Is our Great Era really debunked?- point by point dissection

First topic message reminder :

Hello all
Some of you may have noticed Tenez wrote an article recently about the 'great era debunked.' Here I have taken the opportunity to write a 'counter article' aiming to disprove his points. I am not trying to insult Tenez, just disprove the points he has made.

These are 4 points, going in ascending order of importance of seriousness (with a context for people who don't know what's going on):

Context: In Tenez's article Tenez gave stats showing how the rallies have become more slower and also pointed out that there are more shots per rallies these days. These days apparently its about 'grinding' and in 2006 more about 'talent.' As a conclusion it was implied that 2006 should be seen in better respect compared to 2011.

POINT NUMBER 1:
Firstly Tenez unfortunately could only compare a few points in the respective matches. A completely full-proof
research would have been to record every single point but this was not realistically possible.

POINT NUMBER 2:
Another unfortunate shortcoming is that the matches used were played by very different players. Federer and Blake will always have shorter points and faster rallies than Nadal-Djokovic- whichever surface you play on!

POINT NUMBER 3;
Who decided that if the matches are played with longer rallies it meant that the people playing were 'less talented.' The awesome defensive skill shown by Nadal and Djokovic in the US Open final were immense- clearly this should also be recognised as talent???

POINT NUMBER 4- MY MAIN POINT:
My main point. Even if my first 3 points were wrong Tenez's theory would still be incorrect.
Let's say that next year the top 10 all suffered injuries for 1 year. Then let's say all the courts were speeded up a lot so it was super-fast. The finalists could then Wawrinka-Monfils- who could get to finals of Grand Slams by playing similar levels as in 2011- but the competition would be less. Tenez could then do a similar article showing how the quality has risen between 2011 and 2012 as the rallies are now faster- which it would be. However as neither Monfils or Wawrinka are currently not in the Top 10- and are not that young either- we can firmly say that 2012 would not have been better quality than 2011. Of course I am not saying that this was the case by any means in 2006, the quality might have been better, but the fact of the matter is Tenez's analysis would not hold water- whatever the facts and the circumstances.

BONUS POINT- DIFFERENT SET SKILLS NEEDED IN 2006?
This point for me is often the most misleading. After the stats were shown many posters jumped to the conclusion that to prosper on 2006 you need different skills -aka more attacking. However in 2006 neither murray, nadal or djokovic were at their prime. Nadal had not yet adjusted to HC while the likes of murray and djokovic were too young. I would like to point out that federer lost to henman when he was not at his prime so no one can claim that this is irrelevant.
I feel, as would many others, that if the current top 4 were all at their prime in 2006, they would be the top
4. Then we could have a nadal djokovic semi-final which would show long rallies and longer points than fed-Blake in 2006 in the same tournament. Therefore I believe this theory of different skills needed is completely wrong.

Thanks for reading and leaver your comments if you agree/disagree with any points I have made.
Thanks

Of course bringing up the fact that Roddick has won more titles is irrelevant- the whole point is that if murray is better than he had more competition -as roddick did win more titles.
You get what i mean?
We have to consider who would win if they both played each other- at their best- on a medium paced court- not too fast but not too slow like clay.

Perhaps someone would need to start a Roddick vs Murray debate. Roddick had a very powerful weapon - his serve, that allowed him to get to finals, win a grand slam and achieve a World No 1 ranking. Roddicks decision making and all round game was relatively limited compared to other top players, but his serve was "lethal".

Such a black and white way of arguing amritia3ee, doesn't reflect well on you. As Julius pointed out, you don't seem to directly address the points he raises, Im puzzled as to why? Instead you skirt around inconsequential comparisons (relativism), a flawed and discredited logic (way of arguing).

You also do the classic tactic of most Nadal fans, which is usually bring up the H2H vs Federer, as if somehow that is the defining proof Nadal is better. You can bring up the H2H as much as you like, but it doesn't change the No. of grand slams Nadal has, which is still 6 behind Federer and if Nadal is to keep up with Federer's pace of slams, he needs to win another 2 next year (possible but not a given).

Roddick, for the record, actually has a slam, Murray hasn't. Given that the goal of all tennis players is to win slams, Roddick is ahead of Murray and will remain so regardless of how many slam finals Murray makes. Even then, Roddick has made more GS final appearances. Dismissing Roddick just to elevate your own argument of showing Murray in a more favourable light is very transparent, and doesn't fool anyone.

yes but Murray is immense at returning serves!
And that was Roddick's only real big strength.

HEAD TO HEAD IS 8-2 MURRRAY (+1W/O)
2011 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Paris Murray6-2, 6-2 Stats
2011 London / Queen's Club Murray 6-3, 6-1 Stats
2009 Wimbledon Roddick 6-4, 4-6, 7-6(7), 7-6(5) Stats
2009 Doha Murray 6-4, 6-2 Stats
2008 Tennis Masters Cup Murray 6-4, 1-6, 6-1 Stats
2007 ATP Masters Series Miami Murray 5-3 RET Stats
2007 Memphis Roddick 6-3, 7-6(4) Stats
2007 San Jose Murray, Andy 7-6(8), 6-4 Stats
2006 ATP Masters Series Cincinnati Roddick 6-3, 6-4 Stats
2006 Wimbledon
England Grass R32 Murray, Andy
7-6(4), 6-4, 6-4 Stats
2006 San Jose Murray, Andy 7-5, 7-5 Stats

Very very 1-sided H2H. Even when murray was very very young he was kicking Roddick's butt and apart from a few exceptions as continued to do so throughout his career.

Problem is Amritia that there is not a correct answer to your question. As a Murray fan I think that he is a better player than Roddick and has an 8-3 head -to head to back this up. However Roddick has a USO win to his name plus another USO final and three losing finals at Wimbledon. Generally playing better in his finals than Murray has.

Therefore although I think Murray has more natural talent and is the better player I agree with Julius in that unless he wins at least one slam Roddick's legacy will be the greater.

You refer to H2H as if it's gospel. You really need a broader overview if people on here are going to take you seriously. I stated very clearly, the top goal of tennis players is to win grand slams, not to win second rate tournaments like the master's series. On that GS score Murray comes up short. No one in the media/tennis will remember Murray if he wins no slams, Roddick by comparison will and I can assure you, no one is going to bring the H2H like you do.

luciusmann wrote:

Roddick, for the record, actually has a slam, Murray hasn't. Given that the goal of all tennis players is to win slams, Roddick is ahead of Murray and will remain so regardless of how many slam finals Murray makes. Even then, Roddick has made more GS final appearances. Dismissing Roddick just to elevate your own argument of showing Murray in a more favourable light is very transparent, and doesn't fool anyone.

Roddick reacher more slam finals and has won a slam but his circumstances were much easier than Murrays. Murray has to deal with either nadal/djokovic/federer while when roddick WON his slam- he did not have to face such tough competition. When Roddick did face federer he was beaten pretty much everytime. As shown by his H2H vs murray and Federer he had no chance against the real big guns who can return well and neutralise his only threat. Meanwhile Murray has a positive H2H vs Federer (hes won against him 8 times!) but unfortunately has not beaten him in a slam.

I admit when you have a close H2H it does not mean much. But Murray-Roddick is EXTREMELY one sided even when murray was very very young. We can tell that Murray is better than Roddick as he continously beats him, but Murray is unlucky to be born in this golden era and hence cannot reach/win grand slam finals.

That's the thing though he has the ability to beat Djokovic, Nadal, and Federer. He has done so in the past and should do again. But he needs to do it when it matters.

Are capable of using any other stat apart from the H2H? You're obsessed with the H2H and it doesn't strengthen your argument at all because it's the only thing you use to support your argument (there's plenty of other stats you could try to find).

So your only explanation for Murray losing GS finals is that Roddick won his slams in a 'weak' era? You'll find that Roddick has actually pushed Federer a lot harder in slams (Wimby 2009 stands out particularly, coming down to essential one point in the second set tie breaker). Why has Roddick managed to push Federer and Murray been dismissed in str8 sets? After all, Murray is a superior player in your opinion, theoretically he should be able to push Federer just as Roddick is capable of doing. So why hasn't he?

Roddick was a "limited" player with a very big weapon. He was a specialist fast court player. His period of great success was focused around the 2003/2004/2005 seasons. He was a very erratic player losing in the first round / early rounds quite often. His record at the French Open was dreadful (never getting beyond the fourth round).

Calder106 wrote:Problem is Amritia that there is not a correct answer to your question. As a Murray fan I think that he is a better player than Roddick and has an 8-3 head -to head to back this up. However Roddick has a USO win to his name plus another USO final and three losing finals at Wimbledon. Generally playing better in his finals than Murray has.

Therefore although I think Murray has more natural talent and is the better player I agree with Julius in that unless he wins at least one slam Roddick's legacy will be the greater.

I am not arguing that Murray will lear a better legacy or who the media see as better.
I'm using this to prove a point.

You have said that murray is more talented and a better player; the H2H shows this for sure.
However roddick has achieved more things.
Why? The answer is simple, Murray plays in a era with more competition where it is harder to win a grand slam. The fact roddick has won more titles plays into my hands; this fact and the one-sided H2H prove me right.

Calder106 wrote:That's the thing though he has the ability to beat Djokovic, Nadal, and Federer. He has done so in the past and should do again. But he needs to do it when it matters.

As Federer has mentioned many times a best of five set match is a "completely different sport" to a best of three set match.

luciusmann wrote:Are capable of using any other stat apart from the H2H? You're obsessed with the H2H and it doesn't strengthen your argument at all because it's the only thing you use to support your argument (there's plenty of other stats you could try to find).

So your only explanation for Murray losing GS finals is that Roddick won his slams in a 'weak' era? You'll find that Roddick has actually pushed Federer a lot harder in slams (Wimby 2009 stands out particularly, coming down to essential one point in the second set tie breaker). Why has Roddick managed to push Federer and Murray been dismissed in str8 sets? After all, Murray is a superior player in your opinion, theoretically he should be able to push Federer just as Roddick is capable of doing. So why hasn't he?

Murray has done much better vs federer than roddick as. Federer won in US in straights, but Murray has still done far far better vs federer.

luciusmann wrote:... No one in the media/tennis will remember Murray if he wins no slams, Roddick by comparison will and I can assure you ...

That is not going to be the case for the UK. We remember Tim Henman, some remember Greg Rusedski. Andy Murray will be remembered as Britains best male tennis player for about fifty odd years. Roddick will be overshadowed by Sampras and Agassi and Jim Courier (who's he?)

Murray has lost in slams since 2008 to Tsonga, Almagro, Verdasco, Gonzales, Cilic, Roddick, Warwrinka, Berdych (as well as Fed, Djoko, Rafa).

That's not exactly indicative of losses to 'golden' players. Heck, 2 of those (Gonzales and Roddick) were just the sort of weak era players who failed to challenge Fed.

Don't overstate the H2H. The match that really mattered was Wimby 2009, which Roddick won.

And saying 'This proves me right' doesn't mean it really does prove you right The answer isn't simple!

I always felt Roddick was more likely to win a slam, and even did so. But even in the finals he lost I thought he could realistically win the game, the 09 Wimbledon final for example. Murray on the other hand was someone I could always see getting to the quarter finals and semi finals, maybe making the final but not winning, at least until now. Going into each of his three finals I didn't give him much of a chance of winning.

Exactly Julius, but only a person with a highly skewed way of seeing things in a black and white way would arrogantly assert he's right (when he doesn't appear to have persuaded many people on here).

Are you reading the posts put up amritia3ee? Nore Staat pointed out how the best of 3 matches are different to best of 5. Actually you're incorrect, of the 4 matches Roddick and Federer have faced against each other in slams, Roddick has taken a set in 2 of them and 2 sets in another. Only in one of the USO finals did Roddick manage winning no sets.

I've noted how you haven't addressed all of my points (as with Julius) and yet again you've been going on about the H2H (as gospel), play another record already amritia3ee!

Yes but to get to a slam final to play Roger, Murray has to beat nadal/djoko (if rankings allowed) but who would roddick have to beat?
Apart from 2009 Wimby he didn't even get fed to 5 sets. Murray of course has disappointed in the finals he has played but has a 8-4 H2H in beat of 3 sets vs federer- something roddick can never match.

CaledonianCraig wrote:If we look at various things such as the 2006 top four then quality and quantity-wise 2011 is far stronger. If we are to look at today's up and coming players compared to 2006's up and coming players then 2006 was stronger as we had Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic on their way up whereas today we have Dolgopolov and Raonic - no contest on that front. However, the upper echelons is where these tournaments and slams are won and the fact that Federer's slam wins were non-existent this year tells me that this era is tougher as those at the top ave proved just too tough for him to beat.

This post from earlier sums up the truth perfectly for me.

As for the Murray Roddick debate, no doubt roddick will leave a ether legacy, but thats irrelevant. For me Murray is a more talented player but has to play in a era where getting to GS finals is extremely tough.
As I said CC's point sums what I am trying to say perfectly.

amritia3ee wrote:Yes but to get to a slam final to play Roger, Murray has to beat nadal/djoko (if rankings allowed) but who would roddick have to beat?
Apart from 2009 Wimby he didn't even get fed to 5 sets. Murray of course has disappointed in the finals he has played but has a 8-4 H2H in beat of 3 sets vs federer- something roddick can never match.

Wrong again. I watched the whole match and as a Fed fan, seriously thought Fed would lose that match. It went on to 5 sets and became the longest Wimbledon final in terms of games played. You do watch tennis, right? Now you're changing you're tune and saying that Murray can't string together 7 wins to win a GS because he has to go through Nadal/Djokovic as well as Federer? Epic fail. Let's just check the facts instead. Of the 3 GS finals Murray's got to, he's only had to play Federer and Nadal/Djokovic just once (USO 2008), on the other two occasions he's faced just Federer. So Murray hasn't had his path blocked by Nadal/Djokovic @ all except once (1/3).

I said 'APART FROM wimby 2009' can you read?
And secondly Murray couldn't get to finals of grand slams due to nadal/Djokovic.

amritia3ee wrote:Yes but to get to a slam final to play Roger, Murray has to beat nadal/djoko (if rankings allowed) but who would roddick have to beat?

For the most part though, Murray has failed to get far enough to play Rafa, Fed OR Djoko.

CC seems to be referring to 2011 as an 'era' and 2006 as an 'era'. They're not, they're years. But if we take 2011 as as 'era' we can see that Djoko is clearly the best player of the 'era'. If we say 2011 is the 'strongest era' we can then say Djoko is the best player of the strongest era. Must be the GOAT
Unless it's merely a reflection of the way tennis overall improves over time and that's a too simplistic way of looking at it.

luciusmann wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:Yes but to get to a slam final to play Roger, Murray has to beat nadal/djoko (if rankings allowed) but who would roddick have to beat?
Apart from 2009 Wimby he didn't even get fed to 5 sets. Murray of course has disappointed in the finals he has played but has a 8-4 H2H in beat of 3 sets vs federer- something roddick can never match.

Wrong again. I watched the whole match and as a Fed fan, seriously thought Fed would lose that match. It went on to 5 sets and became the longest Wimbledon final in terms of games played. You do watch tennis, right? Now you're changing you're tune and saying that Murray can't string together 7 wins to win a GS because he has to go through Nadal/Djokovic as well as Federer? Epic fail. Let's just check the facts instead. Of the 3 GS finals Murray's got to, he's only had to play Federer and Nadal/Djokovic just once (USO 2008), on the other two occasions he's faced just Federer. So Murray hasn't had his path blocked by Nadal/Djokovic @ all except once (1/3).

he's insulting me now for not knowing that fed roddick 2009 went to 5 sets; even though I specifically
said 'APART FROM' that no other one has gone to 5 sets. How much more clear does he want me to be. I said 'apart from' does he knows what that means FFS.
And I was suggesting in 2012 if he played federer in a final he would probably have to play nadal/Djokovic in a semi.

And the 1/3 point was nonsense too as Murray beat nadal in Aus 2010 AND US 2008. That's 2/3 unless unless you were only counting semis.

I think it has been discussed here and elsewhere how difficult it is to not only judge what an era is (ie how long) but also the strengths/weaknesses in comparative eras as things change.

Now I know in other sports eras are judged around careers ie The Davis Era and Hendry Era in snooker and so it would make sense to do the same in tennis. In terms of the Federer era I believe that should be judged from 2003 to present as 2003 is when his domination began. Now it is possible that the Federer era ended in 2010 with his last slam win but time will tell. Judging eras is very tough though but the way the current top four have totally ruled in slams in terms of locking out the majority of the slams from the semi-final stages onwards tells me how strong the current top players are.

amritia3ee wrote:Well this is one clear fact where we disagree- and with this we can conclude the argument:
-You think Roddick is better than Murray
-I think murray is better than Roddick.

If Roddick at his best is better, then you are RIGHT, let's say, as he played Federer in many Grand Slam finals.
But if MURRAY at his best is better then I am right and this era is BETTER, as if a player who has only reached 2 GS finals is better than another player who has reached many more in another era; the COMPETITION must have been harder for murray.

So there we go guys:
What do you think- after weeks of debating it's all come down to this:
Murray (amritia3ee) vs Roddick (Julius)

Guess who was in two clay slam finals and is getting ignored.

Andy Roddick's best years came in the first half of the 2000's and it is interesting to note that since the rise of Nadal, Murray and Djokovic then Roddick's prowess has slowly waned. Now I know court conditions have changed but that is the same for every player plus it is renowned how superb the likes of Nadal, Murray and Djokovic are at returning serve which blunts Roddick's game somewhat and tells me those players are more complete and accomplished players than Roddick and that includes Murray despite the slam win in the American's favour.

amritia3ee wrote:As for the Murray Roddick debate, no doubt roddick will leave a ether legacy, but thats irrelevant. For me Murray is a more talented player but has to play in a era where getting to GS finals is extremely tough.

I have seen Tenez use the same statement during Fedal debates.

Is the Federer-Murray H2H a measure of talent? Or is the H2H against a player named Federer a measure of talent?

We should consider Hrbaty in this equation.

amritia3ee wrote:As I said CC's point sums what I am trying to say perfectly.

And is being quoted because it supports your argument.

You're phrasing could have been clearer to be honest amritia3ee, I'm not a mind reader. Regardless, that final was lost on a point or two for Roddick, you will surely remember Roddick had a handful of set points in the second set tie breaker, they all went begging and Federer took the set and the fight back began, the rest is history. Cherry picking the matches you want to make your argument stronger actually undermines it. The fact is Roddick has won a set in most of his grand slam final matches, Murray hasn't won a single one, that's just a fact.

Nadal retired in the 2010 match @ the Aussie Open and it was in the quarters, not the semi-final, so it devalues your argument further. Most posters agree on here that facing the 2 of Djokovic/Federer/Nadal in the semis and then the final makes it very hard to win, but not if you face one in the quarters (and against a player who retires too) and the next in the final.

Just as Julius has said and why I don't personally buy into this 'weak' and 'strong' era non sense is because it's so highly subjective. Who decides which year an era starts and finishes? Is it solely decided by a single player? No one who has proposed this 'weak' era tosh has ever explained what the special criteria is for it. Many of us had this debate with a former poster called socal1976 and he didn't convince anyone then and you're not convincing many if anyone now. Come back with a definitive criteria instead of wishy-washy banter and then we on this forum can scrutinise your theory in detail.

Which years have better quality players playing/tougher competition:
2003-2006 or 2008-2011.

Many, many journalists have done articles on what was the strongest era/few years in tennis. All of them included 2008-2011 but only some said it was THE strongest. Meanwhile 2003-2006 was not mentioned at all. This inadvertently shows which one is stronger.
Federer himself said that the current competition is higher than ever for him. Why did he say that? He could have lied and said that he would prefer playing nadal/djoko compared to Blake/Baghdatis but he didn't. Apart from fed fans, any neutral can see that in 2011 there was tougher competition compared to 2006. If fed had played Baghdatis in the Aus open final and Gonzalez in the semi he would have won the tournament, no doubt.

amritia3ee wrote:Which years have better quality players playing/tougher competition:
2003-2006 or 2008-2011.

Many, many journalists have done articles on what was the strongest era/few years in tennis. All of them included 2008-2011 but only some said it was THE strongest. Meanwhile 2003-2006 was not mentioned at all. This inadvertently shows which one is stronger.
Federer himself said that the current competition is higher than ever for him. Why did he say that? He could have lied and said that he would prefer playing nadal/djoko compared to Blake/Baghdatis but he didn't. Apart from fed fans, any neutral can see that in 2011 there was tougher competition compared to 2006. If fed had played Baghdatis in the Aus open final and Gonzalez in the semi he would have won the tournament, no doubt.

Many, many journalists? I take that to mean at least 10, correct? If you provide links I'll try and find time to read and comment on a few. I assume, from what you say, that 2007 wasn't mentioned at all and that 2000-2002 were separated from 2003 onwards? If Fed had played Berdych or Soderling, he'd have won as well.
Yes, there's a difference between 2006 and 2011, just as there is between 2010 and 2011. I don't accept 2006 or 2011 as a definition of an era. I don't accept that any era conveniently ends in Dec, with a new one starting in January.

I didn't expect you to provide links/sources and of course you haven't, just like you don't directly address all points. You don't appear to understand what a sports (newspaper) journalist's job is. It's to sell newspapers primarily. You won't sell many newspapers saying the current era is crap whereas saying it's amazing, the best ever, does sell. It's called sensationalism/hype and it's well known for selling newspapers. So why on earth you somehow think that newspaper journalists are the fount of all wisdom is beyond me. Quoting journalists with their rather obvious agendas proves nothing, I expected you to raise a more serious point. Needless to say, you probably are aware, journalists are paid for their opinion, not for 'proving' anything. So citing them as definitive 'evidence' is rather contradictory. A mass of people paid for their opinion (which is ultimately only to sell papers) doesn't make something true.

Have you ever heard Federer say very much which is negative? I can't say I have so I don't really understand why you think Federer would rubbish an era he currently plays in. Can you find any players in any previous periods (while they were playing @ the time) who said an era was 'weak' when they were playing or was rubbish?

Comparing individual years, like 2006 and 2011 doesn't tell us anything and you don't hear pundits or the media referring to years as 'weak' or 'strong'. I've not heard 2008-2011 referred to as a specific era, any reason why 2008? Again, this is the problem with trying to make up start/end points for eras, what about 2007? Is that a year devoid of an era? Just because journalists and commentators talk in vague terms about a 'strong' era doesn't tell us much at all. Anyone can talking vaguely and it helps to in sport because you can't always be sure of the result. Again, you add in another crude comparison question as if these things are purely black and white. Much in human life isn't black and white, as an adult, I'd expect you to realise that instead of constantly asking like a child does!

Gonzalez is being shown in very poor light here. Here is a reminder of how well he could play (watch the rally at 2:40+) .... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBOeQayp26A

And here is the short version of the final (just watch some of the angles and where Gonzales ends up in the court)... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB4LuA81YuE

or the long version...

http://bit.ly/s5EwEV


One of the hardest hit forehands in the game was Gonzalez.

Answer my question:
Who would federer prefer to be playing in GS semis/finals:
Bagdatis or Murray
Gonzalez or nadal
Roddick or Djokovic

Give me 3 names.

Federer himself has said that this current competition is higher than he has ever had to face.

luciusmann wrote:Much in human life isn't black and white, as an adult, I'd expect you to realise that instead of constantly asking like a child does!

Well said, LM.

amritia3ee wrote:Answer my question:
Who would federer prefer to be playing in GS semis/finals:
Bagdatis (2006 AO) or Murray (2010 AO)
Gonzalez (2007 AO) or nadal (2011 RG)
Roddick (2009 W) or Djokovic (2009 USO)

Give me 3 names.

You can have all six.

In 2012 who would fed choose to face (if all 6 were at prime). Give me 3 names.

Fed won 5 matches you showed, what about all the matches he's has lost to nadal/Djokovic.
And try to include the grand slam matches he had lost to Baghdatis/Gonzalez/roddick.

Wait a sec...

amritia3ee wrote:Answer my question:
Who would federer prefer to be playing in GS semis/finals:
Bagdatis or Murray
Gonzalez or nadal
Roddick or Djokovic

Give me 3 names.

Federer himself has said that this current competition is higher than he has ever had to face.

I'm quite prepared to accept many of my questions remaining unanswered, but it does rather mean I may not answer yours.
Try :-
Safin or Murray
Nadal or Nadal
Agassi or Djokovic

Don't keep on about Baghdatis as if he were a typical GS finalist, or you'll have to explain about Chris Lewis or Vladimir Voltchkov. Possibly even Greg Rusedski!

Murray, nadal2011, Djokovic.
Agassi had lost it by 2003. Nadal was better in 2011 than in 2006. Safin never went back to the same level after he won his first slam.
Now answer my question.

Amritia3ee, I think I made it clear in several of my posts I'm not going to engage in simplistic, crude comparisons and I certainly won't respond to questions which prolong you're usage of such questions. I won't fall for the bait. If others would like to (thanks Laverfan & Julius) than they can!

Again, you haven't addressed most of my points, we're kind of falling into a pattern here. The question I'd like an answer to (out of many in my post) is why would Federer rubbish an era he currently plays in? Has any player done so during their career in the past (or present)? I'll stay up and wait for you to find some players/former players but I'm confident you'll come up with precious little, which underlines my point. Quoting generic stuff you'd expect tennis players (Federer) to say proves next to nothing.

I will now answer your question:
Why would federer rubbish....?

Federer played in 2006 AND 2011. Of course he will say both these eras are good, as he would. But why would he choose one over the other?

It would be better for him to LIE and say he found facing bagdatis/Gonzalez/roddick compared to nadal/Djokovic.

And the stats show he has always found nadal/Djokovic harder.

Murray has been in the top five continuously for over three years now since Sep 2008.

Djokovic has been in the top four continuously for about four and a half years now since July 2007.

Nadal has been in the top four continuously for about six and a half years now since June 2005.

Federer has been in the top four continuously for about eight and a half years now since July 2003.

I'm not sure men's tennis has ever had such an impressive set of tennis players in the top three / top four in terms of season long tennis ability and longevity.

The stats show that he has always found nadal/Djokovic much harder to beat than gonzalez and co.
Now nadal/Djokovic are reaching the semis/final of slams it's no coincidence that fed is doing worse.

I have personally answered both questions put my way.
Now answer my question:
Who would federer prefer to be playing in GS semis/finals:
Bagdatis prime or Murray 2011
Roddick prime or nadal 2011
Gonzalez prime or Djokovic 2011

Give me 3 names.

amritia3ee wrote:In 2012 who would fed choose to face (if all 6 were at prime). Give me 3 names.

Just one for you.

Whoever can win their previous six matches at a given slam. It can be anyone of Raonic, Dolgopolov, Dimitrov, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Baghdatis, Gonzalez, Soderling,....

There is a full list on the ATP website - http://www.atpworldtour.com/



LM... I am willing to debate, but this going round-and-round in circles with the self-serving circular logic is not debunking anything, which is the premise of the OP.

I can't agree that it would be better for him to lie, or tell the truth, about whether this era is 'stronger' than one five of six year ago. If he says that today's era is weaker he looks weaker so to speak. Whereas if he says it is stronger today then his comparative lack of slams is explained. So it makes perfect sense for Federer to say that today's tennis is stronger. And as much as I like the guy that doesn't make it so. He has his reasons for saying that and it may not be what he actually believes, we can't really know that.

Who said Federer is lying? Can you reproduce the exact quote? All I said is that tennis players, especially the top tennis players say rather a lot of generic stuff and it tends to be laced with masses of positivity. You can't deny that's true.

Part of the issue with your debating style is you keep resorting to 'what ifs' continuously and the truth of the matter is we can't simply know for sure. yet you keep up with this hypothetical fantasyland of 'what ifs'. It's not good for your health, please stop with them!

amritia3ee wrote:The stats show that he has always found nadal/Djokovic much harder to beat than gonzalez and co.

Selective statistics like h2h, using specific matches, etc.

He found Roddick tough to beat at W 2009. Roddick improved under Stefanki (incidentally, who also coached Gonzalez).

amritia3ee wrote:Now nadal/Djokovic are reaching the semis/final of slams it's no coincidence that fed is doing worse.

See NS's longevity post at the top.

PS: Did you watch the WTF 2011?