Era Discussions For All Time Periods

First topic message reminder :

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?

hawkeye wrote:Oh! Have just seen this interesting conversation but have to go out. Sigh...

Date with Andy Murray?

socal1976 wrote: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?

I think slams are the strongest measure from the current era - i.e. starting somewhere between 1983-1988 when the Australian Open approached an equal footing with the other four - but it's not a useful measure of Connors' or Mac's or Borg's greatness to count slams for example, and the further back in time you go the truer that becomes.

If you must have the debate I think you've probably got to acknowledge Fed as the GOAT on the numbers. Illogical though it may seem to some, I do think that there's room for a debate centred on the lack of real rivals to push him in his period of greatest dominance, and the dominance of their H2H by his greatest rival Nadal. I think it's a counter-anwswer that Nadal's dominance of their H2H is due in part to Fed's ability to get through to clay finals for a good old smack-down, and Nadal's inability to get through to HC finals for a smackdown in 2006-2008, which is one why Nadal has no claim to be the GOAT.

Personally I think GOAT is a waste of breath if you are going to take it too seriously. For more important for me than Fed's numbers is that I have never ever watched him play without a sense of "what is he going to do next" and that is where I think his true greatness lies.

Another perfectly reasonable 'Fed fan' - looking at both sides of the argument. It is a sad for Fed Extremists - all seem quite mellow here

I agree with both Barry and bb in that there are several arguments to be made and the opinion we all hold in the end will be largely subjective not objective - there are too many variables to come to a definite conclusion.

I just think that some posters have to accept that you aren't going to win everyone round to your point of view no matter what tenacity you bring to the argument.

Your last paragraph barry sums up why Fed enters to a massive cheer and affection all over the world - not because of his numbers but because people delight in watching him play.

time please wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Hewitts main enemy was injury. He was immense before his body started giving out on him. Someone mentioned the other day how he was tipped to wins shedloads of Slams.

I had the privilege of watching Hewitt at Queens and Wimbledon 2002 and he was awesome. His mind and spirit are still the same despite a wrecked body.

2002 Hewitt would have broken the heart and spirit of Murray and the heart and spirit of 2008-2010 Djokovic in my very unhumble opinion. It is completely irrelevant to his achievements in 2002 which were fantastic and emphatic and exciting to watch, whatever came later. He burned fiercely and brightly albeit for a short time.

I think I'll have another

I love these rose tinted retrospective opinions of players who peaked for 6 months. Next we'll be saying that 2002 was the best Tennis ever - rather than the borefest it was (easily the worst stuff since 1991)

No matter how mannered and intelligent some of those arguing against the strength of this era present themselves, a common theme often shines brightly; an assumption that Andy and Nole are just "heart and spirit" and it just needs a better "warrior" to beat them (or a perfectly fit Roger)

They're not as Roger found out at The Olympics and at the O2 (sorry - he wasn't fit was he!!)

It would be good if we could recognise they are unique talents and realise they compliment the unique talents of Roger and Rafa - making them a foursome that has a strong argument as been the best Top 4, ever

That of course would mean unconditionally agreeing that Murray and Djokovic have unique talents, which is very very hard for some on these boards

Myself, Socal,CC, Carrieg etc live in hope, though

Meanwhile we'll loook forward to the return of Rafa with relish as it (hopefully) further strengthens this great era

Banbro,

I think what TP said was fair. I think personally A Hewitt from 2001-2002 as short as peak as it was could've taken any of the top 4 on their day. Again it is speculation.

Some players have that little burst. Take Safin AO 2005. He was scarily brilliant that fortnight. Again very very short burst. On that form could dismantle the top 4 on their day.

Look at it like I do. Andy is reaching his peak and if it yearns more Slam success in the future we will be able to say Andy of such and such period could topple anyone.

Of course Djoko and Murray have unique talents and can bring it to the table on any given day. But so could Berdych and Baghdatis - it's just that they did it on fewer days.
But to then say that a final against Berdych or Baghdatis is inevitably less of a challenge than a final against Federer or Djoko is not the correct logical conclusion.
Chances are it will be less of a challenge, but unless Berdych on his best day is always still worse than Djoko on his worse day, then there has to be a possibility that on any given day Berdych can be more of a challange.
From a percentage view, yes, it's better to face Berdych, but that's not the way it always works out.
So I can't agree that any player reaching a GS final in any specific year is indicative of an easy ride for the opponent, just based on the name of the player. They are all capable of incredible tennis on any given day.

banbrotam wrote:

time please wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Hewitts main enemy was injury. He was immense before his body started giving out on him. Someone mentioned the other day how he was tipped to wins shedloads of Slams.

I had the privilege of watching Hewitt at Queens and Wimbledon 2002 and he was awesome. His mind and spirit are still the same despite a wrecked body.

2002 Hewitt would have broken the heart and spirit of Murray and the heart and spirit of 2008-2010 Djokovic in my very unhumble opinion. It is completely irrelevant to his achievements in 2002 which were fantastic and emphatic and exciting to watch, whatever came later. He burned fiercely and brightly albeit for a short time.

I think I'll have another

I love these rose tinted retrospective opinions of players who peaked for 6 months. Next we'll be saying that 2002 was the best Tennis ever - rather than the borefest it was (easily the worst stuff since 1991)

No matter how mannered and intelligent some of those arguing against the strength of this era present themselves, a common theme often shines brightly; an assumption that Andy and Nole are just "heart and spirit" and it just needs a better "warrior" to beat them (or a perfectly fit Roger)

They're not as Roger found out at The Olympics and at the O2 (sorry - he wasn't fit was he!!)

It would be good if we could recognise they are unique talents and realise they compliment the unique talents of Roger and Rafa - making them a foursome that has a strong argument as been the best Top 4, ever

That of course would mean unconditionally agreeing that Murray and Djokovic have unique talents, which is very very hard for some on these boards

Myself, Socal,CC, Carrieg etc live in hope, though

Meanwhile we'll loook forward to the return of Rafa with relish as it (hopefully) further strengthens this great era

You obviously didn't see one of my previous posts on the beginning of the 'era wars' or you wouldn't quote certain posters as paragons of objectivity

Actually, I am a great supporter of Murray and stayed up all night to cheer him on at US, was pleased for him and GB for the OG while being disappointed for Fed, but thought it was fab of Murray to come through after W, though you will think I am making excuses if I say so he jolly well should have done after the Delpo semi. And before you leap all over me, it would have meant more questions about his ability to translate his talent on the biggest stage if he hadn't seized the opportunity as other top players have seized their chances in turn. I was disappointed, but unsurprised that AM beat Fed at AO but felt it was Andy's time, and I cheered as I listened to the radio for Andy. I have cheered in the past for Djokovic against Rafa, but I generally cheer for Rafa at RG (except against Fed) because it is a pleasure to watch him play on clay so I think I might be the slightly more objective of the two of us - just a wild stab in the dark.

It is an opinion that I have that 2002 Hewitt would have taken on Murray. Was he a better player in 2002 than Murray is now? Possibly too close to call, but I believe he does have more stubborness, and grit when life is against him than Murray.

Let's see if you can remove your own pinky lens and be man enough to accept that someone can hold contrary opinions without wishing all things ill on Murray.

BTW thanks legend

Lots of comments here lol.
Just browsed a few of them, I've seen some really fair posts from all fans- saw some fantastic comments by Time Please especially on Hewitt- even though personally I rate Hewitt highly, but not really really highly. If you see what I mean.

If I had said this Julius would have shot be down:

barrystar wrote: Illogical though it may seem to some, I do think that there's room for a debate centred on the lack of real rivals to push him in his period of greatest dominance, and the dominance of their H2H by his greatest rival Nadal.

I'd never thought I'd seen a Federer fan post that on this forum.

btw Nadal did lead the H2H against Federer on outdoor HC, and beat him in Miami 2004, Dubai 2006, went to 5 sets in Miami 2005... so even when he was young he could challenge Federer on outdoor hard. Anyway we've been through this debate many times, I think we both know our own positions on this.

barrystar wrote:
Personally I think GOAT is a waste of breath if you are going to take it too seriously. For more important for me than Fed's numbers is that I have never ever watched him play without a sense of "what is he going to do next" and that is where I think his true greatness lies.

This is subjective though

Hewitt had potential, but fell away due to different reasons- hip injury was one.
I believe after 2005 he never came in top 10 which is a real shame because if he managed to keep at his best, he could have been a real handful.
I don't rate him near Murray, Djokovic though; but he was still a realyl good player

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Chances are it will be less of a challenge, but unless Berdych on his best day is always still worse than Djoko on his worse day, then there has to be a possibility that on any given day Berdych can be more of a challange.
From a percentage view, yes, it's better to face Berdych, but that's not the way it always works out.
So I can't agree that any player reaching a GS final in any specific year is indicative of an easy ride for the opponent, just based on the name of the player. They are all capable of incredible tennis on any given day.

See I don't really get your position here Julius.
I'm saying pretty much exactly what you're saying, expect we come to different conclusions somehow.
I'm saying that if a match is as you say 'from a percentage view' harder; than on average we can tend it to be harder.
Of course I say there will be exceptions- but you do know right that these are exceptions??

Eg Rosol beat Nadal and wasn't ranked in top 100. Between 2006-2011 at Wimby Nadal has only lost to a player in the top 2 at the time. However the majority of time Nadal will find a player outside the top 100 easier than in the top 5, and although there will be exceptions, we can still expect this to be the case.

Yes, but what I take issue with is anyone (like Lendl) saying ah, if only Andy had played Mecir in a final instead of Djokovic he would have won another slam. Maybe, maybe not, there's no way of knowing. He might have come up against Mecir in great form and lost. Or he might have come up against Connors in poor form and won. Or Rafa at 90% at still lost. How many finals actually have 2 players at their best? Very few.

Additionally, saying, e.g. Hewitt won Wmby, so it was a weak era. Hewitt at his peak was as deserving/impressive a winner as anyone. He was brilliant for a while and hailed as the future of tennis. One commentator said he could win 10 Wimbys. Yet now, because he didn't win another one people say he couldn't have been that good. For the 2 weeks when he won it, he was that good - there was nothing weak about it.

It's the application of specific matches/players to make the argument that doesn't hold up.

It Must Be Love wrote:

barrystar wrote:
Personally I think GOAT is a waste of breath if you are going to take it too seriously. For more important for me than Fed's numbers is that I have never ever watched him play without a sense of "what is he going to do next" and that is where I think his true greatness lies.

This is subjective though

It's all subjective, except the actual raw data. Hence barry's first sentence. Even if you persuade me Rafa is the GOAT, all you'll have done is alter my current subjectivity to match your subjectivity. Then you'll have do that with several other million people.

barrystar wrote:

socal1976 wrote: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?

I think slams are the strongest measure from the current era - i.e. starting somewhere between 1983-1988 when the Australian Open approached an equal footing with the other four - but it's not a useful measure of Connors' or Mac's or Borg's greatness to count slams for example, and the further back in time you go the truer that becomes.

If you must have the debate I think you've probably got to acknowledge Fed as the GOAT on the numbers. Illogical though it may seem to some, I do think that there's room for a debate centred on the lack of real rivals to push him in his period of greatest dominance, and the dominance of their H2H by his greatest rival Nadal. I think it's a counter-anwswer that Nadal's dominance of their H2H is due in part to Fed's ability to get through to clay finals for a good old smack-down, and Nadal's inability to get through to HC finals for a smackdown in 2006-2008, which is one why Nadal has no claim to be the GOAT.

Personally I think GOAT is a waste of breath if you are going to take it too seriously. For more important for me than Fed's numbers is that I have never ever watched him play without a sense of "what is he going to do next" and that is where I think his true greatness lies.

Well good post Barry, I don't disagree with your main points. I have often said that Roger is the GOAT and that I feel he deserves a great deal of credit for raising the bar in the game both technically and physically. After Roger if you were a top player who wanted to beat him you had to have virtually no weaknesses to beat him not technically and not physically. Djokovic, murray, and Nadal as great as they are were made better with the overwhelming presence of federer setting the bar. Certainly, Roddick and hewitt as quality competitors as they were could not have the same effect.

I have said slam count is your prime or most important measure of goatenomics in the modern day. But I think among two players that are close other factors could factor in to give with player the nod although he mave one or possibly two less slams, maybe in a case of Nadal with fed, if Nadal had 14 or 15 slams I think due to the truncated nature of his career at 14 I give him the nod as goat. A good case could be made that he couldn't stay healthy but at lengthy stretches when he was healthy was the best ever.

banbrotam wrote:

time please wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Hewitts main enemy was injury. He was immense before his body started giving out on him. Someone mentioned the other day how he was tipped to wins shedloads of Slams.

I had the privilege of watching Hewitt at Queens and Wimbledon 2002 and he was awesome. His mind and spirit are still the same despite a wrecked body.

2002 Hewitt would have broken the heart and spirit of Murray and the heart and spirit of 2008-2010 Djokovic in my very unhumble opinion. It is completely irrelevant to his achievements in 2002 which were fantastic and emphatic and exciting to watch, whatever came later. He burned fiercely and brightly albeit for a short time.

I think I'll have another

I love these rose tinted retrospective opinions of players who peaked for 6 months. Next we'll be saying that 2002 was the best Tennis ever - rather than the borefest it was (easily the worst stuff since 1991)

No matter how mannered and intelligent some of those arguing against the strength of this era present themselves, a common theme often shines brightly; an assumption that Andy and Nole are just "heart and spirit" and it just needs a better "warrior" to beat them (or a perfectly fit Roger)

They're not as Roger found out at The Olympics and at the O2 (sorry - he wasn't fit was he!!)

It would be good if we could recognise they are unique talents and realise they compliment the unique talents of Roger and Rafa - making them a foursome that has a strong argument as been the best Top 4, ever

That of course would mean unconditionally agreeing that Murray and Djokovic have unique talents, which is very very hard for some on these boards

Myself, Socal,CC, Carrieg etc live in hope, though

Meanwhile we'll loook forward to the return of Rafa with relish as it (hopefully) further strengthens this great era

A tour de force by banbro, everyone who watched tennis was in trepidation in the early 2000s, the stars were not consistent, they were not that compelling as talents in comparison to what we had become used to in 80s and what we have seen today. Banbro, Djokovic could win a dozen slams and murray could win 6 or 7 and they would still be whinning about poor david ferrer who has yet to even come close to deciding a slam on his racquet. Noboby believed roddick, safin, ferrero, and hewitt at that time were of the same quality of sampras or agassi or the 80s players. Hewitt was the exception because he was the youngest #1 in history. Roddick was the roughest and most one dimensional year end #1 and USO winner I have ever seen. 2003 Roddick wasn't as good frankly as 2009 version that lost to federer at wimby. And in 2010 nearly pulled of the IW and and Miami double. That is how much the level has risen on tour. It just ran right by these guys who were the cream of the crop of their generation. Where was Nalbandian, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, and Ferrero in the rankings at the end of 2007 in the rankings, I'll tell you they were looking up at the backsides of a puppy version of Djokovic and Nadal. And Murray was just starting to show his quality as well during that period and was beating these guys routinely as well.

Yes Socal.
I believe I've listed this stat before:

Between the period 2004-2008 Murray ammased more wins against Federer than Roddick, Blake, Davydenko, Karlovic, Ljubicic, Haas, Gonzalez, Baghdatis, Hewitt, Agassi, Philippoussis, Safin put together.

This list consists of every single Grand Slam finalist Federer faced between uptil 2008. apart from Nadal and Djokovic. And many many more players. Some things are so damn obvious that they don't even stats to back them up, but some people will just remain in denial.

It Must Be Love wrote:Yes Socal.
I believe I've listed this stat before:

Between the period 2003-2008 Murray ammased more wins against Federer than Roddick, Blake, Davydenko, Karlovic, Ljubicic, Haas, Gonzalez, Baghdatis, Hewitt, Agassi, Philippoussis, Safin put together.

This list consists of every single Grand Slam finalist Federer faced between 2003-2008 apart from Nadal and Djokovic. And many many more players. Some things are so damn obvious that they don't even stats to back them up, but some people will just remain in denial.

Exactly IMBL if this crop of players Murray, Djoko, and Nadal all born in what 14 or 15 months of each other can not be considered special why is it that as teenagers, far before their full development even in Fed's peak they were the closest to him and not Nalby, Ljubi, Safin, Hewitt, or Roddick. The facts are there just look at the year end rankings and see who fed's two closest rivals are in 2007 before Mono and before age set in

you see banbro - the above is why it is just too tempting to tease socal. I love your passion socal, but your hyperbole (again) is just too provoking to ignore. Definition of 'tour de force': an exceptional achievement by an artist, author, or the like, that is unlikely to be equalled by that person or anyone else; stroke of genius. It's usually reserved for a veritable tome of work, such as War and Peace, or Moby Dick. For all banbro's verbosity, I don't think he has quite pulled that off yet. I must say that for a lawyer, socal, I find you very imprecise and careless in your use of language!

well as banbro has produced an exceptional achievement that none of us are likely to equal, far be it from me to derail this mutual admiration society any further.

murray was ranked 11th at the end of 07, just saying.

time please wrote:you see banbro - the above is why it is just too tempting to tease socal. I love your passion socal, but your hyperbole (again) is just too provoking to ignore. Definition of 'tour de force': an exceptional achievement by an artist, author, or the like, that is unlikely to be equalled by that person or anyone else; stroke of genius. It's usually reserved for a veritable tome of work, such as War and Peace, or Moby Dick. For all banbro's verbosity, I don't think he has quite pulled that off yet. I must say that for a lawyer, socal, I find you very imprecise and careless in your use of language!

well as banbro has produced an exceptional achievement that none of us are likely to equal, far be it from me to derail this mutual admiration society any further.

OH TP, I thought for the level of our humble blog banbros post was succinct and to the point. During that period Hewitt had his great burst but a part of greatness is being so comfortable at the top that you can maintain it despite certain events like injuries, although in fairness hewitt was the player out of this bunch most hurt by injuries. Roddick had pretty great health up and till the end, Safin has some problems but lengthy spells where he was fit and not winning as he should. The facts are that even as mere puppies Nadal and to lesser extent Djoko had surpassed the others as fed's closest rivals.

yes for nadal rankings and head to head wise, but only rankings wise for djoko by the end of 07.

socal1976 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Yes Socal.
I believe I've listed this stat before:

Between the period 2003-2008 Murray ammased more wins against Federer than Roddick, Blake, Davydenko, Karlovic, Ljubicic, Haas, Gonzalez, Baghdatis, Hewitt, Agassi, Philippoussis, Safin put together.

This list consists of every single Grand Slam finalist Federer faced between 2003-2008 apart from Nadal and Djokovic. And many many more players. Some things are so damn obvious that they don't even stats to back them up, but some people will just remain in denial.

Exactly IMBL if this crop of players Murray, Djoko, and Nadal all born in what 14 or 15 months of each other can not be considered special why is it that as teenagers, far before their full development even in Fed's peak they were the closest to him and not Nalby, Ljubi, Safin, Hewitt, or Roddick. The facts are there just look at the year end rankings and see who fed's two closest rivals are in 2007 before Mono and before age set in

Much maligned peers of Federer in 2003-2007...

Nalbandian...

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

One slam final, but beat Federer/Nadal back-to-back in Madrid/Paris 2007. Also beat Federer in 2003 AO/USO. Beat Federer from 2-sets down in TMC 2005.

Can you tell me when he had 5 MPs against Nadal, IMBL?

Hewitt...

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

Beat Federer in 2010 on Halle Grass. Had a 7-2 h2h till 2003 DC.


Roddick...

Almost had Federer in 2009 W and beat him in Miami despite the lopsided h2h.



@IMBL...

Between the period 2003-2008 Murray ammased more wins against Federer than Roddick, Blake, Davydenko, Karlovic, Ljubicic, Haas, Gonzalez, Baghdatis, Hewitt, Agassi, Philippoussis, Safin put together.

Please be careful and check your facts. (You must have a unique definition of 'amass', IMVHO...)

Murray 2003-2008 had (2006 Cincy, 2008 Dubai, 2008 Madrid and TMC 2008) 4 wins.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=MC10


Roddick (2003 Canada, 2008 Miami)
Blake (2008 Beijing)
Davydenko (0)
Karlovic (2008 Cincy)
Ljubicic (2003 Basel)
Haas (0)
Gonzalez (TMC 2007)
Baghdatis (0)
Hewitt (2003 DC)
Agassi (0)
Philippoussis (2003 Hamburg)
Safin (2005 AO)


This totals to 9 wins.

So Murray's 4 wins are more than 9 wins for the weak-era rollover generations?

Let me know if you find any issues with my stats.

PS: And Federer fans would agree that he was TMF between 2003-2007 or 2005-2007, or some other time window, perhaps?

Tell me socal and banbro - as straight talking guys ( ) should we add a question mark to Djokovic's, Nadal's and Murray's achievements from say January 2015 when they will be in their 28th, 29th and 28th year if there are still no major changes in the top 50, or if they are it is simply shuffling the lot that are in the top 100 atm?

After all won't they then just be duffing up an ageing lot of also rans, and a long in the tooth superstar of the game (I thought the latter was frowned upon). They sure as anything will not be facing a precocious new talent like a Safin or Federer or someone like them. In fact they will simply be duffing up the guys they are duffing up now.

You see you can find a caveat for any argument you care to - or you could just get on with enjoying all sorts of players and appreciating all kinds of eras - maybe a bit too radical?

BB on another thread - note this is a line taken off the Hewitt debate

"I was priviliged to watch him (Hewitt) lose in 5 brave sets to Andy Roddick at the Wimbledon 2009 quarters, the year lest we forget that Roddick beat Murray and barely lost to Federer"

And a year, where Roddick never got anywhere near to the Top 5 - which somewhat questions what the talent was like when he got to No.1, when arguably he was playing no better

I'd say 'case rested' - but someone will tell us that "it's the court's - stupid!!"

Like the same person who reckons that Fed's first Slam victim, Philippoussis would have made toast of Murray - simply because the courts were fast

I couldn't be bothered to point out that;-

1) Murray first made his name when the courts were as fast
2) He loves facing big servers with poor movement

banbrotam wrote:Like the same person who reckons that Fed's first Slam victim, Philippoussis would have made toast of Murray - simply because the courts were fast

Of course, I'm pretty sure no-one actually said that, but don't let that stop you. (Unless you've got the link. I may be wrong, but I certainly don't remember it)

time please wrote:Tell me socal and banbro - as straight talking guys ( ) should we add a question mark to Djokovic's, Nadal's and Murray's achievements from say January 2015 when they will be in their 28th, 29th and 28th year if there are still no major changes in the top 50, or if they are it is simply shuffling the lot that are in the top 100 atm?

Er, as serious Tennis debaters - yes.

You say I fail to see what is wrong with pointing out that beating No.83 in the world is a lot harder than beating No, 1, 2 or 3 in the world in getting a Slam - never mind perhaps the two best players of all time

However, that won't take away from the general fact - who's got the most slams, which is surely the headline for casual Tennis fans

Us? Well we should be brave enough to say that Novak's Slam wins are of a greater average value than, first Rafa's and then Roger's simply because of the quality of players he faced in the final (actually Rafa's wins against Roger might put him ahead)

But this doesn't detract from the greatness of Fed or that (for me) he's the GOAT

Murray is a good fast court player - absolutely.

For the sake of appearing to consider all possible sides of an era debate, do you have any thoughts on the paucity of talent in the near future to derail the fearsome threesome banbro - will that affect their legacy in the future as you and others claim the opposition that Fed faced, during 2003 to whatever arbitrary date the others are deemed to have been in long trousers, should be taken into account when assessing his place amongst the all time greats?

We have all been waiting, with baited breath and barely concealed impatience, for socal to comment on the above for 2 years. It would be good to know your take


Oh I've just seen you fail to answer it - you guys are politicians ain't you? Serious tennis debaters though - that is hard to laugh at!

JuliusHMarx wrote:

banbrotam wrote:Like the same person who reckons that Fed's first Slam victim, Philippoussis would have made toast of Murray - simply because the courts were fast

Of course, I'm pretty sure no-one actually said that, but don't let that stop you. (Unless you've got the link. I may be wrong, but I certainly don't remember it)

I paraphrase slightly - simply because I was gobsmaked that anyone thinks that Scud would have had a chance against any of the 4 who've shared the last 5 slams.

banbrotam wrote:

time please wrote:Tell me socal and banbro - as straight talking guys ( ) should we add a question mark to Djokovic's, Nadal's and Murray's achievements from say January 2015 when they will be in their 28th, 29th and 28th year if there are still no major changes in the top 50, or if they are it is simply shuffling the lot that are in the top 100 atm?

Er, as serious Tennis debaters - yes.

You say I fail to see what is wrong with pointing out that beating No.83 in the world is a lot harder than beating No, 1, 2 or 3 in the world in getting a Slam - never mind perhaps the two best players of all time

However, that won't take away from the general fact - who's got the most slams, which is surely the headline for casual Tennis fans

Us? Well we should be brave enough to say that Novak's Slam wins are of a greater average value than, first Rafa's and then Roger's simply because of the quality of players he faced in the final (actually Rafa's wins against Roger might put him ahead)

But this doesn't detract from the greatness of Fed or that (for me) he's the GOAT

I agree with all of that Banbro, you are a brave man, you risk becoming #2 on the fed fans rhetorical hit list. There are a lot of misnomers bandied about to cover for the fact that federer's early wins came against some pretty suspect top level competition when compared to what we are seeing in the game right now and when compared to recent other periods. That being said Federer has succeeded even against tougher competition and his relevance today even in this golden period is firm affirmation of how incredible a talent he is. Rarely are sequels as good or better or even comparable to a initial masterpiece, but this is at least godfather 2 to your previous post which would be godfather 1. The slams Novak and Andy have had to win have had to go through fedal and each other are far superior to beating a baghditis or Roddick in the final.

banbrotam wrote:Us? Well we should be brave enough to say that Novak's Slam wins are of a greater average value than, first Rafa's and then Roger's simply because of the quality of players he faced in the final (actually Rafa's wins against Roger might put him ahead)

Why just the final though? Why not rounds 1 to 6 as well? What criteria shall we take into account - ranking, previous success on the playing surface, form going into the tournament, sets lost during the tournament? Why just judge the current top 3 - how do we know Djoko's are greater than Becker's or vice versa? What is the average value of a Djoko GS win? 1.2, 1.324? What objective, agreed criteria did you use?

I will say this if we lose Nadal to injury and he doesn't comeback as a force a loss of one of the three rolls royce engines of this period will of course probably close a strong 5 year run till others may lift their level. But still I think we cant completely discount fed lets remember Andre and Rafa I think will be back as good or as nearly good, I feel he will again stun the detractors. I also believe we will see the development of new talent to pose a challenge Raonic and JJ come to mind as player's that are close to make a big push and maybe young tomic and harrison as well.

The young guys are a concern for a couple of years down the road, and I am not convinced that they don't just need an extra couple years to adjust to the high level of the modern golden age of tennis.

And a fail by socal to answer the questions too, and banbro has done a runner.

Perhaps you will have more luck Julius in pinning down our agile attorney!

I am sorry Julius beating Nadal in a gs final is just not the equivalent of beating your patsy Roddick. They are all worth 1 in the record book but here we are talking about finer points of higher tennis knowledge that requires dynamic thinking, some can do it and others struggle.

time please wrote:Murray is a good fast court player - absolutely.

For the sake of appearing to consider all possible sides of an era debate, do you have any thoughts on the paucity of talent in the near future to derail the fearsome threesome banbro - will that affect their legacy in the future as you and others claim the opposition that Fed faced, during 2003 to whatever arbitrary date the others are deemed to have been in long trousers, should be taken into account when assessing his place amongst the all time greats?

We have all been waiting, with baited breath and barely concealed impatience, for socal to comment on the above for 2 years. It would be good to know your take


Oh I've just seen you fail to answer it - you guys are politicians ain't you? Serious tennis debaters though - that is hard to laugh at!

I've no issue with it and have told anyone who will read, that it's not going to be all that bad. I think Socal doesn't answer, simply because they've got the smug self satisfaction that his player would have to meet the equivalent of Berdych in the next 5 slam finals, to drag the average quality of the 'average' final opponent to Fed's level

I think people forget a couple of points about Novak and Andy fans - one is that they acknowledge that peak Fed was better and average Nadal virtually unplayable on the dirt. The second is that they both deserve to have an 'easier' time of it during the next 5 years, given the emotional turmoil both have had getting to where they are. We get irritated, that there is only gruding respect for them doing what the equally talented Tsonga, Gasquet (and arguably Monfils) failed to do - dedicate themselves to getting better with whatever legal means they had. Instead we have a gallant Tsonga defeat to Fed and suddenly the Frenchman would have beaten anyone else on that day. Not certain I heard that when Novak was losing to the GOAT, back in 2009!!

I of course will be the first to gladly agree that if Andy wins 10 slams , with 9 of them coming from finals from the likes of Del Boy - that era peaked in 2012 and then dropped off

I'm a statistical geek, so prone to trying to make logic of something that isn't - consquently I'm guilty of 'ranking' everything

I so, so want to say something.... but I won't

time please wrote:And a fail by socal to answer the questions too, and banbro has done a runner.

Perhaps you will have more luck Julius in pinning down our agile attorney!

Oh dear, dear TP Oxford ladies are better at reading comprehension than what you wish to portray, those who want to read both my post and banbro's will see your issues adequately addressed. As I said it depends a lot on the health of the 3 rolls royce engines of this period, I care less about whether the number 83 player is 2 percent better or not, these guys don't ever decide anything big 99 percent of the time anyway. You realize that you can't predict a lack of competition in 2 years, I believe young players need more seasoning precisely because of the rigorous high standards at the top of the game. And it isn't fair of you to portray banbro as doing a runner or of me ducking your concerns. But you are right I can be quite agile in many respects particularly when properly lubricated.

banbrotam wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

banbrotam wrote:Like the same person who reckons that Fed's first Slam victim, Philippoussis would have made toast of Murray - simply because the courts were fast

Of course, I'm pretty sure no-one actually said that, but don't let that stop you. (Unless you've got the link. I may be wrong, but I certainly don't remember it)

I paraphrase slightly - simply because I was gobsmaked that anyone thinks that Scud would have had a chance against any of the 4 who've shared the last 5 slams.

Actually you paraphrase more than slightly, but fail to admit it.
I think you're probably comparing Scud's absolute level against Murray's absolute level. I'm sure Laver wouldn't have stood a chance against Murray either with his wooden racket and 1960s fitness regime. But put any of the big 4, especially the 'youngsters' without today's technology and science and rackets and strings etc etc against Philipoussis on grass and the outcome is far from certain.

Haven't you joined banbro in a room yet socal? You could be drooling over his prodigious tome, numero trois. I've heard it's epic!

socal1976 wrote:I am sorry Julius beating Nadal in a gs final is just not the equivalent of beating your patsy Roddick. They are all worth 1 in the record book but here we are talking about finer points of higher tennis knowledge that requires dynamic thinking, some can do it and others struggle.

And some refuse to do it, judging by the lack of answers to my questions.

hawkeye wrote:I so, so want to say something.... but I won't

It is indeed a very good day

@BanBro.. we need to be careful in looking at the talent.

Do you recall

1. Haase and Petzschner pushing Nadal to five sets each at W before Nadal eventually won, or,
2. Falla pushing Federer, or,
3. Tsonga and Seppi pushing Djokovic, or,
4. Haas pushing Federer to 5 sets when Federer eventually won RG.

Tough matches for the winners to come through, do you agree?.

Laverfan, I first wrote a typo, and then immediately corrected it 5 minutes later to 2004 rather than 2003.
You're comment was after I made my edit, so I'm find it strange you still got confused, but I think you got slightly confused after reading Socal quote my post, so got the wrong unedited thing.
Anyway I did actually miss out the Gonzo 2007 win, so fair enough. Should have checked the ATP H2H website more thoroughly lol, for some reason Google always shows tennis wet-point or something which is sometimes wrong.

Anyway here's the post now, and this time I've use ATP rather than the dodgy wet-point site for the H2Hs:

Between the period 2004-2008 Murray ammased more wins against Federer than Roddick, Davydenko, Ljubicic, Haas, Gonzalez, Ferrero, Baghdatis, Hewitt, Youzhny, Agassi, Philippoussis, Safin put together.


This list consists of every single Grand Slam finalist Federer faced until 2008 apart from Nadal and Djokovic. And many many more players. Some things are so damn obvious that they don't even stats to back them up, but some people will just remain in denial.

time please wrote:Haven't you joined banbro in a room yet socal? You could be drooling over his prodigious tome, numero trois. I've heard it's epic!

I respect the man for his courage to stand up to federer fans and their pursuit to sell us that Roddick his patsy and empanada Dave or the gutty little aussie with a dodgy hip were as strong as any period. This will garner you heaps of scorn and ritualistic verbal animosity on the part of some. Someone who is brave enough to speak the truth even if federer fans don't like it has a lot of respect in my book. Especially when the points are astute and supported by the facts, you should try it some time TP.

The first rule of posting the more you agree with socal the higher your chances of being right.

socal1976 wrote:

time please wrote:And a fail by socal to answer the questions too, and banbro has done a runner.

Perhaps you will have more luck Julius in pinning down our agile attorney!

Oh dear, dear TP Oxford ladies are better at reading comprehension than what you wish to portray, those who want to read both my post and banbro's will see your issues adequately addressed. As I said it depends a lot on the health of the 3 rolls royce engines of this period, I care less about whether the number 83 player is 2 percent better or not, these guys don't ever decide anything big 99 percent of the time anyway. You realize that you can't predict a lack of competition in 2 years, I believe young players need more seasoning precisely because of the rigorous high standards at the top of the game. And it isn't fair of you to portray banbro as doing a runner or of me ducking your concerns. But you are right I can be quite agile in many respects particularly when properly lubricated.

No, neither of you have answered the question, you have answered the question you wished to answer, but not the one I posed.

Put the lubrication down ......that's not becoming behaviour and I thought you took a dim view of embarrassing middle aged ladies

It's fantastic to see that some are now resorting to insulting myself and Socal, rather than the valid points we debate

CC - Great article, but you should know that this is an average era, reminincent of 2002 when Tommy Haas was No.2.

Forget the 6 dramatic 'major' (including O2) finals of last year and you can actually imagine that 2002 was a vintage year for Tennis

Banbrotam

Of course it is very difficult Julius to put an exact number on it here is where reasonable people might disagree and statisticians often come up with estimates that give a margin of error to account for contingencies in the sampling.

The nature of tournament tennis determines that you can never win a slam in the first week you can only lose it. These players all have scares and occassional upsets in slams but rarely does anyone outside the top 4 or 5 ever decide a slam. And in periods with strong and consistent great players they rarely if ever do. Djokovic is 57-0 against players outside the top 4 in slams, do you think in the long run it matters to him if his second round match is two percent better or worse, what would he go 56-1? maybe? Federer the same way, and Nadal also for the most part, and know murray. Slams are decided in the semis and finals and if you are facing a legend in those rounds yes it is tougher than a more evenly disbursed parity. That is the nature of the sport, think of murdoch's analogy. When taking an exam for 7 questions that requires a perfect score the toughest question on the test is what determines your chances by in large for passing that exam. Remembering that only 7-0 is a pass.

socal1976 wrote:Of course it is very difficult Julius to put an exact number on it here is where reasonable people might disagree and statisticians often come up with estimates that give a margin of error to account for contingencies in the sampling.

We don't need numbers, some things are bloody obvious.

time please wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

time please wrote:And a fail by socal to answer the questions too, and banbro has done a runner.

Perhaps you will have more luck Julius in pinning down our agile attorney!

Oh dear, dear TP Oxford ladies are better at reading comprehension than what you wish to portray, those who want to read both my post and banbro's will see your issues adequately addressed. As I said it depends a lot on the health of the 3 rolls royce engines of this period, I care less about whether the number 83 player is 2 percent better or not, these guys don't ever decide anything big 99 percent of the time anyway. You realize that you can't predict a lack of competition in 2 years, I believe young players need more seasoning precisely because of the rigorous high standards at the top of the game. And it isn't fair of you to portray banbro as doing a runner or of me ducking your concerns. But you are right I can be quite agile in many respects particularly when properly lubricated.

No, neither of you have answered the question, you have answered the question you wished to answer, but not the one I posed.

Put the lubrication down ......that's not becoming behaviour and I thought you took a dim view of embarrassing middle aged ladies

I was talking about non-sexual lubrication but TP if you are game we could find a room.