The myth of young Nadal being better than Nadal of today

First topic message reminder :

What we have always heard is that Nadal of 08 is so far ahead of current Nadal on this website, of course Nadal of 08 was pretty remarkable no one can question what a year he had beating Federer in an epic at wimbeldon that in many ways flattered the Nadal of that period in relation to what we have seen in recent years. In my opinion the Nadal of today has a better serve, flat forehand, slice backhand, and volleys. Yet, for some reason in this strange fishbowl of counter factual 606v2, it is the running party line that Nadal 08 was far superior to Nadal of 2013. Interestingly, this story line fits well for both the Federer fans and the Nadal fans on this site. It also feeds into the thought stream of those who I with great affection, have come to know as the nostalgics, who must trumpet yesterday over today because well they preffered the tennis of their youth. The fed fans agree because it makes the competition fed faced in his later prime seem all the more impressive. Nadal fans seem to agree because it explains away any loss Nadal may have particularly to one Novak Djokovic.

But lets actually examine the facts and compare Nadal 2013 vs Nadal 2008. In 2008, Nadal won a total of 8 tournaments for the entire year. Nadal of 2013 has won 5 tournaments from the middle of February to the middle of May. Nadal of 2008 had acquired 5435 points in 20 tournaments in the 52 weeks prior to this week in the year 2008. Nadal in 20 tournaments. Interestingly, he held just a 200 point advantage over the asthmatic puppy version of Novak Djokovic at this time in the rankings. Despite all the slams and time missed from inuries Nadal of 2013 has gained 6895 points over the course of 20 tournaments. Nadal of 2008 against top ten opponents had a record of 17-6 for a 74 percent winning percentage against top ten opponents. Nadal of 2013 has a 6-1 record against top ten opponents for a 86 percent win percentage against top ten opponents.


Now today we see that simply losing djokovic over the last two or three years for some reason has made people assume that Nadal the conqueror of Federer at wimbeldon is somehow deficient in comparison to his 2008 predecessor. Yet other than his losses to one player an his injuries Nadal has run roughshod over the tour even more so than he did in the supposed Nirvana of 08. Now we have to get to the motivation of why this argument is so popular on this website in particular and online. Well it fits so well for many various factions. Nadal fans have a built in excuse if Nadal gets surpassed in any way by Djoko. Fed fans can build up the weaker competition faced by Federer in his heyday and at the same time discount the accomplishments of current player's vis a vis Federer. The nostalgics love to talk down the state of the game so this fits with them as well.

I would take Nadal of 2010-2013 over Nadal of 05-08 anyday of the week and twice on sunday, if Nadal of 08 played Djoko 2.0 I doubt the matches would be even this competitive. And the numbers bear it out, Nadal dominates the tour more today than he did in his early days, he just loses to his top rival more than he wins unlike the Nadal of 08.

doubled post

socal1976 wrote:

CAS wrote:the Nadal of today is better than the younger Nadal, on clay I'm not sure but surely its not even a question all round? 05-08 Rafa wasn't not as good outside of clay so depends what the question is. 08 on clay Rafa was peerless, but he didn't have a confident mature Djokovic so we will never truly know

Precisely, I have always found it hard to believe that Federer is one of the greatest clay courters or a natural clay court player. Nadal had a matchup edge against Federer to begin with, now throw in the fact that he is playing a grass and hardcourt player with one handed backhand and an eastern forehand in all those early FO finals. No wonder the clay GOAT was so untouchable on clay. It was Federer and no one else. Don't get me wrong Fed is a great player who could play well on clay, but his game is not really suited to clay court tennis. Djokovic I am convinced when it is all said and done will be rated a better clay courter than Federer and despite hardcourt being his favorite surface his game with his defense, western forehand, and double handed backhand is much better suite to clay than Federer's. Fed is a grass court player and fast court player who because of his talent can succeed on clay.

Oh I see, so now Nadal gets hit by the weak era theory.

The funny thing about your idea of weak eras, socal, is that you're blind to the fact that this is pretty much one of the most barren periods in the game right now. You have a guy in semi-retirement at #2, David Ferrer in his thirties dominating everyone outside the top 4, and a geriatric Tommy Haas back knocking at the top 10 door. Pitiful.

Everyone repeat after me - "Rollover claycourt generation"

Seven RG wins in eight years (including three on the bounce in the "Big four" era) confirm that Rafa is the greatest Clay courter in history. Rollover generation or not. Nadal on clay is quite possibly the toughest task in world sports. Sure Floyd Mayweather is unbeaten, but he has six months to prepare for a fight. Nadal has taken on all comers, week in week out for nearly a decade now.

The 2012 Nadal, for me, is the best clay court version of any player, male or female to grace the dirt. He was very matter of factly about how dismissive he was of his opponents. Either side of an eight game streak by Djokovic in the final, the man looked unbeatable. He won points sitting down for goodness sake. The 2008 model was very good, but definitely doesnt hold a candle to the 2012 edition, that wa Rafa v2.5, if you like, pity the knees put paid to us seeing wether he was fully 'reborn'

The 2008 edition was very good, no doubt, two slams and three masters. But he was still somewhat limited and to frank, the forehands were nowhere near the same gut-punching drives we saw last year.

bogbrush wrote:

The funny thing about your idea of weak eras, socal, is that you're blind to the fact that this is pretty much one of the most barren periods in the game right now. You have a guy in semi-retirement at #2, David Ferrer in his thirties dominating everyone outside the top 4, and a geriatric Tommy Haas back knocking at the top 10 door. Pitiful.

Murray's retiring??? I get distracted by work for a few weeks and miss all the big news

Seven RG wins in eight years (including three on the bounce in the "Big four" era) confirm that Rafa is the greatest Clay courter in history. Rollover generation or not. Nadal on clay is quite possibly the toughest task in world sports. Sure Floyd Mayweather is unbeaten, but he has six months to prepare for a fight. Nadal has taken on all comers, week in week out for nearly a decade now.

The 2012 Nadal, for me, is the best clay court version of any player, male or female to grace the dirt. He was very matter of factly about how dismissive he was of his opponents. Either side of an eight game streak by Djokovic in the final, the man looked unbeatable. He won points sitting down for goodness sake. The 2008 model was very good, but definitely doesnt hold a candle to the 2012 edition, that wa Rafa v2.5, if you like, pity the knees put paid to us seeing wether he was fully 'reborn'

The 2008 edition was very good, no doubt, two slams and three masters. But he was still somewhat limited and to frank, the forehands were nowhere near the same gut-punching drives we saw last year.

carrieg4 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

The funny thing about your idea of weak eras, socal, is that you're blind to the fact that this is pretty much one of the most barren periods in the game right now. You have a guy in semi-retirement at #2, David Ferrer in his thirties dominating everyone outside the top 4, and a geriatric Tommy Haas back knocking at the top 10 door. Pitiful.

Murray's retiring??? I get distracted by work for a few weeks and miss all the big news

I'm out of the country and 96 hours behind you.

Of course, you could look at the 100m Olympic race and say. "Oh it had an injured champion, a rookie chasing him, a disgraced 30-year old in his first year back, a choking Tyson Gay, and a finished Asafa Powell", wouldnt change the fact that it was the the fastest Olympic final in history (save for Powell's hobbling).

Also, the thing about a 52-week ranking system is that it doesnt punish you too badly for playing semi-retired in the first five months if you have a RG semi-final, Wimbledon victory, WTF final and Masters victory.

kingraf wrote:Of course, you could look at the 100m Olympic race and say. "Oh it had an injured champion, a rookie chasing him, a disgraced 30-year old in his first year back, a choking Tyson Gay, and a finished Asafa Powell", wouldnt change the fact that it was the the fastest Olympic final in history (save for Powell's hobbling).

Also, the thing about a 52-week ranking system is that it doesnt punish you too badly for playing semi-retired in the first five months if you have a RG semi-final, Wimbledon victory, WTF final and Masters victory.

You seem to have overlooked the fact that you measure the performance against an unchanging benchmark (the clock), which isn't available in tennis, and proved comparison to peers isn't reliable.

You basically blew yourself out of the water inside one sentence. I'm impressed.

I fail to see how I did that to be frank. All I proved is that the physical/experential conditions of competitors has no bearing on how well they will do. I never discussed comparison to peers, I never do in any case. Stating that player A will beat player C because he beat player B who beat player C is a limited line of offence, one I dont necessarily like using, unless there is no other alternative, or someone is making a null point using the same standards.

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

CAS wrote:the Nadal of today is better than the younger Nadal, on clay I'm not sure but surely its not even a question all round? 05-08 Rafa wasn't not as good outside of clay so depends what the question is. 08 on clay Rafa was peerless, but he didn't have a confident mature Djokovic so we will never truly know

Precisely, I have always found it hard to believe that Federer is one of the greatest clay courters or a natural clay court player. Nadal had a matchup edge against Federer to begin with, now throw in the fact that he is playing a grass and hardcourt player with one handed backhand and an eastern forehand in all those early FO finals. No wonder the clay GOAT was so untouchable on clay. It was Federer and no one else. Don't get me wrong Fed is a great player who could play well on clay, but his game is not really suited to clay court tennis. Djokovic I am convinced when it is all said and done will be rated a better clay courter than Federer and despite hardcourt being his favorite surface his game with his defense, western forehand, and double handed backhand is much better suite to clay than Federer's. Fed is a grass court player and fast court player who because of his talent can succeed on clay.

Oh I see, so now Nadal gets hit by the weak era theory.

The funny thing about your idea of weak eras, socal, is that you're blind to the fact that this is pretty much one of the most barren periods in the game right now. You have a guy in semi-retirement at #2, David Ferrer in his thirties dominating everyone outside the top 4, and a geriatric Tommy Haas back knocking at the top 10 door. Pitiful.

I love it the guy who argued vociferously with me that there is no such thing as weak era and that all slams are equally difficult to win, is now discussing how this is the most barren periods in the game. Weak=Barren, no? I commend you BB, if verbal and logical gymnastics was an Olympic event I would give this last post a perfect 10! 3 world class players is better than one last time I checked. By the way Agassi was #1 in the rankings at age 33 and won a slam during the legendary early 2000s, now that is what I call weak. The guy in semi-retirement happens to be the goat and he sits number #10 in the points race and is ranked #3.

No, actually barren doesn't equal weak. It means lacking in interest or devoid of variety. It has no connection to strength whatsoever.

Oops!

Oh well, better luck next time.

kingraf wrote:Seven RG wins in eight years (including three on the bounce in the "Big four" era) confirm that Rafa is the greatest Clay courter in history. Rollover generation or not. Nadal on clay is quite possibly the toughest task in world sports. Sure Floyd Mayweather is unbeaten, but he has six months to prepare for a fight. Nadal has taken on all comers, week in week out for nearly a decade now.

The 2012 Nadal, for me, is the best clay court version of any player, male or female to grace the dirt. He was very matter of factly about how dismissive he was of his opponents. Either side of an eight game streak by Djokovic in the final, the man looked unbeatable. He won points sitting down for goodness sake. The 2008 model was very good, but definitely doesnt hold a candle to the 2012 edition, that wa Rafa v2.5, if you like, pity the knees put paid to us seeing wether he was fully 'reborn'

The 2008 edition was very good, no doubt, two slams and three masters. But he was still somewhat limited and to frank, the forehands were nowhere near the same gut-punching drives we saw last year.

No, no Kingraf, everything was better when Roger was #1 don't you know that. By the way I agree Nadal is without question the clay GOAT bar none and no one can dispute it. He would have surpassed Fed as the GOAT by now except for a dodgy leg and I agree Nadal of 05-08 did not have anywhere approaching this complete a package of ball striking that we witness today.

Your determination to promote Novak is most admirable; while all around you are looking at at Rome you persevere in finding every opportunity to boost 2011-13 (except the mid 2012 of course!) and denigrate everything else.

He is very lucky to have such a loyal follower.

socal1976 wrote:

kingraf wrote:Seven RG wins in eight years (including three on the bounce in the "Big four" era) confirm that Rafa is the greatest Clay courter in history. Rollover generation or not. Nadal on clay is quite possibly the toughest task in world sports. Sure Floyd Mayweather is unbeaten, but he has six months to prepare for a fight. Nadal has taken on all comers, week in week out for nearly a decade now.

The 2012 Nadal, for me, is the best clay court version of any player, male or female to grace the dirt. He was very matter of factly about how dismissive he was of his opponents. Either side of an eight game streak by Djokovic in the final, the man looked unbeatable. He won points sitting down for goodness sake. The 2008 model was very good, but definitely doesnt hold a candle to the 2012 edition, that wa Rafa v2.5, if you like, pity the knees put paid to us seeing wether he was fully 'reborn'

The 2008 edition was very good, no doubt, two slams and three masters. But he was still somewhat limited and to frank, the forehands were nowhere near the same gut-punching drives we saw last year.

No, no Kingraf, everything was better when Roger was #1 don't you know that. By the way I agree Nadal is without question the clay GOAT bar none and no one can dispute it. He would have surpassed Fed as the GOAT by now except for a dodgy leg and I agree Nadal of 05-08 did not have anywhere approaching this complete a package of ball striking that we witness today.

Rusedski reckons Borg is the clay GOAT and Laver reckons Rafa probably wouldn't be very good with wooden rackets and gut strings, so I'm sure he has Rafa as the clay GOAT either.

bogbrush wrote:Your determination to promote Novak is most admirable; while all around you are looking at at Rome you persevere in finding every opportunity to boost 2011-13 (except the mid 2012 of course!) and denigrate everything else.

He is very lucky to have such a loyal follower.

I do not denigrate everyone else, I am big supporter of many players, I deem my analysis more objective than most of those I read. I acknowledge Rafa as the clay goat, Roger as the GOAT, but neither of them in the early days had that much competition except from each other. I think this is a pretty fair and objective, if not widely held belief.

No, you're a big supporter of these players in theory but maintain they are at their very best whenDjokovic beats them, and dismiss their most successful periods for weak competition.

It's fairly easy to see through.

Nope, when have I said Nadal's best years are due to weak competition? 2010 was due to weak competition actually that is an argument fed fans make not me. You are the one who basically talks down the entire modern game player like Djoko and murray, not to mention pretending that Nadal is a worse version today than his 21 or 22 year old self.

bogbrush wrote:No, you're a big supporter of these players in theory but maintain they are at their very best whenDjokovic beats them, and dismiss their most successful periods for weak competition.

It's fairly easy to see through.

Sounds familiar to me.

You (BB) are just as guilty at dissing current players as socal is at not rating (highly enough) the top players of the early 2000's.

I say this.....

Legends/greats of any sport will invariably find ways to dominate (if they are truly greats of the game) and that is regardless of court conditions or court speeds. Look at Borg, Sampras and Lendl for evidence of dominant forces on non-homogenised surfaces. They found ways to dominate. My point is that not one player in the early 2000's were a dominant force. Nobody had that knack to grab the tennis circuit by the scruff of the neck and dominate.

Then look at the dominant forces on homogenised surfaces such as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic - all of which had spells of domination just like Borg, Sampras, Lendl et all in the past. Point is that regardless of court speeds legends of sport will find a way to dominate but we never saw that in the early 2000's. Why?

For what its worth I pay almost little notice to the 'quality' of a generation when GS's are won. Why? Listen to any tv commentary and when they discuss x time winner Joe Bloggs, do they then go on to discuss the quality of the opposition? I have to be honest and say I've never heard it. Ultimately each player's record will be remembered equally by its own weight in numbers.

Personally I don't see any noticeable difference in Nadal's game. Apart from a vastly improved serve. During both periods he has spells of invincibility. And was, and is still, great off both wings. I think its great for Nadal that Djokovic can test him and beat him on clay. Just like it was great Nadal turned up and could beat Federer. Tennis needs that. It needs rivalries rather than just stars.

When Schumacher dominated F1 it nearly killed the sport to the extent they had to change the rules. Schumacher was the biggest star imaginable but had no rival so the sport was rubbish.

Anyway not sure that's a point..morw of an observation!

I understand the sentiment CC but technically it doesn't quite work that way.

1. Why does Federer say homogenised conditions protect the top 4?
2. How could Djokovic with his extreme FH grip dominate faster/lower bounce conditions?
3. If your game has technically developed grip-wise to win on faster/lower bounces then the surfaces radically change where does that leave you?

Why, exactly, should the homogenised surfaces protect the top four. After all the surfaces are homogenised for every single player out there. Homogenised or not you see Federer, Nadal and Djokovic still managed that much sought after trait - dominance. They had spells of domination against players playing on the same surfaces as them and using the same equipment so it is all a level playing field.

Similarly, the early 2000's was identical, same surfaces for all and same equipment but no dominant forces.

Apart from Tsonga and Murray, I can't see which players have been affected by the slow down of the conditions. As someone who learnt tennis in the 90s it was obvious that tennis was becoming a baseline game. The majority of juniors at that time played the same as the top players now. I don't remember ever playing a junior who serve volleyed. Even in the UK, a traditional fast court country, that was the way tennis was going.

lydian wrote:1. Why does Federer say homogenised conditions protect the top 4?

Why are conditions never used as a mark against Federer though? Eight of his slams have come since 06. Eleven have come since 05.

I don't mind homogenised conditions being considered but I never hear them as a mark against Fed's achievements.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Then look at the dominant forces on homogenised surfaces such as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic - all of which had spells of domination just like Borg, Sampras, Lendl et all in the past. Point is that regardless of court speeds legends of sport will find a way to dominate but we never saw that in the early 2000's. Why?

You say Borg dominated, but Connors had about 100 weeks more at No 1 in the 70s than Borg. Borg never won more than 2 slams in one year, nor Sampras, nor Lendl. Fed, Rafa and Djoko have all won 3 in a year - on more homogenised surfaces.

Well exactly BS. The cream always comes to the top. Okay we are in a homogenised era surface-wise but it is the same for every single player out there. No advantages to Fed, Nadal or Djokovic. I ean why haven't Tsonga or Berdych been a dominant force? Nothing stopping them apart from the real and complete top notch trait of legends - domination. Something lacking in the early 2000's as well.

HM Murdoch wrote:

lydian wrote:1. Why does Federer say homogenised conditions protect the top 4?

Why are conditions never used as a mark against Federer though? Eight of his slams have come since 06. Eleven have come since 05.

I don't mind homogenised conditions being considered but I never hear them as a mark against Fed's achievements.

A lot of people consider Agassi's career slam to be a more impressive acheivement than Fed's career slam.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well exactly BS. The cream always comes to the top. Okay we are in a homogenised era surface-wise but it is the same for every single player out there. No advantages to Fed, Nadal or Djokovic. I ean why haven't Tsonga or Berdych been a dominant force? Nothing stopping them apart from the real and complete top notch trait of legends - domination. Something lacking in the early 2000's as well.

Possibly the homogenization has actually allowed Tsonga, Berdych and Ferrer to remain at an 'artifically' high level i.e. one they wouold have been able to remain at with a greater variety of surfaces.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Then look at the dominant forces on homogenised surfaces such as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic - all of which had spells of domination just like Borg, Sampras, Lendl et all in the past. Point is that regardless of court speeds legends of sport will find a way to dominate but we never saw that in the early 2000's. Why?

You say Borg dominated, but Connors had about 100 weeks more at No 1 in the 70s than Borg. Borg never won more than 2 slams in one year, nor Sampras, nor Lendl. Fed, Rafa and Djoko have all won 3 in a year - on more homogenised surfaces.

JHM I can't go through every single dominant player in tennis history but those you mention may not have won three slams in a year but they were still dominant forces and now regarded as legends of the sport. You cannot pluck one player from the early 2000's though and make that same claim. Why? Homogenised or not at that time nobody sprung out as a dominant force.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well exactly BS. The cream always comes to the top. Okay we are in a homogenised era surface-wise but it is the same for every single player out there. No advantages to Fed, Nadal or Djokovic. I ean why haven't Tsonga or Berdych been a dominant force? Nothing stopping them apart from the real and complete top notch trait of legends - domination. Something lacking in the early 2000's as well.

Possibly the homogenization has actually allowed Tsonga, Berdych and Ferrer to remain at an 'artifically' high level i.e. one they wouold have been able to remain at with a greater variety of surfaces.

Well that is all about opinion though isn't it. Others could argue that pacier courts may be more beneficial to Tsonga and Berdych as both are big hitters.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well exactly BS. The cream always comes to the top. Okay we are in a homogenised era surface-wise but it is the same for every single player out there. No advantages to Fed, Nadal or Djokovic. I ean why haven't Tsonga or Berdych been a dominant force? Nothing stopping them apart from the real and complete top notch trait of legends - domination. Something lacking in the early 2000's as well.

That's unintentionally hilarious.

Yes, it is indeed exactly the same for everyone.

socal1976 wrote:Yes, IC that is why he has the last two years gotten to the final of almost every single tournament he enters across all the surfaces, when was Nadal routinely in the finals of all these hardcourt events and slams circa 2008? Again I direct you to the facts his serve is 12-15 miles an hour faster, and in the last couple of years he has been to 4 hardcourt slam finals, compared to 0 for 2005-08. The reason he seems not to be as mentally tough is that Novak has gotten up inside his dome by beating him. But I mean if Nadal loses to Chang's weak sister on clay in MC he can't be that tough can he so who could argue with your analysis.

Shame you could never argue to counter the arguments rather go into vague talks .

You asked a silly question and we all answered, was Nadal of 2008 better than 2013? so far the answer looks yes

CaledonianCraig wrote:The discussion here though proves how impossible it is to judge eras. I mean there are debates on whether Nadal was better or worse in 2005 to 2008. That is just one player and there isn't agreement and the kind of fluctuations in form happens with every single player on the tennis circuit hence dynamics of the sport are constantly shifting.

Its the simplest thing to understand hope some day our dear friend Socal gets it, I haven't given up hope . The only measuring point is stats, anything outside is myth.

Actually IC, Kingraf, Banbro, myself, Murdoch have all answered that current Nadal is better. Learn to count amigo before you move on to more complex thought processes like analyzing a sport you know little about.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Then look at the dominant forces on homogenised surfaces such as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic - all of which had spells of domination just like Borg, Sampras, Lendl et all in the past. Point is that regardless of court speeds legends of sport will find a way to dominate but we never saw that in the early 2000's. Why?

You say Borg dominated, but Connors had about 100 weeks more at No 1 in the 70s than Borg. Borg never won more than 2 slams in one year, nor Sampras, nor Lendl. Fed, Rafa and Djoko have all won 3 in a year - on more homogenised surfaces.

JHM I can't go through every single dominant player in tennis history but those you mention may not have won three slams in a year but they were still dominant forces and now regarded as legends of the sport. You cannot pluck one player from the early 2000's though and make that same claim. Why? Homogenised or not at that time nobody sprung out as a dominant force.

Kuerten was dominant on clay, but couldn't adjust to other surfaces (because they were too different).
There were only 2 Wimbys between Sampras' last and Fed's first - not much chance for others to dominate there. Hewitt was No 1 for 75 consecutive weeks - longer than Borg's or Nadal's longest streak - is that not dominating?

socal1976 wrote:Actually IC, Kingraf, Banbro, myself, Murdoch have all answered that current Nadal is better. Learn to count amigo before you move on to more complex thought processes like analyzing a sport you know little about.

When did you ever count the replies that counters your argument

First off I don't count you to begin with the day you claimed Michael Chang was a better baseliner than Djokovic I stopped paying attention to what ever it is you pass of for logic.

bogbrush wrote:Your determination to promote Novak is most admirable; while all around you are looking at at Rome you persevere in finding every opportunity to boost 2011-13 (except the mid 2012 of course!) and denigrate everything else.

He is very lucky to have such a loyal follower.

Unfortunately Nole's loyal supporter/fandam all ends with Socal, Nole should be the least liked No.1 Tennis player in the history of the game, the worst part is let alone Murray Del Potro has more fans than Nole.

Socal now promotes Rafa to super hype her hero, the best quote is Rafa would have been the GOAT by now if not for the dodgy knees , its not for dodgy knees it for little bit brain in the head , Rafa himself would be laughing at the comment let alone Rafa fans.

socal1976 wrote:First off I don't count you to begin with the day you claimed Michael Chang was a better baseliner than Djokovic I stopped paying attention to what ever it is you pass of for logic.

First off you don't understand what you blabber yourself , so expecting you to understand Tennis logic is not my thing , if Djoko can be adjudicated as a better baseliner than Agassi then Chang is better baseliner than Djoko by double the margin.

I am sorry Fed fans (the ones posting on this thread) but come down off your high horse. It is evident that you are attacking socal's stance/opinion when you are doing exactly the same. Fighting like mad to promote the early 2000's in order to enhance your favourite player further.

I will say it again why did the early 2000's top players not acheive legend or all-time great status? It is an age no different to those before or after it in that every player was playing on the same surfaces, same equipment and playing the same opponents but not one emerged to stamp dominance on the sport. Why?

CaledonianCraig wrote:I am sorry Fed fans (the ones posting on this thread) but come down off your high horse. It is evident that you are attacking socal's stance/opinion when you are doing exactly the same. Fighting like mad to promote the early 2000's in order to enhance your favourite player further.

I will say it again why did the early 2000's top players not acheive legend or all-time great status? It is an age no different to those before or after it in that every player was playing on the same surfaces, same equipment and playing the same opponents but not one emerged to stamp dominance on the sport. Why?

Exactly, Craig thank you, the same exact posters who railed against my weak era claims about the early 2000s and said that there are no things such as weak eras and that all slams are the same are putting up comments like "a guy in semi-retirement is ranked #2 in the world" and this is a "barren" time in tennis. The same people who claim I am adamant and defensive in my positions and obsessed with GOAT and era conversations or Djokovic conversations are the ones who continually bring it up. I argue with them, bring up my points, and then they get angry at the audacity of my obsession with era conversations and Djokovic. Even when I do threads unrelated to Djokovic they turn it around onto Djokovic, when I debate them on it all of sudden I am the one who is defensive and obsessed. I don't really get it, some of the same people who bemoan the quality of today's game and today's stars get upset at me for thinking that Nalby, Roddick, Hewitt, and Safin weren't up to snuff.

And you touched on it perfectly, for all of the terrible sideways comments about Andy Murray I will take his career over any of he beknighted rollover boys of the early 2000s. Denigrating today's players and today's game is all well and good, but if you talk about Roger's early contemporaries and his competition level well you are something akin to a cyberextremist obsessed with Djokovic. I do a thread on Nadal or Jerzy, it gets hijacked to Djokovic talk but I am the crazed fanboy. People do threads on weak eras who bemoan weak era discussions. The double standard is really quite amazing.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

lydian wrote:1. Why does Federer say homogenised conditions protect the top 4?

Why are conditions never used as a mark against Federer though? Eight of his slams have come since 06. Eleven have come since 05.

I don't mind homogenised conditions being considered but I never hear them as a mark against Fed's achievements.

A lot of people consider Agassi's career slam to be a more impressive acheivement than Fed's career slam.

I am amongst those people.

socal1976 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:I am sorry Fed fans (the ones posting on this thread) but come down off your high horse. It is evident that you are attacking socal's stance/opinion when you are doing exactly the same. Fighting like mad to promote the early 2000's in order to enhance your favourite player further.

I will say it again why did the early 2000's top players not acheive legend or all-time great status? It is an age no different to those before or after it in that every player was playing on the same surfaces, same equipment and playing the same opponents but not one emerged to stamp dominance on the sport. Why?

Exactly, Craig thank you, the same exact posters who railed against my weak era claims about the early 2000s and said that there are no things such as weak eras and that all slams are the same are putting up comments like "a guy in semi-retirement is ranked #2 in the world" and this is a "barren" time in tennis. The same people who claim I am adamant and defensive in my positions and obsessed with GOAT and era conversations or Djokovic conversations are the ones who continually bring it up. I argue with them, bring up my points, and then they get angry at the audacity of my obsession with era conversations and Djokovic. Even when I do threads unrelated to Djokovic they turn it around onto Djokovic, when I debate them on it all of sudden I am the one who is defensive and obsessed. I don't really get it, some of the same people who bemoan the quality of today's game and today's stars get upset at me for thinking that Nalby, Roddick, Hewitt, and Safin weren't up to snuff.

And you touched on it perfectly, for all of the terrible sideways comments about Andy Murray I will take his career over any of he beknighted rollover boys of the early 2000s. Denigrating today's players and today's game is all well and good, but if you talk about Roger's early contemporaries and his competition level well you are something akin to a cyberextremist obsessed with Djokovic. I do a thread on Nadal or Jerzy, it gets hijacked to Djokovic talk but I am the crazed fanboy. People do threads on weak eras who bemoan weak era discussions. The double standard is really quite amazing.

Ok, for the 2nd time on this thread I will inform you that "barren" does not mean weak, it means devoid of complexity, or sterile.

I could link to a dictionary but that would be rude. What I will say is that for a person who claims to practice law that is a shocking failure of comprehension; if you tried to prove double standards on me in court on that basis you'd be leaving double quick with your tail between your legs and my costs on your account.

Thanks for the English tip, were you connoting that this period is rich with talent when you made the comment about a guy in semi retirement being #2 in the world? Sorry, English is my second language so I will defer judgement to other posters.

For me there is very little difference Socal. There is no way that Nalby, Roddick, Hewitt and Safin were not up to scratch. On there day they could all be absolutely immense. You cannot tell me there were any worse or better as tennis players than Murray, Tsonga, Del Potro or Berdych.

Remember tennis is about having the tools allowing you to win a match. Not how complete your game is. Yes, today's players are possibly more all-round players. But that doesn't necessarily make them better.

If anything the only difference is possibly the consistency in application. I would argue that the latter 4 are more consistent than the first 4 (well, epsecially Safin and Nalby). Federer came along and was arguably the forebearer in dominating so consistently across all surfaces (whether that be because of his game or homogenised surfaces is open for debate - personally I think its a bit of both).

This has forced other players to up their game. As a result and to a lesser extent, Nadal and Djokovic have followed suit. Time will tell if either can go on and match his feats.

Just to clarify that I still think it pointless comparing one era against another era but it is clear that the early 2000's couldn't produce a player able to stamp his authority on the sport - a trait of legends.

The amount of heat this generates is startling.

Clearly the likes of Hewitt, Nalby, Safin and Roddick were not 'weak' players. Hewitt, in particular, I think would have been a top player on today's tour had he been 5 years younger and injury free.

Any judgement will be subjective but I think that is some level of accuracy we can achieve.

Is Federer better than those four players? Certainly yes.

Is Nadal better? Certainly yes.

Is Djokovic better? I think we would now have to say yes.

Is Andy better? It's close. Personally I'd rate Hewitt higher, Roddick below, Safin and Nalby higher on raw talent but worse on achievement.

Are Ferrer, Tsonga and Berdych better? I don't think so.

So whether we can use the words 'golden' or 'weak' is something that can be debated (and frequently is). But surely we have to conclude that, on balance, the top players of the last few years are better than the top players of the early 2000s?

Superb post HM Murdoch. I cannot disagree with any of that.