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?

legendkillarV2 wrote:

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

I think it might confirm Rafa as the GOAT, so we can then all move on in agreement

socal1976 wrote: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.

1. Do titles determine equal ability, or ATP seeding, or speed of serve, or 1st server %, or FH winners?
2. better is relative. Let me give you an example. Nadal beat Federer in Miami 2004 on an HC, beat Federer in Dubai in 2006 (very famous per IMBL/Lydian), but guess who he lost to at USO 2005 - James Blake or Youzhny @ USO 2006, or our favourite current #4, Ferrer who beat him at USO 2007.
3. Winning more, in their given time period, against the available competition.

CaledonianCraig wrote: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.

You are echoing my point, there are no clones, unless you listen to the detractors of the current top 4, where Murray/Nadal/Djokovic are clones. If eras cannot possibly be the same, why bother with this discussion to begin with? What is the objective of this discussion? Many of us, do not subscribe to GOAT or Eras, but this board has many who do. Here is a selection

https://www.606v2.com/t21986-federer-admits-to-tennis-golden-era
https://www.606v2.com/t40069-lendl-touches-on-the-very-reason-that-top-heavy-eras-are-the-best-hmmm-who-said-that-first
https://www.606v2.com/t40293-the-best-baseliners-in-history-my-top-ten
https://www.606v2.com/t36368-is-this-the-strongest-top-8-in-history

And look at this... https://www.606v2.com/t39956-what-is-the-point-of-this-forum-s-tennis-section

You have yourself clarified that this is NOT a GOAT discussion, but an 'era'. Is this a pre-requisite, though, to a GOAT-type discussion as a follow-up?

From the OP...

One player that is a constant in 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.

This tells me that using player X as a yardstick, as a constant, we are trying to measure, his opposition, by using W/L, H2Hs, with utter disregard to Federer's self-evolution as a player over the years as he became a better and consistent player himself. You have also, very clearly defined, a 'golden' and a 'weak' era, by

a. when slams for Federer were considered easy, vs,
b. when slams for Federer were tougher to win.

There is an implicit assumption, that if it got harder for Federer to win slams, his opposition was better, as compared to what he had faced earlier, hence proof-positive that a 'weak' era exists. Self-serving logic, AFAIK.

My argument is that Federer's opposition was tough, as it is today, but there are no common grounds for comparison, even using Federer as a yardstick, because such a yardstick fluctuates with time. I made the same comment to BanBro as well. Laver's GS can be interpreted, as either a 'golden' era (for his achievements), or 'weak' era, because his competition was 'easy' to allow him to win a calendar slam, which the current Top 4 have denied each other as well.

JuliusHMarx wrote: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.

What criteria are you using to judge Roddick's peak years? Arguably if the courts slowed down in 2003 it would suggest, based on results; Roddick was helped by the slow down.

Born Slippy wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote: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.

What criteria are you using to judge Roddick's peak years? Arguably if the courts slowed down in 2003 it would suggest, based on results; Roddick was helped by the slow down.

I think he was helped more by not being a teenager any more. Who knows, maybe if the courts had stayed fast he would have won 3 Wimbys, Fed would be on 14 and we'd all be saying what what great competition he had in Roddick on grass, before he finally won his first Wimby against the weaker Nadal. Who knows - that's the whole point, in a way.

JuliusHMarx wrote:... before he finally won his first Wimby against the weaker Nadal.

You sly .

laverfan wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:... before he finally won his first Wimby against the weaker Nadal.

You sly .

Hypothetically! if they'd stayed fast courts and he'd lost 2 in a row to Roddick, then beat Rafa, it would be what everyone was saying. If they'd stayed really fast maybe neither of them would have made the final in 2006. Again, who knows?

All this is just so true. All that stuff above.

You two are far more use destroying these mad arguments than you are as mods. And you're good mods.

bogbrush wrote:All this is just so true. All that stuff above.

You two are far more use destroying these mad arguments than you are as mods. And you're good mods.

I personally abhor the idea that an era is 'strong' just because a player who is my favourite is playing in that specific time period. It is a disservice to players and professionals, alike.

So what is the strongest era?

This era is just gold plate and even the gold plate is wearing a little thin... Have I said that before?

Above all other things, yes.

When my favourite players were winning/losing I didn't care or consider much whether it was a strong/weak era - and I still don't.
Henman got stuck with Sampras. Oh well.
Some say Lendl was better than Connors. I might raise a few facts they're unaware of, but so what?
It's the driving need to prove this or prove that (when it can't be proved) or to convert people, as though convincing 3 people on this forum is the same as convincing everyone in the world - that's what I don't understand.
I enjoy the debate - but I'm not concerned about the outcome.

JuliusHMarx wrote:When my favourite players were winning/losing I didn't care or consider much whether it was a strong/weak era - and I still don't.
Henman got stuck with Sampras. Oh well.
Some say Lendl was better than Connors. I might raise a few facts they're unaware of, but so what?
It's the driving need to prove this or prove that (when it can't be proved) or to convert people, as though convincing 3 people on this forum is the same as convincing everyone in the world - that's what I don't understand.
I enjoy the debate - but I'm not concerned about the outcome.

Fully agree with that last line. I don't think anyone is going to be convinced either way though as posters are equally vehement their stance/opinion is the right one so there is no goodies or baddies in this. Just a debate that will remain unresolved as each poster has their own views.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:When my favourite players were winning/losing I didn't care or consider much whether it was a strong/weak era - and I still don't.
Henman got stuck with Sampras. Oh well.
Some say Lendl was better than Connors. I might raise a few facts they're unaware of, but so what?
It's the driving need to prove this or prove that (when it can't be proved) or to convert people, as though convincing 3 people on this forum is the same as convincing everyone in the world - that's what I don't understand.
I enjoy the debate - but I'm not concerned about the outcome.

Fully agree with that last line. I don't think anyone is going to be convinced either way though as posters are equally vehement their stance/opinion is the right one so there is no goodies or baddies in this. Just a debate that will remain unresolved as each poster has their own views.

Right, the only thing being mine are right.

Had Roddick won three wimbledons then they would have been won from the baseline by a guy with rudimentary volleying skills whose chief asset was a massive serve. He never adapted his game in any way to grass. He was an out and out hardcourt baseliner. It would have been apparent to everyone that with modern technology that the courts were too fast and they would have been slowed down. We can thank Federer or the committee who had already taken the decision to slow the courts down for preventing that happening. Well, that's my take on it anyway.

I'm still unclear on why Roddick's peak years were aged 20-22 by the way.

Only if mines are right. lol

Born Slippy wrote:Had Roddick won three wimbledons then they would have been won from the baseline by a guy with rudimentary volleying skills whose chief asset was a massive serve.

A bit like his 4 Queens club titles in fact.

Apart from a brief renaissance under Stefanki (where he still had some losses against players ranked 40 and below), he played his best tennis in his younger years.

Born Slippy wrote:Had Roddick won three wimbledons then they would have been won from the baseline by a guy with rudimentary volleying skills whose chief asset was a massive serve. He never adapted his game in any way to grass. He was an out and out hardcourt baseliner. It would have been apparent to everyone that with modern technology that the courts were too fast and they would have been slowed down. We can thank Federer or the committee who had already taken the decision to slow the courts down for preventing that happening. Well, that's my take on it anyway.

I'm still unclear on why Roddick's peak years were aged 20-22 by the way.

because the limitations of his game only became apparent to all when Federer turned up.

Without Federer in the field he would have won at least one Wimbledon although i doubt he would have dominated the game given the limitations in his game that you point out. It wasn't just Federer BTW it was also the changes in the grass courts to try and reduce the advantage huge servers had at Wimbledon.

The last huge server to win? Ivanisavic and since then that type of player has seen his chances disappear with the high bounce and changes to the court surface.

Born Slippy wrote:Had Roddick won three wimbledons then they would have been won from the baseline by a guy with rudimentary volleying skills whose chief asset was a massive serve. He never adapted his game in any way to grass. He was an out and out hardcourt baseliner. It would have been apparent to everyone that with modern technology that the courts were too fast and they would have been slowed down. We can thank Federer or the committee who had already taken the decision to slow the courts down for preventing that happening. Well, that's my take on it anyway.

I'm still unclear on why Roddick's peak years were aged 20-22 by the way.

Because BS he was not able to compete with the Nadal, Djoko, and Murray generation. Another excellent post, Roddick was a horrifyingly bad volleyer in his early career, I am convinced at that point my volleys were superior to his. He got better in a great number of areas and still couldn't break the top guys like he had in the past.

What i find amusing is this idea that the weak era argument has been destroyed. I know it is more logical to assume that all eras stay the same in quality from time to time and that we can't possibly compare players who came up 5-6 years apart from each other. All eras are the same particularly those federer dominated in. The most premature declaration of victory since george bush flew onto an aircraft career dressed as a pretend Maverick from top gun.

Destroyed?

I think think the most ridiculous argument anyone could make is that 'all eras are equal' in competitiveness and difficultly at the top of the game. It's a ridiculous statement.

Proving which era was more competitive (given the set of conditions and geochronology at the time), is harder to prove though.
But the idea all eras are equal is so naive it's almost laughable.

I think the argument that in 50 years time no-one will give a fig's whether 2007 was an average era or 2008 was a strong era is still intact.

In 2009, Roddick's 'comeback' year he couldn't compete with Querrey, Isner, Monfils, Stepanek or Kubot. Now, if 2009 is Roddick at his best, then we can only conclude that the Querry or Monfils of 2009 would have reached the Wimbledon final a few times in the early 2000s.

Julius, can you not use the 'I'm going to forget' line, it's embarrassing. Just people people may remember/forget doesn't make it invalid or valid.

As for Roddick, I think Wimbledon 2009 was like his 'last hurrah'; he played really well at Wimbledon 2009 but generally was very inconsistent that year.

It Must Be Love wrote:Destroyed?

I think think the most ridiculous argument anyone could make is that 'all eras are equal' in competitiveness and difficultly at the top of the game. It's a ridiculous statement.

Proving which era was more competitive (given the set of conditions and geochronology at the time), is harder to prove though.
But the idea all eras are equal is so naive it's almost laughable.

Do you agree with lydian then? That Rafa won his FOs in a weak clay era? Or does that conflict with the unmovable set-in-stone, Rafa (who by sheer coincidence is your favourite player, isn't that odd, it doesn't make you biased at all) = GOAT.

It Must Be Love wrote:Julius, can you not use the 'I'm going to forget' line, it's embarrassing. Just people people may remember/forget doesn't make it invalid or valid.

Your failing yet again to see my point - frankly, it's a bit embarassing because I think everyone else has grasped it.
History remembers what is important. I had a chicken sandwich for lunch - that's a valid statement. But it's only marginally less important as the whole weak era/strong era debate.
Like I said before - the debate can be fun, the outcome is immaterial, unless we take it too seriously.

It Must Be Love wrote:Destroyed?

I think think the most ridiculous argument anyone could make is that 'all eras are equal' in competitiveness and difficultly at the top of the game. It's a ridiculous statement.

Proving which era was more competitive (given the set of conditions and geochronology at the time), is harder to prove though.
But the idea all eras are equal is so naive it's almost laughable.

Bravo, IMBL, apparently top level competition is the only thing in the universe that is unknowable or always the same, living in a perfect static state. The subjectivity becomes less when you look at players that were immediate contemporaries. But of course there will be difference in debate, this idea that the enemy of weak era or strong era theories have been destroyed is as I said not fitting with any facts or logic.

I agree JHM. The best thing you can do is agree to disagree and move on as nobody will be swayed on this. Good fun debating but no point falling out over it.

It Must Be Love wrote:Destroyed?

I think think the most ridiculous argument anyone could make is that 'all eras are equal' in competitiveness and difficultly at the top of the game. It's a ridiculous statement.

Proving which era was more competitive (given the set of conditions and geochronology at the time), is harder to prove though.
But the idea all eras are equal is so naive it's almost laughable.

Yeah, so much so that you're arguing with an idea nobody endorses.

What you keep getting told is that you can't prove anything either way because there's no objective proof either way, but that doesn't stop people who are really only interested in cheering on their faves from the stands, and in reality that's all the guys trying to claim a Golden Era are doing.

I would say standing up for Roger's early "rivals" lol! in the face of objective evidence is being a fan boy of federer more than touting that this era is stronger is of other players.

socal1976 wrote:I would say standing up for Roger's early "rivals" lol! in the face of objective evidence is being a fan boy of federer more than touting that this era is stronger is of other players.

Agreed. The theory put forward by BB works both ways.

I'm not a Federer fanboy, I'm a 'Federer's early rivals' fanboy! Sorry, what were their names again?

CaledonianCraig wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I would say standing up for Roger's early "rivals" lol! in the face of objective evidence is being a fan boy of federer more than touting that this era is stronger is of other players.

Agreed. The theory put forward by BB works both ways.

Exactly, this is why we see the otherside produce such bizarre and logically contorted arguments in trying to argue around the objective facts that we all witnessed. Silly arguments like the need to boost Nalbandian and corria to herculean proportions or to try to pretend that Roddick was for the most part a one trick pony. The most bizarre of all the arguments is this belief that all eras are the same in competitive level like some perfect state of unchanging nature found nowhere else in the universe yet at the top of men's tennis.

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Destroyed?

I think think the most ridiculous argument anyone could make is that 'all eras are equal' in competitiveness and difficultly at the top of the game. It's a ridiculous statement.

Proving which era was more competitive (given the set of conditions and geochronology at the time), is harder to prove though.
But the idea all eras are equal is so naive it's almost laughable.

Yeah, so much so that you're arguing with an idea nobody endorses.

What you keep getting told is that you can't prove anything either way because there's no objective proof either way, but that doesn't stop people who are really only interested in cheering on their faves from the stands, and in reality that's all the guys trying to claim a Golden Era are doing.

???
Did you not read my line, I said it's 'harder to prove' whether one era is more competitive in terms of world class players at the top compared to another.
As for your last comment, I think whether I was a Nadal fan or not I would still think there were more world class players at the top of the game in 2011 compared to 2006.

Julius, I think Lydian is absolutely correct in saying there was an absence in traditional clay court players for this decade or so.
Federer (and later Djokovic) are superb on clay, but he is not a traditional clay-courter because I think he is brilliant on all surfaces.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I'm not a Federer fanboy, I'm a 'Federer's early rivals' fanboy! Sorry, what were their names again?

The gutty little aussie with a dodgy hip, empanada Dave, One shot Andy, and the Russian playboy; staggeringly difficult for the GOAT.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I would say standing up for Roger's early "rivals" lol! in the face of objective evidence is being a fan boy of federer more than touting that this era is stronger is of other players.

Agreed. The theory put forward by BB works both ways.

Nonsense, since everyone agrees peak Federer would top this period anyway.

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:I'm not a Federer fanboy, I'm a 'Federer's early rivals' fanboy! Sorry, what were their names again?

The gutty little aussie with a dodgy hip, empanada Dave, One shot Andy, and the Russian playboy; staggeringly difficult for the GOAT.

Rupert Murdoch, David Hasselhoff, Andy Fairweather-Low and Roman Abramovich?
socal, I'm starting to think you don't know anything about tennis.

It Must Be Love wrote:Julius, can you not use the 'I'm going to forget' line, it's embarrassing. Just people people may remember/forget doesn't make it invalid or valid.

As for Roddick, I think Wimbledon 2009 was like his 'last hurrah'; he played really well at Wimbledon 2009 but generally was very inconsistent that year.

One thing I have noticed about you imbl, is that when you want to back up your view, you do a lot of research pulling out facts from obscure websites with great attention to detail, which should be commended. But when you dismiss something at times you go the complete opposite way.

In his 13 years on the tour, 2009 was his 5th best. He equaled his best ever performances at aus and wimby and had his best ever run at RG reaching the 4th round. He rose back up to 6th for a while, reached 4 qf's or better in the 6 masters events he entered and reached 4 finals (admittedly losing 3 but they were against murray, feds and dp). His record against the big 4 wasn't bad either as he was 1/1 vs murray, was 3/0 vs djoko, 0/1 vs nadal but was close and although he lost 0/4 vs feds he pushed him v.close in miami, madrid and obvs wimby.
How is that inconsistent???

LuvSports! wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Julius, can you not use the 'I'm going to forget' line, it's embarrassing. Just people people may remember/forget doesn't make it invalid or valid.

As for Roddick, I think Wimbledon 2009 was like his 'last hurrah'; he played really well at Wimbledon 2009 but generally was very inconsistent that year.

One thing I have noticed about you imbl, is that when you want to back up your view, you do a lot of research pulling out facts from obscure websites with great attention to detail, which should be commended. But when you dismiss something at times you go the complete opposite way.

In his 13 years on the tour, 2009 was his 5th best. He equaled his best ever performances at aus and wimby and had his best ever run at RG reaching the 4th round. He rose back up to 6th for a while, reached 4 qf's or better in the 6 masters events he entered and reached 4 finals (admittedly losing 3 but they were against murray, feds and dp). His record against the big 4 wasn't bad either as he was 1/1 vs murray, was 3/0 vs djoko, 0/1 vs nadal but was close and although he lost 0/4 vs feds he pushed him v.close in miami, madrid and obvs wimby.
How is that inconsistent???

Hi LS.
I stand by my comment that Roddick was not very consistent in 2009.
He started off the year well, generally losing to the big guns, apart from San Jose where he lost to Radek Stepanek. He only played two clay tournaments, he did well in Madrid but then was poor in Roland Garros (as he always is). His Wimbledon was sensational as we know, but then there was a dip in performances as he lost to Del Potro and Querrey in the run up to the USO, and then in the USO lost early to John Isner. So a bit inconsistent, and I think his Wimbledon performance really does stand out compared to the rest.

His best ever RG is proof of his inconsistency?

You clearly intended to show 2009 wasn't one of his better efforts. It was.

he also started 2010 by being in the final of Indian Wells and then winning in Miaimi after losing in 5 sets in the Aussie Open QF, think he was injured at the end of 09 because I remember him missing World Tour Finals

socal1976 wrote:What i find amusing is this idea that the weak era argument has been destroyed. I know it is more logical to assume that all eras stay the same in quality from time to time and that we can't possibly compare players who came up 5-6 years apart from each other. All eras are the same particularly those federer dominated in.

Do I have to repeat the argument that I made with CC? I have given you examples of actual matches which disprove your strong and weak era conjecture.

socal1976 wrote: The most premature declaration of victory since george bush flew onto an aircraft career dressed as a pretend Maverick from top gun.

You should read CC's and IMBL's comment regarding proof positive.

It Must Be Love wrote:Proving which era was more competitive (given the set of conditions and geochronology at the time), is harder to prove though . But the idea all eras are equal is so naive it's almost laughable.

As I suggested earlier, why is it harder? Don't you have arm-wrestling results between Federer and Nadal?

This concept that there is a boolean (and binary) relationship between eras, being either equal or unequal, is so naive it's almost laughable.

You cannot even define and 'era', can you? It is being defined by who was winning titles when.

When was the Nadal 'era'? Is this the Djokovic 'era', or Murray 'era'? Was it a Sampras 'era' or a Becker 'era'? When was the Nalbandian 'era'?

Federer has yet to play a fifth set at RG against Nadal, but yet Isner has, so it must be an 'Isner 'era'?

bogbrush wrote:His best ever RG is proof of his inconsistency?

You clearly intended to show 2009 wasn't one of his better efforts. It was.

???
I do think it was one of his better efforts, and have said before I was impressed at the way Stefanki changed his game.
However I still believe he was inconsistent, his performances in the tail end of the year weren't great losing to Kubot and Querrey etc., and lost early in the USO to Isner.
In terms of Wimbledon, I think that stood out, not in terms of playing well, he played 'well' for many events, but in terms of coming close to beating the big guns. Apart from Djokovic retiring against him in AO (anyone remember that?) I believe Wimby was the only event he beat a top 4 player, and he nearly beat two in a row!!

Best version of Roddick I have seen was in 2009 and early 2010 before he injured himself. He got to the final of indian wells and beat Nadal in the final of miami, had his epic run at wimbeldon in 2009. Roddick of mid-2009 would beat 2003 US open champion Roddick in 3 close sets.

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:I'm not a Federer fanboy, I'm a 'Federer's early rivals' fanboy! Sorry, what were their names again?

The gutty little aussie with a dodgy hip, empanada Dave, One shot Andy, and the Russian playboy; staggeringly difficult for the GOAT.

The so-called Russian playboy (Davydenko) has this against the greatest clay courter of all time with a 93% winning on Clay -

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

So much for weak and strong eras!

And one-shot Andy beat some unknown in the SF of Miami 2010 (on blue clay, right), or some weak era clown won IW 2010.

That is why everyone was so hopeful when he won the USO with probably the most unpolished and one dimensional style of any player to lift that trophy in recent memory. All of us tennis fans in the states were like wow he won a slam at that age, imagine what he can do if he actually learns how to play.

laverfan wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:I'm not a Federer fanboy, I'm a 'Federer's early rivals' fanboy! Sorry, what were their names again?

The gutty little aussie with a dodgy hip, empanada Dave, One shot Andy, and the Russian playboy; staggeringly difficult for the GOAT.

The so-called Russian playboy (Davydenko) has this against the greatest clay courter of all time with a 93% winning on Clay -

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

So much for weak and strong eras!

And one-shot Andy beat some unknown in the SF of Miami 2010 (on blue clay, right), or some weak era clown won IW 2010.

Laverfan again it is all relative they scored odd victories here or there but failed to consistently challenge at the top when supplanted by the golden generation. Someone should check the relative positioning of jupiter to the earth for the period 16 months period that produced Nadal, Djoko, and Murray. Because they were that much better than Roger's previous "rivals".

All very silly now.

Amrit, my advice is to drop this, you're just being dragged into a trolling game.

socal1976 wrote:Laverfan again it is all relative they scored odd victories here or there but failed to consistently challenge at the top when supplanted by the golden generation.

https://www.606v2.com/t40201p250-era-discussions#1837129

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.

socal1976 wrote:Someone should check the relative positioning of jupiter to the earth for the period 16 months period that produced Nadal, Djoko, and Murray. Because they were that much better than Roger's previous "rivals".

I also checked Tipsarevic, Troicki, Monfils, Soderling, Dodig, Mayer, Melzer, Baghdatis, Young, Anderson, Ferrer, Haas, Nalbandian, Roddick just to be sure.

Okay LaverFan shall we call a halt on any GOAT tags then? After all if every era is the same then every player is the same - none better and none worse than others. Heck in that case Andy Murray = Alex Bogdanovic.

As for all this talk about slower court conditions well guess what - if you are classy enough you find a way to adapt and win on what surfaces you have. Roger Federer done it and I'd suggest others did as well but their results were far less impressive as they could not compete with any great regularity at slams to a high degree.

Anyway like I said everyone holds their own opinions on this topic - it is akin to preferring a certain style of tennis. It is a choice/opinion that is not going to be changed and surely is about the hardest subject to prove or disprove in tennis.