The era of weak number #1s

I have been roundly and unfairly criticized by some for my contention that the late 90 and early 2000s was a weaker era in terms of depth at the very top of the game. Some interesting points were made, that it is difficult to really give it a solid cutoff date or that eras tend to at some point blend into other eras. But when one looks at the facts, the actual irrefuttable facts surrounding the players that held the #1 ranking between 1996-2003 one sees how utterly my original argument is backed up by the facts. Now again it is never easy to dominate the men's tour even for a short time, and none of these socalled weaker number #1s are bad players, they all are supertalented for even getting to that ranking even for a solitary week. However when comparing #1s to other #1s it becomes as clear as crystal that the late to mid 90s and early 2000s was a transitional and step back period in terms of talent at the top.

Statistical analysis:

1. Avg. Grandslams players who held #1 ranking before 1996 :(a sort of watershed year that can be placed in either of two eras):

Nastase, Newcombe, Connors, Bjorg, Mac, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Courier, Pete, Andre= Avergage grandslams of 7.25 per players

2. Players who held the #1 ranking from 1996-2003

Pete, Andre, Muster, Rios, Moya, Yevgeny, Rafter, Safin, Kuerten, Hewitt, Ferrero, Roddick=3.08 grandslam per player

3. Post 2003

Roger, Nadal, Novak=9.67 grandslams per player

To be fair I included players that straddled eras in both periods and treated them equally in both eras, pete and andre appear in two seperate lists. And for those of you who will balk that Roger didn't get included in the socalled weaker #1 era here is an alternative for group 2 with Roger included in the weaker #1 era.

Alternative 2A: pete, andre, muster, Rios, Moya, Yevgeny, Safin, Kuerten, Ferrero, Roddick, AND ROGER: 4.07 grandslams per player

In short, even adding Roger Federer and counting pete sampras twice although pete and Andre first rose to the top in the previous generation, and Federer in many ways was the last great player of the weaker era who really ushered tennis out of that transitional phase, even with these generous accounting principles the mid 90s to mid 2000s produced a host of weaker #1 players.

There can be a totally different way to look at these stats from another angle. Lower value of the number of GS per player could mean that Grand Slams were shared between many player and so was the weeks at #1 ranking. This means that pool of talented players was so huge that it was very very difficult for any one player to dominate the field. Seems fine.

So nothing is exactly "crystal clear" as you are trying to put in your article.

I'm not saying anything about which was a weak era or strong era, which frankly I believe is a futile argument. But it is normal that the new generation of players often (though not always) put the bar a bit higher than the predecessors. This is true for every sport. Though this doesn't always have to do with talent or skill but also technological advancements, better equipment, better training, playing conditions etc. etc.

raiders has pinned this well. Thread may as well close now tbh.

Interesting that you rank Djokovic as a weak #1, given he has even fewer Slams than the average in the "weak era". Then again you'd probably argue that he achieved them in a period where there was strong competition so a low number doesn't tell the true story.

Oh, but doesn't that argument make a mess of your article?

I always knew Djokovic was making the era weak and now Socal has proved it. Had Djoker not reached No. 1, the post 2003 era would have had an average No of slams for No. 1's to a massive 13!! Get Djoker out to make this the strongest era ever

Secondly, if Murray or Del Potro become genuine contenders and win couple of slams each and become No. 1 - common sense would suggest that the era has become even stronger but by your analysis, the average would come down to 6 or 7 proving that the era has become weaker - really!!! !!

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:There can be a totally different way to look at these stats from another angle. Lower value of the number of GS per player could mean that Grand Slams were shared between many player and so was the weeks at #1 ranking. This means that pool of talented players was so huge that it was very very difficult for any one player to dominate the field. Seems fine.

So nothing is exactly "crystal clear" as you are trying to put in your article.

I'm not saying anything about which was a weak era or strong era, which frankly I believe is a futile argument. But it is normal that the new generation of players often (though not always) put the bar a bit higher than the predecessors. This is true for every sport. Though this doesn't always have to do with talent or skill but also technological advancements, better equipment, better training, playing conditions etc. etc.

Fedex_the_best wrote:Secondly, if Murray or Del Potro become genuine contenders and win couple of slams each and become No. 1 - common sense would suggest that the era has become even stronger but by your analysis, the average would come down to 6 or 7 proving that the era has become weaker - really!!!

Agree, you're in danger of arguing yourself into a very deep hole here. I can't understand your logic at all - an era is weak if you have one player dominating, and an era is weak as well if the majors are shared by several players bringing the average haul by player down into amounts you can count on one hand

Good posts from raiders and fedex, always thought that this is a nonsense. Looking at the distribution of slams in the way done above is a means of comparing the relative strengths of the top players, i.e. the top guys seemed more equal between 1996 and 2002 whereas two brilliant players have been cleaning up for the last 8 years. This does not say anything about weak/strong eras, which is bunk anyway for me.

to P4th Street, Fedex, Raiders, BB

The obsession with 'Wee Keira' continues. This person must be a very charming person to hold such fascination and infatuation of many a posters.

Perhaps an analysis of the 'weak era' of tennis discussion would prove more interesting.

Socal, can you try analysing 1962-1969 using your method and post results?

I have carried out a study of hearing aid usage within professional tennis over the past fifty years in order to put to bed the weak Era debate. I suspect the results will cause quite a noise in the tennis community.

Good points from everyone in rebutting this! I can't understand why you keep debating this socal, very few people agree with you on this and you've raised it before! The criticisms are not unfair but you do seem to want to continue arguing your case rather agreeing to disagree, which might be a better idea.

If I'm correct, you seem to have changed the dates from 1997-2005 to 1997-2003. I think it's self evident, as you allude to, deciding when the so called 'weak' era begins and ends is where you're argument runs into difficulty, the fact you changed the end year of the 'weak' era rather makes the point. Deciding these points in time is highly subjective and if we go on the basis that an era is strong because of the dominance of a few players then we been living with one of the strongest eras ever, the Fedal era, which might be brought an end by Djokovic, unless he himself comes out with 10 grand slams, possible, but we don't know yet. In which case we're not in as strong an era?

The main difference between the first list of players and the second is longevity - the length of time they were able to play at the peak of their abilities.
Whilst this may be an important factor in defining a 'great' player, it doesn't mean that at the peak of their abilities they were any worse than other players who won more slams i.e. it doesn't mean that the level of tennis went down between <insert your own years here> or that it was a weak era.

If you see the chap/ess who STARTED the *Weak Era* theory

shoot at will !!!



(Poor Will)

Well it certainly doesn't show great depth at the top, what it shows is a player like Rios who never won a slam reaching #1, if anything that shows a paucity of talent at the top. Some of you don't want to accept irrefutable facts and numbers. The mid to late 90s and early 2000s produced a laundry list of weaker number 1s most of who would have had no chance at the #1 ranking before or after. Take Hewitt, his two best seasons in 2001 and 2002 that got him the number #1 ranking would not even get him the number #2 ranking today he would be a distant 3rd place. It is not my intention to discuss issues that people agree with me on, this however is crystal clear.

If you guys don't like numbers here is another proof with no numbers:

Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Ferrero, Moya, Rios<Becker, Lendl, Connors, Mac, Andre, Pete

What I find interesting is that there is not even an attempt to dispute the numbers or any of the facts provided, they are just simply ignored like they don't exist.

Or just the duh factor here, read the names on the list of players that got the #1 ranking in that period of time, late to mid 90s and early to mid 2000s, and then compare those to the players who held the #1 ranking before and after. Any tennis fan would tell you which list is stronger and which is weaker. Unless you are the kind of fan that thinks James blake is a great #4 and Moya is a strong #1.

Hewitt - 28 titles, 14 finals - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Lleyton-Hewitt.aspx?t=tf

Safin - 15 titles, 12 finals - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Marat-Safin.aspx?t=tf

Roddick - 30 titles, 20 finals - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Andy-Roddick.aspx?t=tf

Ferrero - 16 titles, 18 finals - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Juan-Carlos-Ferrero.aspx?t=tf

Moya - 20 titles, 24 finals - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Mo/C/Carlos-Moya.aspx?t=tf

Rios - 18 titles, 13 finals - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Ri/M/Marcelo-Rios.aspx?t=tf

Yes Laverfan, no question when comparing the list you just quoted to the historical average of what other #1s have accomplishes they are weak. Now compare these players to the players who held the number #1 ranking immediately before and after them. Any objective analysis would show that they fall dreadfully short.

Once again, it doesn't mean they were weak, just they were merely relatively short-lived (in many cases due to injuries). I agree that it detracts from them being classified as 'great' players, but that doesn't equate to a 'weak' era.
At their peak, Hewitt, Kuerten, Safin were as good as anyone else and Agassi was playing his best tennis after 1999. Even Kafelnikov and Roddick, at their best, could be rated alongside, say, Courier.
And even Sampras states that many people saw Rios as 'the Second Coming' although he wasn't as convinced.
If the 3 best players who ever lived all shared the slams for 2 years and got 2-3 each, then all quit, they would have records similar to Kuerten or Hewitt and those 2 years would, by your classification, be 'weak'.

I think the debate about era's of tennis and the strength in depth in the field needs to look past the Slam haul and titles, and look at it from the point of the 'quality' of tennis. I think it can be debated by the style of tennis and preference. People enjoy the Serve and Volley and others enjoy the Baseline Grind.

Some posters look at quantative measurements and others look at qualitative measurements. Some might agree with socal's analysis others might not.

I won't say that socal's analysis is flawed, but it isn't the angle I would look at judging era's in tennis.

Becker - 49 titles, 28 finals - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Be/B/Boris-Becker.aspx?t=tf

Lendl - 94 titles, 50 finals - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Le/I/Ivan-Lendl.aspx?t=tf

Connors - 107 titles, 51 finals - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Co/J/Jimmy-Connors.aspx?t=tf

McEnroe - 77 titles, 31 finals - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Mc/J/John-Mcenroe.aspx?t=tf

Sampras - 64 titles, 24 finals - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Sa/P/Pete-Sampras.aspx?t=tf

This goes from 1973 (Connors) - 1999 (Sampras) (25+ years), while the other list is from 1995 (Rios) - 2003 (Hewitt/Ferrero) (8 years).

Why should this be considered an equivalent comparison, notwithstanding the whole 'weak-era-is-a-myth' issue?

Edit: Why should the start not be 1969 (Open Era) to 1999 (Sampras) vs. 1995 (Rios) - 2003 (Hewitt/Ferrero)?

Wee Keira would turn in her grave if she knew her name was

being taken so Literally !!!

JuliusHMarx wrote:Once again, it doesn't mean they were weak, just they were merely relatively short-lived (in many cases due to injuries). I agree that it detracts from them being classified as 'great' players, but that doesn't equate to a 'weak' era.
At their peak, Hewitt, Kuerten, Safin were as good as anyone else and Agassi was playing his best tennis after 1999. Even Kafelnikov and Roddick, at their best, could be rated alongside, say, Courier.
.

No it isn't always necessarily about them being quote "short-lived". Your statement that these players were just as great just for a shorter period of time does not hold water with the facts. Take Hewitt's best year, not his career, his BEST YEAR either 01 or 02, it would get him the number 3 ranking this year. Hewit's best year 6 titles 1 master, 1 grandslam. And how exactly, is Andy Roddick short lived? The guy had a lengthy career at the top, was always a hard worker and suffered few if any longterm injuries. Yet, by his early 20s it was like the game had passed him up. And I don't know how you could rate any of those players up there with Courier. There seems to be some odd reason why everyone on this site seems to dismiss Courier. Courier was a strong #1 in a brutally difficult era at the top with guys like Sampras, Agassi, Edberg (still at peak), and becker. Courier was way better than hewitt, Kuerten, Safin and Roddick. Especially if you take peak courier. His forehand would literally tear the cover off the ball if he had the benefit of luxilons. Kuerten only was able to be great on clay courier played in the grandslam final of all 4 major's on all surfaces. And hewitt, I would say Courier would have the advantage on clay and hardcourt while hewitt on grass. As for Safin, Courier hit the ball nearly as hard and was probably 100 times in better shape than Marat. Part of the reason people rate Courier so low is because they don't give credence to the very difficult time period that he played in and was a dominant force, plus he wasn't Pete or Andre therefore they always seemingly dismiss him. Courier buries all those guys you mention.

laverfan wrote:
This goes from 1973 (Connors) - 1999 (Sampras) (25+ years), while the other list is from 1995 (Rios) - 2003 (Hewitt/Ferrero) (8 years).

Why should this be considered an equivalent comparison, notwithstanding the whole 'weak-era-is-a-myth' issue?

Edit: Why should the start not be 1969 (Open Era) to 1999 (Sampras) vs. 1995 (Rios) - 2003 (Hewitt/Ferrero)?

I did an average Laverfan, if one era had more players and was for a longer period of time it doesn't make a difference in the calculation. But if you like then compare 1996-2003 vs. 1995-88 you would still see the same trend. pre-1996 would still dominate the 7 years that came after it in terms of depth and strength at the top.

socal1976 wrote:Courier buries all those guys you mention.

Disagree totally! I can only go on what I saw. I remember wondering how the heck a guy with just a forehand could get to No. 1. Where was the all-round talent that Mac, Connors and Edberg had? Then Sampras came along and kicked his butt so many times that it restored my faith in tennis.

Fair point Roddick was not short-lived, but Federer came along and that was that in terms of GS wins. Hardly fair to judge Roddick in those terms.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Courier buries all those guys you mention.

Disagree totally! I can only go on what I saw. I remember wondering how the heck a guy with just a forehand could get to No. 1. Where was the all-round talent that Mac, Connors and Edberg had? Then Sampras came along and kicked his butt so many times that it restored my faith in tennis.

Fair point Roddick was not short-lived, but Federer came along and that was that in terms of GS wins. Hardly fair to judge Roddick in those terms.

i think for my next post I am going to do a thread on the forgotten man jim courier. Courier was not just a forehand although he had easily one of the best ever. He was a very good server and returner, also was the fittest guy on tour for a period of time. His backhand while unspectacular would never breakdown. The man probably never played clay court tennis until he was a late teen and he won 2 french opens and played in 3 finals. If Moya, Ferrero, are so great for winning one slam on the surface they grew up playing on how great is Courier for winning 2 grandslams on a surface that throughout his early career was alien to him? This one dimensional courier did something that none of those players you mention who supposedly have so much variety were able to accomplish he got to the finals of every grandslam. Yes, in an era when wimby was as fast lightening according to the slow court theorists.

socal1976 wrote:
i think for my next post I am going to do a thread on the forgotten man jim courier.

Well, yes, you do that - I'm sure at the time you were a big fan of his.
Don't really do middle ground much do you socal? Either a player is a true all-time one of the greatest ever or a no-shot embarassment of a No 1 who deserves great respect, but was actually part of a laundry list of cr@p.

Courier is not a great and never will be.

socal1976 wrote:The man probably never played clay court tennis until he was a late teen and he won 2 french opens and played in 3 finals. If Moya, Ferrero, are so great for winning one slam on the surface they grew up playing on how great is Courier for winning 2 grandslams on a surface that throughout his early career was alien to him?

Courier played French Open Juniors.

On Clay...
Courier - W/L 115/53 (69%) - 5 titles - FO activity - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Co/J/Jim-S-Courier.aspx?t=pa&y=0&m=s&e=520#
Moya - W/L 337/143 (70%) - 16 titles - FO activity - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Mo/C/Carlos-Moya.aspx?t=pa&y=0&m=s&e=520#
Ferrero - W/L 249/87 (74%) - 13 titles - FO Activity - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Juan-Carlos-Ferrero.aspx?t=pa&y=0&m=s&e=520#

Courier is a very good player.

STOP with the Statistics already !



Who CARES who was/is/could be the bestest ever !



They are all fine tennis players in their own right !



Jeesh

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:
i think for my next post I am going to do a thread on the forgotten man jim courier.

Well, yes, you do that - I'm sure at the time you were a big fan of his.
Don't really do middle ground much do you socal? Either a player is a true all-time one of the greatest ever or a no-shot embarassment of a No 1 who deserves great respect, but was actually part of a laundry list of cr@p.

I actually do understand relative concepts and middle ground julius. I don't understand why it is such a controversial issue to point to the fact that virtually every weaker or transitional type #1 we ever had came up during a seven to 8 year period, and how that doesn't reflect greatly on the quality of the top players of that era. I actually, think Hewitt is probably the best player of the group of guys that won 2 slams, maybe Nastase is the only one who is better. I still don't believe that he is a particularly great #1. Obviously, all these guys can play even for getting number #1 for a week, but it is also obvious that there was a rather lengthy weaker period in terms of the top players during the late 90s and early 2000s. But Hewitt's best year would probably get him the #3 ranking today.

As for Courier he is a highly accomplished champion, who won slams in a very difficult period and who was a two time year end #1. Substantially, better than Roddick, Ferrero, Hewitt, Safin, or kafelnikov.

If all this is true, how come nobody used the term "weak" or "strong" era during the "era"s you so obstinately cling to socal ?

Its only been a relatively used term in the last 6yrs, because of Federer's period of domination.

I don't recall anyone talking about Hewitts time as weak or Safin come to that, only that they didnt have the consistency to stay at the No1 position long enough or win more slams.

All those you list in the OA had no longevity, not their fault, injury, better players and Bar pushers all put paid to that.

legendkillar wrote:Courier is not a great and never will be.

7 grandslam finals, 5 masters titles, and 4 grandslams titles would beg to differ with you on this point. Not to mention the fact that he is the youngest player in history to play in the finals of all four slams at the age of 22. If not for the emergence of the overwhelming talent of Sampras, Courier would probably have a much better grandslam haul. Now he certainly was a champion who basically peaked early and never was able to hold onto success for long. But in one season Courier played in the finals of 3 different slams, Australian, French, and Wimbeldon.

Lets see players that have reached all 4 finals of the grandslams:
-Rod laver
-rosewall
-lendl
-edberg
-agassi
-nadal
-federer
-courier

That one stat alone is pretty good qualification for greatness in my mind.

Jubbahey wrote:If all this is true, how come nobody used the term "weak" or "strong" era during the "era"s you so obstinately cling to socal ?

Its only been a relatively used term in the last 6yrs, because of Federer's period of domination.

I don't recall anyone talking about Hewitts time as weak or Safin come to that, only that they didnt have the consistency to stay at the No1 position long enough or win more slams.

All those you list in the OA had no longevity, not their fault, injury, better players and Bar pushers all put paid to that.

I don't know what everyone else was seeing during that period, during that period I was thinking weaker era. Pete and Andre were getting old and the young guys coming up had nowhere near the ability. Eventhough hewitt beat up on ageing sampras a couple of times it was quite clear by that time that pete wasn't the same player. Again, with this longevity argument that in my mind is not backed up by facts. Andy Roddick has had a longer and healthier career than guys like Wilander and Borg, and yet no one would confuse the legacy of those two players with Andy Roddick. It wasn't a lack of longevity that kept Ferrero, moya, Roddick, hewitt, or safin from accomplishing more they just weren't as good as other #1 caliber players. Ferrero and Roddick are still playing. Moya retired a couple of years ago and Safin last year I believe, hewitt is still grinding it out. Take the best year any of these guys ever had and match that up with the best years that other number ones have had, it isn't close. Does Hewitt's or Roddick's or Moya's best years even approach Mac in 84, Fed in 06, Novak 11, Rafa 10, Courier 92, or Sampras 93, or Wilander 88? Of course they don't. It isn't a question of longevity, they just weren't as dominant.

yummymummy wrote:If you see the chap/ess who STARTED the *Weak Era* theory

shoot at will !!!



(Poor Will)

I don't know what everyone else was seeing during that period, during that period I was thinking weaker era. Pete and Andre were getting old and the young guys coming up had nowhere near the ability.
----------------------------

We could also call the Pete/Agassi era a weak one. For a start all the greats of the past were well in decline during Pete's best years: McEnroe, Lendl, Becker, Edberg very quickly dropped form bar Lendl who kept Pete in check despite being close to 10 years older. SO Pete was only left with top talented players like Agassi and Goran but both lacked the nerves to perform under pressure so that both of them had to wait for Pete to drop form in turn to grab their slams. The only one who was not afraid of Pete was Krajicek but he was injured most of his career and when he wasn't he kicked Pete.

Socal...as mentioned you have only a biased and limited and view of tennis recent history. Everyone can interpret it the way he wants.

Tenez wrote:I don't know what everyone else was seeing during that period, during that period I was thinking weaker era. Pete and Andre were getting old and the young guys coming up had nowhere near the ability.
----------------------------

We could also call the Pete/Agassi era a weak one. For a start all the greats of the past were well in decline during Pete's best years: McEnroe, Lendl, Becker, Edberg very quickly dropped form bar Lendl who kept Pete in check despite being close to 10 years older. SO Pete was only left with top talented players like Agassi and Goran but both lacked the nerves to perform under pressure so that both of them had to wait for Pete to drop form in turn to grab their slams. The only one who was not afraid of Pete was Krajicek but he was injured most of his career and when he wasn't he kicked Pete.

Socal...as mentioned you have only a biased and limited and view of tennis recent history. Everyone can interpret it the way he wants.

Tenez calling biased, that is certainly a case of pot calling the kettle. Everyone is free to interpret things however they like if they break from reality like you have. I would take an era with 2 great players (pete and Andre) over an era with zero great players like the earlier part of the 2000s any day of the weak and twice on sunday. In fact, if you look at my analysis I have pointed out that the late 90s very much in the pete and Andre era was the beginning of the drop off. Pete came up and won his first slam in a brutal era of competition with Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Courier, and andre all still very relevant forces on tour. Later on in his career there was drop off in the level of competition. Hence why I date the transitional phase from 1996 on Pete was still the dominant guy on tour then.

socal1976 wrote:
Lets see players that have reached all 4 finals of the grandslams:
-Rod laver
-rosewall
-lendl
-edberg
-agassi
-nadal
-federer
-courier

That one stat alone is pretty good qualification for greatness in my mind.

'Greatness' is measured by a single 'subjective' achievement.

Here is my subjective 'greatness' measurement. Win 'Calendar' Slam otherwise the player is not 'great'.

Missed Sampras (14 slams), Borg (11 slams), Connors (8 slams), Becker (6 slams), Newcombe (7 slams), Wilander (7 slams) in your 'mind's greatness qualification list'.

.... and by the same 'greatness' criterion, the following should be added...

Frank Sedgeman
Todd Woodbridge
Neale Fraser
Fred Stolle
Jean Borotra
Mark Woodforde
Adrian Quist
Jack Crawford
Tony Roche
Bob Hewitt
Vic Seixas
Fred Perry
Owen Davidson
Leander Paes
George Lott
Ken Fletcher
Gerald Patterson
Tony Trabert
Mike Bryan
John Fitzgerald
Ken McGregor
Rick Leach
Vinnie Richards
Jonas Bjorkman

.....

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Once again, it doesn't mean they were weak, just they were merely relatively short-lived (in many cases due to injuries). I agree that it detracts from them being classified as 'great' players, but that doesn't equate to a 'weak' era.
At their peak, Hewitt, Kuerten, Safin were as good as anyone else and Agassi was playing his best tennis after 1999. Even Kafelnikov and Roddick, at their best, could be rated alongside, say, Courier.

Take Hewitt's best year, not his career, his BEST YEAR either 01 or 02, it would get him the number 3 ranking this year. Hewit's best year 6 titles 1 master, 1 grandslam.

I've read you use this line a fair few times socal, but it's flawed. If there is more strength in depth then titles will be more evenly distributed which leads to a more equal distribution of ranking points. This does not make an era weak, unless you equate strength in depth with weakness which is an oxymoron.

Laverfan, it isn't subjective, being able to make the finals of all 4 slams is a great record, you can dismiss it if you like but it shows the ability to play on all surfaces and it shows consistency on all surfaces. This is one great accomplishment in a stellar career for Courier. The man also won 4 slams and was year end #1, but of all his records this one is the most impressive.

Postively 4th street it isn't flawed. Novak Djokovic had a very similar year to hewitt 2001 and 2002 in 2008. He won a grandslam, a master's series title, the year end master's title and five tournaments and he finished a distant 3rd in 2008. Virtually, the same exact year Hewitt had in terms of titles and level of titles he won and he finished 3rd in the Fedal era, that year for Djokovic would have gotten him the #1 ranking in 2001. How come there wasn't a quote more "even distribution" of grandslams in 2008? I'll tell you, because two great players had a death grip on the #1 ranking as opposed to the weak transitional number ones that rose up in the hewitt era. So with winning one grandslam and a solitary master Hewitt was able to get the number #1 ranking while if he had that same season in 05,06,07,08,09,10, or 2011 he would be number 2 at best and most likely would finish #3 in all those seasons.

socal1976 wrote:Postively 4th street it isn't flawed. Novak Djokovic had a very similar year to hewitt 2001 and 2002 in 2008. He won a grandslam, a master's series title, the year end master's title and five tournaments and he finished a distant 3rd in 2008. Virtually, the same exact year Hewitt had in terms of titles and level of titles he won and he finished 3rd in the Fedal era, that year for Djokovic would have gotten him the #1 ranking in 2001. How come there wasn't a quote more "even distribution" of grandslams in 2008? I'll tell you, because two great players had a death grip on the #1 ranking as opposed to the weak transitional number ones that rose up in the hewitt era. So with winning one grandslam and a solitary master Hewitt was able to get the number #1 ranking while if he had that same season in 05,06,07,08,09,10, or 2011 he would be number 2 at best and most likely would finish #3 in all those seasons.

Hi socal,

I don't think you can transplant points from one era in to another and draw valid conclusions. Anyway, consider the following hypothetical scenario... Murray, Del Potro and, say, Raonic win a Masters series and a slam in 2012, thus reducing Djokovic's tally of points, perhaps even beating him in a semi-final or final along the way. Djokovic ends up year-end #1, with a points tally similar to Hewitt in his annus mirabilis. Has the era become weaker?

Hello positevly 4th,

The era doesn't merely become weak because players share slams or instead of having a dominant player or two that a few players share the honors. In my mind the greatest period ever in terms of the tennis and the depth of the talent at the top was the 1980s. You had years where 4 different players won slams yet I would never call the 80s weak. In that period you had 4 or 5 quality champions challenging at every slam that didn't make the 80s weak in fact it was a sign of strength. And under your scenario no it wouldn't make the era weak. But if each and every year some one slam wonder came up and got to the #1 ranking and then quickly faded away for a period seven or 8 years then the era would be weak.

And I actually think the hewitt scenario is very valid. Compare the best years of Hewitt, moya, ferrero, Roddick, Rios against the best years of other stronger number 1s and it isn't even close. I think it is a valid comparison. Every year in recent memory the schedule has been stable, so it actually is a very good marker of dominance to compare results over the course of the years to see how dominant a someone was at their peak. Especially, when you are talking about just six years, the tour hasn't changed that much in six years were the results are incompatible.

Hi socal,

I do think that Federer, then Nadal and now Djokovic have been remarkably consistent, across slams and Masters series, and it perhaps requires a level of consistent quality now to get to #1 that wasn't in evidence in the immediate years before Federer hit the top. I'm not sure it's quite right that this then implies a stronger era, as their consistency may be due to both their talent or the relative weakness of their peers and it is impossible to disentangle the two.

Also, this whole debate depends how an era's strength is judged. There were more players of equal ability in your weak era in my view, but this means that the #8, say, is closer to the #1. The counter argument to this is that a lot of the guys you mention had a short peak period (due to injury in some cases) and part of the problem is that when looking back some will see this a sign of lesser quality whereas others will remember them at their best.

Positively 4th Street wrote:Hi socal,

I do think that Federer, then Nadal and now Djokovic have been remarkably consistent, across slams and Masters series, and it perhaps requires a level of consistent quality now to get to #1 that wasn't in evidence in the immediate years before Federer hit the top. I'm not sure it's quite right that this then implies a stronger era, as their consistency may be due to both their talent or the relative weakness of their peers and it is impossible to disentangle the two.

Also, this whole debate depends how an era's strength is judged. There were more players of equal ability in your weak era in my view, but this means that the #8, say, is closer to the #1. The counter argument to this is that a lot of the guys you mention had a short peak period (due to injury in some cases) and part of the problem is that when looking back some will see this a sign of lesser quality whereas others will remember them at their best.

Hello, Positevly 4th street:

You raise some good points, first how do you judge an eras strength? This is maybe the simplest question, you judge an era by the strength of the top few players. Yes having great players 6-155 in the ranking is important. But at the end of the day these players do not consistently figure in the slams and who gets the major honors. So you measure eras in my opinion based on the top group and how good they are and for how long. This precisely why I focused my argument in this specific case to number #1s.

Then you make an argument on short peak period. Well consistency is part of the equation certainly. But when you analyze the careers of the weaker (relative #1) it isn't just a matter of consitency that keeps them from being rated equally with the stronger #1s. That is why I focused so much on looking at the best years that these players had. If you look at lets say last tier #1s (rios, kafelnikov, hewitt, roddick, ferrero, moya etc) Not only were they not as dominant in their peak but they also weren't as dominant over time. There best years aren't nearly up to the snuff or the best years of other great champions, and their careers overral aren't as good. So by both measures there is a large gap between the two categories.

To a certain extent I don't buy the injury argument. Hewitt, Roddick, and Ferrero for example had lengthy careers, and while they suffered some injury issues these players had lengthy stretches of their physical prime where nothing was physically wrong with them but it still seemed like the game just past them up. And this happened very quickly at a time when age wise they shouldn't have faded. Take Roddick, he was healthy and hardworking from start to finish in his career and was never able to win a grandslam after 19 years old. Plus, the Roddick that lost to Fed in 09 wimby was actually a better player in my opinion than the Roddick that won the grandslam in 2003. Andy Roddick got better, was healthy most of his career, worked hard, and still saw his results deteriorate dramatcially in his early 20s.

socal1976 wrote:Laverfan, it isn't subjective, being able to make the finals of all 4 slams is a great record, you can dismiss it if you like but it shows the ability to play on all surfaces and it shows consistency on all surfaces. This is one great accomplishment in a stellar career for Courier. The man also won 4 slams and was year end #1, but of all his records this one is the most impressive.

My list fits your criteria that a player make the finals of all 4 slams. Interesting, that you have now side-steppped the 'greatness' question. You can check the list if you like. The source is Bud Collin's book.

A 'Calendar Slam' is a greatness criterion which only a handful players have fulfilled, and IMVHO are 'true' greats. Next are 'Career' slam holders.

Courier is an excellent player based on my criterion, but not 'great' (but perhaps you like the player).

Positively 4th Street wrote:Hi socal,

I do think that Federer, then Nadal and now Djokovic have been remarkably consistent, across slams and Masters series, and it perhaps requires a level of consistent quality now to get to #1 that wasn't in evidence in the immediate years before Federer hit the top. I'm not sure it's quite right that this then implies a stronger era, as their consistency may be due to both their talent or the relative weakness of their peers and it is impossible to disentangle the two.

I don't think it has anything to do with the weakness of their peers. Many people say that murray is the best player ever to never win a grandslam. And his resume backs that up with 6 masters titles and 3 grandslam appearances. Maybe one of the reasons Andy hasn't been able to break his duck is because of the greatness of the players above him. Murray already has more Master's titles than Hewitt and Safin combined. I think one way that we can gauge the strength of an era is by how few one slam wonders are produced. If there is a depth of dominant players at the top they keep those types of players away from pilfering a slam and dissappearing. 3 players in this current generation have won 28 of the last 29 slams. This shows that the top guys are just more dominant then they were lets say pre-2004. (My actual date for the end of the weak era however, is really more like 2005 when Nadal emerges to challenge Fed) Let me put this way what are the chances right now of a guy like Petr Korda winning or Thomas Johannson coming up to win a grandslam?

Actuallly Laverfan, I was talking about the open era and singles players. Like many of my modern compatriots I care little to nothing about doubles or even the women's tour. Come on Laverfan, you are an objective and trusted poster, do you really believe that players like Leander Paes and Vinnie Richards can be compared to Courier or any of the players I mentioned on my short list. Again, singles players in the modern era. I know you are great historian but we are talking open era here and singles.

I actually am not a Courier fan, I mean he was never a favorite of mine like Agassi or Becker or Djokovic. I just find it odd that he is so readily dismissed on this site. Whenever someone on this site tries to find a weaker multislam champion to point to they pick out jim courier, which I find odd. Especially, since they fight tooth and nail in pumping up players like hewitt who did not accomplish what Courier has.

Hi socal,

Out of interest, where do you stand on Pat Rafter? Also, seems we have similar player tastes historically, Becker and Agassi were favourites of mine growing up.

I think it's a moot point how to judge an era, an argument can be made for just looking at the top few players as is your preference, or the top 10 say. Certainly if the top 10 are more equal then there is more chance of an early exit for the top couple of guys, and thus more chance of a 'lesser' player winning a slam. I can certainly agree that the top few guys have been more dominant in recent years.

Roddick is an interesting case, Federer stopped him being a multiple slam winner through his own genius. Old Agassi took a set off, and gave a fright to, peak Federer but couldn't dominate a weak era. There are always cases to be made to suit a particular argument. I'm just reluctant to label an era weak, too much ambiguity.

socal1976 wrote:Actuallly Laverfan, I was talking about the open era and singles players. Like many of my modern compatriots I care little to nothing about doubles or even the women's tour. Come on Laverfan, you are an objective and trusted poster, do you really believe that players like Leander Paes and Vinnie Richards can be compared to Courier or any of the players I mentioned on my short list. Again, singles players in the modern era. I know you are great historian but we are talking open era here and singles.

Did you know that Paes is the 1996 Olympics Bronze medallist, the same Olympics where Agassi got his Gold medal?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leander_Paes

socal1976 wrote:I actually am not a Courier fan, I mean he was never a favorite of mine like Agassi or Becker or Djokovic. I just find it odd that he is so readily dismissed on this site. Whenever someone on this site tries to find a weaker multislam champion to point to they pick out jim courier, which I find odd. Especially, since they fight tooth and nail in pumping up players like hewitt who did not accomplish what Courier has.

Comparing careers by slams is rather narrow. The 'body' of work is what should determine 'greatness'.

Positively 4th Street wrote:Hi socal,

Out of interest, where do you stand on Pat Rafter? Also, seems we have similar player tastes historically, Becker and Agassi were favourites of mine growing up.

I think it's a moot point how to judge an era, an argument can be made for just looking at the top few players as is your preference, or the top 10 say. Certainly if the top 10 are more equal then there is more chance of an early exit for the top couple of guys, and thus more chance of a 'lesser' player winning a slam. I can certainly agree that the top few guys have been more dominant in recent years.

Roddick is an interesting case, Federer stopped him being a multiple slam winner through his own genius. Old Agassi took a set off, and gave a fright to, peak Federer but couldn't dominate a weak era. There are always cases to be made to suit a particular argument. I'm just reluctant to label an era weak, too much ambiguity.

Good post 4th Street, Rafter is a player that was very talented that did have his career really impacted by injury. He was an interesting guy as well, I would say I am a fan, but I would rate Hewitt above him in the two slam winner category. Agassi actually is another guy who proves my point, he reached number #1 again briefly in 2003 at the age of 33 years old. If the competition was stronger in early 2000s I don't think a player even as legendary as agassi would have been winning quite that much in his mid thirties.

I really don't find much ambiguity about being able to declare the late 90s and early to mid 2000s as a weaker era. Like I said look at the names that won slams in that period in terms of one slam wonders. What ever happened to those one slam wonders, why don't we see them anymore to such an extent? Ill tell you why because we have guys like Federer, Nadal, and recently Djokovic acting greedily as the gatekeepers of grandslam glory. You make another point about how an even distribution of ability in the top ten could account for what I have labelled the weaker era. In my mind that is not as difficult as an era dominated by 2 or 3 super exceptional players who consistently dominate the big tourney's and slams. Why? because to win a tournament you don't have to beat the entire top ten en masse, but most likely you will have to beat either Fed, Nadal, or Djoko or possibly 2 or 3 of these guys if you are lower ranked. It is much harder to beat 2 out three of those guys then it is to play in an era with moderately tougher more well balanced top ten. At most you get a little harder 4th round or quarter match, but you don't have to face giants on back to back matches in the semi and final. Right now for the 5th seed or lower to win a grandslam he very well may have to beat one of the big three in the quarters, semi, and finals consecutively. That is what Tsonga would have had to accomplish this year to win wimbeldon. He would have had to defeat Novak and then Nadal in the final. That is much harder than having a somewhat stronger player ranked 6,7,8, or 9 to play. It is the very top guys again that determine the strength of the era, they are the ones who can deny you tournament after tournament by dominating the working end of slams consistently.

Laverfan, I am sure Paes is a great doubles player but he doesn't belong in the conversation with multigrandslam winning singles players, he just doesn't it is fairly obvious without me going into a high level of detail.

I don't narrowly look at the grandslams, however when looking at the modern champions grandslams are the most important factor in drawing distinctions. For example, I would rate Murray better than most of the guys who have won one slam. I mean is petr Korda or tommy johansson better than Murray because they won a slam in an era replete for one slam wonders? No, they are not. But if you try to compare hewitt to Courier, sorry they dont' match up. Courier didn't have longevity at the top but for a 3 year period in his career he was at a higher level than anything Hewitt experienced or was capable of producing. And I view Hewitt has having played in an era that did not have the same intense level of competition in terms of quality among the top players. Courier was world #1 in an era with Pete, Andre, Becker, and Edberg. Much tougher in terms of top level talent than the era Hewitt was #1 in.

WHAT a boring subject/conversation/ideal

Change the record socal - NO-ONE CAN SAY WHO IS THE
GOAT until the last game has been played between the LAST

2 Tennis Players on the Earth .

So far the ONLY GOAT is Billy who lived under the Bridge !