Miami

First topic message reminder :

Draw is out. Projected quarter finals are
Djokovic v Berdych
Federer v Ferrer
Wawrinka v Nadal
Murray v Nishikori

Del Potro playing Pella in the first round...if he wins that then it is Federer.
Kyle Edmund playing Vesely....if he wins that then it is Djokovic.

You seem to be too interested in the outcome and not enough in the journey. Not everyone's opinion is as valuable, that is nonsense. A Nobel prize winner's opinion on something that he can't prove within his field is more convincing than lets say a bus driver's uninformed opinion on lets say physics. And in this analogy if you don't get my meaning my opinion is like the educated opinion of Kepler, Newton, or Einstein awaiting more proof. This is because every debate has a subjective quality to it, it doesn't mean that someone isn't more likely right or doesn't make better arguments that stand a higher chance of being correct. I mean if we went by your view of only talking about things that can be objectively proven than we would have to shut down the legal and journalistic profession and probably dozens of others.

socal1976 wrote:Actually it is quite worth debating. For example, I think Lendl deserves more credibility over just his objective numbers because he never had a shortage of great players at or near peak to contend with. Sampras benefitted to a much lesser extent than Federer did. Andre actually probably benefitted the most next to Federer from the weak era. But Mac never contented with a weak era, neither did Becker, neither did Lendl. And so far Djokovic probably has had a year or so of weaker competition after having incredibly tough competition for the previous 8 or 9 years. So to catch Fed in weak era inflation he would have to continue like this for another 2-3 years.

Lendl - 1982 - 15 titles (highest in career for year) - http://www.atpworldtour.com/players/ivan-lendl/l018/player-activity?year=1982 - and his competition was McEnroe (71-9), Wilander (61-18), Noah (57-16) and Connors (78-10). W/L 106-9. His slam record in 1982 was 9-2.

Federer - 2006 - 12 titles (highest in career for the year) - http://www.atpworldtour.com/players/roger-federer/f324/player-activity?year=2006 - and his competition was - Nadal (59-12), Davydenko (69-29), Roddick (49-20), Nalbandian (44-19), Ljubicic (61-20), Blake (59-25). Djokovic had been a pro for 3 years. Murray beat Federer in Cincinnati. Federer's slam record in 2006 was 27-1.

Federer had turned pro in 1998, and 2000-2001 is 3+ years, same as Djokovic being a Pro since 2003. Nadal was around in 2006 beating him in Dubai.

This WE business is rather peculiar and the subjectivity is interesting.

socal1976 wrote:The two guys who really did benefit though from the weak era were guys like Hewitt and Roddick who would never win any slams if they came around 5 years later.

That is harsh, because these guys had to be content with getting pounded by Federer so many times. IF the 2003-2007 period is a weak era, it is only such from Federer's perspective, but not from the perspective of his opponents who had to play him. Roddick's peak years are rather unfortunately for him too closely aligned with Roger's. In that regard he was particularly unlucky at Wimbledon . I think Roddick's career merited a Wimbledon.

Just because Federer could play other-worldly tennis in his peak, all around him look relatively poor. Nadal was the only competition. His occasional loses were due more to his own mental frailty, rather than some one else's capabilities. Murray, perhaps, beating him in 2006 was the other.

Good point HB, and that's why I don't like the phrase 'weak era'.

For Roddick in that period around 2005, it was maybe easier for him to reach a Grand Slam final than if he had faced the field of 2010-2014. But once he got to the final, it was obviously very tough as he had to beat prime Federer.
Same for let's say someone like Nishikori now, it may be easier for him to reach a Grand Slam final now compared to the field of 2012, but with Djokovic in great form, it's tough to win the Grand Slam final against him.
But for Djokovic, it's pretty clear that the competition for him right now is easier to beat than it was 5 years ago where Fedal were both below 30. And people already know everyone's opinions on the competition faced by Federer in the mid-naughties so no need to repeat it.

But yes, it's bad to use 'absolute' terms like weak, really you should be using relative terms; and it's different from the perspective of different players.

laverfan wrote:Just because Federer could play other-worldly tennis in his peak, all around him look relatively poor.

So you're allowed to give your opinions, but people who disagree with this statement should be questioned for even thinking they have the audacity to hold an opinion ?
Btw I agree with the first part of your statement, Federer did play sensational tennis at his peak, but as is well documented I don't think the others around his age were of all time great quality.

Again I'm not going to have this whole debate as it's been done too many times, but I'm adding how funny it is that people who disagree, instead of directly criticising the points I make:
a) question the right that people should even have a different opinion to yours (your comment I've quoted is a 'subjective opinion' in case you didn't realise)
b) many people who did what you just said now for so long, are now suddenly not so perturbed when most commentators and posters are saying that the generation currently between 23-27 has not shown evidence of having an all time great or a real star, which logically by default would help the world number 1 whoever he is (happens to be Djokovic). People who thought the idea was so untenable that others weren't even allowed to have an opinion on lack of competition, are suddenly ok with other having an opinion on that, as well as being confident in an opinion themselves.

It Must Be Love wrote:

laverfan wrote:Just because Federer could play other-worldly tennis in his peak, all around him look relatively poor.

So you're allowed to give your opinions, but people who disagree with this statement should be questioned for even thinking they have the audacity to hold an opinion ?
Btw I agree with the first part of your statement, Federer did play sensational tennis at his peak, but as is well documented I don't think the others around his age were of all time great quality.

Was it because someone else was beating them (a la Djokovic)? There was a 19-yo named Nadal who was beating him in Miami, RG, Dubai, and he currently has 14 slams, more than McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, Wilander, Becker, Sampras, Agassi, Djokovic, etc. This is why opinions are subjective. GOAT candidate winning a slam before Federer's highest title year was no competition. There was Murray beating him on a Fast Cincy court in the year Federer won the most titles. He is not considered Top 4, right? Is Soderling great? Is Wawrinka (or Safin) great? Is Hewitt (or Murray) great? Greatness is not proportional to number of slams you win, or is it? Can we debate this?

It Must Be Love wrote:Again I'm not going to have this whole debate as it's been done too many times, but I'm adding how funny it is that people who disagree, instead of directly criticising the points I make:
a) question the right that people should even have a different opinion to yours (your comment I've quoted is a 'subjective opinion' in case you didn't realise)
b) many people who did what you just said now for so long, are now suddenly not so perturbed when most commentators and posters are saying that the generation currently between 23-27 has not shown evidence of having an all time great or a real star, which logically by default would help the world number 1 whoever he is (happens to be Djokovic). People who thought the idea was so untenable that others weren't even allowed to have an opinion on lack of competition, are suddenly ok with other having an opinion on that, as well as being confident in an opinion themselves.

Yet, here you are debating it. . No one is questioning a right to an opinion, and in fact, stating there are many subjective ones, around. You pick what you like.

Can you predict (and opine)  how many slams Goffin, Kyrgios, Nishikori can win? I can at least predict that Monfils, Ferrer and Berdych will never win a Slam. (Lottery numbers will also help). In 2003, no one had the cojones to predict 17 for Federer, or 14 for Nadal in 2005, or 11 for Djokovic (and still counting).

There is no such thing as weak or a strong era. CC's fluctuations makes more sense, and derived subjective interpretations are what makes this debate a never-ending one.

If you want to start a new discussion, please do. This is not really Miami related. We can create a second sticky, if you like.

laverfan wrote:
No one is questioning a right to an opinion, and in fact, stating there are many subjective ones, around. You pick what you like.

You always make the point that opinions in this debate are subjective. When are opinions not subjective ? Read Socal's point at the top of the page.

laverfan wrote:
There is no such thing as weak or a strong era. CC's fluctuations makes more sense,

I've argued from the start against using absolute terms like 'weak' or 'strong' (and even those who did use the phrase 'weak era' did so because it was catchy, it's obviously a relative term in reality- no one is really saying Baghdatis would be weak at your local club), and I also talked about fluctuations from a long ago; you didn't seem to say it 'makes more sense' when I said it then, but do so when CC says it now.
I'm not interested in rekindling the debate, I was just saying what I had observed with the blatant double standards.

socal1976 wrote:You seem to be too interested in the outcome and not enough in the journey. Not everyone's opinion is as valuable, that is nonsense. A Nobel prize winner's opinion on something that he can't prove within his field is more convincing than lets say a bus driver's uninformed opinion on lets say physics. And in this analogy if you don't get my meaning my opinion is like the educated opinion of Kepler, Newton, or Einstein awaiting more proof. This is because every debate has a subjective quality to it, it doesn't mean that someone isn't more likely right or doesn't make better arguments that stand a higher chance of being correct. I mean if we went by your view of only talking about things that can be objectively proven than we would have to shut down the legal and journalistic profession and probably dozens of others.

The point is though why bother? It is a point debating something once and moving on but not going on about it for years without any chance at all of resolution. It is like trying to insist aliens exist - all interesting enough but without hard core evidence it is totally unprovable and not worth falling out with people on a public forum for.

Like I said what constitutes an era in the first place? Is it weeks, months or years? I never got an answer even to that before we begin assessing the more unponderable ponderables. I think the best thing to do is admit fluctuations happen in tennis (like in everything in life) and admit that at times every player in tennis has had times where winning titles has come easier to him due to circumstance - that goes across the board beit Sampras, Nadal, Djokovic or yes even Federer folks.

It Must Be Love wrote:I've argued from the start against using absolute terms like 'weak' or 'strong' (and even those who did use the phrase 'weak era' did so because it was catchy, it's obviously a relative term in reality- no one is really saying Baghdatis would be weak at your local club), and I also talked about fluctuations from a long ago; you didn't seem to say it 'makes more sense' when I said it then, but do so when CC says it now.
I'm not interested in rekindling the debate, I was just saying what I had observed with the blatant double standards.

But you are interested in being credited with the fluctuations-in-tennis-standards theory, and adding the ability to measure it, correct? You would also like the same for discouraging the use of an absolute scale in such measurements.

I suggest you and CC come up with a business arrangement as co-authors of such a treatise, so future debates can reference it.  Is that reasonable?

I think Federer vs Goffin or Nadal vs Kyrgios measurements can be added to such a white paper.

laverfan wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:I've argued from the start against using absolute terms like 'weak' or 'strong' (and even those who did use the phrase 'weak era' did so because it was catchy, it's obviously a relative term in reality- no one is really saying Baghdatis would be weak at your local club), and I also talked about fluctuations from a long ago; you didn't seem to say it 'makes more sense' when I said it then, but do so when CC says it now.
I'm not interested in rekindling the debate, I was just saying what I had observed with the blatant double standards.

But you are interested in being credited with the fluctuations-in-tennis-standards theory, and adding the ability to measure it, correct? You would also like the same for discouraging the use of an absolute scale in such measurements.

I suggest you and CC come up with a business arrangement as co-authors of such a treatise, so future debates can reference it.  Is that reasonable?

I think Federer vs Goffin or Nadal vs Kyrgios measurements can be added to such a white paper.

All my point is that it is poppycock to believe there are no rise and fall (fluctuations) in form and standards in tennis. It is pretty daft to pretend otherwise. I think the reason this has continued to rumble on resurfacing every so often is mis-use of 'weak era' term by some and a refusal to admit dips by others.

I am not even going to go there in trying to how to evaluate the size of these fluctuations - pretty impossible to do so.

Novak takes the first set 6:3. Fairly comfortable but an odd set. Five breaks of serve in total. Nishi alternately looking pretty good and downright pathetic.

Very comfortable win for Novak. Clay courts next.

IW-MI double, three years in a row. An incredible achievement.

The scary/worrying thing for the rest of the tour is that Novak hasn't even played that well in Miami but still won the title without dropping a set.

That's more dominance than peak fed. Scary stuff for the rest. I think he should skip a masters to save his physical health for RG

HM Murdock wrote:IW-MI double, three years in a row. An incredible achievement.

The scary/worrying thing for the rest of the tour is that Novak hasn't even played that well in Miami but still won the title without dropping a set.

The all time leader in Masters at 28, I don't see how he doesn't put this record out of reach from some time. 24 sets in a row. I mean this was not the best Novak Djokovic at all for either of these two tournaments. Maybe last couple of rounds at IW.

If you took all 4 of Novak's slams off (3 wins, 1 final) his point total and he would still be number 1 by about 1000 points. Nishikori's serve was just treated with such disdain today.

We're still in that ridiculous situation where nobody younger than Djokovic has won a Masters title since Novak won his first one at Miami 2007.

Nine years!

Not ridiculous from my perspective Murdoch, lets hope he keeps it going. Those young guys will have their time.

I'm not wishing defeat on him. I'm just amazed that nobody born after May 1987 has ever won a Masters title!

Oh I know Murdock, I mean lets be honest Novak has won 9 of the last 11 and the majority of these Masters since 2011. He isn't giving crumbs to anyone.

HM Murdock wrote:IW-MI double, three years in a row. An incredible achievement.

The scary/worrying thing for the rest of the tour is that Novak hasn't even played that well in Miami but still won the title without dropping a set.

Without two his main coaches on the bench and his A game and Novak was absolutely deserved winner. Novak is just great, but his mission is not finished yet

HM Murdock wrote:IW-MI double, three years in a row. An incredible achievement.

The scary/worrying thing for the rest of the tour is that Novak hasn't even played that well in Miami but still won the title without dropping a set.

AO and IW and Miami.

Make that a Hardcourt Sweep

HM Murdock wrote:I'm not wishing defeat on him. I'm just amazed that nobody born after May 1987 has ever won a Masters title!

Scary scary thought. 

Think there are too many battle scars amongst the current crop.

Can somebody at least give Djoko A DECENT MATCH!

Congrats to Djokovic! Very nice 28th MS in his 28th year.

(Do we need Bo5 to return for MS finals? ).

sirfredperry wrote:Can somebody at least give Djoko A DECENT MATCH!

Gilles Simon. (Beat Federer in 2008 - twice, IIRC).

sirfredperry wrote:Can somebody at least give Djoko A DECENT MATCH!

At least we see some superb Novak's practices, which is better than poor matches.

sirfredperry wrote:Can somebody at least give Djoko A DECENT MATCH!

Depends what you would classify as a decent match. He has the ultimate neutralising game. 

Wawrinka seems the only who can push Novak to elevate his game.

Djokovic has more ranking points than Andy Murray & Roger Federer combined.  He beat Nadal last year at the French Open, while Wawrinka has lost consistency.   He is the current holder of 3 Grand Slam titles, the end of year title and 6 Masters titles.  He also was the losing finalist in the other grand slam and two other masters.

Of the 18 tournaments he has competed in in the rolling year to date, he has won 14 (3xGS, 6xMasters, 1xEnd of Year, 1x500), was a losing finalist in 3 (1xGS, 2XMasters) and a losing quarter finalist in one (1 x 500).

Ye but he didn't win Dubai did he.

Yeah, he gave up against Lopez because he realised he'd never have the tennis to match the mid-court slicing/ volleying Spaniard. Bit disappointing really when people give up in the most important tournament of the year like that.

Where is novak competition going to come from?

If this was serena dominating there would be the usual cry of a weak era not enough depth etc.

Novak to win the cygs

Does anyone else just want to skip the clay masters and get straight to the French Open? I mean, there's not much intrigue in them, other than maybe seeing if Nadal can get some form going consistently. I just want to get to the crux of the season and see how Djokovic handles the pressure of being the heavy favourite in Paris.

Strangely, the last couple of years I've been all for Djokovic completing his career slam, but I feel less enthusiastic for it this year unless he gets some serious challenge - Thiem in this draw would be good for a start, Nadal again and a good clash with Monfils or Tsonga with a partisan crowd - just want to feel it will have been well earned if he does get it.

I would love to see Djokovic triple-bagel the player opposite him in RG final this year, if possible, and win RG without losing a set.

djkbrown2001 wrote:Novak to win the cygs

Are we not getting ahead of ourselves here?

YvonneT wrote:Strangely, the last couple of years I've been all for Djokovic completing his career slam, but I feel less enthusiastic for it this year unless he gets some serious challenge

I am the other way around. I really did not want Djokovic to win RG in 2012 and hold all four slams then. While I will still likely be rooting against him this RG, I am more willing to see him winning this time around.

YvonneT wrote:Does anyone else just want to skip the clay masters and get straight to the French Open?

I'd be happy to be told the result of Roland Garros and move straight onto Wimbledon.

I know that the clay season will be slow descent in madness for me.

I'll begin watching watching Monte Carlo as a relatively objective observer, who has a favourite player but can still enjoy tennis on its own terms.

By the time Roland Garros comes around, I'll be a full-blown gibbering chimp of a fanboy, emotionally invested in something entirely outside of my control.

I'm going to have to make sure I have lots of other things to do during May and June!

6 IW or Miamis in a row for Djokovic, 3 doubles. 2014 7-6 vs Federer was the last one that even went to the wire.

Is he planning to skip Monte Carlo or Madrid this year? Might not be a bad idea - although by doing so he gives up any chance to have a clean sweep at the masters. Yes, it's a long shot, but you never know.

8 of last 11 masters across this season and last.

I quite like the clay part of the season. I think Monte Carlo and Rome are historic and prestigious tournies in their own right.

Statistics analysis article about the final

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/miami-2016-final-brain-game-djokovic-nishikori

Record 28th ATP World Tour Masters 1000 title
Record-tying sixth Miami title (w/Agassi)
Passed coach Boris Becker for 11th on Open Era match wins list with No. 714
Surpassed Roger Federer as all-time prize money leader on ATP World Tour
Achieved a three-peat at a record seventh different tour-level event
Completed Indian Wells-Miami double for unprecedented fourth time
Has compiled a 56-2 match record in reaching a record 11 consecutive Masters 1000 finals

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/djokovic-wins-sixth-miami-title-2016

Henman Bill wrote:Statistics analysis article about the final

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/miami-2016-final-brain-game-djokovic-nishikori

"Novak Djokovic is a first-strike master masquerading as an aggressive baseliner" is completely correct and frequently overlooked.

People still tend to think of him as being a player who grinds his opponents down in long rallies but his crazy level of recent success has been built on the first shot.

He already had a supreme return but now that he's added a very good first and, crucially, second serve, he nearly always starts a point at an advantage.

That's the big change of the Becker era.

If Andy Murray were to stay focussed he should be able to strengthen his ranking as number two and take any crumbs dropped from the Djokovic table.  But at the moment Roger Federer is the better player to Andy Murray in terms of recent head to heads:

2015 Cincinnati Masters SF Hard Roger Federer beats Andy Murray 6-4 7-6(6)
2015 Wimbledon SF Grass Roger Federer beats Andy Murray 7-5 7-5 6-4
2014 ATP World Tour Finals 11 Hard Roger Federer beats Andy Murray 6-0 6-1
2014 Cincinnati Masters QF Hard Roger Federer beats Andy Murray 6-3 7-5
2014 Australian Open QF Hard Roger Federer beats Andy Murray 6-3 6-4 6-7(6) 6-3
2013 Australian Open SF Hard Andy Murray beats Roger Federer 6-4 6-7(5) 6-3 6-7(2) 6-2

Not sure about your first sentence there, Nore Staat. Murray would have to have a hell of clay season to strengthen his ranking. Since he had his best ever season on clay last year, he's got an ATP250 win, an ATP1000 win and a Roland Garros SF worth of points to defend. Having said that, it should be considered a disappointment if he doesn't outscore Federer on clay, given not just Fed's age but his return from an injury break.