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.

God speaks to me through my television set.

JuliusHMarx wrote:God speaks to me through my television set.

You're speaking like a lunatic...

Who on earth gave you the right to say what sounds like a lunatic?

JuliusHMarx wrote:Who on earth gave you the right to say what sounds like a lunatic?

My radio set told me so.

As CC & I said before -
Variables may exist but it matters not one iota.
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.

Red wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Who on earth gave you the right to say what sounds like a lunatic?

My radio set told me so.

You sound like me

Any variables you wish to bring up can be taken into consideration and I reckon you could argue the same points for any slam win being of greater/less value without ever getting any agreement on. And how many of Rafa's slam wins could be argued have less value than Fed's/ Djoko's or anyone else? Frankly, it really is not worth wasting time over as you will never get a unified agreement and the more you harp on about it the more you make yourself look like a desperate fan trying to enhance their own player that is why it is best just leaving it as one slam win equals one slam win. After all it is what the historians/record books and all tennis efficienados universely accept.

Just people don't agree on something doesn't mean it doesn't exist

It may be more convenient to though

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Red wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Who on earth gave you the right to say what sounds like a lunatic?

My radio set told me so.

You sound like me

CaledonianCraig wrote:Frankly, it really is not worth wasting time over as you will never get a unified agreement and the more you harp on about it the more you make yourself look like a desperate fan trying to enhance their own player that is why it is best just leaving it as one slam win equals one slam win. After all it is what the historians/record books and all tennis efficienados universely accept.

I second that (emotion?)

Red wrote:Just people don't agree on something doesn't mean it doesn't exist

It may be more convenient to though

Not as convenient as choosing your own variables and ignoring the ones you can't be bothered with.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Red wrote:Just people don't agree on something doesn't mean it doesn't exist

It may be more convenient to though

Not as convenient as choosing your own variables and ignoring the ones you can't be bothered with.

I try my best to be impartial in my analysis.

lol.
Just because we can't agree on the affect of the variables, doesn't mean they don't exist. We all agree on that right?

I'll agree that they exist, but cannot be fully quantified or analysed and that they are of absolutely minimal importance except to fans of players who select some and ignore others, in order to subjectively 'prove' the superiority of their own player.
We all agree on that right?

Red wrote:

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.

Highly likely = is there a probability model for each slam?
easier to win = there is a measure of easiness? Is it the ATP ranking? I will ask Rios or Lendl or ...
same difficulty = like Djokovic playing a five set match with Wawrinka or Tsonga having MPs against Djokovic at RG or Nadal losing to Soderling at RG or Federer losing to Soderling at RG or Djokovic hitting a winner 2MPS down twice in USO 2010/2011. Federer losing to Berdych despite MPs or Monfils, or Djokovic losing to Nadal at Madrid with MPs.

It is wonderful to see such dedication to proving GOATness.

Of course the variable exist but like luck I'd say they even themselves out hence why I prefer rating one slam win as one slam win as it all levels out in the end.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Of course the variable exist but like luck I'd say they even themselves out hence why I prefer rating one slam win as one slam win as it all levels out in the end.

No it doesn't.
It doesn't even itself out.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I'll agree that they exist, but cannot be fully quantified or analysed

You agree that they exist!
I knew you would agree

Ah a variable of a variable then Red. Eeeek this is doing my head in - I am off to watch Muzza.

Red wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:I'll agree that they exist, but cannot be fully quantified or analysed

You agree that they exist!
I knew you would agree

I agreed about an hour ago!

CaledonianCraig wrote:Ah a variable of a variable then Red. Eeeek this is doing my head in - I am off to watch Muzza.

I know how you feel

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Red wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:I'll agree that they exist, but cannot be fully quantified or analysed

You agree that they exist!
I knew you would agree

I agreed about an hour ago!

I must have lost my observation skills when my radio started creaking.

Red wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Of course the variable exist but like luck I'd say they even themselves out hence why I prefer rating one slam win as one slam win as it all levels out in the end.

No it doesn't.
It doesn't even itself out.

You think Borg got lucky in '76 but Mac had to work really hard in '83? I assume you know the answer, because these things matter don't they?

'83.

No, sorry, there are too many variables, it's impossible to say. They are regarded as having equal value.

JuliusHMarx wrote:No, sorry, there are too many variables, it's impossible to say. They are regarded as having equal value.

No, no, no. Why should the fact there are so many variables mean they have equal value!!!

It's almost as if you know exactly what I'm trying to say, and then winding me up

They are genuinely regarded as having equal value.

There is no method to separate them accurately, nor any sensible reason to do so.

One may have been harder than the other, but it is so unimportant that no-one can be bothered to even try. It matters not one iota.

Nope.
The chances of them having equal difficulty to win, given all the variables, is below 0.1%

Damn - I edited my previous post, rather than create a new one - see above

JuliusHMarx wrote:
One may have been harder than the other, but it is so unimportant

Speak for yourself

Red wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:
One may have been harder than the other, but it is so unimportant

Speak for yourself

Well, it's clearly not important to you or anyone else on this forum, nor in any of the tennis books, magazines or articles I've ever read. There may be some bloke in Taiwan who's studied it in detail, but let's face, we both know it's unimportant.

I've studied it in detail- but I'm not from Taiwan.

Oooops wrong thread.

Edit: Er, never mind.

Red wrote:I've studied it in detail- but I'm not from Taiwan.

Write an article, and list each and every variable and a definition thereof, that 606v2 can and will agree on.

Then get an agreement on calculation of values assigned to each such variable.

Once you have those two steps complete, come up with a formula to get a mathematical model for such a stochastic system.

At the completion of the model, let us apply some inputs (or perturbations) to such a model and determine outcomes.

Such a model will be considered accurate, which when applied to each slam, provides a probability of a player winning that specific slam.

This should be applied to 1968 FO - 2012 USO (Open Era - 176 (44 x 4) + 3 = 179 slams ) to validate the model. One input to such a model must be the draw of each slam. There may be other inputs.

Here is an example of such a model - http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0017249

Plagiarism will void such a model. with your thesis.

Ah the GOAT calculator abacus has backfired, I notice, with disappearance of the comment.

laverfan wrote:Ah the GOAT calculator abacus has backfired, I notice, with disappearance of the comment.

D'you mean my post, LF? I wasn't commenting either way, I posted something that didn't make sense reading back and edited it

The fact is watching nadal, djoko, murray or federer in his prime the level is different than the rest of the players, they are just more complete ball strikers and better athletes with more commitment. Watching the dominance of the top 4 since 2008 should crystallize in peoples mind the difference between playing against great players and playing against also rans capable of Lukas Rosol moment occassionally. I mean what Djokovic is 57-0 against players ranked outside of the top 4 in grandslam. If like Roger he didn't have competition of the level of Nadal, Fed, or Murray and faced a bunch of also rans he would have run up numbers far outstripping anything we have seen. Safin could have been great but didn't apply himself, hewittt could have been great but got injured, Nalbandian lost his never ending war with his nemesis trans fats and Federer got to Wilt chamberlain his slam numbers to an extent.

The idea that you don't remember after years the factors involved in a slam and only the slam win is false. Most people forget but close observers do not. Who thinks Mac's victory over Chris lewis was equivalent to him beating borg at wimbeldon? Who thinks Johannson winning a slam without beating a single top 10 player is the equivalent of Edberg's incredible 94 US open run. Who doesn't remember that Del Po beat both Fed and Nadal to capture his sole slam? In short, people who don't pay a lot of attention don't remember, but we all will, because I will be around to remind and so will other critics and analysts who understand the game.

Of course, those people who really understand the game wouldn't base their judgment of the difficulty of a slam based solely on a single opponent in one match. Only people who don't pay a lot of attention would do that.

socal1976 wrote:I mean what Djokovic is 57-0 against players ranked outside of the top 4 in grandslam.

But this is easier than it used to be. Ferrer himself is 22-0 in the same department.

summerblues wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I mean what Djokovic is 57-0 against players ranked outside of the top 4 in grandslam.

But this is easier than it used to be. Ferrer himself is 22-0 in the same department.

Why because you say so? Ferrer is in Djoko's 57 number on more than one occasion, how can the two streaks be remotely comparable.

Ferrer is in Djoko's 57 number on more than one occasion, how can the two streaks be remotely comparable.

But Ferrer is a relative nobody. Surely if someone like him can get to 22-0, it should raise eyebrows.

socal1976 wrote:Why because you say so?

There are fewer upsets than there used to be. And it is not just at the highest level (say top 4), but even further down - to players like say Ferrer. Not hugely surprising given the tour has homogenized and players can just keep doing the same thing day in day out.

Why hasn't homogenized conditions resulted in homogenization on the women's tour, and do you realize the conditions were homogenized before Roger's run. Wow that federer really not that impressive considering how dominated a weak era and had the benefit of homogenized conditions to boot.

socal1976 wrote:Wow that federer really not that impressive considering how dominated a weak era and had the benefit of homogenized conditions to boot.

I did not mean to touch your Federer nerve. It was just a comment on that particular statistic because I think these days it is easier to do that than it was in the past.

These days you mean since 2002 right before Roger ever won a slam, so would you concede that if homogenized conditions benefit Djoko's dominance they also benefitted federer's? And then why hasn't a decade of homogenized conditions resulted in the same phenomenon on the woman's tour? Just saying something is true summerblue and saying that correraltion is causation doesn't make it so.

socal1976 wrote:These days you mean since 2002 right before Roger ever won a slam, so would you concede that if homogenized conditions benefit Djoko's dominance they also benefitted federer's?

I would neither concede nor deny it. I was not aiming to get into the era discussions. When I say easier than in the past, I would say definitely easier than in the 90s when Wimbledon and the French required entirely different type of play. It changed somewhere between then and now, I do not particularly care when exactly.

But I am fairly sure there are fewer upsets in the slams now than there used to be.

The surfaces were slowed 2-3 years before fed, therefore if Djoko's record is less impressive because of homogenization then so are federer's record. I don't buy that homogenized conditions are creating homogenized results, haven't seen much evidence for it on the woman's tour with the same exact courts.

socal1976 wrote:therefore if Djoko's record is less impressive because of homogenization then so are federer's record.

Possibly, but the world does not revolve only around the two of them.

socal1976 wrote:Why hasn't homogenized conditions resulted in homogenization on the women's tour, and do you realize the conditions were homogenized before Roger's run. Wow that federer really not that impressive considering how dominated a weak era and had the benefit of homogenized conditions to boot.

What do you think of Steffi's 22-9 Finals run across all surfaces, before the so-called homogenization (1987 FO - 1999 W)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steffi_Graf_career_statistics#Grand_Slam_finals

In this period of Steffi's 31 finals (out of 13 x 4 = 52 possible finals), we have...

Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Chang, Becker, Gomez, Sampras, Courier, Stich, Agassi, Bruguera, Muster, Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Kuerten, Rafter, Korda and Moya who played on the same center courts at slams.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Grand_Slam_men%27s_singles_champions

If you look at Graf's run, you may think she was doing the same thing every day, but when you look at men, you see styles being different, on the same surfaces/courts. This correlation (or lack thereof) between mens winners and womens winners is not a logical argument which has any bearing on surface homogenization (and I am sure we have a tacit agreement that such homogenization started in 2002+ ).

Womens game, outside the greats like Navaratilova and Graf (and perhaps the Williamses) has never produced great consistency. Do you recall Ivanovic winning RG, how many other slams does she have? Her lack of consistency is independent of the what you have seen in the same time period on the mens side. I am certain you have repeated this several times, but it makes no logical sense.

Yes LF, because all the conditions were homogenized in Martina or steffi's day. It makes perfect sense if homogenized conditions make it easier for a small number of stars to dominate or one player why doesn't it do the same for women's game. And the women's game actually throughout history has been more hieracrchical and top heavy than the men's game. And it homogenized conditons help djoko to win more they did the same thing for fed and nadal as well. Yet homogenized conditions on the modern tour has resulted in a plethora of new slam winner and complete unpredictability on the women's tour. And this idea that the women's tour has always seen more inconsistent results is shocking coming from you. Is that why there are 5 women with more grandslam title than federer did those ladies win because of homogenized conditions or because they were just better than the competition, same thing with the big 4 today, they win more because they are better, period and end of story Occum's razor.

Occam's Razor...interesting use.

Lets run OR again then. Which is it easier to win 4 slams across for any male player?

A) 4 wildly different surfaces
B) 4 surfaces exactly the same

Also. Why did it take 30 years after Laver won the Grand Slam for another guy to do the same when the slam surfaces had been DIVERGING more from when Laver did it?

Why was it that after 2003, when we saw CONVERGING of slam surface speeds, from 2009 to 2012 we saw 2 - very nearly 3 - guys do what had taken 30 years before to achieve despite many greats of the game having come and gone from 1970 to early 2000s.

What does Occam's Razor tells us there?

Using the women's (top heavy...løl) game to analogise simply doesn't work because their game is much less affected by surface change in my opinion due to having much less power and hence much more time to get to shots across all surfaces.