Do things necessarily need to be competitive at the top?

Djokovic is number 1 in the world right now and by some distance. From reading posts this year so far I get the feeling that people here aren't satisfied with this state of affairs or that it's somehow worse now than it has been before. I'm not saying this is shaping up to be the most exciting year in tennis ever but is it really so bad, relative to the last 5 years, that the others need to step their game up to save us from some kind of viewing catastrophe? Yes they need to step their game up if they want to beat him and I'm sure they are doing all they can but the feeling I'm getting from here is that it is all too imperative that they succeed in order to avert a crisis.

I'll admit that I didn't watch much of Miami apart from highlights but across these last two tournaments he's been challenged a few times but in the end proved too good. The game moves on every year and if he's done the best with keeping up with that and improving then more credit to him. He's not my favourite player but if he should win the majority of everything significant this year then so be it. It seems that on here there is a strong desire not to have a single player dominate and that if that is the case then competition is weak; maybe no one wants to see domination of a "weak era" like 2004-2007 again and anything resembling that can't be good for the game. I, on the other hand, believe it's possible to just gave a player who is much better than everyone else at a given time. The competition is ok this year and we're not at a point where the matches are foregone conclusions , at least no more or less significantly so than previous years.

The game is better when it is competitive at the top.

I was less interested in tennis during the period of Federer's dominance. I liked Federer and could tell how good he was, but the spectacle was less compelling when the sport goes 4 years where hardly anyone can lay a glove on the top player.

You do allude to what I see as a double standard though.

I stand to be corrected on this, but my recollection of 04-07 is that the commentary was almost entirely that the results showed how great Federer was and it was good for tennis to have such a talented player

With Novak, there's a definite undercurrent that his success is because he is the last man standing. There's always reference to Federer's age or Nadal's injuries or Murray's mental demons.

Did Federer get the equivalent comments about Agassi's age or Hewitt's injuries or Safin's mental demons?

It's a little different though. When you look at 04-07 Federer and his record vs his main rivals, it was embarrassingly one sided. I suppose Agassi's age can be brought up, and rightly so. but otherwise, there's just a feeling of comprehensive dominance. With regards to Nole, the reality is, he does have losing records against two of his three major rivals. Compound that with Federer aging, Nadal looking for more advance ways to stop the proverbial bleeding that is his injuries, etc, and the "Last Man Standing" narrative is easy to paint.

As for the OP, it depends doesn't it. The 2004 F1 season is my favourite ever. The sheer unmatched nature of Schumacher and Ferrari was impressive. But that's also because you knew you were watching a genius at work. Man and his machine symbiotic, one powerful all conquering entity. It also creates an element of excitement, when the domination is racing, no pun intended, against history. When it's just dominance, but without a narrative... Yawn.

HM Murdoch wrote:The game is better when it is competitive at the top.

Did Federer get the equivalent comments about Agassi's age or Hewitt's injuries or Safin's mental demons?

I'd say he got such comments with Ms Keira Wee coming into play at that time, and I can see this lady coming back these days with the Djoko dominance. It's not too exciting now because we've seen the Big 3-4 fight each other and overwhelm the tour and thus it's easy to see what has changed and what is missing now. Case in point, all the arguments about Djoko not plaing as good as in 2011 but pulling off a similar set of results - as someone else pointed out recently: he could get a CYGS this year and it wouldn't be surprising.

The difference with Fed in 2004 is that it was the emergence of a few magnificent players in the Big 3+1 and imho not a drop in the general level. These guys are just too good. Fed got there early and good for him, Djoko started later and good for him in the same way... To me it's a bit similar, but Djoko won't be regarded as highly as he was not the first super player of this "generation", so the awe is not as strong.

My hope is that some upcoming guy can beat the Big 4 soon to "legitimate" their success versus these super players - or we'll have more wee keira nonsense coming with people saying Raonic won the USopen only because Fedal Dojoko and Murray aren't around at their top anymore. (It will happen anyway in 10-15 years, when fans will debate whether Andrej Rublev or Duckhee Lee would have beaten consistently Federer, Nadal or Djoko)

kingraf wrote:It's a little different though. When you look at 04-07 Federer and his record vs his main rivals, it was embarrassingly one sided. I suppose Agassi's age can be brought up, and rightly so. but otherwise, there's just a feeling of comprehensive dominance. With regards to Nole, the reality is, he does have losing records against two of his three major rivals.

Before Federer's dominance, he was 2-7 v Hewitt, 0-5 v Nalbandian and 0-3 v Agassi.

But I think your point backs the double standard.

Federer had years of dominating the competition and this was presented as good.

Novak's had about 6 months of comparable dominance and there is consternation at the state of the tour.

HM Murdoch wrote:

kingraf wrote:It's a little different though. When you look at 04-07 Federer and his record vs his main rivals, it was embarrassingly one sided. I suppose Agassi's age can be brought up, and rightly so. but otherwise, there's just a feeling of comprehensive dominance. With regards to Nole, the reality is, he does have losing records against two of his three major rivals.

Before Federer's dominance, he was 2-7 v Hewitt, 0-5 v Nalbandian and 0-3 v Agassi.

But I think your point backs the double standard.

Federer had years of dominating the competition and this was presented as good.

Novak's had about 6 months of comparable dominance and there is consternation at the state of the tour.

Spot on. Also what happens if Novak goes on a hot streak of slam wins and approaches Federer's mark in two or three years time? I am sure we will see a shift in position about the existence of weak eras where before there was denial of such a thing.

Not necessarily, HM. Remember, say what you want, but Federer didn't just right those H2Hs, he absolutely nuked them with never-before, never-again levels of domination. He didn't just find a way to start competing with these guys, he blew them out of the water, and left them for dead.

Has Novak left Rafa and Roger for dead? Seems to me it's a toss up whenever he faces them. They just can't get to those latter stages as often.

kingraf wrote:Not necessarily, HM. Remember, say what you want, but Federer didn't just right those H2Hs, he absolutely nuked them with never-before, never-again levels of domination. He didn't just find a way to start competing with these guys, he blew them out of the water, and left them for dead.

Has Novak left Rafa and Roger for dead? Seems to me it's a toss up whenever he faces them. They just can't get to those latter stages as often.  

No, I agree.

I'm not suggesting Novak's current level is the equal of prime Fed's level.

I'm wondering why for Federer, the utter domination of one set of rivals said everything about his ability and little about the level of the tour, but for Novak, a smaller domination of another set of rivals says as much about the state of the tour as Novak's ability?

Why does Novak's streak of results owe so much to the level of Federer, Nadal and Murray, but Federer's streak of results owe so little to the level of Blake, Ljubicic and Roddick?

kingraf wrote:Not necessarily, HM. Remember, say what you want, but Federer didn't just right those H2Hs, he absolutely nuked them with never-before, never-again levels of domination. He didn't just find a way to start competing with these guys, he blew them out of the water, and left them for dead.

Has Novak left Rafa and Roger for dead? Seems to me it's a toss up whenever he faces them. They just can't get to those latter stages as often.  

Conversely, Fed didn't leave Djoko for dead either... Maybe if you compare the H2H of Fed vs the field before the emergence of Rafa and Novak with the H2H of Novak vs the field after the "demise" of Fed and Rafa, you'd certainly find that Novak is also blowing them out of the water... It's like a simmetry with the past, but since we've seen Noavak (and Fedal) play at such higher level before, his dominance without reaching the top gear seem more disappointing now (something we couldn't know for Fed as we weren't sure what level could be reached, so he had more praise)

HM Murdoch wrote:
Why does Novak's streak of results owe so much to the level of Federer, Nadal and Murray, but Federer's streak of results owe so little to the level of Blake, Ljubicic and Roddick?

I think to be fair results vs Blake, Ljubicic and Roddick should rather be compared to results vs Nishikori, Kyrgios, Dimitrov (for example - rather next generation players).

I think the streak of results against the other Big 4 has a big impact on the way we see Djoko's dominance now, because he appears to play not as well as he played in 2011. A bit like Fed wasn't playing as well in 2004 than in 2006-07... The difference that quality seem to go down instead of up (but Djoko doesn't seem to need that next gear now - but he certainly has it).

These 3 have dominated the tour for over 10 years, and the next few years are the tail end of it, so it feels less impressive - we got used to the Big 4 and anything below seem underwhelming.

We're talking about 04-07 Fed though. Djokovic wasn't a rival....


Nonetheless, you can't juxtapose players. Federer's main rivals were always gonna be, at the Peak of his powers, Roddick, Safin types. With hindsight, and a little abstract thinking, it's easy to see that as soon as Federer stepped up his game - that level of competition had no chance. With Nole, we can quite clearly see that his main rivals are dying off. It's painfully apparent. Maybe the level Fed played at is in part accentuated by a lower level of competition, but he's still #2 in the world today and nearly a decade past his best, he's still capable of giving the current incumbent a good spanking.

Yes, Fed got boring wining those years too, but the attacking tennis he played and various magic shots, made it still a joy to watch, though we knew who would win the match.

Then came Nadal and ruined the tennis with his baseline boring slugfest and grinding.

Djoko does the same, just better then Nadal, so tennis has become a boring baseline war, won on UE's with most top 10 playing same style.

So of course most are not happy with how tennis is going, its not just Djoko being best, its the quality of tennis in general.

Top 10 at end of 2006
1) Federer
2) Nadal
3) Davydenko
4) Blake
5) Ljubicic
6) Roddick
7) Robredo
8) Nalbandian
9) Ancic
10) Gonzalez

Current top 10
1) Djokovic
2) Federer
3) Murray
4) Nishikori
5) Nadal
6) Raonic
7) Ferrer
8) Berdych
9) Wawrinka
10) Cilic

Would anyone like to make the case that the class of 2015 is cause for concern but that the class of 2006 showed the game in great shape?

Make-up of Djokovic's Slams from 2008-2014:
-7 Slam Wins
-Beat Nadal 3 times in those victories
-Beat Federer 4 times
-Beat Murray 3 times

So yeah... so he had to beat Fedal a combination of 7 times, and then 10 times if you include Murray too. That's for his first 7 Grand Slams.
That's really really tough...

However now it's possible that for the next few years, Djokovic may not have such hard competition to deal with.
Especially if:
-Nadal continues the way he's started this year
-Murray can't quite get back up to his previous level
-Federer can't physically peak for Slams (which he's struggled with in the past year or so)
-No new young guns shine through

HM Murdoch wrote:

kingraf wrote:It's a little different though. When you look at 04-07 Federer and his record vs his main rivals, it was embarrassingly one sided. I suppose Agassi's age can be brought up, and rightly so. but otherwise, there's just a feeling of comprehensive dominance. With regards to Nole, the reality is, he does have losing records against two of his three major rivals.

Before Federer's dominance, he was 2-7 v Hewitt, 0-5 v Nalbandian and 0-3 v Agassi.

But I think your point backs the double standard.

Federer had years of dominating the competition and this was presented as good.

Novak's had about 6 months of comparable dominance and there is consternation at the state of the tour.

I would like to apologise HM for applying this double standard, in future I will try to slightly moderate my gushing and OTT praise for Federer's competition during his prime.

kingraf wrote:We're talking about 04-07 Fed though. Djokovic wasn't a rival....


Nonetheless, you can't juxtapose players. Federer's main rivals were always gonna be, at the Peak of his powers, Roddick, Safin types. With hindsight, and a little abstract thinking, it's easy to see that as soon as Federer stepped up his game - that level of competition had no chance. With Nole, we can quite clearly see that his main rivals are dying off. It's painfully apparent. Maybe the level Fed played at is in part accentuated by a lower level of competition, but he's still #2 in the world today and nearly a decade past his best, he's still capable of giving the current incumbent a good spanking.

Firstly I don't think HM or anyone is arguing that Djokovic is as good as Federer, that clearly isn't the case.
However aren't you being unfair on Djokovic here ? It's really hard to step you game up so your 'rivals have no chance' for a long period of time when you have Federer and Nadal on the other side of the net. Perhaps not so difficult when you have... well check HM's 2006 rankings.

It Must Be Love wrote:I would like to apologise HM for applying this double standard, in future I will try to slightly moderate my gushing and OTT praise for Federer's competition during his prime.

Well, I didn't like to say directly, but your level of fawning over Federer's early rivals does make you stand out as Hagiographer-in-Chief...

I can only begin to imagine what we are going to get from Socal if he sees this thread! I suspect he may have an opinion...

I don't think so, no. Tbh, outside of grass, I don't think Djokovic is that far behind Federer. I'd rate them about even on the other surfaces.

With Federer it's more like a Muhammad Ali situation. The sheer domination and one-sidedness he showed in his prime years, combined with the adaptation, and doggedness shown in finding ways to compete in his latter years.

HM Murdoch wrote:Top 10 at end of 2006
1) Federer
2) Nadal
3) Davydenko
4) Blake
5) Ljubicic
6) Roddick
7) Robredo
8) Nalbandian
9) Ancic
10) Gonzalez

Current top 10
1) Djokovic
2) Federer
3) Murray
4) Nishikori
5) Nadal
6) Raonic
7) Ferrer
8) Berdych
9) Wawrinka
10) Cilic

Would anyone like to make the case that the class of 2015 is cause for concern but that the class of 2006 showed the game in great shape?

I don't think either top 10 is particularly strong, maybe the current top 10 is marginally stronger in terms of competition for the world number 1. Let's see.

Nadal 2006 was only seriously challenging in Grand Slams on clay. Federer now arguably at his age doesn't have the physical strength to win a Slam if pushed to consecutive long matches, but he is a threat in all the Grand Slams nonetheless. Call it a draw.
Davydenko all throughout his career never performed in Slams (no Grand Slam finals), so I'd have Murray out in front (even though Murray's form is not as good as a few years ago).
Blake and Nishikori are actually similar in terms of threat to the big guns in Grand Slams, Nishikori has been disappointing this year while Blake never reached a Grand Slam semi despite being a big hitter. I'd say Nishi probably has the edge as he has reached a Grand Slam final and shown he can bring his best game to majors.
Nadal in a wheelchair and with no right arm is still a bigger threat in Grand Slams than Ljubicic 2006. Ljubicic only reached one slam semi in his career.
Looking at the 2006 top 5 as a whole is interesting, if you don't count Roland Garros, the players ranked #2-#5 only reached 3 Grand Slam semis between them until and including 2006. Ouch...

Anyway back to out comparison;
Roddick 2006 at number 6 is definitely ahead of Raonic. Roddick didn't have a world class baseline game, but better than Raonic; and his serve was also more effective too. Roddick also reached quite a few Grand Slam finals.
For number 7, I'd have Ferrer above Robredo actually.
Nalbandian and Berdych have both reached one Grand Slam final each, but Nalbandian was still a bigger threat... Berdych just doesn't have the extra level at all.
Ancic Wawrinka is actually a close one, I'd give the edge to Stan because he has shown he can be a big threat when he goes on a hot vein of form, but Ancic is a very good player who would have done better if not for mono.
At number 10, Cilic and Gonzalez are actually pretty similar in many ways. Gonzalez had a massive forehand, but Cilic can really hit the ball hard too. Cilic has a Slam, but I'd still call it a draw.

So overall the current top 10 is probably slightly ahead in terms of challenge to the number 1 I think. By a greater margin than I thought it would be before I did the analysis.

It Must Be Love wrote:I don't think either top 10 is particularly strong

Me neither.

The names on the 2015 list are more illustrious but I think we'd all accept that those names are not presently at their peak levels.

HM Murdoch wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:I don't think either top 10 is particularly strong

Me neither.

The names on the 2015 list are more illustrious but I think we'd all accept that those names are not presently at their peak levels.

I took that into account when I did my comparisons, I took into account how much of a threat they are currently.

It Must Be Love wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:I don't think either top 10 is particularly strong

Me neither.

The names on the 2015 list are more illustrious but I think we'd all accept that those names are not presently at their peak levels.

I took that into account when I did my comparisons, I took into account how much of a threat they are currently.

Yes, I know. It was an observation, not a disgreement.

Go through that list and from it the winners for me are:- 1. 2006 2. 2015 3. 2015 4. 2015 5. 2015 6. 2006 7. 2015 8. 2015 9. 2015 10. 2015 so in my opinion it is 8-2 to 2015.

I have no problem with a period of dominance.

My concern now is not with the fact that one guy is miles ahead, but that I'm not terribly enthralled with the tennis. I'm not saying he isn't brilliant or anything, just that it's all a bit too attritional and repetitive for my taste.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Go through that list and from it the winners for me are:- 1. 2006 2. 2015 3. 2015 4. 2015 5. 2015 6. 2006 7. 2015 8. 2015 9. 2015 10. 2015 so in my opinion it is 8-2 to 2015.

I like this game! I'd say the same as you, but ties at #2 and possibly #8 and #10. Ancic is also a far better player than is generally considered.

2015 lineup is definitely stronger overall.

HM: another possible factor contributing to the double standard is Federer being (and still is) a media darling. What many fans of other players (rightly) cannot stand about him is how people gush about him, the superlatives that are rolled out truly do beggar belief sometimes. And what those same fans perhaps also dislike is that Federer's style of play simply lends itself to promoting that narrative.

It's not a nice opinion to swallow, particularly as it seems to favour aesthetics over success (to an extent), but there's a reason that people love him so much. And it isn't his domination of the tour during his peak years. I feel that Novak has had to battle this for his entire career to date, and even now isn't quite getting the respect that he deserves because his tennis appears more workmanlike and less electric than his dominant predecessor's. The spectre of Fedal looms large over the tour and is only now beginning to recede thanks to Nadal being MIA and possibly in terminal decline.

Anyone rating Berdych over Nalbandian is automatically disqualified from a tennis discussion.

There is absolutely no comparison between them. One can play tennis of imagination and virtuosity, the other is a basher.

Silver, that's a fair point.

Personally, I don't really have a problem with the adulation that Federer gets.

He plays a beautiful game and, generally, behaves very well. He serves to the time limit, never takes dodgy MTOs and very rarely has a tantrum on court. He also seems to be a nice chap.

My gripe is that we are flirting with a new strain of Weak Era debate.

Federer had the adulation in his pomp and then a load of attempts to restrospectively re-weight his achivements downwards.

Poor old Novak seems to have skipped the adulation and is having his achievements scaled down even as he accomplishes them!

That's true!

I have never nor ever will buy into any of this weak era stuff (nor the Golden era garbage). Novak is top of the tree, by a distance, and that's enough for me.

The idea of Djokovic being the last one standing is what I'd guess as the best explanation for this. The style of play has not changed drastically in 5 years so I don't see any particular reason for complaints there.

I don't think Federer is worse than last year. He's got used to the racquet. I think Djokovic has been playing some of his best since 2011 this year and last year. I suppose with Nadal and Murray not performing like have done before (in most people's eyes anyway) there's room for dissatisfaction. Other players have improved though, including Federer (at least from 2013), and if Djokovic is still the best then more power to him.

I think another reason for this feeling is that another year has gone by without any new star from the new generation emerging (last USO not withstanding). There's something to be said about the need for someone from the new generation to beat these guys before they completely fall away to legitimise their generation. I think Djokovic has done this to a pretty large extent with Federer.

bogbrush wrote:

I have never nor ever will buy into any of this weak era stuff

OK, then, please tell me what you mean by 'weak era stuff' ?

If no young guns emerge through now, Fedal decline, and Murray never gets back to his pre-srugery level; would you not think that it's likely Djokovic's competition to win slams would be easier than it was for him between 2008-2014 (where for his Slam victories he had to beat  a combination of Federer and Nadal 7 times, and adding Murray 10 times) ?

By 'not buying' into weak era stuff, do you mean you don't think competition in the tour can fluctuate at all ?
Actually wait a sec... I remember you saying Nadal had easier competition one year, if you want I can dig up the quote.
So do you then think that the competition on tour can fluctuate, but we are only entitled to our opinion if we agree that it's a player not named Federer who benefits from easier competition at times, but we can't apply that argument to Federer ?

bogbrush wrote:I have no problem with a period of dominance.

My concern now is not with the fact that one guy is miles ahead, but that I'm not terribly enthralled with the tennis. I'm not saying he isn't brilliant or anything, just that it's all a bit too attritional and repetitive for my taste.

Sensibly expressed.

It's funny, I've not been a 'weak era' believer for a long time, but I have perhaps been guilty of trying to contextualise Federer's 04-07 achievements too much.

Now that a player I'm invested in is facing the opportunity of similarly grand results against a similar level opposition, it doesn't seem so straight forward at all.

Very easy to look back and think "Blake? Roddick? Davydenko? Weak competition".

But now I'm living it with Novak, seeing opponent after opponent chuck everything they have at him to take it down, seeing Novak having to fight through days when he's not at his best, seeing him resist the hot streaks that opponents hit... well, my reckoning of Federer's 04-07 has gone up a notch.

HM Murdoch wrote:
But now I'm living it with Novak, seeing opponent after opponent chuck everything they have at him to take it down, seeing Novak having to fight through days when he's not at his best, seeing him resist the hot streaks that opponents hit... well, my reckoning of Federer's 04-07 has gone up a notch.

But Djokovic has had to deal with this for quite a few years now, right ? He was a top player since 2008, and since 2011 especially he's always been hunted by the tour.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting you, but are you indicating that the state of affairs has just started in 2015, when people are starting to scrutinise Djokovic's competition more ?
Your post here is a good reason though as to why I try not to call any competition 'weak' or use 'weak era'... when you have so many dedicated professionals trying to hunt you down, it's not the right adjective to use. However it can be 'weaker' or 'significantly weaker' in comparison to other periods, for example the competition from 2015-2018 maybe be weaker in challenging Djokovic than the opponents he faced 2008-2014.

Also I think we can't assume that we know for sure what Djokovic's competition will be like in the next few years. I don't think anyone will argue Djokovic has had to deal with easy competition in the 7 slams he won from 2008-2014. As for 2015- onwards, well we're only 4 months in.  
It may be that a young player rises from nowhere, or that Nadal/Murray start firing big time, or Federer keeps defying time. Let's wait and see.

bogbrush wrote:Anyone rating Berdych over Nalbandian is automatically disqualified from a tennis discussion.

There is absolutely no comparison between them. One can play tennis of imagination and virtuosity, the other is a basher.

Well in that case should we not list Fabrice Santoro above Roger Federer? No of course not as we are in a results business not an aesthetically pleasing on the eye business. And by this I mean Santoro is widely renowned as the most imaginitive player to play the game in the last twenty years or so hence why he was given the nickname 'The Magician'.

IMBL - as you know, I'm perfectly open to the concept that certain periods contain tougher opposition than others.

I just don't see a great deal of point in extending that into weighting historic results.

The only purpose of doing that would seem to be to prove that "X slams won in period A, is roughly comparable to Y slams won in period B".

In turn, the only value in doing that is if you are trying to prove that a player with a larger numbers of slams is actually not as good as a player with a smaller number.

But I don't view slam titles as mathematical proof of who is the best player*, so there's no point in my doing any of that.

*within reason. Clearly 17 slams beats 2 slams. But 11 slams, 14 slams, 17 slams, I prefer to say they're all brilliant. Some I rate higher than others but that's just my subjective opinion.

Berdych has results and consistency on his side, but Nalby scaled some great heights (mountains of pies aside). That WTF win was exceptional. I couldn't separate them.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:The idea of Djokovic being the last one standing is what I'd guess as the best explanation for this. The style of play has not changed drastically in 5 years so I don't see any particular reason for complaints there.

I don't think Federer is worse than last year. He's got used to the racquet. I think Djokovic has been playing some of his best since 2011 this year and last year. I suppose with Nadal and Murray not performing like have done before (in most people's eyes anyway) there's room for dissatisfaction. Other players have improved though, including Federer (at least from 2013), and if Djokovic is still the best then more power to him.

I think another reason for this feeling is that another year has gone by without any new star from the new generation emerging (last USO not withstanding). There's something to be said about the need for someone from the new generation to beat these guys before they completely fall away to legitimise their generation. I think Djokovic has done this to a pretty large extent with Federer.

I'd agree that these are good points.

Novak is indeed top of the tree for a reason, and his run since Shanghai has been nothing short of staggering. People rightly raved about Federer's record last year, but it was ultimately matched and eventually exceeded by the man above him. To so comprehensively outdo your main rival for the #1 spot at nearly every tournament is not easy.

The lack of fresh blood is a concern. Nishi and Raonic have done well so far, but can they kick on and beat these top guys for the top honours? I don't think so. Most of us wouldn't pick them to beat Murray or Federer, let alone Novak. So where is challenge coming from? You're absolutely right when you say that the next generation needs to legitimise themselves with some big wins before the top players fade away. IMBL has a point though, things could change quickly and the upcoming clay season will tell us more about where things sit.

I do think that there needs to be competition at the top; moreso than there is now. It adds an element of spectacle and unpredictability to the sport. Right now I think we all just expect Novak to walk through everyone; he's just that much better.

HM Murdoch wrote:IMBL - as you know, I'm perfectly open to the concept that certain periods contain tougher opposition than others.

I just don't see a great deal of point in extending that into weighting historic results.

The only purpose of doing that would seem to be to prove that "X slams won in period A, is roughly comparable to Y slams won in period B".

In turn, the only value in doing that is if you are trying to prove that a player with a larger numbers of slams is actually not as good as a player with a smaller number.

But I don't view slam titles as mathematical proof of who is the best player*, so there's no point in my doing any of that.

*within reason. Clearly 17 slams beats 2 slams. But 11 slams, 14 slams, 17 slams, I prefer to say they're all brilliant. Some I rate higher than others but that's just my subjective opinion.

Yes, of course you're correct.
I think we agree more than you think even, my argument is not that 'X Slams won in Period A is definitely equal to Y Slams in Period B', but that the idea that it is possible means I must hold the belief of your conclusion which I put in bold.

For me it needs to be competitive at the top. I didn't mind the Federer dominance as it had some style and panache about it. I loved the sheer power that Sampras dominated with. They didn't have it all their own way though. The isolation though in the game wasn't one I enjoyed.

I like it when a player steps out on court against others and the result is not a gimmie. I long for the 80s rivalries and the guile of play that followed. The mental strength of those players too was amazing.

Nowadays the game is full of mental midgets. There's nothing worse than seeing a player have say a Djokovic or Murray dead to rights and they completely blow it. You can call it fitness, I call it lack of bottle.

I watch a Djokovic and Murray match and now it's become a case with Andy when is he going to fold. Without fail he does. Least with a Djokovic and Nadal match there is still an element it could swing either way.

Don't know what it is about Djokovic, but he isn't wowing me or convincing me just yet that he is the "man" despite what the resume and rankings say. I hope to be proven wrong.

It Must Be Love wrote:Yes, of course you're correct.
I think we agree more than you think even, my argument is not that 'X Slams won in Period A is definitely equal to Y Slams in Period B', but that the idea that it possibly could be in itself is support for the conclusion of yours which I put in bold.

Well, yes and no.

Yes, if we could find a way to somehow weight the relative strength of opponents a player faced throughout his career, we could notionally work out who the best player ever is.

But we can't.

The relative strength would have to be a subjective judgement.

So our attempts to make the conclusion of who is GOAT less subjective would be based upon another bunch of subjective judgements.

We can never move the discussion beyond subjective, so we gain nothing by a whole load of "what ifs".

HM Murdoch wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Yes, of course you're correct.
I think we agree more than you think even, my argument is not that 'X Slams won in Period A is definitely equal to Y Slams in Period B', but that the idea that it possibly could be in itself is support for the conclusion of yours which I put in bold.

Well, yes and no.

Yes, if we could find a way to somehow weight the relative strength of opponents a player faced throughout his career, we could notionally work out who the best player ever is.

But we can't.

The relative strength would have to be a subjective judgement.

So our attempts to make the conclusion of who is GOAT less subjective would be based upon another bunch of subjective judgements.

We can never move the discussion beyond subjective, so we gain nothing by a whole load of "what ifs".

I don't want to discuss this technical aspect of the debate too much more, it's too technical, and especially as we basically agree, but I'll give it one more post:

I agree with your analysis completely, except for the last two lines here.
Firstly the fact that a debate is subjective would be evidence for your line which I bolded 'But I don't view slam titles as mathematical proof of who is the best player*'.

However I don't understand why you say 'the attempts to make the conclusion of who is GOAT less subjective'... I can't remember saying my attempt was to make the conclusion less subjective, infact I've argued the debate is subjective. The point is that the stats itself has inherent biases, as competition fluctuates.
Also as for your last line, I don't see what's wrong with having a debate which is subjective ? People are entitled to their opinion. The debate on who has a better forehand is also subjective, no ? Saying that Djokovic's competition from 2008-2014 in Slam wins is likely to be harder than the competition he faces for the rest of his career is subjective too. Unless 'Fedalurray' step it up or a young gun breaks through, that probably will be the case.
I don't see what the issue is at all.

Silver wrote:Berdych has results and consistency on his side, but Nalby scaled some great heights (mountains of pies aside). That WTF win was exceptional. I couldn't separate them.

Haha !

I have Nalby above Berdych in terms of competition in Slams, Nalby may not have the consistency but he was still a potential threat... Berdych just doesn't have another gear at all when pressed.

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

I have never nor ever will buy into any of this weak era stuff

OK, then, please tell me what you mean by 'weak era stuff' ?

If no young guns emerge through now, Fedal decline, and Murray never gets back to his pre-srugery level; would you not think that it's likely Djokovic's competition to win slams would be easier than it was for him between 2008-2014 (where for his Slam victories he had to beat  a combination of Federer and Nadal 7 times, and adding Murray 10 times) ?

By 'not buying' into weak era stuff, do you mean you don't think competition in the tour can fluctuate at all ?
Actually wait a sec... I remember you saying Nadal had easier competition one year, if you want I can dig up the quote.
So do you then think that the competition on tour can fluctuate, but we are only entitled to our opinion if we agree that it's a player not named Federer who benefits from easier competition at times, but we can't apply that argument to Federer ?

Well I'm not buying into a weak era in 2015 dominated by a guy not called Federer, so that's not in play.

I agree that things can twitch around in the short term but I don't agree we can expand this usefully over a longer term. In 2015 we have fully fit Federer, Nadal, Murray and Djokovic, plus Nishikori and Raonic trying to break through. Sure, Federer is closing in on 34 but overall what's to attack about 2015? It's not like some recent years where a top player has been injured or out for whole slugs (such as Nadal, Murray, Federer playing with a dodgy back).

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Anyone rating Berdych over Nalbandian is automatically disqualified from a tennis discussion.

There is absolutely no comparison between them. One can play tennis of imagination and virtuosity, the other is a basher.

Well in that case should we not list Fabrice Santoro above Roger Federer? No of course not as we are in a results business not an aesthetically pleasing on the eye business. And by this I mean Santoro is widely renowned as the most imaginitive player to play the game in the last twenty years or so hence why he was given the nickname 'The Magician'.

He really isn't widely renowned as that ...... He's recognised as a novelty midget player who was very popular and had a weird forehand. Mansoor Bahrami is widely recognised as an even more novelty player.

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

I have never nor ever will buy into any of this weak era stuff

OK, then, please tell me what you mean by 'weak era stuff' ?

If no young guns emerge through now, Fedal decline, and Murray never gets back to his pre-srugery level; would you not think that it's likely Djokovic's competition to win slams would be easier than it was for him between 2008-2014 (where for his Slam victories he had to beat  a combination of Federer and Nadal 7 times, and adding Murray 10 times) ?

By 'not buying' into weak era stuff, do you mean you don't think competition in the tour can fluctuate at all ?
Actually wait a sec... I remember you saying Nadal had easier competition one year, if you want I can dig up the quote.
So do you then think that the competition on tour can fluctuate, but we are only entitled to our opinion if we agree that it's a player not named Federer who benefits from easier competition at times, but we can't apply that argument to Federer ?

Well I'm not buying into a weak era in 2015 dominated by a guy not called Federer, so that's not in play.

I agree that things can twitch around in the short term but I don't agree we can expand this usefully over a longer term. In 2015 we have fully fit Federer, Nadal, Murray and Djokovic, plus Nishikori and Raonic trying to break through. Sure, Federer is closing in on 34 but overall what's to attack about 2015? It's not like some recent years where a top player has been injured or out for whole slugs (such as Nadal, Murray, Federer playing with a dodgy back).

I will address your 2015 question, but first can you clarify this-
Are you saying that:
a) There is no fluctuation in competition at the top at all from year to year, or period of a few years or
b) There just hasn't been a big fluctuation recently heading into 2015 ?

As for 2015 and the years ahead, I did say we can't assume we know for sure how Djokovic's competition will turn out.
How it's looking now is that Nadal seems to be declining, Murray can't get back to his pre-surgery level, Federer has doubts of whether he can cope when pressed in Best-Of-5 at this age, and none of the young guns seems to be steeping it up.

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Anyone rating Berdych over Nalbandian is automatically disqualified from a tennis discussion.

There is absolutely no comparison between them. One can play tennis of imagination and virtuosity, the other is a basher.

Well in that case should we not list Fabrice Santoro above Roger Federer? No of course not as we are in a results business not an aesthetically pleasing on the eye business. And by this I mean Santoro is widely renowned as the most imaginitive player to play the game in the last twenty years or so hence why he was given the nickname 'The Magician'.

He really isn't widely renowned as that ...... He's recognised as a novelty midget player who was very popular and had a weird forehand. Mansoor Bahrami is widely recognised as an even more novelty player.

In your opinion.

Nalbandian and Berdych is very close no doubt about it but is that the only one you contest from the comparisons of 2006 and 2015? Nalby won a WTF and 11 titles whilst Berdych has won two Davis Cups and 10 titles so Berdych has won less titles but has more career match wins.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Anyone rating Berdych over Nalbandian is automatically disqualified from a tennis discussion.

There is absolutely no comparison between them. One can play tennis of imagination and virtuosity, the other is a basher.

Well in that case should we not list Fabrice Santoro above Roger Federer? No of course not as we are in a results business not an aesthetically pleasing on the eye business. And by this I mean Santoro is widely renowned as the most imaginitive player to play the game in the last twenty years or so hence why he was given the nickname 'The Magician'.

He really isn't widely renowned as that ...... He's recognised as a novelty midget player who was very popular and had a weird forehand. Mansoor Bahrami is widely recognised as an even more novelty player.

In your opinion.

Nalbandian and Berdych is very close no doubt about it but is that the only one you contest from the comparisons of 2006 and 2015? Nalby won a WTF and 11 titles whilst Berdych has won two Davis Cups and 10 titles so Berdych has won less titles but has more career match wins.

Berdych is a talentless hacker next to Nalbandian. Fat Dave was able to trounce peak Nadal easily when his stars aligned, something Berdych could only read about.

Santoro will be starring alongside Bahrami and Leconte on the novelty circuit.

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

I have never nor ever will buy into any of this weak era stuff

OK, then, please tell me what you mean by 'weak era stuff' ?

If no young guns emerge through now, Fedal decline, and Murray never gets back to his pre-srugery level; would you not think that it's likely Djokovic's competition to win slams would be easier than it was for him between 2008-2014 (where for his Slam victories he had to beat  a combination of Federer and Nadal 7 times, and adding Murray 10 times) ?

By 'not buying' into weak era stuff, do you mean you don't think competition in the tour can fluctuate at all ?
Actually wait a sec... I remember you saying Nadal had easier competition one year, if you want I can dig up the quote.
So do you then think that the competition on tour can fluctuate, but we are only entitled to our opinion if we agree that it's a player not named Federer who benefits from easier competition at times, but we can't apply that argument to Federer ?

Well I'm not buying into a weak era in 2015 dominated by a guy not called Federer, so that's not in play.

I agree that things can twitch around in the short term but I don't agree we can expand this usefully over a longer term. In 2015 we have fully fit Federer, Nadal, Murray and Djokovic, plus Nishikori and Raonic trying to break through. Sure, Federer is closing in on 34 but overall what's to attack about 2015? It's not like some recent years where a top player has been injured or out for whole slugs (such as Nadal, Murray, Federer playing with a dodgy back).

I will address your 2015 question, but first can you clarify this-
Are you saying that:
a) There is no fluctuation in competition at the top at all from year to year, or period of a few years or
b) There just hasn't been a big fluctuation recently heading into 2015 ?

As for 2015 and the years ahead, I did say we can't assume we know for sure how Djokovic's competition will turn out.
How it's looking now is that Nadal seems to be declining, Murray can't get back to his pre-surgery level, Federer has doubts of whether he can cope when pressed in Best-Of-5 at this age, and none of the young guns seems to be steeping it up.

I just said there IS fluctuation, from year to year, but era discussion is ridiculous.

The only fluctuation one could point to in 2015 is Nadal returning to full fitness, Murray finally having plenty of time after his back surgery, and Federer looking to maintain his 2014 resurgence. So I'm guessing you're referring to the uptick in standard in 2015?

bogbrush wrote:
I just said there IS fluctuation, from year to year, but era discussion is ridiculous.

OK, right. So it can fluctuate from year to year. I don't use the word era.
If we can have fluctuations from year to year, surely we can have fluctuations from a period of a few years to another period of few years ?
If something fluctuates in a smaller time period (you say annually), then by definition it must also fluctuate in larger time periods, is that not correct ?

It Must Be Love wrote:I've argued the debate is subjective. The point is that the stats itself has inherent biases, as competition fluctuates.

Yes.

And level of competition is not the only variable. Length of career (i.e. Borg), opportunities in their prime (i.e. Connors), small numbers in lots of years v big number in a few years (i.e. Nadal v Federer), variety of surfaces, style of play, consistency outside of the slams, and any number of other considerations could come into play in judging who is best.

The debate forever gets bogged down on how tough Federer's opposition is. But why, for example, spend so much effort working out if Nadal's 14 was tougher than Federer's 17, when it wouldn't resolve the debate even if it were?

It Must Be Love wrote:Also as for your last line, I don't see what's wrong with having a debate which is subjective ? People are entitled to their opinion. The debate on who has a better forehand is also subjective, no ?  

Nothing wrong with a subjective debate at all.

But "best forehand" seems to be capable of remaining as a general chat. We can give our views and don't feel compelled to spend page after page trying to prove our view or change the mind of others.

The strength of opponents becomes trench warfare!

Reading this, I seem to be back in the 2008 era of internet forums.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Reading this, I seem to be back in the 2008 era of internet forums.

We've gone from debating weak eras to debating the debate about weak eras.

Very post-modern.