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.

CC, here's what I would say to that
1. I have always grouped Laver, Fed and Sampras together as the 3 greatest players. I don't see any real method or reason to place them in any order. (Alas, I wish it were Agassi, Henman and Connors - the only players I have been a really big fan of).
2. Not everyone uses slam count to rank players. IMBL, for example, places Rafa ahead of Fed despite a 50% slam difference. Others place McEnroe ahead of Connors.
3. I wouldn't place Hewitt ahead of Djoko in terms of all-time greats, but would rate him very similar talent-wise. Hewitt's talent simply didn't last as long due to injuries and condition changes i.e. he grew up developing a style of tennis that was then rendered less effective by changes
4. My illustration, using Roddick as an example, was that he has pushed Federer in slam finals more than Murray has. Therefore to say, as some do, that a Fed slam with Roddick in the final was easier/worth less than a Fed slam with Murray in the final (i.e. a weak era slam vs a golden era slam) is incorrect.

And going on one lone match is not a way to rank greatness. I judge on consistency, longevity, achievements, titles won, slam record and such like rather than looking at one phantom match to prove a greatness.

CaledonianCraig wrote:And going on one lone match is not a way to rank greatness. I judge on consistency, longevity, achievements, titles won, slam record and such like rather than looking at one phantom match to prove a greatness.

I haven't seen anyone differ too much from that viewpoint - go on, name names

CC,

They are making the same point. Roddick in Slam finals against Federer has fared considerably better than Murray. This is not equating to Roddick being the better player career wise. This is simply saying that in 3 Slam finals against Federer he has amassed 1 set whereas Roddick as in 4 has returned 4 sets. On that basis Roddick has fared better against Federer in Slam finals than Murray regardless of H2H's at other events.

Their thinking (they can correct me if I am wrong) is that because Gonzales, Baggy, Scud making Slam finals against Federer doesn't constitute a lower 'quality' player. They made those finals on merit and being the second best player at that event. What they achieve outside of that tournament is irrelevent to how they perform in that one event. So in turn that is why they do not subscribe to the 'Quality Era' thinking because of such factors.

I cannot disagree with the first three points Jhm but do have reservations about point four. My problem with your point is that where Roddick did push Federer harder in slam finals I think it is fair to say that Murray's meek defeats came when he was far less a player mentally and physically than he is now. I mean I could pull on Andy's recent showing in big matches since Lendl came aboard and they show a much different picture. If we want to judge Roddick and Murray that can only come through their career acheivements and I would argue that Murray will surpass what Rodfick acheived.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:And going on one lone match is not a way to rank greatness. I judge on consistency, longevity, achievements, titles won, slam record and such like rather than looking at one phantom match to prove a greatness.

I haven't seen anyone differ too much from that viewpoint - go on, name names

Merely, stating that pointing to a big win for Roddick in one lone slam final does not alone prove greatness. I would take on board the result if it were coupled with other such-like results. Look at Roddick's record against the top players of today and it doesn't scream greatness personified to me.

And no I an not dissing Roddick. He is a deserved slam winner (as they all are) but where that measure him amongst slam winning greats is another matter for me.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I cannot disagree with the first three points Jhm but do have reservations about point four. My problem with your point is that where Roddick did push Federer harder in slam finals I think it is fair to say that Murray's meek defeats came when he was far less a player mentally and physically than he is now. I mean I could pull on Andy's recent showing in big matches since Lendl came aboard and they show a much different picture. If we want to judge Roddick and Murray that can only come through their career acheivements and I would argue that Murray will surpass what Rodfick acheived.

Again, it's not about judging/comparing Roddick and Murray in terms of greatness or achievement.

It is simply a rebuttal to the argument that because Fed only had to play Roddick in the final it therefore must have been an easy slam to win (without allowing in any way for the level of play of Roddick on the day).

The point you make just sums up why these sorts of debates are pointless. Varying strengths in eras (for want of a better word) do exist but the variables are numerous to a point that no conclusion can be reached on the subject. I suppose that is why the majority do look to simplify these debates by looking at hard stats as the pointer such as slam wins.

CaledonianCraig wrote:The point you make just sums up why these sorts of debates are pointless. Varying strengths in eras (for want of a better word) do exist but the variables are numerous to a point that no conclusion can be reached on the subject. I suppose that is why the majority do look to simplify these debates by looking at hard stats as the pointer such as slam wins.

Yes, they are pointless. Sometimes I feel like joining in just for a bit of fun and sometimes I don't. They don't (and never can) reach any sort of 'correct' conclusion. The replies of other posters can be amusing though - I'm sure they think the same of mine.

Agreed. I gave up the debating when insults began getting flung around on another thread. It is best just sitting back and enjoying the tennis on show.

socal1976 wrote:Yes he was so ill that he made it to the semis. Personally I think he got sick after the Australian and decided to use the diagnosis to explain away his ass thumping.

So let me ask you do you see hewitt as the equal talent wise of Djokovic? Or superior?

I realise you don't really watch much and remember less, but Federer was obviously damaged through that event. Do you not recall how he went to 9-7 against Tipsarevic in the 5th set, and was struggling past James Blake (one of his top bunnies of the period). Do you recall he even missed the warm-up event with illness? Never mind, you know now.

There's no question about his condition in that event.

As for Hewitt v Djokovic, well watching on TV makes no sense to compare as Djokovic has all the huge advantages of modern string development. What hewitt did back then was amazing tennis. He remains the youngest ever #1, he was devastating at Wimbledon and the US. Yes, he'd have been at the very top of the game right now were he to be in his prime. It's obvious.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:The point you make just sums up why these sorts of debates are pointless. Varying strengths in eras (for want of a better word) do exist but the variables are numerous to a point that no conclusion can be reached on the subject. I suppose that is why the majority do look to simplify these debates by looking at hard stats as the pointer such as slam wins.

Yes, they are pointless. Sometimes I feel like joining in just for a bit of fun and sometimes I don't. They don't (and never can) reach any sort of 'correct' conclusion. The replies of other posters can be amusing though - I'm sure they think the same of mine.

The main objective for me is to enjoy watching other posters flaunting their shallow knowledge of the game. The debate itself has no useful end point.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Once that bridge is overcome, maybe the 'Era' talk can be disposed of once and for all.

The era talk will only be disposed of when :-
a) Posters lose the desire place player(s) they like above player(s) they dislike
b) Posters lose the desire to 'prove' other posters 'wrong', based on other posters' preferred players
c) Hell freezes over

You forgot
d) When forum members decline to start such threads.

Yes lk, I'm looking at you.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Oh my days people are not that stupid surely.

Read the argument for phuck sake!

No-one is saying Hewitt is better than Djokovic or Roddick is better than Murray.

Let me simplify the argument and case people are making.

Federer FO 2008 trounced in straight sets by Nadal v Roddick Wim beaten in close 5 setter by Federer. On the performances on the day who would you argue was the tougher opponent?

Lk this is a reference to posts made within the thread - not your OP.

Yes, but pity your post doesn't refer to anything anyone has written. Minor detail I know, but.......

Do point to the post where anyone has said Hewitt > Djokovic.

How did Nadal get to number 2 and last there so comfortably?

Federer battered the rest of the top 10-15 into submission, leaving them diminished and insufferable. Nadal was always avoiding guys who were on top form while Federer, Hewitt, Roddick etc were having to play the harder draws.

This hatred of Federer and undemocratic views of Murray/Nadal fanboys is exactly why tennis discussions are at rock bottom.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Each individual Slam over the years is unique to itself hence the difficulty in actually aportioning value.

Absolutely, absolutely.

Hints were made BB and you seem to wizh to evade whether Hewitt is the better player ahead of Djoko. A simple yes or no answer would suffice. As for putting Djoko's sucess merely down to his racquet is wholely unfair as the same technology is out there for all players to use. It is still the measure of talent holding the racquet that counts most.

Red wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Each individual Slam over the years is unique to itself hence the difficulty in actually aportioning value.

Absolutely, absolutely.

So how come when I said the same thing you argued against it?

CaledonianCraig wrote:As for putting Djoko's sucess merely down to his racquet is wholely unfair as the same technology is out there for all players to use.

That's not what BB said. He said that if you watch Hewitt (2002) and Djoko (2013) on TV, then Djoko's relative level of play will have benefited from advanced string technology.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Hints were made BB and you seem to wizh to evade whether Hewitt is the better player ahead of Djoko. A simple yes or no answer would suffice. As for putting Djoko's sucess merely down to his racquet is wholely unfair as the same technology is out there for all players to use. It is still the measure of talent holding the racquet that counts most.

Y'know, sometimes a simple admission you got it wrong would look so much better than "well no you didn't but I've decided that's what you meant".

And nor did I say Djokovic's success was down to technology. I said you can't watch peak Hewitt and peak Djokovic on telly and directly compare the tennis because equipment has changed.

Why don't you just READ THE WORDS before jumping into things?

bogbrush wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Once that bridge is overcome, maybe the 'Era' talk can be disposed of once and for all.

The era talk will only be disposed of when :-
a) Posters lose the desire place player(s) they like above player(s) they dislike
b) Posters lose the desire to 'prove' other posters 'wrong', based on other posters' preferred players
c) Hell freezes over

You forgot
d) When forum members decline to start such threads.

Yes lk, I'm looking at you.

Sharing love is what I am all about.

If we cant decide who is best ever on grass, hard or clay player how can we ever decide who is the best player when all these surfaces change from one "era" to the next? Or even compare era's, never mind players!

Given the old guys can still cut it I ask this question...has the level of tennis played stopped moving forwards? Have we dumbed down surfaces and technology so much that we've put the mockers on the normal era-to-era tennis evolution we normally see? If tennis isn't moving forwards, noticeably, anymore then it stands to reason the old guard will be able to perform just as well now as 7-8 yrs ago if their bodies are still up to it.

I don't see Murray's, Djoko's or Nadal's game as appreciably much better than say the 2007-8 standard they had. Ok, perhaps a little more consistent and some bigger muscles but their games are essentially the same.

Surface/tech revolution = plateauing of tennis evolution because the need for raw skill is increasingly being extracted out of the game. Its like driving aids in F1...the drivers can sit back and drink coffee whilst the tech takes over and slower/safer tracks means they don't have to push their talent as far as before. In what way is actual raw "tennis talent" pushed more now?

And why doesn't BB offer an answer to a poser put to him? Hewitt or Djokovic - who has the most talent in his opinion. Technology does not make one player look better at all - on television or in the flesh otherwise I would not have Borg/Connors/McEnroe down as my favourite time in tennis.

I digress Lydian as the mental side of the game is very important and Murray has improved immeasurably in that area since 2007/2008.

CaledonianCraig wrote:And why doesn't BB offer an answer to a poser put to him? Hewitt or Djokovic - who has the most talent in his opinion. Technology does not make one player look better at all - on television or in the flesh otherwise I would not have Borg/Connors/McEnroe down as my favourite time in tennis.

Because I am sure if he said Hewitt he would be shot down in flames and then have it reminded of him of the trophies won by the latter, hence around and around we go.

Hewitt was excellent.

2 slams, 2 YE #1s and 2 WTF by the age of 21. And he pretty much owned Federer until about 04.

Bogbrush - I'm always surprised at how highly you rate Hewitt but are so luke warm on Djokovic though. Are the qualities you find most admirable in Hewitt's game not also present in Djokovic?

Djokovic strikes me in many ways an upgraded version of Hewitt. He's the B-29 to Hewitt's B-17 (reference for you aviation buffs there!).

legendkillarV2 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:And why doesn't BB offer an answer to a poser put to him? Hewitt or Djokovic - who has the most talent in his opinion. Technology does not make one player look better at all - on television or in the flesh otherwise I would not have Borg/Connors/McEnroe down as my favourite time in tennis.

Because I am sure if he said Hewitt he would be shot down in flames and then have it reminded of him of the trophies won by the latter, hence around and around we go.

Well that is true. But if people laud Federer as GOAT on slams won then surely the same applies here. If not then all GOAT titles become somewhat irrelevant does it not?

Yes but bringing the mental side on doesnt actually bring the game of tennis on. I reckon we're flatlining now...caused by tech and slower surfaces reducing the need for raw skill to bring success. As they say...once everybody becomes special, no-one is

(great line from The Incredibles BTW)

No it doesn't lydian but it plays a massive part in how matches eventually pan out. I would Say Djokovic was also mentally not as strong back in 2007 as well. Those kind of mental frailties are baggage that you simply cannot afford to carry into slam finals against the likes of Federer and Nadal.

A given and agreed.

My point is that this era isn't much on from the last given conditions are stifling progress.

One way or another lydian that cannot be agreed on and I don't think it is worth even trying. Just far too many variables. It is akin to trying to resolve an argument about how many stars there are in the galaxy - everyone has their opinion but theirs is unprovable.

I will use lydian's point ages ago about Agassi being last of the true and pure career Slam.

Since the pro era how many players prior to 2001 completed a Career Slam?

60's - Laver
70's - Court
80's - Evert/Graf/Navratilova
90's - Agassi

Now you have to say that it is a pretty impressive and elite list. Womens tennis in the 80's shows a massive display of talent. Now how many have done it since then? Thats discounting Lendl/Goolagong/King reaching the finals of all 4 Slams.

Williams completed her Career Slam in 2003. So in 10 years you have had 4 players complete the feat.

Federer/Nadal/S.Williams/Sharapova.

Djokovic/V.Williams/Henin making all 4 Slam finals.

So look at the math. Since 2002 7 players have had the chance to win a Career Slam.

Now doesn't that say to you right now that conditions have become much more favourable to the modern day pro?

It is accepted that people with have differing views on talent and exactly what that entails.

There are reasons on the mens side though. For many many years even decades the Australian Open was not competed for by many of the top players hence they never won it (Borg springs to mind straight away) and it only became an equal competitors competing wise in the 1990's hence lack of winners of all four slams.

The fact that Nadal at the age of 19 went to world number 2 (when let's be honest- he wasn't at his prime on all surfaces at all), signifies in my eyes that he is better than Federer's peers of the same age to Federer.

Edit: Correction

Men wimping out isn't a reason in my book CC. If your fit, go and play.

Red wrote:The fact that Nadal at the age of 17 went to world number 2 (when let's be honest- he wasn't at his prime on all surfaces at all), signifies in my eyes that he is better than Federer's peers of the same age to Federer.

Correction, better on clay than Federer's peers. In those days especially a huge amount of Nadal's points came from clay.

Which means its much easier for any one player to dominate the surfaces.

"We've" dumbed down tennis so much that since 2009 you've had 3 guys do the career slam (if you inc. Djoko coming near...and will do soon likely) whereas before them you had to go back 10 yrs to Agassi and then another 30 years back to Laver to see it done previously. Tennis in its infinite wisdom decided to render all previous records as obsolete by making everywhere achieve the speed index of medium HC.

Yet many call this the greatest era ever despite the surface dumbing down and all the "driver aids" becoming available to players.

Chydremion wrote:

Red wrote:The fact that Nadal at the age of 17 went to world number 2 (when let's be honest- he wasn't at his prime on all surfaces at all), signifies in my eyes that he is better than Federer's peers of the same age to Federer.

Correction, better on clay than Federer's peers. In those days especially a huge amount of Nadal's points came from clay.

Read the article, you're missing my point.
The fact that no one could overtake a teenager who only really accumulated points one surface doesn't reflect greatly in my eyes on Federer's peers. And it's not as if it was close, the gap between Nadal at number 2 and the number 3 player was quite big.

Borg never won USO anyway...that's why he didn't do the AO. He would only go there to complete the Grand Slam.

There's nothing wrong in getting points from clay - its just as legit a surface as any other. I'd actually be interested to see his points breakdown in 2004 - the year referred to.

If you look at Aussie Open though it didn't have slam-like fields ie all the top seeds until the 19990's if I remember correctly.

Red, there's actually a factual incorrectness there...he got to #2 first on 25 July 2005 when he was just turned 19.

The highest he was ever ranked as a 17 yr old as #34...which is still insanely high.

lydian wrote:Borg never won USO anyway...that's why he didn't do the AO. He would only go there to complete the Grand Slam.

There's nothing wrong in getting points from clay - its just as legit a surface as any other. I'd actually be interested to see his points breakdown in 2004 - the year referred to.

Equally Connors refused to play the FO - putting pride/honour/spite/pettiness* before a career slam

* Delete as appropriate according to your view on Connors

Edit - if he'd won just 1 FO, it would have given him a career slam and reduced the Borg/Connors slam count to 10-9

Apologies Lydian, I forgot about the foot injury which kept him out in 2004.

This is why its hard to compare eras CC...AO has changed from grass to hard. USO changed from grass to clay to hard too in the 70s. In Laver's day 3 slams were on grass, although they probably all played very differently I'd suspect given the climate and composition differences.

What you didn't have was the ATP trying to normalise everything into a square box.

Agreed on Connors JHM.
Of course he did win slams on 3 surfaces given his 76 USO win was on clay that year. For a guy with Granollers like agricultural shots he sure made his competitive will to win go a heck of a long way.

CaledonianCraig wrote:If you look at Aussie Open though it didn't have slam-like fields ie all the top seeds until the 19990's if I remember correctly.

You realise saying that you subscribe to the HE thinking that a Slam win is no valid unless you have a Slam-like field which includes Nadal

lydian wrote:Agreed on Connors JHM.
Of course he did win slams on 3 surfaces given his 76 USO win was on clay that year. For a guy with Granollers like agricultural shots he sure made his competitive will to win go a heck of a long way.

Are you saying Connors had less talent than Hewitt?

The size of the draw isn't always relevant anyway...you still have to beat the top guys in the later rounds come what may. If reduce the field from 128 to 64 in effect you've only taken 1 round off...but all the best 64ish players are still there...is the field really missing those guys ranked say 65-128???