Doesn't federer and Nadal losing to guys ranked outside the top 100 shattter the myth that the tour lacks depth?

We hear it all the time on these boards, the top 4 are great but the guys behind them are soft and lacking in ability. Some even take it further and state that the top 4 are simply flattered by how weak the rest of the tour is and wouldn't be winning as much if they faced tougher competition. Now granted Federer is past it, Nadal is fighting leg injuries, but frankly I can't remember two legends of this caliber being bounced out in the first and second round by players outside the top 100. I mean you would expect even a 32 year old Federer of being able to beat the world 116th or whatever ranked player at wimbeldon, despite his age. Lets remember Agassi was one year older when he reached world #1 for the last time. And Nadal is the current points leader and has been rampaging on the tour. Stakhovsky and Darcis proved that this myth of lack of depth on tour is just that a myth. Both guys played brilliant high level matches against somewhat off color opponents. Stak in particular looked like the second coming of Edberg, Federer served 70 plus percent and hit way, way more winners than errors. And it just didn't matter. Nadal pulled up a little lame in the third set against Darcis but he was moving pretty well up till the third set when noticeably he did something to his leg. Despite the diminished capacity you would expect the 7 time wimby champ and 8 time RG champ to do better than exactly one set won between the two of them against players ranked outside the top 100. Stakhovsky and Darcis beat Federer and Nadal 6 sets to 1.

Now many will come in and say these two are past it, for Federer that isn't debatable but he played well enough to win a grass court title last week in Halle. He won this tournament last year and was in the WTF championship match less than 7 months ago. He still has a lot of ability, while not nearly the player he was at his peak. Nadal is clearly not passed it as he has a lead in the points race and just got caught trying to adjust to grass with no warmup, also pulled up a bit lame once the match had already turned in favor of his opponent.

The tour outside the top 4 is not weak, and this is a prime example of the fact. It is probably deeper and more professional than it ever has been. This is another reason we are seeing how hard it is for young players to break through. There are a lot of big sharks in the sea young man you better sharpen your teeth young man.

socal1976 wrote:It is probably deeper and more professional than it ever has been.

Are you saying the depth of the tour should be measured by how many times the Top 4 have been beaten at the slams by ATP #100+?

The tour has always had the depth, for a while Fedal dominated by being consistent, and beating the rest of the tour for the big ones.

It is a progression, 5 years from now, the then current tour will also be called deeper and more professional than it ever has been.

Why not the same principle be applied to 2000-2003 and say more people had the guts and ability to beat the top players and hence more depth and golden era, case closed.

I agree with the sentiments that it's not exactly going to get less professional unless you took all the money away. These matches are rare but they happen. I would say Nadal's match was more winnable though both players levels in the Fed match were higher. Fed never met a player in the early rounds that could do this to him, not after his prime anyway. His situation is a strange one too as that style hasn't succeeded in a long time. I think Fed could have beaten him if he'd been a bit less wasteful with his chances but perhaps Stak winning was good for the game as it shows that style is still viable.

Anyhow to get back to the point, I don't think these matches are any indication of anything. They were just things that happened to players that were a bit more vulnerable than before though less so in Feds case as he's been vulnerable for a while.

laverfan wrote:

socal1976 wrote:It is probably deeper and more professional than it ever has been.

Are you saying the depth of the tour should be measured by how many times the Top 4 have been beaten at the slams by ATP #100+?

The tour has always had the depth, for a while Fedal dominated by being consistent, and beating the rest of the tour for the big ones.

It is a progression, 5 years from now, the then current tour will also be called [i]deeper and more professional than it ever has been[/i].

Exactly - this has happened to all the greats in the past and in time it will happen to Murray and Djokovic, but it won't happen very often because the lower ranked guys have always been able to really play, they just don't bring it to the court all the time.

In other words there is depth in skill - I guess you wouldn't even consider becoming a professional sportsman unless that was a given - just, as LF says, there has always been, but these guys are not a consistent threat.

The acid test though is to look at how quickly the points accumulated by players drop off. How many points does Djokovic have and how many does No 80?

Yes, Badal being injured and Federer being far past his best really proves all sorts of things.

Desperate, desperate stuff.

Nadal injured - yes. Federer far past his best is a bit of a stretch on evidence of the stats yesterday. I have seen Roger play far worse even years ago and win matches. He had a high number of winners and lowish unforced errors so his game was none too shabby yesterday. At peak he would have won but please don't use terms like far past his best with stats like he posted yesterday as they were decent to very good.

But it is relative isn't it Craig.  Fed didn't play badly but in relation to how swift he was a few years ago, how creative, then it wasn't brilliant - a lot of that was due to Stakhovsky having a clear plan and sticking to it immaculatey.

As both BB and I have said - massive credit to SS for a brilliant match - Fed could only hang with him. But if we are evaluating the depth, then you have to look at Fed's performance over this year and ask if his level has dropped as well before declaring that the win proves that the guys at the lower end are just champing at the bit to knock Murray and Djokovic out now!!!!

There is no inconsistency with either BB or I saying this because we both pointed out that while Darcis played a very good match and held his nerve on key points, Nadal was not the Rafa of the French Open.

Stakhovsky played a game that probably took Federer aback and such a high level of serve and volley. His level never dipped and neither did his focus or belief. Federer's returns are the only real thing I would say was poor. Sure if at his peak he would have won but saying he played like he was 'far past his best' is stretching it a bit.

By the way don't get me wrong I am not using this result to back up the OP as in essence these were two results that were waiting to happen in different circumstances.

Socal, I think the tour does have depth - but using the defeats of a player with a dodgy knee and a nearly 32-year old to demonstrate this, might be a bit off the mark, my friend!!!

CaledonianCraig wrote:Nadal injured - yes. Federer far past his best is a bit of a stretch on evidence of the stats yesterday. I have seen Roger play far worse even years ago and win matches. He had a high number of winners and lowish unforced errors so his game was none too shabby yesterday. At peak he would have won but please don't use terms like far past his best with stats like he posted yesterday as they were decent to very good.

Perhaps it's been so long since serve & volley was the norm, but those stats are what you get in that style; high unforced errors is what happens on attritional baseline play. Federer wasn't making unforced errors simply because what Stakovsky does makes the error count as forced.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Stakhovsky played a game that probably took Federer aback and such a high level of serve and volley. His level never dipped and neither did his focus or belief. Federer's returns are the only real thing I would say was poor. Sure if at his peak he would have won but saying he played like he was 'far past his best' is stretching it a bit.

Agree. And back to the original question, the wins of darcis and stak proves nothing unless they can back it up. Only proves that grass is a leveler as no one really bother to take time to adapt to the surface hence having mediocre guys (darcis) beating weakened unprepared folks (nadal). It will become more and more tough to do well at both RG and wimbledon and for players who have recurrent knee issues, the latter might be the one to skip.

Oh absolutely whocares. It is a random win and now Stak has to build on that to prove he has what it takes all of the time.

banbrotam wrote:Socal, I think the tour does have depth - but using the defeats of a player with a dodgy knee and a nearly 32-year old to demonstrate this, might be a bit off the mark, my friend!!!

It is not just this one aspect banbro. But come Federer won the tournament last year and just won at Halle, he lost to a guy outside the top 100. Fedal 1 set, and Stack/darcis 6 sets. Nadal hurt his leg late in the match after he was already down. Did you see how these challenger boys played? Depth is there and it is there in spades. But again depth to me is not the be all and end all of tennis. Why is it desperate, what do I care if anyone agrees or doesn't agree, I have never shied away from making my observations and I don't care if people agree or don't. But seriously, roger is 32 not 62. And he won his previous six matches on tour.

If it helps lets not even say Roger and Rafa. The world #3 and the world #5 lost to two guys outside the top 100, sounds like depth to me. And didn't just lose, they lost 6 out of 7 sets. And these outside the top 100 players both played brilliant, brilliant tennis. Nadal doesn't go from being the points leader to being a wash out in the span of one loss. For all their ills in the last 52 weeks both have done well enough to finish in the top 5, Nadal has done well enough to finish in the top 5 playing for about 20 weeks of the last 52 weeks.

No socal it does not. Both Darcis and Stakhovsky can now put wins against great players on their CV but do you really think these players are going to build on these wins? They are both in their late 20's way past the age of radical change and everyone including them know this. Sadly without both Nadal and Federer out what it does show is the lack of depth in mens tennis in terms of interest. The top half of the draw was always a bit sparse but now so is the bottom half. There are few potential matches left that look interesting to the wider tennis public. Only those that want to see Djokovic or Murray win against the weaker field will be happy. For example the order of play today looks a bit Zzzzz...

whocares wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Stakhovsky played a game that probably took Federer aback and such a high level of serve and volley. His level never dipped and neither did his focus or belief. Federer's returns are the only real thing I would say was poor. Sure if at his peak he would have won but saying he played like he was 'far past his best' is stretching it a bit.

Agree. And back to the original question, the wins of darcis and stak proves nothing unless they can back it up. Only proves that grass is a leveler as no one really bother to take time to adapt to the surface hence having mediocre guys (darcis) beating weakened unprepared folks (nadal). It will become more and more tough to do well at both RG and wimbledon and for players who have recurrent knee issues, the latter might be the one to skip.

I don't I watched most of both matches and both Darcis and Stak looked far from mediocre to me, and that is the whole point of the argument. These are challenger players. If Roger and Rafa lost on consecutive days to Berdych and Del Po, I wouldn't think anything of it. But they lost to players who a few weeks ago were playing in some local club somewhere in front of 50people. They didn't lose to the number 6 and number 11 players in the world. They lost to guys who can eat even break .500 on the ATP tour. And both players showed a wide ranging skill set.

As for grass being the big leveler, maybe, I actually don't think so when you consider the fact 4 players have won 24 of the last 38 wimbeldon titles.

bogbrush wrote:Yes, Badal being injured and Federer being far past his best really proves all sorts of things.

Desperate, desperate stuff.

Freudian slip?

hawkeye wrote:No socal it does not. Both Darcis and Stakhovsky can now put wins against great players on their CV but do you really think these players are going to build on these wins?

No hawkeye you miss the point completely. The fact that both these players will struggle mightly to even make the main draw of the next couple of slams is what my point is. These are challenger players, look at how they can play even against off color fedal. Does that not show you what a dog eat dog world of the back benchers is? I doubt either play will build on these wins because there are 100 guys as good as them out there at least. The fact that these guys can play that well is exactly what is so telling about these victories. If you get struck by lightening once that is something, if you get struck by lightening twice in 2 days that is something altogether.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Stakhovsky played a game that probably took Federer aback and such a high level of serve and volley. His level never dipped and neither did his focus or belief. Federer's returns are the only real thing I would say was poor. Sure if at his peak he would have won but saying he played like he was 'far past his best' is stretching it a bit.

I watched pretty much that whole match Craig, Nadal had no problem moving and did not look labored in his movement to me till he was already down two sets. And I agree with you completely. Fed played well, and he lost. He didn't play great but he served at like 70 percent first serve percentage, that isn't a player who stunk up the joint.

What it shows is that at last proper grass court tennis can outdo the baseline game that has dominated the event for over the last 10 years. Darcis, Stakhovsky and even Brown played some majestic grass court tennis. It shows that the top guys are not a versatile as we like to believe.

To be honest, I've always thought Federer's method of returning serve might be vulnerable to serve and volley. He blocks the ball a lot of the time and does not go for out and out winners that much.

If the serve is good and the volleys are good, it's probably the best way to play against him if you're not as proficient from the baseline as Novak, Murray or Rafa... And nobody else is.

I thought Federer played ok too. But what Novak and Andy might have done different is change it up on the return. Plus both of them get to more returns anyway.

I thought Federer played ok too.

I thought Nadal played even better

Danny_1982 wrote:To be honest, I've always thought Federer's method of returning serve might be vulnerable to serve and volley. He blocks the ball a lot of the time and does not go for out and out winners that much.

If the serve is good and the volleys are good, it's probably the best way to play against him if you're not as proficient from the baseline as Novak, Murray or Rafa... And nobody else is.

I thought Federer played ok too. But what Novak and Andy might have done different is change it up on the return. Plus both of them get to more returns anyway.

Good assessment here Danny, we hear about how Federer would be the biggest beneficiary of faster conditions. But he does chip a lot of returns back and play pretty passively on the return in general, which against more traditional S and V players would cause him a lot of problems. Novak and Andy returning would make that first volley much more difficult on the net rusher.

laverfan wrote:

socal1976 wrote:It is probably deeper and more professional than it ever has been.

Are you saying the depth of the tour should be measured by how many times the Top 4 have been beaten at the slams by ATP #100+?

The tour has always had the depth, for a while Fedal dominated by being consistent, and beating the rest of the tour for the big ones.

It is a progression, 5 years from now, the then current tour will also be called deeper and more professional than it ever has been.

So the modern tour is deep outside of the top 4? Wow Laverfan that is a newsflash to any reader of 606v2, all we have heard for years on here is that outside of the top 4 the tour stinks and lacks depth. All we have heard is how little resistance and how mediocre the players outside the top 4 are. Well I am glad you agree with me.

I love how these two startling matches aren't evidence of the depth of the modern game. Those who claim the modern game is not deep outside the top 4 have never produced any evidence, any at all that outside the top 4 the talent is sparse. The only evidence they have ever produced is that the top 4 win too much for their competition to be any good. The more obvious answer to this conundrum is that the top 4 up until this time have been that good and that depth in the game is not an issue. It is not weak competition that explains the consistency of their results up till this point, if anything the tour is at the least as deep as ever and they are just better. Now finally we do start seeing major chinks in that hegemony.

time please wrote:But it is relative isn't it Craig.  Fed didn't play badly but in relation to how swift he was a few years ago, how creative, then it wasn't brilliant - a lot of that was due to Stakhovsky having a clear plan and sticking to it immaculatey.

As both BB and I have said - massive credit to SS for a brilliant match - Fed could only hang with him.  But if we are evaluating the depth, then you have to look at Fed's performance over this year and ask if his level has dropped as well before declaring that the win proves that the guys at the lower end are just champing at the bit to knock Murray and Djokovic out now!!!!

There is no inconsistency with either BB or I saying this because we both pointed out that while Darcis played a very good match and held his nerve on key points, Nadal was not the Rafa of the French Open.

Excellent post , you Nailed it.

Danny_1982 wrote:I thought Federer played ok too. But what Novak and Andy might have done different is change it up on the return. Plus both of them get to more returns anyway.

Federer at his prime would have smoked SS, and Djoko and Murray at 32 would have easily lost to SS for that play, I am not sure Djoko Murray would even reach 2nd round of a tournament in grass at that age.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Nadal injured - yes. Federer far past his best is a bit of a stretch on evidence of the stats yesterday. I have seen Roger play far worse even years ago and win matches. He had a high number of winners and lowish unforced errors so his game was none too shabby yesterday. At peak he would have won but please don't use terms like far past his best with stats like he posted yesterday as they were decent to very good.

Nadal injured? No

Federer way past his best ? certainly Yes.

Time please I am not reading anything either into the freak results at Wimbledon and have never said that. Nadal wasn't the Nadal that won French Open and Fed is past his best. I think you'll find I don't dispute that.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Time please I am not reading anything either into the freak results at Wimbledon and have never said that. Nadal wasn't the Nadal that won French Open and Fed is past his best. I think you'll find I don't dispute that.

Thats a better statement, agreed.

I have to say that this is transparent even by your standards socal.
Now that Fed and Rafa offer a greatly reduced slam threat (except Rafa at the FO), the best way to big up any Djokovic victory (potential or actual) is to say how strong the rest of the tour is down to the 150 ranking or so.
That way Djokovic still gets the extras kudos you seem so keen for him to get. As if winning Wimby would somehow not be impressive enough.
As you might put it - I find it amusing.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:I thought Federer played ok too. But what Novak and Andy might have done different is change it up on the return. Plus both of them get to more returns anyway.

Federer at his prime would have smoked SS, and Djoko and Murray at 32 would have easily lost to SS for that play, I am not sure Djoko Murray would even reach 2nd round of a tournament in grass at that age.

I watched highlights again tonight, and what was abundantly clear is that Roger really was a step slow. SS moved much better and his court coverage was far superior. So in that sense, he looked past it I agree. But then he looked extremely vulnerable early on a year ago and ended up beating 2 of his big rivals to win it.

My point with Murray and Djokovic is that they can do more off the return, which is an area they are more effective and have more variety than Roger. As for what form and fitness they'll be in at 32... Who knows? No point even guessing! Federer may not be the unbelievable player of 5 years ago anymore, but he's hardly in a wheelchair. A 35 year old Haas is still in the tournament by the way.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I have to say that this is transparent even by your standards socal.
Now that Fed and Rafa offer a greatly reduced slam threat (except Rafa at the FO), the best way to big up any Djokovic victory (potential or actual) is to say how strong the rest of the tour is down to the 150 ranking or so.
That way Djokovic still gets the extras kudos you seem so keen for him to get. As if winning Wimby would somehow not be impressive enough.
As you might put it - I find it amusing.

Transparent? What I find amusing is that for years we have heard about how the tour after the top 4 is weak and that there is no depth; yada, yada, and some more yada. Now we see the ATP points leader and last year's wimbeldon champion get bounced out by guys not even in the top 100, and instead of simply analyzing what these shocking developments mean (ie that guys ranked this low can turn out beautiful performances that we witnessed) the thread becomes about socal and his nefarious intentions.

First of all I am the one who consistently maintained that depth isn't the be all to tournament tennis, and that parity is mediocrity. But continually we were told by the so-called experts on this site that there is no depth. And that depth is super important. Now evidence of the depth of the current tour jumps up and bites them on the backside. Instead of having the decency to eat the crow that reality has chosen to serve up for these critics they chose to deflect and make the argument personal about mean ole Socal. So you tell me what is illogical or transparent about concluding that when the world #3 and world #5 lose in 5 set matches, 6 sets to 1, to players outside the top 100; that maybe there is plenty of depth on tour?

What frankly is transparent is the people who pumped this erroneous argument, with no evidence for years getting shown up by reality, and then trying to change the subject from the obvious logical conclusion and make it a personal denunciation of my bias and nefarious intentions.

What evidence was provided for the contention that outside the top 4 the tour lacked depth and quality? Here I will sum it up for you in one line. The big 4 win too much and therefore their competition must not be that good. Now half the big 4 is out by round 2 to guys who can't even make the main draw of most events playing brilliant tennis and we are to believe that this isn't evidence of depth or anything else. Why is the big 4 winning too much evidence of weakness, and why is it that when they lose to challenger players playing inspired tennis this isn't evidence of depth. Seriously, a lot of posters on this site remind of the black knight in Monty Python, who after getting all their metaphorical appendages chopped off demand to call the fight a draw. Nothing to see here, just a flesh wound.

Why not the same meaningless myth be applied to 2000-2003 where people like Hewitt , Safin, Roddick beat Sampras and Agassi on so many occasions and hence agree the depth was so deep and hence the strongest era.

You cant be selective and biased on your argument every time , coz it clearly makes no sense and its tiring and boring for us.

I see, so when lower ranked players beat a couple of top players in 2013 it's evidence of how strong the tour is, but when lower ranked players beat a couple of top players in 2001 it's evidence of how weak the tour is.
I get it now, thanks for clearing that up.

Oddly enough, when Djoko is winning slams in what is, by your previous definition, a weak era, I will be the one defending him. Of course, you will be too, but that's only because your viewpoint changes to whatever paints Djoko in the best light (and if it paints Fed in a bad light, that's just a bonus).

My suggestion for you Socal, is to set up a blog where you can express your talent fully and uncompromisingly. you could call it perhaps "Socal's Nole ramblings"......

IC and JHM - you beat me to it, well was typing and then thought I just didn't have the energy!

I wonder if we should take an old era argument thread and insert your postings on this thread into one of the old heated debates socal and then you could argue energetically with yourself, and we could all sit back and wonder who would emerge the most battle scarred!  

Funny, I don't even claim that depth makes an era strong or weak. I have always maintained that it is the handful of great players and their quality that determine an era. But we heard for years how depth is super important we don't have any today. I also don't even mention the name Novak Djokovic in any of my posts or claim that these losses makes Novak look better or worse. It probably helps his chances to win this tournament and that is about it.

But it is a wonderful strategy that you have all developed, when you have no facts or logic to back yourself up, simply attack socal as a Novak fan boy and make the thread about him. Really quite pathetic, and quite telling.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I see, so when lower ranked players beat a couple of top players in 2013 it's evidence of how strong the tour is, but when lower ranked players beat a couple of top players in 2001 it's evidence of how weak the tour is.
I get it now, thanks for clearing that up.

Oddly enough, when Djoko is winning slams in what is, by your previous definition, a weak era, I will be the one defending him. Of course, you will be too, but that's only because your viewpoint changes to whatever paints Djoko in the best light (and if it paints Fed in a bad light, that's just a bonus).

Do you have wax in your ears, depth is not the be all to the strength of an era. I have said it about a 100 times. You and many others argued that depth is super important, well evidence of depth just bit you on the backside after years of hearing how we lacked depth and how depth is super important and now you claim this thread is about Djokovic. I'll give you a dollar if you can find the mention of Djokovic in my OP or on this thread before you and others mentioned it. In fact, I am the guy who has stated over and over again that depth does not mean that much in comparison to having great players at the top. Those that mentioned the lack of depth need to ask themselves what these two matches mean about the quality of their arguments. The steve Darcis of the world could win a 100 first round matches, and in my opinion that would define an era as weak or otherwise strong.

socal1976 wrote:Really quite pathetic, and quite telling.

If nothing else, we view each other equally. I think that's a fair stand-off.

time please wrote:and then you could argue energetically with yourself, and we could all sit back and wonder who would emerge the most battle scarred!  

LOL

Yes socal, you have taken an odd angle here. All those debates about whether an era is better when top players dominate or when they find it hard to dominate are circular anyway. But in the past you have been at least reasonably consistently taking one side of that argument. Now, however, you seem to have turned close to 180 degrees around.

invisiblecoolers wrote:Why not the same meaningless myth be applied to 2000-2003 where people like Hewitt , Safin, Roddick beat Sampras and Agassi on so many occasions and hence agree the depth was so deep and hence the strongest era.

You cant be selective and biased on your argument every time , coz it clearly makes no sense and its tiring and boring for us.

Feel free not to comment if it is tiring and boring for you, I give you an open invitation anytime you like. Again so the reading comprehension challenged of you understand. I am not saying in anyway, shape or form that depth makes this era strong. You all have been saying that the lack of depth makes this era not so golden. Well here is your evidence of depth. Instead of discussing it you chose to deflect it and turn it into lets attack socal and his intentions.

I think it is quite obvious by how you all attack the messenger and don't actually analyze the results and evidence provided how logically thin and bare this lack of depth criticism of the modern game has always been. Built on absolutely nothing but an echo chamber of the logically challenged.

summerblues wrote:

time please wrote:and then you could argue energetically with yourself, and we could all sit back and wonder who would emerge the most battle scarred!  

LOL

Yes socal, you have taken an odd angle here.  All those debates about whether an era is better when top players dominate or when they find it hard to dominate are circular anyway.  But in the past you have been at least reasonably consistently taking one side of that argument.  Now, however, you seem to have turned close to 180 degrees around.

Wow, maybe I should take out a billboard in London or something. I don't think depth defines the strength or weakness of an era. An era is defined by the quality of the top handful of players. Other people have been whinning about the lack of depth and telling us how important it is. Now they have shocking evidence of depth with these two outsiders playing blindingly good tennis and knocking out the defending champ and the ATP points leader. Instead of taking in new facts and reassessing their bogus arguments that were nothing more than the shared mumblings of an echo chamber they chose to attack the messenger.

For the one hundredth time, this is not about era, not about Djokovic and these two matches don't tell us whether this era is strong or weak. But what it does tell us is that those who made up the criticism of a tour lacking depth really don't know what they are talking about.

Oh socal, I'm just a little tongue in cheek.

Most of the people you are aiming the comments at have never argued for eras being weak or strong.  I think you have failed to realise that it is your position on the 'rollover generation' that is either being questioned by pointing out that you could argue the opposite side of the coin with totally different criteria.  In other words, it is your trenchant position that is being sent up whenever someone posts a provocative thread or comment on eras - it is not necessarily others' cast iron beliefs!

I for one have never commented on the depth of the tour from rankings, say, 50 - 200.

time please wrote:Oh socal, I'm just a little tongue in cheek.

Most of the people you are aiming the comments at have never argued for eras being weak or strong.  I think you have failed to realise that it is your position on the 'rollover generation' that is either being questioned by pointing out that you could argue the opposite side of the coin with totally different criteria.  In other words, it is your trenchant position that is being sent up whenever someone posts a provocative thread or comment on eras - it is not necessarily others' cast iron beliefs!

TP, the same people who for years argued with me that there is no such thing as eras or that all eras are equally strong or incomparable spend an inordinate amount of time pointing out how barren, thin, boring, and uncompetitive the current game is. Our friend IC on this very site has called this current period transitional. If I said the same thing about the rollover generation, which I have and stand by, some of the same people would rail against heaven and earth at my deficiencies. Funny, lack of depth was one of the main arguments that we heard for years and years. And the only, only evidence ever produced for this paucity of depth was that the big 4 wins too much and therefore their competition stinks. We just saw two virtuoso performances by guys who struggle to make the main draw, don't you think that exposes this lack of depth critique a bit?

The lack of depth argument had nothing to do with players ranked below 100. I suspect there have always been players ranked below 100 who could produce such performances and had they done so against Murray or Djoko this year (or Fed/Rafa 2007) they probably would have lost and no-one would have thought much of it.

I don't think anyone has ever posted seriously or with great knowledge about players ranked below 100, so to come out with a 'I was right, you were all wrong' post is...amusing...since it's never really been discussed before.
If you had produced a less combative, more realistic OP it wouldhave been worth a discussion - you missed a trick there.

JuliusHMarx wrote:The lack of depth argument had nothing to do with players ranked below 100. I suspect there have always been players ranked below 100 who could produce such performances and had they done so against Murray or Djoko this year (or Fed/Rafa 2007) they probably would have lost and no-one would have thought much of it.

I don't think anyone has ever posted seriously or with great knowledge about players ranked below 100, so to come out with a 'I was right, you were all wrong' post is...amusing...since it's never really been discussed before.
If you had produced a less combative, more realistic OP it wouldhave been worth a discussion - you missed a trick there.

These guys are part of the tour and do play the big 4. Nobody who routinely questioned the depth of this period and the lack of competition faced by the top 4 ever qualified it to players ranked 5-50, I certainly don't remember you posting that qualification. All I remember were people continually talking about the lack of depth on tour in general and the lack of competition provided the top 4.

A far more simple way of deducing an era's strength is to just watch some tennis and make up one's own mind about whether the hitting is hot or not.

I'd say it's pretty darn good.