Best peak players of all-time (1 year peak)

[Gregoire]

I decided to update these topic: we assume 1year peak of tennis player, assuming his BEST SURFACE domination. So, who was (is) more dominant at his peak at one perticular surface. You can judje about absolute force or relative to era dominance.If nadal and fereder player on grass 100 times and federer won 90, but after that they played on clay and rafa wins 95 - rafa is more dominant (assuming equal domination on others players).
My ranks:
1.Sampras - 9,5 (grass)
2.Federer-9,0 (grass)
3.Nadal - 9,0 (clay)
4.Borg - 8,5 (clay)
5.Mcenroe - 8,0 (hard)

[Doctor MJ]

Some explanation is really necessary.

I'll start you off with this question:

How do you factor in the fact that tennis is played on multiple surfaces, and that Sampras just isn't any good on a surface that more than 1/3rd of the matches are played on?

[rrravenred]

Clay's the great leveller in all-time comparisons.

[ashleywilliam]

Nadal is teh best player of all time i am his bif fan.I bought Tinnis tickets from TicketVistas for a bargain. The website informed as soon as discounted tickets went on sale. Really happy with their service.

[Gregoire]

Some explanation is really necessary.

I'll start you off with this question:

How do you factor in the fact that tennis is played on multiple surfaces, and that Sampras just isn't any good on a surface that more than 1/3rd of the matches are played on?

I decided to update these topic: we assume 1year peak of tennis player, assuming his BEST SURFACE domination. So, who was (is) more dominant at his peak at one perticular surface. You can judje about absolute force or relative to era dominance.If nadal and fereder player on grass 100 times and federer won 90, but after that they played on clay and rafa wins 95 - rafa is more dominant (assuming equal domination on others players).

[Doctor MJ]

Some explanation is really necessary.

I'll start you off with this question:

How do you factor in the fact that tennis is played on multiple surfaces, and that Sampras just isn't any good on a surface that more than 1/3rd of the matches are played on?

I decided to update these topic: we assume 1year peak of tennis player, assuming his BEST SURFACE domination. So, who was (is) more dominant at his peak at one perticular surface. You can judje about absolute force or relative to era dominance.If nadal and fereder player on grass 100 times and federer won 90, but after that they played on clay and rafa wins 95 - rafa is more dominant (assuming equal domination on others players).

Okay based on those standards the answer is Nadal, but that really has not much to do with the original question. Nadal really has no strong overall peak argument in my book because he's lacking in the other two major surfaces.

[oberyn3]

If I disregard the "one surface" criterion, the purpose of which I don't really see, then McEnroe in 1984 gets my vote (ever so slightly over Federer in either 2005 or 2006). Connors in '74, Borg in '78, Lendl in '86, and Djokovic in 2011 would have to be right up there. I'm limiting this to Open Era only.

McEnroe lost 3 matches total in 1984, won 2 of the 3 majors in which he participated and was runner-up in the 3rd, and put up some of the most dominant performances I've ever witnessed. Matches in which he made other great players look like hacks.

If it's limited to a single surface for a single season, then, yes, I guess Nadal on clay in either 2008 (scary level) or 2010 (swept all 3 clay court masters and Roland Garros) is kind of an easy pick here . Djokovic in 2011 on hard court might also be right up there, too (Australian Open, Indian Wells, Miami, Montreal, runner-up in Cincy, and the U.S. Open).

I also feel the need to defend Sampras in these threads. The guy wasn't awful or "not any good" on clay. From 1992 to 1997, he won Rome, made it to 3 French Open quarters, and one French Open semi. That's a record that a lot of clay court specialists would love to have. That time period was Sampras' peak as far as baseline play went (after that, for a host of reasons, he served and volleyed a lot more, stayed in the back court less, etc.) Clay was by far his weakest surface, and, to be blunt, he seemed to just go through the motions both at Roland Garros and on the European clay court circuit as a whole from 1998 through 2002 (his last year on tour).

That being said, people viewing today's game seem to look at the 90s through the prism of the current era. The 90s was an era in which surface "specialization" seemed to reach its peak. This is no longer the case. Guys now seem to be able to thrive on all surfaces playing, for the most part, the same game (e.g., Tomas Berdych making deep runs at both the French Open and Wimbledon.) You really couldn't do that in the old days, and it was understood that attacking players like Becker, Edberg, McEnroe, and Sampras were going to have a real tough time winning on clay and that clay courters were going to have a hard time winning Wimbledon. Laver and Borg were the only guys who pulled off the "Channel Slam" from 1968 to 2007. Even making it to the finals of both back-to-back was pretty rare. In the current era, though, it's not particularly uncommon, and I don't think that the brilliance of Federer and Nadal is the only explanation for it.

[therealbig3]

From my limited time watching tennis (watched Sampras, Agassi, Fed, Hewitt, Roddick, Nadal, etc.), Roger Federer was easily the best and most dominant player I ever saw at his peak.

BTW, how does Marat Safin do in this kind of topic? He was always considered an uber-talented player (played peak Fed evenly IIRC when he was mentally right) without the mentality to harness his talent consistently. Not familiar with his entire career, but was there a year when he put it all together?

[oberyn3]

From my limited time watching tennis (watched Sampras, Agassi, Fed, Hewitt, Roddick, Nadal, etc.), Roger Federer was easily the best and most dominant player I ever saw at his peak.

Can't argue with you on that one.

BTW, how does Marat Safin do in this kind of topic? He was always considered an uber-talented player (played peak Fed evenly IIRC when he was mentally right) without the mentality to harness his talent consistently. Not familiar with his entire career, but was there a year when he put it all together?

While I definitely don't think Safin maximized his talent, I think people have, if anything, actually overrated both his talent and his potential.

I think people look at Safin at his very best (e.g., 2000 U.S. Open vs. Sampras and 2005 Australian Open vs. Federer) and treat it as if this was the level he could have achieved on a regular basis vs. examples of Safin playing sort of "in the zone".

1. Even when he was competing 100%, Safin's groundstrokes were more "hit and miss" than guys like Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic. This was due primarily to Safin's flat groundstrokes not having as much of a margin for error as guys who use a lot of topspin. To make a long story short, Safin was streaky from the backcourt.

2. While Safin moved well for a guy his size, his movement wasn't outstanding. He wasn't a guy who could rely on defense to keep him in points or to win him matches when his groundstrokes (see above) weren't firing on all cylinders. Combined with #2 above, if Safin wasn't "on", it could (and frequently did) get pretty ugly. His reputation as a head case, though, causes people to sometimes overlook this and act as if a Safin loss was all about him not being into it mentally, vs. the technical reasons why the guy who could thrash Sampras at the U.S. Open and outhit Federer in Australia could get embarrassed by somebody like Fabrice Santoro.

3. Injuries. Injuries. Injuries. The guy suffered a major knee injury in 2005, and really never came back 100%. Again, that had nothing to do with his mentality.

I always liked Safin, though. And when he was "on", he could be absolutely devastating. Great serve, great ball-striker (though again, with the flat groundies, he was always going to be a bit hit or miss) and, when focused, not one to wilt in the big moments.

[Doctor MJ]

I think people look at Safin at his very best (e.g., 2000 U.S. Open vs. Sampras and 2005 Australian Open vs. Federer) and treat it as if this was the level he could have achieved on a regular basis vs. examples of Safin playing sort of "in the zone".

Well this is a bit of a general tennis philosophy. If you see a player's potential as what they could be if they could keep in or near zone all the time, then clearly Safin had great potential because we saw him play really great at times.

Of course, the ability to control yourself well mentally is so damn hard and so damn important in tennis its a bit exasperating when talk begins to knock a guy for however far below Buddha levels he is. Much of Nadal's talent relative to normal is his ability to not let setting or pain get in his head. It's not something that be expected as any kind of norm even for professional athletes.

[oberyn3]

I think people look at Safin at his very best (e.g., 2000 U.S. Open vs. Sampras and 2005 Australian Open vs. Federer) and treat it as if this was the level he could have achieved on a regular basis vs. examples of Safin playing sort of "in the zone".

Well this is a bit of a general tennis philosophy. If you see a player's potential as what they could be if they could keep in or near zone all the time, then clearly Safin had great potential because we saw him play really great at times.

It's strange. In a way, I think that with a guy like Safin, his sometimes lax (compared to other guys) approach obscures the streakiness of his game and causes people to end up overrating his potential.

I was trying to say that, even when he was fit and focused, an argument can be made that Safin was never going to be consistent enough to be a really dominant player or a guy that really would have been a thorn in the side of Federer from 2005 on. (He's also another guy who was actually hurt by the move from gut to poly strings. It lessened the gap between him and guys who weren't up to his level in terms of ball-striking and the ability to generate power.)

Of course, the ability to control yourself well mentally is so damn hard and so damn important in tennis its a bit exasperating when talk begins to knock a guy for however far below Buddha levels he is. Much of Nadal's talent relative to normal is his ability to not let setting or pain get in his head. It's not something that be expected as any kind of norm even for professional athletes.

True.

[Woodsanity]

If its strictly single surface I have Nadal at 1.
No one has dominated a single surface like Nadal has dominated clay.
However, he is lacking on hardcourt and grass. Still a great player on those surfaces but not truly dominant.
That can change though if he wins a few more grand slams on those surfaces starting with winning the USO.

[Doctor MJ]

I was just thinking that I never answered this question based on what the title was, and since others have, I'll throw that out there too.

For me among modern players it's between McEnroe & Federer.

What McEnroe has going for him is that he's the only player since Laver who can legit claim that he was the best player on all surfaces that year. Yes he lost to Lendl at the French, but he beat Lendl the other times and had the edge of Lendl in the French until he just tired out. Endurance isn't something to be simply dismissed, but it is a feather in McEnroe's cap that when he was playing his best on clay he was better than Lendl (and everyone else at the time).

Federer's rebuttal though is pretty clear: Federer would have been the best in all surfaces if he wasn't going against the guy who we now recognize is the Clay GOAT. Unless you believe Mac would have been better than Nadal on clay, this seems to relegate the above argument to being only relevant if you are asking about dominance without adjusting for competition.

Federer's case over McEnroe then:

He had a more complete year (didn't miss any big tournaments, and won more majors)
One can argue that he plays in a more competitive time, and hence you'd need the more groundstroke-based game he has to do as well as he's done today, which of course isn't Mac's game.
He actually lost to less players than Mac. (Fed's extra losses are due to playing Nadal repeatedly.)

So yeah, I'm inclined to side with Federer.

If we're going deeper into history, I won't side with anyone there over Federer, but I'd be very curious to know what Pancho Gonzales would have looked like in the modern game.

[Gregoire]

Now for me Nadals 2013 year in on pair with his 2008, Federers 2006, 2007 and Djokovic 2011 - the nominees for best season by a player ever ( best 1year peak).

[Doctor MJ]

Now for me Nadals 2013 year in on pair with his 2008, Federers 2006, 2007 and Djokovic 2011 - the nominees for best season by a player ever ( best 1year peak).

He lost in the 1st round of Wimbledon dude. His play post-Wimbledon has given us a glimmer of hope that he might be about a start an all-time great year, but 2013 is not it.

[Gregoire]

Now for me Nadals 2013 year in on pair with his 2008, Federers 2006, 2007 and Djokovic 2011 - the nominees for best season by a player ever ( best 1year peak).

He lost in the 1st round of Wimbledon dude. His play post-Wimbledon has given us a glimmer of hope that he might be about a start an all-time great year, but 2013 is not it.

Its his only hole in these season, but his perfomances on clay and hard were unbelievable, and wimbeldon -just two weeks. He didnt complete grand slam, but so didntfed and djok at their best.

[Doctor MJ]

Now for me Nadals 2013 year in on pair with his 2008, Federers 2006, 2007 and Djokovic 2011 - the nominees for best season by a player ever ( best 1year peak).

He lost in the 1st round of Wimbledon dude. His play post-Wimbledon has given us a glimmer of hope that he might be about a start an all-time great year, but 2013 is not it.

Its his only hole in these season, but his perfomances on clay and hard were unbelievable, and wimbeldon -just two weeks. He didnt complete grand slam, but so didntfed and djok at their best.

Dude, he missed the 1st slam of the year. A guy who only wins matches in half of the majors of the year is not in the debate for 1 year GOAT. If you want to say that you're more impressed with Nadal's play in the US than you've ever been for anyone else in a tournament so be it, but the nature of a 1 year GOAT is supposed to be that he dominated basically everything.

Put another way: If Nadal loses that match Monday, he's not even the POY this year, and Djokovic sure as heck isn't playing like a GOAT contender this year. One match propelled him from there to year GOAT? Nah, love the enthusiasm for the moment, but keep perspective relative to the past if you want to really talk GOAT.

[Gregoire]

He lost in the 1st round of Wimbledon dude. His play post-Wimbledon has given us a glimmer of hope that he might be about a start an all-time great year, but 2013 is not it.

Its his only hole in these season, but his perfomances on clay and hard were unbelievable, and wimbeldon -just two weeks. He didnt complete grand slam, but so didntfed and djok at their best.

Dude, he missed the 1st slam of the year. A guy who only wins matches in half of the majors of the year is not in the debate for 1 year GOAT. If you want to say that you're more impressed with Nadal's play in the US than you've ever been for anyone else in a tournament so be it, but the nature of a 1 year GOAT is supposed to be that he dominated basically everything.

Put another way: If Nadal loses that match Monday, he's not even the POY this year, and Djokovic sure as heck isn't playing like a GOAT contender this year. One match propelled him from there to year GOAT? Nah, love the enthusiasm for the moment, but keep perspective relative to the past if you want to really talk GOAT.

He swept all clay and all hard where participate, how it can be not impressive? He played less matches than Federer in 06 or Djok in 11 but his winning percentage is comparable or better.

[Doctor MJ]

Its his only hole in these season, but his perfomances on clay and hard were unbelievable, and wimbeldon -just two weeks. He didnt complete grand slam, but so didntfed and djok at their best.

Dude, he missed the 1st slam of the year. A guy who only wins matches in half of the majors of the year is not in the debate for 1 year GOAT. If you want to say that you're more impressed with Nadal's play in the US than you've ever been for anyone else in a tournament so be it, but the nature of a 1 year GOAT is supposed to be that he dominated basically everything.

Put another way: If Nadal loses that match Monday, he's not even the POY this year, and Djokovic sure as heck isn't playing like a GOAT contender this year. One match propelled him from there to year GOAT? Nah, love the enthusiasm for the moment, but keep perspective relative to the past if you want to really talk GOAT.

He swept all clay and all hard where participate, how it can be not impressive? He played less matches than Federer in 06 or Djok in 11 but his winning percentage is comparable or better.

It's very impressive, but it's also very clear how it could be significantly more impressive. I wouldn't be focusing on that, except this is a thread about the single greatest single year of all-time. Standards must be ridiculously high or else comparisons won't be meaningful.

[Gregoire]

Dude, he missed the 1st slam of the year. A guy who only wins matches in half of the majors of the year is not in the debate for 1 year GOAT. If you want to say that you're more impressed with Nadal's play in the US than you've ever been for anyone else in a tournament so be it, but the nature of a 1 year GOAT is supposed to be that he dominated basically everything.

Put another way: If Nadal loses that match Monday, he's not even the POY this year, and Djokovic sure as heck isn't playing like a GOAT contender this year. One match propelled him from there to year GOAT? Nah, love the enthusiasm for the moment, but keep perspective relative to the past if you want to really talk GOAT.

He swept all clay and all hard where participate, how it can be not impressive? He played less matches than Federer in 06 or Djok in 11 but his winning percentage is comparable or better.

It's very impressive, but it's also very clear how it could be significantly more impressive. I wouldn't be focusing on that, except this is a thread about the single greatest single year of all-time. Standards must be ridiculously high or else comparisons won't be meaningful.

For me his sweep on major part of the season is equal impressive and on pair with the bests of them because his winning percentage is ridiculous.