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.

More time to get to shots and less speed to get to those shots, so again your argument is open to debate lydian. If a female player hits less hard her opponent also has less foot speed to catch that ball, your analogy would be correct if the women had less power and equal speed.

Why is it in 2012 we saw 4 different slam winners. One reason we didn't see career slams ever, the main reason in fact was that very few great non-Australians showed up to the Australian open till the mid 80s. The principal reason you didn't get career slams before was this very logical and simple solution, thus occum's razor.

If Serena Williams was fit, focused and able she'd be racking up grand slams pretty often these days...she has won the career slam dont forget.

However, she doesn't quite take the game fully seriously for long periods, plus she's had injury/health problems. However, she's usually around enough to stop any other woman doing it.

Again though, I don't think the women's and men's games are comparable, the dynamic is completely and literally different.

If my aunt had balls she would be my uncle Lydian. Same thing with your argument about injuries and changing conditions. You give a great excuse as to why the rollover brigade sucked so much, I just care more about the result that they sucked so much.

Again the idea is that homogenized conditions lead to homogenized results in a competition, why doesn't with the woman's game? I think it is a valid question and a giant whole in the theory of homogenized conditions. Frankly, even if homogenized conditions led to easier dominance of the top stars I would care as much. I loathe the surface specialists, I view them as borderline cheaters. Players who sell out their technique and training for ambushing more talented players for two months out of the year. I don't want to see Juan Pablo Whoisthat with a Hawaiian grip beating the world #1 and knocking him out of the french open because he sells out his technique and trains all year in order to ambush superior players. Good riddance to bad garbage in my opinion.