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?

lags72 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

...............................................................................................................................

.....................................................................................................................

As for who is better on grass, that is a tough one.
I suspect it depends on the pace and bounce of the court, on a slow/medium grass court with high bounce you'd give Nadal the edge, but on a fast/ low bounce grass you'd say Federer is better.
Statistically on grass Federer has accumulated more though.

Thought I was having hallucinations on reading this one.

IMBL : I try my best to stick to the tennis rather than personalising things (as I hope you would acknowledge) but seriously now ........

They do say love is blind. Your devotion to the Heroically Charitable one seemingly knows no bounds.

There's a strong possibility that you might be the only observer of tennis on planet earth who is struggling with the question as to whether Federer is a better grass player than Nadal (or indeed than pretty much anyone who has played the game)

Must say I was very much amused by the way your reluctantly-made comment "statistically on grass Federer has accumulated more though" was casually tagged on to the very end, almost as an after-thought - as though his actual performances and records are secondary to your own opinion and assessment. I'm sure that poor Fed, when faced with your less-than-conclusive assessment, will be mightily relieved that he has a few stats to back things up.

I rarely play tennis these days but when I did, I had some pretty good matches on clay ......statistically Nadal has achieved more though..............

Hi Lags.
Not really sure what you're point here is.
Are you saying that you're as good on clay as Nadal is on grass?

Do you disagree with my judgement that on a slower grass court with high bounce Nadal would hold the edge over Roger, but on a faster grass court with low bounce Federer holds the edge?
Do you recognise as I do that stats wise Federer has won more Wimbledon titles?

Sorry, I'm not really sure where you disagree with me on this one.

Lags, nearly everyone has managed to avoid this question, perhaps you can have a go at answering.
I found out a stat which was somehow avoided by you guys, I found out in Federer's 4 successful years he won 88% of Grand Slams on Hard Court, and 0% on clay.
Do you think this massive difference is due to:
a) The reason for this was that Federer's competition on hard-courts during these four years were not as difficult as it was on clay due to Rafa.
b) Federer is just simply a much better player on hard courts than on clay, hence the 88%-0% stat reflects how good Federer was on these surfaces.
c) A bit of both- Federer may have been slightly better on HC than on clay, but it was mainly due to the fact that on clay he had an incredibly tough challenge of having to beat Nadal every time, while on HC Slams between these years Federer did not really face anyone at the time who could even be considered in the top 25 greatest of all time (apart from Agassi who was 35, and Djokovic when he was a teenager.)
d) None of the above.

It Must Be Love wrote:
Yes, thanks for this Laverfan, but I knew that. I can even give some fantastic examples of this happening... but once again you're avoiding my question as you have throughout.
This is the real comedy, people are ignoring everything I'm saying, trying to twist my words, some people are just making up false position, others are resorting to personal sarcastic insults because they can't deal the debate, and with all of this no one has answered the actual question I've raised.

Do you comprehend why people are ignoring what you are writing?

Your 88-0% statistics is flawed, based on selective data, and has no bearing on this debate. Your opinion of c, is yours, others may not have an opinion and may not want to have one that aligns with your world-view, like your Tobacco example or Gun example.

If you want to continue repeating this ad infinitum, ad nauseam, please do.

PS: d).

laverfan wrote:

Your 88-0% statistics is flawed,

No it's not. No it's not.
I've checked it on the ATP website. Unless you are saying I am not precise enough. To 1 decimal point it's 87.5%, happy now?

based on selective data,

Of course my data is selected, did you imagine I just tripped over a banana skin with the stats written on it?
Not just selected, double-checked from the ATP website.

and has no bearing on this debate.

What debate?
I'm asking a question, and I think it fit's with Craig's theme in the article. btw don't use this to suddenly go onto an irrelevant point.

Your opinion of c, is yours, others may not have an opinion and may not want to have one that aligns with your world-view, like your Tobacco example or Gun example.

OK, I totally recognise that. The NRA people didn't agree with me either, I recognise that not everyone will agree with me.
What is your view then?

Did you edit the 'PS d)' thing, that wasn't there when I first saw your comment.

OK, if it's not any of the three, which do you think it is?
Goof you've at-least finally answering my question

Well, I'm sure you know more about American gun laws and their cultural history of firearms than they do, so I don't know why they didn't listen to you.

To answer your question I think Fed was a much better player on HC and grass than on clay in those years. He managed to get to the final 2 times in 2006 -2007 because he didn't have to face any great clay court specialists playing near the top of their game. Neither did Rafa for that matter. It was a 2 man race between one guy who was merely very good on clay and one guy who was great on clay.
The reason Fed got to the final was that he "did not really face anyone at the time who could even be considered in the top 25 greatest of all time on clay" and neither did Rafa til he reached the final. Then he played someone who probably wasn't even in the top 10 greatest clay players.

Now go on, tell me how interested you are in my answer.

Federer had to contend with clay court kings guillermo coria and the super talented one David Nalbandian, who is more super talented than everyone but federer.

It Must Be Love wrote:

lags72 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

...............................................................................................................................

.....................................................................................................................

As for who is better on grass, that is a tough one.
I suspect it depends on the pace and bounce of the court, on a slow/medium grass court with high bounce you'd give Nadal the edge, but on a fast/ low bounce grass you'd say Federer is better.
Statistically on grass Federer has accumulated more though.

Thought I was having hallucinations on reading this one.

IMBL : I try my best to stick to the tennis rather than personalising things (as I hope you would acknowledge) but seriously now ........

They do say love is blind. Your devotion to the Heroically Charitable one seemingly knows no bounds.

There's a strong possibility that you might be the only observer of tennis on planet earth who is struggling with the question as to whether Federer is a better grass player than Nadal (or indeed than pretty much anyone who has played the game)

Must say I was very much amused by the way your reluctantly-made comment "statistically on grass Federer has accumulated more though" was casually tagged on to the very end, almost as an after-thought - as though his actual performances and records are secondary to your own opinion and assessment. I'm sure that poor Fed, when faced with your less-than-conclusive assessment, will be mightily relieved that he has a few stats to back things up.

I rarely play tennis these days but when I did, I had some pretty good matches on clay ......statistically Nadal has achieved more though..............

Hi Lags.
Not really sure what you're point here is.
Are you saying that you're as good on clay as Nadal is on grass?

Do you disagree with my judgement that on a slower grass court with high bounce Nadal would hold the edge over Roger, but on a faster grass court with low bounce Federer holds the edge?
Do you recognise as I do that stats wise Federer has won more Wimbledon titles?

Sorry, I'm not really sure where you disagree with me on this one.

Lags doesn't love Rafa - that's one difference.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Well, I'm sure you know more about American gun laws and their cultural history of firearms than they do, so I don't know why they didn't listen to you.

Yes, but the whole point is that their cultural history is irrelevant in this day and age, where guns are more lethal than ever.

To answer your question I think Fed was a much better player on HC and grass than on clay in those years. He managed to get to the final 2 times in 2006 -2007 because he didn't have to face any great clay court specialists playing near the top of their game. Neither did Rafa for that matter. It was a 2 man race between one guy who was merely very good on clay and one guy who was great on clay.
The reason Fed got to the final was that he "did not really face anyone at the time who could even be considered in the top 25 greatest of all time on clay" and neither did Rafa til he reached the final. Then he played someone who probably wasn't even in the top 10 greatest clay players.

OK, fair enough
So you think it's more to do with Federer not being good on clay, rather than the fact he had to face Rafa on clay which was harder competition than anyone on hard-courts.

IMBL : I'm quite satisfied you know very well what my point is on this.

But just in case of lingering doubt ......

We can either measure a player's capability on a particular surface by what that player actually achieves on the surface ; or we can go with the highly subjective unsubstantiated opinion of an amateur armchair fan (with no track record in the sport).

Your reluctance to give a straightforward yes or no to Julius' simple question is tantamount to me being asked whether Rafa is the best player on clay and then answering along the lines of ..... "Hmm. that's tough.... now let me think about that one ...."

lags72 wrote:IMBL : I'm quite satisfied you know very well what my point is on this.

But just in case of lingering doubt ......

We can either measure a player's capability on a particular surface by what that player actually achieves on the surface ; or we can go with the highly subjective unsubstantiated opinion of an amateur armchair fan (with no track record in the sport).

Your reluctance to give a straightforward yes or no to Julius' simple question is tantamount to me being asked whether Rafa is the best player on clay and then answering along the lines of ..... "Hmm. that's tough.... now let me think about one ...."

I was very direct in my answer.
Julius asked me who is better on grass.
He didn't specify the pace or bounce of the grass, which as you know is crucial if I am to answer.
And I answered, saying Nadal on slow grass with higher bounce, and Federer on fast grass with lower bounce.
As for who has won more Wimbledons, Federer has.

Still any queries?

JuliusHMarx wrote:Well, I'm sure you know more about American gun laws and their cultural history of firearms than they do, so I don't know why they didn't listen to you.

To answer your question I think Fed was a much better player on HC and grass than on clay in those years. He managed to get to the final 2 times in 2006 -2007 because he didn't have to face any great clay court specialists playing near the top of their game. Neither did Rafa for that matter. It was a 2 man race between one guy who was merely very good on clay and one guy who was great on clay.
The reason Fed got to the final was that he "did not really face anyone at the time who could even be considered in the top 25 greatest of all time on clay" and neither did Rafa til he reached the final. Then he played someone who probably wasn't even in the top 10 greatest clay players.

Now go on, tell me how interested you are in my answer.

If southern and rural republicans listened to economists, historians, climate change experts, evolutionary biologists, or modern physicists alot of America's problems and the world's by extension would be solved. If they think science is a liberal conspiracy I doubt amritia's kindly interest isn't going to make much of a dent. In the words of Paul broun, the head of the house committee on science and technology, "evolution is a damned lie".

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Well, I'm sure you know more about American gun laws and their cultural history of firearms than they do, so I don't know why they didn't listen to you.

Yes, but the whole point is that their cultural history is irrelevant in this day and age, where guns are more lethal than ever.

To answer your question I think Fed was a much better player on HC and grass than on clay in those years. He managed to get to the final 2 times in 2006 -2007 because he didn't have to face any great clay court specialists playing near the top of their game. Neither did Rafa for that matter. It was a 2 man race between one guy who was merely very good on clay and one guy who was great on clay.
The reason Fed got to the final was that he "did not really face anyone at the time who could even be considered in the top 25 greatest of all time on clay" and neither did Rafa til he reached the final. Then he played someone who probably wasn't even in the top 10 greatest clay players.

OK, fair enough
So you think it's more to do with Federer not being good on clay, rather than the fact he had to face Rafa on clay which was harder competition than anyone on hard-courts.

Oh, now I think I'll fly off the handle and add three question marks to my question "Where did I ever say Fed was not good on clay???". Please be polite enough etc etc.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Well, I'm sure you know more about American gun laws and their cultural history of firearms than they do, so I don't know why they didn't listen to you.

Yes, but the whole point is that their cultural history is irrelevant in this day and age, where guns are more lethal than ever.

To answer your question I think Fed was a much better player on HC and grass than on clay in those years. He managed to get to the final 2 times in 2006 -2007 because he didn't have to face any great clay court specialists playing near the top of their game. Neither did Rafa for that matter. It was a 2 man race between one guy who was merely very good on clay and one guy who was great on clay.
The reason Fed got to the final was that he "did not really face anyone at the time who could even be considered in the top 25 greatest of all time on clay" and neither did Rafa til he reached the final. Then he played someone who probably wasn't even in the top 10 greatest clay players.

OK, fair enough
So you think it's more to do with Federer not being good on clay, rather than the fact he had to face Rafa on clay which was harder competition than anyone on hard-courts.

Oh, now I think I'll fly off the handle and add three question marks to my question "Where did I ever say Fed was not good on clay???". Please be polite enough etc etc.

Well it depends on the context how 'good' is used. I would say I am good on clay.
But if you told Federer that he wasn't in the top 10 greatest players of all time on clay, he would consider that you're saying he's 'not good' on clay, although he knows he's much better than most people.

Why not look at the titles Federer won on Clay during his pomp years and use that as more of on objective view.

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Well, I'm sure you know more about American gun laws and their cultural history of firearms than they do, so I don't know why they didn't listen to you.

To answer your question I think Fed was a much better player on HC and grass than on clay in those years. He managed to get to the final 2 times in 2006 -2007 because he didn't have to face any great clay court specialists playing near the top of their game. Neither did Rafa for that matter. It was a 2 man race between one guy who was merely very good on clay and one guy who was great on clay.
The reason Fed got to the final was that he "did not really face anyone at the time who could even be considered in the top 25 greatest of all time on clay" and neither did Rafa til he reached the final. Then he played someone who probably wasn't even in the top 10 greatest clay players.

Now go on, tell me how interested you are in my answer.

If southern and rural republicans listened to economists, historians, climate change experts, evolutionary biologists, or modern physicists alot of America's problems and the world's by extension would be solved. If they think science is a liberal conspiracy I doubt amritia's kindly interest isn't going to make much of a dent. In the words of Paul broun, the head of the house committee on science and technology, "evolution is a damned lie".

We could all just hug each other. I'm game if you are

Thanks for the response but think I'll just have to leave you to it if I may IMBL.

I've been much more an observer than contributor on this thread, and have to say that from all I've read you're coming across as somewhat evasive, disingenuous, and almost in denial at times. But hey that's just me thinking aloud FWIW.

Rafa is already one of the game's true legends, of that there can be no question whatever. But the level of obsession and reluctance to see the bigger picture that some devotees bring to the table will not elevate him any further.

Bye for now

lags72 wrote:Thanks for the response but think I'll just have to leave you to it if I may IMBL.

I've been much more an observer than contributor on this thread, and have to say that from all I've read you're coming across as somewhat evasive, disingenuous, and almost in denial at times. But hey that's just me thinking aloud FWIW.

Rafa is already one of the game's true legends, of that there can be no question whatever. But the level of obsession and reluctance to see the bigger picture that some devotees bring to the table will not elevate him any further.

Bye for now

OK rather than having a go at me, perhaps you can find just one thing in my response to you that you disagree with?
Anything?

Lags to clear up this was my response:

Julius asked me who is better on grass.
He didn't specify the pace or bounce of the grass, which as you know is crucial if I am to answer.
And I answered, saying Nadal on slow grass with higher bounce, and Federer on fast grass with lower bounce.
As for who has won more Wimbledons, Federer has.

Any aspect of that you disagree with?

It Must Be Love wrote:Lags, nearly everyone has managed to avoid this question, perhaps you can have a go at answering.
I found out a stat which was somehow avoided by you guys, I found out in Federer's 4 successful years he won 88% of Grand Slams on Hard Court, and 0% on clay.
Do you think this massive difference is due to:
a) The reason for this was that Federer's competition on hard-courts during these four years were not as difficult as it was on clay due to Rafa.
b) Federer is just simply a much better player on hard courts than on clay, hence the 88%-0% stat reflects how good Federer was on these surfaces.
c) A bit of both- Federer may have been slightly better on HC than on clay, but it was mainly due to the fact that on clay he had an incredibly tough challenge of having to beat Nadal every time, while on HC Slams between these years Federer did not really face anyone at the time who could even be considered in the top 25 greatest of all time (apart from Agassi who was 35, and Djokovic when he was a teenager.)
d) None of the above.

Oh my God, you're trying to start every page with the same post.

Surreal

IMBL I also asked -
Who is the greater Wimbledon champion - Fed or Rafa?

Just to remind you amrit;


Your big idea is that Federer on less on clay because he was around at the same time as a clay GOAT than he did on grass because he is one of two grass GOATs and on hard because he's probably the hard court GOAT.

I mean, what on Earth do you expect anyone to do with that piece of insight?

socal1976 wrote:In the words of Paul broun, the head of the house committee on science and technology, "evolution is a damned lie".

... and the State of Kansas agrees with that assessment.

bogbrush wrote:I mean, what on Earth do you expect anyone to do with that piece of insight?

Of course, you must agree with it.

It Must Be Love wrote:Did you edit the 'PS d)' thing, that wasn't there when I first saw your comment.

OK, if it's not any of the three, which do you think it is?
Goof you've at-least finally answering my question

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliability-Zone/Reliability-Clay-Career-List.aspx

Be careful with banana skins, a slip can break your hip bones.

Julius- Federer has won more Wimbledon titles as I confirmed earlier.

Bogbrush- Not really addressing what I was saying...
You've covered one aspect of what I'm saying, which is that he struggled on clay because he came across Rafa.
My second point was that conversely on hard courts, in these four years he had easier competition at the top, not facing anyone in the HC Slams who is even in the top 25 greatest of all time apart from a teen Djoko and 35 year old Agassi.

Laverfan- You said none of the above. What is your explanation then? (or it is a secret).

It Must Be Love wrote:Laverfan- You said none of the above. What is your explanation then? (or it is a secret).

Look at the index that I linked to, which is where the answer is.

It Must Be Love wrote:Julius- Federer has won more Wimbledon titles as I confirmed earlier.

D'oh! And to think when lags said you were being evasive, I believed him.
What was my question again? You'll have to remind me, 'cos your answer bears no relation to it. Tobacco anyone?

laverfan wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Laverfan- You said none of the above. What is your explanation then? (or it is a secret).

Look at the index that I linked to, which is where the answer is.

Sorry, I clicked your link and couldn't understand your answer.
Can't you just be clear and say it? (rather than keeping it a riddle).

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Julius- Federer has won more Wimbledon titles as I confirmed earlier.

D'oh! And to think when lags said you were being evasive, I believed him.
What was my question again? You'll have to remind me, 'cos your answer bears no relation to it. Tobacco anyone?

Federer.

Smoking tobacco is bad for health.

It took a while but when I asked "Who is the greater Wimbledon champion - Fed or Rafa?" IMBL answered "Federer".
We got there in the end.

I answered it a while ago- when I said Federer had more Wimbledon titles, I thought that meant he must be a 'greater Wimbledon champion.'
Or did you not understand that?

It Must Be Love wrote:I answered it a while ago- when I said Federer had more Wimbledon titles, I thought that meant he must be a 'greater Wimbledon champion.'
Or did you not understand that?

Fed also has more USO and AOs. By that logic you must think he is also a greater USO and AO champion.

I don't get why it is so hard to have some fun with this debate without people getting bent out of shape? I think it is all pretty interesting, lets calm down and discuss rationally federer's dominance of weak era clowns. (sorry couldn't resist, I am kidding actually with that last line)

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:I answered it a while ago- when I said Federer had more Wimbledon titles, I thought that meant he must be a 'greater Wimbledon champion.'
Or did you not understand that?

Fed also has more USO and AOs. By that logic you must think he is also a greater USO and AO champion.

I would say that any fan could agree that Nadal is not as good as fed on hardcourt, I don't think Amrit questioned that point either. Who disagrees with the idea that federer is better on hardcourts?

Yes Julius, it's just another way of saying he has more USO and AO titles.

I am serious here IMBL what is it about the last few posts you have written that has been so controversial, I still don't understand all this demanding of answers to obvious questions that no one even argues. And then refusing to accept the answer and still argueing that said question has not been answered. I am scratching my head as to the tempest surrounding your posts.

Yes, and Laverfan's answers seem to be more cryptic than ever.
She posted a link, and then later said the answer to my question was 'in the link.' Not sure what what meant exactly.

As I've said before I really like Laverfan as a poster, but right now she's being as clear as Michael Gove.

Another question, Socal what do you think of this:

Do you think there were any players Federer faced between 2004-2007 on hard-courts slams that are even in the top 25 greatest players of all time (with the exception of a 35 year old Agassi and a teenage Djokovic)?

And don't be a politician and answer my question with another question rather than replying, I will simply ignore it if you do so.

Of course why would I do that, it is a simple question. The only other one that has an argument is hewitt, but frankly no none of those players in 2004-07 where particularly dominating unless I very post prime agassi and a very pre-prime Djokovic are taken out of the picture. On a hardcourt I would say none of them are the top 20 of players in the open era. I think hewitt probably gets into the top 20-25 of top hardcourt greats. But that is a marginal call. You are for the most part completely right, although an argument could be made that hewitt sneaks into the end of the list you are talking about namely top 25 hardcourt players of the open era.

It Must Be Love wrote:Yes, and Laverfan's answers seem to be more cryptic than ever.
She posted a link, and then later said the answer to my question was 'in the link.' Not sure what what meant exactly.

The link provides clear data, on Clay, of who the statistically better players are, with an unambiguous relative merit of each player, as derived by titles. Since Titles clearly drive the 'greatness' of a player, as evidenced by this exchange...

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:I answered it a while ago- when I said Federer had more Wimbledon titles, I thought that meant he must be a 'greater Wimbledon champion.'
Or did you not understand that?

Fed also has more USO and AOs. By that logic you must think he is also a greater USO and AO champion.

Let me just add these two as well

Grass... - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliability-Zone/Reliability-Grass-Career-List.aspx
Hard... - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliability-Zone/Reliability-Hard-Career-List.aspx

Since the three indices (Clay, Grass and Hard) are independent of eras and cover all of Open Era (and then some - see Laver or Rosewall, for instance), it does not leave much room for 'eras', does it? (I feel like Spaghetti-Hans and want to say 'we', 'irrefutable', "NID', etc.).

If anyone on this thread wants Carpet statistics (for the sake of completeness) here they are - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliability-Zone/Reliability-Carpet-Career-List.aspx. ( nothing for Wood aficionados).

BTW, these statistics did not come from the back of a banana peel (all conspiracy theories welcome).

It Must Be Love wrote:As I've said before I really like Laverfan as a poster, but right now she's being as clear as Michael Gove.

Should I start following British politics more closely to discuss the state of education?

Is this debate now closed, since we have arrived at a common definition and grounds for 'greatness' being directly proportional to titles.

SoCal and IMBL... please write to Radicchi and get him to run this study again and include 2011-2013.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0017249

socal1976 wrote:Of course why would I do that, it is a simple question. The only other one that has an argument is hewitt, but frankly no none of those players in 2004-07 where particularly dominating unless I very post prime agassi and a very pre-prime Djokovic are taken out of the picture. On a hardcourt I would say none of them are the top 20 of players in the open era. I think hewitt probably gets into the top 20-25 of top hardcourt greats. But that is a marginal call. You are for the most part completely right, although an argument could be made that hewitt sneaks into the end of the list you are talking about namely top 25 hardcourt players of the open era.

Hewitt at #20 - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliability-Zone/Reliability-Hard-Career-List.aspx .

laverfan wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Of course why would I do that, it is a simple question. The only other one that has an argument is hewitt, but frankly no none of those players in 2004-07 where particularly dominating unless I very post prime agassi and a very pre-prime Djokovic are taken out of the picture. On a hardcourt I would say none of them are the top 20 of players in the open era. I think hewitt probably gets into the top 20-25 of top hardcourt greats. But that is a marginal call. You are for the most part completely right, although an argument could be made that hewitt sneaks into the end of the list you are talking about namely top 25 hardcourt players of the open era.

Hewitt at #20 - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliability-Zone/Reliability-Hard-Career-List.aspx .

PS: I am exhausted. Too early for a Macallans chotta.

And what of my discussion yesterday that many guys who had the potential to win HC or grass slams in 2003-7 didn't because their games were killed by slowing conditions. That can explain IMBLs question right there with the proviso that Federer, being trained on fast & slow, could adapt much quicker and romped the slams in that period. The clay slams is an irrelevance. RG didn't change much except that Nadal came along...any guy that could beat the reigning RG champion at same surface Masters at 16 years old was clearly a clay prodigy. No point trying to equate that to HC...Federer wasn't beating Sampras and Agassi at 16 years old on surfaces that hadn't changed. Nadal was.

But for me, the HC situation changed out of all recognition...USO slowed down after 2001 and continued to do so thereafter with more sand and larger balls. The Australian Open on Rebound Ace until 2008 was always slow. Hewitt complained about it being too slow in 2004. Look at Hewitt's results...far better at faster USO than AO even though he had home support too. So AO never suited faster court players with its high bounce and slow index. Therefore you had 1 already slow HC slam joined by another (US Open), and slower and slower grass too. Those fast court trained guys must have been affected by these changes more than those who just happened to be trained on clay also.

For me that's the reason you had Fed doing so so well in those transitional years before the new breed came along. Who else besides Fed was also brought up on fast and clay as a junior? For me the changes led guys like Hewitt, Nalby, Safin to become demotivated after 2003/4 as they saw that their games just weren't suited to the tour as they should have been...they had the talent to win more slams for sure...don't tell me that the Safin that destroyed Sampras at USO (and Hewitt to similar extent) couldn't have sneaked more matches away from Federer if conditions had stayed the same?

Nalbandian was brought up on clay and the european based players as well lydian. I just don't buy that slow conditions killed these guys. Did slow conditions kill hewitt he only won wimbeldon once they slowed it down? Or Safin did he look like he was hurting on the slow conditions of Australia in 2005. I think it is a cop out and not supported by the facts to claim that slow conditions hurt these players for most of their pro careers they played in stable slowed down conditions and had some of their best success on the slowed down hardcourts you describe.

As to Laverfan, now do you see how good an objective analyst I am, my forecast is virtually dead center on hewitt with what the IBM reliability zone on the ATP website says laverfan. I will allow you to to call me the reliability zone from now on laverfan.

lets put it simple

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.

On the other side of the argument Fed was the beneficiary of the weak era and hence Nadal was the beneficiary of the weak era as well and hence his clay GOAT title will not belong to him.

The two of the biggest beneficiaries of the weak era is in the top 4 of the current era and hence the current era the weakest and Nole the biggest beneficiary of the weakest era. All of Socal's argument is thrashed by his own statements.

Yes except one problem where have I stated any of these things about Nadal being the beneficiary or Djokovic being the beneficiary of weak eras, they haven't been to the extent Federer benefitted from the heroically charitable era of the early 2000s.

lydian wrote:.Federer wasn't beating Sampras and Agassi at 16 years old on surfaces that hadn't changed. Nadal was. stayed the same?

I know its difficult for you to take the pill as you are a die hard Pete fan, but lemme put the stats for you, Nadal never beat Sampras at 16 for that sake anytime but Fed beat Pete as a teeneager in Pete's own backyard i.e the Wimbledon, Hewitt beat Sampras so many times as a teen, Roddick beat Sampras so many times as a teen, and all these players belonged to 2000-2010 era.

socal1976 wrote:Yes except one problem where have I stated any of these things about Nadal being the beneficiary or Djokovic being the beneficiary of weak eras, they haven't been to the extent Federer benefitted from the heroically charitable era of the early 2000s.

Thats the strongest era by your arguments

lets compare the champs playing in 2011 to 2001

2011 - 2001

Federer - Sampras
Nadal - Agassi
Djokovic - Hewitt
Murray - Safin
Del Potro - Roddick
0- Guga
0- Federer
0- Ferrero
0 - Gaudio
0 -Johanssen
Tsonga - Coria
Berdych - Nalbandian
Davydenko - Davydenko

0 indicates no player capable of comparison.

So 4 slam champs playing in the current year compared to 2001 where more slam players played, more players who made the finals played.

So Socal's theory are shattered to pieces now as 2000-2004 era are said to be the stronger than the current week era.

Note: Lets safely ignore the age factor as Socal usually do with respect to Fed's age

There have only been 25 No 1's in the Open Era.
8 of them have never won a HC Slam.
4 of them are Hewitt, Safin, Agassi, Roddick.
So I'd put those 4 in the top 17 at least of HC players.

On the other hand, from 2005-2008, no really strong clay court player, apart from Nadal, featured in the top YE 10 (Coria, Gaudio, Robredo, Ferrer) .
On balance, Fed's 2004-2007 HC opponents were at least as difficult as Rafa's 2005-2008 clay opponents.