Era Discussions For All Time Periods

by CaledonianCraig Sun Feb 03, 2013 12:21 pm

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?

by banbrotam Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:24 pm

legendkillarV2 wrote: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

Who's saying this? Infrequent Tennis watchers, that's who. Indeed Roger isn't as good as his 2005 peak - but as no other player has been as good as that, he can and is still 'great'

legendkillarV2 wrote: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

That's a contradiction. If Hewitt etc had injuries, then depth had to be weakened, becasue by definition if you are missing some of the Top players, then the quality wouldn't be as good. If you are regularly missing 3 Slam winners / finalists.................!!!!!

legendkillarV2 wrote:Roddick post 2006 underwent massive changes not just to his game but his weight and fitness

But in 2009 gave some of his best ever performances, yet still could get nowhere near the Top 3, never mind No.1 like in 2003

legendkillarV2 wrote: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

I accept Soderling, but I like the way Del Potro's wrist injury of 3 years ago apparently means he's not the same player. It could be that the limit of Del Boy's ability was the 2009 US Open

legendkillarV2 wrote: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?

Similar to 2000 to 2002. Not quite as good when Roger first won his Slams (2003-2005) as his Tennis made us forget that the depth wasn't quite there. Poorly in comparison to 2006 onwards.

legendkillarV2 wrote: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.

Then they would be wrong. We can't "associate them" until their career's are over. But obviously, given the number of times they've played their two rivals, they will always have a right to be part associated with them

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:44 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote: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?

That's because no-one really cares that much about 30 - 40 years ago. Just as in 30 - 40 years time no-one will care that much about any difference between now and 10 years ago.
And that's a good thing!

by Guest Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:47 pm

[quote="banbrotam"]

Who's saying this? Infrequent Tennis watchers, that's who. Indeed Roger isn't as good as his 2005 peak - but as no other player has been as good as that, he can and is still 'great'

Someone said, correct me if I am wrong last year that Murray was 'better' than Federer based on form and I believe Federer on to reclaim the number 1 ranking and win Wimbledon.

That's a contradiction. If Hewitt etc had injuries, then depth had to be weakened, becasue by definition if you are missing some of the Top players, then the quality wouldn't be as good. If you are regularly missing 3 Slam winners / finalists.................!!!!!

How is that a contradiction? Many have been asking why didn't stay near the top of the rankings for long. Let's not forget Roddick remained a top 10 player until 2011. Nalbandian and Ferrero late in their careers made strides back into the top 20. Hardly an endorsment for the strength of this era.

But in 2009 gave some of his best ever performances, yet still could get nowhere near the Top 3, never mind No.1 like in 2003

Yes because:

1) He dropped 15lbs
2) He adapted his game

I accept Soderling, but I like the way Del Potro's wrist injury of 3 years ago apparently means he's not the same player. It could be that the limit of Del Boy's ability was the 2009 US Open

Why can't that be a factor? Look at Hewitt. It took nearly 2 years post hip for him to generate positive results. Same with Haas. The impacts of injury are being de-valued here.

Similar to 2000 to 2002. Not quite as good when Roger first won his Slams (2003-2005) as his Tennis made us forget that the depth wasn't quite there. Poorly in comparison to 2006 onwards.

Is that because Johanssen won a Slam?

In any sport there is transition and in those phases of transitions there is opportunity. Sampras was on the way out. Agassi was was nicely slowing down. Hewitt, Roddick and Safin stepped in. Clay was still Clay and as was Grass to a small point before it changed.

We are experiencing possibly another transition with Federer's powers fading and Nadal's body catching up with him. Murray and Djokovic are benefitting, but who knows what 2013 could throw up.

Then they would be wrong. We can't "associate them" until their career's are over. But obviously, given the number of times they've played their two rivals, they will always have a right to be part associated with them

Let's see. If Murray faces anyone but Federer or Djokovic in a Slam final, I wonder how weak that will be percieved Wink

by banbrotam Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:57 pm

LK

Nalbandian coming back into the Top 20, fleetingly 18 months ago (or whenever it was) isn't quite the same as reaching a Slam final!!

For me, unless you stayed at peak fitness these players from 2002 had no chance of being as highly ranked, simply because the current era is better.

Roddick was a classic illustration of this

However, I fully accept that it is feasible that players like Wawrinka could take advantage of weaker times ahead

And if Andy wins 8 majors during this 'weak' time - then fine. I'll have no issue admitting this, because he'll still have the majors

I actually think that there is more agreement on these boards than people think - we just get a bit heated with some of the wordings!!

by time please Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:02 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote: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.

I'd love to hear who is blowing the trumpet for the early 2000s - what I see is posters refusing to accept blanket statements about players like Hewitt and Safin and co that are really pretty ignorant and ill informed.

by Guest Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:02 pm

Look at from the perspective of if Andy or Novak picked up an injury which forced them out for 6-8 months, can you honestly say they would comeback and force themselves back into the reckoning within 12 months after the injury?

by Calder106 Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:37 pm

I suppose that depends on the injury. 6-8 months is a long time. We wait to see how Rafa gets on.

On a slightly lower scale though Murray injured his wrist around his 20th birthday in 2007 when he was 10 in the rankings. He came back nearly 3 months latter and over the coming months he dropped as low as 22 (april 2008). However within a year of his return he was ranked 6 and a few weeks later 4.

by Calder106 Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:57 pm

bogbrush wrote:
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.

As his opponents would be playing with the same equipment I would imagine he would still be a top player because he wolud work out how to deal with it and adapt to that. I can't prove that though just as you cannot prove he wouldn't be. That's why I don't get into era discussions. I ofter cringe when Socal calls Roddick one shot because I think that's unfair on him. However that's more or less what you have said here.
As in everything people have to adapt to the conditions that prevail. Some do it better than others and they prosper.

What I don't understand is why when the conditions are considered uniform we do not see more young players at the top of the game. Given what is being said they don't have to change their game as they are playing in the same conditions, with the top equipment and only need to get fitter. My take again is that you have to be willing to adapt. What someone did in the juniors will only take them to a certain level in the seniors. At that stage if they are going to get to the top they have to work what is needed to get to the next stage and build their game in these areas.

by banbrotam Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:08 pm

legendkillarV2 wrote:Look at from the perspective of if Andy or Novak picked up an injury which forced them out for 6-8 months, can you honestly say they would comeback and force themselves back into the reckoning within 12 months after the injury?

Andy was injured for 4 months (wasn't it) in the Spring / Summer of 2007. Granted, this is not 6 months - but he recovered well.

I think your amount of time out will result in the same amount of time to get back - the issue will be if the injury you have forces other niggles / fitness issues

by CaledonianCraig Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:11 pm

Exactly Calder. Look at snooker where conditions have changed similarly with faster tables more susceptible to different type of shots etc but Stephen Hendry adapted and likewise when they changed the balls from heavy to lighter. He adapted as the very best players do likewise in golf but it would seem that some tennis players couldn’t adapt.

by **laverfan** Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:19 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote: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.

I have objections to this, CC. (Still need to digest some other comments).

When Laver, Hoad, Rosewall could travel to play French Open and W, this is a very lame excuse for Borg, Connors and others.

Connors did play AO in 1974 and came close to a Grand Slam. Lendl played AO, correct?

@BanBro... there are no common measures to scientifically compare two sets of achievements, be it Tennis or Cycling, or Football. (I would also suggest looking the v2 GOAT discussions, if you feel so inclined).

There is no method of even relative measurements. Here are two examples, can they really be compared....

https://www.606v2.com/t40161-evert-s-really-ridiculous-clay-record

https://www.606v2.com/t40148-rafa-s-really-ridiculous-record-on-clay

Lydian's explanation makes the most logical sense given the circumstances.

If Roddick had Stefanki earlier in his career (rather than Connors or his brother), he may have more slams, very similar to the Borg conjecture that CC is suggesting. Wink

. If Nalbandian had fewer injuries, he would have been to more slam finals. What-if analysis is fraught with errors.

by hawkeye Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:26 pm

In terms of measuring tennis "greatness" how many everyday slam wins equates to the 2008 Wimbledon slam win (or even loss) or the 1981 Wimbledon slam win (or even loss)?

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:43 pm

'Everyday' slam wins? I thought there were only 4 a year?

by CaledonianCraig Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Yes hawkeye I can see that view point of yours definitely. It is/was Borg’s choice (and others) not to play the Australian Open and you are right it is like the injuries etc) a ’what if’ scenario. However, such was Borg’s brilliance I would be more confident that had he played the AO (considering it was then on grass which he excelled on) he would have won a handful of them. My confidence wouldn’t be so high in saying Nalbandian would have definitely reached more slam finals had he stayed fit. But fair point on the ’what if’ scenarios.

by hawkeye Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:51 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:'Everyday' slam wins? I thought there were only 4 a year?

Well yes that is "everyday" compared with the sort that comes along once every 27 years if we're lucky.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:55 pm

You mean there's some sort of more importance attached to winning a slam if the person you beat has won 5 in a row? Why? You could equally argue it would be better if you stopped them winning 4 or 5 in a row instead of letting them get 5.
Richard Kriajcek must have the most pretigious Wimbledon title ever.

by hawkeye Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:04 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:You mean there's some sort of more importance attached to winning a slam if the person you beat has won 5 in a row? Why? You could equally argue it would be better if you stopped them winning 4 or 5 in a row instead of letting them get 5.
Richard Kriajcek must have the most pretigious Wimbledon title ever.

Ha ha! No. Try watching the 2008 Wimbledon final or the 1981 Wimbledon final and you might just see what I mean. I'll give you a clue it has nothing whatsoever to do with numbers.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:18 pm

It would save me some time if you just explained it Smile

by LuvSports! Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:30 pm

HE do you mean the 1980 final of borg and mcenroe, with the famous tiebreak etc? 1981 was the 4 setter mcenroe won and apaz wasn't nearly as good.

by Guest Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:46 pm

Both McEnroe and Nadal prevented 6 in a row.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:58 pm

legendkillarV2 wrote:Both McEnroe and Nadal prevented 6 in a row.

yes, but HE said that's not it.

by **laverfan** Tue Feb 05, 2013 5:18 pm

For the 'era' discussions...

Can we compare these...

Nadal v Dodig ( Sorry

One is clay vs another HC in this case)...

2011 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Canada Hard R32 Dodig, Ivan 1-6, 7-6(5), 7-6(5) Stats
2011 Barcelona Spain Clay S Nadal, Rafael 6-3, 6-2 Stats

Murray v Young ...

2011 US Open NY, U.S.A. Hard R16 Murray, Andy 6-2, 6-3, 6-3
2011 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Indian Wells CA, U.S.A. Hard R64 Young, Donald 7-6(4), 6-3

Federer v Baghdatis ...

2010 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Cincinnati OH, U.S.A. Hard S Federer, Roger 6-4, 6-3
2010 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Indian Wells CA, U.S.A. Hard R32 Baghdatis, Marcos 5-7, 7-5, 7-6(4)

Djokovic v Anderson ...

2011 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Miami FL, U.S.A. Hard Q Djokovic, Novak 6-4, 6-2
2008 ATP Masters Series Miami FL, U.S.A. Hard R64 Anderson, Kevin 7-6(1), 3-6, 6-4 (same year as Djokovic AO win)

These matches have been chosen to show that each match is different. Wink

Julius has provided the Krajicek example, there are hundreds more.

McEnroe v Amritraj ( http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=M047&oId=A022 ), anyone?

by **laverfan** Tue Feb 05, 2013 5:23 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote: However, such was Borg’s brilliance I would be more confident that had he played the AO (considering it was then on grass which he excelled on) he would have won a handful of them.

Be careful, Craig - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=B058&oId=P059

That too, against a so called one-slam wonder.

by socal1976 Tue Feb 05, 2013 5:31 pm

time please wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote: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.

I'd love to hear who is blowing the trumpet for the early 2000s - what I see is posters refusing to accept blanket statements about players like Hewitt and Safin and co that are really pretty ignorant and ill informed.

Really, ignorant and ill informed, wow I am the one who is condescending. We aren't ignorant, we watched those players play and perform. We aren't ill informed because we are aware of the trophies that each respective group of players won. The fact remains if those players were better they would have won more, they didn't and it wasn't just federer beating them in the semis and finals in every tournament that is just a myth.

by User 774433 Tue Feb 05, 2013 5:42 pm

laverfan wrote:For the 'era' discussions...

Can we compare these...

Nadal v Dodig ( One is clay vs another HC in this case)...

2011 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Canada Hard R32 Dodig, Ivan 1-6, 7-6(5), 7-6(5) Stats
2011 Barcelona Spain Clay S Nadal, Rafael 6-3, 6-2 Stats

Murray v Young ...

2011 US Open NY, U.S.A. Hard R16 Murray, Andy 6-2, 6-3, 6-3
2011 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Indian Wells CA, U.S.A. Hard R64 Young, Donald 7-6(4), 6-3

Federer v Baghdatis ...

2010 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Cincinnati OH, U.S.A. Hard S Federer, Roger 6-4, 6-3
2010 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Indian Wells CA, U.S.A. Hard R32 Baghdatis, Marcos 5-7, 7-5, 7-6(4)

Djokovic v Anderson ...

2011 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Miami FL, U.S.A. Hard Q Djokovic, Novak 6-4, 6-2
2008 ATP Masters Series Miami FL, U.S.A. Hard R64 Anderson, Kevin 7-6(1), 3-6, 6-4 (same year as Djokovic AO win)

These matches have been chosen to show that each match is different.

Julius has provided the Krajicek example, there are hundreds more.

McEnroe v Amritraj ( http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=M047&oId=A022 ), anyone?

What exactly is your point Laverfan?
Sorry to be blunt, but I may as well ask directly.

Is your point this:

These matches have been chosen to show that each match is different.

If this is the case, which appears to be so, then I am slightly perplexed. At no point has anyone on this forum ever not said two matches can't be different. I fully know two matches can be different.
However what I am saying is that some matches tend to be easier than others.
For example the field at Sao Paulo will not be as strong as the French Open. So I can convincingly say winning RG would be harder than winning Sao Paulo.
And you could definitely rebuttle by saying 'each match' is different, which although true, doesn't really counter my point at all.

And btw LF you have not yet replied to my last post yesterday, where you wrongly quoted me even after I had edited.

by **laverfan** Tue Feb 05, 2013 8:24 pm

socal1976 wrote:The fact remains if those players were better they would have won more, they didn't and it wasn't just federer beating them in the semis and finals in every tournament that is just a myth.

Hewitt...

AO 2000 - R16 Magnus Norman (SWE) 11 L 3-6, 1-6, 6-7(6) (Norman lost in SF to eventual finalist Kafelnikov)
RG 2000 - R16 Albert Costa (ESP) 18 L 3-6, 6-4, 2-6, 4-6 (Costa won RG 2002)
US 2000 - S Pete Sampras (USA) 4 L 6-7(7), 4-6, 6-7(5) (Sampras was finalist in 2000)

AO 2001 - R32 Carlos Moya (ESP) 42 L 6-4, 1-6, 7-5, 2-6, 5-7 (Moya was 1998 RG champion)
RG 2001 - Q Juan Carlos Ferrero (ESP) 4 L 4-6, 2-6, 1-6 (Ferrero won RG 2003)
W 2001 - R16 Nicolas Escude (FRA) 38 L 6-4, 4-6, 3-6, 6-4, 4-6 (Escude lost next round to Agassi)

RG 2002 - R16 Guillermo Canas (ARG) 17 L 7-6(1), 6-7(13), 4-6, 3-6 (Canas lost to eventual RG champion Costa. Canas won Canada 2002).
US 2002 - S Andre Agassi (USA) 6 L 4-6, 6-7(5), 7-6(1), 2-6 (Agassi lost to Sampras in the final).

AO 2003 - R16 Younes El Aynaoui (MAR) 22 L 7-6(4), 6-7(4), 6-7(5), 4-6 (Aynaoui played that famous 21-19 fifth set with Roddick).
RG 2003 - R32 Tommy Robredo (ESP) 31 L 6-4, 6-1, 3-6, 2-6, 3-6 (Robredo beat Kuerten in the next round).

Yes, he was not losing to someone named Federer, but he was losing to some pretty good players. The competition was tough.

by Born Slippy Tue Feb 05, 2013 8:42 pm

bogbrush wrote:
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.

Roddick was completely unaffected by the fact the courts slowed down. It made no impact on his ability to hold serve (over 90% every year from 2003-2010). His career average of 90% comfortably exceeds Goran's for example. It's important to note that he simply wasn't a fast court player. He was ideally suited to medium paced courts where the speed of his serve through the air would allow him to dominate but he would also have time to wind up his own limited ground-strokes. Anything faster meant that he was in trouble against anyone who could actually get the serve back.

by Born Slippy Tue Feb 05, 2013 9:03 pm

lydian wrote: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...

What do you regard as a fast court player Lydian?

Sampras, Rafter and Goran I obviously agree. However, clearly they weren't forced to retire due to the slower conditions as you suggest. Rafter and Goran both suffered significant injuries which forced them into retirement. Sampras lost focus/desire and was at the tailend of his career.

Kafelnikov is the only one there who, age wise, might have been expected to tail off more slowly. However, he wasn't an out and out fast-court player. His record at Wimbledon was poor and he was extremely adept on slower surfaces. The real true fast court player who was still somewhere near his peak was Henman. Despite having a fair number of injuries, he arguably had his best years in 2003-04 - precisely when he should have been struggling to adapt.

Of the new generation in the early 2000s I would regard only Federer as a player who was really comfortable playing traditional fast court tennis. The rest were baseliners who were probably more than happy the courts got slightly slower. Wasn't it Safin who said at the start of his career that grass was for cows? Hewitt was, as a classic counterpuncher) harmed by the fact he wasnt facing a bunch of serve volleyers. However, otherwise these guys just don't support your argument at all.

In my view, the early 2000s could have been a real golden generation. However, due to a combination of injuries and lack of focus it never really materialised. Only Federer and Roddick of that bunch could say they really did as well as could be expected.

by CaledonianCraig Tue Feb 05, 2013 10:24 pm

Sorry LaverFan but most top players from any era tend to exit slams at the hands od top players invariably so that proves nothing.

by socal1976 Tue Feb 05, 2013 10:52 pm

Born Slippy wrote:
lydian wrote: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...

What do you regard as a fast court player Lydian?

Sampras, Rafter and Goran I obviously agree. However, clearly they weren't forced to retire due to the slower conditions as you suggest. Rafter and Goran both suffered significant injuries which forced them into retirement. Sampras lost focus/desire and was at the tailend of his career.

Kafelnikov is the only one there who, age wise, might have been expected to tail off more slowly. However, he wasn't an out and out fast-court player. His record at Wimbledon was poor and he was extremely adept on slower surfaces. The real true fast court player who was still somewhere near his peak was Henman. Despite having a fair number of injuries, he arguably had his best years in 2003-04 - precisely when he should have been struggling to adapt.

Of the new generation in the early 2000s I would regard only Federer as a player who was really comfortable playing traditional fast court tennis. The rest were baseliners who were probably more than happy the courts got slightly slower. Wasn't it Safin who said at the start of his career that grass was for cows? Hewitt was, as a classic counterpuncher) harmed by the fact he wasnt facing a bunch of serve volleyers. However, otherwise these guys just don't support your argument at all.

In my view, the early 2000s could have been a real golden generation. However, due to a combination of injuries and lack of focus it never really materialised. Only Federer and Roddick of that bunch could say they really did as well as could be expected.

Look out BS, another well reasoned post that disputes the contention that federer's competition was as strong as any period's. The facts simply don't back up the argument that Roddick was hurt by slow conditions he only won the US open 2 years after they slowed the conditions down he had big swings on the ball and his problems in movement actually made a medium paced out door hardcourt be his most favorite type of court. That period had potential but failed to materialize and only federer and roddick where healthy and focused for the entirety of this period.

by bogbrush Tue Feb 05, 2013 11:11 pm

Yeah, the reason Roddick won his Slam in 2003 wasn't because two years earlier he'd just had his 19th birthday and was only just getting any sort of results. Laugh

by Guest Tue Feb 05, 2013 11:29 pm

socal1976 wrote:
Born Slippy wrote:
lydian wrote: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...

What do you regard as a fast court player Lydian?

Sampras, Rafter and Goran I obviously agree. However, clearly they weren't forced to retire due to the slower conditions as you suggest. Rafter and Goran both suffered significant injuries which forced them into retirement. Sampras lost focus/desire and was at the tailend of his career.

Kafelnikov is the only one there who, age wise, might have been expected to tail off more slowly. However, he wasn't an out and out fast-court player. His record at Wimbledon was poor and he was extremely adept on slower surfaces. The real true fast court player who was still somewhere near his peak was Henman. Despite having a fair number of injuries, he arguably had his best years in 2003-04 - precisely when he should have been struggling to adapt.

Of the new generation in the early 2000s I would regard only Federer as a player who was really comfortable playing traditional fast court tennis. The rest were baseliners who were probably more than happy the courts got slightly slower. Wasn't it Safin who said at the start of his career that grass was for cows? Hewitt was, as a classic counterpuncher) harmed by the fact he wasnt facing a bunch of serve volleyers. However, otherwise these guys just don't support your argument at all.

In my view, the early 2000s could have been a real golden generation. However, due to a combination of injuries and lack of focus it never really materialised. Only Federer and Roddick of that bunch could say they really did as well as could be expected.

Look out BS, another well reasoned post that disputes the contention that federer's competition was as strong as any period's. The facts simply don't back up the argument that Roddick was hurt by slow conditions he only won the US open 2 years after they slowed the conditions down he had big swings on the ball and his problems in movement actually made a medium paced out door hardcourt be his most favorite type of court. That period had potential but failed to materialize and only federer and roddick where healthy and focused for the entirety of this period.

I beg to differ regarding Roddick. His faster court resume is considerably better than his slower court resume. 4 Queen's club titles, 2 Cincinnatti titles, 3 Wimbledon finals + a few semi's, 1 USO title + another final appearance as well as titles in Canada and Dubai far outstrip anything he did on the slower courts. In addition if you check out the ATP site you'll see that a lot of his other titles were indoors or during the N. American HC stretch where the courts are traditionally faster. Of course faster here is relative.

Lydian's point stands in that the likes of Roddick grew up playing in faster conditions and suffered from the slowing down of those conditions. And it's not just about holding serve percentages. A guy like Roddick is not going to break serve by outgrinding his opponent. It's more likely to come by way of a few big groundies winning him quick fire points. That's a style of play that is more suited to the faster courts.

As to whether or not he could have been a fast court demon, well we'll never know, because the courts started slowing down in the early noughties and he never got a chance to ply his trade on truly fast courts.

ghost

emancipator

by **laverfan** Wed Feb 06, 2013 1:29 am

CaledonianCraig wrote:Sorry LaverFan but most top players from any era tend to exit slams at the hands od top players invariably so that proves nothing.

So, what does the following prove....

1. Federer (#5) losing to Horna (#88) @RG 2003.
2. Federer (#8) losing to Arazi (#45) @RG 2002.
3. Federer (#5) losing to Ancic (#154) @W 2002.
4. Nadal (#2) losing to Rosol (#100) @W 2012.
5. Hewitt (#1) losing to Karlovic (#203) @W 2003.
6. Edberg (#3) losing to Henrik Holm (#37) @RG 1994 or to Volkov (#52) @US 1990 when he was ranked #1, or losing to Bruguera (#46) at RG 1990 when ranked #2.
7. Lendl (#7) losing to Huet (#297) @RG 1993.
8. Becker (#6) losing to Moya (#25) @AO 1997, or McEnroe (Patrick, not John - #65) ranked #3 @AO 1995, or to Jarryd (#151) @AO 1993 when he was #4. Dare I mention Doohan.
9. Muster's case at W is another example.

I can dig up many more...

The point that every match is different, and hence is unpredictable, but there are probabilities, which is being lost.

Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Ferrero, et al are being called the rollover generation, because there is refusal to believe that they were pretty good players, despite their losses.

There is no such thing as a weak or strong era. Fans make it up, to put their favourite respective players look better than past generations, and media sells a story, which is ultimately their [media's] livelihood.

Just because the current top 4 show up regularly at the tail end of slams, it does not imply that others are/were bad and are/were incapable of winning. The current top 4 are very consistent, which is their core strength.

Hewitt or Safin or Ferrero were less consistent, but Roddick has been consistent for most of his career, unlike, say Nalbandian.

by socal1976 Wed Feb 06, 2013 3:13 am

In tennis laverfan among two players of approximately equal ability the one who is less consistent is less good. It really is very simple for me, if they were better they would have won more. They weren't so they didn't.

by CaledonianCraig Wed Feb 06, 2013 8:32 am

Sorry LaverFan but saying there is no weak/strong eras are a cop out. Unless each player in each generation is a mere clone of those that preceded them. The fact that people are pointing out how things change ie court speeds and equipment in itself is evidence that eras cannot possibly be exactly the same in terms of strength. If that were the case then we had better quit calling players GOAT's as they simply cannot be any better than player A, B or C.

by Guest Wed Feb 06, 2013 8:53 am

Why is it a cop out?

If tennis was played with the same court conditions and equipment I would share the view of the era theories but seeing as they haven't comparisons hold no real merit except for the statistics of achievements.

by Born Slippy Wed Feb 06, 2013 8:54 am

Have to agree with Craig. Whilst the core standard of players is likely to stay fairly consistent, providing the numbers playing are the same, it is obvious that there can be a variation at the very top. Does anyone seriously argue that WTA tennis hasn't been through a spell of relative poor quality at least until the last year or so?

It can only ever be a subjective assessment of course. However, the fact that practically everyone who isn't a Federer fan regards the early 00s as a slightly weaker period in tennis history should probably tell us something. That's not to say there weren't good players - just that for various reasons they often weren't in a position to bring their best to court.

by lydian Wed Feb 06, 2013 9:42 am

But the point is that yo can't systematically compare time periods...players come/go, surfaces change, balls change, technology changes...you're never comparing apples with apples unless its over a small time period where the same players face each other many times. It would have been a lot easier to compare had the ATP/ITF not changed things so radically in the 00s.

by User 774433 Wed Feb 06, 2013 10:17 am

Oh, but there actually is.

I think we can judge the top of the game, by seeing how difficult it would be for a player to win a Grand Slam if he was well suited the confitions and technologies at the time.
For this player it would be harder for him to win a Slam if at the top of the game, there were other cutting edge world class players who could play well for the given set of conditions and technologies at the time.

by bogbrush Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:12 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:Oh, but there actually is.

I think we can judge the top of the game, by seeing how difficult it would be for a player to win a Grand Slam if he was well suited the confitions and technologies at the time.
For this player it would be harder for him to win a Slam if at the top of the game, there were other cutting edge world class players who could play well for the given set of conditions and technologies at the time.

This is so divorced from logical thinking that I fear for you.

How do we "see" the difficulty a player would have in a scenario we can never test (another era). Just explain to me how we can "see" that.

by CAS Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:39 pm

Federer beat 29 year old defending champion Pete Sampras at 19 serving and Volleying virtually every point, 11 years on 30 year old Federer beat 25 year old defending champion Novak Djokovic playing virtually every point from the baseline. So he beat the best serve and volley player of all time, then according to some the best baseliner of all time over a decade later playing different styles....what does that say about they guy?

Djokovic is a fabulous player, but no way would he be able to do anything like that. The best all round player ever is obvious, I can't see how its even a discussion to be honest. Djokovic is better than Federer from the baseline yes, Nadal is better than Federer from the baseline, so is Murray, maybe even Del Potro is as well! Yet he still beats them plenty of times playing under their terms. If they played a whole season playing on speeds like Cincinatti, Dubai, Madrid on Blue clay, Wimbledon, Federer would still be World Number 1 even Andy Murray said it himself

Also, all the talk of him being lucky because he won slams in a weaker era, he was also extremely unlucky to be playing in the era of the greatest clay court player of all time. He would have 6 French Opens if it wasn't for Nadal, so it did actually even itself out and an obscene amount of Masters series titles

by CaledonianCraig Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:46 pm

One thing on the Andy Roddick issue. If he really was hindered by the surfaces then how did he reach the Wimbledon Final AFTER it was generally agreed the surface had been slowed down and why if he was such a strong challenger did he only make the Wimbledon final once? That either tells me the slower courts didn’t really hinder him that much at all and therefore the strength of competition he faced denied him multiple Wimbledon finals unless someone has another solution.

by CaledonianCraig Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:49 pm

By the way CAS this is not a GOAT debate but about eras and their strengths and weaknesses.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:56 pm

Roddick made the Wimby final 3 times.

by CAS Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:56 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:By the way CAS this is not a GOAT debate but about eras and their strengths and weaknesses.

I did go off on a tangent a bit there! But my point was if you could make a case for it being weak you can also make a case for it being strong with Rafa around on the red dirt. And also, even if Roger did have a slightly weaker era, I think he's proved he was worthy. Federer at the end of the day is why we have these debates, he is the confusing factor, because some say he had an easy era, but then he's also winning in this 'golden era' into his 30s. If he wasn't around it would be much easier to tell

by CaledonianCraig Wed Feb 06, 2013 1:08 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:Roddick made the Wimby final 3 times.

Yes but I am saying from mid-2000's onwards his record there was not of the same quality or quantity as early 2000's but him reaching his last Wimby final blows the theory out of the water that it was chiefly down to slower courts.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed Feb 06, 2013 1:20 pm

He probably had 3 peak years at Wimby which were 2003-2005 (he lost to other big servers on 2001, 2002). Each time he lost to Fed. If the courts were slower from 2003 onwards perhaps it shows just how good he was - getting to the final on a court that didn't quite suit him as much.

by CAS Wed Feb 06, 2013 1:21 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:Roddick made the Wimby final 3 times.

Yes but I am saying from mid-2000's onwards his record there was not of the same quality or quantity as early 2000's but him reaching his last Wimby final blows the theory out of the water that it was chiefly down to slower courts.

I do think it was quicker that year, the 2nd week was boiling hot if I remember right which speeds up the courts. You can usually tell the speed of courts by how many breaks there are and in the semi finals Murray broke Roddick just once (awesome returner) and it had 2-tiebreaks, in the final Federer usually returnes Roddick so well but we all know what happened there. Federer also hit 50 aces that match! For a while it felt like we were back in the 90s with those two

by User 774433 Wed Feb 06, 2013 1:55 pm

bogbrush wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:Oh, but there actually is.

I think we can judge the top of the game, by seeing how difficult it would be for a player to win a Grand Slam if he was well suited the confitions and technologies at the time.
For this player it would be harder for him to win a Slam if at the top of the game, there were other cutting edge world class players who could play well for the given set of conditions and technologies at the time.
This is so divorced from logical thinking that I fear for you.

How do we "see" the difficulty a player would have in a scenario we can never test (another era). Just explain to me how we can "see" that.

No, the whole point is you don't 'see' how good the player would be in another era.
I'm saying you observe how good the player is in that particular era, with that particular set of conditions.

by Guest Wed Feb 06, 2013 2:30 pm

So how does that offer a solution to the era debate?

by Sponsored content