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: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.

It's just a bit stupid the way you have presented this (highly personal) opinion as a fact.....

Other than that, I don't see the controversy, that's your opinion, who cares.

Yes it is my opinion, as I said it was my opinion of a hypothetical discussion on eras, what is your opinion on that question do you view brugera as a better player from the baseline? Do you think Chang would manage to beat Nadal in his heyday at RG? That is what we are doing when discussing eras, if you don't like it fine, but if you chose to discuss the topics do you find my ideas wrong on the subject. By the way just because this is a hypothetical I use numerous facts and figure in support of my argument, for example win percentage against top 10 opponents that actually favors Ferrer at this point and career win percentage which is very close.

Chang

Grand Slam finals Singles: 4 (1–3)Outcome Year Championship Surface Opponent Score
Winner 1989 French Open Clay Stefan Edberg 6–1, 3–6, 4–6, 6–4, 6–2
Runner-up 1995 French Open Clay Thomas Muster 5–7, 2–6, 4–6
Runner-up 1996 Australian Open Hard Boris Becker 2–6, 4–6, 6–2, 2–6
Runner-up 1996 US Open Hard Pete Sampras 1–6, 4–6, 6–7(3–7)

Year-End Championships finals Singles: 1 (0–1)Outcome Year Championship Surface Opponent Score
Runner-up 1995 Frankfurt Carpet Boris Becker 6–7(3–7), 0–6, 6–7(5–7)

Masters Series finals[edit] Singles: 9 (7–2)Outcome Year Championship Surface Opponent Score
Winner 1990 Canada (Toronto) Hard Jay Berger 4–6, 6–3, 7–6(7–2)
Winner 1992 Indian Wells Hard Andrei Chesnokov 6–3, 6–4, 7–5
Winner 1992 Key Biscayne Hard Alberto Mancini 7–5, 7–5
Winner 1993 Cincinnati Hard Stefan Edberg 7–5, 0–6, 6–4
Winner 1994 Cincinnati Hard Stefan Edberg 6–2, 7–5
Runner-up 1995 Cincinnati Hard Andre Agassi 5–7, 2–6
Winner 1996 Indian Wells Hard Paul Haarhuis 7–5, 6–1, 6–1
Runner-up 1996 Cincinnati Hard Andre Agassi 6–7(4–7), 4–6
Winner 1997 Indian Wells Hard Bohdan Ulihrach 4–6, 6–3, 6–4, 6–3

Ferrer

Singles: 1 (0–1)Outcome Year Championship Surface Opponent Score
Runner-up 2007 Shanghai Hard (i) Roger Federer 2–6, 3–6, 2–6


Masters 1000 finall Singles: 4 (1–3)Outcome Year Championship Surface Opponent Score
Runner-up 2010 Rome Clay Rafael Nadal 5–7, 2–6
Runner-up 2011 Monte Carlo Clay Rafael Nadal 4–6, 5–7
Runner-up 2011 Shanghai Hard Andy Murray 5–7, 4–6
Winner 2012 Paris Hard (i) Jerzy Janowicz 6–4, 6–3

Chang won 7 Masters and one Slam (RG). He also reached 3 more GS final where he lost to, respectively: Muster , Becker, Sampras.

Ferrer won one Master and reached five GS semis.

What this further set of stats would suggest to you?

As I said, Chang is better but not by that much. He would no have the slam and masters numbers with the 4 consistent performers we have seen taking up basically all the slams and masters wins. Yes statistics in isolation of analysis often can give you a warped view of reality. In actuality I agree chang is better than ferrer but not by all that much frankly. And the stats I provided in conjunction with the consistency we have seen in masters from Roger, Rafa, Novak, and Andy he would not have the same numbers in masters and slam final appearances.

Yeah you said that.