Perspective

I would like to put things in perspective as to where I stand of those that try to use players who are aged 30+ who win matches in the current day as some sort of evidence that it lessens or demeans the current era. By this I mean we get remarks/threads started whenever Haas wins against a younger player. Clearly, Haas is just as capable now as he was in his prime age of early 20's. Injuries taken into account (when fit) be it in his 20's or 30's his year ending average ranking has remained consistent. In his early 20's he averaged a ranking of 19, in his late 20's early 30's his year ending average was around 29 and this year he is on course for a year ending ranking of around 20. That is clear evidence that he is still playing at a level consistent with earlier in his career. The difference now with Haas is the inability to challenge at slams whereas earlier in his career he registered the odd slam semi. Is that down to his age? Well not going by his other tournament performances and we cannot say his form has plummetted either as he is still winning tournaments (Halle). It could be summised that the top players are far more consistent at slams than he had in the early 2000's. Another example of players still mixing it in their 30's is Radek Stepanek but again for all his progress he never manages to cut it in slams and that is what we have to judge these players by. Besides throughout tennis history where has it been written in stone that when aged 30+ you cease to be a contender in tennis. I could dip back through time and pluck out players who were able to compete and get results well into their 30's in tennis but that in no way means it weakens that era. Besides I always feel it is nice to have a spread of age groups though would be good to see more youngsters in early 20's up there.

PS Just thought I'd start this topic on a fresh thread as it seemed to be out of place on the other threads it has sprung up in.

Interesting discussion.
Class is permanent, form is temporary type thing with these guys...
Haas is a quality player, he'll never lose that.
This taps into alot of recent discussions we've had.

My take homes:
+ You'll have noticed players who were in their 30s in the 90s didnt as well as those now
+ The 90s were quicker - faster conditions puts emphasis on faster reflexes and explosive movement
+ Fast movement & reflexes suffers with age, partic. >30, as this era is slower it doesnt present the same issue
+ Younger players have key advantages in reflexes and explosive movement
+ Younger players cant break into top echelons now because these attributes cant count as before
+ Slower conditions result in more time to get to the ball --> longer ralleys --> longer ralleys require more stamina
+ Older players can improve stamina and fitness...conditioning can take years to achieve
+ Older players benefit from modern racquets and strings...bigger sweetspots, more spin, more power

This for me explains why we're seeing more 30s players doing well NOW than say in the 90s when their reduced speed exposed itself much more. In other words, as long as many of these older guys dont have to use the same speed they had when they were 20-26 they can compete on equal footings...or rather the see-saw tips in their favour in they can make their stamina, experience and all-court craft count more.

Yes lydian, like court conditions it is just a change in circumstances which benefits some players more than others. Haas extended career may also be aided by less wear and tear on his body as he has had two or three (maybe more) years where injury ruled him out so he hasn't got the mileage (so to speak) on the clock. I would say those fast serving conditions of the 90's didn't help older players at all but you still had one or two in there and competitive.

True, he has less miles on the clock.
But I think the key thing is that these older guys just simply dont have to be as quick around the court as they used to be. So the speed/reflex loss they experience through age isnt counting against them.
There are always exceptions to rules but there are many more guys > 30 now around the top of the game than in the 90s. You had older guys before, dont get me wrong, but they were slipping down the rankings much quicker once they got beyond 29/30.

Well you did have players (at a quick glance) who were competitive in their 30's in the 90's such as Thomas Muster, Ivan Lendl and the likes of Brad Gilbert etc. However, of course it was much harder to survive in your 30's then due to court speeds just like for some players it is harder for them in the 2010's.

I stopped paying close attention when you tried to begin a proof with an assertion; "clearly Haas is just as capable as........" Followed by "clear evidence" which, well, isn't. You conveniently use his current ranking and only look at previous year ends, overlooking that he reached #4 when they still counted it over a full 12 months of performance.

Look Craig, you rush too quickly to the defence of Andy's era; I mention these guys - like Ferrer, Llodra, even Ljubis Masters- because it's so f*cking tiresome to read the lazy ill-informed slating of some of these very same players when they were at the physical peaks. I don't slate today, I stress context about the past! People are too easily swayed by the antics of the media, of which we see and hear hundreds of times as much as we used to, and who have so much more time to fill and TV to ramp.

I don't believe we're in any kind of bad era, I just don't see it as "Golden"; not while guys like Roddick retire because he's too bad despite being much better than almost any young player, and not while a miles past it Tommy Haas is messing around at #21. And not while the #1 is undeniably, and very sadly for my purposes, well past his best.

This whole 'golden era' argument began Craig with one poster insisting that pre 2007, the competition was weak and that the depth of the field increased considerably from the coming of certain player/s.

Keeping that fact in perspective, helps understand why BB and others have been highlighting the fact that these guys from the 'weak era' (so styled by certain posters) are still capable of kicking some a**!

Actually BB I don't defend this era half as much as yourself defending the early 2000's. I don't put up smart a$$ comments or start whole threads whenever a young player beats an older player to try to prove is as evidence as others have done with Haas and others in the past (now that is defending an era in my book). Anyone is free, of course, to judge an era as they so wish but it really is counter-productive to drop catty remarks into threads using random wins as evidence. Lydian's comments earlier explain things pretty well and as I said before - players aged 30+ have always been able to compete at the highest level in tennis be it in the here and now or the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, 00's or before that. As for Federer being well past his best - an exaggeration in my opinion as he certainly isn't well past his best. In fact we just need to go back to around Wimbledon and I could bring out posts from posters here proclaiming Fed to be in the form of his life or words close to that affect.

I simply remind people, when they celebrate a veterans contemporary achievements - that this is a guy who supposedly belongs to a weak period. I think today is fine, there's just a lot of ill-informed slating of players who, we're they to be reaching prominence today, would be fighting at the top of the game. Lleyton Hewitt is the most prominent one, a guy who'd be fighting for the top ranking if he was 23 today.

Posters sometimes lose perspective, such as when someone wins a Slam. You may even have seen some of that recently(!). Federer is capable, now and then, of rolling back the years, but sadly all too often we see the reduced version. I myself maintain an even keel despite events.

Fair enough BB but you don't help matters when you drop in snide remarks about players aged 30+ as each era can boast players in that age group that are competitive. As for saying players like Hewitt (if he were 23) would be pushing for top ranking today that is your opinion but is unprovable one way or the other.

Obviously, but it seems pretty clear to me asked on my observations of he game for many years that Hewitt would be very strong. People forget just how good he was at his best, before injury.

Obviously he was very good and one of the best players of the early 2000's. I don't think anyone is really disputing that though are they?

CaledonianCraig wrote:Obviously he was very good and one of the best players of the early 2000's. I don't think anyone is really disputing that though are they?

So long as they don't have to admit he was good full stop, no.

I've always looked at this with a certain viewpoint - and just about all our recent discussions have the backdrop of one thing. Condition change.
This is because the game has come through unprecedented changes since 2001 to present. Here's my take (again...):

+ Before 2001 we had quick conditions.
+ By 2003 conditions had slowed greatly across key areas, e.g. SW19, USO.
+ By 2010 conditions had FURTHER slowed across ATP events as a whole.

2000-2004 was a massive transition period.

Players who did well in 2000 suffered more by 2004+ due to the changes.
But they still did/do well on the type of surfaces they excelled on pre-2003, e.g. Haas on grass, or medium-fast HC.
Similarly Hewitt is a product of faster conditions, hence his run at Queens, USO, etc.
Other types of players from then would be Roddick, Safin and Nalbandian...player who all did well back then.

From 2004 a new breed of slow condition player emerged...Nadal, Djoko, Murray.
They were able to leapfrog the pre-2003 guys fairly easily, faster surfaces notwithstanding.

So...Haas, Stepanek et al...and Blake/Luber earlier...are able to do well still when they play on more familiar surfaces but even then they are unable to challenge for winning the marquee events such as Masters or Slams.

This is why I always called the 1998-2003 era, i.e. the players who started playing during it, as "transitional".
They are the link between the "fast" guys from the 90s to the modern generation we have now.
After 2004 the "transitional players" increasingly found over the next few years their games couldnt cut it at the top anymore. Increasingly slower conditions rendered their games impotent across large swathes of the tour as TDs rushed to bring in lower courts to give the crowds what they thought they wanted...longer ralleys.
We saw many players start to dwindle during the post 2004 years...Ferrero, Nalbandian, Roddick, Safin, Davydenko, etc...
However, some of these have found that by toughening up physically - they didnt need to be so fit before - they could still cut it. Just.
That said, clearly Federer is a breed apart. He is the only "transitional player" who was able to make the jump into winning slams - although interestingly all his slams are post 2003...

BUT...the changes have perhaps now come full circle.
The latest set of young guys who have learnt the game under the new slower conditions are finding it hard to have the necessary range of skills to do well on tour against the wily, broad-skilled older players - even though they should be doing well. Once the older guys have gone then we'll see who emerges...cant say I'm looking forward to the new landscape say post-2016 though.

The irony is that the old guard "transitional players" who struggled to adapt to the new conditions in their 20s, are in their 30s finding that the slow conditions are actually helping to sustain their game because they've had to become fitter to survive. Those that can cope with slower conditions - the true allrounders from the transitional period - can do ok still. But as we know many transitional players like Blake, Roddick, etc, had their games killed off by the changes and couldnt adapt - by 27/28 they had become largely journeymen of the tour.

So is this era strong? No, its just a new era...an era where the changes have bedded down and allowed the same top guys who are thriving to dominate everything because they dont have to vary play much anymore.
That's my viewpoint anyway...please feel free to unpick/agree.

This is a quite brilliant summary, not least because it accounts for the many anomalous events that crop up.

Like any great hypothesis it matches empirical evidence; what will be fascinating will be to see how accurately it predicts future developments.

Cheers BB

Yes, once the "transitional guard" has gone we're into new territory. Then post Nadal-Murray-Djoko...probably after 2017/18 we'll truly see where the game is at. I'm not hopeful its going to be a great spectacle unless they do something about the conditions...even then the ATP/ITF have allowed the breeding of a new generation of players who were coached and hence play 1-dimensionally - many of which we're starting to see even now.

I am not going to disagree with what you say lydian. I did say a while back that players do seem to be a bit older when making their breakthroughs and this goes some way to explaining it as court speeds etc have changed the dynamics of the sport and so the dynamics of the type of players that thrive or struggle change with it.

Just a thought in that perhaps we have no real youngsters impressing because they don't fit into the bracket that best suits the current conditions. By this I mean the obvious candidate is Milos Raonic but his biggest strength is his serve and that alone will not get him to the very top with current court conditions with so many excellent returners also in his way. Others mentioned such as Tomic (lacks application it would seem), Nishikori (perhaps lacking a strong serve), Dolgopolov (lacks consistency) etc etc so until one of these youngsters can tweak parts of their game and improve in the necessary areas they won't make the big breakthrough against the current crop of top players and may have to wait until they retire.

I wonder if extending the number of seeds in slams makes it more difficult to break through? Or this business of giving the top players byes into the second round of Masters tournaments or indeed the Masters series itself (where only the select few gain access). Removing 5 set finals in Masters must have made it easier to pick up multiple Masters titles. All these things have increased the ease for top players to pick up points. Also I have always been shocked at the amount of points thrown around at the WTF. Sometimes for winning one match. In fact sometimes despite losing a few matches.

Once a top player is a top player it must be a whole lot easier to stay there than it is for a new player to break through. Some relatively recent changes may have made it more so.

Most slams at least in recent decades were won by people in the 20-26 age range.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A64133444

Age of slam winners
17 3
18 2
19 5
20 9
21 16
22 17
23 14
24 21
25 20
26 15
27 7
28 4
29 8
30 8
31 1
32 1
33 1
34 1
35 1
36 1
37 1


http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A64091711
First slam won at this age: Number of times
17:3
18:1
19:3
20:7
21:5
22:5
23:4
24:6
25:4
26:5
27:1
29:1
30:2
and....
34:1

Roughly speaking I think the figures quoted were from (around) the start of the open era to about 2 years ago, when these articles and discussions were on 606.

lydian wrote:I've always looked at this with a certain viewpoint - and just about all our recent discussions have the backdrop of one thing. Condition change.
This is because the game has come through unprecedented changes since 2001 to present. Here's my take (again...):

+ Before 2001 we had quick conditions.
+ By 2003 conditions had slowed greatly across key areas, e.g. SW19, USO.
+ By 2010 conditions had FURTHER slowed across ATP events as a whole.

2000-2004 was a massive transition period.

Players who did well in 2000 suffered more by 2004+ due to the changes.
But they still did/do well on the type of surfaces they excelled on pre-2003, e.g. Haas on grass, or medium-fast HC.
Similarly Hewitt is a product of faster conditions, hence his run at Queens, USO, etc.
Other types of players from then would be Roddick, Safin and Nalbandian...player who all did well back then.

From 2004 a new breed of slow condition player emerged...Nadal, Djoko, Murray.
They were able to leapfrog the pre-2003 guys fairly easily, faster surfaces notwithstanding.

So...Haas, Stepanek et al...and Blake/Luber earlier...are able to do well still when they play on more familiar surfaces but even then they are unable to challenge for winning the marquee events such as Masters or Slams.

This is why I always called the 1998-2003 era, i.e. the players who started playing during it, as "transitional".
They are the link between the "fast" guys from the 90s to the modern generation we have now.
After 2004 the "transitional players" increasingly found over the next few years their games couldnt cut it at the top anymore. Increasingly slower conditions rendered their games impotent across large swathes of the tour as TDs rushed to bring in lower courts to give the crowds what they thought they wanted...longer ralleys.
We saw many players start to dwindle during the post 2004 years...Ferrero, Nalbandian, Roddick, Safin, Davydenko, etc...
However, some of these have found that by toughening up physically - they didnt need to be so fit before - they could still cut it. Just.
That said, clearly Federer is a breed apart. He is the only "transitional player" who was able to make the jump into winning slams - although interestingly all his slams are post 2003...

BUT...the changes have perhaps now come full circle.
The latest set of young guys who have learnt the game under the new slower conditions are finding it hard to have the necessary range of skills to do well on tour against the wily, broad-skilled older players - even though they should be doing well. Once the older guys have gone then we'll see who emerges...cant say I'm looking forward to the new landscape say post-2016 though.

The irony is that the old guard "transitional players" who struggled to adapt to the new conditions in their 20s, are in their 30s finding that the slow conditions are actually helping to sustain their game because they've had to become fitter to survive. Those that can cope with slower conditions - the true allrounders from the transitional period - can do ok still. But as we know many transitional players like Blake, Roddick, etc, had their games killed off by the changes and couldnt adapt - by 27/28 they had become largely journeymen of the tour.

So is this era strong? No, its just a new era...an era where the changes have bedded down and allowed the same top guys who are thriving to dominate everything because they dont have to vary play much anymore.
That's my viewpoint anyway...please feel free to unpick/agree.

I don't think this really stacks up. My view is that, whilst the courts slowed down, the players you list were unaffected by it. In fact, the players who came through at that time were more suited to a slower game in any event. All of them were weakest at the net:

Ferrero - massively affected by his illness/injuries in 2004 and never quite came back the same player. His style of play would have actually been ideal for the slowed down conditions. Still looked class when able to keep injury-free until a couple of years ago.

Nalbandian - had his best years in 2005-2007, after the slow down occurred. Indeed, arguably he wouldn't have reached the Wimbledon final if it hadn't been for the change. His main issue was a lack of consistent focus, otherwise I've no doubt talent-wise he could still have been up there until at least 2010, despite the court changes.

Safin - blistering for a spell in 2005. Clearly, didn't quite reach his full potential due to the fact he was, well, Safin, and couldn't stay focussed on the game long enough for a sustained period.

Roddick - never able to volley. Would have struggled to really dominate in any era due to the limited nature of his game. However, take out Federer and he wins 3 or 4 slams post 2003, despite the slow down. He was still no. 3 in 2007. It was only once the big 4 really came through and he started to lose to them on a consistent basis, that his desire and form dipped somewhat.

Davydenko - not really a top player in 2004. Only came through later on and had his best year in 2009. Again, notable that his net game was weak. Despite the slower conditions, his best results were when he massively improved his volleying.

Blake - As far as I can recall was not at the top of the game until 2005, when he then had a couple of years as a consistent top 5 or so player. Again, not great at the net and suffered from injuries.

Why I tend to regard the early Federer years as slightly weaker I guess is because of a slight sense of disappointment. Safin, Haas, Ferrero; Hewitt and Nalbandian could all have been better than they were and I don't accept it was the courts which stopped them being so. It was an unfortunate combination of injuries relatively early in careers and a lack of mental application in some cases.

The point I would make about the players listed is they were all products of 90s coaching. It is no coincidence that all of them were at their weakest at the net. They were all baseliners unaffected by the changes. The players coming through in 2003 were not, generally, fast court players in any event.

The player who was really affected by the change? Mario Ancic. Still had a great record at Wimbledon but couldn't impose his SV game against the very best even there. Sad to think he is still only 28 but, due to mono, retired some time ago.

Born Slippy

Mahut? another player affected by the change, would have been a fine grass court player in faster conditions...

other than that, what Slippy said...

Interesting points Born_Slippy.

I don't really agree with a number of points about the players (e.g. Roddick cant volley? He won fast Queens 4 times. Safin wasn't the same after 2004/AO05...his best years were 2000-2002) but dont think we need to necessarily analyse individual players anyway.

We know courts slowed dramatically from 2001-2003 at slams, and further elsewhere thereafter to at least 2007-8. Most of the players we're talking about achieved little after 2007 even though they were only 25-27 years old and being in their prime. Clearly the game had changed and they were superseded by the likes of new breed players like Nadal et al. Infact just about all the early 2000s players mentioned could not live with the need breed of player trained to excel on slower surfaces.

However, the period 2002-2005 is important because we saw not only events across the ATP tour follow the slams and slow down but racquets got lighter, strings got stiffer, and balls larger. Again players who learnt tennis before these events did not cope as well as those coming onto the scene from 2004/5 onwards who were coached to play in slower conditions and were adept with latest strings and tech from an early age.

All these changes played into the hands of the baseliner...and allowed a generation of baseliners to emerge. In fact it was Sampras who said that the reason Lleyton Hewitt declined after 2004 was because there were no serve and volleyers left and he could not out-baseline the new crop of players.

Funnily enough, the older players could see the problems looming ahead. Jonas Bjorkman, then Chairman of the Player Council, said in 2001 - “We’re in a situation that if we don’t take [the decline of serve and volley] seriously, we might be in a position in two or three years’ time when we’ll have extremely boring tennis with guys just standing on the baseline. If that happens I think tennis will die quite a lot”.

Even Federer knew S&V wasn't the way forward so reinvented his game after 2001...staying on the baseline and physically changing himself to become one of the fittest on tour. By 2005-2006 net play was all but dead as a main strategy and those who were playing around 2000 were starting to really struggle.

What we have now are guys who were coached in the 90s with graphite racquets so have adept allcourt power games. As the game has gone to the baseline and longer ralleys, the older guys not prepared to reinvent themselves into physical specimens have further struggled. Those that have are still excellent players who make the younger current batch of players coached in the early slower 2000s look 1-dimensional.

My main point is that a lot of the old guard players are doing well now because a) they have been able to modify their approach by becoming fitter (some might argue their amazing fitness and recovery at 30+ is questionable!)
b) have more rounded and skilled games vs. latest breeds
c) their slower movement/reflexes is not exposed by current conditions
d) current tech is helping them in the ralleys

Ironically to get back to a more S&V, or more varied, type of game I don't think speeding up surfaces will now help. Racquet tech is what finally killed off S&V. As Taylor Dent said “I think that the biggest changes are in the strings, that’s actually a bigger change than from wood to graphite, because these guys can get so much dip on the ball at such a high pace. In the past, if you were serving and volleying, it was really tough for the guy to get a return down at your feet because you can’t generate that kind of spin off a first serve. Generally speaking, you’re just trying to keep it low over the net, but now, if you don’t really stretch a guy out, it’s coming back at your feet, and then they can hit passing shots so hard because they can generate so much spin".

Finally Federer himself was rueful of all the combined changes when commenting in 2010 at Wimbledon...

“I obviously came here in the year when I played Sampras, let’s say, I was serve and volleying 80% of the first serve, 50% on the second serve. I remember once speaking to Wayne Ferreira who I was playing doubles with that year actually. He said he used to serve and volley always first serve, 50% of the second serve. And towards the end of his career at Wimbledon, he used to serve and volley 50% of his first serve and not anymore on his second serve. You wonder, how in the world has that happened? Have we become such incredible return players or can we not volley anymore or is it just a combination of slower balls, slower courts? I think it’s definitely a bit of a combination of many things. If I look back, I think we definitely had many more great volley players in the game back then. When you do have that, you are forced to move in, as well, because you don’t want to hit passing shots against a great volleyer over and over again. But because we don’t have that as much anymore, everybody’s content staying at the baseline. Unfortunately, they’ve slowed down everything, indoors, grass. Everything has become so slow, I think that is a bit of a pity.”

But despite that, the latest batch of new guys just aren't as skilled as many of the old guard, it's why they're still riding high.

Davydenko - not really a top player in 2004. Only came through later on and had his best year in 2009.

Arguably he was stronger player in 2006-2008 than 2009 despite winning the WTF. Pushed Federer hard in AO 2006 and USO 2007.

Roddick winning Queens supports the point i was making about the players changing before the courts. By common agreement, Queens hasnt slowed as much as other courts and we've seen SVers still do well there (Karlovic is almost unbreakable there). However, how did the big serving Roddick play there throughout his career? He stayed back and relied on his serve to do the damage. Id be surprised if he serve-volleyed more than 5% of the time. That was the play style he grew up with, not a product of the change in the courts.

Just to be clear, i dont disagree that the courts have slowed down and i would also like them to be sped back up. However, i believe even if that process hadnt occurred we would still see a baseline game dominating today. As you say, it is the raxquets and strings which have made baseline play much easier. That said, i still actually think a real top notch SV in the mould of a Sampras could still have a great deal of success even in today's conditions. Take Raonic, would he be less dangerous if he sought to SV on the majority of points and chop charged regularly? I'd argue he could have a lot of success with that tactic.

In terms of the players not being around aged 26-27, that feels to me more like injuries/motivation issues rather than anything court related. Stepanek, whose style is best suited to faster courts, seems to have been fairly steadily around 20 in the world from 2005-2009.

Agree re: Queen's. And of course Nadal won that beating Karlovic on the way so clearly these new guys have a wee bit of talent on the faster stuff even if its not their preference. I cant comment on how much Roddick S&V'ed at Queen's but would have thought it higher than 5%. However, point taken. That said, once the new guard arrived post 2004/5 his game just wasnt up to shape anymore. His H2H against the Top4 isnt fantastic.

Also agree re: Sampras and S&V. He was a different beast and would excel in any era, given he could play well from the back too. If Stepanek can push Murray to 3 sets today in Shanghai, imagine the damage a guy like Sampras would do. Its an underused strategy...partly because the skills in playing like that are getting lost. We need guys like Sampras coaching!!!
Raonic would probably do better as an out and out aggressive player rather than trying to be a big server with a FH.

Born Slippy wrote:

lydian wrote:I've always looked at this with a certain viewpoint - and just about all our recent discussions have the backdrop of one thing. Condition change.
This is because the game has come through unprecedented changes since 2001 to present. Here's my take (again...):

+ Before 2001 we had quick conditions.
+ By 2003 conditions had slowed greatly across key areas, e.g. SW19, USO.
+ By 2010 conditions had FURTHER slowed across ATP events as a whole.

2000-2004 was a massive transition period.

Players who did well in 2000 suffered more by 2004+ due to the changes.
But they still did/do well on the type of surfaces they excelled on pre-2003, e.g. Haas on grass, or medium-fast HC.
Similarly Hewitt is a product of faster conditions, hence his run at Queens, USO, etc.
Other types of players from then would be Roddick, Safin and Nalbandian...player who all did well back then.

From 2004 a new breed of slow condition player emerged...Nadal, Djoko, Murray.
They were able to leapfrog the pre-2003 guys fairly easily, faster surfaces notwithstanding.

So...Haas, Stepanek et al...and Blake/Luber earlier...are able to do well still when they play on more familiar surfaces but even then they are unable to challenge for winning the marquee events such as Masters or Slams.

This is why I always called the 1998-2003 era, i.e. the players who started playing during it, as "transitional".
They are the link between the "fast" guys from the 90s to the modern generation we have now.
After 2004 the "transitional players" increasingly found over the next few years their games couldnt cut it at the top anymore. Increasingly slower conditions rendered their games impotent across large swathes of the tour as TDs rushed to bring in lower courts to give the crowds what they thought they wanted...longer ralleys.
We saw many players start to dwindle during the post 2004 years...Ferrero, Nalbandian, Roddick, Safin, Davydenko, etc...
However, some of these have found that by toughening up physically - they didnt need to be so fit before - they could still cut it. Just.
That said, clearly Federer is a breed apart. He is the only "transitional player" who was able to make the jump into winning slams - although interestingly all his slams are post 2003...

BUT...the changes have perhaps now come full circle.
The latest set of young guys who have learnt the game under the new slower conditions are finding it hard to have the necessary range of skills to do well on tour against the wily, broad-skilled older players - even though they should be doing well. Once the older guys have gone then we'll see who emerges...cant say I'm looking forward to the new landscape say post-2016 though.

The irony is that the old guard "transitional players" who struggled to adapt to the new conditions in their 20s, are in their 30s finding that the slow conditions are actually helping to sustain their game because they've had to become fitter to survive. Those that can cope with slower conditions - the true allrounders from the transitional period - can do ok still. But as we know many transitional players like Blake, Roddick, etc, had their games killed off by the changes and couldnt adapt - by 27/28 they had become largely journeymen of the tour.

So is this era strong? No, its just a new era...an era where the changes have bedded down and allowed the same top guys who are thriving to dominate everything because they dont have to vary play much anymore.
That's my viewpoint anyway...please feel free to unpick/agree.

I don't think this really stacks up. My view is that, whilst the courts slowed down, the players you list were unaffected by it. In fact, the players who came through at that time were more suited to a slower game in any event. All of them were weakest at the net:

Ferrero - massively affected by his illness/injuries in 2004 and never quite came back the same player. His style of play would have actually been ideal for the slowed down conditions. Still looked class when able to keep injury-free until a couple of years ago.

Nalbandian - had his best years in 2005-2007, after the slow down occurred. Indeed, arguably he wouldn't have reached the Wimbledon final if it hadn't been for the change. His main issue was a lack of consistent focus, otherwise I've no doubt talent-wise he could still have been up there until at least 2010, despite the court changes.

Safin - blistering for a spell in 2005. Clearly, didn't quite reach his full potential due to the fact he was, well, Safin, and couldn't stay focussed on the game long enough for a sustained period.

Roddick - never able to volley. Would have struggled to really dominate in any era due to the limited nature of his game. However, take out Federer and he wins 3 or 4 slams post 2003, despite the slow down. He was still no. 3 in 2007. It was only once the big 4 really came through and he started to lose to them on a consistent basis, that his desire and form dipped somewhat.

Davydenko - not really a top player in 2004. Only came through later on and had his best year in 2009. Again, notable that his net game was weak. Despite the slower conditions, his best results were when he massively improved his volleying.

Blake - As far as I can recall was not at the top of the game until 2005, when he then had a couple of years as a consistent top 5 or so player. Again, not great at the net and suffered from injuries.

Why I tend to regard the early Federer years as slightly weaker I guess is because of a slight sense of disappointment. Safin, Haas, Ferrero; Hewitt and Nalbandian could all have been better than they were and I don't accept it was the courts which stopped them being so. It was an unfortunate combination of injuries relatively early in careers and a lack of mental application in some cases.

The point I would make about the players listed is they were all products of 90s coaching. It is no coincidence that all of them were at their weakest at the net. They were all baseliners unaffected by the changes. The players coming through in 2003 were not, generally, fast court players in any event.

The player who was really affected by the change? Mario Ancic. Still had a great record at Wimbledon but couldn't impose his SV game against the very best even there. Sad to think he is still only 28 but, due to mono, retired some time ago.

Excellent response Born Slippy. A combination of injuries and lack of focus caused that group of players outside of federer to dramitically underperform. It has nothing to do with conditions as players like Ferrerro is clearly not a fast court player, and Andy Roddick is a terrible volleyer and has a poor slice backhand. He would be lucky to have as much success as a Rosco tanner or Goran Ivansivic in an era of faster court tennis.

Also there seems to be a interesting logical paradox that exists with those that argue against the weaker era of the early 2000s. Simulataneously, many of these posters claim that the objective lack of winning of fed's early contemporaries (not against fed against the rest of the tour as well) can not be used to judge them harshly. There is no such thing as a relatively weaker era, especially not if fed was dominating in that period. Then simultaenously we here the same people make comments about how this is the weakest era in terms of young players in recent memory. Wait a minute, no era is weak except this one when it comes to young players? Huh? What evidence is produced as to why these teenagers and players in their early 20s are a failure is well that they don't win more. So you can't judge Nalby, Roddick, Hewitt, or Safin harshly for not winning more eventhough they are all finished with their careers, but we can judge a 20 year old player harshly for not winning more? Frankly the internal contradictions in their own logic is untenable and brings down their argument internally without even having to look at anything else.

"Untenable"?

Ironically you judge others logic in the last sentence but in the 2nd last one you twist my words into saying Roddick, etc, didn't win enough (just where did I say that?) and then position that straw man against another assumption you make through my words, i.e. that I'm "judging" 20 year olds harshly. Let's look at that.

Is it harsh to say that no under 19 year old is ranked higher than 400? When has this happened before?
Is it harsh to say that the only 20 yr old in Top 100 is Tomic? When has this happened before?

Or are they just facts that hint towards a) no-one is coming close, or likely to come close anytime soon, to challenging the top 4 (even in Nadal's absence) for a Masters or Slam title, and b) not even threatening to break into the top echelons of the game.

Yet despite this landscape we're to believe we're in the midst of some Golden Era?
I just don't buy it, and have put reasons forward as to why we've got into the pickle the game appears to be headed towards. That's in my opinion of course...or rather to others harsh judgement.

lydian is also putting forward my own thoughts, but in a more eloquent fashion.

We shouldn't label eras as anything, it's silly.
Different eras have different strong points, i.e. in some there are very few world class players at the top but have good strength in depth (i.e. players in the top 50 are consistent) and there are good young players- i.e. 5 teenagers in the top 100; while in other eras there are many world class champions at the top which makes it very difficult to accumulate slams, but they're might not be many teenagers in the top 200.

We shouldn't label eras, you can analyse different aspects of a generation, but I don't like calling any era 'golden' or 'weak.'

It Must Be Love wrote:We shouldn't label eras, you can analyse different aspects of a generation, but I don't like calling any era 'golden' or 'weak.'

Ditto that

No we shouldn't label eras. I wrote a thread on BBC606 forum 5 years ago called "GOTES vs GOATS" to this effect.

However, we can analyse how the landscape has changed across recent eras and a) reason why the current game is as we see it, and b) speculate where the game is headed in the future as a result of those observations. The theory of relativity...

Yes I would agree that eras can't really be labelled. However, it can't be helped when a question comes around every few years about what was the best generation/era for men's tennis. As sure as eggs are eggs if you did a straw poll you wouldn't get people immediately thinking of Ferrero ,Agassi, Haas and Safin as being anywhere near Federer, Djokovic, Nadal and Murray. Just as now people still fondly remember the Borg, Connors and McEnroe era.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Just as now people still fondly remember the Borg, Connors and McEnroe era.

Which is interesting, because if you look at the matches they played and when, and the overlap between the players, there really wasn't much of a Borg, Connors and McEnroe era.

Well I remember them all playing each other. Admittedly, Borg quit just as McEnroe was establishing himself but they did play each other a few times so would class them in the same era. But the point still stands that if people ask for a cluster of great players that define an era fondly remembered does Ferrero, Haas, Safin and Agassi conjure up as good a batch of memories/great matches/great acheivements as Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray? No - in my honest opinion.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well I remember them all playing each other. Admittedly, Borg quit just as McEnroe was establishing himself but they did play each other a few times so would class them in the same era. But the point still stands that if people ask for a cluster of great players that define an era fondly remembered does Ferrero, Haas, Safin and Agassi conjure up as good a batch of memories/great matches/great acheivements as Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray? No - in my honest opinion.

It's not just that.
Ferrero and Haas were also hugely affected by injuries, if they weren't injured you never know.

Which era is defined by Ferrero, Haas, Safin and Agassi and why are those the players that define it?

Guys, can we not discuss this now please
Just wait a few days

Agree JHM, that "era" spans a period of 1970 to 1990!
Connors was more 1970s, McEnroe more 1980s.
But then what is an era anyway? A decade, 7 years, the period the best player of the time was winning slams? It's impossible to define.

Rather than defining eras by players or decades, I tend to think of the following periods:
1. Open Era (1968 to present...fully professional tour)
2. "Modern Era" (1980 to present...when wooden racquets died away)
3. "Slower Conditions Era" (2001 to present...when tech took off and ATP lost its mind)

S'il vous plait.
Lydian, you'll get a chance to see it earlier, check your PM

JuliusHMarx wrote:Which era is defined by Ferrero, Haas, Safin and Agassi and why are those the players that define it?

Well the early 2000's (circa 2002) when they were the top four players in the world. If you wish you could throw Leyton Hewitt in there as well. However, you wish to look at it if this sort of conversation came up in general conversation or a straw poll was held which cluster of players would tennis fans remember with greater fondness etc? I am merely pointing out a pertinent fact here. Eras can't be labelled I agree with that though.

lydian wrote:Agree JHM, that "era" spans a period of 1970 to 1990!
Connors was more 1970s, McEnroe more 1980s.
But then what is an era anyway? A decade, 7 years, the period the best player of the time was winning slams? It's impossible to define.

Rather than defining eras by players or decades, I tend to think of the following periods:
1. Open Era (1968 to present...fully professional tour)
2. "Modern Era" (1980 to present...when wooden racquets died away)
3. "Slower Conditions Era" (2001 to present...when tech took off and ATP lost its mind)

Hmm yes I do see where you are coming from but still they are impossible to judge as the conditions/equipment determined that era and the players it produced.

Cheers IMBL...be interesting to see the response to that out in the open forum!

People tend to remember the multi slammers (6+) and the most contrasting rivalries. The guys of early 2000s offered neither. I don't class Agassi in that period...he's a 90s guy really who had an extended Indian summer.

I don't know CC...I tend to believe that talent is talent...that no matter what racquet you give some players they would have found the way to the top regardless.

lydian wrote:I don't know CC...I tend to believe that talent is talent...that no matter what racquet you give some players they would have found the way to the top regardless.

Yes I do see that....definitely. And do agree that each chapter in tennis history has its strengths and weaknesses.

lydian wrote:I don't know CC...I tend to believe that talent is talent...that no matter what racquet you give some players they would have found the way to the top regardless.

That's a potentially very interesting discussion topic.

Haas had one year-end top 10 finish - No 8. in 2001. It's a bit like defining 2011 with Mardy Fish.
If you take a year such as 2002 - YE top 4 of Hewitt, Agassi, Safin and Ferrero, there's masses of talent there across all surfaces.

lydian wrote:Cheers IMBL...be interesting to see the response to that out in the open forum!

Yeah, that will be interesting lol.
Can you PM be back if you think there are any glaring errors, I've sent it to Socal and Summerblues as well, I'll probably edit it a few more times before actually releasing it.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Haas had one year-end top 10 finish - No 8. in 2001. It's a bit like defining 2011 with Mardy Fish.
If you take a year such as 2002 - YE top 4 of Hewitt, Agassi, Safin and Ferrero, there's masses of talent there across all surfaces.

Patience Julius, patience.