Federer Nadal - age comparison

First topic message reminder :

This not intended to be a re-visit of the tired old GOAT debate, nor a discussion of the merits of H2H, but to compare and contrast the two men's careers at the same age - i.e Rafa at 25 is 4yrs and 10 months younger than Federer at 30 so you can compare his record and position now with Fed's in 2007 (January 2007 if you are being precise) - and speculate on where they may end.

There's a good summary here http://www.tennis28.com/studies/Federer_Nadal.html, and also here on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federer%E2%80%93Nadal_rivalry

Comparing February 2007 Fed with February 2012 Nadal I'd suggest the following:

a. Rafa started everything younger than Fed - he raced ahead with slam wins but now its very tight with Fed and Rafa on 10 each (stopping the watch at AO 2007/2012) - unless Rafa wins 2 more this year he'll fall behind Fed's rate and I think he really needs to get ahead of Fed's rate at this age to stand a chance of over-taking him.

b. Rafa is more than a whole year's worth of weeks at No. 1 behind Fed

c. Rafa is miles ahead on Masters Series Wins and DC wins but well behind on TMC/WTF wins

d. They are neck-and-neck on overall tournament wins at 46 each including Fed's AO 2007

e. Rafa's w/l is superior to Fed's at the same age (although Fed's has improved by almost 2% since 2007).

f. Hindsight tells us that about 5 years ago Fed was at his absolute peak as a tennis player and the first cracks in his mastery were just about to appear with those two losses to Canas at IW and Miami. 2007 marked the end of years with 10+ tournament wins or 90% w/l ratios: having said that, in the five years since February 2007 Fed has been none too shabby managing another 6 slam wins.

g. In 2007 Fed had the beating of pretty much all his opponents with the exception of his main rival Nadal who was in command on clay but beatable elsewhere and did not dominate the H2H for another year. In 2012 Nadal has the beating of pretty much all his opponents (in slams at least) with the exception of his main rival who is currently more dominant over him than he ever has been over Federer.

h. They have a comparable 'mileage' in terms of matches played - Rafa has only played about 50 more matches than Fed at the same age, a difference of less than 10%.

Nadal has made fools of those predicting his career path often enough, but it's almost impossible to believe that he will be able to sustain similar sustained quality between now and 2017 as Fed has done in the 5 years since 2007. I'd go further, I suspect that 25 will prove to have been the 'turning point' age at which Federer's career trajectory will be shown to have caught up with the effect of Rafa's early gains. I am well aware that without Djoko on form Rafa could start cleaning up in the big tournaments pretty smartly - but my assessment of the Aus Open 2012 is that it was just as encouraging for Murray and Djoko, and probably more so, than it was for Nadal.

Therefore, on what I consider to be the three main indicators:

* Fed's overall slam total of 16 is looking safer from Nadal as each slam passes us by.

* Nadal has no prospect of beating Fed's tally of weeks or y/e at No. 1.

* I'd be very surprised if Nadal ends up with more overall tournament wins than Federer - he's got to win at least another 25 and his past rate of accumulating wins suggests that will be beyond him in the future, particularly if he is going to reduce his schedule. He has not won away from clay since October 2010.

When I looked and saw that there wre 190+ replies to this thread I was pretty chuffed. Then I read some of them and was less chuffed.

The thread was obviously a "Fedal" thread of sorts, but the aim was to set a playing field which would avoid too much 'heat' in the debate. I don't mind things moving off topic - conversations do that, but let's be civil and let's not bother to take offence, eh?

For what it's worth I found some of the bang-bash Wimbledon matches of the 1990's excruciating and I was pleased when things swung back a bit (I thought that the 1980's was a wonderful era for contrasting styles of tennis), but now I think men's tennis is headed to hell in a handcart.

I think tournament directors want to homogenise conditions because every tournament which does not have a top 4 SF is somehow a let-down. It's the star system - the non-tennis-fanatic public (i.e. the majority) has heard of the top 4, and possibly delpo, and TD's and the ATP are terrified of presenting them and the TV stations they watch with a tournament where an upset might mean that one of the top 4 is out early - i.e. particularly where fast conditions render the result a bit more of a lottery for Nadal (Djoko and Murray have always been better at coping with such conditions).

I don't want to go back to Sampras vs. Ivanisevic at Wimbledon - but I'd love to see the likes of Nadal feel (like Lendl did) that they'd have to introduce more S&V to their repertoire to succeed on faster surfaces and see how they did. I truly think that once Federer has gone the novelty will wear off and the public will start to get bored stiff with the current 'return every ball' marathons. I find some of the gets truly amazing, and there is drama (like in darts or weight-lifting), but I find myself wanting the points to end and to see the ability to hit winners rewarded. Of course, it would be churlish not to recognise that Djoko and Nadal are truly great players, and Murray is damn good too - I like watching Djoko and Murray, but I don't enjoy watching Nadal much.

LuvSports! wrote:it went as far back as connors i think! check it out

will try tomorrow ....

noleisthebest wrote:

LuvSports! wrote:it went as far back as connors i think! check it out

will try tomorrow ....

you already read it remember? You said it started well and your eyes glazed over
Im just bringing it up again as it was on topic as i had done some research.
I'm determined to prove ya wrong . You don't by any chance follow sports outside tennis?

It's a nice article, Luv (can I call you Luv? Actually, perhaps not). But what about Edberg's 1992 USO. 15th, 7th, 4th and 3 seed in consecutive matches. IIRC, a break down in the 5th against Krajicek, then again against Lendl and a break down in the 5th again against Chang.
Then beats Sampras in the final, in 4 sets.

Which also sort of illustrates my point. No-one places any more value on Edberg's 1992 USO win than on his 1991 US win.

Agassi had some relatively woeful Aus Open wins, and Sampras had a couple of relatively easy rides at USO/Wimbledon in the 1990's. It's all down to whether you are old enough to remember what happened. After a while all slams look the same in the record books.

JuliusHMarx wrote:It's a nice article, Luv (can I call you Luv? Actually, perhaps not). But what about Edberg's 1992 USO. 15th, 7th, 4th and 3 seed in consecutive matches. IIRC, a break down in the 5th against Krajicek, then again against Lendl and a break down in the 5th again against Chang.
Then beats Sampras in the final, in 4 sets.

Which also sort of illustrates my point. No-one places any more value on Edberg's 1992 USO win than on his 1991 US win.

Haha!! um go on then . With regards to that I kind of went for people over 6 slams soz bar novak.
So i didn't research that one but now you mention it that sounds a fantastic feat!
Thanks for saying its a nice article

Barrystar - I'm not old enough to remember any slams before 2000 or lets say i had never seen a tennis match until 2001 when i was 9 so ye but i just wanted to see what can be a stand out one.

laverfan wrote:Rules not enforced....

https://imgur.com/1XNwo

Socal... I would prefer either that the rule be changed, or it be enforced. You can have rallies and 'point construction' as long as the players want.

BTW, this is not point construction, is it? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYds3V-fAXk

From the first link. Maybe they should deduct a point from both players and one from the umpire too?

From the second link. Was it immediately after that rally that the decision was made to speed up the courts?

JuliusHMarx wrote:H2H

Tsonga-Ljuby 3-3
Berdych-Ljuby 2-3
JMDP-Ljuby 1-1

Oh my god a fed fan bringing up H2H record as an indicator of how good a player is in comparison. Now I have seen it all, I thought h2h record meant nothing. By the way Ljuby was in his prime and the players you indicated where younger and coming up. JMDP for sure must have been like 18 or 19 when he first loss to Ljuby. Either way, you misineterpret my ljuby argument. If Ljubicic was an outside the top 5 guy, lets say 6-12 (like berdy and Tsonga) than I would not see it as any indicator of weakness. Ljubicic is weak as a 3 and 4 hole player. I never said the guy can't walk and chew gum or should not even be in the top 10 or 15. By the way, I will have that which player is better argument with Ljubi and all of these players once their careers have shutdown and the new guys will all win hands down. All the players you listed have more grandslam finals and semi trips than Ljubi. All the players will end or already have more tournament wins. And with the Ljubi JMDP comparison that one isn't even funny how much better Juan is and will be in the future to Ljubi's best.

hawkeye wrote:

laverfan wrote:Rules not enforced....

https://imgur.com/1XNwo

Socal... I would prefer either that the rule be changed, or it be enforced. You can have rallies and 'point construction' as long as the players want.

BTW, this is not point construction, is it? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYds3V-fAXk

From the first link. Maybe they should deduct a point from both players and one from the umpire too?

Pascal Maria had warned both. If you watched it without commercial breaks, you would see the warnings.

hawkeye wrote:From the second link. Was it immediately after that rally that the decision was made to speed up the courts?

S&V on Clay if you will... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CaOw8dJ_Lg&feature=BFa&list=PLC050C2859A71FBA5&lf=results_main

This is when they decided to make the surface fast.

Well Barry I will have to disagree with you on a couple of finer points. I don't believe tennis is going to hell in a handbasket. If more fans and therefore more money favors the slower conditions tournament directors and broadcasters will favor those conditions. If the fans start leaving in a significant numbers you can bet your bottom dollar that conditions will be sped up. But that isn't what we have seen.

As for Laverfan, I understand ur point of view and respect your taste. But some people love broccoli and others hate it. I personally, can't stand a match with two big servers. I also don't like two david ferrer's or Juan Monacos to play with endless points and no one able to hit a winner. I think the brand of modern tennis is very enjoyable and we have yet to see a revolt of fans and sponsors and the trend is good.

However, on another level I think you make one fundamental error in your logic Laverfan. You keep comparing the 80 final. Well it isn't just the conditions that have changed since 80. Or even the late 90s which I always posit on this issue. The players are way bigger now, I think Bjorg and Mac could fit in Karlovic and Del Potro's pocket. The athletes are more advanced, bigger, taller, and the technology is further advanced as well. Slower conditions to some extent are needed as a check on these bigger male players with lighting racquets and space age strings.

Here is the second error in your logic, if I may be so bold. If as many slow court conspiracy theorists don't mention is that if the slower conditions are homogeonizing the game and the results. Then why hasn't it done the same thing for the women's tour in the last 5-7 years? Why do we have nothing, nothing, nothing approach a big 4 type of consistency on the women's side for really about a decade. At the start of the french open on the women's side I have no idea who is going to win or who will even reach the semis. Playing with the same tech, courts, and strings the women's game is more topsy turvy than I have ever seen it. So maybe it isn't the conditions impacting the tour as much as the game of the big 4 men. They are the ones who are homogenizing the results. The style of play of course being impacted by the slower conditions.

socal1976 wrote: If Ljubicic was an outside the top 5 guy, lets say 6-12 (like berdy and Tsonga) than I would not see it as any indicator of weakness. Ljubicic is weak as a 3 and 4 hole player. I never said the guy can't walk and chew gum or should not even be in the top 10 or 15.

Ljubicic was #3 for 1 week (1 May 2006) and 9 weeks (14 Aug 2006 - 16 Oct 2006). Does that determine the whole 'Wee Keira'? Who was ATP #2 in 2006? Who played the FO SF in 2006 against this ATP #2?

Just a gentle reminder about the IW 2010 Masters winner. BTW he is ATP #42, a 32-year old still in the Top 50.

Very similar story with James Blake.

It is rather sad to see you (and JHM) fall in this Ljubicic/Blake trap.

socal1976 wrote:By the way, I will have that which player is better argument with Ljubi and all of these players once their careers have shutdown and the new guys will all win hands down. All the players you listed have more grandslam finals and semi trips than Ljubi. All the players will end or already have more tournament wins. And with the Ljubi JMDP comparison that one isn't even funny how much better Juan is and will be in the future to Ljubi's best.

Hope DelPo does better after winning Marseilles. Good to see the big man slowly come back.

Laverfan, he was #4 for a lot longer. Hell I think he is weak in that position for any top 5 or 6 spot. There is a reason Ljubi played in exactly one grandslam semi in his entire career.

As for Blake again a very good player. But he finished I believe 06 as the #4 player in the world. He just is a weak player in the 4 whole. Has even won a single 500 pointer? And again I would view him as weak anywhere in the top 8 frankly. James Blake good player but not a guy that with strong competition is going to finish top 8.

socal1976 wrote:The players are way bigger now, I think Bjorg and Mac could fit in Karlovic and Del Potro's pocket.

You picked two 5-11 athletes to compare with two 6-10/6-3 athlete. Agassi was 5-11, J. McEnroe was 5-11. But Sampras was 6-1, Safin was 6-4, Ferrer is 5-9, Rochus is 5-6, Ferrero, Moya 6-3.

Pancho Gonzalez was 6+ and Don Budge was 6-1. You get all variants. There is a thread on 606v2 where I posted the heights of the Open Era #1s.

socal1976 wrote:The athletes are more advanced, bigger, taller, and the technology is further advanced as well. Slower conditions to some extent are needed as a check on these bigger male players with lighting racquets and space age strings.

Now you are beginning to sound like Tenez. . Is a bubble chamber, BEMER or an oxygen tent really a 'natural' athlete?

socal1976 wrote:Here is the second error in your logic, if I may be so bold. If as many slow court conspiracy theorists don't mention is that if the slower conditions are homogeonizing the game and the results. Then why hasn't it done the same thing for the women's tour in the last 5-7 years?

It has. You are forgetting the Williamses, Henin, Graf, Seles, et al. It is rather that Serena has non-tennis interests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Grand_Slam_women%27s_singles_champions

Just look at this list before before FO 2011 for women. You are confusing the lack of a consistent WTA #1 with consistency of results at the slams, which are very different.

socal1976 wrote:Why do we have nothing, nothing, nothing approach a big 4 type of consistency on the women's side for really about a decade. At the start of the french open on the women's side I have no idea who is going to win or who will even reach the semis. Playing with the same tech, courts, and strings the women's game is more topsy turvy than I have ever seen it. So maybe it isn't the conditions impacting the tour as much as the game of the big 4 men. They are the ones who are homogenizing the results. The style of play of course being impacted by the slower conditions.

See my previous comment. There was a very consistent second tier with Russinas like Dementieva, Zvonareva, Safina (before her injury).

Ljubicic's double handed forehand is far superior to Nadals, therefore he is better.
In all seriousness I can't imagine how a player like Ljubicic can be number 3. 1 masters 1000 win where he played well, and one slam semi where his highest ranked opponent he faced before the semi was the world number 79. That's it. And he was world number 3/4 for ages, unbelievable.

The competition really was terrible, Ljubicic should never have been top 5. I mean Ljubicic was number 3 at the time, look at the number 3 now. This really does show how lucky federer was to have people like Ljubicic as number 3, unseeded finalists, and with the number 2 seed only really good on clay until
around 2007/8.

Laverfan why are you talking about? Are you trying to persuade us WTA isn't unpredictable.

The conditions are not homogenizing results, maybe making the style of play similar but not the results. As I pointed out the women's tour is not having anywhere approaching the top 4 players making every semi. The williams sisters have been around since the heyday of the fast conditions. Graf was retired before the conditions got slower. So I don't even see how they apply in the current context of the discussion we are having. First, the claim is that conditions have slowed down over the last decade and that is part of the reason why we see the same 4 guys win everything in the last 2-3 years. What we have seen the last 2-3 years on the men's side is not due to the conditions but due to how good these top 4 guys are. And the women's tour and their helter skelter results week in and week out prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

socal1976 wrote:Laverfan, he was #4 for a lot longer. Hell I think he is weak in that position for any top 5 or 6 spot. There is a reason Ljubi played in exactly one grandslam semi in his entire career.

From 31 Oct 2005 to 28 May 2007 in Top 10. For example Berdych, ATP #7, now, appeared in Top 10 in July 2010 (under Krupa). Why? Look at Ferrer. Top 10 in 2007-2008, and then again in Oct 2010. Why?

socal1976 wrote:As for Blake again a very good player. But he finished I believe 06 as the #4 player in the world. He just is a weak player in the 4 whole. Has even won a single 500 pointer? And again I would view him as weak anywhere in the top 8 frankly. James Blake good player but not a guy that with strong competition is going to finish top 8.

You sidestepped my ATP #2 question. He was #2 since July 2005. Just look at the slam finals since 2005 (28 slams) and you will see a Fedal consistency, with some forays by #3 and #4 and some relative unknowns. Only with Federer fading in late 2010 are you seeing others consistently.

Yes Social the thing is in this era we also have a great top 4, but also brilliant players outside it.
JDMP 2009 USO (nadal+federer), Berdych Wimby 2010 (federer+Djokovic), Tsonga AO 2008 (nadal+Murray) Wimby 2011 (federer).
These players are outside the great top 4 that we have, yet they have shown they really can trouble the best.
How Ljubicic who apart from a one-off a few years later, got to number 3 is unbelievable. He even got to a semi-final of a grand slam once. One semi. An the highest ranked player he beat was the world number 79.

socal1976 wrote:As I pointed out the women's tour is not having anywhere approaching the top 4 players making every semi. The williams sisters have been around since the heyday of the fast conditions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_Williams_career_statistics#Grand_Slam_finals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serena_Williams#Grand_Slam_Finals

That by itself is 31 (14 + 17) finals, from 1999 to 2011, 12 years, 48 slams. (They have played each other a couple of times).

Adding Justine Henin...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justine_Henin_career_statistics#Grand_Slam_finals

12 Finals.

socal1976 wrote: First, the claim is that conditions have slowed down over the last decade and that is part of the reason why we see the same 4 guys win everything in the last 2-3 years. What we have seen the last 2-3 years on the men's side is not due to the conditions but due to how good these top 4 guys are. And the women's tour and their helter skelter results week in and week out prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

That is not what we are debating, are we?

Consistency is derived from homogenization, because they have to play the same style on each surface, or the other way around. (WTA has other factors to account for, so using WTA is not the right approach, IMO).

or

They are so good on every surface, that even if the surfaces were different they would still get to all the SFs?

socal1976 wrote:Nice job Raider of ducking my post. Funny, it is the fed fans who continually bring up court conditions and Roger's tiredness issues. Now they don't want to talk about it. But of course there agenda was skillfully exposed not by me, but by Tenez. The post of his where he basically chalks up every Roger grandslam loss post 2005 to tiredness exposed this bizarre agenda better than any analysis I could have done.

Do you have a brain the size of a baby pea? I told you twice ( not once but twice ) that let the flow of the thread continue in the direction it intended to as it was diverting. I said you can post a new thread if you want to talk about surfaces, Fed's losses, wins on slow surfaces etc etc. and we shall continue from where we were at that moment, and I assured you ( I said that too twice ), I'll answer every single point. I told the same to mthierry too.

I didn't bring in the court conditions into this thread, its you and Lydian who did it.

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:H2H

Tsonga-Ljuby 3-3
Berdych-Ljuby 2-3
JMDP-Ljuby 1-1

Oh my god a fed fan bringing up H2H record

Well, you got that wrong for a start! Do you label everyone who disagrees with you a 'fed fan' for some reason?

amritia3ee wrote:The competition really was terrible, Ljubicic should never have been top 5. I mean Ljubicic was number 3 at the time, look at the number 3 now. This really does show how lucky federer was to have people like Ljubicic as number 3, unseeded finalists, and with the number 2 seed only really good on clay until
around 2007/8.

And it also really shows how lucky Nadal was (playing at the same time), having this poor Ljubicic as semi-final opponent, and having no competition at all on clay till 2011.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Do you have a brain the size of a baby pea?

Gently, we all love tennis. Calling names is not conducive to any debate.

Similarly, Socal, please refrain from labelling people.

amritia3ee wrote:And he was world number 3/4 for ages, unbelievable.

Please read, before you comment...

laverfan wrote:Ljubicic was #3 for 1 week (1 May 2006) and 9 weeks (14 Aug 2006 - 16 Oct 2006).

laverfan wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Laverfan, he was #4 for a lot longer. Hell I think he is weak in that position for any top 5 or 6 spot. There is a reason Ljubi played in exactly one grandslam semi in his entire career.

From 31 Oct 2005 to 28 May 2007 in Top 10. For example Berdych, ATP #7, now, appeared in Top 10 in July 2010 (under Krupa).

Socal....

Regarding Ljubicic and Masters (ATP rankings of winners in brackets from ATP website),

2006 - Federer (#1) - 4 MSs, Nadal (#2) - 2 MSs, Roddick (#12) - 1 MS, Davydenko (#5) - 1 MS, Robredo (#12) - 1 MS (Clay).
2007 - Federer (#1) - 2 MSs, Nadal (#2) - 3 MSs, Djokovic (#4, #10) - 2 MSs, Nalbandian (#21, #25) - 2 MSs

Looking at this list, the competition for Masters was pretty strong, do you agree? Also notice the two rankings for Djokovic.

Well, you got that wrong for a start! Do you label everyone who disagrees with you a 'fed fan' for some reason?

He's starting to sound more and more like that troll Simple_Analyst, see Socal, I can make assumptions too.

Continuing the Masters discussion...

Berdych (current ATP #7) and W 2010 finalist has Paris Masters 2005 (in the same year as Ljubicic being a Top 10 player) and a Miami 2010 final.

Ljubicic (ATP #3 in 2006) without any slam finals has 2010 IW (in the same year as Nadal's 3-slam run), and Paris and Madrid finals in 2005 (same year as Berdych's MS title in Paris).

... and Ljubicic gets the 'stick' for his inability to show up in all Slam SFs?

Current ATP #6, Ferrer (my favourite Energizer bunny), has no MSs and has finals in Shanghai and MC in 2011, Rome in 2010. Is it now a 'Wee Keira'?

Ferrer and Ljubicic, both have been to the year-end championships.

The one slam finalist that gets omitted from this discussion is Soderling, Paris Masters in 2010, RG finals in both 2009 and 2010.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Nice job Raider of ducking my post. Funny, it is the fed fans who continually bring up court conditions and Roger's tiredness issues. Now they don't want to talk about it. But of course there agenda was skillfully exposed not by me, but by Tenez. The post of his where he basically chalks up every Roger grandslam loss post 2005 to tiredness exposed this bizarre agenda better than any analysis I could have done.

Do you have a brain the size of a baby pea? I told you twice ( not once but twice ) that let the flow of the thread continue in the direction it intended to as it was diverting. I said you can post a new thread if you want to talk about surfaces, Fed's losses, wins on slow surfaces etc etc. and we shall continue from where we were at that moment, and I assured you ( I said that too twice ), I'll answer every single point. I told the same to mthierry too.

I didn't bring in the court conditions into this thread, its you and Lydian who did it.

I don't take orders from you Raider. I'll post whatever I like wherever I like within the rules of the site. If you are so interested you start the thread. Personally, I could care less. Seeing how you can't carry on a civil conversation this will be the last post that I address towards you. Check your aggression and attitude please. I just stopped reading your post after your first line because you made it clear the type of person I was talking to and frankly can't pay me enough to continue said conversation, have much better things to do.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:H2H

Tsonga-Ljuby 3-3
Berdych-Ljuby 2-3
JMDP-Ljuby 1-1

Oh my god a fed fan bringing up H2H record

Well, you got that wrong for a start! Do you label everyone who disagrees with you a 'fed fan' for some reason?

Julius, frankly I will be happy to compare the careers of everyone you listed to Ivan ljubicic when their tennis is all said and done and I am sure they will pretty much top him as many on that list already have. By the way Laverfan, how many more grandslam semis has Ferrer been to than Ljubicic? And the last time I checked David Ferrer wasn't rated #3 or #4. Tsonga, Berdy, and JMDP haven't attained ljubicic's lofty rank in the wei keira either. Both you and Julius fail to fairly analyze my argument. Ljubi is not a terrible player, he is just a weak player to be ranked 3 or 4. Lets see who is a better #4 Andy Murray or Ivan Ljubicic. Want to compare their total Masters and slam appearances?

As for Ferrer his highest ranking by the way was I believe #4 in the world in 2006 nearly 6 years ago.

socal1976 wrote:By the way Laverfan, how many more grandslam semis has Ferrer been to than Ljubicic?

AO 2011 SF, USO 2007 (Two), IIRC.

socal1976 wrote:And the last time I checked David Ferrer wasn't rated #3 or #4. Tsonga, Berdy, and JMDP haven't attained ljubicic's lofty rank in the wei keira either.

But Tsonga has Paris Masters 2008, Berdy has Paris 2005, JMDP is a finalist in 2009 Canada. Looby's rank is used to prove the 'Wee Keira' hypothesis, but the list of MS winners in 2006/2007 contradicts that.

socal1976 wrote:Both you and Julius fail to fairly analyze my argument. Ljubi is not a terrible player, he is just a weak player to be ranked 3 or 4. Lets see who is a better #4 Andy Murray or Ivan Ljubicic. Want to compare their total Masters and slam appearances?

Please point out how Julius and I are being 'unfair'.

socal1976 wrote:As for Ferrer his highest ranking by the way was I believe #4 in the world in 2006 nearly 6 years ago.

If 2006 was so 'Wee Keira', how come Ferrer did not win a Masters in 2006-2007. To label an year (notice I did not mention an 'era') weak is a disservice to the players at that point in time.

Notice the list of MS winners in 2006 and 2007 in my post.

Ferrer was #4 on 25 Feb 2008, not in 2006 - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/David-Ferrer.aspx

BTW, I do not subscribe to 'Wee Keira' at anytime.

This weak era argument just fails to appreciate that a player can have a really stellar run and not hit quite the same form afterwards - I am not arguing any particular player's case here, I am just making a general observation.

It is not an exact science - the greats are the ones that can maintain form over a long period.

How you and julius are being unfair is clear. You keep portraying it as if I think Ljuby is terrible, I have repeteadly stated that Ljubi is a good player but a weak top 5 guy. Then there is the comparison of Ljuby, who is basically finished with his career to younger players in their primes. Even so, the younger guys are way more accomplished than Ljuby and that gap is only increasing as they continue to win consistently on the tour.

And I don't get the fascination with Ferrer he has basically for the last few years been very consistent in being a top 8 guy but never winning a big tournament. What does he prove? He is doing well in the current era but he was never good enough to win Masters 5 years ago and he isn't good enough to win them now. I don't see Ferrer as being dispositive of anything.

Career-wise, obviously Murray and Delpo are already some way past Ljuby.
But then, career-wise Hewitt and Safin are way past Murray and Delpo, and you constantly dismiss them as next to useless. You appear use one criteria to measure some players and a different criteria to measure others, to suit your argument. I don't consider that to be fair to those players.

Rankings are not based on a career, they are based on 12 months and Ljuby had a worthy 12 months that got him to number 3, 4 for a few weeks. not the best ever number 3, but so what - would you go up to him and say 'Ivan, you got really lucky in the 2006 FO and frankly I don't know how a journyman like you ever reached the top 5?"

But why stop at Ljuby? Why not figure out if Chang was a worthy number 2 (or Murray for that matter), or if Rios was a worthy number 1 or if Chris Lewis deserved the Wimby final in 1983 or if Ferrer was a worthy number 4 - in 2008.
In the interests of fairness, if you're going to judge one year (2006), shouldn't you go back to judge all years?

Ok lets get to Chris Lewis, so you see that I am addressing your post. At the time Borg had just left the game and Lewis had the draw open up for him, something that happens in any era but he didn't win did he?

As for Safin and Hewitt, frankly I think when all is said and done murray will be seen as better than both those guys. He already has as many or more masters than both those guys and pretty much as many grandslam finals. Again Andy is just entering his prime those guys are basically done with their careers. As for Rios, another perfect example of a transitional #1, fits perfectly into my analysis that between the late 90s till the mid 2000s we had a weaker more transitional period at the top of the tour.

And back to Ljubicic, I don't think I have ever labelled him a journeyman. But he is definetly a weak #3 or #4. And he was #4 for a fair stint. Blake also finished one year ranked in the top 4, he is weak as well. So it isn't just a one off like you are portraying.

Gosh socal - Chris Lewis is an example of sport being unpredictable and an underdog playing out of his skin through to the final. I saw Lewis live twice at Wimbledon that year - he surpassed himself, he was a man inspired. That kind of great story is good for any sport too.

If you could just write an equation based on some of your arguments to determine who is worthy or not of the greatest honours, you lose the heart and the joy in sporting contests.

I think we are all in danger of being real armchair pedants on here sometimes!!

socal1976 wrote:Then there is the comparison of Ljuby, who is basically finished with his career to younger players in their primes.

How is 2006 Looby very different from Berdych 2010, or Tsonga 2008 - who (Berdy and Tsonga) reached slam finals in those respective years?

socal1976 wrote:He is doing well in the current era but he was never good enough to win Masters 5 years ago and he isn't good enough to win them now.

Ferrer is used as a steady and consistent performer to measure the respective years. We can drop him from the discussion, if you like.

JuliusHMarx wrote:In the interests of fairness, if you're going to judge one year (2006), shouldn't you go back to judge all years?

To some extent, judging any year is fraught with subjectivity. In the interest of the debate, perhaps we can use the specific players that Socal wants to use.

The basic question in 2006 is why is Looby considered 'weak'? Socal, can you clarify? How is Looby reflective of the MS winners in 2006 or Slam winners in 2006?

Socal unfortunately gauge a player's career by his name. If the name sounds good, he is a great and dangerous player....if it sounds funny....he is a poor player. It doesn;t matter whether the payer is good or not.

Sampras, Agassi and Paul Haarhuis for instance ...two sound great, one doesn't. However Pete had more problems beating Haarhuis than Agassi, despite being 6 years older than Pete.

Same thing.

Nadal, Federer and Davydenko....2 great names and one "comic player " according to Socal..yet This comic player doesn;t make Nadal laugh...and I woudl not be surprised if Nadal woudl prefer to face Federer tahn Davydenko.

Same applies with Ljubo. When Federer was H&S above all the other players and that Nadal was winning Clay titles right and left...only Ljubo...not Nadal was regularly meeting Federer in HC finals and was then one of his closest rival.

It's only amusing that someone like Ljubo, past 30, moving like a tree, kicked peak Nadal's bum as recently as 2010.
Yet..Ljubo will never "sound" great for Socal. We simply can't help it.

socal1976 wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Nice job Raider of ducking my post. Funny, it is the fed fans who continually bring up court conditions and Roger's tiredness issues. Now they don't want to talk about it. But of course there agenda was skillfully exposed not by me, but by Tenez. The post of his where he basically chalks up every Roger grandslam loss post 2005 to tiredness exposed this bizarre agenda better than any analysis I could have done.

Do you have a brain the size of a baby pea? I told you twice ( not once but twice ) that let the flow of the thread continue in the direction it intended to as it was diverting. I said you can post a new thread if you want to talk about surfaces, Fed's losses, wins on slow surfaces etc etc. and we shall continue from where we were at that moment, and I assured you ( I said that too twice ), I'll answer every single point. I told the same to mthierry too.

I didn't bring in the court conditions into this thread, its you and Lydian who did it.

I don't take orders from you Raider. I'll post whatever I like wherever I like within the rules of the site. If you are so interested you start the thread. Personally, I could care less. Seeing how you can't carry on a civil conversation this will be the last post that I address towards you. Check your aggression and attitude please. I just stopped reading your post after your first line because you made it clear the type of person I was talking to and frankly can't pay me enough to continue said conversation, have much better things to do.

1. See the above in bold? Do you think I take orders from you? I'll keep my aggression or attitude they way I want it to.

But I know you didn't mean it that way. Just showing you how wrong was your first statement "I don't take orders from you Raider. I'll post whatever I like wherever I like within the rules of the site. "

2.
"If you are so interested you start the thread. Personally, I could care less."

Me so interested?? You accused me of ducking your post and not wanting to talk about it. You accused me of bringing surfaces into this thread when it was lydian and you who first brought it in this thread. I replied to that but that resulted in more talks and thread losing its direction. I apologized to laverfan who brought it to notice. I tried to bring the thread back to its OP, but you took that attempt of mine as my weakness and mocking Tenez in between. Now if this is a civilized debate, then your definition doesn't match mine.


I accept of having strong posts, internet forums are not for weak hearts.


But my 'baby pea' statement was not right. Apologies.

Ok Tenez you had your fun. Davydenko is not a comic player, I have not even brought him up.

Ljubi is not rated highly simply on career accomplishment laverfan. Yes he did win a great masters title at the end of his career against the likes of Nadal at IW. He played amazing and served lights out that tournament beating Roddick as well along the way I believe. But nothing that you or julius, have brought makes me think that he is strong top 5 level competition.

Ljubicic 1 masters win, 1 grandslam semi

now compare to players THAT AREN'T EVEN IN THE TOP 5 TODAY:

Tsonga 1 masters win 2 semis and 1 grandslam final

Berdych 1 masters, 1 final

Soderling 2 grandslam finals

JMDP 1 grandslam win 2 grandslam semis

The reason I again went to ljubicic was because Julius insinuated that the next tier of players outside the top 4 was not very strong. I take issue with that. Sod, Berdy, JMDP, and Tsonga are more accomplished players in the next tier than a Ljubicic who managed a top 4 ranking back in 06. This when comparing ljubiy with the 4 players outside to top group of rankings.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:But my 'baby pea' statement was not right. Apologies.

Thank You, Raiders. Very brave.

Raider, I mocked Tenez because his actions were laughable. He basically took every federer grandslam loss since 2005 and chalked it up to exhaustion (due to conditions that are too slow according to him). If you want to portray Fed's 2006 FO loss of 1-6, 6-1, 6-4, and 7-6 back in 2006 as due to sheer exhaustion then I will mock your logic. Tenez's post did more to expose the agenda of an extremist group of online fed fans than anything I could have ever posted. According to him every fed grandslam loss since 05 is basically due to exhaustion as a result of unfairly slow conditions. Pretty laughable if you ask me.

The OP did a comparison of Fed and Nadal. And when you make that comparison it is a fair digression to talk about competition and conditions, which happens in every fedal debate. It isn't like we are talk about cricket results here how sexy we think Pat Cash's hair was in the 80s.

You proceded to make long posts attacking my position, and I responded.

Apology accepted.

I don't think court conditions matter one iota to things. I mean we could argue forever about each great of the game only won the titles they did because the court conditions were just right for them could we not? Fed filled his boots when the court conditions best suited him but perhaps we could argue that clay courtiers in his dominant era could have beaten him had conditions been slower. Same goes for all the greats of the game so I wish people would quit the moaning about court conditions.

socal1976 wrote:The reason I again went to ljubicic was because Julius insinuated that the next tier of players outside the top 4 was not very strong. I take issue with that. Sod, Berdy, JMDP, and Tsonga are more accomplished players in the next tier than a Ljubicic who managed a top 4 ranking back in 06. This when comparing ljubiy with the 4 players outside to top group of rankings.

Year-end 2006 rankings.

1 Federer, Roger (SUI)
2 Nadal, Rafael (ESP)
3 Davydenko, Nikolay
4 Blake, James (USA)
5 Ljubicic, Ivan (CRO)
6 Roddick, Andy (USA)
7 Robredo, Tommy (ESP)
8 Nalbandian, David (ARG)
9 Ancic, Mario (CRO)
10 Gonzalez, Fernando (CHI)

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx?d=25.12.2006&r=1&c=#

Year end 2010 rankings

1 Nadal, Rafael (ESP)
2 Federer, Roger (SUI)
3 Djokovic, Novak (SRB)
4 Murray, Andy (GBR)
5 Soderling, Robin (SWE)
6 Berdych, Tomas (CZE)
7 Ferrer, David (ESP)
8 Roddick, Andy (USA)
9 Verdasco, Fernando (ESP)
10 Youzhny, Mikhail (RUS)

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx?d=27.12.2010&r=1&c=#

The argument of who has which titles between these two to justify a weak or strong era is a bit of a fallacy, IMVHO.

Is 'Strong' = More titles in Top 10, or, more competition in Top 10?

Is 'Weak' = More titles in Top 10, or, more competition in Top 10?

What is your opinion, Socal?

socal1976 wrote: It isn't like we are talk about cricket results here how sexy we think Pat Cash's hair was in the 80s.

You think his hair was sexy in the 1980's?

Not a fan of cash myself or his hair tee heee

It is even a funnier argument than that Caledonian. By their own timeline the court conditions were slowed down in 2001-circa 2002. Meaning that poor Roger suffered through ALL OF his 16 slams on slowed down conditions. It wasn't like he won his early slams on lightening fast courts and then had to adjust to slow courts. He won his first and last slam on slowed down courts. Now that Roger is older and is a bit slower they think the only fair thing to do is to speed up the courts to more suit his game.

Laverfan, produced a great post where she cited a USO official, admitting that they slowed the courts down between 01 and 02, but that the COURTS WERE EXACTLY THE SAME configuration from 03 to the present. According to the slow court theorists, he is obviously telling the truth that the courts were slowed in 02, but he is obviously lying and engaged in a coverup for saying that the courts are the same since 2003. Afterall he is part of the grand conspiracy for slow courts, if he doesn't toe the line they will find his body floating in the East River.

Laverfan, you asked for my criteria on weaker competition and I provided it. Ljubicic even when compared to players ranked lower than him today does not have the same type of success at masters or grandslam events. He is not as accomplished, I think by the way that in 05 ljubi finished even higher than in 06, not sure on that. My criteria Laverfan is objective as it deals with results.

socal1976 wrote:you asked for my criteria on weaker competition and I provided it. Ljubicic even when compared to players ranked lower than him today does not have the same type of success at masters or grandslam events.

His age no longer favours consistency, but does favour a singular push to get titles.

socal1976 wrote:He is not as accomplished, I think by the way that in 05 ljubi finished even higher than in 06, not sure on that. My criteria Laverfan is objective as it deals with results.

PS: Year end 2005 rankings....

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx?d=26.12.2005&r=1&c=#

1 Federer, Roger (SUI)
2 Nadal, Rafael (ESP)
3 Roddick, Andy (USA)
4 Hewitt, Lleyton (AUS)
5 Davydenko, Nikolay (RUS)
6 Nalbandian, David (ARG)
7 Agassi, Andre (USA)
8 Coria, Guillermo (ARG)
9 Ljubicic, Ivan (CRO)
10 Gaudio, Gaston (ARG)

Also, since you mention 'results', and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_World_Tour_Masters_1000 says only the Top 4 have MS/Slams in the last three years, with exception of Ljubicic (yes he haunts this list too), Davydenko, Roddick and Soderling, how can one year be stronger/weaker than another year.

Laverfan, I am looking at the totality of factors when comparing the top guys. To me I always look at the top 3-5 players in a particular era or miniera to judge its strength. Those are the players that determine who win the slams. I actually think that 2005 and 06 where much better years in terms of top level competition than lets say the few years that proceeded them. It is a gradual process. Even Pete and Andre to some extent at the end of their career benefitted when the (lendl, Courier, Becker, and Edbergs) went away in the mid 90s and weren't replaced by the same or better level talent. It is always hard to draw a hard and fast line. But in 05 and 06 the game was strengthening due to emergence of Nadal and excellence of Fed out of the doldrums.

The relative doldrum period if I had to nail it down to specific dates would probably be 1997-2007. It isn't a hard and fast type of thing, you can't say Dec 1996 was strong and Jan 07 was weak. It is more of a gradual process of top flight talent leaving and being replaced by less consistent performers. (Ie lendl, courier, edberg, and becker go away to be replaced by Safin, Ferrero, Hewitt, and Roddick. Roger comes up and deserves a great deal of credit for lifting the bar, and then with emergence of Rafa in 05, and finally with Djoko/Murray in 07 we are now out of that weaker period. I would rate 07-2012 as being better level of top flight competition than the 10 years that preceded it.

socal1976 wrote:The relative doldrum period if I had to nail it down to specific dates would probably be 1997-2007.

If your timeline is taken as a yardstick, then 1997-2007 took 10 years, 2007-2017 is a gradual strengthening. 2012 is the halfway mark by that 10-year yardstick.

But 1980s with Borg/McEnroe/Connors, four years later - McEnroe/Lendl/Edberg/Becker/Wilander 1984-1992 (8 years), Sampras/Agassi/Courier 1992-2000, Federer-?? (2000-?), then 2003-2012 (Federer-??, Nadal in 2005, Djoko, Murray in 2007??). How does it work by your timeline?

socal1976 wrote:It isn't a hard and fast type of thing, you can't say Dec 1996 was strong and Jan 07 was weak. It is more of a gradual process of top flight talent leaving and being replaced by less consistent performers. (Ie lendl, courier, edberg, and becker go away to be replaced by Safin, Ferrero, Hewitt, and Roddick.

If you are stating that, then there is no clear 'weak' or 'strong' era. The number of titles won are exactly the same, irrespective of who wins them?

socal1976 wrote:Roger comes up and deserves a great deal of credit for lifting the bar, and then with emergence of Rafa in 05, and finally with Djoko/Murray in 07 we are now out of that weaker period. I would rate 07-2012 as being better level of top flight competition than the 10 years that preceded it.

Roger in 2003 (3 slams in 2004, 2006, 2007 in 1/3/4 years), Rafa in 2005 (3 slams in 2010 - 5 years), Djokovic/Murray in 2007 (3 slams in 2011 - 4 years). Very interesting.

The relative doldrum period if I had to nail it down to specific dates would probably be 1997-2007.

And this period of tennis has Mardy Fish and Berdych in the top 8.

Ljubicic and Gaudio > Fish and Berdych

Exactly, Laverfan, I don't see the weaker era argument I make as being something to use to beat Fed's accomplishments down. It is never easy to dominate the men's tour. And the tour gets more physically demanding and tougher over the long run. However, that progression isn't always lineal. I think there was a bit of a lull in terms of consistent top level talent from the late 90s till the mid 2000s. As you see the numbers of fed, nadal, and Djoko are pretty impressive with 3 slams in a year. All of them having meaningful runs at the #1 spot. Something that you did not find in the early 2000s and late 90s, maybe outside of Pete.