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?

Julius I hold out hope for you if only you would allow wiser analysts like myself, BS, Craig, Banbro, and IMBL guide you to the correct answers about tennis that have for so long alluded you. By applying socal's maxim you will increase your chances of being right Julius.

It Must Be Love wrote:

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.

Rafa = GOAT

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.

See this type of retort is really letting yourself down. At no stage did I say that he would have been and of course there is no way I can prove it. I'm merely stating an opinion. On what basis do you disagree?

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?

Really? Ooooh so now who is going out of their way to compare eras eh? Federer at his peak beat pre-peak Djokovic and Murray but lets just forget when Djokovic and Murray or anyone else are at their peak and Federer isn't I suppose. How very fair of you BB.

socal1976 wrote:Julius I hold out hope for you if only you would allow wiser analysts like myself, BS, Craig, Banbro, and IMBL guide you to the correct answers about tennis that have for so long alluded you. By applying socal's maxim you will increase your chances of being right Julius.

I get confused between socal's maxim and Focault's pendulum.

Born Slippy wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:
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.

See this type of retort is really letting yourself down. At no stage did I say that he would have been and of course there is no way I can prove it. I'm merely stating an opinion. On what basis do you disagree?

I've tried to tell this point to Julius for the last few months, but you've just put it better than I ever have.

We're onto a new page, and I think Bogbrush may have missed this post.
I'll repost it then:

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.

Really some brilliant stuff if people would open their minds to the possibility that federer's rivals were a bit on the soft side. I think you should julius take heed of what people are saying with the facts they provide in support. Not hypotheticals and sob stories about changing conditions which bear little on the thesis at hand.

Born Slippy wrote:

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.

See this type of retort is really letting yourself down. At no stage did I say that he would have been and of course there is no way I can prove it. I'm merely stating an opinion. On what basis do you disagree?

I asked 'Who knows?' A shorter answer would have been 'No-one'. I disagree on the butterfly effect principle. And on the points I raised earlier.

socal1976 wrote:Really some brilliant stuff if people would open their minds to the possibility that federer's rivals were a bit on the soft side. I think you should julius take heed of what people are saying with the facts they provide in support. Not hypotheticals and sob stories about changing conditions which bear little on the thesis at hand.

You're so unfair on laverfan

CaledonianCraig wrote:

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?

Really? Ooooh so now who is going out of their way to compare eras eh? Federer at his peak beat pre-peak Djokovic and Murray but lets just forget when Djokovic and Murray or anyone else are at their peak and Federer isn't I suppose. How very fair of you BB.

You're getting confused Craig, you're on record yourself as saying the very same thing. You've said Federer beats them all at his peak.

It Must Be Love wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:
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.

See this type of retort is really letting yourself down. At no stage did I say that he would have been and of course there is no way I can prove it. I'm merely stating an opinion. On what basis do you disagree?

I've tried to tell this point to Julius for the last few months, but you've just put it better than I ever have.

Well, at least we agree on something.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:
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.

See this type of retort is really letting yourself down. At no stage did I say that he would have been and of course there is no way I can prove it. I'm merely stating an opinion. On what basis do you disagree?

I've tried to tell this point to Julius for the last few months, but you've just put it better than I ever have.

Well, at least we agree on something.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:

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.

See this type of retort is really letting yourself down. At no stage did I say that he would have been and of course there is no way I can prove it. I'm merely stating an opinion. On what basis do you disagree?

I asked 'Who knows?' A shorter answer would have been 'No-one'. I disagree on the butterfly effect principle. And on the points I raised earlier.

I assumed it was obvious I wasn't answering a rhetorical question but merely giving a general opinion on the post as a whole. We can agree the answer that "no-one" is the correct answer . Not sure I get the reference to the butterfly principle.

End of the day Federer stands in GOAT spot due to his 17 slam wins as most people agree that is the only way to judge the subject. Others may argue Borg was the greatest player ever whilst some may say Laver was and like eras there is no definitive way to say but most go with the slam win thing. Sadly, the GOAT thing really does go to a lot of Fed fans heads to such a point that the merest criticism of any part remotely connected to Federer and it is met with great indignation.

A year or two ago on this forum I was labelled a fanboy (a term I strongly object to) as I am often on these boards criticising aspects of Murray's game and can freely give credit where credit is due even in abject disappointment. That is certainly not traits of a fan boy. Murray may not be the greatest player and never be the GOAT but at least I can be pleased in the knowledge that I can post in an objective and fair manner.

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

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?

Really? Ooooh so now who is going out of their way to compare eras eh? Federer at his peak beat pre-peak Djokovic and Murray but lets just forget when Djokovic and Murray or anyone else are at their peak and Federer isn't I suppose. How very fair of you BB.

You're getting confused Craig, you're on record yourself as saying the very same thing. You've said Federer beats them all at his peak.

At the moment he stands as GOAT for the 17 slam wins ...yes. Quite a different thing when you think more deeply about it.

Born Slippy wrote:Not sure I get the reference to the butterfly principle.

Just that if he was born 10 years earlier cirumstances might have meant he ended up as a plumber or something. Don't take me too seriously

CaledonianCraig wrote:End of the day Federer stands in GOAT spot due to his 17 slam wins as most people agree that is the only way to judge the subject. Others may argue Borg was the greatest player ever whilst some may say Laver was and like eras there is no definitive way to say but most go with the slam win thing. Sadly, the GOAT thing really does go to a lot of Fed fans heads to such a point that the merest criticism of any part remotely connected to Federer and it is met with great indignation.

A year or two ago on this forum I was labelled a fanboy (a term I strongly object to) as I am often on these boards criticising aspects of Murray's game and can freely give credit where credit is due even in abject disappointment. That is certainly not traits of a fan boy. Murray may not be the greatest player and never be the GOAT but at least I can be pleased in the knowledge that I can post in an objective and fair manner.

That is why they argue these really silly points and excuses about a generation crippled by slow conditions and how great those guys should of or would have been instead of drawing the conclusion that is obvious to reasoned thinkers acting objectively. They believe that any argument that could be seen as a knock on any part of federer's legacy must be fought tooth and nail despite facts that may cut against their preconceived notions.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:Not sure I get the reference to the butterfly principle.

Just that if he was born 10 years earlier cirumstances might have meant he ended up as a plumber or something. Don't take me too seriously

Gotcha

socal1976 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:End of the day Federer stands in GOAT spot due to his 17 slam wins as most people agree that is the only way to judge the subject. Others may argue Borg was the greatest player ever whilst some may say Laver was and like eras there is no definitive way to say but most go with the slam win thing. Sadly, the GOAT thing really does go to a lot of Fed fans heads to such a point that the merest criticism of any part remotely connected to Federer and it is met with great indignation.

A year or two ago on this forum I was labelled a fanboy (a term I strongly object to) as I am often on these boards criticising aspects of Murray's game and can freely give credit where credit is due even in abject disappointment. That is certainly not traits of a fan boy. Murray may not be the greatest player and never be the GOAT but at least I can be pleased in the knowledge that I can post in an objective and fair manner.

That is why they argue these really silly points and excuses about a generation crippled by slow conditions and how great those guys should of or would have been instead of drawing the conclusion that is obvious to reasoned thinkers acting objectively. They believe that any argument that could be seen as a knock on any part of federer's legacy must be fought tooth and nail despite facts that may cut against their preconceived notions.

Well the slow conditions are a myth as far as Nalby and Safin are concerned as both are/were excellent clay court players (a slow surface in itself).

I think you're all missing the point. (Player I support) is clearly the GOAT because of (cherry picked argument) whereas (player I hate) clearly isn't because he has never won the (tournament he's never won) and has less (find at least one statistic that at least one other player has better). It is quite obvious that head to heads are irrelevant/critically important. Any fool knows that.

(Player I secretly wish I was in bed with right now) is obviously lovely because of (cherry picked example of good sportsmanship ignoring examples of bad sportsmanship) whereas (player I hate) is obviously a horrible person because of (the one tiny incident of bad sportsmanship in their entire career, which lasted 3 seconds out of hundreds of hours on court, and which I shall also exaggerate and twist beyond recognition).

If you look at this (post a youtube video) you will clearly see that in 2006 the courts/rackets/strings were much slower/faster and in some intangible perhaps even imagined way, but quite clear to a biased fan such as me, surely any fool can see that I am right.

I cannot believe you like (player I hate). Let's continue arguing about this for the rest of our lives and never agree on anything.

GOAT? No. Most successful of all time?
Well, yes in slams and some other areas.

CC, yes Nalby et al can play a bit on clay...just as Sampras won Rome...but it doesn't define them as slowcourters. We're talking relative levels of success of what they achieved vs. what they might have achieved had conditions not changed. For me the reason why Federer's own age contemporaries died (relatively speaking) away from the initial impression of their talent is that they couldn't adapt to the new slow era. I've stated this many times...

Up to 2000 - faster court era....slammers adept on fast courts
2001-2006/7 - transitional era...slammers adapted to slower conditions
2008 onwards - slow era...slammers adept on slow courts

Nalby, Safin, Hewitt, Haas, Roddick, et al all grew up training to be adept to faster conditions. As they emerged on tour the courts slowed and they struggled to fulfil the early potential shown. I reckon they just lost the motivation to plug away in the same vein - it just seems odd how they ALL underachieved. Federer is a case apart....brought up on clay, then trained on quicker courts, he was ideally placed to do well in transitional period and beyond.

Comparing Murray, Djokovic, etc...to those from different periods is a fruitless exercise, the game has changed too much. It's even changed since Federer emerged. Had the faster conditions continued I dare say results would be different, sure Federer would win most slams because he's that good but I think others might have sneaked one or two here and there.

PS...lol HB.

And while we're at it, lets start a new thread on the same subject.

take a bow hb son take a bow

lydian wrote:GOAT? No. Most successful of all time?
Well, yes in slams and some other areas.

CC, yes Nalby et al can play a bit on clay...just as Sampras won Rome...but it doesn't define them as slowcourters. We're talking relative levels of success of what they achieved vs. what they might have achieved had conditions not changed. For me the reason why Federer's own age contemporaries died (relatively speaking) away from the initial impression of their talent is that they couldn't adapt to the new slow era. I've stated this many times...

Up to 2000 - faster court era....slammers adept on fast courts
2001-2006/7 - transitional era...slammers adapted to slower conditions
2008 onwards - slow era...slammers adept on slow courts

Nalby, Safin, Hewitt, Haas, Roddick, et al all grew up training to be adept to faster conditions. As they emerged on tour the courts slowed and they struggled to fulfil the early potential shown. I reckon they just lost the motivation to plug away in the same vein - it just seems odd how they ALL underachieved. Federer is a case apart....brought up on clay, then trained on quicker courts, he was ideally placed to do well in transitional period and beyond.

Comparing Murray, Djokovic, etc...to those from different periods is a fruitless exercise, the game has changed too much. It's even changed since Federer emerged. Had the faster conditions continued I dare say results would be different, sure Federer would win most slams because he's that good but I think others might have sneaked one or two here and there.

PS...lol HB.

I can agree with much of that but Nalbandian did still win tournies on the slower courts (not just clay) but simply couldn't make an impression in slams.

Henman Bill wrote:I think you're all missing the point. (Player I support) is clearly the GOAT because of (cherry picked argument) whereas (player I hate) clearly isn't because he has never won the (tournament he's never won) and has less (find at least one statistic that at least one other player has better). It is quite obvious that head to heads are irrelevant/critically important. Any fool knows that.

(Player I secretly wish I was in bed with right now) is obviously lovely because of (cherry picked example of good sportsmanship ignoring examples of bad sportsmanship) whereas (player I hate) is obviously a horrible person because of (the one tiny incident of bad sportsmanship in their entire career, which lasted 3 seconds out of hundreds of hours on court, and which I shall also exaggerate and twist beyond recognition).

If you look at this (post a youtube video) you will clearly see that in 2006 the courts/rackets/strings were much slower/faster and in some intangible perhaps even imagined way, but quite clear to a biased fan such as me, surely any fool can see that I am right.

I cannot believe you like (player I hate). Let's continue arguing about this for the rest of our lives and never agree on anything.

Superb!

Henman Bill wrote:I think you're all missing the point. (Player I support) is clearly the GOAT because of (cherry picked argument) whereas (player I hate) clearly isn't because he has never won the (tournament he's never won) and has less (find at least one statistic that at least one other player has better). It is quite obvious that head to heads are irrelevant/critically important. Any fool knows that.

(Player I secretly wish I was in bed with right now) is obviously lovely because of (cherry picked example of good sportsmanship ignoring examples of bad sportsmanship) whereas (player I hate) is obviously a horrible person because of (the one tiny incident of bad sportsmanship in their entire career, which lasted 3 seconds out of hundreds of hours on court, and which I shall also exaggerate and twist beyond recognition).

If you look at this (post a youtube video) you will clearly see that in 2006 the courts/rackets/strings were much slower/faster and in some intangible perhaps even imagined way, but quite clear to a biased fan such as me, surely any fool can see that I am right.

I cannot believe you like (player I hate). Let's continue arguing about this for the rest of our lives and never agree on anything.

Can I use this as a template?

It Must Be Love wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:I think you're all missing the point. (Player I support) is clearly the GOAT because of (cherry picked argument) whereas (player I hate) clearly isn't because he has never won the (tournament he's never won) and has less (find at least one statistic that at least one other player has better). It is quite obvious that head to heads are irrelevant/critically important. Any fool knows that.

(Player I secretly wish I was in bed with right now) is obviously lovely because of (cherry picked example of good sportsmanship ignoring examples of bad sportsmanship) whereas (player I hate) is obviously a horrible person because of (the one tiny incident of bad sportsmanship in their entire career, which lasted 3 seconds out of hundreds of hours on court, and which I shall also exaggerate and twist beyond recognition).

If you look at this (post a youtube video) you will clearly see that in 2006 the courts/rackets/strings were much slower/faster and in some intangible perhaps even imagined way, but quite clear to a biased fan such as me, surely any fool can see that I am right.

I cannot believe you like (player I hate). Let's continue arguing about this for the rest of our lives and never agree on anything.

Can I use this as a template?

I thought you already had?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:I think you're all missing the point. (Player I support) is clearly the GOAT because of (cherry picked argument) whereas (player I hate) clearly isn't because he has never won the (tournament he's never won) and has less (find at least one statistic that at least one other player has better). It is quite obvious that head to heads are irrelevant/critically important. Any fool knows that.

(Player I secretly wish I was in bed with right now) is obviously lovely because of (cherry picked example of good sportsmanship ignoring examples of bad sportsmanship) whereas (player I hate) is obviously a horrible person because of (the one tiny incident of bad sportsmanship in their entire career, which lasted 3 seconds out of hundreds of hours on court, and which I shall also exaggerate and twist beyond recognition).

If you look at this (post a youtube video) you will clearly see that in 2006 the courts/rackets/strings were much slower/faster and in some intangible perhaps even imagined way, but quite clear to a biased fan such as me, surely any fool can see that I am right.

I cannot believe you like (player I hate). Let's continue arguing about this for the rest of our lives and never agree on anything.

Can I use this as a template?

I thought you already had?

LAL

This is still going on I see..

Let me do a little summary for the unitiated.

Federer is the consensus GOAT. Just about everyone in the sport thnks it and even Joe Public knows this. Personally I do not believe in a GOAT. However, all this cry baby nonsense will not change the above .. so get over it.

I mean puhlease..

Who the hell would even rate Murray and Djokovic in comparison to the great one? Not the general public and certainly not tennis fans. Federer will attract more spectators to an exhibition than Murray and Djokovic combined will attract to a competitive match. Guess why folks? It's simple. Not only is he the most successful player of all time but he also plays the most attractive and exciting tennis. A virtuoso.

Screech and some Murray fans (Craig) may as well get used to this. No amount of whining and bi7ching will change those facts. It's risible that a deluded Murray fan like Craig can even post this article. What exactly is the point of it? It took Murray five years to beat Fed in a slam after their first slam meeting. That's pathetic. He had to wait till Roger was a grandpa in tennis terms and even then it took him five sets. Lol. Yet you think that by somehow posting an irrelevant stat of 1-1 in meetings during Fed's peak years somehow elevates Murray? Reality check dude. No amount of semantics can change the facts. Fed is on another planet to Murray. Even since 2008 Fed's record is far better than Murray's. It's not even close.

Likewise for the Screech. The same Screech who was will forever have a losing h2h against Roddick and Safin. He had to wait till Roger was 29 before he started making inroads into the h2h.

Only Rafa can be compared to Roger and that's fair enough, because he is also a unique talent. Screech.. hell no. Murray? Get the F**k outta here.

And for those who state that conditions have played no part in success or lack of for particular players let me remind you yet again of what happened last year. Federer virtually came out of his grave and won in Dubai, Madrid, W and Cincinnatti, ie four of the fastest tournaments on tour. He went 4-0 against Screech and Murray in those tourneys.

So suck it up whingers. 17 slams.. yeah baby
300+ weeks at number 1
Millions of other records.
The most succesful player of all time
and the most widely supported player of all time.
Don't forget.. 8 Edberg awards too



emancipator - intergalactic tennis correspondent and truth speaker
emancipator - destroyer of myths
emancipator - BOO hunter

Nadull is GOAT

Henman Bill wrote:I think you're all missing the point. (Player I support) is clearly the GOAT because of (cherry picked argument) whereas (player I hate) clearly isn't because he has never won the (tournament he's never won) and has less (find at least one statistic that at least one other player has better). It is quite obvious that head to heads are irrelevant/critically important. Any fool knows that.

(Player I secretly wish I was in bed with right now) is obviously lovely because of (cherry picked example of good sportsmanship ignoring examples of bad sportsmanship) whereas (player I hate) is obviously a horrible person because of (the one tiny incident of bad sportsmanship in their entire career, which lasted 3 seconds out of hundreds of hours on court, and which I shall also exaggerate and twist beyond recognition).

If you look at this (post a youtube video) you will clearly see that in 2006 the courts/rackets/strings were much slower/faster and in some intangible perhaps even imagined way, but quite clear to a biased fan such as me, surely any fool can see that I am right.

I cannot believe you like (player I hate). Let's continue arguing about this for the rest of our lives and never agree on anything.

Ok that's an awesome post.

This should be a sticky.

Yes he did...but Estoril twice, Munich and Buenos Aires aren't top tier clay events. I'm sure with his talent he can play well on any surface. But the point is that the non-clay slams slowed to such an extent his fast-court honed game became less effective and he 'underachieved' his obvious talent. Similarly for others. It's not that he won 4 clay events...it's that he won less others than he probably should have had conditions stayed the same. We could see what he could do indoors on quicker hard or carpet courts...beating Federer twice in finals...imagine what he could have done at faster slams.

ITF/ATP robbed a whole generation of players of the potential of their tennis development...leaving the clay trained guys to increasingly mop up, partic. at slams. And with it less and less contrast of play.....

I give you permission IMBL to use my template if you agree that:

1. Nadal only leads Federer in the head to head because most of the matches were on clay and it was too dark at Wimbledon.
AND
2. 2006 Federer would have easily beaten today's Rafa and Djoko and Murray on a (proper) hard court.
AND
3. Heads to heads don't matter anyway.
AND
4. The year end championships are on a par with slams in goat debate, whereas the Davis Cups are not worth anything at all, and no-one cares about the Olympics either.
AND
5. Clay is the least important surface. As a slam weighting RGs are 10% of Wimbledon and the US Open.

Agreed?

Lol Emancipator...good post. Only 2 recent players have the X factor and it isn't a Scot or a Serbian.

Henman Bill wrote:I give you permission IMBL to use my template if you agree that:

1. Nadal only leads Federer in the head to head because most of the matches were on clay and it was too dark at Wimbledon.
AND
2. 2006 Federer would have easily beaten today's Rafa and Djoko and Murray on a (proper) hard court.
AND
3. Heads to heads don't matter anyway.
AND
4. The year end championships are on a par with slams in goat debate, whereas the Davis Cups are not worth anything at all, and no-one cares about the Olympics either.
AND
5. Clay is the least important surface. As a slam weighting RGs are 10% of Wimbledon and the US Open.

Agreed?

1. No that's just cruel.
The lighting was superb at Wimbledon.

2. Dubai 2006.

3. Yes they do.

4. Lol.

5. Yes but on MTL they call grass and hard-courts after the year 2002 'blue' and 'green' clay anyway. So they're all the same.

Agreed.

lydian wrote:Lol Emancipator...good post. Only 2 recent players have the X factor and it isn't a Scot or a Serbian.

Indeed Lydian,

Craig in particular makes me laugh. Throwing some meaningless stats to prove what? That despite some incredible force of nature and mesmerising talent Murray has the grand total of 1 slam to his name. Well done thanks for that.

Henman Bill wrote:I think you're all missing the point. (Player I support) is clearly the GOAT because of (cherry picked argument) whereas (player I hate) clearly isn't because he has never won the (tournament he's never won) and has less (find at least one statistic that at least one other player has better). It is quite obvious that head to heads are irrelevant/critically important. Any fool knows that.

(Player I secretly wish I was in bed with right now) is obviously lovely because of (cherry picked example of good sportsmanship ignoring examples of bad sportsmanship) whereas (player I hate) is obviously a horrible person because of (the one tiny incident of bad sportsmanship in their entire career, which lasted 3 seconds out of hundreds of hours on court, and which I shall also exaggerate and twist beyond recognition).

If you look at this (post a youtube video) you will clearly see that in 2006 the courts/rackets/strings were much slower/faster and in some intangible perhaps even imagined way, but quite clear to a biased fan such as me, surely any fool can see that I am right.

I cannot believe you like (player I hate). Let's continue arguing about this for the rest of our lives and never agree on anything.

...and you know my feelings about that 1 slam.
Does peak Murray (now) ever beat peak Federer or peak Nadal in a slam? No.
I actually think driller-killer Djokovic is a level above Murray too.
At the end of day 1 slam by 26 isn't earth shattering in the Open Era...but because he's British it's a massive deal. What is the unique X factor in his game again?

Henman Bill wrote:I think you're all missing the point. (Player I support) is clearly the GOAT because of (cherry picked argument) whereas (player I hate) clearly isn't because he has never won the (tournament he's never won) and has less (find at least one statistic that at least one other player has better). It is quite obvious that head to heads are irrelevant/critically important. Any fool knows that.

(Player I secretly wish I was in bed with right now) is obviously lovely because of (cherry picked example of good sportsmanship ignoring examples of bad sportsmanship) whereas (player I hate) is obviously a horrible person because of (the one tiny incident of bad sportsmanship in their entire career, which lasted 3 seconds out of hundreds of hours on court, and which I shall also exaggerate and twist beyond recognition).

If you look at this (post a youtube video) you will clearly see that in 2006 the courts/rackets/strings were much slower/faster and in some intangible perhaps even imagined way, but quite clear to a biased fan such as me, surely any fool can see that I am right.

I cannot believe you like (player I hate). Let's continue arguing about this for the rest of our lives and never agree on anything.

By making rivals of a player look bad, the transitive is used to prove the player himself is average. No one gives credit to improvements in individual players.

BS says Murray has inherent talent as a Grass player.

IMBL thinks Nadal is GOAT (but for his injuries).

Socal thinks Djokovic is on his way to GOAThood, because he has joined Edberg/Becker.

Federer is smug (You f***ing stopped or Be quiet).

I am going to go watch me some Laver/Rosewall. I am glad they are both retired and carried the Centennial AO trophy with pride. I hope to see Federer/Nadal or Murray/Djokovic do the same 20 years down the road. God bless the 'eras'!

Henman Bill wrote:I think you're all missing the point. (Player I support) is clearly the GOAT because of (cherry picked argument) whereas (player I hate) clearly isn't because he has never won the (tournament he's never won) and has less (find at least one statistic that at least one other player has better). It is quite obvious that head to heads are irrelevant/critically important. Any fool knows that.

(Player I secretly wish I was in bed with right now) is obviously lovely because of (cherry picked example of good sportsmanship ignoring examples of bad sportsmanship) whereas (player I hate) is obviously a horrible person because of (the one tiny incident of bad sportsmanship in their entire career, which lasted 3 seconds out of hundreds of hours on court, and which I shall also exaggerate and twist beyond recognition).

If you look at this (post a youtube video) you will clearly see that in 2006 the courts/rackets/strings were much slower/faster and in some intangible perhaps even imagined way, but quite clear to a biased fan such as me, surely any fool can see that I am right.

I cannot believe you like (player I hate). Let's continue arguing about this for the rest of our lives and never agree on anything.

Just read through the whole thread and then on seeing this I immediately realised how much time I could have saved myself.

Do wish I had spotted it sooner...............

No further questions your Honour.

Sorry emancipator but you live in dream land. This is an era debate unless you hadn't realised so quite what your rant was all about I have no idea. The 1-1 stat was used to make a point about eras on head-to-heads which I have said earlier aren't the whole story. Not sure what the cheap shot about Murray having one slam win was all about but it is one more than I'd hazard a guess you probably felt he would win going by your rant against him.

emancipator wrote:

lydian wrote:Lol Emancipator...good post. Only 2 recent players have the X factor and it isn't a Scot or a Serbian.

Indeed Lydian,

Craig in particular makes me laugh. Throwing some meaningless stats to prove what? That despite some incredible force of nature and mesmerising talent Murray has the grand total of 1 slam to his name. Well done thanks for that.

You're saying I don't make you laugh? Geez, you pour your soul into your comedy and that's what you get. Everyone's a critic. Did you not even read the socal/Focault pun? Mutter, grumble...

I like the argument HB, I am sorry but I find it amusing and well spring of interesting comparisions. I like your post it was very funny, I am sure you were directing much of it as yours truely but I still had a good laugh. As always people want to have the debate no matter how much they protest they don't want to and find it stupid, hence witness the prodigous stature of this thread.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

emancipator wrote:

lydian wrote:Lol Emancipator...good post. Only 2 recent players have the X factor and it isn't a Scot or a Serbian.

Indeed Lydian,

Craig in particular makes me laugh. Throwing some meaningless stats to prove what? That despite some incredible force of nature and mesmerising talent Murray has the grand total of 1 slam to his name. Well done thanks for that.

You're saying I don't make you laugh? Geez, you pour your soul into your comedy and that's what you get. Everyone's a critic. Did you not even read the socal/Focault pun? Mutter, grumble...

But Julius there's great skill in true comedy..

As for Craig well let's just say some people are funny no matter what they say

You brought it all on yourself, Craig, because you can't help yourself trying to inflate Andy's one Slam.

I'll grant you, be can claim to have been unlucky to play in a still era. Had he been in his prime in the windy era he would have on more Slams.

bogbrush wrote:You brought it all on yourself, Craig, because you can't help yourself trying to inflate Andy's one Slam.

I'll grant you, be can claim to have been unlucky to play in a still era. Had he been in his prime in the windy era he would have on more Slams.

As I said a little wind is not as lucky as marcos baggy in the final.

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:You brought it all on yourself, Craig, because you can't help yourself trying to inflate Andy's one Slam.

I'll grant you, be can claim to have been unlucky to play in a still era. Had he been in his prime in the windy era he would have on more Slams.

As I said a little wind is not as lucky as marcos baggy in the final.

Yes, good point.
Even facing Djokovic in slightly windy conditions, is much harder than having to play opponents like Roddick, Baghdatis, and Gonzelez is Grand Slam Finals.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Sorry emancipator but you live in dream land. This is an era debate unless you hadn't realised so quite what your rant was all about I have no idea. The 1-1 stat was used to make a point about eras on head-to-heads which I have said earlier aren't the whole story. Not sure what the cheap shot about Murray having one slam win was all about but it is one more than I'd hazard a guess you probably felt he would win going by your rant against him.

The 1-1 stat proves nothing about eras so try again.

And yes you're right, even his measly one slam was a lucky hit.

If your gonna pick particular players to make a point then use worthy adversaries. The poor relative of Screech should not be mentioned in the same breath as the greats of this game.

Feel free to whinge some more about how Murray would have been a multi slam champ in another era or if he didn't have to face 'the GOAT, the greatest clay courter of all time and another great player (your stock line)'. No one buys it buddy. Murray has what he deserves for his talents.

It Must Be Love wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:You brought it all on yourself, Craig, because you can't help yourself trying to inflate Andy's one Slam.

I'll grant you, be can claim to have been unlucky to play in a still era. Had he been in his prime in the windy era he would have on more Slams.

As I said a little wind is not as lucky as marcos baggy in the final.

Yes, good point.
Even facing Djokovic in slightly windy conditions, is much harder than having to play opponents like Roddick, Baghdatis, and Gonzelez is Grand Slam Finals.

You mean the Gonzales who beat Nadal in str8 sets en route to the final?

Perhaps the Roddick who will forever have a winning record against Screech?

Belittle as much as you like but it won't change the facts.

17 slams baby and millions of other records.