Do things necessarily need to be competitive at the top?

First topic message reminder :

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.

Is it a weak era of forums?

When federer was dominating it was still competitive at the top because of a guy called Rafael Nadal. Without him that period would not have even nearly interesting, there's a reason we look so fondly on their rivalry, it turned what looked like a one sided walk to big titles to one of the best periods we ever had. It's one of the big reasons people like Nadal so much. When the big prizes don't have a competitive edge to them, the game loses interest.

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".

Even if you could it still wouldn't solve everything. If a player was playing at such a high level that he could handle a stronger opponent but that opponent wasn't available but another player playing at a lower level had a better opponent that he could handle then he would come off looking better despite not being at the level of the first player. You'd also have to find a way to separate the performance of the player on that day from the name which no one seems to even try to do.

Even if all the above were possible, you're still assuming A > B > C => A > C

break_in_the_fifth wrote:

Even if you could it still wouldn't solve everything. If a player was playing at such a high level that he could handle a stronger opponent but that opponent wasn't available but another player playing at a lower level had a better opponent that he could handle then he would come off looking better despite not being at the level of the first player.

Yes, that's very true. You can never know this for sure, but I suppose you could look at that player's record against stronger opponents to put into context his level against weaker opponents.

It Must Be Love wrote:

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 ?

Not necessarily- dynamic equilibrium

break_in_the_fifth wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

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 ?

Not necessarily- dynamic equilibrium

Do you think competition in tennis is a dynamic equilibrium ?

Dynamic equilibriums are reached in very special and niche circumstances in science (i.e. other factors and variables apart from concentration must stay constant), there is no way something as random and irregular as competition in tennis can reach a dynamic equilibrium.

Going back to the original question it seems like there are 2 answers. The majority of people think there has to be competition at the top otherwise everything is devalued. There are a few others though who are ok with dominance as long as it suits their tastes.

I don't find myself in either group as such though I'd say I'm more in the second. While I agree that there needs to be a basic challenge for a player, I think we're not at a point where there isn't. Also, even though Djokovic's dominance isn't completely to my tastes, I acknowledge it and can live with it pretty easily in a way that I wouldn't be able to if another player was dominating.

Also b-i-t-f, in a dynamic equilibrium, once it's reached, the concentration does not even fluctuate in small time periods- it actually stays constant.

You did say "something" and not tennis which was why I mentioned it.

As for tennis, depending on the model you define competition based on i.e. which variables you take into account, there might be a way it is like that.

It Must Be Love wrote:Also b-i-t-f, in a dynamic equilibrium, once it's reached, the concentration does not even fluctuate in small time periods- it actually stays constant.

Yeah bad example, should have chosen electron clouds around atoms or molecules...

break_in_the_fifth wrote:You did say "something" and not tennis which was why I mentioned it.

As for tennis, depending on the model you define competition based on i.e. which variables you take into account, there might be a way it is like that.

It doesn't work though, once a dynamic equilibrium is reached, concentrations don't actually fluctuate.
And even if it did, there would be no way of reaching that in something as irregular and random as competition in tennis.

It's pure change in many ways, Raonic's game could click and he could become world class in the next few years, or he may just be stuck as a big server who's baseline game isn't good enough.

Edit: Just seen your post, yes that may be a better example, but I still see tennis as too irregular.

I've missed these. Mind you, I've generally been on the side pelting rocks at Federer's era. Now the tables have turned and I must load up to assault Djokovic's legacy.

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?

Game set and match HM, you are right we never heard this chorus of woa is Tennis and woa is the game when Federer was dominating everyone and everything and hardly breaking a sweat on the faster surfaces. The fact is that Djokovic since he comes from Serbia, had some controversy surrounding his behavior early in his career, and broke up the fedal lovefest simply will not get the adoration of the other two. That is fine and good but at the end of the day his resume when completed will put him in the conversation with greatest. I think the game isn't in the best shape competitiveness wise at the moment although we have to wait and see how Murray and Nadal round back into shape. But that being said it is much better than the days when Hewitt was number or during Fed's peak when Fed was beating up on his patsies and taking their lunch money.

Something fluctuating over long periods of time doesn't follow from something fluctuating over small periods of time was what I was trying to say I suppose. With most simple models yes I would agree that competition does fluctuate over long periods of time. There are more players than 50 years ago and all the other things that come with that.

Anyway, I find the idea that the level of competition is in a continuous state of equilibrium a little reaching. The conveyor belt of talent is not an actual conveyor belt. It doesn't dish out one ATG, to very goods, three good, and a dozen contenders every fifteen years. If Nadal, Murray, Djokovic And Federer all had a tragic ending on Federer's private jet doing whatever it is people in private jets do... Raonic and Co don't suddenly level up.

kingraf wrote:Anyway, I find the idea that the level of competition is in a continuous state of equilibrium a little reaching. The conveyor belt of talent is not an actual conveyor belt. It doesn't dish out one ATG, to very goods, three good, and a dozen contenders every fifteen years. If Nadal, Murray, Djokovic And Federer all had a tragic ending on Federer's private jet doing whatever it is people in private jets do... Raonic and Co don't suddenly level up.

Exactly, it's pretty irregular and a lot of it is due to chance.

When Federer was at the top, people were either marvelling at his level of play or being intrigued by fedal matches. Djokovic's ugly game style means that if things aren't competitive, people are going to get bored very fast. They're going to get bored anyway I believe. Seriously when nadal and Federer go, who is going to pack the stadiums? Djokovic vs Raonic? I hope the people at the top see things need to change and have some guts.

greengoblin wrote:When Federer was at the top, people were either marvelling at his level of play or being intrigued by fedal matches. Djokovic's ugly game style means that if things aren't competitive, people are going to get bored very fast. They're going to get bored anyway I believe. Seriously when nadal and Federer go, who is going to pack the stadiums? Djokovic vs Raonic? I hope the people at the top see things need to change and have some guts.

Greats aren't just made though, theyre developed. Say in 3 or 4 years Novaks dominating but Dimi or Thiem or someone picks up a couple of slams, suddenly youve got the master vs the pretender sitch that Nadal and Federer had in 06-08 and youve got a rivalry of different styles to get into. Need we forget that Fed in 2000 was smashing his raquets and looking like a wasted talent. Things develop...

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

"this" referring to the OP, the comment before yours, or the entire discussion? Or the entire forum?

I think it is a bit boring at the moment. A few notes:

1. It's more boring because players #2-4 have gone down in level. If Djokovic was dominating because he was inventing new shots, and tactics, and generally playing at a level never before seen, that would be a different matter.

2. The attritional nature of the game, as mentioned. But let's not overstate it - he's not that bad to watch.

3. The sheer consistency, he could at the very least have the decency to occassionally turn up cold in round 1 and be taken out by an 18-year old on a hot streak just to keep us awake, but it doesn't happen. Consistency is boring, flawed genius is what we require. See some of Rafa and Rog's recent year's efforts at Wimbledon and take notes.

4. The great rivalries are what many admire as much as individual excellence - two players on the same level, and you never know who's out on top. There is no-one who is 50/50 with Djokovic on hard court, and no-one near to him in the rankings.

However, as we go onto clay, things have to change one way or the other. It won't be boring if Djokovic wins the FO because that will be a story in its own right.

Well HB, I think you point 4 also applied to the Federer period of dominance as well, no one was close to fed on a hardcourt or grass or indoors for that matter. As to point 1 of your argument, I actually think Djokovic is doing many things that are not the norm for the tour. I think he has been groundbreaking in his holistic approach fitness and training on tour. His level of flexibility and ability to dig shots out from a splits position is unique in the history of the men's game. I also think 2011 he did reach those levels of something never seen before or very rarely seen before in terms of level of play. And he may still do it again.

I do agree however that the level of competition from Murray and Nadal seems down. But then we have only had one single slam and the season has just started. I think we will see some great moments and great matches, along with the level of excitement. I do agree however with those that say that it will be hard for Novak to replicate for the fans the level of enjoyment they got from Roger and others from Nadal.

Henman Bill wrote:as we go onto clay, things have to change one way or the other. It won't be boring if Djokovic wins the FO because that will be a story in its own right.

Very good point.

The move to clay also cuts Novak's dominance. He can dip a couple of % on a slow HC and still be a strong favourite.

If his level on clay drops a couple of %, he's going to struggle.

The clay swing is usually my least favourite part of the season but I'm looking forward to it this year.

Speaking of competition during the clay swing, having seen Federer's performance in Davis Cup on clay, I think he may be a serious contender this year.

I know it was "only" Gasquet but it was an amazing level of play from Federer. If he brings that level to RG, anything could happen.

To be honest...

It was only Gasquet.

The Novak's dominance seems boring because there's not a rival who can counter him with a contrasting style. Fed is too old to be able to do so against Novak consistently. Fed during his dominance at least had Rafa who played a contrasting style as his rival and made things interesting. These days, it seems that Fed vs Novak on fast HCS, and Rafa vs Novak on clay are the only interesting matches where Novak is concerned; no one else could make it interesting when playing against Novak. Maybe, we need a Delpo playing top level tennis to make it interesting, like their IW and Wimbledon 2013 matches. Stan makes it interesting for a while but it seems that he's fading away too.

I don't see Dimi or Thiem making it interesting either even if they could challenge Novak in a few years time, because, they're basically playing the same game from the baseline! Their SHBH don't make it any more interesting!

HM Murdoch wrote:Speaking of competition during the clay swing, having seen Federer's performance in Davis Cup on clay, I think he may be a serious contender this year.

I know it was "only" Gasquet but it was an amazing level of play from Federer. If he brings that level to RG, anything could happen.

Agreed! I'm glad you brought it up, I'd be laughed at if I did

His inability to beat Nadal on the surface means that people forget that he is actually a beast on clay. Not too farfetched to say that, along with Novak, he is a top 15 ATG on the dirt. Five RG finals, including one win, is a hefty return considering he's had the GOAT claycourter around. I would say the same for Djok with his clay MS wins and general RG performance over the last few years.

He's also fit an additional clay tournament at Istanbul into his schedule. Perhaps the newly extended grass season is being factored into his thinking? More time to recover for Wimbledon after a hard clay swing. It's either that or he's sightseeing

The main argument against is that he's done nothing at the tournament for the last two years. Without a doubt, he's a distant third favourite behind the obvious. But on form he'll smash the rest of the field, and if Nadal lands in Novak's half, then Fed will have his tail up.

Federer has a decent chance to win RG, but in best of 5 on clay it's important for him to avoid consecutive long matches.

I think it is a weak era of forums. When you get onto mathematical equations and dynamic equilibrium it's probably time to turn off the internet and try and have sex or do something romantic with your girlfriend (or get a girlfriend).

Federer at RG, only an outside chance, I saw some cracking Davis Cup clay play, but was it a faster court as I recall, and just for a couple of sets, no big deal. RG there are two players with more chance to win than the other 126.

Socal my points 3-4 would also apply to Federer but he raised the game and played aggressively and artistically. The other point in Federer's favour and against Djokovic is that someone has been dominating the tour ever since 2004. Federer 2004-2007 was the first time in a long while that someone was dominating the whole tour. It was so open from 2000-2003 but even in the 1990s it was rare to see 3-slam years and 4-5 masters years. And Pete Sampras rarely got to RG SFs, there were still underdog slam wins. So Federer's dominance was something not seen for a long time. In recent years we have been so used to dominance we are almost used to it, it isn't something new, but something samey. Most years from 2004 on the year end no 1 has been locked up by about the US Open (with a couple of exceptions in recent years). A bit unfair on Djokovic.

Djokovic 2011 was a different matter. It was not boring at all for a number of reasons. Compare Djokovic 14 to Djokovic 2011.

1. It's more boring because players #2-4 have gone down in level. If Djokovic was dominating because he was inventing new shots, and tactics, and generally playing at a level never before seen, that would be a different matter.
2011: Nadal and Federer were still awesome and played at the same level as 2009-2010. But, instead of waiting for their demise, Djokovic rose on a level and met them in the heat of battle. It was awesome!

2. The attritional nature of the game, as mentioned. But let's not overstate it - he's not that bad to watch.
2011: Similar game in 2011, but at least it was newer. The complete Djokovic for the first time. Also he had the mental strength, the match point saves, whatever we were seeing we were seeing it for the first time. The US Open final was a new level of physical fitness and battering rallies, like it or loathe it, it was at least something else. There was an excitement around stadia not matched at the moment.

3. The sheer consistency, he could at the very least have the decency to occassionally turn up cold in round 1 and be taken out by an 18-year old on a hot streak just to keep us awake, but it doesn't happen. Consistency is boring, flawed genius is what we require. See some of Rafa and Rog's recent year's efforts at Wimbledon and take notes.
2011: Again the consistency was there, but when you are a big winning streak with zero losses, that is more interesting in its own right, when will he fall. And the end, against Federer at RG, was in itself glorious. There was nothing boring about Djokovic winning AO, IW and Miami like that, because it was the break of the big two that was interesting, even needed. It was the surge of the challenger rather than the same old. And there was certainly nothing boring about Rafa finally finding a clay match. Poetically, the artistic 2011 looks down it nose at the workmanlike 2015.

4. The great rivalries are what many admire as much as individual excellence - two players on the same level, and you never know who's out on top. There is no-one who is 50/50 with Djokovic on hard court, and no-one near to him in the rankings.
2011 was different because there was a tremendous 3-way rivalry. Rafa and Federer were playing better, consistently reaching semis, and although Djokovic won most of the matches, they were at least well fought. Unlike now where Djokovic is hardly having competitive finals in some cases. Also Djokovic winning several in a row was less dull when Rafa/Federer had had the upper hand for so many years. It was the streak that was needed to really challenge, not the odd win.

To expand on my point, I think tennis moves forward, but in little leaps rather than smoothly.

In 2004 Federer moved things on a notch compared to anything that had been seen before. Then fairly flat level from 2004 to 2007.

Rafa-Federer rivalry, especially the W08 and AO09 matches, did it again. After Rafa upped the ante in early 2009, he got injured and so the level of the top stayed flat until the end of 2010.

2011 and Djokovic took it on again. The 2011 US Open final, love it or hate it, was an effective display of tennis and I think Djokovic could have beaten any historic legends on that court on that day (time travel assumed). Then flat to 2015.

It's been flat for a while. Actually, here's I would rank the 2011 and 2015 versions.

1 Djokovic 2011
2 Djokovic 2015
3 Nadal 2011
4 Federer 2011
5 Federer 2015

If anything, we've gone a notch back.

2011 was a peak year, it also had a really interesting Australian Open with young players like Raonic bursting on the scene. The other thing that's flat since 2011 is young players moving on.

Fair enough Henman Bill, I agree with a lot of what you are saying. I also think that it is simply hard to follow up Federer and Nadal as closely as Djokovic has and capture the imagination of fans who already have an allegiance by the time you get around to catching their eye. And not only that you are beating one of their favorites either Nadal and Federer to win a big title. With Fed we hadn't had a new really great player for a few years. We had the Sampras/Agassi/Becker/Edberg guys aging and it seemed that there was a lull in the late 90s till the rise of Federer. Plus Roger's game as aggressive and elegant that it is would probably win Fed a lot of fans, while Djokovic is not nearly as stylistic.

I do agree on the fact, and I have said over and over again that for a period to be fun you need other great players to rise up and more than that you need those greats to play each other in classic matches late in slams.

But my only critique is the idea that Novak doesn't do things that are unique or altered the game. Also I think that people need a bit of time to judge the situation of the competition till we see if Rafa and Andy can regain that spark.

It Must Be Love wrote:

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 ?

There are quantum fluctuations in tennis periods but over an extended period they are levelled out by probability. That said, while these tiny fluctuations are understood, and large scale era theories now understood to be solved, the theories break down when people consider tiny form fluctuations and fail to understand why they don't mean whole eras are different.

The problem is finding an equation that describes both the large scale variations in the game and the miniscule fluctuations. This is something the Large Hadron Collider will be attempting to solve later this year when it accelerates Nadals knees to near-light speed and crashes them together. Scientists are hoping to discover, amongst other things;

- the theorised Muz2 particle, responsible for making Andy's second serve so awful
- the Djok+ particle, which is the mysterious carrier of "Dark Energetic Force" which causes Novak to be able to be out on his feet midway through a 2nd set yet running like a train deep in the 5th.
- The so-called "God particle", which drives Federers tennis

bogbrush wrote:
- The so-called "God particle", which drives Federers tennis

Or that mysterious Nadal particle that renders all of the Federer particle neutral.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:
- The so-called "God particle", which drives Federers tennis

Or that mysterious Nadal particle that renders all of the Federer particle neutral.

That was discovered ages ago in Spanish laboratories.

And that ''God particle'' was constructed in the imagination of Federer fans. They all come from somewhere.

...and evidence of discovery destroyed, to save the planet.

Henman Bill wrote:

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

"this" referring to the OP, the comment before yours, or the entire discussion? Or the entire forum?

Referring to the "weak era debate/no, it's not a weak era debate, honestly it isn't".

Murdoch summed it best for me :-
"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."

Djokovic is suffering from the fact that so many people have tried for so long to play down Fed's accomplishments with the 'weak era' argument, that when a similar set of circumstances now appear, then the same argument must now be applied by those same people to Djokovic. It's a shame for him, because it devalues him, in the same way that people try to devalue Federer.

I like watching tennis. Even if Djoko wins every Masters Tournament, there are still over a hundred matches which he doesn't play in. Still plenty of tennis to watch and enjoy even if he ends up winning every one. I don't have any problem with one person dominating. I'd be happy to see him get a calendar slam this year - wouldn't that be great for tennis?
I wonder if Laver got a lot of 'weak era' flak when he did it?

Well the Fed particle went back to lab for some upgrading and so revitalized to partly able to counter the Djoko particle! Never ending war out there!

It's just the first three months of the season, why are we so eager to rate where Novak, or Rafa or Fed is compared to 2011? I see Novak playing better at AO2012 than this AO, winning it against two top 4 guys playing at the top of their game. IMO Novak is not playing at a high level now, it's his opponents who are playing at a lower level. We'll see how the rest of the season unfolds...

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

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 ?

There are quantum fluctuations in tennis periods but over an extended period they are levelled out by probability. That said, while these tiny fluctuations are understood, and large scale era theories now understood to be solved, the theories break down when people consider tiny form fluctuations and fail to understand why they don't mean whole eras are different.

The problem is finding an equation that describes both the large scale variations in the game and the miniscule fluctuations. This is something the Large Hadron Collider will be attempting to solve later this year when it accelerates Nadals knees to near-light speed and crashes them together. Scientists are hoping to discover, amongst other things;

- the theorised Muz2 particle, responsible for making Andy's second serve so awful
- the Djok+ particle, which is the mysterious carrier of "Dark Energetic Force" which causes Novak to be able to be out on his feet midway through a 2nd set yet running like a train deep in the 5th.
- The so-called "God particle", which drives Federers tennis

Haha very funny Bogbrush

But... I'm not going to let you go from answering my question,

If you believe that:
a) competition can fluctuate from year to year
b) tennis is not regular in the way it produces All Time Greats, or players of any kind (i.e. we could possibly get two All Time Greats who are born on the same day, and then not another one for 5 years, it's based on chance)

Then how can you not believe that competition will fluctuate if you take one time period of a few years and compare to another period of a few years ?? It's just logic.

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Djokovic is suffering from the fact that so many people have tried for so long to play down Fed's accomplishments with the 'weak era' argument, that when a similar set of circumstances now appear, then the same argument must now be applied by those same people to Djokovic. It's a shame for him, because it devalues him, in the same way that people try to devalue Federer.

No I'm sorry Julius, I just don't buy this.

What did I say about Djokovic? I said that given what I've seen so far this year it's likely (but not certain) that in the next few years: 'Fedalurray trio' will not re-find their previous form, and no young guns will step it up to the highest level.
Then, if that was the case, I feel it's also very likely that the competition Djokovic will have to face to win slams in this year and next few years will be easier than the competition he had to face for his 7 slam wins between 2008-2014.

If you disagree with me on a rational plane, ok that's fine you're entitled to your opinion, but if it's just an argument based on emotion 'oh no that's so mean to Djokovic, you're devalueing his future achievements, how sad!' then I don't think I even need a rebuttal. I am fair to Djokovic, I did say he's faced tough competition in the slams he's won so far. Also I think even HM & Socal who are both Djokovic fans agree that what I'm saying could very possibly happen.

IMBL, was I even addressing anything you wrote?

JuliusHMarx wrote:IMBL, was I even addressing anything you wrote?

Well you quoted from Murdoch, and that quote from Murdoch was replying to something I said, and your post also seemed to refer to what I said.
If not then that's fine too, my answer to you above can just be a general statement from me if people think I'm trying to devalue Djokovic.

OK - I remembered Murdoch's line - but hadn't really noticed that it was a reply to anyone.

The rest of my post was just a general statement about how I see it.

IMBL, what are you hoping to achieve or discern with all this debate about strength of competition?

Let's say hypothetically that Djokovic does the CYGS this year and we also recognise that his opponents were weaker in 2015 than in previous years.

What do you want us to do with this conclusion?

Are we to say that Djokovic wouldn't have done it if his opponents played 5% better? 10% better? At their absolute best?

Are we to say that his total of 11 slams should actually be weighted down to 10.5?

(It's not a Djokovic issue, the same questions could apply to Federer's 04-07)

I'm not clear what the end game is here.

HM Murdoch wrote:

Let's say hypothetically that Djokovic does the CYGS this year and we also recognise that his opponents were weaker in 2015 than in previous years.

What do you want us to do with this conclusion?

Sure, fair question.

I'm arguing now that it's very possible in the next few years Djokovic does get easier competition. You're asking what my conclusion would be if the hypothetical of Djokovic having weaker competition and then him winning CYGS would be ?

Well firstly congrats on winning the CYGS, irrelevant of competition something like that take tremendous consistency and mental focus.
In terms of the weaker competition, I think the first thing I'd do is acknowledge that fact. So it would mean that Djokovic winning a CYGS in 2015 would require a lower level of tennis than him winning one in 2010/2011 (I mean he nearly did it in 2011 he was so insanely good).

Think about a parallel, let's say we talk about how impressive winning the French Open/Wimbledon double in the same year is. I think the fact that the surfaces are now more similar to each other, make Borg's achievement of winning both in the same year more impressive than Federer and Nadal's 2008-2010 exploits; in particular in terms of adaptability.
You could ask: so what do we do with that acknowledgement? Should we give Borg 5 'congrats on doing the double' stickers, and cruelly only give Federer and Nadal 4 such stickers? I don't know, but I think the acknowledgement itself that Borg's job of winning both in terms of adapting one's game was harder, is in itself important.

Back to the point about Djokovic/Federer. Like you HM, when I judge a player I don't just look at stats. The way I see it is that players should be judged on how hard it was to achieve what they achieved. It was harder for Borg to adapt between FO and Wimbledon as the surfaces were more divergent than it was in Fedal's time, so he should get extra credit for that. It's harder to have greater success when competition is higher, this too has to be taken into account.
Djokovic so far has faced very hard competition on average in the Slams he has won so far, and I take that into account. Would I put an adjustor and count those Djokovic slams as actually '10.5' as you suggest... no, absolutely not. I don't look at it in a numerical fashion like that.

Sorry, what's weak about 2015?

Nadal is fully fit. Murray also - the back operation was ages ago. Federer is fit too. If any of these guys claim impairment they should retire (which to be fair, Federer will do fairly soon).

bogbrush wrote:Sorry, what's weak about 2015?

Nadal is fully fit. Murray also - the back operation was ages ago. Federer is fit too. If any of these guys claim impairment they should retire (which to be fair, Federer will do fairly soon).

It's not just about being fully fit, it's about the level you're playing. Again I don't know for certain what will happen for the rest of the year, it could well be Nadal or Murray re-find their spark, or a young gun emerges, or Federer remembers how to peak for Grand Slams again; let's see.
But BB, you have not answered my question from 11:41.

I can see one big flaw in this:

It Must Be Love wrote:So it would mean that Djokovic winning a CYGS in 2015 would require a lower level of tennis than him winning one in 2010/2011

It may require a lower level of tennis but it doesn't mean he actually produced a lower level. This is the main flaw in the Weak Era claim against Federer.

But I also I feel perhaps you are addressing a problem that doesn't exist.

I don't think anyone on the forum assesses thing purely on stats.

I think the general consensus is that stats give us a group of elite players but the decision on the pick of the bunch will be a matter of opinion.

I've not, for example, seen anyone claim the Sampras and Nadal are exactly equal because they both have 14 slams. Most will rate one over the other because of a range of other factors.

And I'm pretty sure none of the Federer fans build their argument of his superiority solely on the principle that 17 is greater than 14 and 11.

So it feels like you are expending a lot of energy getting people to do what they are already doing!

One last comment - this sort of analysis fades with time.

I reckon most people here could recall most of Federer and Nadal's opponents in finals off the top of their head.

For Sampras and Borg, I suspect people would have to stop and think.

As for Laver, I reckon google would be involved for most people in naming his opponents!

HM Murdoch wrote:

It may require a lower level of tennis but it doesn't mean he actually produced a lower level.

Of course I do recognise that, someone raised it earlier in the thread and I said that was correct then too.
We have to look at it with perspective and perhaps have a close look at how a player fared against opponents who were harder competition.

Think about my Nadal FO/Wimby double parallel. Nadal did not have to adjust much between the two surfaces in 2008 and 2010, but one could argue that just because he didn't have to make big adjustments doesn't mean we know for sure he wouldn't have been able to if the surfaces were dramatically divergent.

HM Murdoch wrote:I think the general consensus is that stats give us a group of elite players but the decision on the pick of the bunch will be a matter of opinion.

Well I just give my opinion, of course people are entitled to disagree, and if they do agree that's good too.
I can if I want name some people who I feel don't agree with me on either fluctuation in competition, or that looking at stats itself being enough to make a judgement. There are many people who have debated me on both these points for a good number of years. But yes, I do think the majority hold my opinion.

HM Murdoch wrote:
One last comment - this sort of analysis fades with time.

Yes true, as people have less and less information and evidence they can see, their analysis will get even more imprecise. The arguments I make are still correct.