Is this the strongest top 8 in history?

by User 774433 Mon 22 Oct - 18:41

Now I do realise that there are many different aspects when analysing a generation or 'era' of tennis.
Lydian has made some fantastic points in an article showing how there is a lack of youngsters currently in the top 100. While I agree with that analysis, I think it's time we also looked at the other side of the coin.
For me one of the most important aspects, if not the most important, is judging the quality right at the top of the game (how many world class players are present). It is, normally, where the Grand Slams are decided, between the top players.

The current top 8 according to the ATP Race for 2012 (the normal rankings also has the same 8 players):
ATP 2012 RACE:

Novak Djokovic- An all-time great arguably, who already has 5 Grand Slams and could go on to win many more.
Roger Federer- Holds most Grand Slams, not in his prime but playing great tennis nonetheless.
Andy Murray- Since he was young many believed he would win a slam, and now he has done that. Like Djoko he has time on his side to win even more.
Rafael Nadal- Already holds 11 Grand Slams, and has the most French Open titles. Suffered from injury in late 2012.
David Ferrer- I believe it's important to have one player like Ferrer in the top 10. Hard-working, consistent, and rock solid.
Tomas Berdych- He has a massive game and immense weapons, only his mentality lets him down at times. However he has shown at his best he can trouble anyone, having beaten Federer at Wimbledon and the US Open. Also has a winning record against Murray.
Juan Martin Del Potro- Sensationally beat both Federer and Nadal in the US Open in 2009. After that he has suffered injury problems, and now finally it appears he will end the year in the top 8 for the first time since 2009. A power player, who has devastating ground-strokes.
Jo Wilfred Tsonga- Like Berdych this guy has weapons, and on his day can be close to unbeatable. Also like Berdych, he is inconsistent, sometimes he plays brilliant, sometimes he plays poorly! He is always exciting to follow though, and has beaten both Nadal and Federer at Grand Slams. He was also one point away from beating Djokovic at RG this year, so at his best he is lethal.

Some examples of other top 8's:

25.09.2006:
Federer
Nadal
Ljubicic
Nalbandian
Davydenko
Roddick
Robredo
Baghdatis

09.12.1985:
Lendl
McEnroe
Wilander
Connors
Edberg
Becker
Y.Noah
Jarryd

As I recognise, these debates will always be subjective, as we can't prove whether a particular set of players is better than another across different time periods.
Feel free to discuss though, can you think of any other top 8 which was as good as this?

Amritia3ee

by socal1976 Mon 22 Oct - 19:00

As I said before I think the respective ages should be posted on the players as well to show what stage in their career they are in. What we will see is that Ferrer and Fed are the outliers as the older players. Del Po is just slightly younger than the rest of the top 8 guys. But the majority of the top 8; murray, Djoko, berdy, Tsonga, and Nadal were all born within an 18 month period. Can you say golden generation?

by socal1976 Mon 22 Oct - 19:01

Also we must remember that most likely Djoko, murray, Nadal, and probably del Po as well will add to their grandslam numbers so looking back in time this top 8 most likely will look even stronger in retrospect than it does now.

by User 774433 Mon 22 Oct - 19:05

socal1976 wrote:But the majority of the top 8; murray, Djoko, berdy, Tsonga, and Nadal were all born within an 18 month period. Can you say golden generation?

I don't like labelling, but I do admit to have that list of players born in an 18 months period ain't bad at all.

by socal1976 Mon 22 Oct - 19:08

Personally IMBL if you look at the respective ages of the top 8 I think the 1985 top 8 you produced is better but for me the early to mid 80s till mid 90s was an exceptional period in top notch competition so it is no mean feat to finish second to those guys.

by bogbrush Mon 22 Oct - 19:11

socal1976 wrote:Also we must remember that most likely Djoko, murray, Nadal, and probably del Po as well will add to their grandslam numbers so looking back in time this top 8 most likely will look even stronger in retrospect than it does now.

Dammit, you nearly had me going there!

Then I remembered they all got owned by a 31 year old for 16 months from 2011-2012, and one of them went 0-6 through 2012 (maybe soon to be 0-7 after Basel).

by User 774433 Mon 22 Oct - 19:19

bogbrush wrote:
socal1976 wrote:Also we must remember that most likely Djoko, murray, Nadal, and probably del Po as well will add to their grandslam numbers so looking back in time this top 8 most likely will look even stronger in retrospect than it does now.
Dammit, you nearly had me going there!

Then I remembered they all got owned by a 31 year old for 16 months from 2011-2012, and one of them went 0-6 through 2012 (maybe soon to be 0-7 after Basel).

I'm not sure 'they all got owned' is the best way to put it.
In 2012: Murray Federer H2H I believe is 2-2; Djokovic is 2-2, while Nadal won his only Slam encounter against Roger.

Anyway Roger is part of this top 8, he is a great part of it in-fact.

by bogbrush Mon 22 Oct - 19:22

Owned is a flexible term; he turned on the best results over that period so I think there's the wiggle room there to squeeze it in.

I wasn't knocking the 8, I was merely highlighting the little blemish on that group.

by User 774433 Mon 22 Oct - 19:23

bogbrush wrote:Owned is a flexible term; he turned on the best results over that period so I think there's the wiggle room there to squeeze it in.

I wasn't knocking the 8, I was merely highlighting the little blemish on that group.

Yes but against the top 3 this year, he's equal H2H.
Only really Del Potro he's 'owned.'

by socal1976 Mon 22 Oct - 19:30

This federer is old card is really getting a bit played out especially in light of the past instances of lesser players than Federer doing amazing things in their 30s in the game dating back to Ash, Gonzalez, and Rosewall. And in today's game we have the Agassi example of player who may have been better and more consistent in the second half of his career. Either way a sub .500 record against the other big 4 members combined is not ownership. It was highly competitive this year among the top 4 guys and I don't find that surprising in the least.

by User 774433 Mon 22 Oct - 19:34

In slams against the rest of the top 8 apart from Del Potro Federer was actually behind H2H wise:
0-1 vs Rafa
1-1 vs Djoko
1-0 vs Murray
0-0 vs Ferrer
0-1 vs Berdych

So overall 2-3 behind (apart from Del Potro who he owned).
Anyway nonetheless he has played some great tennis this year, and is rightly part of a fantastic top 8.

by CaledonianCraig Mon 22 Oct - 20:44

I would hazard a guess that perhaps sometime in the late 70's, the mid 80's and early 90's had strong top 8's so I wouldn't want to commit to anything.

by socal1976 Mon 22 Oct - 20:51

CaledonianCraig wrote:I would hazard a guess that perhaps sometime in the late 70's, the mid 80's and early 90's had strong top 8's so I wouldn't want to commit to anything.

I feel the same way I kind of think the top 8 IMBL posted from 85 considering the youthful nature of the ages off most of the legends on that list is pretty tough. I agree with you on that period by the way and see the early 2000s as a departure from the level we grew used to in the 80s and early 90s.

by bogbrush Mon 22 Oct - 20:55

It Must Be Love wrote:
bogbrush wrote:Owned is a flexible term; he turned on the best results over that period so I think there's the wiggle room there to squeeze it in.

I wasn't knocking the 8, I was merely highlighting the little blemish on that group.
Yes but against the top 3 this year, he's equal H2H.
Only really Del Potro he's 'owned.'

He's been the best player on the tour for 16 months.

We can debate the meaning of 'owned', but that's a statistical fact.

by bogbrush Mon 22 Oct - 20:57

socal1976 wrote:This federer is old card is really getting a bit played out especially in light of the past instances of lesser players than Federer doing amazing things in their 30s in the game dating back to Ash, Gonzalez, and Rosewall.

It gets more relevant by the day. Especially in the Era of Lungs

by socal1976 Mon 22 Oct - 21:03

bogbrush wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:
bogbrush wrote:Owned is a flexible term; he turned on the best results over that period so I think there's the wiggle room there to squeeze it in.

I wasn't knocking the 8, I was merely highlighting the little blemish on that group.
Yes but against the top 3 this year, he's equal H2H.
Only really Del Potro he's 'owned.'
He's been the best player on the tour for 16 months.

We can debate the meaning of 'owned', but that's a statistical fact.

Yeah federer has been the best player of the last 16 months, except for the tiny fact that Djokovic has won 3 slams in the last 16 months to Roger's 1. I guess Roger's basel and paris victories in 2011 outweight Novak's winning wimbeldon and the USO in 2011 and the Australian in 2012. Best player of the last 16 months indeed, frankly the idea that it is fact that Roger has been the best player of the last 16 months when Novak has won 3 slams to his 1 shows that you have no idea about what the difference between what a statistical fact is and what is make believe.

by Danny_1982 Mon 22 Oct - 22:04

There are two ways to view Federer's success at his age:

1: He truly is the greatest ever to be competetive and winning big titles against 3 world class players.

2: Those 3 world class players are nothing of the sort, and the fact Roger can beat them at 31 shows the golden era is all hype.

I very strongly believe it to be the former. I think we should be celebrating Rogers continued greatness rather than diminishing his achievements by suggesting its not a great achievement.

by bogbrush Mon 22 Oct - 22:11

Or something in between, Danny.

Too many extremes, too much hyperbole (not you, the media overall).

And I don't want to say any more about who is the best than the ranking is the ranking; maybe it can have a margin of error but Feds been miles clear at times. He's been the best player over a lengthy period. Credit where it's due.

by CaledonianCraig Mon 22 Oct - 22:13

Also worth remembering that Roger is seen (in many people's eyes) as the GOAT. Now I don't know about everyone else but from GOAT's I come to expect the unexpected so the fact he is still competitive at slams into his 30's is no slight on his opponents and just what we'd expect from a GOAT. I suppose it is akin to golfing greats like Jack Nicklaus who was still winning majors in his late forties and Watson as well. Or Ali in boxing still capable of winning the world title well into his 30's and Steve Davis in snooker still qualifying for the World Championship's into his 50's. Or jockey Lester Piggott who was still riding winners in classics in his 60's. GOAT's find a way.

by bogbrush Mon 22 Oct - 22:16

Hmmm. Pete didn't, and he was pretty good.

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon 22 Oct - 22:19

I can't get over Ferrer being at No. 5.
I couldn't get over Chang being No. 2 either.
Some days I can't get over at all.

by CaledonianCraig Mon 22 Oct - 22:21

bogbrush wrote:Hmmm. Pete didn't, and he was pretty good.

Yes Pete won the US Open in his 30's. Admittedly, his career never spanned much further after that but he did manage it. As I say GOAT's will find a way.

by Danny_1982 Mon 22 Oct - 22:29

Roger still moves incredibly well, that's the difference between him and Pete at a similar age. That's what separates Roger and most of the greatest ever at 30+. I just personally think it should be to the credit of Roger, and not to the detriment of the era that he is still up there.

Also, for what it's worth... Whilst I think the current top 4 is extremely strong, as a top 6 you have to say that the 85 list with Becker and co is very impressive.

by bogbrush Mon 22 Oct - 22:29

CaledonianCraig wrote:
bogbrush wrote:Hmmm. Pete didn't, and he was pretty good.

Yes Pete won the US Open in his 30's. Admittedly, his career never spanned much further after that but he did manage it. As I say GOAT's will find a way.

That was a bit of a fluke sat in the middle of a desert. I remember really wanting him to do it and knowing everything hung on Agassi beating Hewitt; the match up gave Andre a good chance whereas Pete would have been humiliated by Lleyton.

Andre himself had an incredible comeback late on but there was aways something very odd about the swings and roundabouts of his career.

I think this Federer Indian Summer is really surprising, especially given its commonly agreed that fitness plays a bigger part than ever. Sure, he's hardly old but still, it's quite a big thing to pull off. I didn't expect it at all.

by CaledonianCraig Mon 22 Oct - 22:38

Like I said though BB you can expect GOAT's to do this sort of thing as referred to with those sporting greats. If Agassi could manage to win a slam at 33 I wouldn't write off Fed yet. I am not sure how his mind works but I'd guess he isn't one to want to carry on playing if he can no longer compete for the biggest prizes so he still evidently feels very good in himself.

by socal1976 Mon 22 Oct - 23:20

Or connors making a USO semi at 39 years of age in one of the toughest periods of top flight competition that we can remember. Rosewall I believe was 38 when he played his last grandslam final if I remember my history books correctly.

by HM Murdock Tue 23 Oct - 9:21

The difficulty in this comparison is that we know what the final accomplishments of the players from 1985 are. Their legacy is known fact and their standing in the game is established.

We don't know that about the current top 8. This is especially relevant as two of the significant members of that group (Novak and Andy) are just hitting their prime and may be in the process of building big reputations.

If we were to look at the top 8 from the perspective of December 1985, at that point Lendl had only won 2 slams and had more of a reputation as a slam loser (having lost 6). Wilander was only on 3 slams, Edberg and Becker were on 1 slam.

So although that batch of names went on to greatness, many were not yet great in Dec 1985.

Similarly, if, for argument's sake, Novak ends his career with 10 slams and Andy with 5 slams, today's top 8 will look rather more impressive in the future than it does now.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 23 Oct - 9:25

It Must Be Love wrote:
socal1976 wrote:But the majority of the top 8; murray, Djoko, berdy, Tsonga, and Nadal were all born within an 18 month period. Can you say golden generation?
I don't like labelling, but I do admit to have that list of players born in an 18 months period ain't bad at all.

IMBL/socal, Tsonga was born 25 months before Djoko, and isn't in that list.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 23 Oct - 9:55

HM, I'd say it was the players currently at 5 - 8 that need to improve to make this top 8 the strongest in history. I wouldn't rate any of them (including JMDP on 2012 form) as genuine slam contenders in any era.
Whereas in the 1985 there are 6 slam contenders for the next slam (possibly 5, if you excliude Connors).
One could even make a case for the YE top 10 2004 having more strength in depth (if you can say that with a list of only 8 players), though it's not as top 4 heavy.
1 Roger Federer
2 Andy Roddick
3 Lleyton Hewitt
4 Marat Safin
5 Carlos Moya
6 Tim Henman
7 Guillermo Coria
8 Andre Agassi

For me the strongest top 8 can't include a number 5 who never has been and never will be a serious slam challenger.

The danger with this kind of 'snapshot' comparison though (apart from the innumerable unknowns that we all think we know) is that we'll soon be calling December 1985 an 'era'..... 'Do you remember the 1980s, when Borg, Lendl, McEnroe, Connors, Edberg, Becker and Wilander were all in the top 4 at the same time. What an era that was!"

by CaledonianCraig Tue 23 Oct - 10:09

But again JHM that is being subjective as how can you say, Henman was a serious contender and yet not call David Ferrer one and likewise Tomas Berdych as as the least they reached slam finals whereas Henman didn't.

by dummy_half Tue 23 Oct - 10:11

I remember a few months back there was a thread discussing whether the current top 4 was the strongest ever (at least since the computer rankings began). The conclusion was that they would certainly be in any discussion along with some mid 90s and mid 80s.

I'm sure I found a top 7 or 8 (from about 86/87) which was all slam winners, including several multiple slam winners, which I think shows greater strength in depth than the current top 8 - while the top 4 are very strong, Ferrer at 5 is there by virtue of consistency and rarely losing to those below him but rarely beating those above, while the remaining 3 have big games but are inconsistent. Not a bad top 8 by any means, but for me there is too big a gap between the top 4 and 5-8.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 23 Oct - 10:15

CaledonianCraig wrote:But again JHM that is being subjective as how can you say, Henman was a serious contender and yet not call David Ferrer one and likewise Tomas Berdych as as the least they reached slam finals whereas Henman didn't.

Alas, Henman wasn't one of them Smile

A serious contender for giving me a heart attack though.

As I said - "One could even make a case for....", which I thought indicated subjectivity.

by CaledonianCraig Tue 23 Oct - 10:50

Oh of course. Each list you put up here you could pick holes in. I mean in that 2004 list you could say, if I remember correctly, that Carlos Moya and Guillermo Coria were contenders only on clay and once Nadal arrived on the scene they were no longer contenders whilst Agassi was in the absolute twilight of his career. If I were to look to pick holes in the here and now it would be Ferrer, Tsonga and Berdych being slamless. For me the overwhelming strength of this current era is the top four and it acts to counter balance the perhaps weaker look of five through to ten though there are some exceptions there.

by barrystar Tue 23 Oct - 12:21

JuliusHMarx wrote:
The danger with this kind of 'snapshot' comparison though (apart from the innumerable unknowns that we all think we know) is that we'll soon be calling December 1985 an 'era'..... 'Do you remember the 1980s, when Borg, Lendl, McEnroe, Connors, Edberg, Becker and Wilander were all in the top 4 at the same time. What an era that was!"

Quite so - and a top 4 containing 7 players would indisputably be the greatest of all time.

My answer to the OP is that you can't tell until the end of everyone's careers, but probably not. This top 8 does not appear have true slam-winning credentials beyond #4 - and I say that with all due deference to Del Boy, who is incredibly tough to beat when on song, but doesn't manage it nearly often enough against the top players, in fact I can think of 3 matches when he has in the last 3 years (USO SF/F 2009, Olympics Bronze Match 2012).

by HM Murdock Tue 23 Oct - 12:30

JuliusHMarx wrote:HM, I'd say it was the players currently at 5 - 8 that need to improve to make this top 8 the strongest in history. I wouldn't rate any of them (including JMDP on 2012 form) as genuine slam contenders in any era.

Yes, that's a fair argument. The claims for this era being the best rest mainly upon the top 4. If you compare the current top 4 to the 1985 top 4:
1) Federer (17 slams) v Lendl (2 slams)
2) Djokovic (5 slams) v McEnroe (7 slams)
3) Murray (1 slams) v Wilander (3 slams)
4) Nadal (11 slams) v Connors (8 slams)

Total: 34 slams v 20 slams

Numbers 5 - 8 aren't drastically different: 1 slam today, 3 slams in 1985. The big difference is that Edberg and Becker went on to make significant marks on the game but you don't get that sense from the current crop (Del Potro being a possible exception).

by User 774433 Tue 23 Oct - 13:28

HM Murdoch wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:HM, I'd say it was the players currently at 5 - 8 that need to improve to make this top 8 the strongest in history. I wouldn't rate any of them (including JMDP on 2012 form) as genuine slam contenders in any era.

Yes, that's a fair argument. The claims for this era being the best rest mainly upon the top 4. If you compare the current top 4 to the 1985 top 4:
1) Federer (17 slams) v Lendl (2 slams)
2) Djokovic (5 slams) v McEnroe (7 slams)
3) Murray (1 slams) v Wilander (3 slams)
4) Nadal (11 slams) v Connors (8 slams)

Total: 34 slams v 20 slams

Numbers 5 - 8 aren't drastically different: 1 slam today, 3 slams in 1985. The big difference is that Edberg and Becker went on to make significant marks on the game but you don't get that sense from the current crop (Del Potro being a possible exception).

Excellent re-search HM Murdoch. thumbsup

I agree that there is a big gap between 1-4 and 5-8; but this is because at the moment we have had a brilliant top 4. When one of the top 4 haven't reached the semi-finals, then to be fair to the players they have always stepped in.
French Open- Ferrer reached semi
Wimbledon- Tsonga reached semi
US Open- Berdych reached semi

Ferrer I think could be seen as a weak link, but I actually believe it's good to have one rock solid consistent player in the top 8. Berdych, Tsonga, and Del P have all shown they can upset the big guns on their day, but are inconsistent.

by User 774433 Tue 23 Oct - 13:38

JuliusHMarx wrote:
One could even make a case for the YE top 10 2004 having more strength in depth (if you can say that with a list of only 8 players), though it's not as top 4 heavy.
1 Roger Federer
2 Andy Roddick
3 Lleyton Hewitt
4 Marat Safin
5 Carlos Moya
6 Tim Henman
7 Guillermo Coria
8 Andre Agassi
For me the strongest top 8 can't include a number 5 who never has been and never will be a serious slam challenger.

Well that's an interesting list of the 2004 rankings. After that point funnily enough only 2 players from those 8 went on to win more slams (and Safin was a bit of surprise shock at the time).

by HM Murdock Tue 23 Oct - 13:50

It Must Be Love wrote:Ferrer I think could be seen as a weak link, but I actually believe it's good to have one rock solid consistent player in the top 8. Berdych, Tsonga, and Del P have all shown they can upset the big guns on their day, but are inconsistent.

Ferrer seems like a nice guy but I just don't think he brings anything to the party. Functional game, low-key personality, no big tournament wins.

Tsonga brings personality and eccentricity, Del Potro brings power and quiet charisma, Berdych has power and sometime fills the role of pantomime villain.

If the top ten is a body, Ferrer is the appendix. It's nice enough to have him but you wouldn't really miss him if he went.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 23 Oct - 13:57

HM Murdoch wrote:If the top ten is a body, Ferrer is the appendix. It's nice enough to have him but you wouldn't really miss him if he went.

Which brings us nicely to my favourite M*A*S*H joke :-
Hawkeye Pierce (upon diagnosing appendicitis) - That's right up my alley, I wrote the book on the appendix. I even wrote the appendix, but they took that out.

by sirfredperry Tue 23 Oct - 15:18

The 1985 top eight looks particularly tasty and these comparisons are always a lot of fun.
One observation at the moment is just how few tourneys the likes of Tsonga and Berdych have won, simply cause the top four have gobbled up most - almost all - of the big prizes.
Incidentally we are getting to see almost as much consistency in the rankings 5-8 as in the top four with the 5-8 names being made up of Ferrer, Berdbrain, JWT and either Tipsy or JMDP.
It's certainly not a weak top eight but not sure it's the strongest ever. Wonder if anyone can work out/dig out the top eight in, say, 1968-70 when the likes of Laver, Roche, Newcombe, Rosewall and Gonzalez were around ?

by socal1976 Tue 23 Oct - 17:42

JuliusHMarx wrote:HM, I'd say it was the players currently at 5 - 8 that need to improve to make this top 8 the strongest in history. I wouldn't rate any of them (including JMDP on 2012 form) as genuine slam contenders in any era.
Whereas in the 1985 there are 6 slam contenders for the next slam (possibly 5, if you excliude Connors).
One could even make a case for the YE top 10 2004 having more strength in depth (if you can say that with a list of only 8 players), though it's not as top 4 heavy.
1 Roger Federer
2 Andy Roddick
3 Lleyton Hewitt
4 Marat Safin
5 Carlos Moya
6 Tim Henman
7 Guillermo Coria
8 Andre Agassi

For me the strongest top 8 can't include a number 5 who never has been and never will be a serious slam challenger.

The danger with this kind of 'snapshot' comparison though (apart from the innumerable unknowns that we all think we know) is that we'll soon be calling December 1985 an 'era'..... 'Do you remember the 1980s, when Borg, Lendl, McEnroe, Connors, Edberg, Becker and Wilander were all in the top 4 at the same time. What an era that was!"

I don't see this top 8 as impressive in the least. As IMBL stated only 2 members went on to win slams, Safin went on to win 1 more and fed went on to win a truckload more. If anything this is a perfect example of the weak era top 8. Hewitt was basically a non-factor a year or two later. Roddick as world #2 is way weak sauce, I rate everyone of the top 4 guys today as far superior to roddick. Safin wonderful talent but a highly inconsistent and unfocused athlete who he himself admitted that he never fully committed himself to the game and yet he managed to win two slams without even caring that much about tennis. Carlos Moya and Coria I don't think are the equal of Federer or Djokovic on clay let alone Nadal. And Agassi as brilliant as he was, was about Tommy Haas' age now.

by User 774433 Tue 23 Oct - 17:48

socal1976 wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:HM, I'd say it was the players currently at 5 - 8 that need to improve to make this top 8 the strongest in history. I wouldn't rate any of them (including JMDP on 2012 form) as genuine slam contenders in any era.
Whereas in the 1985 there are 6 slam contenders for the next slam (possibly 5, if you excliude Connors).
One could even make a case for the YE top 10 2004 having more strength in depth (if you can say that with a list of only 8 players), though it's not as top 4 heavy.
1 Roger Federer
2 Andy Roddick
3 Lleyton Hewitt
4 Marat Safin
5 Carlos Moya
6 Tim Henman
7 Guillermo Coria
8 Andre Agassi

For me the strongest top 8 can't include a number 5 who never has been and never will be a serious slam challenger.

The danger with this kind of 'snapshot' comparison though (apart from the innumerable unknowns that we all think we know) is that we'll soon be calling December 1985 an 'era'..... 'Do you remember the 1980s, when Borg, Lendl, McEnroe, Connors, Edberg, Becker and Wilander were all in the top 4 at the same time. What an era that was!"

I don't see this top 8 as impressive in the least. As IMBL stated only 2 members went on to win slams, Safin went on to win 1 more and fed went on to win a truckload more. If anything this is a perfect example of the weak era top 8. Hewitt was basically a non-factor a year or two later. Roddick as world #2 is way weak sauce, I rate everyone of the top 4 guys today as far superior to roddick. Safin wonderful talent but a highly inconsistent and unfocused athlete who he himself admitted that he never fully committed himself to the game and yet he managed to win two slams without even caring that much about tennis. Carlos Moya and Coria I don't think are the equal of Federer or Djokovic on clay let alone Nadal. And Agassi as brilliant as he was, was about Tommy Haas' age now.

Yes, I agree, I don't think that top 8 doesn't look very strong at all

by socal1976 Tue 23 Oct - 17:50

HM Murdoch wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:HM, I'd say it was the players currently at 5 - 8 that need to improve to make this top 8 the strongest in history. I wouldn't rate any of them (including JMDP on 2012 form) as genuine slam contenders in any era.

Yes, that's a fair argument. The claims for this era being the best rest mainly upon the top 4. If you compare the current top 4 to the 1985 top 4:
1) Federer (17 slams) v Lendl (2 slams)
2) Djokovic (5 slams) v McEnroe (7 slams)
3) Murray (1 slams) v Wilander (3 slams)
4) Nadal (11 slams) v Connors (8 slams)

Total: 34 slams v 20 slams

Numbers 5 - 8 aren't drastically different: 1 slam today, 3 slams in 1985. The big difference is that Edberg and Becker went on to make significant marks on the game but you don't get that sense from the current crop (Del Potro being a possible exception).

Great post Murdoch absolutely correct. In terms of objective accomplishments and consistency the current guys are the best that I can think of. Plus as you stated so astutely and I alluded to as well the 85 guys have the benefit of being judged on a full career. Of the current top 4 it is a pretty safe bet that 3 of 4 of the top guys will go on to win more slams in the future. Then looking back in retrospect their career numbers will be even more impressive than they appear now. This in fact is the principal reason that I rate this a golden generation.

People get bogged down too much in my opinion in even talking about these 5-8 players. The quality of the top 400, top 100 and even second tier top ten players rarely matters as to who wins or loses a slam. By in large due to the hierarchical nature of tournament tennis the top 3-4 maybe at best 5 guys of any given period decide the major honors. Slams are never won in the first week they can only be lost in the first week. For a federer, murray, Djoko, or Nadal do you think they care very much if the number 39 player they play in the second or 3rd is marginally better or worse? As long as they play some sembelance of their game they carve the guy up like swiss cheese either way.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 23 Oct - 17:55

socal1976 wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:HM, I'd say it was the players currently at 5 - 8 that need to improve to make this top 8 the strongest in history. I wouldn't rate any of them (including JMDP on 2012 form) as genuine slam contenders in any era.
Whereas in the 1985 there are 6 slam contenders for the next slam (possibly 5, if you excliude Connors).
One could even make a case for the YE top 10 2004 having more strength in depth (if you can say that with a list of only 8 players), though it's not as top 4 heavy.
1 Roger Federer
2 Andy Roddick
3 Lleyton Hewitt
4 Marat Safin
5 Carlos Moya
6 Tim Henman
7 Guillermo Coria
8 Andre Agassi

For me the strongest top 8 can't include a number 5 who never has been and never will be a serious slam challenger.

The danger with this kind of 'snapshot' comparison though (apart from the innumerable unknowns that we all think we know) is that we'll soon be calling December 1985 an 'era'..... 'Do you remember the 1980s, when Borg, Lendl, McEnroe, Connors, Edberg, Becker and Wilander were all in the top 4 at the same time. What an era that was!"

I don't see this top 8 as impressive in the least.

I know you don't, but I do. That's subjectivity for you.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 23 Oct - 17:56

socal1976 wrote:
HM Murdoch wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:HM, I'd say it was the players currently at 5 - 8 that need to improve to make this top 8 the strongest in history. I wouldn't rate any of them (including JMDP on 2012 form) as genuine slam contenders in any era.

Yes, that's a fair argument. The claims for this era being the best rest mainly upon the top 4. If you compare the current top 4 to the 1985 top 4:
1) Federer (17 slams) v Lendl (2 slams)
2) Djokovic (5 slams) v McEnroe (7 slams)
3) Murray (1 slams) v Wilander (3 slams)
4) Nadal (11 slams) v Connors (8 slams)

Total: 34 slams v 20 slams

Numbers 5 - 8 aren't drastically different: 1 slam today, 3 slams in 1985. The big difference is that Edberg and Becker went on to make significant marks on the game but you don't get that sense from the current crop (Del Potro being a possible exception).

Great post Murdoch absolutely correct.

Is that the post where Murdoch says I have a fair argument? Smile

by socal1976 Tue 23 Oct - 18:45

No its whatever post he doesn't agree with you on. LOL

by User 774433 Tue 23 Oct - 19:03

socal1976 wrote:No its whatever post he doesn't agree with you on. LOL

Is this the strongest top 8 in history? 2009+Australian+Open+Day+14+1d6cf3IVKWNl

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 23 Oct - 19:10

Hey Roger, come back to my place, we can bite the trophy together

by User 774433 Tue 23 Oct - 19:12

JuliusHMarx wrote:Hey Roger, come back to my place, we can bite the trophy together

lol.
I have a poll running for best shot (out of those 5 awesome/ incredible/ any other thing American commentators say when they get excited shots).

by captain carrantuohil Tue 23 Oct - 21:50

Have to say that I like the look of the year end top 8 of 1979. Apart from the number 8 himself, it seems to stand comparison with most of the Open era.

1) Borg 2) Connors 3) McEnroe 4) Gerulaitis 5) Tanner 6) Vilas 7) Ashe 8) Solomon.

by Sponsored content