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

First topic message reminder :

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.

laverfan wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

laverfan wrote:Deja Vu!

I didn't see that coming.

Oh Mr Belpit, your legs are so swollen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3NarYWlJL0

... and some more... https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=FVzt2HSvUis

Julius, I'm saying that normally, the hardest matches and biggest threats in slams come at the latter stages of the tournament.
This situation is a bit like this:
You are on a branch, and are about to jump off. I say 'don't jump' because I assume that you jumping will mean you fall on the ground. However there is a minute possibility that there is a see-through silk net just below the branch that we can't see which would catch you.
You, while on the branch, then tell me off for making assumptions (in saying you may fall off if you jump) because I haven't checked to see if there's a silk net.

The fact is, in the majority of Grand Slam tournaments, the hardest matches will come in the latter stages- QF up.

I know what you're saying, because that's the third time you've said it and I understood it the first time.
If you wish perhaps you could re-read my posts and address my counter-points as regards evaluating any given slam accurately rather than evaluating with probabilities, which can lead to inaccuracies.
If you don't wish, that's OK too.

OK what I'll do Julius, is asses all the players Federer had to face in a slam in 2007, and compare it to all the players Federer had to face in a slam in 2011.
It's a pity I hadn't thought of that earlier...

Red wrote:The fact is, in the majority of Grand Slam tournaments, the hardest matches will come in the latter stages- QF up.

Every single match, no matter what round is tough. If player underestimates the player on the other side of net, done and dusted.

Federer v Falla at W 2010.

Nadal v Isner at RG 2011.

Djokovic v Troicki USO 2010.

Murray v Wawrinka USO 2010.

BTW, these are all from the so-called strong era. (Yes, I know I am cherry-picking, like the Tobacco stats).

Red wrote:OK what I'll do Julius, is asses all the players Federer had to face in a slam in 2007, and compare it to all the players Federer had to face in a slam in 2011.
It's a pity I hadn't thought of that earlier...

Well, to be fair, I did say that I hoped people had better things to do with their time than that sort of thing.
In any case, it will inevitably be a subjective analysis, and there's no way I'm going to spend time doing anything similar in order to debate it.

This has been done x times, with subjectivity added to the nth degree, as JHM says.

The lack of creativity is astounding. LK's racquet article is probably the saving grace right now.

laverfan wrote:

Red wrote:The fact is, in the majority of Grand Slam tournaments, the hardest matches will come in the latter stages- QF up.

Every single match, no matter what round is tough. If player underestimates the player on the other side of net, done and dusted.

Sure, I'm not denying that. I am aware the level in the professional gane is very high.
However I still think the toughest test comes at the end of a Slam- in the latter stages.

Red wrote:Julius, I'm saying that normally, the hardest matches and biggest threats in slams come at the latter stages of the tournament.
This situation is a bit like this:
You are on a branch, and are about to jump off. I say 'don't jump' because I assume that you jumping will mean you fall on the ground. However there is a minute possibility that there is a see-through silk net just below the branch that we can't see which would catch you.
You, while on the branch, then tell me off for making assumptions (in saying you may fall off if you jump) because I haven't checked to see if there's a silk net.

The fact is, in the majority of Grand Slam tournaments, the hardest matches will come in the latter stages- QF up.

What would be great is if we could have a simple analogy so we could make sense of this analogy.

bogbrush wrote:

Red wrote:Julius, I'm saying that normally, the hardest matches and biggest threats in slams come at the latter stages of the tournament.
This situation is a bit like this:
You are on a branch, and are about to jump off. I say 'don't jump' because I assume that you jumping will mean you fall on the ground. However there is a minute possibility that there is a see-through silk net just below the branch that we can't see which would catch you.
You, while on the branch, then tell me off for making assumptions (in saying you may fall off if you jump) because I haven't checked to see if there's a silk net.

The fact is, in the majority of Grand Slam tournaments, the hardest matches will come in the latter stages- QF up.

What would be great is if we could have a simple analogy so we could make sense of this analogy.

I am saying that if you jump of the branch, the very likely probability is you are going to fall.
Julius is saying this isn't correct- as there may be occasions where there is a unseen silk net which catches you.

Red wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Red wrote:Julius, I'm saying that normally, the hardest matches and biggest threats in slams come at the latter stages of the tournament.
This situation is a bit like this:
You are on a branch, and are about to jump off. I say 'don't jump' because I assume that you jumping will mean you fall on the ground. However there is a minute possibility that there is a see-through silk net just below the branch that we can't see which would catch you.
You, while on the branch, then tell me off for making assumptions (in saying you may fall off if you jump) because I haven't checked to see if there's a silk net.

The fact is, in the majority of Grand Slam tournaments, the hardest matches will come in the latter stages- QF up.

What would be great is if we could have a simple analogy so we could make sense of this analogy.

I am saying that if you jump of the branch, the very likely probability is you are going to fall.
Julius is saying this isn't correct- as there may be occasions where there is a unseen silk net which catches you.

Obviously that's not what I'm saying at all -as Silver and HM among others have already understood.

I'm sure HM and Silver will agree that the large majority of the time- the most difficult matches in a Grand Slam come in the latter stages.

Does anyone disagree with me on that?
I am aware there will be some rare exceptions (eg Nadal vs Rosol).

I thought you were saying that the most difficult matches come when you jump off trees into invisible nets.

Can't we just stick with pretending to respect all Federers Slams while dismissing every opponent before our favourite as a hopeless weak era loser? I've got used to reading that. This invisible net thing makes me feel vaguely threatened.

Red wrote:I'm sure HM and Silver will agree that the large majority of the time- the most difficult matches in a Grand Slam come in the latter stages.

As indeed, I have agreed (apolgies if I explicity failed to state it - thought I had. It's certainly implied in my previous posts). But that doesn't address the point which Silver and HM have understood. (Again, the use of 'large majority' ironically proves my point despite you not yet understanding it.)

Are you really planning to watch all of Fed's slam matches (2007 & 2011)?

bogbrush wrote:I thought you were saying that the most difficult matches come when you jump off trees into invisible nets.

Can't we just stick with pretending to respect all Federers Slams while dismissing every opponent before our favourite as a hopeless weak era loser? I've got used to reading that. This invisible net thing makes me feel vaguely threatened.

BB it all becomes clear when you view Rafa as inflation and Fed as interest rates.

Was someone talking about see-through silk? I'm listening...

lydian wrote:Was someone talking about see-through silk? I'm listening...

Cannot oblige with diaphanous clothing and titillating derivatives thereof.

Regarding the OP....

https://www.606v2.com/t5915p50-eras-of-tennis
https://www.606v2.com/t36368-is-this-the-strongest-top-8-in-history
https://www.606v2.com/t14760p100-was-federer-better-in-2006-poll-added
https://www.606v2.com/t40201-era-discussions-for-all-time-periods

Want more?

laverfan wrote:This has been done x times, with subjectivity added to the nth degree, as JHM says.

The lack of creativity is astounding. LK's racquet article is probably the saving grace right now.

Why thank you LF.

There's a lot of tennis at the moment and those threads tend to take care of themselves.

I try to think of subjects maybe which could be interesting.

Though with this one I felt compelled to share the pain.

End of the day the measuring stick does not change status of any player. Those who win the most matches and titles tend to be the best.

As lydian and BB pointed out that tennis underwent a massive change post 2002 and players who were the best at that time struggled afterwards. I can't understand why anyone would ignore as a real tangible effect because that is what it was. Nalby, Hewitt, Haas all suffered a long list of injuries and yet 2 of them this week defeated players ranked above them and former top 10er's. They were affected by changes in the game as well as injuries. The fact they can still defeat younger players ranked above them clearly is testament to talent that clearly exists. Imagine had the changes came in the 90's. Would've had the same effect with the fringe players at the time. Goran, Scud, Martin, Rusedski would've all suffered massively and wouldn't even have been near the top 10. Players like Rios, Medvedev, Chang would've benefitted greatly with slowed down conditions and enhanced equipment.

Tomatoes-Tomatos. The outcome is the same. The number of matches required to win a Slam or masters event will be the same irrelevent to who participated.

This topic has been done to death and we will never get agreement on eras as there are just far too many variables.Variables such as equipment change and court speed change coupled with people having varying ideas on how to judge talent or what constitutes an era in either passage of time or how you judge its strength. There will never be an agreed conclusion to this so I am not even going to begin to try.

I'll admit I didn't go through the whole piece. Just scanned here and there to see if it was a Socal type of article, attempting to big up this or that favourite or a genuine attempt to takle the old, well known topic, from a slightly different angle.

When the OP says that "The more great players there are in a specific generation, the more likely the chances of the slams being shared evenly between them", I am actully all in agreement. That's why I have always thought at Borg as possibly the best goat candidate. He had to fight against the strongest level of competition and, nontheless, it was clear to all that he was something else, bigger and better than the rest.

If I compare the Borg's age, or Becker and Edberg age, to the current one, or to Federer's prime years, it stikes me how poor of truly exceptional players has been tennis in recent years, and how little personality show the champions on top of the ranking right now. Let's think for example, at the competition Nadal has had to face on the clay courts. Can anybody name a great clay specialist he had to battle against in the past 7 to 8 years? Well, personally I can't.

Borg spent far fewer weeks at No 1 than either Connors or McEnroe. I'm not sure Americans (where Borg never won a slam, but Connors won 5) would regard him as clearly better.

I dont think you have to be a 'surface specialist' to be good on a surface, eg Borg was good on grass but not a grass specialist.

You don't, but it certainly helps on clay. What I am referring to, is great beseliners, the type of players who find in the slow courts the ideal conditions: the Vilas, Lendl, Wilander, Muster, Kuerten, Courier, Bruguera types .....

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:I'll admit I didn't go through the whole piece. Just scanned here and there to see if it was a Socal type of article, attempting to big up this or that favourite or a genuine attempt to takle the old, well known topic, from a slightly different angle.

When the OP says that "The more great players there are in a specific generation, the more likely the chances of the slams being shared evenly between them", I am actully all in agreement. That's why I have always thought at Borg as possibly the best goat candidate. He had to fight against the strongest level of competition and, nontheless, it was clear to all that he was something else, bigger and better than the rest.

If I compare the Borg's age, or Becker and Edberg age, to the current one, or to Federer's prime years, it stikes me how poor of truly exceptional players has been tennis in recent years, and how little personality show the champions on top of the ranking right now. Let's think for example, at the competition Nadal has had to face on the clay courts. Can anybody name a great clay specialist he had to battle against in the past 7 to 8 years? Well, personally I can't.

Nice cheap shot at the beginning JK. Duly noted.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

laverfan wrote:This has been done x times, with subjectivity added to the nth degree, as JHM says.

The lack of creativity is astounding. LK's racquet article is probably the saving grace right now.

Why thank you LF.

There's a lot of tennis at the moment and those threads tend to take care of themselves.

I try to think of subjects maybe which could be interesting.

Though with this one I felt compelled to share the pain.

End of the day the measuring stick does not change status of any player. Those who win the most matches and titles tend to be the best.

As lydian and BB pointed out that tennis underwent a massive change post 2002 and players who were the best at that time struggled afterwards. I can't understand why anyone would ignore as a real tangible effect because that is what it was. Nalby, Hewitt, Haas all suffered a long list of injuries and yet 2 of them this week defeated players ranked above them and former top 10er's. They were affected by changes in the game as well as injuries. The fact they can still defeat younger players ranked above them clearly is testament to talent that clearly exists. Imagine had the changes came in the 90's. Would've had the same effect with the fringe players at the time. Goran, Scud, Martin, Rusedski would've all suffered massively and wouldn't even have been near the top 10. Players like Rios, Medvedev, Chang would've benefitted greatly with slowed down conditions and enhanced equipment.

Tomatoes-Tomatos. The outcome is the same. The number of matches required to win a Slam or masters event will be the same irrelevent to who participated.

I wonder why the slowing conditions didn't result in the entire tour en masse going down to injury like poor fat Dave? Why did Roddick never suffer an injury bug, or federer. I mean has anyone examined whether slowing conditions in tennis caused the economic collapse. And then the last line really makes no sense to me. What does the number of matches being the same have anything to do with how hard it is to win a slam or masters? This is like rating women for beauty and saying well they all have the same number of chromosomes so they are equally attractive.

The facts are there Hewitt, Nalby, Safin, Roddick <Courier, Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Edberg

Nalby, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt<Djokovic, Murray, and Nadal

Now dress the pig up anyway you like, the courts did them in, injuries did them, etc. The final result is if they were better they would have won more and would not have been chased away as fed's nearest competitors in what should have been their physical peak.

Thanks LF, all those threads are much more sobering than diaphanous clothing for sure.

Sorry, don't agree socal.

Yep LK, why people do not think it odd that a whole generation of talented players struggled with the post 2001 surfaces changes is beyond me. Why was it that Henman sat on centre court in 2002 and said to himself "I'm sitting on centre court here and don't recognise the surface I'm playing on"...in the same year Sampras was clearly bamboozled by conditions, losing to unknown Bastl? 2001/2 conditions also saw off the careers of Rafter and Kafelnikov...the latter only being 28.

If they found it tough wouldnt the other guys coming through also find it likewise?
We know Roddick was a fast court player...hence his great Queen's run (the quickest court on tour in the mid2000s). He tried to adapt his game to slower surfaces but really struggled. Hewitt and Nalby were fast court players too....they struggled after 2002/3 to get to slam finals - the litmus test.

Only Federer showed the true ability to adapt...partly down to his prodigious talent, partly due to an upbringing on clay and hardcourt. Haas is another guy who has adept skill on both - brought up on hardcourt but then learnt baseline drills at Bolletieri Academy like Agassi - another guy who could cope through the transition. I think without career issues Haas could have shined much more through the transition period. Only once new guys like Nadal, Djoko & Murray (even JMDP) emerged who had learnt their games solidly on clay, did we see guys who could embrace and prosper on slower courts...alongside Federer.

Ok as I said lets say slowing conditions did them in, or injuries or whatever, they just didn't win or perform consistently. And at the end of the day the scoreboard counts. Haas' injury issue weren't due to slowing conditions he hurt himself terribly in a freak incident where he stepped on a ball at wimbeldon if I remember. As for Roddick frankly I am glad the conditions don't favor a player like him winning slams. When he won his USO he was easily the roughest and most one dimensional slam champion I could ever remember. His backhand was attrocious, he moved about the court like a pregnant sow getting ready to deliver, and when he tried to volley he looked like a mentally challenged kid trying to calculus. He had a good forehand and a big serve and that was it. And even his forehand I would never rate in the top 5 or even 10 on tour. If Andy Roddick is what a fast court champion looks like then give me the slow court champion anyday of the week and twice on sunday.

Why would Kafelnikov not like slow conditons? again I just don't buy these post hoc justifications where everything is laid down at the feet of wimbeldon changing its turf or the hardcourts mixing a little more sand in the top layer. Kafelnikov should have loved the slow conditions, he burned out more than anything and his career and Rafter's were done in by injuries and burnout. Rafter suffered most of those injuries prior to the slowdown.

Kafelnikov was a fast-court player...his carpet titles alone point to that. Out of 46 ATP finals he reached, only 6 were on clay. He was ok on clay but he wasn't a slow court player per se. His doubles titles also allude to his preference for being at the net and liking faster conditions. Plus look at his record vs Federer on fast courts.

Yes Rafter and Ivanisevic were coming towards the end of their careers but they weren't old...Goran was 30 when he retired, Kafelnkov 28, Rafter wasn't even 30 when he retired either. All young boys by todays standards when guys play for longer is more grinding conditions. When killed off their desire to prolong their careers was the obvious knowledge that the game had changed and their forecourt skills honed over a lifetime would become impotent.

Strange how in 2001/2 we saw some of the games most aggressive attacking players - Pete, Goran, Pat and Yevgeny - all retire from the game.

@LK... My post was NOT intended to be derisive by any means. As Henman Bill has pointed out, appreciation of the sport as a whole encompasses all different styles of play, S&V, BL, 135+ mph serves/aces. This is the bare individuality of the sport.

JHM, Lydian and many others lament court conditions or the death of diversity. I wholeheartedly agree that Tennis, if played on a single surface, will evolve into identikit players and attritional tennis. The uniqueness of a Nadal or the grace of a Federer or the heart of Ferrer or the Fitness of Murray/Djokovic will be unified into a universal player. Our diversity, and the sports', is at stake.

GOAT debates/Era debates will continue as technology will help evolve the sport. It is unfortunate that appreciation of individuality also causes such debates to become cannon fodder for internet fora.

I am just glad that the sport is not extinct, like jeu de paume, like Betamax. Perhaps the Tennis Gods can see the fallacy of their unifying ways and give us variety.

Kafelnikov two biggest wins came at the slowest tournaments on tour the Australian open and Roland Garros. He was a good player all around and could play well on faster surfaces but his big breakthroughs came on slow conditions. He was principally a power baseliner and should have loved the slow conditions. Pete was on his last legs physically and struggling to maintain focus and consistency before the slowdown. Goran got a wild card when he won wimbeldon and was struggling before the slow down, same thing with Rafter and his littany of injury issues. Regardless, why didn't the slow down cripple Roddick or federer's body. Why have the top pros been able to play so consistently today?

On top of that S and V was losing ground quickly even before the slowdown. Pete, Goran, and Rafter PRIOR TO the slowdown were the last of the cowboy net rushers the game had been moving towards the power baseliners really since the advent of the graphite racquet. It was not a trend that all of sudden materialized as a result of the slow conditions and luxis, these factors sped up the trend no doubt but it was something well on the way already. And thank god they slowed down the courts wimbeldon was damn near unwatchable in the late 90s in my opinion. The players revolted, the fans were losing interest, and everyone was talking about how big serves were killing the game.

The point is that players with developed fast court skills (inc. Kafelnikov...AO was faster back in 2002 as well) found that conditions had changed so much their A game was impotent in the face of changes to grass, hard and strings. I don't really see why its a discussion point.

Are you saying that faster conditions were tougher on player's bodies if pros today play on uncrippled as you put it?

There certainly was no shortage of injuries in the 90s lydian. Serve and volleying isn't exactly easy on your body either. In some ways it is harder on your body than playing from the baseline.

I don't disagree with you that conditions have changed or impacted the results of certain players. But the things you are correlating (ie Rafter and Sampras injury issues) had nothing to do with the slower conditions. These guys were on there way out already by 2002 and 2003.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:I'll admit I didn't go through the whole piece. Just scanned here and there to see if it was a Socal type of article, attempting to big up this or that favourite or a genuine attempt to takle the old, well known topic, from a slightly different angle.

When the OP says that "The more great players there are in a specific generation, the more likely the chances of the slams being shared evenly between them", I am actully all in agreement. That's why I have always thought at Borg as possibly the best goat candidate. He had to fight against the strongest level of competition and, nontheless, it was clear to all that he was something else, bigger and better than the rest.

Hi JK,
I read the article and was thinking about making similar judgements myself. I came to the conclusion that the article does raise some valid points, and having more world class great players of similar age would make it harder to accumulate titles.
I also agreed like you did with the latter point, and although Julius has raised that the threat of a underdog on a good run of form (eg Tsonga, Baghdatis etc.) is dangerous, I have said numerous times before that I believe it is the greats who have the mentality and ability to raise their game another gear in Grand Slam finals.

socal1976 wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

laverfan wrote:This has been done x times, with subjectivity added to the nth degree, as JHM says.

The lack of creativity is astounding. LK's racquet article is probably the saving grace right now.

Why thank you LF.

There's a lot of tennis at the moment and those threads tend to take care of themselves.

I try to think of subjects maybe which could be interesting.

Though with this one I felt compelled to share the pain.

End of the day the measuring stick does not change status of any player. Those who win the most matches and titles tend to be the best.

As lydian and BB pointed out that tennis underwent a massive change post 2002 and players who were the best at that time struggled afterwards. I can't understand why anyone would ignore as a real tangible effect because that is what it was. Nalby, Hewitt, Haas all suffered a long list of injuries and yet 2 of them this week defeated players ranked above them and former top 10er's. They were affected by changes in the game as well as injuries. The fact they can still defeat younger players ranked above them clearly is testament to talent that clearly exists. Imagine had the changes came in the 90's. Would've had the same effect with the fringe players at the time. Goran, Scud, Martin, Rusedski would've all suffered massively and wouldn't even have been near the top 10. Players like Rios, Medvedev, Chang would've benefitted greatly with slowed down conditions and enhanced equipment.

Tomatoes-Tomatos. The outcome is the same. The number of matches required to win a Slam or masters event will be the same irrelevent to who participated.

I wonder why the slowing conditions didn't result in the entire tour en masse going down to injury like poor fat Dave? Why did Roddick never suffer an injury bug, or federer. I mean has anyone examined whether slowing conditions in tennis caused the economic collapse. And then the last line really makes no sense to me. What does the number of matches being the same have anything to do with how hard it is to win a slam or masters? This is like rating women for beauty and saying well they all have the same number of chromosomes so they are equally attractive.

The facts are there Hewitt, Nalby, Safin, Roddick <Courier, Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Edberg

Nalby, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt<Djokovic, Murray, and Nadal

Now dress the pig up anyway you like, the courts did them in, injuries did them, etc. The final result is if they were better they would have won more and would not have been chased away as fed's nearest competitors in what should have been their physical peak.

Where did I say conditions caused the injuries? That is besides the point. They were unlucky with injuries. Look at Hewitt's foot injury. He said it took months to adjust his serve to limit the impact on his foot. That is just one injury without the others he was hit with. His hip for one. Haas literally had his shoulder re-built and that coupled with personal tragedy clearly robbed him of what could've been a superb career. The fact he managed to come back and make the top 20 shows that he has much more talent than the dearth of pushers who can't hold a candle to him. You clearly under-estimate the impact injuries can have. Look at Delpo. Nowhere near the 2008-9 player that promised so much. Soderling. Can never see him ever reaching those heights again. Gasquet, albeit not an injury, took him ages to regain form and consistency. Tennis moves ahead quickly for those can't keep pace.

Put Murray/Djokovic/Nadal on a fast Wimbledon court BO5. Can you honestly say that they could retrieve booming FH after FH from the likes of Berdych, Delpo, Federer? This is the whole issue. Yes we may have Queens, but the field isn't necessarily full of big servers now is it.

People want to dress up the success of Djokovic and Nadal as the best thing ever. All based around the one constant. Federer. Take him out and what does that say of their achievements?

I rest my case.

Red wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:I'll admit I didn't go through the whole piece. Just scanned here and there to see if it was a Socal type of article, attempting to big up this or that favourite or a genuine attempt to takle the old, well known topic, from a slightly different angle.

When the OP says that "The more great players there are in a specific generation, the more likely the chances of the slams being shared evenly between them", I am actully all in agreement. That's why I have always thought at Borg as possibly the best goat candidate. He had to fight against the strongest level of competition and, nontheless, it was clear to all that he was something else, bigger and better than the rest.

Hi JK,
I read the article and was thinking about making similar judgements myself. I came to the conclusion that the article does raise some valid points, and having more world class great players of similar age would make it harder to accumulate titles.
I also agreed like you did with the latter point, and although Julius has raised that the threat of a underdog on a good run of form (eg Tsonga, Baghdatis etc.) is dangerous, I have said numerous times before that I believe it is the greats who have the mentality and ability to raise their game another gear in Grand Slam finals.

Not only the tennis greats, all the great players that can be contender for slams. For example Ivanisevic on "his" surface was a danger for many all time greats in his time and surely he did have an impact on their stats, Wimbledon wise......

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:
Not only the tennis greats, all the great players that can be contender for slams. For example Ivanisevic on "his" surface was a danger for many all time greats in his time and surely he did have an impact on their stats, Wimbledon wise......

I agree JK

LK, if you're main competitors do get injured... don't you think that will be quite good (fortune?) for your own prospects in accumulating stats?

Well no Red. As JHM pointed out anyone who is anyone can have a purple patch in a 2 week period

legendkillarV2 wrote:Well no Red. As JHM pointed out anyone who is anyone can have a purple patch in a 2 week period

Yep, I am aware of that
But, as I've said before, and I do feel like I'm repeating myself here, the truly great players have another gear they can slip into- and underdogs tend to get overawed in Grand Slam Finals.
If you check the slam winners, you will find (and Laverfan can do a detailed analysis on this), that the majority of them will have already won a slam before that one.

Interestingly, of Rafa's 11 slams 3 finals were against players who had not won slams.
Of Fed's first 11 slams 3 finals were against players who had not won slams.
Of Rafa's 11 slams 3 finals have been against a player who had previously won that particular slam.
Of Fed's first 11 slams 3 finals were against a player who had previously won that particular slam.

In Grand Slams, Nadal's most 'popular' Grand Slam final opponent was Roger Federer- who he has beaten 6 times in Grand Slam finals.
For Federer Roddick is the most 'popular' Grand Slam final opponent.

According to your stats Julius, Roddick and Federer fall under the same category of 'having won a slam'.

Yes, Red and we both know Roddick and Federer are equally difficult slam opponents, lol!

Red wrote:In Grand Slams, Nadal's most 'popular' Grand Slam final opponent was Roger Federer- who he has beaten 6 times in Grand Slam finals.
For Federer Roddick is the most 'popular' Grand Slam final opponent.

According to your stats Julius, Roddick and Federer fall under the same category of 'having won a slam'.

I was simply going by the criteria you had stated. I can't help it if you've now changed your mind and decided your original criteria were incorrect.

Lydian, I am not dressing up Nadal or Djoko's success, they don't need dressing up once you get a handful of slams. That period of players had injuries, these injuries have always been part of the game. I just don't believe that their lack of success is due to changing conditions. The best successes Roddick and Hewitt ever had came on slowed down courts the same with Federer. The fact is that if you look at in my opinion the two most talented guys outside of Roger from that period Nalbandian and Safin both underperformed and it had nothing to do with conditions and injury, they didn't give a crap enough to train properly. Now contrast that with Murray and Djoko.

As to your question I have no doubt that Djokovic and Nadal would smoke Berdych the majority of times in best of 5 sets whether they played him on fast grass or hell if they played him on glass, cement, wood, or the beach sand. Same thing for Del PO. Federer is a different story and neither of the two have a winning record against him on grass anyway.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Red wrote:In Grand Slams, Nadal's most 'popular' Grand Slam final opponent was Roger Federer- who he has beaten 6 times in Grand Slam finals.
For Federer Roddick is the most 'popular' Grand Slam final opponent.

According to your stats Julius, Roddick and Federer fall under the same category of 'having won a slam'.

I was simply going by the criteria you had stated. I can't help it if you've now changed your mind and decided your original criteria were incorrect.

I haven't decided my original criteria was incorrect.

Frankly I don't really know what you're trying to say.

Red wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Red wrote:In Grand Slams, Nadal's most 'popular' Grand Slam final opponent was Roger Federer- who he has beaten 6 times in Grand Slam finals.
For Federer Roddick is the most 'popular' Grand Slam final opponent.

According to your stats Julius, Roddick and Federer fall under the same category of 'having won a slam'.

I was simply going by the criteria you had stated. I can't help it if you've now changed your mind and decided your original criteria were incorrect.

I haven't decided my original criteria was incorrect.

Frankly I don't really know what you're trying to say.

I can't help that either.

socal1976 wrote:Yes, Red and we both know Roddick and Federer are equally difficult slam opponents, lol!

You mean like Fed at the FO 2008 final as opposed to Roddick at the Wimby 2009 final?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Yes, Red and we both know Roddick and Federer are equally difficult slam opponents, lol!

You mean like Fed at the FO 2008 final as opposed to Roddick at the Wimby 2009 final?

I think I need to bring my branch-silk net analogy out again.

Red wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Yes, Red and we both know Roddick and Federer are equally difficult slam opponents, lol!

You mean like Fed at the FO 2008 final as opposed to Roddick at the Wimby 2009 final?

I think I need to bring my branch-silk net analogy out again.

I wouldn't if I were you, it wasn't much cop the first time.