Couple of Questions - *Warning May Contain 'Era'*

This was pm'ed to me. I would like it if some could exchange views on this without descending into madness.

As you may know a lot of talk on 606v2 is to do with comparing different eras, something which we can all agree that is a very difficult job; taking into account all the variables.

But as I said, this article is not going to about comparing different eras, well not directly anyway.
I believe tennis moves in a cyclical way- we have one generation dominating, then this generation get older and decline, while the younger generation get in their prime and take over. No one can deny that this is the general movement of events, although there may be some discrepancy with players maturing at different ages.

Now I'm sure you will also all agree with me that there will be a time period where one generation are at their prime, and although many have tried I think it is frankly impossible to pigeonhole one particular exact time period- but we can highlight an estimation of the years which we think this was the case.
During the time period where this generation are at their prime, the slams will be shared between the counterparts- the number of slams in a given year is always fixed.
But my main point is this:
-The more great players there are in a specific generation, the more likely the chances of the slams being shared evenly between them.
Take this example: We have Player A, whose prime lasts 5 years. He is a great player- let's give him an arbitrary rating of 9.8 There are no great players 3 years either side of him- and he accumulates 19 slams in this 5 year period largely unchallenged.
But let's visit the same hypothetical scenario, and the same 5 years (so we can't comparing different time periods as such). His arbitrary rating is also 9.8, but this time there are three other great players who are all of a similar age to him. The slams are shared between these four great players, and Player A manages to win 6 slams.
So far I have not really seen anyone able to convince me that competition within a specific generation will not have an influence in watering down/ inflating the stats of different players. The more great players there are who peak at a similar time, the less records each player will be able to accumulate. Common sense, or not?

Now onto the slightly controversial issue of Federer, and this may explain why I wanted to share this article with you guys rather than put it out on the forum.
Let me make one thing clear- when someone tells me a guy has dominated a time period, the first thing which naturally pops into my mind is: Wow, this player must be great, he dominated his able competitors. No one would naturally assume that his competitors all lacked greatness, you assume that Roger just dominated their greatness.
However in the case of Roger Federer, I think there are questions that can seriously be asked, in terms of his challengers. The ones of similar age to him, not the ones who are younger. Trying to argue that Djokovic is better than him, just because Djokovic is dominating now is flawed logic, as Federer is past his prime. But arguing the players who are his age weren't great, in my eyes is a valid question.

I have some questions here:
1/ How was Rafael Nadal able to get to world number 2 so comfortably from 2005, and remain there so damn comfortably. During Nadal's earlier years, his focus in training was mainly clay- he mainly trained on clay when he was younger (something that I think we can all tell ), and his results on the ATP tour seemed to match this- with many of his points coming from the clay events. The most popular surface played on however, was hard courts.
How could Rafael Nadal, a teenager who could only really perform at the highest level on one surface at the time, not only get to number 2; but stay there basically unchallenged? Doesn't this itself show a lot about the other players Federer's age, who at their prime (around the years 24-27), they could not touch a teenager in the rankings who only really accumulated most of his points on one surface.

2/ Where did Safin disappear after AO 2005? Why did Hewitt decline to the extent that he exited the top 10 after 2005, and has never managed to come back in the top 10. Why did Nalbandian stall in slams so much- after 2003 he never even reached a slam final. Why did he underperform so much?
The only player who was Federer's age who regularly played him in Grand Slam finals was Andy Roddick. With all respect to Roddick, he had a great serve, but his groundstrokes and baseline play was abysmal. Only in 2009 when Stefanki improved Roddick from the baseline did he come close to challenging Federer and impress me as an all round player- watch him in his prime getting absolutely torn to shreds by a young Murray in Wimbledon 2006.
I've posted a stats before that you may have seen- showing that between 2004 and 2008 Murray's 4 measly wins against Federer were more than all the Grand Slam finalists he played in that period apart from Nadal and Djokovic, as well as many other players his age. My point was not that Murray is better than Federer, far from it; but the lack of greatness within the players who were in the same generation to Federer- it's no wonder a teenage clay courter could get and stay at number 2.

legendkillarV2 wrote:This was pm'ed to me. I would like it if some could exchange views on this without descending into madness.

I think you may have the wrong forum.

1/ He was a great slower court player who matured very early and accumulated incredible clay points, and was happy to see the game slowed a bit particularly at Wimbledon.

He was clearly no great shakes on US hardcourts, I think it wasn't until 2008 or 9 that he beat his first seeded player at the USO.

2/ Safin had a problem keeping that large frame healthy, Hewitt had an even bigger one keeping his small frame fit. Nalbandian just had a problem keeping fit.

-------------------

However, great to have a new weak era thread, I thought the forum really needed this. Well done. I'm sure we can now move into other hithertoo unexplored topics like the death of depth of talent in 2012/3, the career of David Ferrer, and the effect of court speed, technology, and time between points.

I am hoping this won't exceed 20 posts

@LK... you may also want to consider one player being a genetic mutation and and causing untold grief for the rest of the cast of thousands.

Perhaps Asimov or Usain Bolt, Paavo Nurmi or Abebe Bikila, or Steve Redgrave can help.

bogbrush. Did you say "time between points"? You know Julius has promised me a crate of beer or a bottle of champagne (can't remember which?) once the new stupid rule has been watered down/tweeked/clarified or putting it bluntly chucked out because it is stupid.

hawkeye wrote:bogbrush. Did you say "time between points"? You know Julius has promised me a crate of beer or a bottle of champagne (can't remember which?) once the new stupid rule has been watered down/tweeked/clarified or putting it bluntly chucked out because it is stupid.

It's not a new rule, it's a new enforcement of an old rule.

You know, like, if they decided you got hanged for taking speeding points would it be a new rule or a new punishment?

laverfan wrote:@LK... you may also want to consider one player being a genetic mutation and and causing untold grief for the rest of the cast of thousands.

Perhaps Asimov or Usain Bolt, Paavo Nurmi or Abebe Bikila, or Steve Redgrave can help.

The thread is not my views LF

A poster pm'd me their view and I couldn't digest it so I thought I would share the love

hawkeye wrote:bogbrush. Did you say "time between points"? You know Julius has promised me a crate of beer or a bottle of champagne...

As another poster is apt to say -
Incorrect

Fed's contemporaries were not comparable to past dominant champions it is apparent. Anyone who doesn't believe it just look at the year end rankings of 2007 where a 20 year old Nadal and a 19 year old Djoko were his closest rivals in the rankings and not Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, and Nalbandian. Djokovic in particular was a caterpillar version of himself. To me this is the most telling and objective way to break the issue down.

Safin and Nalbandian had the talent and didn't work hard enough. Hewitt and roddick were lesser tennis talents who did the hardwork and fought but just were not great players able to challenge Roger. Federer had to wait a few years before other greats came up frankly. Nadal was world #2 at 18 because he threw aside the rollover generation, and Djoko to a lesser extent did the same thing, although he took a lot longer to hit his prime.

Hewitt, who post terrible injuries can still push players now, was awesome at his peak. Absolutely brilliant. An absolute nightmare for attacking opponents even without the advantages of modern strings.

I really do tire of seeing players dismissed in this way just because they fell into the shadow of a guy who at his peak is almost certainly the best yet, or in the case of Hewitt was destroyed by injury.

There's only one thing in this classic/tired debate that I think is certain.

If Nadal and Djokovic could become Fed's main rivals at the ages of 19 and 20, then they are superior players to Fed's rivals of his own age.

If you extend the argument to encompass entire eras, then everything becomes a bit subjective and woolly.

That is all.

How many times are we to reflect on the effect of the games changes on these guys? Lydian has shown over and over how these guys - who grew up playing tennis in the 90's environment of equipment and courts - were undermined by the changes.

I mean, does anyone think Andy Roddick at peak, given mid 90's conditions, would not blow most of these guys off a Wimbledon court in three sets?

HM Murdoch wrote:There's only one thing in this classic/tired debate that I think is certain.

If Nadal and Djokovic could become Fed's main rivals at the ages of 19 and 20, then they are superior players to Fed's rivals of his own age.

All that shows is that at the point Nadal and Djokovic became Fed's main rivals they were superior players to Fed's rivals of his own age. Prior to that they weren't. Safin, for example, at his best was probably better than a 20 year old Djoko.

What are you talking about BB, the conditions were slowed down before these guys even reached their peak. The USO was slowed down before Roddick won it, same for all of Roger's slams. As murdoch states no question Nadal and Djoko were much better competitors and champions than fed's contemporaries. Whatever the cause may be or not, it isn't just fed that was beating them, other players raised up and knocked them out of slams on a regular basis. Like Gazza and murray doing it to roddick at wimby, that is just one example.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:There's only one thing in this classic/tired debate that I think is certain.

If Nadal and Djokovic could become Fed's main rivals at the ages of 19 and 20, then they are superior players to Fed's rivals of his own age.

All that shows is that at the point Nadal and Djokovic became Fed's main rivals they were superior players to Fed's rivals of his own age. Prior to that they weren't. Safin, for example, at his best was probably better than a 20 year old Djoko.

Yes how long did Safin's best last for two week in Australia in 2005 and 2 weeks in NY in 2001, that is about the jist of it.

IW 2013, spare-parts Hewitt beat John Isner, last year's IW finalist, who beat Djokovic 2012.

It is rather simplistic to use year-end rankings of any specific year to look at the past 52-weeks. For example, Nadal, not having played for last 7 months, is still #5.

socal, Safin also did OK at Wimby 2008.

Anyway, you're talking about longevity, not peak ability.
I'm not judging overall greatness, but the ability to produce greatness for a slam or two - like Krajicek or Ivanisevic - which means that getting to a slam final shows that you can play at the same level as others who reach the final, even if you can only produce it a few times rather than consistently.

Djokovic's peak ability far outstrips Safin, did safin win 40 matchs in a row at any peak that he enjoyed. The very fact that you would even state such a thing shows an completely ridiculously the players today are disrespected and fed's contemporaries lionized for little or no accomplishments. Peak Djokovic kicks peak Safin's ass, period anyway you slice it. I'll put early 2011 Djokovic against the best safin and feel more than confident in the outcome.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:There's only one thing in this classic/tired debate that I think is certain.

If Nadal and Djokovic could become Fed's main rivals at the ages of 19 and 20, then they are superior players to Fed's rivals of his own age.

All that shows is that at the point Nadal and Djokovic became Fed's main rivals they were superior players to Fed's rivals of his own age. Prior to that they weren't. Safin, for example, at his best was probably better than a 20 year old Djoko.

I'm not sure if you are disagreeing or making a new point!

But if teenaged players displace players in their mid 20s and then stay ahead if them for the rest of their careers, I think it is rational to view them as superior players.

socal, I can only think you've completely misunderstood my post.
The best tennis ever played my be by some guy who only managed it for one match - that's what I mean by peak ability, albeit an extreme example.

Far from disrespecting today's players, I said I wasn't judging overall greatness. Were I to do so, obviously Djoko beats Safin hands down.

My point is that any player who reached a slam final from 2000 - 2005 could very well have been playing as well for those 2 weeks, as any player that reached a slam final in any other period of time. Simply because form can go up and down and some players only peak for short periods of time.

Now, you can say that makes for a weak era if you want, but it doesn't necessarily follow that any given slam was a 'weak' slam. You have to take the actual performances into account, not just say that because Player A's average level is below that of Player B, then Player A must be an easier opponent than Player B on any given day. That's far too simplistic - but a very good way to denigrate Fed, for those who don't want to think too deeply.

Of course it is rational Murdoch, but you can lead the horse to water but you can not make him drink. Fed's contemporaries are judged with rose tinted spectacles because of the belief that somehow the fact that they were lacking when compared with other dominant players somehow diminishes federer. I don't really see it that way as a player can only beat the players before him. And also it is never easy per se to dominate the tour even if you face the rollover generation they are still good pros in general. Federer by the way brought us out of that crappy period of inconsistent talent and raised the bar for the entire game. If anything he is the one who signalled the end of the transitional period.

Ok then Julius, for one match Lukas Rosol was better than Federer has ever been. Did you see how he manhandled Nadal at a slam, peak Rosol beats peak federer then by your standards. It is nonsensical in my opinion. Why stop there, on my best shot that I ever hit I am just as good as Novak Djokovic. Peak socal is better than peak Djokovic.

HM Murdoch wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:There's only one thing in this classic/tired debate that I think is certain.

If Nadal and Djokovic could become Fed's main rivals at the ages of 19 and 20, then they are superior players to Fed's rivals of his own age.

All that shows is that at the point Nadal and Djokovic became Fed's main rivals they were superior players to Fed's rivals of his own age. Prior to that they weren't. Safin, for example, at his best was probably better than a 20 year old Djoko.

I'm not sure if you are disagreeing or making a new point!

But if teenaged players displace players in their mid 20s and then stay ahead if them for the rest of their careers, I think it is rational to view them as superior players.

Yes, completely rational. But can we definitely say that e.g. Murray at Wimby 2012 was a tougher opponent than Philipoussis at Wimby 2003 (taking into account the natural evolution of the game) without looking at form, level of play during the match etc?
It's very easy for weak era proponents/Fed bashers to say, well he only had to beat Philipoussis, and not bother to look at the level of play during the tournment and final. Instead they say Murray's a greater player than Philipoussis therefore Fed had it easy. That's not a logical inference and it's not how tennis works. But it is exactly how Fed-bashing works. (Or Nadal-bashing if we go for the weak clay court era theory)

socal1976 wrote:Ok then Julius, for one match Lukas Rosol was better than Federer has ever been. Did you see how he manhandled Nadal at a slam, peak Rosol beats peak federer then by your standards. It is nonsensical in my opinion. Why stop there, on my best shot that I ever hit I am just as good as Novak Djokovic. Peak socal is better than peak Djokovic.

The point you're making here is correct, it's just that it doesn't really address my point - which is not about a player's overall greatness, but a player's ability to win a slam/reach a final by playing truly great, world-beating tennis for a fortnight - rather than being labelled a rollover during that slam simply because he could rarely reproduce that form outside that slam.

JHM, I agree. Any comparison of one player's single performance in 04 to another player's single performance in 12 can never be scientific.

But I don't get why the claim that Fed's rivals post 07 are better than those pre 07 has to be seen as denigration?

Let's put it another way. Post 07 Fed had a couple of rivals who could consistently challenge him. Prior to that, he didn't.

Is that fair?

HM Murdoch wrote:JHM, I agree. Any comparison of one player's single performance in 04 to another player's single performance in 12 can never be scientific.

But I don't get why the claim that Fed's rivals post 07 are better than those pre 07 has to be seen as denigration?

Let's put it another way. Post 07 Fed had a couple of rivals who could consistently challenge him. Prior to that, he didn't.

Is that fair?

Yes, that's fair. And the original claim in itself isn't denigration, but as you know it's taken by some (and used by some) as evidence of, shall we say, asterisked slams. Simply because it's a one-sentence analysis.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:JHM, I agree. Any comparison of one player's single performance in 04 to another player's single performance in 12 can never be scientific.

But I don't get why the claim that Fed's rivals post 07 are better than those pre 07 has to be seen as denigration?

Let's put it another way. Post 07 Fed had a couple of rivals who could consistently challenge him. Prior to that, he didn't.

Is that fair?

Yes, that's fair. And the original claim in itself isn't denigration, but as you know it's taken by some (and used by some) as evidence of, shall we say, asterisked slams. Simply because it's a one-sentence analysis.

Who has ever said any of fed's slams prior to 2007 is asteriked, in fact what Murdoch says is basically what I have been saying for years. It is clear fed didn't have consistent top level rivals prior to 07 but he did after 07, and very much so. Credit to him, he won a crap load of slams after that. So the weak era thing is not a knock on federer although people take it as such. And not only that they go out of there way to ho-hum the current players and lionize people like Super talented Dave beyond any rhyme or reason.

Not so much nowdays but loads of posters on the old 606 and a few on here have in the past thrown metaphorical asterisks all over the place pre-2008.
The inference of them being easy slams to win still exists.

I could equally ask who has ever lionized Super talented Dave beyond any rhyme or reason?

bogbrush wrote:How many times are we to reflect on the effect of the games changes on these guys? Lydian has shown over and over how these guys - who grew up playing tennis in the 90's environment of equipment and courts - were undermined by the changes.

I mean, does anyone think Andy Roddick at peak, given mid 90's conditions, would not blow most of these guys off a Wimbledon court in three sets?

This very much does explain the sudden change in fortunes to those who grew up playing in different conditions. Almost scientific reasoning and one I agree with. The fact the likes of Hewitt, Roddick and Safin could still produce some superlative performances beyond 2005 is a testament to their talents.

bogbrush wrote:I mean, does anyone think Andy Roddick at peak, given mid 90's conditions, would not blow most of these guys off a Wimbledon court in three sets?

I like the way you choose, easily the worst Tennis spell since the Open era. Indeed, it's this nightmare time, which makes me hesitate at having speeded up courts, today

It says it all really. You are of course correct, but this surely supports the us who think the 2007 to 2012 era was by far and away the strongest, arguably ever

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how Roddick, who was young enough to take the court conditions changes into his stride, came nowhere near to getting back in the Top 3, never mind his previous No.1 spot

Basically, we're all meant to swallow the tale, that Roddick was superb up to 2005 and then suddenly deteriorated because the courts changed and not because the quality of the opposition increased

I agree that we must put a caveat in for Hewitt - who was unfortunate enough to suffer injuries at a young age. Fat Dave was just unfortunate not to have a good brain that told him maybe he needed to pay attention to fitness

Wowzers, the more I read this article the more I agree with it.
Thanks for passing it on to us LK

JuliusHMarx wrote:

hawkeye wrote:bogbrush. Did you say "time between points"? You know Julius has promised me a crate of beer or a bottle of champagne...

As another poster is apt to say -
Incorrect

You have to put it in bold

bogbrush wrote:
2/ Safin had a problem keeping that large frame healthy, Hewitt had an even bigger one keeping his small frame fit. Nalbandian just had a problem keeping fit.

Bogbrush, would you not agree that if your main rivals have 'fitness issues', then it will be easier to win slams at that time?

Red wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

hawkeye wrote:bogbrush. Did you say "time between points"? You know Julius has promised me a crate of beer or a bottle of champagne...

As another poster is apt to say -
Incorrect

You have to put it in bold

I didn't want to infringe copyright

I know it's quite a long article (apologies), so for the few who haven't had the time to read the whole thing, these are few of the key points:

But my main point is this:
-The more great players there are in a specific generation, the more likely the chances of the slams being shared evenly between them.
Take this example: We have Player A, whose prime lasts 5 years. He is a great player- let's give him an arbitrary rating of 9.8 There are no great players 3 years either side of him- and he accumulates 19 slams in this 5 year period largely unchallenged.
But let's visit the same hypothetical scenario, and the same 5 years (so we can't comparing different time periods as such). His arbitrary rating is also 9.8, but this time there are three other great players who are all of a similar age to him. The slams are shared between these four great players, and Player A manages to win 6 slams.
So far I have not really seen anyone able to convince me that competition within a specific generation will not have an influence in watering down/ inflating the stats of different players. The more great players there are who peak at a similar time, the less records each player will be able to accumulate. Common sense, or not?

Does anyone disagree with this point above ^ ; and if so, why?

Also:

How was Rafael Nadal able to get to world number 2 so comfortably from 2005, and remain there so damn comfortably. During Nadal's earlier years, his focus in training was mainly clay- he mainly trained on clay when he was younger (something that I think we can all tell ), and his results on the ATP tour seemed to match this- with many of his points coming from the clay events. Doesn't this itself show a lot about the other players Federer's age, who at their prime (around the years 24-27), they could not touch a teenager in the rankings?

To add to this as HM said, Djokovic also cruised to number 3 in the world at a very young age. Where were Federer's peers, who let these players who had not yet reached their prime go above them in the rankings?

Red wrote:I know it's quite a long article (apologies), so for the few who haven't had the time to read the whole thing, these are few of the key points:

But my main point is this:
-The more great players there are in a specific generation, the more likely the chances of the slams being shared evenly between them.
Take this example: We have Player A, whose prime lasts 5 years. He is a great player- let's give him an arbitrary rating of 9.8 There are no great players 3 years either side of him- and he accumulates 19 slams in this 5 year period largely unchallenged.
But let's visit the same hypothetical scenario, and the same 5 years (so we can't comparing different time periods as such). His arbitrary rating is also 9.8, but this time there are three other great players who are all of a similar age to him. The slams are shared between these four great players, and Player A manages to win 6 slams.
So far I have not really seen anyone able to convince me that competition within a specific generation will not have an influence in watering down/ inflating the stats of different players. The more great players there are who peak at a similar time, the less records each player will be able to accumulate. Common sense, or not?

Does anyone disagree with this point above ^ ; and if so, why?

Yes - see my points from earlier. The term 'great' is applied to players who have longevity & can repeatedly reproduce great form. A relative lack of such great players does not preclude slightly less great players playing at equivalent levels but for a shorter period of time - this making slams equally difficult to win (on average).

For example it's entirely possible that Peurta was more of a challenge to Rafa than Fed on the day - you'd have to analyse the match thoroughly, not just dismiss Peurta as a weak opponent. Then you'd have to analyse each of Fed's opponents as they played during the slams he won in order to reach any satisfactory conclusions as to the 'slam difficulty rating'. Even then it would be subjetctive, of course. It takes far less time and thought to just say 'weak era' and be done with it. Less time and thought leads to less accuracy. If the goal is also to denigrate Fed, as some undoubtedly wish to do, then that also leads to less objectivity and less accuracy, even is this is at a subconscious level, less apparent to the poster than the reader.

Interesting points Julius.
However in tennis I think, when it gets to a slam final, players with past experience in similar situations and 'proven champions', will be harder opponents.
Thinking about it in football, in the FA Cup a team like Swansea might be playing fantastic attacking football at that particular time- but when it gets to a final you'd always see Manchester United (who may be on average form) as still bigger threats.

I also believe that the threat posed my an 'on-form' Roddick- is still not as threatening compared to an average Nadal, Federer, Djokovic etc. - not only will they be mentally equipped in grand slams finals- I also feel they are better all round tennis players.

HM made a good point that Djokovic reached number 3 when he was very young. Number 2 at the time was Nadal. Where were Federer's peers, to challenge these players in the rankings (considering this was an age where they were meant to be in their prime- while Djokal were younger).

Red wrote:Interesting points Julius.
However in tennis I think, when it gets to a slam final, players with past experience in similar situations and 'proven champions', will be harder opponents.
Thinking about it in football, in the FA Cup a team like Swansea might be playing fantastic attacking football at that particular time- but when it gets to a final you'd always see Manchester United (who may be on average form) as still bigger threats.

Hmm, but then Rafa has only once won a FO final against anyone who had previously won the FO.

Disagree with using team sports as an analogy.

JHM - you are completely correct but it does have to cut both ways.

If we accept that a less distinguished opponent could have played fantastically on the day, we also have to accept that said opponent could also have performed at their more usual (i.e. lower) level.

Too frequently though, even the suggestion that some of Fed's opponents may have been weaker players is seen as sacrilege and an insult.

The oddity is that the sensitivity seems to uniquely surround Federer.

The Nadal fans seem to readily accept that Berdych in W10 was an easier proposition than Federer in W08. Djokovic fans can accept that Tsonga AO08 was less of a challenge than Nadal AO12.

But the suggestion that Baghdatis or Gonzalez may have been easier opponents than Nadal & Djokovic seems to be taken by many Fed fans as a huge attack on their player.

It's ridiculous. The guy has won 17 slams. Does every last one of them have to have been against a lethal opponent at the top of his game for that achievement to have any meaning?

Red wrote:

bogbrush wrote:
2/ Safin had a problem keeping that large frame healthy, Hewitt had an even bigger one keeping his small frame fit. Nalbandian just had a problem keeping fit.

Bogbrush, would you not agree that if your main rivals have 'fitness issues', then it will be easier to win slams at that time?

Different question, different timeframe.

Federer had passed these guys before they went down.

banbrotam wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I mean, does anyone think Andy Roddick at peak, given mid 90's conditions, would not blow most of these guys off a Wimbledon court in three sets?

I like the way you choose, easily the worst Tennis spell since the Open era. Indeed, it's this nightmare time, which makes me hesitate at having speeded up courts, today

It says it all really. You are of course correct, but this surely supports the us who think the 2007 to 2012 era was by far and away the strongest, arguably ever

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how Roddick, who was young enough to take the court conditions changes into his stride, came nowhere near to getting back in the Top 3, never mind his previous No.1 spot

Basically, we're all meant to swallow the tale, that Roddick was superb up to 2005 and then suddenly deteriorated because the courts changed and not because the quality of the opposition increased

I agree that we must put a caveat in for Hewitt - who was unfortunate enough to suffer injuries at a young age. Fat Dave was just unfortunate not to have a good brain that told him maybe he needed to pay attention to fitness

Here is the more bizarre and illogical aspect of the argument Banbro, Roddick actually did maintain his top 3 ranking until the summer of 2007 doesn't seem like he was terribly hampered by the slower conditions, he was supplanted by Djokovic in Canada of 2007. When Djokovic beat Roddick, Nadal, and Federer the then 1,2,3 players in the world on successive days to claim the Canada masters at 19 years old and his victory that year finally pushed him past Roddick. Without question the best Roddick we saw was the 09 version of roddick who was leaner, had a better backhand, and who could on occassion actually volley. Of all of Roddick's slam losses to federer the 09 loss at wimby he came the closest and really should have won that match except that he tanked a gimme backhand volley on break point late in the match.

The idea that these players were so hampered by the slow conditions that they all collapsed I think is a bit much. Hewitt won wimbeldon after the slow down, and I doubt he would have had a chance at wimby if the conditions were like the 90s. Safin won 1 of his two slams on slowed down conditions. The fact of the matter is just look at the level of dedication vis a vis Safin and Nalbandian and compare that to Murray and Djoko. Djoko freaking quit wheat glutten, Nalbandian can't even quit the buffet line. Whether you want to chalk it up to injuries, or changing conditions that is fine. Whatever the excuse is they were pushed aside by the current generation in their mid-20s, by puppy versions of Nadal, djoko, and murray. Did they score some big wins and have some results afterwards yes, no one is claiming they couldn't play or had no talent just that they were not able to consistently maintain their form. At a time when supposedly it is easier for the top guys to win because of homogenization of conditons (at least that is what we hear) these guys outside of Roddick couldn't even consistently stay in the top 10.

Another interesting comparison:

By the end of 2009, Djokovic had beaten Federer 5 times out of 14 matches. Djokovic was 22 or younger for this period.

By the end of 2009, Roddick had beaten Federer 2 times in 21 matches.

It's clear as day that Djokovic is/was a tougher opponent for Federer than Roddick.

And there's no need to mention Nadal's record!

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Red wrote:Interesting points Julius.
However in tennis I think, when it gets to a slam final, players with past experience in similar situations and 'proven champions', will be harder opponents.
Thinking about it in football, in the FA Cup a team like Swansea might be playing fantastic attacking football at that particular time- but when it gets to a final you'd always see Manchester United (who may be on average form) as still bigger threats.

Hmm, but then Rafa has only once won a FO final against anyone who had previously won the FO.

I think Federer had the experience at top level tournaments.

HM Murdoch wrote:
The Nadal fans seem to readily accept that Berdych in W10 was an easier proposition than Federer in W08. Djokovic fans can accept that Tsonga AO08 was less of a challenge than Nadal AO12.

Absolutely- to add to this Puerta as well was less of a challenge for Nadal.

But the suggestion that Baghdatis or Gonzalez may have been easier opponents than Nadal & Djokovic seems to be taken by many Fed fans as a huge attack on their player.

To be fair, most sides have debated maturely here

HM Murdoch wrote:JHM - you are completely correct.

Well, I refuse to believe that for a start.

HM Murdoch wrote:If we accept that a less distinguished opponent could have played fantastically on the day, we also have to accept that said opponent could also have performed at their more usual (i.e. lower) level.

Absolutely, but unless you go back and actually analyze the match, you can't know. How many people can be bothered to do that? Easier just to say weak era/opponent.

HM Murdoch wrote:Too frequently though, even the suggestion that some of Fed's opponents may have been weaker players is seen as sacrilege and an insult.

The oddity is that the sensitivity seems to uniquely surround Federer.

True, but maybe that's because so many people want to take a pop at the guy at the top.

HM Murdoch wrote:The Nadal fans seem to readily accept that Berdych in W10 was an easier proposition than Federer in W08. Djokovic fans can accept that Tsonga AO08 was less of a challenge than Nadal AO12.

That's because they did actually put up less of a challenge. But what if Berdych had played a blinder and won - would that have been easier than Federer?

HM Murdoch wrote:But the suggestion that Baghdatis or Gonzalez may have been easier opponents than Nadal & Djokovic seems to be taken by many Fed fans as a huge attack on their player.

Actually it's also an insult to Baghdatis or Gonzalez - saying that even at their best they are in no way capable of being as tough an opponent on the day as Nadal or Djoko. Also the lack of time and effort to accurately judge the level of play and the sweeping statements used to dismiss these players.

HM Murdoch wrote:It's ridiculous. The guy has won 17 slams. Does every last one of them have to have been against a lethal opponent at the top of his game for that achievement to have any meaning?

It is ridiculous, but then there are posters out there who will go to ridiculous lengths to 'prove' that Sampras, Nadal, Borg, whoever must objectively and undeniably be better than Fed.

Red wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Red wrote:Interesting points Julius.
However in tennis I think, when it gets to a slam final, players with past experience in similar situations and 'proven champions', will be harder opponents.
Thinking about it in football, in the FA Cup a team like Swansea might be playing fantastic attacking football at that particular time- but when it gets to a final you'd always see Manchester United (who may be on average form) as still bigger threats.

Hmm, but then Rafa has only once won a FO final against anyone who had previously won the FO.

I think Federer had the experience at top level tournaments.

He never quite matured on clay though did he?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Red wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Red wrote:Interesting points Julius.
However in tennis I think, when it gets to a slam final, players with past experience in similar situations and 'proven champions', will be harder opponents.
Thinking about it in football, in the FA Cup a team like Swansea might be playing fantastic attacking football at that particular time- but when it gets to a final you'd always see Manchester United (who may be on average form) as still bigger threats.

Hmm, but then Rafa has only once won a FO final against anyone who had previously won the FO.

I think Federer had the experience at top level tournaments.

He never quite matured on clay though did he?

I think he did- I think his problem was Nadal rather than the surface.
Remember when Nadal did go out early- Fed capitalised.

Red wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:
The Nadal fans seem to readily accept that Berdych in W10 was an easier proposition than Federer in W08. Djokovic fans can accept that Tsonga AO08 was less of a challenge than Nadal AO12.

Absolutely- to add to this Puerta as well was less of a challenge for Nadal.

vs Puerta - 6–7(6–8), 6–3, 6–1, 7–5
vs Fed - 6–1, 6–3, 6–0

Which one was more of a challenge?