Era Discussions For All Time Periods

by CaledonianCraig Sun 03 Feb 2013, 11:21 am

I noticed that two topics went wildly off topic and developed into a golden era/weak era debate. Now I see era debates now as pretty pointless as both parties will never budge from their stand and also they are so difficult to judge. Whereas some see golden eras as ones with the very best players in the top four mopping up the slam wins others argue that slam wins evenly distributed around to players outside the top players displays strength in depth. Also when do eras start and finish - another very difficult thing to judge.

One player that is a constant n both debates are Roger Federer. Some feel his early slam wins came in a weak era and dried up towards the end of the golden era which he is also deemed to be a part of which surely means Federer should be used as a yardstick. If we look at Roger Federer (and I believe his fans feel his peak years were 2003 to 2007) and see how he fared against players prominent in the early 2000's in this time compared to players prominent in the late 2000's (only taking matches played during Fed's peak years) then we see interesting stats.

Head-to-heads:-

Federer V Safin (Federer 5-1)

Federer V Roddick (Federer 12-1)

Federer V Hewitt (Federer 11-1)

Now for players from the late 2000's playing Federer in his peak whilst some of these listed were at pre-peak:-

Federer V Nadal (Nadal 8-6)

Federer V Djokovic (Federer 5-1)

Federer V Murray (Level at 1-1)

Make from those stats what you will but era debates perhaps on here would be better restricted to just one thread?

by bogbrush Sun 03 Feb 2013, 12:51 pm

Craig, I like you but what do you actually hope to achieve with this article? Seriously?

by CaledonianCraig Sun 03 Feb 2013, 1:19 pm

Keep era debates in one article for a start instead of encroaching in topics all over the forum

by time please Sun 03 Feb 2013, 1:33 pm

I don't think you can try and regulate how conversation ebbs and flows on here - not without killing any spontaneity. Era debates are part of conversation about any sport and the most read threads and the ones with the greatest participation are usually those that meander about all over the place as one topic sparks off another - just like a conversation in actual space! Very Happy

by Jeremy_Kyle Sun 03 Feb 2013, 1:37 pm

I would build on this idea, to enclose all the trash-talking debates in just one giant single thread, to be kept in the sticky section.

Best title for this thread: "Fisticuffs in the fourth".

by bogbrush Sun 03 Feb 2013, 1:46 pm

JK, Nice idea, but the garbage doesn't come from the threads but from the wishes and thoughts of the posters. The only way to remove it is to remove the posters.

Craig, if you truly wanted to do that you'd not have written yet another article to espouse your one agenda on this subject. We know you think Andy should earn further promotion, I can't believe any more can be usefully added on that.

by CaledonianCraig Sun 03 Feb 2013, 1:50 pm

odd comments BB. Besides are you not guilty of doing exactly the same with Seb Vettel in the motor racing section??

by **laverfan** Sun 03 Feb 2013, 2:00 pm

Craig... Should it be a Fedal GOATness debate or BB v CC Motor Racing one? Wink

Just kidding. Run

JK wants me to go back to 15 pages of sworn jury testimony. That article should be renamed 'Nuremberg of Tennis'.

by bogbrush Sun 03 Feb 2013, 2:00 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:odd comments BB. Besides are you not guilty of doing exactly the same with Seb Vettel in the motor racing section??

No, I have brought a news item to the attention of the forum, not trying to creates redundant thread with a claim to uniting a specific debate under it.

In fact I can't see any resemblance.

by User 774433 Sun 03 Feb 2013, 2:01 pm

Nadal= GOAT.

by Jeremy_Kyle Sun 03 Feb 2013, 2:03 pm

Banning posters sometimes might feel too harsh, moving comments/ debates that are doomed since inception into the trash thread, would do the job wonderfully Smile

by User 774433 Sun 03 Feb 2013, 2:05 pm

That would be a good new rule.

Any posters who want to discuss whether any eras are stronger than others are immediately banned.

I'd be fecked.

by bogbrush Sun 03 Feb 2013, 2:06 pm

Oh I don't advocate banning, I'm just saying topic restriction is missing the target completely.

by User 774433 Sun 03 Feb 2013, 2:07 pm

If anyone says 'player X is GOAT', that means you are comparing players from different eras.

by bogbrush Sun 03 Feb 2013, 2:24 pm

by CaledonianCraig Sun 03 Feb 2013, 2:25 pm

Simple though isn’t it BB. If you or people want to contribute to the topic then go ahead. If not then avoid the plague.

by User 774433 Sun 03 Feb 2013, 2:26 pm

And hence comparing different eras.

by bogbrush Sun 03 Feb 2013, 2:26 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:And hence comparing different eras.

Absolutely.

by User 774433 Sun 03 Feb 2013, 3:05 pm

by hawkeye Sun 03 Feb 2013, 3:25 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:Nadal= GOAT.

But.. but how can you say that when Federer also has a claim to being GOAT? Oh *** does that mean I'm banned?

by User 774433 Sun 03 Feb 2013, 3:27 pm

hawkeye wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:Nadal= GOAT.

But.. but how can you say that when Federer also has a claim to being GOAT? Oh *** does that mean I'm banned?

by **laverfan** Sun 03 Feb 2013, 4:08 pm

@Craig...

Let me point out the problem with h2hs

Nalbandian (one slam final)...

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=N301

Hewitt - had to wait from 2003 to 2010 to win a match...

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=H432

Davydenko (never been to a slam final...)

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=D402

... and this one...

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=D402&oId=N409

This is also referenced by Uncle T in one of his interviews (as you can see the reference in Nuremberg of Tennis thread).

by **laverfan** Sun 03 Feb 2013, 4:10 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:Any posters who want to discuss whether any eras are stronger than others are immediately banned.

Should we not just ban Tennis as a terrorist and subversive plot to weaken the financial and social fabric of the planet? chin

by CaledonianCraig Sun 03 Feb 2013, 4:18 pm

I know head to heads can’t solely be relied on as evidence but don’t you think that is one piece of evidence. Sure some players match up poorly against others but there is a distinct pattern in those I posted earlier. As in Federer was very rarely beaten by (ranking wise) players thought to be his chief challengers unlike the later generation who arguably had yet to even peak whilst Federer was at his peak.

by bogbrush Sun 03 Feb 2013, 4:42 pm

I've never heard that argument before!

Wink

by socal1976 Sun 03 Feb 2013, 7:12 pm

Of course it is obvious that even as teenagers Nadal, Djoko, ane Murray put up more resistance to federer than the earlier rollover generation. The most telling fact for me in this debate is the year end rankings of 2007, the cusp or beginning period of what has been deemed the golden era. Prior to mono, a Roger in his physical peak, his closest rivals in the ATP rankings were one novak djokovic #3, and #2 Nadal. None of roger's contemporaries were as close to these puppy versions of djokovic and nadal. Both players would get better and better over the years from what they were at the end of 07. But even at the end of 07, they were the closest in level to Roger. Not empanada Dave or one shot Andy.

by CaledonianCraig Sun 03 Feb 2013, 7:47 pm

Well the head-to-head records support that theory. Another thing is what happened to the Safin's, Hewitt's, Roddick's and Nalbandian's of that early 2000's? I mean why weren't they able to stick around and regularly reach slam finals from mid-2000's onwards? I believe I am right in saying Safin self-destructed due to lack of commitment, some will say the surface speeds hindered Roddick whilst injuries are explained away for Hewitt and Nalbandian. Anyone care to expand on that?

by bogbrush Sun 03 Feb 2013, 7:52 pm

I feel like Bill Murray.

by newballs Sun 03 Feb 2013, 8:08 pm

CC taking your argument then to its logical conclusions Murray then won his first slam in a temporary weak era when Nadal was injured, Federer was over the hill and Djokovic had an off day. Fast forward a few months to the AO and normal service was resumed when in a strongish era (still in the absence of Nadal but Federer being more up for the challenge) Novak triumphed once more.

Of course you could always argue that if Murray hadn't been playing in such a strong era then he would already have won multiple slams and we'd now be talking him up as candidate for GOAT rather than that very fortunate Swiss guy who got lucky with his date of birth.

by CaledonianCraig Sun 03 Feb 2013, 8:39 pm

newballs - a reaction thats sums up how ultra-defensive Federer fans get at the talk of weak era/strong era. What it has to do with Murray I have no idea. However, I'd sooner have seen Murray playing the likes of Safin, Roddick and Nalbandian in slam finals than Federer, Nadal and Djokovic - who wouldn't?

In my opinion in any case a slam win is a slam win whatever the era. Also at the moment a new era is dawning and as Nadal is still injured I wouldn't call it a golden era now in any case. However, how strong this era will be depends on variables such as how many slam wins Djokovic tallies up, if Murray goes on to win any more and whether Nadal returns from injury to add to his slam total.

by bogbrush Sun 03 Feb 2013, 9:04 pm

No, those are meaningless.

If the next 8 Slams go to 8 different newcomers this era will have exactly the same aggregate strength.

The elite worshippers just don't get the basic maths. Same number of Slams, same aggregate strength. In depth or at the top, no way of telling which is better.

Still, great to have this new discussion.

by CaledonianCraig Sun 03 Feb 2013, 9:15 pm

Yes BB I do agree with you there that one slam win is one slam win definitely - no matter what or how the era is described. However, it is not silly or unrealistic to say that one period in tennis is stronger/weaker than another. The truth can be said about any sport.

by bogbrush Sun 03 Feb 2013, 9:21 pm

Of course it can be said, I would never deny that. What is so badly wrong is to use Slam counts to prove it one way or another.

I can't believe how long this idea has persisted in face of the obviously illogical basis.

What we're left with is that era strength is just subjective. I have no problem with subjectivity, just when it masquerades as objectivity.

by CaledonianCraig Sun 03 Feb 2013, 9:27 pm

Yes but is it not that one goes hand in hand. I mean if people were to give their favourite eras of tennis it will invariably be at a time when a multiple slam winner was plying their trade such as mid 2000's (Federer), early to late 1990's (Sampras), mid to late 1970's (Borg).

by **JuliusHMarx** Sun 03 Feb 2013, 9:31 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:newballs - a reaction thats sums up how ultra-defensive Federer fans get at the talk of weak era/strong era. What it has to do with Murray I have no idea. However, I'd sooner have seen Murray playing the likes of Safin, Roddick and Nalbandian in slam finals than Federer, Nadal and Djokovic - who wouldn't?

Safin at his best i.e. playing well enough to get to a grand slam final would be a match for anyone in a hard court final. His weakness of not getting to many finals doesn't negate the fact that if he got there, it means he was playing well enough and focussed enough to beat anyone.
Granted if you played 5 random matches against Safin, he probably would turn up hungover to 3 of them, but that's a different matter than GS finals.
And on balance, I might even take Roddick at his best on grass to be more of a challenge than Djoko.

by CaledonianCraig Sun 03 Feb 2013, 9:38 pm

Give me Safin any day in a slam final over Federer though and Roddick on grass was a threat but when Murray lost to him the semis at Wimbledon I was far more gutted than if it had been one of the top seeds. That, I saw was a big chance missed.

by invisiblecoolers Sun 03 Feb 2013, 9:38 pm

bogbrush wrote:JK, Nice idea, but the garbage doesn't come from the threads but from the wishes and thoughts of the posters. The only way to remove it is to remove the posters.

Craig, if you truly wanted to do that you'd not have written yet another article to espouse your one agenda on this subject. We know you think Andy should earn further promotion, I can't believe any more can be usefully added on that.

, I second it.

by invisiblecoolers Sun 03 Feb 2013, 9:39 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:Nadal= GOAT.

Djokovic = COW

by **JuliusHMarx** Sun 03 Feb 2013, 9:43 pm

invisiblecoolers wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:Nadal= GOAT.

Djokovic = COW

Fish = FISH

by CaledonianCraig Sun 03 Feb 2013, 9:48 pm

If I have an agenda here then I don't see that it is relevant here. Unless you feel I am inventing things? The head-to-heads are accurate and am even using it so they are most beneficial to Federer as in only using results from his peak years. Besides folks is it really rocket science that Federer took tennis onto a new level of excellence (above what those around him in the early 2000's could live with). Another snippet of evidence comes from Tim Henman who reached No.2 in the world but was always adamant that Murray was better than him. Murray fleetingly got to No.2 but has averaged out as No.4 in rankings in recent years. More evidence of greater strength of the late 2000's?

by **JuliusHMarx** Sun 03 Feb 2013, 9:52 pm

Henman's highest ranking was 4, but it's fair to say Murray is better.

by socal1976 Sun 03 Feb 2013, 9:56 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes BB I do agree with you there that one slam win is one slam win definitely - no matter what or how the era is described. However, it is not silly or unrealistic to say that one period in tennis is stronger/weaker than another. The truth can be said about any sport.

Exactly, Craig it is common logic that while the sport in the long haul progresses when comparing players close together in time it is possible to have one period that is particularly strong and other more transitional or retrenchment periods. I think you were the one said it is like the stock market, over the long haul the level of play on the tour goes up and up. But the progress isn't always in a straight line. It is illogical to think that every group of players within a short period are always just as good. But we know that federer fans can not accept anything that could possibly reflect in anyway badly on Roger federer go undefended. Everything Roger accomplished is the best and the period he dominated was as good as any ever, that is why a lot of this false logic of there being no difference is fought for so aggressively.

by socal1976 Sun 03 Feb 2013, 10:01 pm

No matter what the supposed bias or agenda of posters maybe the facts are the facts.

Roddick, Hewitt, Nalby, Safin, Ferrero<Nadal,Murray, Djoko etc

It isn't even really up for debate unless we believe that objective victories don't matter in rating players who played immediately before another group. In reverence to federer we have to believe the absurdity that the objective numbers in favor of one group is not an accurate measure.

by **JuliusHMarx** Sun 03 Feb 2013, 10:01 pm

So does anyone disagree with CC's statement "one slam win is one slam win definitely - no matter what or how the era is described"?

i.e. any slam won by Player A is of equal worth to any slam won by Player B?

by CaledonianCraig Sun 03 Feb 2013, 10:03 pm

Also players are synonymous with decades. Mention the 1970's and Borg, Connors and McEnroe are who spring to mind. Think 1980's and it is Becker, Lendl and Edberg. The 90's envoke memories of Sampras, Courier and Agassi. Whilst the 2000's and you think of Federer and Nadal.

by socal1976 Sun 03 Feb 2013, 10:04 pm

I don't, however in a close slam count between two players the period they played could come into the analysis as a tiebreaker. Does anyone give Emerson 13 slams of credit lets say compared to Sampras who finished with one more or with borg who finished with a couple less? I don't think simply raw slam numbers can completely tell the story. What would happen if hypothetically Rafa comes back like a supernova and wins 4 slams in a row completes a slam and retires with 15 slams? Who would be GOAT?

by **JuliusHMarx** Sun 03 Feb 2013, 10:07 pm

CC that illustrates how difficult it is to define an 'era'. McEnroe won 6 of his 7 slams in the 80s.

by CaledonianCraig Sun 03 Feb 2013, 10:08 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:So does anyone disagree with CC's statement "one slam win is one slam win definitely - no matter what or how the era is described"?

i.e. any slam won by Player A is of equal worth to any slam won by Player B?

Of course and that is why I disagreed with BB when he tried to re-evaluate the slams on another thread. A slam win is a slam win but that does not change the fact that you have spells in the sport when some eras are weaker/stronger than others.

by CaledonianCraig Sun 03 Feb 2013, 10:11 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:CC that illustrates how difficult it is to define an 'era'. McEnroe won 6 of his 7 slams in the 80s.

True. For me though the 70's are when Mac first came to prominence. I loved that era with the scraps between McEnroe and Connors with needle and all between them. Great times.

by socal1976 Sun 03 Feb 2013, 10:12 pm

Slams are slams Craig but is a raw slam count the only measure of which player is greater? What if other accomplishments and factors favor another player?

by Sponsored content