to losing by such a scoreline.

 

[brokenshoelace]

There is something else I wanted to touch on though, and it's another area of grey in this "at his best" thing.

Generally, I look at player's best in average terms, not in one particular match (and that's something EL Dude alluded to earlier). For example, Tsonga's best ever performance was against Nadal at the AO in 2008. But the fact that he never got close to playing as well again actually indicates that he played ABOVE his level in that match. So is that his "best"? Yes, in the sense that he never played as well. But is it an indicator in the "at his best" conversation? No, because it's not a level he can reach for any sustained period of time. Not even a full tournament.

Every player has his day where they catch fire and everything they touch turns to gold. Kohlschreiber and Gasquet had a day like that against Roddick at the AO and Wimbledon 2008 respectively. I remember Cilic having a day like that against Nadal in some Asian hard court (or indoor) tournament in 2009. And hell, Robin Soderling got a couple of days like that, against Nadal and Federer at the 2009 FO and 2010 FO respectively (though in fairness to Soderling, he was able to sustain a high level for a couple of years, but nothing as ridiculous as his level in those matches).

That doesn't stop there. Even players who have had long periods of playing at a ridiculous level have had days where they were extra clicking. If we look at Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, they all have had specific patches where they played great even by their incredible standards (say, Federer in the second half of 2006, Djokovic's first half of 2011, Nadal's run in the 2008 starting with the clay court season till the Olympics, or his North American hard court last year, etc...). When I think of these players "at their best," that's what I think of: periods of sustained high level tennis.

And yet, even they had days where they exceeded even that. For example, Nadal's destruction of Verdasco in the Monte Carlo final in 2010 might just be the best display of clay court tennis I've ever seen. I honestly don't think Nadal's played a finer match in his career. Meanwhile, Federer's performances against Blake at the 2006 Masters Cup final and Roddick at the AO a few months later are ridiculous even by his standards. You could visibly see him having to stop himself from smiling after some of the shots he hit. Djokovic's match against Nadal in Rome 2011 was beyond anything he's ever played, and that really says something considering how well he was playing that entire year.

So, do you look at those matches as "Federer, Nadal or Djokovic at their best"? You could, since technically, they are. But I do think someone's "best level" has to be attainable. The level of tennis they played in those matches can only be attained a handful of times in a player's career. Which for my money, isn't enough to be a part of the conversation. Their performances in those matches were above their normal levels, even above their usual "best."

 

[Kieran]

Great post, Broken! Well said... :clap

Otherwise, as El Dude put it, we'd be taking one match and declaring certain guys to be the best who ever played the game...

 

[Ricardo]

I agree Nadal was playing very high level that day but I've seen better from him and also agree and said already that Roger wasn't going to win anyway bu equally so you can't say Federer didn't play poorly. Even Toni Nadal said "Roger was not good today" as I posted earlier. I pretty much had given up and was just replying to your post. I still maintain Nadal has played better than that, was regardless playing extremely high level tennis that day, Federer was not and I also said Fed gave up in set 3 too. Rafa's been full flight on clay against Fed many times before and Federer played way better so I really can't see how anyone could say he didn't play poorly when the coach of his opponent even said he did. Fed was plain awful that day and Rafa was great. A recipe for disaster for any match.

Ebden and Murray were both awful today but Ebden was even worse than Murray, so he lost by an embarrassing score save for set 1. Murray didn't do anything special tonight in sets 2 and 3, his opponent was just plain crap except for maybe 3 or 4 points in the last 2 sets. 100% same thing as RG '08 final except Fed didn't win any sets there.

You will just embarrass yourself if you try to compare Murray v. Ebden, today, or any day, against Federer v. Nadal. Come on.

Let's say this, and I think it's fair: Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have probably had more than their fair share of matches playing at pretty close to their maximum. It's difficult to compare one "top" performance to another, because they've played different opponents, with different levels of competency. But they've each had at least one against the other, I think. (The one I'm not sure of is Djokovic completely zoning over Federer. Anyone?)

The real embarrassment here is your claim that Fed didn't play poorly in that match. Just a personal opinion, if Fed played anything close to his ability he wouldn't get a mere 4 games and certainly not a donut (in set 3) no matter how well Nadal played. Given his serve he'd have earned a game or two at least, and anyone who watched that match would've seen how bad a shape he was in.

Only you would see that Fed didn't play poorly in that match, but what else can i expect from you Moxie? :laydownlaughing

This has nothing to do with discrediting how great Nadal was playing, in fact i would be the first to say he played that best clay court match I've seen right there..... bar none, and no version of Fed (or anyone else really) would've taken down Rafa in that form. However it DOES matter if Fed could've played his game better, at least serve better which was obviously on his racquet, and the result while still a loss shouldn't have ended winning just 4 games with a donut.

It was not simply black and white, it's your single track mind that's the problem here.

 

[Ricardo]

Well given he had 2 mps against him in Rome just 2 years prior, Federer clearly knew he had it in him to play much better than he did and therefore I think he just had a really bad game plan going in and maybe he only had plan A and was so sure it would work that he didn't even have a plan B. When you see Federer winning sets and flying out in front in sets and then throwing in one poor service game and going back to just pointless, passive rallying he's toast. That clearly wasn't the case there as he wasn't exactly off to a flying start He seemed to have some stupidly aggressive game plan that obviously was crap and had no fall back plan B. Imo he was so fed up that his game plan failed so miserably that he just gave up after set 2. Quite why I don't know as he was making some progress mid set 2.

In recent years I must say I've seen many matches Fed lost when he was indeed playing terribly. Look at Brisbane this year against Hewitt. Thankfully nothing that bad has happened since. Who said I can't confront the notion that Nadal made Fed look pedestrian? I admitted as much by saying Nadal played great and Fed played horribly badly as anyone would acknowledge so it's only natural for the greater player that day to make the other look completely pedestrian by comparison.

Federer wasn't ever going to win anyway but we all know he can play a whole lot better than he did that day. You can lose with dignity 7-6 6-4 6-3 and it's still straight sets but hardly as bad as how he played that day. To not even try in set 3 was pretty bad for the fans too.

(Bolded above.) I don't see how that doesn't prove that Nadal was in the zone that day. Wouldn't have mattered what Roger did. I think you have to forget about what Federer did or didn't do. He didn't play poorly, and he was capable before, and has been since since, of playing Rafa closer on clay. The difference in that match was not that Roger was poor, but that Rafa was in full-flight on clay. That's why he gave up in the 3rd. And so should you on this argument. :angel:

The point of the thread is when/if a player plays to the best of their potential. I think Nadal was at his best that day, and basically that whole tournament. I really don't think there's much Roger could have done.

Again, did you really think Fed played well there? this is just about the most blind-eyed, agenda driven and delusional statement i've seen for a while - and you dared to mock Cali...... he could learn lessons from you on how to be delusional :s

Of course there wasn't much Fed could've done when Rafa played like that, but his natural ability would've avoided an embarrassing donut; did you look at the stats? believe what you will, but no player of that calibre could call it a good match with that kind of numbers. But of course, in an ideal world of certain fans, it would feel so good to be able to say "Fed played well yet Nadal still only allowed him 4 games with a donut".... sounds oh so sweet, but couldn't be further from the truth.

 

[Ricardo]

You can't compare a match between an elite player against a vastly inferior one to a match between two elite players.

Nadal beating Federer 1, 3, 0 cannot be compared to him beating Monaco (or Murray against some dude I've never heard of), since no matter how poorly Roger played (and he did play bad, especially from a strategy standpoint), it would still require an out of this world performance for him to lose with such a scoreline. Let's put it that way, Roger's played pretty terrible in many matches throughout his career, especially in the past few years, and yet, he never came close to losing by such a scoreline.

good point, Fed did play bad (strategy was bad, execution even worse) but it does not in any way, shape or form distract from the fact that Nadal played sublime tennis.... something Moxie just could get through her head.

 

[Ricardo]

^ 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?

believe or not, most would agree that Toni is a very level-headed coach; certainly more so than many fans here.... if i wasn't mistaken, he also said Nadal is a natural bad match up for Federer which is reasonable. When players of similar ability have such one-sided results, let's say between the big 4 who are all supremely talented, yet Fed is only owned one-sidedly by Rafa then it explains very well what bad matchup means, is it clear junior?

 

[Kieran]

What clear is this: you fancy Moxie. Now I know she ain't so desperate but why don't you try be civil and sane? It works better than "Me Tarzan, you Jane!"

(Sista Mox, if I just put you off your breakfast - forever! - forgive me... :smooch )

 

[Ricardo]

What clear is this: you fancy Moxie. Now I know she ain't so desperate but why don't you try be civil and sane? It works better than "Me Tarzan, you Jane!"

(Sista Mox, if I just put you off your breakfast - forever! - forgive me... :smooch )

you want to share the experience how you can possibly fancy someone you know nothing about, age (could be a grand parent already), gender (even that's not confirmed), shape (... no need to go into details about this but i need to know ) etc..... you are certainly the brave type if you ever did :clap

but in an ideal world, 'she' is young, pretty and intelligent..... then i am coming Jane! :laydownlaughing