Djokovic makes controversial statement about today's era

by socal1976 Mon 15 Oct 2012, 8:25 pm

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.

by CaledonianCraig Wed 17 Oct 2012, 2:08 pm

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:
SFP: disagree.. What the improved level of fitness has to do with the quality of tennis and the caliber of its top players? This is not athletics!

Sorry but a modicum of physical fitness has always been required in tennis. I can't ever recall seeing a tennis player who resembles a darts player whizzing around courts and it this time players are supreme physical specimens.

by Josiah Maiestas Wed 17 Oct 2012, 2:09 pm

People are saying that they think that this could be the next great rivalry - not that it already is.

That is fine. But it isnt currently the best era which is what the article is about.

by sirfredperry Wed 17 Oct 2012, 2:12 pm

JK - Well, clearly guys whacking the ball over the net aint athletics in the running-around-the-track sense. But when these same guys are playing matches that last nearly SIX HOURS then the fitness levels are a considerable factor.
You aint gonna get to the top unless you are supremely fit. I reckon that's fairly indisputable although perhaps it leads to less aesthetically-pleasing tennis than in the past. Touch play is great, supreme skill aint bad either, but without heart and lungs and staying power these things count as nothing.
(posted before seeing CC's welcome comment)

by Jeremy_Kyle Wed 17 Oct 2012, 2:13 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:
Jeremy_Kyle wrote:
SFP: disagree.. What the improved level of fitness has to do with the quality of tennis and the caliber of its top players? This is not athletics!

Sorry but a modicum of physical fitness has always been required in tennis. I can't ever recall seeing a tennis player who resembles a darts player whizzing around courts and it this time players are supreme physical specimens.

That's the point. Tennis players have always been fit and gifted athletes, but it's never been the main (or exclusive?) focus of the game, which should be instead on the technical qualities..

by banbrotam Wed 17 Oct 2012, 2:15 pm

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Funny how people appear to take at face value what the so-called pundits say on their respective tv station, failing to realize, or pretending not to, that those pundits have a clear interest in boosting the product they sell and in retaining the positions they hold.

SFP: disagree.. What the improved level of fitness has to do with the quality of tennis and the caliber of its top players? This is not athletics!

Mr Kyle. If that comment was aimed at me, then please note I am old enough and cynical enough to take nothing anyone says at face value, particularly as I've been dealing with customers for the past 25 years, who will tell you anything to get their way!!

I dismiss idiots like grinning Greg. But find that the likes of Courier and Willander who were cynical about Murray and Novak in the past, have a pretty straightforward way of looking at things

Maybe Couriers current role as US Davis Cup Captain, makes him more favorable towards this era - but I've not heard much from him lately. It was last year where he was making the positive comments

Incidentally. I've no idea if it's the best era -but it is a 'great' one

by banbrotam Wed 17 Oct 2012, 2:19 pm

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
Jeremy_Kyle wrote:
SFP: disagree.. What the improved level of fitness has to do with the quality of tennis and the caliber of its top players? This is not athletics!

Sorry but a modicum of physical fitness has always been required in tennis. I can't ever recall seeing a tennis player who resembles a darts player whizzing around courts and it this time players are supreme physical specimens.

That's the point. Tennis players have always been fit and gifted athletes, but it's never been the main (or exclusive?) focus of the game, which should be instead on the technical qualities..

Technically. Murray after Roger is arguably the best player out there, he can do every shot with a high degree of skill and is one of the most instinctive net players. His wrist action is amazing

by sirfredperry Wed 17 Oct 2012, 2:22 pm

JK - yes, but what's happening now is that fitness is arguably more important than at any other time, with speeds of courts, size of balls, size of rackets, sheer physicality of humans among the reasons.
Yeah, it would be great to see touch stuff like Nasty versus Mecir or wonderful SH backhands like Fed, Stan, Haas and Gasquet all the time. But the touch stuff has to combine with the grind and the grit stuff these days.

by CaledonianCraig Wed 17 Oct 2012, 2:23 pm

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:
Jeremy_Kyle wrote:
SFP: disagree.. What the improved level of fitness has to do with the quality of tennis and the caliber of its top players? This is not athletics!

Sorry but a modicum of physical fitness has always been required in tennis. I can't ever recall seeing a tennis player who resembles a darts player whizzing around courts and it this time players are supreme physical specimens.

That's the point. Tennis players have always been fit and gifted athletes, but it's never been the main (or exclusive?) focus of the game, which should be instead on the technical qualities..

Nobody is saying it is now but the game has evolved (along with court conditions) and there is a greater emphasis on even more supreme physical fitness now. Nothing wrong with that.

by Jeremy_Kyle Wed 17 Oct 2012, 2:27 pm

Honestly I agree this is really a game and the crowd should really have the last say if tennis is great or not these days.

Whether it is better or not than in the past instead, I would like to hear from people with less involvement in the media, like Borg, Vilas, Edberg etc.

by HM Murdock Wed 17 Oct 2012, 2:40 pm

As always, colossal double standards being applied by some in this debate.

When we talk about the greatest players, the argument ultimately boils down to achievements. Fed plays attractive tennis but the strongest arguments for his position as GOAT are 17 slams, 300 weeks at #1, massive semi final/final streaks etc. Why is Rafa the best clay courter ever? It's not the aesthetic of his tennis, it's his massive success.

But when it comes to eras, oh no, it's all subjective and about the style of tennis.

Let's talk achievements. In this era we have a top ten with:
- 5 players who have won slams in the last 3 years or so. A total of 35 slams between them in their careers.
- Three players who have won 3 slams in a single year.
- The GOAT who is declining but still capable of winning slams.
- The most successful clay court player of all time.
- A multi slam winner whose recent achievements include the longest winning streak for 30 years, the longest TMS winning streak ever, 5 consecutive (and counting) HC slam finals, 10 consecutive (and counting) slam semis.

By any objective measure, how is it outlandish to claim that this might be the best era ever?

by socal1976 Wed 17 Oct 2012, 5:03 pm

banbrotam wrote:
bogbrush wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:I'm not sure why this is controversial, unless he's subtly implying that not having Rafa around for 4-6 months is a good thing for tennis.
Yeah, "period with declining Federer and injured Nadal is best ever"

Controversial is one word for it. Delusional's another.

BB. We can't forever measure the quality of Tennis based on the sublime skills of one player. I mean are you telling us the best 'era' was in, say 2004/5 when Roger was playing stuff no-one has come close to touching since (including him)?

Great sport is nearly always about 90% perspiration and 10% inspiration, Barcelona actually look a million dollars simply because there are two or three midfield players working their backsides off so Lionel Messi can run riot - and so the sleeves rolled up stuff that Nole and Andy do, in-dispersed with some jaw dropping shots are pretty much up there with the best I've ever seen in 30-odd years as an avid fan

I get the worrying impression that no matter what Novak or (now) Andy do in the next few years, there will be some who simply won't give it the full praise it deserves

Yes, we could do with a few more faster courts and a consistent youngster - but can we please stop crying over the graceful decline of Fed

Great post Banbro you won't convince the purists. Unless at least half the tour runs up on the first ball like tennis in their childhood memories than the modern game is a failure. Regardless of the great matches it produces or the remarkable shots. The ratings, attendance, and growing prize money doesn't play in their calculus at all. They believe tennis must look like the game that they first fell in love with many years ago. In actuality, all modern sports have put an ever increasing emphasis on speed and fitness. That is why I like your football argument. Modern sports in general are asking ever increasing requirements of fitness for the athletes why should modern tennis be any different.

by invisiblecoolers Wed 17 Oct 2012, 5:16 pm

It just shows Djokovic is immature, to think the era he is playing is the best of all is either a lack of respect for previous era champions or just an kiddish statement.

So this era is better than an era that had

1]Jimmy Conners, Edberg, Mac,Lendll,Becker, Courier,Wilander, Agassi, Sampras?

2]Connors,Borg, Johnny Mac

3]Hewitt,Safin,Agassi,Kuerton, Federer

4]Safin,Hewitt,Federer,Nadal,Djokovic of 2005-2008

Every era has thrown great champions and great competitors, that was the case and that will be the case, to say my era is bigger than your era is like saying my Dad bigger than yours, pure childish.

by break_in_the_fifth Wed 17 Oct 2012, 5:24 pm

I don't think this era is anything particularly special either. Just because players weren't as consistent as they are now doesn't mean that the quality of tennis in all the finals back then didn't equal that of the finals today. It's as if you could have the same players reaching the finals and regardless of how they play, because it's them playing the era is stronger.

by socal1976 Wed 17 Oct 2012, 5:42 pm

It isn't just consistency Bo5, its consistent greatness. Like I said you got a still strong Goat, the best clay courter ever, another all time great in Djoko, a future all time great in murray, and possibly Del Po as well still very young. I think when the history books are written 2007-till present will be seen as one of the best periods in terms of tough competition for the ATP tour.

by invisiblecoolers Wed 17 Oct 2012, 6:21 pm

break_in_the_fifth wrote:
break_in_the_fifth
I don't think this era is anything particularly special either. Just because players weren't as consistent as they are now doesn't mean that the quality of tennis in all the finals back then didn't equal that of the finals today. It's as if you could have the same players reaching the finals and regardless of how they play, because it's them playing the era is stronger.

Exactly

socal1976 wrote:I think when the history books are written 2007-till present will be seen as one of the best periods in terms of tough competition for the ATP tour.

yes will be seen as one of the period of tough competition.Period there, nothing more it won't be seen as the best era.

by socal1976 Wed 17 Oct 2012, 6:28 pm

Yes, IC and we watch tennis for the matches and competition. The fact that 2007-present will be remebered for excellent top flight competition is a big deal, in fact that is the principal matrix of judging a periods strength that is relevant. As I always say who had the tougher road to a slam andy Murray or Thomas Johansson, that is all you need to know about which era is tougher.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 17 Oct 2012, 6:49 pm

socal1976 wrote:As I always say who had the tougher road to a slam andy Murray or Thomas Johansson, that is all you need to know about which era is tougher.

Not all you need to know. For example, Costa's road to the 2002 FO was probably tougher than Rafa's to the 2012 FO.

by bogbrush Wed 17 Oct 2012, 8:20 pm

HM Murdoch wrote:As always, colossal double standards being applied by some in this debate.

When we talk about the greatest players, the argument ultimately boils down to achievements. Fed plays attractive tennis but the strongest arguments for his position as GOAT are 17 slams, 300 weeks at #1, massive semi final/final streaks etc. Why is Rafa the best clay courter ever? It's not the aesthetic of his tennis, it's his massive success.

But when it comes to eras, oh no, it's all subjective and about the style of tennis.

Let's talk achievements. In this era we have a top ten with:
- 5 players who have won slams in the last 3 years or so. A total of 35 slams between them in their careers.
- Three players who have won 3 slams in a single year.
- The GOAT who is declining but still capable of winning slams.
- The most successful clay court player of all time.
- A multi slam winner whose recent achievements include the longest winning streak for 30 years, the longest TMS winning streak ever, 5 consecutive (and counting) HC slam finals, 10 consecutive (and counting) slam semis.

By any objective measure, how is it outlandish to claim that this might be the best era ever?

Ok, let's be objective.

- In the last 32 Slams almost all the top players have shown themselves incapable of barely reaching a final, recently hardly any semis.
- even the top 4 has been so inconsistent that they've been able only to win one between them in a number of years.
- the field is more dominated by old guys than ever before
- youth is so poor there's no under 19 in the top 400!!!

Ok?

by kingraf Wed 17 Oct 2012, 8:47 pm

Uh, well, I`m not a major fan of the Murray/Djoko rivalry, It`s a little boring, in terms of variety of points. Nadal/Fed at its peak is up there with Frazier-Ali, Senna-Prost in terms of quality and legend. Nadal/Murray (outside of Slams, at least) also looked like it was heading into a great direction. Now to answer the OP, Greatest Era ever? Thats a bit subjective. But most brutal? I think it can take that

by Josiah Maiestas Wed 17 Oct 2012, 8:52 pm

kingraf wrote:Uh, well, I`m not a major fan of the Murray/Djoko rivalry, It`s a little boring, in terms of variety of points. Nadal/Fed at its peak is up there with Frazier-Ali, Senna-Prost in terms of quality and legend. Nadal/Murray (outside of Slams, at least) also looked like it was heading into a great direction. Now to answer the OP, Greatest Era ever? Thats a bit subjective. But most brutal? I think it can take that

well the head to head is pretty far in favour of Rafa, the real rivalry at the top of the ATP is Nadal-Djokovic because the head to head could very possibly end up level or 1 win clear for one of them.

by socal1976 Wed 17 Oct 2012, 9:38 pm

sirfredperry wrote:Difficult to know just who is best qualified to judge one era against another for quality.
Current players have to be diplomatic in order not to sound big-headed or appear disrespectful to ex-players, while the ex-players themselves don't want to rubbish the nowadays heroes.
So perhaps it's the older spectators or the elderly reporters who might be able to lend a little perspective. Some may recall John Parsons a venerable doyen of tennis writers who died in 2004.
He was a great champion of Henman and lived to see most of Tim's successful career and he also lived to see Fed get to number one.
He and others like him would have had been in a good position to give views on the relative strengths of different eras.
As for mere humble spectators such as me in my seventh decade, having been brought up on the exploits of Hoad and Rosewall, Newcombe and Roche, Laver and Emerson and then followed the sport through the next four or five decades I can say this.
IMHO the current standard at the top of the men's game is extremely high. What makes this era stand out, for me, is the extreme levels of fitness and competitiveness needed to win and to stay at the top. That we've had four guys who have managed to stay in the top four positions for many, many months is truly remarkable given what it now takes to succeed.
Now some may argue that we've had greats - and great eras - in the past, but it's doubtful we've had such great ATHLETES as we have now. You've not only got to play great, but you have train great, move great, fight great and do a whole lot of other, er great, things.

This is an absolute tour de force sir fred. I missed this post the first time I skimmed through the thread and I think the valid points here deserve to be highlighted and discussed. As a fan with such a wealth of viewing experience you are infinetly more qualified to judge than a great deal of people who have not seen the variety and wealth of tennis that you have watched.

Here we have a man who watched Laver and Rosewall and has come out and stated that this era is incredibly strong. Of course the evolution of the modern athlete plays a huge role in the state of affairs. I mean could the players of 50 years ago imagine that players would be using high tech oxygen chambers or training with weights and yoga to build a new tennis player carved out of granite. But not just carved out of granite but that player must still be a great ball striker. At the end of the day ball striking is what separates the top guys. If that wasn't the case who ever had the best month training in the gym and was the healthiest in terms of injuries would win that week. At the end of the day you can always hit it harder than someone can chase it down, or place it better. But the modern champion needs and expanded skill set not a diminished one.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 17 Oct 2012, 9:57 pm

socal1976 wrote:At the end of the day ball striking is what separates the top guys. If that wasn't the case who ever had the best month training in the gym and was the healthiest in terms of injuries would win that week.

Although in some cases that's what happens. Look at how injuries affected the careers of Hewitt and Nalbandian, or how lack of fitness has affected Murray in the past ("I need to get fitter").
The USO final 2011 is a classic case of the fittest person winning
Didn't you even say Fed was fortunate to be No 1 - only got there because of injuries to other players.

by socal1976 Wed 17 Oct 2012, 10:09 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
socal1976 wrote:At the end of the day ball striking is what separates the top guys. If that wasn't the case who ever had the best month training in the gym and was the healthiest in terms of injuries would win that week.

Although in some cases that's what happens. Look at how injuries affected the careers of Hewitt and Nalbandian, or how lack of fitness has affected Murray in the past ("I need to get fitter").
The USO final 2011 is a classic case of the fittest person winning
Didn't you even say Fed was fortunate to be No 1 - only got there because of injuries to other players.

Not exactly what I said but yes that was certainly part of his run to #1 not only in 2011 but in 2009 as well when Nadal went down to injury. Injuries are always part of sports what I am talking about is a more broad based idea.

by bogbrush Wed 17 Oct 2012, 10:41 pm

Yeah, just like mono screwed his 2008.

Moaning about injury & illness in selective ways is so lame. I'm sure other long standing observers of the game would agree with me.

by User 774433 Wed 17 Oct 2012, 10:43 pm

Well BB I've seen you use mono as an excuse for 2008, no? Erm

by socal1976 Wed 17 Oct 2012, 10:47 pm

Yes in fact on old 606 one of BB's favorite lines about Djoko was that he was a fluke who got lucky because fed had mono in 08. You need to understand that when fed is injured it is a very valid excuse, when fed's opponents are injured it IS NOT a valid excuse IMBL. After all fed is tennis yahweh and his flatulence smells like chanel No. 5.

by bogbrush Wed 17 Oct 2012, 10:54 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:Well BB I've seen you use mono as an excuse for 2008, no?

Absolutely.

But not to the exclusion of recognising others afflictions.

by invisiblecoolers Wed 17 Oct 2012, 10:58 pm

socal1976 wrote:Yes in fact on old 606 one of BB's favorite lines about Djoko was that he was a fluke who got lucky because fed had mono in 08. You need to understand that when fed is injured it is a very valid excuse, when fed's opponents are injured it IS NOT a valid excuse IMBL. After all fed is tennis yahweh and his flatulence smells like chanel No. 5.

So this again falls into Fed bashing thread now , wow well done Socal thumbsup

by User 774433 Wed 17 Oct 2012, 11:11 pm

invisiblecoolers wrote:
socal1976 wrote:Yes in fact on old 606 one of BB's favorite lines about Djoko was that he was a fluke who got lucky because fed had mono in 08. You need to understand that when fed is injured it is a very valid excuse, when fed's opponents are injured it IS NOT a valid excuse IMBL. After all fed is tennis yahweh and his flatulence smells like chanel No. 5.

So this again falls into Fed bashing thread now , wow well done Socal

No, not really.

by HM Murdock Thu 18 Oct 2012, 9:59 am

bogbrush wrote:Ok, let's be objective.

- In the last 32 Slams almost all the top players have shown themselves incapable of barely reaching a final, recently hardly any semis.

Aside from being a rather circular argument - if lots of players made finals, the number of wins each player can get reduces and so we have fewer players considered as great - that doesn't even stack up statistically.

Number of players who made slam finals in last 8 years (32 slams): 15

Other eras?

1978 - 1985: 18
1986 - 1993: 18

So hardly different at all, and these in an era when not everyone went to AO, which nudges the number up.

bogbrush wrote:- even the top 4 has been so inconsistent that they've been able only to win one between them in a number of years.

So your first argument against this era being great is that not many players make finals. The ones that do make finals must therefore be consistent.

Your second argument against this era being great is that the top 4 can be inconsistent!

Plus in 7 out of your 8 years, a player (three overall) has won more than one slam.

bogbrush wrote:-the field is more dominated by old guys than ever before

Seven out of the top ten are 27 or younger. Aside from that, what does the age of a player matter? The important thing is the quality of their tennis.

bogbrush wrote:-youth is so poor there's no under 19 in the top 400!!!

True. But, as above, what does the age of the player matter? All the poor youth tells us is that the next era might be terrible!

bogbrush wrote:-Ok?

No!

by Josiah Maiestas Thu 18 Oct 2012, 12:20 pm

socal1976 wrote:Yes in fact on old 606 one of BB's favorite lines about Djoko was that he was a fluke who got lucky because fed had mono in 08. You need to understand that when fed is injured it is a very valid excuse, when fed's opponents are injured it IS NOT a valid excuse IMBL. After all fed is tennis yahweh and his flatulence smells like chanel No. 5.

Who do you think will have more injury issues at such a point in their career, a 25 year old who's best year is the previous one, or a 31 year old who's best years were 6-7 years ago?

Hmmm.

by User 774433 Thu 18 Oct 2012, 12:45 pm

Absolutely stunning points from HM Murdoch there clap

by Jeremy_Kyle Thu 18 Oct 2012, 5:44 pm

Let's not forget that Borg was on the physical side a real monster and Lendl introduced the scientific programming of training already in the 80s. That is to say fitness has been always important throughout the modern era.

In the end, what has mostly captured the imaginantion of fans is the clash of diverse tactics, styles and personalities: brutal force (e.g.Borg, Lendl, Nadal) against class, finesse and creativity (e.g.McEnroe, Edberg, Federer).

At the moment it appears the game is moving away from its roots, due to a series of controversial changes in the technology department and in the conditions, becoming, essentially, a pure physical struggle. Leave Federer and maybe Delpotro from the top 10 and we are all in for a very dull tennis era in the making.

by banbrotam Thu 18 Oct 2012, 6:33 pm

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Leave Federer and maybe Delpotro from the top 10 and we are all in for a very dull tennis era in the making.

Yeah! The monotonous slow moving forehand machine, that is Del Potro, is exactly what the future needs, compared to the mulit-skilled variety of Murray and Djokovic. Have you actually seen him, when he gets up against the Top 5, these days?

Next you'll be telling us that Karlovic will be badly missed, when he goes

Are you really telling us that the thought of say an attritional Novak against a boom boom Juan Martin fills you with joy?

There seems to be this weird view that players that go for winners, all the time from the off, make the most entertaining players. They don't and never did, they make the most boring one-dimensional ones, as I painfully remember when we had the Del Potro equivalent in 1991 - Michael Stich

by Jeremy_Kyle Thu 18 Oct 2012, 7:59 pm

If you think Delpotro is not a contender for slams, you are unwillingly agreeing with me that there aren't offensive players out there and that the game is becoming monotonously attritional those days. As I said: variety of styles is what is lacking today.

by banbrotam Thu 18 Oct 2012, 8:51 pm

I never stated that DP is not a contender - once he can actually get to the SF's of Slams and win Masters, he will be once again

I was responding to your rather (I thought) funny assertion that it would be a dull Top 10 without DP

I can think of far more entertaining Top 10 players, Tsonga for instance and even Tipsy

Indeed, for me apart from Berdych he's the least 'entertaining' but I admit we need his variety

by Redharry Sat 20 Oct 2012, 1:04 am

I don't understand how having a few players win everything proves anything one way or another. There are always 4 Slams won each year and is if they are shared out does that prove its a mediocre time or great depth? And if they are concentrated does that prove no depth or that the winner is incredible?

I can't see how logic lets anyone prove either way.

by CaledonianCraig Sat 20 Oct 2012, 7:45 am

Yes it is difficult to say but would say this:-

If you did a poll across the world of tennis fans asking who they felt was the greatest player of all-time I'd guess the name that would come out top would be Roger Federer.

If you did a similar poll on the subject of greatest clay court player of all-time then I am pretty sure the answer you'd get would be Rafael Nadal.

Now with that in mind even with great depth two players such as Federer and Nadal are going to be incredibly difficult to overcome. The fact that they haven't completely cleaned-up and that Djokovic, Del Potro and now Murray have been able to win slams whilst they have been playing shows that there is depth in this era.

by Jeremy_Kyle Sat 20 Oct 2012, 9:39 am

Redharry wrote:I don't understand how having a few players win everything proves anything one way or another. There are always 4 Slams won each year and is if they are shared out does that prove its a mediocre time or great depth? And if they are concentrated does that prove no depth or that the winner is incredible?

I can't see how logic lets anyone prove either way.

The basic idea is that if there is a world class player he'll win slam regardless the competition. If ,for example, a player like Borg had played in these years: do you really think Nadal would have won all his trophies?

If I look at the top ten as it is now, where I find a Ferrer and a Tipsarovic at n.5 and 7, it is hard to believe there are great players around who aren't winning slams because of today's exceptional competition.

by CaledonianCraig Sat 20 Oct 2012, 10:12 am

Hmm and that is where I have a problem.

Seemingly, it is fine to diss players of this era ie Ferrer or Tipsarevic but if anyone dares to say one bad word or refuses to adore (a bit strong I know ) Haas then it is deemed grossly disrespectful. How does that work?

by Jeremy_Kyle Sat 20 Oct 2012, 10:34 am

Haas imo is great to watch, but I don't think he's ever had that "winning mentality" that is required to get to the very top. An excellent player, not certainly a world class champion.

by CaledonianCraig Sat 20 Oct 2012, 10:40 am

Yes, in your opinion, just as in other people's opinion Ferrer and Tipsarevic are deemed great to watch. All have something in common - an inability to beat the very best of their generation to win a coveted slam but are/were consistently good enough to beat most players of their time - just not the very best.

by banbrotam Sat 20 Oct 2012, 1:27 pm

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Haas imo is great to watch

But so are most of the players. The Murray Fed match was a great 'watch', simply because both players dipped into their variety/diguise locker of talents knowing that wrong footing the other is the key to winning their matches

Not certain if Haas had been a member of the Top 5 for the last 10 years - he's get such a lauded status

by Redharry Sat 20 Oct 2012, 2:20 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes, in your opinion, just as in other people's opinion Ferrer and Tipsarevic are deemed great to watch. All have something in common - an inability to beat the very best of their generation to win a coveted slam but are/were consistently good enough to beat most players of their time - just not the very best.

This is a good illustration of the circularity of most discussions across time.

You can say the above for every period. it is useless in determining relative strength across time, which is almost always subjective.

by socal1976 Sun 21 Oct 2012, 1:31 am

Redharry wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes, in your opinion, just as in other people's opinion Ferrer and Tipsarevic are deemed great to watch. All have something in common - an inability to beat the very best of their generation to win a coveted slam but are/were consistently good enough to beat most players of their time - just not the very best.
This is a good illustration of the circularity of most discussions across time.

You can say the above for every period. it is useless in determining relative strength across time, which is almost always subjective.

I think you misunderstand Redharry what people are saying when they say which era is better, and no the argument isn't completely subjective at all. When people say Borg is better than Del Po they don't mean that we build a time machine and bring a 20 something version of hims to play Del Po. What they are really saying is that Borg was a more accompished player in his time than Del Potro is in his. Any other connotation would be nonsensical. Laver may lose in today's game to Del Po even if you could build the time machine in question, but is he less accomplished or talented of course not. Therefore the argument is not subjective the only thing we can look at as an objective measure is the level of their accomplishment in their own era. The generation that most in my mind is weak is the early 2000s. And by every objective measure the Hewitt,, Ferrero, roddick, and Safin group of guys won less than the players that came before them and won less than the guys that came after them. A very strong and objective indication that they are not as good.

by Redharry Sun 21 Oct 2012, 3:39 pm

How do they evaluate 'accomplished'?

There is only records - trophies - and subjectivity. Records depend on peer groups, which comes back to subjectivity. How do you know the early 2000s players weren't thwarted by depth or condition variation, and the last 5 years by shallowness and condition convergence?

Nobody can say. Period comparison is subjective.

by bogbrush Sun 21 Oct 2012, 3:48 pm

Exactly.

Subjectivity is right on the mark, and heavily influenced by player allegiance too.

This is why Federer fans can claim to a far greater degree of impartiality than those of more recent champions; Federer was an obvious champion in the making at the turn of the Millennium, thrived from 2003 to 2009 and reasserted his primacy in 2012, regaining the #1 position when 31. He doesn't belong to one era. Nadal stretches over a longish period too, though not quite as long of course.

by socal1976 Sun 21 Oct 2012, 4:36 pm

Redharry wrote:How do they evaluate 'accomplished'?

There is only records - trophies - and subjectivity. Records depend on peer groups, which comes back to subjectivity. How do you know the early 2000s players weren't thwarted by depth or condition variation, and the last 5 years by shallowness and condition convergence?

Nobody can say. Period comparison is subjective.

The early 2000s players didn't win more. The slowed down conditions didn't stop federer he acted like the hulk exposed to Gamma radiation in the slow conditions. How is an all time great in tennis history thwarted by an 8 percent bigger ball and slight increase of sand in the top player of hardcourt? How do you know they were thwarted by changing conditions and not by the simpler answer that the players that came in immediately after them were just better. I am sorry when comparing the Hewitt, Ferrero, Roddick, Nalby, and Safin group of players they fail miserably in every objective measure when compared to the players that came immediately before them (Courier, Agassi, Sampras, Edberg, Becker) and to the players that immediately followed them another indicator of how weak they were.

If it is impossible to go back 5 years and compare the current crop of players to players that many of them played in their prime then it is impossible to call Federer the greatest anything. How could we know for example that Roger Federer is greater than Michael chang, or Aaron krickstein, or Peter LLoyd even? Well we know he is better because he won a lot more? Calling fed GOAT is much more subjective than comparing the current crop of players to players that dominated the game 5,7 or 10 years ago. I mean why is it subjective to compare one player to all the players that have ever played and call him the GOAT, while it isn't subjective to compare a class of players against their immediate predecessors? Many of whom they played against in their physical primes?

by Redharry Sun 21 Oct 2012, 5:02 pm

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.

by bogbrush Sun 21 Oct 2012, 5:37 pm

Good point by redharry. I, on the other hand, will mention Federer and note that Federer took over the sport when he'd sorted his attitude out, not because of changed conditions, and has only been thwarted by the passage of time.

When I say thwarted, of course that's relative. He's still been the best player on the planet over the last 16 months.

by Sponsored content