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?

Laverfan....enjoy...about ITF surface speed ratings.
From Dec 2012.

http://www.perfect-tennis.co.uk/tennis-court-surfaces-and-court-speeds/

It Must Be Love wrote:

It's a pity that some people answer in riddles

A good question will evoke a good reply, in comparison silly question evoke silly replies, so based on the reply many gave you should have understood by now you question didn't make any sense just like your Rafa for the GOAThood, why not put Davydenko for the GOAThood if h2h is the only criteria against a selected player?

Hi Invisible Coolers,
Can you specify which question of mine you disliked exactly? Sorry, I think you left that a bit unclear, and you may have got confused.

Earlier I asked Laverfan and others why during Roger Federer's 4 most successful years Federer was able to win so many slams on hard court but none on clay. I argued it was a mixture of Federer having tougher competition in the form of Nadal on clay, while he had a lack of competition at the top on hard courts, and also as Federer was marginally better on hard courts than he is on clay.

My question to you was different, you did a comparison of the top 10 of 2011 and 2001. I asked whether you could do a similar comparison with the top 10 of any period between 2004-2007 and 2012.
At no point did I mention any H2Hs in my question, certainly not throughout this thread.

Hope this clarifies it, as I said I do respect your views and opinions as a poster even if you disagree with me on some things, so answers would be welcomed.
Thanks.

OK IMBL, I am not here to fight, I guess you have the same intention too,but I am getting bored of this discussion so I am opting out.

Yes I understand you have a good respect for me and others, same here

invisiblecoolers wrote:OK IMBL, I am not here to fight, I guess you have the same intention too,but I am getting bored of this discussion so I am opting out.

Yes I understand you have a good respect for me and others, same here

Sure, no worries IC

JuliusHMarx wrote:

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.

I think Djoko was hurt by his serve more than his fitness and physical maturity, he experimented with his motion and it failed miserably, cost him about 2 years, by the way he managed to remain in the top 3 with a WTA serve that should tell you all need to know about his baseline game. The fact that he managed to maintain back to back top 3 rankings with the worst serve of any top 30 player. He was I believe 45 or 46th in 2010 for hold games won.

moti?

JuliusHMarx wrote:moti?

Means Fat A-- girl

Goodbye IC, I must say it was a most enjoyable victory parade we held in your honor. Just kidding, chang is by no stretch of the imagination Djokovic's equal from the base line, but that comment did give me a lot of joy.

Type o, I have no idea what that means or intended to use it.

socal1976 wrote:Goodbye IC, I must say it was a most enjoyable victory parade we held in your honor. Just kidding, chang is by no stretch of the imagination Djokovic's equal from the base line, but that comment did give me a lot of joy.

Well you have given countless humerous threads for us, so it was my pleasure to give one back to you. Chang by no stretch equal to Nole from baseline coz he is better. , btw Djoko is better than Agassi, Nadal, Fed , Guga, Brugera from baseline , I give up Socal.

It Must Be Love wrote:

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

Just a little matter of Federer @RG 2011 otherwise it could have been 8-in-a-row, and close to the record of Brian Gottfried - https://www.606v2.com/t15936-will-nadal-break-brian-gottfried-s-record .

socal1976 wrote: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.

Please be careful with your Reliability Index

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Ku/G/Gustavo-Kuerten.aspx?t=tf

Titles - 2001 (6) ATP Masters Series Cincinnati (Outdoor/Hard) , Stuttgart (Outdoor/Clay) , Roland Garros (Outdoor/Clay) , ATP Masters Series Monte Carlo (Outdoor/Clay) , Acapulco (Outdoor/Clay) , Buenos Aires (Outdoor/Clay)

Finals - 2001 (2) Indianapolis (Outdoor/Hard) , ATP Masters Series Rome (Outdoor/Clay)

Look who he beat on a fast HC...

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Ku/G/Gustavo-Kuerten.aspx?t=pa&y=2001&m=s&e=422#

He was ranked #1 and #2.

Where do you think Kuerten is, on Socal's Reliability index? Let us see if you can duplicate your Hewitt success.

Regarding Rafter...

Titles - 2001 (1) Indianapolis (Outdoor/Hard)

Finals - 2001 (3) ATP Masters Series Cincinnati (Outdoor/Hard) , ATP Masters Series Canada (Outdoor/Hard) , Wimbledon (Outdoor/Grass)

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Ra/P/Patrick-Rafter.aspx?t=tf

He was in Top 15 in 2001.

socal1976 wrote:I stated in plain english that the 2011 list would smash the 2001 list

How do you arrive at this conclusion? Based on your Rafter/Kuerten observations being applied to 2011, it would make 2011 look worse.

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.

This comparison and judging is very subjective and this entire thread provides reams of such evidence.

It Must Be Love wrote:It's a pity that some people answer in riddles when they could just respond like Lydian and Socal have.

Teach a person to fish and they will catch theirs, catch the fish for a person, life time of being a cook follows. Pretty certain you read iC's explanation, correct?

lydian wrote:Laverfan....enjoy...about ITF surface speed ratings. From Dec 2012.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:moti?

Means Fat A-- girl

In Hindi/Urdu. And Mota means a 'fat' male (like Nalbandian).

@JHM... pronounced differently... 'moti' can also mean a pearl, again in Hindi/Urdu.

I think socal's explanation of a 'type o' is probably more likely
I'm type b negative myself.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Goodbye IC, I must say it was a most enjoyable victory parade we held in your honor. Just kidding, chang is by no stretch of the imagination Djokovic's equal from the base line, but that comment did give me a lot of joy.

Well you have given countless humerous threads for us, so it was my pleasure to give one back to you. Chang by no stretch equal to Nole from baseline coz he is better. , btw Djoko is better than Agassi, Nadal, Fed , Guga, Brugera from baseline , I give up Socal.

guga and brugera are you serious, they wouldn't on their best day have a chance of hanging with Djokovic from the baseline on anything other than clay. On 75 percent of the surfaces djokovic would be far superior to both from the back of the court. Brugera and Kuerten combined haven't won as many slams as Djoko. The fact that you think those two are better baseliners is mind boggling. Still I can't be mad at you with all the gems you have been producing.

Laverfan, Kuerten won a masters on hardcourt once I am aware of that I never said he was horrible or bad on a hardcourt he just wasn't a world beater that is the term I used. Where socal's reliability index would rate Kuerten assuming since the open era on a hardcourt would be in the 30-40 range, take your pick of any of the number in there.

By the way Laverfan did you watch Pete play for most of 2001, hardly the same Sampras. Federer of 2001 was also not anywhere near peak, and Rafter with 1 tournament win was far and away not the same player either. The 2001 is a great list if you don't pay attention to how well the players were playing at the time. Everyone thinks Rafter or Sampas they think wow what giants, they weren't all that in 2001, was a far below year for both of them. And as for federer he was nearly 2 years away from making his first slam final.

socal1976 wrote:The 2001 is a great list if you don't pay attention to how well the players were playing at the time.

And Baghdatis was a weak finalist if you don't pay attention to how well he was playing at the time.

Julius, Sampras and Rafter were pretty much shot at those points, they were both on their last legs. Do you dispute that fact, am I just making that up? By the way even a hot baggy is not nearly as tough as staring down fed, nadal, djoko, or now even murray. He did play incredible tennis for that fortnight will give you that.

socal1976 wrote:Julius, Sampras and Rafter were pretty much shot at those points, they were both on their last legs. Do you dispute that fact, am I just making that up? By the way even a hot baggy is not nearly as tough as staring down fed, nadal, djoko, or now even murray. He did play incredible tennis for that fortnight will give you that.

Shot the way Fed is shot now, or perhaps was in 2008-2010 before recovered his form for a last hurrah, a la Sampras? Or are we still going on the 'Fed is better than ever' premise, much the way Sampras insisted the 2000s Sampras would beat the early/mid 90 Sampras?

Not as tough as Berdych on grass?

Hot Baggy sounds like a toasted sandwich. I'll have mustard on my Hot Baggy.

I've got Hot Baggy for you right here!

Sampras was way worse in 2001 than federer is now, and I never stated that federer is as good as ever. I have stated that he is not as good as he was in in 04-07, but he has not fallen off as much as some would contend. I did thread myself talking about the degradation of his footwork on the forehand so why are you creating another straw man?

socal1976 wrote:Laverfan, Kuerten won a masters on hardcourt once I am aware of that I never said he was horrible or bad on a hardcourt he just wasn't a world beater that is the term I used. Where socal's reliability index would rate Kuerten assuming since the open era on a hardcourt would be in the 30-40 range, take your pick of any of the number in there.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=K293&oId=S402
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=K293&oId=R255
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=K293&oId=A092

I agree Kuerten was better on Clay than HC.

socal1976 wrote:By the way Laverfan did you watch Pete play for most of 2001, hardly the same Sampras. Federer of 2001 was also not anywhere near peak, and Rafter with 1 tournament win was far and away not the same player either. The 2001 is a great list if you don't pay attention to how well the players were playing at the time. Everyone thinks Rafter or Sampas they think wow what giants, they weren't all that in 2001, was a far below year for both of them. And as for federer he was nearly 2 years away from making his first slam final.

Apart from Federer (too young), these players had quite a bit of experience though.

The two 2001 Sampras matches I recall are the Agassi QF @USO and the Todd Martin @AO. I think I did quote his interview prior to the Federer match. iC was alluding to comparative experiences in his list, which is an understandable approach.

laverfan wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Laverfan, Kuerten won a masters on hardcourt once I am aware of that I never said he was horrible or bad on a hardcourt he just wasn't a world beater that is the term I used. Where socal's reliability index would rate Kuerten assuming since the open era on a hardcourt would be in the 30-40 range, take your pick of any of the number in there.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=K293&oId=S402
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=K293&oId=R255
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=K293&oId=A092

I agree Kuerten was better on Clay than HC.

socal1976 wrote:By the way Laverfan did you watch Pete play for most of 2001, hardly the same Sampras. Federer of 2001 was also not anywhere near peak, and Rafter with 1 tournament win was far and away not the same player either. The 2001 is a great list if you don't pay attention to how well the players were playing at the time. Everyone thinks Rafter or Sampas they think wow what giants, they weren't all that in 2001, was a far below year for both of them. And as for federer he was nearly 2 years away from making his first slam final.

Apart from Federer (too young), these players had quite a bit of experience though.

The two 2001 Sampras matches I recall are the Agassi QF @USO and the Todd Martin @AO. I think I did quote his interview prior to the Federer match. iC was alluding to comparative experiences in his list, which is an understandable approach.

Do you doubt the socal reliability zone, as I said Guga Kuerten not in the top 30 for winning percentage on hardcourts. And as you agree with me on the state of all three players I listed in 2001, again the socal reliability zone proven correct again! Rafter, Sampras were way past their primes and federer was nearly 2 years before his slam final. The reliability zone strikes again.

Laverfan your crack research and my tennis analytical genius, we would work great together. So far you have done more research to prove my points than any poster on 606v2, myself included.

socal1976 wrote:Laverfan your crack research and my tennis analytical genius, we would work great together. So far you have done more research to prove my points than any poster on 606v2, myself included.

But I do disagree with your (and IMBL's) subjective derivations thereof.

If you dislike a specific player, and continue to constantly post about said player, it just reinforces the negativity and does not bring you any goodwill.

My experiences indicate that a dispassionate view is perhaps the best mindset for enjoyment of any sport, Tennis or otherwise.

Anything that goes up, must come down - Gravity is inevitable.

Laverfan, just admit it you tested my knowledge of the game and you ran up against the reliability zone, it is a difficult eperience I know.

socal1976 wrote:Laverfan, just admit it you tested my knowledge of the game and you ran up against the reliability zone, it is a difficult eperience I know.

Do not push your luck too much, young man.

socal1976 wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Goodbye IC, I must say it was a most enjoyable victory parade we held in your honor. Just kidding, chang is by no stretch of the imagination Djokovic's equal from the base line, but that comment did give me a lot of joy.

Well you have given countless humerous threads for us, so it was my pleasure to give one back to you. Chang by no stretch equal to Nole from baseline coz he is better. , btw Djoko is better than Agassi, Nadal, Fed , Guga, Brugera from baseline , I give up Socal.

guga and brugera are you serious, they wouldn't on their best day have a chance of hanging with Djokovic from the baseline on anything other than clay. On 75 percent of the surfaces djokovic would be far superior to both from the back of the court. Brugera and Kuerten combined haven't won as many slams as Djoko. The fact that you think those two are better baseliners is mind boggling. Still I can't be mad at you with all the gems you have been producing.

OMG you talking about baseline one time then talking about overall stats , you are way too confused Socal, if you gonna say the slams are the only measure then why not put Pete , Borg, Lendl ahead of Djoko? first understand what you talk if not stop talking, at the least please stop arguing, I had enough arguing with you, I hate dumb discussions, the point were made clear and ofcourse you don't like to accept as you are way too baised on your hero and doesn't wanna accept the truth, you can live in your fantasy world enjoy.

Yes Invisible I mean it is so biased to say that Djokovic is better than brugera and guga on a hardcourt? You are the one with bias who can't analyze the facts that is why you come up with hilarious statements like michael chang is a better baseliner than Djokovic, yeah you got a lot of support on that stroke of genius.

Having had the misfortune of watching some of Michael Chang's matches, I can safely say he never once hit a stroke of genius in his entire career, forehard or backhand.

He is a terrible analogy for Djokovic, but it is so laughable that I actually look at it is a badge of honor. The hilarity of the statement that I am biased because I rank Djokovic a better baseliner than Chang and that this is an evidence of my bias is pretty funny. Your irony meter must have been off on this post invisible. But I must say I encourage all such bold pronoucements from the Novak detractors. As I said it doesn't say much for Del Boy that michael Chang's weak sister keeps dominating him on the ATP tour..

Julius lol, could you imagine Chang smash a service return like that on match point and then playing to crowd like that. An excellent post, I hold out hope for you yet Julius.

To be fair later in his career Chang became a HC beast...no-one wanted to face him. On a par with Djokovic, no not really...but better than similar height Ferrer no doubt.

lydian wrote:To be fair later in his career Chang became a HC beast...no-one wanted to face him. On a par with Djokovic, no not really...but better than similar height Ferrer no doubt.

By then it was too late from my point of view. Still, I'm fairly sure Chang would have forgiven me

JuliusHMarx wrote:Having had the misfortune of watching some of Michael Chang's matches, I can safely say he never once hit a stroke of genius in his entire career, forehard or backhand.

The underhand serve was a stroke of genius, don't you think?

laverfan wrote:The underhand serve was a stroke of genius, don't you think?

Lol poor Chang. Imagining youtube videos showing players' most brilliant shots ever and for Michael it would show that serve

Chang is someone who completely went back to basics on his serve and came back with a killer shot. He was up around high 190 kph's...and you can add 20 or so on top of that in today's measurements. Probably had the fastest "short person" serve after Thomas Johansson. One thing that helped was extending the length of his trusted Prince racquet.

Makes you wonder re: that French Open...perhaps players should underarm serve more often as a surprise tactic...can you imagine making a tired opponent keep having to run forward to chase drop serves? Then lob back over their head...risky but hey, why not?!

lydian wrote:Makes you wonder re: that French Open...perhaps players should underarm serve more often as a surprise tactic...can you imagine making a tired opponent keep having to run forward to chase drop serves? Then lob back over their head...risky but hey, why not?!

I think it would have to be very very rare. From what I remember I had the feeling that Lendl lost that point not so much because the shock of the serve made it difficult to play but rather because he felt the need to prove to Chang that it was a bad choice of serve.

Similar thing happened in chess years ago between Karpov (who was then the world champion) and Miles (a good player but nowhere in Karpov's league). Miles, playing black, responded to Karpov's e4 with a6. That is certainly not a textbook move and in fact - by objective standards - a very inferior move. Yet it unsettled Karpov enough that he lost the game.

I think it is similar to underhand serve. On its own merits, I do not think it has place in the game - even as a rare choice. I think it only has a hope of working if it provokes the opponent to "prove the error" of that shot. But if players started playing it a bit more often, that advantage would quickly go away.

laverfan wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Having had the misfortune of watching some of Michael Chang's matches, I can safely say he never once hit a stroke of genius in his entire career, forehard or backhand.

The underhand serve was a stroke of genius, don't you think?

Yes, but it was very underhanded.

Looks like the debate has now moved seamlessly on to the Chang Era.

For purposes of clarification, it would be good if someone could perhaps specify the exact dates on which the era began and ended (always useful to know these things )

The Chang Era began on 11th June 1989 at about 2 p.m. and finished around 5-ish.

lags72 wrote:Looks like the debate has now moved seamlessly on to the Chang Era.

For purposes of clarification, it would be good if someone could perhaps specify the exact dates on which the era began and ended (always useful to know these things )

As a player superior to Nole Chang obviously deserves an era. His era began on June 5, 1989 and ended six days later, on June 11.

OOps. I see JHM beat me to it.

Okay, thanks for that info JHM.

Seem to remember I was having a bit of dental treatment that day, which could be why it passed me by ...........

Good points SB, and nice example in Chess...I guess tennis concerns mental games too. In reality I agree you couldn't do it often and suspect, yes, Lendl was somewhat affronted by the perceived "wimpyness" of Chang's actions.
Thankfully it didn't work for Hingis vs Graf at RG99 final (IIRC).

Just shows how the unexpected can completely derail your opponent though. But let's face it, Chang isn't memorable for much else...

lydian wrote:I guess tennis concerns mental games too. In reality I agree you couldn't do it often and suspect, yes, Lendl was somewhat affronted by the perceived "wimpyness" of Chang's actions.

...and to venture further into the wild guess territory, from among current top players I would have Federer as the one against whom the same thing would have the best chance of working.

In my mind, I have both Lendl and Roger as guys who do not cherish matches won on heroics and against-the-odds battles. I have them as guys who think that you should do the hard work in practice to give yourself good odds and then the odds should rightfully play out on the court more often than not. I think that may be one of the reasons why neither of them has an outstanding 5-set record even though both - especially Lendl - were no slouches in fitness department compared to their peers. I do not think fighting those fifth set battles is what makes them tick. Somewhere deep down they are probably annoyed that the match is in the fifth where it becomes more of a gamble. Whereas I see guys like Rafa as getting more kick out of snatching victories from the jaws of defeat.

I can see something like a point won on an underhand serve rub Roger's or Ivan's sense of propriety the wrong way and make them lose their cool. I think something somewhat similar may have happened to Roger in the aftermath of Nole's return winner on match point in that USO SF.

lydian wrote:Chang is someone who completely went back to basics on his serve and came back with a killer shot. He was up around high 190 kph's...and you can add 20 or so on top of that in today's measurements. Probably had the fastest "short person" serve after Thomas Johansson. One thing that helped was extending the length of his trusted Prince racquet.

Makes you wonder re: that French Open...perhaps players should underarm serve more often as a surprise tactic...can you imagine making a tired opponent keep having to run forward to chase drop serves? Then lob back over their head...risky but hey, why not?!

No question, Chang improved his pop towards the tail end of his career on the serve, but I actually don't think chang, but I doubt that he would be as good as even ferrer is today. Chang didn't become a hardcourt beast later in his career, he always played on hardcourts and learned to play on clay courts later hardcourt was always a surface he felt comfortable on. However chang is not anywhere approaching Novak Djokovic as a baseliner. And frankly I think you want to say he is better than Ferrer, I actually think Ferrer and chang are very similar but ferrer is actually more aggressive than Chang was through most of his career. Ferrer hits the ball flatter and takes it earlier and hits through the court much easier than Chang ever could. Now the technology is part of it the other part is that ferrer is more aggressive with his court positioning and hits flatter shots off both wings.


Best short man serve I have seen is Berankis,benjamin becker also has a very good short guy serve, I would rate both of those as better than Chang's improved serve that he used towards the last couple of year of his career.

summerblues wrote:

lydian wrote:I guess tennis concerns mental games too. In reality I agree you couldn't do it often and suspect, yes, Lendl was somewhat affronted by the perceived "wimpyness" of Chang's actions.

...and to venture further into the wild guess territory, from among current top players I would have Federer as the one against whom the same thing would have the best chance of working.

In my mind, I have both Lendl and Roger as guys who do not cherish matches won on heroics and against-the-odds battles. I have them as guys who think that you should do the hard work in practice to give yourself good odds and then the odds should rightfully play out on the court more often than not. I think that may be one of the reasons why neither of them has an outstanding 5-set record even though both - especially Lendl - were no slouches in fitness department compared to their peers. I do not think fighting those fifth set battles is what makes them tick. Somewhere deep down they are probably annoyed that the match is in the fifth where it becomes more of a gamble. Whereas I see guys like Rafa as getting more kick out of snatching victories from the jaws of defeat.

I can see something like a point won on an underhand serve rub Roger's or Ivan's sense of propriety the wrong way and make them lose their cool. I think something somewhat similar may have happened to Roger in the aftermath of Nole's return winner on match point in that USO SF.

Oh dear summerblues, comparing he "shot" to chang's underhand serve. Somehow blasting a winner on first serve is the equivalent of a drop shot on your serve? Nothing underhanded by the shot, maybe he shouldn't have split the line in half with that shot and hit half a foot off the baseline other than that he guessed right was sitting on the serve and belted as perfectly as you can belt it. I have no problem with Chang doing that to win, it is kind of funny that the most famous shot he hit in his career is an underhand serve drop shot. What makes the shot even more sweet is the edberg award winning moment federer had in the post match interview, yes I agree he was most annoyed.

socal1976 wrote:Oh dear summerblues, comparing he "shot" to chang's underhand serve. Somehow blasting a winner on first serve is the equivalent of a drop shot on your serve? Nothing underhanded by the shot, maybe he shouldn't have split the line in half with that shot and hit half a foot off the baseline other than that he guessed right was sitting on the serve and belted as perfectly as you can belt it. I have no problem with Chang doing that to win, it is kind of funny that the most famous shot he hit in his career is an underhand serve drop shot. What makes the shot even more sweet is the edberg award winning moment federer had in the post match interview, yes I agree he was most annoyed.

I would suggest watching Federer v Haas @RG or Federer v Falla @W and watch for what has been called PONRage(Point Of No Return - IMBL would know my reference). Or the tweener at MP.

Many players play such shots, there is a plethora on UTube for you viewing pleasure.

BTW, when do you expect Djokovic to win the Edberg, or will he be unrewarded for his many appreciations for his opponents' shots?

Perhaps he should apply to become a member of the Players Council again.

I am pretty sure Nadal and Djokovic can handle the pressure of playing and the PC.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/tennis/2008-06-21-3560337574_x.htm

I don't care if Djokovic wins it or not frankly, the entire award has been sullied and clearly is awarded based on some criteria outside of sportsmanship with it always going to big stars and Nike team members. I just don't want federer to keep winning it, could care less if Djokovic does or not.

JuliusHMarx wrote:The Chang Era began on 11th June 1989 at about 2 p.m. and finished around 5-ish.

laverfan wrote:BTW, when do you expect Djokovic to win the Edberg, or will he be unrewarded for his many appreciations for his opponents' shots?

Oh dear LF, let's stay clear of this. Even though era discussions are also infinite loops, at least they are more proper tennis discussions. I am certainly hoping that the number of replies on this thread will soon outnumber the replies in that Edberg award thread - what that was about still escapes me.