The era of weak number #1s

First topic message reminder :

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.

It is rather a narrow out look to call Korda, Johansson, Edmondson as one slam wonders. Murray being compared to these skews achievements of all of the named players.

Del Potro may end up in the same category, but we are aware of his injuries, so we cannot say what he can achieve in his future.

Here is an example, Magnus Norman (Soderling's ex-coach) was an amazing player on clay, but his career was cut short by injuries in early 2000s.

Hi socal,

I agree that someone like Korda would be extremely unlikely to land a slam now. My feeling is the Aussie Open was in a period where it wasn't quite as valued as it is currently, a hangover from the '80s and before where the top players didn't always play. Always felt Sampras was not so fussed about the Aussie. Agassi later in his career and then Federer have really helped its cause. Johansson won it the year Agassi was injured, can't take it away from him and he deserved it, but consider for a moment if Federer had been injured for the Aussie Opens of 2006 or 2007 - the 'strong' era would have had slam champions Baghdatis or Gonzalez. I'm a fan of both, especially the latter, but are they in a different league to those you malign from the 'weak' era?

Rios may have won a slam if not for injury, he beat Agassi in a Miami final (no mean feat - look at his record there) and on an indoor hard court in 1998.

Quite a few of the 'laundry list' players got to #1 in the first half of the year. The apathy towards the Aussie Open allowed a few clay court specialists to grab a few weeks by making hay on the clay. I've no problem with Muster or Kuerten as a #1, both brilliant clay-courters and Kuerten could play well on hard courts too. The fact that the surfaces were more distinct then played a part too, some players either could not or would not perform on all surfaces. This is what I mean by ambiguity, circumstances were not the same then.

Positevly 4th street I agree that the slowing conditions and string technology have had an impact in regards to homogenizing the surfaces. We used have more specialists who could dominate on their particular surface like Grass or clay.

I disagree with your post about the Australian open, really from mid 80s on the Australian was basically at parity in terms of the competition level. With basically all the top pros going. They upgraded the prize money, the facilities by the 90s when Korda and Johansson won it all the best players in the world would enter Australia just like the other slams. I doubt that Petr Korda or Tommy Johansson would have had those magic fortnights if they had to play Roger (even at 30) in the quarters, Novak in the semi, and Nadal in the final like poor Tsonga would have to have done to win this year's wimby.

Positively 4th Street wrote: but consider for a moment if Federer had been injured for the Aussie Opens of 2006 or 2007 - the 'strong' era would have had slam champions Baghdatis or Gonzalez. I'm a fan of both, especially the latter, but are they in a different league to those you malign from the 'weak' era?

Yes, and exactly how many slams has Roger Federer missed as a result of injury. And what if Baghdatis or Gonzo got through to the final and lost to somebody else. I don't need to rely on these type of hypotheticals, I just judge the quality of the results of the different champions and look at what actually happened. Of course a one off can happen in any era. Like Laverfan has stated who knows maybe JMDP is one-timer he doesn't strike me as a player that will stay at one slam but we do not know. But what we do know are the facts that I have pointed that shows that the late 90s and early 2000s number #1s were simply not as accomplished or dominant as number ones that preceded them or those that came after them. That is powerful evidence that I do not think you have rebutted.

laverfan wrote:It is rather a narrow out look to call Korda, Johansson, Edmondson as one slam wonders. Murray being compared to these skews achievements of all of the named players.

Del Potro may end up in the same category, but we are aware of his injuries, so we cannot say what he can achieve in his future.

Here is an example, Magnus Norman (Soderling's ex-coach) was an amazing player on clay, but his career was cut short by injuries in early 2000s.

How is it unfair to compare Korda or Johansson to murray? Why is that, is there anyone who believes that these two grandslam champs are actually more talented or better than murray? One of the tell tale signs in my opinion of a weak era is an era with a bunch of one slam wonders. If you have depth of great players at the top like right now or in the 80s these incidents will happen much less often, but if there is weakness at the top or too much parity you get a lot of these surprise grandslam champs who then completely dissappear from the scene.

And you want me to discuss hypotheticals of players who lost something because of injuries? I mean that is a slippery slope that doesn't actually change the analysis. Maybe an era was weaker because a wave of injuries hit the top players, so, it is still weaker. Maybe an era doesn't pan out to quite where it should in terms of talent because Marat Safin likes the ladies too much and nightclubs or Nalbandian likes empanadas too much. Whatever the reason we can only judge the results of what actually happened and we can accurately judge by these type of hypotheticals about what if so and so didn't get injured, but they did get injured, and therefore for whatever reason could not play at their potential, it happens in every sport.

Let us take Korda (the much maligned one-slam wonder). I will take a look at Thomas Johansson, if necessary.

1. Seven years before winning AO, Korda is in the final of FO (1992) and he was beaten by none other than Jim Courier.

2. In 1992 YE tourney, he was beaten in all his matches by Becker, Edberg and Sampras. (Now think of Ferrer in WTF 2010).

3. In 1992 DC (against USA) lost to Agassi, but beat Sampras in four sets.

4. In 1991 Canada Masters, he beats Jim Courier in the SF.

5. In 1992 Long Island tournament (a week before USO 1992), he beats Edberg, the 1992 USO champion. He loses to Emilio Sanchez, a clay specialist, in the first round of USO 1992.

6. Take a look at Korda's H2H against Sampras, 5-12 or Courier 1-3.

Korda's Singles titles/finals, if you are interested.

SINGLES CAREER TITLES (10)

1998 (2) Australian Open (Outdoor/Hard) , Doha (Outdoor/Hard)

1997 (1) ATP Masters Series Stuttgart (Indoor/Carpet)

1996 (1) Doha (Outdoor/Hard)

1993 (1) Grand Slam Cup (Indoor/Carpet)

1992 (3) Vienna (Indoor/Carpet) , Long Island (Outdoor/Hard) , Washington (Outdoor/Hard)

1991 (2) Berlin (Indoor/Carpet) , New Haven (Outdoor/Hard)

SINGLES CAREER FINALIST (17):

1997 (3) Moscow (Indoor/Carpet) , Washington (Outdoor/Hard) , Halle (Outdoor/Grass)

1996 (1) Ostrava (Indoor/Carpet)

1994 (3) Munich (Outdoor/Clay) , ATP Masters Series Indian Wells (Outdoor/Hard) , Milan (Indoor/Carpet)

1993 (2) Sydney Indoor (Indoor/Hard) , New Haven (Outdoor/Hard)

1992 (4) Toulouse (Indoor/Hard) , Basel (Indoor/Hard) , Roland Garros (Outdoor/Clay) , Munich (Outdoor/Clay)

1991 (3) ATP Masters Series Canada (Outdoor/Hard) , Washington (Outdoor/Hard) , Tampa (Outdoor/Clay)

1989 (1) Frankfurt (Indoor/Carpet)

Source: http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Ko/P/Petr-Korda.aspx?t=tf

Laverfan, no question Korda is a very good player. AGain we are talking about very elite categories of grandslam champions in this case or #1s in an another case. I still wouldn't rate a Korda as a more accomplished player than Murray. Murray has more grandslam finals, more masters, a better record against top players, and more career tournament victories and he is about half way through his career. In fact other than that one single fortnight Korda had there isn't much Korda has accomplished that murray hasn't on a bigger scale.

Remeber the only reason we are even discussing this is because you accused me of just narrowly looking at slam counts. I brought up this comparison to show how at times I would rate a player with less slams (zero) more than certain players with one slam. The fact remains, the very reason that Andy Murray is considered the best player without a slam shows the strength of the current era and the difficulty in winning slams in the improved and strengthened current era.

laverfan wrote:

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).

By far and large the most sensible comment on this thread about Courier

I agree with LF's view on greatness and I don't like to see it cheapened because someone wants to hang a tag on him being great.

Looking at what guys like Laver, Federer, Nadal achieved and calling them 'Great' and then calling Courier 'Great' is somewhat insulting to their achievements.

socal1976 wrote:Positevly 4th street I agree that the slowing conditions and string technology have had an impact in regards to homogenizing the surfaces. We used have more specialists who could dominate on their particular surface like Grass or clay.

I disagree with your post about the Australian open, really from mid 80s on the Australian was basically at parity in terms of the competition level. With basically all the top pros going. They upgraded the prize money, the facilities by the 90s when Korda and Johansson won it all the best players in the world would enter Australia just like the other slams. I doubt that Petr Korda or Tommy Johansson would have had those magic fortnights if they had to play Roger (even at 30) in the quarters, Novak in the semi, and Nadal in the final like poor Tsonga would have to have done to win this year's wimby.

Are you sure all the top pros were going from the mid-80s? Agassi didn't play there until 1995, and Sampras was absent in 1991 and 1992. Sampras' record there is a poor relation of his US Open record, I can't help but think this was partly due to prestige.

socal1976 wrote:

Positively 4th Street wrote: but consider for a moment if Federer had been injured for the Aussie Opens of 2006 or 2007 - the 'strong' era would have had slam champions Baghdatis or Gonzalez. I'm a fan of both, especially the latter, but are they in a different league to those you malign from the 'weak' era?

Yes, and exactly how many slams has Roger Federer missed as a result of injury. And what if Baghdatis or Gonzo got through to the final and lost to somebody else. I don't need to rely on these type of hypotheticals, I just judge the quality of the results of the different champions and look at what actually happened. Of course a one off can happen in any era. Like Laverfan has stated who knows maybe JMDP is one-timer he doesn't strike me as a player that will stay at one slam but we do not know. But what we do know are the facts that I have pointed that shows that the late 90s and early 2000s number #1s were simply not as accomplished or dominant as number ones that preceded them or those that came after them. That is powerful evidence that I do not think you have rebutted.

Federer's health has been astonishing, I don't need reminding of that. I was just making the point that fate can play a part some times, and Agassi's absence undoubtedly helped Johansson. Also, who exactlly would Baghdatis and Gonzales have lost to? Pick your player from here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Australian_Open_-_Men%27s_Singles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Australian_Open_-_Men%27s_Singles

The appearance of one stellar telent in Federer seems to switch your 'weak' era to a 'strong' era. I judge more on the depth of the field - and think we'll have to agree to disagree. You seem to singularly fail to grasp that more depth would have the knock-on effect of spreading the titles, points and making the #1 spot more achievable via a slam win, say.

On my first reading of the OP I was disconcerted to see that the erstwhile husband of hyper-inflated woman of letters Katie Price (aka Jordan) had won a slam

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

I then recovered myself and realised that the OP involves yet another attempt, albeit a genuinely worthy one, to prove the unprovable. Good luck to Socal and all who sail on this thread.

Positively 4th Street wrote:
Are you sure all the top pros were going from the mid-80s? Agassi didn't play there until 1995, and Sampras was absent in 1991 and 1992. Sampras' record there is a poor relation of his US Open record, I can't help but think this was partly due to prestige.

Some AO participants from 1980+

1980 - Vilas, Lendl, Clerc, Gerulaitis
1981 - Vilas, Tanner, Kriek, Curren
1982 - Kriek, Denton, Edmondson, Teacher
1983 - Lendl, McEnroe, Wilander, Kriek, Gerulaitis
1984 - Lendl, Wilander, Kriek, Cash, Mecir, Amritraj
1985 - Lendl, McEnroe, Wilander, Becker
1987 - Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Mecir, Cash
1988 - Lendl, Edberg, Wilander, Cash
1989 - Lendl, Wilander, Becker, Edberg
1990 - Lendl, Becker, Edberg, McEnroe, Courier, Mecir
1991 - Lendl, Edberg, Becker, Courier
1992 - Edberg, Courier, Becker, Lendl
1993 - Courier, Edberg, Sampras, Becker
1994 - Sampras, Courier, Edberg, Lendl
1995 - Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Courier
1996 - Sampras, Agassi, Muster, Becker, Krajicek
1997 - Sampras, Chang, Ivanisevic, Becker
1998 - Sampras, Rafter, Change, Korda
1999 - Rios, Corretja, Rafter, Moya, Henman
2000 - Agassi, Kafelnikov, Sampras, Kiefer, Norman

socal1976 wrote: I still wouldn't rate a Korda as a more accomplished player than Murray. Murray has more grandslam finals, more masters, a better record against top players, and more career tournament victories and he is about half way through his career.

Is this about quantity? This is why I refrain from quantitative comparisons, they lead to erehwon.

Korda was a great and very talented player.

I would also say that Nalbandian, Mecir, Rios are great players despite having no slams.

Slams are important but tennis fans should not be lazy and recognise only a player's (or era) greatness by counting accumulated titles.

I don't use math to appreciate a player!

laverfan wrote:

Positively 4th Street wrote:
Are you sure all the top pros were going from the mid-80s? Agassi didn't play there until 1995, and Sampras was absent in 1991 and 1992. Sampras' record there is a poor relation of his US Open record, I can't help but think this was partly due to prestige.

Some AO participants from 1980+

1980 - Vilas, Lendl, Clerc, Gerulaitis
1981 - Vilas, Tanner, Kriek, Curren
1982 - Kriek, Denton, Edmondson, Teacher
1983 - Lendl, McEnroe, Wilander, Kriek, Gerulaitis
1984 - Lendl, Wilander, Kriek, Cash, Mecir, Amritraj
1985 - Lendl, McEnroe, Wilander, Becker
1987 - Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Mecir, Cash
1988 - Lendl, Edberg, Wilander, Cash
1989 - Lendl, Wilander, Becker, Edberg
1990 - Lendl, Becker, Edberg, McEnroe, Courier, Mecir
1991 - Lendl, Edberg, Becker, Courier
1992 - Edberg, Courier, Becker, Lendl
1993 - Courier, Edberg, Sampras, Becker
1994 - Sampras, Courier, Edberg, Lendl
1995 - Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Courier
1996 - Sampras, Agassi, Muster, Becker, Krajicek
1997 - Sampras, Chang, Ivanisevic, Becker
1998 - Sampras, Rafter, Change, Korda
1999 - Rios, Corretja, Rafter, Moya, Henman
2000 - Agassi, Kafelnikov, Sampras, Kiefer, Norman

Hi laverfan,

It was not my intention to imply no top players participated, just that some well-known players did not at some stage in their careers out of choice - I was careful to use the word 'all' in my previous post. Even more so in the cases of Borg and Connors and though this has changed (a good thing in my view) it cannot have been 'overnight' and it took a while for the Aussie Open to be viewed in the way it is today.

barrystar wrote:On my first reading of the OP I was disconcerted to see that the erstwhile husband of hyper-inflated woman of letters Katie Price (aka Jordan) had won a slam

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

I then recovered myself and realised that the OP involves yet another attempt, albeit a genuinely worthy one, to prove the unprovable. Good luck to Socal and all who sail on this thread.

Thanks barrystar, good of you to check in. There is proof and there is proof, as you have noted I have attempted to produce a cogent argument that furthers my original thesis about how the late 90s and early 2000s was weaker, the fun is not in winning but in actually arguing.

Positively 4th Street wrote:The appearance of one stellar telent in Federer seems to switch your 'weak' era to a 'strong' era. I judge more on the depth of the field - and think we'll have to agree to disagree. You seem to singularly fail to grasp that more depth would have the knock-on effect of spreading the titles, points and making the #1 spot more achievable via a slam win, say.

No actually as i have stated I would rate the earlier part of Roger's dominance as weak as well. As others have stated it is hard to draw an exact date and say ok 2004 was weak but 2005 was strong. But it is a gradual process of strengthening on the tour, in my mind if I had to pick an exact date when the weak era ended I would say it is the emergence of Nadal in 05 or even as late as the emergence of the rest of Nadal's generation of players (novak, andy, gasquet, berdy, tsonga) in 07. So you see it isn't about just one great player, and as I have stated it is much harder to win the big events if the sport is dominated by 2 or 3 superlative talents than lets say having a more even distribution of talent in the top 10 or 20. Many people say that this weak era argument is disrespectful of Roger. That really isn't my intention, in fact Fed deserves a lot of credit for raising the bar and putting an end to the ridiculous era of weak number 1s and one time slam wonders. And as Tenez has pointed out both Agassi and Sampras to an extent also benefitted later in their careers of the competition drying up just as they start to mature and age. The best way to understand this weak era phenomenon is a timeline and again this is a gradual process and not always something you can put an exact date on:

1. the end of lengthy golden era of tennis that really started in the late 70s and early 80s due to the influx of money for the first time on tour comes to an end by the mid 90s
2. Sampras and Agassi age without new superstars coming to replace them all throughout the early weak era
3. A bunch of weaker #1s and grandslam champions rise up snatch the number #1 ranking or a lone slam and quickly fade away
4. Roger comes along raises the bar and puts an end to the transitional number ones (2004) the beginning of the end for the weak era
5. But Roger really doesn't have much competition until another great emerges in Nadal (2005-06)
6. Now the rest of the later developing golden generation makes their mark and really puts and end to a lengthy dormant period of tennis talent (Novak and Andy's emergence) 07-08

This would be my timeline and I don't see this weak era argument as a disrespect to Roger, you can actually argue that later in their careers both Agassi and Sampras also benefitted from a weak era. And Roger, and then Rafa were really the two guys that took us out of that weaker era.

Positively 4th Street wrote:It was not my intention to imply no top players participated, just that some well-known players did not at some stage in their careers out of choice

I provided the list for others benefit and had no intention of taking your statement literally. I know you had honourable intentions, which are greatly appreciated.

laverfan wrote:

socal1976 wrote: I still wouldn't rate a Korda as a more accomplished player than Murray. Murray has more grandslam finals, more masters, a better record against top players, and more career tournament victories and he is about half way through his career.

Is this about quantity? This is why I refrain from quantitative comparisons, they lead to erehwon.

I disagree, in the end the numbers don't lie if you look at the totality of facts and use a proper analysis of those numbers to analyze the results. For example, some of the older champions won more slams because in the past they used the challenge system in grandslams and the defending champion only had to play in the final. Also some of the older champions have LESS SLAMS THAN THEY SHOULD because of the pro/amateur schism. The numbers are relevant but only if properly analyzed and consideration given to the totality of facts that provide the context.

laverfan wrote:

Positively 4th Street wrote:It was not my intention to imply no top players participated, just that some well-known players did not at some stage in their careers out of choice

I provided the list for others benefit and had no intention of taking your statement literally. I know you had honourable intentions, which are greatly appreciated.

Thanks laverfan. Your ability to pluck germane lists and facts out of the ether is something I always appreciate - even when I erroneously percieve myself to be on the receving end...

socal1976 wrote:I doubt that Petr Korda or Tommy Johansson would have had those magic fortnights if they had to play Roger (even at 30) in the quarters, Novak in the semi, and Nadal in the final like poor Tsonga would have to have done to win this year's wimby.

Undoubtedly true. The flip-side of course is that if the top guys are broadly equal down to #8, say, then it is more likely that #1 will bow out early, giving more chance to others to get the top spot. For a while it seemed that Federer and Nadal were absolute shoo-ins to reach the final of some tournaments and it was a case of those two and a massive gap to the rest. The emergence of Djokovic, Murray, briefly (and hopefully again) Del Potro was a boon to the game for this reason.

Positively 4th Street wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I doubt that Petr Korda or Tommy Johansson would have had those magic fortnights if they had to play Roger (even at 30) in the quarters, Novak in the semi, and Nadal in the final like poor Tsonga would have to have done to win this year's wimby.

Undoubtedly true. The flip-side of course is that if the top guys are broadly equal down to #8, say, then it is more likely that #1 will bow out early, giving more chance to others to get the top spot. For a while it seemed that Federer and Nadal were absolute shoo-ins to reach the final of some tournaments and it was a case of those two and a massive gap to the rest. The emergence of Djokovic, Murray, briefly (and hopefully again) Del Potro was a boon to the game for this reason.

Hello positively, hope you are doing well:

This is the point I am trying to get across there are different kinds of depth. Is it more difficult to win in an era that has a strong top ten but weaker players in the top 2 or 3. Or is it more difficult to win majors when there are 2 or 3 super dominant players? I would argue that it is much harder when you have 2 or 3 superlative players. And I used the analogy of Tsonga to show that. Plus you indicate that this current era has both great players at the top and in your previous post you noted how the emergence of Murray, Del Po, and Djoko has given it even more depth. So by admission in your own posts, you agree that the weaker era #1s were not as dominant other past or subsequent number #1s, and then you also agree here that the current era has both depth in quality in terms of having several very good champions as well as 2 or 3 superlative players. I hate to break this to you 4th street but you basically are agreeing with most all of my assumptions.

1. We agree (correct me if I am wrong) that the "weaker" era #1s were not as dominat at their best or for as long as past and subsequent #1s
2. We agree that the current top 3 has set an incredible standard for consistent greatness not matched by the weaker #1s before
3. And we agree that with emergence of other contenders like JMDP and Andy that the current has depth and its not just a case of one or two great players

Therefore, in all due respect you have been lead to the water, it is now your choice whether to drink or not.

socal1976 wrote:Hello positively, hope you are doing well:

This is the point I am trying to get across there are different kinds of depth. Is it more difficult to win in an era that has a strong top ten but weaker players in the top 2 or 3. Or is it more difficult to win majors when there are 2 or 3 super dominant players? I would argue that it is much harder when you have 2 or 3 superlative players. And I used the analogy of Tsonga to show that. Plus you indicate that this current era has both great players at the top and in your previous post you noted how the emergence of Murray, Del Po, and Djoko has given it even more depth. So by admission in your own posts, you agree that the weaker era #1s were not as dominant other past or subsequent number #1s, and then you also agree here that the current era has both depth in quality in terms of having several very good champions as well as 2 or 3 superlative players. I hate to break this to you 4th street but you basically are agreeing with most all of my assumptions.

1. We agree (correct me if I am wrong) that the "weaker" era #1s were not as dominat at their best or for as long as past and subsequent #1s
2. We agree that the current top 3 has set an incredible standard for consistent greatness not matched by the weaker #1s before
3. And we agree that with emergence of other contenders like JMDP and Andy that the current has depth and its not just a case of one or two great players

Therefore, in all due respect you have been lead to the water, it is now your choice whether to drink or not.

Hi socal,

Nice try... However you can't be the arbiter of your own debate and decide that I agree wholly with you! Part of my gripe is the inflammatory language such as 'laundry list', 'ridiculous era of weak number 1s' and 'one-slam wonders', yet in your OP you claimed the same guys were 'supertalented'. I don't like to see them denigrated and have attempted to provide some context and mitigating circumstances to your claims.

1. I still query whether dominance at the top implies strong era. If #s 2-100 were journeymen and #1 was a player good enough to beat them without being as talented as, say, Federer then this would lead to the ultimate strong era in your terms. There is a case to judge an eras strength by its 'median' player.
2. The current top 4 have in fact set an unprecedented standard in terms of consistently getting to the latter stages and being ranked 1-4 in some order bar a brief sojourn from Soderling. More so than your initial golden era of the late 70s to mid 90s...
3. You have conceded that this strong era may not have begun before 2007. This isn't really that long, things may change in the next 2-3 years. We can re-visit this debate then, I'm in danger of becoming a one-thread pony...

I'm not sure I agree with your whole timeline view either. The number of professional players has most likely gone up year-on-year since the 70s - certainly judging from John McEnroe's view in his autobiography there was not a great deal of strength beyond the top few guys when he made his way to the top. By the mid-90s there was arguably more strength in-depth, but no-one who could really dominate. It has been very difficult for lower-ranked players to win slams recently, but perversely this means that it has been easier for the top 1-2 guys due to their dominance over their peers.

socal1976 wrote:1. We agree (correct me if I am wrong) that the "weaker" era #1s were not as dominat at their best or for as long as past and subsequent #1s

Let us take the so-called weak era #1s.

Hewitt (#1 - 19 Nov 2001)

1999 W/L - 44/20
2000 W/L - 61/19
2001 W/L - 80/18 Slam - USO 2001
2002 W/L - 62/16 Slam - W 2002
2003 W/L - 38/10
2004 W/L - 68/18
2005 W/L - 38/10
2006 W/L - 33/15

Safin (#1 - 20 Nov 2000)

1999 W/L - 39/32
2000 W/L - 73/27 Slam - USO
2001 W/L - 45/27
2002 W/L - 56/26
2003 W/L - 12/13
2004 W/L - 52/23
2005 W/L - 27/11 Slam - AO
2006 W/L - 36/25

Ferrero (#1 - 8 Sep 2003)

1999 W/L - 35/14
2000 W/L - 46/26
2001 W/L - 57/21
2002 W/L - 48/25
2003 W/L - 67/21 Slam - FO
2004 W/L - 23/16
2005 W/L - 46/27
2006 W/L - 28/23

Moya (#1 - 15 Mar 1999)

1998 W/L - 49/28 Slam - FO
1999 W/L - 38/24
2000 W/L - 32/21
2001 W/L - 35/24
2002 W/L - 59/21
2003 W/L - 58/23
2004 W/L - 60/19
2005 W/L - 32/20
2006 W/L - 30/22

Roddick (#1 - 3 Nov 2003)

1999 W/L - 0/3
2000 W/L - 21/8
2001 W/L - 48/17
2002 W/L - 56/22
2003 W/L - 72/19 Slam - USO
2004 W/L - 74/18
2005 W/L - 54/15
2006 W/L - 49/21


Once Federer started dominating in 2004 (Federer W/L - 74/6, 80 matches), the impressive W/L of Hewitt (total 86 matches) and Roddick (total 92 matches) was not good enough to be at #1, but very impressive W/L nevertheless. Federer's domination was almost absolute at that point. Hypothetically, IF Federer had shown up five years later (turning pro in 2005), Roddick and Hewitt could have had a rivalry similar to Fedal (pure speculation on my part ).

Ranking as of 20 Dec 2004 (notice the points difference)

1 Federer, Roger (SUI) 6,335 0 20
2 Roddick, Andy (USA) 3,655 0 23
3 Hewitt, Lleyton (AUS) 3,590 0 20
4 Safin, Marat (RUS) 3,060 0 24
5 Moya, Carlos (ESP) 2,520 0 23
6 Henman, Tim (GBR) 2,465 0 20
7 Coria, Guillermo (ARG) 2,400 0 19
8 Agassi, Andre (USA) 2,100 0 19
9 Nalbandian, David (ARG) 1,945 0 19
10 Gaudio, Gaston (ARG) 1,920 0 24

Positively 4th Street wrote:

1. I still query whether dominance at the top implies strong era. If #s 2-100 were journeymen and #1 was a player good enough to beat them without being as talented as, say, Federer then this would lead to the ultimate strong era in your terms. There is a case to judge an eras strength by its 'median' player.

I'm not sure I agree with your whole timeline view either. The number of professional players has most likely gone up year-on-year since the 70s - certainly judging from John McEnroe's view in his autobiography there was not a great deal of strength beyond the top few guys when he made his way to the top. By the mid-90s there was arguably more strength in-depth, but no-one who could really dominate. It has been very difficult for lower-ranked players to win slams recently, but perversely this means that it has been easier for the top 1-2 guys due to their dominance over their peers.

See this I think is were your analysis is incorrect and is the main point of contention that we have in our conclusions. You accept by your own admission a number of my assumptions. But the big disagreement seems to be about what exactly is tougher, which kind of depth is harder to succeed in. Without question from a tournament player looking to win a slam it is much harder to have 2-4 superlative players who show great consitency, than for example having the median player on tour be a strong player. Why because greatness is determined by slams and big tourneys. And in order to win big slams and tourneys means that you have to beat the best, having the best guys that you will face in the big matches at the end of the tourney being stronger is what makes the tournament harder to win. I mean if you have a harder two or three or possibly 4 rounds is not as big a deal. Assumably, if you are strong enough to get to the end of the slams you can beat those guys, but the players that really impact who does and doesn't win slams consistently are the top 3 maybe top 5 or 6 guys in any era. It is really not that big of deal everybody from 6-200 is strong, those are not players that can conistently determine slam winners anyway (except for Fognini, just kidding). Look at what Federer did to poor Roddick at the slams, that is the perfect example. Roddick with that serve and the performance he put on in 09 and in other years would have most likely won that title if not for Roger. Or how many great clay courters have absolutely no chance right now because of Rafa? Its not the herd that determines who wins, it is the 3-5 big dogs of every generation who decide who gets to lift that big trophy.

Laverfan none of those weaker era number ones won a great many masters in any given year or won multiple slams. At their best, at their very shortlived best none of them can compare with the seasons Nadal and Fed have put up and Djokovic recently. Also none of their best seasons can compare with Mats in 88, Agassi 99, Lendl 86 or any of the other past number ones for the most part. So the argument that these weaker number #1s were just as great for a lesser period of time doesn't hold water, even at their best they weren't nearly as dominant.

socal1976 wrote: See this I think is were your analysis is incorrect and is the main point of contention that we have in our conclusions. You accept by your own admission a number of my assumptions. But the big disagreement seems to be about what exactly is tougher, which kind of depth is harder to succeed in. Without question from a tournament player looking to win a slam it is much harder to have 2-4 superlative players who show great consitency, than for example having the median player on tour be a strong player. Why because greatness is determined by slams and big tourneys. And in order to win big slams and tourneys means that you have to beat the best, having the best guys that you will face in the big matches at the end of the tourney being stronger is what makes the tournament harder to win. I mean if you have a harder two or three or possibly 4 rounds is not as big a deal. Assumably, if you are strong enough to get to the end of the slams you can beat those guys, but the players that really impact who does and doesn't win slams consistently are the top 3 maybe top 5 or 6 guys in any era. It is really not that big of deal everybody from 6-200 is strong, those are not players that can conistently determine slam winners anyway (except for Fognini, just kidding). Look at what Federer did to poor Roddick at the slams, that is the perfect example. Roddick with that serve and the performance he put on in 09 and in other years would have most likely won that title if not for Roger. Or how many great clay courters have absolutely no chance right now because of Rafa? Its not the herd that determines who wins, it is the 3-5 big dogs of every generation who decide who gets to lift that big trophy.

Hi socal,

I think it's up to the individual to decide how they view an eras strength. However dogmatically you cling to your view you can't make me adopt it, the difference is I don't think you're 'incorrect' as such, it's just your view and not one I share. This was never a discussion about greatness, which you are trying to turn it into, but about the relative strengths/weaknesses of an era. If the field is deep in strength then, as a fan, I could see great match-ups from earlier on - it's not all about the top one or two guys, and who picks up the trophy. At least not for me anyway. My contention all along has been that if the top guys are more equal then it stands to reason that the #1 ranking may move around more often, and that your metrics for deciding strength or weakness are flawed. As I mentioned previously, if there was one good player and dross from #2 down then this would be the strongest era possible according to you as the top guy could absolutely clean up. This can't be right, and would not be much fun for the lay fan.

You neglected to respond as to whether your weak era contains supertalent or a ridiculous laundry list?

socal1976 wrote:Laverfan none of those weaker era number ones won a great many masters in any given year or won multiple slams. At their best, at their very shortlived best none of them can compare with the seasons Nadal and Fed have put up and Djokovic recently.

Nadal is 77-10 (2005), 57-12 (2006), 71-15 (2007), 82-11 (2008), 68-14 (2009), 71-10 (2010), 52-8 (2011)

Federer is 78-17 (2003), 74-6 (2004), 81-4 (2005), 92-5 (2006), 68-9 (2007), 66-15 (2008), 61-12 (2009), 65-13 (2010), 38-9 (2011)

Djokovic is 9-9 (2005), 35-17 (2006), 65-19 (2007), 63-17 (2008), 78-19 (2009), 63-18 (2010), 50-1 (2011)

Murray is 14-9 (2005), 36-25 (2006), 39-15 (2007), 56-17 (2008), 64-12 (2009), 46-18 (2010), 28-9 (2011)

None of the current Top 4 (except Federer) have had a single year which has loses in single-digits. Djokovic is heading that way, though. You are now adding arbitrary criteria into this debate Masters (can be done the same way as slams) and multiple slams (which is about longevity).

socal1976 wrote:Also none of their best seasons can compare with Mats in 88, Agassi 99, Lendl 86 or any of the other past number ones for the most part. So the argument that these weaker number #1s were just as great for a lesser period of time doesn't hold water, even at their best they weren't nearly as dominant.

Wilander 1988 W/L - 53/13

Agassi 1999 W/L - 63/14

Lendl 1986 W/L - 75/6 (look at Federer's 2004).

ATP #1s in 24 Nov 1986.

1 Lendl, Ivan (USA) 0 0 0
2 Becker, Boris (GER) 0 0 0
3 Wilander, Mats (SWE) 0 0 0
4 Edberg, Stefan (SWE) 0 0 0
5 Noah, Yannick (FRA) 0 0 0
6 Leconte, Henri (FRA) 0 0 0
7 Nystrom, Joakim (SWE) 0 1 0
8 Connors, Jimmy (USA) 0 -1 0
9 Mecir Sr., Miloslav (SVK) 0 0 0
10 Gomez, Andres (ECU) 0 0 0


Edit: 1986 W/L for Becker - 69/13, Wilander - 54/13, Edberg - 70/21. Now compare these to Federer, Roddick, Hewitt in 2004. Do you see Lendl/Federer dominating the opposition but the Top 4 in (1986 and 2004) having similar W/L to each other?

Numbers do not lie.

laverfan wrote:
None of the current Top 4 (except Federer) have had a single year which has loses in single-digits. Djokovic is heading that way, though. You are now adding arbitrary criteria into this debate Masters (can be done the same way as slams) and multiple slams (which is about longevity).

NO it isn't about longevity, none of the players in the socalled weaker era number #1s won multiple slams in A SINGLE SEASON like the players I mentioned. Hewitt's best year of master's performance was one Master's level title, the master's cup. Again you look at a season as just number of wins and losses. Wilander in 88 lost a number of matches but he won 3 grandslams that year. That is what i mean by the weaker era number #1s not being nearly dominant in THEIR BEST years as past champions. Wins and losses without looking at the number of tournaments and the importance of the tournaments someone won is not the proper context or analysis. In 2009, Novak Djokovic lead the ATP wins and matches played, did that make him the best player on tour? Or did that outshine what Rafa and Roger were doing?

Positively 4th Street wrote:
Hi socal,

My contention all along has been that if the top guys are more equal then it stands to reason that the #1 ranking may move around more often, and that your metrics for deciding strength or weakness are flawed. As I mentioned previously, if there was one good player and dross from #2 down then this would be the strongest era possible according to you as the top guy could absolutely clean up. This can't be right, and would not be much fun for the lay fan.

You neglected to respond as to whether your weak era contains supertalent or a ridiculous laundry list?

Positively nice to hear from you again,

You hypothetical about one great player and a bunch of weaker players is not applicable, it certainly doesn't describe the situtation we have had in a number of years. In fact, in my analysis the reason I don't date the rise of the strong era from the rise of Roger is because he still lacked another great to challenge him. You keep coming up with interesting hypotheticals that don't really disprove my analysis. I mean do you believe that in the last few years we only had one good player and then the rest of the tour has been weak? That is clearly not the case, having a small pack of elite players dominating the tour and consistently performing at slams is what makes it tougher to lift grandslam trophies. In fact, if we did have one player win everything all the time and a bunch of really weak players that could not challenge him then I would agree that is a weak era. And that is precisely why I didn't rate the tennis that highly until we saw the emergence of Rafa to challenge fed.

I have produced a great deal of evidence to prove that tennis in the late 90s to mid 2000s was weaker at the top. Yet, you keep talking about how there was this great depth of talent back then and parity. I haven't seen any real evidence of a great depth of talent from 1-200 in the rankings for the period you have discussed. All I see is a bunch of names winning slams that in today's tennis would have about a snowball's chance in hades of winning a slam. You admit that it would be highly unlikely for a Petr Korda or thomas johansson to win a slam today, why because of the consistent greatness of the leading pack. Maybe I can't convince you, but to me an era replete with a wave of transitional short term number #1s and one slam wonders that quickly dissappear from the scene is the definition of weaker era.

I've never bought into any era being weak or strong versus another...its not possible to compare, too much changes.

You can have a small number of elite players competing for slams, but you cant say they are better or worse than another small number of elite players from a different era, it just isnt possible. We tend to define an era by its leading player(s) and work backwards...but we cant compare these leading players. And quite frankly - WHY are we trying to bother. For what reason?

To be frank and brutally honest, this whole talk about 'weaker' era's is becoming alot of bullcrap!!

Short lived spells at number 1 doesn't make it a weak era. The flip side is that a player being number 1 for so long is that the rest of field is weaker. Everyone has a perspective on criteria for greatness. Some choose to cheapen and others feel it is for a more of an elite group. Players like Roddick, Hewitt and Ferrero all tasted the number 1 spot and Slam success before they were run over by Federer and later Nadal too.

Roddick, Hewitt and Ferrero didn't so much lay down, it is just Federer and Nadal were that much better and as much as they tried to play catch up and try different things in their games. Agassi and Sampras winning Slams in the era where they were up and coming and establishing themselves on the main stage does not make it a weak era. It is testament to longevity of Sampras and Agassi at that time. Hence why it is called a career.

lydian wrote:I've never bought into any era being weak or strong versus another...its not possible to compare, too much changes.

You can have a small number of elite players competing for slams, but you cant say they are better or worse than another small number of elite players from a different era, it just isnt possible. We tend to define an era by its leading player(s) and work backwards...but we cant compare these leading players. And quite frankly - WHY are we trying to bother. For what reason?

I disagree here lydian, I don't think we can say for example:"Borg v. Nadal on clay who wins" (in their primes). These are completely subjective comparisons between players and the changes in the game, fitness, and technology is such that you can not compare on this level. Plus we don't have a time machine to answer the question objectively. But when measuring dominance and level of accomplishment it becomes easier to apply an objective standard. The closer in time periods you get the more comparable they become. For Example, one of the comparisons that I have made here is comparing Djokovic 08 to Hewitt in 2002, we are talking six years lydian. Why wouldn't we able to compare when it comes to accomplishment and dominance over the competition? And the main thrust of my argument is basically comparing this current era favorably to the era that immediately preceded it. I think if one looks at the late 90s early to mid 2000s and compares the level of accomplishment and dominance of those champions with the current era the current era is stronger and a list of objective measures can be made.

legendkillar wrote:To be frank and brutally honest, this whole talk about 'weaker' era's is becoming alot of bullcrap!!

Short lived spells at number 1 doesn't make it a weak era. The flip side is that a player being number 1 for so long is that the rest of field is weaker. Everyone has a perspective on criteria for greatness. Some choose to cheapen and others feel it is for a more of an elite group. Players like Roddick, Hewitt and Ferrero all tasted the number 1 spot and Slam success before they were run over by Federer and later Nadal too.

Roddick, Hewitt and Ferrero didn't so much lay down, it is just Federer and Nadal were that much better and as much as they tried to play catch up and try different things in their games. Agassi and Sampras winning Slams in the era where they were up and coming and establishing themselves on the main stage does not make it a weak era. It is testament to longevity of Sampras and Agassi at that time. Hence why it is called a career.

Lendl was number #1 for the second most consecutive weeks streak in history, does anyone talk about the 80s as being weak? Hewitt held the number #1 ranking for longer than wilander, Becker, and Edberg does anyone confuse lleyton hewitt's level of accomplishment with these players. Even in eras with strong number #1s other players can rise to the top. Look at how Rafa and Novak did it under the shadow of Federer. It isn't just the weeks at number #1 really, it is the fact that these weaker #1s and one time slammers did not have the quality to repeat their magic runs. This whole idea that there was this greater depth in weaker era (1996-05) than right now is what I find fascinating because people seem to keep stating this as the reason we didn't have a dominant champion till Roger, but I haven't seen any facts showing that the weaker era had more depth and parity than today.

Here is the funny part you allude to one of the main thrusts of my argument yourself when you state that Roddick, Hewitt, and Ferrero "didn't so much lay down" as they were run over by Fed and Nadal. That is precisely the jist of what I am saying. Look at those 3 champions all in their primes players who had once dominated completely run over by the next generation to the point that at best they were an afterthought in slams by their early to mid 20s. It wasn't injury or burnout the current generation of guys and Federer ran them over. It wasn't just Roger that was beating these once great slam titlists, it was the likes of Djokovic, Murray, even gasquet knocked hewitt out of the US Open a few years ago in an epic 3rd round match. The pack not only caught them, but caught them and ripped them apart in their physical primes, further evidence of weakness at the top.

The 80's had a better field of players, in my opinion based on the quality I saw at the time. But as lydian pointed out it is difficult to measure the depth of any era based on factors in the game that have changed that have impacted it like technology advances in racquets and balls and also changes to the court and scheduling.

socal1976 wrote:
NO it isn't about longevity, none of the players in the socalled weaker era number #1s won multiple slams in A SINGLE SEASON like the players I mentioned. Hewitt's best year of master's performance was one Master's level title, the master's cup.

Do not confuse a 'SEASON' with a calendar year. Sticking to Hewitt (multi-slam winner),

2001 - AO - R32, FO - QF, W - R16, USO - W
2002 - AO - R128, FO - R16, W - W, USO - SF

Masters

2001 - IW - SF, Miami - SF, Rome - R16, Hamburg - SF, Canada - R32, Cincinnati - SF, Stuttgart - SF, Paris - R32
2002 - IW - W, Miami - SF, MC - R64, Rome - R32, Hamburg - QF, Canada - R64, Cincinnati - F, Paris - F

Comparing Nadal (2010) when he held three consecutive slams....

2010 - IW - S, Miami - S, MC - W, Rome - W, Madrid - W, Canada - SF, Cincinnati - QF, Shanghai - R16

I think your looking at Fedalovic and comparing Hewitt to them. See Lydian's and P4th's posts.

socal1976 wrote:Again you look at a season as just number of wins and losses. Wilander in 88 lost a number of matches but he won 3 grandslams that year. That is what i mean by the weaker era number #1s not being nearly dominant in THEIR BEST years as past champions. Wins and losses without looking at the number of tournaments and the importance of the tournaments someone won is not the proper context or analysis. In 2009, Novak Djokovic lead the ATP wins and matches played, did that make him the best player on tour? Or did that outshine what Rafa and Roger were doing?

Domination of W/L 75-6 or 80-18 is a subjective opinion. I know of only ONE single player who has a perfect calendar season.

It isn't subjective Laverfan, it is objective. The difference between 75-6 or 80-18 is not subjective, it is objective. And one is objectively by far better than the other. The difference of winning one slam in a season and winning 2 or 3 isn't subjective either it is objective. There is no dispute which is better and which is more. It is clear from the records that you yourself produce that the players who got to #1, even if you compare just THEIR BEST SINGLE SEASON, fall dreadfully short of the current #1s or their predecessors. In Nadal, Fed, and Djoko have all won 4 Master's in a season, Hewitt didn't win that many in his ENTIRE CAREER. And in his best year he won a single masters title but did win the year end Master's cup. None of this is subjective.

legendkillar wrote:The 80's had a better field of players, in my opinion based on the quality I saw at the time. But as lydian pointed out it is difficult to measure the depth of any era based on factors in the game that have changed that have impacted it like technology advances in racquets and balls and also changes to the court and scheduling.

No its not, I am not looking at those players in the 80s and saying would John Mcenroe in his prime beat Nadal in his prime, that is a completely subjective and fanciful comparison where the differences in technology, equipment, and modern training come into play. But I can compare two players level of domination and accomplishments with objective measures, taking into consideration all the other historical factors, for example its hard to compare Laver's slam count to today's players slam counts because Laver suffered through the pro amateur divide period, like many other greats that came before him. When comparing players of today back to players who had their peaks just a few years ago, and some of who are even still playing, that is a different story. Since the open era the tour has been pretty stable there have been minor changes but the grandslams have been in there place and we have pretty much always had a 4 tiered system for valuing tournaments. So there is no difficulty in measuring domiance and accomplishment of modern champions against each other. I am not asking you to determine who would win if we had a time machine and could pull a 22 year old Borg into our world, there is obviously no objective analysis of that situation. But measuring how dominant and accomplished they are is no problem at all.

Yes it chuffing is!! People compare Woods and Nicklaus in golf and some claim Woods to be the better player in the face of Nicklaus's Major record haul. Like so many greats in the game of golf said that Technology and Competition were factors too difficult to measure. Same applies in tennis my friend. You can only argue with the Competition and Technology of that era. If Djokovic wins 4 Slams would you rate him higher than Courier??

Positively 4th Street wrote:You neglected to respond as to whether your weak era contains supertalent or a ridiculous laundry list?

This point bears revisiting, as I have stated it is never easy to dominate or be one of the best players on the men's tour. But here we are talking about exacting standards and discerning between elite categories of players. I mean it is like a physics argument; atoms are small, electrons are a lot smaller, and so forth all the way down to strings according to some scientists. I am not saying that hewitt and Roddick aren't extremely talented champions. But we are in the process of comparing eras and greats over time in an attempt to measure their dominance and accomplishments in a quantifiable manner.

legendkillar wrote:Yes it chuffing is!! People compare Woods and Nicklaus in golf and some claim Woods to be the better player in the face of Nicklaus's Major record haul. Like so many greats in the game of golf said that Technology and Competition were factors too difficult to measure. Same applies in tennis my friend. You can only argue with the Competition and Technology of that era. If Djokovic wins 4 Slams would you rate him higher than Courier??

Yes, I would, in fact I would rate Novak higher than him right now. I loathe golf and refuse to discuss it even in terms of an analogy. Why is the difference in technology a factor when rating the accomplishments of great players to measure how dominant they were? I mean does it make a difference that borg won wimbeldon with a wood racquet, is his accomplishment any different than a player who wins it with a modern racquet for that reason? No of course not. The tour has been pretty stable since the Australian has become relevant and all the best guys have started to go. We have had a 4 tiered system of tournaments and give or take some new tourneys coming along and some old ones dying out there really hasn't been that dramatic of a change in recent memory. Nothing that would make the schedule today incomparable with that of 2002 or 1999. And nothing that would preclude objectively measuring the accomplishments and the level of dominance of the champions in their own eras and comparing them against the weaker #1s and their level of dominance in their era.

This is what pi$$es me off about logic in a statement. Did you or did you not say you would never get into a GOAT debate because of such factors?? Yet you use 'evidence' to support your argument to determine strength of era's which in a sense is a similar compariable argument? I don't have a problem with how you are trying to portray your point, but to me if your not into a GOAT debate because of factors your arguing against because of the statistical nature of your point, seems strange why you can't acknowledge in your mind a GOAT.

I wouldn't determine any era 'weak' just that the players at the time not being consistent as some of the other era's with great players.

socal1976 wrote:And one is objectively by far better than the other. The difference of winning one slam in a season and winning 2 or 3 isn't subjective either it is objective. There is no dispute which is better and which is more.

More is better, by the your 'objective' criteria. 10 slams is better than 3, which is better than 2, which is better than 1.

socal1976 wrote:It is clear from the records that you yourself produce that the players who got to #1, even if you compare just THEIR BEST SINGLE SEASON, fall dreadfully short of the current #1s or their predecessors. In Nadal, Fed, and Djoko have all won 4 Master's in a season, Hewitt didn't win that many in his ENTIRE CAREER. And in his best year he won a single masters title but did win the year end Master's cup. None of this is subjective.

By that same logic, winning calendar slam should be the criteria for 'greatness', as I have already stated earlier.

socal1976 wrote: In fact, if we did have one player win everything all the time and a bunch of really weak players that could not challenge him then I would agree that is a weak era. And that is precisely why I didn't rate the tennis that highly until we saw the emergence of Rafa to challenge fed.

You admit that it would be highly unlikely for a Petr Korda or thomas johansson to win a slam today, why because of the consistent greatness of the leading pack. Maybe I can't convince you, but to me an era replete with a wave of transitional short term number #1s and one slam wonders that quickly dissappear from the scene is the definition of weaker era.

Hi socal,

I think you misunderstand me slightly. I just don't think your slams per player metric makes sense, as shown by taking it to a hypothetical scenario when it would then be high but, by your own admission, we would be in a weak era. As a statistician it pains me to see a bad analysis!

Johansson I thought we had already discussed. You say you rate Rafter - who are the 'weak' #1's who really get your GOAT? (sorry, couldn't resist)

Hewitt was a fine player, and I dispute that he was still in his prime when guys other than Federer started to beat him regularly. He started so young that he started to decline in his mid-20s. Still, he won titles in 10 consecutive seasons so lasted longer than you seem to think. Federer beat him in many slam matches at a time when he could have added to his tally. Ditto Roddick was mainly stopped by Federer.

legendkillar wrote:I wouldn't determine any era 'weak' just that the players at the time not being consistent as some of the other era's with great players.

Consistency is a double-edged sword. It assumes a span of time. Socal's window is perhaps four or more years, while LK and I posit, that Hewitt and Rios and Roddick were consitent, albeit for a window smaller than four years. Hence the argument. Players like Rosewall, Gonzalez, Federer, Connors have spoilt Tennis fans with their longevity and consistency for ten or more years. Since Hewitt did not keep winning circa 2001-2011, he is an 'inferior' player? Someone who beat Federer in Halle on Grass in 2010. Hewitt had a 7-2 h2h till 2003, then Roger just got better and beat him 17 times.

socal1976 wrote:I loathe golf and refuse to discuss it even in terms of an analogy.

How can a person 'loathe' a sport while being interested in another? Are we now heading towards which sport is the 'weaker' sport compared to another?

Why don't we just get up to speed and realise that the strong/weak era is all based on what makes Nole look really really good?

Of course, judging by the performance of the #4 today maybe we're into a very weak #1 era?

legendkillar wrote:This is what pi$$es me off about logic in a statement. Did you or did you not say you would never get into a GOAT debate because of such factors?? Yet you use 'evidence' to support your argument to determine strength of era's which in a sense is a similar compariable argument? I don't have a problem with how you are trying to portray your point, but to me if your not into a GOAT debate because of factors your arguing against because of the statistical nature of your point, seems strange why you can't acknowledge in your mind a GOAT.

I wouldn't determine any era 'weak' just that the players at the time not being consistent as some of the other era's with great players.

First of all a greatest of all time argument is different than what we are discussing right now. The reason it is hard to have greatest of all time argument is the "all time" part of the argument. Because of human evolution, technological evolution, and changes to equipment, and the amateur/pro split, differing schedules; due to these changes over the entire 140 year history of the sport you can't measure a player for all time. But the distinction you fail to acknowledge is that we are not comparing Bill Tilden to Novak Djokovic. We are comparing players of the modern era against their immediate predecessors. Comparing a player or a generation of talent to another player and their accomplishments in the modern era is infinitely easier because of the factors i have just mentioned. And when you make a greatest of all time argument one essential part of the argument is what would happen if these players played against each other, something that is not possible due to the passage of time. But when measuring accomplishments, of one generation of stars against the immediate half decade before them you don't have the problems I have mentioned. (ie wood racquets v. modern racquets, amateur sport against pro sport, 19th century man v. 21st century man, big money sport v. no money sport) Many of the stars we are discussing are still playing! We watched them perform when they were at their peaks. How could I tell I predict Fred Perry in his prime against Roger Federer, with what technology would they play, in what temporal dimension would they play? But measuring the dominance and accomplishment of modern champions v. other modern champions who came directly before and after them is not as hard when these issues due not come into play and it can be done objectively.

bogbrush wrote:Why don't we just get up to speed and realise that the strong/weak era is all based on what makes Nole look really really good?

This possibility had started to dawn on me during my last post. Rewind 8 months and Djokovic was a one-slam wonder too, and hadn't reached #1...

Now he's the golden GOAT or something

Positively, I see what you are saying, I never said that my metric was the only measure that people should take into consideration. It is however taken into consideration with many other factors that we have discussed one way of anlayzing the situation. The reason that I find your hypothetical a bit unrealistic and not determinative is because you need a sample size to make any type of statistical analysis helpful. That is why each category that I listed in the original post has at least 3 number #1s and their grandslam totals get averaged. The modern era with Djokovic leading right now is in progress, so we have to see how it pans out in a couple of years, but early indications are good. Your hypothetical is just that a hypothetical not what actually happened and there are other factors that we have discussed in this analysis. (ie tournament wins, weeks at #1, masters wins)

Positively 4th Street wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Why don't we just get up to speed and realise that the strong/weak era is all based on what makes Nole look really really good?

This possibility had started to dawn on me during my last post. Rewind 8 months and Djokovic was a one-slam wonder too, and hadn't reached #1...

Now he's the golden GOAT or something

Never made a Djokovic as goat argument, in fact Novak is really ancilliary and hardly even mentioned very often on this thread. It seems that BB is the one who wants to shift the focus to Djokovic not me.