Is this the strongest top 8 in history?

First topic message reminder :

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

Erm.. you addressed me first. But don't let facts get in the way of YOUR narrative.

Ps - I'm not looking for a fight either, I have a greater enemy, who is still at large.



emancipator

CaledonianCraig wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes socal I do see what you are saying there but perhaps it just means we cannot fully judge this era yet as it is on-going. Now I know for me when I look at these top ten lists names jump out at me and make impressions. The mid-70's, late 70's ones and the mid-80's one does that but the one I posted on the other thread (2004) doesn't have that effect for me.

Yes I agree I mean you see a big name on that list and you instantly think well that guy makes that period very tough. But unless you look at what state his game and career was in at the time of that list and freeze right there then the analysis is skewed. Because player X could be on a major tailspin when the list was made, or he could be really old, or he could go on to great things by becoming a better player, that doesn't mean that when he appeared on that list he was at his prime or relevant. In short since we can't impute future success to the modern guys, you can't do that for the past lists that are produced. I mean you can, you just will always overvalue the older guys because you are judging them on the totality of a career, while the current guys you are looking at them in the here and now.

Yes I see what you are saying and in the same way detractors of this era could say the same. As in how do we know Fed is not now finished as a slam winner and so way past his best and Nadal is injured so nothing can be taken for granted for him but I reckon he can win more slams. The unknown also is Djokovic and Murray and how many slams they will end up with - nothing is guaranteed. Like I said I find that whatever top ten is put up it has strengths and weaknesses that can be picked away at.

Yes and those detractors say it all the time that Roger isn't part of these group of players although he is the greatest of all time and has been playing well and was only 25 or 26 when the current guys took the scene. That is why I did a list with Roger taken out of the list to see how this period plays out minus federer. Even minus federer they lap the 2000 guys over and over and over again in terms of accomplishment. Some people are happy enough to coronate Roger as the goat because he won so much, but are unwilling to rate the current players better than his contemporaries because well Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray winning more than Rog's early contemporaries is no evidence of them being better. See it doesn't make sense. Is Roger the GOAT, they will answer yes, why is he the goat because of his objective succcess. Why are the current guys better than the early 2000 guys, you got it because they won more and had more objective success, the same reason why fed is seen as GOAT. But they won't take that logical leap.

emancipator wrote:Erm.. you addressed me first. But don't let facts get in the way of YOUR narrative.

Ps - I'm not looking for a fight either, I have a greater enemy, who is still at large.



emancipator

OK truce, but you really did hurt my feelings with that last post before you left, emancipator. I thought a PM at the least would have been better. But whatever, bygones are bygones and I never considered you a rival or enemy before that post in question which is why it left me a bit puzzled. Either way I am happy you are back. Next time you think I am a giant A hole try to send me a pm about it. I prefer that to a lengthy suicide note pointing to me as the cause of all your ills and then leaving.

Well like I said I do hold by my belief that the current era is better than that of around 2004. All the signs point to it and I've yet to see anyone to post something to convince me otherwise. It is not an overly controversial assessment and just to add I am not laying claim to this current era being the strongest of all-time.

Ok I'm sorry, that was a bit mean.

emancipator wrote:Ok I'm sorry, that was a bit mean.

Ok and I am sorry for being in such a pissy mood that I caused you to get fed up. Certainly, I am not faultless either and since you agree that your conduct was mean, I can't say that I am snow white angel either, I certainly can be antagonistic when in the mood.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well like I said I do hold by my belief that the current era is better than that of around 2004. All the signs point to it and I've yet to see anyone to post something to convince me otherwise. It is not an overly controversial assessment and just to add I am not laying claim to this current era being the strongest of all-time.

Me neither craig, although I think they are in the running if the top guys keep performing like they are. But as you said, you can not do a really fair assessment until the current guys have a full career. It is too soon to tell if they are the best top 8 ever. I personally think the 80s and early 90s had some better top 8s. But to get a really fair gauge we will have to see how the current guys finish out. I basically agree with your post and come to most of the same conclusions. No question the 2004 list or 2000 list are not as strong though, although that is a very unpopular position to hold the facts are what they are. If they were better they would have won more.

Some interesting debate so far, good stuff guys

Just a few points I would like to add:

1/ Does what happens after the period we are assessing actually make a difference to that period.
For example suppose we look back a few decades later on this period where the top 4 have been together.
Now let's say the top 4 have been together from 2008-2012/3. In the 5 years the top 4 have been together so far, I have been very impressed at the high quality of all the competitors in this 4, and their matches.
But what difference does it make how Djokovic and Murray play after this period? Between 2013-2017 Djokovic and Murray could win 5 slams each, and be remembered as great players. Alternatively Djokovic and Murray could win only 1 more slam each due to bad play/injury.
But either way, why should it make a difference when we asses the period the top 4 have been together. Surely we should judge the quality of play in that period, irrelevant of how some of them play after that.
There has been sensational play by these 4 in the time they have been in the top 4, and that's what I can judge it on.

2/ Do the circumstances matter?
I believe yes. For example some Top 8's from the past could potentially be manipulative. This is because it could contain one generation of players who are on the decline, retiring soon; and another generation who are up and coming and are not yet at their prime.
What impresses me about this top 4, is that they haven't just been a temporary make-shift. Since 2008 they've all been together, and despite all being at different stages of their career, they have played some magnificent tennis for a long time, making it difficult for each other to win the trophies.
And although I think the numbers 5-8 aren't the strongest, they have had a role to play in this too.
To give an idea of how this top 8 have dominated proceedings, here's this stat: Since 2007, apart from Soderling Gonzalez and Roddick, this top 8 have played in every single slam final. Every single slam semi-final this year has also contained a player from this Top 8.

It is all about what tennis you prefer. LF could tell you about the enthralling tennis that Laver and Gonzales played. They played in conditions which were super fast. A time when racquet and string evolution was a million miles away. The control they had to demonstrate just to produce a shot is nothing like today's.

Me I am an 80's child. I found that tennis to me the most exciting I have witnessed. You had Mac/Lendl and Becker/Edberg. As time has worn on I have been more tempted by the Vilas/Borg matches. The skill level in those matches are just ridiculous.

I think as emancipator said that the slam haul between any top 8 sometimes is not reflection of the quality of the tennis that was on display.

Yes good point LK.
I think this point is important, as it shows we can't 'prove' anything when comparing eras.


I believe on the whole if we look at a particular generation, we can analyse many aspects, but generally we can break it up into 3 aspects to analyse.
In this model, we must freeze time (it has to be a static model). It is actually very difficult to put a specific time period on anything, as tennis is always moving, always progressing.
1/ Strength in depth in top 50/100:
This is very difficult to judge, as you have to watch a lot of tennis to analyse this (outside the slams). Do they have variety? Do some of them have big weapons? Are they consistent?
Anyway, I believe I don't think this aspect actually makes a difference at all to the competitiveness at the top of the game, i.e. difficulty to win a slam. When someone like Djokovic looks at the draw the top 50-100 wouldn't be his biggest concern. Rosol was an exception I'm afraid, not the norm.
2/ Potential youngsters coming up, who are not yet world class:
There could be 10 under 19's in the top 200 etc. but I don't think at that particular point in time it's a worry for the big guns. Only later on, arguably when tennis moves on to another generation, will that be a worry. What happens if the young player is already world class when he is young (i.e. Becker, Nadal)? We look to point number 3.
3/ Number of world class players challenging for trophies at a particular point in time:
This I think is where Grand Slams are won and lost, the real important aspect for the top players in a certain generation. Whether the players are young or old doesn't make a big difference at that particular point in time, but later on obviously in the next generation the young players will still be present.
Common sense dictates that more world class players at a particular point in time makes the job of reaching a slam final that much harder. Thus I think this is the most important aspect, in terms of difficult of reaching a slam final/ winning a slam.

Conversely however this thesis could be floored by this counter argument:
We compare the top 10 of December 1995 and December 2005. Person C may say this: The whole top 10 of December 1995 was in my eyes 'world class', while none of the players in the top 10 of 2005 was world class.' Thus according to Person C's analysis: Federer is not the greatest of all time.
This is where people who have knowledge of tennis can come in, and make their points, and arguably each person's view can be both subjective and objective in the eyes of others.

Another thing we can try to do, although once again this is arguably subjective, is measure how many world class players are playing at the time given the conditions they are playing in.
At the moment I would say 4, across all surfaces. Only clay I'm not sure Murray is up there yet, but in 2013 I wouldn't be surprised if he did well at FO.

Great points IMBL, the consistency of the top guys is what for me takes the cake in at least rating this period to be very strong.

If you want an accurate comparison of today's players you have to look at each list as snapshot and not impute the future success that older players had to the date and time in question. Otherwise you are always going to overrate the older players because you are judging them on a total career and the current players you are judging on their current accomplishments.

I don't buy this argument that you can not do comparisons between players or periods of tennis. If that was the case we wouldn't be able to say that Bjorn Bjorg is better than Bjorn Phau. Or that Roger federer is the greatest of all time or the modern era or the open era. Comparisons become more difficult and more subjective as the conditions and technology have changed. But this idea that we can't compare the current crop of players to players who played on basically the same tour just 5 or 6 years ago is kind of silly in my opinion. Especially, in light of the fact that most of the players dominating now where young stars when these older guys were in their early to mid 20s, and these guys played and competed in the same tournaments for years.

Nothing is purely objective when it involves people, every argument is subjective and objective. Even statistics and science can be subjective as you give the same set of data to two sets of scientists and they will draw 180 degree different conclusions, and only time and testing will prove who is right. Therefore this idea that you can't compare players of today to the players of 2005 and 2006 I find a bit specious. The conditions and technology are very similar. The time frame is not remote, and we all have a wealth of memory and statistical knowledge about what was witnessed. Is there a right answer, yes I believe I am right. Is this belief completely subjective; No, it isn't because my analysis is based in objective facts. (ie slam totals, winning percentage, head to head). Therefore like most things in the world the weak era theory, is both objective and subjective, and while it can't be proven by 100 percent certainty, well very few things in the known universe have that kind of certainty. Even the laws of physics.

Does anyone have the rule book to this debate which tells me who wins, or does it just go to the last person to lose interest?

IMBL,

Looking at the points you mention are factually and statistically based. Which makes the bedrock of any debate.

I look at tennis as yes statistics play a massive part. If Federer had no Slam to his name he wouldn't enter any GOAT debate. My point is that for other posters or fans of the game tend to take all the achievements into account but then decide on the quality of tennis which bests match their preference. Like I said, I was an 80's boy and then thanks to the internet and ESPN Classic I was able to enjoy Vilas v Borg matches and I was just like wow. Purely because I felt that the skill and the sharpness they played with bettered anything I had witnessed.

We can go round the houses on strings, racquets, balls, surfaces and what not and everyone would come to a different opinion everytime. Players are products of their environments. Nadal for all the stick he gets is one of the best players in the modern era. Him being helped by his environment is not a crime. He is the best player to play within his environment. All this oh well if he played in Borg's day. How about what if Borg played nowadays? There is no conclusive proof that anyone can play every era.

I have seen Borg, Ashe, Connors, Vilas all play via media and I can say I enjoyed the matches they put on compared with what I have seen. Many will like today's tennis, some the 90's and some the 80's. Preference is that varied.

I enjoy the debate personally and feel that it provides interesting fodder for discussing the pros and cons of today's tour vis a vis what we have seen in the past.

Don't get me wrong even when I talk about weak era, I am not saying those guys couldn't play or it is just easy as pie to beat them. What I am saying is that although talented due to a plethora of reasons that involved players like Nalbandian, Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, and Ferrero they simply did not live up to expectation. And one can't point to the idea of federer beating them all in his prime. Losing to federer won't result in you being chased out of the top 10 or top 20 like most of these guys were even when healthy and in their mid 20s. Novak Djokovic lost 5 of the first 6 times he played federer in 2007 why was he able at 19 years old to raise up to #3 and win two masters that year? Why did Nadal or murray not wilt in the face of federer to the extent his contemporaries wilted even when they wer teenagers.

In short it is a matter of degree, it is never even in a slightly down period easy to dominate the tour like fed did. But fed's greatness does not indirectly rub off on players who the game passd by while they were still in their prime. Roddick to some extent did mangage out of this group to stay somewhat relevant, but he wasn't winning any slams either. The rest of these guys as great as they were struggled to break into the top 10 or 15, once the Djoko/Nadal/murray generation took over, and that can't be because they were just losing to one guy. Losing to one guy is what Nadal did in 2011, people say he had a bad year but he won a slam and reached 7 straight finals. This was not the case of Hewitt, Ferrero, Roddick, and Safin dominating everyone else on tour and just losing to Roger. At least that certainly wasn't the case by the time the Murray, Nadal, Djoko group of guys broke on the scene.

socal1976 wrote: In short it is a matter of degree, it is never even in a slightly down period easy to dominate the tour like fed did. But fed's greatness does not indirectly rub off on players who the game passd by while they were still in their prime. Roddick to some extent did mangage out of this group to stay somewhat relevant, but he wasn't winning any slams either. The rest of these guys as great as they were struggled to break into the top 10 or 15, once the Djoko/Nadal/murray generation took over, and that can't be because they were just losing to one guy. Losing to one guy is what Nadal did in 2011, people say he had a bad year but he won a slam and reached 7 straight finals. This was not the case of Hewitt, Ferrero, Roddick, and Safin dominating everyone else on tour and just losing to Roger. At least that certainly wasn't the case by the time the Murray, Nadal, Djoko group of guys broke on the scene.

This can be inferred in another way , i.e the current era is a weak era and hence top 4 find it easy to dominate the top 100 , and in 2003-2007, the top 50 or top 100 where more challanging and hence no stable top 4 like today's era.

The weak era, golden era debate is for blind selective person who just think and see one dimensionally and come to a conclusion without any subjectivity or objectivity.

If stats are to be taken into account like the way its done here, then 2000-2003 might be one of the strongest era a coz it had champs like Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, Hewitt, Safin, Federer, Keurton, Roddick etc,...

bogbrush wrote:Does anyone have the rule book to this debate which tells me who wins, or does it just go to the last person to lose interest?

Its always the last person who lose interest, and in some peculiar case the last person who lose interest opens up the same debate in another thread with slightly different topic heading but the same theme.

I guess all these golden era debates are for those fans whose hero could not out beat their rivals in terms of title and stats, so inorder to compensate his/her hero's lack-headiness some new constraints like strong era are introduced, this kinda things unfortunately will never die.

To confuse this debate further, I see the current era as the weakest one coz Murray is able to pull of a title which he struggled to do it in the past inspite of having the capability to do it in the past as well. , So end of debate.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

The weak era, golden era debate is for blind selective person who just think and see one dimensionally and come to a conclusion without any subjectivity or objectivity.

Well that's a bit of a rude entry there IC, that's disappointing I didn't think you were like that previously.
Who exactly are you referring to btw, you've quoted Socal but you're continuously chastising me for writing this article, so I'm not sure who you're talking to.

If it is me, can you find out where I've labelled any era as you've claimed??
I do remember saying that every generation has positives and negatives, and I listed 3 possible aspects of how you can analyse. One of them was up and coming younger players which Lydian has talked about as a weakness currently, and I agree with Lydian on this one. Another aspect was the world class players at the top, and this is shown in my article.
I also said (as did LK and a few others) there's always an element of objectivity when comparing generations, as we can't directly compare them.

invisiblecoolers wrote:
I guess all these golden era debates are for those fans whose hero could not out beat their rivals in terms of title and stats, so inorder to compensate his/her hero's lack-headiness some new constraints like strong era are introduced, this kinda things unfortunately will never die.

OK now you're definitely talking about me.
Have you even read the article??
I'm a Nadal fan, whose main rival is Federer. This isn't a Fedal debate, in-fact it's the opposite.
Federer is part of this top 8, and is an incredible player who adds so much to the top. If not for him, this top 8 would be much weaker.
It's a Fed+Nadal vs cetera debate, more than a Federer vs Nadal debate.

invisiblecoolers wrote:
To confuse this debate further, I see the current era as the weakest one coz Murray is able to pull of a title which he struggled to do it in the past inspite of having the capability to do it in the past as well. , So end of debate.

Umm... Ok.
Doesn't seem like the most convincing argument to me, but you can hold that opinion if you like.

legendkillarV2 wrote:IMBL,

Looking at the points you mention are factually and statistically based. Which makes the bedrock of any debate.

I look at tennis as yes statistics play a massive part. If Federer had no Slam to his name he wouldn't enter any GOAT debate. My point is that for other posters or fans of the game tend to take all the achievements into account but then decide on the quality of tennis which bests match their preference. Like I said, I was an 80's boy and then thanks to the internet and ESPN Classic I was able to enjoy Vilas v Borg matches and I was just like wow. Purely because I felt that the skill and the sharpness they played with bettered anything I had witnessed.

We can go round the houses on strings, racquets, balls, surfaces and what not and everyone would come to a different opinion everytime. Players are products of their environments. Nadal for all the stick he gets is one of the best players in the modern era. Him being helped by his environment is not a crime. He is the best player to play within his environment. All this oh well if he played in Borg's day. How about what if Borg played nowadays? There is no conclusive proof that anyone can play every era.

I have seen Borg, Ashe, Connors, Vilas all play via media and I can say I enjoyed the matches they put on compared with what I have seen. Many will like today's tennis, some the 90's and some the 80's. Preference is that varied.

wow Legendkiller, that's an absolutely fantastic post.

Also during this debate we can keep this in mind:
Every 10 years 40 slams are won

A possible way of looking at this is judging how many world class players are there at the time, in the given set of conditions. Of course judging which players are 'world class' requires subjectivity as well though

Socal also makes a good point that sometimes it is necessary to make a 'subjective leap of assumption'.
For example if we ask who is greater out of Bjorn Phau and Bjorn Borg, it could be argued that the quality of play is much higher now than it was in the 80's than Phau is actually greater. Alternatively one could argue that this isn't the case and Borg is much greater.
At the end no one can prove their case, as it can't be proved. Either could be right.
This is when we have to make a 'subjective leap of assumption' based on stats, logic and knowledge to safely conclude Bjorn Borg is the greater player.

The problem is though you could take a misleading 'leap' to try and fit your agenda, and I have been guilty of this in the past.

It Must Be Love wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:

The weak era, golden era debate is for blind selective person who just think and see one dimensionally and come to a conclusion without any subjectivity or objectivity.

Well that's a bit of a rude entry there IC, that's disappointing I didn't think you were like that previously.
Who exactly are you referring to btw, you've quoted Socal but you're continuously chastising me for writing this article, so I'm not sure who you're talking to.

If it is me, can you find out where I've labelled any era as you've claimed??
I do remember saying that every generation has positives and negatives, and I listed 3 possible aspects of how you can analyse. One of them was up and coming younger players which Lydian has talked about as a weakness currently, and I agree with Lydian on this one. Another aspect was the world class players at the top, and this is shown in my article.
I also said (as did LK and a few others) there's always an element of objectivity when comparing generations, as we can't directly compare them.

IMBL relax Bud, you are one of my fav posters here , nothing is intended on u personally, I just didn't like the argument weak era just to support a personal fav player, you know who do that, and you know to whom that was addressed for, so in no way its pointed to u.

In my view any era that had a Nadal/Fed is a golden era, they have proved it enough and only silly people would differ that.

IMBL, lets agree to one aspect you have posted some gr8 thread which at times might not have attracted enough comments, coz people read it enjoy it and leave, in comparison this might have attracted a lot of comments but for me it sounds a bit vague thread.

No.of comments never determine whether a thread is good or not.

Very similar no of Grandslams don't determine the strength of the era.

invisiblecoolers wrote:
IMBL relax Bud, you are one of my fav posters here , nothing is intended on u personally, I just didn't like the argument weak era just to support a personal fav player, you know who do that, and you know to whom that was addressed for, so in no way its pointed to u.

Ah, it was Socal then.
Either way I feel he made some good points (imo), if you disagree then counter his points by all means.

invisiblecoolers wrote:
In my view any era that had a Nadal/Fed is a golden era, they have proved it enough and only silly people would differ that.

Interesting theory.
Certainly I think Bogbrush would disagree with that, and he's not a 'silly' poster, so I'm not too convinced.

invisiblecoolers wrote:IMBL, lets agree to one aspect you have posted some gr8 thread which at times might not have attracted enough comments, coz people read it enjoy it and leave,

Thanks

invisiblecoolers wrote:
in comparison this might have attracted a lot of comments but for me it sounds a bit vague thread.

Well the premise of the article was clear in the title, but if you have any suggestions on how to make it clearer don't hesitate to notify me.
I didn't actually reach a definitive conclusion in the article; this was for a few reasons. Firstly it is difficult to reach one when comparing generations across time periods. Secondly I wanted to leave it open, for debate purposes.

invisiblecoolers wrote:
Very similar no of Grandslams don't determine the strength of the era.

In a given time period there is always a set number of Grand Slams to be won.

It Must Be Love wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:
IMBL relax Bud, you are one of my fav posters here , nothing is intended on u personally, I just didn't like the argument weak era just to support a personal fav player, you know who do that, and you know to whom that was addressed for, so in no way its pointed to u.

Ah, it was Socal then.
Either way I feel he made some good points (imo), if you disagree then counter his points by all means.

He made silly points as usual and I have countered it simple and easy with my previous statement.

invisiblecoolers wrote:
In my view any era that had a Nadal/Fed is a golden era, they have proved it enough and only silly people would differ that.

Interesting theory.

Certainly I think Bogbrush would disagree with that, and he's not a 'silly' poster, so I'm not too convinced.

I don't care whether BB agrees to it or not, he has his own view point and I have my own, can you prove me one place where he said those words ? coz blunt statements are not good , if you prove me then in my view he is a silly poster, so lemme wait for you proof.

It Must Be Love wrote:

Well the premise of the article was clear in the title, but if you have any suggestions on how to make it clearer don't hesitate to notify me.
I didn't actually reach a definitive conclusion in the article; this was for a few reasons. Firstly it is difficult to reach one when comparing generations across time periods. Secondly I wanted to leave it open, for debate purposes.

I can say a definite conclusion, there is no set answer to this dicussion and it just provokes meaningless discussion, whether the current top 8 is stronger or weaker a Grandslam win is a win and a loss is a loss.

invisiblecoolers wrote:
Very similar no of Grandslams don't determine the strength of the era.

In a given time period there is always a set number of Grand Slams to be won.[/quote]

Finally you got the message.

I don't care whether BB agrees to it or not, he has his own view point and I have my own, can you prove me one place where he said those words ? coz blunt statements are not good , if you prove me then in my view he is a silly poster, so lemme wait for you proof.

You want proof Bogbrush doesn't think this is a Golden Era:
https://www.606v2.com/t32885-to-the-last-remaining-golden-era-adherents
I don't see why having this opinion makes him a 'silly' poster.

I can say a definite conclusion, there is no set answer to this dicussion and it just provokes meaningless discussion,

If you don't want to debate on this, then don't.
I thought there was some interesting discussions, HM Murdochs points yesterday were very impressive and interesting.

whether the current top 8 is stronger or weaker a Grandslam win is a win and a loss is a loss.

Well obviously...

invisiblecoolers wrote:

socal1976 wrote: In short it is a matter of degree, it is never even in a slightly down period easy to dominate the tour like fed did. But fed's greatness does not indirectly rub off on players who the game passd by while they were still in their prime. Roddick to some extent did mangage out of this group to stay somewhat relevant, but he wasn't winning any slams either. The rest of these guys as great as they were struggled to break into the top 10 or 15, once the Djoko/Nadal/murray generation took over, and that can't be because they were just losing to one guy. Losing to one guy is what Nadal did in 2011, people say he had a bad year but he won a slam and reached 7 straight finals. This was not the case of Hewitt, Ferrero, Roddick, and Safin dominating everyone else on tour and just losing to Roger. At least that certainly wasn't the case by the time the Murray, Nadal, Djoko group of guys broke on the scene.

This can be inferred in another way , i.e the current era is a weak era and hence top 4 find it easy to dominate the top 100 , and in 2003-2007, the top 50 or top 100 where more challanging and hence no stable top 4 like today's era.

The weak era, golden era debate is for blind selective person who just think and see one dimensionally and come to a conclusion without any subjectivity or objectivity.

If stats are to be taken into account like the way its done here, then 2000-2003 might be one of the strongest era a coz it had champs like Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, Hewitt, Safin, Federer, Keurton, Roddick etc,...

If i respond to your snide comments and not so subtle insults will you write another whiney goodbye post and run away? Because if so I don't want to waste anymore of my time on you.

The one part of the Golden Era thing I never get is that it coincides with Federer starting to lose to a load of matches to people who aren't new, which to me suggests his level dropped.
I can recognise a period as being more competitive, but if the best player drops his level I can't see that as particularly great news.

2008 included losses to Blake at the Olympics, Roddick, Fish. This was unthinkable even a year earlier. It's been followed by further surprising results (in the context of 2003-7) since.

bogbrush wrote:The one part of the Golden Era thing I never get is that it coincides with Federer starting to lose to a load of matches to people who aren't new, which to me suggests his level dropped.
I can recognise a period as being more competitive, but if the best player drops his level I can't see that as particularly great news.

2008 included losses to Blake at the Olympics, Roddick, Fish. This was unthinkable even a year earlier. It's been followed by further surprising results (in the context of 2003-7) since.

Yes federer's level dropped in 2008 but by 2009 he was number 1 again, albeit Nadal got hurt. What I would say to your contention is that fed's drop off was more than made up for by Nadal, Murray, Djoko, and Del Po to lesser extents improvement. Nadal in 2008 was better than he had been when he won his first slam in 05. Uncle Toni I remember stated that when Nadal won his first slam he rated his first serve to be the worst in the entire top 100 that certainly wasn't the case by 2008. I think in fact that despite the injuries you would agree that Nadal, especially on faster surfaces has improved significantly over the course of the years. Then we know what happened with Djokovic between the end of 2010 and the start of 2011, and during this period particularly in 2009 Murray upped his level even briefly reaching #2. So I agree fed was weaker in 08-12, but that was made up for it by the number 2,3,4 guys of the generation all getting significantly better. Would you not concede BB that these three crucial competitors improved themselves physically and technically from 07- to today? And Roger while I agree lost a bit, I don't think lost all that much and he had some ability to spare frankly.

Weak era or not, I actually give Fed credit for bringing about this golden era, if he wasn't so bloody amazing the bar wouldn't be that high. People might be surprised but I had basically given up most of my tennis viewing by 2004 till I watched a certain federer play. He was the perfect antidote to Roddick and Hewitt two players I found completely uninspiring. Yet, I could never have him be my favorite he was just too perfect and made it look too easy.

Wow, that's a superb post Socal

As I've said before Roger is crucial for making the top of this 'era' as strong as it is, I've said in the article 'Is this the strongest top 8 in history'; and many will agree that it is one of the strongest, but if not for Roger fantastic play in the last few years it would be much weaker (despite the fact he has thrown in a few poor matches from time to time).

bogbrush wrote:The one part of the Golden Era thing I never get is that it coincides with Federer starting to lose to a load of matches to people who aren't new, which to me suggests his level dropped.
I can recognise a period as being more competitive, but if the best player drops his level I can't see that as particularly great news.

2008 included losses to Blake at the Olympics, Roddick, Fish. This was unthinkable even a year earlier. It's been followed by further surprising results (in the context of 2003-7) since.

Bogbrush, I don't know about Metal era or Wee Kiera etc. but what I do you think is that the younger generation trio of Nadal Djokovic and Murray have always troubled Federer more than the competitors his age.
Of course if I take stats from two different time periods then it is possible to argue Roger's level dipped and hence this gives the younger trio an advantage, but to make it as fair as possible I have taken stats from a same specific time period:

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

I don't know whether my interpretation of this stat (that Nadal, Djokovic and Murray- especially Nadal- troubled Federer more than the players who were in his generation, irrelevant of Roger's age) makes me a ''Golden/ Wee Kiera Subscriber etc. but that's my opinion.

As for this moment in time, in my opinion there are 4 world class competitors at the top of the game, which for me means this is a very very competitive at the top. However it is possible to argue that in a few years if Federer and Nadal go, and no new youngster arrives, that it will be a weaker period (in terms of world class players and competitiveness at the top). We shall see.

IMBL - weren't 12 of those 18 against Rafa?
From 2003 - 2008 he had 2 losses to Djokovic, 2 losses to Canas and 2 losses to Blake.
I don't know what that proves, except that stats aren't always what they seem.

Yep those stats are definitely misleading.

Until the OG this year Federer was 8-8 against Murray and until the start of 2011 he was 13-6 (iirc against Djokovic).

In 2008 Fed lost to Blake, Simon (2), Karlovic, Roddick, Stepanek, Fish, Murray (3), Nadal (4) and Djokovic - 15 losses.

Prior to 2008 he had lost 2 matches to Murray and one to Djokovic. So really it's only Nadal that's had his number. Clearly in 2008, Fed's level dipped (likely secondary to his bout with mono) and of course the other guys also improved.

bogbrush wrote:The one part of the Golden Era thing I never get is that it coincides with Federer starting to lose to a load of matches to people who aren't new, which to me suggests his level dropped.
I can recognise a period as being more competitive, but if the best player drops his level I can't see that as particularly great news.

2008 included losses to Blake at the Olympics, Roddick, Fish. This was unthinkable even a year earlier. It's been followed by further surprising results (in the context of 2003-7) since.

This argument doesn't really stand up to me. It is easy to find losses to lesser players also in 2003, 2004 and 2007. Only 2005 and 2006 were free of such losses.

2008 he just had a bad year, it's not really part of an overall trend since in 2009 he won 2 slams and reached 4 slam finals, and from 2009 was as good or better a player as before, from 2009 to 2012 he also didn't lose many matches against non big 4 players.

Federer reached his peak in years 2004 - 2007, when he played consistently a nearly flawless brand of tennis and produced the bulk of the stunning records he holds now. Afterwards he has never reached that level again. That's not surprising when considered that the peak years for a tennis player are in the range 22 to 27 yrs fo age, what is also called the prime period. That's common knowledge everywhere except probably here.

Which of these is the strongest top 4 :-
YE 2010
1 Rafael Nadal
2 Roger Federer
3 Novak Djokovic
4 Andy Murray

YE 2012
1 Novak Djokovic
2 Roger Federer
3 Andy Murray
4 Rafael Nadal

IMBL, thanks again for your kind words and for listening to what I got to say.

Lets throw out 2008 and look at 2007. By the end of 2007, Nadal was clearly fed's toughest competition. But lets look at Djokovic as well, by the end of 2007 he won the masters early that year in miami, then won Canada beating the 1,2, and 3 players in the world then on consecutive days. After that he went to the USO final and was unfortunate to lose in 3 extremely close sets in which he held many set points against a peak federer. If any 19 year old did that today we would all have collective online orgasm over him. Therefore by the end of 2007, the agreed upon absolute zenith of Federer, Roger's two closest rivals were 19 and 20 years old. Not the then 25 year old Andy Roddick, not the then 26 year old lleyton Hewitt or Nalbandian, or Safin. Therefore the idea that at fed's peak Djoko and Murray were no bother to him is quite a misnomer. In fact by the end of 2007 his two closest rivals were already of the next generation.

If you want to see who fed's toughest competition was at his peak, well even then based on rankings it was Nadal, and then Djokovic a distant 3rd. By the way Murray's 2 wins at that time was also very impressive as he broke into the top 8 that year off the top of my memory. Lets not even look at 08, 09, just look at the very end of 2007 when fed's contemporaries had at this point completely rolled over and his two closest rivals were 19, 20 years old. No mono excuses, no fed is old, at the very zenith of his career the number 2 and 3 ranked players guess what were the same two guys who are currently his biggest rivals. And what is more impressive is that both Nadal and Djoko would go on to get better from that point even though as mere teenagers they were already clearly superior to all of fed's contemporaries, even prior to the 2008 mono year. Doesn't say much in my opinion for the resistance provided by what I affectionately call the rollover generation.

This proves that being teenage is no impediment these days.

emancipator wrote:Yep those stats are definitely misleading.

Until the OG this year Federer was 8-8 against Murray and until the start of 2011 he was 13-6 (iirc against Djokovic).

In 2008 Fed lost to Blake, Simon (2), Karlovic, Roddick, Stepanek, Fish, Murray (3), Nadal (4) and Djokovic - 15 losses.

Prior to 2008 he had lost 2 matches to Murray and one to Djokovic. So really it's only Nadal that's had his number. Clearly in 2008, Fed's level dipped (likely secondary to his bout with mono) and of course the other guys also improved.

You forget his two losses to Canas as well, 08 was an aberration as I stated above even by the end of 07 Djoko at 19 was #3 in the world, and Nadal at 20 was #2. What was lleyton hewitt and Safin's ranking 07, honestly I don't remember. The two losses he had against murray in a handful of matches is pretty impressive as a mere teenager considering that the flag ship of fed's contemporaries roddick had what 1 win against 196 losses against fed at this time.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Which of these is the strongest top 4 :-
YE 2010
1 Rafael Nadal
2 Roger Federer
3 Novak Djokovic
4 Andy Murray

YE 2012
1 Novak Djokovic
2 Roger Federer
3 Andy Murray
4 Rafael Nadal

2012, murray and djoko are playing better and it can be argued so has Roger. Nadal is hurt but he was damn near untouchable early in the year.

Henman Bill wrote:

bogbrush wrote:The one part of the Golden Era thing I never get is that it coincides with Federer starting to lose to a load of matches to people who aren't new, which to me suggests his level dropped.
I can recognise a period as being more competitive, but if the best player drops his level I can't see that as particularly great news.

2008 included losses to Blake at the Olympics, Roddick, Fish. This was unthinkable even a year earlier. It's been followed by further surprising results (in the context of 2003-7) since.

This argument doesn't really stand up to me. It is easy to find losses to lesser players also in 2003, 2004 and 2007. Only 2005 and 2006 were free of such losses.

2008 he just had a bad year, it's not really part of an overall trend since in 2009 he won 2 slams and reached 4 slam finals, and from 2009 was as good or better a player as before, from 2009 to 2012 he also didn't lose many matches against non big 4 players.

Yes people forget fed reached two grandslam finals and won the USO in 08 by the middle of the year he was out of the mono funk for the most part he wasn't losing to Canas in back to back hardcourt masters. His level at 08 wimby, and 08 USO wasn't too far off his best. One of the best slams in terms of fed's performance I have ever seen was AO 2010 so to believe that Fed was way off his 07 form in 09 and 2010 in my mind is not that accurate of statement. He certainly had much tougher competition by then when compared to what he faced in his early rise.

I really do not like how, according to some, if Federer isn't winning slams it signifies he is past his best or not at his best. To hell with the other players and where they stand in the game if Fed starts losing why must it be presumed it is because he is past his best and not simply because other players up their levels, compete with and beat Federer fair and square. I mean can I, as a Murray fan say that when Fed was winning slams in the mid-2000's that Andy had yet to peak or that Djoko had fitness issues so was less of a contender? Roger proved he can still mix it at the absolute top level by winning Wimbledon less than three months ago but hey-ho some people tend to wish to be detrimental to other players by hinting that Fed wins slams even though he isn't playing at his best. Wow that is a heck of a lot more disrespectful to players of this generation than me feeling this top ten now is stronger than that of 2004. Rant over I am off to lie down.

It Must Be Love wrote:

I don't care whether BB agrees to it or not, he has his own view point and I have my own, can you prove me one place where he said those words ? coz blunt statements are not good , if you prove me then in my view he is a silly poster, so lemme wait for you proof.

You want proof Bogbrush doesn't think this is a Golden Era:
https://www.606v2.com/t32885-to-the-last-remaining-golden-era-adherents
I don't see why having this opinion makes him a 'silly' poster.

That was a counter thread to educate people posting meaningless threads.

Btw do Socal pay you to defend him and applaud him after every post he makes? coz you either have a very good skill to appreciate vague posts or you just got a very good sense of humor in clapping SOCalled Vague comments

CaledonianCraig wrote:I really do not like how, according to some, if Federer isn't winning slams it signifies he is past his best or not at his best. To hell with the other players and where they stand in the game if Fed starts losing why must it be presumed it is because he is past his best and not simply because other players up their levels, compete with and beat Federer fair and square. I mean can I, as a Murray fan say that when Fed was winning slams in the mid-2000's that Andy had yet to peak or that Djoko had fitness issues so was less of a contender? Roger proved he can still mix it at the absolute top level by winning Wimbledon less than three months ago but hey-ho some people tend to wish to be detrimental to other players by hinting that Fed wins slams even though he isn't playing at his best. Wow that is a heck of a lot more disrespectful to players of this generation than me feeling this top ten now is stronger than that of 2004. Rant over I am off to lie down.

Exactly, Craig that is what upsets me. I mean the fact that the objective superiority of the current guys to the early 2000 guys in terms of slam performance can not be used to show that they are better? Why is that, I have been accused of belittling and disrespecting those guys. I am sorry pointing to the objective superority of Murray, Djoko, and Nadal's trophy cases in comparison to the early 2000 guys is not disrespect it is a fact. Why is it that we have to pretend that their is nothing special about the modern guys when they have accomplished so much? As I stated even in 2007 Fed, Murray, and NOvak were bigger threats than Roger's contemporaries. In 2007 a teenage pre-prime Murray's record against fed and his winning percentage was far superior to the vast majority of fed's contemporaries in their prime.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

I don't care whether BB agrees to it or not, he has his own view point and I have my own, can you prove me one place where he said those words ? coz blunt statements are not good , if you prove me then in my view he is a silly poster, so lemme wait for you proof.

You want proof Bogbrush doesn't think this is a Golden Era:
https://www.606v2.com/t32885-to-the-last-remaining-golden-era-adherents
I don't see why having this opinion makes him a 'silly' poster.

That was a counter thread to educate people posting meaningless threads.

Btw do Socal pay you to defend him and applaud him after every post he makes? coz you either have a very good skill to appreciate vague posts or you just got a very good sense of humor in clapping SOCalled Vague comments

So only your taste in posts counts, is IMBL allowed to make up his own mind and compliment who he likes? Or should you be entitled to abuse him for complimenting another poster? You desperatly crave my attention don't you IC, but like I said you aren't worth very much. Knock yourself out you bore me.

socal1976 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:I really do not like how, according to some, if Federer isn't winning slams it signifies he is past his best or not at his best. To hell with the other players and where they stand in the game if Fed starts losing why must it be presumed it is because he is past his best and not simply because other players up their levels, compete with and beat Federer fair and square. I mean can I, as a Murray fan say that when Fed was winning slams in the mid-2000's that Andy had yet to peak or that Djoko had fitness issues so was less of a contender? Roger proved he can still mix it at the absolute top level by winning Wimbledon less than three months ago but hey-ho some people tend to wish to be detrimental to other players by hinting that Fed wins slams even though he isn't playing at his best. Wow that is a heck of a lot more disrespectful to players of this generation than me feeling this top ten now is stronger than that of 2004. Rant over I am off to lie down.

Exactly, Craig that is what upsets me. I mean the fact that the objective superiority of the current guys to the early 2000 guys in terms of slam performance can not be used to show that they are better? Why is that, I have been accused of belittling and disrespecting those guys. I am sorry pointing to the objective superority of Murray, Djoko, and Nadal's trophy cases in comparison to the early 2000 guys is not disrespect it is a fact. Why is it that we have to pretend that their is nothing special about the modern guys when they have accomplished so much? As I stated even in 2007 Fed, Murray, and NOvak were bigger threats than Roger's contemporaries. In 2007 a teenage pre-prime Murray's record against fed and his winning percentage was far superior to the vast majority of fed's contemporaries in their prime.

Of course. I posted stats up on another thread and Fed chewed up and spat out the top players of the early 2000's but he cannot hold the same claim over the next generation (Nadal, Djokovic and Murray) and that is even if we want to look at it through Fed-biased specs as in only take into account his matches pre-2008 when Fed fans is the threshold between him being at his best and past his best.

Yes totally agree Craig. If anything I think it is disrespectful to Djokovic and Murray to claim that we can't rate them better than early 2000 guys. If objective accomplishments separate Roger from the field why are we not allowed to examine the trophy cases of other players and give them credit for it? I remember that post you made and it was spot on. All this talk about fed got old is just inaccurate and biased. At the end of 2007, when Roger was at his peak his closest rivals in the ranking they were Nadal and Djoko, and Murray had a great win percentage against Fed that far outstrips what his contemporaries were able to accomplish.

Invisible Coolers, I'm absolutely appalled by some of the comments from you so far.
If you disagree with someone, counter their points, everyone has a right to their own opinion.
But this is what you've called Socal:

Btw regarding subtle insults, unlike you I am educated and act with brains.

It's a shame they didn't teach you to be polite during your education.

JK guess what you can never fight an idiot coz he/she take you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Socal has made some points on tennis, that you may/ may not agree with. You've just come on here with insults.

Btw do Socal pay you to defend him and applaud him after every post he makes? coz you either have a very good skill to appreciate vague posts or you just got a very good sense of humor in clapping SOCalled Vague comments

I can agree with anyone I want to, whether that's Socal or Tenez is irrelevant.