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.

Good points made by all, and a good discussion. I don't deny some improvements have been made technique-wise but in my mind their games were essentially 'set' some time back. The changes are very incremental compared to their games as a whole...and sometimes at the expense of variety.

However. This isn't my main thrust, my notion concerns relativity.
Let me put it another way, if you assign development from 2008 to 2012 into 3 buckets - technical (T), physical (P) and mental (M) and you had 100% to split overall development between them, how would you assign the splits? First of all, the 3 players have improved in different overall amounts. For example I don't think Nadal has improved as much overall as Murray and Djokovic...because he didn't have to - they had to work towards catching him and Federer up. Anyway, if we assume Nadal hasn't actually improved much...he's always been rock solid in all 3 areas...ok serve is slightly harder but I don't think he wins more points overall from it than before...just wins a little more easily perhaps. Likewise I dont think Federer has improved his game overall. However, we know Djokovic and Murray have improved theirs but how? I'd say:

Djokovic: 10% T, 75% P, 15% M .... ie. primary emphasis on physical development.
Murray: 5% T, 60% P, 35% M ... ie. emphasis more split between physical and mental development

In the 90s you wouldn't see numbers like those above. Development would have been much more focused on technique and mental sides. All I'm saying is that from 2003ish onwards player development has shifted to focus on physical development much more than other areas...because technical mprovement isn't as critical as it used to be with surface slowing.

I say that tennis evolution has been slowing down rapidly because the technical strides forward aren't happening like before, it's all about the physical development now. So on balance, tennis evolution concerns conditioning and mental strength (where needed). Years ago the focus on technical development...because courts were quicker...meant that the skill bar was constantly getting pushed further forward culminating in the emergence of Federer. Now we have evolution going down the physical route we'll not see skill levels pushed forward as before....less variety, increased strength, increased drill-like play, less flair/creativity. The players now are great athletes but they are not as skilled in my opinion as those who had to thrive on much quicker surfaces - unless you qualify conditioning as a skill.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I do feel that works both ways though JHM. As in that you will get posters who 'big up' the early 2000's to enhance Federer and talk down the here and now and speak of their player's demise to denigrate the successful players of today.

It does indeed work both ways and while I understand why people do it, I don't understand why people do it, if that makes sense. I understand that people have a need to do it, I just don't understand why they have a need to do it. I'm quite happy to say Murray's greater than Henman, Sampras is greater than Agassi and Borg is greater than Connors. But some posters can't accept their player is not greater than another - it seems to cause great distress - why else the endless attempts to prove otherwise? I suppose it also could be because they just don't like the other player and/or his fans.

CC, what you're saying makes no sense.

Imagine an experiment in chemistry.
You do a reaction with a certain set of conditions, and check at the end the product is acidic.
You then do the same reaction, but this time with a totally different set of conditions, and totally different variables. Your product is alkaline.

You can't then suddenly equate the two experiments, and ignore the fact the variables have been changed. I am fully aware in the record books it will be constant measure, that is stating the obvious; however ignoring/ forgetting about the different variables is just a fallacy (even if the variables are so complicated you can't come to a definitive answer).

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Red wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:No I have always said a slam win is a slam win and yes lydian there are far too many variables.

This statement is contradictory.
Surely if there are many variables, we can't just equate all the slams as equal?

At the end of the day the history books and human memory equate a slam win as a slam win. I mean off the top of your head can you tell me which of Borg's slam wins were of any more perceived value?

I've made the same point in the past. It's usually fans of players (e.g. Rafa) who are generally rated lower than another (e.g. Fed) by the majority of people that disagree with what we're saying here. It's that need to convince people their player is greater - it's almost like an obsession.

Red wrote:CC, what you're saying makes no sense.

Imagine an experiment in chemistry.
You do a reaction with a certain set of conditions, and check at the end the product is acidic.
You then do the same reaction, but this time with a totally different set of conditions, and totally different variables. Your product is alkaline.

You can't then suddenly equate the two experiments, and ignore the fact the variables have been changed. I am fully aware in the record books it will be constant measure, that is stating the obvious; however ignoring/ forgetting about the different variables is just a fallacy (even if the variables are so complicated you can't come to a definitive answer).

No, surely it's like interest rates falling out of a tree.

Julius, you yourself are a big Federer fan, but this doesn't mean everything you say about Federer is wrong.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Red wrote:CC, what you're saying makes no sense.

Imagine an experiment in chemistry.
You do a reaction with a certain set of conditions, and check at the end the product is acidic.
You then do the same reaction, but this time with a totally different set of conditions, and totally different variables. Your product is alkaline.

You can't then suddenly equate the two experiments, and ignore the fact the variables have been changed. I am fully aware in the record books it will be constant measure, that is stating the obvious; however ignoring/ forgetting about the different variables is just a fallacy (even if the variables are so complicated you can't come to a definitive answer).

No, surely it's like interest rates falling out of a tree.

LAL
No, I'm being serious. Do you not see the point I'm making here?

Well Red can you answer the question off the top of your head that which of Borg's slam wins were ostencibly of higher value due to opponents beaten etc? You can't and that shows how minds work and that people generally count numbers (ie slam wins) rather than try the impossible and equate each individual slam giving each a different value. Sorry but I will stick with one slam win is worth the same as any other slam win as each player can only beat who he has in front of him.

I admit trying to consider all the different variables is nigh on impossible, but suddenly pretending that the different variables don't exist is naive and frankly ridiculous.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well Red can you answer the question off the top of your head that which of Borg's slam wins were ostencibly of higher value due to opponents beaten etc?

This is exactly what I'm saying.
Just because someone forgets different variables, doesn't mean ignoring them is correct.

Red wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well Red can you answer the question off the top of your head that which of Borg's slam wins were ostencibly of higher value due to opponents beaten etc?

This is exactly what I'm saying.
Just because someone forgets different variables, doesn't mean ignoring them is correct.

The point is that it matters not one iota. The eventual slam winner can only beat the players he faces - he has no hand in anything else other than winning those seven matches to win a slam. Even for those who feel a player had it easy in some instances it can be cross-argued that Rafa for example had it easy as well in certain slams you see.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Red wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well Red can you answer the question off the top of your head that which of Borg's slam wins were ostencibly of higher value due to opponents beaten etc?

This is exactly what I'm saying.
Just because someone forgets different variables, doesn't mean ignoring them is correct.

The point is that it matters not one iota.

How on earth can you say that. It most certainly does.
Denying the fact there is a huge change in variables over different slams, and ignoring them, is a ridiculous stance to take (even if you can't quantify them).

The eventual slam winner can only beat the players he faces - he has no hand in anything else other than winning those seven matches to win a slam.

Yes, I'm fully aware of this. But once again, you're totally missing my point. Unless everyone faces the same players each time- each slam can't be equal. Simple as that really.

Lydian,

I actually disagree with you. I think better condition leads to better skill, but in a skill set I assume you dont rate highly. Scramble defence has nothing to do with conditioning : what good is getting to the ball to just create a put-away? How many players from the 90s are technically skilled to possess a consistently functioning banana-forehand?
How many of them had baseline shots which could technically stand up to the topspin barrage? Being a good baseliner is about more than just conditioning. you need shots which can technically withstand a barrage (hey, Gulbis). I dont buy that Andy merely hit the treadmill, stationary bike and some weights, did some mental work and voila. That forehand is on another class.
Think about it: If conditioning was all it took to go from slam finalist to slam winner, then are you suggesting that he was tired in all his finals prior to Wimbledon 12? Because he didnt smell a set in those matches.

There is no doubt that physiology plays a bigger role in tennis than it did 15 years ago, but with that I feel technical aspects previously ignored have been brought up to find that extra %.
Sliding into shots on HC
Angled passing shots (you dont just point and hit, there is some serious technique)
Wide defence (coming back to the centre quickly is not gonna win you a thing if all you doing is floating it back- maybe new personal bests in 10m sprints)

I assure you Nadal and Djokovic would win most rallies played with a 'fed-in' ball vs Sampras, do you really put that down to purely being fitter?

Red wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Red wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well Red can you answer the question off the top of your head that which of Borg's slam wins were ostencibly of higher value due to opponents beaten etc?

This is exactly what I'm saying.
Just because someone forgets different variables, doesn't mean ignoring them is correct.

The point is that it matters not one iota.

How on earth can you say that. It most certainly does.
Denying the fact there is a huge change in variables over different slams, and ignoring them, is a ridiculous stance to take (even if you can't quantify them).

The eventual slam winner can only beat the players he faces - he has no hand in anything else other than winning those seven matches to win a slam.

Yes, I'm fully aware of this. But once again, you're totally missing my point. Unless everyone faces the same players each time- each slam can't be equal. Simple as that really.

The acceptance in tennis record books are that one slam win equates to one slam win. It is how it has been since the dawn of the sport. Of course people can argue that Roger/Rafa etc etc had it easier or harder but it can neither be really proven or accepted by everybody as can be seen by the resulting of going around in ever increasing circles on this topic. Where you or I may feel Rafa had tougher opponents to beat in his slams others will offer an equally convincing counter-argument and that is why I no longer bother trying. Too many variables, too many counter-arguments and too many other factors thrown in make it impossible to come to a conclusion in my honest opinion.

CaledonianCraig wrote:
Too many variables, too many counter-arguments and too many other factors thrown in make it impossible to come to a conclusion in my honest opinion.

This is exactly what I'm trying to say. But then ignoring the variables, is just like being in denial.

Red wrote:Julius, you yourself are a big Federer fan, but this doesn't mean everything you say about Federer is wrong.

Again, you see, I don't see myself as a big Federer fan. I always wanted Henman and Agassi to beat him and I always want Murray to beat him. I don't even place him ahead of Sampras or Laver.
But I place him above Rafa and because of arguing for that, you label me as a big Federer fan.

Those variables though also cannot be agreed on. For example a Murray fan may see Rafa as the nightmare draw (owing to his poor record against him) whereas Djokovic fans would not see that as the same. Many other such instances wheread Federer fans may feel a draw against Del Poro is tough then conversely Murray fans wouldn't due to his good record against him. Do you see where I am coming from now?

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Red wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well Red can you answer the question off the top of your head that which of Borg's slam wins were ostencibly of higher value due to opponents beaten etc?

This is exactly what I'm saying.
Just because someone forgets different variables, doesn't mean ignoring them is correct.

The point is that it matters not one iota.

Exactly!
Either you measure every single variable and get the right answer, or you select your own variables, ignore the rest and get the result you wanted.

Wait, so how does that answer my question at all?
If you don't think there are different variables for different slams, then you're simply in denial.

My point is that yourself as a Rafa fan may feel his slam wins are of more value due to the opponents he had to beat to win them. However, a fan of Federer/Djokovic/Agassi/Sampras may disagree on the quality of his opponents as their favourite player may have had little problems beating those opponents and vice versa.

I mean Federer fans seem to get quite sweaty palmed at the prospect of him playing Tsonga and Del Potro whereas myself as a Murray fan wouldn't feel that was so tough as Murray fares well against them. However, players that trouble Murray and his fans would call a tough draw then Federer fans may feel the opposite.

There may be different variables, the point is that it doesn't matter. The history books show that. If you can't accept that, then you're in denial.

Have you ever asked yourself why you're so keen to apply variables to Fed's slams and Rafa's slams, but not to Borg's slams and Connors' slams?
You may already know that. I fairly sure I do and it's not for some objective analysis for the overall good of understanding the sport of tennis.

When asked to consider all the variables, you decline. Instead you only choose the variables you want to. Inevitably that reaches an entirely subjective conclusion.

JuliusHMarx wrote:There may be different variables, the point is that it doesn't matter.

They do. Different variables means it inherently does matter.

To claim that all the slams are equal, you must also be saying all the variables are the same, which is simply incorrect.

I've won this debate.

Red wrote:To claim that all the slams are equal, you must also be saying all the variables are the same, which is simply incorrect.

Okay tell me which Nadal slam wins are of greater value (in your opinion) than one slam win. I can guarantee that posters will be able to pick holes in your reasoning.

If it mattered people would keep track of these things. No-one keeps track of these things. No tennis historian writes about if Mac's 83 Wimby was worth more than Borg's 76 Wimby. They just don't. They are both considered as 1 equal Wimbledon title.
Only a fan desperate to somehow prove that his player's slams are somehow worth more would think differently.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Red wrote:To claim that all the slams are equal, you must also be saying all the variables are the same, which is simply incorrect.

Okay tell me which Nadal slam wins are of greater value (in your opinion) than one slam win. I can guarantee that posters will be able to pick holes in your reasoning.

In terms of difficulty, it will practically be impossible for all of Nadal's slams to be exactly equal.
It is a possibility of course, but very very unlikely. Some will be harder than others, and we will have different opinions on this. However just because people will always differ on something, doesn't mean all the slams are suddenly declared equal.

Red wrote:I've won this debate.

Yeah, and your Dad is bigger than my Dad.
In fact, unilaterally declaring yourself as winner of a debate is a perfect example of refusing to take every variable into consideration, choosing your own variables, then reaching the conclusion you wanted to reach. Classic.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Red wrote:I've won this debate.

Yeah, and your Dad is bigger than my Dad.
In fact, unilaterally declaring yourself as winner of a debate is a perfect example of refusing to take every variable into consideration, choosing your own variables, then reaching the conclusion you wanted to reach. Classic.

I was being ironic actually

No. Slam have and always will be considered equal ie one slam win equals one and that will never change in the record books.

JuliusHMarx wrote:No-one keeps track of these things.

Speak for yourself.

CaledonianCraig wrote:No. Slam have and always will be considered equal ie one slam win equals one and that will never change in the record books.

Of course it won't change in the record books.
If what you're saying is correct, that means all the variables across all the slams have to be completely equal: practically impossible and you know it.

It is interesting to note that fans of players are busy re-evaluating 'values' of slams to make their favourites look better or worse, as desired.

This is how one values and devalues achievements of players and measure them on the so called 'scale' of greatness. (And claims of winning such a debate are equally GOAT worthy).

This is like the prize money discussion, Ladies play Bo3, so should make less money than some Gentleman playing Bo5. Steffi's 22 slams are somehow less value than Federer's or Federer's 2003-07 slams are less than 2012 slams.

A slam win is 7 matches, no matter whether you mix 3 parts HCL and 1 part HN03, or 1 part NH3 and 1 part H2O. (Surprising that Chemical reactions which are deterministic are being compared to Tennis matches).

How many Bananas did Nadal eat for his 2008 win vs 2007 loss. The number of Bananas is the measure of Greatness.

What a perfectly laughable exercise in futility this is! Carry on.

I am glad no one has said a 81-match streak on clay is the same as 15-1 in 2013, or did some one do it already?

Record books/records etc go by facts and what you are offering up is opinion and not fact.

For example you may feel that Rafael Nadal's 2009 Wimbledon win is worth more than just one slam but looking at the variables such as opponents played you could pick that apart.

Round 1 - Beat Rochus in straight sets
Round 2 - Beat Karanuisic in straight sets
Round 3 - Beat Haas in straight sets
Round 4 - Beat Gonzales in straight sets
QF - Beat Simon in straight sets
SF - Beat Verdasco in five sets
Final - Beat Federer in five sets

Until facing Federer was there really any heart stopping opponents there? You will get a very mixed opinion on that and that is one variable I speak of.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Record books/records etc go by facts and what you are offering up is opinion and not fact.

For example you may feel that Rafael Nadal's 2009 Wimbledon win is worth more than just one slam but looking at the variables such as opponents played you could pick that apart.

Round 1 - Beat Rochus in straight sets
Round 2 - Beat Karanuisic in straight sets
Round 3 - Beat Haas in straight sets
Round 4 - Beat Gonzales in straight sets
QF - Beat Simon in straight sets
SF - Beat Verdasco in straight sets
Final - Beat Federer in five sets

Until facing Federer was there really any heart stopping opponents there? You will get a very mixed opinion on that and that is one variable I speak of.

Very well said.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Record books/records etc go by facts and what you are offering up is opinion and not fact.

For example you may feel that Rafael Nadal's 2009 Wimbledon win is worth more than just one slam but looking at the variables such as opponents played you could pick that apart.

Round 1 - Beat Rochus in straight sets
Round 2 - Beat Karanuisic in straight sets
Round 3 - Beat Haas in straight sets
Round 4 - Beat Gonzales in straight sets
QF - Beat Simon in straight sets
SF - Beat Verdasco in straight sets
Final - Beat Federer in five sets

Until facing Federer was there really any heart stopping opponents there? You will get a very mixed opinion on that and that is one variable I speak of.

You're not making any sense here CC.
What you're basically saying is that 'there are many variables and it's impossible to agree on all of them'... 'so we should just deny these variables even exist.

If the top 200 all went on strike, and the world numbers 200-300 won the slams, surely you can recognise that the variables have changed and it is now easier for them to win slams, despite the record books showing no indication of any change.

laverfan wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Record books/records etc go by facts and what you are offering up is opinion and not fact.

For example you may feel that Rafael Nadal's 2009 Wimbledon win is worth more than just one slam but looking at the variables such as opponents played you could pick that apart.

Round 1 - Beat Rochus in straight sets
Round 2 - Beat Karanuisic in straight sets
Round 3 - Beat Haas in straight sets
Round 4 - Beat Gonzales in straight sets
QF - Beat Simon in straight sets
SF - Beat Verdasco in straight sets
Final - Beat Federer in five sets

Until facing Federer was there really any heart stopping opponents there? You will get a very mixed opinion on that and that is one variable I speak of.

Very well said.

Not sure why you are clapping LF, the matches CC is showing is not even real, Nadal didn't win Wimbledon in 2009.

This shows LF, you also clap what you think you agree with, without actually checking for mistakes etc.

I mean ask a Federer fan and they would break out in a cold sweat at the thought of playing say Tsonga/Del Potro/Berdych/Nadal in a slam. Concersely, Murray fans would not be so concerned facing Tsonga or Del Potro and may see that as a more favourable draw compared to other players that Federer fans wouldn't fear their man playing hence in their eyes each draw appears more difficult depending on what players trouble your player the most.

Red wrote:

laverfan wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Record books/records etc go by facts and what you are offering up is opinion and not fact.

For example you may feel that Rafael Nadal's 2009 Wimbledon win is worth more than just one slam but looking at the variables such as opponents played you could pick that apart.

Round 1 - Beat Rochus in straight sets
Round 2 - Beat Karanuisic in straight sets
Round 3 - Beat Haas in straight sets
Round 4 - Beat Gonzales in straight sets
QF - Beat Simon in straight sets
SF - Beat Verdasco in straight sets
Final - Beat Federer in five sets

Until facing Federer was there really any heart stopping opponents there? You will get a very mixed opinion on that and that is one variable I speak of.

Very well said.

Not sure why you are clapping LF, the matches CC is showing is not even real, Nadal didn't win Wimbledon in 2009.

Apologies that is Aussie Open 2009 but the point still remains the same.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I mean ask a Federer fan and they would break out in a cold sweat at the thought of playing say Tsonga/Del Potro/Berdych/Nadal in a slam. Concersely, Murray fans would not be so concerned facing Tsonga or Del Potro and may see that as a more favourable draw compared to other players that Federer fans wouldn't fear their man playing hence in their eyes each draw appears more difficult depending on what players trouble your player the most.

Yes, I agree with all of that. Don't see how it suddenly means all slams are equal.

Red wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:No-one keeps track of these things.

Speak for yourself.

OK then, no-one of any importance i.e. tennis historians, pundits etc. Maybe it's a fanboy thing? Do you keep track of them, apart from Fed and Rafa? If not, why not?
Borg '76 vs McEnroe '83 vs Sampras '94 vs Fed '03 vs Rafa '10 - all one Wimbledon, considered of equal value.

Red wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Record books/records etc go by facts and what you are offering up is opinion and not fact.

For example you may feel that Rafael Nadal's 2009 Wimbledon win is worth more than just one slam but looking at the variables such as opponents played you could pick that apart.

Round 1 - Beat Rochus in straight sets
Round 2 - Beat Karanuisic in straight sets
Round 3 - Beat Haas in straight sets
Round 4 - Beat Gonzales in straight sets
QF - Beat Simon in straight sets
SF - Beat Verdasco in straight sets
Final - Beat Federer in five sets

Until facing Federer was there really any heart stopping opponents there? You will get a very mixed opinion on that and that is one variable I speak of.

You're not making any sense here CC.
What you're basically saying is that 'there are many variables and it's impossible to agree on all of them'... 'so we should just deny these variables even exist.

If the top 200 all went on strike, and the world numbers 200-300 won the slams, surely you can recognise that the variables have changed and it is now easier for them to win slams, despite the record books showing no indication of any change.

Unless you can categorically prove (not sure how on Earth you can) that Nadal's Aussie Open 2009 win was worth any more than say Djokovic's win at the same tournament this year then you may as well give up. You have an opinion which we are all entitled to but what you are trying to push across is that it is a fact Nadal's slam wins are worth more. They may be to you personally as a fan but merit wise they all add up to the same - one slam win.

laverfan wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Record books/records etc go by facts and what you are offering up is opinion and not fact.

For example you may feel that Rafael Nadal's 2009 Wimbledon win is worth more than just one slam but looking at the variables such as opponents played you could pick that apart.

Round 1 - Beat Rochus in straight sets
Round 2 - Beat Karanuisic in straight sets
Round 3 - Beat Haas in straight sets
Round 4 - Beat Gonzales in straight sets
QF - Beat Simon in straight sets
SF - Beat Verdasco in straight sets
Final - Beat Federer in five sets

Until facing Federer was there really any heart stopping opponents there? You will get a very mixed opinion on that and that is one variable I speak of.

Very well said.

Very well clapped!

Red wrote:This shows LF, you also clap what you think you agree with, without actually checking for mistakes etc.

Now you understand the difference between opinions and facts. CC looked at AO 2009 minus Verdasco 5 sets v Verdasco 3 sets.

No slams can be assigned equal value or any value which can be used as a comparison yardstick, neither can they be assigned a value differential, which is what the era theorists love to do.

No slams are equal or unequal, they are all different, and in the end only one trophy per event per winner.

I would say laverfan that eras do exist but evaluating them - well I gave up trying to do that. However, weak era/strong era doesn't change the fact that one slam win equals one slam win be it in 1970, 1983, 1990, 1998, 2002 or 2012.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Unless you can categorically prove (not sure how on Earth you can) that Nadal's Aussie Open 2009 win was worth any more than say Djokovic's win at the same tournament this year then you may as well give up.

What on earth are you on about lol?
You have totally missed my point. I am saying that there are many variables which come into play, and it's impossible for everyone to agree on how the affect the slams. But why should that suddenly mean they don't exist??
I can't prove Nadal's AO 2009 win was more better than Djokovic's AO win in 2012/2011 etc.; just like you can't prove they are completely equal in difficulty.
The fact is there are many variables to consider, and ignoring them is flawed. The 'record book' line is meaningless as well, as I said if the top 200 all strike 2013, and the world number 250 wins French Open, we can safely agree that the slam is significantly easier to win that FO 2012, despite the fact it still counts as one slam in the record books. Just because other slams are closer and thus more difficult to reach a clear unanimous judgement on, doesn't mean the variables don't exist.

laverfan wrote:No slams are equal or unequal, they are all different.

Well that's got to be the most ridiculous line I've heard.
If they're different, it's highly likely some will be easier to win than others; unless they all happen to be the same difficulty.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Speak for yourself.

OK then, no-one of any importance

Who on earth gave you the right to decide who is important?