Fed defeat kills talk of Golden Era

First topic message reminder :

Really that was quite a bad defeat for Federer; sure, he may well have won the 1st set and sneaked through but it's clear that he is a pale shadow of the man who amassed 16 Slams and dominated the game. Current Fed would probably be lucky to avoid 3 sets of baked goods against his former self; the old Federer would run this one into the ground. JWT said after the match that lots of players are improving, but that is simply illogical. The simpler explanation is that 30 year old Federer is way past it and that Andy Murray has been disorientated by years of close encounters with the top of the game. Rafa Nadal may already be slipping, but if not that point can't be too far away, not with his type of game.

Of course Federer is the clear #3. Miles clear of anyone else. Which really makes you shake your head about the absurd idea that we are in some kind of "Golden Era", as VIs in the media would have us believe. A Golden Era would have him down around #10, being piled on my young stars, but this isn't the case.

Clearly the competition has slipped just as Djokovic has made improvement, making him the stand out player by a distance, and good for him - he spent enough time waiting for the top boys to come back to him and he's worked on his game otherwise he'd be scrapping with, rather than lording it over, them.

I wonder when the game will pick up? There doesn't seem much around in the younger set, although one or two may make it interesting. However, my fear is that we stay in a situation where we have two oldies in the top 6 and a Federer unfit to lace the boots of his prime self a credible candidate for Slams.

Well, I may be a bit excited, but who can blame me. For years, I participated in endless Nadal and Fed discussions when Novak was third fiddle and didn't feel like their accomplishments were being crammed down my throat. The man is on a historic run and deserves more accolades frankly than what he has gotten.

I don't believe that my weak era debate actually has much to do with Novak. I just didn't like the tennis from the late 90s till the middle of the current decade. I watched, but found few of the stars as compelling in terms of talent. I am actually a big Safin fan, really love the guys charisma and his ability. So even I can recognize that things aren't just black and white. I saw some great matches during that weaker period, but in general objectively late 90s early to mid 2000s was a step back in tennis. And contrary to popular opinion it has nothing to do with pumping up djokovic. We are all new here but as far as two years ago I told people on old 606 that this current generation of stars is a golden generation, and at that time most people would have said the new era would be dominated by Nadal and Murray and that Novak would be a one slam wonder.

socal1976 wrote:Well, I may be a bit excited, but who can blame me. For years, I participated in endless Nadal and Fed discussions when Novak was third fiddle and didn't feel like their accomplishments were being crammed down my throat. The man is on a historic run and deserves more accolades frankly than what he has gotten.

I don't believe that my weak era debate actually has much to do with Novak. I just didn't like the tennis from the late 90s till the middle of the current decade. I watched, but found few of the stars as compelling in terms of talent. I am actually a big Safin fan, really love the guys charisma and his ability. So even I can recognize that things aren't just black and white. I saw some great matches during that weaker period, but in general objectively late 90s early to mid 2000s was a step back in tennis. And contrary to popular opinion it has nothing to do with pumping up djokovic. We are all new here but as far as two years ago I told people on old 606 that this current generation of stars is a golden generation, and at that time most people would have said the new era would be dominated by Nadal and Murray and that Novak would be a one slam wonder.

Most of us are really pleased for Nole socal - I think in 2009, a lot of us were wondering how this hugely promising young star could have not exactly lost his mojo, but was falling short of expectations. Most neutral people probably would always have said Nole had more potential than Andy - Federer himself quietly reminded the very partisan British press at AO 2009 that everybody was overlooking Novak when they were shouting to all and sundry that Murray was the favourite for that year's tournament.

I just agree with everyone who dislikes a 'weak era' debate - it's nonsensical, and you put fans of other players on the defensive and as the debate above shows, you can make a case either way depending on your preference. If there is an absolute truth it is more likely to be that when a player is on an amazing run of form as we have seen with Roger and Rafa in the past, and now with Novak, then their standard of play can make the rest of the field look ordinary.

I am not getting drawn in here but those that claim there are no weak or strong eras in tennis are wrong. In everything in life there are good and bad/strong and weak just like economies have depressions and booms so we get that in tennis and in any other sport as well. Now those who argue against that idea then are you trying to tell me that every single player in every single year of tennis have been identical in quality and quantity forever? I don't think so hence we have strong and weak eras.

Of course you have a good point CC, but how do you judge? The debate above, like similar discussions on this board, show that it is possible to make a good case for a number of opinions. No-one can even agree on when an era actually begins and ends.

lydian wrote:I'm sorry to jump on the bandwagon but I agree, Nole is clearly a great player. We can all see that, but we dont need to analyse all the players between 2000-2011 to say how good he is. Until he wins 8+ slams he's not in the same league as Nadal and Federer in terms of achievement. And it could be argued that Nole has come along at the perfect time to amass slams with Nadal not a shadow of the player from 2010, Fed on the slide and Murray seemingly going backwards. The rest of the field, besides DP who is struggling to hit the same form again, are not really in contention for slams. Every era has its issues. But we need to stop FAWNING over players. Its a little sycophantic.

I do take issue with some points though. To say Murray is better than Safin or Nalby is short sighted. Murray hasnt even won a slam yet either and doesnt look near to doing so...so why is he put up onto a high perch other than to try to make Nole look good? Come on...lets enjoy Cincy and USO and see if Nadal and Fed can get some semblance of winning form back (although Cincy is always a tough event for Nadal).

Agree with the above sentiments and those expressed by raiders, TP, LF et al.

I certainly don't agree with the idea that Murray is more talented than Safin or Nalbandian.

If either of those two were to play Murray, and all players were playing their absolute best tennis, I would go with safin and Nalby to prevail over Murray more often than not.

When on form those two were more dangerous, attacking shotmakers than Murray. More liable to blow their opponents off the court. Murray is more reactionary; to some extent he needs his opponent to miss.

Wasn't it safin who dumped Novak out of W (2008?) when Novak was being heralded as the number one in waiting?

Quite frankly, I find these weak era arguements to be ridiculous, not least because it is impossible to verify and just becomes a subjective conjecture.

Each era is unique and the best players are the ones who adapted best to those particular set of circumstances. If one is to go down this road of determining weak v strong eras then why stop with eras? Why not determine individually which seasons were strong and which of those were weak, since every year is also different. Ultimately it is a futile endeavour since there are so many subtle variations that take place from tournament to tournament, let alone from one season to the next, never mind eras (how many years constitute an era btw?) such that any comparison of the relative strengths of these 'eras' becomes nigh impossible.

time please wrote:Of course you have a good point CC, but how do you judge? The debate above, like similar discussions on this board, show that it is possible to make a good case for a number of opinions. No-one can even agree on when an era actually begins and ends.

Yes I agree it is difficult to pin down eras. Such as do we do it in five yearly cycles, ten yearly cycles or what and again do we judge players in those eras on achievements, raw talent, consistency, longevity or what? Very difficult but because it is very difficult that doesn't mean that there are no weak or strong eras.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

time please wrote:Of course you have a good point CC, but how do you judge? The debate above, like similar discussions on this board, show that it is possible to make a good case for a number of opinions. No-one can even agree on when an era actually begins and ends.

Yes I agree it is difficult to pin down eras. Such as do we do it in five yearly cycles, ten yearly cycles or what and again do we judge players in those eras on achievements, raw talent, consistency, longevity or what? Very difficult but because it is very difficult that doesn't mean that there are no weak or strong eras.

Since there are no defining criteria, it becomes a pointless speculative discussion.

emancipator wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

time please wrote:Of course you have a good point CC, but how do you judge? The debate above, like similar discussions on this board, show that it is possible to make a good case for a number of opinions. No-one can even agree on when an era actually begins and ends.

Yes I agree it is difficult to pin down eras. Such as do we do it in five yearly cycles, ten yearly cycles or what and again do we judge players in those eras on achievements, raw talent, consistency, longevity or what? Very difficult but because it is very difficult that doesn't mean that there are no weak or strong eras.

Since there are no defining criteria, it becomes a pointless speculative discussion.

But that smacks of trying to sweep it under the carpet does it not? I would say that ten yearly cycles would be a better format since that is around the time a tennis player remains in peak shape and form by and large. As for the judging then surely players standings in the history of the sport have to be taken into account, along with their career achievements and consistency.

But "era's" tend to be defined by events not just simply time per se. If we go with 10 year periods (which I dont agree) when does that start? 1968-1978-1988, etc? Or some other year...

Era should be defined by players dominating really - like the Borg era, etc. But then you get overlapping era's etc. So its just impossible and pointless. Maybe there are other things that define era, such as surface changes, or technology changes but we cant just arbitarily create 10 year cycles for no other reason that it seems a good idea. For example the Open Era is called that for a specific reason - when the professional and amateur circuits came back together. Era's are defined by events. So what set of events can be used to create mini-era's? I think its so hard other than going with types of play:

1968-2000 Forecourt game preponderance
2001-2011+ Baseline game preponderance (with transition period 01-03 - its well known SW19 & USO started to slow dramatically from 2001 onwards due to surface changes and ball changes)

Best player of "forecourt era" - Pete Sampras
Best player of "baseline era"- Roger Federer

Dont really see how you can drill down much more otherwise you get into allsorts of overlapping and non-relevant comparisons.

Yes there are eras when players stamp their authority on them such as the Borg era, Sampras era, Federer era all differing in time spans.

And as well players do make decades ie Borg in the 70's, Sampras in the 90's and Federer in the 2000's. Obviously, the sport has changed over the years (ie equipment and court surface conditions etc) but it was the same for every player playing at that time so it was a level playing field so achievements ie titles won/finals reached should be the rule of thumb.

Disavowing "weak eras" is not really the same as saying every year has the same strength, and certainly not the same as saying each player must have the same level as their counterparts. Things wobble about of course.

The idea of a weak era as articulated by socal means that he can slate #1s as being no good because they only held the position relatively briefly. As an admirer of Federer I've listened with irritation to the idea that the era was weak because he had no competition, then I hear the period before him was weak because there was loads of competition (nobody dominated), then finally I get told that Safin, Nalbandian and Hewitt wouldn't cut it today, which is so stupid it's untrue; in Nalbandian you've got the only player Nadal ever admitted being scared of, the mad russian was a force of nature and Hewitt was a brilliant player, reminiscent of the current #1 in some ways.

Bottom line, I dismiss the waffle about weak eras. This article was to point out the utter absurdity though, of crowning this era with the title "Golden", when it's obvious that the #3 is so far down his slide that he loses to players he previously toyed with, and the #4 downwards must be considerable worse. Pretty obvious I'd have thought.
I see only one person arguing against it and he's too vested in 2011 being at an exceptional standard to be objective.

If we were to look at decades as decades though then it does change things as 2000's would then become stronger would they not? Even the early years would have to be counted in to summarise the decade.

For me, personally speaking and from a purely entertainment side of things I found the Sampras era an almighty bore. Pistol Pete just blew everyone off the court with his serve as I recall it and anything over five shots was a long rally - not my kind of tennis for what it is worth.

I agree it was boring. I stopped watching through that period and one of my debts to Federer was that it was he who rekindled my interest in the game.

I just hope now that the game has become as baseline dominated as it was serve dominated in the 90's, that it doesn't become boring again. People talk about the drop shot, but I think it goes unmentioned that the only times the drop shot has been a winning regular play has been when the womens game has gone into one of its many periods of baseline tedium. Now we have the shot re-emerged in the mens. Coincidence? I fear not.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I am not getting drawn in here but those that claim there are no weak or strong eras in tennis are wrong. In everything in life there are good and bad/strong and weak just like economies have depressions and booms so we get that in tennis and in any other sport as well. Now those who argue against that idea then are you trying to tell me that every single player in every single year of tennis have been identical in quality and quantity forever? I don't think so hence we have strong and weak eras.

Excellent post from Caledonian, exactly spot on. Of course everything in life has cycles of up and down. From the economy to sports to the universe. Therefore, to assume that every era is equal when you see a laundry list of players winning slams that would not have a snowball's chance in hades of winning a slam today lift grandslams and completely dissappear from the scene is contrafactual and illogical. If this is the case then we can't look at a player like Borg and say that he was more dominant and accomplished than David Ferrer, because it is sacrliege to compare two players unless they were at their prime at the exact same moment in time. Anyone who knows anything can tell you that Bjorg is more accomplished and greater than Ferrer and it makes no difference that one guy played with a wooden racquet and the other with luxlon strings on slower conditions. We aren't asking you to build a time machine and play the two players against each other. We are attempting to objectively analyze their level of consistency, dominance, and accomplishment in THEIR DIFFERING ERAS. We even see this football. Spain right now is having a golden generation of footballing talent that is better than they have ever had before. Portugal had a golden generation 5 or 6 years ago that they have not been able to replicate since. France had their golden generation in 1998-2000, are the french players today just as good or impossible to compare to the likes of Zidane, Makele, Henry, Blanc, Desailly, and Thuram? When comparing past to future you can measure consistency, level of accomplishment, and dominance. You can't build a time machine and play the two different eras against each other, but stating one as being better than the other is far from impossible. In fact, not being able to differentiate is what is illogical.

Great. So if Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Borg, McEnroe and Lendl all turned up at the same time you'd dismiss most of them as useless journeymen, and probably damn the era as no good because it lacked a dominating figure.

Still waiting to hear a response to the observation that the Ljubicic you mocked as being nowhere near good enough to cut it in the modern game won his only Masters in 2010 having failed to register throughout the "weak era", by the way.

PS I didn't say Murray is better than Safin or hewitt, clearly he isn't as accomplished as either of those two champions. What I did say is that he did a better job of carving a niche for himself AFTER THE RISE OF ROGER (Post 04), while Safin and hewitt struggled to stay in the top 20 at what should have been their physical peak.

Lydian took you to school on that one on the other thread.

bogbrush wrote:Great. So if Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Borg, McEnroe and Lendl all turned up at the same time you'd dismiss most of them as useless journeymen, and probably damn the era as no good because it lacked a dominating figure.

Still waiting to hear a response to the observation that the Ljubicic you mocked as being nowhere near good enough to cut it in the modern game won his only Masters in 2010 having failed to register throughout the "weak era", by the way.

Wrong, wrong, and then wrong again. At least you are terribly consistent. Ljubicic is a big server who served lights out and played a great week of tennis. So? I never said he couldn't play, I just said that he was a deficient world #4. He probably could be a top ten or 15 guy in most any era, he isn't a journeyman, he is a top pro and a champion. He was just weak sauce as a top 5 player. He himself said as much. I don't have the exact quote but when someone asked him about his #4 ranking, (paraphrase) he stated "yeah but I haven't won anything".

As for your silly analogy about nadal, sampras, borg and Mac all playing in one era, I guarantee you that if these greats played in an era they would all find away to beat the others guys on their best surfaces, and on their best days enough to make their mark. That is why no one confuses the 80s as a weak era. We had 4 or 5 great slam champions at the top who each made their mark. That is why Nadal was able to make a mark in the Federer era, that is why to lesser extent Djokovic was able to establish himself among the top 3 at the peak of the Fedal era. And that is why Safin and Hewitt struggling to make the top 20 in their mid 20s are not great and the other guys are.

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Great. So if Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Borg, McEnroe and Lendl all turned up at the same time you'd dismiss most of them as useless journeymen, and probably damn the era as no good because it lacked a dominating figure.

Still waiting to hear a response to the observation that the Ljubicic you mocked as being nowhere near good enough to cut it in the modern game won his only Masters in 2010 having failed to register throughout the "weak era", by the way.

Wrong, wrong, and then wrong again. At least you are terribly consistent. Ljubicic is a big server who served lights out and played a great weak of tennis. So? I never said he couldn't play, I just said that he was a deficient world #4. He probably could be a top ten or 15 guy in most any era, he isn't a journeyman, he is a top pro and a champion. He was just weak sauce as a top 5 player. He himself said as much. I don't have the exact quote but when someone asked him about his #4 ranking, (paraphrase) he stated "yeah but I haven't won anything".

As for your silly analogy about nadal, sampras, borg and Mac all playing in one era, I guarantee you that if these greats played in an era they would all find away to beat the others guys on their best surfaces, and on their best days enough to make their mark. That is why no one confuses the 80s as a weak era. We had 4 or 5 great slam champions at the top who each made their mark. That is why Nadal was able to make a mark in the Federer era, that is why to lesser extent Djokovic was able to establish himself among the top 3 as #3 at the peak of the Fedal era. And that is why Safin and Hewitt struggling to make the top 20 in their mid 20s are not great and the other guys are.

Corrected for free.

Oh, and sure they'd all beat each other. And then some dummy would come on and say there was no clear #1 back then which made it a weak era. Honestly, somebody really would!

And your comment about Ljubicic was to imagine JWT saying "Ljubicic top 3, are you kidding me those guys back then are awful, we would kill them". So not quite the admiring stuff you post here.

No one said that about the 80s and we half a dozen multigrandslam champs battling out, if the late 90s and early 2000s was so strong why did all their champions dissappear from this scene. And it wasn't Roger beating them all the time, Safin and Hewitt couldn't even stay in top 20 although they were young and Nalbandian ate himself off the tour.

Like I say, read Lydians post on the "Tsonga" thread and you will learn.

I read Lydian's post and disagreed with his main point that you can not compare two players who played just a few years apart from each other. I responded to that post feel free to go back and read it. Some of it I agreed with some of it I didn't. He also stated that the transitional players were quote "mediocre".

I dont know why we're picking on Luber...you get a "Luber" from every era. In this era he might be called a Verdasco, or similar. Those guys who dance around the top 10, winning the odd title, in the 90s it might be Todd Martin.
When we look at this so called weak era mentioned of late90s-early00s, so I'm prsuming thats 98-03 say the following guys won the slams: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Grand_Slam_men's_singles_champions

1998: Petr Korda Carlos Moyá Pete Sampras (11/14) Patrick Rafter (2/2)
1999 Yevgeny Kafelnikov (2/2) Andre Agassi (4/8) Pete Sampras (12/14) Andre Agassi (5/8)
2000 Andre Agassi (6/8) Gustavo Kuerten (2/3) Pete Sampras (13/14) Marat Safin (1/2)
2001 Andre Agassi (7/8) Gustavo Kuerten (3/3) CRO: Goran Ivanišević Lleyton Hewitt (1/2)
2002 Thomas Johansson Albert Costa Lleyton Hewitt (2/2) Pete Sampras (14/14)
2003 Andre Agassi (8/8) Juan Carlos Ferrero SUI: Roger Federer (1/16) Andy Roddick

What's so weak about it? Out of 24 slams there, Sampras/Agassi won 9, you had great claycourters winning the French Opens, Kafelnikov/Rafter/Safin were all quality (but underachievers), Korda was seriously talented but flawed, but deserved a slam. The only anomaly you might say is Johansson but he had a huge serve. As posted (as BB mentions on the Tsonga thread), we're talking here about transition from era (1) type conditions (fast-court) to era (2) conditions (starting to slow down). So the slams outside the French Opens (which were still won by specialists) were won by top quality hardcourt/fastcourt players - as you'd expect given they were able to still do ok in this new transitional era.

The new breed of era (2) players had to succeed on these slowing conditions too but came from fastcourt training origins in the main. At AO 2002 Safin just didnt show up in that final against Thomas and have no idea why, especially after he beat Sampras in a close match earlier...and Federer might have well won that year had he not lost 8-6 in the 5th to Haas. Thomas had such a cakewalk draw that year though. It was perfect for him, and as I remember he was serving huge that fortnight, just had the perfect run.

Hewitt was a weird one, a dogged competitor across 2001/2002 and also 2004/2005 when he ended the year #3, #4 (behind Roddick each year) . Not bad results considering Federer was getting into peak and as we know Nadal was soon to muscle in. I think the case for Hewitt is under played. He was a great player, not someone from a weak era - he was top 3-4 for alot of years, and top 25 for quite a number too, no flash in the pan. But as conditions were slowing more and more he couldnt adapt his game. He tried to put on more muscle too but it led to more injuries. Similarly Safin and Nalby struggled after early 00s slam successes as the game moved to era (3) conditions. So I just dont see the 98-03 "era" as being weak, it was just a transitional era from the greats of Agassi/Sampras to Federer.

After all its odd how none of the class of Nalby/Safin/Hewitt/Roddick could really adapt to era (3) from say 2004 onwards as they didnt particularly dominate any slams after 2003 yet there was some serious talent there. Its because the courts slowed hugely. Infact if you look most of them continued to do well on fast surfaces, e.g. Queens, proving they they were really older style (era 1) type players who did well on fast surfaces. Look at how well Hewitt and Roddick did at Queens but not the same impact elsewhere. And once the mighty baseliners of Federer and Nadal came along they were pretty much history...then young Murray and Nole squeezed them out even further.

But it didnt make them weak players, just players from a different time that got rapidly left behind as conditions changed. Remember how quickly the game has changed from say 2001 to 2005 - its a unique period in Open Era history, a time where tennis has never changed nowhere near as much. For those brought up on tennis in the late 90s and coming into their prime in early 00s, the rapid changes to the game affected them badly. Only a very select few could truly adapt - pretty much Agassi alone really but we know he's of theoretical GOAT quality and they dont come along often at all - probably only 4-5 of them in the Open Era. But the Hewitts/Ferreros/Nalbys/Safins/Roddick just couldnt hack era (3) vs their success in transitional era (2), They werent brought up and trained in era (3) conditions. But look at Fed/Nad/Murr/Djok/DelPo...all brought up on clay...and who's been doing the best since 2005/6 when those era (2) guys should have been in prime...? Doesnt take a rocket scientist to work out why that era (2) class of 01-03 has failed so miserably since does it? The game has simply passed them by due to the breakneck speed of the conditions changing. The skills they learnt didnt fit the same into the current game. They just happened to be all born at the wrong time for their full potential. Yes they were mediocre as it turned out when you look at their whole careers...but not mediocre in talent per se. The rapidly changed conditions made their games more mediocre for the new era (3).

So cant we leave that "early 00s era" behind...its not an era, and its not weak and there no point of comparing it to the present one. They were different times, courts/balls and players trained in different ways to the modern clay-based breed.

Thats me done on the topic!

Well again you are looking at this issue lydian, and certain parts of your post I agree with and certain parts of your post I completely disagree with. Firstly, just to get this out of the way, Martin 2 grandslam finals, Ivan Ljubi 1 grandslam semi. Martin was a much more accomplished player who played a similar style to lubi. As I said Ljubi is a good top 10 or 15 guy, he is weak as a top 5 player.

Next you claim that this new era of strings, slowed balls, and conditions was the period in which the game changed more than we have ever seen. I disagree with this. The game went from wooden racquets to graphite/composite racquets in the late 70s and early 80s and that was a much bigger change. As was the boom in money and the changes of the open era. Adapting to changing technology and conditions is one facet of greatness that obviously the early 00s players lacked. It didn't stop Roger, he won 16 grandslams on slowed conditions. He was great and able to change his style the others weren't.

Here is where your analysis in my mind breaks down, EVEN IN their own era these players weren't particular dominating or strong. Even when conditions favored them, none of these players put up the type of dominating years we saw from other #1s. And some of those best years happened in eras where we had great championship level talent at the top. 3 of the greatest years in the history of the sport were accomplished in the 80s a period replete with strong top level competition. You have Mac in 84, Lendl in 86, and wilander in 88. Not to mention the year Becker won 2 grandslams and the davis cup. Nothing, nothing that these champions did even in their best years with suitable conditions comes even close to the years that champions had before and after.

By 2001, Pete Sampras was not the same Pete Sampras we saw dominate much of 90s. That is why it was such a shocker he went on his run to win the US in 2002. Remember in 2000 was the year that Pete Sampras gotten horribly mauled by Safin in the USO. Andre as you indicated played his best tennis in 1995. In fact, I think both Andre and Pete to a certain extent benefitted from the lack of new multislam dominant champions rising up towards the end of their career.

And when I looked at your list I saw great deal of weakness. Korda, Johansson, Ferrero, Moya, and Costa. None of those guys would have much of a chance at a slam in today's era. And as noted above Agassi and Sampras were both past their primes. By your own admission Agassi's best was the mid 90s. Pete similarly had his best years by the mid to late 90s. Lets do that same analysis for grandslam winners of the last 5 years.

2007- AO Federer, RG Nadal, Wimby Fed, USO Fed
2008-AO Djoko, RG-Nadal, Wimby Nadal, USO Fed
2009-AO Nadal, RG-Fed, Wimby-Fed, USO Del POtro
2010-AO Fed, RG-Nadal, wimby Nadal, USO Nadal
2011-AO Novak, RG-Fogninni (just kidding), Wimby Novak, USO-to be determined

In this 5 year period you have exactly one player that has so far been a one slam wonder. And as I have stated and shown by other posts a top down tour with 2-3 superlative stars is by definition harder to win slams in than a more even distribution at the top. In your list you have a post-prime Andre still incredible, Federer just entering his prime, and a Pete way passed his prime. In my list you got a peak Djoko, a peak Nadal, and a Roger who entered this time frame in top form but who is now a bit passed his prime. Hence why we see no one slam wonders.

And I would only like to add that our own Tim Henman was an excellent era (1) player who while trying to adapt to era (2) couldn't do it, hence the guy who pressed Sampras at Wimbledon found himself easy pickings for Lleyton Hewitt.

It's like the schizoid man.

Now the players are damned (again) because;

"EVEN IN there own era these players weren't particular dominating or strong. Even when conditions favored them, none of these players put up the type of dominating years we saw from other #1s."

when only a little bit earlier we heard from the same poster about a hypothetical era of all-greats together that;

"As for your silly analogy about nadal, sampras, borg and Mac all playing in one era, I guarantee you that if these greats played in an era they would all find away to beat the others guys on their best surfaces, and on their best days enough to make their mark. "

Yes folks, we really can prove it whatever way you like!

Bottom line, with this poster the definition of strong era is that Novak Djokovic plays in it. And the definition of tough draw is when your opponents scratch, apparantly.

bogbrush wrote:It's like the schizoid man.

Now the players are damned (again) because;

"EVEN IN there own era these players weren't particular dominating or strong. Even when conditions favored them, none of these players put up the type of dominating years we saw from other #1s."

when only a little bit earlier we heard from the same poster about a hypothetical era of all-greats together that;

"As for your silly analogy about nadal, sampras, borg and Mac all playing in one era, I guarantee you that if these greats played in an era they would all find away to beat the others guys on their best surfaces, and on their best days enough to make their mark. "

Yes folks, we really can prove it whatever way you like!

Bottom line, with this poster the definition of strong era is that Novak Djokovic plays in it. And the definition of tough draw is when your opponents scratch, apparantly.

Keep your silly schoolyard taunts to yourself bogbrush. First off, I keep telling you that we had an era where a great number of multiple slam champions played together, it was called the 80s and as I pointed out some of the most dominant years were had in those years. Just like the dominant years Fed and Nadal had. My position is entirely consistent from start to finish. Like I said over and over again, why was it that in the 80s and early 90s we had numerous great multislam champs that all were able to carve an enduring niche for themselves and the players of the late 90s and early 2000s were not? Maybe because wilander, becker, edberg, mac, connors, lendl, borg were great and the weaker era #1s not so much. Why was Nadal able to carve out a niche in the Fed era, why was it even Djoko was more successful in carving out top rankings and big tourneys in the Fedal peak than players like hewitt, ferrero, and safin were in THE FEDAL YEARS? Especially in light of the fact that these guys were still very young at the time and as lydian who you keep quoting pointed out the game just passed them by. Simple they just weren't as accomplished. Take the best year moya, hewitt, Roddick, Ferrero, and safin had and compare that to any of the best years great number #1s had. Even in years when the conditions favored their style of play, even when no big bad roger was around to steal their lunch money, their best years fall pitifully short. What exactly is inconsistent about this argument?

In my eyes the greats of any eras define it's quality. Leaving the timeline aside for now a period of say 1975 to 1985 had players I would label legends in the form of Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors. Their standing in the sport still stands high today and are remembered as legends of the sport for their achievements, consistency and keen rivalry. The mid-80's to mid-90's was not quite as absorbing but still afforded fantastic players such as Boris Becker, Ivan Lendl, Stefan Edberg, Jim Courier, the emergence of Pete Sampras and Matts Wilander. Into the mid-90's to early 2000's and we had Pete Sampras dominant in a serve and volley dominant era with also Andre Agassi, Michael Chang and Goran Ivansivic joined later by Lleyton Hewitt, Marat Safin and Roger Federer emeging. From 2005 we have had Roger Federer dominant, followed by Rafael Nadal and now Novak Djokovic dominant with the likes of Juan Martin del Potro, Andy Murray also on the scene. Now from our most recent era I would freely label Federer and Nadal as legends and Djokovic may very well break into that bracket (only time will tell). The period say (mid-1990's to mid-2000's) the only player I'd recognise as a legend was Pete Sampras, Agassi came very close to making it into that bracket but just missed out in my opinion). However, Safin and Hewitt et al cannot even begin to be considered legends in my opinion.

It is funny that out of all the great players, the ones in the past that are trumpeted by everyone as greats over anyone else from other periods, or used to prove that this unspecified period was a great era are Borg, McEnroe and Connors (people seem to conveniently forget Borg was history by late '81)

I think this is because that trio were big box office just as Fed, Rafa and Nole are today. Borg was the first rock star of tennis, attracting huge crowds and mass hysteria. Connors was the streetfighter who could work a crowd like no-one else - and Mac - well we are still quoting him today. Together they brought huge crowds to tennis, not because Connors was better than Sampras or McEnroe necessarily finer at the net (though as a Mac fan, I think he was )than Edberg - but because we all loved or loathed them and they aroused passionate responses from the audience in a way that the gentlemen players of yesteryear had never done.

Sampras was a great champion - he had a classic grass court game that was perfect in execution, but wonderful as he was he tended to send people to sleep and didn't ever have the passionate fan bases of today's nos 1,2 and 3

Dead right tp.

There is no logical consistency to socals efforts; he lauds one era for having multiple Slam winners, another for having a monopoly or duopoloy, then slates another for having multiple winners. He uses these "facts" as the basis for his opinion but when pressed on the inconsistency just reverts to saying well those other guys were greats because they were.

One of the problems with the early 2000's is that the guys were bores, mostly, and peole had stopped watching because of Petes game and what Lydian calls era (1) tedium.

In socals case I keep saying that all these arguments are specious; the agenda is that today is incredibly strong because then Djokovics great 2011 can be used to elevate him into All Time Great bracket, when of course he's a 3-Slam winner and recently crowned #1 having his first dominant year.

People have their own ways of labelling players and eras. In my own personal view legend status in the Open era goes to Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors, Pete Sampras, Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. They stand above the rest in my opinion for achievements, consistency and their continued recognition in the sport and that will not diminish in any of their cases. Strong/weak eras exist though that much is certain.

bogbrush wrote:Dead right tp.

There is no logical consistency to socals efforts; he lauds one era for having multiple Slam winners, another for having a monopoly or duopoloy, then slates another for having multiple winners. He uses these "facts" as the basis for his opinion but when pressed on the inconsistency just reverts to saying well those other guys were greats because they were.

One of the problems with the early 2000's is that the guys were bores, mostly, and peole had stopped watching because of Petes game and what Lydian calls era (1) tedium.

In socals case I keep saying that all these arguments are specious; the agenda is that today is incredibly strong because then Djokovics great 2011 can be used to elevate him into All Time Great bracket, when of course he's a 3-Slam winner and recently crowned #1 having his first dominant year.

Bogbrush i am starting to believe that you wouldn't recognize logic if it jumped up and bit you on the backside. So the inconsistency is that I claim the late 80s and early 90s as the strongest period because there were several players who were dominant and won multiple slams? How is that inconsistent with anything I have argued. When I say a top down tour is stronger than a tour with a lot of parity at the top, here is specifically the point I am making. In any period it is the top 2-5 players that determine who wins the slams. Therefore, it is much more difficult to win in eras where you have a strong group of top players as opposed to an even distribution of talent among the rest of the top 10 or top 20. This is because of the nature of tournament tennis, you don't have to beat the entire top 20 to win a title but most likely in an era with consistent and great top stars (2-5 top guys) you most likely will have to beat two great players in the semi and final.

This weak era argument actually has little to do with Roger or Novak, I have repeatedly stated that I am happy enough even at 3 slams with Djokovic. Having this era be viewed as a little stronger, or the tennis of the early 2000s being seen as a little weaker does little to nothing for Novak's individual legacy. Just as it does little to add or detract from Roger's legacy that at the start of his reign most of his contemporaries and immediate predecessors were softer and inconsistent. Both players will be judged by their own record and their own CVs just like everyone else. This isn't about Federer either, some people who claimed that period was soft use it as a hammer to bash Federer with. I don't, I personally think Rog would probably be the best player of any generation he grew up in. And one could argue that Pete and Andre probably benefitted from having the talent around them dry up in the late 90s when they were getting old as well, just like to an extent Roger benefitted from lack of consistent great competition early in his career.

So as usual you are wrong on all counts, I am starting to wonder if you have a problem with reading comprehension.

socal1976 wrote:In any period it is the top 2-5 players that determine who wins the slams. Therefore, it is much more difficult to win in eras where you have a strong group of top players as opposed to an even distribution of talent among the rest of the top 10 or top 20. This is because of the nature of tournament tennis, you don't have to beat the entire top 20 to win a title but most likely in an era with consistent and great top stars (2-5 top guys) you most likely will have to beat two great players in the semi and final.

And how do you know a period with many winners is because they were nosdescropit or simple good at the same time?

socal1976 wrote:So as usual you are wrong on all counts, I am starting to wonder if you have a problem with reading comprehension.

I try to keep up with the rapid alterations of your arguments. Please excuse me if I find the pace of change hard to stay with.

CaledonianCraig wrote:People have their own ways of labelling players and eras. In my own personal view legend status in the Open era goes to Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors, Pete Sampras, Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. They stand above the rest in my opinion for achievements, consistency and their continued recognition in the sport and that will not diminish in any of their cases. Strong/weak eras exist though that much is certain.

I think you should add Agassi to that list, although I pretty much agree with everything you have stated in your last couple of posts. Of course weak and strong eras exist. It would be absloutely counterintuitive to assume that they don't, frankly it would be unnatural if such periods of weaker and stronger competition didn't exist in a sport. I like your economics analogy that you used, in general the economies of the world have been moving up consistently in the long term. But in the shorterm you do have periods where economies collapse or stagnate. While the progression in the longview is always in an upward direction, (at least since industrialization) you have periods of boom, bust, and stagnation along the way as the progression isn't always lineal. Sometimes you take two steps forward and one step back, I will always consider the late 90s and early 2000s as the step back period.

BB, nothing has changed in my position. Nothing, you haven't been able to point to a single major inconsistency. I started talking about this issue on this site, and the main thrust of my argument has easily survived the weak assaults and name calling you have produced and that you confuse with logic.

On your other point, one of the telltale signs of a weak period is the a number of players raising up to win a grandslam and then fading completely from the picture. You have to analyze different factors. First, if you look at the weaker #1, and one slam wonder era and compare the best years any of those champions produced you will find that none of their best years were particularly dominant in a historical sense. Then you also look at whether they were able to consistently replicate their success, which none of those guys were able to, this is another way to analyze it. So you look at shorterm (best individual years) and their consistency (longer view of their career). The reason that hewitt, Ferrero, Roddick, Moya are "nondescript" as you yourself state is because they weren't that good it has little to nothing to do with their charisma or personality.

Bit like Connors would have been had he played with Federer, Sampras, Borg, McEnroe and Lendl?

In my opinion legends dominate in the era they play no matter what the level of competition. In short the players can only beat the players in front of them and those that manage that consistently dominate.

bogbrush wrote:Bit like Connors would have been had he played with Federer, Sampras, Borg, McEnroe and Lendl?

I don't get what you are trying to argue here, really i don't. Are you saying that Connors is nondescript or weaker? What are you trying to say?

CaledonianCraig wrote:In my opinion legends dominate in the era they play no matter what the level of competition. In short the players can only beat the players in front of them and those that manage that consistently dominate.

Exactly, even if playing with other legends they find away to make their mark. Lendl dominated the mid to late 80s. Yet, other legends like Wilander, Edberg, and Becker were still able to carve out an individual legacy while not as consistent as Lendl. That is the reason that Nadal was able to carve out a legacy in Fed's best years. That is why Djoko has been able to carve out his own niche in the Fedal and post Fedal years. That is why ferrero, moya, hewitt, safin, and Roddick completely failed to carve out much of a legacy before or after the rise of Fed. Their games just weren't strong enough. On their days, in their best years, on their best surfaces; they find away to win and make their mark regardless of the competition.

Socal - you say the racquets changed from wood to graphite were a bigger change than surfaces, etc. This is incorrect. Nearly all the players chanegd to graphite racquets around the same time so it was a relative change. Secondly, we did not see ANY change of play from the guys themselves. The S&V era did not suddenly go to the baseline era. That's the key point - we should look at outcomes, not input.

But we know tennis has changed hugely in the past 10+ years. We only have to look at the game to see that.

Again....90s = era (1), essentially faster game, early 00s (2) = slower game, mid 00s+ (3) = slowed down game. This is the biggest change we have seen in the Open Era. We see guys like Stepanek having been virtually erased from the tour as a species. They were erased when we went from wood to graphite were they?

Then you said this: "Adapting to changing technology and conditions is one facet of greatness that obviously the early 00s players lacked. It didn't stop Roger, he won 16 grandslams on slowed conditions. He was great and able to change his style the others weren't."

a) Yes, he adapted. But you MISSED my point. The guys of era (2) were trained as fastcourt era (1) players but ended up having to play in slower conditions. Federer was trained as an era (3) player but was adept on fast surfaces - he's just a legend in being able to do that.
b) But didnt you notice that Federer struggled against era (1) players early on...Henman, Kuerten, Rafter, Corretja...ok he was youngish for some of them but you get my point...the era (1) players were more specialised, the era (2) players who were more jack of all trade players struggled against the specialist fastcourt and baseline players from era (1) or (3).
c) But it still does not make their own era weak. It was just a different time - a weird time even. Players from era (1) and (3) were able to eat into these early 00s players and cost them slams that they probably would have had more success with had they been able to play in either of the different eras.
d) Isnt it weird that no-one new stood out of that small era of say 99-03 when for most of the Open Era you had legends cropping up regularly otherwise? I think the transitional nature of the period undid the players potential. Had Hewitt, Safin or Nalby been in prime today I think they would have been as good as Murray or Djokovic. Roddick I'm not sure about, I think he is more 1-dimensional.

Re: Ljubicic (and also Blake), I still think he's like Martin. Their records arent really that dissimilar. Both solid players that didnt set the tour alight and occasionally took out some of the big boys. You get them in every era.

Djoko had not carved out his niche prior to this year from 2006-2010, he was simply was not a dominant player of the tour. Only in this year has he started to realise great results. But we have to also realise its against an aging Federer (who can still beat him though after so many miles under his legs), an out of sorts Nadal (this is no 2008 Nadal), and Murray who's going backwards.
What other players are around to be stood up and be counted at the moment? What otherwise is making this year so special?

Nole's having a great, great year - of course - but lets not start annointing him as some all time great and 00-03 as a weak era just because that era's players couldnt carve out dominance in a following era that was different to their own. And as I've explained era (2) is a unique era...encroached by players from the specialist eras from before and after who could play well in era (2), but not vice-versa. Era (2) players were neither out and out fastcourt players or specialist baseliners...and because their era didnt last long (probably really only 01-03 in reality) they didnt get much time to win much before they were overwhelmed by those before and those afterwards....

Equipment and court conditions etc aren't really an issue though as each tournament throughout time has been the same for each player of that era. Players can only be judged on their results/achievements/consistency in whatever era they played in.

lydian wrote:Socal - you say the racquets changed from wood to graphite were a bigger change than surfaces, etc. This is incorrect. Nearly all the players chanegd to graphite racquets around the same time so it was a relative change. Secondly, we did not see ANY change of play from the guys themselves. The S&V era did not suddenly go to the baseline era. That's the key point - we should look at outcomes, not input.

But we know tennis has changed hugely in the past 10+ years. We only have to look at the game to see that.

Again....90s = era (1), essentially faster game, early 00s (2) = slower game, mid 00s+ (3) = slowed down game. This is the biggest change we have seen in the Open Era. We see guys like Stepanek having been virtually erased from the tour as a species. They were erased when we went from wood to graphite were they?

Then you said this: "Adapting to changing technology and conditions is one facet of greatness that obviously the early 00s players lacked. It didn't stop Roger, he won 16 grandslams on slowed conditions. He was great and able to change his style the others weren't."

a) Yes, he adapted. But you MISSED my point. The guys of era (2) were trained as fastcourt era (1) players but ended up having to play in slower conditions. Federer was trained as an era (3) player but was adept on fast surfaces - he's just a legend in being able to do that. But didnt you notice that Federer struggled against era (1) players early on...Henman, Kuerten, Rafter, Corretja...ok he was youngish for some of them but you get my point...the era (1) players were more specialised, the era (2) players who were more jack of all trade players struggled against the specialist fastcourt and baseline players from era (1) or (3). But it still does not make their own era weak. It was just a different time - a weird time even. Players from era (1) and (3) were able to eat into these early 00s players and cost them slams that they probably would have had more success with had they been able to play in either of the different eras. I mean - isnt it weird that no-one new stood out of that small era of say 99-03 when for most of the Open Era you had legends cropping up regularly otherwise? I think the transitional nature of the period undid the players. Had Hewitt, Safin or Nalby been in prime today I think they would have been as good as Murray or Djokovic. Roddick I'm not sure about, I think he is more 1-dimensional.

Re: Ljubicic (and also Blake), I still think he's like Martin. Their records arent really that dissimilar. Both solid players that didnt set the tour alight and occasionally took out some of the big boys. You get them in every era.

Djoko had not carved out his niche prior to this year from 2006-2010 he was not a main leader of the tour. Only in this year has he started to realise his potential - but we have to also realise its against an aging Federer (who can stil beat him), an out of sorts Nadal, and a Murray going backwards. What other players are around to be stood up and be counted at the moment - what makes this year so special? He's having a great, great year - of course - but lets not start annointing Djoko as some all time great and 00-03 a weak era just because they couldnt carve out dominance in a following era that was different to their own.

for the upteenth time.

Lydian your posts actually make sense. With Socal, on the other hand, I can't make head or tail of anything he says.

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Bit like Connors would have been had he played with Federer, Sampras, Borg, McEnroe and Lendl?

I don't get what you are trying to argue here, really i don't. Are you saying that Connors is nondescript or weaker? What are you trying to say?

I'm saying that by your measure he would be so classified.

socal1976 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:In my opinion legends dominate in the era they play no matter what the level of competition. In short the players can only beat the players in front of them and those that manage that consistently dominate.

Exactly, even if playing with other legends they find away to make their mark. Lendl dominated the mid to late 80s. Yet, other legends like Wilander, Edberg, and Becker were still able to carve out an individual legacy while not as consistent as Lendl. That is the reason that Nadal was able to carve out a legacy in Fed's best years. That is why Djoko has been able to carve out his own niche in the Fedal and post Fedal years. That is why ferrero, moya, hewitt, safin, and Roddick completely failed to carve out much of a legacy before or after the rise of Fed. Their games just weren't strong enough. On their days, in their best years, on their best surfaces; they find away to win and make their mark regardless of the competition.

Noles "niche" in the Fedal period was 1 AO and a final in the USO. Pardon me for not reaching for the record books. JMDP managed a Slam in the same period but Djokovic far outsripped him in rankings terms, having been the best of the rest throughout the Fedal domination.

Post Fedal is the newly annointed Golden Oldie Era.

At the moment Djokovic is not a legend but a few more slams and he will be knocking on the door. I've already said who, in my eyes are legends of the game, and none of them were plying their trade in the early 200o's at their peak.The mid-70's to mid-80's had a number of legends to choose from and the current crop have two genuine legends (Federer and Nadal) with Djokovic possibly knocking on the door in a couple of years time if he continues his domination.

At the moment Djokovic is not a legend but a few more slams and he will be knocking on the door.

He's a legend for making a mockery of Nadull the paper champion in 2011, cmon now?

You write a very detailed and elaborate argument, well versed in tennis knowledge, however logically weak in my opinion. Judging from past arguments you have made we are pretty much in agreement that conditions were faster prior to 2003-02. The new bigger balls came around in 03 and so did the luxlon strings maybe a tiny bit later or before.

EVEN IN THEIR OWN SHORT TRANSITIONAL ERA, with faster conditions than today, PRIOR TO THE RISE OF ROGER, and playing in their healthiest and best years these weak era #1s weren't particulary dominant or accomplished. Take Hewitt's 2002 campaign, it wouldn't get him the number one ranking in any year after 2004. In 2002 hewitt wins 5 tournaments, 1 masters, the masters cup, and a grandslam. Djokovic in 08 wins one less 250, 4 tourneys, 1 master, the master's cup, and a grandslam. Has two more match wins over the course of the season and finishes a distant third. Great number ones have at least that one special year usually winning more than one slam. So just take conditions out of your argument, the conditions are the same for everyone, a true great like Federer is the exact same age and even younger than these players and went on the greatest grandslam rampage in history AFTER THE CONDITIONS WERE SLOWED. And besides even at their best with favorable conditions these champions didn't accomplish nearly as much in their moment of sunshine as other #1s.

Your intricate analysis, states that the transitional players had trouble both against the type 1 S and V guys, and the type 3 slow condition players. (Maybe because they just weren't as good) We can assume that they were poor victims of circumstances completely thrown off by an 8-12 percent bigger ball that everyone else also had to play with and didn't seem to bother Roger or Andre at that time, or using Occum's Razor (thanks for reminding me of that BB from my undergraduate days) we just say they weren't as good as those two guys.

Your theory that we can not judge the accomplishments, dominance, and greatness of two players or eras against each other (even if they are contemporaries not of the same age) unless they played with every single variable being the same and in exactly the same period is counterintuitive. If we take the implications of what you say and apply it would be impossible to state that Andre Agassi for example is a greater champion than Somdev Devarman. If someone asked us that question we would have to say sorry, there is no way to answer that question who knows if Agassi is greater than Devarman or Bjorn Phau, they didn't play under EXACTLY THE SAME CONDITIONS.

Why did these changing conditions hardly even phase Federer who is the exact same age as these guys, he is actually slightly older than Roddick? Why did these changing conditions not phase Andre? Part of greatness is that they don't shrivel up and die career wise because a new type of string comes around or an 8% bigger ball, or because they mix a little more sand in the court. Look at connors, the guy played everyone from Laver to Sampras, you don't think he coped with changes? Or look Agassi, he succeeded in all three periods that you describe, he didn't die career wise in any of these changing conditions, you know why he didn't because he is a true great.

It didn't impact Federer because he's the greatest player ever.

It didn't faze Andre because arguably it brought the game towards him; if anything he was more at home in era (2) than era (1) and that may even partly explain his longevity.

Lydian is right: look at what happened to Pete when he walked on court against Hewitt as era (2) opened up; even though he was past it, the thrashings were extreme.

There's a reason why Nadal, stupendously successful player as he is, still talks in awed tones about how good Federer is. The players who have been around for a while know what it took for him to be so good for so long, and they've stood the other side of the net from him. What's hurt Federer is that in era (3) you have to have great physical conditioning because the balance is with the retriever, and as he's aged he's lost that edge. If they played on era (1) court tomorrow he'd probably clean up, but of course they don't.

Back to the conditions debate, these guys were not that good EVEN IN THEIR OWN ERA, WITH FASTER CONDITIONS.

Even if you look at what they accomplished in their absolute best, absolute best golden moments. It can not compare to any of the 10 or 15 best years tennis greats have had. When there was no big bad roger around at his best, the courts were fast, and their bodies were healthy. None of those weaker #1s best years are even comparable to the best years of other #1s before or after.

And Bogbrush you do realize I agree with you. The reason that Federer went on to win 16 slams is because he is quantifiably, measurably, and objectively better than all of his contemporaries who failed to do so. The same reason connors was able to be so good in a tennis landscape that completely differed from the one he entered playing. The game went from grass dominated from what connors grew up playing to hardcourt dominated. Players went from wooden racquets to graphite racquets. The game went from a no money country club game to a big money global sport. Younger some would say greater players like lendl, agassi, and sampras came into the picture and Jimmy still competed and won. So if a few minor changes in conditions cause a player like Hewitt or safin to fall from grandslam glory to fighting to stay in the top 20, well maybe their hold on dominance was a lot more fragile? And the reason because they were not great players in quite the same league as Connors, Agassi, and Fed who were able to carve out their niches regardless of these details.