Lendl touches on the very reason that top heavy eras are the best, hmmm who said that first?

First topic message reminder :

"Other than when he lost to Novak here in 2011, he has always played the No1 player in the world in the finals and those are difficult to win. "[Andre] Agassi beat Rainer Schüttler, I beat [Miroslav] Mecir. I'm not trying to say they were bad players, however they were not No1 at the time they were in the finals.

"This is the era the way it is, the top four are clearly better than everyone else. You don't get No7 in the finals. Andy didn't have any of those yet.

"Of course, when you get them, you have to take advantage of that as well, but it's just a tough era, as we keep saying all the time.

This is what I keep saying about the nature of tournament tennis, parity is really not that important. Whether the number 50 player is two percent better or worse doesn't really impact a player like murray or Djokovic or federer in winning a slam. Having to beat two legends in the semi and the final is what makes an era tough. Look at the physical and emotional toll it took on murray. The top 4 or 5 guys at most, at most determine who wins the major honors, they define the era.

Even lendl touched on it, I beat Mecir in a final, Andy doesn't have that luxury, neither does Novak and neither does roger and when Rafa comes back either. It is the top dogs that determine an eras strength and funny that Ivan Lendl agrees with socal, and seems to dispute this idea that all eras are the same and equally tough.

Wait I know what your response is going to be because I am Nostrafreakingdamus....wait for it...David ferrer!!!!!!!!!

Excellent posts by ylopnom and Murdoch. In particular I like murdoch's analogy of getting a perfect score on a test. If you have to get a perfect score on a test the hardest question on the the test is the true measure of the difficulty of the test and it is a great analogy for grand slam tennis.

Ylopnom also had an excellent post in how great rivals push each other in sports and I to have often stated that the absence of one slam wonders in this period by definition proves how hard this period is to win a slam. Does anyone believe johannson or Korda or gaudio would have any chance of winning a slam today?

IMBL, if I were a Federer fan, I suppose I would care more than I do. As far as I'm concerned it would make things a lot easier if Rafa or Djoko won another 15 slams - I'd be quite happy with that and it would make things a lot simpler.
The substance of the points is primarily that Rafa is better than Fed and they are designed to play down Fed's achievements and raise Rafa's. Would you be making the same points if you hated Rafa or were a big Del Potro fan? If not, then it is perfectly reasonable to question the person's objectivity i.e. interpret the person who made the points.
It is actually the substance of the posts that I argue against. I don't really care two hoots if anyone thinks Rafa is better than Fed - millions probably do - what I argue against, with any poster, is what I see as poor arguments and lack of logic and consistency.

HM Murdoch wrote:

bogbrush wrote:It's a good try, but it fails again because of the same old logical flaw.

How do you know that player 3 in Quiz scenario 2 is as hard as Newtons Law?

Consider it a proof of concept.

Let's take names and and history out the discussion.

Would you agree conceptually that if you are a 'very good' player, you have more chance of winning Tournament A where all the opposition is merely 'average' than Tournament B where some players are rubbish but one guy is fantastic?

You're a fan of compound probability. 0.6 x 0.6 x 0.6 is better odds than 0.9 x 0.9 x 0.2.

I suspect the discussion of the strength of any period can never be conclusive. But if we can accept that it is at least possible for some periods to be harder than others, then at least the discussion isn't totally pointless!
(it's only 90% pointless!)

No, your problem is determining the probabilities. You can only argue lower chances by reference to a player being tougher, which you can only do by reference to Slam totals, which I've shown you is exactly the same for every year.
It's circular, hence worthless. Won't stop the fans jumping up and own at the thought of being backed up, but I don't expect logic from many people these days.

If Lendl had been good enough to reverse his defeats to the following guys in slam finals Wilander (3), Becker (3), and Connors (2) their slam tallies, and hence their legend, would have been less and, by his reasoning, he would have played in a weaker era so his achievements would like wise need to be downgraded.

I think this is another way of putting BB's point that there must be 4 slams to be won each year however 'relatively weak' or 'relatively strong' the era is so a run like Fed's in 2004-2007 may be indicative of his exceptional ability in his prime or the relative weakness of others compared to other 'eras'; we'll never know. The fact that he has continued winning slams well beyond the usual optimum age for slam winning in the current 'golden' era tends to suggest that he's been pretty good across his career.

It's far less charged to talk about 'competitive' eras when a handful of greats share out the slams or 'dominant eras' when one guy scoops everything, or everything on certain surfaces, like the 1990's with Sampras, the late 1970's with Borg, and recently with Nadal on clay and Fed everywhere else.

It's funny how so many people who say that Federer dominated a weak era say in the next breath that Nadal is the greatest clay court player there's ever been.

barrystar wrote: ....................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................
It's far less charged to talk about 'competitive' eras when a handful of greats share out the slams or 'dominant eras' when one guy scoops everything, or everything on certain surfaces, like the 1990's with Sampras, the late 1970's with Borg, and recently with Nadal on clay and Fed everywhere else.

It's funny how so many people who say that Federer dominated a weak era say in the next breath that Nadal is the greatest clay court player there's ever been.

Statistically Nadal is of course the best-ever on clay, but I know precisely the point you're making - and a very pertinent point it is too.

Your previous sentence is also food for thought

bogbrush wrote:
No, your problem is determining the probabilities. You can only argue lower chances by reference to a player being tougher, which you can only do by reference to Slam totals, which I've shown you is exactly the same for every year.
It's circular, hence worthless. Won't stop the fans jumping up and own at the thought of being backed up, but I don't expect logic from many people these days.

I'll revert to my AO question.

You started a thread in which you highlighted the difficulty of Fed's draw.

By evaluating the quality of his opposition (most of whom did not have slams, so you must have brought other factors into play), you were able to determine that this was a particularly hard draw. The thrust of your comment was "has he ever had a tougher draw?".

If this sequence of opponents is particularly tough, does that not also mean sequences in the past have been easier?

If they have been easier, is that not because the players he faced were sometimes not as good?

If they have not been easier, what the purpose of the question?

My evaluation had nothing to do with zero sum data. It was all about my personal opinion.

I don't think we should focus on this argument as somehow it is denigrating to federer that the people he beat up on in the mid 2000s were simply not as strong. I personally believe that a players of his ability would have been the best player of probably any period he played in. In fact I think the bar that federer set pushed people like Nadal, Djoko, and murray to get better and therefore he deserves the most credit for what we have seen in the last 5 years. But at the same time I think it is a bridge too far to claim that players like hewitt, Roddick, Ferrero, Moya, and Safin are up to the quality of Nadal, Djoko, and Murray. Or conversly that they are up to snuff to the players that came immediately before them the Courier, Sampras, Andre, Becker and ebderg crowd. These players were shove aside in their physical primes by the new generation of players represented by Novak, Andy, Nadal, and yes even Tsonga and Berdych. Federer at 26 years old in 2007, prior to mono, had his two closest rivals in the rankings be two players aged 20 and 19. Where was Roddick, where was empanada Dave in their physical primes they were pushed aside as Fed's closest rivals.

I guess that's the engagement to Amrit called off then.

Pity, I was hoping to be best man.

socal1976 wrote:I don't think we should focus on this argument as somehow it is denigrating to federer that the people he beat up on in the mid 2000s were simply not as strong. I personally believe that a players of his ability would have been the best player of probably any period he played in. In fact I think the bar that federer set pushed people like Nadal, Djoko, and murray to get better and therefore he deserves the most credit for what we have seen in the last 5 years. But at the same time I think it is a bridge too far to claim that players like hewitt, Roddick, Ferrero, Moya, and Safin are up to the quality of Nadal, Djoko, and Murray. Or conversly that they are up to snuff to the players that came immediately before them the Courier, Sampras, Andre, Becker and ebderg crowd. These players were shove aside in their physical primes by the new generation of players represented by Novak, Andy, Nadal, and yes even Tsonga and Berdych. Federer at 26 years old in 2007, prior to mono, had his two closest rivals in the rankings be two players aged 20 and 19. Where was Roddick, where was empanada Dave in their physical primes they were pushed aside as Fed's closest rivals.

I wouldn't disagree too much with that. I still have my doubts about including Murray in the list, especiallu until the last 18 months or so, and Moya was 30 in 2006, so didn't get pushed aside in his prime.
It's to be expected that players 10 or 12 years later will play at a higher level, so I still reserve judgment on, say, Murray against Hewitt or Safin.
Also, a lack of longevity, while precluding a 'great' status, does not preclude that they could play at a fantastic level for two, mayber three years. Was Safin at his (short-lived) peak more of a challenge for Fed than Murray. I'd say yes. Was Murray more of a challenge over time. Probably.
Also socal touches on another important aspect. The up and coming top players set the goal of besting the existing top player. And if you're 5 years younger than the top player, more hungry, more adaptable, been brought up in the more modern conditions, with the more modern technology, it's going to help. Then when you catch/overtake the top player, and he's 28 or 29, he's usually no longer young enough to adapt/improve even further, yet again, to any great degree. You can raise the bar once, but doing it again is more difficult - as a result of age and mileage and having already achieved success. Hence each succeeding generation (I count Nadal, Djoko, and Murray as the next generation to Fed) surpasses the previous one. When Hewitt thumped Sampras at the USO, for example, he was hailed as the next generation who had moved the game on to the next level. I remember commentators saying Hewitt was untouchable "He could win 10 more Wimbledons" someone on the BBC said after his first victory there.

Yes Julius, that is the point I keep trying to make to federer fans to not internalize the shortcomings of those group of players as an assault on federer's legacy. To me the most telling statistic in this whole debate is the year end rankings of 2007. You had federer, prior to mono, still rather young about he same age as Djoko is now, and who was his closest rival in the year end rankings. A spanish 20 year old and a 19 year old serbian both of them not in their primes and still developing. Where was Roddick, Hewitt,nalbandian, Safin etc.

I will say this Safin on his day could beat anyone period. But he just was not that focused on tennis. He liked partying and supermodels more than hitting a fuzzy yellow ball or working out in the gym. Can't say I blame the man but he did underachieve because I think frankly he is one of the greatest athletic and physical specimens in the history of the game. But he could come out and be completely horrible and lose to nobodies all the time, players that had not one tenth his ability.

What a stupid debate , excuse my rudeness.

Lendl, and he is one i admire a lot, brought a fitness regime to the tour never seen before. And why did he bring that? Because that was the only way he could win against the others.

Now extrapolate this to Murray and Djokovic . To some extent to Nadal too

They have brought a game of run and retrieve to the tour... Err why did they bring that? They couldn't beat the so called old guard at their own game. So does that make the old guard weak? Or incredibly strong? Does weak opposition force you to adapt or strong?

If this is indeed a strong era a 32 year old should be despatched in straight sets and maybe even with a bagel or two.

Golden era is crap. Weak era is crap.
Each decade has its inherent strengths and weaknesses. Each winner is a deserving winner.


To the poster who said Federer fans should not be upset by this debate... I think Federer fans are a pretty mature bunch.. They are in Mount Olympus watching all the squabbling below in amusement.

coolpixel wrote:
Golden era is crap. Weak era is crap.
Each decade has its inherent strengths and weaknesses. Each winner is a deserving winner.

Can't argue with this point

coolpixel wrote: I think Federer fans are a pretty mature bunch.. They are in Mount Olympus watching all the squabbling below in amusement.

This on the other hand

Not sure that being a Fed fan makes someone a God.

I used to think football fans were nuts but seeing these same debates over and over again makes me think tennis fans are not that far behind.

The only cold immutable statistic is a win. Everything else is rationalisation of a perceived under or over achievement.

HM Murdoch wrote:

bogbrush wrote:
No, your problem is determining the probabilities. You can only argue lower chances by reference to a player being tougher, which you can only do by reference to Slam totals, which I've shown you is exactly the same for every year.
It's circular, hence worthless. Won't stop the fans jumping up and own at the thought of being backed up, but I don't expect logic from many people these days.

I'll revert to my AO question.

You started a thread in which you highlighted the difficulty of Fed's draw.

By evaluating the quality of his opposition (most of whom did not have slams, so you must have brought other factors into play), you were able to determine that this was a particularly hard draw. The thrust of your comment was "has he ever had a tougher draw?".

If this sequence of opponents is particularly tough, does that not also mean sequences in the past have been easier?

If they have been easier, is that not because the players he faced were sometimes not as good?

If they have not been easier, what the purpose of the question?

Let me ask a question. The example of quizzes A and B that you gave has the same answers, which are immutable (notice I did not use irrefutable). Once known, the question's answer will never change.

You are also implying by that analogy that two matchups over the years will yield the same result. If so, how do you explain Federer v Tipsarevic AO 2008 vs the rest of his matches.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=T742

The point I am trying to make is that each grand slam match is a different match, with no guarantees of the result.

Djokovic v Wawrinka, Djokovic vs Tsonga, Djokovic v Tipsarevic, or just look at Federer v Berdych or Federer v Tsonga. You have probability of a result being repeated, but no certainty.

Federer v Del Potro AO 2009 vs Rg 2009 vs USO 2009, very different matches. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation was the same during all matches.

If the slams were so predictable, we would stop watching Tennis.

coolpixel wrote:I used to think football fans were nuts but seeing these same debates over and over again makes me think tennis fans are not that far behind.

The only cold immutable statistic is a win. Everything else is rationalisation of a perceived under or over achievement.

Yes and by every objective measure of winning Hewitt, Roddick, Ferrero, Empanada Dave, and Safin failed when compared to the current crop of stars and the group that came before them. I would love an objective comparison between the two groups of players.

carrieg4 wrote:

coolpixel wrote:
Golden era is crap. Weak era is crap.
Each decade has its inherent strengths and weaknesses. Each winner is a deserving winner.

Can't argue with this point

coolpixel wrote: I think Federer fans are a pretty mature bunch.. They are in Mount Olympus watching all the squabbling below in amusement.

This on the other hand

Not sure that being a Fed fan makes someone a God.

Yes it is so hard to be a fan of the most successful player in history, but it is something that many federer fans suffer from this illusion that they are the ones with 17 slam victories.

It Must Be Love wrote:Julius I make my points, and they should be judged by the substance of them.
Rather than your interpretation on the person who made the points.

But the knowledge of the person will suggest whether it is more likely that they are making an honest argument or just advancing their viewpoint. There are many questions where the answer is not totally obvious and where reasonable people can end up on either side of the argument. A few examples in the Rafa/Roger debate could be:

• Was tennis somewhat weaker for many of Roger’s slam wins, and if so, how much did he benefit from it?
  
• Was clay court tennis somewhat weaker for many of Rafa’s RG wins, and if so, how much did he benefit from it?
  
• Was Roger playing at, or near, his best in the 2008 Wimbledon final?
  
• How far off his best was Rafa in his RG loss to Soderling?
  
• To what extent does Rafa-Roger H2H reflect their relative abilities, and to what extent is it a result of a match-up idiosyncrasy?
  
• To what extent is Rafa’s slow tempo between the points result of habits difficult to shake-off, and to what extent is it intentional?
  
• How much did Rafa’s results suffer over the years due to his knee problems?
  
• How much did Roger’s results suffer over the years due to his back problems?
  
• How does Rafa’s bumping into Rosol compare to Roger’s swearing against Andy?
  

Most of these do not have a clear cut answer and different people can justifiably end up with different answers. Yet, with questions like these, I typically only need to know the question at hand and I can make a pretty good guess as to which side you will be on - and I need only one very simple rule to make that guess.

In other words, while I think you indeed try to come up with valid arguments, you have firmly chosen your side and you are working to build arguments in its support, rather than honestly looking for best answers.

Imagine a couple of people chancing upon an interesting chess game somewhere in the middle game, trying to figure out what the options of each side are and which side is more likely in a better position. To me, you are someone who is not so much interested in finding out which side has the better position but rather someone who has already committed to one side, and is now looking for the best moves to win the game for that side.

Nothing wrong with that, perhaps most of us are to some degree like that here, but there is no point pretending that you are doing something else.

Interesting perspective summerblues, but I don't know the relevance of lukas rosol or some of your points to the question of whether the early 2000 players were relatively weaker than their immediate predecessors and the players that come after them. In my mind the most telling statistic is that at the end of 2007 a 20 year old Nadal and a 19 year old djokovic were Roger federer's closest competitors. Not any of his contemporaries who were in their physical primes. I just find it hilarious that Nadal's one sided victories on clay can be questioned while Federer's roughshod treatment of his contemporaries can not in any way reflect badly on the quality of his early rivals. In short, by any objective measure the Hewitt, Ferrero, Roddick, Empanada Dave, and safin group of players fail to measure up to the top ranked players of the current era or those that came before them. And no it wasn't just federer beating them all the time, most of those players struggled to maintain relevance during what should have been their physical primes. If they were better they would have won more. They didn't, and all the dancing around the facts doesn't change the substantive lack of results they had. I have yet to hear a good explanation as to why fed's closest rivals even when he was at his peak, and his rivals were far from their peak were named Djokovic and Nadal and not Nalbandian or Roddick.

socal1976 wrote:but I don't know the relevance of lukas rosol or some of your points to the question of whether the early 2000 players were relatively weaker than their immediate predecessors and the players that come after them

...which is only a good thing as I was not attempting to address that question.

I suppose I should, given the topic of this thread. All in all, I am inclined to think that the early 2000s were indeed a tad weaker than say the current period. But I think it is nowhere near as clear cut as you would make it out to be.

As mentioned before, a lot of these arguments are inherently somewhat circular - are the guys collecting all those trophies that good or are they just ok with the ones below them a bit on the weaker side? Who is to tell? Somewhere on this thread someone seemed to imply that Jack Nicklaus was part of a strong era because there were a few other guys collecting many trophies around then. Yet for every such person you will see some that are happy to turn that argument around and claim that there were really only a handful golfers that were any good then, so no wonder they were dominating, and that what Tiger has done is much more impressive.

Your argument that we only need to compare Fed's contemporaries against young Nole and Andy to see who was superior does look better, but it is nowhere near as bullet-proof as you make it out to be. As it happens, early 2000s were a period when conditions changed to reduce the overdominance of serve. Fed's contemporaries (as Fed himself) were largely growing up under different conditions, so they could make a claim that it was the new conditions that made them obsolete.

In any event, as I said, I am inclined to agree with you that early 2000s were indeed a bit weaker, but nowhere near by the kind of margin you would like to see.

Well summerblues, I don't think they were dramatically weaker, depends on what you define dramatically as. First off it is never easy to dominate the top level of the game, so everything is relative. All the players I mentioned are very good players in their own right but for dominant stars they are weaker when compared to what we have seen in the last few years. So I don't think our arguments are that far off.

Quite right summerblues. I once wasted a day trying to explain to amrit that playing doubles was not proof of fitness for singles play.

It took a long time before he got it. Naturally, he'd taken an entrenched position in the cause of his single purpose opinion and struggled to give it up. We got there in the end though.

Your last sentence of your 2:38 post is very true.

laverfan wrote:Let me ask a question. The example of quizzes A and B that you gave has the same answers, which are immutable (notice I did not use irrefutable). Once known, the question's answer will never change.

You are also implying by that analogy that two matchups over the years will yield the same result. If so, how do you explain Federer v Tipsarevic AO 2008 vs the rest of his matches.

I think you are applying the analogy a bit too literally.

I was making the broad point that the presence of weaker players does not make it easier to win a slam if there are still very challenging players in the draw also. It makes it easier to go deep into a slam but not easier to win. It was a response to the line of reasoning that having a 31 year old David Ferrer in the top 5 and only having 4 real contenders (i.e. no strength in depth) makes this era easier to win a slam in.

I don't believe matches always yield the same result but we can make a guess at how tough a match up is.

When Novak had a SF v Ferrer and Fed had a SF v Murray, everyone knew Novak had the easier draw. We couldn't say for sure that Novak would win - Ferrer might play the match of his life - but the likelihood is that he would.

We all talk about easier or harder draws or of draws "opening up" for players. We must all therefore believe that some sequences of opponents will be tougher than other sequences.

If we all accept this premise can happen in the present, I don't understand why some people are unwilling to consider that it could have happened in the past.

How does this relate to eras? Well, either:
a) the quality of tennis players is constant over the years
or
b) some periods contain better players than other periods.

My experience of any sport is that b) is the case. And if a period can contain weaker players, it also stands to reason that the sequences of opponents it can offer will also be weaker.

Now we can debate until the cows come home about whether player X from period A is better than player Y from period B and I suspect we will never come to a unanimous view.

But I'm not keen on the view that even the idea of one period being weaker than another is wrong.

Lol Bogbrush, you always bring that up

To clear up my position there, I wa saying I had watched the Federer doubles final live, and from what I had seen from Federer he didn't look hampered by any sort of injury or illness.
This is different from what you implied, that somehow I had indicated randomly that doubles is more demanding than singles. Which wasn't what I was trying to say at all. But then you started 'educating' me on that for the next week, continuously repeating it despite me making clear I had never hinted at that.
I even watched some Rafa high velocity training from yesterday, and from that I tried to make a judgement on whether he was fully fit. He seemed ok but I don't think looked as comfortable as normal.
Now Im fully aware that training isn't really as demanding as singles, and nor is doubles really, but I still think we can gain a few things by observing it.
What you said was totally different from what Summerblues said. SB made an interesting post which I will address, you mis-understood and misinterpreted one of my posts, called me stupid (to be fair of I did actually believe that doubles is as demanding as singles that would be a fair remark), then went on about it for ages.

I didn't imply you said it was more demanding. The discussion went on because you maintained your view, it could hardly have gone on otherwise.

The point here is SB makes, which applies to most of us, that many discussions here are meaningless as positions can be accurately predicted as based on prejudice rather than fact. That item was a case in point, and not unfair really.

Anyway, I'll not bring it up again. Maybe

"But I'm not keen on the view that even the idea of one period being weaker than another is wrong."

One can have all kinds of ideas and without ideas a message board will die.

The problem with having a fanatical belief ,which is what this is increasingly sounding like, that one era is stronger than another era, is that one just doesn't know.

Until you have lived in various periods,you don't know and all these arguments and statistics are just meaningless. And the problem with relying on memories of those who have lived through different periods is either the rose tinted memory problem or recent memory problem.

There is no such thing as an objective analysis when comparing periods.

As I mentioned earlier, the irony of which escaped socal, the only immutable fact is wins. One can use the number of wins to either justify one period was so weak that dominance was easy or use the no win situation of another player to justify that the period is so strong and hence those results.

Or you can use those statistics to convey the opposiste.

All crap. Eras are eras. Periods are periods. Every winner is a worthy winner and titles such as one slam wonder are grossly insulting to professional players who make a career from playing tennis.

summerblues wrote:

• Was tennis somewhat weaker for many of Roger’s slam wins, and if so, how much did he benefit from it?
  
• Was clay court tennis somewhat weaker for many of Rafa’s RG wins, and if so, how much did he benefit from it?
  
• Was Roger playing at, or near, his best in the 2008 Wimbledon final?
  
• How far off his best was Rafa in his RG loss to Soderling?
  
• To what extent does Rafa-Roger H2H reflect their relative abilities, and to what extent is it a result of a match-up idiosyncrasy?
  
• To what extent is Rafa’s slow tempo between the points result of habits difficult to shake-off, and to what extent is it intentional?
  
• How much did Rafa’s results suffer over the years due to his knee problems?
  
• How much did Roger’s results suffer over the years due to his back problems?
  
• How does Rafa’s bumping into Rosol compare to Roger’s swearing against Andy?
  

Some good questions here. Let's have a go at answering them:

- The competition was weaker in the earlier part of Federer's career. There is no way to prove this. It can only be a subjective assessment that the likes of Safin, Hewitt and Roddick were not as strong as Federer's current opposition. If Federer had, for example, failed to win another slam after Wim 08 then there would have been legitimate arguments that he took advantage of a slightly fallow period at the top of the game. However, he has since then rose to the challenge and picked up another 5 slams. He might not have won quite as many slams had he been the same age as Nadal but I think he'd still have won more than anyone else.

- Whilst subjective, I think the position here is rather more clear-cut. There have been no credible clay courters to challenge Rafa. Had it not been for Ferrero's problems (and Coria's mental issues) he might have had to wait a bit longer to establish himself, although I have little doubt he would still have surpassed them.

- Roger played awful tennis in the first two sets. He was ok after that but could clearly play better.

- at the time, there was no obvious sign of any impairment. It looked like he got beaten by a magical display from Soderling. He'd looked absolutely fine in thumping Hewitt in the previous round. A shame in some ways that the subsequent injury revelations mean that Soderling perhaps doesn't quite get the credit he should for that display.

- It's a match up issue combined with the fact they have met most often on clay.

- I'm sure there is an element of habit but I have little doubt he will play quicker if he starts frequently losing first serves.

- relatively significantly. He's missed a fair number of slams and was clearly affected in at least a couple of others.

- minimally

- rafa bumping Rosol was far worse than Fed swearing at Murray.

coolpixel wrote:"But I'm not keen on the view that even the idea of one period being weaker than another is wrong."

One can have all kinds of ideas and without ideas a message board will die.

The problem with having a fanatical belief ,which is what this is increasingly sounding like, that one era is stronger than another era, is that one just doesn't know.

I'm surprised the relatively mild "not keen on" has earned a rebuke. If that's fanaticism, I'm just glad I didn't write "dislike"! Who knows what that would have made me?!

BTW, it's likely Coria's "mental" issues were IMO due to the heavy losses inflicted by Nadal. The Rome 2005 loss was particularly hard to take.

Coria was no doubt gutted by the loss to Gaudio at RG. But Coria’s career wasnt officially over at that point because I reckon he still believed he was the superior player. Coria was probably disgusted by that RG04 loss but knew he'd simply wasted his opportunity. He could come back and earn his rightful place. Or so he thought. It was Rafael Nadal who effectively ended Coria’s career.

It couldnt be the 2004 loss anyway because Coria still made the finals of 4 tournaments in 2005 and actually won one of them. He took a set off Nadal in Monte Carlo and 2 in Rome. Coria's problem was that unlike the RG final, there was no choking. He wasn’t beaten due to loss of nerve or because he was simply unable to close out the win. He lost because Nadal was simply better than him. Every time.

Unlike RG04 there was no fooling himself that he “could” have succeeded. Instead, he had to come to terms with the fact that he had been replaced as the guy to beat on clay...and by a pirate-pant wearing youngster with swagger no less. In hindsight, Coria was one of the first to recognize Rafael Nadal was quite simply a clay court phenomena. After that, there was no place left for the Argentinian to hide from Nadal. He knew it and couldn't deal with it.

From the last time that he lost to Nadal in the Beijing 05 final, Coria ceased to be a major factor on the tennis court. Nadal had squeezed him right out.

So, as "weak" as people may say Nadal's opposition was don't forget the damage he did to people back then. He simply never lost matches on clay, and that must have been hard for established or up and coming claycourters. For example, don't forget that as a 16 year old Nadal beat the defending and clay-wily French Open champion Albert Costa in straight sets at Monte Carlo 2003. Cut it however you like but that is some talent to break through like that against a defending slam champion on his favoured surface. Costa was still only 27 years old. Can you imagine how Costa must have felt? Funnily enough he didn't do much after this either and he was part of the golden clay generation of the later 90s, albeit a little younger.

So for me it would be no wonder than the era became a clay cake walk because Nadal simply destroyed the old and new guard into submission. Only the mighty Federer proved any sort of challenge to him on clay after 2005.

I fail to see how losing in Rome would have been more damaging than losing a French Open from a position of complete control against Gaudio. I think heavy losses may be overdoing it somewhat? Id also be astonished if a defeat caused the yips.

It wasn't just losing in Rome, Nadal beat him in 3 finals across 2005. It wasn't like he was folding in 2005 after the 2004 RG loss was it.

By the last time they played, at MC 2006, Coria won just 3 games. He was a shadow of his former self.
So for me it wasn't just one defeat but a series that made Coria doubt himself...after all yips are psychological and for a tennis pro to break down in that way meant something seriously wrong was going on between his ears. But that "something wrong" didnt happen after 2004RG, it happened after the heavy losses to Nadal in 2005. That's my take on it anyway.

You seem to have added a fair bit. I'm struggling a lot with an argument that Coria, having lost 8-6 in a fifth set tiebreak concluded that there was no way that he could have won the match and that Nadal was simply better than him. It clearly had such an effect in him that he won 9 of his next 10 matches, only losing a very close match to Federer. Losing to Davydenko comfortably at the French would have been far more damaging.

It's not like Nadal was the only one he was losing to. He lost three times to Fed in the same period.

Who knows why he went downhill. I doubt very much it was because of one player. Probably a combination of injuries, other players and various other reasons.

emancipator wrote:It's not like Nadal was the only one he was losing to. He lost three times to Fed in the same period.

Who knows why he went downhill. I doubt very much it was because of one player. Probably a combination of injuries, other players and various other reasons.

No. Not because of Federer. Or anyone else. Only Nadal.

In fact, Fed's victories over Coria were meaningless.

He was lucky in a way good clay-court players except Nadal were not around circa 2005-07. (Proof: His 3rd round loss to Kuerten in RG 2004).

Or so I'm told.

emancipator wrote:It's not like Nadal was the only one he was losing to. He lost three times to Fed in the same period.

Who knows why he went downhill. I doubt very much it was because of one player. Probably a combination of injuries, other players and various other reasons.

He primarily went downhill because he lost the ability to serve. Speaking as someone who has also had that problem, I have a great deal of sympathy for him. It is highly unlikely it was because he lost to Rafa. I see Lydian appears to have borrowed liberally from this article:

http://www.tennistalk.com/en/blog/Cheryl_Murray/20101102/The_end_of_Guillermo_Coria

My general view would be that Cheryl Murray, whilst writing quite nicely, does tend somewhat to over egg Nadal's brilliance.

Yes borrowed from that article but added other things too. I just share a similar viewpoint to her on this.

However, I will add that the RG loss was the start of the rot. But the Rome loss tipped him over IMO and led to the yips. I dont believe the yips themselves killed him (as Wiki states) in themselves, I think they were a new symptom of his mental turmoil and loss of motivation from heavy defeats. Most tennis pros get yips from time to time but they usually overcome them. Can you think of any other male pro this happened to mid-career like this? It was and still is very unusual. Again however I'm prepared to cut Coria a bit of slack because he also had shoulder issues and needed surgery in Nov. 04 but that didnt seem to cause visible issues before US 2005.

lydian wrote:BTW, it's likely Coria's "mental" issues were IMO due to the heavy losses inflicted by Nadal.

LOL, this is surreal.

Born Slippy wrote:

emancipator wrote:It's not like Nadal was the only one he was losing to. He lost three times to Fed in the same period.

Who knows why he went downhill. I doubt very much it was because of one player. Probably a combination of injuries, other players and various other reasons.

He primarily went downhill because he lost the ability to serve. Speaking as someone who has also had that problem, I have a great deal of sympathy for him. It is highly unlikely it was because he lost to Rafa. I see Lydian appears to have borrowed liberally from this article:

http://www.tennistalk.com/en/blog/Cheryl_Murray/20101102/The_end_of_Guillermo_Coria

My general view would be that Cheryl Murray, whilst writing quite nicely, does tend somewhat to over egg Nadal's brilliance.

Surely this is not the same women who wrote that awful article about how great and humble is Rafa and how mean and nasty his rivals (chiefly Screech) are?

Anyway it's quite fantastical to suggest that Coria developed yips because of some psychological blow as a result of defeats to Nadal.

Ok, I've just noticed Lydian's last post.. the story gets even more convoluted.

I wonder why none of Fed's contemporaries developed yips after being mauled by him so consistently or indeed Rafa himself after Screech mauled him non-stop for a whole year

Look we all have opinions, the beauty is that they differ from time to time. I watched clay tennis heavily around the period in question and it was my take that Coria's confidence was finally shot after the Rome loss. The yips come about due to lack of confidence in your ability to perform...again, this is highly unusual to have to a top10 pro player mid-career. Sadly, the RG04 loss caused a creak to occur in that confidence but it was the Nadal loss that smashed it open...in my opinion.

For a review of Coria this article is a good read... http://stevew13.hubpages.com/hub/What-happened-to-Guillermo-Coria

He was an entertaining player to watch, although I couldn't stand the guy - nor did many of his peers. He SHOULD have challenged Nadal for many seasons but alas not, and would have helped fill the clay talent gap we talk of in the mid00s onwards.

Coria had medical issues, which are well documented. His back caused him problems. The DFs are a story by themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillermo_Coria

Lydian... I think it is unfair to assume that defeats by Nadal were the sole problems for Coria.

It was one of the factors.

It would be interesting to see how Ivan Lendl would have done if he had played in this current era of tennis rather than back in the 1980's when there were a lot of touch/flair type players like Andrew Castle, Jeremy Bates and John Lloyd playing tennis.

Indeed and LF I have also raised a few issues that troubled Coria. My opinion is simply that the RG loss caused a crack in the ice to appear, the Rome loss caused the iceberg to split open with the yips a casualty of the cracked ice. Clearly, for whatever reason, he just wasn't strong enough to handle the troughs along with the peaks. A shame really, he was a very graceful mover and very talented for someone with such a slight frame. He and Gaudio hated each others guts so the RG loss was all the harder to stomach. I wonder what his career could have been like had he won RG and beat Nadal at Rome...

We agree with Lydian.

We've said for many years that Nadal wouldn't have won any RG titles if the 'True King of Clay' Guillermo Coria hadn't got the 'yips'.

Spaghetti-Hans wrote:We agree with Lydian.

We've said for many years that Nadal wouldn't have won any RG titles if the 'True King of Clay' Guillermo Coria hadn't got the 'yips'.

Comedy, great job Spaghetti, I love it!