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?

socal, I'm not saying raw slam numbers tell the whole story, but are we going to go back and give subjective marks out of 10 for each slam that Sampras and Borg won, just to see if Borg might have pipped him.
We can count 14 vs 11 and then move onto other things e.g. Borg didn't play the AO. But it's still 14 vs 11, not 12.9 (with adjusted difficulty rating) vs 9.6 (with adjustment difficulty rating). The weight of the slams they actually did win is always 1.

socal1976 wrote:Slams are slams Craig but is a raw slam count the only measure of which player is greater? What if other accomplishments and factors favor another player?

Tough one but yes I would go with the raw slam count. We all know how tough it is to win slams so the more you win the greater you are in my opinion.

Well Craig I have a bit of a different view of it, I think with players that a relatively close in slam count other factors could come in to give the player with the lower slam count the edge. Competition level, other accomplishments, and head to head record come into play for me. while I think that raw slam count is the biggest measure in such an analysis.

I agree with socal, if it's close in slam count (say, + or - 2) then I'd consider other factors such as :-
Spread across surfaces - a double career slam (8 slams) might be worth more than 9 USOs
Weeks at No 1.
H2H - very difficult unless they are of similar age e.g. once Connors past 31, Lendl won just about every match
WTF and Masters titles and overall titles
Calendar grand slam - Laver

Obviously different people give different weights to each one, which is why there is no 'right' answer.

McEnroe (7 slams) is often rated ahead of Connors and Lendl (8 slams) because many people reckon he was a tennis genius, whatever that means.

I am happy to go with raw slam count to decide GOAT. I would agree with you on other situations though as I do feel Borg was more talented than Sampras though had fewer slams.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I agree with socal, if it's close in slam count (say, + or - 2) then I'd consider other factors such as :-
Spread across surfaces - a double career slam (8 slams) might be worth more than 9 USOs
Weeks at No 1.
H2H - very difficult unless they are of similar age e.g. once Connors past 31, Lendl won just about every match
WTF and Masters titles and overall titles
Calendar grand slam - Laver

Obviously different people give different weights to each one, which is why there is no 'right' answer.

McEnroe (7 slams) is often rated ahead of Connors and Lendl (8 slams) because many people reckon he was a tennis genius, whatever that means.

I like this julius, the more you agree with the smarter you seem to get. Exactly, I mean for example I give Lendl a lot of extra credit for being the top dog of a very strong time in tennis and for all the tournaments and finals he appeared in and his ability on multiple surfaces and winning the year end championship I think 5 times.

I might add that if Rafa were to achieve a double career slam (another USO and AO) I'd put him up there with Fed (and Sampras and Laver) as the 'top 4 in no particular order' - currently I have a 'top 3 in no particular order'.

Of course winning some slams are more impressive than other slams.
If Murry wins Wimby by beating Nadal, Federer and Djokovic in the latter stages; and then wins USO by beating Almagro, Ferrer and Monaco in the latter stages: his Wimbledon win would be more impressive.
People who would deny that saying 'oh but he had to still win 7 matches both times' are simply in denial.

Julius
Fair enough.

Or for example what if Nadal does a calendar slam and finishes with one less slam then fed and a vastly superiror h2h, I would say he would be a very strong goat candidate.

socal1976 wrote:I like this julius, the more you agree with the smarter you seem to get.

It's the way I've always felt about it - I've always been smart

socal1976 wrote:Exactly, I mean for example I give Lendl a lot of extra credit for being the top dog of a very strong time in tennis and for all the tournaments and finals he appeared in and his ability on multiple surfaces and winning the year end championship I think 5 times.

Didn't Lendl recently say he only had to deal with Mecir in some GS final? Must have been during a 'weak fortnight'

socal1976 wrote:Or for example what if Nadal does a calendar slam and finishes with one less slam then fed and a vastly superiror h2h, I would say he would be a very strong goat candidate.

In my eyes he's already GOAT, but if course we all share different opinions

IMBL in my book if he gets close 17 with other factors I would give him the nod in particular to how much time he missed to injury, but for my money the gap between fed and Nadal is still too big. If he got withing 2 slams or so then I think I would give him the nod.

It Must Be Love wrote:Of course winning some slams are more impressive than other slams.
If Murry wins Wimby by beating Nadal, Federer and Djokovic in the latter stages; and then wins USO by beating Almagro, Ferrer and Monaco in the latter stages: his Wimbledon win would be more impressive.
People who would deny that saying 'oh but he had to still win 7 matches both times' are simply in denial.

The record books don't deal with impressive though. Can anyone tell me in which 3 of Sampras' Wimby triumphs he didn't have to face a top 15 player? Does anyone care that Borg won 3 FOs in the absence of the World No 1 (Connors) who also beat him in the 76 USO - on clay?
In 40 years' time no-one will remember Fed's, or Rafa's or Djoko's semi-final opponent in their 2nd slam victory.

I think competition level can play in as a small part in the anaysis Julius, Connors was screwed by not being allowed to play in the 1974 FO, he won the other 3 slams and had a great chance at a grandslam. We have to look at the numbers but factors that don't always show up on the record books can also be something to consider. For example I think Nadal had better luck with his health he would most likely have already rewritten all the record books although I think Novak would match him and overtake him eventually.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Of course winning some slams are more impressive than other slams.
If Murry wins Wimby by beating Nadal, Federer and Djokovic in the latter stages; and then wins USO by beating Almagro, Ferrer and Monaco in the latter stages: his Wimbledon win would be more impressive.
People who would deny that saying 'oh but he had to still win 7 matches both times' are simply in denial.

The record books don't deal with impressive though. Can anyone tell me in which 3 of Sampras' Wimby triumphs he didn't have to face a top 15 player? Does anyone care that Borg won 3 FOs in the absence of the World No 1 (Connors) who also beat him in the 76 USO - on clay?
In 40 years' time no-one will remember Fed's, or Rafa's or Djoko's semi-final opponent in their 2nd slam victory.

Of course the record books aren't going to deal with it, but should we blindly follow that?
People may/may not remember, but frankly that's irrelevant.
In the example I gave Murrays Wimby slam win would be more impressive than his USO slam win. It's clear cut, its blindingly obvious.

Socal, Im telling you this guys career has been ripped apart by injury.
He's a superior tennis player to Fed, of course due to injury he's not going to accumulate massive stats, he can't however good he is.

He could add another 3 or 4 I think it is possible if he does that and fed doesn't add any slams as I said I would give him the nod. I'd like to see at least 3 more slams by Nadal, and Djokovic is looking quite fearsome and he isn't going to seed much and murray will be a force as well.

imbl. If say djokovic finished with say 8 or 9 slams, had a superior head to head record on nadal, won the career GS, olympic gold and more masters, to nadal, would you see him as better?

I like the conflation of personal Slam count and era Slam count.

Personal Slams improve the rating of a player, but distribution of Slams between players (whether all to one, or one each to many) don't tell us which period was stronger.

It's this that escapes some posters, who seem to think a period is measured by how concentrated the Slam distribution. If we had one with Federer, Nadal, Sampras, McEnroe, Aassi, Connors, Lendl & Borg in, and they shared the Slams each only getting 5/6 at most is that a weak era? If not how can we tell?

LuvSports! wrote:imbl. If say djokovic finished with say 8 or 9 slams, had a superior head to head record on nadal, won the career GS, olympic gold and more masters, to nadal, would you see him as better?

Yes probably. But defends on the competition he faces.
If Fed and Nadal both retire in 2013, Murray breaks his hands and switches to ping pong, and no up and coming star emerges; so his competition consists of Tsonga, Berdych, Ferrer, or unseeded players who make Grand Slam finals: then no.

So in your opinion BB all eras are equal because there are always 4 slams? That doesn't make any sense to me. Is every period have the same quality of talent at the top of the game or the differences are completely unknowable according to your theory. Now I agree this argument has a subjective quality but it doesn't mean that there is no way to look at objective facts and analyze the differences. People will have a range of opinions but I find it illogical to assume that each period is as strong as every other period because there are 4 slams in every year? That doesn't sound like this kind of analysis is very relevant.

socal1976 wrote:So in your opinion BB all eras are equal because there are always 4 slams? That doesn't make any sense to me. Is every period have the same quality of talent at the top of the game or the differences are completely unknowable according to your theory. Now I agree this argument has a subjective quality but it doesn't mean that there is no way to look at objective facts and analyze the differences. People will have a range of opinions but I find it illogical to assume that each period is as strong as every other period because there are 4 slams in every year? That doesn't sound like this kind of analysis is very relevant.

No, what I keep saying is that differences between eras cannot be demonstrated by the distribution of Slams, which is pretty much the core of most 'proofs'.

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Of course winning some slams are more impressive than other slams.
If Murry wins Wimby by beating Nadal, Federer and Djokovic in the latter stages; and then wins USO by beating Almagro, Ferrer and Monaco in the latter stages: his Wimbledon win would be more impressive.
People who would deny that saying 'oh but he had to still win 7 matches both times' are simply in denial.

The record books don't deal with impressive though. Can anyone tell me in which 3 of Sampras' Wimby triumphs he didn't have to face a top 15 player? Does anyone care that Borg won 3 FOs in the absence of the World No 1 (Connors) who also beat him in the 76 USO - on clay?
In 40 years' time no-one will remember Fed's, or Rafa's or Djoko's semi-final opponent in their 2nd slam victory.

Of course the record books aren't going to deal with it, but should we blindly follow that?
People may/may not remember, but frankly that's irrelevant.
In the example I gave Murrays Wimby slam win would be more impressive than his USO slam win. It's clear cut, its blindingly obvious.

In 50 years time most people will be blindly following the record books for 2000-2010, noticing the winners, maybe the runners-up, but not caring one-jot about cupcake draws or eras.

As I say how many people even know Sampras won 3 Wimbys without facing a top 15 players, and which years it was? How many people care? What's impressive - the really most impressive thing - is that he won 7 of them. 2 more than Borg. That's the thing people remember.

How about Borg's FOs - easy draw, hard draw? Can you name the 6 runners-up? I can't.

What about Mac's 1983 Wimby win vs Chris Lewis? Nowhere near as good as his 84 win against Connors, right?
Except Mac says he thought Connors was flat and played poorly and he didn't have to play that well to win. So who's to say which is more impressive? The impressive thing is back-to-back Wimby titles - that's what counts.

What a load of nonsense Julius.

So you're saying unless you remember it it's irrelevant?

You're saying if no-one remembers it's relevant?

JuliusHMarx wrote:You're saying if no-one remembers it's relevant?

Since when did you represent everyone?

My point was this:

Of course winning some slams are more impressive than other slams.
If Murry wins Wimby by beating Nadal, Federer and Djokovic in the latter stages; and then wins USO by beating Almagro, Ferrer and Monaco in the latter stages: his Wimbledon win would be more impressive.
People who would deny that saying 'oh but he had to still win 7 matches both times' are simply in denial.

If you had amnesia and forgot by the end of the year, it doesn't make the two wins equal impressive.

Amnesia? Seriously? Because that's the same as what history remembers as important and forgets as less important?

Are you prepared to go back and put 'impressiveness' ratings on the 25 slams Borg and Sampras won between them? Or how about including Rafa's 11 as well - that's 36 to objectively quantify before working out who's the best .
Don't forget to examine each opponent, their ranking, their current form in previous tournaments, the H2H and the surface.
I look forward to your analysis. Or you can just say Rafa=GOAT. It's easier I suppose.

FYI, since it seems to have escaped you, my point is not that one slam win can 't be more impressive that another, it's that that is a very minor part of it, and it becomes even less important over time. Winning it is by far the most important thing; the thing that people judge you by and remember is simply if you won it or not.
That's why no-one ever says - Well, Borg's 76 win was good, but his 78 win was great. They say, wow 5 Wimbledons - that's impressive. Which one would you say was more impressive?

No, you're missing my point here.
If a slam win is more impressive than another slam win, this stays the case.

You're basically saying just because people forget about that aspect, it somehow decreases in importance or becomes invalid?

I'm not missing your point. I understand your point. Your point is about a side-issue, a minor factor that most people attach relatively little importance to.
It's not that it decreases in importance because people forget it - it's that people forget it because it was never that important in the first place. It's not invalid, it's simply of relatively little value to most people. If it was in any way really important people would remember it - but the vast majority don't.

I think its less important to feds fans and casual fans of the sport, more important to nadal fans, djoko fans and murray fans

It Must Be Love wrote:Socal, Im telling you this guys career has been ripped apart by injury.

So what? Perhaps the reasons for his injury are not relevant. Does anyone remember Soderling's coach, Magnus Norman and his fearsome forehand? Managing one's physical well being is part of greatness as well. Federer has managed his 'back' issues and has two W/O in his career so far. Why are other players unable to manage a very important asset of their playing arsenal, their own body? Please do not repeat the congenital foot stuff, we all know that.

Jack Crawford had asthma and could not complete a grandslam. Laver kept himself in good health, managed and won a slam (or two).

It Must Be Love wrote:He's a superior tennis player to Fed, of course due to injury he's not going to accumulate massive stats, he can't however good he is.

How many topics on v2 need a GOAT debate? There are hundreds of other tennis players.

bogbrush wrote:I like the conflation of personal Slam count and era Slam count.

Personal Slams improve the rating of a player, but distribution of Slams between players (whether all to one, or one each to many) don't tell us which period was stronger.

It's this that escapes some posters, who seem to think a period is measured by how concentrated the Slam distribution. If we had one with Federer, Nadal, Sampras, McEnroe, Aassi, Connors, Lendl & Borg in, and they shared the Slams each only getting 5/6 at most is that a weak era? If not how can we tell?

Distribution of slams tell us how strong players are. The very best players will, no matter the conditions and circumstances will find a way to dominate and mop up the slams as has happened in the recent era (now passed) with Federer and Nadal and before that with Sampras and Agassi etc etc.

Your point about 'what if all those players were lumped together' is irrelevant really as it is merely fanciful thinking. Players are dealt the hand with the players they are pitted against and the amount of slams they win (in my opinion) is determined by a combination of undoubted talent, mental strength, confidence, fitness and having the beating of his nearest competitors. For Federer he tuned up in the late 90's and very early 2000's learning the trade and then the window of opportunity opened up he bolted in winning his first slam which pros will say is the hardest to win. By the time Nadal, Djokovic and Murray came on the scene he was a hardened multiple slam winner and he continued in this vein until the slam wins dried up in the late 2000's. He filled his boots when the opportunities availed themselves and that must now be the goal of the likes of Djokovic and see how far he can get.

It Must Be Love wrote:Of course winning some slams are more impressive than other slams.
If Murry wins Wimby by beating Nadal, Federer and Djokovic in the latter stages; and then wins USO by beating Almagro, Ferrer and Monaco in the latter stages: his Wimbledon win would be more impressive.
People who would deny that saying 'oh but he had to still win 7 matches both times' are simply in denial.

I can't help but agree with this particular example in part, but would just add a caveat for you to think about. Your very factual statistical way of looking at everything doesn't allow for that beautiful thing in sport - the unexpected, which is why we all watch it after all.

It could be in your scenario above, that Almagro, Ferrer and Monaco played very well and that Murray had to come through against them while nursing blisters. Or in your first scenario that Nadal's knees were agony, Federer had back problems and Djokovic a touch of asthma as the pollen count was exceptionally high that year. Which then is the greater triumph out of these two hypothetical cases

I am being a bit facetious, but I do think that some of this 'statistical analysis' and 'in depth research' and the other pompous nonsense, strips the joy out watching the individual contest - it is okay for bookmakers I guess, or if you are risking your money by betting, but to reduce dissecting each slam final to this kind of scrutiny is an unimaginative, sterile and souless way to watch sport - or probably more pertinently not watch a lot of the historic finals but still have an opinion on what tennis was likely to have been played.

I really have never understood why people on this Tennis debating forum, have such an issue with easily the No.1 debate - trying to deduce the best and 'weaker' era's

My cynical mind suspects, that as this board is predominantly Federer fans (or at least he's the one most admired) they fear that his feats are going to be undermined, if we logically agree that the 2007 to now era had more quality than the previous 5 years

I've got news, they're not. For me, the Fed of 2005 would have beaten anyone in any era and if he'd played the US Open winning Murray would have won every time

Back to the debate and you only need to look at the ranking of Roddick, who had (in terms of how effective he looked) a fairly 'straight line' level of performance from 2002 to 2010 (power and a one-dimensional game, substituted for less power and a more solid all round game) to come to just one conclusion

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I like this julius, the more you agree with the smarter you seem to get.

It's the way I've always felt about it - I've always been smart

socal1976 wrote:Exactly, I mean for example I give Lendl a lot of extra credit for being the top dog of a very strong time in tennis and for all the tournaments and finals he appeared in and his ability on multiple surfaces and winning the year end championship I think 5 times.

Didn't Lendl recently say he only had to deal with Mecir in some GS final? Must have been during a 'weak fortnight'

Actually Mecir was good (one of my fab 5 of all time) as he gave players like Lendl a totally different game to deal with, which would cause anyone problems. Not saying that it was like facing Rafa!! But it was far more taxing (IMHO) than facing Fed's first victim or an ageing Agassi

banbrotram, that would assume that Mecir, on the day he played Lendl, was playing at a higher level than Philipoussis on the day he played Federer.
Given that both were playing well enough to get to a GS final, that might not be the case.
You're basing your conclusion on what you believe the 'average' level of each player was, and extrapolating from there, which might not be accurate.

I don't think Banbrotam you are allowing for sense of humour, ie bogbrush loving to tease socal and craig on this issue, and for other fed fans, such as myself, doing like wise. I don't think many think they need to be defensive because he is a player who has transcended his sport and is lodged in the wider public consciousness in a way that not many of his peers are or his predecessors have been.

the era baiting began after some strong and emotional statements about Hewitt and ridiculing his abilities. What particularly incited hysteria and ire was the suggestion that Hewitt played in a similar way to Djokovic - quelle hourerre (or however you spell it!)

Such was the vehemence that was argued for this era, and the insistence that Hewitt and co were rubbish, weak era muppets and Fed's bunnies that it became very hard to resist teasing about weak era muppets such as Ferrer reaching his highest ever ranking in the strongest era of them all.

Speaking for myself, I am well aware that you can't change people's opinions and that holding that this era is a stronger one than the last is a perfectly valid opinion. You will find, however, if you hang around here longer that you better understand that 2007 = end of weak era (there was a glorious ray of hope in a young Novak contesting his first major final), and 2008 = beginning of strong and that you must only judge an era on its top four players and not question whether the fact that there is now no teenager in the top 250 might mean they are not facing the challenge from here on in that those weak era muppets did - that way heresy lies

oh and btw, just seen yours JHM and that is my take on these issues exactly - why watch the sport if it is that simple. Philippoussis was unstoppable at that Wimbledon, but the way Fed played throughout the tournament was a revelation and that is what sane people remember that it was a wonderful final to watch in terms of tennis played.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I like the conflation of personal Slam count and era Slam count.

Personal Slams improve the rating of a player, but distribution of Slams between players (whether all to one, or one each to many) don't tell us which period was stronger.

It's this that escapes some posters, who seem to think a period is measured by how concentrated the Slam distribution. If we had one with Federer, Nadal, Sampras, McEnroe, Aassi, Connors, Lendl & Borg in, and they shared the Slams each only getting 5/6 at most is that a weak era? If not how can we tell?

Distribution of slams tell us how strong players are. The very best players will, no matter the conditions and circumstances will find a way to dominate and mop up the slams as has happened in the recent era (now passed) with Federer and Nadal and before that with Sampras and Agassi etc etc.

Your point about 'what if all those players were lumped together' is irrelevant really as it is merely fanciful thinking. Players are dealt the hand with the players they are pitted against and the amount of slams they win (in my opinion) is determined by a combination of undoubted talent, mental strength, confidence, fitness and having the beating of his nearest competitors. For Federer he tuned up in the late 90's and very early 2000's learning the trade and then the window of opportunity opened up he bolted in winning his first slam which pros will say is the hardest to win. By the time Nadal, Djokovic and Murray came on the scene he was a hardened multiple slam winner and he continued in this vein until the slam wins dried up in the late 2000's. He filled his boots when the opportunities availed themselves and that must now be the goal of the likes of Djokovic and see how far he can get.

Quite why you can't separate the achievements of one player from the aggregate strength of an era baffles me. I'm not arguing Slam counts affect the rating of a player, but not the era.

Criticising my scenario as fanciful on this thread is ironic beyond words.

time please wrote:I don't think Banbrotam you are allowing for sense of humour, ie bogbrush loving to tease socal and craig on this issue, and for other fed fans, such as myself, doing like wise. I don't think many think they need to be defensive because he is a player who has transcended his sport and is lodged in the wider public consciousness in a way that not many of his peers are or his predecessors have been.

the era baiting began after some strong and emotional statements about Hewitt and ridiculing his abilities. What particularly incited hysteria and ire was the suggestion that Hewitt played in a similar way to Djokovic - quelle hourerre (or however you spell it!)

Such was the vehemence that was argued for this era, and the insistence that Hewitt and co were rubbish, weak era muppets and Fed's bunnies that it became very hard to resist teasing about weak era muppets such as Ferrer reaching his highest ever ranking in the strongest era of them all.

Speaking for myself, I am well aware that you can't change people's opinions and that holding that this era is a stronger one than the last is a perfectly valid opinion. You will find, however, if you hang around here longer that you better understand that 2007 = end of weak era (there was a glorious ray of hope in a young Novak contesting his first major final), and 2008 = beginning of strong and that you must only judge an era on its top four players and not question whether the fact that there is now no teenager in the top 250 might mean they are not facing the challenge from here on in that those weak era muppets did - that way heresy lies

oh and btw, just seen yours JHM and that is my take on these issues exactly - why watch the sport if it is that simple. Philippoussis was unstoppable at that Wimbledon, but the way Fed played throughout the tournament was a revelation and that is what sane people remember that it was a wonderful final to watch in terms of tennis played.

Well remembered; my innocent compliment to Djokovic that he was the Hewitt of today provoked much inexplicable ire.

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I like the conflation of personal Slam count and era Slam count.

Personal Slams improve the rating of a player, but distribution of Slams between players (whether all to one, or one each to many) don't tell us which period was stronger.

It's this that escapes some posters, who seem to think a period is measured by how concentrated the Slam distribution. If we had one with Federer, Nadal, Sampras, McEnroe, Aassi, Connors, Lendl & Borg in, and they shared the Slams each only getting 5/6 at most is that a weak era? If not how can we tell?

Distribution of slams tell us how strong players are. The very best players will, no matter the conditions and circumstances will find a way to dominate and mop up the slams as has happened in the recent era (now passed) with Federer and Nadal and before that with Sampras and Agassi etc etc.

Your point about 'what if all those players were lumped together' is irrelevant really as it is merely fanciful thinking. Players are dealt the hand with the players they are pitted against and the amount of slams they win (in my opinion) is determined by a combination of undoubted talent, mental strength, confidence, fitness and having the beating of his nearest competitors. For Federer he tuned up in the late 90's and very early 2000's learning the trade and then the window of opportunity opened up he bolted in winning his first slam which pros will say is the hardest to win. By the time Nadal, Djokovic and Murray came on the scene he was a hardened multiple slam winner and he continued in this vein until the slam wins dried up in the late 2000's. He filled his boots when the opportunities availed themselves and that must now be the goal of the likes of Djokovic and see how far he can get.

Quite why you can't separate the achievements of one player from the aggregate strength of an era baffles me. I'm not arguing Slam counts affect the rating of a player, but not the era.

Criticising my scenario as fanciful on this thread is ironic beyond words.

BB - a simple question? Do you honestly believe various spells/eras in tennis are all of the exact strength? I am gobsmacked if people believe that as each era has players of differing strengths and abilities unless each player since the dawn of time has been cloned.

For the third time here's the simple answer. I've said it is eminently possible to say one era is different but completely impossible to base that opinion on Slam distribution.

It's almost entirely subjective. I have no problem with that, my issue is when folk try to dress their subjective opinions across time periods with so-called objective evidence, including Slam count distribution.

Don't know where CC got the notion that I''m some sort of Federer fanatic. Never mind I'll try and explain where i stand on this idea about weak eras, potential slam champions and no.1 players.

The only slam winner in recent memory who was a real shock was Thomas Johannson beating Safin some 11 years ago. Regardless of era strength very few slam winners come out of the blue and now it would be even more astonishing for anyone outside of the top 6 or so players to win their first slam given the strength in depth of the game.

Del Potro is an interesting one because from memory he was outside that group when he won the US Open but I can't believe he'll be a one slam wonder even given the strength of the current era if he plays at his best again. I'll obviously put Andy in a higher category than Del Potro given the number of finals he's already made but he's clearly second best to Djokovic at the moment.

If Djokovic remains no 1 for a continued length of time then Federer may well have won his last slam (although that's been said before), Nadal would probably get a few more (reliant probably on getting some French Open wins if he gets back to winning ways on clay), Andy's best chances will obviously still be on the hard courts and at Wimbledon whilst Del Potro and anyone else who comes through over the next few years have a chance of picking up the occasional one.

Now here's the important point. I don't think tennis has had a weak era for a long time. Some question Hewitt when he replaced the Sampras era at no. 1 but I would suggest he would have there quite a lot longer if it hadn't have been for Federer. Both Nadal and Djokovic were able to raise their games (Rafa away from clay and Djokovic basically on all surfaces) so they could more often than not beat him in slams. That's what it took to display him as no. 1 and Djokovic certainly doesn't look like giving up that mantle after all his hard work anytime soon.

Multiple slam winners (I'm talking here say three or more) are inevitably no. 1 in the world sometime in their career regardless of era strength. For Andy to join that group that's what he's going to have to become. Questioning whether Federer had an easy time of it or not when he became no. 1 is frankly a non-starter. What is obvious though is that Federer upped the bar for no.1 status and i would suggest that Djokovic now has even raised that bar again.

CC, I'd need the dates of the eras to decide.

Hewitts main enemy was injury. He was immense before his body started giving out on him. Someone mentioned the other day how he was tipped to wins shedloads of Slams.

I think I might pull up a seat and join you too legend, shove over a bit

bb - I just don't understand how humour does not seem to translate well to many on here - I've thoroughly enjoyed your quick wit and teasing.

I guess you may have to have a sense of to get one?

bogbrush wrote:Hewitts main enemy was injury. He was immense before his body started giving out on him. Someone mentioned the other day how he was tipped to wins shedloads of Slams.

I had the privilege of watching Hewitt at Queens and Wimbledon 2002 and he was awesome. His mind and spirit are still the same despite a wrecked body.

2002 Hewitt would have broken the heart and spirit of Murray and the heart and spirit of 2008-2010 Djokovic in my very unhumble opinion. It is completely irrelevant to his achievements in 2002 which were fantastic and emphatic and exciting to watch, whatever came later. He burned fiercely and brightly albeit for a short time.

I think I'll have another

Oh! Have just seen this interesting conversation but have to go out. Sigh...