Rank the 'Tier 2' Greats

First topic message reminder :

Time for a subjective question!

Djokovic's eighth win yesterday moves him level with Connors, Lendl and Agassi on the Open Era slam wins league table.

How do rank this sub-group of 'greats'?

	Connors	Lendl	Agassi	Djokovic
Weeks at 1	268	270	101	132*
Tour final wins	1	5	1	4
Masters titles	17	22	17	20
Career slam	No	No	Yes	No

Lendl and Connors are tough to split. I'll give the nod to Jimmy for longevity and amassing his slam total despite hardly ever playing AO and missing RG for 5 of his peak years.

Then Agassi and Djokovic are tough to split.

Agassi has the career slam and won Wimbledon on fast, low bouncing grass in an era of huge servers.

Djokovic leads on weeks at 1, Masters and YEC and is, I would suggest, more dominant than Agassi was.

By a whisker, I'd say Andre.

So for me its:
1) Connors
2) Lendl
3) Agassi
4) Djokovic

How would you rank them?

socal1976 wrote:

Belovedluckyboy wrote:Come on SoCal, don't be so dismissive about Fed's peers!  After all, they did beat Rafa at the slams pre 2008, oh and beat Novak too during 2007-2009 (Roddick, Safin?) .Gonzo and Ferrer beat Rafa at the HC slams during 2007, and there're Hewitt, Blake and Youzhny too.  Oh, Novak was also beaten by Haas, Melzer when they were or weren't in their prime, so a further proof that Novak hadnt peak yet during 2007-2010.

From 2008 onwards, Rafa lost on the HC slams to his peers, the likes of Tsonga, Delpo, Murray, Novak and Stan, barring that one time where he pulled his thigh muscle and so lost to Ferrer in straight sets at the AO.  Novak OTOH has won 5 out of 9 HC slams played from 2011 onwards!

Blake and Youzhny? cmon how are those guys anything but good decent pros. They aren't great players by any measure and aren't serious competition for either Nadal or Federer. Yes they had their wins here and there against Nadal on HC early on against Djokovic when he was having his disastrous serve experiment of 09-2010 but if you want to argue with me that competition from 2000-07 was strong we will be at it all day. And I don't want to reignite weak era discussions because some of the older posters on this site have fought those battles over and over again. The fact is Fed had no real competition till the rise of Nadal and Nadal didn't have a guy who could really compete with him till the rise of Novak.

I think it's great that opinion can be so diverse on this forum as to include the whole spectrum, from informed and cerebral reason right through to this type of blollox. I just think it's a pity that anyone interested in the sport should know so little about it.

Let's not kid ourselves just by beating 2 players constitutes a tough era.

Bogbrush, if you want I can bring out the quote, but I remember you saying around 2 weeks ago how differing levels of competition at the top means it can be easier/harder to get to world number 1, and therefore we can use that to make a judgement onto how well a player is playing.
Which I agree with.

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

Blake and Youzhny? cmon how are those guys anything but good decent pros. They aren't great players by any measure and aren't serious competition for either Nadal or Federer. Yes they had their wins here and there against Nadal on HC early on against Djokovic when he was having his disastrous serve experiment of 09-2010 but if you want to argue with me that competition from 2000-07 was strong we will be at it all day. And I don't want to reignite weak era discussions because some of the older posters on this site have fought those battles over and over again. The fact is Fed had no real competition till the rise of Nadal and Nadal didn't have a guy who could really compete with him till the rise of Novak.

I think it's great that opinion can be so diverse on this forum as to include the whole spectrum, from informed and cerebral reason right through to this type of blollox. I just think it's a pity that anyone interested in the sport should know so little about it.

Let's play a game called 'spot the argument'. We'll start with BB's quoted post here.
In this game we try and spot if a post actually is trying to argue a point, or just an assumption that the poster is correct without an explanation and/or a personal attack.
Oh no ! I can't spot it !

Please find the post but identify the thread as I'm sure you're wrong.

In this case my rightness is so self-evident it simply needs referring to.

bogbrush wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:

I agree, I don't think Nadal is anywhere near the player he was 4 or 5 years ago. Neither does Lydian when last he addressed the subject.

I find this strange as it was in 2013 that Rafa came back to No 1 . Making a comeback from a layoff over 7mth which was recognised to be the come-back of all time .. how many tournaments did he win ???so he must have been pretty good 4 or 5 years ago

Yeah but by 2013 Federer was non-existent. Being #1 then can't compare, and in any case I'm going with my eyes. Nadal was clearly better back then.

Thread was the Murray Hewitt thread from Hawkeye.

'Being #1 then can't compare'; which clearly indicates that 'how differing levels of competition at the top means it can be easier/harder to get to world number 1, and therefore we can use that to make a judgement onto how well a player is playing.'

That's true, I did say that and it does have that meaning. I'd only say that the presence or absence of peak or near-peak GOAT is an exceptional event; being #1 when the GOAT was in his pomp would obviously be bigger but I can't argue the principle. I did, though, stress that was a secondary consideration to my inclination to "go with my eyes". I would always default to using personal judgement based on what I watch to decide the standard of a player. Ranking is a secondary consideration.

bogbrush wrote:That's true, I did say that and it does have that meaning. I'd only say that the presence or absence of peak or near-peak GOAT is an exceptional event; being #1 when the GOAT was in his pomp would obviously be bigger but I can't argue the principle. I did, though, stress that was a secondary consideration to my inclination to "go with my eyes". I would always default to using personal judgement based on what I watch to decide the standard of a player. Ranking is a secondary consideration.

I agree, and also personal judgements itself can be influenced by a variety of factors.
In terms of your point that it's harder to get to number 1 when 'the GOAT' is in his pomp- you are saying here that the level of competition means it can be harder to get to number 1 in certain circumstances than in others. This logically by extension must mean you think winning tournaments/ doing well in tournaments is also harder in certain circumstances, as ranking points are only made up by how you perform in tournaments in itself (so when 'the GOAT' is in his pomp it's harder to win a Slam he does well in).
Furthermore, it seems to be quite obvious that your point doesn't have to be extended to extremes (like 'the GOAT' being in his pomp). If you think about it rationally, the difficulty and level of competition will nearly always be fluctuating, making it easier/harder to win Slams/get to number 1 in certain years compared to others. 'The GOAT' being in his pomp is just an example of how the competition can be harder, but we can see variations in competition fluctuating in certain years compared to other years.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:Also, if their competition is about the same, then how's Novak marginally tougher than Rafa's,

I can hold the opinion that the competition on their Slam wins is 'about the same/similar' and also say that I think on average I think Djokovic has had marginally harder competition for his Slam wins.
If they were both to retire today, then I think given the fact I feel the competition is so similar, the fact Nadal has won 6 more Slams makes his slam count considerably more impressive.

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:That's true, I did say that and it does have that meaning. I'd only say that the presence or absence of peak or near-peak GOAT is an exceptional event; being #1 when the GOAT was in his pomp would obviously be bigger but I can't argue the principle. I did, though, stress that was a secondary consideration to my inclination to "go with my eyes". I would always default to using personal judgement based on what I watch to decide the standard of a player. Ranking is a secondary consideration.

I agree, and also personal judgements itself can be influenced by a variety of factors.
In terms of your point that it's harder to get to number 1 when 'the GOAT' is in his pomp- you are saying here that the level of competition means it can be harder to get to number 1 in certain circumstances than in others. This logically by extension must mean you think winning tournaments/ doing well in tournaments is also harder in certain circumstances, as ranking points are only made up by how you perform in tournaments in itself (so when 'the GOAT' is in his pomp it's harder to win a Slam he does well in).
Furthermore, it seems to be quite obvious that your point doesn't have to be extended to extremes (like 'the GOAT' being in his pomp). If you think about it rationally, the difficulty and level of competition will nearly always be fluctuating, making it easier/harder to win Slams/get to number 1 in certain years compared to others. 'The GOAT' being in his pomp is just an example of how the competition can be harder, but we can see variations in competition fluctuating in certain years compared to other years.

No, I wouldn't go that far. There's times when Hewitt, or Djokovic, or Connors, or Edberg are #1 and there's really no point making a big deal about whether this era shades it or not, but you have to recognise the enormity of Federer was in his pomp; it's completely unfair to harshly judge other players in that situation.

It Must Be Love wrote:

Belovedluckyboy wrote:Also, if their competition is about the same, then how's Novak marginally tougher than Rafa's,

I can hold the opinion that the competition on their Slam wins is 'about the same/similar' and also say that I think on average I think Djokovic has had marginally harder competition for his Slam wins.
If they were both to retire today, then I think given the fact I feel the competition is so similar, the fact Nadal has won 6 more Slams makes his slam count considerably more impressive.

Clearly 6 more does it, there's no doubt. The only slight cloud on Rafa is the overwhelming predominance of RG in the total - if he was to make it 10 RG's this year we'd be looking at his 15 more in the context of an astonishing RG record...... and merely a good one for the other 3.

Federer has the advantage of tremendous spread across W, US & A, and whilst his single RG may appear a let-down, taken alongside the acknowledged record of Nadal at RG and his numerous runner-up positions, anyone would reasonably cut him huge slack.

Interestingly, Djokovic has built up a bit of a lop-sided emphasis to the Australian in his total. Nothing to be stressed about but if you're going to build your record on any one Slam it probably wouldn't be that one....

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:That's true, I did say that and it does have that meaning. I'd only say that the presence or absence of peak or near-peak GOAT is an exceptional event; being #1 when the GOAT was in his pomp would obviously be bigger but I can't argue the principle. I did, though, stress that was a secondary consideration to my inclination to "go with my eyes". I would always default to using personal judgement based on what I watch to decide the standard of a player. Ranking is a secondary consideration.

I agree, and also personal judgements itself can be influenced by a variety of factors.
In terms of your point that it's harder to get to number 1 when 'the GOAT' is in his pomp- you are saying here that the level of competition means it can be harder to get to number 1 in certain circumstances than in others. This logically by extension must mean you think winning tournaments/ doing well in tournaments is also harder in certain circumstances, as ranking points are only made up by how you perform in tournaments in itself (so when 'the GOAT' is in his pomp it's harder to win a Slam he does well in).
Furthermore, it seems to be quite obvious that your point doesn't have to be extended to extremes (like 'the GOAT' being in his pomp). If you think about it rationally, the difficulty and level of competition will nearly always be fluctuating, making it easier/harder to win Slams/get to number 1 in certain years compared to others. 'The GOAT' being in his pomp is just an example of how the competition can be harder, but we can see variations in competition fluctuating in certain years compared to other years.

No, I wouldn't go that far. There's times when Hewitt, or Djokovic, or Connors, or Edberg are #1 and there's really no point making a big deal about whether this era shades it or not, but you have to recognise the enormity of Federer was in his pomp; it's completely unfair to harshly judge other players in that situation.

But this is simply illogical- you can't claim that competition makes things harder only when one player is playing and at his best- if you recognise that competition can make things harder for a player to win slams/ reach number 1 in certain years- then it's obvious that this would apply to all years to atleast some extent.
Of course you could argue that in certain periods there are greater fluctuations, that you can make a 'big deal' about- ok, that's fine by me.

Well I thought what I said was very clearly that. Minor fluctuations can be discarded as within the margin of error or not worth talking about, seismic shocks should be recognised as such.

bogbrush wrote:Well I thought what I said was very clearly that. Minor fluctuations can be discarded as within the margin of error or not worth talking about, seismic shocks should be recognised as such.

So if you feel that there's been a big fluctuation in difficulty of competition- whether that be from one year to the next of a number of years to the next- you think that is worth talking about ?
Yep, I do agree with you there

bogbrush wrote:Interestingly, Djokovic has built up a bit of a lop-sided emphasis to the Australian in his total. Nothing to be stressed about but if you're going to build your record on any one Slam it probably wouldn't be that one....

I was thinking this week that Novak's 5 Australian Opens is a very Djokovic-y record.

By that I mean, it's no easier than winning 5 RG, 5 Wimbledon or 5 USO... but it just doesn't seem to carry the same level of respect.

Which I think is very unfair, but there you go.

HM Murdoch wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Interestingly, Djokovic has built up a bit of a lop-sided emphasis to the Australian in his total. Nothing to be stressed about but if you're going to build your record on any one Slam it probably wouldn't be that one....

I was thinking this week that Novak's 5 Australian Opens is a very Djokovic-y record.

By that I mean, it's no easier than winning 5 RG, 5 Wimbledon or 5 USO... but it just doesn't seem to carry the same level of respect.

Which I think is very unfair, but there you go.

I have been waiting for someone to say it, its just as hard as the others but doesn't have the same history. The achievement itself is no easier to accomplish, I think Djokovic's strangest record is that of only 1 US Open. He's lost a lot of finals but its strange he has more Wimbledons considering he is the best hard court player for 4 years now

CAS wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Interestingly, Djokovic has built up a bit of a lop-sided emphasis to the Australian in his total. Nothing to be stressed about but if you're going to build your record on any one Slam it probably wouldn't be that one....

I was thinking this week that Novak's 5 Australian Opens is a very Djokovic-y record.

By that I mean, it's no easier than winning 5 RG, 5 Wimbledon or 5 USO... but it just doesn't seem to carry the same level of respect.

Which I think is very unfair, but there you go.

I have been waiting for someone to say it, its just as hard as the others but doesn't have the same history. The achievement itself is no easier to accomplish, I think Djokovic's strangest record is that of only 1 US Open. He's lost a lot of finals but its strange he has more Wimbledons considering he is the best hard court player for 4 years now

In the modern era, I view it as every bit as impressive as winning 5 of the other slams.

"Most sucessful of the open era" is less impressive though because it's only been taken seriously for what, 25 of those 48 years?

And yes, I would never have expected Novak to have more Wimbledon wins than USO wins, that really is a surprising stat.

Post-Federer's 5-in-a-row USO though, nobody has been able to really lay claim to that event.

HM Murdoch wrote:

CAS wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Interestingly, Djokovic has built up a bit of a lop-sided emphasis to the Australian in his total. Nothing to be stressed about but if you're going to build your record on any one Slam it probably wouldn't be that one....

I was thinking this week that Novak's 5 Australian Opens is a very Djokovic-y record.

By that I mean, it's no easier than winning 5 RG, 5 Wimbledon or 5 USO... but it just doesn't seem to carry the same level of respect.

Which I think is very unfair, but there you go.

I have been waiting for someone to say it, its just as hard as the others but doesn't have the same history. The achievement itself is no easier to accomplish, I think Djokovic's strangest record is that of only 1 US Open. He's lost a lot of finals but its strange he has more Wimbledons considering he is the best hard court player for 4 years now

In the modern era, I view it as every bit as impressive as winning 5 of the other slams.

"Most sucessful of the open era" is less impressive though because it's only been taken seriously for what, 25 of those 48 years?

And yes, I would never have expected Novak to have more Wimbledon wins than USO wins, that really is a surprising stat.

Post-Federer's 5-in-a-row USO though, nobody has been able to really lay claim to that event.

I remember hearing a stat when Del Potro won it in '09 that every player who has one the US Open was world number 1 or one day became world number 1. It was the only slam that had that record, with the French having the most non number 1's to win it. That seems to have changed, Del Potro, Murray and Cilic I doubt will ever reach number 1.

HM Murdoch wrote:

CAS wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Interestingly, Djokovic has built up a bit of a lop-sided emphasis to the Australian in his total. Nothing to be stressed about but if you're going to build your record on any one Slam it probably wouldn't be that one....

I was thinking this week that Novak's 5 Australian Opens is a very Djokovic-y record.

By that I mean, it's no easier than winning 5 RG, 5 Wimbledon or 5 USO... but it just doesn't seem to carry the same level of respect.

Which I think is very unfair, but there you go.

I have been waiting for someone to say it, its just as hard as the others but doesn't have the same history. The achievement itself is no easier to accomplish, I think Djokovic's strangest record is that of only 1 US Open. He's lost a lot of finals but its strange he has more Wimbledons considering he is the best hard court player for 4 years now

In the modern era, I view it as every bit as impressive as winning 5 of the other slams.

"Most sucessful of the open era" is less impressive though because it's only been taken seriously for what, 25 of those 48 years?

And yes, I would never have expected Novak to have more Wimbledon wins than USO wins, that really is a surprising stat.

Post-Federer's 5-in-a-row USO though, nobody has been able to really lay claim to that event.

You've got it spot on there. Obviously it's exactly as hard as winning the US Open today because the same 128 guys enter it and try their best.... but the historical dimension to the 5 record is much less distinct as it used to be largely ignored.
The same applies to the Slam record for exactly the same reason. How many Slams might Borg have got to by the time he retired (ridiculously early) had the AO been of the same stature?

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Well I thought what I said was very clearly that. Minor fluctuations can be discarded as within the margin of error or not worth talking about, seismic shocks should be recognised as such.

So if you feel that there's been a big fluctuation in difficulty of competition- whether that be from one year to the next of a number of years to the next- you think that is worth talking about ?
Yep, I do agree with you there

No, I'm saying there are no worthwhile fluctuations unless one considers the presence or absence of the peak GOAT.

Fairly bizarre distinction to try and make. If someone comes along in 5 years and wins 5 straight CYGS does Fed then get downgraded and its no longer a worthwhile fluctuation?

Whilst I suspect the general level of the top 100 probably stays relatively consistent, the competition at the very top obviously varies more regularly. I think most would accept that the likes of Tommy J and Gaudio probably picked up slams at a time when the competition was slightly weaker. In my view, its fairly obvious that someone like Roddick would have got nowhere near number 1 had he been a few years younger. He would have had a career more like Raonic.

Born Slippy wrote:Fairly bizarre distinction to try and make. If someone comes along in 5 years and wins 5 straight CYGS does Fed then get downgraded and its no longer a worthwhile fluctuation?

Whilst I suspect the general level of the top 100 probably stays relatively consistent, the competition at the very top obviously varies more regularly. I think most would accept that the likes of Tommy J and Gaudio probably picked up slams at a time when the competition was slightly weaker. In my view, its fairly obvious that someone like Roddick would have got nowhere near number 1 had he been a few years younger. He would have had a career more like Raonic.

Yes, it would. It would relegate the Federer effect to one much less worth making any fuss about, just as while there are differences in the effect of the seniority of Edberg, Djokovic, Hewitt etc., they're really not worth thinking about.

Roddick would have been very tough to beat at the Wimbledon of 10 years previously and might well have deprived Sampras of some titles. That serve was astonishing.

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Well I thought what I said was very clearly that. Minor fluctuations can be discarded as within the margin of error or not worth talking about, seismic shocks should be recognised as such.

So if you feel that there's been a big fluctuation in difficulty of competition- whether that be from one year to the next of a number of years to the next- you think that is worth talking about ?
Yep, I do agree with you there

No, I'm saying there are no worthwhile fluctuations unless one considers the presence or absence of the peak GOAT.

This is totally arbitrary and almost a comically illogical like of reasoning.
It's comes across as a desperate attempt to say 'ok I accidentally said something which would indicate that harder competition levels can make it harder to win Slams in certain time periods/years' and when you realised that this is exactly the sort of argument you've been rubbishing and directing ad hominem attacks at Socal for you try cover your ground, 'this argument that competition levels can only fluctuate is only significant enough when we consider specifically getting to number 1 when my favourite player was in his prime.'

re Djokovic, what surprises me is how few US Opens he's won TBH. Two Wimbledons is nothing to be sniffed at, considering Grass is probably not his favourite surface, while the lack of RG can be explained away (mostly) by the Rafa factor. However, considering how dominant Djokovic has been on HC since 2011 - I don't have the stats, but he must be head-and-shoulders above the rest in n° of Masters and WTF, win percentage, etc. ? - it's somewhat surprising that he's "only" won one US Open. Nadal for instance has two US Opens, but very few people would rate him above Djokovic on a HC.

As for comparison with past greats, it's always tough when a player still has a fair bit of his career to go, surely? Djokovic right now has been less dominant than Lendl or Connors were, but that may/should change. Obviously you can't compare with respects to Connors's longeveity yet, either. Agassi was less dominant, but does have that career GS, in an era when such a feat was probably harder than it is today. At the moment, I'd probably rank him marginally behind all three, but I also expect him to overtake at least some of them by the end of his career, and quite possible all three (especially if he wins in RG). He may even end up in the discussion of tier one greats; then again, he may also never win another slam, so at the moment it's all guesswork.

bogbrush wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:Fairly bizarre distinction to try and make. If someone comes along in 5 years and wins 5 straight CYGS does Fed then get downgraded and its no longer a worthwhile fluctuation?

Whilst I suspect the general level of the top 100 probably stays relatively consistent, the competition at the very top obviously varies more regularly. I think most would accept that the likes of Tommy J and Gaudio probably picked up slams at a time when the competition was slightly weaker. In my view, its fairly obvious that someone like Roddick would have got nowhere near number 1 had he been a few years younger. He would have had a career more like Raonic.

Yes, it would. It would relegate the Federer effect to one much less worth making any fuss about, just as while there are differences in the effect of the seniority of Edberg, Djokovic, Hewitt etc., they're really not worth thinking about.

Roddick would have been very tough to beat at the Wimbledon of 10 years previously and might well have deprived Sampras of some titles. That serve was astonishing.

Your argument just gets even more irrational with every post.
Let's say we're trying to see how hard it is to get to number 1 in 2006 compared to 2013, in terms of competition faced. Whatever the difference in difficulty is, even if we did agree on it, it's totally independent of whatever happens in the future. So the idea that the difference can be affected by something which is independent is.... by default simply wrong.

And furthermore, it's entirely possible that we could want to analyse something greater than simply getting to number 1. What happens if we have an argument as we were having earlier on this thread on: how hard the competition was for Slams won between Nadal and Djokovic ? We could have that discussion between let's say... Nadal and Federer.
Nadal faced Djokovic or Federer or both in 12/14 Slam victories. Federer faced... different opponents. Who are you to say that you've proven that the difference in level of competition faced between those two is not a large enough fluctuation to be over your totally arbitrary line ?

Historically, the #1 ranking is usually a "first among equals".

It reflects which of the group of best players has strung the best sequence of results together.

Through the 80s and 90s, players generally held the spot for a few weeks, relinquished it and claimed it back as results were added to or removed from their totals.

Even Sampras, who notched up that great sequence of YE#1s, rarely held on to the position throughout the year. I think he was knocked off #1 about a dozen times.

Federer held #1 for an unbroken 237 weeks. That's 77 weeks longer than the next longest sequence.

I've lost track totally of who is arguing what in the preceding posts, but it's pretty clear that Federer's prime years were outliers in terms of almost any statistic one can think of.

HM Murdoch wrote:
I've lost track totally of who is arguing what in the preceding posts, but it's pretty clear that Federer's prime years were outliers in terms of almost any statistic one can think of.

Indeed, and there is a lot of debate around this time period, where people's positions are very clear.

I remember you saying earlier HM that you do think there was a difference in competition Federer had to face in his prime, and what the competition at the very top of the tour was like when he was older (basically what I have been arguing on this I believe... but I think the phrase you used was 'an overlap of all time greats playing close to their prime'), so presumably you don't believe that we are only allowed to look at competition when BB arbitrarily decides it's convenient for him

Oh, I think the level of competition changes all the time. There's no way it can be a fixed point.

Isn't BB's argument though, not that standards don't change but rather that normal variability isn't worth considering? And that it's only extraordinary variations that should be taken account of?

It's a fair enough point of view. It's a bit arbitrary but this whole discussion is arbitrary by its very nature!

HM Murdoch wrote:Oh, I think the level of competition changes all the time. There's no way it can be a fixed point.

Isn't BB's argument though, not that standards don't change but rather that normal variability isn't worth considering? And that it's only extraordinary variations that should be taken account of?

It's a fair enough point of view. It's a bit arbitrary but this whole discussion is arbitrary by its very nature!

Firstly I think it's a bit suspicious that he only comes up with this argument soon after he a) has a go at Socal for talking about competition and then b) I bring up a post from him making a negative judgement on Nadal in 2013 based on competition !
There is a chance it's a big convenient coincidence, but I think the chances of that are extremely low.
It just seems ironic that after years of untethered rubbishing and abuse of even the idea that competition can differ in certain years compared to the next (as some have argued), now it turns out BB agrees there were fluctuations but just happens to place his arbitrary line so far out that the principle used in the argument can only apply to getting to world number 1 when his favourite player was in his prime.

Even if we take the argument at face value, there are a few problems, firstly what constitutes an 'extraordinary variation'? Nadal faced Federer/Djokovic or both for 12/14 Slams, Federer faced the opponents he did; if Federer is really so much better than the field then he counts as much harder competition... then surely that itself is an 'extraordinary' difference between what Nadal had to face to win Slams and what Federer had to face ?
And as I've explained earlier, the point to B_S that the variations will be insignificant if another GOAT comes along is simply ridiculous. The difference of 2006 and 2013, whatever it is, simply cannot be influenced by what happens in the future. It may be there are other years of even greater fluctuations, but the actual substantive difference between 2006 and 2013 would stay the same.

I'll let BB defend and explain himself as we seem to have heard different things in his argument.

The strength of relative competition is an interesting enough debate to have. It's a bit of fun.

It's when we try to turn it into science that it goes wrong.

And when we try to use that 'science' to elevate or denigrate players, it goes even more wrong.

(I'm not pointing any fingers here, just ruminating!)

Indeed, just like there's no way to prove objectively who is GOAT, there is also no way to show prove objectively who had harder competition.
It's a case of making a subjective judgement and then basing an opinion on that, and we are also entitled to our opinion on what impact it may have had.

I agree.

For what it's worth, I think Rafa has faced consistently tough opposition.

He had peak Federer in his early years and then, just as he (Rafa) looks to have established himself at the top, Novak steps up his game.

I also think that Rafa has had a few very kind draws down the years but I guess that's statistically unavoidable when a player has been near the top of the game for nearly a decade.

Ok Amrit, I'll do it with some illustrations to see if this helps.

Let's imagine we had a machine that measured the quality of a #1 player through history. It gives a readout to 1 decimal point on a scale from 0 - 100.

Great, we say on tennis forums around the World, we can now have even more weak era debates! We put some names into it and out pops the #1 player rating..... Lleyton Hewitt scores 67, Stefan Edberg gets 64, Novak Djokovic gets 59 (oh all right, a 69). Hahah! we all exclaim, that proves blah blah........

But then the bad news comes in, the machine works perfectly and gives a precise readout but the manufacturers small print showed that it gives a readout with +/- 10 point tolerance. Now we can't really say with confidence what the difference was in their periods. Oh damn say we all, now we're no further forward than we were and we have to go back to arguing about dress antics and sportsmanship award corruption!!! So we acknowledge that the players are different but the machine can't give us data to a sufficient level of confidence to make anything of.

But then we take a closer look at the numbers and find that when the GOAT was in his pomp his number was 87 - this meant even allowing for the margin of error we still had a major distortion worth considering.


Clear enough?

bogbrush wrote:Ok Amrit, I'll do it with some illustrations to see if this helps.

Bogbrush, I am well aware what 'margin of error' means; you have not actually addressed any of the points I raised.

bogbrush wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:Fairly bizarre distinction to try and make. If someone comes along in 5 years and wins 5 straight CYGS does Fed then get downgraded and its no longer a worthwhile fluctuation?

Whilst I suspect the general level of the top 100 probably stays relatively consistent, the competition at the very top obviously varies more regularly. I think most would accept that the likes of Tommy J and Gaudio probably picked up slams at a time when the competition was slightly weaker. In my view, its fairly obvious that someone like Roddick would have got nowhere near number 1 had he been a few years younger. He would have had a career more like Raonic.

Yes, it would. It would relegate the Federer effect to one much less worth making any fuss about, just as while there are differences in the effect of the seniority of Edberg, Djokovic, Hewitt etc., they're really not worth thinking about.

Roddick would have been very tough to beat at the Wimbledon of 10 years previously and might well have deprived Sampras of some titles. That serve was astonishing.

He would have been tough to beat but his net play was so woeful that he would still have struggled to beat Pete. I don't think his serve was any better than Goran's and Goran was slightly more competent at the net but only managed to win one Wimbledon, in something of a perfect storm. His return game would also have been worse on the slightly quicker courts of the mid-90s. My view is that the slight slow down of the courts actually helped him because it gave him more time to play his baseline game without making any real impact on the devastating nature of his serve.

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Ok Amrit, I'll do it with some illustrations to see if this helps.

Bogbrush, I am well aware what 'margin of error' means; you have not actually addressed any of the points I raised.  

Well, I did because the whole thing was centred on margins of error - if you understand them then I can't see what's troubled you.

bogbrush wrote:That's true, I did say that and it does have that meaning. I'd only say that the presence or absence of peak or near-peak GOAT is an exceptional event; being #1 when the GOAT was in his pomp would obviously be bigger but I can't argue the principle. I did, though, stress that was a secondary consideration to my inclination to "go with my eyes". I would always default to using personal judgement based on what I watch to decide the standard of a player. Ranking is a secondary consideration.

A GOAT or a near GOAT being in his pomp like Djokovic taking the number 1 ranking away from a Nadal who won 14 slams and made minced meat of the competition in 2010 in 2011? Is that what you mean? 2010-2011 is interesting to note the difference between strong competition and weak competition at the very pinnacle of the game. Nadal smashed his opposition in 2010, then not 3 or 4 months later Djokovic goes on a record unbeaten string and takes from Nadal. That is what having a contemporary great player to challenge you is all about what Federer completely and totally lacked in his heyday. And people want to say Nadal wasn't the same in 2011 as in his period of dominance from 08-10 well it is interesting he got to every single final for almost 6 months and lost basically to one guy, namely Novak Djokovic. So I am glad BB that you recognize how much more impressive Djokovic's 2011 was then what Fed accomplished in 2004-07.

SoCal, if you want to go there, then what about Fed at 30 taking back the no,1 ranking from Novak the then no.1 in 2012; or Rafa taking back the no.1 from Novak in 2013? To me, Fed being able to get back to no.1 and won a slam beating the no.1 player in the SF said a lot about Fed. Not forgetting Fed was the one beating Novak at the FO2011 SF in Novak's best year of his career so far. Come on, they're all great players, all time greats and I'm sure whichever era they play in, they would be great too.

To me, I'm happy that the three of them peaked at different times, so much so that they could win 'more' slams instead of depriving each other of many. i think Novak is going to outlast Rafa, and so despite peaking later than Rafa, he now has more chances of winning slams compare to Rafa.

The fact is that there is an interesting piece of revisionist history being made that we are used to by Federer fans at this point. The idea that Fed kept players like Nalbandian, Roddick, Hewitt, and Safin from winning more slams and being considered as great players. It is laughable Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray passed those guys up. The rankings don't lie a 19 year old Djokovic was closer to Fed 07 year end rankings than all the players that should have been in their prime like Nalby, Roddick, and Safin. The only one of those 4 who can claim to have been stunted by Fed is Roddick because he lost a number of slam finals and probably would have one another slam or two if not for Federer. Safin was nowhere in the picture, Nalbandian failed due to poor conditioning and work ethic and Hewitt had a host of injuries.


In fact, Hewitt, Safin, and Nalbandian combine for a total of 2 grandslam final losses to Roger Federer. So this idea that because of the seismic tsunami of Federer kept these players from attaining greatness is absolute rubbish made up to simultaneously inflate federer's competition and Federer. They were losing to other guys before even reaching Federer. Safin and Nalbandian struggled even when healthy to stay in the top 10. Hewitt was unfortunate with injury and even when he had long streaks of health he could never return to close to the top of the game. Roddick probably would have if not for federer won a slam or two more but is not what I would consider a great player.

The weak era guys were weak not because of Roger, it wasn't like they were making all these slam semis and finals and only Roger was beating them. By the mid 2000s a host of guys were knocking them out of slams.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:SoCal, if you want to go there, then what about Fed at 30 taking back the no,1 ranking from Novak the then no.1 in 2012; or Rafa taking back the no.1 from Novak in 2013?  To me, Fed being able to get back to no.1 and won a slam beating the no.1 player in the SF said a lot about Fed.  Not forgetting Fed was the one beating Novak at the FO2011 SF in Novak's best year of his career so far.  Come on, they're all great players, all time greats and I'm sure whichever era they play in, they would be great too.

To me, I'm happy that the three of them peaked at different times, so much so that they could win 'more' slams instead of depriving each other of many.  i think Novak is going to outlast Rafa, and so despite peaking later than Rafa, he now has more chances of winning slams compare to Rafa.

I don't dispute the fact that Roger is one of the greatest players of all time and maybe the greatest although I would put him at #2 behind Rafa. And I am no Rafa fan although I respect the man's contributions. But I will not accept the idea that the early mid 2000 guys were good competition and only failed to be great because Roger was so wonderful. Great players find away of winning and carving out their legacy like Djokovic, Nadal, and to a lesser extent Murray. They don't fall off the face of the earth like Rog's contemporaries and struggle to be in the top ten when they should be at or near their prime. (except Roddick who was pretty consistently good)

Born Slippy wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:Fairly bizarre distinction to try and make. If someone comes along in 5 years and wins 5 straight CYGS does Fed then get downgraded and its no longer a worthwhile fluctuation?

Whilst I suspect the general level of the top 100 probably stays relatively consistent, the competition at the very top obviously varies more regularly. I think most would accept that the likes of Tommy J and Gaudio probably picked up slams at a time when the competition was slightly weaker. In my view, its fairly obvious that someone like Roddick would have got nowhere near number 1 had he been a few years younger. He would have had a career more like Raonic.

Yes, it would. It would relegate the Federer effect to one much less worth making any fuss about, just as while there are differences in the effect of the seniority of Edberg, Djokovic, Hewitt etc., they're really not worth thinking about.

Roddick would have been very tough to beat at the Wimbledon of 10 years previously and might well have deprived Sampras of some titles. That serve was astonishing.

He would have been tough to beat but his net play was so woeful that he would still have struggled to beat Pete. I don't think his serve was any better than Goran's and Goran was slightly more competent at the net but only managed to win one Wimbledon, in something of a perfect storm. His return game would also have been worse on the slightly quicker courts of the mid-90s. My view is that the slight slow down of the courts actually helped him because it gave him more time to play his baseline game without making any real impact on the devastating nature of his serve.

Great post fully agree. He would have no chance against the pistol on grass with his woeful return game. I think Pete in his prime playing on grass against Roddick could hold serve 100 times in a row. Pete was not a great returner but he was better than Roddick. Moved better than Roddick, had a better forehand, and volleyed much better.

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Well I thought what I said was very clearly that. Minor fluctuations can be discarded as within the margin of error or not worth talking about, seismic shocks should be recognised as such.

So if you feel that there's been a big fluctuation in difficulty of competition- whether that be from one year to the next of a number of years to the next- you think that is worth talking about ?
Yep, I do agree with you there

No, I'm saying there are no worthwhile fluctuations unless one considers the presence or absence of the peak GOAT.

This is totally arbitrary and almost a comically illogical like of reasoning.
It's comes across as a desperate attempt to say 'ok I accidentally said something which would indicate that harder competition levels can make it harder to win Slams in certain time periods/years' and when you realised that this is exactly the sort of argument you've been rubbishing and directing ad hominem attacks at Socal for you try cover your ground, 'this argument that competition levels can only fluctuate is only significant enough when we consider specifically getting to number 1 when my favourite player was in his prime.'

Bingo IMBL, you logically completely tear apart BB's argument and the arguments of those who claim that competition faced in slams is always the same and there is no difference lets say between playing Nadal in Grandslam final or Djokovic and or Baggy or Phillipoussis. BB knocks the level of competition in recent years faced by Nadal and Djoko while simultaneously pumping up the competition faced by Federer in 04-07. By his own standards of "a goat or near goat, at or near their full pomp" then Nadal taking it away from Federer in 08-10 and Djokovic taking it away from Nadal in 2011 are much greater accomplishments than Federer taking it away from whoever exactly he took it from.

Meh what's so great about beating the same player again and again in a grand slam final?

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Meh what's so great about beating the same player again and again in a grand slam final?

You should ask the fedal fans, as I am not a big fan of that match up I couldn't tell you.

socal1976 wrote:The fact is that there is an interesting piece of revisionist history being made that we are used to by Federer fans at this point. The idea that Fed kept players like Nalbandian, Roddick, Hewitt, and Safin from winning more slams and being considered as great players. It is laughable Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray passed those guys up. The rankings don't lie a 19 year old Djokovic was closer to Fed 07 year end rankings than all the players that should have been in their prime like Nalby, Roddick, and Safin. The only one of those 4 who can claim to have been stunted by Fed is Roddick because he lost a number of slam finals and probably would have one another slam or two if not for Federer. Safin was nowhere in the picture, Nalbandian failed due to poor conditioning and work ethic and Hewitt had a host of injuries.

In fact, Hewitt, Safin, and Nalbandian combine for a total of 2 grandslam final losses to  Roger Federer. So this idea that because of the seismic tsunami of Federer kept these players from attaining greatness is absolute rubbish made up to simultaneously inflate federer's competition and Federer. They were losing to other guys before even reaching Federer. Safin  and Nalbandian struggled even when healthy to stay in the top 10. Hewitt was unfortunate with injury and even when he had long streaks of health he could never return to close to the top of the game. Roddick probably would have if not for federer won a slam or two more but is not what I would consider a great player.

The weak era guys were weak not because of Roger, it wasn't like they were making all these slam semis and finals and only Roger was beating them. By the mid 2000s a host of guys were knocking them out of slams.

This is a good post. There's no way that the competition back then was as strong as it has been over the last 5 years or so, even looking beyond the top four who've dominated. I'd take current Berdych and Ferrer over a lot of the 2004-2007 crew.

There is one caveat though. As in any era, you can still get the odd player who gets on a hot streak and becomes extremely difficult to beat in a tournament. Safin in 2005 is the obvious example, he took Federer out of the Australian smack in the middle of his peak period, and he played a truly magnificent match to do so. Gonzo was an average player, but at the same tournament in 2007 he was on fire - he smashed Nadal to pieces before he made the final, the same Nadal that would reach the W final that year (and had done so the previous, too). Del Potro in 2009 is another decent example of a guy who came from nowhere to be a huge threat at slams, although he was later.

On average, the competition was much worse. But occasionally you got a slam finalist who was very tough to beat, even for Federer and Nadal at that time. Not every slam was a gimme. But! That's not to inflate Federer's achievements, Novak has had it much harder and generally speaking the competition aside from Nadal was nothing to write home about.

We also shouldn't let discussion of competition levels detract from the fact that one man won 3 slams in a year...three times. Even with worse competition, that is one hell of a feat of fitness and skill, and sometimes I feel it gets overlooked. Same for Nadal in 2010, and Novak in 2011.

Hmmmmm.

For the weak era theorists, let me ask you who was Sampras's competition? Can't think outside Agassi and Courier? Oh how sad. Let me tell you that Sampras held the no.1 ranking with a season winning percentage that never hit 90%.

Federer when number 1 exceeded 90% each season he ended as number 1. He set the bar that high as to what a number 1 player should be.

It's not that the field is cr@p. It's just he is that good.

There's only a finite amount of slams to win. It's basically saying - if Federer had won less, his achievements would be held in higher esteem. Because his opposition would have won more slams and therefore be viewed better players.

It's been done to death this. There's more than enough evidence to suggest that if one had it easy, then so did the others. Just can't be bothered to go through it all again.

Silver wrote:

socal1976 wrote:The fact is that there is an interesting piece of revisionist history being made that we are used to by Federer fans at this point. The idea that Fed kept players like Nalbandian, Roddick, Hewitt, and Safin from winning more slams and being considered as great players. It is laughable Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray passed those guys up. The rankings don't lie a 19 year old Djokovic was closer to Fed 07 year end rankings than all the players that should have been in their prime like Nalby, Roddick, and Safin. The only one of those 4 who can claim to have been stunted by Fed is Roddick because he lost a number of slam finals and probably would have one another slam or two if not for Federer. Safin was nowhere in the picture, Nalbandian failed due to poor conditioning and work ethic and Hewitt had a host of injuries.

In fact, Hewitt, Safin, and Nalbandian combine for a total of 2 grandslam final losses to  Roger Federer. So this idea that because of the seismic tsunami of Federer kept these players from attaining greatness is absolute rubbish made up to simultaneously inflate federer's competition and Federer. They were losing to other guys before even reaching Federer. Safin  and Nalbandian struggled even when healthy to stay in the top 10. Hewitt was unfortunate with injury and even when he had long streaks of health he could never return to close to the top of the game. Roddick probably would have if not for federer won a slam or two more but is not what I would consider a great player.

The weak era guys were weak not because of Roger, it wasn't like they were making all these slam semis and finals and only Roger was beating them. By the mid 2000s a host of guys were knocking them out of slams.

This is a good post. There's no way that the competition back then was as strong as it has been over the last 5 years or so, even looking beyond the top four who've dominated. I'd take current Berdych and Ferrer over a lot of the 2004-2007 crew.

There is one caveat though. As in any era, you can still get the odd player who gets on a hot streak and becomes extremely difficult to beat in a tournament. Safin in 2005 is the obvious example, he took Federer out of the Australian smack in the middle of his peak period, and he played a truly magnificent match to do so. Gonzo was an average player, but at the same tournament in 2007 he was on fire - he smashed Nadal to pieces before he made the final, the same Nadal that would reach the W final that year (and had done so the previous, too). Del Potro in 2009 is another decent example of a guy who came from nowhere to be a huge threat at slams, although he was later.

On average, the competition was much worse. But occasionally you got a slam finalist who was very tough to beat, even for Federer and Nadal at that time. Not every slam was a gimme. But! That's not to inflate Federer's achievements, Novak has had it much harder and generally speaking the competition aside from Nadal was nothing to write home about.

We also shouldn't let discussion of competition levels detract from the fact that one man won 3 slams in a year...three times. Even with worse competition, that is one hell of a feat of fitness and skill, and sometimes I feel it gets overlooked. Same for Nadal in 2010, and Novak in 2011.

No it's not a good post. In fact it's the usual piece of garbage that socal every so often feels the compelling need to write to discredit Fed's achievements.

Socal's wrote:

In fact, Hewitt, Safin, and Nalbandian combine for a total of 2 grandslam final losses to  Roger Federer. So this idea that because of the seismic tsunami of Federer kept these players from attaining greatness is absolute rubbish made up to simultaneously inflate federer's competition and Federer

Now is that correct? Possibly. Does this reasoning make any sense? No. Why would you focus only at finals losses, if you want to genuinely convince yourself and other of such point, and at the same time ignore the losses in sf, qf stages etc. etc. that are equally relevant for this discussion? Socal's analysis is superficial and biased as usual. In a word: garbage.

H2H Federer vs Hewitt;

2011 AUS vs SUI WG Play-Off
Australia Grass RR Federer, Roger
5-7, 7-6(5), 6-2, 6-3  
2010 Halle
Germany Grass F Hewitt, Lleyton
3-6, 7-6(4), 6-4 Stats
2010 Australian Open
Australia Hard R16 Federer, Roger
6-2, 6-3, 6-4 Stats
2009 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard R32 Federer, Roger
4-6, 6-3, 7-5, 6-4 Stats
2009 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Cincinnati
OH, U.S.A. Hard Q Federer, Roger
6-3, 6-4 Stats
2008 Wimbledon
Great Britain Grass R16 Federer, Roger
7-6(7), 6-2, 6-4 Stats
2007 ATP Masters Series Cincinnati
OH, U.S.A. Hard S Federer, Roger
6-3, 6-7(7), 7-6(1) Stats
2007 ATP Masters Series Canada
Montreal, Canada Hard Q Federer, Roger
6-3, 6-4 Stats
2005 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard S Federer, Roger
6-3, 7-6(0), 4-6, 6-3 Stats
2005 Wimbledon
England Grass S Federer, Roger
6-3, 6-4, 7-6(4) Stats
2005 ATP Masters Series Indian Wells
California, USA Hard F Federer, Roger
6-2, 6-4, 6-4 Stats
2004 Tennis Masters Cup
Houston, TX, USA Hard F Federer, Roger
6-3, 6-2 Stats
2004 Tennis Masters Cup
Houston, TX, USA Hard RR Federer, Roger
6-3, 6-4 Stats
2004 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard F Federer, Roger
6-0, 7-6(3), 6-0 Stats
2004 Wimbledon
England Grass Q Federer, Roger
6-1, 6-7(1), 6-0, 6-4 Stats
2004 ATP Masters Series Hamburg
Germany Clay S Federer, Roger
6-0, 6-4 Stats
2004 Australian Open
Australia Hard R16 Federer, Roger
4-6, 6-3, 6-0, 6-4 Stats
2003 AUS v. SUI WG SF
Melbourne, Australia Hard RR Hewitt, Lleyton
5-7, 2-6, 7-6(4), 7-5, 6-1  
2002 Tennis Masters Cup
Shanghai, China Hard S Hewitt, Lleyton
7-5, 5-7, 7-5 Stats
2002 ATP Masters Series Paris
France Carpet Q Hewitt, Lleyton
6-4, 6-4 Stats
2002 ATP Masters Series Miami
FL, U.S.A. Hard S Federer, Roger
6-3, 6-4 Stats
2001 's-Hertogenbosch
The Netherlands Grass S Hewitt, Lleyton
6-4, 6-2 Stats

Silver wrote:On average, the competition was much worse. But occasionally you got a slam finalist who was very tough to beat, even for Federer and Nadal at that time. Not every slam was a gimme. But! That's not to inflate Federer's achievements, Novak has had it much harder and generally speaking the competition aside from Nadal was nothing to write home about.

We also shouldn't let discussion of competition levels detract from the fact that one man won 3 slams in a year...three times. Even with worse competition, that is one hell of a feat of fitness and skill, and sometimes I feel it gets overlooked. Same for Nadal in 2010, and Novak in 2011.

True, not only did Federer win 3 Slams a year 3 times, but he was also in the French Open final for all 3 years too. That is remarkable, almost unreal, consistency.
As for Federer's competition etc.- I think my view is known on that, but somehow people think things are black and white, that somehow me saying what I say about Federer having weaker competition for certain years means I think Federer isn't an All Time Great- I absolutely think he is and one of the GOATs who we have been very privileged to watch.

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Ok Amrit, I'll do it with some illustrations to see if this helps.

Bogbrush, I am well aware what 'margin of error' means; you have not actually addressed any of the points I raised.  

Well, I did because the whole thing was centred on margins of error - if you understand them then I can't see what's troubled you.

Perhaps Bogbrush if you had actually read my posts you would have found out !?

First things first, I think the whole argument from you is a convenient coincidence, which makes me very suspicious. All your posts on this topic have basically been untethered abuse at the very idea that competition for a top player for a certain few years was easier at the top than another player for a certain few years. Yet when I caught you making exactly the same argument for 2013 Nadal vs young Nadal, you conveniently reveal that you were fine with comparing competition, as long the difference in competition is above your arbitrary line which only the argument you happened to make a few weeks ago manages to cross.

But even if we do give you the benefit of the doubt, let's see what the implications are.
You say the difference in difficulty of competition in what Nadal faced when he was young (i.e. Federer at his prime) and what he faced in 2013 (having to beat Djokovic in both the Grand Slams he won) was so large that it was greater than any margin for error and above your arbitrary line. Ok.
But now considering Nadal beat Federer or Djokovic or both for 12 out of his 14 Slams, and Federer had to beat the players he did in the latter stages of Grand Slam finals (Phili, Roddick, Safin, Baghdatis, Gonzalez etc.); you don't think people could find that this difference in competition is larger than the arbitrary margin for error you set ?
Your case is drowning in its own hypocrisy.

Silver wrote:

socal1976 wrote:The fact is that there is an interesting piece of revisionist history being made that we are used to by Federer fans at this point. The idea that Fed kept players like Nalbandian, Roddick, Hewitt, and Safin from winning more slams and being considered as great players. It is laughable Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray passed those guys up. The rankings don't lie a 19 year old Djokovic was closer to Fed 07 year end rankings than all the players that should have been in their prime like Nalby, Roddick, and Safin. The only one of those 4 who can claim to have been stunted by Fed is Roddick because he lost a number of slam finals and probably would have one another slam or two if not for Federer. Safin was nowhere in the picture, Nalbandian failed due to poor conditioning and work ethic and Hewitt had a host of injuries.

In fact, Hewitt, Safin, and Nalbandian combine for a total of 2 grandslam final losses to  Roger Federer. So this idea that because of the seismic tsunami of Federer kept these players from attaining greatness is absolute rubbish made up to simultaneously inflate federer's competition and Federer. They were losing to other guys before even reaching Federer. Safin  and Nalbandian struggled even when healthy to stay in the top 10. Hewitt was unfortunate with injury and even when he had long streaks of health he could never return to close to the top of the game. Roddick probably would have if not for federer won a slam or two more but is not what I would consider a great player.

The weak era guys were weak not because of Roger, it wasn't like they were making all these slam semis and finals and only Roger was beating them. By the mid 2000s a host of guys were knocking them out of slams.

This is a good post. There's no way that the competition back then was as strong as it has been over the last 5 years or so, even looking beyond the top four who've dominated. I'd take current Berdych and Ferrer over a lot of the 2004-2007 crew.

There is one caveat though. As in any era, you can still get the odd player who gets on a hot streak and becomes extremely difficult to beat in a tournament. Safin in 2005 is the obvious example, he took Federer out of the Australian smack in the middle of his peak period, and he played a truly magnificent match to do so. Gonzo was an average player, but at the same tournament in 2007 he was on fire - he smashed Nadal to pieces before he made the final, the same Nadal that would reach the W final that year (and had done so the previous, too). Del Potro in 2009 is another decent example of a guy who came from nowhere to be a huge threat at slams, although he was later.

On average, the competition was much worse. But occasionally you got a slam finalist who was very tough to beat, even for Federer and Nadal at that time. Not every slam was a gimme. But! That's not to inflate Federer's achievements, Novak has had it much harder and generally speaking the competition aside from Nadal was nothing to write home about.

We also shouldn't let discussion of competition levels detract from the fact that one man won 3 slams in a year...three times. Even with worse competition, that is one hell of a feat of fitness and skill, and sometimes I feel it gets overlooked. Same for Nadal in 2010, and Novak in 2011.

This is why you are my favorite Federer fan. If someone makes a well supported argument that could be deemed a criticism you don't get all defensive and insulting. If it makes sense you consider it. The fact is Silver if Hewitt, Safin, and Nalby were routinely getting deep to the semis and finals of slams in the mid-2000s and losing then the argument that Tsunami Rog stunted their growth to greatness makes sense. But when these players struggled to remain in the top 10 and weren't regular participants at the tail end of slams it his hard to make the case that Federer prevented their greatness. No their own deficiencies and inability to beat other mortals kept them from greatness.

I do agree with you to a certain extent in that you can see a player who isn't a great play lights out incredible tennis for a fortnight and upset his way to a slam. For example, I think Wawrinka was a good case of a very good pro playing great tennis and beating two great players. But in a period with a number of great players this should be a rare occurrence. Because a great player playing great will always beat the very good pro playing great more times than not.

I actually think we are seeing the end of the purple patch or golden period we saw in competition. And if lets say 2013/2014 is the end of it, then Djokovic will be able to benefit in the end period of his career from weaker competition just like Fed was able to in the early to middle part of his career. The reason I think it is ending is that fed is old, Nadal often injured, and the young guys just aren't of the level to make up the slack.