Tsonga believes the competition is getting stronger, I guess that makes him a weak era theorist

MONTREAL — After France’s Jo-Wilfried Tsonga toppled Roger Federer of Switzerland late Thursday night at the Rogers Cup to advance to the quarterfinals, reporters wondered if Federer, who turned 30 – gasp – this week, seemed “less impressive.”

Tsonga laughed.

“No,” he said. “All the players keep improving. The competition is becoming tougher. Today, I believe that no player can be spared. Look at Rafa, who lost, and Murray. The only one remaining above everybody else is Djokovic.”

http://straightsets.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/12/as-favorites-fall-djokovic-marches-on/

Well it looks like I am not the only one who says that the game is getting stronger and the competition is getting tougher at the top. Maybe Tsonga doesn't know what he is talking about when he compares this era favorably to the past. Federer loses and certain individuals claim that this reflects that there is nothing special with this current period of tennis, while a real professional player actually views federer's loss as a sign of how tough the level of competition has gotten.

socal1976 wrote:MONTREAL — After France’s Jo-Wilfried Tsonga toppled Roger Federer of Switzerland late Thursday night at the Rogers Cup to advance to the quarterfinals, reporters wondered if Federer, who turned 30 – gasp – this week, seemed “less impressive.”

Tsonga laughed.

“No,” he said. “All the players keep improving. The competition is becoming tougher. Today, I believe that no player can be spared. Look at Rafa, who lost, and Murray. The only one remaining above everybody else is Djokovic.”

http://straightsets.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/12/as-favorites-fall-djokovic-marches-on/

Well it looks like I am not the only one who says that the game is getting stronger and the competition is getting tougher at the top. Maybe Tsonga doesn't know what he is talking about when he compares this era
favorably to the past. Federer loses and certain individuals claim that this reflects that there is nothing special with this current period of tennis, while a real professional player actually views federer's loss as a sign of how tough the level of competition has gotten.

To be fair though socal, Tsonga is hardly likely to proclaim he's playing in a weak era. Imagine the following quote:

"All the players keep getting worse. The competition is getting easier."

No but he doesn't have to come out and state the competition is getting tougher. I am sure he wouldn't denigrate his compatriots but JW has always struck me as an open and honest guy. He drew a lot of flack after the AO of proclaiming an end to Fedal domination, he turned out to be correct.
He seems to be saying that the level of play is going up and has gone up, just like I am saying. Certain segments claim that Fed's loss some how reflects badly on the current generation, well that isn't what tsonga thinks.

Oh ffs this is getting funnier by the post.

So now the player who has finally registered some clear wins over a player who has generally hammered and sometimes humiliated him declares that the turnaround is because he's got better?

No sh1t Sherlock.

I guess that goes the same for Richard Gasquet too after he beat Fed this year. Yeah, scaling new heights he is.

No one is claiming that Roger is the same Roger of 2006. But fed can still play and he isn't that old when you think about what some other legends where able to accomplish in advanced years on tour. He is still capable of the incredible run or performance like the WTF at the end of last year and his play in the semi of RG this year.

In 2002 Safin was saying that tennis was tougher than ever before. Should we believe that as well?

Anyone who still thinks that the players of 2003 - 2007 were a patch on the players before or the players to come afterwards is living in cloud cuckoo land.

We will look back on that period and remember the incredible consistency of Roger Federer, the battling spirit of Nadal who really took it to and conquered Federer with a half developed game and maybe Roddick, the whipping boy who always got A* for effort but E for flair and technique.

The Ljubicic, Robredo, Blake, Berdych, Davydenko etc other staples of the top 10 in that period were not big match players. We barely remember them now let alone in ten or twenty years time.

Of the players post 2008, Nadal is already an all time great. I believe Djokovic will definitely go down as an all time great too. Djokovic is currently having the most dominant year in tennis history against some of the best players who have ever played the game. Del Potro is a star. I believe Murray will win slams. Tsonga has the game to join them though I am not sure of his mentality yet. And then there are the youngsters like Raonic, Dimitrov, Tomic who have the ball striking potential to break through into the top 10 but it remains to be seen if they have or can develop the other essential talents.

But the established players are a clear step ahead of their equivalents in the top 10 2003 - 2007 in terms of ability, competitiveness and big match temperament.

socal1976 wrote:Maybe Tsonga doesn't know what he is talking about when he compares this era favorably to the past

I dont see how this is linking this era to past eras (whatever they are anyway), he's talking about playing getting better presumably in this era. I dont think we can extrapolate to the past from his comments.

icecold wrote:
The Ljubicic, Robredo, Blake, Berdych, Davydenko etc other staples of the top 10 in that period

'That period' being 2003 - 2007

Ummm, isn't Berdych in the Top 10 now? It's only in the last year he's been a top 10 staple.
Robredo, Blake, Ljubicic didn't make the top 10 until 2006 (Oct 2005 for Ljubicic)
Davydenko first entered the top to in June 2005 and most recently in Oct 2010

Not quite sure why you chose 2003-2007 and then mentioned those players.
Research!

Thank you icecold for that exceptional post that frankly should be obvious to everyone, the players of that period from 03-07 where incredibly weak, the numbers speak to these facts clearly. Roger wasn't winning every masters and knocking all these weaker champions out of every slam. I would posit that however that 2000,01,02 weren't any better although Andre was still around during this whole time frame he was in advanced years and still probably the best player on tour at the time. It is a huge misnomer that the ljubi, blake, hewitt, roddick, and safin generation didn't win simply because Roger was so great. Well why was Nadal at 18 able to carve a niche out for himself in the peak era of Fed, why to a lesser extent were murray and djoko able to carve a niche for themselves while ferrero, roddick, hewitt, and safin completely disappeared into irrelevancy in their physical prime once the new generation of players came up. (nadal, murray, novak, berdy, gasquet, monfils, tsonga) And it wasn't just Federer beating these guys everyone of them except Roddick struggled to even remain in the top 20, all of the young guns started beating them en masse.

lydian wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Maybe Tsonga doesn't know what he is talking about when he compares this era favorably to the past

I dont see how this is linking this era to past eras (whatever they are anyway), he's talking about playing getting better presumably in this era. I dont think we can extrapolate to the past from his comments.

Lydian when someone says the competition is getting tougher, the only logical conclusion is that he is making a comparison to the recent past. This is the indirect version of what I am saying. He doesn't come out and say," Ljubicic top 3, are you kidding me those guys back then are awful, we would kill them". But when he says the competition is tougher it is comparison to the recent past, no other interpretation makes any sense.

What about when Safin said the same thing back in 2002? Shall we just assume the player who mirrors your own beliefs is right and the other one is wrong?
Players have always been saying how tough it is 'nowadays'.
Novak said recently something along the lines of 'it's tougher now to win a slam than in the last 5 years.' Weak era 2006-2010 apparently.

It might also be worth pointing out that that one of socal's definition of a weak era is where there is only one player playing at his peak i.e. no competition for the No. 1.
Tsonga clearly states that 'No player can be spared' except Djokovic, who is 'above everyone else' - does that mean he thinks everyone has now reached Rafa's level? Or with Djokovic seemingly without serious competition, has Tsonga inadvertently pointed towards a current weak era?
He does saying 'is becoming stronger', not 'has become stronger'. Perhaps he expects a Golden Era next year?

This is all nonsense of course. Henman once said that when he was asked questions by the press there were 2 answers - the right one and the truth.
Is JWT really going to say, 'yeah, Fed is slower, too old, a bit past it' and then give him a cheery 'hello' next time they meet in the locker room?

No, socals definition of an era is any era other than one which Djokovic played in so long as he wasn't withdrawing due to MTO's, heat, tiredness, parental intervention, etc. In other words, today has to be the Golden Era and anything associated with any other recent player must have been weak because otherwise Nole couldn't be so wonderful could he?

Julius is right; JWT only has one rational answer to provide; it's serves the purpose that he's improving and doesn't offend Federer.

The reality that any long term students of the game know is that it's always tough, and theories about weak eras should be left to fanboys to fantasise over.

What next then Jo?!

Tsonga believes in Aliens.

Penguins CAN fly - source Tsonga.

Afghanistan is a peaceful country, according to JWT.

Leave it out Jo

socal1976 wrote:

lydian wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Maybe Tsonga doesn't know what he is talking about when he compares this era favorably to the past

I dont see how this is linking this era to past eras (whatever they are anyway), he's talking about playing getting better presumably in this era. I dont think we can extrapolate to the past from his comments.

Lydian when someone says the competition is getting tougher, the only logical conclusion is that he is making a comparison to the recent past. This is the indirect version of what I am saying. He doesn't come out and say," Ljubicic top 3, are you kidding me those guys back then are awful, we would kill them". But when he says the competition is tougher it is comparison to the recent past, no other interpretation makes any sense.

Right, that must be the Ivan Ljubicic who won his first ever Masters Series title in 2010? So the hopeless guy who never won a Masters back through the weak period of 2003-7 suddenly turns one up in the "Golden Era" at the age of 31?

I didn't think anyone could shoot their foot off that bad, but you've taken the leg off to the knee.

socal1976 wrote:Thank you icecold for that exceptional post that frankly should be obvious to everyone, the players of that period from 03-07 where incredibly weak, the numbers speak to these facts clearly. Roger wasn't winning every masters and knocking all these weaker champions out of every slam. I would posit that however that 2000,01,02 weren't any better although Andre was still around during this whole time frame he was in advanced years and still probably the best player on tour at the time. It is a huge misnomer that the ljubi, blake, hewitt, roddick, and safin generation didn't win simply because Roger was so great. Well why was Nadal at 18 able to carve a niche out for himself in the peak era of Fed, why to a lesser extent were murray and djoko able to carve a niche for themselves while ferrero, roddick, hewitt, and safin completely disappeared into irrelevancy in their physical prime once the new generation of players came up. (nadal, murray, novak, berdy, gasquet, monfils, tsonga) And it wasn't just Federer beating these guys everyone of them except Roddick struggled to even remain in the top 20, all of the young guns started beating them en masse.

No way was Ferrero in his physical prime, injuries from 2004 put paid to him really. Safin definitely had the talent, but could not harness it. Did you see him demolish Djokovic at Wimbledon 2008? It's a bit of a stretch to say that Murray and Djokovic had carved niches by 2007. Had they achieved more than Hewitt or Roddick?

Sorry to be a pedant, but it's not a 'misnomer' either. That's when the wrong word is used for something. I think you mean 'misconception', although you are wrong!

socal1976 wrote: <snip> while ferrero, roddick, hewitt, and safin completely disappeared into irrelevancy in their physical prime once the new generation of players came up. (nadal, murray, novak, berdy, gasquet, monfils, tsonga) And it wasn't just Federer beating these guys everyone of them except Roddick struggled to even remain in the top 20, all of the young guns started beating them en masse.

Yeah, Hewitt in physical peak in 2007? What a laugh.

Ferrerro?

And Safin too?? This gets better.

No way was Ferrero in his physical prime, injuries from 2004 put paid to him really. Safin definitely had the talent, but could not harness it. Did you see him demolish Djokovic at Wimbledon 2008? It's a bit of a stretch to say that Murray and Djokovic had carved niches by 2007. Had they achieved more than Hewitt or Roddick?

Actually, yes Novak by even 2007 had accomplished more than Hewitt and Roddick ever did after the rise of Federer. Novak got to a grandslam final and won 2 masters events. Something that supposedly, great lleyton hewitt never accomplished even in his Rogerless peak. Find a year that Hewitt or Roddick had post 2004 and the rise of Federer nearly as good as the year Djokovic had in 07. At the least he was winning master's titles and getting deap into most of the slams at age 19. In fact, he beat Roddick, Nadal, and Federer then the #1,2,and #3 players in the world on consecutive days to win the Canada masters in 07.

Bogbrush, I never said that Hewitt was at his physical peak in 2007, but he wasn't old either.

socal1976 wrote:Actually, yes Novak by even 2007 had accomplished more than Hewitt and Roddick ever did after the rise of Federer. Novak got to a grandslam final and won 2 masters events. Something that supposedly, great lleyton hewitt never accomplished even in his Rogerless peak. Find a year that Hewitt or Roddick had post 2004 and the rise of Roddick nearly as good as the year Djokovic had in 07. At the least he was winning master's titles and getting deap into most of the slams at age 19. In fact, he beat Roddick, Nadal, and Federer then the #1,2,and #3 players in the world on consecutive days to win the Canada masters in 07.

Bogbrush, I never said that Hewitt was at his physical peak in 2007, but he wasn't old either.

And Murray? You have a habit of conveniently not replying sometimes...

We know now that Djokovic is a fine player, but back in 2007 he was mainly potential. At that stage he had not definitively achieved more than Hewitt or Roddick in total. The Canada Masters was impressive, but so was Nalbandian's streak in 2007. Taken in isolation they don't count for much, other than being a hot streak at a certain time and Djokovic certainly would be nothing other than a tennis footnote if his career had stopped then.

Hewitt wasn't old in comparison to some players, but he started on the tour at a very young age. Indeed, he won an ATP tournament before he was 17. Ageing profiles differ across players, this is obvious.

Murray as well, how many times did Andy roddick beat Roger in those years and how many times did Murray win? And I only mentioned Djokovic because you called me on showing how he carved a niche for himself despite Fed and Rafa. So comapre the years that Roddick and Hewitt had post 2004 to Djokovic 07. By 07 he was clearly the #3 player on tour, within a couple of years of his #1 ranking hewitt was struggling to stay in the top 20. Both Djokovic and Murray had more success after the rise of Fed than the previous generation of guys Ferrero, Safin, Hewitt, Roddick etc. At least they were able to consistently reach the semis of slams and to win Masters titles consistently while scoring some big victories against Roger and Rafa. None of the #1s were able to accomplish at a similar level POST THE RISE OF ROGER.

I love Tsonga, but really the 28 year old Federer of AO 2010 beat Tsonga (who was what about 24?) comprehensively 62 63 62 and now the 26 ish year old Tsonga has turned the tables and beaten the 30 year old Fed (who has run a lot of miles and is probably, whatever he says, losing a little hunger) in 5 sets in Wimbledon and 3 in Montreal - it sounds about the right order of things in any era. Tsonga may well be strengthening his game as Fed's falls off a bit - this fact does not extrapolate into players now are better than players in 2003-07. Who was Djokovic's finalist yesterday

Tsonga is a wonderful player of flair and guile at his best, and one of my absolute favourites on tour - but so many of these posts are written to have a sideways snipe at the achievements of Federer and quite frankly they just make the poster look incredibly silly.

Tsonga is a nice player but he's no all time great is he. Come on.
He's got a great serve and FH, but he's got limitations in many other areas. Guys like Federer, Nadal and Djokovic always stand out due to their movement and fluidity, and innate skill levels.

Plus, Tsonga is hardly going to say "well I'm doing well because I'm beating a guy who's over the hill" is he?

We have to realise that we have moved through 2-3 types of eras in the past 13-14 years...

(1) Forecourt era up to mid-late 90s
(2) Transitional era late 90s-early 00s
(3) Baseline era early 00s onwards

What we've been arguing around are trying to compare the above 3 areas and you cant do it because the game has changed alot. Hewitt/Roddick/Safin came from era (2) where the game itself was changing as the courts slowed down. The older type of players faded away who were good in era (1), a new breed of players emerged who were half-good at forecourt game and half-good at baselining, but they were then superceded by the new era (3) breed who could drill the ball better from the baseline. As era (3) has progressed we've seen the baton passed from Federer to Nadal to Djokovic as the drilling-ability has increased with the slows slowing to their present condition.
Era (4) will be a new breed of player who can ralley but finds a new way to attack in the forecourt...but that era hasnt started yet and who knows when it will. Maybe its Tomic, etc, or maybe its the next pack aftter them who will be coached in a new way to exploit all areas of the court.

Anyway, Tsonga is a era (3) type player with a big serve. But he's nothing special. He's not as good as Nadal or Djokovic, or Fed when he was in prime. For the record, I think Federer was the only guy who could transition from era (2) to era (3) and this did make him unique, his skill level allowed him to excel in both era whereas Hewitt, Nalby, Safin, etc, couldnt make the transition. Sampras found it hard to adjust from era (1) to era (2) and he was aging. Agassi was a unique talent as he seemed to be able to exceed across all 3 eras - perhaps the only player do be able to do that - but he was helped by the transition era (2) players being jack of all trades. However, his standard against era (3) players was still remarkable given his age. As I say, a unique talent.

But era (2) -and the subject of much discussion on here - was an interesting period because of how tennis was moving inbetween two stabilised conditions of play...and it was this era that produced a "mediocre" type of player because they had to be good at a number of things but were master of none. That's why for me it was a parity type "era"...and only Federer emerged from it as a true great. Some of that might be because was brought up on clay so was trained in an era (3) way. Hewitt and others werent and couldnt adapt their homogenised games to era (3). You have to say it was odd how they couldnt adapt to the new era (3) at all really. The game literally passed them by as it changed to stabilised slow conditions.

Back to 606v2 favourite of 'Wee Keira'....

Edit: Groundhog Day at it's best. The link here is a plot spoiler, read at your risk.

https://www.606v2.com/t10898-the-era-of-weak-number-1s

No, I dont think my post was about weak era thanks, I'd like to think I'd thrown some new observations into the mix - and happy to have them disagreed/agreed, etc. I'm not discussing Weak Era, just the way the game has changed and how the changing times produce different types of players.

The "weak era" argument is only used to back up people's favourite player(s)... i hope this is the last time i ever see a "weak era" topic because it is boring and just a catalyst for a wind-up

Lydian, i think your post makes some good points. And I am glad that you are finally acknowledging that in the transitional period we saw a lot of mediocre talents succeed that would not have the game to succeed in other periods. I have to take issue with the main point in your thesis however. You keep stating how we can't compare a player in this era to a player who played just a few years ago because everything is so different. Here I disagree, it depends on the type of comparison.

We can measure their level of dominance, consistency, and accomplishment of players in one era against an era that is relatively close to other in time frame. If your thesis is correct then it would be illogical for example to state that Agassi is a more accomplished champion than Murray for example. Logically, it is clear to anyone that follows the game that this a true statement. Why because Agassi won more and for a longer period of time than Murray. His best seasons blow away anything that murray has yet been able to accomplish. Therefore if you can objectively measure the accomplishments and level of dominance of two players who played relatively close to each other in time frame the same comparison can be done for two different eras especially when we are talking about just a few years here.

lydian wrote:No, I dont think my post was about weak era thanks, I'd like to think I'd thrown some new observations into the mix - and happy to have them disagreed/agreed, etc. I'm not discussing Weak Era, just the way the game has changed and how the changing times produce different types of players.

My comment was intended towards the OP. This line of article writing is a repetition of many other articles that have been written.

Transition of the game does not mean a 'weak' era, but reflects the survival of the players who could make the successful transition. Federer made the transition from his 1998 W Junior days to the 2001 'in-between' to the 2003+ baselining days. Roddick won Miami 2010. Blake almost beat Isner in Washington. A 32-year old Stepanek (from the S&V) days won Washington, an ATP 500 event.

The 'Wee Keira' is a myth to make one player look better than another. Nadal won 3 FOs (05-07) in the so-called WE.

Interesting that posters follow this route to analyse achievements without any appreciation of the context and the environment.

I dont think 03-07 was a weak era either, just a transitional one that allowed jack of all trade players to come to the fore between the fore court and baseline eras.

Some players could make it through to era (3) but they won less than before. I think Nadal would have won those 3 FOs in any era just about. He was a clay beast back then who hadnt adapted to other surfaces so in a way he was even more awesome on clay then as that was his focus. Indeed if you watch some of his earlier matches on HC in 2005, he was pretty awesome then, he's a little backwards for me the past 18 months (USO notwithstanding) as he's been tinkering with his game too much.

But to come back to era (2) - the transition - it is a unique period of tennis history because we had never gone from one style of play dominance to another before.So for those players who came out of that era...would they have been better in era (1) or era (3) if their game had developed sorely for those eras?

Lydian, i think what you don't take into consideration in your analysis is that you state we "had never gone from one style of dominance to another before". I actually, disagree. If you look back on tennis from the late 70s to the present what you will see is the power baseline game really from the time of Lendl slowly and surely supplanting S and V tennis. Yes we had the big servers in the 90s but since the modern racquet and later the modern strings accelarated the process but the game has been going more physical and more baseline oriented for about 25 years. It has been a gradual process and up until a few years ago we had a lot of great S and V champions. But, in the late 70s and early 80s even the baseliners were very frequent and adept volleyers who had to finish points at net. Connors and borg are two examples of old school baseline players who in today's game with the number of net rushes they made in the past would be considered volleyers. Borg played S and V at wimby and Connors won wimby 82 by basically taking the net away from Mac, no mean feat.

I think Nadal would have won those 3 FOs in any era just about. He was a clay beast back then who hadnt adapted to other surfaces so in a way he was even more awesome on clay then as that was his focus.

He had only 1 good player for competition in the french... Novak was still an inconsistent player until this year. You say Nadal would've beat anyone but there hasn't been anyone i have been impressed with on this surface other than the current top 2, even Fed was not impressing me on clay.

lydian wrote:Tsonga is a nice player but he's no all time great is he. Come on.
He's got a great serve and FH, but he's got limitations in many other areas. Guys like Federer, Nadal and Djokovic always stand out due to their movement and fluidity, and innate skill levels.

Plus, Tsonga is hardly going to say "well I'm doing well because I'm beating a guy who's over the hill" is he?

We have to realise that we have moved through 2-3 types of eras in the past 13-14 years...

(1) Forecourt era up to mid-late 90s
(2) Transitional era late 90s-early 00s
(3) Baseline era early 00s onwards

What we've been arguing around are trying to compare the above 3 areas and you cant do it because the game has changed alot. Hewitt/Roddick/Safin came from era (2) where the game itself was changing as the courts slowed down. The older type of players faded away who were good in era (1), a new breed of players emerged who were half-good at forecourt game and half-good at baselining, but they were then superceded by the new era (3) breed who could drill the ball better from the baseline. As era (3) has progressed we've seen the baton passed from Federer to Nadal to Djokovic as the drilling-ability has increased with the slows slowing to their present condition.
Era (4) will be a new breed of player who can ralley but finds a new way to attack in the forecourt...but that era hasnt started yet and who knows when it will. Maybe its Tomic, etc, or maybe its the next pack aftter them who will be coached in a new way to exploit all areas of the court.

Anyway, Tsonga is a era (3) type player with a big serve. But he's nothing special. He's not as good as Nadal or Djokovic, or Fed when he was in prime. For the record, I think Federer was the only guy who could transition from era (2) to era (3) and this did make him unique, his skill level allowed him to excel in both era whereas Hewitt, Nalby, Safin, etc, couldnt make the transition. Sampras found it hard to adjust from era (1) to era (2) and he was aging. Agassi was a unique talent as he seemed to be able to exceed across all 3 eras - perhaps the only player do be able to do that - but he was helped by the transition era (2) players being jack of all trades. However, his standard against era (3) players was still remarkable given his age. As I say, a unique talent.

But era (2) -and the subject of much discussion on here - was an interesting period because of how tennis was moving inbetween two stabilised conditions of play...and it was this era that produced a "mediocre" type of player because they had to be good at a number of things but were master of none. That's why for me it was a parity type "era"...and only Federer emerged from it as a true great. Some of that might be because was brought up on clay so was trained in an era (3) way. Hewitt and others werent and couldnt adapt their homogenised games to era (3). You have to say it was odd how they couldnt adapt to the new era (3) at all really. The game literally passed them by as it changed to stabilised slow conditions.

Really good post, well done.

And socal, he didn't mean era (2) players were themselves mediocre, just that they had to master a broader type of game. Hell, a twister could try to argue that made them more accomplished than era (1) or (3).