Era Discussions For All Time Periods

by CaledonianCraig Sun 03 Feb 2013, 11:21 am

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?

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri 08 Feb 2013, 12:04 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:
laverfan wrote:
I will leave it as an exercise for the reader.
Any reason why you can't just say it, rather than posting a link as some sort of clue?

Because she wants to.

by User 774433 Fri 08 Feb 2013, 12:04 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:
laverfan wrote:
I will leave it as an exercise for the reader.
Any reason why you can't just say it, rather than posting a link as some sort of clue?

Because she wants to.

OK.
But I think LF can speak for herself though.

by User 774433 Fri 08 Feb 2013, 12:05 pm

When someone answers a question with a riddle, I think we know they don't want to answer the question... which is fine, it's their right.

by Guest Fri 08 Feb 2013, 12:07 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:I find it slightly amusing when people ellude to Federer's 'peak years' outside those years he still managed 5 of his 17 which is nearly 30% of his Slam haul.

I like to think his best tennis expanded beyond 2007 just a little bit
Yes that's a good point, I acknowldge that Federer has had success throughout his career.
However I'm talking about his 4 most successful years, where he accumulated the majority of his Grand Slams and was number 1 for 208 weeks.

That is of little interest to me because the consistency of his peformances are measured for me not just by the titles he has won, but also the amount of finals he has made 110!! Based on when he turned pro equates to making an average of 7 finals per year!

by User 774433 Fri 08 Feb 2013, 12:09 pm

legendkillarV2 wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:I find it slightly amusing when people ellude to Federer's 'peak years' outside those years he still managed 5 of his 17 which is nearly 30% of his Slam haul.

I like to think his best tennis expanded beyond 2007 just a little bit
Yes that's a good point, I acknowldge that Federer has had success throughout his career.
However I'm talking about his 4 most successful years, where he accumulated the majority of his Grand Slams and was number 1 for 208 weeks.

That is of little interest to me because the consistency of his peformances are measured for me not just by the titles he has won, but also the amount of finals he has made 110!! Based on when he turned pro equates to making an average of 7 finals per year!

Yes, and kudos to him for that clap

I'm not sure what you're point is though.

by **laverfan** Fri 08 Feb 2013, 12:47 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:I find it slightly amusing when people ellude to Federer's 'peak years' outside those years he still managed 5 of his 17 which is nearly 30% of his Slam haul.

I like to think his best tennis expanded beyond 2007 just a little bit
Yes that's a good point, I acknowldge that Federer has had success throughout his career.
However I'm talking about his 4 most successful years, where he accumulated the majority of his Grand Slams and was number 1 for 208 weeks.

That is of little interest to me because the consistency of his peformances are measured for me not just by the titles he has won, but also the amount of finals he has made 110!! Based on when he turned pro equates to making an average of 7 finals per year!

Yes, and kudos to him for that
I'm not sure what you're point is though.

Can you find another player, who has 7 finals per year of their professional career? Connors? Lendl?

by User 774433 Fri 08 Feb 2013, 12:54 pm

Mike Bryan does currently.
In singles I think Connors won more titles, but played so many years even when he was much older, so he didn't.

by User 774433 Fri 08 Feb 2013, 12:55 pm

LF see 11:57.

by **laverfan** Fri 08 Feb 2013, 1:30 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:Laverfan, I think you should have respect to answer questions rather than providing a riddle.

Respect? Not sure how that helps answering a question repeatedly, or does it?

It Must Be Love wrote:If the stat is wrong, then of course you can say so. But it's not as I checked with the ATP website.

One should have the ability to see the forest and the tree(s), both. Looking at either in isolation, makes one lose 'respect' for the other. Wink

by lydian Fri 08 Feb 2013, 1:31 pm

Lendl achieved 10.4 finals per year (146 finals, 14 seasons from 1st to last)
Borg achieved 9.8 finals per year

However...we could do with Laverfan doing some stats on the av. no finals/yr for a few greats from when they first reach a final until the last time. Probably just take out any seasons they were away injured too.

But then does that tell us...lol.

by User 774433 Fri 08 Feb 2013, 1:39 pm

laverfan wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:Laverfan, I think you should have respect to answer questions rather than providing a riddle.

Respect? Not sure how that helps answering a question repeatedly, or does it?

It Must Be Love wrote:If the stat is wrong, then of course you can say so. But it's not as I checked with the ATP website.

One should have the ability to see the forrest and the tree(s), both. Looking at either in isolation, makes one lose 'respect' for the other.

Again, more riddles.
Why can't you be direct and simply answer the question?

by socal1976 Fri 08 Feb 2013, 3:36 pm

lydian wrote:socal, there is a big different between the 2 terms. You're not reading into the subtlety, just railroading through. I used those words on purpose.

"Under performing on the day" means a guy DIDN'T execute.
"Under realisation of ability" is that the guy CAN'T execute.

My point is that transitional surface change led to a whole bunch of guys unable to fully flout their medium-fast hardcourt developed "A games"....because the medium-fast HCs weren't medium-fast anymore! The USO is a shadow if what it used to be, it's become another turgidly slow surface like AO and SW19. You heard Pat cash about these HC courts now, if you fell over you'd graze your hand such is the amount of speed slowing sand in the paint. You saw that when Djokovic merely rolled onto the ground at both events and cut his knees and elbows. That wouldn't have happened on the smooth courts of pre-2003.

Now I'm not saying Nalby et al couldn't play at all...they are world class players after all and adapt to a degree but the changes meant the difference between finals or going out at R4/QF or rarely SF stage. People shouldn't under-estimate how different speed courts screw your inherent timing, and at what height you're used to hitting the ball.

For Safin, I've reviewed him further. I'll grant having looked at his career more that he's an outlier to this discussion. He was brought up on HC til 13 BUT then went to train in Valencia on clay. He reached Hamburg clay finals twice, losing to Guga (in 5th set TB!) and Fed. Earlier in his career he won 2 clay titles so he was clearly an adept slow court player, more so than I realised...and maybe others too. On balance I think this is why he did better at slower AO (3 finals - 1 win) than USO. But after winning USO in 2000 he just couldn't perform there again. Injury was Safin's major issue I feel...he was a big guy to be playing clay-like tennis. But he could never master USO or Wimb, or even fast courts like Cincy. So I'm going to say Safin is an outlier...he did just underperform, and if anything his USO win as a slower court player is a puzzle. I think he just played out of his skin those 2 weeks like Kraijcek did at Wimb96 but couldn't replicate. Sampras beat him relatively easily the following year at SF. But he could/should have done better with his training background and ability.

So I'm being upfront about Safin. He did simply underperform...he was custom built for the transitional era but didn't perform...mental issues, physical issues, off court playboy, etc...his career suffered because of it. But my point I feel still remains for Hewitt, Roddick and Nalbandian. The slowing of the courts did affect them no doubt given they were brought up on cement courts.

Safin should have been to Federer what Agassi was to Sampras...but he just didn't come through. The rest I feel struggled to adapt. But I'm more than happy to be proved wrong on this.

What happened when they sped up FO 2011, like all the players said about the balls being faster and even the posters on 606v2, oh that is right Nadal won. What happened this year when they sped up Australia as all the players and all the commentators were saying all through out the tournament, oh that is right Djokovic won. I am sorry it didn't slow down Federer, Hewitt only won wimby after it was slown down. If you like to call the same thing as underachieving to under-utilization of talent feel free, it is the same thing. If you don't have talent you can't underachieve either, you claim these players were ruined by the change of conditions, some of their best results came in slower conditions. Other players had to deal with much bigger changes to the game, like the graphite racquet. Nalbandian when he chose to play in the indoor season of 2008 won back to back masters on slow conditions. Either way whether it was injury or conditions, or whatever they underperformed or under utilized their talent. The bottom line is if they were better they would have won more. Just like Djokovic won at Australia after they sped up the conditions, or just like federer who won 17 grandslams all on slowed down courts. By the way Safin, hewitt, and roddick all won slams on slowed down conditions and where fed's top rivals till the rise of Nadal. so they seemed to being playing fine on the slowed down courts, well till the rise of nadal and later djoko. Prior to that these guys were fed's closest rivals in 2003,2004,and 2005 all the time playing on slowed down courts and new balls.

by **laverfan** Fri 08 Feb 2013, 4:04 pm

@SoCal.. Nalbandian won Madrid/Paris in 2007, not 2008, in the so-called Wee Keira. Wink

2007 (2) ATP Masters Series Paris (Indoor/Hard) , ATP Masters Series Madrid (Indoor/Hard)

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

This is what happens with arbitrary dates. Wink

Remember, 2008 is the 'Mono' era. Laugh

And you are saying Madrid/Paris in 2007 were slow hardcourts?

Surface - Hard, Greenset -http://www.atpworldtour.com/posting/2007/1536/mds.pdf

Surface - Hard - http://www.atpworldtour.com/posting/2007/352/mds.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPc5kTUEjIQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHHKbq5JsJ4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTGPSmfmDz4

PS: Lydian, can you resurrect your court speed article from 606 or do you have it on v2?

PPS: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A47408808 , http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A44400214

by socal1976 Fri 08 Feb 2013, 4:30 pm

Andy Roddick was world #3 till canada of 2007 and won his only slam on slowed down conditions. So basically Lydian agrees with me that these players under utilized their talent (underachieved) he doesn't disagree with my conclusion just with the rhetoric I use to describe their performance. He puts it down to conditions alone, I dispute that as these players failed alone because of slowed conditions, I have seen nalbandian with his shirt off so I don't buy that.

by **laverfan** Fri 08 Feb 2013, 5:18 pm

socal1976 wrote:He puts it down to conditions alone, I dispute that as these players failed alone because of slowed conditions, I have seen nalbandian with his shirt off so I don't buy that.

If Nalby had Nadal/Federer/Djokovic's fitness, he would have 170+ big ones, correct? And Federer would be nowhere. Cool

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=N301

Nalbandian managed to beat a non-Mono Federer in 2007 (in the Wee... on the faster HCs), but was unable to beat a mono-Federer in 2008 MC (the Strong... on the slowest Clay) - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Roger-Federer.aspx?t=pa&y=2008&m=s&e=410#

Ok!

Would really love to know how many doughnuts were consumed between Paris 2007 and MC 2008!

by invisiblecoolers Fri 08 Feb 2013, 5:22 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:IC, I'm talking about 2004-2007 here, not sure why you're quoting from 2001.

Thats is addressed to Socal who claims 2011 is the stongest and 2001 is a weak transition era, I see both no different except 2001 proved to be a more stronger field than the current one. thumbsup

by invisiblecoolers Fri 08 Feb 2013, 5:25 pm

lags72 wrote:Oh come on JHM, you should be well aware that the strong era (v.1) began on 31 January 2008 when Djokovic won the AO title for first time ; and then the strong era v.2 began later that same year when Nadal won his first Slam off clay (even though he had been winning lots of other Slams and Masters before then, ie in the weak era).

The dominant guy from the weak era continued winning Slams right up to 2012, even as a pensioner, but let's not worry about that.

And what on earth was invisible thinking when he created an era all of his own, from 2001 to 2011....??

I mean you just can't do that - even though the thread title says "all time periods"

Great post lags notworthy

, certainly my bad

by invisiblecoolers Fri 08 Feb 2013, 5:28 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:And before anyone tried to distort my position further with underhand tactics, let me make my point clear:
I am arguing that in the early part of Federer's career the opposition Federer faced was not as tough and challenging as he had to in the latter stage of his career, after the emergence of Djokovic, Murray, and maturing of Nadal on all surfaces.
Can I put a date on it? No, not really, tennis is progressive and everything builds up. So it's very difficult to put a fixed set date, as Julius and Lags suggest.

This confirms you have a good sense of humor laughing

, coz otherwise I don't see any meaning in the post.

by socal1976 Fri 08 Feb 2013, 5:46 pm

laverfan wrote:
socal1976 wrote:He puts it down to conditions alone, I dispute that as these players failed alone because of slowed conditions, I have seen nalbandian with his shirt off so I don't buy that.

If Nalby had Nadal/Federer/Djokovic's fitness, he would have 170+ big ones, correct? And Federer would be nowhere.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=N301

Nalbandian managed to beat a non-Mono Federer in 2007 (in the Wee... on the faster HCs), but was unable to beat a mono-Federer in 2008 MC (the Strong... on the slowest Clay) - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Roger-Federer.aspx?t=pa&y=2008&m=s&e=410#

Would really love to know how many doughnuts were consumed between Paris 2007 and MC 2008!

When did I give a hard and fast date for the weak/strong era I have always maintained it was a gradual strengthening from the rise of Nadal to the rise of murray and djoko, this whole strawman about an exact date to a strong or weak period was created by lags and julius. All the other things you write in this post are just silly exaggerations taken to the extreme to ridicule ideas that you disagree with. I am not the one who lionizes Nalbandian as the most super talented player next to federer, if Nalbandian worked out yes he might have been able to win a major, but he played most of his career with man boobs so we will never know.

by socal1976 Fri 08 Feb 2013, 5:49 pm

invisiblecoolers wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:IC, I'm talking about 2004-2007 here, not sure why you're quoting from 2001.

Thats is addressed to Socal who claims 2011 is the stongest and 2001 is a weak transition era, I see both no different except 2001 proved to be a more stronger field than the current one.

No you rebutted my post magnificently with your Djokovic is just a poor man's Michael Chang post, that really was a piece of logical deduction right up there with E=MC2. That shows your tennis knowledge to be unassailable.

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri 08 Feb 2013, 5:51 pm

socal1976 wrote:this whole strawman about an exact date to a strong or weak period was created by lags and julius.

No, people did give exact dates and we had to ask for clarification...which we eventually got. Now we use creative license when we refer back to it.

socal1976 wrote:if Nalbandian worked out yes he might have been able to win a major, but he played most of his career with man boobs so we will never know.

Inappropriate use of imagery. Ugh.

by Born Slippy Fri 08 Feb 2013, 6:14 pm

Can't believe the criticism of Dave. I mean, look at this clip of his training. What an athlete!

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=Qqe3cBzvlU4&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DQqe3cBzvlU4&gl=GB

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri 08 Feb 2013, 6:17 pm

And this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMn0EFhjOFI

by invisiblecoolers Fri 08 Feb 2013, 6:20 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:I picked up Federer's most successful four years when I was analysing Federer... as they were his finest four years in terms of success.

btw Laverfan you still didn't explain what your answer was, so far you've said 'd none of the above' and posted a cryptic link.
Is there anything wrong with you actually explaining you answer rather than providing clues in riddle like links.

No I will say why, you are just jealous of Fed's achievement as your hero doesn't have the same numbers, so you see/make every opportunity to zoom your hero's numbers to epic proportions, but sadly how much ever you do, until Rafa cross the magic numbers set by Fed most people in the world believe Fed is the greatest player ever to pick the Tennis racket. If you still subject to it its entirely your view and you are fooling yourself like how some Djoko fans do.

by invisiblecoolers Fri 08 Feb 2013, 6:51 pm

socal1976 wrote:
invisiblecoolers wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:IC, I'm talking about 2004-2007 here, not sure why you're quoting from 2001.

Thats is addressed to Socal who claims 2011 is the stongest and 2001 is a weak transition era, I see both no different except 2001 proved to be a more stronger field than the current one.

No you rebutted my post magnificently with your Djokovic is just a poor man's Michael Chang post, that really was a piece of logical deduction right up there with E=MC2. That shows your tennis knowledge to be unassailable.

You still hiding with no answers for the 2001 and 2011 era comparison laughing

by invisiblecoolers Fri 08 Feb 2013, 6:54 pm

Socal I put it one more time, lemme see whether you have answers for it.

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->Rafter
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. laughing

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

by socal1976 Fri 08 Feb 2013, 7:02 pm

The Age factor you mean like the prehistoric agassi and sampras who appear on your 2001 list, is that what you mean by age factor IC? Both of whom are as old as federer is now. And I know none of the players today coul be as talented as Gaudio, how funny? Federer was by the way 2 years away from winning his first slam, so are we taking 2001 federer and saying he is better than Nadal in 2011? I think that is a stretch in itself. Lets just say I stopped trying to have a rational discussion with you after your Novak is a weaker version of Chang post. Funny if you look at the age of the 2001 list you will note two very old champions Agassi and Sampras, and one GOAT federer still 2 years away from his first slam. Guga was not a world beater off of clay and the rest are all past it or never had it. Rafter was way passed his best on this list by the way, way past it. Overrall the 2001 list would get smashed by 2011.

by invisiblecoolers Fri 08 Feb 2013, 7:12 pm

Exactly thats why that was a transistion period and the same 2011 its a transition period and Djoko made the most of it, I don't blame him.

But if this is an era then by far the weakest, glad you finally accept it thumbsup

by invisiblecoolers Fri 08 Feb 2013, 7:15 pm

Socal you live in mythology, nothing wrong in your dreams [i.e Djoko as the greatest] but please keep your dreams to yourself rather than boring us, coz everybody knows the fact Djoko made use of the transition period.

by socal1976 Fri 08 Feb 2013, 7:18 pm

invisiblecoolers wrote:Exactly thats why that was a transistion period and the same 2011 its a transition period and Djoko made the most of it, I don't blame him.

But if this is an era then by far the weakest, glad you finally accept it

Actually, no I reject everything you are argueing, I stated in plain english that the 2011 list would smash the 2001 list as you have two ancients in agassi and Sampras, rafter passed his prime, and federer two years left till his first grandslam and a bunch of clay courters who would struggle to contend with Djokovic or Fed let alone with Nadal on clay. But if you wan't to just simply put the exact opposite meaning on my words and claim I agreed with you then ok. Afterall how could I argue with someone whose unassailable tennis knowledge has established that Djokovic is just a poor man's michael chang. I love it what does that say about Del Potro and murray that in their prime they are beaten by a poor man's chang. Or what does that say about Federer and Nadal who have lost nearly two dozen times on the ATP tour to michael chang's weak sister.

IC, i destroyed your silly list and you had to call 2001 a transitional period, looks like I win again. Check and mate.

by socal1976 Fri 08 Feb 2013, 7:19 pm

Invisble cooler denigrates 2001 as a transitional era, attack everyone get out the pitchforks and the tar and feathers.

by User 774433 Fri 08 Feb 2013, 7:27 pm

Invisble Coolers, pick any top 8 throughout the 4 year period 2004-2007, you can pick the strongest top 8 at any point in this 4 year period.
Compare it to the end of year 2012 rankings.

Then judge which which top 8 was stronger.

by User 774433 Fri 08 Feb 2013, 7:28 pm

Funny that no one still answered my question from Friday apart from Socal.
Wonder why people avoided it? chin

Laverfan answered in form of a mystical riddle for some weird reason, so I'm not sure if that counts.

by socal1976 Fri 08 Feb 2013, 7:30 pm

IMBL, how could Nadal be a GOAT candidate when he lost 7 times in a row to a poor man's michael chang?

by socal1976 Fri 08 Feb 2013, 7:32 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:Funny that no one still answered my question from Friday apart from Socal.
Wonder why people avoided it?
Laverfan answered in form of a mystical riddle for some weird reason, so I'm not sure if that counts.

And despite the popular myth that we always support each other we actually had a difference of opinion on Hewitt's standing IMBL, but at least I didn't duck he question.

by socal1976 Fri 08 Feb 2013, 7:34 pm

By the way federer in 2001 was better than Nadal in 2011, funny I remember a few tear stained grandslam finals in the intervening years maybe that was just my imagination.

by socal1976 Fri 08 Feb 2013, 7:39 pm

Born Slippy wrote:Can't believe the criticism of Dave. I mean, look at this clip of his training. What an athlete!

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=Qqe3cBzvlU4&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DQqe3cBzvlU4&gl=GB

That blade of grass was really nasty, lol, Dave Nalbandian is argentina's most athletically gifted fat man, a tough race this year between him and maradonna.

by invisiblecoolers Fri 08 Feb 2013, 7:43 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:Invisble Coolers, pick any top 8 throughout the 4 year period 2004-2007, you can pick the strongest top 8 at any point in this 4 year period.
Compare it to the end of year 2012 rankings.

Then judge which which top 8 was stronger.

IMBL I am talking about 2001 and 2011, Socal's theory are quashed repeatedly and he is yet to answer earlier post regarding the comparison. Poor Socal picard

now have nothing left to argue warning

by invisiblecoolers Fri 08 Feb 2013, 7:44 pm

Socal I put it one more time, lemme see whether you have answers for it.

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->Rafter
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. laughing

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

Rest of the thread is left to Socal and IMBL pair to discuss it among themselves.

by socal1976 Fri 08 Feb 2013, 7:46 pm

by the way the link only shows a photo of the aftermath, can't see the whole video.

by socal1976 Fri 08 Feb 2013, 7:50 pm

Yes IC, you smashed my theories now all that is left for you to do is to fly onto an aircraft carrier dressed as a fake pilot and waive your mission accomplished banner.

Except Andre and Pete are older on the list than fed was at the end of 2011, Rafter was passed it, and Federer had yet to play in a grandslam final. So are we now imputting federer as goat back in 2001? Your list is a laughingstock and further evidence of your unassailable tennis knowledge.

How can federer be goat with as many losses as he suffered to a poor man's michael chang?

by socal1976 Fri 08 Feb 2013, 7:51 pm

What does that say about Del Po and murray that they get beaten by a poor man's michael chang?

by User 774433 Fri 08 Feb 2013, 7:54 pm

socal1976 wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:Funny that no one still answered my question from Friday apart from Socal.
Wonder why people avoided it?
Laverfan answered in form of a mystical riddle for some weird reason, so I'm not sure if that counts.

And despite the popular myth that we always support each other we actually had a difference of opinion on Hewitt's standing IMBL, but at least I didn't duck he question.

Exactly.
It's a pity others don't answer questions directly like you do.

by User 774433 Fri 08 Feb 2013, 7:55 pm

invisiblecoolers wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:Invisble Coolers, pick any top 8 throughout the 4 year period 2004-2007, you can pick the strongest top 8 at any point in this 4 year period.
Compare it to the end of year 2012 rankings.

Then judge which which top 8 was stronger.

IMBL I am talking about 2001 and 2011, Socal's theory are quashed repeatedly and he is yet to answer earlier post regarding the comparison. Poor Socal now have nothing left to argue

Hi Invisible Coolers.
You are a good poster, and despite disagreeing with a few things you said recently (Chang?!), I totally respect your opinion even if it is different to mine.

So I ask again IC:
Pick any top 8 throughout the 4 year period 2004-2007, you can pick the strongest top 8 at any point in this 4 year period.
Compare it to the top 8 of end of year 2012 rankings.

by socal1976 Fri 08 Feb 2013, 7:56 pm

I still want to know IMBL how can Nadal be a goat candidate when he lost 7 times in a row to a poor man's michael chang? Are you ducking my insightful question?

by User 774433 Fri 08 Feb 2013, 7:57 pm

socal1976 wrote:I still want to know IMBL how can Nadal be a goat candidate when he lost 7 times in a row to a poor man's michael chang? Are you ducking my insightful question?

lol Socal

Chang would have beaten Nadal 8 times in a row unlike DjokerNole Wink

by invisiblecoolers Fri 08 Feb 2013, 8:06 pm

socal1976 wrote:
How can federer be goat with as many losses as he suffered to a poor man's michael chang?

I never said Nole is poor man's Micheal Chang, I just said he is a better baseliner than Nole, but if you think Nole is poor man's MC than its entirely upto u, but may be you are right considering how boring both players are picard

.

Next Fed is no GOD to win all matches, he certainly holds the best consistent performance of all the players who have taken the racket and played at the tour level, I know its difficult stats for you to understand Laugh

.

Coming back to IMBL, I don't indulge in the stupid analysis of which top 8 is the best and stronger and if I do its entirely subjective, no idea what you exactly try to prove with it, lemme know your list first then we debate about it later, or if you still want lets expand the field to top 32 of 2001 to the current one and lets see, I don't have patience to go check the order of 2001, of you can post it then we can compare and see which field was stronger. thumbsup

, I am pretty sure 2001 will thumb the current year.

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri 08 Feb 2013, 8:08 pm

socal1976 wrote:I still want to know IMBL how can Nadal be a goat candidate when he lost 7 times in a row to a poor man's michael chang? Are you ducking my insightful question?

That does raise an interesting point though. How lucky was Rafa that Djoko 2.0 didn't appear a year earlier? We'd probably be talking Djoko v Fed for GOAT with Rafa on the sidelines. It's fair to say Djoko hadn't fully matured in 2010.

by lydian Fri 08 Feb 2013, 8:08 pm

Laverfan, thanks for resurrecting the speed articles I did on the old 606...good to see them again...I guess the PPS meant you found them. I did another one somewhere but lord knows where that is.
I always thought the 2nd link was the better one in terms of splitting out the speed indices better, i.e. %breaks is better than %TB's.

IMBL, I answered your question but in a different way...with court slowing argument.

by User 774433 Fri 08 Feb 2013, 8:10 pm

lydian wrote:
IMBL, I answered your question but in a different way...with court slowing argument.

Yes, I forgot about that actually.

You answered my question with a very interesting explanation, bringing in the aspect of court speeds.
It's a pity that some people answer in riddles when they could just respond like Lydian and Socal have.

by Sponsored content