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?

emancipator wrote:

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

Nice try but wrong on all points there.

Yep JHM...not every post has to have a deep and meaningful sentiment behind it. Sometimes is good to just chew (i.e. type) mental bubblegum...but then others take it seriously!

socal1976 wrote:

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.

The more you agree with me socal, the more chance you have of being right

Badam beesh? I am telling you Julius we could take this act on the road?

But you see socal's maxim only applies to socal, but if I do agree with you, you are probably right. That is the corollary of socal's maxim.

CaledonianCraig wrote: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.

Yeah I've said similar in the past, Borg (also my idol as a kid...who's tennis idol wasnt he? He was the Clint Eastwood of tennis...the man with no name, cooler than liquid nitrogen) would only bother going to AO if he won USO (as it was held in Nov/Dec back then). Given he won 5 Wimbs lord knows how many AOs he would have won, and he was also darned unlucky with USO one year when he had an injured thumb before the final. Its these things that make me wonder about any GOAT assertions...likewise with Laver not being able to play between 63-67 (that's 20 slams he missed in his prime!). Federer is the most successful slamwise but that's all I can conclude...sure he's right up there in GOATship discussions but I could never pin the tag to any one player.

Socal, you're getting weird now...when people start talking about themselves in 3rd party I start to wonder if they're 1 ball short of a can

lydian wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote: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.

Yeah I've said similar in the past, Borg (also my idol as a kid...who's tennis idol wasnt he? He was the Clint Eastwood of tennis...the man with no name, cooler than liquid nitrogen) would only bother going to AO if he won USO (as it was held in Nov/Dec back then). Given he won 5 Wimbs lord knows how many AOs he would have won, and he was also darned unlucky with USO one year when he had an injured thumb before the final. Its these things that make me wonder about any GOAT assertions...likewise with Laver not being able to play between 63-67 (that's 20 slams he missed in his prime!). Federer is the most successful slamwise but that's all I can conclude...sure he's right up there in GOATship discussions but I could never pin the tag to any one player.

I agree.

The idea of GOAT is just nonsensical hype, mostly American. You know.. bigger, faster, stronger. In fact they probably started it by declaring Sampras the GOAT after he broke Emerson's slam record. Boy did that fail bigtime! Sadly it is a reflection of the times in which we live. Truly dark days. A celebration of mediocrity. Where everything must be marketed as THE best thing ever. Nothing ever gets worse. Our leaders are liars and deceptors (ok that's probably not new), where people can forgoe the most basic pleasentaries and hurl insults at each other without ever having exchanged a prior word (not referring to this forum - youtube is a good example).

I also agree that at most we can say player A is the most successful to date. Everything else is subjective.



emancipator

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).

No, you are not. You added Ferrero, Youzhny and made a claim, which is clearly incorrect. You have arbitrarily taken off 2003 and started at 2004, which yet again does not help your so called stats because the data has been chosen to fit a hypothesis, viz., a Wee Keira. I find it disingenuous and as SoCal calls it contrafactual.

@SoCal... you are using words like divinity, pomposity, which clearly indicates, as lawyers would put it, the pre-judicial nature of this debate.

It makes very little difference to me whether Federer beat Esther Vergeer or Hewitt or Roddick, or Haas. These other players won 6 matches at a slam, and made it to the final, as did Gaudio, Muster, Moya, et al. When Kuerten ranked #66 can make it to the final and win, why is Baghdatis at #54 such an anachronism in the finals of a slam (he was up a set and a break and would have made it a double break). Or Gonzalez at #9. Remember Gonzalez beat the then #2 seed, a certain Rafael Nadal in straight sets, a Nadal who won W in 2008 beating a GOAT candidate or won AO 2009 beating the same GOAT candidate. The same GOAT candidate who had MPs against Safin and yet lost at AO 2005.

The desire to designate an arbitrary time period to be weak is rather dangerous. Let me give you an example. AO 2013, Federer on decline, Nadal not present, Murray with just one slam, should 2013 be designated as the next Wee Keira, as TP eludes to.

There is not such thing as a rollover generation. Perhaps Federer was miles ahead of his competition and made everyone look weak, perhaps not. IMBL referes to Nadal winning in Miami and Dubai, in the same time period as 2004-2008, so is the same time period a Wee Keira and a Strong Era? May be, depends on your PoV.

Perhaps when Laver won his GSes, it was a weak era, but there are three players, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, who have come close, but have yet to win a GS, so it must be an era, strong or weak, as your subjective interpretation makes it look.

A mass outbreak of intelligence and common sense.

to Emancipator and Lydian. And laverfan of course!

And that's a wrap!

I think you realise how cheap a GOAT tag is when McEnroe gladly tagged Sampras with it at the US Open in 2003 only to change his mind at Wimbledon 2009

laverfan wrote:

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).

No, you are not. You added Ferrero, Youzhny and made a claim, which is clearly incorrect. You have arbitrarily taken off 2003 and started at 2004, which yet again does not help your so called stats because the data has been chosen to fit a hypothesis, viz., a Wee Keira. I find it disingenuous and as SoCal calls it contrafactual.

@SoCal... you are using words like divinity, pomposity, which clearly indicates, as lawyers would put it, the pre-judicial nature of this debate.

It makes very little difference to me whether Federer beat Esther Vergeer or Hewitt or Roddick, or Haas. These other players won 6 matches at a slam, and made it to the final, as did Gaudio, Muster, Moya, et al. When Kuerten ranked #66 can make it to the final and win, why is Baghdatis at #54 such an anachronism in the finals of a slam (he was up a set and a break and would have made it a double break). Or Gonzalez at #9. Remember Gonzalez beat the then #2 seed, a certain Rafael Nadal in straight sets, a Nadal who won W in 2008 beating a GOAT candidate or won AO 2009 beating the same GOAT candidate. The same GOAT candidate who had MPs against Safin and yet lost at AO 2005.

The desire to designate an arbitrary time period to be weak is rather dangerous. Let me give you an example. AO 2013, Federer on decline, Nadal not present, Murray with just one slam, should 2013 be designated as the next Wee Keira, as TP eludes to.

There is not such thing as a rollover generation. Perhaps Federer was miles ahead of his competition and made everyone look weak, perhaps not. IMBL referes to Nadal winning in Miami and Dubai, in the same time period as 2004-2008, so is the same time period a Wee Keira and a Strong Era? May be, depends on your PoV.

Perhaps when Laver won his GSes, it was a weak era, but there are three players, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, who have come close, but have yet to win a GS, so it must be an era, strong or weak, as your subjective interpretation makes it look.

Fantastic post LF.

and commonsense doesn't sound right somehow...but hell yeah why not!

It must be getting bad when we're getting increasingly nostalgic for the old days...when tennis was about cut and thrust...strike and parry...he who dares...long hot summers and 4 hour tie-breaks...contrasts of styles and people unafraid to show their character rather than being briefed by PR nonces to keep stumm and appear more dour than Angela Merkel on a Monday morning...of the flashing blade rather than relentless crosscourt DHBH ralleys.

We want our tennis back!
We want thrillers, not drillers!!

LF - Esther who??? The only Esther I know has buckteeth.

laverfan wrote:

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).

No, you are not. You added Ferrero, Youzhny and made a claim, which is clearly incorrect. You have arbitrarily taken off 2003 and started at 2004, which yet again does not help your so called stats because the data has been chosen to fit a hypothesis, viz., a Wee Keira. I find it disingenuous and as SoCal calls it contrafactual.

@SoCal... you are using words like divinity, pomposity, which clearly indicates, as lawyers would put it, the pre-judicial nature of this debate.

It makes very little difference to me whether Federer beat Esther Vergeer or Hewitt or Roddick, or Haas. These other players won 6 matches at a slam, and made it to the final, as did Gaudio, Muster, Moya, et al. When Kuerten ranked #66 can make it to the final and win, why is Baghdatis at #54 such an anachronism in the finals of a slam (he was up a set and a break and would have made it a double break). Or Gonzalez at #9. Remember Gonzalez beat the then #2 seed, a certain Rafael Nadal in straight sets, a Nadal who won W in 2008 beating a GOAT candidate or won AO 2009 beating the same GOAT candidate. The same GOAT candidate who had MPs against Safin and yet lost at AO 2005.

The desire to designate an arbitrary time period to be weak is rather dangerous. Let me give you an example. AO 2013, Federer on decline, Nadal not present, Murray with just one slam, should 2013 be designated as the next Wee Keira, as TP eludes to.

There is not such thing as a rollover generation. Perhaps Federer was miles ahead of his competition and made everyone look weak, perhaps not. IMBL referes to Nadal winning in Miami and Dubai, in the same time period as 2004-2008, so is the same time period a Wee Keira and a Strong Era? May be, depends on your PoV.

Perhaps when Laver won his GSes, it was a weak era, but there are three players, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, who have come close, but have yet to win a GS, so it must be an era, strong or weak, as your subjective interpretation makes it look.

Bossing it LF, go get him!

KO'd! Schooled! game set and match

lydian wrote:Socal, you're getting weird now...when people start talking about themselves in 3rd party I start to wonder if they're 1 ball short of a can

One and half my friend, lol!

Have you all got your venting session out of the way, all of your heartfelt arguments don't change the facts of the argument. Of all the people who feel that the early 2000s was a bit soft, pretty much all of them agree that federer is the GOAT, although IMBL I believe claims he is 3rd. So none of us are denying the man his due. I still haven't heard in all of these emotional denounciations of socal an answer to my simple question.

Why was it that prior to mono, prior to age setting in fed's closest competitors in the rankings were still puppy versions of Nadal and Djokovic? And does this not prove what I have been saying?

Everyone's moved on, those titanic offerings from emancipator, Lydian & laverfan elevated the debate.

socal1976 wrote:Have you all got your venting session out of the way, all of your heartfelt arguments don't change the facts of the argument. Of all the people who feel that the early 2000s was a bit soft, pretty much all of them agree that federer is the GOAT, although IMBL I believe claims he is 3rd. So none of us are denying the man his due. I still haven't heard in all of these emotional denounciations of socal an answer to my simple question.

We would prefer a debate.

socal1976 wrote:Why was it that prior to mono, prior to age setting in fed's closest competitors in the rankings were still puppy versions of Nadal and Djokovic? And does this not prove what I have been saying?

A puppy version of Nadal - Give the man his due. Beat Federer in Miami, Dubai. He could beat Costa (the then RG champion) on Clay at 16. Someone who turned pro at what, age 15?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3BgTGHBZzk

A puppy version of Djokovic - Again, give your favourite some credit. Beat Federer in 2007 Canada, AO 2008, Miami 2009. Played a wonderful match at US 2008. Tad unlucky to lose the second set 5-7. Calling Djokovic a puppy is a disservice to the 3-time AO champion, who equalled Emerson's record at AO, one that TMF tried but could not match, and guess it was Safin in 2005 who stopped him. Here is reminder of the 'puppy'....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOmaJ-Qb8RE

These are pretty good matches.

At that time LF, Djokovic and Nadal where both far off of their best. Nadal still was for the most part, not completely but for the most part a clay court specialist. I know he beat fed in miami in 05 but as a player he lacked a lot of the volleys, the bigger serve, and the flat forehand that he used later in his career on faster surfaces. Djokovic was half the player he is today. Fitness wise and mentally in particular and his forehand for sure as well.

* Yawn *

There are other threads that you can chose to rain on BB if you would be so inclined. You don't like the discussion some do.

It's impossible to rain on this, it was ended by intelligent posts earlier on from emancipator, Lydian & laverfan.

Let it go.

no he beat him in 04 socal, just saying as you did go on about how you provide facts etc.

oh fine, if you insist on ruining my fun.

socal1976 wrote:At that time LF, Djokovic and Nadal where both far off of their best. Nadal still was for the most part, not completely but for the most part a clay court specialist. I know he beat fed in miami in 05 but as a player he lacked a lot of the volleys, the bigger serve, and the flat forehand that he used later in his career on faster surfaces. Djokovic was half the player he is today. Fitness wise and mentally in particular and his forehand for sure as well.

But you need to consider the fact that players evolve and with experience become better or worse depending on experiences. If they were born as perfect players, we would not have the matches and slams we do. If I recall, one of Djokovic's interview, he clearly states his ambition to be #1, and now he is. I think all players go through development stages. Every shot these athletes play, they gain invaluable experience. I still enjoy McEnroe playing WTT with the fire he has.

We, as spectators perhaps have expectations, but the athletes are learning, refining, honing their skills every time they pick up that racquet and hit that ball. Djokovic during his legendary 2011 run said in many a interview about maturity and calmness. It is fantastic to see such developments. This is why we watch the sport.

Watching Hewitt beat Federer at Halle reminded me of what a player he was in his prime, perhaps a short-lived career, but burnt brightly and fiercely. Roddick showed desire to improve, so he hired Stefanki, as did Federer, who hired Annacone. I would suggest you give them credit for what they do. Each of them has human warts, but they are fantastic athletes. Federer, at his age, has nothing left to prove, but the fire shows up behind that demeanor, when he curses You f***ing stopped, but he hugged his opponent at W when tears were streaming down Murray's face. Nadal consoled his arch-rival. Where else would you see such gallantry!

The memories this players give us, are second to none. Perhaps one day, you might see Marko or Djordje, pick up the mantle of their elder brother and carry-on.

laverfan wrote:

No, you are not. You added Ferrero, Youzhny and made a claim, which is clearly incorrect.

What's wrong with Ferrero and Youzhny? Do they have some sort of super-injunction. Any reasons I can't add them to the list and analyse them?
As for 'clearly incorrrect'; as I said before I used tennis-wetpoint which was unreliable. After now double checking with the ATP website, I believe my stats are correct. ATP is much more reliable than any other site, I'll only use that from now on. Surely you have no problems with this?

You have arbitrarily taken off 2003 and started at 2004,

What are you talking about Laverfan?
I made a typo in my original post then immediately correct my obvious mistake which I noticed. For some ridiculous reason an hour after I had corrected and edited my post you then quoted my post with the unedited version. I'm not quite sure how or why you did that, I'm hoping you got confused and accidentally just looked at Socal quoting my unedited version, rather than you doing it on purpose.

stats because the data has been chosen to fit a hypothesis, viz., a Wee Keira. I find it disingenuous and as SoCal calls it contrafactual.

But isn't that the case with all stats.
If I was to showcase how tobacco causes lung problems, I could choose some stats which back up my case. Is this wrong in any way?

These other players won 6 matches at a slam, and made it to the final,

I'm aware of this LF

The desire to designate an arbitrary time period to be weak is rather dangerous. Let me give you an example. AO 2013, Federer on decline, Nadal not present, Murray with just one slam, should 2013 be designated as the next Wee Keira, as TP eludes to.

I've said this before, perhaps I can repeat it.
If Nadal and Federer both retire this year (for various reasons), and no young players come up, then yes I would say we would be left with only two cutting edge world class competitors at the top of the game. If Murray was to then get injured then yes, his injury would weaken the quality of competition at the top of the game further.
Instead of facing Murray and Nadal in the finals, Djokovic would have the comfort of facing Ferrer, Berdych etc. and this would make winning slams easier for him.
Of course Berdych has beaten Djokovic before, eg Wimby 2010, and Ferrer I think once took a set off him. but hopefully you do get my point (ie on average it would be easier).

The supposedly 1 dimensional Roddick finished his career with a 5-4 h2h lead over Screech.

Safin too finished 2-0 against Screech

It Must Be Love wrote:If I was to showcase how tobacco causes lung problems, I could choose some stats which back up my case. Is this wrong in any way?

Certainly.

Suppose you publish a research paper with some data supporting your hypothesis but you fail to mention that you looked at other data sets as well, but only listed the one that gave you the most favorable results. That is outright cheating. It is not supposed to be done that way because it biases the results of your study.

Of course, people do cheat and it is hard to prove when people do this, but that does not make it ok.

Look at the head-to-heads from the original post to see the real pattern. Whereas the early 2000's had a woeful record against a peak Federer the players who came after had a far better record against peak Federer bearing in mind it could be said that none of those players (well Murray and Djokovic certainly) were not at their peak. Why didn't Roddick reach five slam finals iinstead of Murray from 2007 to 2011 or why wasn't it Nalbandian who won slams in place of say Djokovic?

Just out of interest - when would they feel thus far were Rafael Nadal's peak years as we know from his fans that Fed's was 2003 to 2007.

I'm struggling to be honest to understand what the h2hs in the article are meant to show. Ignore Nadal as a one off. Djokovic then has the same record as Safin. Murray only played twice. For all we know had they played four more times Fed might have won all of them - its too small a sample to be relevant.

Remember Djokovic was nowhere near his peak neither was Murray and arguably neither was Nadal yet their record was far more competitive against Federer than the likes of Safin etc etc. Why? Why as well did the top players from the early 2000's get so comprehensively replaced at the business end of slams by the next generation?

Djokovic reached his first GS QF in 2006.

Murray in 2008.

So as we are talking the business end, what happened between 2000-2006 in terms of 'next generation'?

My take is that the natural order of new players taking over from Sampras and Agassi around 2000 - Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Nalby - would have gone roughly to plan and they started winning more slams had the ATP/ITF not killed the game dead in its tracks by slowing all non-clay slams down from 2001 onwards (ATP events were to follow).

You were left with players jockeying for position to cope with the new surfaces. The fast court guys couldn't cope any more so you saw Kafelnikovs, Sampras, Rafters, Goran, et al, die away quickly. The new set - Roddick et al - weren't able to implement the faster court games they had developed in their formative years up to 2000. It left a void. So in stepped Federer who had a marvellously well adapted game to all courts (grew up on clay) and after him Djokovic, Nadal, etc came along with their rallying games with stamina suited to, and trained for slow courts.

That's why we had this weird period of 2000-2006 where we didn't have as many good players as we expected winning slams...the ITF/ATP simply killed their fast court games dead in their tracks and it was too hard for them to rapidly adapt because a leopard can't change it spots, you can't undo 15 years of tennis coaching and training to play on certain types of courts. It's almost a crime what they (ATP/ITF) did to a generation of younger players in the interests of viewing figures. Now I'm not saying Roddick et al were Borg-like greats of the game but we knew guys like Safin and Nalby were very very talented...is it any wonder they lost heart when the game had simply changed out of all recognition around them? Success breeds success...and failure starts to breed demotivation...

That is a fair enough theory lydian. However, change of court speeds, change of equipment and stuff like Australian Open not always attended by all the top players have played their part and the players involved have to do the best they can and adapt the best they can. You could say that both Murray and Djokovic had to do the same. Both had fitness issues when they started out and noted what a supreme specimen of physical fitness Nadal was and they worked hard and adapted accordingly and that is a credit to them. If others could not adapt to new court conditions is that not just a weakness or inflexibility on their behalf as Federer adapted?

So now everyone gets measured against Federers adaptive capability? Let's remember that he did far more than adapt from 2004 to 2010, he also changed his game from the earlier period (as always, refer to Federer v Sampras for evidence of a match played almost entirely with two guys trying to get to the net first).

There's a reason why most people recognise he is abnormally talented, criticising others for being below that just about condemns everyone.

I haven't seen Murray or Djokovic challenged to change their game plan to adapt to radically changed conditions. They've worked on their own fitness but that's nothing to do with finding the sport you grew into becoming something else. What Roddick had to handle was crazy, to exaggerate, almost akin to asking Djokovic to use a Dunlop Maxply Fort and get onto fast grass;

bogbrush wrote:So now everyone gets measured against Federers adaptive capability? Let's remember that he did far more than adapt from 2004 to 2010, he also changed his game from the earlier period (as always, refer to Federer v Sampras for evidence of a match played almost entirely with two guys trying to get to the net first).

There's a reason why most people recognise he is abnormally talented, criticising others for being below that just about condemns everyone.

I haven't seen Murray or Djokovic challenged to change their game plan to adapt to radically changed conditions. They've worked on their own fitness but that's nothing to do with finding the sport you grew into becoming something else. What Roddick had to handle was crazy, to exaggerate, almost akin to asking Djokovic to use a Dunlop Maxply Fort and get onto fast grass;

There is nothing much to add to that, except to say this is why this argument seems to go around in circles, because despite protestations to the contrary, it seems there is a need by some fans to judge their players in a historical context much too prematurely and to disregard any factor or caveat that doesn't fit their narrative.

Is it a fear (as discussed on the Fisticuff's thread) that if Rafa's knees don't hold up, and Roger waltzes off into the Swiss sunset, then the larger tennis watching audience will sink into apathy and possibly turn to another sport because Djokovic and Murray just don't have the on court presence of previous giants of the game? For all that Hewitt's achievements have been pooh pooed here, he was always someone who attracted the crowds, and still does - there wouldn't be an empty seat around any court with Hewitt on it, even in his decline.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Remember Djokovic was nowhere near his peak neither was Murray and arguably neither was Nadal yet their record was far more competitive against Federer than the likes of Safin etc etc. Why? Why as well did the top players from the early 2000's get so comprehensively replaced at the business end of slams by the next generation?

Hard to say Djokovic pushed Federer more than Safin when he was 5-1 against both of them. Are we to conclude that actually Canas was also superior to Roddick etc on the basis he beat Federer twice in 2007? I agree with your overall point but the stats don't really support it.

That view point works both ways though time please. It could just as easily be said that those blowing the trumpet for the early 2000's are doing so purely to champion the cause of their favourite player/players. I mean I saw no great protestations when I said I felt the strongest era was mid-70's to early mid 80's did I? But because people hold the believe that mid to late 2000's was superior to the early 2000's the dummy's start getting thrown out of the pram. Why?

For the record as well, just because I feel the late 2000's were better in quality than the early 2000's doesn't mean I am junking the players of the early 2000's. As I said earlier every sport has its strong eras or less strong eras and tennis is no different.

Born Slippy wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Remember Djokovic was nowhere near his peak neither was Murray and arguably neither was Nadal yet their record was far more competitive against Federer than the likes of Safin etc etc. Why? Why as well did the top players from the early 2000's get so comprehensively replaced at the business end of slams by the next generation?

Hard to say Djokovic pushed Federer more than Safin when he was 5-1 against both of them. Are we to conclude that actually Canas was also superior to Roddick etc on the basis he beat Federer twice in 2007? I agree with your overall point but the stats don't really support it.

Look at all three head-to-heads and it does all point in one direction rather overwhelmingly. The Djokovic-Federer match-ups came when Djoko still had health/fitness issues and Fed was at his peak whereas the Safin/Federer match ups was just a mere snippet of Federer's domination of Safin (10-2 in total). As we know the Djokovic/Federer match up is far more evenly balanced when everything is taken into account.

You're doing a Nelson on changed conditions.

bogbrush wrote:You're doing a Nelson on changed conditions.

Depends on when you are 'claiming' these changed conditions came in? Set a date on it and we will take it from there.

I think it is a bit cheap if we are seriously are looking to exploit Federer's legacy and standing in the game based on results recently given that age detracts from all players. Only a handful of players have really remained competitive into their 30's. On the outlook currently and looking at Nadal's problems, I would be astounded if Djokovic or even Murray remained a consistent fixture in the top 10 by 29-30.

I can see the argument now 20 years down the line. Gee wasn't Murray great. Didn't win many Slams, but had a positive H2H against Federer. I mean come on. It's clear Murray and Djokovic couldn't overhaul Roger in his dominant years and yet that is down to them not being at their peak. Now they have reached their's why can't the same token be afforded to Federer who is now past his peak?

Bizarre bias logic.

bogbrush wrote:So now everyone gets measured against Federers adaptive capability? Let's remember that he did far more than adapt from 2004 to 2010, he also changed his game from the earlier period (as always, refer to Federer v Sampras for evidence of a match played almost entirely with two guys trying to get to the net first).

There's a reason why most people recognise he is abnormally talented, criticising others for being below that just about condemns everyone.

I haven't seen Murray or Djokovic challenged to change their game plan to adapt to radically changed conditions. They've worked on their own fitness but that's nothing to do with finding the sport you grew into becoming something else. What Roddick had to handle was crazy, to exaggerate, almost akin to asking Djokovic to use a Dunlop Maxply Fort and get onto fast grass;

I'm not into Era discussions so I'm not going to say that this player was better than that one as it is far too subjective. However BB as someone who runs a business you will know that if you you are not willing or are unable to adapt to a changing landscape then you ultimately fail.

As you say Federer stands out because he was multi-talented and still is but I'm sure with a bit of application some of the players being mentioned could have performed more consistently than they did. Roddick for instance had a good 2009. This was just after he took on Stefanki as his coach and we very told he had lost a reasonable amount of weight.

As for Djokovic and Murray I think if you look back to when they first came on to the circuit as opposed to now they will playing considerably differently. That is they worked out what they need to change to get to the upper echelons of the sport and made sure they addressed what had to be done. In Djokovic's case it has made him a multi-slam winner. We have to see if Murray can follow that but he has been top 5 since 2008.

No lk my stats from head-to-heads are purely from Federer's peak era and to hell with the rest so to speak. And in any case lk there you are falling into that trap that Federer fans fall into. Merely, because there are those of us that feel mid-to late 2000's tennis was stronger than the early 2000's does not take one iota away from Federer. I think I have said on two separate occasions that to me a slam win is a slam win no matter what the era and that Federer is the GOAT.

legendkillarV2 wrote:I would be astounded if Djokovic or even Murray remained a consistent fixture in the top 10 by 29-30

Really? These two not in the Top 10 in just over 3 years? Who's replacing them?

I agree that Roger's ability to still compete at 31 is remarkable and I don't think anyone argues against that

However, I do think we underestimate just how good Andy and Novak are and it's going to take an amazing player to get the better of them, in 3 years (assuming Roger and Rafa are not around) never mind at least 9 others

Once they get to nearly 31, i.e. in 5 years - then yes, I don't see them being as dominant as Roger is at the same age, but again I could see them being Top 5

The effort to get near to Rafa / Roger (Murray) never mind overcome them (Djokovich) will be seen, in later years, as an amazing occurrence - similar to the pairing of Alonso and Hamilton in 2007, which is now seen as one of those 'blue chip' sporting moments

CaledonianCraig wrote:because there are those of us that feel mid-to late 2000's tennis was stronger than the early 2000's does not take one iota away from Federer. I think I have said on two separate occasions that to me a slam win is a slam win no matter what the era and that Federer is the GOAT.

I too, do wonder why so many don't seem to get this. It's almost as though some want to accuse reasonable fans of other players of undermining Roger.

I too repeat - anyone who saw his destroying of Roddick at the 2005 Wimbledon can be in no doubt as to who the best player ever is

For me it doesn't matter - if the era would have been the same 'depth' since 2002, I still believe that Roger would have had 14+ Slams anyway. There's also an argument that he would have been better tuned up to take on the mental battle that is / was Nadal

There is no trap CC.

I see the argument for what it is and now because Federer is losing to the Murray's and Djokovic's of this world, it becomes a case of 'He isn't that great' if his rivals are beating him frequently.

The tennis in 2000-2005 was strong. We forget that Hewitt, Ferrero and Nalbandian suffered with injuries and the impacts of them have not been given the due course and care. Safin suffered injuries and as well as his enigmatic behaviour also had an effect on his form. Roddick post 2006 underwent massive changes not just to his game but his weight and fitness.

If you look at today's standings. Del Potro and Soderling. 2 guys who in recent memories made a Slam final and look how injury and illness have blighted their careers. If we cut Nadal and Federer from this era and ran it from 2013 onwards, how do you think it will in the grand scheme of things compared with others? Say if Nadal and Federer walked away from the game this year, I would imagine many will try to associate Murray and Djokovic with them much rather than the future crop waiting to break through.

legendkillarV2 wrote:There is no trap CC.

I see the argument for what it is and now because Federer is losing to the Murray's and Djokovic's of this world, it becomes a case of 'He isn't that great' if his rivals are beating him frequently.

I don't see anyone saying that. People have conceded time and time again Roger is the GOAT so what you are saying, from my angle, makes no sense. As for where tennis goes from here and if Djokovic wins another ten slams or Murray gets half a dozen in an era minus Federer or Nadal and no new challengers it won't matter to me as a slam win is a slam win no matter what the era as I alluded to earlier.

banbrotam wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:I would be astounded if Djokovic or even Murray remained a consistent fixture in the top 10 by 29-30

Really? These two not in the Top 10 in just over 3 years? Who's replacing them?

I agree that Roger's ability to still compete at 31 is remarkable and I don't think anyone argues against that

However, I do think we underestimate just how good Andy and Novak are and it's going to take an amazing player to get the better of them, in 3 years (assuming Roger and Rafa are not around) never mind at least 9 others

Once they get to nearly 31, i.e. in 5 years - then yes, I don't see them being as dominant as Roger is at the same age, but again I could see them being Top 5

The effort to get near to Rafa / Roger (Murray) never mind overcome them (Djokovich) will be seen, in later years, as an amazing occurrence - similar to the pairing of Alonso and Hamilton in 2007, which is now seen as one of those 'blue chip' sporting moments

Could be anyone from Raonic/Tomic/Dimitrov/Janowicz/Harrison.

Djokovic and Murray we suggest peaked later in their careers. Yes they were constant features in the top half of the rankings, but let's not kid ourselves that Roger will be around in 3 years or even Nadal (based on his injuries)

Murray is one ligament injury away from a cankle. God knows the impact of sliding on hard courts is having on Djokovic's body. David Ferrer is the only player really in his 30's that is testament the formula works. Now he has been quite healthy throughout his career, like Federer.

No-one is under-estimating how good Murray or Djokovic is. The issue at hand is that stamina doesn't go on forever and how will they adjust on later years once their core strength weakens? We shall find out in time.

I hope my statement is wrong because I want Murray to win more Slams

Calder106 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:So now everyone gets measured against Federers adaptive capability? Let's remember that he did far more than adapt from 2004 to 2010, he also changed his game from the earlier period (as always, refer to Federer v Sampras for evidence of a match played almost entirely with two guys trying to get to the net first).

There's a reason why most people recognise he is abnormally talented, criticising others for being below that just about condemns everyone.

I haven't seen Murray or Djokovic challenged to change their game plan to adapt to radically changed conditions. They've worked on their own fitness but that's nothing to do with finding the sport you grew into becoming something else. What Roddick had to handle was crazy, to exaggerate, almost akin to asking Djokovic to use a Dunlop Maxply Fort and get onto fast grass;

I'm not into Era discussions so I'm not going to say that this player was better than that one as it is far too subjective. However BB as someone who runs a business you will know that if you you are not willing or are unable to adapt to a changing landscape then you ultimately fail.

As you say Federer stands out because he was multi-talented and still is but I'm sure with a bit of application some of the players being mentioned could have performed more consistently than they did. Roddick for instance had a good 2009. This was just after he took on Stefanki as his coach and we very told he had lost a reasonable amount of weight.

As for Djokovic and Murray I think if you look back to when they first came on to the circuit as opposed to now they will playing considerably differently. That is they worked out what they need to change to get to the upper echelons of the sport and made sure they addressed what had to be done. In Djokovic's case it has made him a multi-slam winner. We have to see if Murray can follow that but he has been top 5 since 2008.

How does Djokovic play different? He's become staggeringly fit and fast but the only thing he ever changed was his serve, which he had to change back. They've had nothing to adapt to, compared to what Roddick had to cope with when they basically took his serve off him. Try giving Novak a wooden racquet with gut strings (taking his incredible retrieval and recovery shots off him) and see how he gets on.