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?

Even if you could prove a weak era/strong era, you'd have to analyse every round of every slam to determine if it was a weak fortnight or not. E.g. if Safin, overall, is worse than Courier, you'd still have to judge if Safin at the AO in 2001 was better/worse than Courier at the FO in 1991.

Isn't that the whole point of the weak era/strong era debate - to show that Fed's early slams are worth less than Nadal's and Djokovic's (and Sampras', when the debate was first started by Sampras fans)? But unless you go through it slam by slam, player by player, and the level they were playing at for those 2 weeks, you can't prove anything.

And if you actually do that....then you've got way too much time on your hands.

With respect CC that isn't true at all. What does "classy enough" really mean from a technique perspective? Thomas Muster was a classy player but couldn't win a grass court match to save his life.

You mention Roger Federer but don't mention how he was brought up and trained on clay before switching to faster courts later on...he was adept on both surfaces. Likewise Murray except he did it the other way around. Djokovic was brough up on clay as was Nadal and Del Potro...in a slow court era they're going to obviously do better. Yes those with huge talent can adapt to a degree but the degree of adaptation needed now is far less than in the 90s. Adapting now is merely changing the type of shoe you wear, in the 90s it involved completely different game plans, technique and choice of shots. It's why winning all 4 slams was nigh on impossible before ATP made it a cakewalk...nothing for 40 years then we almost get 3 guys within 3-4 years doing it!

In the 90s all those classy clay courters couldn't handle Wimbledon at all...and yet now everyone is suddenly great across all surfaces...doesn't take Einstein to work out what's happened does it. So now it's much easier to win slams without changing your game and we're supposed to believe this is the best era of tennis ever? I don't think so.

CaledonianCraig wrote: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.

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

... as quoted to IMBL and others who espouse the strong/weak era divide.

lydian wrote:With respect CC that isn't true at all. What does "classy enough" really mean from a technique perspective? Thomas Muster was a classy player but couldn't win a grass court match to save his life.

You mention Roger Federer but don't mention how he was brought up and trained on clay before switching to faster courts later on...he was adept on both surfaces. Likewise Murray except he did it the other way around. Djokovic was brough up on clay as was Nadal and Del Potro...in a slow court era they're going to obviously do better. Yes those with huge talent can adapt to a degree but the degree of adaptation needed now is far less than in the 90s. Adapting now is merely changing the type of shoe you wear, in the 90s it involved completely different game plans, technique and choice of shots. It's why winning all 4 slams was nigh on impossible before ATP made it a cakewalk...nothing for 40 years then we almost get 3 guys within 3-4 years doing it!

In the 90s all those classy clay courters couldn't handle Wimbledon at all...and yet now everyone is suddenly great across all surfaces...doesn't take Einstein to work it what's happened does it.

It Must Be Love wrote:

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!!

See this is how i know you didn't read my post, i clearly said he was 3/0 vs djoko that year, go on matchstat head to head if you don't believe me, but please just save yourself some time and actually read the whole post!
By that logic (as he wasn't good after wimby) federer wasn't consistent last year as respectively they both had a v.good year up till around the same point e.g. wimby for roddick and cincy for fed.
He was v. consistent but after wimby i think he was spent, so distraught after that marathon loss but before that he managed to reach 5th in the world from his starting position of 8 in 09.
In '09 against the feds, rafa, djoko and murray he was 4/6 against them which was the same amount of wins for 08 and '10 combined.
Well im done, nothing more to say.

Thanks LF I tweaked the post so just repeating again so the quotes dont get mixed up.

------------------------

With respect CC that isn't true at all. What does "classy enough" really mean from a technique perspective? Thomas Muster was a classy player but couldn't win a grass court match to save his life.

You mention Roger Federer but don't mention how he was brought up and trained on clay before switching to faster courts later on...he was adept on both surfaces. Likewise Murray except he did it the other way around. Djokovic was brough up on clay as was Nadal and Del Potro...in a slow court era they're going to obviously do better. Yes those with huge talent can adapt to a degree but the degree of adaptation needed now is far less than in the 90s. Adapting now is merely changing the type of shoe you wear, in the 90s it involved completely different game plans, technique and choice of shots. It's why winning all 4 slams was nigh on impossible before ATP made it a cakewalk...nothing for 40 years then we almost get 3 guys within 3-4 years doing it!

In the 90s all those classy clay courters couldn't handle Wimbledon at all...and yet now everyone is suddenly great across all surfaces...doesn't take Einstein to work out what's happened does it. So now it's much easier to win slams without changing your game and we're supposed to believe this is the best talent era of tennis ever? I don't think so.

Laverfan, you make a fair point on how it is difficult to define eras.
Bogbrush, I think perhaps I have not been clear enough, maybe more clarity from me will clear up my position.

OK rather than beating around the bush with 'era' stuff, let me be more direct here. I believe that there have been many slams that Federer have won which have had easier competition (in terms of toughness in the latter stages) compared to others he has taken part in.

Let me put it this way. I'm going to use the period where on average was Federer's most successful- 2004-2007; where he won 11 of his 17 slam titles (so hence as I said most successful few years).
In these years Federer won:
7/8- Federer won 88% of all Grand Slams on Hard Court in this period.
0/4- Federer won 0% of all Grand Slams on clay in this period.

Now how does this massive gap of 88% occur?
I do believe that Federer is better on hard courts than he is on clay, but is he that much better? In my opinion out of Hard-court and clay Grand Slams his finest performance came in RG 2011 in recent years. (Wimbledon is grass btw). Overall though I would agree he plays better on the hard stuff, but I still think he's a superb player on clay and the difference is not nearly as much as the stats would indicate.
My belief is that the reason for such a big difference in stats is because he has had a 'massive' challenge on clay, as HM would say his 'hardest' test has been Rafael Nadal, which on clay has always been a tough prospect. Meanwhile I feel his challenge on hard-courts, especially in this 4 year period, was slightly lacking. Roddick has a great serve, but lacks the groudstrokes to trouble Roger, Safin was the definition of inconsistent before disappearing in 2005, Hewitt also declined, then disappeared after 2005, while Nalbandian despite great hype, could rarely deliver his brilliance in Grand Slams, he was unable to reach a Grand Slam final after 2004. Etc.
As for clay, as I have said I think it was the extremely tough challenge of Rafa, and when Nadal did lose early Roger took advantage in 2009 despite not playing his greatest tennis at the French Open that year.

Anyway that's my take on this, in some more detail. Bogbrush, hopefully I have made myself clearer now.

It Must Be Love wrote:I believe that there have been many slams that Federer have won which have had easier competition (in terms of toughness in the latter stages) compared to others he has taken part in.

That reinforces my post above - that the whole point of the weak era/strong era debate is to show that Fed's early slams are worth less than Nadal's and Djokovic's (and Sampras', when the debate was first started by Sampras fans).

LuvSports, I was talking about Grand Slams (ie the Roddick H2H issue). Apologies once again, I was not clear.
And I'm not sure we can compare Fed after Wimby 2012 to Roddick after Wimby 2009. Roddick lost in USO is R3 (I think?) to Isner, he did not reach the QF like Fed did in 2012. Also Roddick had some poor losses to the likes of Kubot and Querrey, Federer as far as I can recover only lost to top 10 players after Wimbledon.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:I believe that there have been many slams that Federer have won which have had easier competition (in terms of toughness in the latter stages) compared to others he has taken part in.

That reinforces my post above - that the whole point of the weak era/strong era debate is to show that Fed's early slams are worth less than Nadal's and Djokovic's (and Sampras', when the debate was first started by Sampras fans).

I was in an argument with my friend, about how smoking is bad for your lungs.
I had a point to prove so researched some stats showing how smoking causes diseases related to the lungs. He countered me, by saying that I hadn't proven anything, and that it may be a coincidence as the people more likely to smoke could have such genetics that they are more likely to get lung diseases. Funnily enough a few decades ago, tobacco lobbies did hold this position.

Anyway, now I guess you'll deride me there for going into the argument to show something as true/false, for sure no?

IMBL - the courts have been increasingly converging in speed since 2001...even since 2009. Federer hasn't had to adapt from surface to surface, nor have the others. RG plays similar in speed to Wimb to USO to AO...so he can keep his A game going strong across them all when normally at his age he'd be struggling a lot more to cope with much quicker surfaces by now...it's why we see so many old guys doing well...the balls aren't flying by them anymore.

The difference in his clay vs HC success is blindingly obvious...Nadal. That doesn't need long prose to explain. For HCs in earlier 2000s it's my belief they changed so much in speed and feel that many guys like Nalby, Safin, Hewitt just couldn't succeed on them anymore. After all by 2007 you got Ferrer getting to the SF of USO! That tells you all you need to know about how much they must have slowed. It wasn't a dearth of HC talent...it was the ATP pulling the rug from under the players feet leaving only those brought up on clay able to succeed at any slam anymore!

lydian wrote:
The difference in his clay vs HC success is blindingly obvious...Nadal. That doesn't need long prose to explain. For HCs in earlier 2000s it's my belief they changed so much in speed and feel that many guys like Nalby, Safin, Hewitt just couldn't succeed on them anymore.

Thus Federer had many slams where he had no real challengers who believed they could beat him, at that current point with the conditions and technologies as they were.

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:I believe that there have been many slams that Federer have won which have had easier competition (in terms of toughness in the latter stages) compared to others he has taken part in.

That reinforces my post above - that the whole point of the weak era/strong era debate is to show that Fed's early slams are worth less than Nadal's and Djokovic's (and Sampras', when the debate was first started by Sampras fans).

I was in an argument with my friend, about how smoking is bad for your lungs.
I had a point to prove so researched some stats showing how smoking causes diseases related to the lungs. He countered me, by saying that I hadn't proven anything, and that it may be a coincidence as the people more likely to smoke could have such genetics that they are more likely to get lung diseases. Funnily enough a few decades ago, tobacco lobbies did hold this position.

Anyway, now I guess you'll deride me there for going into the argument to show something as true/false, for sure no?

No, but I'll deride you for making a point that bears little or no relation to what you quoted of mine.

Yes we all know about the change in court speeds but change of court speeds to how they are today doesn't alter the talent of the tennis players on show in whatever era you care to talk about and the same goes for the differing equipment. We have heard how injuries etc blighted Hewitt and Nalbandian etc's careers but I beg to differ on Nalbandian. He was injury-free relatively up until 2009 and from mid-2006 he failed to get past the 4th Round of a slam and this is someone who is pretty comfortable across the board on surfaces so why is this the case?

As I said we won't get any agreements here and as has been said it is well nigh impossible to prove or disprove which was a stronger/weaker era. That doesn't mean to say they don't exist though.

It Must Be Love wrote:

lydian wrote:
The difference in his clay vs HC success is blindingly obvious...Nadal. That doesn't need long prose to explain. For HCs in earlier 2000s it's my belief they changed so much in speed and feel that many guys like Nalby, Safin, Hewitt just couldn't succeed on them anymore.

Thus Federer had many slams where he had no real challengers who believed they could beat him, at that current point with the conditions and technologies as they were.

Is this about beating Federer with a stick for winning 17 big ones? So all 'era' debates point to Federer.

Yeah, I noticed that LF. No-one seems that bothered about evaluating 1989 - 1993 in any depth.

Yes IMBL and its not Federer's fault...the ATP simply changed the rules of combat and immediately ushered in only those adept on slow surfaces...which Safin, Hewitt and Co. certainly weren't. They created a period from 2002-3 onwards where it took a little while for the new slow court challengers across all slams to really emerge as slam title winning threats...probably 2007 onwards as Nadal, Murray, Djokovic started to mature (same year Ferrer found his game suited the tour more and more and he jumped to #5 ranking). That said, it doesn't say that Federer wouldn't have won those slams anyway given he was THAT good a player.

laverfan wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

lydian wrote:
The difference in his clay vs HC success is blindingly obvious...Nadal. That doesn't need long prose to explain. For HCs in earlier 2000s it's my belief they changed so much in speed and feel that many guys like Nalby, Safin, Hewitt just couldn't succeed on them anymore.

Thus Federer had many slams where he had no real challengers who believed they could beat him, at that current point with the conditions and technologies as they were.

Is this about beating Federer with a stick for winning 17 big ones? So all 'era' debates point to Federer.

Hmm is that the same Safin who so hated slow courts that he won a couple of titles on clay and reached the French Open semis and the same Nalbandian with multiple titles on the slow clay and twice French Open semi-finalist?

It Must Be Love wrote:

lydian wrote:
The difference in his clay vs HC success is blindingly obvious...Nadal. That doesn't need long prose to explain. For HCs in earlier 2000s it's my belief they changed so much in speed and feel that many guys like Nalby, Safin, Hewitt just couldn't succeed on them anymore.

Thus Federer had many slams where he had no real challengers who believed they could beat him, at that current point with the conditions and technologies as they were.

FFS so Federers success is diminished because he was so good nobody could beat him?

Sometimes just isn't enough.

CaledonianCraig wrote:We have heard how injuries etc blighted Hewitt and Nalbandian etc's careers but I beg to differ on Nalbandian. He was injury-free relatively up until 2009 and from mid-2006 he failed to get past the 4th Round of a slam and this is someone who is pretty comfortable across the board on surfaces so why is this the case?

Nalbandian, like Gasquet, never focussed much on the fitness aspects, it is very well documented. He could have done well otherwise.

CaledonianCraig wrote:As I said we won't get any agreements here and as has been said it is well nigh impossible to prove or disprove which was a stronger/weaker era. That doesn't mean to say they don't exist though.

If there is no agreement in the definition of what an era is, can one exist at all? This is not about God's existence or otherwise.

If an 'era' gets defined by a specific player (or players) domination of the sport, then such a definition is fluid and ambiguous and hence a subjective debate is all one can hope for, which is the essence of this thread.

BB, he should have lost 2 or 3 of those early finals so people would rate him more highly.

JuliusHMarx wrote:BB, he should have lost 2 or 3 of those early finals so people would rate him more highly.

Or perhaps Murray should have been born ten years earlier so as to be rated so much higher for playing in the early 2000's.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Yeah, I noticed that LF. No-one seems that bothered about evaluating 1989 - 1993 in any depth.

In one of my posts (to CC's question), I did not spare Edberg, Becker, Lendl, Sampras (clay) or Muster (grass), but perhaps the horizon of this debate, at best, is a personal historical viewpoint.

Lets just say that the heroic generation of Roddick, Nalby, hewitt, safin, and ferrero were incredibly charitable to his goatship and be done with it. Those guys weren't just losing to federer BB, again at the end of 2007 fed's closest rivals in the rankings were Djokovic, and Nadal. Not the heroically charitable generation of the true clay court great Corria and the super talented one, David Nalbandian.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:BB, he should have lost 2 or 3 of those early finals so people would rate him more highly.

Or perhaps Murray should have been born ten years earlier so as to be rated so much higher for playing in the early 2000's.

It's ok Craig, it was always obvious why you started the thread.

Of course, judging by how he got on against Federer in Slams until he's in his dotage, perhaps being born earlier wouldn't have been such a great idea........

CaledonianCraig wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:BB, he should have lost 2 or 3 of those early finals so people would rate him more highly.

Or perhaps Murray should have been born ten years earlier so as to be rated so much higher for playing in the early 2000's.

But SoCal suggested that such an event was well nigh impossible.

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".

We need Judy, Lynnette, Dijana and Ana Maria (and respective spouses) to also weigh in on it.

laverfan wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Yeah, I noticed that LF. No-one seems that bothered about evaluating 1989 - 1993 in any depth.

In one of my posts (to CC's question), I did not spare Edberg, Becker, Lendl, Sampras (clay) or Muster (grass), but perhaps the horizon of this debate, at best, is a personal historical viewpoint.

Well I am sure it could be discussed that era. Pretty strong one that in my opinion. I remember Edberg being pushed forward as the new Borg, Boris impressed me as he came on the scene so young and coped with the pressure and expectation very well and Lendl was almost robotic. Never gave anything away on court and his great perseverance saw him cement his place as an all-time great.

Lol. Indeed.
Federer was equally adept on slow or fast...had the surfaces stayed quick would he have had more work to do? Probably given he struggled against fast court players pre-2002. But he may still have won the same number of slams anyway given he could adept more readily than those who got threw by court changes.
CC, Nalby was a fast court player...his best successes were getting to Wimb final, winning indoor WTF and reaching 6 Masters finals...5 HC of which 4 were indoors, 1 on clay where he got drubbed by Moya. His clay success were generally much lower ranked tournaments. Its funny as courts slowed that his only significant successes were all indoors...

The slowing courts killed the skills of guys like Nalby...they weren't able to adapt like Federer...now you can decide if that's a talent issue, whether it was tough on them not being clay trained, or that Federer was just too good.

socal1976 wrote:Lets just say that the heroic generation of Roddick, Nalby, hewitt, safin, and ferrero where incredibly charitable to his goatship and be done with it. Those guys weren't just losing to federer BB, again at the end of 2007 fed's closest rivals in the rankings were Djokovic, and Nadal. Not the heroically charitable generation.

Look at #4-#10 (apart from #2 and #3).

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx?d=31.12.2007&r=1&c=#

1 Federer, Roger (SUI) 7,180 0 16
2 Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 5,735 0 19
3 Djokovic, Novak (SRB) 4,470 0 20
4 Davydenko, Nikolay (RUS) 2,825 0 26
5 Ferrer, David (ESP) 2,750 0 23
6 Roddick, Andy (USA) 2,530 0 20
7 Gonzalez, Fernando (CHI) 2,005 0 19
8 Gasquet, Richard (FRA) 1,930 0 23
9 Nalbandian, David (ARG) 1,775 0 15
10 Robredo, Tommy (ESP) 1,765 0 23

CaledonianCraig wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:BB, he should have lost 2 or 3 of those early finals so people would rate him more highly.

Or perhaps Murray should have been born ten years earlier so as to be rated so much higher for playing in the early 2000's.

10 years earlier, playing with different strings, learning on faster courts, then having to adapt to slower courts, without the last 10 years' worth of science to get him to his current fitness level, or possibly even an awareness that ultimate fitness was the way to go. With no players like Djoko or Nadal or Fed (I'm assuming he's swapped places with Fed) to aim for, to drive him forward to his current level.

Who knows?

I think sports where you can discuss goats are perhaps, bowls and darts. All i can think of!

bogbrush wrote:
FFS so Federers success is diminished because he was so good nobody could beat him?

Sometimes just isn't enough.

That wasn't my point... at all.

Did you read my post @ 9:02 pm, that explains what I'm trying to say with clarity.
For now just ignore the rest of my posts. Sometimes I write quicky and I am careless with my wording, but in that post I was clear.

laverfan wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Lets just say that the heroic generation of Roddick, Nalby, hewitt, safin, and ferrero where incredibly charitable to his goatship and be done with it. Those guys weren't just losing to federer BB, again at the end of 2007 fed's closest rivals in the rankings were Djokovic, and Nadal. Not the heroically charitable generation.

Look at #4-#10 (apart from #2 and #3).

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx?d=31.12.2007&r=1&c=#

1 Federer, Roger (SUI) 7,180 0 16
2 Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 5,735 0 19
3 Djokovic, Novak (SRB) 4,470 0 20
4 Davydenko, Nikolay (RUS) 2,825 0 26
5 Ferrer, David (ESP) 2,750 0 23
6 Roddick, Andy (USA) 2,530 0 20
7 Gonzalez, Fernando (CHI) 2,005 0 19
8 Gasquet, Richard (FRA) 1,930 0 23
9 Nalbandian, David (ARG) 1,775 0 15
10 Robredo, Tommy (ESP) 1,765 0 23

Nadal and Djokovic clearly have way more points at a way younger age than their contemporaries look at how well Richie G was doing back then it really breaks your heart, but other passed up him up. Thank you for researching my posts and showing them to be well grounded in the facts Laverfan.

Number 3 in the world and he was eating glutten, 19 years old, and not even sleeping in an egg chambers back then. Current djokovic is much, much better than the end of 07.

Bunch of era wums!

The lot of you!

laverfan wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Lets just say that the heroic generation of Roddick, Nalby, hewitt, safin, and ferrero where incredibly charitable to his goatship and be done with it. Those guys weren't just losing to federer BB, again at the end of 2007 fed's closest rivals in the rankings were Djokovic, and Nadal. Not the heroically charitable generation.

Look at #4-#10 (apart from #2 and #3).

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx?d=31.12.2007&r=1&c=#

1 Federer, Roger (SUI) 7,180 0 16
2 Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 5,735 0 19
3 Djokovic, Novak (SRB) 4,470 0 20
4 Davydenko, Nikolay (RUS) 2,825 0 26
5 Ferrer, David (ESP) 2,750 0 23
6 Roddick, Andy (USA) 2,530 0 20
7 Gonzalez, Fernando (CHI) 2,005 0 19
8 Gasquet, Richard (FRA) 1,930 0 23
9 Nalbandian, David (ARG) 1,775 0 15
10 Robredo, Tommy (ESP) 1,765 0 23

Not quite sure what this proves. Nadal at 21 and Djokovic at 20 had already moved into the top three and Murray also at 20 was sitting at 11 after having missed nearly 3 months of the season including 2 slams. 8 months later at 21 he was top 4 as well.

Heroic research from Laverfan.

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:BB, he should have lost 2 or 3 of those early finals so people would rate him more highly.

Or perhaps Murray should have been born ten years earlier so as to be rated so much higher for playing in the early 2000's.

It's ok Craig, it was always obvious why you started the thread.

Of course, judging by how he got on against Federer in Slams until he's in his dotage, perhaps being born earlier wouldn't have been such a great idea........

As it is crystal clear why you argue so vehemently for the early 2000's.

Hmm so slowing courts stinted Safin and Nalbandian even though both were very good on clay.

It Must Be Love wrote:Heroic research from Laverfan.

Heroically charitable tennis from safin, hewitt, nalby, and roddick. Lets not forget the once and forever real king of clay guillermo coria.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:BB, he should have lost 2 or 3 of those early finals so people would rate him more highly.

Or perhaps Murray should have been born ten years earlier so as to be rated so much higher for playing in the early 2000's.

10 years earlier, playing with different strings, learning on faster courts, then having to adapt to slower courts, without the last 10 years' worth of science to get him to his current fitness level, or possibly even an awareness that ultimate fitness was the way to go. With no players like Djoko or Nadal or Fed (I'm assuming he's swapped places with Fed) to aim for, to drive him forward to his current level.

Who knows?

Ironically, with his net skills etc. he is actually far more suited to genuine fast surfaces than all the hard court baseliners who were apparently really hampered by the slow-down. A player 6"3 with great speed and reflexes, a massive first serve and supreme hands on return would have been the perfect fast grass court player.

The fact is Murray has seen the conditions he plays in and the players he has to beat and has adapted accordingly. I'd prefer it if he adopted the all-court game he used a lot more in his younger days but it's hard to argue with a guy who has made the final of the last three slams.

Murray incidentally was 15 in 2002 so presumably would have learnt the game on reasonably fast courts, if that is the time at which this change took place.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Hmm so slowing courts stinted Safin and Nalbandian even though both were very good on clay.

And not very good on grass!

Calder106 wrote:

laverfan wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Lets just say that the heroic generation of Roddick, Nalby, hewitt, safin, and ferrero where incredibly charitable to his goatship and be done with it. Those guys weren't just losing to federer BB, again at the end of 2007 fed's closest rivals in the rankings were Djokovic, and Nadal. Not the heroically charitable generation.

Look at #4-#10 (apart from #2 and #3).




http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx?d=31.12.2007&r=1&c=#

1 Federer, Roger (SUI) 7,180 0 16
2 Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 5,735 0 19
3 Djokovic, Novak (SRB) 4,470 0 20
4 Davydenko, Nikolay (RUS) 2,825 0 26
5 Ferrer, David (ESP) 2,750 0 23
6 Roddick, Andy (USA) 2,530 0 20
7 Gonzalez, Fernando (CHI) 2,005 0 19
8 Gasquet, Richard (FRA) 1,930 0 23
9 Nalbandian, David (ARG) 1,775 0 15
10 Robredo, Tommy (ESP) 1,765 0 23

Not quite sure what this proves. Nadal at 21 and Djokovic at 20 had already moved into the top three and Murray also at 20 was sitting at 11 after having missed nearly 3 months of the season including 2 slams. 8 months later at 21 he was top 4 as well.

It proves that prior to the mono, prior to old age federer's closest rivals were not players of his own generation but his main rivals had already become a pre-prime Nadal and a glutten munching asthmatic version of Djokovic.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:BB, he should have lost 2 or 3 of those early finals so people would rate him more highly.

Or perhaps Murray should have been born ten years earlier so as to be rated so much higher for playing in the early 2000's.

It's ok Craig, it was always obvious why you started the thread.

Of course, judging by how he got on against Federer in Slams until he's in his dotage, perhaps being born earlier wouldn't have been such a great idea........

As it is crystal clear why you argue so vehemently for the early 2000's.

It really isn't; everyone accepts that Federer would be dominating these guys today at his peak, so no difference.

Born Slippy wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:BB, he should have lost 2 or 3 of those early finals so people would rate him more highly.

Or perhaps Murray should have been born ten years earlier so as to be rated so much higher for playing in the early 2000's.

10 years earlier, playing with different strings, learning on faster courts, then having to adapt to slower courts, without the last 10 years' worth of science to get him to his current fitness level, or possibly even an awareness that ultimate fitness was the way to go. With no players like Djoko or Nadal or Fed (I'm assuming he's swapped places with Fed) to aim for, to drive him forward to his current level.

Who knows?

Ironically, with his net skills etc. he is actually far more suited to genuine fast surfaces than all the hard court baseliners who were apparently really hampered by the slow-down. A player 6"3 with great speed and reflexes, a massive first serve and supreme hands on return would have been the perfect fast grass court player.

The fact is Murray has seen the conditions he plays in and the players he has to beat and has adapted accordingly. I'd prefer it if he adopted the all-court game he used a lot more in his younger days but it's hard to argue with a guy who has made the final of the last three slams.

Murray incidentally was 15 in 2002 so presumably would have learnt the game on reasonably fast courts, if that is the time at which this change took place.

Spot on Born Slippy.

One more thing is all these crossed messages I am getting. That Nalbandian never really took fitness seriously and Safin was a party animal with a love of nightclubs yet they were amongst the top challengers in the early 2000's.

Born Slippy wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:BB, he should have lost 2 or 3 of those early finals so people would rate him more highly.

Or perhaps Murray should have been born ten years earlier so as to be rated so much higher for playing in the early 2000's.

10 years earlier, playing with different strings, learning on faster courts, then having to adapt to slower courts, without the last 10 years' worth of science to get him to his current fitness level, or possibly even an awareness that ultimate fitness was the way to go. With no players like Djoko or Nadal or Fed (I'm assuming he's swapped places with Fed) to aim for, to drive him forward to his current level.

Who knows?

Ironically, with his net skills etc. he is actually far more suited to genuine fast surfaces than all the hard court baseliners who were apparently really hampered by the slow-down. A player 6"3 with great speed and reflexes, a massive first serve and supreme hands on return would have been the perfect fast grass court player.

The fact is Murray has seen the conditions he plays in and the players he has to beat and has adapted accordingly. I'd prefer it if he adopted the all-court game he used a lot more in his younger days but it's hard to argue with a guy who has made the final of the last three slams.

Murray incidentally was 15 in 2002 so presumably would have learnt the game on reasonably fast courts, if that is the time at which this change took place.

Oh, well then it's 100% certain he would have been a multi-slam winner. Can you let me know specifically which ones he would have won. I need to update the record books.

Born Slippy is a man who understands tennis, people need to start listening to what the man has to say.

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:BB, he should have lost 2 or 3 of those early finals so people would rate him more highly.

Or perhaps Murray should have been born ten years earlier so as to be rated so much higher for playing in the early 2000's.

It's ok Craig, it was always obvious why you started the thread.

Of course, judging by how he got on against Federer in Slams until he's in his dotage, perhaps being born earlier wouldn't have been such a great idea........

As it is crystal clear why you argue so vehemently for the early 2000's.

It really isn't; everyone accepts that Federer would be dominating these guys today at his peak, so no difference.

lol. I don't think so.
btw did you read my post @ 9:02?

As I said avoid the rest, as a Rafa match is going on I can make careless mistakes with the others, but on that I was careful to pay attention to detail.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:BB, he should have lost 2 or 3 of those early finals so people would rate him more highly.

Or perhaps Murray should have been born ten years earlier so as to be rated so much higher for playing in the early 2000's.

10 years earlier, playing with different strings, learning on faster courts, then having to adapt to slower courts, without the last 10 years' worth of science to get him to his current fitness level, or possibly even an awareness that ultimate fitness was the way to go. With no players like Djoko or Nadal or Fed (I'm assuming he's swapped places with Fed) to aim for, to drive him forward to his current level.

Who knows?

Ironically, with his net skills etc. he is actually far more suited to genuine fast surfaces than all the hard court baseliners who were apparently really hampered by the slow-down. A player 6"3 with great speed and reflexes, a massive first serve and supreme hands on return would have been the perfect fast grass court player.

The fact is Murray has seen the conditions he plays in and the players he has to beat and has adapted accordingly. I'd prefer it if he adopted the all-court game he used a lot more in his younger days but it's hard to argue with a guy who has made the final of the last three slams.

Murray incidentally was 15 in 2002 so presumably would have learnt the game on reasonably fast courts, if that is the time at which this change took place.

Oh, well then it's 100% certain he would have been a multi-slam winner. Can you let me know specifically which ones he would have won. I need to update the record books.

You're like a parody of yourself.

What's this 'adaptation' Murray or Djokovic have experienced? They've not had the game change under their feet, as Roddick experienced, and Federers been through twice.

I'm sceptical that Djokovic in particular would be up to it. Most unlikely, his game is very dependent on the modern equipment.