The shell of Rafa Nadal wins 6 out of the first 8 tournaments he enters, if Novak beats him at RG it will become the husk of a shell of Nadal

First topic message reminder :

Simple Transition era. thumbsup 50% of prime Nadal is enough to mop almost everything today. Sorry

Those who claim that Nadal circa 05-08 is superior to the Nadal of the last couple of years may have a tough time actually marrying the facts to their beliefs. Nadal is on a tear, frankly looks as good as ever or close to it. But I would like to thank the poster who I quoted above for really exposing the hypocrisy of those who all but suggest we are in a weak era today, while at the same time some of the same people argued vociferously with me for months and even years that there are no weak eras, that eras are incomparable and that Nalby, Roddick, Safin, and Hewitt are as tough as any era if there is such a thing. At least now we see what is really behind all this talk about how Nadal is just a shell of himself, it is really a big up on Federer and an attempt to paint the current game and current stars as weak and in crisis. And if they don't like Djokovic or murray it doesn't hurt to take some of the shine off of their accomplishments as well. So ask yourselves when an unprecedented number of journalists and legends are calling the game strong as ever or a golden age how some learned posters come to the exact opposite conclusion. Although they won't use the exact terminology of "weak era" that would be too obvious wouldn't it, they take every opportunity to slag the current stars, the current game, and to try to diminish their accomplishments.

Here is my prediction if Novak beats Nadal, and even if it is an epic of monumental proportions going 9-7 or 8-6 in the fifth Nadal will go from the hottest player on tour the last 3 months to a washed up near has been hobbled and crippled by leg injuries.

socal1976 wrote:Yes Federer alludes to some of the things I have been saying as well emancipator when he talks at the end about how he isn't just a clay courter guy anymore. Nadal's biggest improvement off of the clay, particularly on the hardcourt came post 2008.

As proven by comments made about his play in 2003.

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Yes Federer alludes to some of the things I have been saying as well emancipator when he talks at the end about how he isn't just a clay courter guy anymore. Nadal's biggest improvement off of the clay, particularly on the hardcourt came post 2008.

As proven by comments made about his play in 2003.

When did Nadal made his biggest improvement on the hard court, post 2008 that is pretty indisputable. Fed also doesn't say that Rafa improved up to 2008, he says that he has improved over the course of a decade. He states some of the same things I have been saying but obviously the question was not asked with the same exact timeline I phrased this thread with. Fed seems to think Nadal of recent days stacks up quite well on all surfaces as opposed to the past, and without question the biggest improvement on hardcourt came post 2008

socal1976 wrote:Fed seems to think Nadal of recent days stacks up quite well on all surfaces as opposed to the past, and without question the biggest improvement on hardcourt came post 2008

This is pretty much indisputable. On hardcourt, Nadal has had the vast majority of his success post-2008, and I distinctly remember him being thrashed by a young Tsonga that year at the AO, then losing to Murray at the USO. He was always a decent player on HC, but never a world-beater like he became in 2009-12. I do think that others have a point though, the backhand was more potent back then from what I can recall, in particular. It's similar to Federer in some ways - a more complete player now due to experience, but perhaps the weaknesses are now more prominent. When Nadal was at his absolute pinnacle, there was nowhere to hide...aiming at the backhand for refuge was like electing to wear red in a bullring. It's hard to assess because 'peaks' are subjective to begin with, and injury plays a big role. 'Peak' Nadal was probably 2008 - 2012, but was blighted by injuries in that time. Djokovic's peak is 2011-current, but could've possibly been earlier if he'd sorted out his serve. Federer arguably lost almost a year due to mono. We could've had all three overlapping in 2009-10, but sadly it wasn't to be.

When I think of Nadal being at the height of his powers, I'm with socal on picking 2009 AO and 2010 USO as the highlights. I actually think he beat a peak Federer fair and square in the AO final that year. But although he's been a superior player across all surfaces from 2008 onwards, it's arguable that he was a better clay-courter back then. Who knows? Maybe the slight adjustments he made to his game in order to compete on all surfaces cost him something on clay, making him more beatable. And then along comes Novak with some sparkling form, no fear and a slight matchup advantage to pose further questions. Would 2008 Nadal have lived with 2011 Novak on clay? Hard to say.

Too many variables really, but I'd say that Nadal the clay-courter was better in 2007/8. All surfaces, 2009-12. Regardless though, I hope everyone gives due respect to both Novak and Rafa should they meet, irrespective of who wins. You can only beat what's in front of you, right? Doesn't matter what form they're in, at the end of the day you still lift a trophy.

So if he wins the FO, he'll just be the normal everyday bog standard Nadal who wins everything despite his fragile mental state and continuing knee problems, but if he loses, he's a burnt out shell of a man, a mere crust of an overbaked boring hasbeen ?

Quite an extensive and polarized disparity based on one match.

This is the first line of the quote

“Well, he is more or less still the same player,”

This is what more or less everybody is saying, what has happened now is Rafa's physical fitness certainly not the same, his backhand a bit loose may be due to lack of match practice at the extreme top or may be lack of confidence or may be he is getting old.

But certainly today's Gulbis, Klizan, Brands all are capable of taking advantage of it let alone a Ferrer, but given that Rafa is Rafa and like Lydian mentioned 70% of Rafa is enough to sweep most clay titles, so inspite of Rafa's level going down it won't reflect in stats as 70% of actual Rafa enough to do it.

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Yes Federer alludes to some of the things I have been saying as well emancipator when he talks at the end about how he isn't just a clay courter guy anymore. Nadal's biggest improvement off of the clay, particularly on the hardcourt came post 2008.

As proven by comments made about his play in 2003.

When did Nadal made his biggest improvement on the hard court, post 2008 that is pretty indisputable. Fed also doesn't say that Rafa improved up to 2008, he says that he has improved over the course of a decade. He states some of the same things I have been saying but obviously the question was not asked with the same exact timeline I phrased this thread with. Fed seems to think Nadal of recent days stacks up quite well on all surfaces as opposed to the past, and without question the biggest improvement on hardcourt came post 2008

He said he's better than 10 years ago. He doesn't say whether that happened in the first 5 of those 10 or not.

My point is, you supplied the quote to support our argument yet it logically does not.

Silver wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Fed seems to think Nadal of recent days stacks up quite well on all surfaces as opposed to the past, and without question the biggest improvement on hardcourt came post 2008

This is pretty much indisputable. On hardcourt, Nadal has had the vast majority of his success post-2008, and I distinctly remember him being thrashed by a young Tsonga that year at the AO, then losing to Murray at the USO. He was always a decent player on HC, but never a world-beater like he became in 2009-12. I do think that others have a point though, the backhand was more potent back then from what I can recall, in particular. It's similar to Federer in some ways - a more complete player now due to experience, but perhaps the weaknesses are now more prominent. When Nadal was at his absolute pinnacle, there was nowhere to hide...aiming at the backhand for refuge was like electing to wear red in a bullring. It's hard to assess because 'peaks' are subjective to begin with, and injury plays a big role. 'Peak' Nadal was probably 2008 - 2012, but was blighted by injuries in that time. Djokovic's peak is 2011-current, but could've possibly been earlier if he'd sorted out his serve. Federer arguably lost almost a year due to mono. We could've had all three overlapping in 2009-10, but sadly it wasn't to be.

When I think of Nadal being at the height of his powers, I'm with socal on picking 2009 AO and 2010 USO as the highlights. I actually think he beat a peak Federer fair and square in the AO final that year. But although he's been a superior player across all surfaces from 2008 onwards, it's arguable that he was a better clay-courter back then. Who knows? Maybe the slight adjustments he made to his game in order to compete on all surfaces cost him something on clay, making him more beatable. And then along comes Novak with some sparkling form, no fear and a slight matchup advantage to pose further questions. Would 2008 Nadal have lived with 2011 Novak on clay? Hard to say.

Too many variables really, but I'd say that Nadal the clay-courter was better in 2007/8. All surfaces, 2009-12. Regardless though, I hope everyone gives due respect to both Novak and Rafa should they meet, irrespective of who wins. You can only beat what's in front of you, right? Doesn't matter what form they're in, at the end of the day you still lift a trophy.

Very good post here Silver I agree with just about all of it. Of course the peaks of these three haven't always coincided, however between Djoko and Nadal I really do believe that 2011 Nadal was at or very near his best. Remember he finished 2010 winning 3 straight slams and went into AO 2011 with the chance of a Rafa slam. He went on to reach the final of every tournament he entered at the start of 2011. He dominated the rest of the tour more effectively in 2011, he just lost the big finals against his main rival, when earlier on he was winning that matchup against Federer. Losing those matches in finals to Djokovic seems to have deflated everyone's opinion of Nadal's form, but when had he ever in the 05-08 period have such a consistent run of finals across all surfaces as he did at the start of 2011. Also he was up in the points race when he got hurt in 2012.

The one thing I am not sure of, although I don't want to dismiss because it could be true is that Nadal got worse on clay as he got better on the other surfaces. That might be true but as you say there are a lot of variables involved. Because if he has lost a half step of pace it would probably show up more on clay than on the other surfaces.

JubbaIsle wrote:So if he wins the FO, he'll just be the normal everyday bog standard Nadal who wins everything despite his fragile mental state and continuing knee problems, but if he loses, he's a burnt out shell of a man, a mere crust of an overbaked boring hasbeen ?

Quite an extensive and polarized disparity based on one match.

That is exactly the logical disparity we will see unfold if Nadal doesn't win the FO. If he loses to Djoko after going what 40-2 to start the season he will all of a sudden become a player in crisis and a has been. I mean lets be honest it is highly unlikely anyone other than Novak playing very well has a chance of beating Nadal over 5 sets on clay. If that eventuality happens Nadal will go from the hottest player on tour to being passed it. Early Nadal had the edge over his toughest rival in those big signature matches, now it looks in the last couple of years as if his top rival has the edge in their matchup. Because you lose to one player and yet beat the rest of the tour at higher clip, does that mean you have fallen off?

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Yes Federer alludes to some of the things I have been saying as well emancipator when he talks at the end about how he isn't just a clay courter guy anymore. Nadal's biggest improvement off of the clay, particularly on the hardcourt came post 2008.

As proven by comments made about his play in 2003.

When did Nadal made his biggest improvement on the hard court, post 2008 that is pretty indisputable. Fed also doesn't say that Rafa improved up to 2008, he says that he has improved over the course of a decade. He states some of the same things I have been saying but obviously the question was not asked with the same exact timeline I phrased this thread with. Fed seems to think Nadal of recent days stacks up quite well on all surfaces as opposed to the past, and without question the biggest improvement on hardcourt came post 2008

He said he's better than 10 years ago. He doesn't say whether that happened in the first 5 of those 10 or not.

My point is, you supplied the quote to support our argument yet it logically does not.

Yes, if you take Fed's statement and combine that with Nadal's very obvious improvement on the hardcourt post 2008 the logical conclusion is that Nadal improved on the hardcourt in 09 and 10 that therefore Nadal did improve materially as an all court player later in his career. Even in 2012 Nadal remember lost that final by the tiniest of margins to a Djokovic who has won that tournament 4 times. In fact from the USO 2010 till AO 2012, nadal went to 3 hardcourt slam finals in 4 tries. When did the 05-08 Nadal go to 3 hardcourt finals in 4 tries? In fact he routinely got bounced out of hardcourt slams in that period. My favorite one was the 4 set thumping that titan David Ferrer laid on him in the USO 2006. It really was a much more lopsided win than the score indicated.

Nadal improved as an all court player every passing year but that indeed reduced him from a scary Clay court monster to a clay court legend, thats one of the reason Djoko able to get into Rafa's clay province.

Who gives a damn

FELIZ CUMPLEAÑOS RAFA

Have a good Birthday Rafa and enjoy your day even if you are the husk of a shell


V A M O S
[i]

invisiblecoolers wrote:Nadal improved as an all court player every passing year but that indeed reduced him from a scary Clay court monster to a clay court legend, thats one of the reason Djoko able to get into Rafa's clay province.

I think this is the kind of sentiment that is getting Socal's goat.

People routinely make the point that Novak's competition is not as good as it was a couple of years ago.

Yet whenever Socal suggests that there was a period when Federer's competition wasn't as good, he gets jumped on.

I'm not going to wade into the debate itself because it's been covered plenty before. But I really don't like the double standard being applied as to what can be said, by whom, about which players.

socal1976 wrote:
That is exactly the logical disparity we will see unfold if Nadal doesn't win the FO. If he loses to Djoko after going what 40-2 to start the season he will all of a sudden become a player in crisis and a has been. I mean lets be honest it is highly unlikely anyone other than Novak playing very well has a chance of beating Nadal over 5 sets on clay. If that eventuality happens Nadal will go from the hottest player on tour to being passed it. Early Nadal had the edge over his toughest rival in those big signature matches, now it looks in the last couple of years as if his top rival has the edge in their matchup. Because you lose to one player and yet beat the rest of the tour at higher clip, does that mean you have fallen off?

I can understand people thinking that Nadal may have lost his edge, if he lost to anyone in this final, if he gets to it of course, but I can't see his perception as a clay great diminishing. We all know he's come back from injury and a lengthy absence, he's lost a fair bit of tough match s to play through, all he's won of any note in the last few months are masters events, so this slam has been the biggest test of his return so far.

Make no mistake, there are many top 50 players who will see Nadal as vulnerable and play with a bit more abandon to see if they can cause an upset. He himself has admitted a breakdown of his resolve to some extent. Put these all together and it can be seen that Nadal is in fragile state at the start of most matches at this level, but it doesnt take long for him to get back into the groove.

Against Djokovic in the final ?, I'd say its still Nadal to win, maybe a 5 setter. But the longer it goes on, the better Novaks chances to beat him, as I don't think Nadal's stamina is back to its best yet. But I'd hate to say he was past his best if he is beaten, Federer had a bad 2008, just one slam win in 5 (in terms of dominance), but came back to win 3 out of the next 4 majors.

HM Murdoch wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:Nadal improved as an all court player every passing year but that indeed reduced him from a scary Clay court monster to a clay court legend, thats one of the reason Djoko able to get into Rafa's clay province.

I'm not going to wade into the debate itself because it's been covered plenty before. But I really don't like the double standard being applied as to what can be said, by whom, about which players.

That hits the nail on the head.

HM Murdoch wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:Nadal improved as an all court player every passing year but that indeed reduced him from a scary Clay court monster to a clay court legend, thats one of the reason Djoko able to get into Rafa's clay province.

I think this is the kind of sentiment that is getting Socal's goat.

People routinely make the point that Novak's competition is not as good as it was a couple of years ago.

Yet whenever Socal suggests that there was a period when Federer's competition wasn't as good, he gets jumped on.

I'm not going to wade into the debate itself because it's been covered plenty before. But I really don't like the double standard being applied as to what can be said, by whom, about which players.

You need to talk to Socal and Craig about that, i'm afraid. They're the guys who go in for this nonsense the most.

I don't believe in any weak era nonsense. Federer has slipped backwards, that's obvious, but Djokovic has got better. Nadal has declined a little, Murray is better. I don't see any difference, just things moved around.

It's others who have to try to engineer structures to bolster their heroes. Then Tommy Haas, David Ferrer, etc come along and make a mess of it, and Roddick goes and retires because he's not good enough despite having a higher ranking than virtually any young player.

Sorry BB but I have said you cannot judge eras against other eras. Said it a few times. What you do really is no different from socal is what HM is saying. If anyone should dare criticise anything about a time when Federer was at his pomp and most successful you leap on it and this is the same now with socal. Basically, those that are trying to undermine Novak's success by claiming players are past it etc are being met by socal refuting it. Doesn't that all sound a tad familiar?

CaledonianCraig wrote:Sorry BB but I have said you cannot judge eras against other eras. Said it a few times. What you do really is no different from socal is what HM is saying. If anyone should dare criticise anything about a time when Federer was at his pomp and most successful you leap on it and this is the same now with socal. Basically, those that are trying to undermine Novak's success by claiming players are past it etc are being met by socal refuting it. Doesn't that all sound a tad familiar?

You say you can't compare eras but you say it was easier to win Slams back in the early noughties.

You accuse a guy of bias because he suggests a guy at virtually 32 is past his best.

Please tell me you do this for a bet.

BB, we all get overly defensive over our favourite player and what you slate socal for you do exactly the same. It is as plain as the nose on your face.

Where have I said it was easier to win slams in the noughties? If I really felt that strongly to be the case then I'd subscribe to some people's views that slams should hold different values ie one slam win doesn't equal 1.0 but 1.1 or 1.5 etc. I have said a slam win is a slam win.

Do you have to be so confrontational with people?

And of course there is bias as far as you are concerned with Roger Federer - he is your favourite player and it shows in your posts. I cannot see where (in the here and now) where I have argued that Federer is not past his best in any case.

HM Murdoch wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:Nadal improved as an all court player every passing year but that indeed reduced him from a scary Clay court monster to a clay court legend, thats one of the reason Djoko able to get into Rafa's clay province.

I think this is the kind of sentiment that is getting Socal's goat.

People routinely make the point that Novak's competition is not as good as it was a couple of years ago.

Yet whenever Socal suggests that there was a period when Federer's competition wasn't as good, he gets jumped on.

I'm not going to wade into the debate itself because it's been covered plenty before. But I really don't like the double standard being applied as to what can be said, by whom, about which players.

Actually the double standard is the other way around.

For years the likes of Socal have bleated on about how Roger feasted on weaker competition and now that the tables have turned he, and you it would seem, are getting upset.

After all it wasn't the Fed fans who started all these weak era theories. It was fans of Sampras, then Nadal, and now Djokovic. Fed fans never held onto any of these weak era theories, in fact the current labelling of this era as weak is just a backlash against what went before. Indeed, the position that the majority of Federer fans held was that the current era was not 'golden' and that the hype around it was more hyperbole. A perfectly reasonable position. But what ensued was that fans of other players continuously derided the Fed era and therefore in response, recently, some Fed fans have started to use that same tactic against the favourites of those fans.

So who started it ? and who is being hypocritical?

Personally, I don't believe in weak eras in modern tennis. The field is too big and diverse to be 'weak'.

CaledonianCraig wrote:And of course there is bias as far as you are concerned with Roger Federer - he is your favourite player and it shows in your posts. I cannot see where (in the here and now) where I have argued that Federer is not past his best in any case.

Federer is my favoured player because he plays transcendent tennis. If he switched to a double handed backhand and parked behind the baseline I'd drop him.

Anyway, so you're saying there is no weak era, the players in the noughties were just as tough to beat as today. Fine, I'll remember that.

And likewise I don't believe this to be a golden 'era'. The strengths and weaknesses of each and every era can vary. There is no objective way of determining the relative strength of any era.

HM Murdoch wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:Nadal improved as an all court player every passing year but that indeed reduced him from a scary Clay court monster to a clay court legend, thats one of the reason Djoko able to get into Rafa's clay province.

I think this is the kind of sentiment that is getting Socal's goat.

People routinely make the point that Novak's competition is not as good as it was a couple of years ago.

Yet whenever Socal suggests that there was a period when Federer's competition wasn't as good, he gets jumped on.

I'm not going to wade into the debate itself because it's been covered plenty before. But I really don't like the double standard being applied as to what can be said, by whom, about which players.

@HMM, exactly double standards applied by Socal, we are only trying to explain him it can't be that way only. Diminishing any player's achivement or an era is pathetic nostalgia , Nole deserves credit for his achievement but super hype is not needed , a champion should win the battle before him if Nole is capable enough he should win 17+ GS to take the GOAT title not before that saying his era merited 1 slam to 3 slams idea.

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:And of course there is bias as far as you are concerned with Roger Federer - he is your favourite player and it shows in your posts. I cannot see where (in the here and now) where I have argued that Federer is not past his best in any case.

Federer is my favoured player because he plays transcendent tennis. If he switched to a double handed backhand and parked behind the baseline I'd drop him.

Anyway, so you're saying there is no weak era, the players in the noughties were just as tough to beat as today. Fine, I'll remember that.

Strength of eras is too tough to judge. Like trying to judge how many stars are in the universe - too many variables as I have said before. The players of the noughties are for others to judge - we all have opinions about them and players from any given age/era of tennis. Just as some don't rate the players of today then some don't rate the players of the noughties. Opinions, opinions, opinions and those will neither be changed or proved so why bother?

invisiblecoolers wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:Nadal improved as an all court player every passing year but that indeed reduced him from a scary Clay court monster to a clay court legend, thats one of the reason Djoko able to get into Rafa's clay province.

I think this is the kind of sentiment that is getting Socal's goat.

People routinely make the point that Novak's competition is not as good as it was a couple of years ago.

Yet whenever Socal suggests that there was a period when Federer's competition wasn't as good, he gets jumped on.

I'm not going to wade into the debate itself because it's been covered plenty before. But I really don't like the double standard being applied as to what can be said, by whom, about which players.

@HMM, exactly double standards applied by Socal, we are only trying to explain him it can't be that way only. Diminishing any player's achivement or an era is pathetic nostalgia , Nole deserves credit for his achievement but super hype is not needed , a champion should win the battle before him if Nole is capable enough he should win 17+ GS to take the GOAT title not before that saying his era merited 1 slam to 3 slams idea.

That's exactly my point.

Socal and others like him, have for years been deriding Federer's competition, and now because in retaliation some Fed fans are doing the same to Novak's competition (all of whom would probably admit that it's only to wind up people like Socal and to get some payback rather than out of a genuine belief that the era is 'weak') we're supposed to be the ones with double standards.

What a load of poopie.

emancipator wrote:For years the likes of Socal have bleated on about how Roger feasted on weaker competition and now that the tables have turned he, and you it would seem, are getting upset.

Oh, I'm not upset, and it's not the era thing I was talking about.

I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about.

You once got really annoyed at the suggestion that Roger benefitted at the back end of 2011 because Novak and Rafa lost form, and you argued pretty forcefully against it (which is fine). Similarly, BB gets irked at the suggestion of Novak being out of form last year.

But we've had loads of comment on here recently though about Rafa being out of form during 2011 or pretty much any period when Novak has beaten him. Yet when Socal argues against this, he gets slammed for it.

I'm not keen that the argument in one direction is considered rational debate but in the other direction it's the ravings of a lunatic.

It's quite clearly the ravings of a lunatic in both directions!

emancipator wrote:Socal and others like him, have for years been deriding Federer's competition, and now because in retaliation some Fed fans are doing the same to Novak's competition (all of whom would probably admit that it's only to wind up people like Socal and to get some payback rather than out of a genuine belief that the era is 'weak') we're supposed to be the ones with double standards.

What a load of poopie.

So the argument is:

- What Socal did was wrong.
- You're now doing the same to him.
- But it's OK when you do it.
- And it's not a double standard.

Ok fair enough Murdoch.

See, I can have a rational discussion with you because your positions are reasonable and not extreme.

Socal, otoh, is ridiculously extreme in his abuse of certain players and dismissive of their accomplishments, even though one of those players retired with a positive h2h against Djokovic.

It's his extremism which polarises the board and leads to counter-extreme positions.

HM Murdoch wrote:

emancipator wrote:Socal and others like him, have for years been deriding Federer's competition, and now because in retaliation some Fed fans are doing the same to Novak's competition (all of whom would probably admit that it's only to wind up people like Socal and to get some payback rather than out of a genuine belief that the era is 'weak') we're supposed to be the ones with double standards.

What a load of poopie.

So the argument is:

- What Socal did was wrong.
- You're now doing the same to him.
- But it's OK when you do it.
- And it's not a double standard.

Ok, maybe I should retract my previous post.

I've never said it's ok to do the same as people like Socal but it is a natural reaction to years of abuse.

Your initial post accused us of double standards - I highlighted that the matter didn't originate with us - it started with the other party and therefore the accusation of double standard should have been labelled at him first.

emancipator wrote:
Ok, maybe I should retract my previous post.

I've never said it's ok to do the same as people like Socal but it is a natural reaction to years of abuse.

Your initial post accused us of double standards - I highlighted that the matter didn't originate with us - it started with the other party and therefore the accusation of double standard should have been labelled at him first.

It's only a double standard because people are giving him stick about his player AND having a go at him for doing it to theirs.

I'm not trying to be Pope Pious. Give him all the stick you want if you think he's earned it (within forum rules of course!). But people can't then moan when he does it to them.

The small print
This defence in no way implies my subscription to weak/golden era theories.

HM Murdoch wrote:

emancipator wrote:
Ok, maybe I should retract my previous post.

I've never said it's ok to do the same as people like Socal but it is a natural reaction to years of abuse.

Your initial post accused us of double standards - I highlighted that the matter didn't originate with us - it started with the other party and therefore the accusation of double standard should have been labelled at him first.

It's only a double standard because people are giving him stick about his player AND having a go at him for doing it to theirs.

I'm not trying to be Pope Pious. Give him all the stick you want if you think he's earned it (within forum rules of course!). But people can't then moan when he does it to them.

The small print
This defence in no way implies my subscription to weak/golden era theories.

Yes I understand your point but you seem to be deliberately avoiding mine.

So for the last time; if you're going to level accusations of double standards then Socal should be the first recipient. People are only giving him stick about his player because he started the whole thing.

emancipator wrote:[Yes I understand your point but you seem to be deliberately avoiding mine.

So for the last time; if you're going to level accusations of double standards then Socal should be the first recipient. People are only giving him stick about his player because he started the whole thing.

OK, let me address it directly. Socal's position, agree or disagree with it, has not changed. He's always said one era is weaker than another.

The main defence against this has been that even the idea of a weak era is silly because it's impossible to truly compare eras.

This is not a double standard, it's just different views.

If the side who argued that weaker eras don't exist, now start saying that the current era is weaker than the past, they've changed their tune.

That's also fair enough.

If that side, whilst pointing out the weakness of the current era, continue to suggest the idea of a weak era in the past is silly, then it becomes a double standard.

Clear enough?

HM Murdoch wrote:

emancipator wrote:[Yes I understand your point but you seem to be deliberately avoiding mine.

So for the last time; if you're going to level accusations of double standards then Socal should be the first recipient. People are only giving him stick about his player because he started the whole thing.

OK, let me address it directly. Socal's position, agree or disagree with it, has not changed. He's always said one era is weaker than another.

The main defence against this has been that even the idea of a weak era is silly because it's impossible to truly compare eras.

This is not a double standard, it's just different views.

If the side who argued that weaker eras don't exist, now start saying that the current era is weaker than the past, they've changed their tune.

That's also fair enough.

If that side, whilst pointing out the weakness of the current era, continue to suggest the idea of a weak era in the past is silly, then it becomes a double standard.

Clear enough?

You're still missing the point.

At no point did I deny that it's a double standard. I agreed that it was but stated that it was a deliberate double standard (at least on my part) in retaliation to years of abuse from the other party vis-a-vis weak eras.

My point is that you accused us of double standards whilst ignoring the original double standard displayed by Socal. He spent years calling dissing Federer's competition and dishing it out to his fans, but once the tables turned he became defensive and started crying foul. That is the original double standard. So if you're going to call anyone out for double standards you should start with him.

Is THAT clear enough? There's only so many ways I can say the same thing.

No socal hasn't displayed that double standard though. His viewpoint from the start is that you can judge one era as weaker/stronger than another and talks down the early 2000's as a weaker era. He has never altered from that position. People have argued against him vehemently saying you cannot judge eras as it is so difficult but now those same people choose to conform to weak/strong era by downplaying Djoko's success claiming a falling of standards and quality of players ie as good as calling this a weak era hence the double standards from those who had argued you cannot judge eras.

HM Murdoch wrote:

emancipator wrote:[Yes I understand your point but you seem to be deliberately avoiding mine.

So for the last time; if you're going to level accusations of double standards then Socal should be the first recipient. People are only giving him stick about his player because he started the whole thing.

OK, let me address it directly. Socal's position, agree or disagree with it, has not changed. He's always said one era is weaker than another.

The main defence against this has been that even the idea of a weak era is silly because it's impossible to truly compare eras.

This is not a double standard, it's just different views.

If the side who argued that weaker eras don't exist, now start saying that the current era is weaker than the past, they've changed their tune.

That's also fair enough.

If that side, whilst pointing out the weakness of the current era, continue to suggest the idea of a weak era in the past is silly, then it becomes a double standard.

Clear enough?

Thanks for the logical and clear headed defense of me and my positions. As a crack investigator in the chairgate investigation I would expect nothing less. The double standard that both of us see is evident. When I criticize the early 2000 guys as being relatively weaker, people repeatedly argued that there is no such thing as a weak era or you can't compare eras it is too different. Now the same people are the biggest critics of the level of today's players. Things that make you say, Hmmmmm.

There are a couple of posts here that deserve my special attention later in my work day you can be sure I will have to respond to, currently have to run. But you summed up my positions much more succinctly than I could. As for stick I receive, I am fine with it won't change my positions a hair.

emancipator wrote:My point is that you accused us of double standards whilst ignoring the original double standard displayed by Socal. He spent years calling dissing Federer's competition and dishing it out to his fans, but once the tables turned he became defensive and started crying foul. That is the original double standard. So if you're going to call anyone out for double standards you should start with him.

Is THAT clear enough? There's only so many ways I can say the same thing.

As far as I can tell, he's only crying foul that after being mocked for weak eras, he's now having weak eras used against him... whilst still being mocked for weak eras.

The idea that Novak is benefitting from a weak era, he seems, to me, to be trying to present reasons against.

Anyway, he's online himself now, he can defend himself.

CaledonianCraig wrote:No socal hasn't displayed that double standard though. His viewpoint from the start is that you can judge one era as weaker/stronger than another and talks down the early 2000's as a weaker era. He has never altered from that position. People have argued against him vehemently saying you cannot judge eras as it is so difficult but now those same people choose to conform to weak/strong era by downplaying Djoko's success claiming a falling of standards and quality of players ie as good as calling this a weak era hence the double standards from those who had argued you cannot judge eras.

Trust you to jump in and wave your pom poms without actually understanding the matter in hand. Do you actually read what people write or is just a comprehension problem?

I'm done here.

emancipator wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:No socal hasn't displayed that double standard though. His viewpoint from the start is that you can judge one era as weaker/stronger than another and talks down the early 2000's as a weaker era. He has never altered from that position. People have argued against him vehemently saying you cannot judge eras as it is so difficult but now those same people choose to conform to weak/strong era by downplaying Djoko's success claiming a falling of standards and quality of players ie as good as calling this a weak era hence the double standards from those who had argued you cannot judge eras.

Trust you to jump in and wave your pom poms without actually understanding the matter in hand. Do you actually read what people write or is just a comprehension problem?

I'm done here.

Emancipator, Craig is entitled to his opinion and can agree or disagree with whoever he likes. I find it funny that I come in every morning and find the usual suspects making comments and snide insults, and passing emoticons and cheerleading each other. If on a particular point someone agrees with me that I am logically consistent, while detractors are not in this instance you don't have to throw cheerleading insults. Particularly, since for a couple of days that is what you guys and the socal fan club have been doing on this thread for days now. Making it personal over and over again and then accusing the other side of making it personal. Just argue the points I make or don't, but stop making it about me. I can go into a list of my lengthy grievances against various people but I just think it is a waste of time.

JubbaIsle wrote:

socal1976 wrote:
That is exactly the logical disparity we will see unfold if Nadal doesn't win the FO. If he loses to Djoko after going what 40-2 to start the season he will all of a sudden become a player in crisis and a has been. I mean lets be honest it is highly unlikely anyone other than Novak playing very well has a chance of beating Nadal over 5 sets on clay. If that eventuality happens Nadal will go from the hottest player on tour to being passed it. Early Nadal had the edge over his toughest rival in those big signature matches, now it looks in the last couple of years as if his top rival has the edge in their matchup. Because you lose to one player and yet beat the rest of the tour at higher clip, does that mean you have fallen off?

I can understand people thinking that Nadal may have lost his edge, if he lost to anyone in this final, if he gets to it of course, but I can't see his perception as a clay great diminishing. We all know he's come back from injury and a lengthy absence, he's lost a fair bit of tough match s to play through, all he's won of any note in the last few months are masters events, so this slam has been the biggest test of his return so far.

Make no mistake, there are many top 50 players who will see Nadal as vulnerable and play with a bit more abandon to see if they can cause an upset. He himself has admitted a breakdown of his resolve to some extent. Put these all together and it can be seen that Nadal is in fragile state at the start of most matches at this level, but it doesnt take long for him to get back into the groove.

Against Djokovic in the final ?, I'd say its still Nadal to win, maybe a 5 setter. But the longer it goes on, the better Novaks chances to beat him, as I don't think Nadal's stamina is back to its best yet. But I'd hate to say he was past his best if he is beaten, Federer had a bad 2008, just one slam win in 5 (in terms of dominance), but came back to win 3 out of the next 4 majors.

Good post Jubba, it may be that he still isn't completely as fit as he would like to be, I don't doubt that. But Nadal has always had these injuries and still won, now if he had an injury came back and starts stinking up the joint then it is more logical to conclude he has lost a bit. As for vulnerability I don't know 2 guys have beaten him in like 40 matches and one was the world #1 in fine form. So I think the jury is still out on whether or not he has lost a bit on clay and in other respects. I see a much more polished and experienced tennis player and ball striker however than his early days, much more. As great as he was.

Evidently eman you pay no attention. I have had my disagreements with socal as well. We have discussed at length how I don't think you can judge eras as a like for like but we stay civil to each other even though our opinions differ on that subject whereas you feel the need to get all offensive.

HM Murdoch wrote:

emancipator wrote:My point is that you accused us of double standards whilst ignoring the original double standard displayed by Socal. He spent years calling dissing Federer's competition and dishing it out to his fans, but once the tables turned he became defensive and started crying foul. That is the original double standard. So if you're going to call anyone out for double standards you should start with him.

Is THAT clear enough? There's only so many ways I can say the same thing.

As far as I can tell, he's only crying foul that after being mocked for weak eras, he's now having weak eras used against him... whilst still being mocked for weak eras.

The idea that Novak is benefitting from a weak era, he seems, to me, to be trying to present reasons against.

Anyway, he's online himself now, he can defend himself.

Can we know who it is calling 2013 a weak era? Honestly, I've never heard of it.

What's happened by 2013 is that the Great Roger is mostly gone, and Nadal doesn't look at his peak any more. That doesn't make a weak era in my opinion, who is saying this?

bogbrush wrote:Can we know who it is calling 2013 a weak era? Honestly, I've never heard of it.

What's happened by 2013 is that the Great Roger is mostly gone, and Nadal doesn't look at his peak any more. That doesn't make a weak era in my opinion, who is saying this?

Socal quoted IC in his opening post saying this is a transitional era.

Within this thread emancipator also says that reaching 8 finals is "just a reflection of the weakness of the tour" and that the field is "pathetic".

(I'd like to point out that I think there is some merit in both these views)

But Socal's point was "the hypocrisy of those who all but suggest we are in a weak era today, while at the same time some of the same people argued vociferously with me for months and even years that there are no weak eras, that eras are incomparable...Although they won't use the exact terminology of "weak era" that would be too obvious wouldn't it, they take every opportunity to slag the current stars, the current game, and to try to diminish their accomplishments. ".

It strikes me as a fair enough comment. He gave an example at the outset of what he was disputing. But this is what has been chucked at him in this thread:

"he's obviously a bit unhinged"

"It would take a blind man of sub 100 IQ to not see this current Nadal is still 60-70% of his best."

"This stupid article is about a low as Ive seen this Novak fanatic drop"

What's he being insulted for? Comparing eras?

bogbrush wrote:What's happened by 2013 is that the Great Roger is mostly gone, and Nadal doesn't look at his peak any more. That doesn't make a weak era in my opinion, who is saying this?

Incidentally BB, with Great Roger mostly gone and Rafa maybe post-peak, how does this NOT make things weaker than a couple of years or so ago? Does the improvement in Andy and Novak make up the shortfall? Because I'd argue not!

Genuine question not an argument.

CaledonianCraig wrote:BB, we all get overly defensive over our favourite player and what you slate socal for you do exactly the same. It is as plain as the nose on your face.

Where have I said it was easier to win slams in the noughties? If I really felt that strongly to be the case then I'd subscribe to some people's views that slams should hold different values ie one slam win doesn't equal 1.0 but 1.1 or 1.5 etc. I have said a slam win is a slam win.

Do you have to be so confrontational with people?

Actually CC and HMM, the topic here started with Nadal but Socal didn't end with Nadal, he ended with era debate slating 2003-2007, this was really unneccessary, and now you calling double standards, neither me nor BB opened this thread and cited problems of this era , the fact is every champion has his guts as well as luck, the current scenario is the same as well while Djoko showed guts to be a champion he did have the luck of facing legends off their prime, and that was the case with Federer as well.

So slating the current era is special while 2003-2007 was weak is clearly a double standard and I hope you will raise your voice against all those weak era nonsense since you don't buy the double standard arguments.

The conclusion is that the current era is neither special nor weak like any other era, but will Socal buy the arguments obviously no, coz he wants to elate this era as special and Djoko as super special this is what called double standards.

HM Murdoch wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Can we know who it is calling 2013 a weak era? Honestly, I've never heard of it.

What's happened by 2013 is that the Great Roger is mostly gone, and Nadal doesn't look at his peak any more. That doesn't make a weak era in my opinion, who is saying this?

Socal quoted IC in his opening post saying this is a transitional era.

Thats bulls, I didn't write anywhere in this article that the current era is transition, what ever I said before was exactly in context of that particular threads sentiment, so random quote without the actual meaning makes no sense, Its surprising that you purchased it.

HM Murdoch wrote:

bogbrush wrote:What's happened by 2013 is that the Great Roger is mostly gone, and Nadal doesn't look at his peak any more. That doesn't make a weak era in my opinion, who is saying this?

Incidentally BB, with Great Roger mostly gone and Rafa maybe post-peak, how does this NOT make things weaker than a couple of years or so ago? Does the improvement in Andy and Novak make up the shortfall? Because I'd argue not!

Genuine question not an argument.

Well you won't like the answer being a Djoko fan

invisiblecoolers wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:BB, we all get overly defensive over our favourite player and what you slate socal for you do exactly the same. It is as plain as the nose on your face.

Where have I said it was easier to win slams in the noughties? If I really felt that strongly to be the case then I'd subscribe to some people's views that slams should hold different values ie one slam win doesn't equal 1.0 but 1.1 or 1.5 etc. I have said a slam win is a slam win.

Do you have to be so confrontational with people?

Actually CC and HMM, the topic here started with Nadal but Socal didn't end with Nadal, he ended with era debate slating 2003-2007, this was really unneccessary, and now you calling double standards, neither me nor BB opened this thread and cited problems of this era , the fact is every champion has his guts as well as luck, the current scenario is the same as well while Djoko showed guts to be a champion he did have the luck of facing legends off their prime, and that was the case with Federer as well.

So slating the current era is special while 2003-2007 was weak is clearly a double standard and I hope you will raise your voice against all those weak era nonsense since you don't buy the double standard arguments.

The conclusion is that the current era is neither special nor weak like any other era, but will Socal buy the arguments obviously no, coz he wants to elate this era as special and Djoko as super special this is what called double standards.

Yes we know socal's stance on feeling period 2003 to 2007 was weaker - now whether you agree with that depends on your opinion. Sure people can feel free to slate him or criticise this opinion but it is one he sticks to whilst others don't. However, now we have those others now choosing to bring up (in all but using the phrase) that now Djoko benefits from this new era. Sorry but if people want to try to use that argument then they are agreeing with socal in that you can indeed have weaker and stronger eras.

The whole weak/strong era thing is down to how people want to describe a particular decade etc, as a benchmark to compare the competitive structure of any given dominance of a player.

Thats all it is really, and some people subscribe to that way of thinking or not.

The only difference in regard to why arguments crop up all the time is that once that personal benchmark is drawn, the lines are set and then people with different views of course have different horizons and there the twain never meets.

Era comparisons are difficult to argue, with the myriad of opinions about how strong or weak the competition was during any given era. In most cases its a generalisation, a kind of snap shot of what some people see, others don't see it quite the same way or feel that era's are incomparable because of technology etc.

Going off thread a bit, but I think its futile trying to argue each others point as the whole comparison strategy is based on a personal opinion anyway. No two opinions are alike in any case, and there's nothing wrong in a conversation about it, that helps to colour articles, but lets not insult each other just because our theories differ. I bet we all know where each other stands on this by now anyway.

JubbaIsle wrote:The whole weak/strong era thing is down to how people want to describe a particular decade etc, as a benchmark to compare the competitive structure of any given dominance of a player.

Thats all it is really, and some people subscribe to that way of thinking or not.

The only difference in regard to why arguments crop up all the time is that once that personal benchmark is drawn, the lines are set and then people with different views of course have different horizons and there the twain never meets.

Era comparisons are difficult to argue, with the myriad of opinions about how strong or weak the competition was during any given era. In most cases its a generalisation, a kind of snap shot of what some people see, others don't see it quite the same way or feel that era's are incomparable because of technology etc.

Going off thread a bit, but I think its futile trying to argue each others point as the whole comparison strategy is based on a personal opinion anyway. No two opinions are alike in any case, and there's nothing wrong in a conversation about it, that helps to colour articles, but lets not insult each other just because our theories differ. I bet we all know where each other stands on this by now anyway.

Spot on Jubba. Era discussions bring about differing opinions that have no way of being resolved and so are pretty pointless debating.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Yes we know socal's stance on feeling period 2003 to 2007 was weaker - now whether you agree with that depends on your opinion.

So now you agree who is doing the double standards

CaledonianCraig wrote:Sure people can feel free to slate him or criticise this opinion but it is one he sticks to whilst others don't.

He can stick whatever he wants, but when he gonna raise it as a thread in a public forum he gonna expect some reactions, and we do find it funny since the argument holds no water and hence most of them find it easy to answer or ridicule it.

CaledonianCraig wrote: However, now we have those others now choosing to bring up (in all but using the phrase) that now Djoko benefits from this new era. Sorry but if people want to try to use that argument then they are agreeing with socal in that you can indeed have weaker and stronger eras.

No, its a direct answer to question raiser that his/her argument contains flaw, when you prove a flaw you need to raise some counter arguments like how Rafa uses counter strategy against aggressive players like Gulbis. Just coz arguments are countered doesn't mean somebody buy the argument, now since we both are arguing doesn't mean we both are of same wavelength.