Is this a strong or a weak era? Confusing

First topic message reminder :

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?

spuranik wrote:Ljubicic, Blake, Gonzalez, Baghdatis are simple better players compared to Nadal, Murray and Djokovic etc.

amritia3ee wrote:

spuranik wrote:Ljubicic, Blake, Gonzalez, Baghdatis are simple better players, especially attack and shotmaking compared to Nadal, Murray and Djokovic etc.

Firstly stop misquoting me, I never said that.
Secondly LOL. Dream on mate dream on.

So when you say they are better at defense that is correct but when others say these players are better shotmakers we must dream on...

You seem to accuse Fed fans for not getting over the defeat less than a week older... You seem not to have gotten over the defeat of moonballer at the hands of Kojak at Miami a couple of years ago...

Yes I'm gutted over a Masters 1000 from years ago

I said 'dream on' to when you said 'simply better players.' Whether their strengths are attacking of defensive are frankly irrelevant.

I said 'dream on' to when you said 'simply better players.' Whether their strengths are attacking or defensive are frankly irrelevant.

carrieg4 wrote:

spuranik wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:Ljubicic, Blake, Gonzalez, Baghdatis are simple better players, especially attack and shotmaking compared to Nadal, Murray and Djokovic etc.

Correct.

Not a desparate tactic at all there Spuranik. Funny though

So you agree with Amritia... Congrats Carrig4... So Blake, Ljubo are worse players than current generation, based on what???

spuranik wrote:

So you agree with Amritia... Congrats Carrig4... So Blake, Ljubo are worse players than current generation (Nadal+Djokovic), based on what???

Oh dear God.

You mean oh dear Parera... That's what you were saying a few days ago... Parera = Jesus??

Talk about obsessed...

A weak era number three Ljubo scoring a win over Nadull at Miami...

Yes of course you are right, Ljubicic is far better than Nadal and Djokovic. He once beat them in a one-off tournament in Miami. Therefore he is better.
Does that comfort you?

But Ljubo was from weak era number 3, right?

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

socal1976 wrote: I don't feel the need to continually bemoan bigger balls and slower courts to make a certain someone look better than he already does.

Who as been moaning since Murray-Djo match and Sunday's final about how high quality the matches were? Who has been whining like a silly girl about how spectacular the match was giving pointless evidences like my father, my girl, my dog, everyone else loved it. Who has been posting trash about weak era and strong era throughout his presence on 606v2. Who has been writing numerous articles about how great Djokovic is when he hasn't even completed a year at #1 and still gets bageled by a player outside top 40. Who has been trying to tarnish players of the previous generation Like Nalby, Gonzales, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Lubicic to make his favorite player look better and his stupid era theory any correct.

This is what you have been crying before you left 606v2 and you surely started from just where you had last left. You don't have guts to argue on points put by veejay. Then you run away like a loser and start the same weak era, great top-4 trash on another thread. Now at yourself.

Angry just a bit raider, I dont' spend tens of thousands of posts on how poor Roger who won 16 grandslams on slowed down courts is discriminated against because of a little extra sand in the mix. That would be the fed apologist. Sorry, I think the players today are better. Maybe if Roger was playing Gonzalez and Baggy in grand slam finals as Amirta has pointed he would still be winning slams but unfortunately for him that isn't the case. I have provided ample evidence on numerous threads on how the era of the late 90s to mid 2000s was weak. Roger isn't faulted for that he beat the players that were put in front of him. But if you want me to pretend that ljuby, nalby, hewitt, safin, and roddick are as great as Edberg, Becker, Agassi, Samapras or even the Djoko/Murray crowd of today i am not up for it.

I answered veejay unless he shows me that any single player has a positive drug test I am not ready to convict him and trash his reputation in public. Call me crazy. Are there some pros that are doping, probably. Is there enough evidence for me to make a case against one in particular based on Veejay's expert viewing of them from the tele, No! definetly not.

spuranik wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:

spuranik wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:Ljubicic, Blake, Gonzalez, Baghdatis are simple better players, especially attack and shotmaking compared to Nadal, Murray and Djokovic etc.

Correct.

Based on the fact that they both finished the year as being ranked in the top 5 and have exactly one grandslam semi between the two of them. They suck as top 5 players. Only fed apologists don't get it. Kind of how like some people won't accept the fact that baked beans make you fart.

Not a desparate tactic at all there Spuranik. Funny though

So you agree with Amritia... Congrats Carrig4... So Blake, Ljubo are worse players than current generation, based on what???

Now i have heard everything. The reason blake and ljuby are perfect examples of the weak era is because they both managed top 5 finishes and have a single grandslam semi between them. But don't let facts get in the way of Fed worshiping. Those guys were among the meat of Roger's early grandslam victims.

spuranik wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:

spuranik wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:Ljubicic, Blake, Gonzalez, Baghdatis are simple better players, especially attack and shotmaking compared to Nadal, Murray and Djokovic etc.

Correct.

Not a desparate tactic at all there Spuranik. Funny though

So you agree with Amritia... Congrats Carrig4... So Blake, Ljubo are worse players than current generation, based on what???

Not been paying too much attention to the thread TBH, just thought your deliberate misquote showed signs of desperation. Murray and Djokovic especially are both excellent shot makers from the current generation (outside Fed of course) and there were some equally excellent ones from previous generations. Blake was sadly plagued with injuries so who knows what he could have done otherwise so I don't think he presents a fair comparison. If you matched current generation players at their peak against those from the last generation at their peak it would be great to watch - personally I would give the edge to the current generation as they have put the work in to allow them to sustain their obviously talented shot making for longer. I could be wrong though, it is just an opinion.

socal1976 wrote:The reason blake and ljuby are perfect examples of the weak era is because they both managed top 5 finishes and have a single grandslam semi between them. But don't let facts get in the way....

Ljubicic does I think - FO 2006 vs Rafa. Lucky old Rafa!

Not really he had to face Federer in the final. Tough final, no?

yes both of them combined have one grandslam semi Julius. And the socalled mediocre players following the big 4 today. Tsonga 1 masters and 1 grandslam final. Ferrer 3 grandslam semis. Berdy 1 grandslam final 1 masters. Soderling 2 grandslam finals. JMDP 2 grandslam semis, 1 grandslam win. And these from players who have never managed to be rated higher than 4-7 in the rankings. I know that must mean today's second tier players are just mediocre, mediocre compared to what?

McEnroe: We are in Golden Era
http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2012/02/Features/McEnroe-Hails-Djokovic-Tennis-Golden-Era.aspx

amritia3ee wrote:Not really he had to face Federer in the final. Tough final, no?

So Rafa wins yet another FO in a weak era. You said it, not me.

Some pretty desperate stuff from the seething section of the hardcore Roger fans today.
Yesterday we had to hear from wow (stratocumulus) how 'real tennis fans are only federer fans' and how 'everyone who doesn't support Fed is anti-tennis.' Oh and also tennis 'is being exterminated as Fed isn't winning.'
Today they are saying Ljubicic is a better overall player than both Nadal and Djokovic, apart from a one-off in Miami, a grossly insulting claim.

socal1976 wrote:yes both of them combined have one grandslam semi Julius. And the socalled mediocre players following the big 4 today. Tsonga 1 masters and 1 grandslam final. Ferrer 3 grandslam semis. Berdy 1 grandslam final 1 masters. Soderling 2 grandslam finals. JMDP 2 grandslam semis, 1 grandslam win. And these from players who have never managed to be rated higher than 4-7 in the rankings. I know that must mean today's second tier players are just mediocre, mediocre compared to what?

I was just pointing out the error, that's all. But since you asked - compared to the players ranked 5 - 10 in the 2004 YE top 10 - Moya, Henman, Coria, Agassi, Nalbandian, Gaudio. There's more depth and GS success there than the current 5 - 10

JuliusHMarx wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:Not really he had to face Federer in the final. Tough final, no?

So Rafa wins yet another FO in a weak era. You said it, not me.

Nothing called 'weak era.'
Fed just face very low competition in all hard court and grass slams between 2004-2007. In RG Nadal had to deal with one of the greatest players of all time.

amritia3ee wrote:Some pretty desperate stuff from the seething section of the hardcore Roger fans today.
Yesterday we had to hear from wow (stratocumulus) how 'real tennis fans are only federer fans' and how 'everyone who doesn't support Fed is anti-tennis.' Oh and also tennis 'is being exterminated as Fed isn't winning.'
Today they are saying Ljubicic is a better overall player than both Nadal and Djokovic, apart from a one-off in Miami, a grossly insulting claim.

I am sure Nadal with his multimillions of dollars and ten slams, davis cups, olympic golds, career grandslams and 2 year end #1s can't sleep at night because he lost a masters final to ljubicic. I don't get are today's top 4 weaker because they don't lose enough, or are they weaker because they occassionally lose to the likes of Dodig and Ljubicic? Which is it they win too much or lose too often, therefore they aren't great? Now I have officially heard it all, Ljubicic is better than Novak and Nadal. Of course the link you provided to John Mac talking about how great the current crop of tennis champions is will be ignored nothing can get in the way of Roger jock sniffing and deification.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:yes both of them combined have one grandslam semi Julius. And the socalled mediocre players following the big 4 today. Tsonga 1 masters and 1 grandslam final. Ferrer 3 grandslam semis. Berdy 1 grandslam final 1 masters. Soderling 2 grandslam finals. JMDP 2 grandslam semis, 1 grandslam win. And these from players who have never managed to be rated higher than 4-7 in the rankings. I know that must mean today's second tier players are just mediocre, mediocre compared to what?

I was just pointing out the error, that's all. But since you asked - compared to the players ranked 5 - 10 in the 2004 YE top 10 - Moya, Henman, Coria, Agassi, Nalbandian, Gaudio. There's more depth and GS success there than the current 5 - 10

A where exactly is the error you are talking about Julius. I stated that between Blake and ljubicic they have exactly one grandslam semi. And then you corrected me by pointing out that ljubicic has one grandslam semi. Well that is exactly what I said. Way to Cherry pick a top 10. Moya and Gaudio would have no chance, no chance in hell of winning a grandslam in the last 6 years and you know it or do you think they would be beating nadal in 5 sets on clay? And agassi was what 134 years old at the time, oh just 34 years old.

amritia3ee wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:Not really he had to face Federer in the final. Tough final, no?

So Rafa wins yet another FO in a weak era. You said it, not me.

Nothing called 'weak era.'
Fed just face very low competition in all hard court and grass slams between 2004-2007. In RG Nadal had to deal with one of the greatest players of all time.

Really, man, make up your mind. You can't downgrade Federer for playing in a weak era (thats exactly what you mean with low competition) and then say he's one of the greatest when facing Nadal. Be consequent, it's one or the other. Reading your other and SA's post you would believe he was no better than Murray only lucky to play in a weaker era. So then don't call him an all time great when facing Nadal. According to your logic Nadal won 10 slams in a weak era, beating the same players as Federer did + bunnyFed himself, not exactly great. As soon as a real great player came along (Djokovic) he was sent into the BitchRoom immediately.

socal1976 wrote:where exactly is the error you are talking about Julius.

It's in my head socal - I was certain I saw the word 'don't' in your first post i.e. "don't have a single GS semi...." New brain required on my part.

Federer is in the top 3 greatest players of all time for me.
As for the Djoko argument let's see, I believe Nadal is fighting hard and getting closer and closer to Djoko.

socal1976 wrote:Way to Cherry pick a top 10. Moya and Gaudio would have no chance, no chance in hell of winning a grandslam in the last 6 years and you know it or do you think they would be beating nadal in 5 sets on clay? And agassi was what 134 years old at the time, oh just 34 years old.

I'm not arguing that they would win a GS, I'm arguing that players ranked 5 - 10 at YE 2004 are more than a match for players ranked 5 -10 now. I.e. more strength in the depth of the field, if not the top. Something which doesn't necessarily mean that era is stronger or weaker, just that eras can be more or less equal, but in different ways.

Ljubicic is better than both Nadal and Djokovic IMHO.

stratocumulus wrote:Strong era started from 2008 and it will run upto till Nadal retires. In that strong era Nadal has been to 9 finals out of the available 16. He has won 9 finals over Federer (who as per nadal fans is a weak player anyway), Berdych, Soderling, Murray and an exhausted Djoko. The list of the runner up is really legendary specially it includes Soderling and Berdych.

During the weaker era nadal won 4 slams including a win over deadly Marian Puerta.
So this is the strong era, yeah totally agree. An ageing Fed, djoko, nadal and Murray are strong era. If Murray had played between 2003-2007, he surely would have ended up with 16 slams.

How?
Murray cant even take a set off the old man in a grand slam

amritia3ee wrote:McEnroe: We are in Golden Era
http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2012/02/Features/McEnroe-Hails-Djokovic-Tennis-Golden-Era.aspx

Jonny Mac predicted Roger would never go on to break Sampras' record after losing 08 Wimbledon final to Nadal
When Roger won RG and went on the break the record at Wimbledon he went on the proclaim Roger to be the undisputed GOAT
When Nadal won 3 majors in 2010,Nadal was proclaimed the undisputed GOAT and both him and Navratilova predicted he would go on the break Rogers records..
Well now that it looks like that will probably never happen and Mac pimps Djokovic is the new kid on the block in the conversation of all time greats when he hasn't even come close to achieving what they did yet
Now this rivalry is considered the golden era in tennis when just 3 seasons ago the Fedal rivalry was considered the golden era...
As much as I respect former greats like Mac and Navratilova,every season their opinion changes.Of course thats natural but don't they lose a bit of credibility when they chop and change to such extremes the way they do?
To use no of grand slam titles as a measure of greatness one day and then not the other is too inconsistent to take their opinion on the subject very seriously

Of course McEnroe says that to the press...will say anything if it keeps tennis in the media on the front shelf.

Secretly he's laughing how those below top 4 fail so much

Josiah- it's ridiculous to see the people from ranking 5 onward posing virtually no threat whatsoever. 1 and 2 have met in 3 of the last 4 slam finals. 1,2,3 and 4 have again met in semis of 3 of the last 4 slams. Maybe it's a strong era for the top 4 and a very weak era from 5 onwards. Do note that this top 4 domination includes Murray. If it were just Roger, Rafa and Novak dominating, we could at least say they are all multi slam winners. It's baffling to see someone like Murray who is yet to win a slam reaching 5 consecutive slam semifinals (and counting), even on surfaces like clay and grass which are not his favourite.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Way to Cherry pick a top 10. Moya and Gaudio would have no chance, no chance in hell of winning a grandslam in the last 6 years and you know it or do you think they would be beating nadal in 5 sets on clay? And agassi was what 134 years old at the time, oh just 34 years old.

I'm not arguing that they would win a GS, I'm arguing that players ranked 5 - 10 at YE 2004 are more than a match for players ranked 5 -10 now. I.e. more strength in the depth of the field, if not the top. Something which doesn't necessarily mean that era is stronger or weaker, just that eras can be more or less equal, but in different ways.

I disagree that Moya and Gaudio in 2004 would beat the players outside the top 4 today. Certainly, not on a hardcourt. And the fact that they won grandslams in the weaker era and you yourself acknowledge that Gaudio and Moya would have a near zero chance of winning a french open today sums up my argument.

Tennisanorak wrote:Josiah- it's ridiculous to see the people from ranking 5 onward posing virtually no threat whatsoever. 1 and 2 have met in 3 of the last 4 slam finals. 1,2,3 and 4 have again met in semis of 3 of the last 4 slams. Maybe it's a strong era for the top 4 and a very weak era from 5 onwards. Do note that this top 4 domination includes Murray. If it were just Roger, Rafa and Novak dominating, we could at least say they are all multi slam winners. It's baffling to see someone like Murray who is yet to win a slam reaching 5 consecutive slam semifinals (and counting), even on surfaces like clay and grass which are not his favourite.

Tennisanorak, I have said this before and I am sticking to it. It is the top of the tennis tour to determine the strength of an era. People don't look at the 80s and say it was such a great era Brad Gilbert was rated #9 in the world. That is because the top 4 or 5 players are the ones that determine 90 percent of the winners of the top trophies. Because of the nature of tournament tennis by definition it is harder to win a grandslam in a top heavy tour than a more even distribution of talent across the board. That is because of the set up of single elimination tournaments. You don't have to beat the top 10 or 20 en masse. You just have to beat 3 or 4 seeded players. And if two of those seeded players are going to Fed, Nadal, Murray, or Djoko and you are lower ranked player most likely you are going to have a tough time of breaking through. Who cares if your 4th round and quarterfinal match is slightly harder or easier those guys are the gatekeepers you have to get through.

And by the way I am not ready to concede that Tsonga, Sod, Berdy, and JMDP are as soft touches as you guys are making them out to be. Every single one of them has played in a grandslam final.

Veejay, Mac has always heaped praise on Roger and on the new generation of tennis players as well. Mac loves the tennis and his words speak for themselves. You and JM can discern and psychoanalyze how Mac really didn't mean what he said. I mean you can drug test a guy from watching him on the TV maybe you can psychoanalyze's mac's intentions from reading an article. I don't possess such precognition.

Most all the critics I have heard with a few exceptions have heaped praise on this match. And outside of this website filled with Fed extremists I haven't talked to a single tennis or sports fan who watched the event and said they didn't find it engaging.

Socal- is it tougher to beat Murray and Djoker back to back at Wimbledon or Ivanisevic and Sampras back to back? Federer beat Sampras, but lost to Henman- that is what happens if you have a very good group of people rather than just 3 strong players in an era. In the 1990s, there were so many great players on grass that it was tough to even get to the semis. Same for the clay courters on clay. Do you think the current top 4, supposedly so strong, would all have made the semis on the fast grass as well as the slow clay in the same year if they had to play in the 1990s? In fact, there's a very high chance that even f given 5 or 6 chances, the top 4 wouldn't have all made the semis at the FO and Wimbledon. At least one of them would have been upset. (Ivanisevic vs Nadal or Krajicek vs Murray on the fast grass would have been a close call. Same for Coria Vs Murray or Bruguera Vs Djokovic on clay.)

Tennisanorak, I concede that there are less big serve and volley players today and maybe at wimby Novak or murray would have a tough time with Goran. But on clay Novak would beat basically any of the pre-Nadal champions of the 90s. He took 4 straight sets off of Nadal on clay last year. I don't think he fears Coria or Brugera. He hits heavier and more consistently off both wings. And as for the grass lets remember that Agassi, Bjorg, and connors where all baseliners who managed to win wimby from the back. Courier reached the finals of wimby in the heart of the big server era. So it depends on which conditions they play on. I tell you this outside of Pete and Andre none of the late 90s guys can hang with Novak on a hardcourt.

That talk of Djokovic reminds me of the dilemma Nadal fans are facing. Since Djoker has beaten Nadal so many times, the only way to reason it away is if Novak becomes a great too, which would necessitate him winning more slam titles at the expense of Nadal. If another player comes along and Novak ends up with say 6 or 7 slams, questions will always be asked of why Nadal had such a bad record against a guy who isn't an all time great. For Federer, the question doesn't arise because (a) He never lost 7 in a row against Nadal (b) He never lost 3 slam finals in a row (c) He is 5 years older than Nadal and (d) Nadal is an all time great, so a bad head to head against him wouldn't be as damning as it would be for Nadal if Novak doesn't end up as an all time great. (e) At the age of 30, he bagelled Nadal

Tennisanorak the first time Federer lost to Nadal in a 5 setter Roger was 23 years old and Nadal 17. The age discrepancy if anything favors Nadal. When Nadal was breaking onto the tour and was still nowhere near as good as he is now he was beating Federer more often then not.

Tennisanorak wrote:That talk of Djokovic reminds me of the dilemma Nadal fans are facing. Since Djoker has beaten Nadal so many times, the only way to reason it away is if Novak becomes a great too, which would necessitate him winning more slam titles at the expense of Nadal. If another player comes along and Novak ends up with say 6 or 7 slams, questions will always be asked of why Nadal had such a bad record against a guy who isn't an all time great. For Federer, the question doesn't arise because (a) He never lost 7 in a row against Nadal (b) He never lost 3 slam finals in a row (c) He is 5 years older than Nadal and (d) Nadal is an all time great, so a bad head to head against him wouldn't be as damning as it would be for Nadal if Novak doesn't end up as an all time great. (e) At the age of 30, he bagelled Nadal

Excellent post as always.

Todays' top players are all about fitness. That's why they dominate the rest of the field. Some thought Nadal was a GOAT but how can one be contending for GOAT when he can be beaten 7 times in a row by a player of his generation? And teh reason why Nadal had a head start in his H2H v Djoko is that Nadal's team was simply ahead of the rest in diet and training. Nothing else. Where is Nadal's talent now that one can challenge him physically?

I have been talking about Nadal's main, if not only strength, for 5 years and Djoko is proving me right like I could have never dreamt of. Saying Nadal's era is strong is the biggest joke going on in tennis nowadays only bought by Rafa fans and Socal. The real Djoko fans knows that their man on one leg can beat Nadal and Murray so they won't boast about. They also know, like Djoko, that their man's biggest challenge is a 30yo man who learnt his tennis with a small frame and natural strings. A father of 2 who was one point away to take peak Djoko out in 2 out the 4 slams he played in 2011.

socal1976 wrote:Veejay, Mac has always heaped praise on Roger and on the new generation of tennis players as well. Mac loves the tennis and his words speak for themselves. You and JM can discern and psychoanalyze how Mac really didn't mean what he said. I mean you can drug test a guy from watching him on the TV maybe you can psychoanalyze's mac's intentions from reading an article. I don't possess such precognition.

Most all the critics I have heard with a few exceptions have heaped praise on this match. And outside of this website filled with Fed extremists I haven't talked to a single tennis or sports fan who watched the event and said they didn't find it engaging.

I never said Mac has no right to say what he does,I just cannot take what he says seriously if his comments are as inconsistent as they are.I never bought into the idea that Roger was proclaimed the GOAT by Mac when he just won his 3rd Wimbleddon against Roddick in 05,neither did I buy into the idea that Nadal was proclaimed the GOAT was proclaimed the GOAT for simply having a winning h2h record over Federer even when the other numbers and achievements weren't even remotely close
Now Novak is suddenly in the conversation because he has won his 5th major,should we now include all former 5 times grand slam winners on the list of all time greats too?
Do you not think thats a huge insult for the likes of Laver,Borg and Sampras?
I like Novak and what he is doing for our sport is wonderful,no one ever say no one is allowed to heap praise on last Sundays match.I rate it as one of the best matches I have ever seen,but the point is that we need to stop proclaiming someone to be in the conversation of all time greats every time a grand slam is won.Or proclaim the golden era of tennis every time we have an epic final.It takes the glory of truly incredibly feats away.We never did it before Federer came along so why are we doing it now? This is all about showing the all time greats who truly are all time greats the respect they deserve

"I mean you can drug test a guy from watching him on the TV"
Im not the only one doing this,you are doing it too!!!! How many times do I have to point this out to you before you will understand? Is it because its easy to point fingers but not look at yourself?
You believe there is a problem in the sport but yet you have no evidence,which means you too are "drug testing players from watching t.v" Add to the fact that you don't believe the players in question who get most air time are,but yet you believe players you don't ever see,who get virtually no air time are doping,when on top of that its quite clear from your comments that you're really ignorant about the subject

"I don't possess such precognition." I guess you don't.....

How can you not see the double standards and hypocrisy in almost eery one of your comments? Or do I really have to keep pointing it out to you ?

socal1976 wrote:And agassi was what 134 years old at the time, oh just 34 years old.

Interesting that a 34 year old Agassi at Number 8 in the world is evidence of a 'weak era', but a 35 year old Connors at No 4 in the world in 1988 is in a 'strong era'.

No Federer hasn't lost to any one 7 times in a row but he has lost to Nadal 5 timew in a row. Actually on 2 occassions. By the way why is this debate still on? 2003-2007 tennis weak era.

Simple_Analyst wrote:By the way why is this debate still on? 2003-2007 tennis weak era.

It's still on because there's lots of opposing ideas and evidence to support both sides of the argument. However, if you've made up your mind, and have nothing else to offer but a single sentence, no-one's forcing you to read this thread or post on it.

No there is no evidence to suppport both sides, 1 side, yes. Socal is providing basic objective education and with evidence, Federer fans are providing ignorance with no substance. Hardly s good debate going on here.

Simple_Analyst wrote:No there is no evidence to suppport both sides, 1 side, yes. Socal is providing basic objective education and with evidence, Federer fans are providing ignorance with no substance. Hardly s good debate going on here.

I can't help it if you fail to recognise the evidence presented. I won't presume to say what Federer fans are doing, they can do what they like, but I know I'm not providing ignorance with no substance.

SA, so other than socal's "objective education", all other posters with the opposite point of view here have been wrong? That's not very respectful towards the other posters, is it? I think several interesting points have been brought up in this discussion.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:No there is no evidence to suppport both sides, 1 side, yes. Socal is providing basic objective education and with evidence, Federer fans are providing ignorance with no substance. Hardly s good debate going on here.

I can't help it if you fail to recognise the evidence presented. I won't presume to say what Federer fans are doing, they can do what they like, but I know I'm not providing ignorance with no substance.

You're not actually trying to reason with Simplistic are you?

That's not his objective.

Veejay, I actually agree with what you say. if you look at my goat list I don't have Novak close to the top.

The point on Nadal's drug testing is this, it has nothing to do with whether he is rated number 2 or 222. If you came out and said Michael Russell was doping without producing any evidence other than your opinion of his physique on TV I would defend said player. You fail to recognize my point because maybe you want to ignore it. Are their players that are doping yes, am I going to accuse one particular player (ie Nadal) when I have no specific evidence, no I am not, and I believe it is distasteful and beneath you Veejay to do that.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:And agassi was what 134 years old at the time, oh just 34 years old.

Interesting that a 34 year old Agassi at Number 8 in the world is evidence of a 'weak era', but a 35 year old Connors at No 4 in the world in 1988 is in a 'strong era'.

I never said Agassi at 34 was not a capable player, but way passed his best. What I said was your top ten wasn't as impressive as you made it out to be because Gaudio and Moya would have no chance of winning a grandslam today or in the last few years, and you know that yourself. Interesting that many Roger fans have claimed that this era is weak because a 31 year old father of 2 is the best hope to beat Novak and is still quote putting bagels on people. If this era is weaker because Roger at 31 is ranked number 3 in the world what about 33 year old agassi reaching #1 in the world in 2003. I just love the internal contradictions of the fed extremists. This is funny on one thread they state that Nadal losing to Ivan Dodig or Murray losing back to back matches to players out of the top 100 is clear evidence of the weakness of the era. Then they turn around and say that this era isn't strong because the top 4 reach every semi nobody beats them. In one thread they say how an old washed 31 year father of 2 puts bagels on the world #2 and therefore this era isn't that strong. And then what about 33 year old Andre reaching #1 in the world in 2003, the year of Roger's first grandslam by the way.