Djokovic makes controversial statement about today's era

First topic message reminder :

Q. Often in a rivalry there’s a chaser. Andy has had that role in your rivalry. Do you feel that he’s still the chaser or do you think he’s evened up now?
NOVAK DJOKOVIC: Well, as I said, I think we split three wins both this year. So, yeah, I won in Australia, he won in US Open, he won in Olympic Games. I mean, we get to play these big matches and we put up a show for people. It’s exciting to be part of such an extraordinary rivalry, extraordinary matches, especially with somebody that you grew up with and you know for a long time.

I can’t really say who is the chaser. I think we both focus on our careers individually and we both try to improve each day. His example is the right example of how an athlete seeks to improve always and to get better.

This is great. It’s great for the sport. I think we’re experiencing maybe the best era of all times.

http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2012-10-15/10831.php


Reactions to this comment. Interesting it seems that Djokovic agrees with many others like Mcenroe who have pumped up the quality of the current era of players. Conversly, it could be said that retired players aren't going to talk down the young guys but the legends many of them seem to go out o their way to talk up the level of competition today. Djokovic though goes the extra mile and says "maybe the best era of all times." I tend to rate the late 80s and early 90s as the strongest period, however the current guys are certainly in with a shout.

Redharry wrote:I didn't mention Federer.

What are the objective measures you use to evaluate one period against another? There are the same number of trophies awarded each year so in aggregate the field is equally successful. You can have an opinion but it is a subjective one.

It's more than 5 years since 2003.

Well ok then if that is the criteria you are sticking to then under your standards of a hard line between subjective and objective than there is no way to tell if Roger Federer is better than lets say pernfors or brad gilbert. I mean different game and different competition level. Every analysis in the real world is both objective and subjective, you have raw data that is meaningless unless you analyze it and ask why? Just like the comparison of players to players or eras to eras. Objectively the players of that weaker period didn't win as much as the current kings of the tour or the kings that came before them. There is no denying that the numbers are there. And if you look back on their careers the game passed most of them by and Nadal, later Murray and Djoko came in and pretty easily supplanted them. And here is the real kicker Nadal, djoko, and murray were pre-prime far from their best when they for the most part tossed these weak period guys aside while the Ferrerros and Roddicks of the world were in what should have been their physical primes.


Same argument exists for crowning fed as goat. Fed won more trophies than anyone so the objective numbers are their to back up the subjective analysis that he is the greatest player of the open era. You see every analysis in the real world is both subjective and objective, no such thing as pure objectivity exists for the most part when human beings are involved.

Nobody can logically defend the statement "objectively the players of that weaker period" because its unprovable that it is weaker.

Murray and Djokovic didn't supplant Safin or Hewitt any more than Federer supplanted Rafter. They came after those had passed.

There is no objective proof that Federer is the best of all time, just the best of his time, except on clay where Nadal was better. Think about Laver whose tennis was lower than today's standard but is rated alongside Sampras and Federer in most assessments of who may be the best players ever.

I see a lot of unresolvable argument because people express subjective interpretation but think they have proof.

Redharry wrote:Nobody can logically defend the statement "objectively the players of that weaker period" because its unprovable that it is weaker.

Obviously you are new to the forum. You probably don't realize you are taking on one of the most resilient poster of all time. If I were you I would give up now.

Well fair enough Redharry, at least you are logical consistent. Unlike many posters who state that federer is the greatest player of all time because he won more trophies than anyone else. But at the same time some of the same critics claim that it is unfair to rate Hewitt, Ferrerro, and Roddick poorly because they didn't win more. You can see the inconsistency that annoys me. If you can call fed GOAT then what you are implicetly saying is that you can compare players of the current day against the past, hence the "all time" portion of the phrase.

However I disagree with you on one finer point. Roddick, Ferrerro, Safin, Hewitt, and Nalbandian were very much pushed aside by Djoko, Nadal, and Murray. And the new boys threw them aside when these players should have been at their phsical primes. Roddick is I believe just a few weeks older than fed. By their early to mid twenties these guys were also rans. By the way it is not accurate to say that these players had already gone away. Rafa Nadal stormed into the #2 ranking at 18 years of age and I believe took the #2 ranking from Andy Roddick. Had Roddick already gone away, I remember that up until a few years ago he was a consistent top 5 player prior to the rise of the Nadal group of players. The same true for ferrerro, Gaudio, and Coria on clay the shinning lights of the weak era on clay. An 18 year old beat them all senseless and sent them to also ran status.

Now lets look at Novak, Novak Djokovic took his #3 ranking which he held for quite sometime from, you guessed it Andy Roddick. He took it from him in Canada in 2007 when he beat the then 1, 2, 3 players in the world on back to back days to win Canada open(fed, nadal, roddick respectively). In short pre-prime Novak, pre-prime Nadal, and pre-prime murray knocked the shinning stars of the early 2000s out of the running while these guys were in their mid 20s, the same age Nadal and Djoko, and Murray are now. And no these weaker era guys weren't all ready gone, Haas is still playing, Hewitt is still playing, and Roddick just retired. They were certainly gone from serious slam contention once Rafa came around, and dead as door nails as slam CONSISTENT slam contenders once Djoko and murray showed up.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

Redharry wrote:Nobody can logically defend the statement "objectively the players of that weaker period" because its unprovable that it is weaker.

Obviously you are new to the forum. You probably don't realize you are taking on one of the most resilient poster of all time. If I were you I would give up now.

Well jeremy I don't know how to take this comment. But since I like compliments I will subjectively analyze this as a compliment and thank you for it.

I wonder if players testaments count for much. I say this as Tim Henman was a very consistent player and held down a ranking inside the top four in his time but he has openly and on many occasions said he is not in the same class as Andy Murray. Now considering they both reached a similar-type ranking (so far in Murray's case) then surely that is an indication itself in the early 2000's that the quality wasn't quite as high as we have nowadays. One constant we could use as a yardstick is Roger and if you take his record against Ferrero, Safin and Roddick in the early 2000's and compare it to his record against Nadal, Djokovic and Murray I'd hazard a guess that the latter players have a far better record against Roger. Even, if you wish to argue Federer is past it now (debatable) then just use their record up until 2009 and it alters nothing.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I wonder if players testaments count for much. I say this as Tim Henman was a very consistent player and held down a ranking inside the top four in his time but he has openly and on many occasions said he is not in the same class as Andy Murray. Now considering they both reached a similar-type ranking (so far in Murray's case) then surely that is an indication itself in the early 2000's that the quality wasn't quite as high as we have nowadays. One constant we could use as a yardstick is Roger and if you take his record against Ferrero, Safin and Roddick in the early 2000's and compare it to his record against Nadal, Djokovic and Murray I'd hazard a guess that the latter players have a far better record against Roger. Even, if you wish to argue Federer is past it now (debatable) then just use their record up until 2009 and it alters nothing.

Exactly Craig, even prior to fed getting old lets say in 2007 even, Nadal, Djoko, and Murray were bigger threats to his title hopes even back then when they were barely out of their teenage years. Back in 2007 do you think fed feared playing roddick more than any of these kids who were 20 and 21 respectively? By the end of 2007 Nadal was a clear #2, and Djokovic was a clear #3. Both were rated far and above any of Roger's contemporaries in status and contention for major tourneys. Here is the kicker, both Djokovic and Nadal were far weaker players than they are today. If 2007 Nadal played 2012 Nadal on a faster surface, 2012 Nadal would beat him in straight sets. If 2012 Djoko played 2007 Djoko he would maul him even worse. Any objective measure of the skills of both players shows that they are way better than they were in 2007. But back in 2007, even before all these improvements they simply brushed aside all of Roger's contemporaries from serious title contention.

Nadal is a perfect example back when he won his first slam at the end of the weak era he was lucky if he could hit his serve 110 miles an hour. According to uncle toni he had the worst serve in the entire top 100 when broke on tour. But that didn't stop him from getting to #2 in the world and winning masters on his worst surface. Now the man is pushing his best first serve #s close to 130 and has added exquisite volleys and a flat forehand that he has never possessed. Nadal is great, Djoko is great, murray will prove to be great and the also rans that were feds contemporaries were not as good; frankly that is the simlpe and best answer to why they didn't win as much.

It seems that any challenge to the Golden Era will always inspire a long messy and confused post from socal. Still, interesting to hear that being barely out of your teen years is no obstacle to challenging the top - a total contradiction of the usual weak excuse for their being no under 19 in the top 400!!!!

And Craig, Tim is a real gentleman. Certainly far too much of one to blab about coming from the best era like so done else!
And it's hardly debatable that Roger passed his best some time ago; I'd say around the time he started losing to people he'd completely owned, like Roddick, Blake, and so on, and dropping sets to nobodies.

Or more likely that Tim is being brutally honest. If you don't want to believe that then take a look at their career achievement's CV as well as that backs up Tim's assessment I'd say.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Or more likely that Tim is being brutally honest. If you don't want to believe that then take a look at their career achievement's CV as well as that backs up Tim's assessment I'd say.

Well Murray has a Slam and three finals, so I doubt anyone would argue. I didn't say Tim was better, just that he's too much of a gent to shoot his mouth off.
Indeed, that makes the point about Henman irrelevant; you're comparing a guy who never made a final to a guy with four, and making out it proves something.

Henman reached the upper reaches of the rankings list as has Murray. Whereas Henman did not achieve anywhere near as much as Andy certainly in slams yet still scaled so high in the rankings then what does that tell us considering Andy has scaled a similar height in ranking now but achieved more.

So now your saying the 90's were weak too? That's when Tim played some of his best tennis and reached #5.

In fact of course your statement is a bit confusing; you seem to be saying that a period is weak because a guy reaches #4 or #5 but doesn't make a big impact at Slams? Seems the top 10 is infested with such people right now!!

Actually Tim's highest ranking came in 2002 when he reached No.4. What I am saying is that, by Tim's own admission he is not in the same league as Andy yet still reached No.4 (where Andy has been until recently in the rankings). So both reached No.4 where Tim admits Murray to be the better player. So that surely chalks up one advantage this era has over the early 2000's.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Actually Tim's highest ranking came in 2002 when he reached No.4. What I am saying is that, by Tim's own admission he is not in the same league as Andy yet still reached No.4 (where Andy has been until recently in the rankings). So both reached No.4 where Tim admits Murray to be the better player. So that surely chalks up one advantage this era has over the early 2000's.

Why say "actually"? I told you his rankings.

And I guess Ferrer being the perpetual #5 of the Golden Era without a Slam final tells us........ what?

CaledonianCraig wrote:Or more likely that Tim is being brutally honest. If you don't want to believe that then take a look at their career achievement's CV as well as that backs up Tim's assessment I'd say.

Craig don't you know that only federer's CV is valid for determining his greatness. All the slams Murray, Djoko, and Nadal win are due to slow conditions. I just find it funny that Roger's CV is pointed to as proof for his objective greatness and goathood. Yet, murray, Djoko, and Nadal's collective CV's don't tell us anything about their obvious superiority to fed's contemporaries. It is just another one of the ridiculous double standards that exist when it comes to federer. This whole argument about how all eras are strong and you can't compare periods and their relative strengths is another in the many double standards used when talking about Roger. Why is Roger goat, well because of his trophies and how much he won. Well if you are judging Roger by that criteria how come you can't judge murray, Nadal, and Djokovic's vastly superior numbers favorably in comparison to other champions. When you say that Roger is the greatest of all time or the open era, or the modern era what you are implicetly doing is comparing fed to players in other generations based on his accomplishments. Why is that a fair criteria for Roger but not for Rog's contemporaries or for the current champions?

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Actually Tim's highest ranking came in 2002 when he reached No.4. What I am saying is that, by Tim's own admission he is not in the same league as Andy yet still reached No.4 (where Andy has been until recently in the rankings). So both reached No.4 where Tim admits Murray to be the better player. So that surely chalks up one advantage this era has over the early 2000's.

Why say "actually"? I told you his rankings.

And I guess Ferrer being the perpetual #5 of the Golden Era without a Slam final tells us........ what?

I said actually as I was pointing out Henman's peak ranking which was No.4 in July 2002. A time when Leyton Hewitt was No.1 (how does he stack up to current No.1 Roger), Marat Safin No.2 (how does he stack up against current No.2 Djokovic), Haas was No.3 at that time with Henman at No.4.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Actually Tim's highest ranking came in 2002 when he reached No.4. What I am saying is that, by Tim's own admission he is not in the same league as Andy yet still reached No.4 (where Andy has been until recently in the rankings). So both reached No.4 where Tim admits Murray to be the better player. So that surely chalks up one advantage this era has over the early 2000's.

Why say "actually"? I told you his rankings.

And I guess Ferrer being the perpetual #5 of the Golden Era without a Slam final tells us........ what?

I said actually as I was pointing out Henman's peak ranking which was No.4 in July 2002. A time when Leyton Hewitt was No.1 (how does he stack up to current No.1 Roger), Marat Safin No.2 (how does he stack up against current No.2 Djokovic), Haas was No.3 at that time with Henman at No.4.

Ill tell you how they stack up Craig, soft, that is it in one word. I just find it funny how obvious facts need to be ignored and denied vociferously if those facts could in anyway be seen as taking a tiny bit of the shine off of some of Roger's accomplishments. It can not be seen that his contemporaries of 2004-07 are anything but of the highest quality. Meanwhile other players are demeaned routinely with comments like "so and so wouldn't win as much if not for the slow conditions." I wish I had a dollar for every time I have heard that about Djoko.

I'm not sure what 'eras' are being talked about. CC's argument is about the ealry 2000s. socal agrees but then changes it to the mid 2000s. Can someone clarify? When do these 'eras' start/end exactly?

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Actually Tim's highest ranking came in 2002 when he reached No.4. What I am saying is that, by Tim's own admission he is not in the same league as Andy yet still reached No.4 (where Andy has been until recently in the rankings). So both reached No.4 where Tim admits Murray to be the better player. So that surely chalks up one advantage this era has over the early 2000's.

Why say "actually"? I told you his rankings.

And I guess Ferrer being the perpetual #5 of the Golden Era without a Slam final tells us........ what?

I said actually as I was pointing out Henman's peak ranking which was No.4 in July 2002. A time when Leyton Hewitt was No.1 (how does he stack up to current No.1 Roger), Marat Safin No.2 (how does he stack up against current No.2 Djokovic), Haas was No.3 at that time with Henman at No.4.

Did you see the dross keeping him off #1 in 1999? Sampras, Kafelnikov, Agassi & Rafter! Boy, what a dire period! Hell, the only player he had close to him was the joker Kuerten.

Also Craig, you drew attention to Tim getting to #4 without making a Slam final. What about Ferrer?

PS 2002 Hewitt stacks up well against 31 year old Federer by the way.

JHM, I just feel that the early 2000's was not as strong an era as others. That is not to say, as some have tried painting it, tat I am saying now is the strongest ever but just that it is much stronger than the early 2000's in my opinion. I have always had a soft spot for the late 70's early 80's era and the mid-80's to early 90's.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I'm not sure what 'eras' are being talked about. CC's argument is about the ealry 2000s. socal agrees but then changes it to the mid 2000s. Can someone clarify? When do these 'eras' start/end exactly?

I don't change anything I always state late 90s to mid 2000s that is the period in question. These periods have gradual beginning and end points anyway. It isn't like Dec 31, 1998 was strong and all of sudden on Jan 1, of 1999 the top guys aren't as strong.

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Actually Tim's highest ranking came in 2002 when he reached No.4. What I am saying is that, by Tim's own admission he is not in the same league as Andy yet still reached No.4 (where Andy has been until recently in the rankings). So both reached No.4 where Tim admits Murray to be the better player. So that surely chalks up one advantage this era has over the early 2000's.

Why say "actually"? I told you his rankings.

And I guess Ferrer being the perpetual #5 of the Golden Era without a Slam final tells us........ what?

I said actually as I was pointing out Henman's peak ranking which was No.4 in July 2002. A time when Leyton Hewitt was No.1 (how does he stack up to current No.1 Roger), Marat Safin No.2 (how does he stack up against current No.2 Djokovic), Haas was No.3 at that time with Henman at No.4.

Did you see the dross keeping him off #1 in 1999? Sampras, Kafelnikov, Agassi & Rafter! Boy, what a dire period! Hell, the only player he had close to him was the joker Kuerten.

Also Craig, you specifically drew attention to Tim getting to #4 without making a Slam final. I can quote if you want. Now when I remind you about Ferrer you're moving off that. Is that consistent?

PS 2002 Hewitt stacks up well against 31 year old Federer by the way.

I wonder why you try to keep turning this back into the 90's when I am judging the early 2000's standard? We can throw in Haas of 2002 who is slamless if you so wish bogbrush. As I said on the Haas thread - every era has a player who can scale a great height in the rankings but never win a slam. In the 2002 top ten you had Haas, Henman and Grosjean whilst today you have Ferrer, Berdych, Tsonga, Tipsarevic and Monaco. In short players that can't quite take that final step to glory. We could then look at second tier records for those slamless players and I'd guess Ferrer's record holds up favourably in titles won compared to those in 2002.

CaledonianCraig wrote:JHM, I just feel that the early 2000's was not as strong an era as others. That is not to say, as some have tried painting it, tat I am saying now is the strongest ever but just that it is much stronger than the early 2000's in my opinion. I have always had a soft spot for the late 70's early 80's era and the mid-80's to early 90's.

It's hard to separate mood, nostalgia and even personal happiness at phases of ones life when looking so far back. Rose tinted glasses, and all that.

CaledonianCraig wrote:
I wonder why you try to keep turning this back into the 90's when I am judging the early 2000's standard? We can throw in Haas of 2002 who is slamless if you so wish bogbrush. As I said on the Haas thread - every era has a player who can scale a great height in the rankings but never win a slam. In the 2002 top ten you had Haas, Henman and Grosjean whilst today you have Ferrer, Berdych, Tsonga, Tipsarevic and Monaco. In short players that can't quite take that final step to glory. We could then look at second tier records for those slamless players and I'd guess Ferrer's record holds up favourably in titles won compared to those in 2002.

Why not mention the time Tim was #5 while we're talking about him?

I mean, he was #5 then, without a Slam final to show for it. What's sauce for 2002 is sauce before, surely?

And Ferrer has 3 Masters.

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:I'm not sure what 'eras' are being talked about. CC's argument is about the ealry 2000s. socal agrees but then changes it to the mid 2000s. Can someone clarify? When do these 'eras' start/end exactly?

I don't change anything I always state late 90s to mid 2000s that is the period in question. These periods have gradual beginning and end points anyway. It isn't like Dec 31, 1998 was strong and all of sudden on Jan 1, of 1999 the top guys aren't as strong.

But about 9 or 10 years, including the majority of Agassi's and Federer's slams, would be your weak era?

Of course it would Craig, despite the top heavy domination Ferrer has 16 career singles titles. By the way that is where he makes most of his points in every season. His numbers are quite reasonable for a second tier top 10 guy. If he was consistently winning and reaching slam finals he wouldn't be second tier would he?

Nope the late 70's wasn't any more of a particularly happy time for me but do remember stuff like the great tennis matches (even though at that time football was the big thing for me). Conversely, I cannot say the same of the early 2000's.

socal1976 wrote:Of course it would Craig, despite the top heavy domination Ferrer has 16 career singles titles. By the way that is where he makes most of his points in every season. His numbers are quite reasonable for a second tier top 10 guy. If he was consistently winning and reaching slam finals he wouldn't be second tier would he?

And what I find odd is that if anyone dares to not be high in praise or dares criticise Tommy Haas you get ticked off but do the same with David Ferrer or other players from this era and not a word is said. I have also heard disparaging comments about other players in the top ten just now ie Monaco and Tipsy but if they played ten years ago we'd be getting told off for talking them down.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Of course it would Craig, despite the top heavy domination Ferrer has 16 career singles titles. By the way that is where he makes most of his points in every season. His numbers are quite reasonable for a second tier top 10 guy. If he was consistently winning and reaching slam finals he wouldn't be second tier would he?

And what I find odd is that if anyone dares to not be high in praise or dares criticise Tommy Haas you get ticked off but do the same with David Ferrer or other platers from this era and not a word is said.

Haas has a one hander so he will always get some street credibility with the purists, and then he was also part of the guys who came up with Roger. And by extension any knocking of the abilities of the early 2000 guys is by extension a lessening of Fed's early domination. That is why this fiction has been created that you can't compare athletes to other athletes playing with the same conditions who came along 5-6 years after each other. It isn't like we are comparing today's guys to Bill Tilden and Fred Perry these guys played each others while both groups of players were close to their primes.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Of course it would Craig, despite the top heavy domination Ferrer has 16 career singles titles. By the way that is where he makes most of his points in every season. His numbers are quite reasonable for a second tier top 10 guy. If he was consistently winning and reaching slam finals he wouldn't be second tier would he?

And what I find odd is that if anyone dares to not be high in praise or dares criticise Tommy Haas you get ticked off but do the same with David Ferrer or other players from this era and not a word is said. I have also heard disparaging comments about other players in the top ten just now ie Monaco and Tipsy but if they played ten years ago we'd be getting told off for talking them down.

I saw what a useless player Tommy Haas was when he schooled Djokovic in four sets at Wimbledon in 2009. There he was, 31 and on comeback #23, pushing Novak around on a court that had been thoroughly "Djokovized".

I've not seen David Ferrer do anything so interesting, though I like him as a trier.

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:
I wonder why you try to keep turning this back into the 90's when I am judging the early 2000's standard? We can throw in Haas of 2002 who is slamless if you so wish bogbrush. As I said on the Haas thread - every era has a player who can scale a great height in the rankings but never win a slam. In the 2002 top ten you had Haas, Henman and Grosjean whilst today you have Ferrer, Berdych, Tsonga, Tipsarevic and Monaco. In short players that can't quite take that final step to glory. We could then look at second tier records for those slamless players and I'd guess Ferrer's record holds up favourably in titles won compared to those in 2002.

Why not mention the time Tim was #5 while we're talking about him?

I mean, he was #5 then, without a Slam final to show for it. What's sauce for 2002 is sauce before, surely?

And Ferrer has 3 Masters.

No because I have no qualms about the late 1990's quality.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Nope the late 70's wasn't any more of a particularly happy time for me but do remember stuff like the great tennis matches (even though at that time football was the big thing for me). Conversely, I cannot say the same of the early 2000's.

CC, you don't remember Sampras vs Fed, or Henman vs Ivanisevic?

When did either Craig or I say Tommy Haas was useless or any synonymn of that word? You just are making stuff up again, enjoy beating the tar out of your self made straw man.

socal1976 wrote:When did either Craig or I say Tommy Haas was useless or any synonymn of that word? You just are making stuff up again, enjoy beating the tar out of your self made straw man.

No, no. I've never called you a strawman.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:
I wonder why you try to keep turning this back into the 90's when I am judging the early 2000's standard? We can throw in Haas of 2002 who is slamless if you so wish bogbrush. As I said on the Haas thread - every era has a player who can scale a great height in the rankings but never win a slam. In the 2002 top ten you had Haas, Henman and Grosjean whilst today you have Ferrer, Berdych, Tsonga, Tipsarevic and Monaco. In short players that can't quite take that final step to glory. We could then look at second tier records for those slamless players and I'd guess Ferrer's record holds up favourably in titles won compared to those in 2002.

Why not mention the time Tim was #5 while we're talking about him?

I mean, he was #5 then, without a Slam final to show for it. What's sauce for 2002 is sauce before, surely?

And Ferrer has 3 Masters.

No because I have no qualms about the late 1990's quality.

When Tim was at #5? Yet a few years later when he blips at #4 it's proof of fragility?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Nope the late 70's wasn't any more of a particularly happy time for me but do remember stuff like the great tennis matches (even though at that time football was the big thing for me). Conversely, I cannot say the same of the early 2000's.

CC, you don't remember Sampras vs Fed, or Henman vs Ivanisevic?

Yes I remember them but did they happen with any frequency and really capture by imagination? No I can say they didn't - not to the same extent as other matches in other eras. For want of a better word they never captivated me (the matches) like other eras.

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:
I wonder why you try to keep turning this back into the 90's when I am judging the early 2000's standard? We can throw in Haas of 2002 who is slamless if you so wish bogbrush. As I said on the Haas thread - every era has a player who can scale a great height in the rankings but never win a slam. In the 2002 top ten you had Haas, Henman and Grosjean whilst today you have Ferrer, Berdych, Tsonga, Tipsarevic and Monaco. In short players that can't quite take that final step to glory. We could then look at second tier records for those slamless players and I'd guess Ferrer's record holds up favourably in titles won compared to those in 2002.

Why not mention the time Tim was #5 while we're talking about him?

I mean, he was #5 then, without a Slam final to show for it. What's sauce for 2002 is sauce before, surely?

And Ferrer has 3 Masters.

No because I have no qualms about the late 1990's quality.

When Tim was at #5? Yet a few years later when he blips at #4 it's proof of fragility?

Yes a few years is a long time in tennis you know. You may have your favourite years for tennis and ones that you enjoy the most. But you still haven't clarified why Roger has a far superior record against players prominent in 2002 than he does not against players prominent now? Feel free to even lop off the last couple of years if you feel Federer is long past his best and you will still get the same results.

Easy really, for the same reason players always get caught later on; others grow up in changed conditions, others get to base their games on stalking the top guy, plus, as you say he slipped back.

He's been vulnerable TO MANY PLAYERS since 2008. It's not just the top guys whose success grew against him you know, the field has been much closer since 2008. I mean; Blake, Roddick, Soderling, plus many other sundry poor efforts. They aren't Golden too, are they?

And to keep up with the Tim theory, why does his #5 ranking mean something much different from his #4?

No he hasn't been as vulnerable against those you mention compared to Nadal, Murray and Djokovic and if you wish you can use 2008 as the cut off point as you seem to feel that is when hi deterioration set in. Pre 2008:-

Fed 6 Nadal 8

Fed 5 Djoko 1

Fed 1 Murray 1

And those you claim caused him problems:-

Fed 7 Blake 0

Fed 16 Roddick 2

Fed 4 Soderling 0

(That is meetings pre-2008)

Those from the 2002 top four's record V Roger.

Fed 13 Hewitt 6

Fed 9 Safin 2

Fed 9 Haas 3

Fed 8 Henman 5

(Again these results all pre-2008 if you feel that is when his rot set in).

In short then against 2002's top four Federer had a win ratio of 70.70%

Against the top four of the here and now (pre Fed's rot if you will) Federer had a win ration of 54.54%

So apart from Nadal (mainly on clay) and the tank in Cincinnatti it's as I'd expect.

Sorry, but you can't really claim anything for Andy & Djokovic because of Rafa!

CaledonianCraig wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Nope the late 70's wasn't any more of a particularly happy time for me but do remember stuff like the great tennis matches (even though at that time football was the big thing for me). Conversely, I cannot say the same of the early 2000's.

CC, you don't remember Sampras vs Fed, or Henman vs Ivanisevic?

Yes I remember them but did they happen with any frequency and really capture by imagination? No I can say they didn't - not to the same extent as other matches in other eras. For want of a better word they never captivated me (the matches) like other eras.

Fair enough CC, but you have to admit that particular criterion is entirely subjective.

bogbrush wrote:So apart from Nadal (mainly on clay) and the tank in Cincinnatti it's as I'd expect.

Sorry, but you can't really claim anything for Andy & Djokovic because of Rafa!

No nothing like you expected as you did claim that Blake, Roddick and Soderling also gave him problems. Also Rafa is also in this era calculations so all results count. Also must just add that Djokovic did have fitness issues early in his career hence why Fed had the record he did.

I understand Murray and Djokovic fans frustration, the golden era argument was going so well. They were beating the man considered the best ever, yet achievements wise they paled in comparison. So maybe it was because he had easier competition?

Then Federer had to go and win Wimbledon and become World Number at 31 during their peak years and blow the whole thing wide open

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:So apart from Nadal (mainly on clay) and the tank in Cincinnatti it's as I'd expect.

Sorry, but you can't really claim anything for Andy & Djokovic because of Rafa!

No nothing like you expected as you did claim that Blake, Roddick and Soderling also gave him problems. Also Rafa is also in this era calculations so all results count.

I think Bogbrush meant that these players prior to 2008 were unable to beat him, but since then even they have taken him down. Before 2008 Federer had only lost one match combined in matches with Roddick, Soderling, Blake, Davydenko and Karlovic

I think it can safely be presumed that Fed can still produce his very best tennis at times but the consistency may not be as great as it was - this year's Wimbledon win proved that. I've given you the comparitive head-to-head records of Fed V players of the here and now and the top players of summer 2002 ranking-wise, Henman's assessment that Murray was a better player than he was, also look at the pattern of Fed's slam wins where he gobbled them up in the early 2000's and then they slowed to more of a trickle when Nadal, Djokovic and Murray had become competitive. A heck of a lot of evidence there I'd say to suggest subjectively that this crop of players now are superior to those at the top of the game in 2002.

PS CAS Well my head-to-heads do take into account only meetings between those players pre-2008 as BB seemed to indicate he feels that's when Fed dipped.

In that case since 2008 their records are:-

Fed 3 Blake 1 (+1 walk-over for Blake)

Fed 6 Roddick 2

Fed 13 Soderling 2

In short no they never really caused him any extra problems post-2008 of note.

I personally think its incredible that at age 28 and 22 Murray had 6-2 advantage over Federer, considering their ages at this point you would think this was only going one way, 3 years later Federer took it to 8-8 with the Wimbledon win.

You said yourself that Federer is less consistent now, considering this is one thing Federer needs most of all against Murray I think he would have done much better against him 6/7 years ago and perhaps their head 2 head would look great for the Swiss.

One other aspect is they have never played on clay, which you would surely edge Federer in no? All what ifs though of course

CAS wrote:Before 2008 Federer had only lost one match combined in matches with Roddick, Soderling, Blake, Davydenko and Karlovic

In the period 2003-2008:
He had lost 5 matches combined against Roddick, Soderling, Blake, Davydenko, Karlovic, Ljubicic, Haas, Gonzalez, Baghdatis, Hewitt.
He had lost 18 matches combined against Nadal, Djokovic and Murray.

CAS wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:So apart from Nadal (mainly on clay) and the tank in Cincinnatti it's as I'd expect.

Sorry, but you can't really claim anything for Andy & Djokovic because of Rafa!

No nothing like you expected as you did claim that Blake, Roddick and Soderling also gave him problems. Also Rafa is also in this era calculations so all results count.

I think Bogbrush meant that these players prior to 2008 were unable to beat him, but since then even they have taken him down. Before 2008 Federer had only lost one match combined in matches with Roddick, Soderling, Blake, Davydenko and Karlovic

Indeed, thanks.

Craig's analysis made my point for me.

It Must Be Love wrote:

CAS wrote:Before 2008 Federer had only lost one match combined in matches with Roddick, Soderling, Blake, Davydenko and Karlovic

In the period 2003-2008:
He had lost 5 matches combined against Roddick, Soderling, Blake, Davydenko, Karlovic, Ljubicic, Haas, Gonzalez, Baghdatis, Hewitt.
He had lost 18 matches combined against Nadal, Djokovic and Murray.

Correct ItMustBeLove. Yet BB persists with the pretence that in some way that the early 2000's was was superior or on a par to the here and now. Federer is the constant in these two eras and it is clear which set have players have caused him the most problems. Also look at his spread of slam wins and that backs this theory up. Henman's admittance that Murray was better than he was (both achieved a similar ranking) is more evidence, Djokovic is also adding his weight to this theory as well as are other ex-pros and pundits. Now I want to hear the evidence why the early 2000's should be seen as superior to the here and now with some facts thrown in.

Federer only won 1 slam in the early 2000s.