Perspective

First topic message reminder :

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.

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.

Like I say JHM if you held a straw poll of (whatever players you wished to choose from the early 2000's that defined tennis at that time) and pitted against Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray I am well nigh certain which one would be voted as capturing ones imgination and being more memorable for want of a better word.

It Must Be Love wrote:

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.

"Sir, you try my patience"
"Don't mind if I do. You must come over and try mine sometime"

CaledonianCraig wrote:

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.

Like I say JHM if you held a straw poll of (whatever players you wished to choose from the early 2000's that defined tennis at that time) and pitted against Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray I am well nigh certain which one would be voted as capturing ones imgination and being more memorable for want of a better word.

Probably, because of the longevity factor, but what would that poll show if taken in, say 2008, the first year Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray finished as the top 4. Longevity is the key factor - that's what builds up long-term rivalries - which is what the general public often remember more than the actual standard of tennis played.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

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.

Like I say JHM if you held a straw poll of (whatever players you wished to choose from the early 2000's that defined tennis at that time) and pitted against Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray I am well nigh certain which one would be voted as capturing ones imgination and being more memorable for want of a better word.

Probably, because of the longevity factor, but what would that poll show if taken in, say 2008, the first year Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray finished as the top 4. Longevity is the key factor - that's what builds up long-term rivalries - which is what the general public often remember more than the actual standard of tennis played.

Oh cmon Julius, can we not wait a day or two before divulging into this.

Yep JHM...especially Hewitt and Safin.

My point about surface slowing is fastcourt guys like that were probably scuppered in winning more slams than they did. Agassi was clearly a breed apart, one of the GOATs IMO.

Had the conditions not slowed at Wimb and USO from 2001 things could have been very different...e.g. Sampras might have got another 2-3 slams. Hewitt/Safin as mentioned might have won more between 2002-2006.
Plus other interesting effects.

These points arguably input into your PM IMBL. Rather than help edit your new thread post, why don't you post it and we debate/modify it out in the open?

However, you look at things though court conditions will always favour one type of player but hinder others. The current age is no different as well. Saying that Hewitt and Safin may have won more if the speed of courts hadn't changed well they may not have won any if the court speeds had been different in the early 2000's. Players can only play on what court they have in front of them and you either adapt or fail. As has been pointed out some players from the early 2000's such as Federer and Haas could adapt and those that couldn't fell away. The same may be the case in the future should court speeds speed up again and it may be Djoko and Murray that are tested but I see them as two players who could adapt as they have tweaked many parts of their game over the years.

Sure CC, but with respect you're missing the point.

JHM is stating that there were talented players in the top4 back in 2002 vs those in 2012. Others may disagree and point to relative levels of success as the differentiator between now and then.

My point is that the guys of 2002 may have had more success, and hence be deemed to be comparable to the top4 now, had the ATP in its infinite wisdom decided not to fundamentally tinker with the game as never before. The radically changed conditions cut off the fast court players overnight. They had to be able to adapt or die. Some could, but not to the same degree of success as they may have had otherwise, some couldn't and fizzled away.

Yes court conditions favour certain players. But the changes in 2001 created a new breed of player...and a retreat to the baseline. Those types of players wouldn't have been created had the changes not been made so your point doesn't necessarily hold. Further along it ushered in a new type of coaching and now we start to see the 1-dimensional fruits being borne when we look to the upcoming youth. Harsh, I know.

One dimensional players coming through may well be the case but is that a result of the court changes or just a weaker breed of players breaking through or players who have yet to develop another dimension or two to their games? Like I said on another thread Raonic may be a future slam winner but he needs to add to his game a far better return of serve and improved movement and backhand. Other youngsters likewise have areas of their game that needs work and only they can do that.

I am not denying there wasn't talented players back in the early 2000's but for varying reasons some of the leading players in that spell had flaws (like the youngsters of today) be it injury problems (Ferrero, Haas and Hewitt) or lack of application in Safin's case.

lydian wrote:

These points arguably input into your PM IMBL. Rather than help edit your new thread post, why don't you post it and we debate/modify it out in the open?

Lyd, I was saying 'si'l vous plait' jokingly to hint that this topic slightly overlaps with mine
The edits I'm talking about, are if you can spot any big statistical or grammatical error, not to do with the 's'il vous plait thing.'

Lol, ok.

Brilliant response by Summerblues on PM:

I will now in turn ask you a question before writing anything more:

Do you want my opinion on your piece?

I've said yes, SummerBlues is one of my favourite posters, this should be fun

CaledonianCraig wrote:One dimensional players coming through may well be the case but is that a result of the court changes or just a weaker breed of players breaking through or players who have yet to develop another dimension or two to their games? Like I said on another thread Raonic may be a future slam winner but he needs to add to his game a far better return of serve and improved movement and backhand. Other youngsters likewise have areas of their game that needs work and only they can do that.

I am not denying there wasn't talented players back in the early 2000's but for varying reasons some of the leading players in that spell had flaws (like the youngsters of today) be it injury problems (Ferrero, Haas and Hewitt) or lack of application in Safin's case.

Yes, I agree with that. Raonic actually does have weapons, but his movement will hinder him.
In this day and age movement is arguably as important as ever, so it's crucial. All of the current top 4 mover well.

But is movement more important now than 90s?

Slower conditions give the bigger and older guys more time to get to the ball...since slowing conditions >2001 we have more taller and older players around the top than ever before. Coincidence...?

CaledonianCraig wrote: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.

Exactly, Craig whenever era have been rated in the past they have been rated on the strength of their elite the guys who decide the majority of the major trophies. Not by the entirety of the top 10, 100,or top 400. I mean if the biggest criticism of this era is that the top 400 is not young enough I can live with that and frankly the guy ranked 398 is so remote to what happens at the grandslam level that I don't think much can be told by over analyzing perceived notions of their quality or lack thereof. No era has ever been judged by how great the top 100-400 players are or how young they are.

lydian wrote:"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.

Yes absolutely I feel your position on this untenable. I have in the past had this discussion with you and it is possible I am not characterizing your exact thoughts and positions 100 percent correctly although I am attempting to portray your position as I have come to understand it honestly from my point of view. In the past I have made arguments showing that the class of top guys during the early 2000s fail in every objective measure in terms of their level of winning and accomplishment when compared with the early 90s guys and the current guys. Maybe you were not the one who argued this specific point, I don't remember, but many argued with me that those players can not be judged harshly because they underperformed due to injury of conditions or federer single handedly chasing them off tour. Yet some of those same voices who claim that objective measures like lack of slam performance by (safin, ferrero, hewittt, and Roddick) can not be used to judge them as inferior. But when it comes to the younger players who haven't had the benefit of 10 and 15 year careers to judge them by are being judged harshly well because they aren't winning more and fast enough.

So why is it unfair judge players in their early 30s because they didn't win as much but it is ok to make qualitative judgements on 20 year old players because they don't win as much?

There is such a thing as weaker eras in terms of top level elite competition and having truely great players consistently dominating at the top. It is very simple fed's contemporaries were weaker and that is why they didn't win more and most of those guys were also rans on tour during their physical primes even when healthy once the new generation of the late 2000 guys took over. Who had a tougher time and route of winning a slam Andy Murray or Thomas Johansson? That is all you need to know about which era is tougher. One guy fights off Djokovic a 5 slam winner in a 5 set war and the other guy sneaks through and wins a slam without playing another top ten player. Is that even conceivable in today's era of consistent great champions?