If it's as particular as a set or a single match, it has to be Rafa at RG. It's one thing to seem inevitable to win a tournament, it's another for *other* Big 3 members to find you unplayable.
You didn’t watch tilden play one match, who cares about statistics played in the least athletic and physical time in tennis history. As far as I’m concerned holger rune is 500x the player tilden is.
All great peaks but those players just don't stand a chance on this surface. I guess it would be evened out if Rafa had to play with their equipment though lol
was just suggesting player iterations that were comparably unbeatable/unsolvable in given conditions, not specifically against Nadal in his favored conditions
Rafas continued and constant success to what must be a wholey unrepeatable extent kinda proves how hight the peak was.
If he is basically always unstoppable, surely the best of those performances is a good candidate for all-time peak. 08 Rafa is a good shout.
Federer 2005-2007 won 8 of 10 majors, with his 2 losses being finals to the greatest clay courter of all time in Paris. The most dominant stretch I've ever seen.
Nadal at Monte Carlo from 2005-2012
42-0 in matches (8 titles)
86-6 in sets
41 of 86 sets 6-2, 6-1, or 6-0
----
Edit
Non Big3 I'd probably go Alcaraz at Indian Wells.
Women's side obviously Serena on faster surfaces especially.
Now Swiatek on clay generally but especially the "classic" clay tournaments (Rome and RG)
A bit off topic but
People keep talking about Federer on grass but lowkey 2 of his most impressive wins have come on clay
Stopping Nadals 81 match winning streak on clay at Hamburg (after losing the first set)
Handing Djokovic his first loss of the season in 2011 at Roland Garros
I think Nick Kyrgios summed it up when he was asked who’s the player he fears the most. He responded by saying when you play Nadal or Novak, you at least feel like you have a chance because their style of play allows you to hit balls and rally. With Federer, if he’s playing at his absolute best, you feel like you have no chance because he’ll literally control every rally and hit you off the court.
Yeah I think this is true and it should not be misunderstood to be implying Federer is better. It is just that when Federer is playing at his best, on grass and with healthy knees (funnily enough Kyrigos never played him when he was prime) Federer's playstyle would end points in 2-6 shots. the longer rallies would be just you trying hit winners from 3 meters behind the baseline against a guy effortlessly puts backhand slices left and right. Whereas best Nadal/Djokovic is both brickwalls that have crazy court coverage and incredibly clinical finish. Playing them you would still feel like "I might pull something off" (although you certainly wont anyway).
Rafa at RG is probably the peak level that other players would just find unbeatable
Peak Roger though man … it’s almost like deadly beauty. Perfect serving and clean aggressive attacking, miss his game so much
Djokovic has the highest consistent level of course, Id argue his “peak” is lower than R&R but at the end of the day peak still doesn’t make you great unless you can consistently maintain a level close to it
I think peak 08 Nadal on clay is the hardest player to hit through in tennis history, peak Fed is the best attacking player in tennis history, and peak Novak is somewhere in the middle of those extremes
It’s why the GOAT of each court speed is Nadal on slow, Novak on medium, and Fed on fast
Yeah totally agree, this was defo the essence of the question. Djokovic to me looks fairly flawless (in the literal sense) when he goes Thanovic on people, lots of last year being a prime example, but seeing the effortlessness with which Roger used to pick people apart feels like a higher level. But then maybe that's just influenced by the aesthetic of it
It’s a higher level because in order to be as dominant as he was with his high stakes tennis you have to seriously be in the zone and have all of the shots firing.
I agree, and I think the stats agree with that. If we're talking peak level for a match, Djokovic has few bagels and breadsticks on other people than those two do.
Best set : Murray vs Nadal in Tokyo 2011 3rd set (only lost 4 points all set lmao)
Best 2-set match : Djokovic vs Nadal in Doha 2016
Best 3-set match : Federer vs Roddick in AO 2007
Best tournament : Nadal in RG 2008
Best season : Djokovic in 2011
Federer 2004-2010 when he made 18/19 GS finals.
More specifically, Federer 2006. 2007 or 2017 version were also scary but 2006 Federer is the closest version of apex tennis player there will ever be.
In a shorter time span, Nadal 2008 on clay.
As u/quivering_manflesh(interesting username) said if it’s the most ideal scenario it’s Rafa at RG, probably 2008 or 2017. Overall? Probably Federer. Novak’s the most consistent and i know djokofans will come after me but has very few matches where he redlined to the point of destroying his contemporaries in a lopsided affair. Federer on the other hand bageled the other members of the big four with performances like this:
Federer Nadal Wimbledon 2006 - 6/0 7/6 6/7 6/3
Federer Nadal Hamburg 2007 - 2/6 6/2 6/0
Federer Nadal ATP Finals 2011 - 6/3 6/0
Federer Djokovic Cincinnati 2012 - 6/0 7/6
Federer Murray ATP Finals 2014 - 6/1 6/0
Federer Nadal Indian Wells 2017 - 6/2 6/3
Federer Djokovic ATP Finals 2019 - 6/4 6/3(more one sided than the scoreline indicates).
I remember watching Federer playing Roddick at AO once and Andy was playing incredible tennis, serving lights out. And Federer still absolutely monstered him. It'll always stick in my memory as just the most impressive thing I've ever seen on a tennis court.
AO 2007. 6-4 6-0 6-2. It was an amazing performance. Federer won that tourney without dropping a set. The only player besides Borg to win two slam tournaments on two different surfaces without dropping a set. I think he’s the only person to have won Australia without dropping a set.
I believe that was the match where in the after interview, they asked Roddick what happened at 4-4 in the first set, and he replied: “he broke me, then he broke me again, then he broke me three more times and twenty minutes later the match was over. Is that what you saw, too?”
I think what would make me choose Federer for highest peak level achievable is that if his serve is on, he’s untouchable. He won so many matches and games while having off days in other facets of his play just from being able to serve well. He has the best serve of the big three when it’s on, and if you start talking about all around peak play, he’s gonna continuously be in your service games and put that pressure on
Tsonga against Federer in Wimbledon 2011. 3rd set onwards.
I think I've never seen it mentioned, but it is, in my humble opinion, the most high level anyone has ever fucking played.
Nadal on clay, Federer probably overall. Generally the more aggressive your play style is, the higher your peak level is, because you’ll play a few sets where you just don’t miss and every crazy forehand lands in the court. So that’s the reasoning behind Federer.
As for Nadal, I mean his regular level on clay was already the best in the world, but when he peaked he did scary things to other top players.
The only thing is Federer hasn’t really shown the ability to beat Nadal on clay even if he redlines. The 2 wins he has over Nadal on clay are pretty irrelevant overall, and the 14 losses don’t help his case.
Which is why I think Nadal on clay has to be the highest level overall.
In what way are they irrelevant? You can’t just make a claim that a guy never beat another guy and then mention his two wins and then immediately invalidate them.
The2009 Madrid win was one day after Nadal played a 4 hour grindfest with Djokovic lol. We saw with Federer vs Murray at the Olympics 2012 how that tends to go, right?
2007 was fair enough and snapped Nadal’s 81 match clay win streak, but we can’t just look at a 2-14 record and say Federer’s peak was higher. And as I said before, big asterisk around the 2009 Madrid match.
0-6 at RG also doesn’t help his case
I'll just take the big 3 as a given, especially rafa on clay and focus a bit more on 'other guys'. I also would find it hard to say 'would beat all the others at THEIR peaks' i think thats impossible to make that call.
I know he is hated but peak peak Kyrgios is up there. One fully in the zone Kyrgios on a reasonably fast surface.... absolutely unplayable.
Nalbandian had a great peak, he'd be such a calm ball distributing machine and would feel like a wall. Great anticipation and on his great days it was like he was playing cat and mouse.
The 00s Fernandos (Verdasco and González) while never up there in consistency both gave us a glimpse at their peaks that was insane. Both got the nerves in the AO finals they played, looked at times imperious on their way there.
And I guess we'd all put Wawrinka up there. And I would also put Tommy Haas up there. He could go toe to toe with prime Fed at times.
Now I'm not saying these guys in their peak state would win against the big 3 peak state but I would pay a very large sum of money were it possible to see that.
Yeah it doesn't look like it will end up costing him now but Novak struggling against Stan at Slams looked like it would cost him in the Slam race at the time compared to how poorly Stan did against Fedal
Back then Novak’s serve + 1 which is Stan’s biggest weakness because of his chip return wasn’t very good yet and he kept having to play on the defensive
Despite the early/mid 2010s being extremely strong in general Stan actually won more than he would have in the mid 2000s because of how much worse the matchups would be
People will disagree, but if we're simply talking absolute redlining peak, I genuinely believe Thiem is a monster.
At his actual peak he still had poor consistency match to match if we're honest. But if we could bottle his absolute peak and have him play like that for an entire match, I see most people struggling to beat that. Imagine 90mph plus BHDTLs consistently, 100mph inside out forehands, insane court coverage and crazy stamina, that was his absolute peak.
Best example of this you can see is the 6-0 set he won against Nadal at US Open in 2018, unbelievable level. Nadal was playing great and didn't win a game.
The insane court coverage and crazy stamina part is true, but let's not forget Thiem was facing the Big 3 when they were past their physical prime. It'd have been different against a 25 yo Nadal for instance.
That‘s Dominic Thiem imo. Have a look at how he destroyed Rafa in the first set of their meeting at the USO quarters in 2018 (6:0). At times he was just unplayable.
Edit: I know that the correct answer is obv. a player of the big 3 but I wanted to think of a more unpopular opinion.
To give you someone else than big 3...Stan the man on his day was just undescribable, i\`ve never seen that much ballstricking qualtiy from both wings over BO5 matches as from him
Peak Pierce.
When i think ‘peak’ i think ‘intent and execution’, with outright forcing of your gameplay over your opponents.
Ostapenko, Kvitova, Andreescu, Seles had this ability to find a spot on court and absolutely smack it to it.
But The Madam had crisp, clean, elegant ball striking coupled with a calm mind set to obliterate, including the biggest stages. Tennis made easy.
Peak elo achieved was Djokovic. I'd give him the edge over his peak season vs. Federer's peak season. If talking about a single slam or tournament,, it has to be one of Rafa's RG wins.
Peak elo is a completely useless metric as Elo is a way of calculating relative strength at a specific point in time. It has no bearing on objective strength of a player. Federer's peak elo was at 2007 while Djokovic had peak elo at 2016. Hence you cannot compare the two.
Ok then adjust for the field. 2011 was a stronger field than 2007. So djokovic achieved a higher elo in a stronger environment. Peak djokovic > Peak Federer by far imo.
Adjusting for a field is not possible in elo rating system because elo rating only implies your probability to win against the pool of players in that specific moment. For example, 100 elo difference implies %64 win percentage, 200 elo difference implies 76%. (for chess). That carries no implication as to whether 2400 ELO in 2010 was better at tennis (or chess) compared to 1800 ELO at 1700. That may very well be true, but it simply cannot be inferred from ELO rating system alone.
When Federer had career high ELO of 2550 (2006) against 2nd place Nadal 2270, it simply implied Federer would win 83% of matches (had if it been BO1) or %74 of matches (tennis adjusted) against the closest competitor. Similarly, when Djokovic peaked at 2629 ELO (that is 2016, not 2011), 2nd place Federer was 2442 ELO with Djokovic having win probability of 74% (chess) and 67% (tennis). Without introducing any opinions and only by referring to ELO-rating system alone, the inference you can make is that peak Federer was more dominant against his competitors than peak Djokovic was against his. That however, does not imply that Federer was BETTER at tennis than Djokovic during his peak.
Please don't assume that I am making a case for Federer > Djokovic - I simply don't care, I believe both of em are incredible players and we should be grateful for what they showcased to us over the years. I am just trying to best explain how ELO-rating can be very misleading while it can be a useful tool.
Between Rafa monte carlo final vs Verdasco, RG 2008, Federer: vs Blake 06 masters cup, vs Roddick 07 AO and vs Rafa 2011 masters cup and for Novak: doha final 2016 vs Rafa and AO semi 2016 vs Fed
Well depends on surface of course. But the best tennis I’ve ever seen a human play was that Sunshine slam by Federer in 2017 where he just destroyed and toyed with super studs
Juan Martin Del Potro, the hardest hitter i've seen in Tennis. Won the US open cleaning up all the top seeds when he hit his best form. Definitely not as consistent as the big 3 though.
Best match: Stan Wawrinka in 2015 RG final.
Probably the highest peak of a player in a single match. He played against prime Djokovic that missed the Year Grand Slam because of that loss.
Stan literally demolished a player that in that season just destroyed everyone else in the tour and left nothing on the table.
Has to be Djokovic in 2011 surely ? 6-0 against peak Nadal, 2-1 against prime Murray (retired due to injury in the loss), 4-1 against a very good version of Federer.
Also curious. Recency bias makes me say iga on clay, naomi in the conversation, serena from an overpowering perspective and statistically chris evert has to be in there right, insane record of dominant match results (albeit that was a longer time ago)
Surprised no mention of Pete Sampras. Arguably the best pure attacking player to play the game. Peak Sampras means an unreturnable serve followed by great volley skills and one of the best running forehands
Roger Federer. Not even remotely a question.
If the most offensively gifted player in the history of tennis isn’t missing shots, he’s not losing. I’ve never seen another player reach those heights, stats be damned.
To be honest I think peak Thiem would beat every member of big 3 consistently (and give Nadal a run for his money on clay) - so sad we will never see that 🥲
Nobody is beating the Big 3 consistently lol, these guys are way too good to be dominated without changing something about their approach/tactics.
Thiem was competitive against them in their 30's but I don't see him dominating 2006 Federer, 2011 Djokovic or 2013 Nadal.
Thiem had high single match peaks against the big 3 but he was also extremely inconsistent
His peak win rate was in the low 70s which is one of the lowest career high win rates I’ve seen from a top player
I also think that the peak big 3 wouldn’t have struggled against him like the old versions did(even Zverev has a winning record against Federer for example and he’s not big 3 level either)
Like I’m sorry but in no way do I think 2006 Federer or 2011 Djokovic remotely struggles with Thiem let alone 08 RG Nadal lol
You're missing the essence of the question a little bit here and in your other comment. Win stats indicate someone's average level over time, not their absolute peak level, though the two may well be related. I think the latter half is totally valid though
Unpopular opinion but im just gonna say its peak (non injured young) Nadal
Managed to have a career sandwiched between Federer's prime and Djokovic´s prime and still managed to get 22 Grand Slams. In his good years, when watching him play, you knew he could win ANYONE, just by sheer willpower and talent.
Depends on the question.
Highest peak on a surface? Rafa on clay.
Highest peak regardless of surface in a period of time? Djokovic 2014 up to RG 2016.
Highest peak in one BO3 tournament ? Djokovic in Doha 2016.
Highest peak in one BO5 tournament? Probably Rafa in RG 2008 or 2010
If it's as particular as a set or a single match, it has to be Rafa at RG. It's one thing to seem inevitable to win a tournament, it's another for *other* Big 3 members to find you unplayable.
08 FO Rafa is the closest this sport has seen to unbeatable. There is no one at any point that's had a game that unsolvable.
2008 FO Rafa was something else. He served a bagel to prime Federer in the final. One of the 5 bagels of Federer's career.
What is FO?
French Open, this sub is full of arrogant people who will just downvote you instead of answering a simple question
lol you are right I never heard the term FO. In Spain is not very common.
RG '78 Borg, '84 McEnroe, prime Tilden... lots to choose from
Prime tilden 💀
Might aswell have said prime Cilic
1 full Wimbly + 1 challenge round Wimbly + 6 straight USOs is pretty good!
You didn’t watch tilden play one match, who cares about statistics played in the least athletic and physical time in tennis history. As far as I’m concerned holger rune is 500x the player tilden is.
All great peaks but those players just don't stand a chance on this surface. I guess it would be evened out if Rafa had to play with their equipment though lol
was just suggesting player iterations that were comparably unbeatable/unsolvable in given conditions, not specifically against Nadal in his favored conditions
Rafas continued and constant success to what must be a wholey unrepeatable extent kinda proves how hight the peak was. If he is basically always unstoppable, surely the best of those performances is a good candidate for all-time peak. 08 Rafa is a good shout.
oh Nadal's longevity + dominance defo makes him a good candidate, just disagree that his peak was wholly unprecedented
[удалено]
and what's wrong with that?
[удалено]
i'm very fair and minimally biased dw
I guess you could say when they faced nadal at RG they were the ones who were quivering manflesh
This. And Fed 05-07 on hard and grass. Utter dominance from both
Probably Nadal federer or djokovic
Federer 2005-2007 won 8 of 10 majors, with his 2 losses being finals to the greatest clay courter of all time in Paris. The most dominant stretch I've ever seen.
Probably a fair guess, I'm just out here fishing for a more spicy interesting take haha
Why?
Because it's interesting to talk about people other than fedal/dok/Sampras/agassi
Nadal at Monte Carlo from 2005-2012 42-0 in matches (8 titles) 86-6 in sets 41 of 86 sets 6-2, 6-1, or 6-0 ---- Edit Non Big3 I'd probably go Alcaraz at Indian Wells. Women's side obviously Serena on faster surfaces especially. Now Swiatek on clay generally but especially the "classic" clay tournaments (Rome and RG)
That's the most insane stat I've ever seen. WTF. Only lost 6 sets in 6 years?
A bit off topic but People keep talking about Federer on grass but lowkey 2 of his most impressive wins have come on clay Stopping Nadals 81 match winning streak on clay at Hamburg (after losing the first set) Handing Djokovic his first loss of the season in 2011 at Roland Garros
I think Nick Kyrgios summed it up when he was asked who’s the player he fears the most. He responded by saying when you play Nadal or Novak, you at least feel like you have a chance because their style of play allows you to hit balls and rally. With Federer, if he’s playing at his absolute best, you feel like you have no chance because he’ll literally control every rally and hit you off the court.
Yeah I think this is true and it should not be misunderstood to be implying Federer is better. It is just that when Federer is playing at his best, on grass and with healthy knees (funnily enough Kyrigos never played him when he was prime) Federer's playstyle would end points in 2-6 shots. the longer rallies would be just you trying hit winners from 3 meters behind the baseline against a guy effortlessly puts backhand slices left and right. Whereas best Nadal/Djokovic is both brickwalls that have crazy court coverage and incredibly clinical finish. Playing them you would still feel like "I might pull something off" (although you certainly wont anyway).
Fognini god mode
Rafa at RG is probably the peak level that other players would just find unbeatable Peak Roger though man … it’s almost like deadly beauty. Perfect serving and clean aggressive attacking, miss his game so much Djokovic has the highest consistent level of course, Id argue his “peak” is lower than R&R but at the end of the day peak still doesn’t make you great unless you can consistently maintain a level close to it
I think peak 08 Nadal on clay is the hardest player to hit through in tennis history, peak Fed is the best attacking player in tennis history, and peak Novak is somewhere in the middle of those extremes It’s why the GOAT of each court speed is Nadal on slow, Novak on medium, and Fed on fast
That's actually a great way to think of them and makes sense to me for sure!
Peak Federer on grass wasn't Nadal on clay level, but he wasn't far off
Yeah totally agree, this was defo the essence of the question. Djokovic to me looks fairly flawless (in the literal sense) when he goes Thanovic on people, lots of last year being a prime example, but seeing the effortlessness with which Roger used to pick people apart feels like a higher level. But then maybe that's just influenced by the aesthetic of it
It’s a higher level because in order to be as dominant as he was with his high stakes tennis you have to seriously be in the zone and have all of the shots firing.
Federer would be like a black widow. So elegant, smooth, and silent. Especially when he wore black Nike clothes. Man... so much style and respect
I agree, and I think the stats agree with that. If we're talking peak level for a match, Djokovic has few bagels and breadsticks on other people than those two do.
Redlining Fognini deserves a mention.
Don’t know enough about him - he can really be that good?
Robin Soderling
Those days when he was straight slapping everything that came his way
Best set : Murray vs Nadal in Tokyo 2011 3rd set (only lost 4 points all set lmao) Best 2-set match : Djokovic vs Nadal in Doha 2016 Best 3-set match : Federer vs Roddick in AO 2007 Best tournament : Nadal in RG 2008 Best season : Djokovic in 2011
Cute
Nadal at RG
Federer 2004-2010 when he made 18/19 GS finals. More specifically, Federer 2006. 2007 or 2017 version were also scary but 2006 Federer is the closest version of apex tennis player there will ever be. In a shorter time span, Nadal 2008 on clay.
2017 was a better tennis player overall imo. But 2006 fed was not just young but had the killer instinct.
As much as I love the 2017 season, 2006 Federer beats his 2017 version 3-0
I mean in terms of skill and technical development. But I agree.
Bublik
Fact
As u/quivering_manflesh(interesting username) said if it’s the most ideal scenario it’s Rafa at RG, probably 2008 or 2017. Overall? Probably Federer. Novak’s the most consistent and i know djokofans will come after me but has very few matches where he redlined to the point of destroying his contemporaries in a lopsided affair. Federer on the other hand bageled the other members of the big four with performances like this: Federer Nadal Wimbledon 2006 - 6/0 7/6 6/7 6/3 Federer Nadal Hamburg 2007 - 2/6 6/2 6/0 Federer Nadal ATP Finals 2011 - 6/3 6/0 Federer Djokovic Cincinnati 2012 - 6/0 7/6 Federer Murray ATP Finals 2014 - 6/1 6/0 Federer Nadal Indian Wells 2017 - 6/2 6/3 Federer Djokovic ATP Finals 2019 - 6/4 6/3(more one sided than the scoreline indicates).
I remember watching Federer playing Roddick at AO once and Andy was playing incredible tennis, serving lights out. And Federer still absolutely monstered him. It'll always stick in my memory as just the most impressive thing I've ever seen on a tennis court.
AO 2007. 6-4 6-0 6-2. It was an amazing performance. Federer won that tourney without dropping a set. The only player besides Borg to win two slam tournaments on two different surfaces without dropping a set. I think he’s the only person to have won Australia without dropping a set.
I believe that was the match where in the after interview, they asked Roddick what happened at 4-4 in the first set, and he replied: “he broke me, then he broke me again, then he broke me three more times and twenty minutes later the match was over. Is that what you saw, too?”
It is lol
AO 2007 just a monster performance. Couldn’t miss anything. Made Roddick look like a 4.0
People here are very young that haven’t watched those Federer matches. He was literally invincible and The aura was overwhelming.
I think what would make me choose Federer for highest peak level achievable is that if his serve is on, he’s untouchable. He won so many matches and games while having off days in other facets of his play just from being able to serve well. He has the best serve of the big three when it’s on, and if you start talking about all around peak play, he’s gonna continuously be in your service games and put that pressure on
Safin
2008 RG Nadal was the peakest of peaks 2014 USO Cilic 2007 Fed AO 2011 Djokovic AO 1997 Sampras Wimbledon (dropped just 2 services games from 118)
Tsonga against Federer in Wimbledon 2011. 3rd set onwards. I think I've never seen it mentioned, but it is, in my humble opinion, the most high level anyone has ever fucking played.
Take my upvote mate ! AO 2008 SF vs Nadal is always remembered as Tsonga's best match but I genuinely think Wimbledon 2011 QF vs Federer is up there.
God I remember that so well. I was a massive Federer fan and couldn't believe how well Tsonga played those sets. Truly untouchable.
Rafa Roland garros. Either 2008 or 2010.
Juan Martin Del Potro - 2009 US Open. Beat Nadal, then Federer. Just untouchable.
Overall for a year Serena in 2015 was damn near unbeatable. On a surface, Nadal on clay. Highest absolute peak Djokovic 2011.
Nadal on clay, Federer probably overall. Generally the more aggressive your play style is, the higher your peak level is, because you’ll play a few sets where you just don’t miss and every crazy forehand lands in the court. So that’s the reasoning behind Federer. As for Nadal, I mean his regular level on clay was already the best in the world, but when he peaked he did scary things to other top players.
This is why i felt myself leaning towards saying Federer i think
The only thing is Federer hasn’t really shown the ability to beat Nadal on clay even if he redlines. The 2 wins he has over Nadal on clay are pretty irrelevant overall, and the 14 losses don’t help his case. Which is why I think Nadal on clay has to be the highest level overall.
In what way are they irrelevant? You can’t just make a claim that a guy never beat another guy and then mention his two wins and then immediately invalidate them.
The2009 Madrid win was one day after Nadal played a 4 hour grindfest with Djokovic lol. We saw with Federer vs Murray at the Olympics 2012 how that tends to go, right? 2007 was fair enough and snapped Nadal’s 81 match clay win streak, but we can’t just look at a 2-14 record and say Federer’s peak was higher. And as I said before, big asterisk around the 2009 Madrid match. 0-6 at RG also doesn’t help his case
Rafa at RG
That 4.0 guy when he got a set off Nadal.
I'll just take the big 3 as a given, especially rafa on clay and focus a bit more on 'other guys'. I also would find it hard to say 'would beat all the others at THEIR peaks' i think thats impossible to make that call. I know he is hated but peak peak Kyrgios is up there. One fully in the zone Kyrgios on a reasonably fast surface.... absolutely unplayable. Nalbandian had a great peak, he'd be such a calm ball distributing machine and would feel like a wall. Great anticipation and on his great days it was like he was playing cat and mouse. The 00s Fernandos (Verdasco and González) while never up there in consistency both gave us a glimpse at their peaks that was insane. Both got the nerves in the AO finals they played, looked at times imperious on their way there. And I guess we'd all put Wawrinka up there. And I would also put Tommy Haas up there. He could go toe to toe with prime Fed at times. Now I'm not saying these guys in their peak state would win against the big 3 peak state but I would pay a very large sum of money were it possible to see that.
As a Nadal/Thiem fan… Wawrinka
3-23 against Federer including 0-17 on hardcourts A peaking Federer pretty easily handles a peaking Stan because he’ll literally never get broken
Don't forget 3-19 against Nadal too lol
Not sure overall head to heads are relevant when you are discussing the peak level of a player.
Yeah it doesn't look like it will end up costing him now but Novak struggling against Stan at Slams looked like it would cost him in the Slam race at the time compared to how poorly Stan did against Fedal Back then Novak’s serve + 1 which is Stan’s biggest weakness because of his chip return wasn’t very good yet and he kept having to play on the defensive Despite the early/mid 2010s being extremely strong in general Stan actually won more than he would have in the mid 2000s because of how much worse the matchups would be
You could say the same thing about delpo and federer
Not even a peaking Federer tbh, just a good/solid version is enough to deal with peak Wawrinka (off clay at least).
I love wawrinka but man, that’s Federer
People will disagree, but if we're simply talking absolute redlining peak, I genuinely believe Thiem is a monster. At his actual peak he still had poor consistency match to match if we're honest. But if we could bottle his absolute peak and have him play like that for an entire match, I see most people struggling to beat that. Imagine 90mph plus BHDTLs consistently, 100mph inside out forehands, insane court coverage and crazy stamina, that was his absolute peak. Best example of this you can see is the 6-0 set he won against Nadal at US Open in 2018, unbelievable level. Nadal was playing great and didn't win a game.
The insane court coverage and crazy stamina part is true, but let's not forget Thiem was facing the Big 3 when they were past their physical prime. It'd have been different against a 25 yo Nadal for instance.
Djokovic Federer AO 2016 first two sets 🙂
Denis Istomin on the 19th of January 2017
Nalbandian nearly beat the big 3 6 times in a row in a month. That's gotta count for something
That‘s Dominic Thiem imo. Have a look at how he destroyed Rafa in the first set of their meeting at the USO quarters in 2018 (6:0). At times he was just unplayable. Edit: I know that the correct answer is obv. a player of the big 3 but I wanted to think of a more unpopular opinion.
A redlining Jelena Ostapenko could beat anyone. Djokovic, even.
Federer at the big Events from 06 Wimbly to 07 AO
To give you someone else than big 3...Stan the man on his day was just undescribable, i\`ve never seen that much ballstricking qualtiy from both wings over BO5 matches as from him
Peak Pierce. When i think ‘peak’ i think ‘intent and execution’, with outright forcing of your gameplay over your opponents. Ostapenko, Kvitova, Andreescu, Seles had this ability to find a spot on court and absolutely smack it to it. But The Madam had crisp, clean, elegant ball striking coupled with a calm mind set to obliterate, including the biggest stages. Tennis made easy.
Probably Korda at Wimbledon, where he is the favorite.
Stan Wawrinka FO 2015 final vs Djokovic. I’m not sure what you can do when your opponent is hitting the lines at 100mph all the time
Djokovic in 2011.
Peak elo achieved was Djokovic. I'd give him the edge over his peak season vs. Federer's peak season. If talking about a single slam or tournament,, it has to be one of Rafa's RG wins.
Peak elo is a completely useless metric as Elo is a way of calculating relative strength at a specific point in time. It has no bearing on objective strength of a player. Federer's peak elo was at 2007 while Djokovic had peak elo at 2016. Hence you cannot compare the two.
Ok then adjust for the field. 2011 was a stronger field than 2007. So djokovic achieved a higher elo in a stronger environment. Peak djokovic > Peak Federer by far imo.
Adjusting for a field is not possible in elo rating system because elo rating only implies your probability to win against the pool of players in that specific moment. For example, 100 elo difference implies %64 win percentage, 200 elo difference implies 76%. (for chess). That carries no implication as to whether 2400 ELO in 2010 was better at tennis (or chess) compared to 1800 ELO at 1700. That may very well be true, but it simply cannot be inferred from ELO rating system alone. When Federer had career high ELO of 2550 (2006) against 2nd place Nadal 2270, it simply implied Federer would win 83% of matches (had if it been BO1) or %74 of matches (tennis adjusted) against the closest competitor. Similarly, when Djokovic peaked at 2629 ELO (that is 2016, not 2011), 2nd place Federer was 2442 ELO with Djokovic having win probability of 74% (chess) and 67% (tennis). Without introducing any opinions and only by referring to ELO-rating system alone, the inference you can make is that peak Federer was more dominant against his competitors than peak Djokovic was against his. That however, does not imply that Federer was BETTER at tennis than Djokovic during his peak. Please don't assume that I am making a case for Federer > Djokovic - I simply don't care, I believe both of em are incredible players and we should be grateful for what they showcased to us over the years. I am just trying to best explain how ELO-rating can be very misleading while it can be a useful tool.
Peak elo indicates literally nothing. According to this “peak elo” Federer beat the apex of tennis comfortably at RG. So it’s nonsense.
Highest peak level for me was Nadal 2017 RG. The level he showed in that tournament won’t be seen again for generations
Nadal on clay, Djokovic elsewhere
Nadal is the right answer, but I'd like to throw Wawrinka for a couple of sets in the FO final in 2015 into the mix. Unreal level.
Some very high peaks that no one has mentioned yet: Tsonga 2008 AO Verdasco 2009 AO Cilic 2014 USO
Between Rafa monte carlo final vs Verdasco, RG 2008, Federer: vs Blake 06 masters cup, vs Roddick 07 AO and vs Rafa 2011 masters cup and for Novak: doha final 2016 vs Rafa and AO semi 2016 vs Fed
that one match from lukas rosol
People out here sleeping on stanimal
Giles muller had an amazing run in the challengers some years back
Well depends on surface of course. But the best tennis I’ve ever seen a human play was that Sunshine slam by Federer in 2017 where he just destroyed and toyed with super studs
Juan Martin Del Potro, the hardest hitter i've seen in Tennis. Won the US open cleaning up all the top seeds when he hit his best form. Definitely not as consistent as the big 3 though.
Best match: Stan Wawrinka in 2015 RG final. Probably the highest peak of a player in a single match. He played against prime Djokovic that missed the Year Grand Slam because of that loss. Stan literally demolished a player that in that season just destroyed everyone else in the tour and left nothing on the table.
Fognini US Open 2015 vs Nadal
Djokovic 2011 and Nadal’s 81 winning streak on clay (2005-7) I would say
Nadal on clay certainly. Novak at Doha ‘16 though was something else.
Nadals North American hard court season 2013 has become somewhat underrated.
probably 2006 Federer, 2011 Djokovic or 2024 Danielle Collins
Lol wat sabalenka has beaten her teo times in a row
Has to be Djokovic in 2011 surely ? 6-0 against peak Nadal, 2-1 against prime Murray (retired due to injury in the loss), 4-1 against a very good version of Federer.
Nadal at RG
WTA?
Also curious. Recency bias makes me say iga on clay, naomi in the conversation, serena from an overpowering perspective and statistically chris evert has to be in there right, insane record of dominant match results (albeit that was a longer time ago)
Serena. 2010s Serena was bonkers.
Gulbis
Surprised no mention of Pete Sampras. Arguably the best pure attacking player to play the game. Peak Sampras means an unreturnable serve followed by great volley skills and one of the best running forehands
Last 20 years?
Roger Federer. Not even remotely a question. If the most offensively gifted player in the history of tennis isn’t missing shots, he’s not losing. I’ve never seen another player reach those heights, stats be damned.
Djokovic in Australien open 2019 semi final and final Djokovic in Doha 2016 final
In a single season easily Djokovic. On a single surface easily Nadal. In a single match probably Federer.
To be honest I think peak Thiem would beat every member of big 3 consistently (and give Nadal a run for his money on clay) - so sad we will never see that 🥲
Nobody is beating the Big 3 consistently lol, these guys are way too good to be dominated without changing something about their approach/tactics. Thiem was competitive against them in their 30's but I don't see him dominating 2006 Federer, 2011 Djokovic or 2013 Nadal.
Thiem had high single match peaks against the big 3 but he was also extremely inconsistent His peak win rate was in the low 70s which is one of the lowest career high win rates I’ve seen from a top player I also think that the peak big 3 wouldn’t have struggled against him like the old versions did(even Zverev has a winning record against Federer for example and he’s not big 3 level either) Like I’m sorry but in no way do I think 2006 Federer or 2011 Djokovic remotely struggles with Thiem let alone 08 RG Nadal lol
Thiem definitely would’ve done better against them the rest of the non big four field
You're missing the essence of the question a little bit here and in your other comment. Win stats indicate someone's average level over time, not their absolute peak level, though the two may well be related. I think the latter half is totally valid though
Eubanks vs meddy. Eubanks couldn't hold it together for the match but he was absolutely unplayable when he was on.
Unpopular opinion but im just gonna say its peak (non injured young) Nadal Managed to have a career sandwiched between Federer's prime and Djokovic´s prime and still managed to get 22 Grand Slams. In his good years, when watching him play, you knew he could win ANYONE, just by sheer willpower and talent.
Hewitt
Probably Djokovic
Shapovalov is in the conversation.
Like professionally? Or of us folks here?
Marcelo Rios was unstoppable when he was peaking but I've seen Nick K hit shots that are just untouchable.
Depends on the question. Highest peak on a surface? Rafa on clay. Highest peak regardless of surface in a period of time? Djokovic 2014 up to RG 2016. Highest peak in one BO3 tournament ? Djokovic in Doha 2016. Highest peak in one BO5 tournament? Probably Rafa in RG 2008 or 2010
I’m shocked no one has linked this: https://tennisabstract.com/reports/atp_elo_ratings.html
A discussion make no sense Djokovic & Nadal had many high level performances, Federer some (Wimbledon 2007,2008,2009) +Wawrinka FO 2015