Best 'peak' Player [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Best 'peak' Player

FedererSlam
10-19-2007, 08:18 PM
This is my first thread on MTF so don't kill me.

There is an obvious difference between playing ability and actual acheivements. For instance Rios/Nalbandian never won a slam but Thomas Johansson did? :confused:

With reference to the WTA, Serena Williams has a low number of slam's compared to the greats but is cited by many commentators, such as McEnroe, as having an equal playing ability when peaked.

So this thread is for us to discusss who is the best player when 'in the zone' or at their 'peak performance'.

The options are (open era only):

- JesusFed
- Marat Safin
- Pete Sampras
- Andre Agassi
- John McEnroe
- Bjorn Borg
- Rod Laver
- Jimmy Connors
- Ivan Lendl

Please state otherwise if their is a glaring ommission.

ufokart
10-19-2007, 08:35 PM
My only question is what the hell is Safin doing in that poll with all those players :lol:

That tennis kid
10-19-2007, 08:42 PM
Given the current opinion of GM, Nalbandian would seem to be a glaring omission.

Jimnik
10-19-2007, 08:44 PM
The others may have more titles, slams, spent more weeks at #1 but Marat has that quality that puts him above the rest. :p

TMJordan
10-19-2007, 08:44 PM
Safin, without a doubt.

FedererSlam
10-19-2007, 08:49 PM
If we take 2005 aussie open as Marat peaked I think JesusFed of 2006 early 07 would defeat that Safin...

Wolbo
10-19-2007, 08:51 PM
Richard Krajicek

Dimonator133
10-19-2007, 09:00 PM
This is my first thread on MTF so don't kill me.

There is an obvious difference between playing ability and actual acheivements. For instance Rios/Nalbandian never won a slam but Thomas Johansson did? :confused:

With reference to the WTA, Serena Williams has a low number of slam's compared to the greats but is cited by many commentators, such as McEnroe, as having an equal playing ability when peaked.

So this thread is for us to discusss who is the best player when 'in the zone' or at their 'peak performance'.

The options are (open era only):

- JesusFed
- Marat Safin
- Pete Sampras
- Andre Agassi
- John McEnroe
- Bjorn Borg
- Rod Laver
- Jimmy Connors
- Ivan Lendl

Please state otherwise if their is a glaring ommission.


one of several questions I have is how the hell you consider "in the zone" and "at your peak" the same thing.

In the zone is when you just on fire during a match, in which case the obvious answer to that is Fernando Gonzalez who isn't even an option.

At your peak is the time (like at what age) you were playing your best tennis. Current Federer is better than anyone else's best period of tennis.

ufokart
10-19-2007, 09:08 PM
Exactly how do you determine the players in your poll?

I mean, Safin has 2 slams and all the others have at least 8 and are mostly considered tennis legends, why is he on this list? :rolls:
Or are you implying that safin "at his peak" is comparable to those other guys :spit:

You should change Safin and put Becker, Edberg or Wilander if you want the poll to make sense :lol:

FedererSlam
10-19-2007, 09:21 PM
one of several questions I have is how the hell you consider "in the zone" and "at your peak" the same thing.

In the zone is when you just on fire during a match, in which case the obvious answer to that is Fernando Gonzalez who isn't even an option.

At your peak is the time (like at what age) you were playing your best tennis. Current Federer is better than anyone else's best period of tennis.

Sorry I mean in the zone then...a player's best performance.

Exactly how do you determine the players in your poll?

I mean, Safin has 2 slams and all the others have at least 8 and are mostly considered tennis legends, why is he on this list? :rolls:
Or are you implying that safin "at his peak" is comparable to those other guys :spit:

You should change Safin and put Becker, Edberg or Wilander if you want the poll to make sense :lol:

Yes I am implying that...have you ever seen Safin at his best? He's probably not capable of producing it anymore but it was atleast second best of this era...

Dimonator133
10-19-2007, 09:29 PM
Sorry I mean in the zone then...a player's best performance.



Yes I am implying that...have you ever seen Safin at his best? He's probably not capable of producing it anymore but it was atleast second best of this era...


that does make some sense. Safin-Sampras at the U.S. Open was one of the more ridiculous things I've ever seen.

FedererSlam
10-19-2007, 09:34 PM
Fed is winning comfortably so far however.

Allure
10-19-2007, 09:35 PM
Federer. The AO match against Roddick that was his peak and I can guarantee no one would have beaten him on that day.

FedFan_2007
10-19-2007, 09:39 PM
Is this even any debate? Federer all the way.

stebs
10-19-2007, 09:56 PM
In the zone is when you just on fire during a match, in which case the obvious answer to that is Fernando Gonzalez who isn't even an option.

The only answer to that would be someone who has great strokes on both wings, a good serve and good volleys because those are the things which would become good when 'in the zone'. Gonzalez doesn't have such a good backhand, Federer or Safin would both outplay Gonzalez at their respective peaks as they have all of the things I mentioned.

Dimonator133
10-19-2007, 09:58 PM
The only answer to that would be someone who has great strokes on both wings, a good serve and good volleys because those are the things which would become good when 'in the zone'. Gonzalez doesn't have such a good backhand, Federer or Safin would both outplay Gonzalez at their respective peaks as they have all of the things I mentioned.


Federer would

Safin would get destroyed

FedererSlam
10-19-2007, 10:00 PM
No way would peak safin be destroyed by peak Gonzalez...seriously.

Dimonator133
10-19-2007, 10:01 PM
Federer would

Safin would get destroyed



and that criteria is incorrect too. Gonzo's forehand when in the zone (which is what is being discussed here) would overcome an all-court game of most everyone (not Federer of course).

And when in the zone, Gonzo's backhand is more than serviceable. Put in the tape of any of his matches at the Aussie, or watch this (http://www.protennisblog.com/15.html).

Keep in mind we're talking in the zone, not in general. When in the zone, Nando beats anyone other than Federer, mark it down.

Dimonator133
10-19-2007, 10:02 PM
No way would peak safin be destroyed by peak Gonzalez...seriously.


i'm talking about in the zone, not peak (differences mentioned above)

GonzoFed
10-19-2007, 10:03 PM
Yes I am implying that...have you ever seen Safin at his best? He's probably not capable of producing it anymore but it was atleast second best of this era...

This way of thinking has been the main problem of Safin's career.

FedererSlam
10-19-2007, 10:04 PM
in the zone...sorry i keep mixing them up..yeh still marat in the zone would kill gonzalez in the zone

Dimonator133
10-19-2007, 10:09 PM
well we agree to disagree. no way my mind is changing about in-the-zone Gonzo losing to anyone other then Federer.

TMJordan
10-19-2007, 10:26 PM
Dimonator, you fucking mug.

KaxMisha
10-19-2007, 10:28 PM
well we agree to disagree. no way my mind is changing about in-the-zone Gonzo losing to anyone other then Federer.

So you agree that in-the-zone Federer is better than in-the-zone Gonzalez, yet you say Gonzalez is the best? Interesting...

Dimonator133
10-19-2007, 10:33 PM
So you agree that in-the-zone Federer is better than in-the-zone Gonzalez, yet you say Gonzalez is the best? Interesting...


no. if you've read my last 6 posts i think Federer is the best when in the zone. Gonzo is just the best example a player who is almost when unbeatable when in the zone but rarely in that zone. Federer is the best even when not at his best (see U.S. Open) so there's no point in discussing what happens when he is in the zone, because A) the result is the same regardless, and B) we just saw it (vs. Roddick @ Open).

Tabledott
10-19-2007, 10:42 PM
Heh, it's king Federer of course

Burrow
10-19-2007, 10:44 PM
If we take 2005 aussie open as Marat peaked I think JesusFed of 2006 early 07 would defeat that Safin...

Marat Safin clearly peaked in 2000.

Dimonator133
10-19-2007, 10:47 PM
Marat Safin clearly peaked in 2000.


yep. 2000 Open Final he played way better than he did against Feds at the AO.

KaxMisha
10-19-2007, 10:48 PM
one of several questions I have is how the hell you consider "in the zone" and "at your peak" the same thing.

In the zone is when you just on fire during a match, in which case the obvious answer to that is Fernando Gonzalez who isn't even an option.

At your peak is the time (like at what age) you were playing your best tennis. Current Federer is better than anyone else's best period of tennis.

no. if you've read my last 6 posts i think Federer is the best when in the zone. Gonzo is just the best example a player who is almost when unbeatable when in the zone but rarely in that zone. Federer is the best even when not at his best (see U.S. Open) so there's no point in discussing what happens when he is in the zone, because A) the result is the same regardless, and B) we just saw it (vs. Roddick @ Open).

Ladies and gentleman - we have a contradiction! ;)

Dimonator133
10-19-2007, 10:54 PM
Ladies and gentleman - we have a contradiction! ;)


way to go, KaxMisha:clap2:


what do you want as your prize, a doggy treat???


(treat) :dog:

MisterQ
10-19-2007, 10:55 PM
At the beginning I thought I understood this thread but I'm getting more and more confused. :rolls:

KaxMisha
10-19-2007, 11:00 PM
way to go, KaxMisha:clap2:


what do you want as your prize, a doggy treat???


(treat) :dog:

Actually no, I want you (and all the other clowns) to stop being a clown and post something logically sound or coherent. That's obviously never going to happen, though!

Dimonator133
10-19-2007, 11:04 PM
Actually no, I want you (and all the other clowns) to stop being a clown and post something logically sound or coherent. That's obviously never going to happen, though!


i actually think you don't want anyone to post anything coherent because you clearly find much humor in pretending you don't know what people mean.

Let me spell out my last six posts for you in 1st grader terms so that you can't possibly play dumb and we can end this and move onto the point of the thread:

1. Federer
2. Fernando
3. nobody else close

RagingLamb
10-19-2007, 11:20 PM
i like how Safin beat Sampras and Borg on this poll.

makes you realize what kind of a forum you're on.

DrJules
10-20-2007, 12:01 AM
John McEnroe in 1984 vs. Connors Wimbledon final winning 6-1, 6-1, 6-2

patrickc
10-20-2007, 12:20 AM
When Federer gets on a roll, he hardly loses games

Merton
10-20-2007, 01:01 AM
Konstantinos Economidis :D

ufokart
10-20-2007, 01:10 AM
Marat is second in the poll :spit:

GonzoFed
10-20-2007, 01:13 AM
Konstantinos Economidis :D

You let your hate cloud your judgement. You know Lisnard is the answer :D

leng jai
10-20-2007, 01:15 AM
Tommy Haas.

ABSOLUTELY BIAS FREE POST.

ufokart
10-20-2007, 01:24 AM
Yahiya Doumbia and Irakli Labadze are probably the best players in history when they were in the zone.

Fumus
11-08-2007, 03:37 PM
Actually no, I want you (and all the other clowns) to stop being a clown and post something logically sound or coherent. That's obviously never going to happen, though!

I think that's funny coming from someone like you who routinely leaves me negative reps, with no words, just retarded smiley faces. Here's one for you :o

FedererSlam
11-08-2007, 04:23 PM
Rod LAver 0 votes haha ok i thought this poll would be clooser.

FedFan_2007
11-08-2007, 04:57 PM
Nobody delivers more bakery products then the Chef Fed.

sawan66278
11-08-2007, 05:13 PM
While it is clear that Federer has the most weapons, I would have to go with Pete. Why? The best serve in the history of tennis. Ask Andre. When you have a weapon of that caliber, it doesn't really matter how good one's forehand and backhand are. As the saying goes, you can't catch what you can't see.

hra87
11-08-2007, 05:16 PM
McEnroe.

trixtah
11-08-2007, 07:04 PM
well we agree to disagree. no way my mind is changing about in-the-zone Gonzo losing to anyone other then Federer.

So Gonzo is going to win versus the other players at their respective peaks with just a forehand? Good one...

l_mac
11-08-2007, 07:30 PM
:haha: @ Safin being included.

CyBorg
11-08-2007, 08:34 PM
Pancho Gonzalez.

Fedex
11-11-2007, 03:27 AM
Pancho Gonzalez.

I take it you actually saw Gonzalez play?

guy in sf
11-11-2007, 03:35 AM
You poll should focus on current players so at least we know how they match up, if you're mixing players from 3 generations who have never even met each other then it's just another incredibly subjective guessing game.

leng jai
11-11-2007, 03:37 AM
Every player on tour has hit an ace before. So theoretically their peak is ace every serve. So at peak they would just hit ace every shot, and if they played another peak player they'd be hitting ace every serve too. Match of the century.

Rafa = Fed Killa
11-11-2007, 05:14 AM
Federer. The AO match against Roddick that was his peak and I can guarantee no one would have beaten him on that day.

Nalbandian would have crushed the pansy.

azinna
11-11-2007, 08:00 AM
Don't buy Gonzo being able to get to his forehand enough against a zoning Safin connecting on his returns and angling that backhand at will. In fact, he'd face the same problem with Nalbandian.

CyBorg
11-11-2007, 06:20 PM
I take it you actually saw Gonzalez play?

Of course. I have a number of his matches.

From the list though I'd have to side with Federer, although this is conditional on dominance rather than pure greatness. Of course, we know that Roger is a great player, but it is important to note that dominance is dependent upon the respective era. How dominant would Roger be in Sampras' era or Borg's era - we don't really know.

But take a three-year stretch and Federer would come out on top in terms of the ratio of wins-to-losses (we're looking at 2004-06).

FitDave
11-11-2007, 06:29 PM
Murray

Stgobaiano
11-11-2007, 06:37 PM
Safin by far.

KaxMisha
11-11-2007, 11:17 PM
I think that's funny coming from someone like you who routinely leaves me negative reps, with no words, just retarded smiley faces. Here's one for you :o

Most of those reps come from your bullshit fanboy posts, constantly exaggerating how good Roddick is and the like. That has already been thoroughly debunked many times. Still, if I were to reply to those bullshit posts insted of just reping them, I would provide coherent arguments as to why you're wrong. Whenever I take a position, I do so by providing arguments for my main points, so no, it's not at all funny coming from "someone like me".

Fedex
11-12-2007, 06:38 AM
Of course. I have a number of his matches.

From the list though I'd have to side with Federer, although this is conditional on dominance rather than pure greatness. Of course, we know that Roger is a great player, but it is important to note that dominance is dependent upon the respective era. How dominant would Roger be in Sampras' era or Borg's era - we don't really know.

But take a three-year stretch and Federer would come out on top in terms of the ratio of wins-to-losses (we're looking at 2004-06).

I would have to believe that Federer would have done equally well in Sampras' era, and certainly not as well in Borgs' era. Just my personal opinion though.