Is this a strong or a weak era? Confusing

Given that one of Federer/ Nadal/ Djokovic have to lose before the finals and two have to lose before the tournament ends, it is a strong era. Those are 3 potential all time greats playing together. They could end up with more than 40 grand slams between them.

However, given that the top 4 have made it to the semis in 3 of the 4 slams (with Federer narrowly missing out at Wimbledon), it is a weak era.

Which is it? Or is it neither?

Depends who you favourite/least favourite player is.

Ferrer at No 5 is argued as evidence of a weak era. Murray fans will say it's a strong era, because he's only at No. 4. Fed-bashers will say it's strong and that he could only win slams in a weak era. Djoko fans will says it's a golden era.
The media always say every era is strong and are in a constant state of amazement at the top players since the Open Era began.
Fans of any player will agree with what players say if it supports their belief, but disagree with players if it doesn't.
Posters will define an era as 2000-2003, 2002-2006, 2003-2007 etc depending on who they favour/bash, but reluctantly admit 1st - 12th January of the following year was also in the same era.
No-one can be bothered to think about anything before 2000.
No-one ever mentions Michael Chang, but Lleyton Hewitt gets a lot of attention.

I think that about covers it.

Tennisanorak, an era is determined by the top of the rankings. This era is the most difficult for a lower ranked player to win a slam. The top guys of the era determine the strength of an era. Why because to win a slam it is much harder to win one in an era that has few strong top contenders than a more even distribution of talent across lets say the top 50 or 30. Why because of the nature of tournament tennis. To win a slam you don't have to beat the entire top 20 en masse. But in an era with a strong top 4 or 5 guys to win a slam you have to win 2, 5 setters against great players. Right now a top heavy tour is the definition of strength. To win a slam you to win 2 matches against either Fed, Nadal, or Djoko. This is a much tougher ask than a more even distirbution of talent. That was the Thomas Johansson or Petr Korda or Andy Roddick's of the world can not win a slam in this era.

Tennisanorak, an era is determined by the strength in depth of the field. This era is the easiest for the top 4 players to reach slam semis. The players in the top 10 -20 determine the strength of an era. Why? Because if the top 4 players can stroll into slam semis without breaking sweat, we are back to the amateur/early open era days where tournaments had fields of 8 or 16 players. But in an era with strength in depth the top players had to win 3 or more matches against players with a realistic chance of either beating them, or pushing them hard enough to affect their next match. Right now the top heavy tour is not the definition of stength. To win a slam the top 4 basically get a walkover up to the semi finals. This is much easier than when there is a more even distribution of talent. This is why the top 4 feature in virtually every semi-final place in slams.

We will know the answer to that question in a couple of years!

Hilarious, Socal and JuliusHMarx! : ) Well, you've expanded both points of view beautifully!

Tenez wrote:We will know the answer to that question in a couple of years!

Yes. If Federer wins slams it will transform into a strong era and if not it will be a weak era.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Tenez wrote:We will know the answer to that question in a couple of years!

Yes. If Federer wins slams it will transform into a strong era and if not it will be a weak era.

Unlike you I see beyond my favourite player as I don't expect Federer to win slams in a couple of years. However I do see the new generation coming of age and putting the current one in perspective.

Julius, is completely wrong. If the world's number 15 player is slightly stronger or the world #1 and #2 , which has more impact on who takes the biggest honors. In fact the definition of a strong era is one where the Thomas Johansson and Petr Korda's of the world don't win slams. When a bunch of one slam wonders rise up and take grandslams and then dissappear of the face of the tennis earth that is my definition of a weak era. Julius has a great sense of humor. But what is harder a hypothetical quarter final match against or playing the final and semi final against a legendary caliber player.

Socal you seem blind to the talent of past players and therefore I don;t see you as very adept to judge how strong or weak an era is.

Bottom line is without technology advances and special diets, Nadal would have been just another player like bruguera. It's his extra pace and stamina given to him thanks to moder science that make him the player he is. Without it, he would not have beaten players like PHM, Haase, Petchner, Mayer, Dodig, Gavashili and many more.

But of course you don;t see that.

Strong, weak, full-bodied, chardonnay, merlot, semillion, aren't they all great!

Me, I prefer champagne

Tenez, i think I have given the past stars their due. But you seem to discriminate against the current stars because they use cutting edge techniques to attain fitness. Because they lift weights and play on the conditions they are given with the equipment they are given. But I do believe that the game is getting better. I mean honestly it is hard to do a list among a bunch of great players and put one great over the other, and I don't feel that my answer is the absolute right answer. Some could rightly move Laver up the list, could move someone down the list.

socal, it's your definition. That's my point and my post was a humourous, but valid, attempt to show this. There is no agreed definition, and there are plenty of factors to be considered, should you wish to do so, which I don't think you do.
You can't just say 'This is the definition, because I say so'. Well, I suppose you can, but it doesn't necessarily make it right.
If Chris Lewis makes the final of Wimby 1983, does that make it a weak tournament, year, era? Or Malivai Washington in 1996 (in fact, didn't one slam wonder Krajicek win that one)? Or a 39 year old Connors making the USO semi in 1991? Or Cedric Pioline 1993, 1997?
Or Berdych, or Soderling?
By your reasoning, it sounds like 2011 is the only strong era in tennis history (can't be 2010, because Djoko wasn't playing anywhere near his peak, can't be 2009 because Rafa was injured for a couple of slams, can't be 2008 because Fed was ill and then way below par, etc etc).

Tenez wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Tenez wrote:We will know the answer to that question in a couple of years!

Yes. If Federer wins slams it will transform into a strong era and if not it will be a weak era.

Unlike you I see beyond my favourite player as I don't expect Federer to win slams in a couple of years. However I do see the new generation coming of age and putting the current one in perspective.

The question therefore is:- Why don't you expect Federer to win slams in the next couple of years being that he is the GOAT and you seem to be portaying this as a weak era? And like I said ask Fed who he'd sooner play at the next slam and I'd bet you he'd choose Safin and Roddick over Nadal and Djokovic any day of the week.

In a perfect world you see (i) 2-4 all-time greats more or less overlapping with effective parts of their careers and duking it out for slams where (ii) nonetheless they need to watch themselves when playing other top 20 players and (iii) up-and-coming youngsters are cutting swathes through draws just running out of steam at QF and SF level.

We've got one out of the three now (i), in the more recent past we had elements of (i) and (iii). I'd say that in the mid to late 1980's we pretty much had all three, but that's incredibly rare. I think it goes to show what a great Lendl was how he consistently made slam finals, but he had some awesome opposition when he got there.

When you discuss details it becomes utterly subjective, obviously - does the fact that Fed managed to nudge ahead of the likes of Roddick, Safin, and Nalbandian for varous reasons make him greater or does it make his era weaker?

Julius I am talking about trends not one offs here and there. I mean Del Po won a slam in this era and he might win a couple more who knows. But it isn't my subjective opinion. The nature of tournament tennis dictates that a top heavy draw will be harder to win slams. It is a matter of mathematics. To win a slam you don't have to beat the entire top 20. If that was the case the toughest era would be one with great parity among the top 20. At most you have to beat 2 or 3 top ranked players and if those top players are stronger it is much harder than an era of parity.

I wouldn't say it was confusing.

Just heavily bias based on personal favourites.

For me I always felt the 80's was the best era for depth in the mens game.

This current crop is running that decade very closely.

You will have standout talent like Sampras, Federer, Borg, Lendl, Laver and even Nadal (though some posters would disagree)

I think the best era is also from mid 80s till 90s, have to agree with barrystar. Mac, Connors, Lendl and then the rise of wilander, edberg, becker and later Sampras, Agassi, and Courier.

It's been a weak era since about 1970.

erictheblueuk wrote:It's been a weak era since about 1970.

socal1976 wrote:Tenez, i think I have given the past stars their due. But you seem to discriminate against the current stars because they use cutting edge techniques to attain fitness. Because they lift weights and play on the conditions they are given with the equipment they are given. But I do believe that the game is getting better. I mean honestly it is hard to do a list among a bunch of great players and put one great over the other, and I don't feel that my answer is the absolute right answer. Some could rightly move Laver up the list, could move someone down the list.

New technology/trainin can make the past players look average if they make the most of that technology. This is exactly what we are seeing now. As I explained in one thread, Blake Federer at the USO 06 was played roughly 20% faster than now. IT was not a choice then. Rallying like Nadal and Djoko do was not an option then cause physically there was no magic potion to allow you to, there was possibility to take more than 20s and conds were fast enough to give the attacker a good chance. Nadal who then was good enough to win slams on clay was nowhere to be seen in teh later stages of the USO.

If you do not take that on board, then Blake will always look like a clown for you...but he was a clown that lessoned Nadal on the faster surfaces.

socal1976 wrote:I think the best era is also from mid 80s till 90s, have to agree with barrystar. Mac, Connors, Lendl and then the rise of wilander, edberg, becker and later Sampras, Agassi, and Courier.

Aye - and the likes of Noah, Leconte, Mecir, Cash, Chang, and Curren were swirling around to take down a top player who lost concentration.

The thing is for me in the Slams, Blake, Davy, Nalby, Ljuby, Grosjean, Martin, Mercir are all players that could've easily enjoyed Slam success had there not been much better players in the field.

Tennisanorak wrote:Given that one of Federer/ Nadal/ Djokovic have to lose before the finals and two have to lose before the tournament ends, it is a strong era. Those are 3 potential all time greats playing together. They could end up with more than 40 grand slams between them.

However, given that the top 4 have made it to the semis in 3 of the 4 slams (with Federer narrowly missing out at Wimbledon), it is a weak era.

Which is it? Or is it neither?

I've only now seen this is you Tennisanorak

Where have you been?

Just like all roads lead to Rome, so do all tennis discussions lead to answering this question:
Whose dad is the strongest?

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Tenez wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Tenez wrote:We will know the answer to that question in a couple of years!

Yes. If Federer wins slams it will transform into a strong era and if not it will be a weak era.

Unlike you I see beyond my favourite player as I don't expect Federer to win slams in a couple of years. However I do see the new generation coming of age and putting the current one in perspective.

The question therefore is:- Why don't you expect Federer to win slams in the next couple of years being that he is the GOAT and you seem to be portaying this as a weak era? And like I said ask Fed who he'd sooner play at the next slam and I'd bet you he'd choose Safin and Roddick over Nadal and Djokovic any day of the week.

Why? Cause the game has moved so much since the time he beat Pete with 85sqin blade with 100% natural strings. He did already extremely well to remain at the top all those years and he will be 32/33 then.

I can bet whatever you want that neither Murray, Djoko and Nadal will ever last that long at the top.

Socal, it's tough to believe that a dominant top 4 followed by mediocre players is the only factor in deciding whether an era is good or bad. Are you saying that a slam won by beating two legends is better than a slam done by beating say 4 very good players? Besides, the early rounds of slams can be tricky for the top players if they haven't adjusted to the courts yet. Nowadays, it's easy till the semis by which time they would have found their touch. How can that be a strong era?

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Tenez wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Tenez wrote:We will know the answer to that question in a couple of years!

Yes. If Federer wins slams it will transform into a strong era and if not it will be a weak era.

Unlike you I see beyond my favourite player as I don't expect Federer to win slams in a couple of years. However I do see the new generation coming of age and putting the current one in perspective.

The question therefore is:- Why don't you expect Federer to win slams in the next couple of years being that he is the GOAT and you seem to be portaying this as a weak era? And like I said ask Fed who he'd sooner play at the next slam and I'd bet you he'd choose Safin and Roddick over Nadal and Djokovic any day of the week.

Spot on by craig. I wonder who Roger would prefer to play in a final the ultra-talented Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero or Nalbandian? I am pretty sure Novak 2.0 and Nadal would be the last two guys of the above listed players that Roger would choose to play in a grandslam final. Pretty much sums up my arguments as well. A top heavy tour is by definition harder because the top ranked guys determine who gets the big honors, rarely does the number 11, 23, or 30 guy have an impact on who wins a slam.

Tennisanorak wrote:Socal, it's tough to believe that a dominant top 4 followed by mediocre players is the only factor in deciding whether an era is good or bad. Are you saying that a slam won by beating two legends is better than a slam done by beating say 4 very good players? Besides, the early rounds of slams can be tricky for the top players if they haven't adjusted to the courts yet. Nowadays, it's easy till the semis by which time they would have found their touch. How can that be a strong era?

Who says the guys outside the top 4 are mediocre, they certainly aren't mediocre when compared to Ivan Ljubicic and james blake in the mid 2000s. They have a tougher time of winning because the current top 4 is better and more consistent than them. I don't think Berdy, Soderling, Tsonga, Ferrer, of JMDP are mediocre I think they are a relatively decent crop of players who unfortunately because they will have to beat two legends in back to back 5 set matches have little or no chance of winning a major for the next year or two. Soderling is two time grandslam finalist. Berdy a grandslam finalist and winner of a masters title. JMDP has won a grandslam. Ferrer is a dogged competitor who is almost an automatic for a quarterfinals berth. Tsonga is another guy who has won a masters and on his day can beat anyone in the world.

Where is the dangerous floater, like say Ivanisevic at Wimbledon who could take out any of the top players even if he were not ranked in the top 4 himself! And the clay court specialists at the French who were tough to play against? It's just 4 players who know each other's games inside out, with no need to watch out for other dangers. The biggest threat is an Argentinian who is still not in the form he was before his injury. Is that it? Some might even say this is a very weak era.

socal1976 wrote: Soderling is two time grandslam finalist. Berdy a grandslam finalist and winner of a masters title. JMDP has won a grandslam. Ferrer is a dogged competitor who is almost an automatic for a quarterfinals berth. Tsonga is another guy who has won a masters and on his day can beat anyone in the world.

Of those 5 names there have been five big match wins in slams across all of their careers and only one in the final. You can make 'excuses' in 2-3 of those wins as well - bottom line is that with one exception you don't (or didn't - poor Soderling) expect those guys to win a slam.

Soderling vs. Nadal 2009, vs. Fed 2010
Del Boy vs. Nadal and Federer 2009
Tsonga vs. Federer 2011 (just)

They just aren't in the same mould as that list I produced from the 1980's, who faced a bevy of all-time greats.

NITB- you're the only one that sometimes doesn't post for months, you see : ) Very happy to see Djoker winning another slam. He does seem to be maturing into a very fine player indeed, on his way to greatness. I can't possibly comprehend how deliriously ecstatic you must be. I can't even believe you've managed to stay sane!

socal1976 wrote:Julius I am talking about trends not one offs here and there.

My mistake, I thought you specifically mentioned Thomas Johansson and Petr Korda. I must have been wrong

Yes, Tennisanorak, some might say a lot of things. You can find some people in fact millions who hold the most ridiculous beliefs. Having a dangerous floater is not as big an impact as having a rock solid, talented, and consistent top 4 guys. Anyone ranked lower knows that to win a grandslam he has to beat 2 of the following 4 players in 5 set matches. Fed, nadal, Murray, and Djoko. That is why you don't see a Thomas Johansson winning a grandslam and never having to beat a top ten player in rout. I think JMDP, Sod, and Berdy could be deemed dangerous floaters based on form and conditions for any of the top 4. Sod has knocked Fed and Nadal in 5 set matches. Tsonga as well is the definition of dangerous floater.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Julius I am talking about trends not one offs here and there.

My mistake, I thought you specifically mentioned Thomas Johansson and Petr Korda. I must have been wrong

Or Andy Roddick, or Ferrero, or Moya, or so on and so on.

Tennisanorak wrote:Where is the dangerous floater, like say Ivanisevic at Wimbledon who could take out any of the top players even if he were not ranked in the top 4 himself! And the clay court specialists at the French who were tough to play against? It's just 4 players who know each other's games inside out, with no need to watch out for other dangers. The biggest threat is an Argentinian who is still not in the form he was before his injury. Is that it? Some might even say this is a very weak era.

Is that just not evidence that the top four weren't as bullet-proof as the current crop and this was Ivanisevic in his 30's.

Barrystar- totally agree. Can you imagine someone like Krajicek, who won Wimbledon in 1996 beating Sampras, in today's tennis. No. Just two good matches wins you a title . In fact, looking at recent results between Fed- Nadal and Djoker- Nadal, it looks like only one good match will do, since these match ups seem to favour one of the players heavily. Djoker needs to beat Murray or Federer, that's it. He seems comfortable against Nadal. And Nadal has it easier against Federer, so he just needs to beat Djoker really to win a slam. The only person for whom this era looks stronger maybe Federer, but if he were at his peak then he'd have won as many if not more slams than he already has. (I say this because Djoker would have beaten Nadal at a few French Opens and Federer would have won more than one French Open. Basically, Djoker would have beaten Nadal and a peak Federer would have beaten Djoker easily than the current Federer).

And let's not forget that we have no clue how good those physical players would be if they were to play within the 20s rule. It would affect their game considerably. They know that and tat is why they are not even trying to speed up.

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Julius I am talking about trends not one offs here and there.

My mistake, I thought you specifically mentioned Thomas Johansson and Petr Korda. I must have been wrong

Or Andy Roddick, or Ferrero, or Moya, or so on and so on.

But again, you criticise "One shot Andy" and "No shot Hewitt", but then laud Soderling and Berdych solely for their achievements, despite the former two having much greater achievements than the latter two.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Tennisanorak wrote:Where is the dangerous floater, like say Ivanisevic at Wimbledon who could take out any of the top players even if he were not ranked in the top 4 himself! And the clay court specialists at the French who were tough to play against? It's just 4 players who know each other's games inside out, with no need to watch out for other dangers. The biggest threat is an Argentinian who is still not in the form he was before his injury. Is that it? Some might even say this is a very weak era.

Is that just not evidence that the top four weren't as bullet-proof as the current crop and this was Ivanisevic in his 30's.

If the top 4 being bullet-proof is the definition of a strong era, then 2011 must be the beginning of the only strong era in the history of tennis.

Tennisanorak wrote:Barrystar- totally agree. Can you imagine someone like Krajicek, who won Wimbledon in 1996 beating Sampras, in today's tennis.

Sampras faced Krajicek in the 4th or the QF - rounds which hold no fear for the current top 4.

To be clear, I am not saying that this is currently a weak era, and I would not hold much of a candle for the 1990's (largely because they bored me). I am saying that, say, 1983-1993 was very tough.

barrystar wrote:To be clear, I am not saying that this is currently a weak era.

Agreed - I don't think anyone has said that.

Dangerous floaters?

They'll appear in about 2-3 years, after Nole has had his fill.

I think that mechanics has shifted from big 4 to big 2, if Nole continues to win like last year, maybe big one, like in Fed glory days.

You have to weigh the strength of an "era" by the distribution of slam wins. If you have two players playing finals all the time than the other two "big" players can be seen as floaters: realistically capable of beating the top 2, but coming short for this reason or the other.
Nole seems to be now focused solely on slams, I suppose that's where you want your career to be at as a tennis player, ideally.

Things can change quickly in tennis, so we just have to wait and see how things progress this year.

Nole's brilliant 2011 has been inspirational to probably all players. A lot of them will work harder now trying to squeeze the best out of themselves.

Personally, I think we are in for an awesome RG.
ALthough Murray loves hard-courts, I think his game suits clay best, and under Lendl's guidance I expect him to have excellent results on clay this year.

I would love to see him play a semi-final on clay against Nadal this spring. Also think Dolgopolov will have a say on clay, too.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Tennisanorak wrote:Where is the dangerous floater, like say Ivanisevic at Wimbledon who could take out any of the top players even if he were not ranked in the top 4 himself! And the clay court specialists at the French who were tough to play against? It's just 4 players who know each other's games inside out, with no need to watch out for other dangers. The biggest threat is an Argentinian who is still not in the form he was before his injury. Is that it? Some might even say this is a very weak era.

Is that just not evidence that the top four weren't as bullet-proof as the current crop and this was Ivanisevic in his 30's.

If the top 4 being bullet-proof is the definition of a strong era, then 2011 must be the beginning of the only strong era in the history of tennis.

I agree we could go around in circles on this but the one constant in the 2000's and 2010's is Roger Federer and the lion's share of his slams came around 2003 to 2008 and those have since 2010 dried up. In those early slam wins he was to win his first ten slams (on hard and grass courts) having never been taken to five sets up until the beginning of 2007 and then things became much more of a challenge to him where he was to lose on hard and grass and win slams being extended to five sets and not just by these so-called physical animals Nadal and Djokovic. Now he can't win a slam for toffee though is still considered a strong contender and GOAT by practically everyone.

Despite what people try and say about me just shouting this as a strong era because of Andy Murray's presence I can negate that by saying I judge the era with Borg, Connors and McEnroe as tops.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

barrystar wrote:To be clear, I am not saying that this is currently a weak era.

Agreed - I don't think anyone has said that.

I do belive I said "It's been a weak era since about 1970."

erictheblueuk wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

barrystar wrote:To be clear, I am not saying that this is currently a weak era.

Agreed - I don't think anyone has said that.

I do belive I said "It's been a weak era since about 1970."

You did - I think 1970 coincides with Laver dropping from his fizzling peak, is that what you were referring to or something else?

Exactly, Craig, I also think the the mid to late 80s was extremely strong. Really tennis from started to pick up in the Borg era and was strong all the way till the mid-90s when we had a bit of a drop off in competition. I mean look at some of the players fed beat in his earlier slams. They simply are in no way as strong as current Novak and Nadal, or for the most part even murray.

CC, the era with Borg, Connors and Mac as a trio lasted about 2 years tops - mid 79 to mid 81 and I'm not convinced Connors was at his best during that time.

Fed hit 28 in Aug 2009 - slams are extremely hard to come by after that age. Fed won the AO 2010, but by the FO 2010 he was 28 years and 10 months. After that age winning 1 more slam is unusual, winning more than 1 more is extremely unusual - only Connors and Agassi in the last 35 years.

Socal, you're actually disagreeing with CC, whose 'strongest era' was late 70s, early 80s.

barrystar wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I think the best era is also from mid 80s till 90s, have to agree with barrystar. Mac, Connors, Lendl and then the rise of wilander, edberg, becker and later Sampras, Agassi, and Courier.

Aye - and the likes of Noah, Leconte, Mecir, Cash, Chang, and Curren were swirling around to take down a top player who lost concentration.

Nothing much to disagree there, I have always maintined that early to mid 80s to early to mid 90s was the golden age. But this current era I would rank higher than mid 90s to mid 2000s.

socal1976 wrote:

barrystar wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I think the best era is also from mid 80s till 90s, have to agree with barrystar. Mac, Connors, Lendl and then the rise of wilander, edberg, becker and later Sampras, Agassi, and Courier.

Aye - and the likes of Noah, Leconte, Mecir, Cash, Chang, and Curren were swirling around to take down a top player who lost concentration.

Nothing much to disagree there, I have always maintined that early to mid 80s to early to mid 90s was the golden age. But this current era I would rank higher than mid 90s to mid 2000s.

Stich wasn't a mug either.