Ombilible!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni6iqkut2mU

What do you think Ronnie ? I see. https://www.tennis365.com/tennis-news/novak-djokovic-goat-quotes-list-declared-serbian-greatest

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 19.9.2023 12.34, grif wrote:

Ombilible!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni6iqkut2mU

Amazing. I don't think Rafa won a single point!

BTW, I love this return

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni6iqkut2mU&t=121s

Djok uses it a lot. It's high percentage and often enough catches the
server off-balance as it does poor Rafito here. Rafa makes it even
harder for himself because he briefly starts towards his BH side.

--
"And off they went, from here to there,
The bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"
-- Traditional

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 19/09/2023 14:33, Pelle Svanslös wrote:

On 19.9.2023 12.34, grif wrote:

Ombilible!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni6iqkut2mU

Amazing. I don't think Rafa won a single point!

BTW, I love this return

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni6iqkut2mU&t=121s

Djok uses it a lot. It's high percentage and often enough catches the server off-balance as it does poor Rafito here. Rafa makes it even harder for himself because he briefly starts towards his BH side.

No wonder Rafa tries to avoid Novak off clay. https://tenor.com/en-GB/view/pepe-space-run-pepe-gone-pepe-bye-bye-gif-20984604

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

TT <TT@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:r

grif kirjoitti 19.9.2023 klo 12.34:> Ombilible!> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni6iqkut2mU> Isn't this the guy who in his peak lost twice to Nadal at USO?

You're at peak when you make 4 consecutive slam finals?


Djokovic
2011-2012, 2015-16, 2021, 2023.

Nadal
2011-2012.


;)




--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

grif kirjoitti 19.9.2023 klo 12.34:

Ombilible!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni6iqkut2mU

Isn't this the guy who in his peak lost twice to Nadal at USO?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 19/09/2023 20:21, TT wrote:

grif kirjoitti 19.9.2023 klo 12.34:

Ombilible!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni6iqkut2mU

Isn't this the guy who in his peak lost twice to Nadal at USO?

Rafa doing a runner, but when Novak catches up with him on hard courts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imXfocs0_Oc&t=66s

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 3:42:05 PM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:

TT <T...@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:r

grif kirjoitti 19.9.2023 klo 12.34:> Ombilible!> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni6iqkut2mU> Isn't this the guy who in his peak lost twice to Nadal at USO?

You're at peak when you make 4 consecutive slam finals?

Djokovic
2011-2012, 2015-16, 2021, 2023.

Nadal
2011-2012.

;)

Nadal's peak was probably June 2010 to May/June 2011. He won the French Open, Wimbledon, and the USO in 2010. Also the French Open again in June 2011.

Trivia: The period coincided with his life number age 24. (6-3-1986)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Nadal's peak was probably June 2010 to May/June 2011. He won the French Open, Wimbledon, and the USO in 2010. Also the French Open again in June 2011.Trivia: The period coincided with his life number age 24. (6-3-1986)

What if he was even better in 2011-2012 but didn't win as much because Djokovic's best was better?

I'm saying that's the case, but even if you disagree, it's difficult for you make your point.

We can't make circular arguments really, and saying Nadal was not at peak because he didn't win (as much) is not a valid argument.

Ferrer didn't win slams either, but he had a peak, like everyone else did. Players have peaks.


I'm not saying reaching 4 straight finals is best way to determine peak, because in tennis everything is relative your results depend on other players.

But roughly speaking, 4 straight slam finals is an impressive stuff and we can consider such player and such form to be at all time level?

So Nadal, at one of the finest and highest levels in history, was losing a lot to Djokovic.





--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 4:33:38 PM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:

RaspingDrive <raspin...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Nadal's peak was probably June 2010 to May/June 2011. He won the French Open, Wimbledon, and the USO in 2010. Also the French Open again in June 2011.Trivia: The period coincided with his life number age 24. (6-3-1986)

What if he was even better in 2011-2012 but didn't win as much because Djokovic's best was better?

I'm saying that's the case, but even if you disagree, it's difficult for you make your point.

We can't make circular arguments really, and saying Nadal was not at peak because he didn't win (as much) is not a valid argument.

Ferrer didn't win slams either, but he had a peak, like everyone else did. Players have peaks.

I'm not saying reaching 4 straight finals is best way to determine peak, because in tennis everything is relative your results depend on other players.

But roughly speaking, 4 straight slam finals is an impressive stuff and we can consider such player and such form to be at all time level?

So Nadal, at one of the finest and highest levels in history, was losing a lot to Djokovic.
--

You have a good point. But let's debate this further :)

You said 2011-2012 was Djoker's peak? It seemed like that. However, he won just 4 out of 8 slams, losing to Nadal once, Federer twice ( in the semis), and Murray once. So, at Djoker's peak, Nadal lost to him a lot while Djok also lost to every top rival
at that time (Big Four). Also, why would he lose to Nadal at USO 2013? That, after losing to Murray at Wimbly 2013 on top of the USO 2012 defeat.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

RaspingDrive <raspingdrive@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r

On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 4:33:38 PM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:> RaspingDrive <raspin...@gmail.com> Wrote in message: > > Nadal's peak was probably June 2010 to May/June 2011. He won the French Open, Wimbledon, and the USO in 2010. Also the

French Open again in June 2011.Trivia: The period coincided with his life number age 24. (6-3-1986) > > > > What if he was even better in 2011-2012 but didn't win as much because Djokovic's best was better? > > I'm saying that's the case, but even if you
disagree, it's difficult for you make your point. > > We can't make circular arguments really, and saying Nadal was not at peak because he didn't win (as much) is not a valid argument. > > Ferrer didn't win slams either, but he had a peak, like everyone
else did. Players have peaks. > > > I'm not saying reaching 4 straight finals is best way to determine peak, because in tennis everything is relative your results depend on other players. > > But roughly speaking, 4 straight slam finals is an impressive
stuff and we can consider such player and such form to be at all time level? > > So Nadal, at one of the finest and highest levels in history, was losing a lot to Djokovic.> -- You have a good point. But let's debate this further :)You said 2011-2012 was
Djoker's peak? It seemed like that. However, he won just 4 out of 8 slams, losing to Nadal once, Federer twice ( in the semis), and Murray once. So, at Djoker's peak, Nadal lost to him a lot while Djok also lost to every top rival at that time (Big Four)
. Also, why would he lose to Nadal at USO 2013? That, after losing to Murray at Wimbly 2013 on top of the USO 2012 defeat.




Choosing peak is impossible.

For example Djokovic dominated the tour a lot more in 2015, and it's most dominant season in open era other than Laver's 1969 in terms of big titles, he was dominating everyone, but Nadal was weak that year so you can argue they missed each other that
year.

Murray and Federer were awesome in that period and they were future #1s in 2016 and 2017. ;)

So Djokovic beat top players, but Nadal was absent that year so that's why I mentioned 2011, year when Nadal and Djokovic met in 4 consecutive slam finals.




--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 4:57:37 PM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:

RaspingDrive <raspin...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r

On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 4:33:38 PM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:> RaspingDrive <raspin...@gmail.com> Wrote in message: > > Nadal's peak was probably June 2010 to May/June 2011. He won the French Open, Wimbledon, and the USO in 2010. Also the

French Open again in June 2011.Trivia: The period coincided with his life number age 24. (6-3-1986) > > > > What if he was even better in 2011-2012 but didn't win as much because Djokovic's best was better? > > I'm saying that's the case, but even if you
disagree, it's difficult for you make your point. > > We can't make circular arguments really, and saying Nadal was not at peak because he didn't win (as much) is not a valid argument. > > Ferrer didn't win slams either, but he had a peak, like everyone
else did. Players have peaks. > > > I'm not saying reaching 4 straight finals is best way to determine peak, because in tennis everything is relative your results depend on other players. > > But roughly speaking, 4 straight slam finals is an impressive
stuff and we can consider such player and such form to be at all time level? > > So Nadal, at one of the finest and highest levels in history, was losing a lot to Djokovic.> -- You have a good point. But let's debate this further :)You said 2011-2012 was
Djoker's peak? It seemed like that. However, he won just 4 out of 8 slams, losing to Nadal once, Federer twice ( in the semis), and Murray once. So, at Djoker's peak, Nadal lost to him a lot while Djok also lost to every top rival at that time (Big Four).
Also, why would he lose to Nadal at USO 2013? That, after losing to Murray at Wimbly 2013 on top of the USO 2012 defeat.

Choosing peak is impossible.

For example Djokovic dominated the tour a lot more in 2015, and it's most dominant season in open era other than Laver's 1969 in terms of big titles, he was dominating everyone, but Nadal was weak that year so you can argue they missed each other that

year.

Murray and Federer were awesome in that period and they were future #1s in 2016 and 2017. ;)

So Djokovic beat top players, but Nadal was absent that year so that's why I mentioned 2011, year when Nadal and Djokovic met in 4 consecutive slam finals.

Sounds good. The period 2011-2012 when Nadal reached all four finals is kinda peak for him. As for Federer, he was going down 2013 onward, beaten up badly by Djok (save a tune-up here and there), although he was beating the "awesome" Murray (except for
that 2013 AO loss to Murray). The year 2017 was a second peak for him (Like Becker in 1995 or Agassi in 1999) but it was clear by then that Djoker would beat him with high probability.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 4:57:37 PM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:

RaspingDrive <raspin...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r

On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 4:33:38 PM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:> RaspingDrive <raspin...@gmail.com> Wrote in message: > > Nadal's peak was probably June 2010 to May/June 2011. He won the French Open, Wimbledon, and the USO in 2010. Also the

French Open again in June 2011.Trivia: The period coincided with his life number age 24. (6-3-1986) > > > > What if he was even better in 2011-2012 but didn't win as much because Djokovic's best was better? > > I'm saying that's the case, but even if you
disagree, it's difficult for you make your point. > > We can't make circular arguments really, and saying Nadal was not at peak because he didn't win (as much) is not a valid argument. > > Ferrer didn't win slams either, but he had a peak, like everyone
else did. Players have peaks. > > > I'm not saying reaching 4 straight finals is best way to determine peak, because in tennis everything is relative your results depend on other players. > > But roughly speaking, 4 straight slam finals is an impressive
stuff and we can consider such player and such form to be at all time level? > > So Nadal, at one of the finest and highest levels in history, was losing a lot to Djokovic.> -- You have a good point. But let's debate this further :)You said 2011-2012 was
Djoker's peak? It seemed like that. However, he won just 4 out of 8 slams, losing to Nadal once, Federer twice ( in the semis), and Murray once. So, at Djoker's peak, Nadal lost to him a lot while Djok also lost to every top rival at that time (Big Four).
Also, why would he lose to Nadal at USO 2013? That, after losing to Murray at Wimbly 2013 on top of the USO 2012 defeat.

Choosing peak is impossible.

For example Djokovic dominated the tour a lot more in 2015, and it's most dominant season in open era other than Laver's 1969 in terms of big titles, he was dominating everyone, but Nadal was weak that year so you can argue they missed each other that

year.

Murray and Federer were awesome in that period and they were future #1s in 2016 and 2017. ;)

So Djokovic beat top players, but Nadal was absent that year so that's why I mentioned 2011, year when Nadal and Djokovic met in 4 consecutive slam finals.
--

----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

When will people get it?
There was never a consistent tour, and measuring peak based on the big three slams showing is a fake measure.
The "tour" you are claiming has been limited to the big four for 20 years.
If you need to argue, check who has been in the SF of slams in the last 20 years.
This will tell you the tour as we know it was always the big four.
Now as we have established this fact, the competition in the "tour" was always decided on the physical levels of the moment, the technical level at the moment, the so far tear and wear, different dynamics like injuries, etc.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, 19 September 2023 at 20:56:37 UTC+1, grif wrote:

On 19/09/2023 20:21, TT wrote:

grif kirjoitti 19.9.2023 klo 12.34:

Ombilible!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ni6iqkut2mU

Isn't this the guy who in his peak lost twice to Nadal at USO?

Rafa doing a runner, but when Novak catches up with him on hard courts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imXfocs0_Oc&t=66s

grif, why do you hate Nadal so much?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 03:00:36 UTC+1, PeteWasLucky wrote:

On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 4:57:37 PM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:

RaspingDrive <raspin...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r

On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 4:33:38 PM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:> RaspingDrive <raspin...@gmail.com> Wrote in message: > > Nadal's peak was probably June 2010 to May/June 2011. He won the French Open, Wimbledon, and the USO in 2010. Also the

French Open again in June 2011.Trivia: The period coincided with his life number age 24. (6-3-1986) > > > > What if he was even better in 2011-2012 but didn't win as much because Djokovic's best was better? > > I'm saying that's the case, but even if you
disagree, it's difficult for you make your point. > > We can't make circular arguments really, and saying Nadal was not at peak because he didn't win (as much) is not a valid argument. > > Ferrer didn't win slams either, but he had a peak, like everyone
else did. Players have peaks. > > > I'm not saying reaching 4 straight finals is best way to determine peak, because in tennis everything is relative your results depend on other players. > > But roughly speaking, 4 straight slam finals is an impressive
stuff and we can consider such player and such form to be at all time level? > > So Nadal, at one of the finest and highest levels in history, was losing a lot to Djokovic.> -- You have a good point. But let's debate this further :)You said 2011-2012 was
Djoker's peak? It seemed like that. However, he won just 4 out of 8 slams, losing to Nadal once, Federer twice ( in the semis), and Murray once. So, at Djoker's peak, Nadal lost to him a lot while Djok also lost to every top rival at that time (Big Four).
Also, why would he lose to Nadal at USO 2013? That, after losing to Murray at Wimbly 2013 on top of the USO 2012 defeat.

Choosing peak is impossible.

For example Djokovic dominated the tour a lot more in 2015, and it's most dominant season in open era other than Laver's 1969 in terms of big titles, he was dominating everyone, but Nadal was weak that year so you can argue they missed each other

that year.

Murray and Federer were awesome in that period and they were future #1s in 2016 and 2017. ;)

So Djokovic beat top players, but Nadal was absent that year so that's why I mentioned 2011, year when Nadal and Djokovic met in 4 consecutive slam finals.
--

----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

When will people get it?
There was never a consistent tour, and measuring peak based on the big three slams showing is a fake measure.
The "tour" you are claiming has been limited to the big four for 20 years. If you need to argue, check who has been in the SF of slams in the last 20 years.
This will tell you the tour as we know it was always the big four.
Now as we have established this fact, the competition in the "tour" was always decided on the physical levels of the moment, the technical level at the moment, the so far tear and wear, different dynamics like injuries, etc.

except for Fed, he was "at peak" longer than anyone else, this got proven in Jan 2017 when he won the AO final vs Nadal in 5 sets! nobody here could accept that, then that happened and everyone shutup.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r

On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 03:00:36 UTC+1, PeteWasLucky wrote:> On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 4:57:37 PM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote: > > RaspingDrive <raspin...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r > > > On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 4:33:38 

PM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:> RaspingDrive <raspin...@gmail.com> Wrote in message: > > Nadal's peak was probably June 2010 to May/June 2011. He won the French Open, Wimbledon, and the USO in 2010. Also the French Open again in June 2011.Trivia: The period
coincided with his life number age 24. (6-3-1986) > > > > What if he was even better in 2011-2012 but didn't win as much because Djokovic's best was better? > > I'm saying that's the case, but even if you disagree, it's difficult for you make your point.

We can't make circular arguments really, and saying Nadal was not at peak because he didn't win (as much) is not a valid argument. > > Ferrer didn't win slams either, but he had a peak, like everyone else did. Players have peaks. > > > I'm not saying

reaching 4 straight finals is best way to determine peak, because in tennis everything is relative your results depend on other players. > > But roughly speaking, 4 straight slam finals is an impressive stuff and we can consider such player and such form
to be at all time level? > > So Nadal, at one of the finest and highest levels in history, was losing a lot to Djokovic.> -- You have a good point. But let's debate this further :)You said 2011-2012 was Djoker's peak? It seemed like that. However, he won
just 4 out of 8 slams, losing to Nadal once, Federer twice ( in the semis), and Murray once. So, at Djoker's peak, Nadal lost to him a lot while Djok also lost to every top rival at that time (Big Four). Also, why would he lose to Nadal at USO 2013? That,
after losing to Murray at Wimbly 2013 on top of the USO 2012 defeat. > > > > > > > > > > Choosing peak is impossible. > > > > For example Djokovic dominated the tour a lot more in 2015, and it's most dominant season in open era other than Laver's 1969
in terms of big titles, he was dominating everyone, but Nadal was weak that year so you can argue they missed each other that year. > > > > Murray and Federer were awesome in that period and they were future #1s in 2016 and 2017. ;) > > > > So Djokovic
beat top players, but Nadal was absent that year so that's why I mentioned 2011, year when Nadal and Djokovic met in 4 consecutive slam finals. > > -- > > > > > > > > > > ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- > > https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/
usenet/index.html> When will people get it? > There was never a consistent tour, and measuring peak based on the big three slams showing is a fake measure. > The "tour" you are claiming has been limited to the big four for 20 years. > If you need to
argue, check who has been in the SF of slams in the last 20 years. > This will tell you the tour as we know it was always the big four. > Now as we have established this fact, the competition in the "tour" was always decided on the physical levels of the
moment, the technical level at the moment, the so far tear and wear, different dynamics like injuries, etc.except for Fed, he was "at peak" longer than anyone else, this got proven in Jan 2017 when he won the AO final vs Nadal in 5 sets! nobody here
could accept that, then that happened and everyone shutup.




Actually this is all so very fun. We can pick thousands of criteria.

For Federer, periods in slams...

winning, 2003-2018
finals, 2003-2019
semis, 2003-2020
quarters, 2001-2021


Two consecutives slams...

Winning, 2004-2009
Finals, 2004-2015
Semis, 2014-2019
Quarters, 2001-2022


Winning and Defending

Titles, 2003-2018
Finals, 2003-2018
Semis, 2003-2018
Quarters, 2003-2019


His very peak is probably cca 2004-2009 and prime 2003-2018.




Mind you, if your peak is short, that is not an excuse, it counts against you, same as short prime.



--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 09:40:00 UTC+1, *skriptis wrote:

The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r

On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 03:00:36 UTC+1, PeteWasLucky wrote:> On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 4:57:37 PM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote: > > RaspingDrive <raspin...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r > > > On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 4:33:38 

PM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:> RaspingDrive <raspin...@gmail.com> Wrote in message: > > Nadal's peak was probably June 2010 to May/June 2011. He won the French Open, Wimbledon, and the USO in 2010. Also the French Open again in June 2011.Trivia: The period
coincided with his life number age 24. (6-3-1986) > > > > What if he was even better in 2011-2012 but didn't win as much because Djokovic's best was better? > > I'm saying that's the case, but even if you disagree, it's difficult for you make your point.

We can't make circular arguments really, and saying Nadal was not at peak because he didn't win (as much) is not a valid argument. > > Ferrer didn't win slams either, but he had a peak, like everyone else did. Players have peaks. > > > I'm not saying

reaching 4 straight finals is best way to determine peak, because in tennis everything is relative your results depend on other players. > > But roughly speaking, 4 straight slam finals is an impressive stuff and we can consider such player and such form
to be at all time level? > > So Nadal, at one of the finest and highest levels in history, was losing a lot to Djokovic.> -- You have a good point. But let's debate this further :)You said 2011-2012 was Djoker's peak? It seemed like that. However, he won
just 4 out of 8 slams, losing to Nadal once, Federer twice ( in the semis), and Murray once. So, at Djoker's peak, Nadal lost to him a lot while Djok also lost to every top rival at that time (Big Four). Also, why would he lose to Nadal at USO 2013? That,
after losing to Murray at Wimbly 2013 on top of the USO 2012 defeat. > > > > > > > > > > Choosing peak is impossible. > > > > For example Djokovic dominated the tour a lot more in 2015, and it's most dominant season in open era other than Laver's 1969
in terms of big titles, he was dominating everyone, but Nadal was weak that year so you can argue they missed each other that year. > > > > Murray and Federer were awesome in that period and they were future #1s in 2016 and 2017. ;) > > > > So Djokovic
beat top players, but Nadal was absent that year so that's why I mentioned 2011, year when Nadal and Djokovic met in 4 consecutive slam finals. > > -- > > > > > > > > > > ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- > > https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/
usenet/index.html> When will people get it? > There was never a consistent tour, and measuring peak based on the big three slams showing is a fake measure. > The "tour" you are claiming has been limited to the big four for 20 years. > If you need to
argue, check who has been in the SF of slams in the last 20 years. > This will tell you the tour as we know it was always the big four. > Now as we have established this fact, the competition in the "tour" was always decided on the physical levels of the
moment, the technical level at the moment, the so far tear and wear, different dynamics like injuries, etc.except for Fed, he was "at peak" longer than anyone else, this got proven in Jan 2017 when he won the AO final vs Nadal in 5 sets! nobody here
could accept that, then that happened and everyone shutup.

Actually this is all so very fun. We can pick thousands of criteria.

For Federer, periods in slams...

winning, 2003-2018
finals, 2003-2019
semis, 2003-2020
quarters, 2001-2021

Two consecutives slams...

Winning, 2004-2009
Finals, 2004-2015
Semis, 2014-2019
Quarters, 2001-2022

Winning and Defending

Titles, 2003-2018
Finals, 2003-2018
Semis, 2003-2018
Quarters, 2003-2019

His very peak is probably cca 2004-2009 and prime 2003-2018.

Mind you, if your peak is short, that is not an excuse, it counts against you, same as short prime.

Djoker is actually "at peak" now, - he taken World #1 from 20 year old best player, won AO, beat peak 20 year old at FO, one drive volley from W, got nearest to CYGS ever in his history etc.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r

On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 09:40:00 UTC+1, *skriptis wrote:> The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r > > On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 03:00:36 UTC+1, PeteWasLucky wrote:> On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 4:57:37 PM UTC-4, *

skriptis wrote: > > RaspingDrive <raspin...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r > > > On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 4:33:38 PM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:> RaspingDrive <raspin...@gmail.com> Wrote in message: > > Nadal's peak was probably June 2010 to May/
June 2011. He won the French Open, Wimbledon, and the USO in 2010. Also the French Open again in June 2011.Trivia: The period coincided with his life number age 24. (6-3-1986) > > > > What if he was even better in 2011-2012 but didn't win as much because
Djokovic's best was better? > > I'm saying that's the case, but even if you disagree, it's difficult for you make your point. > > We can't make circular arguments really, and saying Nadal was not at peak because he didn't win (as much) is not a valid
argument. > > Ferrer didn't win slams either, but he had a peak, like everyone else did. Players have peaks. > > > I'm not saying reaching 4 straight finals is best way to determine peak, because in tennis everything is relative your results depend on
other players. > > But roughly speaking, 4 straight slam finals is an impressive stuff and we can consider such player and such form to be at all time level? > > So Nadal, at one of the finest and highest levels in history, was losing a lot to Djokovic.>
-- You have a good point. But let's debate this further :)You said 2011-2012 was Djoker's peak? It seemed like that. However, he won just 4 out of 8 slams, losing to Nadal once, Federer twice ( in the semis), and Murray once. So, at Djoker's peak, Nadal
lost to him a lot while Djok also lost to every top rival at that time (Big Four). Also, why would he lose to Nadal at USO 2013? That, after losing to Murray at Wimbly 2013 on top of the USO 2012 defeat. > > > > > > > > > > Choosing peak is impossible. >

For example Djokovic dominated the tour a lot more in 2015, and it's most dominant season in open era other than Laver's 1969 in terms of big titles, he was dominating everyone, but Nadal was weak that year so you can argue they missed each other

that year. > > > > Murray and Federer were awesome in that period and they were future #1s in 2016 and 2017. ;) > > > > So Djokovic beat top players, but Nadal was absent that year so that's why I mentioned 2011, year when Nadal and Djokovic met in 4
consecutive slam finals. > > -- > > > > > > > > > > ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- > > https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html> When will people get it? > There was never a consistent tour, and measuring peak based on the big
three slams showing is a fake measure. > The "tour" you are claiming has been limited to the big four for 20 years. > If you need to argue, check who has been in the SF of slams in the last 20 years. > This will tell you the tour as we know it was always
the big four. > Now as we have established this fact, the competition in the "tour" was always decided on the physical levels of the moment, the technical level at the moment, the so far tear and wear, different dynamics like injuries, etc.except for Fed,
he was "at peak" longer than anyone else, this got proven in Jan 2017 when he won the AO final vs Nadal in 5 sets! nobody here could accept that, then that happened and everyone shutup. > > > > > Actually this is all so very fun. We can pick thousands
of criteria. > > For Federer, periods in slams... > > winning, 2003-2018 > finals, 2003-2019 > semis, 2003-2020 > quarters, 2001-2021 > > > Two consecutives slams... > > Winning, 2004-2009 > Finals, 2004-2015 > Semis, 2014-2019 > Quarters, 2001-2022 > > >
Winning and Defending > > Titles, 2003-2018 > Finals, 2003-2018 > Semis, 2003-2018 > Quarters, 2003-2019 > > > His very peak is probably cca 2004-2009 and prime 2003-2018. > > > > > Mind you, if your peak is short, that is not an excuse, it counts
against you, same as short prime.Djoker is actually "at peak" now, - he taken World #1 from 20 year old best player, won AO, beat peak 20 year old at FO, one drive volley from W, got nearest to CYGS ever in his history etc.



Well in terms of sets won, he needed just one set so he was pretty close, but I'm with Whisper on this one, you're "one match away from Grand Slam" if you're in USO final.

This year Djokovic was 8 matches away, you need 28 matches, he did 20 and failed in his 21.



--




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 5:17:05 AM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:

The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r

On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 09:40:00 UTC+1, *skriptis wrote:> The Iceberg <iceber...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r > > On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 03:00:36 UTC+1, PeteWasLucky wrote:> On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 4:57:37 PM UTC-4,

*skriptis wrote: > > RaspingDrive <raspin...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r > > > On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 4:33:38 PM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:> RaspingDrive <raspin...@gmail.com> Wrote in message: > > Nadal's peak was probably June 2010 to May/
June 2011. He won the French Open, Wimbledon, and the USO in 2010. Also the French Open again in June 2011.Trivia: The period coincided with his life number age 24. (6-3-1986) > > > > What if he was even better in 2011-2012 but didn't win as much because
Djokovic's best was better? > > I'm saying that's the case, but even if you disagree, it's difficult for you make your point. > > We can't make circular arguments really, and saying Nadal was not at peak because he didn't win (as much) is not a valid
argument. > > Ferrer didn't win slams either, but he had a peak, like everyone else did. Players have peaks. > > > I'm not saying reaching 4 straight finals is best way to determine peak, because in tennis everything is relative your results depend on
other players. > > But roughly speaking, 4 straight slam finals is an impressive stuff and we can consider such player and such form to be at all time level? > > So Nadal, at one of the finest and highest levels in history, was losing a lot to Djokovic.>
-- You have a good point. But let's debate this further :)You said 2011-2012 was Djoker's peak? It seemed like that. However, he won just 4 out of 8 slams, losing to Nadal once, Federer twice ( in the semis), and Murray once. So, at Djoker's peak, Nadal
lost to him a lot while Djok also lost to every top rival at that time (Big Four). Also, why would he lose to Nadal at USO 2013? That, after losing to Murray at Wimbly 2013 on top of the USO 2012 defeat. > > > > > > > > > > Choosing peak is impossible. >

For example Djokovic dominated the tour a lot more in 2015, and it's most dominant season in open era other than Laver's 1969 in terms of big titles, he was dominating everyone, but Nadal was weak that year so you can argue they missed each other

that year. > > > > Murray and Federer were awesome in that period and they were future #1s in 2016 and 2017. ;) > > > > So Djokovic beat top players, but Nadal was absent that year so that's why I mentioned 2011, year when Nadal and Djokovic met in 4
consecutive slam finals. > > -- > > > > > > > > > > ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- > > https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html> When will people get it? > There was never a consistent tour, and measuring peak based on the big
three slams showing is a fake measure. > The "tour" you are claiming has been limited to the big four for 20 years. > If you need to argue, check who has been in the SF of slams in the last 20 years. > This will tell you the tour as we know it was always
the big four. > Now as we have established this fact, the competition in the "tour" was always decided on the physical levels of the moment, the technical level at the moment, the so far tear and wear, different dynamics like injuries, etc.except for Fed,
he was "at peak" longer than anyone else, this got proven in Jan 2017 when he won the AO final vs Nadal in 5 sets! nobody here could accept that, then that happened and everyone shutup. > > > > > Actually this is all so very fun. We can pick thousands
of criteria. > > For Federer, periods in slams... > > winning, 2003-2018 > finals, 2003-2019 > semis, 2003-2020 > quarters, 2001-2021 > > > Two consecutives slams... > > Winning, 2004-2009 > Finals, 2004-2015 > Semis, 2014-2019 > Quarters, 2001-2022 > > >
Winning and Defending > > Titles, 2003-2018 > Finals, 2003-2018 > Semis, 2003-2018 > Quarters, 2003-2019 > > > His very peak is probably cca 2004-2009 and prime 2003-2018. > > > > > Mind you, if your peak is short, that is not an excuse, it counts
against you, same as short prime.Djoker is actually "at peak" now, - he taken World #1 from 20 year old best player, won AO, beat peak 20 year old at FO, one drive volley from W, got nearest to CYGS ever in his history etc.

Well in terms of sets won, he needed just one set so he was pretty close, but I'm with Whisper on this one, you're "one match away from Grand Slam" if you're in USO final.

This year Djokovic was 8 matches away, you need 28 matches, he did 20 and failed in his 21.
--

Federer was one ace away from grabbing a USO win against the GOAT and a Wimbledon win against against The GOAT to make the h2h read 25-27. All said and done, Djok is the clear GOAT now.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)