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?

lydian wrote:...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?

Peak Murray against peak Rafa or Roger = straight sets beatdown. That's the truth.

Yes the poor relative Screech, that is what it all comes down to a downgrading of the great talents of other stars. Screech has six slams buddy, each win makes his detractors look more and more foolish. kind of like those guys who for years called Nadal talentless moonballers and are now cheering for him.

Murray will go down as a very special player british or otherwise, Nostrafreakingdamus has been predicting it for years and it will come to pass. You will see look at the number of slam finals, masters, and win percentage against top 10 to me it tells the story of a player poised for great run.

socal1976 wrote:Yes the poor relative Screech, that is what it all comes down to a downgrading of the great talents of other stars. Screech has six slams buddy, each win makes his detractors look more and more foolish. kind of like those guys who for years called Nadal talentless moonballers and are now cheering for him.

Says the glory hunter who actually jumped boat when Rafa started losing.

There's a reason why Screech has one fan on this board. He's boring. If the courts were somewhat faster he'd be eating bagels ala Cincinatti

Ah yes, because as a tennis fan I couldn't possibly say nice things about Nadal but prefer another player over him. I find it funny the people who sell us on super talented Dave Nalbandian and the strengths of Roddick and hewitt find screech so lacking in ability.

socal1976 wrote:Murray will go down as a very special player british or otherwise, Nostrafreakingdamus has been predicting it for years and it will come to pass. You will see look at the number of slam finals, masters, and win percentage against top 10 to me it tells the story of a player poised for great run.

Shame it took him until the two great players of his era were either lame or semi-retired.

Any slams from this point forward would just have been won in the weakest era in the open era.

How's that for era discussions Craig?

socal1976 wrote:Ah yes, because as a tennis fan I couldn't possibly say nice things about Nadal but prefer another player over him. I find it funny the people who sell us on super talented Dave Nalbandian and the strengths of Roddick and hewitt find screech so lacking in ability.

Yeah you keep telling us that buddy.

Someone may believe you one day Socalfootiefan aka FA

The emancipator knows everything, hehe.

I say global warming is to blame for Andy Murray's lone slam, you guys are just too funny emancipator.

Andy murray greatest windy era player in history. Now we have heard it all, murray has played a brutal finals opponent in every final he has reached much more than I can say for some.

socal1976 wrote:I say global warming is to blame for Andy Murray's lone slam, you guys are just too funny emancipator.

Hmm maybe something we can agree on..

Ps Socal - just giving the whinger some of his own medicine.

Sadly it looks like he doesn't wanto to play anymore

socal1976 wrote:Andy murray greatest windy era player in history. Now we have heard it all, murray has played a brutal finals opponent in every final he has reached much more than I can say for some.

Yeah.. and he got his ass handed to him each time.

Great badge of honor.

Odd isn't it. Djokovic and Murray being taken apart here but their total slam count sure as hell beats Safin, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Roddick and Ferrero's put together eh? Which is it to be? More respect for Djoko and Murray or less admiration for the early 2000's players? Also it is humorous to listen to people belittling Djokovic - six slams and counting and looks a damned good bet to take that figure up to double figures.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Odd isn't it. Djokovic and Murray being taken apart here but their total slam count sure as hell beats Safin, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Roddick and Ferrero's put together eh? Which is it to be? More respect for Djoko and Murray or less admiration for the early 2000's players? Also it is humorous to listen to people belittling Djokovic - six slams and counting and looks a damned good bet to take that figure up to double figures.

That is why we hear these herculiean lionizations of players who even at their best failed to be a dominant or consistent force on tour, it is obvious that by the same objective standards the federer fans apply to federer that Murray/Djoko are far superior to the heroically charitable generation of fed's early rivals. Personally, I feel like this debate will be laughable in a few years when both murray and djoko have added to their counts. Then you will really look crazy comparing the early 2000 guys to these two special players.

emancipator wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I say global warming is to blame for Andy Murray's lone slam, you guys are just too funny emancipator.

Hmm maybe something we can agree on..

Ps Socal - just giving the whinger some of his own medicine.

Whinger? Please explain? So to offer an opinion that one era in tennis is stronger than another makes me a whinger eh? So much for freedom of speech.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Odd isn't it. Djokovic and Murray being taken apart here but their total slam count sure as hell beats Safin, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Roddick and Ferrero's put together eh? Which is it to be? More respect for Djoko and Murray or less admiration for the early 2000's players? Also it is humorous to listen to people belittling Djokovic - six slams and counting and looks a damned good bet to take that figure up to double figures.

Murray and Djokovic? Who you trying to kid.

Screech's twin has 1 slam. 1 measly slam. A lucky wind assisted slam too.

He's the biggest loser in slam history. Five slam dunks in the rest.

The early 2000 players have 6 times as many as him.

Why don't you start a thread on slam losers. Hmm.. maybe I should do that. No doubt you'll have loads to contribute



emancipator

Socal, can I ask, you have said before you consider Federer as the GOAT but continue to belittle his achievements, is it mainly in defence of Novak that it comes out? Or deep down, do you just think Djokovic is better than Federer and waiting for him to have a certain slam count when you can properly pose the question?

Emancipator it would be nice if you could stick to facts and the matter at hand but instead you resort to insults (to myself) earlier and other nonsense. Very disappointing.

come on fed fans lets try to maintain a sense of decorum!
Anymore name calling and I will come up there and ground the lot of ya, like butters from south park!

Don't cry just because your transparent thread was ridiculed. You've spent the whole thread belittling Federer's achievements and ridiculing his opponents. I've just shown you what it's like when the shoe is on the other foot. Your hubris got the better of you. You can 'compare eras' when your boy has done something relatively substantial. 1 measly slam against a depleted field (can I call it a weak era?) is not that.

You reap what you sow

Your chickens have come home to roost

What goes round comes around

Let me give you some facts. 2 sets won in five losing finals.



emancipator - The truth is out there

emancipator wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Murray will go down as a very special player british or otherwise, Nostrafreakingdamus has been predicting it for years and it will come to pass. You will see look at the number of slam finals, masters, and win percentage against top 10 to me it tells the story of a player poised for great run.

Shame it took him until the two great players of his era were either lame or semi-retired.

Any slams from this point forward would just have been won in the weakest era in the open era.

How's that for era discussions Craig?

Djokovic is the biggest beneficiary of the transition era, Roger at 32 and Nadal absent for almost a year and Murray still learning his trades Djokovic made the most of transition era, certainly not Nole's fault if the era is the weakest.

CAS wrote:Socal, can I ask, you have said before you consider Federer as the GOAT but continue to belittle his achievements, is it mainly in defence of Novak that it comes out? Or deep down, do you just think Djokovic is better than Federer and waiting for him to have a certain slam count when you can properly pose the question?

No I think Fed is goat but the coverage of the man is boringly and nauseastingly overboard. I think if a strong era champion namely djoko or Nadal were to reach 15 slams that individual will have a very strong goat argument. But I do think that federer is the best I have ever seen the closest to a perfect player as of yet, it does not mean that it would preclude Djoko or Nadal from raising the bar to a level beyond even peak federer.

Ok I'm done with this.



emancipator

@SoCal/IMBL/CC... We have covered all nuances of this era debate. You have no way of proving a strong/weak era based on available information, but some what-if scenarios, which are fairly subjective.

@Eman... there is no point flinging mud and calling posters, or for that matter players they follow, any names. This is just a sport.

Let us keep this debate civil and fun, we can tease each other, but let us draw a line where the belt is.

I find it astonishing for either side of this debate to denigrate players and consider them any lesser athletes, than the ones that have titles. Let me remind all parties, that 127 losers come before a single winner is decided at a slam.

17 or 1, 11 or 6, it takes a herculean effort for some to even get there, just ask Bogdanovics, Blakes, Dents of this world.

There are enough statistics to prove and disprove either side of the debate and has been presented.

Socal... Have a Macallans. (HM... you are a brave person to have bitten your tongue and kept away, have one chotta peg on me ).

IMBL... be glad Nadal is back and won today after being down 2 games. (H-n/Lydian )

CC... Murray does not need any apologies for winning a slam. There are many who have had to be satisfied with one. Let us see what the future brings.

BB/Eman/TP... Be happy that Federer still loves the game and the fire burns bright and fierce, despite 15+ years of service.

To Ferrers, Roddicks, Nalbandians, Ljubicics, Gonzalezes, Baghdatises, and many warriors (list starts here - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Player-Landing.aspx - just type a name in) who live day-to-day and love this sport... my eternal thanks for the sweat and blood you pour for us spectators.

I feel like crying now. Am going to watch Laver-Rosewall again.

@JHM.. special thanks for being my buddy.

laverfan wrote:@JHM.. special thanks for being my buddy.

, we all love you and JHM , LF

invisiblecoolers wrote:

laverfan wrote:@JHM.. special thanks for being my buddy.

, we all love you and JHM , LF

I am glad, to see my northern neighbour alive and kicking.

Well, when emancipator resorts to questioning other posters calling them glory hounds and whingers inspite addressing the meat of the argument it becomes quite clear which side has the strongest factual and objective arguments. This discussion will become moot anyway in short order it will become apparent how special murray and djokovic are and how incomparable in quality they are to the heroically charitable early federer rivals. Nostrafreakingdamus has spoken and thus it shall be. When you have to resort to ignoring the objective measures like winning tournaments and majors and instead proceed in name calling well I think people see who is making the salient points. I am happy to keep having this converstation as Murray's and Djoko's trophy cases fill up it will be increasingly laughable to make some of these arguments. Federer is the goat, as I said closest thing to perfect on a court I have seen, but there is a clear difference in quality between fed's early rivals and the later ones that arose in the second half of his career. Argue about how they were hurt by injury or slowed down conditions or whatever, if they were better they would have won more and it wasn't only federer beating them all the time either.

Ok, we've done 2000-2007 to death. But lets be honest, a weak era thread is the life blood of the forum.

So I suggest we begin discussion of the weak era thread that begins with the absence of one of the greats - Nadal - and where the decline of the greatest was becoming apparent.

The motion before the House is "US Open 2012 heralded the beginning of a new weak era"

Weak in terms of, as at that point;

- all time weakest depth
- most failures in a top ten ever, with only one slam held by anyone outside the top two seeds
- no youth of any achievement
- fading player seeded #1

bogbrush wrote:Ok, we've done 2000-2007 to death. But lets be honest, a weak era thread is the life blood of the forum.

So I suggest we begin discussion of the weak era thread that begins with the absence of one of the greats - Nadal - and where the decline of the greatest was becoming apparent.

The motion before the House is "US Open 2012 heralded the beginning of a new weak era"

Weak in terms of, as at that point;

- all time weakest depth
- most failures in a top ten ever, with only one slam held by anyone outside the top two seeds
- no youth of any achievement
- fading player seeded #1

Funnily enough I actually see this as possible soon.
The reason I, and many others, think this is a strong era is because there are so many world class players at the top of the game, rather than anything.
However if Nadal can't come back to his best after injury, Federer retires; then we will only be left in my eyes with two world class players so the competition at the top won't be as strong.

Did I happen to mention that Murray has won the US Open?

Beat that GOATS!!!

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.

Post of the year

socal1976 wrote:...resorts to questioning other posters calling them glory hounds and whingers inspite addressing the meat of the argument it becomes quite clear which side has the strongest factual and objective arguments.

Objective? The entire argument smacks of jealousy. There is denial of cold hard wins, as CoolPixel has pointed out several posts ago.

socal1976 wrote:This discussion will become moot anyway in short order it will become apparent how special murray and djokovic are and how incomparable in quality they are to the heroically charitable early federer rivals.

Apparently, it has yet to become moot.

socal1976 wrote:Nostrafreakingdamus has spoken and thus it shall be. When you have to resort to ignoring the objective measures like winning tournaments and majors and instead proceed in name calling well I think people see who is making the salient points.

Are you accepting your inability to discuss any other topics?

socal1976 wrote:I am happy to keep having this converstation as Murray's and Djoko's trophy cases fill up it will be increasingly laughable to make some of these arguments. Federer is the goat, as I said closest thing to perfect on a court I have seen, but there is a clear difference in quality between fed's early rivals and the later ones that arose in the second half of his career. Argue about how they were hurt by injury or slowed down conditions or whatever, if they were better they would have won more and it wasn't only federer beating them all the time either.

It is perhaps the only conversation you desire to have. Era debates which degenerate into denigrating Federer, who, by your self admission Federer is the goat, as I said closest thing to perfect on a court I have seen .

if they were better they would have won more

- from 2007 there is very little diversity at the QF/SF at tourneys. Does that mean there is no competition at the lower levels?

Have Tipsy (http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Janko-Tipsarevic.aspx?t=tf - highest ranking #8 - 02 Apr 2012) or
Troicki (http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Viktor-Troicki.aspx?t=tf - highest rank #11 #12 - 6 Jun 2011) won any majors or masters yet?

(I feel really bad about getting these players dragged in here. They are hardworking guys, including Tipsy, who is working very hard on fitness, wonder why? ).

I would suggest you compare Roddick to Tipsarevic or Troicki to Nalbandian. Can you also suggest why such a comparison is not objective? Should I mention Monaco or Ferrer or Berdych?

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx

You had asked about the Top 10 in 2007. Take a look at the Top 10 now.

1 Djokovic, Novak (SRB) 12,920 0 18
2 Federer, Roger (SUI) 10,265 0 20
3 Murray, Andy (GBR) 8,000 0 20
4 Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 6,600 0 17
5 Ferrer, David (ESP) 6,505 0 26
6 Berdych, Tomas (CZE) 4,680 0 25
7 Del Potro, Juan Martin (ARG) 4,480 0 22
8 Tsonga, Jo-Wilfried (FRA) 3,375 0 25
9 Tipsarevic, Janko (SRB) 3,090 0 28
10 Gasquet, Richard (FRA) 2,720 0 23

Why would anyone compare Roddick to Tipsy? Surely a like for like comparison for the purposes of this thread would be someone like Robredo or Canas?

Born Slippy wrote:Why would anyone compare Roddick to Tipsy? Surely a like for like comparison for the purposes of this thread would be someone like Robredo or Canas?

Let us compare Robredo to Tipsy (Canas has the drug-related charges which otherwise will be a distraction to this discussion).

Tipsy - 4 Titles, 7 finals (Singles only).

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Janko-Tipsarevic.aspx?t=tf

Robredo - 10 titles, 7 finals (Singles only).

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Tommy-Robredo.aspx?t=tf

@BS... can you suggest a comparison for Troicki from 2003-2007 window?

PS: Troicki's highest ranking was #12.

I took the liberty of looking up the #12 player at YE 2007 ( http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx?d=31.12.2007&r=1&c=# )
which turns out to be Haas.

So let us look at Haas v Troicki....

Haas - 13 titles, 11 finals...

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Ha/T/Tommy-Haas.aspx?t=tf


Triocki - 1 title, 4 finals...

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Viktor-Troicki.aspx?t=tf

What else would you suggest next, BS? (BTW, apologies for using the shortened version of your initials, no offence is intended).

Thanks Laver. All very interesting. I am still unsure quite what you are trying to show.

A bit of a change of topic but I was curious about this when reading some of the more colourful posts last night. As you seem to be the most knowledgeable poster on these boards, I was wondering if you could find another example of an acknowledged great of the game with a negative head to head against a mere one slammer. I guess the criteria have to be more than a de minimis number of matches - say 15 minimum - and roughly a similar age (say within 7 years)?

Born Slippy wrote:Thanks Laver. All very interesting. I am still unsure quite what you are trying to show.

Mathematically, 2003-2007 has roughly the same number of titles on offer as 2007-2011, so someone must have won these. To say that the players in the earlier window should have won more than the players in the later window, a claim from SoCal, makes no sense.

Born Slippy wrote:A bit of a change of topic but I was curious about this when reading some of the more colourful posts last night. As you seem to be the most knowledgeable poster on these boards, I was wondering if you could find another example of an acknowledged great of the game with a negative head to head against a mere one slammer. I guess the criteria have to be more than a de minimis number of matches - say 15 minimum - and roughly a similar age (say within 7 years)?

Will look for it.

Born Slippy wrote:Thanks Laver. All very interesting. I am still unsure quite what you are trying to show.

A bit of a change of topic but I was curious about this when reading some of the more colourful posts last night. As you seem to be the most knowledgeable poster on these boards, I was wondering if you could find another example of an acknowledged great of the game with a negative head to head against a mere one slammer. I guess the criteria have to be more than a de minimis number of matches - say 15 minimum - and roughly a similar age (say within 7 years)?

OUch, BS excellent post. You have answered Laverfan's points better than I ever could have. People always harp on the second tier players of berdy, and ferrrer, but ferrer has never decided the major honors of this era and is he any weaker than brad gilbert or even Michael chang? There are always overachievers of a small size in tennis who have a lot of fight, less so today than at other periods. Murray and Djoko were tougher outs as teenagers for Federer than any of the people his own age, Nadal was his nemesis from his first day on tour. These facts are not a coincidence.

If you make the arbitrary figure 9 matches :-

Stich 5 - Sampras 4
Roddick 5 - Djoko 4

Also Sampras 7 - Ferreira 6. A slight positive H2H against someone who never made a slam final.

Sampras, in his book, rated Stich as the player he feared most.

Born Slippy wrote:Thanks Laver. All very interesting. I am still unsure quite what you are trying to show.

A bit of a change of topic but I was curious about this when reading some of the more colourful posts last night. As you seem to be the most knowledgeable poster on these boards, I was wondering if you could find another example of an acknowledged great of the game with a negative head to head against a mere one slammer. I guess the criteria have to be more than a de minimis number of matches - say 15 minimum - and roughly a similar age (say within 7 years)?

krajicek had a winning record against sampras 6-4, but thats not minimum 15 matches

Including a straight sets win over Sampras at Wimby 1996. But because we're only allowed to consider opponents in the final, we have to say Krajicek's slam win against Washington is of no great worth. Certainly not worth a final victory over, say, Tsonga or Berdych

socal1976 wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:Thanks Laver. All very interesting. I am still unsure quite what you are trying to show.

A bit of a change of topic but I was curious about this when reading some of the more colourful posts last night. As you seem to be the most knowledgeable poster on these boards, I was wondering if you could find another example of an acknowledged great of the game with a negative head to head against a mere one slammer. I guess the criteria have to be more than a de minimis number of matches - say 15 minimum - and roughly a similar age (say within 7 years)?

OUch, BS excellent post. You have answered Laverfan's points better than I ever could have. People always harp on the second tier players of berdy, and ferrrer, but ferrer has never decided the major honors of this era and is he any weaker than brad gilbert or even Michael chang? There are always overachievers of a small size in tennis who have a lot of fight, less so today than at other periods. Murray and Djoko were tougher outs as teenagers for Federer than any of the people his own age, Nadal was his nemesis from his first day on tour. These facts are not a coincidence.

Are you not harping on the so called second tier players between 2003-2007 to show a 'weak era'?

You very easily forget that there is a 5-7 years differential between Federer and Murray/Nadal/Djokovic.

@BS... Does Santoro v Safin count towards your request?

No laverfan, the second tier players of that period would not be roddick, hewitt, safin, nalbandian, and ferrero these guys were the top tier guys when fed made his push and were his closest competition for the early part of his reign. They were first tier players not second tier players. Safin, Roddick, hewitt as hard as it may seem now to believe it were elite players of that period.

It's only hard to imagine if you've only recently come to the game. Any serious student of the game would know far more.

Sometimes you sound just like a recent fan of football who thinks Chelsea have always been good and football was invented by Sky.

socal1976 wrote:No laverfan, the second tier players of that period would not be roddick, hewitt, safin, nalbandian, and ferrero these guys were the top tier guys when fed made his push and were his closest competition for the early part of his reign. They were first tier players not second tier players. Safin, Roddick, hewitt as hard as it may seem now to believe it were elite players of that period.

Robredo v Tipsy was one suggested by BS, correct?

Monaco, as high as #10, lost to Ruffin at VTR on Clay.

Lydian has also suggested Muster, a single-slammer. (I tried to avoid Grass, because of Muster's weakness).

v Moya... h2h 4-4 (does not meet the 15-match criteria though)

Dubai 1999 - R16 Carlos Moya (ESP) 5 L 4-6, 4-6
Sydney 1999 - R16 Carlos Moya (ESP) 5 W 7-6(4), 7-5
MC 1998 - R64 Carlos Moya (ESP) 18 L 0-6, 3-6
Germany 1997 - RR Carlos Moya (ESP) 7 L 2-6, 3-6
Munich 1996 - S Carlos Moya (ESP) 40 L 3-6, 3-6
MC 1996 - R16 Carlos Moya (ESP) 40 W 6-2, 7-6(3)
Barcelona 1996 - S Carlos Moya (ESP) 55 W 4-6, 6-2, 6-4
Estoril 1996 - R16 Carlos Moya (ESP) 57 W 6-4, 6-2

Some examples from JHM are also worth considering, albeit not perfect.