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

captain carrantuohil wrote: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.

Agreed I looked at that period myself when reflecting on this topic. A great set of players with a scattering of legends of the game.

captain carrantuohil wrote: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.

Yes very strong, but in fairness Ashe had to be 100 years old then. Still a young Borg, Connors, and mac is pretty fearsome. Amazing that in 3 years he would be out of he game.

Strongest top 4 now is a maybe, strongest top 8 now is a no. The 5-8 players are not strong enough.

@HMM...

Fallacy of counting slams...

25 Dec 2000

1 Kuerten, Gustavo (BRA) - 3 slams
2 Safin, Marat (RUS) - 2 Slams
3 Sampras, Pete (USA) - 13 slams (total 14)
4 Norman, Magnus (SWE) - 0 Slams
5 Kafelnikov, Yevgeny (RUS) - 2 slams
6 Agassi, Andre (USA) - 8 6 Slams
7 Hewitt, Lleyton (AUS) - 2 slams
8 Corretja, Alex (ESP) - 0 slams
9 Enqvist, Thomas (SWE) - 0 slams
10 Henman, Tim (GBR) - 0 slams

30 28 Slams in Top 10.

No fallacy Laverfan, that isn't the only stat to look at but by 2000 both Pete and Andre are over 30 and they account 21 of the 30 slams you listed. Actually, Andre at this time I believe had 5 or 6 slams so your numbers are a bit inaccurate. In today's game we have a 25 year old who already has 5 slams. Can't rate this list you produced as all that strong as two 30 year olds one of whom is about to have his worst year of his career in 2001 and 2002 in pete sampras account for 80 plus percent of the slams.

I tend to agree that this is the strongest top 4 ever but I don't think I would rate the current top 8 as the strongest ever. If Nadal comes back strong and del po makes an improvement maybe next years top 8 will be the best ever, they are in with a shout if these two things happen.

socal1976 wrote:Actually, Andre at this time I believe had 5 or 6 slams so your numbers are a bit inaccurate.

Yes, Andre won AO 2001 and 2003. I corrected the post.

socal1976 wrote:In today's game we have a 25 year old who already has 5 slams. Can't rate this list you produced as all that strong as two 30 year olds one of whom is about to have his worst year of his career in 2001 and 2002 in pete sampras account for 80 plus percent of the slams.

That is the fallacy I was alluding to.

socal1976 wrote:I tend to agree that this is the strongest top 4 ever but I don't think I would rate the current top 8 as the strongest ever. If Nadal comes back strong and del po makes an improvement maybe next years top 8 will be the best ever, they are in with a shout if these two things happen.

Tough to predict the future though.

Kuerten and Safin need to lose a slam and Hewitt both his slams before that list is accurate.

Born Slippy wrote:Kuerten and Safin need to lose a slam and Hewitt both his slams before that list is accurate.

Yes, I keep saying early 2000s were soft but people get offended, honestly that is my critical opinion of the top rated talents of that period other than fed. Andre is an interesting case because he played some of his most consistent ball during this period however the best Agassi was 1995ish not in the early 2000s. Pete was a complete shell of himself by 2001 although he did have enough for a great fortnight in the 2002 open. Basically, Sampras and Agassi both benefitted from a drying up of consistent top flight talent around them to some extent as well. Remember when these guys came onto the tour they had fight hard to gain supremacy over lendl, becker, courier, edberg. Then by the late 90s those guys left the game and were replaced by Hewitt, Ferrero, Roddick, moya, and safin. While all were very talented they simply were not the talents that the kings of the previous generation had been. Safin should have been so much more but he just wasn't all that committed he was the physical and most talented pick of these players federer excluded and he just wasn't that into it.

laverfan wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Actually, Andre at this time I believe had 5 or 6 slams so your numbers are a bit inaccurate.

Yes, Andre won AO 2001 and 2003. I corrected the post.

socal1976 wrote:In today's game we have a 25 year old who already has 5 slams. Can't rate this list you produced as all that strong as two 30 year olds one of whom is about to have his worst year of his career in 2001 and 2002 in pete sampras account for 80 plus percent of the slams.

That is the fallacy I was alluding to.

socal1976 wrote:I tend to agree that this is the strongest top 4 ever but I don't think I would rate the current top 8 as the strongest ever. If Nadal comes back strong and del po makes an improvement maybe next years top 8 will be the best ever, they are in with a shout if these two things happen.

Tough to predict the future though.

Laverfan, Murdoch's point is not a fallacy it is spot on. When looking at the numbers they provide a starting point for analysis. As we can see that today's champions far outstrip the list you provided in slams objectively, especially when you look at those players with the total slams they possessed at the time of the list. You have to take away 2 of Andre's slams, both of Hewitt's, one of Safin's. In the end you see a big gap between the total slams possessed by these weak era players and the current top 8. But again this is the starting point. The two players that possess almost all the slams out of the list you provided are very old players really from another generation. One could say the same thing about Roger today but Roger is more like Agassi a player that stayed fresh with the times while Pete couldn't really compete consistently for long stretches in his 30s. Now look at today's players, in contrast I would say that 4 of the 5 current slam winners are almost for sure bets to add to their slam totals and the oldest among them is 26 years old.

laverfan wrote:@HMM...

Fallacy of counting slams...

Hi laverfan. I wasn't quoting the slam totals as a measure of which era is better (although clearly that would be a factor in the discussion).

I was doing it to put the players in the context of the time. For instance, Lendl is legend of the game but at the point in 1985, he wasn't a legend yet.

The easy trap to fall into is that the eye sees Lendl and McEnroe together and we think, "wow, great era". But although their careers overlapped, their greatness didn't. By the time Lendl could be viewed as great, McEnroe had declined.

Not that I'm saying 1985 was weak, it wasn't, it was strong. Just not quite as strong as that list of names may suggest on first appearance.

The easiest trap of them all is to speak without a knowledge of the subject matter. Lendl in 1985 was a slam winner, had won the Masters a couple of times and most of the other important tournements, that at he time werer bo5. His rivalry with JMC was regarded as one of the toughest and most exciting clashes of styles and personalities in tennis at that time......

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:The easiest trap of them all is to speak without a knowledge of the subject matter. Lendl in 1985 was a slam winner, had won the Masters a couple of times and most of the other important tournements, that at he time werer bo5. His rivalry with JMC was regarded as one of the toughest and most exciting clashes of styles and personalities in tennis at that time......

The Jeremy Kyle Criteria For Tennis Greatness
- 2 slams
- couple of masters
- having a rival

Good news for Andy then. Only one more slam and we can annoint him as one the greats. Lleyton Hewitt may need to shuffle over to make room though.

This last one would make Socal jealous ....

It doesn't work like that in tennis, you win 5 slams, earn the "legend" title and you show off your five stars of tennis supremo printed on your jacket....

Players instead can sometimes reach their full potential and become more competitive later rather than earlier, like it happened to Lendl in 1984.

You want to imply that Lendl in 1985 wasn't playing at his very best level, or is it just a metter of less stars printed on his jacket?

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:This last one would make Socal jealous ....

It doesn't work like that in tennis, you win 5 slams, earn the "legend" title and you show off your five stars of tennis supremo printed on your jacket....

Players instead can sometimes reach their full potential and become more competitive later rather than earlier, like it happened to Lendl in 1984.

You want to imply that Lendl in 1985 wasn't playing at his very best level, or is it just a metter of less stars printed on his jacket?

There are two ways in which we can view the idea of a great era.
1) Players viewed as greats at that time playing together. As I think we both agree, Lendl would not have been viewed as a great yet in Dec 1985.

2) Good players, who may already be or later become great, playing their best tennis together. In December 1985, Lendl was hitting his prime. McEnroe though, did not hold a single slam. He would never even make another final. He quite obviously was no longer playing his best tennis.

So, going back to my first point that you disputed, you see the names McEnroe and Lendl and you see two legends of the game. In Dec 1985 though, one was just starting to build his legacy and the other had hit terminal decline. It's not as impressive as it looks on paper.

What part of this do you disagree with?

socal1976 wrote:In the end you see a big gap between the total slams possessed by these weak era players and the current top 8.

At tail end of a career the number of titles will always be more than when they started with. It is unfortunate that despite arguments to the contrary, the Wee Keira adherents are unwilling to discard their viewpoint.

socal1976 wrote:But again this is the starting point. The two players that possess almost all the slams out of the list you provided are very old players really from another generation. One could say the same thing about Roger today but Roger is more like Agassi a player that stayed fresh with the times while Pete couldn't really compete consistently for long stretches in his 30s. Now look at today's players, in contrast I would say that 4 of the 5 current slam winners are almost for sure bets to add to their slam totals and the oldest among them is 26 years old.

The desire to add est to a given list in which your favourite player is playing is a laudable fan goal.

It may just be that Berdych, Ferrer and Del Potro may win all slams from now till 2020 and the current top 4 stall and retire or do a Borg.

Let the journalists write columns like this one. This is what they are paid to do. For example, 1960-1969 could be considered a 'strong' era with a GS winner, a feat not yet repeated. It is a matter of picking a specific statistic.

1 Connors, Jimmy (USA)
2 Vilas, Guillermo (ARG)
3 Borg, Björn (SWE)
4 Ashe, Arthur (USA)
5 Orantes, Manuel (ESP)
6 Rosewall, Ken (AUS)
7 Nastase, Ilie (ROM)
8 Alexander, John (AUS)

This was YE in 1975.

Quite a strong line up.

HM Murdoch wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:This last one would make Socal jealous ....

It doesn't work like that in tennis, you win 5 slams, earn the "legend" title and you show off your five stars of tennis supremo printed on your jacket....

Players instead can sometimes reach their full potential and become more competitive later rather than earlier, like it happened to Lendl in 1984.

You want to imply that Lendl in 1985 wasn't playing at his very best level, or is it just a metter of less stars printed on his jacket?

There are two ways in which we can view the idea of a great era.
1) Players viewed as greats at that time playing together. As I think we both agree, Lendl would not have been viewed as a great yet in Dec 1985.

2) Good players, who may already be or later become great, playing their best tennis together. In December 1985, Lendl was hitting his prime. McEnroe though, did not hold a single slam. He would never even make another final. He quite obviously was no longer playing his best tennis.

So, going back to my first point that you disputed, you see the names McEnroe and Lendl and you see two legends of the game. In Dec 1985 though, one was just starting to build his legacy and the other had hit terminal decline. It's not as impressive as it looks on paper.

What part of this do you disagree with?

I think you are a bit confused. Initially you suggested that Lendl 1985 wasn't great, now you seem to believe that McEnroe instead wasn't great anymore in that year. From my memories they both won slams in 1985 and were both great players .......

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:I think you are a bit confused. Initially you suggested that Lendl 1985 wasn't great, now you seem to believe that McEnroe instead wasn't great anymore in that year.

I think it's you that's confused. My direct quotes were:

Lendl is legend of the game but at the point in 1985, he wasn't a legend yet.

I think this is fair. Two slams does not a legend make.

By the time Lendl could be viewed as great, McEnroe had declined.

I think this is also fair. By the time Lendl became a multi slam winner, McEnroe held no slams and would never win one again.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:From my memories they both won slams in 1985 and were both great players .......

This is just wasting everyone's time. No, McEnroe did not win a slam in 1985 and it would only have taken you about 30 seconds to check that. And this from the person who chided me that "The easiest trap of them all is to speak without a knowledge of the subject matter". What delicious irony.

wow well done you can read Wiki, this most definitely qualify you as a subject matter expert, my most sincere apologies for not having spotted that earlier. I see McEnroe lost to Lendl in the USO final and also ended up n.2 that year. No longer great then!

Oh Jeremy, this all getting rather tedious. If you can't address what I say rather than what you think I say (useful tip: look in the boxes in my last post), this conversation will just go nowhere.

p.s. nice assumption that I had to use Wiki. I mean, if a wise tennis sage such as you didn't know the facts, then we can only assume that nobody else does either.

Sorry if I am being dismissive, but underrating the rivalry between Lendl and McEnroe as you do, which is probably one of the most spectacular match up in the history of tennis, is a bit a weird. I was very young at the time, but I remember quite (not perfectly) well the excitment that was around this guys every time they met. What about you?

One thing is sure. If everyone were to post what they thought was a very strong top ten up here from any era someone would be able to find faults with it. In short all top ten's have their strengths and weaknesses and some are stronger than others.

Jeremy, this is where I think we are arguing different points. I'm like you, I was young at the time but I remember the rivalry and it was a great one. It was made all the better because it was clear they hated each other!

To my mind though, there is something odd about it. Within the rivalry, Lendl always seemed to have the edge. In 1981 and 1982 (and this bit I did have to look up!) Lendl won all of their encounters (seven in a row). But in that time Mac won 2 slams, Lendl won none. So I consider McEnroe to be the player hitting his prime, who happens to have a problem with a particular match up. Lendl was not in his prime yet.

In 1984 Lendl won his first slam but that was the year that McEnroe produced the incredible season with the 82-3 match record and was still clearly the better player.

From the USO in 1985, Lendl really went on a tear. In 8 slams, he made the final of 7 and won 5. But in this period McEnroe's form and fitness nosedived. His match records from the amazing 1984 onwards are:
1984: 82-3
1985: 71-9
1986: 22-5
1987: 34-12
During Lendl's prime, McEnroe simply wasn't the force he once was.

So are they both great players? Yes.
Was the rivalry great? Absolutely.
Were they at their best at the same time? I don't think so. Arguably in 1984 but really don't think so in Dec 1985.

That's my take on it anyway!

Don't wanna take sides in this debate but HM, your stance doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.

Mac had a 71-9 season in '85. Just to put that into perspective, Rafa has never had a statistically better season when he's completed over 70 matches. Mac was the greatest player in the world in 84 but he was supposedly no longer great in 85? Just 12 months later (aged 26) ?

Lendl was the best player in the world in 85 but not a great a player? From a historical perspective, at that point in time, sure we can say he had not yet developed into an all time great, but by any objective measure of his play and results, he was definitely a great player in '85. In retrospect we can say this with certainty.

So essentially they were both great players in '85; Mac towards the end of his greatness and Lendl towards the beginning of his - certainly there was overlap in '85.



emancipator

It is true that Lendl and Mcenroe kind of missed each other. Mac had his best success in the early 80s and lendl in the mid to late 80s. They did of course have some great matchups, but I don't think I would call their rivalry as great as other rivalries for the point that Murdoch made. By the time lendl started winning majors Mcenroe for the most part was losing it as a dominant force on tour. Yes Mac had a pretty good 85, but Lendl's best seasons were post 85 and by then Mac was nowhere to be found really. To me that is why this rivalry is always rated behind Mac/Connors or Connors/Borg or Mac/Borg. While these players are of similar ages one guy peaked early and was gone effectively by the time the other guy started to dominate. I would rate Lendl v. Becker as a better rivalry as well in that their best tennis periods matched up so well with each other.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:This last one would make Socal jealous ....

It doesn't work like that in tennis, you win 5 slams, earn the "legend" title and you show off your five stars of tennis supremo printed on your jacket....

Players instead can sometimes reach their full potential and become more competitive later rather than earlier, like it happened to Lendl in 1984.

You want to imply that Lendl in 1985 wasn't playing at his very best level, or is it just a metter of less stars printed on his jacket?

Jeremy I think you overestimate my fearsome reputation, I am as gentle as a pussycat with a full tummy of milk.

Emancipator - I'm not writing off McEnroe's 85 season. But to me it's like Fed's 2011 - a top player, a little past the peak of his powers, who, despite still playing well, wasn't able to snag the big prizes.

Perhaps I could put it this way: McEnroe's legacy is built on the years 1979 to 1984, Lendl's legacy is built upon the years 1985 to 1987. These weren't the only years of significance but they are the foundation stones of their reputations.

Of course, at the crossover period of 85, they were both playing good tennis. I just don't consider either to be at their peak. Which is all I've ever said in these many posts!

Socal - I'm so glad someone is following my point!

In my opinion both Lendl and McEnroe were legends. In 1985 McEnroe was established whilst Lendl was beginning his road to becoming a legend but that shouldn't negate either of them in that 85 list. After all you could make the same argument against the here and now as in that Federer is today's version of Mac in 85 (a legend still competitive but past his absolute best in some people's eyes) whilst Djokovic is like Lendl of 85.

Completely agree CC.

If Socal wants to discard Andre and Pete from the 2000 list because they were past it, and thus remove their combined slam count from that list, then we should also remove Federer and his slam count from the 2012 list.

On the other hand we could include them all because they were all still competitive and won slams in and around that time.

Like I say though when anyone posts up a top ten it is open to interpretation and can invariably be picked apart if put under scrutiny.

I don't think Murdoch is saying that he isn't a legend, just that you have to read these lists like snapshots. You have to look at what they had accomplished at the time and what their position on the list is. Not so much at what those players went on to accomplish later in their careers or what they had accomplished in the past. Federer is a perfect example if Roger had not played well in the last two years and had no slams or WTFs to his name as of late people would not rate him as formidably today. Even still a lot of the critics when you place fed on this list complain that fed is too old and really isn't a part of this era. I think Roger's performance recently validates him being in the thick of things today when it comes to consideration.

Is there an argument being made that McEnroe and Lendl weren't really rivals?

I have to check because that would be so wrong as to defy comprehension. I know, I was there at the time.

Yes but we have power of hindsight now. Of course socal if you were to erase our memories and send us back in time to evaluate that top ten opinions of it would probably lessen. Who knows what people in thirty years time will think of the here and now list if (god forbid) Andy wins no more slams and neither does Novak and if Rafa cannot refind his slam winning touch and Fed has now won his last slam? We can only judge these top tens on what we know and we do know that Lendl went on to become a legend and McEnroe was already a legend.

emancipator wrote:Completely agree CC.

If Socal wants to discard Andre and Pete from the 2000 list because they were past it, and thus remove their combined slam count from that list, then we should also remove Federer and his slam count from the 2012 list.

On the other hand we could include them all because they were all still competitive and won slams in and around that time.

Yes because it isn't like Roger won a slam this year or anything. And who said I want to discard Pete and Andre from the 2000 list, I simply stated that you have to look at the numbers through context. In fact, I would be happy to take Roger out of the current discussion he just won't cooperate and keeps winning big tournaments. That certainly wasn't the case for Sampras, who by 2001 was a complete shell of himself. But if you want to do that analysis I am game. Lets take out Pete and Andre and Roger from the current top 8. What you will find is that the current top 8 blows away 2000 list even more badly. Because you take pete and Andre from the 2000 guys and you have really no slam champions except kuerten. Moya had yet to win a title, hewitt had yet to win a title, Safin had one slam.

Meanwhile for the current guys you have Nadal who has more slams than everyone on he 2000 list combined (once you take out Pete and Andre) and Djokovic who also has about as many slams as the rest of the guys on that list. In fact emancipator if you do the analysis the way you suggest and takeaway Roger from the current guys and Pete and Andre from the 2000 guys, the 2000 guys look almost comical in their lack of slam success. You got Kuerten and one slam from Safin and not much else.

bogbrush wrote:Is there an argument being made that McEnroe and Lendl weren't really rivals?

I have to check because that would be so wrong as to defy comprehension. I know, I was there at the time.

No the argument is that their rivlary in my mind is not as great as some other great rivalries because of the fact that Mac kind of went away too soon. No question that they are greats, and rivals, but would you rate their rivalry superior to Connors v. Mac, or Connors v. borg. It is a matter of these two not really playing very often when both were at their best. If mac had stayed around and could have competed better post 85 it would have been one of the greatest rivalries but sadly it did not materialize. STill they did play quite a bit in the early and mid 80s, and of course 84 RG final was a landmark and historic match. But it could have been so much more in my mind.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes but we have power of hindsight now. Of course socal if you were to erase our memories and send us back in time to evaluate that top ten opinions of it would probably lessen. Who knows what people in thirty years time will think of the here and now list if (god forbid) Andy wins no more slams and neither does Novak and if Rafa cannot refind his slam winning touch and Fed has now won his last slam? We can only judge these top tens on what we know and we do know that Lendl went on to become a legend and McEnroe was already a legend.

Yes Craig it is the point I believe Murdoch was attempting to make. If you look back at these older lists you are going to overrate the old guys to an extent vis a vis the new guys because you have the benefit of analyzing a whole career for the 85 guys. Meanwhile like you pointed out we still don't know where Murray, del po, Nadal, Djoko, and even FEd will end up in honors. So I agree with Murdoch's point you have to look at these lists as a snapshot in time and as hard as it is if you want a fair comparison with today's guys you can't look at what these players did afterwards to judge the strength of the list. Once the current guys get old then we can compare a total career for the current guys against a total career for the old guys.

bogbrush wrote:Is there an argument being made that McEnroe and Lendl weren't really rivals?

I have to check because that would be so wrong as to defy comprehension. I know, I was there at the time.

No there's not! It's just that many people seem to be assuming I'm saying that in order to make a different argument.

I'll state my position one last time and then I'm giving up because this has become so tedious.

John McEnroe = Legend of the game
Ivan Lendl = Legend of the game
John McEnroe and Ivan Lendl = great rivals

John McEnroe of Dec 1985 = 1 season past his very best and on the cusp of a quick decline.
Ivan Lendl of Dec 1985= A player whose accomplishments at this point would not qualify him as a legend of the game. He is, however, at the start of a sequence of results that will move him into greatness.

What is so seemingly controversial or inaccurate about this?!

Yes I see that point but perhaps that is why some posters are not willing to rate this current top ten so favourably as Djokovic and Murray (being tipped to win slams in the future) aren't at the legendary status yet and some posters see Fed and Nadal as PERHAPS yesterdays news so to speak.

PS This is in reply to socal's last post.

CaledonianCraig wrote: We can only judge these top tens on what we know and we do know that Lendl went on to become a legend and McEnroe was already a legend.

This is where I disagree.

Let's say that Novak ends his career on 10 slams. People may look at the 2010 rankings and say it must have been a great year because the top 3 players all won double digit slams.

But 2010 was a Federer a little past his best and a Djokovic who hadn't fully hit his stride. It was a good year, yes. But it wasn't the classic that "three all time greats playing at the same time" necessarily implies. I would say that 2009, 2011 and 2012 were all better years overall.

25 Dec 2000

1 Kuerten, Gustavo (BRA) - 2 slams
2 Safin, Marat (RUS) - 1 Slams
3 Sampras, Pete (USA) - not counted
4 Norman, Magnus (SWE) - 0 Slams
5 Kafelnikov, Yevgeny (RUS) - 2 slams
6 Agassi, Andre (USA) - not counted
7 Hewitt, Lleyton (AUS) - 0 slams
8 Corretja, Alex (ESP) - 0 slams
9 Enqvist, Thomas (SWE) - 0 slams
10 Henman, Tim (GBR) - 0 slams


1Djokovic, Novak (SRB)-5 slams
2Federer, Roger-not counted
3Murray, Andy (GBR)-1 slam
4. Nadal, Rafael (ESP)-11 slams
5Ferrer, David (ESP)-0
6. Berdych, Tomas (CZE)-0
7.Del Potro, Juan Martin (ARG)-1 slam
8.Tsonga, Jo-Wilfried (FRA)

Now this is the comparison that is relevant. Current results of the 2012 guys against the current results of 2000 guys. Also I took Roger's slams from the current guys as he is over 30, and I took out the slams of Andre and Pete they are also previous generation guys. The 2000 players at the time, had a total of 5 slams shared between Moya, Kuerten, and Kafelnikov. Djokovic has 5 slams by himself. Nadal by himself has 220 percent more slams than 2000 guys. Now throw in Andy Murray and Del Po. Today's stars (sans FEd) out slam the 2000 guys (sans Pete and Andre) 18 to 5. Yes the golden generation of today has 360 percent more slam titles than the 2000 players have at the time this list was made. And you can't give them the benefit of future slams they went onto win because we can't look into the future with the current guys.

HM Murdoch wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote: We can only judge these top tens on what we know and we do know that Lendl went on to become a legend and McEnroe was already a legend.

This is where I disagree.

Let's say that Novak ends his career on 10 slams. People may look at the 2010 rankings and say it must have been a great year because the top 3 players all won double digit slams.

But 2010 was a Federer a little past his best and a Djokovic who hadn't fully hit his stride. It was a good year, yes. But it wasn't the classic that "three all time greats playing at the same time" necessarily implies. I would say that 2009, 2011 and 2012 were all better years overall.

But surely that is mere evolution. For example the late 70's early 80's had strength what with Borg, Connors and Mac on the scene and then Borg retired others such as Lendl stepped up in the following years to emerge and replaced Mac as he waned but in 85 he was still a factor as he was reaching finals just as Fed is a factor now. The evolution factor is going on now as well as it could be argued that now is stronger than say 2009 or 2010 as Djokovic has emerged and Murray is now a slam winner whilst Fed and Nadal have added to their slam count.

HM Murdoch wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote: We can only judge these top tens on what we know and we do know that Lendl went on to become a legend and McEnroe was already a legend.

This is where I disagree.

Let's say that Novak ends his career on 10 slams. People may look at the 2010 rankings and say it must have been a great year because the top 3 players all won double digit slams.

But 2010 was a Federer a little past his best and a Djokovic who hadn't fully hit his stride. It was a good year, yes. But it wasn't the classic that "three all time greats playing at the same time" necessarily implies. I would say that 2009, 2011 and 2012 were all better years overall.

Bingo, Murdoch is spot on. If Murray goes onto win 8 slams in the oncoming years will that all of sudden make 2010 a better year. If you want to do a fair analysis since you can't look into the future and impute success to the current guys you can't do this for the older guys either.

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.

CaledonianCraig wrote: The evolution factor is going on now as well as it could be argued that now is stronger than say 2009 or 2010 as Djokovic has emerged and Murray is now a slam winner whilst Fed and Nadal have added to their slam count.

Agreed. Same players but their respective form and cycles of their careers make this year, in my opinion, stronger than previous years.

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.

socal1976 wrote:
Bingo, Murdoch is spot on. If Murray goes onto win 8 slams in the oncoming years will that all of sudden make 2010 a better year. If you want to do a fair analysis since you can't look into the future and impute success to the current guys you can't do this for the older guys either.

Socal, we appear to be of the same mind. Whether that should worry one or both us is something we can debate!

HM Murdoch wrote:

socal1976 wrote:
Bingo, Murdoch is spot on. If Murray goes onto win 8 slams in the oncoming years will that all of sudden make 2010 a better year. If you want to do a fair analysis since you can't look into the future and impute success to the current guys you can't do this for the older guys either.

Socal, we appear to be of the same mind. Whether that should worry one or both us is something we can debate!

It doesn't worry me Murdoch, cheers. It is always difficult to be an out of the box thinker.

socal1976 wrote:
25 Dec 2000

1 Kuerten, Gustavo (BRA) - 2 slams
2 Safin, Marat (RUS) - 1 Slams
3 Sampras, Pete (USA) - not counted
4 Norman, Magnus (SWE) - 0 Slams
5 Kafelnikov, Yevgeny (RUS) - 2 slams
6 Agassi, Andre (USA) - not counted
7 Hewitt, Lleyton (AUS) - 0 slams
8 Corretja, Alex (ESP) - 0 slams
9 Enqvist, Thomas (SWE) - 0 slams
10 Henman, Tim (GBR) - 0 slams


1Djokovic, Novak (SRB)-5 slams
2Federer, Roger-not counted
3Murray, Andy (GBR)-1 slam
4. Nadal, Rafael (ESP)-11 slams
5Ferrer, David (ESP)-0
6. Berdych, Tomas (CZE)-0
7.Del Potro, Juan Martin (ARG)-1 slam
8.Tsonga, Jo-Wilfried (FRA)

Now this is the comparison that is relevant. Current results of the 2012 guys against the current results of 2000 guys. Also I took Roger's slams from the current guys as he is over 30, and I took out the slams of Andre and Pete they are also previous generation guys. The 2000 players at the time, had a total of 5 slams shared between Moya, Kuerten, and Kafelnikov. Djokovic has 5 slams by himself. Nadal by himself has 220 percent more slams than 2000 guys. Now throw in Andy Murray and Del Po. Today's stars (sans FEd) out slam the 2000 guys (sans Pete and Andre) 18 to 5. Yes the golden generation of today has 360 percent more slam titles than the 2000 players have at the time this list was made. And you can't give them the benefit of future slams they went onto win because we can't look into the future with the current guys.

You clearly missed the point of my last post or perhaps you're resorting to your usual tactic of selective quoting.

My whole point is that Fed, Andre and Pete should not be taken out of any of those lists. They were all very competitive in those years and went on to win further slams (Fed of course remains to be seen). The reason I made that point was to counter your rather lame attempt to diminish 2000 by taking out Pete and Andre, and then claim - oh look it was a crap year because without the slams of the ageing legends, the rest only managed 3 (or whatever the number was) slams between them.

In any case, I don't hold with this rather ridiculous theory that the total number of slams won by the field is somehow indicative of the strength of the overall field. Sometimes, maybe once in a lifetime, you get a player who is so far ahead of the rest that the field just doesn't stand a chance. It happens in sport. Jordan, Schumacher (and his cars, teams), Stephen Hendrey, Roger Federer. As Andre Agassi said, 'Federer was the guy who came in and just took tennis light years away.. To me he's the best that's ever played the game. What Federer can do on a court is remarkable; he had everything that Pete had, plus, plus some more, you know there was never a place to go to out there where you were safe'



emancipator

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.

Emancipator don't start a fight with me I just finished a lengthy one and don't need any more enemies. But if you want to talk about annoying habits of posters how about writting a long f-u to me as your final goodbye post and then leaving, talk about unfair and poor form on that account. Frankly, after that I debated never even addressing you again, but you keep addressing me in your posts. What is the matter I thought I was Ghenghis Khan of online posters and not fit to converse with? And I have never, ever, ever selectively quoted anyone or misquoted anyone. If you have proof of said conduct produce said evidence now or retract that statement.

Yes Roger was routinely beating Ferrero, Moya, hewitt, and Safin at the semis and finals of all events, that is why they didn't win more. Funny how those guys struggled to remain in the top 20 when the Murray, Djokovic and Nadal generation took over.