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

My point is that all posters should stick to discussing tennis. I'm sure my grammar is correct enough to be understood.

Thanks for that clarification Julius.

Bleacher Report:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1254491-12-reasons-were-in-the-golden-era-of-tennis-with-roger-federer-and-rafael-nadal

1978-1984: Bjorn Borg became a Wimbledon superstar and dueled with Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe in the last of the old wooden racket era. Flushing Meadows, New York brought tennis to prime-time TV. It was also an age of throwback heroes, thinking man’s tennis and classic battles enshrined by coming-of-age Baby Boomers.

1990-1995: Andre Agassi’s arrival to tennis brought a cooler image and revolutionary approach to baseline power tennis. The all-time King of Swing Pete Sampras crossed paths with McEnroe, Ivan Lendl and other late-prime stars including Stefan Edberg and Boris Becker. The quantity of top players was high, but this would diminish with Agassi’s demise late in 1995.

2007-current: Tennis is now in its third Golden era. This will be expounded with many factors that surround the concentric forces of Federer and Nadal.

Do you guys agree with this?

Yes I would agree with much of that but of course you will get those that disagree with it. It is an independent report though so can't see why it would be anything other than balanced so kind of backs up my opinion.

It's not independent, it's some guy's opinion, just like yours and mine. For example, why 1978 - 1984, and not include 1977, when Borg first won Wimby and Connors was No. 1?

JuliusHMarx wrote:It's not independent, it's some guy's opinion, just like yours and mine. For example, why 1978 - 1984, and not include 1977, when Borg first won Wimby and Connors was No. 1?

Fair enough but if you read the posters views at the bottom of the article I struggle to see anyone 'dissing' the current era and even fewer willing to throw the early 2000's into the mix as a 'golden era'. Seems that those in that camp are in a small minority doesn't it?

Yes Caledonian, but just because a majority hold a specific opinion, it doesn't make it true.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:It's not independent, it's some guy's opinion, just like yours and mine. For example, why 1978 - 1984, and not include 1977, when Borg first won Wimby and Connors was No. 1?

Fair enough but if you read the posters views at the bottom of the article I struggle to see anyone 'dissing' the current era and even fewer willing to throw the early 2000's into the mix as a 'golden era'. Seems that those in that camp are in a small minority doesn't it?

I am one of those in the minority then, coz I think any era that had Pete Sampras /Andre Agassi name can't be a weak era certainly a golden era.

Hewitt/Safin deserve to get the same level of credit for beating Sampras and winning slams to what Murray/Djokovic gets for beating Fed [both Fed/Sampras were of relative age in 2010/2000 and both won slams after that year, while both were discussed in GOAT candidate list].

Well consider this my reporting of Invisible for abuse for calling me an undeducated idiot. Maybe you can conduct one of your crack investigations on his comments on this thread.

Invisible, i really don't want to fight with you I also don't feel like I have anything, anything to apologize for. I will offer you a one way peace treaty, I unilaterally declare peace with you and will ignore your abuse for an unspecified time. Feel free to take your shots if you want to go that way. If you take the peace offer and act peaceably I will reciprocate. If you attack I will ignore you temporarily to make it clear who wants to fight, then I will defend myself in the manner I deem appropriate, and frankly that isn't something that will be good for you, me, or the site.

You don't need to respond I will simply take your conduct as an indication of where you want to take this thing, I will not be bothered much regardless.

Let it not be said that I go spoiling for fights.

IMBL thanks again for all your support, I appreciate it and you are one of the main reasons i stay on this site.

It Must Be Love wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:My comment was based on the fact you called Socal an 'idiot' who is 'not educated' quite randomly (no one had said anything to you directly before this point) which I thought was unnecessary; and I hinted that you should apologise.
Edit: Anyway if you don't think you should apologise, that's your call.

So you failed to explain my grammatical mistakes of my last post, so you agree now that was just a blatant attack on me and my language for no reason.
Good job IMBL

I don't think correcting your grammar is a 'blatant attack.'
My point was not that you have bad grammar, but that you shouldn't call people 'uneducated' with no back-ground evidence. If you do call people that (as you did to Socal, along with calling him an idiot), and then write a post with terrible conjugation of the majority of your verbs, then you can expect it to be corrected.

There is nothing wrong in educating when you have mastered yourself and other willing to learn your trade and that can be easily done through PM's more than public insults, and the worst part when you yourself have a deficiency in the language its better you correct yourself first before acting over smart in public.
The best way to correct somebodies grammar is PM them with the mistake, people have done that in the past with good will nature.

I never mentioned Socal's name as uneducated in any of my post, pls refer my post when I used his name and the exact word you quoted and if you do that I will pose an apology, btw what about Socal abusing me and other in several condemned words? You don't see them right? so before acting as a forum police and abusing me here, report to mods with my thread, they will do the analysis and come back to me to correct my mistake. They are mods for some reason.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:It's not independent, it's some guy's opinion, just like yours and mine. For example, why 1978 - 1984, and not include 1977, when Borg first won Wimby and Connors was No. 1?

Fair enough but if you read the posters views at the bottom of the article I struggle to see anyone 'dissing' the current era and even fewer willing to throw the early 2000's into the mix as a 'golden era'. Seems that those in that camp are in a small minority doesn't it?

That certainly is the minority view, and you would find very few people who rate the level of competition in the early 2000s as strong. Pete Sampras is not part of this era, he played like a shell of himself in 2001 and early 2002, and played his good tennis for about all of 2 weeks in the 2000s. Andre was a part of this era. If you look at the number or media articles talking up the quality of that period compared to today it would be safe to say that the consensus media opinion is that this era is a strong one and early 2000s not so much. Now the consensus media opinion of course can be wrong but it is another factor to consider.

You are also correct that Andy murray is a far superior player than Nalbandian by any comparison, Roddick as well, and I am sure when he is done he will be more highly regarded than Safin and Hewitt as well.

@ Socal

Thats not how you call peace, all you have to say is can we forget and move on, simple, first of all I never abused you, and ready to pose an apology if anywhere I used your name and used the word uneducated together, r u ready to pose an unconditional apology if I link the threads you abused me or the others?

Btw I left the forum temporarily to stay away from you, the forum is a part of my life and not my only life.

It Must Be Love wrote:Yes Caledonian, but just because a majority hold a specific opinion, it doesn't make it true.

No I know it doesn't. But it adds more fuel to the fire so to speak. First Henman's repeated admittance that Murray was better than him, the results of the top players of the early 2000's V Federer compared to the results of the top players of the here and now V Fed, the slams won (and that includes going by results V Fed in his prime by the way so fair to all) , the opinion of tennis pundits and the seemingly majority of tennis fans as well. Still waiting to be convinced otherwise from those batting for the mid-2000's.

IC, this is what you've called Socal:

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

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

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

invisiblecoolers wrote:@ Socal

Thats not how you call peace, all you have to say is can we forget and move on, simple, first of all I never abused you, and ready to pose an apology if anywhere I used your name and used the word uneducated together, r u ready to pose an unconditional apology if I link the threads you abused me or the others?

Btw I left the forum temporarily to stay away from you, the forum is a part of my life and not my only life.

IC, I am always willing to apologize when i feel in the wrong. But I don't feel like apologizing to people who choose to take a run at me and get what would be a normal response to their own taunting. That is why I don't want to go through the headache of proving who said what first and who abused who, not because i am frightened by the results of the conversation I just don't see the exercise as being fruitful . Like I said I will allow you to make up your own mind and choose if you want to move on or if you want to continue to fight. Take my offer any way you like I will examine your conduct. If you check your aggression and hostility at the door I am willing to. If you don't you will find that i am more than willing to fight it out with you but frankly it isn't worth it if it can be avoided.

socal, IMBL and IC - I specifically asked for posts to stick to tennis and you have all ignored that.
Below is the line I have drawn. Please do not cross it again wth off-topic posts
--------------------------------------------