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?

socal1976 wrote:Oh dear summerblues, comparing he "shot" to chang's underhand serve.......yes I agree he was most annoyed.

I am not comparing the quality of the shots - obviously Nole's thing was on an entirely different plane (and saying this does not do it justice either). But the point I was making is that it was a high risk shot - the kind of shot where the odds are against you. Nole rolled the die and it worked. Chang's play was also technically a low percentage play - though for different reasons. So in that they were somewhat similar - outrageous low percentage plays.

I actually don't view chang's play as that high risk late in a match when your opponent would never expect it, if he has practiced it and can pull it off it is a brilliant play strategically. But it is very cheesy, and something you would expect from a cheeky geriatric hacker at your local club. Plus lendl not exactly the most comfortable player at net, if he doesn't hit the volley for a winner he probably loses the point. I mean if you have practiced that play ever before it isn't high risk, just kind of weak sauce. The element of surprise alone would stun your opponent.

But I get what you are trying to say in terms of it being two low percentage plays, although Chang's was kind of an unmanly and sissy play.

socal1976 wrote:But I get what you are trying to say in terms of it being two low percentage plays, although Chang's was kind of an unmanly and sissy play.

And, in return, I get what you are saying when you say that Chang's play was sissy Poor guy, and that is his finest shot ever.

I will say this it takes nerve to even try it in a grandslam final, but it was a very unmanly play and it is kind of fitting as you say that the single highlight of your career is you hitting a drop shot on your own serve. But that kind of sums up chang his game was short of highlight plays. I am no fan of ferrer but ferrer is much more aggressive in terms of his court positioning and shot selection than Chang was. A horribly dull player to watch, Julius is right about that. Although he lives about 25 miles away from me and is a local kid. Pete grew up about 45 miles away in Palos Verdes.

socal1976 wrote:I will say this it takes nerve to even try it in a grandslam final, but it was a very unmanly play and it is kind of fitting as you say that the single highlight of your career is you hitting a drop shot on your own serve. But that kind of sums up chang his game was short of highlight plays.

Manly? I did not realise machismo is part of this type of play. It does require cojones though. (There is a movie reference here. )

socal1976 wrote:I am no fan of ferrer but ferrer is much more aggressive in terms of his court positioning and shot selection than Chang was. A horribly dull player to watch, Julius is right about that. Although he lives about 25 miles away from me and is a local kid. Pete grew up about 45 miles away in Palos Verdes.

Is there a conflict between Chang's aura and Sampras's aura, SoCal?

Come on laverfan, as a player you don't drop shot someone on your own serve, it can be effective but it is a pretty garbage move. Either way he was a good pro won a bunch of masters as well. But in today's game I would be surprised if he did any better than david ferrer. Who has carved out quite a niche for himself.

socal1976 wrote:Come on laverfan, as a player you don't drop shot someone on your own serve, it can be effective but it is a pretty garbage move.

I completely disagree. MTOs and breaks are used to distract players effectively. What is wrong with an underhanded serve and keeping your opponent on their toes?

socal1976 wrote:Either way he was a good pro won a bunch of masters as well. But in today's game I would be surprised if he did any better than david ferrer. Who has carved out quite a niche for himself.

Product of time and technology available at the time and maximised his skills and made a name for himself. Not bad, eh! (with a Canadian lilt).

Exactly. Who knows what his standard would be with today's technology? For sure, he'd be a nightmare to hit the ball through with these strings, balls and courts. He was tough enough back then - he'd be a wall now.

Exactly ditto. People forget the old guys used basic tech and yet still played a power game. I also cannot imagine Sampras serving with modern " Cheatilon" strings as he called them at low tension. He got 5200rpm off gut at 75lbs...what would he do with poly at 45lbs that's designed to create unreal levels of spin...

BTW...
Chang: 34 titles, 58 finals, 1 slam, 3 more slam finals across all except Wimb
Peak rank #2, 7 Masters titles
H2H vs leading player own age (Sampras) = 8-12 (altho' Chang won first 5)

Ferrer: 19 titles, 34 finals, 0 slam, 0 slam finals
Peak rank #4, 1 Masters title
H2H vs leading player own age (Federer) = 0-14

Chang also has more years in the top 10 and better overall W:L %
(70.0% vs 66.8%...and Ferrer will start to lose more, Chang went through that)

So by which measure could Ferrer ever be said to be the equal, never mind better, of Chang who did far better in relative terms in his own era? Chang even beat Sampras on carpet in '95...that's like Ferrer beating Federer on hard, or Nadal on clay.

I didn't say chang was ferrer's equal I said if he played today Chang would have little to no shot whatsoever o beating federer or Nadal at Roland Garros. I don't think Chang would do much better than ferrer in today's game. How many finals would you favor chang getting to when faced with players about as fast and fitter than he is but who hit way bigger than he does even technology accpeted. Chang wasn't even a big hitter in his period. Just I wouldn't favor Chang winning slam in this era, I would venture to say he wouldn't even get to a slam final either. In 4 or 5 matches against a big 4 member in a slam semi I'd say chang could consistently take murray on clay and that is about it. The same matchup by the way that between the top 4 ferrer wins as well.

Of the two lydian who takes the ball earlier and hits flatter Chang or Ferrer?

Objective facts v personal speculation.

It's hard to reach a resolution in that way.

Chang is a better player than Ferrer.

socal1976 wrote:Of the two lydian who takes the ball earlier and hits flatter Chang or Ferrer?

Chang - every day of the week...flatter, earlier, harder...are you kidding me asking that question?
He actually had a lot of talent...won FO and go to finals of USO and AO...when all slams were radically different. What's Ferrer done? He plies his trade on homogenised surfaces with an oversized racquet and modern strings.
He's 4-30 versus Nadal and Federer....4-30!!!! The steady no.4/5 player is 4-30!

Chang amassed 15-27 against Sampras and Agassi. How do you think he got those wins against 2 all time HC greats...by being slow and a feather-hitter? Yeah right.

Chang would have found ways to beat Federer and Nadal more than Ferrer has for sure...and on clay don't forget Chang is arguably the fastest player to have graced a court so would have got loads of balls back too. Put it the other way socal - what does Ferrer have over Chang? I'm dying to know...and don't forget Chang was better around the net too.

Watch... https://www.youtube.com/watch?nomobile=1&v=P6Yf1ZsWRQQ
The speed of Chang's feet is still unreal...put him on today's slow courts and he'd have all day to tee off.

Would Chang beat Rafa in one of his 7 RG titles? If not IMBL now consider chang's career sans french open title and now reconsider. I think there isn't that much seperating them, I think chang is better than Ferrer, but I can't see him being more than marginally more successful if he played today. I certainly can't see him winning a slam.

Lydian posts with facts as backup to his position, indeed his positions emerge from the facts.

Socal posts what he thinks, or at least what he hopes is true.

This isn't even technically a debate, it's analysis meets fanzone.

As I said Chang is better than Ferrer, but not by enough to win a slam or be getting to finals of slams today. Chang was somewhat better version of ferrer. Can't see him winning a slam or getting to finals of slams to the extent he did then in today's era. I think he would have the same exact problem ferrer has that Djoko, Nadal, and Murray are all just as fast if not fitter and hit the ball with a lot more weight. He may be able to wear down Sampras in long rallies in some masters event or on clay, but he ain't going to have too much success with these guys. Despite the fact that he was one of the fastest and fittest on tour, just like ferrer is, chang would look very much like ferrer does playing Nadal or Djoko. Ferrer to his credit has beat Novak and Andy a few times, albeit mainly over 3 sets and on clay.

Of course I am talking hypotheticals bb, IN FACT I STATED AS SUCH BEFORE POSTING THE LOST COUPLE ON THE THREAD. Lydian listed their career stats, which favor chang, so I don't think Chang is that much better than ferrer where he would a slam in this era.

Let me ask any poster on here how many FO finals of Nadal's 7 RG titles do you see michael Chang winning? OH yes my speculation is just wild and unfounded, why don't you do a poll and see how many other people think Chang would go 0-7 in those finals, and then go call them crazy. Don't get me wrong, I do think Chang is better than ferrer. I just think if he played today he wouldn't be that much better where he could beat two straight big 4 guys in a 5 set match. I watched the guy play, he was good, better than ferrer, would he be able to win a slam with back to back big 4 wins? Hell no.

And namely beat Nadal over 5 sets on clay. Poor chang would have to leap into every shot as Nadal's average groudstroke is hoping 10 feet or more.

Who knows the answer to that question...but we know he beat clay legend Lendl at 17 yo, and he got to another RG final in 1995 beating prime 2-time defending champion Bruguera on the way. He beat HC slam king Agassi in semifinals of AO and USO in 96. At WTF95 he beat Muster, Courier and Sampras...all in their prime. Since when did Ferrer do anything like this? You think he wouldnt be competitive against the greats of this era?

The point is Ferrer isn't a patch on him, nowhere close.

The problem socal is that talent is talent. Have you red Chang's resume and what he achieved at an early age...do you not think in this era his game would be different to more suit the conditions of the day? Again....he beat 2-time defending champion Sergey Bruguera in his own backyard at RG...he could have been a better, much quicker, Coria in this era and we know how close he pushed Nadal on clay up to 2005 before he badly faded. He was a 4-time slam finalist with 7 Masters titles...I think you are grossly under-estimating the guy.

lydian wrote:Who knows the answer to that question...but we know he beat clay legend Lendl at 17 yo, and he got to another RG final in 1995 beating prime 2-time defending champion Bruguera on the way. He beat HC slam king Agassi in semifinals of AO and USO in 96. At WTF95 he beat Muster, Courier and Sampras...all in their prime. Since when did Ferrer do anything like this? You think he wouldnt be competitive against the greats of this era?

The point is Ferrer isn't a patch on him, nowhere close.

I asked you a simple question do you favor chang to win even one final or semi or anything else against Nadal on clay? Because if he can't do that in this era he has no chance at winning a french open. As I said I think the guy is better than ferrer but not by that much. Chang would not be a slam winner in this era, hardly the wide gulf you are talking about. What I find funny is that you are more outraged by the comparison of chang to ferrer than you were to the claim that chang was a better baseliner than Djokovic. Now which comparsion is a more illogical stretch?

And of course it is speculation that is what we are doing is playing a speculative hypothetical, yes everyone is aware chang won more and won a slam in his period. I doubt he would win a slam or getting to as many finals in this period, I just don't.

You've had a torrent of FACTS to digest.

Maybe, instead of "I believe" and "I doubt" you could give them some attention. For those signing on for a discussion, or to read one, this is a big disappointment.

By the way, "I just don't" doesn't lend an opinion any extra weight.

You're suggesting the comparison with Djokovic is pathetic and yet Djokovic hasn't beaten Nadal at RG either. Chang would have pushed Djokovic hard on any surface...remember he beat Agassi at AO and USO in 96, and I don't believe for a second that Djokovic is better than Agassi.

My answer is that Chang would have had a fair chance somewhere down the track...anyone who could beat 5 time RG champions Lendl and Bruguera has a strong case. Sure Nadal is a clay beast...we know that but Chang was probably quicker than any player today inc. Nadal...as I said Coria had MPs vs Nadal over 5 sets at Rome05, I don't see why Chang couldn't replicate that. Other than that, we're circling now.

BB, do you think I am unaware that Chang has a slam, more masters, and more grandslam finals than ferrer. Did I dispute that fact? No I didn't, what I stated was obviously HYPOTHETICAL AND SPECULATIVE, I said so, an exercise for discussion. Do you think I give a flying poop if David Ferrer is ranked equally to Chang? I don't see Chang beating Nadal to win french open, sorry if it makes me crazy to say that on discussion thread of different eras well then call me crazy.

So by your measure, anyone not beating Nadal at Roland Garros = David Ferrer.

Laughable.

Lydian has mentioned a great list of achievement by Chang over the greats of his era. Ferrer has Zero. He's also shown one perfectly reasonable way he may even have beaten Nadal at RG. Nobody can even approach such a case for Ferrer. These are reasoned positions. Not 'I just think really hard I do' opinions.

Socal, you offer nothing but opinion...opinions like talk are cheap. Instead, to strengthen your case why don't you counter the facts given about how Chang performed against all-time greats in the 90s.

lydian wrote:You're suggesting the comparison with Djokovic is pathetic and yet Djokovic hasn't beaten Nadal at RG either. My answer is that Chang would have had a fair chance somewhere down the track...anyone who could beat 5 time RG champions Lendl and Bruguera has a strong case. Sure Nadal is a clay beast...we know that but Chang was probably quicker than any player today inc. Nadal...as I said Coria had MPs vs Nadal over 5 sets at Rome05, I don't see why Chang couldn't replicate that. Other than that, we're circling now.

Ok you think chang would beat nadal at RG over 5 sets and either before or after that having to have another big 4 win in the picture, i think it is possible but, highly, highly unlikely. Of course I am speculating, this is a discussion of eras, do any of you guys have a time machine? By the way I find it funny as I said that there is no tenacious outrage at the fact that Djokovic who has 5 more slams than chang and probably still going, but all of a sudden comparing ferrer and saying that the gulf isn't that big is wildly demeaning to chang. It is like I am Yossarrian in catch-22. Djokovic's trophy cabinet and big win record dwarves chang's by much more than chang does Ferrer's. And just talent wise, body type, and athlete wise the gulf is much bigger between Djoko and Chang than Chang vis a vis ferrer. Hell they are both generally grinders, shorter of stature, who play the same way for the most part. It is that far of stetch to make the comparison, it isn't like Chang was some mozart and Ferrer is the drunk hobo blowing off key into his wine jug.

lydian wrote:Socal, you offer nothing but opinion...opinions like talk are cheap. Instead, to strengthen your case why don't you counter the facts given about how Chang performed against all-time greats in the 90s.

The winning percentage is marginally better for chang over Ferrer's and furthermore the top 4 as a whole have been very consistent. What 70 percent vs. 67 or 68 percent winning percentage shows exactly what I am saying, basically two very similar players, Chang marginally or modestly better but not that much better. There is a fact from the very numbers you quoted.

Socal, sorry but I've got news for you...Djokovic is no Mozart either. He's like one of those jazz musicians who knows all the scales up and down, and back to front, but doesn't have an ounce of creative musicality inside him.

Also, don't read me my mind. I didn't say Chang WOULD Nadal at RG...just that his performances in the 90s demonstrate he COULD have sneaked a win. You need to read in shades of grey (not the dreadful novel) rather than see everything in black or white.

socal1976 wrote:

lydian wrote:Socal, you offer nothing but opinion...opinions like talk are cheap. Instead, to strengthen your case why don't you counter the facts given about how Chang performed against all-time greats in the 90s.

The winning percentage is marginally better for chang over Ferrer's and furthermore the top 4 as a whole have been very consistent. What 70 percent vs. 67 or 68 percent winning percentage shows exactly what I am saying, basically two very similar players, Chang marginally or modestly better but not that much better. There is a fact from the very numbers you quoted.

Hilarious.

Challenged to address what Chang did against the greats of his era you respond with stats based on beating up the dross.

Anyone who knows anything about this sport knows Chang achieved real things against the very best, beating all of them across a range of highly differently playing surfaces. Ferrer......... hasn't. Doesn't that make you think?

lydian wrote:Socal, sorry but I've got news for you...Djokovic is no Mozart either. He's like one of those jazz musicians who knows all the scales up and down, and back to front, but doesn't have an ounce of creative musicality inside him.

Now you've done it........

Its laughable that amongst everything I wrote you deliberately pick up on the nearest thing you can find...the Win-Loss...and conclude they are "basically two very similar players". Anyway 4% diff. over a career of 1000 matches is a good half year or more difference of wins. But look at the other hardcore facts. Ferrer is like Chang-megalite.

Again...again...again...the biggest W:L difference is the Ferrer 4-30 H2H vs Fed/Nad against the 15-27 for Chang vs Samp/Agassi. Doesn't that tell you all you need to know? Really?

bogbrush wrote:

lydian wrote:Socal, sorry but I've got news for you...Djokovic is no Mozart either. He's like one of those jazz musicians who knows all the scales up and down, and back to front, but doesn't have an ounce of creative musicality inside him.

Now you've done it........

Talk about subjective and speculative. With Chang it is all talk about the big wins he has had, and the tourneys he has won but when it comes to djokovic now the subjective scales are pulled out to find him lacking. Again that is your opinon and I don't share it. He is a very unique talent and it doesn't matter that you call him robotic or some find his game not to their likeing. Djokovic has already established himself as an all time great of the game and will most likely expand his legacy in the game. As I said and as all the OBJECTIVE facts point to Djokovic gulf between Chang is way more outrageous than the gulf between Chang and Ferrer. Personally I don't find Nadal's style attractive to watch. But I give him his due, and despite your subjective critiques of Djokovic while trophy counting on chang it is clear to any poster who knows tennis which difference is bigger and bigger by a lot.

lydian wrote:Its laughable that amongst everything I wrote you deliberately pick up on the nearest thing you can find...the Win-Loss...and conclude they are "basically two very similar players". Anyway 4% diff. over a career of 1000 matches is a good half year or more difference of wins. But look at the other hardcore facts. Ferrer is like Chang-megalite.

Again...again...again...the biggest W:L difference is the Ferrer 4-30 H2H vs Fed/Nad against the 15-27 for Chang vs Samp/Agassi. Doesn't that tell you all you need to know? Really?

By the way win percentage for Djokovic 9 percent higher than chang and the gap is only going up. It is more than double the gap in terms of win percentage. Chang has like 30 something tournament wins and Ferrer has like low 20s, Chang is the more accomplished player, and by the way I don't deny it, I have only said that the gap isn't all that big and I don't think Chang would win a slam or as masters in this era where you have 4 guys I rate much better and super consistent.

You're the one who said Chang is basically like Ferrer when the facts state otherwise. You're the one who started sarcastically stating Chang is no Mozart when Djokovic is no different to many observers of the game, myself included.

Djokovic will be a great of the game. Yes. Just like Lendl was with his 19 slam finals...another noodling jazz musician that no-one really remembers just 20 years on vs the muse's Borg, Mac who created operas that people took to their hearts and minds. Djokovic will go the same way as Lendl....a forgotten great because his play was late night introspective jazz that didn't linger long in people's imagination. The forgotten CD at the back of the cupboard next to Lendl. Ironically, Lendl is actually remembered by many because of......CHANG!!!

By the way Ferrer has a career 37 percent win percentage against top 10 players and chang 35 percent, so Chang wasn't all that much more successful against the top players. Yes again Chang is better but I don't think that much better and I don't think he wins a slam today or as many masters that is for sure.

Lydian, as I said I won't argue with you musical allegories they are specific to your taste. I don't care if others don't enjoy his game as much as I do, let them suffer while I revel. As I stated look at the numbers and granted Chang is better but not by that much. I don't think he wins more than a couple of masters and certainly no slams in this period. Yes it is a hypothetical that is what I am talking about when comparing players of different eras.

socal1976 wrote:By the way Ferrer has a career 37 percent win percentage against top 10 players and chang 35 percent, so Chang wasn't all that much more successful against the top players. Yes again Chang is better but I don't think that much better and I don't think he wins a slam today or as many masters that is for sure.

Now the top 10.

Anything at all to escape the stats versus the best two of their eras. 4-30 and 15-27, in case you forgot. It's beating the best that really differentiates these two. One could, the other can't.

There's really no era you won't denigrate in order to boost Djokovic is there?

In Ferrer's defense he has quite a few wins against murray and Djokovic, although in recent years he hasn't had that much joy against Novak in particular.

Chang is better but as I said, as evidenced by their win percentage and similar playing styles and talents the gulf isn't very large. I never stated that ferrer is better I just don't think Chang would win a slam in this period. Others are entitled to their view it is a hypothetical situation afterall.

lydian wrote:You're suggesting the comparison with Djokovic is pathetic and yet Djokovic hasn't beaten Nadal at RG either. Chang would have pushed Djokovic hard on any surface...remember he beat Agassi at AO and USO in 96, and I don't believe for a second that Djokovic is better than Agassi.

My answer is that Chang would have had a fair chance somewhere down the track...anyone who could beat 5 time RG champions Lendl and Bruguera has a strong case. Sure Nadal is a clay beast...we know that but Chang was probably quicker than any player today inc. Nadal...as I said Coria had MPs vs Nadal over 5 sets at Rome05, I don't see why Chang couldn't replicate that. Other than that, we're circling now.

Nice posts Lyd

Technically I have given up on this thread, Socal one time says Djoko better than Agassi, Nadal, Brugera,Lendl and Fed in baseline and then when questioned he immdly says Brugera doesn't have a CV like Djoko to compete, Chang on this era would have been a complete different player with all those medical and racket advancement who knows he might have even been 6'2 .

Anyways Like BB mentioned this threads is soon becoming Socal fanboy arguments vs facts, there is no point in arguing facts with wind up fanish attitude.

Except for all the facts that I posted Invisible. You want facts to prove Djokovic is a better player from the baseline try the 6 slams on 2 different surfaces and a final appearance in every slam compared to brugera's CV. Since you talk big about facts please provide me the objective facts that prove how brugera is a better baseliner or talk about how technically brugera is better. You provide zero objective facts that support your silly argument about Brugera being a better baseliner than Djokovic. You talk facts but never provide any facts in support of your posts.

socal1976 wrote:Except for all the facts that I posted Invisible. You want facts to prove Djokovic is a better player from the baseline

Djoko better player than fed, Nadal, Agassi , Lendll , Wilander? , you got me here, I give up to your mastery.

You suddenly raise the stats of Djoko's HC slams, which is 5 which is way bigger than Fed's 9

@SoCal... regarding Chang... here a couple of memorable matches at AO...

http://bit.ly/WWNH5k
http://bit.ly/VcIWFw
http://bit.ly/1589rQp

Pretty good, don't you think?

Bruguera on an HC... a very nice match...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBNfL7LaGPU

invisiblecoolers wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Except for all the facts that I posted Invisible. You want facts to prove Djokovic is a better player from the baseline

Djoko better player than fed, Nadal, Agassi , Lendll , Wilander? , you got me here, I give up to your mastery.

You suddenly raise the stats of Djoko's HC slams, which is 5 which is way bigger than Fed's 9

I believe Fed is a better player and have said it over and over again. Djokovic is the better player if you look at just baseline play. By the way, of all the players you listed Djokovic has a very good chance of surpassing Agassi, Lendl, and Wilander in terms of slams, in fact he stands a very, very good chance of overhauling their records and getting very close to Nadal and much closer to federer.

Brugera is not nearly as good a baseliner as Djokovic. And Chang isn't that much better than ferrer. Despite your clips laverfan I don't think there is anything very controversial about either statement. Is Chang better yes, I don't deny it, but he isn't that much better and I doubt he would have any chance of winning a slam today.

So basically only Federer is better than Djokovic in history of the game it would seem, and even then not from the baseline. Djokovic plays with great precision and regularity, you can set your watch by his rhythm. Schumacher was similar, and yet for all his precision driven (literally) success he wasn't that likeable.

Quite frankly I don't give a monkey's how successful Djokovic becomes, he may eclipse Agassi on slam-count but I know which player made more people pick up racquets and live long into the memory. If you like watching metronomes or egocentric displays of shirt-ripping then Djokovic is your man.

And you may wonder why I'm bringing this up. Well its an era discussion, and as I look forward to the 2013+ era, I find I'm not looking forward to it if robotic, right-brain tennis is going to be the order of the day that leaves you missing the contrasts and charisma's of the past.