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?

time please wrote:
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?

I've already answered this, but you seem rather excitable tonight, so maybe your concentration isn't at his best. I'll answer again in more simple terms

1) There is no "affect" of any "legacy". I've painstakingly made the point that none of this questions Federer's status. What the debate is more about is how much harder it has been for Andy and Novak to get near to winning slams. If you think they have it just as easy as Fed / Roddick did in 2002/3 - then that's your opinion and you are welcome to it

2) I couldn't care less is Murray wins the next 10 slams playing Tommy Robredo - but I will be the first to say, that it's not the same as beating Novak Djokovic


Is this clear enough?

It Must Be Love wrote:

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.

Yes like Hewitt and Roddick aren't nearly as good as Djoko or murray. Quite freaking obvious in my mind. Numbers or no numbers.

banbrotam wrote:

time please wrote:
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?

I've already answered this, but you seem rather excitable tonight, so maybe your concentration isn't at his best. I'll answer again in more simple terms

1) There is no "affect" of any "legacy". I've painstakingly made the point that none of this questions Federer's status. What the debate is more about is how much harder it has been for Andy and Novak to get near to winning slams. If you think they have it just as easy as Fed / Roddick did in 2002/3 - then that's your opinion and you are welcome to it

2) I couldn't care less is Murray wins the next 10 slams playing Tommy Robredo - but I will be the first to say, that it's not the same as beating Novak Djokovic


Is this clear enough?

Yes good point Banbro
IMO also it could impact your legacy. If Murray beats Djokovic in 10 more Grand Slam finals, that would be incredible. Robredo... not so sure lol.

CC+ Bambo+ Socal+ IMBL: looks like the dream team is finally shaping up......

It Must Be Love wrote:

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.

Ah, they're not obvious they're bloody obvious. Well, that's cleared things up no end.

banbrotam wrote: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

Oh boo hoo - c'mon banbro I'm sure you're tough enough to take a bit of teasing.

And you still haven't answered whether you would reassess, some time in the future, the latter parts of Djok et als careers if they do not have to fight off precocious young talent at a stage in their career when other greats have had to watch their backs? In other words, can we then agree that Fed may have faced less august talent in the first part of his career compared to the latter part, and that Nadal, Murray and Djokovic faced greater talent in the first half of their career but no new serious challenge in the second, unlike say a Sampras or a Llendl?

I don't think anyone said that 2002 was a vintage year for tennis - after all such a judgement has to come with historical perspective, which nicely brings me back to my point above which, I wager, you still will find a way not to answer

She is quite excited tonight Banbro, I don't know what has gotten into our kindly middle aged lady from Oxford. It seems that despite my misconceptions the oxfordonians are having a difficult time in digesting your arguments although they are plain to see. Beating baggy in a final is not worth quite as much as beating Nadal or murray or Djokovic in a final, I think that is plain enough to see for everyone. Roger is still the goat I think most of us accept that and he succeeded against the stronger competition as well so what is all the fuss about?

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:CC+ Bambo+ Socal+ IMBL: looks like the dream team is finally shaping up......

Jeremy. Instead of bitching - answer the following

1) Do you think winning s Slam last year was easier than it was in 2002?

2) Do you think that Tommy Haas as world No.2 is evidence of a strong era?

3) Can you explain how the one-dimensinal Andy Roddick got to No.1 in 2003 and when more rounded, in 2009, couldn't get in the Top 5?

socal1976 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

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.

Yes like Hewitt and Roddick aren't nearly as good as Djoko or murray. Quite freaking obvious in my mind. Numbers or no numbers.

I admit that numbers requires some complex and dynamic thinking - perhaps that is beyond some posters.

TP, Banbro has already stated that if in the future murray beats del po in all the finals as opposed to a player of Djoko's calibre he would recalibrate his view of murray's final slam count. I don't know how many ways the man has to say it.

JK, it is the dream team of those who are objective and view the tennis world with a proper historical and factual context of events and not blind devotion to a single figure.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

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.

Yes like Hewitt and Roddick aren't nearly as good as Djoko or murray. Quite freaking obvious in my mind. Numbers or no numbers.

I admit that numbers requires some complex and dynamic thinking - perhaps that is beyond some posters.

Don't go back to playing the devil's advocate, I felt we were making progressing and you were finally beginning to digest the facts of my arguments. Remember the cardinal rule the more you agree with me the higher your chances of being right Julius, it is your independent thinking that gets you in trouble. But as crazy as it sounds a lot of people would argue that those weak era players were just as good if not more talented. Guillermo coria the long lost king of clay and super talented empanada Dave.

Rule? I thought you said sin.

Andy Roddick was the most technically and athletically one dimensional player to ever hold the number one ranking. The reason American tennis fans were so up beat then we thought that if this one shot player can win a slam now, well imagine what happens when he smooths out the rough edges. We had no idea how federer and later stars would raise the bar so quickly. Roddick was in my mind not even an ivanisvic level player in terms of talent for him to reach #1 even for few weeks at the end of the year is a measure of softness. Excellent post again banbro, but facts can't get in the way of blind devotion to the racquet wielding deity.

time please wrote:

banbrotam wrote: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

Oh boo hoo - c'mon banbro I'm sure you're tough enough to take a bit of teasing.

And you still haven't answered whether you would reassess, some time in the future, the latter parts of Djok et als careers if they do not have to fight off precocious young talent at a stage in their career when other greats have had to watch their backs? In other words, can we then agree that Fed may have faced less august talent in the first part of his career compared to the latter part, and that Nadal, Murray and Djokovic faced greater talent in the first half of their career but no new serious challenge in the second, unlike say a Sampras or a Llendl?

I've answered the first part of this three times now!! Yes, the 'quality' of the Slams will carry a caveat - what else could the answer be. Your problem is that you think this debate comes from a need to show how well Murray / Nole have done.

It doesn't. It comes from a frustration of those pig-headed enough to have their head in the sand when refusing to acknowledge what is obvious - simply because this would mean they would have to openly admit that Murray / Nole are better than they've given them credit for

Incidentally, I thought that Sampras had a fairly easy mid-period (95' to 97') as Andre was away with the fairies and the likes of Edberg, Becker etc were at the end. Hence we got that 1996 Wimby final.


However, it is fair to say that Lendl had it tough. First he had to see off Connors / Mac and then faced the new young pups in Willander, Edberg, Becker etc and then the even younger pups of Sampras, Agassi, Chang and Courier

Which also shows why the likes Mecir had no chance in the mid-80's

Would Andy and Novak have won then? I don't know. Would Mecir have won a Slam in 2002 to 2004 - I think he would

Let's say I'm a big Boris Becker fan (that Edberg and his damn goody two-shoes awards)
Are you saying Djoko's slams are worth more than BB's (Not that BB!)?
Please review their slams, let's say from round of 16 onwards and come back to me with some evidence. Otherwise I'll keep thinking big Boris is head and shoulders above your skinny Screech.

I also like Borg. Better do the same for Rafa's and Borg's slams please.

banbrotam wrote:

time please wrote:
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?

I've already answered this, but you seem rather excitable tonight, so maybe your concentration isn't at his best. I'll answer again in more simple terms

1) There is no "affect" of any "legacy". I've painstakingly made the point that none of this questions Federer's status. What the debate is more about is how much harder it has been for Andy and Novak to get near to winning slams. If you think they have it just as easy as Fed / Roddick did in 2002/3 - then that's your opinion and you are welcome to it

2) I couldn't care less is Murray wins the next 10 slams playing Tommy Robredo - but I will be the first to say, that it's not the same as beating Novak Djokovic


Is this clear enough?

No, I'm not talking about Federer's status.

And you still haven't answered the question but you drawing conclusions about my opinions that I have given you no reason to - I'm not the one waffling on about eras, and neither was bogbrush. In fact we are both on the record as saying that we don't particularly believe in comparing eras - it is very arbitrary where the era begins and ends and I doubt that everyone will agree exactly on that timeline.

I actually believe that if Murray were to beat Tommy Robredo playing jaw dropping tennis then it might be a great deal more enjoyable than playing indifferently against an indifferent Djokovic. In other words, it's not the player or the stats, it's the match that matters.

But sure, I think I have agreed that this top four is obviously the most consistently brilliant in ages, or ever in fact - that doesn't mean that what came before was 'weak', maybe not as good, but 'weak' is the word that was bandied about here for a long time.

All bogbrush, I and others have asked socal to do is to consider that while you can put any caveat you like on Fed's first slams - ageing Agassi being one especially popular one, then will you have the grace to do the same to D, N and M in the latter stages of their careers if the top 100 stagnates as it is threatening to do?

Oh, and it is very sweet of you to be concerned about me getting over excited, but I wouldn't let that distract you any further from attempting, finally, to answer my penultimate paragraph.

socal1976 wrote:Andy Roddick was the most technically and athletically one dimensional player to ever hold the number one ranking. The reason American tennis fans were so up beat then we thought that if this one shot player can win a slam now, well imagine what happens when he smooths out the rough edges. We had no idea how federer and later stars would raise the bar so quickly. Roddick was in my mind not even an ivanisvic level player in terms of talent for him to reach #1 even for few weeks at the end of the year is a measure of softness. Excellent post again banbro, but facts can't get in the way of blind devotion to the racquet wielding deity.

It was actually when Roddick came on the scene that I seriously stopped watching as much Tennis and prayed thanks when Roger finally arrived. (So much for me being a Fed knocker!!)

In fairness to Roddick, he was far better to watch in 2009 and had added more to his game - but Andy still should have beaten him and other than the 2011 US defeat to Rafa, remains his worst defeat since he became established as a contender

Changing the subject, but in some ways 2009 was the year that got away for Andy. Remember, he had a virus when playing Verdasco at the Aus and was carrying an injury against Cilic

It Must Be Love wrote: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.

Even if you arbitrarily discard 2003, the 2004-2008 numbers still put the rollover generation ahead, correct?

Roddick (2008 Miami), Blake (2008 Beijing), Karlovic (2008 Cincy), Gonzalez (TMC 2007), Safin (2005 AO) 5 wins vs 4 wins that Murray had in 2006 Cincy, 2008 Dubai, 2008 Madrid and TMC 2008.

It Must Be Love wrote: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.

Nothing is obvious, except the desire to make a set of players look average. . (and your addition of Ferrero and Youzhny, which is not in the original list) makes me think this is not longer a debate worth having and is disingenuous. Not sure the use of word 'denial' is relevant at all in this context.

BTW, Youzhny, Davy, Ljubicic and Ferrero never played Federer in any slam final, IIRC.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Let's say I'm a big Boris Becker fan (that Edberg and his damn goody two-shoes awards)
Are you saying Djoko's slams are worth more than BB's (Not that BB!)?
Please review their slams, let's say from round of 16 onwards and come back to me with some evidence. Otherwise I'll keep thinking big Boris is head and shoulders above your skinny Screech.

I also like Borg. Better do the same for Rafa's and Borg's slams please.

Becker as well played in a tough period the late 80s and early 90s were a golden period in their own right really from the early 80s to mid 90s tennis I think had its longest and best period of top level competition the mid 90s saw it weaken, the late 90s and early 2000s was the weakest in some memory. The current period is much stronger, but it is dependant on the three rolls royces remaining in the fray.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Let's say I'm a big Boris Becker fan (that Edberg and his damn goody two-shoes awards)
Are you saying Djoko's slams are worth more than BB's (Not that BB!)?
Please review their slams, let's say from round of 16 onwards and come back to me with some evidence. Otherwise I'll keep thinking big Boris is head and shoulders above your skinny Screech.

I also like Borg. Better do the same for Rafa's and Borg's slams please.

No. For me the only serious dips were 1995-7 and 2002 to 2004. In other words, I think numerous players who didn't ever win Slams could have won in these years

Me too, Banbro despite him being american I found his game rudimentary and unintersting. I would say the roddick that lost to federer in 2009 wimby would beat the roddick of 2003 in straight sets. Roddick was an incredibly hard worker and retained incredible coaches and lost 15 pounds to try to stay relevant and it almost worked. The best version of roddick as a player was 2009 and 2010 early in the year till injuries took their toll. He had no slice backhand, no backhand up the line, was a terrible mover, and an attrocious volleyer in 2003 yet he was good enough to finish world number 1. Enough said on that point. Power was killing the game back then, I stopped watching as well for awhile.

Just seen your last, but two banbro - I think you will find that you and socal are arguing two very different things.

And I didn't assume that you were arguing to over inflate Murray's standing in historical terms, but that you were having a pop at perceived Fed fans stance over here on 606v2 completely missing the fact that some of the posts you referenced were a deliberate tease in response to hysterical fandom.

In other words, you judged on how you perceived 606 to be, rather than how 606v2 is.

time please wrote: All bogbrush, I and others have asked socal to do is to consider that while you can put any caveat you like on Fed's first slams - ageing Agassi being one especially popular one, then will you have the grace to do the same to D, N and M in the latter stages of their careers if the top 100 stagnates as it is threatening to do?

But I have done!! Three times. How many more ways do you want me to answer. You've acknowledged my Robredo comment. And please be serious - Murray schooled Chardy recently, playing some beautiful stuff and it barely got a mention on these boards.

Also, apart from The Scud, I've not put any great caveats to Fed's early slam wins - please don't marry my and Socal's opinions!!

socal1976 wrote:Becker as well played in a tough period the late 80s and early 90s were a golden period in their own right really from the early 80s to mid 90s tennis I think had its longest and best period of top level competition.

Wasn't the late 80s the era when the player who Lendl recently gave as an example of an easy-to-beat slam finalist made his 2 slam finals?

Yes, the easy final happened more often even in the finals than what we have seen in this period Julius that strengthens my argument and does not weaken it.

banbrotam wrote:

time please wrote: All bogbrush, I and others have asked socal to do is to consider that while you can put any caveat you like on Fed's first slams - ageing Agassi being one especially popular one, then will you have the grace to do the same to D, N and M in the latter stages of their careers if the top 100 stagnates as it is threatening to do?

But I have done!! Three times. How many more ways do you want me to answer. You've acknowledged my Robredo comment. And please be serious - Murray schooled Chardy recently, playing some beautiful stuff and it barely got a mention on these boards.

Also, apart from The Scud, I've not put any great caveats to Fed's early slam wins - please don't marry my and Socal's opinions!!

You did answer in the end banbro, and I've acknowledged that. I think I've also been one of the first to congratulate Murray when he has played beautifully in the past, so I'm quite capable of what you would consider 'serious'/worthy discussion Unfortunately I didn't see the Chardy match and I suspect many others didn't wake up early to watch, so I feel unable to comment.

And finally, I have acknowledged in my last that you and socal differ - though you should note that heightens your chances of being wrong - that's right isn't it socal, agreeing with you increases your chances of being right? Perhaps you will reconsider the merits of banbro's tour de forces now

I began by pointing out to you that before you leapt to conclusions about what various posters were arguing, you should know that you had failed to see a bit of historic teasing and some of it was very tongue in cheek

TP, not everyone can be right all the time, but since I am pretty good about 95 percent right most of the time those that seem to be continually wrong when they think independently should try to open their minds to a more seasoned analysts views.

Banbro has a right to differ as does anyone else, most of his arguments tend to be more realistic because he doesn't try to argue common myths like the early 2000s was a strong as any period. When your basic assumptions are correct you have a higher percentage chance of being right. But with posters like Julius and yourself, who are continually wrong I try to give the them a good rule of thumb so that they can be right more often, just agree with me and your chances will go up.

You're too........what am I searching for? It's no good, words just fail me socal. Thank you for your notice

One last thing, when you say 'seasoned analyst' - are we talking pickled?

careful socal not sure 606v2 has enough room for your ego!

socal1976 wrote:Yes, the easy final happened more often even in the finals than what we have seen in this period Julius that strengthens my argument and does not weaken it.

It does? Easy final in 80s = strong era. Easy finals in 2000s = weak era. Have I got that right, or does your post need a well-placed comma or two

time please wrote:You're too........what am I searching for? It's no good, words just fail me socal. Thank you for your notice

One last thing, when you say 'seasoned analyst' - are we talking pickled?

A group of posters who fail to analyze properly do to many false notions would do better to listen to those with wider knowledge of the game whether it would be myself, banbro, or murdoch or IMBL. We are not monolithic in our views but we at least ground our views in objective facts and not blind devotion to his glorious pomposity, Federer.

socal1976 wrote:A group of posters who fail to analyze properly do to many false notions would do better to listen to those with wider knowledge of the game whether it would be myself, banbro, or murdoch or IMBL.

That, SoCal, is pretty condescending.

socal1976 wrote:We are not monolithic in our views but we at least ground our views in objective facts and not blind devotion to his glorious pomposity, Federer.

It is good to have diverse views, but you keep focussing on 2000-2003/4, when it comes down to 'eras', which is rather tragic.

banbrotam wrote: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

What case to you consider rested there? That Murray was cr@p then? That Federer was rubbish?

Or are you trying to suggest Murray was wonderful because he was above a player who.... er........ beat him?

laverfan wrote:

socal1976 wrote:A group of posters who fail to analyze properly do to many false notions would do better to listen to those with wider knowledge of the game whether it would be myself, banbro, or murdoch or IMBL.

That, SoCal, is pretty condescending.

socal1976 wrote:We are not monolithic in our views but we at least ground our views in objective facts and not blind devotion to his glorious pomposity, Federer.

It is good to have diverse views, but you keep focussing on 2000-2003/4, when it comes down to 'eras', which is rather tragic.

Laverfan, I like to ham it up occassionally for the audience and get the juices flowing over here, I believe in giving the fed fans something fun to shoot at at times. They need to be properly motivated to engage in quality debate.

socal1976 wrote:

laverfan wrote:

socal1976 wrote:A group of posters who fail to analyze properly do to many false notions would do better to listen to those with wider knowledge of the game whether it would be myself, banbro, or murdoch or IMBL.

That, SoCal, is pretty condescending.

socal1976 wrote:We are not monolithic in our views but we at least ground our views in objective facts and not blind devotion to his glorious pomposity, Federer.

It is good to have diverse views, but you keep focussing on 2000-2003/4, when it comes down to 'eras', which is rather tragic.

Laverfan, I like to ham it up occassionally for the audience and get the juices flowing over here, I believe in giving the fed fans something fun to shoot at at times. They need to be properly motivated to engage in quality debate.

I agree Laverfan this is very condescending.

Remember the pm you sent to me Socal? Maybe you should think about that for a second.

I can accept many of your views but not when it is literally shoved down the throat of posters and repeated ever more forcefully, and when rejected, followed up with derision and condescension. That's playground bully boy tactics. It's not conducive to a 'friendly forum'.

Laverfan wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote: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.

Nothing is obvious, except the desire to make a set of players look average. .

I'm just quoting facts LF
(This time using the more reliable ATP website rather than Tennis Wet-point lol).

It Must Be Love wrote:

Laverfan wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote: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.

Nothing is obvious, except the desire to make a set of players look average. .

I'm just quoting facts LF
(This time using the more reliable ATP website rather than Tennis Wet-point lol).

Lol, you love posting this.

I'll highlight the key flaw in this. Murray only beat Federer once prior to 2008. So Murray did not amass wins against Federer in this period. All of his wins bar one came in 2008 which funny enough was the year in which Roger's performances really dropped against the entire field.

banbrotam wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:CC+ Bambo+ Socal+ IMBL: looks like the dream team is finally shaping up......

Jeremy. Instead of bitching - answer the following

1) Do you think winning s Slam last year was easier than it was in 2002?

2) Do you think that Tommy Haas as world No.2 is evidence of a strong era?

3) Can you explain how the one-dimensinal Andy Roddick got to No.1 in 2003 and when more rounded, in 2009, couldn't get in the Top 5?

1) In today's game yes it is. Take into account that in 2002 AO had Rebound Ace surface which made it a difficult surface to gauge, Clay at the FO, Wimbledon had a little speed in it and USO had the Deco Turf. On that couple the gut strings on racquets and also the balls slightly smaller. Compare that with conditions today, which year do you think is the more challenging? Competition aside.

2) Tommy Haas was a top player. Injury and personal tragedy near enough killed his career. The fact he has managed to comeback and still challenge the top 20 suggests that this era isn't much stronger if the rankings are littered with 30+ year olds.

3) Age, changing conditions, form. Seems quite straight forward.

Tommy Haas at the age of 34 has been a top twenty player. That's a fantastic achievement particularly when you consider that he grew up in completely different playing conditions, suffered injury and time out.

emancipator wrote:Tommy Haas at the age of 34 has been a top twenty player. That's a fantastic achievement particularly when you consider that he grew up in completely different playing conditions, suffered injury and time out.

hear, hear to both you and legend. Brilliant Tommy - what fantastic matches he has given us. I did nearly pick banbro up on this, but thought it would just spiral down into whether we should mention Haas in the same thread, let alone the same post as Murray!

Emancipator don't get upset, I was just having some fun with TP and she got in a couple of teasing and funny shots, there is a bit of sarcasm and hamming it up in my posts from time to time. I dont know why I can't resist federer fans, I feel like Wiley E. Coyote making a massive investment in chasing the roadrunner whose caloric value can't make up for the massive effort in catching said roadrunner. But nonethless it is a compulsion. I don't want you to get mad though, just get in on the fun.

Well raw slam count is a tough one to judge a player on vs others from other eras.

Lets just for argument say you had Player A worth 100 pts talent vs B (100), C (90), D (80). Player A gets 10 slams.

Lets then imagine the era was different. Player A is still worth 100pts talent, but B, C and D are all much lower. So Player A gets 18 slams.

We know Player A is the same person in both eras but his results are very different so we conclude Player A#2 is better than Player A#1 due to higher slam count.

In reality this scenario is possible except that Player A is two different people but of broadly similar talent. The problem we have is with comparison. We have no yardstick by which to do it except pure slam count. There are too many variables that lead up to someone's overall slam count to compare.

I always think GOAT discussions are a complete and utter waste of time and wrote an article 6 years ago on BBC606 called "GOTEs and GOATs" to say so.

I'm with Becker who says that a player may be the most metrically successful of all time but that doesn't necessarily mean he's the best. All we can try to do in create groups of players, echelons, but even that is fraught with similar difficulty.

Finally, it seems GOAT discussions are a new phenomena, no-one used to go on about Borg or others possibly being the best of all time. I think a lot of it is media obsession with metrics (partic. in the US) in these information-overload times we live in.

Why is it that Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian and Ferrero were all at the top end of rankings in the early 2000's and were still playing by 2011but not one of them kicked on in the mid-2000's to regularly challenge at slams and were usurped by the new kids on the block?

People I note are feeling this is merely socal, banbro and myself trying to promote their favourite players by talking up the Fedal era ahead of that of the early 2000's. Well I am sorry but where are we saying that the here and now is the best era ever? Personally, my favourite era was the mid 70's through until the early to mid-80's My opinion on the current era is that it is stronger (for want of a better word) than the early 2000's. I really don't see what is so controversial about that view point.

socal1976 wrote:Emancipator don't get upset, I was just having some fun with TP and she got in a couple of teasing and funny shots, there is a bit of sarcasm and hamming it up in my posts from time to time. I dont know why I can't resist federer fans, I feel like Wiley E. Coyote making a massive investment in chasing the roadrunner whose caloric value can't make up for the massive effort in catching said roadrunner. But nonethless it is a compulsion. I don't want you to get mad though, just get in on the fun.

I'm not mad at all. Just find it tiresome.

lydian wrote:Well raw slam count is a tough one to judge a player on vs others from other eras.

Lets just for argument say you had Player A worth 100 pts talent vs B (100), C (90), D (80). Player A gets 10 slams.

Lets then imagine the era was different. Player A is still worth 100pts talent, but B, C and D are all much lower. So Player A gets 18 slams.

We know Player A is the same person in both eras but his results are very different so we conclude Player A#2 is better than Player A#1 due to higher slam count.

That's a very good point

We can all express an opinion...no-one can prove the 80s was better than 00s or 90s better than 70s. That's the beauty of era's...whatever an era actually is in the first place! (seems to me an era usually gets defined by a dominant player - or gap - rather than an arbitrary time period)

lydian, I tend to agree about GOAT discussions being a bit of a waste of time, if they are taken seriously. As a Mod I feel as though I have to read through stuff that I would probably not bother with as a poster. And having read it, I figure why not post as well, more for a bit of fun and creativity than in the hope of achieving anything.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Why is it that Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian and Ferrero were all at the top end of rankings in the early 2000's and were still playing by 2011but not one of them kicked on in the mid-2000's to regularly challenge at slams and were usurped by the new kids on the block?

People I note are feeling this is merely socal, banbro and myself trying to promote their favourite players by talking up the Fedal era ahead of that of the early 2000's. Well I am sorry but where are we saying that the here and now is the best era ever? Personally, my favourite era was the mid 70's through until the early to mid-80's My opinion on the current era is that it is stronger (for want of a better word) than the early 2000's. I really don't see what is so controversial about that view point.

Roddick, Safin, Nalby, Davy, Blake, Hewitt etc were all rubbish.

Federer was lucky to win so many slams against these clowns.

This era is much stronger with Djokovic, Nadal and of course Andy Murray.

If Murray had been born in 1981 he would probably be the one holding 17 slams now.



emancipator

I agree there lydian. Also someone made a very good point earlier (can't think who just now) that numbers of slams won for say Borg and others around the 70's and 80's aren't truly indicative of their total talent and what it could achieve as many players gave the Australian Open (a slam) a miss opting not to travel so far at that time of the year. That is taking perhaps six or seven potential slam wins away from Borg for starters.

JuliusHMarx wrote:lydian, I tend to agree about GOAT discussions being a bit of a waste of time, if they are taken seriously. As a Mod I feel as though I have to read through stuff that I would probably not bother with as a poster. And having read it, I figure why not post as well, more for a bit of fun and creativity than in the hope of achieving anything.

Exactly Julius, it is the fun in the discussion I mean there is no 100 percent proof out there for any of these discussions but I find them to be fun, others that don't can simply chose to ignore them but they get invariably sucked in that is why all these threads have such a high post count. People are interested in the discussion.