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

[El Dude]

I'm not sure I can stomach the crucifixion thread any longer, but I wanted to tease something out from it - and it is the question in the thread subject. It seems that during and after almost every match there are comments about this or that player not playing his best...I mean occasionally we hear talk of one player performing very well--usually when its an upset--but it almost always seems like at least one player (the loser) "wasn't up to par," "seemed distracted," "not playing to their peak level," "seems to be hurt," "is looking old out there," "doesn't have his head in the game," etc etc, and it is usually in reference to one of the Big Four.

So what's the deal? These guys are great, right? Why can't they (allegedly) ever play at their best, especially when they lose? I mean, following this logic these guys would never lose if they were able to play at their best in every match?

I've made the remark before that pretty much any player in the top 100 is capable of truly inspired tennis. #100 can, if only in brief moments, be as great as #1. Two examples come to mind: Lukas Rosol and Steve Darcis. These guys didn't play a 33-year old Rafa on crutches, they played a healthy Rafa in his prime. Now it may be that Rafa was hobbled by some minor injury and/or struggling with deep melancholic ennui, but he is a far greater player--arguably the greatest in history--and he still lost. So Rosol and Darcis had to be doing something right, and while I didn't watch the Rosol match I do remember people saying he was "playing out of his mind."

The point is not to say anything about Nadal, but to point out that barring a severed leg, Rosol and Darcis had to play at a very high level to defeat him. And the hypothesis that I am advocating follows that the truly great players--the Nadals, Federers, Djokovics, and Murrays--are great because they're able to tap into that truly inspired level more frequently than the Darcis's, Rosols, Santoros, etc.

What it seems like we never see is people talking about two great players playing each other at their very best. Even last year's Roland Garros SF with Rafa and Novak, which was as close a call as Rafa has ever faced (other than Soderling, of course). I remember people saying "Rafa isn't quite back up to form yet" and "Novak really blew it there." But didn't they both play a great match? Weren't they both playing at or near their peak levels? Can we truly parse out moments like Novak's blunder with the net and say, "He really blew it" and mar his overall amazing performance? I mean, he almost beat the greatest clay court player ever in his prime and at Roland Garros! I mean, Rafa is so damn great at Roland Garros that Novak's very close loss is even more impressive than Rafa's win.

I'm not even trying to come to a conclusion of any kind, except to point out this tendency in us crazy tennis fans. It just seems that at some point, when we say a player isn't playing at their highest more often than not, we should adjust what their norm is a bit, no? Maybe their highest level is only reserved for a game or set here and there? Maybe its all about striving towards that level and the greatness of a player is determined by how close they're able to come to it as frequently as possible?

We can't possibly expect Roger or Rafa or Novak to play at their very best in every possible moment, can we? I mean, imagine one of Roger's legendary shots - he misses those far more often than he makes them, but he makes them far more often than anyone else - which is why he's Roger Federer (and not, say, David Nalbandian). Or think of one of Novak's incredible feats of endurance and defense where he's running all over the back court retrieving everything thrown at him, or one of Rafa's relentlessly titanic battering of an opponent...

They're capable of this in any give point, but can we expect them to attain these heights every time? Why are we disappointed when they don't? I almost think that we fans of the greats are too jaded. Roger fans aren't satisfied with 17 Grand Slam wins - they (we!) want an 18th. Rafa fans aren't satisfied with him being the greatest clay court player of all time, and one of the greatest overall players of all time, they want his dominance to extend to hard and grass; Novak fans aren't satisfied with his sole dominance lasting only a year and a half, the want more. More more more! (What, are we all Americans here? )

Just ruminating...

 

[Kieran]

Two great players play exactly their best at exactly the same time?

 

[Front242]

You definitely don't see it often, El Dude, that's for sure. I actually didn't think Djokovic played anything too special at RG 2013 to be honest. The first 2 sets featured some very pedestrian pusher tennis because neither guy wanted to risk going for too much by over hitting with the windy conditions. Some people thought it was a great match but only parts of it entertained me personally towards the end when it seemed the wind had died down.

I consider the AO '05 semi between Federer and Safin a match where both played some pretty amazing tennis throughout the whole match. The endless match of no breaks between Isner and Mahut at Wimbledon 2010 has to be another when both played their very best 'cos nothing could separate them till the end. I'd argue the Masters Cup Final 2005 Federer vs Nalbandian also, though Federer won sets 3 and 4 quite routinely after losing the first 2 in tiebreaks before Nalbandian came storming back in the 5th. I'm sure I'll think of others and if so, will add them later.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Technically speaking, and going by the literal definition of "highest level" you probably won't play your highest level if you lose. I always provide this example to illustrate my point.

Let's take a familiar match-up: Federer vs. Nadal.

Federer playing his best means: Serving great (getting a lot of cheap points), moving extremely well, being on the offensive, taking the ball early, dictating the rallies, use variation, end points (relatively) quickly and attack the net with success.

And yet, Nadal playing his best means: Using his forehand to dominate rallies, move Federer around, get a great read on his serve and return it well, flatten out his cross court backhand, hit passing shot winners consistently, protect his serve well, use his inside out forehand to end the points, defend great and get a lot of balls back, etc...

Now if you look at a lot of elements A and elements B, you'll notice that they're incompatible. If one player is doing one, the other can't be doing the other. That is why even in great matches, you typically see stretches of drop of play by one player, that tend to coincide with the other raising his level. Obviously, a lot of these elements can take place within the same rally (that's why we see rallies getting turned around with one guy going from defense to offense, etc...) and sometimes both guys will play great at the same time, where they take turns dictating, go from defense to offense, hit incredible shots, etc... That's probably as close to both players playing their best at the same time. It really doesn't happen all that often when you think about it. What we get more often is two players playing very good during different points in the match, which results in a very good match. There are exceptions of course: Some stretches of Djokovic-Nadal from US Open 2011, the final set of their Montreal match last year... Federer vs. Safin from the AO in 2005. Some early Federer-Nalbandian matches, etc...

 

[Front242]

It doesn't often (ever?) happen with Federer and Nadal because of the match up of different styles and mostly the lefty topspin to single handed BH but I feel with the likes of the Safin v Fed and Nalbandian v Fed matches above where both players had a similar style that didn't have many incompatible elements it's possible to both play near your best. Clearly Mahut v Isner too. Nothing separated them till the end of that snoozefest.

 

[Moxie]

Technically speaking, and going by the literal definition of "highest level" you probably won't play your highest level if you lose. I always provide this example to illustrate my point.

Let's take a familiar match-up: Federer vs. Nadal.

Federer playing his best means: Serving great (getting a lot of cheap points), moving extremely well, being on the offensive, taking the ball early, dictating the rallies, use variation, end points (relatively) quickly and attack the net with success.

And yet, Nadal playing his best means: Using his forehand to dominate rallies, move Federer around, get a great read on his serve and return it well, flatten out his cross court backhand, hit passing shot winners consistently, protect his serve well, use his inside out forehand to end the points, defend great and get a lot of balls back, etc...

Now if you look at a lot of elements A and elements B, you'll notice that they're incompatible. If one player is doing one, the other can't be doing the other. That is why even in great matches, you typically see stretches of drop of play by one player, that tend to coincide with the other raising his level. Obviously, a lot of these elements can take place within the same rally (that's why we see rallies getting turned around with one guy going from defense to offense, etc...) and sometimes both guys will play great at the same time, where they take turns dictating, go from defense to offense, hit incredible shots, etc... That's probably as close to both players playing their best at the same time. It really doesn't happen all that often when you think about it. What we get more often is two players playing very good during different points in the match, which results in a very good match. There are exceptions of course: Some stretches of Djokovic-Nadal from US Open 2011, the final set of their Montreal match last year... Federer vs. Safin from the AO in 2005. Some early Federer-Nalbandian matches, etc...

Actually, I wanted to cite you, Broken, in this notion, as you will often tell us that, in the big matches, one player surges, and forces another to fade. I think a player might play at 100% the whole match, vs. a lesser player. But that's not what the OP means. Interesting that so many mention the Fed/Safin AO SF. That was a high-quality match.

I hate to mention the dreaded RG 2008 final, where I do think Nadal played 100% of his best throughout, but I also think Roger gave up on that match. But if El Dude is really asking for it, against a quality opponent, that would be my example. Possible, but rare, and not without qualifications.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

There is a bit of a catch 22 there I think. If a player beats a lesser player 6-0, 6-0, he might look great and we say he played flawless, but it cannot be his best tennis because he was not pushed at all. The same player plays someone of equal caliber, than he cannot play his best tennis because the opponent just does not let him , at least all match...We might see glimpses of his best tennis here and there.

I think closest you get to a player playing his best tennis is when a lesser player plays out of his mind against a top player and wins it. Rosol might have played his best tennis against Nadal. Stak might have played his best tennis against Roger.

 

[Kieran]

Sometimes you get it in the space of a rally, some blinding play from both at the same time, like dogs ripping at the throat...

 

[El Dude]

Good replies, not really anything to add. I think Broken's post well explains why Roger has such a hard time against Rafa - Rafa's style basically neutralizes Roger's. We all know this, but its worth saying again. Rafa can only be beaten when someone plays a style that breaks his onslaught (Dolgo) or, in the rarest of cases, someone outlasts him in the hammer-fest (Djokovic). Its worth noting that while Dolgo snuck out a win against Rafa, Roger destroyed Dolgo. Imagine that.

 

[Front242]

^ Also worth noting that the wind had a big impact on how Dolgo played too though against Roger. Some players handle wind a lot better than others and I believe Dolgo isn't one who handles it well. He looked puzzled out there and angry that his shots weren't working. Of course Roger played well too, but I'd imagine the scoreline would've been closer had it been a clear day. Just being realistic. That said, his game definitely matches up better against Roger's than Rafa's.

 

[shawnbm]

Federer-Safin in 2005 AO was some of the most awe-inspiring tennis--over a period of hours--I ever saw. Pete and Marat in 2000 had some of that going too.

 

[Kieran]

One of the highest level, both-at-the-same-time matches was Pete-Becker in Stuttgart in 1996. Also, Pete-Agassi at the US Open in 2001, when neither lost their serve. After the match, Frew McMillan described it as the best match he'd ever seen. The quality was ridiculous, made more so - like the Rafa-Nole tousles - by the fact that they both were so familiar with each other, and there was the extra spur of motivation, bring who they were.

In terms of straight set wins, I'd go with the Wimbledon final in 1999. Andre was brilliant - Pete was somewhere higher than the clouds...

 

[brokenshoelace]

As far as losing while playing your best, in the strictest sense, if you're a top 4 player, it's probably not possible. Fans always like to take digs at one another: "Federer only loses when he's not playing his best!" I'm sure Fed fans have heard that quite a lot from Nadal/Novak fans.

But you know what? It's actually true.

Think about it... Do you know how good Roger Federer is? Think of how unplayable he is when he plays his best tennis. You really think he can lose while playing like that? Ditto for Nadal or Djokovic.

The difference is, often when these guys come up with one another, they're so good that they either impose their game on their opponent (thus forcing him not to play his best), or due to their opponent having so much respect for their game, what they're capable of, that they feel they need to do something different, which ends up affecting his level (ie feeling like you have to go for too much against Nadal). Moreover, sometimes, often, in fact, you win a match strategically, by out-thinking your opponent. And of course, there's the whole "playing the big points better" thing.

There are many ways to win a tennis match.

 

[Front242]

Andy Roddick was awesome against both Murray and especially Federer at Wimbledon 2009 and I've said it before and will say it again, he played well enough to win the final. All it came down to in the end was survival of the fittest and Roger happened to be fresher at the end. Roger himself said Andy equally deserved to win that match and I agree. They both served phenomenally well that day. Sure he won the US Open in 2003, but I still think his level of play was higher in the 2009 Wimbledon final. In an ideal world I'd like to call that match a draw and give them both a slam for that final as it's kinda hard on Andy having retired with just 1 slam given how he played that day. It has to have hurt. His level of play was outstanding.

 

[tented]

Rafa can only be beaten when someone plays a style that breaks his onslaught (Dolgo) or, in the rarest of cases, someone outlasts him in the hammer-fest (Djokovic). Its worth noting that while Dolgo snuck out a win against Rafa, Roger destroyed Dolgo. Imagine that.

Actually, it's not hard to imagine that. Consider what I think of as one of the most interesting examples of match-ups in the last few years: the trio of Nadal, Federer, and Davydenko. Nikolay has shown multiple times he can take down Rafa (OK, on a hard court) without even really doing anything special (i.e., plays a style that breaks Rafa's onslaught), yet he's had a terrible time when facing Federer, who Rafa has a 2-1 winning record against.

As for the recent example of Dolgopolov, Rafa, and Roger, that made sense, too. As I posted before the match began, Alexandr was going to lose to Roger, and he did, because Roger's game is the kind which intrinsically disturbs Dolgopolov. But we all saw the same couldn't be said for Rafa.

Great thread, El Dude.

 

[tented]

Federer-Safin in 2005 AO was some of the most awe-inspiring tennis--over a period of hours--I ever saw.

Agreed. And it makes sense, too, doesn't it, especially during that period of their careers. Some of Roger's greatest matches are ones he lost. Why? Because he was so amazing it took an incredible effort to beat him.

He agrees, too. A few years ago, Fed was asked to name his five greatest matches. Wimbledon '08, AO '05, and the '05 Nalbandian Masters Cup matches made the list. (I can't find this in Google. One of the others was Wimbledon '09, and I forget the fifth. Maybe someone else remembers.)

 

[Front242]

No idea but I've cited all of those as matches where I believe both guys played at incredibly high levels throughout so it does happen from time to time. Having similar games is where it's likely to happen. It won't ever happen with polar opposites like Nadal v Federer.

 

[Front242]

I didn't include Wimbledon 2008 though as Federer was pretty flat and poor the first 2 sets by all accounts. He did play great the rest though.

 

[El Dude]

One match that comes to mind, and I'm guessing I might get some disagreement here, is the US Open last year with Novak and Rafa. While Novak fans might be displeased with how he played and lost, I remember thinking at the time, "these are as good as tennis players have ever been." I probably had that thought during that crazy long rally.

That match was messy, and eventually it became a Rafa Steamroll, but at times there we saw two truly relatively well-matched great players in their prime slugging it out.

 

[Front242]

I thought both of their levels were significantly higher in the US Open 2011 final personally. This isn't a bash at Nadal since he won it last year and the one I'm bringing up Djokovic won. Don't forget, Nadal was ahead in sets 1 and 2 before Djokovic got back into it but the speed of the hitting and intensity was far higher there. Despite the lopsided scoreline of set 1 there were only a few key points making the score look bad and Nadal was very much in the set and was ahead in both sets 1 & 2 initially. They were killing each other out there the first 2 sets in particular and much of set 3. Without doubt one of the most intense matches I've ever watched. Crazy retrieving and hitting.

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFLHW4s8wH4&feature=player_detailpage[/video]