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

by Guest Tue 12 Mar 2013, 3:21 pm

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. Smile

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.

by User 774433 Tue 12 Mar 2013, 9:40 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Red wrote:
HM Murdoch wrote:
The Nadal fans seem to readily accept that Berdych in W10 was an easier proposition than Federer in W08. Djokovic fans can accept that Tsonga AO08 was less of a challenge than Nadal AO12.
Absolutely- to add to this Puerta as well was less of a challenge for Nadal.

vs Puerta - 6–7(6–8), 6–3, 6–1, 7–5
vs Fed - 6–1, 6–3, 6–0

Which one was more of a challenge?

RG 2008 was prime Nadal- better than 2005 Nadal.
If in 2005 FO Nadal had played Roger I think Nadal would have won in 4 sets. Just a thought.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 12 Mar 2013, 9:41 pm

Red wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
Red wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
Red wrote:Interesting points Julius.
However in tennis I think, when it gets to a slam final, players with past experience in similar situations and 'proven champions', will be harder opponents.
Thinking about it in football, in the FA Cup a team like Swansea might be playing fantastic attacking football at that particular time- but when it gets to a final you'd always see Manchester United (who may be on average form) as still bigger threats.

Hmm, but then Rafa has only once won a FO final against anyone who had previously won the FO.
I think Federer had the experience at top level tournaments.

He never quite matured on clay though did he?
I think he did- I think his problem was Nadal rather than the surface.
Remember when Nadal did go out early- Fed capitalised.

Not really - he only played Soderling in the final. Much like Baggy and Gonzales, that doesn't count as a real slam win. Let's face it, if "one FO wonder" Fed can reach that many finals and only finally win against the likes of Soderling, it has to be a weak clay era that Rafa took advantage of.

Oops, I slipped into a typical anti-Fed argument there and applied the same criteria to Rafa. Silly me. Very Happy

by bogbrush Tue 12 Mar 2013, 9:42 pm

banbrotam wrote:
bogbrush wrote:I mean, does anyone think Andy Roddick at peak, given mid 90's conditions, would not blow most of these guys off a Wimbledon court in three sets?

I like the way you choose, easily the worst Tennis spell since the Open era. Indeed, it's this nightmare time, which makes me hesitate at having speeded up courts, today

It says it all really. You are of course correct, but this surely supports the us who think the 2007 to 2012 era was by far and away the strongest, arguably ever

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how Roddick, who was young enough to take the court conditions changes into his stride, came nowhere near to getting back in the Top 3, never mind his previous No.1 spot

Basically, we're all meant to swallow the tale, that Roddick was superb up to 2005 and then suddenly deteriorated because the courts changed and not because the quality of the opposition increased

I agree that we must put a caveat in for Hewitt - who was unfortunate enough to suffer injuries at a young age. Fat Dave was just unfortunate not to have a good brain that told him maybe he needed to pay attention to fitness

Roddick would have beaten most of the current top guys, at their peaks, on 90's grass. No problem.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 12 Mar 2013, 9:45 pm

Red wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
Red wrote:
HM Murdoch wrote:
The Nadal fans seem to readily accept that Berdych in W10 was an easier proposition than Federer in W08. Djokovic fans can accept that Tsonga AO08 was less of a challenge than Nadal AO12.
Absolutely- to add to this Puerta as well was less of a challenge for Nadal.

vs Puerta - 6–7(6–8), 6–3, 6–1, 7–5
vs Fed - 6–1, 6–3, 6–0

Which one was more of a challenge?
RG 2008 was prime Nadal- better than 2005 Nadal.
If in 2005 FO Nadal had played Roger I think Nadal would have won in 4 sets. Just a thought.

I won't go into speculation at that level. I might end up with Peurta beating Fed in the final.
It does however highlight the importance of reviewing each match before making any sort of sweeping judgement. Not that anyone is really prepared to do that.

by User 774433 Tue 12 Mar 2013, 9:45 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Not really - he only played Soderling in the final. Much like Baggy and Gonzales, that doesn't count as a real slam win. Let's face it, if "one FO wonder" Fed can reach that many finals and only finally win against the likes of Soderling, it has to be a weak clay era that Rafa took advantage of.

Oops, I slipped into a typical anti-Fed argument there and applied the same criteria to Rafa. Silly me.

The fact that Federer reached so many slam finals in a row at RG itself shows something Julius.
There has been some sparkling performances from Fed at RG, I think his victory was Djoko in 2011 was one of the best of his career.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 12 Mar 2013, 9:46 pm

Red wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:

Not really - he only played Soderling in the final. Much like Baggy and Gonzales, that doesn't count as a real slam win. Let's face it, if "one FO wonder" Fed can reach that many finals and only finally win against the likes of Soderling, it has to be a weak clay era that Rafa took advantage of.

Oops, I slipped into a typical anti-Fed argument there and applied the same criteria to Rafa. Silly me.
The fact that Federer reached so many slam finals in a row at RG itself shows something Julius.
There has been some sparkling performances from Fed at RG, I think his victory was Djoko in 2011 was one of the best of his career.

There have also been some sparkling preformances by Roddick at Wimbledon, yet Roddick is used as an example of how easy it was for Fed to win Wimby.

by User 774433 Tue 12 Mar 2013, 9:48 pm

Julius, I also think you're missing the other point.
There is a level which the 'superstars', the 'great players' can reach, which others can't.
The top players tend to have another gear- which they can tap into in the biggest stages.

by HM Murdock Tue 12 Mar 2013, 9:50 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
HM Murdoch wrote:But the suggestion that Baghdatis or Gonzalez may have been easier opponents than Nadal & Djokovic seems to be taken by many Fed fans as a huge attack on their player.

Actually it's also an insult to Baghdatis or Gonzalez - saying that even at their best they are in no way capable of being as tough an opponent on the day as Nadal or Djoko. Also the lack of time and effort to accurately judge the level of play and the sweeping statements used to dismiss these players.

It's no more insulting than saying Carlton Cole on the day is not capable of being as tough an opponent as Lionel Messi! Some people are just better than others.

On what basis are we to conclude that Baghdatis can be as good as Djokovic or Nadal on his day? In 8 years he has made 1 slam final and no Masters finals. Even just looking at semi finals, we have just 1 slam semi and 2 Masters semis. Where are these days when he's amazing? Do they only ever occur in the first 3 rounds of tournaments?

by User 774433 Tue 12 Mar 2013, 9:50 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
There have also been some sparkling preformances by Roddick at Wimbledon, yet Roddick is used as an example of how easy it was for Fed to win Wimby.

Watch Murray vs Roddick 2006 Wimby.
I think it was only in 2009 where Roddick's groundstrokes were improved that he was a real threat- before that he relied far too heavily on his serve.

by bogbrush Tue 12 Mar 2013, 9:50 pm

Right, so when all the 'facts' fail we just go back to stating your opinion as fact?

by User 774433 Tue 12 Mar 2013, 9:51 pm

HM Murdoch wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
HM Murdoch wrote:But the suggestion that Baghdatis or Gonzalez may have been easier opponents than Nadal & Djokovic seems to be taken by many Fed fans as a huge attack on their player.

Actually it's also an insult to Baghdatis or Gonzalez - saying that even at their best they are in no way capable of being as tough an opponent on the day as Nadal or Djoko. Also the lack of time and effort to accurately judge the level of play and the sweeping statements used to dismiss these players.
It's no more insulting than saying Carlton Cole on the day is not capable of being as tough an opponent as Lionel Messi! Some people are just better than others.

On what basis are we to conclude that Baghdatis can be as good as Djokovic or Nadal on his day? In 8 years he has made 1 slam final and no Masters finals. Even just looking at semi finals, we have just 1 slam semi and 2 Masters semis. Where are these days when he's amazing? Do they only ever occur in the first 3 rounds of tournaments?

This is my point- the great players have another gear they can tap into in the biggest moments. It's no insult to anyone.

by bogbrush Tue 12 Mar 2013, 10:01 pm

Anyway, the whole thread is a MASSIVE YAWN.

Been done to pointless death so many times. God knows what possessed lk to start what he knew would be utterly without purpose.

by User 774433 Tue 12 Mar 2013, 10:04 pm

bogbrush wrote:... go back to stating your opinion as fact?

by Born Slippy Tue 12 Mar 2013, 10:07 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Red wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:

Not really - he only played Soderling in the final. Much like Baggy and Gonzales, that doesn't count as a real slam win. Let's face it, if "one FO wonder" Fed can reach that many finals and only finally win against the likes of Soderling, it has to be a weak clay era that Rafa took advantage of.

Oops, I slipped into a typical anti-Fed argument there and applied the same criteria to Rafa. Silly me.
The fact that Federer reached so many slam finals in a row at RG itself shows something Julius.
There has been some sparkling performances from Fed at RG, I think his victory was Djoko in 2011 was one of the best of his career.

There have also been some sparkling preformances by Roddick at Wimbledon, yet Roddick is used as an example of how easy it was for Fed to win Wimby.

Apart from 2009, I must have missed these sparkling performances by Roddick at Wimbledon. Can you help me out?

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 12 Mar 2013, 10:09 pm

Red wrote:Julius, I also think you're missing the other point.
There is a level which the 'superstars', the 'great players' can reach, which others can't.
The top players tend to have another gear- which they can tap into in the biggest stages.

You mean like Fed in the FO final when he won 4 games?

by User 774433 Tue 12 Mar 2013, 10:16 pm

Interest rates are normally increased by central banks to lower inflation.
Normally when interest rates are increased, it leads to lower inflation.

However there have been some rare occasions where there is high inflation even when interest rates have been increased.

Nevertheless it does not mean that the idea of the putting up interest rates to control inflation is misled. Hope that clears things up.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 12 Mar 2013, 10:17 pm

Born Slippy wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
Red wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:

Not really - he only played Soderling in the final. Much like Baggy and Gonzales, that doesn't count as a real slam win. Let's face it, if "one FO wonder" Fed can reach that many finals and only finally win against the likes of Soderling, it has to be a weak clay era that Rafa took advantage of.

Oops, I slipped into a typical anti-Fed argument there and applied the same criteria to Rafa. Silly me.
The fact that Federer reached so many slam finals in a row at RG itself shows something Julius.
There has been some sparkling performances from Fed at RG, I think his victory was Djoko in 2011 was one of the best of his career.

There have also been some sparkling preformances by Roddick at Wimbledon, yet Roddick is used as an example of how easy it was for Fed to win Wimby.

Apart from 2009, I must have missed these sparkling performances by Roddick at Wimbledon. Can you help me out?

Is that a circular anti-Fed argument? I say he reached the final in 2004-2005 therefore he must have been playing truly great tennis and you say nah, he only reached the final because it was a weak era, my gran could have reached the final back then. What's the point?

by Guest Tue 12 Mar 2013, 10:17 pm

bogbrush wrote:Anyway, the whole thread is a MASSIVE YAWN.

Been done to pointless death so many times. God knows what possessed lk to start what he knew would be utterly without purpose.

I hoped for 20 posts and here is the 65th one!

Shame on you all!

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 12 Mar 2013, 10:18 pm

Red wrote:Interest rates are normally increased by central banks to lower inflation.
Normally when interest rates are increased, it leads to lower inflation.

However there have been some rare occasions where there is high inflation even when interest rates have been increased.

Nevertheless it does not mean that the idea of the putting up interest rates to control inflation is misled. Hope that clears things up.

No, that's wrong. It was the Treaty of Versailles.

by User 774433 Tue 12 Mar 2013, 10:19 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Red wrote:Interest rates are normally increased by central banks to lower inflation.
Normally when interest rates are increased, it leads to lower inflation.

However there have been some rare occasions where there is high inflation even when interest rates have been increased.

Nevertheless it does not mean that the idea of the putting up interest rates to control inflation is misled. Hope that clears things up.

No, that's wrong. It was the Treaty of Versailles.

I was making a serious point.

by HM Murdock Tue 12 Mar 2013, 10:23 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Red wrote:Interest rates are normally increased by central banks to lower inflation.
Normally when interest rates are increased, it leads to lower inflation.

However there have been some rare occasions where there is high inflation even when interest rates have been increased.

Nevertheless it does not mean that the idea of the putting up interest rates to control inflation is misled. Hope that clears things up.

No, that's wrong. It was the Treaty of Versailles.

Are you George Osborne?

Some political satire for you there.

by User 774433 Tue 12 Mar 2013, 10:25 pm

HM Murdoch wrote:
Are you George Osborne?

Sh*t, how did you realise?

by HM Murdock Tue 12 Mar 2013, 10:31 pm

Red wrote:
HM Murdoch wrote:
Are you George Osborne?
Sh*t, how did you realise?

I was actually talking to Julius! Your economic analysis was too cogent for our incumbent Chancellor.

Come to think of it, so was Julius'.

by User 774433 Tue 12 Mar 2013, 10:34 pm

HM Murdoch wrote:
Red wrote:
HM Murdoch wrote:
Are you George Osborne?
Sh*t, how did you realise?
I was actually talking to Julius! Your economic analysis was too cogent for our incumbent Chancellor.

Come to think of it, so was Julius'.

I was actually making a serious point though.
On average I feel that top players who have experience on the biggest stage, 'superstars' if you were, will on the whole be tougher opponents on the biggest stage as they have the mentality and another gear to tap into when it matters. However there will be exceptions, but this doesn't negate I think my primary point.

by Born Slippy Tue 12 Mar 2013, 10:38 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Born Slippy wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
Red wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:

Not really - he only played Soderling in the final. Much like Baggy and Gonzales, that doesn't count as a real slam win. Let's face it, if "one FO wonder" Fed can reach that many finals and only finally win against the likes of Soderling, it has to be a weak clay era that Rafa took advantage of.

Oops, I slipped into a typical anti-Fed argument there and applied the same criteria to Rafa. Silly me.
The fact that Federer reached so many slam finals in a row at RG itself shows something Julius.
There has been some sparkling performances from Fed at RG, I think his victory was Djoko in 2011 was one of the best of his career.

There have also been some sparkling preformances by Roddick at Wimbledon, yet Roddick is used as an example of how easy it was for Fed to win Wimby.

Apart from 2009, I must have missed these sparkling performances by Roddick at Wimbledon. Can you help me out?

Is that a circular anti-Fed argument? I say he reached the final in 2004-2005 therefore he must have been playing truly great tennis and you say nah, he only reached the final because it was a weak era, my gran could have reached the final back then. What's the point?

No, I'm saying I don't recall him producing any sparkling tennis. He beat players who he would have been expected to beat competently enough. However, I don't recall watching any of his matches and being amazed. He just looked a solid player.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 12 Mar 2013, 10:38 pm

HM Murdoch wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
HM Murdoch wrote:But the suggestion that Baghdatis or Gonzalez may have been easier opponents than Nadal & Djokovic seems to be taken by many Fed fans as a huge attack on their player.

Actually it's also an insult to Baghdatis or Gonzalez - saying that even at their best they are in no way capable of being as tough an opponent on the day as Nadal or Djoko. Also the lack of time and effort to accurately judge the level of play and the sweeping statements used to dismiss these players.
It's no more insulting than saying Carlton Cole on the day is not capable of being as tough an opponent as Lionel Messi! Some people are just better than others.

On what basis are we to conclude that Baghdatis can be as good as Djokovic or Nadal on his day? In 8 years he has made 1 slam final and no Masters finals. Even just looking at semi finals, we have just 1 slam semi and 2 Masters semis. Where are these days when he's amazing? Do they only ever occur in the first 3 rounds of tournaments?

I believe Baggy has beaten both Nadl and Fed. But the probability is his performance was not at Djoko or Nadal level. But if one is going to condemn a player as putting in one of the worst GS final performances of recent times, should it be done on probability or on observed evidence? It doesn't take that much for a lesser player to reach great heights and confidence and form can build as you progress through a slam - possibly to levels not reached before or since.

by User 774433 Tue 12 Mar 2013, 10:44 pm

Julius, I disagree.
I believe the great players have a extra gear they can tap into in the biggest moments.

More importantly though, I feel that mentally players with more experience in the biggest stage are in a much better position- often we see underdogs play really well to reach the final, but then get overawed (eg Bradford in Carling Cup).

by bogbrush Tue 12 Mar 2013, 11:06 pm

Red wrote:Julius, I disagree.
I believe the great players have a extra gear they can tap into in the biggest moments.

Did you really say that? I didn't notice.

by User 774433 Tue 12 Mar 2013, 11:07 pm

bogbrush wrote:
Red wrote:Julius, I disagree.
I believe the great players have a extra gear they can tap into in the biggest moments.
Did you really say that? I didn't notice.

You're forgiven.

by bogbrush Tue 12 Mar 2013, 11:09 pm

On the subject of a weak era, I see the shambling hulk that it the aged wreckage of Tommy Haas just beat the current World # 11.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 12 Mar 2013, 11:17 pm

Red wrote:Julius, I disagree.
I believe the great players have a extra gear they can tap into in the biggest moments.

Like Connors at Wimby 1984?
Exceptions, yes, just as there are exceptions to lesser players being able to play at the very highest level on occassion.

by lydian Tue 12 Mar 2013, 11:23 pm

Yeah but Almagro on hard court is like fish on a bike, and I don't mean Mardy.

Haas is quality though, always was...now he's got nothing to win he's playing like should have done 10yrs ago.

by bogbrush Tue 12 Mar 2013, 11:28 pm

He can't have been qulity, he failed to win anything during a weak era. It's been proven.

by User 774433 Tue 12 Mar 2013, 11:31 pm

Firstly no one said anything about a weak era on this thread.
Secondly he suffered from shoulder injury which wiped him out of the game for the years which should have been his prime.

by lydian Tue 12 Mar 2013, 11:48 pm

Well we all know Haas story of tragedy in 2002 followed by severe injury caused by the lengthy lay-off...just as he was getting somewhere from mid2001 onwards the rug was pulled out from under him in 2002. A real shame actually. Like Federer he was another guy from the 90s who had the talent to transition across into the slower era, he had real clay prowess. Indeed he should have beaten Federer in 2009 at FO, and probably would have done had his career been in a different orbit from 2002 and the self-belief on a different footing. In reality he's actually a different class to Almagro.

by socal1976 Wed 13 Mar 2013, 12:06 am

Can't disagree with that Almagro has big shots but he has to be one of the worst chokers on tour. He served for this match and lost again, just like he has done recently with ferrer. A clay court specialist with no bottle frankly.

Let it be remembered that I didn't start this weak era thread, but you all can't get enough despite your protestations otherwise.

by Silver Wed 13 Mar 2013, 12:16 am

I've read through and found myself both agreeing with JHM on the fact that players need to be judged on the day sometimes, or at least across a whole tournament. Gonzalez is a good example because although he seems like a weak finalist due to lack of career achievements versus Novak or Rafa, anyone who watched that tournament (AO 2007) will know he played some unbelievable tennis that fortnight - easily dispatching Nadal in the process. He only lost in straight sets because Federer just happened to be in the form of his life and played probably the best tournament that I've ever personally witnessed. That version of Gonzo would have given even Nadal and Djokovic plenty to think about, I've got no doubts about that in my mind. Same applies to AO2005 Safin, who played out of his mind against a similarly inspired Federer and came out on top. Yeah, he never hit the dizzy heights of Djokovic over the course of his career (not even close!), but for that one tournament he was basically unstoppable. And that's all it takes to derail a great champion, sometimes.

HM Murdoch wrote:JHM - you are completely correct but it does have to cut both ways.

If we accept that a less distinguished opponent could have played fantastically on the day, we also have to accept that said opponent could also have performed at their more usual (i.e. lower) level.

Too frequently though, even the suggestion that some of Fed's opponents may have been weaker players is seen as sacrilege and an insult.

The oddity is that the sensitivity seems to uniquely surround Federer.

The Nadal fans seem to readily accept that Berdych in W10 was an easier proposition than Federer in W08. Djokovic fans can accept that Tsonga AO08 was less of a challenge than Nadal AO12.

But the suggestion that Baghdatis or Gonzalez may have been easier opponents than Nadal & Djokovic seems to be taken by many Fed fans as a huge attack on their player.

It's ridiculous. The guy has won 17 slams. Does every last one of them have to have been against a lethal opponent at the top of his game for that achievement to have any meaning?

However, I completely agree with everything you've said here, HM. Hats off to you clap

It can go both ways, with two good examples being Gonzo as above and then Soderling, who set the FO alight that year but perhaps didn't reproduce a level that he could have once in the final. Federer also had to plow his way through a very tough JMDP the previous round, so finalists don't always tell the whole story, but of course Nadal or Djokovic would've been a tougher proposition. Federer does have a target on his back due to all the records he has, and people do get too defensive over him, but it's fair to say that the competition these days is far stiffer than what he had to face on the whole. There are, of course, notable exceptions. But I agree with your post.

As for the question of how many slams someone would've won if everyone was at peak, then it really depends on your perspective. Using the current triumvirate as an example, overall I think that peak Nadal > peak Federer (AO '09 was the closest we've ever come to that), peak Fed > peak Novak (RG '11 closest), and peak Novak > peak Nadal (AO '12?). But it's extremely close and impossible to say how many slams they each would've got, and naturally that's just my opinion to it's open to interpretation.

People should consider these questions without denigrating the players in question too much. They are all incredible champions.

by socal1976 Wed 13 Mar 2013, 3:44 am

As usual Silver makes a very balanced post. I do agree on Gonzalez the level he played up to the final was amazing, but it is instructive to note that as a first time finalist he didn't replicate that level in the final. If he played the way he played against Nadal in the earlier rounds in front of federer even peak Roger would have had to fight to win. What often happens with these form horses like Soderling, Tsonga, Berdy, Baggy, and Gonzalez when they get to the final and face an experienced great like fed or Nadal there is a big drop off compared to how they played earlier in the fortnight. Berdych was on fire until he played Nadal in the final, same thing with Gonzo, same thing with soderling at RG.

This goes to REd's astute point that the defenders of the weak era failed to acknowledge. The added experience and belief of a great player in a final is different than a guy who has just had a breakout fortnight and deep down really doesn't believe he belongs. Now Del Po of course is the obvious exception, but generally look back over the history of the slams, how many first time finalists played a true great and were actually successful in that final? It does happen but usually the worst match those guys play ends up being in the final. Especially,when the guy across from them is federer.

So just because those guys were having a great fortnight ala Baggy or Gonzo doesn't mean that they played the same way in the final, and usually if recent history is any indicator their lack of belief and experience became telling in that final.

by Mad for Chelsea Wed 13 Mar 2013, 4:00 am

to be fair to Hewitt, the reason he dropped out of the top 10 in 2005 never to return is simple: injuries. At his best he was one heck of a player. Roddick is different, I rate him quite a bit below Hewitt personally, though of course he did have that serve. There were some fine players around in those days, but for varying reasons they lacked the consistency of the curent top bunch.

by socal1976 Wed 13 Mar 2013, 4:05 am

I do agree about Hewitt, I actually would rate hewitt as sort of an entry level great of the game. He was wrecked by injury and the main reason he failed to perform was due to physical degradation. Roddick when he won the USO was easily the most one dimensional and unskilled grandslam champion of recent memory. The best Roddick in my mind was in 09 and early 2010.

by HM Murdock Wed 13 Mar 2013, 7:37 am

Silver - really good post.

Another good example is this year's AO. Looking only at the final, we see Novak facing a somewhat out-of-sorts Andy and it looks like one of his easier slams. But it's easily forgotten that he had to overcome an absolutely inspired Wawrinka in the 4th round. The challenge that Stan offered on that particular day was easily the equal of anything Andy or Roger may have offered.

The great irony about my getting involved with this debate is that I don't really subscribe to either era theory!

The period between Sampras decline and the emergence of Federer is clearly a transitional one. When the history of tennis is written, these won't be seen as vintage years. But to call them 'weak' is a bit strong because they contained some very decent players who, on their day, could be very good indeed.

The idea that the current era is 'Golden' is, I think, very generous given the complete lack of young talent and the unremarkable players who can have good spells in the top ten.

What I'm certain on however, is that the quality at the top of the game was greater in the last few years than it was in the early 2000s. I think when we look back in years to come, we will recognise a period when the careers of three 'greats' overlapped, with them all close enough to their peak for the matches to be meaningful.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 13 Mar 2013, 8:56 am

HM, I'm of a similar opinion to that.
Interesting that you bring up earlier rounds - to truly judge the 'slam difficulty rating' of Fed's early slams, you'd have to look at the performance level of each opponent in turn through 7 rounds. No-one (I hope) can be bothered to do that - it's far easier to base an opinion on averages and probability, but also far less accurate.

IIRC the term 'weak era' was introduced on the old 606 by Fed-haters/Sampras-worshippers as means to denigrate Fed - endless posts about the weak era No 1 and transitional No 1. As such the legacy of the term is as a tool designed to denigrate Fed and to wind up Fed fans. Which is fair enough, there's no reason why it can't continue to be used as such and I'd hate to see it die out.
Obviously it's now been picked up by some Rafa and Djoko fans for the same purpose.

But if we're honest about it, it's only lazy thinking and lack of genuine and detailed analysis (understandably in both cases, because it's not important enough to go beyond that) that could lead to the term being used in earnest, or to make genuine conclusions about 'easy' or 'hard' slams.

by User 774433 Wed 13 Mar 2013, 9:36 am

I haven't mentioned anything about a weak era.

I think you'll find on the whole, the biggest threats in a slam come at the latter stages, to say that's normal is not lazy, but correct.
It doesn't always mean it'll be the case, as ever you can find exceptions, but it will be normally.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 13 Mar 2013, 9:46 am

IMBL, others have mentioned a weak era.
I know you keep clear of the actual term, but you certainly allude to it in other ways and have also at times sought to denigrate Fed slams in an attempt to 'prove' Rafa's superiority.

Your use of the terms 'on the whole' and 'normally' just prove my point perfectly - that conclusions are being drawn based on averages and probability rather than detailed analysis of the actual matches. I use the term 'lazy', but I also say that it's understandable because I'm sure even the most avid Rafa fan, in his/her most desperate attempts to prove Rafa's superiority has better things to do with their time that undertake that sort of analysis. I would hope so, anyway.

by **laverfan** Wed 13 Mar 2013, 9:51 am

Deja Vu!

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 13 Mar 2013, 9:53 am

laverfan wrote:Deja Vu!

I didn't see that coming.

by User 774433 Wed 13 Mar 2013, 9:54 am

On average I think the biggest threat in a slam will come in the latter stages. It is very rare for this not to be the case in-fact.

By focusing on semantics, you're missing the point.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 13 Mar 2013, 9:57 am

Red wrote:On average I think the biggest threat in a slam will come in the latter stages. It is very rare for this not to be the case in-fact.

By focusing on semantics, you're missing the point.

By failing to focus on detail, you're missing the point. If I went to my boss and said "I haven't really analysed the problem you gave me, but it'll probably be all right" I'm sure he'd be fine with that. Or if a scientist said "I haven't really analysed it fully, or done a thorough test, but let's publish some conclusions anyway - chances are they'll be right".

PS semantics is the meaning of words. Not sure you've used that in the correct context.

by HM Murdock Wed 13 Mar 2013, 9:58 am

JuliusHMarx wrote:
laverfan wrote:Deja Vu!

I didn't see that coming.

Oh Mr Belpit, your legs are so swollen.

by **laverfan** Wed 13 Mar 2013, 10:08 am

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

by Sponsored content