PDA

View Full Version : Why did FEDERER dump ROACH???


wow246
03-07-2009, 12:46 AM
Was there a official reason given??

Seemed like they were doing well together. He won wat 5-6 slams with him?? Even came close on clay in 06 and 07 failed casue of mental issues!!!!!

Tempest344
03-07-2009, 01:36 AM
It may have been the other way round
it was after Federer lost to Volandri at Rome

Lotto
03-07-2009, 02:21 AM
I dont know but have you noticed that since getting rid of Roche, even though he's won 3 grand slams since his level has dropped significantly......like at the Aussie Open 07 it was just phenomenal play, the volandri match might have been a fluke and then at Wimbledon, and the US Open he was great but wasn't quite the same and then in 2008, well we all know what happened.

I really hope the rumours about Cahill are true because we could see a rejuvenated Fed if they are......

stormholloway
03-07-2009, 02:58 AM
Sometimes a roach just gets too small. You can burn your fingers if you hang on to it too long.

Oh, you mean Tony Roche? Next time learn a bit more about what it is you're posting about.

ChanceEncounter
03-07-2009, 03:43 AM
That's not nice calling him a roach.

miyagi
03-07-2009, 04:10 AM
Sometimes a roach just gets too small. You can burn your fingers if you hang on to it too long.

Oh, you mean Tony Roche? Next time learn a bit more about what it is you're posting about.

So he spelt his name wrong no need to be an ***** about it...idiot!

tahiti
03-07-2009, 04:19 AM
Maybe they had learnt all they could together and it was time to move on. Or personal issues, who knows but it's good if Fed sticks with Cahill the rivalry will improve.

Pity some people can't just take out their frustrations on their partners at home instead of the net in threads!

THERAFA
03-07-2009, 04:29 AM
Nah I think it's best to take out anger on the net in threads rather than wife:
Bashing

Sentinel
03-07-2009, 04:35 AM
Federer felt roaches er coaches are holding him back. So he prefers not to engage them. I don't believe he was happy in his association with Roche.

tennis_hand
03-07-2009, 05:41 AM
u can't deny Roche's effort in helping him winning a few Slams.
But Fed is a talented player and probably he does not listen to his coaches a lot. Sometimes after winning a lot, u get complacent. and then u will fall.

Clydey2times
03-07-2009, 05:55 AM
Unlike most people, I don't think Federer's level has dropped in the slightest. The competition is just much stiffer. Compare his competition today (Mature Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray) to the competition when he dominated (Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, and a much less mature Nadal).

There's no comparison. Federer was winning 3 grand slams a year against inferior opposition and, in the case of 2007, Nadal hadn't matured on hard courts, Murray still hadn't matured, and Djokovic was just coming into his own that year.

rubberduckies
03-07-2009, 05:57 AM
They had some issues with Roche's availability and willingness to travel. There were also some issues with money allegedly. Roger said right after announcing Roche's departure that it had gotten to the point where they would spend hours on court and never really say anything to each other. Roger said that he had been wanting to drop Roche for a while and blamed his performance in Rome on the fact that this had be weighing on his mind.

Rabbit
03-07-2009, 07:34 AM
Sometimes a roach just gets too small. You can burn your fingers if you hang on to it too long.

Oh, you mean Tony Roche? Next time learn a bit more about what it is you're posting about.

Dude........some would say "Way Harsh"......but I'm like totally with you on this......

Are you through with the mustard?

Andyk028
03-07-2009, 09:09 AM
Sometimes a roach just gets too small. You can burn your fingers if you hang on to it too long.

Oh, you mean Tony Roche? Next time learn a bit more about what it is you're posting about.

I second that.

hoodjem
03-07-2009, 09:13 AM
He didn't. He dumped Roche.

hoodjem
03-07-2009, 09:15 AM
Nah I think it's best to take out anger on the net in threads rather than wife:
Bashing
Miyagi beats his wife? Not cool.

Cup8489
03-07-2009, 10:51 AM
Unlike most people, I don't think Federer's level has dropped in the slightest. The competition is just much stiffer. Compare his competition today (Mature Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray) to the competition when he dominated (Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, and a much less mature Nadal).

There's no comparison. Federer was winning 3 grand slams a year against inferior opposition and, in the case of 2007, Nadal hadn't matured on hard courts, Murray still hadn't matured, and Djokovic was just coming into his own that year.

wow...

i think you used up your quota for dumb posts for the day. sorry!

the 'inferior opposition' was certainly capable of dealing out ***-whoopings to djokovic and murray from today. hewitt excelled at wearing opponents down, which puts a prime hewitt against what is more and more appearing to be a prime djokovic (since his level has DROPPED this year) hewitt would take it. djokovic just doesnt have the stamina to outlast hewitt, and back then hewitt could trade groundstrokes with anyone. safin would overcome murray from the baseline, as when he played well (in the period you're talking about) he could beat anyone.

roddick was also extremely dangerous, and both he and safin have shown even in the latter stages of their career that they can hang with this so called 'stiff competiion' era.

sorry, you're just ignorant.

Clydey2times
03-07-2009, 11:50 AM
wow...

i think you used up your quota for dumb posts for the day. sorry!

the 'inferior opposition' was certainly capable of dealing out ***-whoopings to djokovic and murray from today. hewitt excelled at wearing opponents down, which puts a prime hewitt against what is more and more appearing to be a prime djokovic (since his level has DROPPED this year) hewitt would take it. djokovic just doesnt have the stamina to outlast hewitt, and back then hewitt could trade groundstrokes with anyone. safin would overcome murray from the baseline, as when he played well (in the period you're talking about) he could beat anyone.

roddick was also extremely dangerous, and both he and safin have shown even in the latter stages of their career that they can hang with this so called 'stiff competiion' era.

sorry, you're just ignorant.

So because you disagree, I am somehow dumb for suggesting that today's top players are superior to the one's from a few years ago? I'm sorry, but even before Hewitt's injury the game was passing him by. One look at Roddick's results recently clearly demonstrate that the game has moved on from when he was a player to be feared. Need I even bring up Safin, who was woefully inconsistent?

Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Murray >>>> Federer, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin.

There's really no comparison.

And I hadn't realised that Roddick was in the latter stages of his career. He's, what, 26 or 27? Hardly Santoro territory. And no, Safin hasn't been able to hang with today's guys. In terms of talent, he's right up there. Talent alone doesn't cut it, however, and his form and consistency put him way below the current crop of top players even when he was in the top 4. He wasn't even close to being consistent enough to beat these guys regularly.

There's a reason that Federer dominated those guys. All you need to do is compare Fed's H2H with them and Fed's H2H with the current crop of top players. That should tell you all you need to know.

And please don't call me dumb and ignorant when you can barely put a sentence together.

veroniquem
03-07-2009, 11:59 AM
Maybe they had learnt all they could together and it was time to move on. Or personal issues, who knows but it's good if Fed sticks with Cahill the rivalry will improve.

Pity some people can't just take out their frustrations on their partners at home instead of the net in threads!
I can tell you're not married! Nothing is worse than taking your frustrations out on your partner or spouse. I'd recommend taking it out on just about anyone else instead... Unless you want to speed up the divorce of course:)

veroniquem
03-07-2009, 12:03 PM
They had some issues with Roche's availability and willingness to travel. There were also some issues with money allegedly. Roger said right after announcing Roche's departure that it had gotten to the point where they would spend hours on court and never really say anything to each other. Roger said that he had been wanting to drop Roche for a while and blamed his performance in Rome on the fact that this had be weighing on his mind.
Ha ha too bad, 1 year later Federer didn't have anyone to blame his loss to Stepanek on ;) (unless he blamed it on Mirka, poor thing :()

Mungo73
03-07-2009, 05:33 PM
Was there a official reason given??

Seemed like they were doing well together. He won wat 5-6 slams with him?? Even came close on clay in 06 and 07 failed casue of mental issues!!!!!

wrong. Roche dumped Rog.

ChanceEncounter
03-07-2009, 07:10 PM
So because you disagree, I am somehow dumb for suggesting that today's top players are superior to the one's from a few years ago? I'm sorry, but even before Hewitt's injury the game was passing him by. One look at Roddick's results recently clearly demonstrate that the game has moved on from when he was a player to be feared. Need I even bring up Safin, who was woefully inconsistent?

Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Murray >>>> Federer, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin.

There's really no comparison.

And I hadn't realised that Roddick was in the latter stages of his career. He's, what, 26 or 27? Hardly Santoro territory. And no, Safin hasn't been able to hang with today's guys. In terms of talent, he's right up there. Talent alone doesn't cut it, however, and his form and consistency put him way below the current crop of top players even when he was in the top 4. He wasn't even close to being consistent enough to beat these guys regularly.

There's a reason that Federer dominated those guys. All you need to do is compare Fed's H2H with them and Fed's H2H with the current crop of top players. That should tell you all you need to know.

And please don't call me dumb and ignorant when you can barely put a sentence together.

COMPLETELY illogical statement. Because if Federer has lost a step, this could be attributed to either losing a step or the competition being better. I think I would rather trust my own eyes or the eyes of commentators and experts that claim that Roger has lost a step, thanks.

So in other words, you still fail to isolate the reason for Federer's decline, so for all of your posturing of superior competition, this still doesn't prove a thing. All you can do is talk around in circles and beg the question.

Roddick may only be 26 or 27, but he's also not as dangerous a player as he was before, and you can clearly see this on the court. His forehand in particular is nowhere near as dangerous; it's pace has dropped, he still hits a number of errors, and it doesn't move around people like it use to. And yet, in his last meeting with one of the "top 4," he beat him (Djokovic).

Safin hasn't won a tournament since 2005 (AO). He's 29 now and says he's going to retire after the end of the year. Trying to claim that Safin "hasn't been able to hang" with these guys when he's been down the last few years that these guys have come up is a circular, begging the question argument.

And let's not forget the fact that tennis players that get to Federer's age frequently see a decline in their abilities anyway. Let's put two and two together before touting that the competition has gotten stiffer ad nauseum.

Clydey2times
03-07-2009, 07:53 PM
COMPLETELY illogical statement. Because if Federer has lost a step, this could be attributed to either losing a step or the competition being better. I think I would rather trust my own eyes or the eyes of commentators and experts that claim that Roger has lost a step, thanks.

So in other words, you still fail to isolate the reason for Federer's decline, so for all of your posturing of superior competition, this still doesn't prove a thing. All you can do is talk around in circles and beg the question.

Roddick may only be 26 or 27, but he's also not as dangerous a player as he was before, and you can clearly see this on the court. His forehand in particular is nowhere near as dangerous; it's pace has dropped, he still hits a number of errors, and it doesn't move around people like it use to. And yet, in his last meeting with one of the "top 4," he beat him (Djokovic).

Safin hasn't won a tournament since 2005 (AO). He's 29 now and says he's going to retire after the end of the year. Trying to claim that Safin "hasn't been able to hang" with these guys when he's been down the last few years that these guys have come up is a circular, begging the question argument.

And let's not forget the fact that tennis players that get to Federer's age frequently see a decline in their abilities anyway. Let's put two and two together before touting that the competition has gotten stiffer ad nauseum.

Like I said, Safin has always been woefully inconsistent. Do you really think it's a coincidence that all of the top players from the era Federer dominated (with the exception of Nadal, who had yet to fully mature on hard and grass) can't even come close to matching their results from a few years ago? You're really grasping at straws.

As early as 2006, guys like Murray (in his first full year on tour) beat 3 of the 4 players mentioned (Hewitt, Roddick, and Federer). It's no coincidence that Federer's dominance ended when Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray matured. It astonishes me that anyone would argue that guys like Ferrero, Hewitt, Safin, Roddick etc. are not inferior to today's top players.

The game is constantly evolving and the standard is improving. You had guys like Hewitt, Roddick, and Ferrero at the top. Federer came along and began to dominate those guys once he matured, making a mockery of that era's standard. Nadal comes along and dominates clay, while Federer mops up everything else in the absence of anyone who can challenge him on hard and grass. Nadal matures on grass and Djokovic matures in general, and later Murray comes into his own. Now Federer has players who can challenge him on all surfaces.

I'm sorry, but I find it laughable that you think a very poor era from a few years ago matches up favourably against today's top players. I really don't care what you say about age etc. It's just nonsense. 26-27 is not old for a tennis player and it certainly is not an age at which a tennis player goes into decline.

By the way, I love how you used Safin's 4 year spell without a title as proof that the standard hasn't improved. Brilliant. Round of applause for that argument.

vtmike
03-07-2009, 07:55 PM
wrong. Roche dumped Rog.

wrong. Rog dumped Roche.

VivalaVida
03-07-2009, 08:04 PM
why cant people just answer the poor OP's questions? Do you guys enjoy making fun of him because he spelled roache's name wrong? it is really stupid and doesn't make you any smarter. This is as bad as when people give you grammar lessons on the net for saying "your" rather than "you are".

ShcMad
03-07-2009, 08:32 PM
After witnessing Fed's game decline little by little ever since he parted ways with Coach Roche, I'm now convinced that Roche has put some sort of Australian aboriginal curse on Roger. Either that, or he is into voodoo dolls.

To answer the OP's question, these are just mere rumours I heard a long while ago:

-Apparently, Roche was expecting Roger to give him a little bonus money after his grand slam wins. Roche felt that Roger was being a cheapskate.
-Roche wasn't getting along well with Mirka.

koalakoala
03-07-2009, 08:50 PM
Roger said in an interview that their relationship had come to a stage where they could practice on court for hours without saying a word - communication break down.

Anyway, I reckon a communication break down takes two parties: While Mr Roche could have no enthusiasm for his job, Roger might sometimes have had too big an ego to turn Roche off?

ChanceEncounter
03-07-2009, 09:00 PM
Like I said, Safin has always been woefully inconsistent. Do you really think it's a coincidence that all of the top players from the era Federer dominated (with the exception of Nadal, who had yet to fully mature on hard and grass) can't even come close to matching their results from a few years ago? You're really grasping at straws.

As early as 2006, guys like Murray (in his first full year on tour) beat 3 of the 4 players mentioned (Hewitt, Roddick, and Federer). It's no coincidence that Federer's dominance ended when Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray matured. It astonishes me that anyone would argue that guys like Ferrero, Hewitt, Safin, Roddick etc. are not inferior to today's top players.

The game is constantly evolving and the standard is improving. You had guys like Hewitt, Roddick, and Ferrero at the top. Federer came along and began to dominate those guys once he matured, making a mockery of that era's standard. Nadal comes along and dominates clay, while Federer mops up everything else in the absence of anyone who can challenge him on hard and grass. Nadal matures on grass and Djokovic matures in general, and later Murray comes into his own. Now Federer has players who can challenge him on all surfaces.

I'm sorry, but I find it laughable that you think a very poor era from a few years ago matches up favourably against today's top players. I really don't care what you say about age etc. It's just nonsense. 26-27 is not old for a tennis player and it certainly is not an age at which a tennis player goes into decline.

By the way, I love how you used Safin's 4 year spell without a title as proof that the standard hasn't improved. Brilliant. Round of applause for that argument.

So Safin hasn't won since 2005, before Nadal got really good at hard courts. BEFORE Djokovic and Murray emerged. BEFORE they became known as the big four. And yet, this means that the level of tennis rose and passed him by? Seriously, who's grasping at straws here?

As I said, your argument is begging the question. Please look up what that even means before you try to make an 'argument' against me. I have little patience for people who spew verbal diarrhea and logical fallacies as their 'points.'

It's a very circular argument because Federer may have lost a step and the players may have caught up. It may have been Federer losing a step that allowed the players to catch up, or it may have been the players catching up regardless of how Federer has lost a step. In other words, you can't isolate the variables when several things are happening at once.

Apparently, Clydey2times feels that you can do the mathematically impossible simply because he wishes it. :rolleyes:

I can turn it around on you. If you seriously don't think that someone like Hewitt and Safin in their primes could not only hang with the top 4 today, I don't know what to tell you. Didn't you see them take it to Sampras in back to back years at the US Open? The same guy (actually a better guy, because he was definitely aging) that went on to win the Open in 2002? I guess the 90s era was weak too, by this circular logic, and then Hewitt and Safin caught up. :rolleyes:

First off, 26-27 is getting old in tennis terms. Only Agassi the ageless wonder had similar success after 26-27 as before (and that's because he never really had a 'prime' because of off-court issues and concentration). Borg declined, Sampras declined, Lendl declined, McEnroe declined. They all did. Tennis is a young man's game.

So, your "argument" consists of begging the question in an attempt to explain how Federer, against the laws of aging and human biology, is somehow not declining, or hasn't declined one bit, and it's the field that's all taken their vitamins and gotten exponentially better simply because you want to ignore all the proper variables and isolate the one you want without any substantiation for it. :?

Brilliant. Round of applause for this joke of an argument. Why do I even bother?

koalakoala
03-07-2009, 09:01 PM
Like I said, Safin has always been woefully inconsistent. Do you really think it's a coincidence that all of the top players from the era Federer dominated (with the exception of Nadal, who had yet to fully mature on hard and grass) can't even come close to matching their results from a few years ago? You're really grasping at straws.

As early as 2006, guys like Murray (in his first full year on tour) beat 3 of the 4 players mentioned (Hewitt, Roddick, and Federer). It's no coincidence that Federer's dominance ended when Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray matured. It astonishes me that anyone would argue that guys like Ferrero, Hewitt, Safin, Roddick etc. are not inferior to today's top players.

The game is constantly evolving and the standard is improving. You had guys like Hewitt, Roddick, and Ferrero at the top. Federer came along and began to dominate those guys once he matured, making a mockery of that era's standard. Nadal comes along and dominates clay, while Federer mops up everything else in the absence of anyone who can challenge him on hard and grass. Nadal matures on grass and Djokovic matures in general, and later Murray comes into his own. Now Federer has players who can challenge him on all surfaces.

I'm sorry, but I find it laughable that you think a very poor era from a few years ago matches up favourably against today's top players. I really don't care what you say about age etc. It's just nonsense. 26-27 is not old for a tennis player and it certainly is not an age at which a tennis player goes into decline.

By the way, I love how you used Safin's 4 year spell without a title as proof that the standard hasn't improved. Brilliant. Round of applause for that argument.

Well said. Human beings are evolving (we are not going back to monkeys, are we?).

For Roger, the physical decline can be slowed down but never be reversed. I think while he works hard to keep himself healthy, he should at the same time learn things from the younger generation, e.g. Nadal has a great "for the moment" mentality and Murray can be the most intelligent player.

It takes humility to learn from young guns. I hope AO 2009 can truly humble him. At least it is good sign that he is hiring a coach now.

ChanceEncounter
03-07-2009, 09:05 PM
Well said. Human beings are evolving (we are not going back to monkeys, are we?).

For Roger, the physical decline can be slowed down but never be reversed. I think while he works hard to keep himself healthy, he should at the same time learn things from the younger generation, e.g. Nadal has a great "for the moment" mentality and Murray can be the most intelligent player.

It takes humility to learn from young guns. I hope AO 2009 can truly humble him. At least it is good sign that he is hiring a coach now.

Evolution is not a proper argument here. Evolution happens over generations and years. To make a notable human evolution doesn't happen within a single career.

You would make a much better argument to say that technology has improved dramatically since 2004, since technology is evolving much faster than humans are.

Better rackets means faster pace on the ball, which means they have to slow the courts down to keep the game of tennis balanced. This puts extra emphasis on people with great mobility and athleticism, and thus puts more emphasis on, -gasp- young players.

Seriously, name one slam contender that's older than Roger Federer. I dare you to.

Clydey2times
03-07-2009, 10:00 PM
So Safin hasn't won since 2005, before Nadal got really good at hard courts. BEFORE Djokovic and Murray emerged. BEFORE they became known as the big four. And yet, this means that the level of tennis rose and passed him by? Seriously, who's grasping at straws here?

As I said, your argument is begging the question. Please look up what that even means before you try to make an 'argument' against me. I have little patience for people who spew verbal diarrhea and logical fallacies as their 'points.'

I love it when a pseudo-intellectual gets on a roll. It makes taking you down a peg all the sweeter.

Firstly, I am fully aware of what "begging the question" means. Unlike most, I don't confuse it with colloquial or common usage. I know what you mean, and repeating it incessantly does not impress me.

Secondly, standards are constantly rising. It is not a case of Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray remaining at one level and then inexplicably becoming world beaters all of a sudden. The standard has risen gradually. That is why players like Safin, Hewitt, and Roddick can't match their past results. Hewitt obviously suffered from injury in recent years, but you can see that his results gradually declined from the time he was at number 1.


It's a very circular argument because Federer may have lost a step and the players may have caught up. It may have been Federer losing a step that allowed the players to catch up, or it may have been the players catching up regardless of how Federer has lost a step. In other words, you can't isolate the variables when several things are happening at once.

There is no such thing as a "very circular argument". It's either circular or it isn't. There are no degrees of circularity. I thought I'd throw that out there since you seem intent on challenging my knowledge of English usage with your awfully presumptious assertion about my awareness of the phrase "begging the question".

I don't recall ever suggesting that my opinion was tantamount to fact, nor do I recall saying that it is a mathematical certainty. It is merely an opinion, nothing more, nothing less. I am of the opinion that standards have risen and believe that is why Federer's dominance was halted. And I gave my reasons for holding that opinion.

I can turn it around on you. If you seriously don't think that someone like Hewitt and Safin in their primes could not only hang with the top 4 today, I don't know what to tell you. Didn't you see them take it to Sampras in back to back years at the US Open? The same guy (actually a better guy, because he was definitely aging) that went on to win the Open in 2002? I guess the 90s era was weak too, by this circular logic, and then Hewitt and Safin caught up. :rolleyes:

Firstly, you can't compare the 90s era to today's. It was a different game, particularly when you take into account racquet technology, the grass at Wimbledon, and the fact that the era was dominated by a different style of tennis.

Secondly, Sampras was past it by that age. He won one more US Open in 2002, but that was hardly expected at the time. He was a shadow of his former self by the time Hewitt, Safin, et al came on the scene. After winning Wimbledon in 2000, it was over 2 years until he won his next title. He slid down the rankings and out of the top 10, losing to guys like George Bastl in the 2nd round of Wimbledon. Are you going to sit there and tell me he was the same player?

First off, 26-27 is getting old in tennis terms. Only Agassi the ageless wonder had similar success after 26-27 as before (and that's because he never really had a 'prime' because of off-court issues and concentration). Borg declined, Sampras declined, Lendl declined, McEnroe declined. They all did. Tennis is a young man's game.

No, 26-27 is not getting old. It's not even close to old. A player who is 26 is not on the slide.

And are you trying to tell me that Borg declined at the age of 24? He retired at 26 and in the previous year he only played one tournament. He basically retired in 1981, at the age of 24. You might want to think carefully before you embarrass yourself with your answer to my next question. Are you telling me that Borg was past it by the age of 24?

Lendl declined? He won his last GS at the age of 30. He won 6 of his 8 grand slams AFTER he turned 26. That's some decline. I bet more players wish they could decline like that.

McEnroe won his last grand slam at the age of 25. His lack of success therefater had nothing to do with age. He took a break from tennis, came back briefly and then took another one. He basically gave up his commitment to tennis for several years.

And Pete Sampras was 29 when he began to slide down the rankings in 2000.

Not a single one of those players you mentioned are an example of someone declining at the age of 26-27. Good try, though.

So, your "argument" consists of begging the question in an attempt to explain how Federer, against the laws of aging and human biology, is somehow not declining, or hasn't declined one bit, and it's the field that's all taken their vitamins and gotten exponentially better simply because you want to ignore all the proper variables and isolate the one you want without any substantiation for it. :?

Brilliant. Round of applause for this joke of an argument. Why do I even bother?

The laws of human biology? I'm pretty sure there's no law stating that athletes decline at the ages of 26-27. I guess this must be how you plan to win the argument, by just making stuff up and hoping I won't notice.

koalakoala
03-07-2009, 10:08 PM
Evolution is not a proper argument here. Evolution happens over generations and years. To make a notable human evolution doesn't happen within a single career.

You would make a much better argument to say that technology has improved dramatically since 2004, since technology is evolving much faster than humans are.

Better rackets means faster pace on the ball, which means they have to slow the courts down to keep the game of tennis balanced. This puts extra emphasis on people with great mobility and athleticism, and thus puts more emphasis on, -gasp- young players.

Seriously, name one slam contender that's older than Roger Federer. I dare you to.


I am with you. Sorry I was on the phone when posting just now and my reply was not making sense. The monkey thing was intended to be a joke :oops:

What I want to say is that Federer single-handedly pushed tennis to a higher level and everybody has been using him as the benchmark. Young generations are learning from Federer, analyzing his game to death. This, plus the factor that he is in physical decline, makes him less dominant. It is actually a testimony that how superior Federer was. It is a shame that his dominance is now held against him.

Anyway, "the greatest ever" or "weak competition" is always debatable and quite...pointless...

I am far more concerned about how Roger is going to do to stay strong in the coming years. He really needs to change his perspective and play his guts out. I am also looking forward to having Murray and Djoker join as final contenders.

Very exciting moment.

TheTruth
03-07-2009, 11:13 PM
I love it when a pseudo-intellectual gets on a roll. It makes taking you down a peg all the sweeter.

Firstly, I am fully aware of what "begging the question" means. Unlike most, I don't confuse it with colloquial or common usage. I know what you mean, and repeating it incessantly does not impress me.

Secondly, standards are constantly rising. It is not a case of Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray remaining at one level and then inexplicably becoming world beaters all of a sudden. The standard has risen gradually. That is why players like Safin, Hewitt, and Roddick can't match their past results. Hewitt obviously suffered from injury in recent years, but you can see that his results gradually declined from the time he was at number 1.



There is no such thing as a "very circular argument". It's either circular or it isn't. There are no degrees of circularity. I thought I'd throw that out there since you seem intent on challenging my knowledge of English usage with your awfully presumptious assertion about my awareness of the phrase "begging the question".

I don't recall ever suggesting that my opinion was tantamount to fact, nor do I recall saying that it is a mathematical certainty. It is merely an opinion, nothing more, nothing less. I am of the opinion that standards have risen and believe that is why Federer's dominance was halted. And I gave my reasons for holding that opinion.



Firstly, you can't compare the 90s era to today's. It was a different game, particularly when you take into account racquet technology, the grass at Wimbledon, and the fact that the era was dominated by a different style of tennis.

Secondly, Sampras was past it by that age. He won one more US Open in 2002, but that was hardly expected at the time. He was a shadow of his former self by the time Hewitt, Safin, et al came on the scene. After winning Wimbledon in 2000, it was over 2 years until he won his next title. He slid down the rankings and out of the top 10, losing to guys like George Bastl in the 2nd round of Wimbledon. Are you going to sit there and tell me he was the same player?



No, 26-27 is not getting old. It's not even close to old. A player who is 26 is not on the slide.

And are you trying to tell me that Borg declined at the age of 24? He retired at 26 and in the previous year he only played one tournament. He basically retired in 1981, at the age of 24. You might want to think carefully before you embarrass yourself with your answer to my next question. Are you telling me that Borg was past it by the age of 24?

Lendl declined? He won his last GS at the age of 30. He won 6 of his 8 grand slams AFTER he turned 26. That's some decline. I bet more players wish they could decline like that.

McEnroe won his last grand slam at the age of 25. His lack of success therefater had nothing to do with age. He took a break from tennis, came back briefly and then took another one. He basically gave up his commitment to tennis for several years.

And Pete Sampras was 29 when he began to slide down the rankings in 2000.

Not a single one of those players you mentioned are an example of someone declining at the age of 26-27. Good try, though.



The laws of human biology? I'm pretty sure there's no law stating that athletes decline at the ages of 26-27. I guess this must be how you plan to win the argument, by just making stuff up and hoping I won't notice.

Great posts!

koalakoala
03-07-2009, 11:22 PM
27 old is middle age for a tennis player.

Five years later(or even sooner), Nadal, Murray and Djoker will face the decline.

paulorenzo
03-08-2009, 01:17 AM
In other words, you can't isolate the variables when several things are happening at once.


agreed. no one can really know the absolute reason as to why federer is declining. one's argument can state that the competition nowadays is far greater than that of 2003-2007, which is why federer is not dominating. another can say that federer is not doing too well because he has lost a step due to age, by athletic standards, i'd have to lean towards this a bit more: an athlete can only dominate for so long before his/her body catches up. whether or not it has to do with either his age or the competition of late surpassing him, it would be a tough call to actually choose a definite side to answer why fed hasn't been up to par.
i say its a bit of both.

ChanceEncounter
03-08-2009, 03:39 AM
I love it when a pseudo-intellectual gets on a roll. It makes taking you down a peg all the sweeter.

Firstly, I am fully aware of what "begging the question" means. Unlike most, I don't confuse it with colloquial or common usage. I know what you mean, and repeating it incessantly does not impress me.

Bring it on.

I love when people delude themselves into thinking they're right. It makes it more fun to debunk your broken arguments.

I don't need to "impress" you because I know full well that people won't change on the internet. I'll just embarrass you, use you for cheap entertainment, and move on. Capische?

Secondly, standards are constantly rising. It is not a case of Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray remaining at one level and then inexplicably becoming world beaters all of a sudden. The standard has risen gradually. That is why players like Safin, Hewitt, and Roddick can't match their past results. Hewitt obviously suffered from injury in recent years, but you can see that his results gradually declined from the time he was at number 1.

Really?

Safin is currently No. 25 in the world. Hewitt is currently ranked 70th in the world.

You want to say that the standards have risen so much that 20 people surpassed Safin's ranking in 05? That 60 odd people surpassed Hewitt's level?

You're trying to state that the mid 2000s were so weak that the average journeyman now is better than the top players then? So I'm guess you'll claim that Robby Ginepri can give Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi a beatdown. After all, he's ranked higher than Hewitt... :rolleyes:

The game doesn't advance that fast, dude. Pete Sampras in his prime would still be an effective player today.

There is no such thing as a "very circular argument". It's either circular or it isn't. There are no degrees of circularity. I thought I'd throw that out there since you seem intent on challenging my knowledge of English usage with your awfully presumptious assertion about my awareness of the phrase "begging the question".

I don't recall ever suggesting that my opinion was tantamount to fact, nor do I recall saying that it is a mathematical certainty. It is merely an opinion, nothing more, nothing less. I am of the opinion that standards have risen and believe that is why Federer's dominance was halted. And I gave my reasons for holding that opinion.

And just because you have an opinion doesn't mean that it's the right one. Everyone has an opinion. Your substantiation sucks and is not logically valid.

So, care to actually concede a point, or do you want to continue to entertain me with logically invalid 'arguments'?

Firstly, you can't compare the 90s era to today's. It was a different game, particularly when you take into account racquet technology, the grass at Wimbledon, and the fact that the era was dominated by a different style of tennis.

Secondly, Sampras was past it by that age. He won one more US Open in 2002, but that was hardly expected at the time. He was a shadow of his former self by the time Hewitt, Safin, et al came on the scene. After winning Wimbledon in 2000, it was over 2 years until he won his next title. He slid down the rankings and out of the top 10, losing to guys like George Bastl in the 2nd round of Wimbledon. Are you going to sit there and tell me he was the same player?

I didn't say that he wasn't aging, but he did come from just winning Wimbledon, got to the finals of the US Open (two years in a row), and got destroyed by Safin and then Hewitt. Safin was very talented, but in 2000, his game was not as polished as it ended up being. He was always a headcase, but Safin at his best (in 2000) is not as good as Safin at his best later in his career (a la 2005 AO).

No, 26-27 is not getting old. It's not even close to old. A player who is 26 is not on the slide.

And are you trying to tell me that Borg declined at the age of 24? He retired at 26 and in the previous year he only played one tournament. He basically retired in 1981, at the age of 24. You might want to think carefully before you embarrass yourself with your answer to my next question. Are you telling me that Borg was past it by the age of 24?

Lendl declined? He won his last GS at the age of 30. He won 6 of his 8 grand slams AFTER he turned 26. That's some decline. I bet more players wish they could decline like that.

McEnroe won his last grand slam at the age of 25. His lack of success therefater had nothing to do with age. He took a break from tennis, came back briefly and then took another one. He basically gave up his commitment to tennis for several years.

And Pete Sampras was 29 when he began to slide down the rankings in 2000.

Not a single one of those players you mentioned are an example of someone declining at the age of 26-27. Good try, though.

Borg began losing to McEnroe with far more regularity. Whether that's an example of decline or the ascension of another player can go either way. That said, I'm not like you where I can pretend to isolate a variable outside of experimental circumstances. :rolleyes:

McEroe did decline after 25. Again, it's very convenient of you to claim that he "took a break from tennis" and then, with a questionable cause fallacy, claim that it's because he took a break from tennis. If McEnroe, like Borg, could continue winning at the same rate as they did before, they would still be playing tennis.

With the case of Borg, the majority of his losses to McEnroe came at the tail end of his career, and the same McEnroe began losing as well. Both of them started losing more often and then retired. It's not like they just had a sudden change of heart and jumped to conclusions, that sounds more like you.

As for Pete Sampras, you're not the brightest candle in the chandelier, are you?

The last time Sampras won the US Open, prior to his miracle run in 2002, was 1996, when he was twenty five years old. The last time he won the Aussie Open was 1997, when he was twenty five years old.

In fact, Sampras only won three of his 14 Grand Slams after the age of 27 (Roger Federer's current age), at a rate of less than one win per year, three of them at Wimbledon. Prior to this, he won 11 grand slams in 8 years, at a rate of about 1.4 grand slams per year.

That's not decline? Really? Clearly math isn't your strong suit either, just like logic.

You don't think Tennis is a young man's game? Let me spell out the past few champions at the French Open, shall we?

2008 - Rafa Nadal: 21 years old
2007 - Rafa Nadal: 20 years old
2006 - Rafa Nadal: 19 years old
2005 - Rafa Nadal: 18 years old
2004 - Gaston Gaudio: 25 years old
2003 - Juan Carlos Ferrero: 24 years old
2002 - Albert Costa: 26 years old
2001 - Gustavo Kuerten: 24 years old
2000 - Gustavo Kuerten: 23 years old
1999 - Andre Agassi: 29 years old
1998 - Carlos Moya: 22 years old
1997 - Gustavo Kuerten: 20 yars old
1996 - Yevgeny Kafelnikov: 22 years old
1995 - Thomas Muster: 27 years old
1994 - Sergi Bruguera: 23 years old
1993 - Sergi Bruguera: 22 years old
1992 - Jim Courier: 21 years old
1991 - Jim Courier: 20 years old

Speaking of Jim Courier, he never won a slam after just 22 years of age.

So, you have two examples in the last 18 years of players over the age of 26 winning the French Open. The only one over the age of 27 (Roger Federer's age) is the ageless wonder himself, Andre Agassi.

The average age is 22.56 years. Sounds a lot like a bunch of old men at the country club winning the slams, doesn't it?!

The laws of human biology? I'm pretty sure there's no law stating that athletes decline at the ages of 26-27. I guess this must be how you plan to win the argument, by just making stuff up and hoping I won't notice.

LOL.

There is a law that states that your recovery time gets slower as your body ages. You don't have the same cardiovascular endurance. Your body's capacity for work, for men, peaks in their early to mid twenties and then declines. If you had any understanding of sports medicine, physiology, or kinesiology, you would know this. Tennis is a young man's game.

Again, do you think it's a coincidence that of the quarterfinalists at the Aussie Open, Roger Federer was the oldest competitor?

Do you think it's a coincidence that the average age of French Open champions over the last 18 years is just over twenty-two years old?

Do you think it's a coincidence that as people observe Roger Federer losing a step, that's when the rest of the field catches up to him?

According to you, all of the above is a resounding yes. People don't lose a step at Roger Federer's age. It's just that Roger was beating up on nobodies and now he's not. :rolleyes:

Again, you cannot isolate a variable as you please when multiple things are happening at once. This is a mathematical and logical fallacy. The field may be getting better, technology is definitely getting better, tennis is evolving, but at the same time, Roger Federer is getting slower. Thus, how much is the former and how much is the latter?

I don't know, but if you want to claim it's all because players are getting better, you're even dumber than I thought.

So yes, keep spouting off buzzwords like "psuedointellectual" to mask the fact that you have a paper-thin argument, and I'm going to enjoy tearing it apart every time.

Good day.

ChanceEncounter
03-08-2009, 03:43 AM
I notice you conveniently sidestepped my request, Clydey2times.

Please name a grand slam contender that's older than Roger Federer. Surely if you're still in your prime at 27-28 years old, there would be at least one guy that would be a regular contender, right?

Sorry that it doesn't fit your perfect dream world, but if you can't see Federer is declining, you haven't watched many matches since 2006.

stormholloway
03-08-2009, 05:45 AM
So he spelt his name wrong no need to be an ***** about it...idiot!

This forum is already toxic enough. Must we lower the standards further? And if someone can't spell the man's name properly then it's obvious there's very little he can contribute on the subject.

Clydey2times
03-08-2009, 06:36 AM
Really?

Safin is currently No. 25 in the world. Hewitt is currently ranked 70th in the world.

You want to say that the standards have risen so much that 20 people surpassed Safin's ranking in 05? That 60 odd people surpassed Hewitt's level?

The reason that Safin is ranked 25th is all down to one win over Djokovic at Wimbledon. As a result, he benefited from Djokovic's seeding and his path to the semis. In previous years he has been ranked in the 70s. I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to prove by using Safin's current ranking in your argument. That players get better with age? He was way out of the top 50 in recent years, yet at the age of 29 he is ranked 25. Good job contradicting yourself.

You're trying to state that the mid 2000s were so weak that the average journeyman now is better than the top players then? So I'm guess you'll claim that Robby Ginepri can give Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi a beatdown. After all, he's ranked higher than Hewitt... :rolleyes:

When did I say anything remotely like that? Reading comprehension isn't your strong point. Hewitt is ranked painfully low because of injury. However, even before his injury Federer had started to dominate. Hewitt couldn't come close to matching his previous success. Hewitt was ranked in the top 10 prior to his injury troubles etc. The point I am making is that even with him being in the top 10 it still highlights how the standard had risen since he was world number 1.

I didn't say that he wasn't aging, but he did come from just winning Wimbledon, got to the finals of the US Open (two years in a row), and got destroyed by Safin and then Hewitt. Safin was very talented, but in 2000, his game was not as polished as it ended up being. He was always a headcase, but Safin at his best (in 2000) is not as good as Safin at his best later in his career (a la 2005 AO).

He was 29 by that point. The fact that he reached 2 US Open finals is irrelevant, since he lost both convincingly as he was sliding down the rankings. Like I said, he did not win another title for over 2 years. That is a definite decline.

Borg began losing to McEnroe with far more regularity. Whether that's an example of decline or the ascension of another player can go either way. That said, I'm not like you where I can pretend to isolate a variable outside of experimental circumstances.

It was clearly a case of McEnroe improving. Borg was in his early 20s. You do not suddenly lose your prime in your early 20s because of the ageing process. The very notion that a player can be over the hill before the age of 25 is absurd.

McEroe did decline after 25. Again, it's very convenient of you to claim that he "took a break from tennis" and then, with a questionable cause fallacy, claim that it's because he took a break from tennis. If McEnroe, like Borg, could continue winning at the same rate as they did before, they would still be playing tennis.

It has nothing to do with convenience. McEnroe did take a break from tennis when he was in his prime. He took another one shortly after he returned to the tour. Surely a tennis connoisseur like yourself is aware of McEnroe's relationship with Tatum O'Neal, which became a huge distraction? It's pretty well documented.

Frankly, it is idiotic to say that Borg and McEnroe were past it before they reached the age of 25. They hadn't even reached the midpoint of early adulthood. The body does not age that fast

As for Pete Sampras, you're not the brightest candle in the chandelier, are you?

The last time Sampras won the US Open, prior to his miracle run in 2002, was 1996, when he was twenty five years old. The last time he won the Aussie Open was 1997, when he was twenty five years old.

I guess Wimbledon doesn't count? Any old player can win that mickey mouse tournament.

In fact, Sampras only won three of his 14 Grand Slams after the age of 27 (Roger Federer's current age), at a rate of less than one win per year, three of them at Wimbledon. Prior to this, he won 11 grand slams in 8 years, at a rate of about 1.4 grand slams per year.

That's not decline? Really? Clearly math isn't your strong suit either, just like logic.

No, it's not a decline. The game was changing, making serve and volley a much tougher style to be successful with. Technology benefited baseliners to the detriment of serve/volleyers. In spite of that, Sampras still managed to win 3 more grand slams. It's not a coincidence that Pete's results dried up as baseliners started to dominate the tour.

You don't think Tennis is a young man's game? Let me spell out the past few champions at the French Open, shall we?

2008 - Rafa Nadal: 21 years old
2007 - Rafa Nadal: 20 years old
2006 - Rafa Nadal: 19 years old
2005 - Rafa Nadal: 18 years old
2004 - Gaston Gaudio: 25 years old
2003 - Juan Carlos Ferrero: 24 years old
2002 - Albert Costa: 26 years old
2001 - Gustavo Kuerten: 24 years old
2000 - Gustavo Kuerten: 23 years old
1999 - Andre Agassi: 29 years old
1998 - Carlos Moya: 22 years old
1997 - Gustavo Kuerten: 20 yars old
1996 - Yevgeny Kafelnikov: 22 years old
1995 - Thomas Muster: 27 years old
1994 - Sergi Bruguera: 23 years old
1993 - Sergi Bruguera: 22 years old
1992 - Jim Courier: 21 years old
1991 - Jim Courier: 20 years old

Speaking of Jim Courier, he never won a slam after just 22 years of age.

So, you have two examples in the last 18 years of players over the age of 26 winning the French Open. The only one over the age of 27 (Roger Federer's age) is the ageless wonder himself, Andre Agassi.

The average age is 22.56 years. Sounds a lot like a bunch of old men at the country club winning the slams, doesn't it?!

It is a case of players improving, with younger, better players coming through. What you are in essence saying is that Jim Courier was over the hill by the age of 21; Kafelnikov and Bruguera were past it by 22; and everyone else was fit for retirement around the age of 23 or 24. You don't seem to have the first clue how the human body works. At the age of, for example, 24 the effect of the ageing process is generally negligible. If we aged as fast as you are suggesting, we would be dead by 40.

LOL.

There is a law that states that your recovery time gets slower as your body ages. You don't have the same cardiovascular endurance. Your body's capacity for work, for men, peaks in their early to mid twenties and then declines. If you had any understanding of sports medicine, physiology, or kinesiology, you would know this. Tennis is a young man's game.

I have a healthy understanding of the ageing process. It does not have any notable impact on an athlete who is 24 years of age. You don't seem to grasp how slow the process is. Adulthood begins at 19-20 and the ageing process starts from there. You are telling me that 4 or so years after it begins, an athlete is past their best (you even suggested that 22 is where a player's prime ends in some cases). Utter nonsense.

Was the massive "LOL" necessary? Way to lower the tone by acting like a school kid. I can just imagine Professor Richard Dawkins suddenly exclaiming "LOL" in the middle of a debate.

Again, do you think it's a coincidence that of the quarterfinalists at the Aussie Open, Roger Federer was the oldest competitor?

Do you think it's a coincidence that the average age of French Open champions over the last 18 years is just over twenty-two years old?

Do you think it's a coincidence that as people observe Roger Federer losing a step, that's when the rest of the field catches up to him?

According to you, all of the above is a resounding yes. People don't lose a step at Roger Federer's age. It's just that Roger was beating up on nobodies and now he's not. :rolleyes:

Again, you cannot isolate a variable as you please when multiple things are happening at once. This is a mathematical and logical fallacy. The field may be getting better, technology is definitely getting better, tennis is evolving, but at the same time, Roger Federer is getting slower. Thus, how much is the former and how much is the latter?

I don't know, but if you want to claim it's all because players are getting better, you're even dumber than I thought.

So yes, keep spouting off buzzwords like "psuedointellectual" to mask the fact that you have a paper-thin argument, and I'm going to enjoy tearing it apart every time.

Good day.

I'm sure there are some players who are past it by the age of 27. I don't recall ever suggesting otherwise. Those players generally have a much more demanding style of play, however. Federer's style of play is one of the least demanding out there.

Roger Federer is, in my opinion, not one of those players who are a step slower at 27. Your arguments have become gradually more ludicrous. Players past their best by the age of 22? Words fail me. You will likely come back and call that an argument from incredulity. It's not, though. If it wasn't for the massive holes in your arguments keeping me occupied, I would genuinely be at a loss for words.

Haven't I already answered your question on why Federer is the only GS contender at his age? That is precisely what we have been arguing about. The other players from his generation just can't cut it. That's why.

Clydey2times
03-08-2009, 06:57 AM
ChanceEncounter, I like how you conveniently ignored the point I answered about Lendl.

tahiti
03-08-2009, 07:23 AM
I can tell you're not married! Nothing is worse than taking your frustrations out on your partner or spouse. I'd recommend taking it out on just about anyone else instead... Unless you want to speed up the divorce of course:)

My boyfriend would find out what was really bothering me, calm me down and make me sweet again :) Guess I should marry him!

Quote "this forum is toxic enough do we have to lower the standard anymore?"

Good question:confused:

Tony is a left handed player and maybe Fed had picked up enough on how to play a "left handed" player. Some blame it on the fact that Tony failed to lead Roger to the FO title (swissinfo.ch) others say that Tony couldn't coach full time. Along with the other mentioned reasons here it seems good that this partnership died. Fed has minimal things he can improve and any coach after time would not be able to provide added value to an already all round good player.

THERAFA
03-08-2009, 10:32 AM
Well either way I'm sure Roche is happy without Federer, it doesn't look like an easy player to talk to let alone:
Coach

RoddickAce
03-08-2009, 10:46 AM
All you need to do is compare Fed's H2H with them and Fed's H2H with the current crop of top players. That should tell you all you need to know.

And please don't call me dumb and ignorant when you can barely put a sentence together.

Well, Federer is getting older, so that might affect the H2H.

ChanceEncounter
03-08-2009, 11:03 AM
The reason that Safin is ranked 25th is all down to one win over Djokovic at Wimbledon. As a result, he benefited from Djokovic's seeding and his path to the semis. In previous years he has been ranked in the 70s. I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to prove by using Safin's current ranking in your argument. That players get better with age? He was way out of the top 50 in recent years, yet at the age of 29 he is ranked 25. Good job contradicting yourself.

Then this just helps my point out even more.

First off, if Safin was ranked in the 70s, your argument, essentially, boils down to the field catching up so much that 60 some odd players have emerged since 2005 to get to a level higher than Safin is.

Does that seem realistic to you? Not really. It's pretty obvious that people of Federer's generation are declining.

When did I say anything remotely like that? Reading comprehension isn't your strong point. Hewitt is ranked painfully low because of injury. However, even before his injury Federer had started to dominate. Hewitt couldn't come close to matching his previous success. Hewitt was ranked in the top 10 prior to his injury troubles etc. The point I am making is that even with him being in the top 10 it still highlights how the standard had risen since he was world number 1.

Your reading comprehension is nothing to write home about.

You don't seem to understand that by claiming something, if something else is the logical deduction of that statement, you are effectively claiming the latter as well as the former. If you want to claim that Hewitt or Safin aren't elite players by virtue of what they are doing currently, then you have to essentially claim that field has improved so much that there are dozens of players that have surpassed their former level.

That argument is ludicrous. Tennis talent doesn't change that quickly. It's obvious that the best players of Federer's generation (Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Nalbandian, et cetera) are declining.

He was 29 by that point. The fact that he reached 2 US Open finals is irrelevant, since he lost both convincingly as he was sliding down the rankings. Like I said, he did not win another title for over 2 years. That is a definite decline.

You can't have your cake and eat it to. Either Sampras was declining at 28 years old (same age as Roger Federer), right around 1999 or 2000, or Hewitt and Safin beat a Sampras that was near the level that he used to be.

He can't be declining at 2000 but have no signs of decline in 1998 and 1999. A decline is just that, a decline, it's not dropping off the face of the earth. Federer is declining because he's 27 years old. Pete began declining when he was 27, 28 years old too (1998 to 1999). He was clearly not in his prime by the time that Safin schooled him in 2000.

Either way, you have to concede one of two things then: Federer and his generation is declining, or the field has gotten so much better that 60, 70 players have surpassed the level that it was in the early to mid 2000s. The latter is pretty ridiculous.

It was clearly a case of McEnroe improving. Borg was in his early 20s. You do not suddenly lose your prime in your early 20s because of the ageing process. The very notion that a player can be over the hill before the age of 25 is absurd.

Borg lost most of his games against McEnroe in his mid-twenties. He began losing regularly at the age of 24 to 25. He's not "over the hill," but that's usually the end of the years that tennis champions dominate. Look through the history of world #1s and their respective age.

Hell, I'll do it for you, since you're obviously not too good at crunching the numbers:

Let's start with Borg.

Borg first became world #1 at 21 years of age. He held it for a total of 109 total weeks before he ended his reign at world #1 at 25 years of age.

Spaced between this reign, Jimmy Connors was world #1. He served the bulk of his weeks at #1 (160 out of 268) between the ages of 21 and 24. He did serve a couple weeks at #1 again in his thirties, so he gets credit for aging well, but the bulk of his reign was as a young guy.

For the most part, the guy that succeeded him was John McEnroe, who first became world #1 at 21 years of age, and held it for at otal of 170 weeks, ending his reign at 26 years of age.

Then came Ivan Lendl. He first became world #1 at age 22. He held it for a then record of 270 weeks, ending his last reign at age of 30. However, the bulk of his reign came from 1983-1988, when he was 27 to 28 years of age.

During this time, Mats Wilander served as world #1. He served all of his 20 weeks at the top while he was 24 years old.

Then came Edberg. He started his reign in 1990, when he was 24 years old. He never held the world #1 past 1992, when he was 26 years old.

During this tim, Edberg fought for world #1 with Boris Becker. Becker first became world #1 at 23 years of age. He also last held it when he was 23 years of age.

Then came Jim Courier. He first became world #1 at 21 years of age. He held it up to when he was 23 years of age, in 1993.

Also during this time, Pete Sampras emerged. Pete first became world #1 at 21 years of age. He last held world number 1 at 29 years of age. However, Pete held 233 weeks out of his 286 total before his 26th birthday.

Andre Agassi also had a turn at number one. He became #1 first just shy of his 25th birthday. He last held it when he was an astonishing 33 years of age, which is why he's the ageless wonder. I doubt Federer would stack up to Agassi in terms of how well he ages. I doubt Nadal, Murray, Djokovic, Tsonga, Simon, Delpo, et al will either.

Also during this time, Patrick Rafter seized #1 for a week, he was twenty six.

Marat Safin was also a world #1. He first became #1 at age 20, and then last held it at age 21.

Lleyton Hewitt also served as #1. He first held it at age 20. He last held it at age 22.

Juan Carlos Ferrero served 8 weeks at #1. He did this when he was 23 years old.

Then Andy Roddick was world #1. He first became #1 at age 21, and then lost it before he turned 22.

Then Federer came along. He first became world #1 at age 22, and held it until age 27.

Then we have Nadal, who became #1 at age 22, and he's still 22 and still #1 at the time of this post.

So, excluding Nadal, we have the following ages when players were no longer world #1:

Federer: 27
Rddick: 22
Ferrero: 23
Hewitt: 22
Safin: 21
Agassi: 33
Sampras: 29 (most before 26)
Courier: 23
Edberg: 26
Wilander: 24
Lendl: 30 (most before 27)
Connors: 31 (251 of his 268 weeks at #1 before the age of 27)
McEnroe: 26
Borg: 25

So looking at this list, it doesn't look like Federer is too out of place, huh? Regardless of whether or not these guys 'aged' or the 'field caught up' or whatever justification you want to use, the fact of the matter is that tennis is not dominated by older guys. The best tennis is played by guys in their early to mid twenties!

Fact

It has nothing to do with convenience. McEnroe did take a break from tennis when he was in his prime. He took another one shortly after he returned to the tour. Surely a tennis connoisseur like yourself is aware of McEnroe's relationship with Tatum O'Neal, which became a huge distraction? It's pretty well documented.

Frankly, it is idiotic to say that Borg and McEnroe were past it before they reached the age of 25. They hadn't even reached the midpoint of early adulthood. The body does not age that fast

Actually, as someone with obviously considerably more knowledge than yourself, I can tell you that a person's cardiovascular health peaks in their late teens and early twenties, and a person's muscular development peaks in their mid twenties. You're welcome to google for scholarly sources to support the claim.

McEnroe and Borg both decided that they should just quit when they were still capable of being their best? You think it's just coincidence that Borg "lost his passion" for tennis after McEnroe spanked him in the 1981 US Open? Or that McEnroe went on his sabbatical after Lendl whooped him in the 1985 US Open?

Really? Conveniently, they both seemed to lose passion for the game after they got their asses kicked. Funny what losing can do to you, huh?

If McEnroe was still in his physical prime, how come he failed to do anything after coming back? Surely he didn't forget how to play tennis. He simply got passed by Ivan Lendl.

ChanceEncounter
03-08-2009, 11:04 AM
Cont'd:

I guess Wimbledon doesn't count? Any old player can win that mickey mouse tournament.

No, it's not a decline. The game was changing, making serve and volley a much tougher style to be successful with. Technology benefited baseliners to the detriment of serve/volleyers. In spite of that, Sampras still managed to win 3 more grand slams. It's not a coincidence that Pete's results dried up as baseliners started to dominate the tour.

Here you go again.

First, you clearly claim that Pete was aging in 2000 (when Safin beat him), and 2001 (when Hewitt beat him), but that he wasn't aging in 1998? 1999? Did he suddenly wake up, start losing his hair and more tennis matches? Do you think the body just starts aging overnight? Please.

The fact of the matter is that Sampras's tennis records began to decline in 1998, just like how Roger Federer's record began to decline in 2007/2008. Sampras was 27 in 1998, Federer was 26 in 2007, 27 in 2008. That seems pretty consistent to me.

It is a case of players improving, with younger, better players coming through. What you are in essence saying is that Jim Courier was over the hill by the age of 21; Kafelnikov and Bruguera were past it by 22; and everyone else was fit for retirement around the age of 23 or 24. You don't seem to have the first clue how the human body works. At the age of, for example, 24 the effect of the ageing process is generally negligible. If we aged as fast as you are suggesting, we would be dead by 40.

Do you have to resort to straw man to make a point now?

I have to keep a tally of your logical fallacies, you're really racking them up.

I never claimed that we'd be dead by 40, or that Jim Courier was over the hill by 22. You on the other hand, claim that all of these players met their match against players that got better.

So let me ask you, if players consistently get better every year, what makes Roger's era particularly weak? You claimed he dominated a "weak" era, but you've done nothing to substantiate your argument. It seems, instead, that your primary argument, "the game changes" is one you want to apply to every damn year over the last 18. And I'm sure if I extrapolated farther back, you'd want to apply it to every year of the last 25, 35, hell, before the damn Open Era!

The bottom line is that while aging my be "negligible," any small amount counts when we're talking about the best of the best. A 25 year old won't be able to run around as much as a 22 year old, ceteris paribis. Thus, it makes sense that when similarly skilled, a 22 year old would beat a 25 year old, regardless of era.

I have a healthy understanding of the ageing process. It does not have any notable impact on an athlete who is 24 years of age. You don't seem to grasp how slow the process is. Adulthood begins at 19-20 and the ageing process starts from there. You are telling me that 4 or so years after it begins, an athlete is past their best (you even suggested that 22 is where a player's prime ends in some cases). Utter nonsense.

Was the massive "LOL" necessary? Way to lower the tone by acting like a school kid. I can just imagine Professor Richard Dawkins suddenly exclaiming "LOL" in the middle of a debate.

I had to laugh at your ridiculous assertion that I resorted to "making stuff up." If you can't keep civil in a debate, I have no reason to do it with you. You clearly have no ability to keep up in an honest debate, and you want to fling mud while you can. As I said, I have no desire to change your opinion, but I'll continue to shred your garbage arguments for sheer entertainment.

You've already committed begging the question, straw man, questionable cause, and hasty generalization fallacies, in addition to just overall poor reading comprehension. Really impressive for just a few posts in.

I'm sure there are some players who are past it by the age of 27. I don't recall ever suggesting otherwise. Those players generally have a much more demanding style of play, however. Federer's style of play is one of the least demanding out there.

Roger Federer is, in my opinion, not one of those players who are a step slower at 27. Your arguments have become gradually more ludicrous. Players past their best by the age of 22? Words fail me. You will likely come back and call that an argument from incredulity. It's not, though. If it wasn't for the massive holes in your arguments keeping me occupied, I would genuinely be at a loss for words.

More straw man. I never stated that players were past their best at 22. I stated that Jim Courier never won a grand slam past 22. Did you fail the SAT reading or something?

Your arguments have been circular the whole way through. Not once did you properly address the point, and you've basically tried to have the best of both sides of your argument, which of course, is impossible.

So now Roger Federer won't age because he has a less demanding style of play? So this means that he won't get a step slower when he's running... how? :rolleyes:

Please, that's absurd. So since Roger Federer is a smooth player, it means his cardiovascular strength can't diminish and it won't affect his footspeed! Bravo you.

Haven't I already answered your question on why Federer is the only GS contender at his age? That is precisely what we have been arguing about. The other players from his generation just can't cut it. That's why.

Ah, but you didn't.

In fact, you conveniently used this argument for the entirety of the last 18 years:

It is a case of players improving, with younger, better players coming through.

So how is Federer's generation not able to "cut it" when the same trend applied for 18+ years? Are you intentionally stone-walling my argument now just so you can feel good about yourself?

ChanceEncounter, I like how you conveniently ignored the point I answered about Lendl.

What point about Lendl?

Lendl's prime years, when he was #1 in the rankings, was between 1983 to 1987. Conveniently, this put him at age 23 to 27 years old. Isn't that roughly where Roger Federer is?

When did I say that people past 27 can't win grand slams? Ivan, your crown jewel about being the "exception" to my argument, had his best years right in the breadhouse, during the same years that Federer's best were in.

Convenient, huh?

Inevitably, you'll demonstrate the full breadth of your powers of denial. As well as your magic powers to isolate one thing as the root cause when multiple trends are happening at once.

ChanceEncounter
03-08-2009, 11:13 AM
So basically, to recap, you demonstrate your astounding knowledge of players aging, by claiming that Sampras didn't start aging until 2000, but by the US Open 2000, he was already such an old man that a weak player like Safin dominated him at the US Open.

Man, I guess those Greeks age fast, huh?



You also claim that Hewitt and Safin aren't very good players, as evidenced by the fact that (a) Federer dominated them (a circular argument) and (b) they can't do anything against the current field.

I guess Australians and Russians aren't allowed to age, because the fact that they aren't doing well against the current crop of guys is an indictment of their primes. :rolleyes:




Guys like Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Sampras, Edberg, Courier all had the bulk of their world #1 success before the age of 26 to 27. I guess the fact that none of them are dominant world #1s after this age has nothing to do with tennis being a young man's game at all, does it? Or how about the fact that Federer's reign and decline from world #1 seems to look just like theirs?

I guess the Swiss aren't allowed to age either.




Lendl had the bulk of his world #1 reign by 27. He had a number of weeks when he was 29 and 30, and that's certainly impressive, but that's also before the arrival of Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Chang, et al. It seems to me that that was a weak era, not Federer's, which follows the natural course of world #1 reigns.

But I guess Czech players age differently.




It's convenient how, despite the large body of evidence I've placed in front of you about how players tend to age at roughly the same era of their lives, you still can't seem to reconcile with the notion that Federer may, in fact, have lost a step which allowed the rest of the field to catch up. I guess you feel aging is something that you can assign arbitrarily. :rolleyes:




So, maybe you have some semantic issue with the word "aging." Because, you're right, a 30 year old is hardly old in most contexts, but it's old in the tennis world. Santoro is practically a dinosaur at 36 years young.

But regardless, take a look at the French Open champions. Take a look at the former world #1s. Something is keeping them from being as good as they were by the time they reach 26 to 27.


But shh, it's not aging, not according to Clydey2times!!

ChanceEncounter
03-08-2009, 11:20 AM
And here's the real jewel of your hypocrisy.

You claim that it is "a case of players improving, with younger, better players coming through" for the last 18 years of French Open champions. Yet, somehow, you can arbitrarily state that Federer's era was particular weak?

How is the era weak if it seems to follow the same trend of 18+ years? Simply because you say so?

Please. Your garbage is starting to smell.

ChanceEncounter
03-08-2009, 11:27 AM
Haven't I already answered your question on why Federer is the only GS contender at his age? That is precisely what we have been arguing about. The other players from his generation just can't cut it. That's why.

I'm not asking you to name several. I'm asking you to name one. Surely an era is not so weak that, if 27+ year olds were still just as much in their physical primes as 22 year olds, then you could name one guy that's a contender for slams in that age category, right?

I'll even let you name guys before Federer's era. You could name a guy older than Santoro if you want. C'mon, just one name. Clearly, if age is not an issue, the odds that not one guy older than Federer is a contender is astronomical.

Are you trying to imply that Federer happened to play in an era where there was a holocaust of elite tennis players? How clever of you. ;)


One name. That's all I ask. Shouldn't be too hard right? One guy that's a contender. Please. Anywhere from age 27 to infinity.

This seems to be consistent that people of Federer's age start to get older and slower, right?




Nah, couldn't be for Clydey, that would make too much sense!

swedechris
03-08-2009, 11:32 AM
dumped who..? do you mean coache Roach.. or coach Roche.. ? LOL. did you dump your English classes?

seriously though , i think he needs one. a good one would be Wilander.

Oui, c'est moi.
03-08-2009, 11:34 AM
seriously though , i think he needs one. a good one would be Wilander.
That guy would be near-last on my 'wish list for Roger'.
Cahill would be a good one........

CyBorg
03-08-2009, 11:47 AM
Mostly good posting here, but a few comments to throw in...

Secondly, standards are constantly rising. It is not a case of Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray remaining at one level and then inexplicably becoming world beaters all of a sudden. The standard has risen gradually. That is why players like Safin, Hewitt, and Roddick can't match their past results. Hewitt obviously suffered from injury in recent years, but you can see that his results gradually declined from the time he was at number 1.

You have to note the fact that the players you're listing have declined. Chalking it up to standards rising isn't totally fair. Safin lost much of his mobility. Hewitt began declining way before Djoko/Murray. Roddick was never all that good, but you can still see obvious signs of decline.

Granted, the game does come in spurts - we always have years when the quality of the field is a little lacking (2004-2005, I'd say is a good example) and then all of a sudden there's a wealth of elite talent in the top-five. However guys digress for a slew of reasons - injuries, mental fatigue, loss of interest in the sport. They just expire and it will happen to Nadal/Murray/Djokovic as well. The sport takes a toll on the body and the mind. The younger generation always has the advantage of being fresher and more energetic, but... not necessarily better.

No, 26-27 is not getting old. It's not even close to old. A player who is 26 is not on the slide.

26 can be old, it depends on the mileage. An early bloomer is likely to exhaust his capabilities by this age, particularly a dirtballer. A late bloomer like Roger probably isn't old at all at 26/27. In fact, he owes it to himself to start winning again.

Are you telling me that Borg was past it by the age of 24?

Also interesting. Borg was at his physical peak at 24/25. He probably served better than ever. But mentally he was starting to tire, partly because he was already an elite player at 17.

McEnroe won his last grand slam at the age of 25. His lack of success therefater had nothing to do with age. He took a break from tennis, came back briefly and then took another one. He basically gave up his commitment to tennis for several years.

Mac definitely had personal issues, some kind of breakdown and then, you're right, he took some time off and that hurt him. Worth to keep in mind that Mac took a really bad time to do this, because the game was gradually getting more and more physical. When he came back he was having a very hard time catching up.

That being said, Mac also started young. He made his breakthrough in the fall of 1978 on carpet, playing amazing tennis. He was 19.

And Pete Sampras was 29 when he began to slide down the rankings in 2000.

Sampras is a unique case too. He was his first major when 19 (1990 US Open) and then went through some trying times until winning another one at 22. The interesting thing is that once we dissect the careers of guys like Sampras and McEnroe what we find is that they had very comparable lengths of peak play. Sampras between 1993-1999, maybe 2000. McEnroe 1979-1984, part of 1985. The ages however differ.

CyBorg
03-08-2009, 12:00 PM
The game is constantly evolving and the standard is improving. You had guys like Hewitt, Roddick, and Ferrero at the top. Federer came along and began to dominate those guys once he matured, making a mockery of that era's standard. Nadal comes along and dominates clay, while Federer mops up everything else in the absence of anyone who can challenge him on hard and grass. Nadal matures on grass and Djokovic matures in general, and later Murray comes into his own. Now Federer has players who can challenge him on all surfaces.

Ferrero's career took a very sudden turn for the worse in 2004. Not only is he an inferior player now to what he was; he's been inferior for many years. He was a fine player in his day. Another thing to keep in mind is that Hewitt, Roddick and Ferrero were never "great" players in the best sense of the word. Rather they had their respective days at the top at a time when the game experienced several years of parity. As we speak, we're getting back to parity, while Djokovic still has only one major and Murray has none.

Federer hasn't made a mockery of that era; he started to come into his own for a variety of reasons. First of all, he matured and gained confidence, but he also started to dominate when Hewitt lost a step. That helped. Safin was on-and-off - nothing new. Roddick won his one major - pretty much what you would expect. And Ferrero's illnesses also played a role in Roger's dominating 2004. Big chances occured between 2003 and 2004.

Also - pet peeve. To evolve means to change; it is not a synonimous to 'getting better'.

I'm sorry, but I find it laughable that you think a very poor era from a few years ago matches up favourably against today's top players.

Again, it wasn't necessarily a poor era. It was an era of parity. I agree that men's tennis has one of the deepest top-fives in memory at this point, but you're still being unfair.

I also don't buy the claim that Roger is losing now because of a drastically stronger field. Yes, his nearest opponents are better now than in 2004/2005, but upon close analysis of Roger's game, the man has digressed a lot and has done a very bad job of making adjustments. His recent loss to Roddick is the proof in the pudding.

CyBorg
03-08-2009, 12:05 PM
Evolution is not a proper argument here. Evolution happens over generations and years. To make a notable human evolution doesn't happen within a single career.

I'd like to know what most folks here mean by 'evolution'. Some are actually suggesting that there's an evolution of technology.

Oh, such a hearty laugh for me. Nothing more natural than corporate decision making.

fps
03-08-2009, 12:16 PM
agree m chance encounter

CyBorg
03-08-2009, 12:18 PM
McEnroe and Borg both decided that they should just quit when they were still capable of being their best? You think it's just coincidence that Borg "lost his passion" for tennis after McEnroe spanked him in the 1981 US Open? Or that McEnroe went on his sabbatical after Lendl whooped him in the 1985 US Open?

Really? Conveniently, they both seemed to lose passion for the game after they got their asses kicked. Funny what losing can do to you, huh?

Guys, you have to do your homework a bit better.

Borg's play started waning in the second half of 1980, after his marriage, then after the US Open loss (bad ref call #1), then the trying indoor season (bad ref call #2), and then in 1981 he limited his practice time from six hours to two hours a day and began taking more time off between tournaments.

He didn't suddenly lose his passion after the 1981 US Open. The seeds were already planted.

Again, this goes to show that there are typically two reasons why one generation surrenders its mantle to the next: injuries and mental/emotional expiration. Mac was younger and hungrier and hadn't yet experienced the pressure of being the best. It later hit him hard in 1985. It hit Lendl in 1988 (with a greater injury-factor there).

You lose a step and the younger guy sees it, capitalizes upon it. As you say, this is not an indicator of being better.

Some guys like Safin are different in that they never stay on top long enough, because it's not in their makeup. Safin was never a very consistent fellow. Instead he'd play great tennis in spurts. One day he'd just show up and destroy the whole field with the kind of quality tennis you see in your dreams. It was almost random. That's what he could handle. But after the 2005 surgery, he simply didn't have the movement to pull any more rabbits out of the hat.

Clydey2times
03-08-2009, 01:33 PM
I'd like to know what most folks here mean by 'evolution'. Some are actually suggesting that there's an evolution of technology.

Oh, such a hearty laugh for me. Nothing more natural than corporate decision making.

I'm not using evolution in the biological sense, obviously. Had tennis been around for millions of years, I might have resorted to that. I simply mean that the game is changing. Racquet technology is a major reason for the shift from a serve/volley dominated tour to a tour populated by baseliners. And the obvious result of the improvement in technology is a higher standard of play.

koalakoala
03-08-2009, 01:54 PM
but upon close analysis of Roger's game, the man has digressed a lot and has done a very bad job of making adjustments. His recent loss to Roddick is the proof in the pudding.

This guy is too proud. I almost come to hate him (because I love him) for this.
Be humble and make adjustments, Roger.

wow246
03-08-2009, 02:44 PM
WooooooW this is a hostile thread!!!

And yes ROACH is spelt ROCHE im VERY VERY ROACH SORRY!!!!!

ROACH ROACH ROOOOOOACH ROACH ROACH ROACH ROOOOOOOOOACHEEEEEE

ROCH **** ROACH

wow246
03-08-2009, 02:46 PM
O yea and also i was thinking about FREDDIE ROACH wen i posted the original u know the boxing trainer for whoever is into boxing so i guess i got confused!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:shock::shock::shock::shock:

Clydey2times
03-08-2009, 02:51 PM
Then this just helps my point out even more.

First off, if Safin was ranked in the 70s, your argument, essentially, boils down to the field catching up so much that 60 some odd players have emerged since 2005 to get to a level higher than Safin is.

Does that seem realistic to you? Not really. It's pretty obvious that people of Federer's generation are declining.

I love that you sat here all day typing out that nonsense.

I didn't say that every single player above Safin is a better player. He has always been woefully inconsistent. There is no doubt that an on-form Safin is top 10 material. However, he rarely plays anywhere near his top level. You must learn to pay better attention, since I stated explicitly that Safin's talent has never been in question, but rather it is his ability to produce consistently that has let him down repeatedly over the years. His inconsistency and the higher standard of play led to an inevitable slide down the rankings.

Your reading comprehension is nothing to write home about.

You don't seem to understand that by claiming something, if something else is the logical deduction of that statement, you are effectively claiming the latter as well as the former. If you want to claim that Hewitt or Safin aren't elite players by virtue of what they are doing currently, then you have to essentially claim that field has improved so much that there are dozens of players that have surpassed their former level.

That is simply not true. I have already made it clear that Hewitt's injury is a major part of his dramatic fall from grace. We are not talking about standards improving to the extent that a former world number 1 can barely get into the top 100. Hewitt's problems in recent years are well documented. My point is that even prior to those problems, his results were drying up. The game was moving on.

That argument is ludicrous. Tennis talent doesn't change that quickly. It's obvious that the best players of Federer's generation (Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Nalbandian, et cetera) are declining.

Hewitt was decling by the age of 23? Safin was declining by the age of 24? Roddick was declining by the age of 22? What an absurd thing to say. For the umpteenth time, the ageing process does not work that quickly. It starts as one reaches adulthood and it is a slow process. Any impact of the ageing process at the age of 22 would be negligible. Not only are you blissfully unaware of the fact that no one ages at exactly the same rate, but you seem to think that tennis players suffer from progeria.

You can't have your cake and eat it to. Either Sampras was declining at 28 years old (same age as Roger Federer), right around 1999 or 2000, or Hewitt and Safin beat a Sampras that was near the level that he used to be.

He can't be declining at 2000 but have no signs of decline in 1998 and 1999. A decline is just that, a decline, it's not dropping off the face of the earth. Federer is declining because he's 27 years old. Pete began declining when he was 27, 28 years old too (1998 to 1999). He was clearly not in his prime by the time that Safin schooled him in 2000.

That is exactly what happened. You seem to be completely contradicting yourself. On the one hand you feel that Roger Federer declined over night (having a fairly lean spell in 2008 compared to his 2007 season), yet on the other hand you think that Sampras must have been showing signs of decline at least 2 years prior to his 2000 USO defeat. You cannot have it both ways.

Borg lost most of his games against McEnroe in his mid-twenties. He began losing regularly at the age of 24 to 25. He's not "over the hill," but that's usually the end of the years that tennis champions dominate. Look through the history of world #1s and their respective age.

No, he did not begin to lose regularly from the ages of 24 to 25. He barely played a match by the time he was 25. He won the French Open in his last year on tour (he basically didn't play in 1982), lost narrowly to McEnroe at Wimbledon, and again lost to him at the US Open. He lost every time he played at the US Open, so that loss had nothing to do with him declining. Your whole argument essentially boils down to one match. You cannot say that Borg was on the slide based on a narrow loss to McEnroe in the 1981 Wimbledon final.

Hell, I'll do it for you, since you're obviously not too good at crunching the numbers:

Let's start with Borg.

Borg first became world #1 at 21 years of age. He held it for a total of 109 total weeks before he ended his reign at world #1 at 25 years of age.

Spaced between this reign, Jimmy Connors was world #1. He served the bulk of his weeks at #1 (160 out of 268) between the ages of 21 and 24. He did serve a couple weeks at #1 again in his thirties, so he gets credit for aging well, but the bulk of his reign was as a young guy.

For the most part, the guy that succeeded him was John McEnroe, who first became world #1 at 21 years of age, and held it for at otal of 170 weeks, ending his reign at 26 years of age.

Then came Ivan Lendl. He first became world #1 at age 22. He held it for a then record of 270 weeks, ending his last reign at age of 30. However, the bulk of his reign came from 1983-1988, when he was 27 to 28 years of age.

During this time, Mats Wilander served as world #1. He served all of his 20 weeks at the top while he was 24 years old.

Then came Edberg. He started his reign in 1990, when he was 24 years old. He never held the world #1 past 1992, when he was 26 years old.

During this tim, Edberg fought for world #1 with Boris Becker. Becker first became world #1 at 23 years of age. He also last held it when he was 23 years of age.

Then came Jim Courier. He first became world #1 at 21 years of age. He held it up to when he was 23 years of age, in 1993.

Also during this time, Pete Sampras emerged. Pete first became world #1 at 21 years of age. He last held world number 1 at 29 years of age. However, Pete held 233 weeks out of his 286 total before his 26th birthday.

Andre Agassi also had a turn at number one. He became #1 first just shy of his 25th birthday. He last held it when he was an astonishing 33 years of age, which is why he's the ageless wonder. I doubt Federer would stack up to Agassi in terms of how well he ages. I doubt Nadal, Murray, Djokovic, Tsonga, Simon, Delpo, et al will either.

Also during this time, Patrick Rafter seized #1 for a week, he was twenty six.

Marat Safin was also a world #1. He first became #1 at age 20, and then last held it at age 21.

Lleyton Hewitt also served as #1. He first held it at age 20. He last held it at age 22.

Juan Carlos Ferrero served 8 weeks at #1. He did this when he was 23 years old.

Then Andy Roddick was world #1. He first became #1 at age 21, and then lost it before he turned 22.

Then Federer came along. He first became world #1 at age 22, and held it until age 27.

Then we have Nadal, who became #1 at age 22, and he's still 22 and still #1 at the time of this post.

So, excluding Nadal, we have the following ages when players were no longer world #1:

Federer: 27
Rddick: 22
Ferrero: 23
Hewitt: 22
Safin: 21
Agassi: 33
Sampras: 29 (most before 26)
Courier: 23
Edberg: 26
Wilander: 24
Lendl: 30 (most before 27)
Connors: 31 (251 of his 268 weeks at #1 before the age of 27)
McEnroe: 26
Borg: 25

So looking at this list, it doesn't look like Federer is too out of place, huh? Regardless of whether or not these guys 'aged' or the 'field caught up' or whatever justification you want to use, the fact of the matter is that tennis is not dominated by older guys. The best tennis is played by guys in their early to mid twenties!

Fact

You are moving the goal posts. You keep bringing up players who are on the slide by the age of 22-23, yet you stack the deck by using Federer's age of 27 as a point of reference when it is convenient for your argument.

8 of the aforementined 14 players are 25 or over. Once again, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot reference guys like Courier, Hewitt, Bruguera, and Roddick as examples of players who were on the slide at around 22 years of age, yet conveniently use 27 as the point at which players decline simply because it suits your argument. You will have to do better than that.

You keep talking about what you feel is my tendency to isolate variables. What is it that you think you are doing when you point to the ageing process as the sole cause of these players slipping down the rankings? Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. Once again, you want to have it both ways.

Clydey2times
03-08-2009, 02:52 PM
Continued.

Actually, as someone with obviously considerably more knowledge than yourself, I can tell you that a person's cardiovascular health peaks in their late teens and early twenties, and a person's muscular development peaks in their mid twenties. You're welcome to google for scholarly sources to support the claim.

Isn't that what I said when I stated explicitly that the ageing process starts as one reaches adulthood? You would do well to actually read my posts, rather than just skim them.

The point is that the effect of the ageing process is negligible by your mid-twenties. You do not suddenly start puffing and panting at the age of 24 simply because your cardio peaked a year or two prior.

McEnroe and Borg both decided that they should just quit when they were still capable of being their best? You think it's just coincidence that Borg "lost his passion" for tennis after McEnroe spanked him in the 1981 US Open? Or that McEnroe went on his sabbatical after Lendl whooped him in the 1985 US Open?

Do I think it's a coincidence that Borg lost his passion for tennis because he lost in the 1981 US Open final? Yes, I do. Why didn't he lose his passion for tennis when he suffered the same fate in 1980? Why didn't he lose his passion for tennis when he lost in the Quarter Finals of the US Open in 1979? Borg never won the US Open. He could, according to your logic, have lost his passion for tennis as a result of any one of those losses.

It is you who are isolating variables. You are pointing to one match and suggesting that it is the root cause of everything.

Really? Conveniently, they both seemed to lose passion for the game after they got their asses kicked. Funny what losing can do to you, huh?

If McEnroe was still in his physical prime, how come he failed to do anything after coming back? Surely he didn't forget how to play tennis. He simply got passed by Ivan Lendl.

He failed to do anything when he came back because he wasn't at all committed to tennis. Once again, you are the one isolating a variable. I already told you about his off-court distractions. You seem to be disregarding them because they aren't convenient for your argument.

Clydey2times
03-08-2009, 02:57 PM
I'm not asking you to name several. I'm asking you to name one. Surely an era is not so weak that, if 27+ year olds were still just as much in their physical primes as 22 year olds, then you could name one guy that's a contender for slams in that age category, right?

I'll even let you name guys before Federer's era. You could name a guy older than Santoro if you want. C'mon, just one name. Clearly, if age is not an issue, the odds that not one guy older than Federer is a contender is astronomical.

Are you trying to imply that Federer happened to play in an era where there was a holocaust of elite tennis players? How clever of you. ;)


One name. That's all I ask. Shouldn't be too hard right? One guy that's a contender. Please. Anywhere from age 27 to infinity.

This seems to be consistent that people of Federer's age start to get older and slower, right?




Nah, couldn't be for Clydey, that would make too much sense!

That is the whole point. There were only a handful of players challenging for majors when Federer was dominating. The game has moved on, so what on earth makes you think that they would still be challenging now? Federer utterly dominated them and he is now one of several favourites, as opposed to being a prohibitive favourite. From that it should be clear that no one else in his age range will be challenging for majors.

This really shouldn't be all that hard to grasp. This is like teaching Latin to a monkey.

veroniquem
03-08-2009, 03:06 PM
My boyfriend would find out what was really bothering me, calm me down and make me sweet again :) Guess I should marry him!

Quote "this forum is toxic enough do we have to lower the standard anymore?"

Good question:confused:

Tony is a left handed player and maybe Fed had picked up enough on how to play a "left handed" player. Some blame it on the fact that Tony failed to lead Roger to the FO title (swissinfo.ch) others say that Tony couldn't coach full time. Along with the other mentioned reasons here it seems good that this partnership died. Fed has minimal things he can improve and any coach after time would not be able to provide added value to an already all round good player.
Yes, I heard that Roche's availability was limited but my feeling is that there were other reasons too. Federer has never taken very well to coaches. (You should marry your boyfriend, he sounds like a great find! :))

Clydey2times
03-08-2009, 03:11 PM
Cont'd:

More straw man. I never stated that players were past their best at 22. I stated that Jim Courier never won a grand slam past 22. Did you fail the SAT reading or something?

You're a bit slow on the uptake.

So what were you implying when you stated that Courier did not win a major past the age of 22, if not that he was declining physically?

So now Roger Federer won't age because he has a less demanding style of play? So this means that he won't get a step slower when he's running... how? :rolleyes:

Of course Federer will age. That does not mean he will age at the same rate as Nadal, just as Floyd Mayweather Jnr. did not age at the same rate as Eric Morales. You have to take styles into account. One guy grinds and the other doesn't. It's less physically demanding and puts fewer miles on the clock.

Please, that's absurd. So since Roger Federer is a smooth player, it means his cardiovascular strength can't diminish and it won't affect his footspeed! Bravo you.

More straw man arguments. Care to address the points I make instead of responding to something I didn't even say? The ageing process is not exact. If it was, we would all die at the same time. I seem to be the only one considering those variables you are so fond of talking about.


What point about Lendl?

Lendl's prime years, when he was #1 in the rankings, was between 1983 to 1987. Conveniently, this put him at age 23 to 27 years old. Isn't that roughly where Roger Federer is?

When did I say that people past 27 can't win grand slams? Ivan, your crown jewel about being the "exception" to my argument, had his best years right in the breadhouse, during the same years that Federer's best were in.

Convenient, huh?

He won 6 of his 8 majors after he turned 26. On what planet is that considered declining? This is fun. I love watching you squirm as you try to justify your numerous contradictions.

Cesc Fabregas
03-08-2009, 03:25 PM
Like I said, Safin has always been woefully inconsistent. Do you really think it's a coincidence that all of the top players from the era Federer dominated (with the exception of Nadal, who had yet to fully mature on hard and grass) can't even come close to matching their results from a few years ago? You're really grasping at straws.

As early as 2006, guys like Murray (in his first full year on tour) beat 3 of the 4 players mentioned (Hewitt, Roddick, and Federer). It's no coincidence that Federer's dominance ended when Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray matured. It astonishes me that anyone would argue that guys like Ferrero, Hewitt, Safin, Roddick etc. are not inferior to today's top players.

The game is constantly evolving and the standard is improving. You had guys like Hewitt, Roddick, and Ferrero at the top. Federer came along and began to dominate those guys once he matured, making a mockery of that era's standard. Nadal comes along and dominates clay, while Federer mops up everything else in the absence of anyone who can challenge him on hard and grass. Nadal matures on grass and Djokovic matures in general, and later Murray comes into his own. Now Federer has players who can challenge him on all surfaces.

I'm sorry, but I find it laughable that you think a very poor era from a few years ago matches up favourably against today's top players. I really don't care what you say about age etc. It's just nonsense. 26-27 is not old for a tennis player and it certainly is not an age at which a tennis player goes into decline.

By the way, I love how you used Safin's 4 year spell without a title as proof that the standard hasn't improved. Brilliant. Round of applause for that argument.



Another laughable comment by you, you bias for Murray is hilarious. Ferraro in 2003 was an absutle beast far better player than Murray is now, Hewitt in his heyday was far better than Murray is now and when has Murray ever played like Safin at the USO 2000 or in Australia in 2005? I'll anwser that never. The fact is Roger has started to decline and Rafa has started to peak. Ferraro, Safin and Hewitt in their heydays where far better players than Murray.

CyBorg
03-08-2009, 04:10 PM
I'm not using evolution in the biological sense, obviously. Had tennis been around for millions of years, I might have resorted to that. I simply mean that the game is changing. Racquet technology is a major reason for the shift from a serve/volley dominated tour to a tour populated by baseliners. And the obvious result of the improvement in technology is a higher standard of play.

Evolution by any definition of the word means 'change'.

Your last point isn't self-evident at all. First of all, the technology hasn't improved - it has simply become more player-friendly and by that I mean that it is more recreational-player-type-friendly, rather than pro-friendly.

The last sentence is a fallacy as well. There's actually more to suggest that the change in technology has had a negative impact on the standard of play, effectively homogenizing the style of play. The increase in boom-boom baseline play over hybrid and serve-and-volley styles is good example.

NamRanger
03-08-2009, 04:18 PM
Guys, you have to do your homework a bit better.

Borg's play started waning in the second half of 1980, after his marriage, then after the US Open loss (bad ref call #1), then the trying indoor season (bad ref call #2), and then in 1981 he limited his practice time from six hours to two hours a day and began taking more time off between tournaments.

He didn't suddenly lose his passion after the 1981 US Open. The seeds were already planted.

Again, this goes to show that there are typically two reasons why one generation surrenders its mantle to the next: injuries and mental/emotional expiration. Mac was younger and hungrier and hadn't yet experienced the pressure of being the best. It later hit him hard in 1985. It hit Lendl in 1988 (with a greater injury-factor there).

You lose a step and the younger guy sees it, capitalizes upon it. As you say, this is not an indicator of being better.

Some guys like Safin are different in that they never stay on top long enough, because it's not in their makeup. Safin was never a very consistent fellow. Instead he'd play great tennis in spurts. One day he'd just show up and destroy the whole field with the kind of quality tennis you see in your dreams. It was almost random. That's what he could handle. But after the 2005 surgery, he simply didn't have the movement to pull any more rabbits out of the hat.



Well, I don't know about that. He pulled another rabbit out of the hat at Wimbledon last year, beating Djokovic, Lopez, Wawrinka, and Seppi before falling to Federer. Although he didn't win, I'd say that's a pretty good magic trick by Safin.

CyBorg
03-08-2009, 04:28 PM
Well, I don't know about that. He pulled another rabbit out of the hat at Wimbledon last year, beating Djokovic, Lopez, Wawrinka, and Seppi before falling to Federer. Although he didn't win, I'd say that's a pretty good magic trick by Safin.

IMO, complete fluke. I saw those matches and it was some of the worst grass-court tennis I've ever seen. Besides, making a semi isn't magic. Winning a major is magic.

And I cheered my *** off for Safin.

NamRanger
03-08-2009, 04:55 PM
IMO, complete fluke. I saw those matches and it was some of the worst grass-court tennis I've ever seen. Besides, making a semi isn't magic. Winning a major is magic.

And I cheered my *** off for Safin.


Haha, considering he couldn't string together 2 wins before that, I'd say that's as close as he's ever going to get to pulling off another magic trick.

Clydey2times
03-08-2009, 04:58 PM
The last sentence is a fallacy as well. There's actually more to suggest that the change in technology has had a negative impact on the standard of play, effectively homogenizing the style of play. The increase in boom-boom baseline play over hybrid and serve-and-volley styles is good example.

Firstly, I don't necessarily accept your premise that racquet technology has had a homogenising effect on tennis. Pure baseliners, like Hewitt, are no more commonplace today than serve/volleyers, like McEnroe, were in years gone by. It is certainly a major reason for the decline of serving and volleying. Bear in mind that I do not count all-court players like Federer as a baseliner. I'm talking about two extremes.

Secondly, since when has diversity been synonymous with quality? Even if I were to accept your premise that tennis has become homogenised, that in no way suggests that the overall standard has declined. You said there's more to suggest that racquet technlogy has negatively impacted the quality of tennis. Could you give examples of something that backs up that assertion?

Your last point isn't self-evident at all. First of all, the technology hasn't improved - it has simply become more player-friendly and by that I mean that it is more recreational-player-type-friendly, rather than pro-friendly.

How can you deny that racquet technology has improved? Firstly, racquet specifications can be tailored to suit your style of play. Innovations have led not only to better control, but also the abilty to generate more power and more spin. By any definition of the word, those are undeniable improvements. Whether or not those innovations have had a homogenising effect is irrelevant. They are improvements. It doesn't matter what level you play at, a bigger sweet spot is advantageous. It's like saying that the change from the old, heavy footballs (soccer balls) from decades ago to newer footballs do not benefit the pros. An improvement is an improvement and it is of benefit irrespective of the level at which you compete.

CyBorg
03-08-2009, 05:11 PM
Firstly, I don't necessarily accept your premise that racquet technology has had a homogenising effect on tennis. Pure baseliners, like Hewitt, are no more commonplace today than serve/volleyers, like McEnroe, were in years gone by. It is certainly a major reason for the decline of serving and volleying. Bear in mind that I do not count all-court players like Federer as a baseliner. I'm talking about two extremes.

Doesn't matter. You made the value claim; I simply said that your value claim was baseless and that another value claim can be made just as easily and probably with stronger premises.

By the way, I am not against baseliners. My favorite players are baseliners. What I dislike very much are one-dimensional types like Gonzales, the kinds of players much more common today than ever due to the fact that today's racquet and string technology is attractive to this type of player.

Secondly, since when has diversity been synonymous with quality? Even if I were to accept your premise that tennis has become homogenised, that in no way suggests that the overall standard has declined. You said there's more to suggest that racquet technlogy has negatively impacted the quality of tennis. Could you give examples of something that backs up that assertion?

Again, you're deflecting from your value claim by focussing on the one I made to counteract the absurdity of yours. The point is that claims to value are purely opinions - what makes mine worthwhile is that the lack of diversity is obvious and evident and if one prefers that to homogeneity then one weeps for what tennis once was.

How can you deny that racquet technology has improved? Firstly, racquet specifications can be tailored to suit your style of play. Innovations have led not only to better control, but also the abilty to generate more power and more spin. By any definition of the word, those are undeniable improvements. Whether or not those innovations have had a homogenising effect is irrelevant. They are improvements. It doesn't matter what level you play at, a bigger sweet spot is advantageous. It's like saying that the change from the old, heavy footballs (soccer balls) from decades ago to newer footballs do not benefit the pros. An improvement is an improvement and it is of benefit irrespective of the level at which you compete.

This is similar to the alluminum v wooden bats argument. Guys would be hitting 70 hrs a year regularly in basebal with alluminum. Would they be better players? Again, similar notions in tact - handles better, easier to hit with, easier to hit the ball out of the park.

The effect would be similar to the racquet effect. Less nunace. Fewer hybrid/serve-and-volley players in tennis. Fewer pure hitting/single/bunting players in baseball.

The difference is that baseball hasn't made this change, because there's a strong belief in maintaining the purety of the game.

Sadly enough, of course, steroids did baseball in anyway.

Clydey2times
03-08-2009, 05:30 PM
Doesn't matter. You made the value claim; I simply said that your value claim was baseless and that another value claim can be made just as easily and probably with stronger premises.

Again, you're deflecting from your value claim by focussing on the one I made to counteract the absurdity of yours. The point is that claims to value are purely opinions - what makes mine worthwhile is that the lack of diversity is obvious and evident and if one prefers that to homogeneity then one weeps for what tennis once was.


Just to be clear, which claim are you referring to?

The lack of diversity was obvious back in the 80s, too. I honestly don't see your point.


This is similar to the alluminum v wooden bats argument. Guys would be hitting 70 hrs a year regularly in basebal with alluminum. Would they be better players? Again, similar notions in tact - handles better, easier to hit with, easier to hit the ball out of the park.

The effect would be similar to the racquet effect. Less nunace. Fewer hybrid/serve-and-volley players in tennis. Fewer pure hitting/single/bunting players in baseball.

The difference is that baseball hasn't made this change, because there's a strong belief in maintaining the purety of the game.

Sadly enough, of course, steroids did baseball in anyway.

No, they wouldn't be better players. I don't recall saying that they would. You have obviously got the wrong end of the stick, since I didn't say that the players themselves were better. I said the technology had improved the standard. And in the case of Sampras, the point I made was that new innovations made it much tougher to be succesful with a serve/volley style.

In fact, I said explicitly that you cannot really compare this era to the era of Borg, McEnroe, et al. It was a different game.

CyBorg
03-08-2009, 05:37 PM
Just to be clear, which claim are you referring to?

That racquet technology has improved and by that virtue so have the players ('higher standard of play')

The lack of diversity was obvious back in the 80s, too. I honestly don't see your point.

Not true (the gradual extinction of the clay court specialist is one example). And again you're deflecting from the point.

No, they wouldn't be better players. I don't recall saying that they would. You have obviously got the wrong end of the stick, since I didn't say that the players themselves were better. I said the technology had improved the standard. And in the case of Sampras, the point I made was that new innovations made it much tougher to be succesful with a serve/volley style.

"Technology had improved the standard" - you're going to have to be more clear, because this to me suggests a value claim about the general capabilities of the contemporary player in relation to the players of past.

Also, having more surfaces that produce a 'true' bounce, coupled with strings that allow players to hit crackling passing shots make it tougher to volley effectively. Not "innovations". There's nothing terribly innovative nor beneficial in robbing the sport of one of its most beautiful aspects.

In fact, I said explicitly that you cannot really compare this era to the era of Borg, McEnroe, et al. It was a different game.

This I can agree with.

Clydey2times
03-08-2009, 05:54 PM
That racquet technology has improved and by that virtue so have the players ('higher standard of play')

But that is not what I said. I said that the standard has improved because of the technology. I couldn't honestly say whether or not the players have improved independently of the technology. The respective games are too different.

Not true. And again you're deflecting from the point.

I'm not deflecting from the point.

And it's all very well asserting that it's not true, but that does not necessarily make it so. I have my view on the matter and you have yours. I think pure S&V was as dominant in the 80s as pure baselining is today. You don't have to agree, but please don't accuse me of making baseless assertions and then simply state "Not true."

Neither of our opinions equate to facts.

"Technology had improved the standard" - you're going to have to be more clear, because this to me suggests a value claim about the general capabilities of the contemporary player in relation to the players of past.

Technology had improved the standard. I don't see where the confusion arose. In what way does "technology has improved the standard of tennis" translate to "today's players are inherently superior to those of years gone by"?

You completely misinterpreted what I said. You'll have to explain why you inferred what you did, since my statement was anything but ambiguous. It was explicit in its meaning. Technology improved the standard. I didn't say that the players were better. As I said earlier, I am reluctant to compare those eras. I'll compare the likes of Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero, et al to today's players since they are contemporaries.

Also, having more surfaces that produce a 'true' bounce, coupled with strings that allow players to hit crackling passing shots make it tougher to volley effectively. Not "innovations". There's nothing terribly innovative nor beneficial in robbing the sport of one of its most beautiful aspects.

That is certainly subjective. We are not talking about aesthetics here anyway.

CyBorg
03-08-2009, 05:58 PM
But that is not what I said. I said that the standard has improved because of the technology. I couldn't honestly say whether or not the players have improved independently of the technology. The respective games are too different.

What is hell's bells is "the standard"? Is this supposed to be self-evident?

I'm not deflecting from the point.

And it's all very well asserting that it's not true, but that does not necessarily make it so. I have my view on the matter and you have yours. I think pure S&V was as dominant in the 80s as pure baselining is today. You don't have to agree, but please don't accuse me of making baseless assertions and then simply state "Not true."

Neither of our opinions equate to facts.

Yeah, that's the point. That it's an opinion. As in point of view. A value claim.

Technology had improved the standard. I don't see where the confusion arose. In what way does "technology has improved the standard of tennis" translate to "today's players are inherently superior to those of years gone by"?

You completely misinterpreted what I said. You'll have to explain why you inferred what you did, since my statement was anything but ambiguous. It was explicit in its meaning. Technology improved the standard. I didn't say that the players were better. As I said earlier, I am reluctant to compare those eras. I'll compare the likes of Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero, et al to today's players since they are contemporaries.

I asked you to clarify and you merely repeated the same line a few more times.

That's not... clearer.

Clydey2times
03-08-2009, 06:05 PM
What is hell's bells is "the standard"? Is this supposed to be self-evident?

I'd have thought so.

Yeah, that's the point. That it's an opinion. As in point of view. A value claim.

When did I claim that I was stating anything other than an opinion?

I asked you to clarify and you merely repeated the same line a few more times.

That's not... clearer.

I can't be any clearer. I seriously do not know what it is that you do not get.

Technology allows for better control, more power, and more spin. As a consequence, the standard of play has improved. The players themselves are not necessarily better.

For example, Federer is not necessarily a better player than Borg, since we have no idea how good Borg would have been with current technology.

Is that clearer?

CyBorg
03-08-2009, 06:09 PM
I can't be any clearer. I seriously do not know what it is that you do not get.

Sure you can; you provide a working definition first. Then you tie in the concept to the other concept - technology. One, you claim, affects the other; that is, makes it better.

It's a two-step process. Not very hard, except when bogus and unprovable.

Technology allows for better control, more power, and more spin. As a consequence, the standard of play has improved. The players themselves are not necessarily better.

For example, Federer is not necessarily a better player than Borg, since we have no idea how good Borg would have been with current technology.

Borg is not necessarily a better player than Federer, since we have no idea how good Federer would have been with 70s technology.

See what I did there?

Is that clearer?

You should think this thing over a little more.

CyBorg
03-08-2009, 06:26 PM
I'll tell you what. I'm going to hazard a guess and define standard for you.

Let's say standard is "aesthetic goodness".

This means that to you "aesthetic goodness" is better control, more power and more spin.

Conversely, to a fan of woodie-era tennis "aesthetic goodness" is timely volleys, top-notch footwork, ability to hit a well-executed lob, grinding out a 100-stroke rally on clay and all of those other great things no longer present in the game.

Where does this take you?

Clydey2times
03-08-2009, 06:27 PM
Sure you can; you provide a working definition first. Then you tie in the concept to the other concept - technology. One, you claim, affects the other; that is, makes it better.

It's a two-step process. Not very hard, except when bogus and unprovable.

It really isn't all that difficult to grasp. It's not like I am trying to explain string theory.

Ok, I'll put it another way for you. If Federer were to play Borg with current technology, with Borg using a wooden racquet, Federer would be at a distinct advantage. He would have more control, would be able to generate more power, more spin, and would have a bigger sweet spot. As a consequence, Federer would play better with his current racquet than he would with a wooden racquet. His standard of play would improve as a result of the technology.

Clearer?

Borg is not necessarily a better player than Federer, since we have no idea how good Federer would have been with 70s technology.

See what I did there?

Not really. You basically made the same point that I did.

What you seem to be saying is that today's technology no more benefits a player than does a wooden racquet. Would I be right in saying that?

You should think this thing over a little more.

Attempts at condescension are not the way to keep this civil. Rein it in a little, eh?

Clydey2times
03-08-2009, 06:30 PM
I'll tell you what. I'm going to hazard a guess and define standard for you.

Let's say standard is "aesthetic goodness".

This means that to you "aesthetic goodness" is better control, more power and more spin.

Conversely, to a fan of woodie-era tennis "aesthetic goodness" is timely volleys, top-notch footwork, ability to hit a well-executed lob, grinding out a 100-stroke rally on clay and all of those other great things no longer present in the game.

Where does this take you?

Why on earth would you think I am basing this on aesthetics? I already said that I'm not. As a standard, I am talking about the level of play, efficiency, results. I do not mean that current technology makes for a prettier game. I am talking about being more effective.

NamRanger
03-08-2009, 06:35 PM
Why on earth would you think I am basing this on aesthetics? I already said that I'm not. As a standard, I am talking about the level of play, efficiency, results. I do not mean that current technology makes for a prettier game. I am talking about being more effective.


There comes a point in time when the tools become too effective and too easy. I agree with Cyborg that today's technology makes the game abit too easy and boring. You see players like Nadal capable of hitting 90-100 mph winners, on the dead run. That would have never happened in the wood era, ever. Not even early graphite era.

CyBorg
03-08-2009, 06:36 PM
Why on earth would you think I am basing this on aesthetics? I already said that I'm not. As a standard, I am talking about the level of play, efficiency, results. I do not mean that current technology makes for a prettier game. I am talking about being more effective.

efficiency - quicker points? why is this better?

results - they had results even in the Doherty days

effective - uhhh...

wa?

CyBorg
03-08-2009, 06:36 PM
There comes a point in time when the tools become too effective and too easy. I agree with Cyborg that today's technology makes the game abit too easy and boring. You see players like Nadal capable of hitting 90-100 mph winners, on the dead run. That would have never happened in the wood era, ever. Not even early graphite era.

An 'effective' question here would be: why/how is that better?

Clydey2times
03-08-2009, 06:37 PM
There comes a point in time when the tools become too effective and too easy. I agree with Cyborg that today's technology makes the game abit too easy and boring. You see players like Nadal capable of hitting 90-100 mph winners, on the dead run. That would have never happened in the wood era, ever. Not even early graphite era.

I have no issue with that. In fact, I'm inclined to agree with you. However, there's no doubt that today's technology makes players more effective than wooden racquets would.

Clydey2times
03-08-2009, 06:41 PM
efficiency - quicker points? why is this better?

results - they had results even in the Doherty days

effective - uhhh...

wa?

Who said it was better for the game? You seem to be intentionally missing the point. We are talking about what makes a player more effective, not what is good for the game. I am not arguing whether or not today's technology has benefited the game of tennis.

When I say that Federer is a better player than Blake, I don't mean he's prettier to watch (although he is). I mean that he is a more effective player. What is it about this concept that you cannot grasp?

Ok, Federer is using his current racquet and Borg is using a wooden racquet. Federer will be at an advantage, since his racquet is more effective in helping him win points.

Clydey2times
03-08-2009, 06:42 PM
An 'effective' question here would be: why/how is that better?

Because it improves your chances of winning points. There are no points for style.

CyBorg
03-08-2009, 06:48 PM
It really isn't all that difficult to grasp. It's not like I am trying to explain string theory.

Ok, I'll put it another way for you. If Federer were to play Borg with current technology, with Borg using a wooden racquet, Federer would be at a distinct advantage. He would have more control, would be able to generate more power, more spin, and would have a bigger sweet spot. As a consequence, Federer would play better with his current racquet than he would with a wooden racquet. His standard of play would improve as a result of the technology.

Clearer?

By this virtue then, 'standard of play' is a meaningless notion, because it is solely about the spoils of technology.

Okay, let's say that 20 years from now, the NBA institutes a special shoe that allows players to jump 3 times higher and run faster. Does the standard of play improve as well?

I think it would be a meaningless gimmick. But that's just me.

Not really. You basically made the same point that I did.

No.

Circa 2004, the NHL made it mandatory for goaltenders to wear smaller goalie pads. They went from 12 inches to 10, or something in that neighbourhood.

This was done to increase scoring in the game. Note that the so-called 'evolution' in technology/equipment (growing goalie pads) was scaled back closer to what it was in the past.

Now, according to your logic, hockey's standard of play would get better because the team with the goalie that wore 12-inch pads (circa, say 2000) would normally beat the team with goalie that wore 6-inch pads (let's say 1976).

That's meaningless. The point here is that changes in equipment/technology are not automatically positive/negative in making the sport better in terms of quality/efficiency/results or whatever it is you spin. Hence the Borg example, you could turn what you're saying around and find the flaw with the whole premise.

Attempts at condescension are not the way to keep this civil. Rein it in a little, eh?

Was I wrong? I was serious.

CyBorg
03-08-2009, 06:49 PM
Because it improves your chances of winning points.

It doesn't if everyone is using the same technology. Geez.

CyBorg
03-08-2009, 06:51 PM
Who said it was better for the game? You seem to be intentionally missing the point. We are talking about what makes a player more effective, not what is good for the game. I am not arguing whether or not today's technology has benefited the game of tennis.

When I say that Federer is a better player than Blake, I don't mean he's prettier to watch (although he is). I mean that he is a more effective player. What is it about this concept that you cannot grasp?

Ok, Federer is using his current racquet and Borg is using a wooden racquet. Federer will be at an advantage, since his racquet is more effective in helping him win points.

Federer is not playing Borg. Federer is playing another player who uses, or is welcome to use, the very same kind of technology. I see no evidence to a rise in 'effectiveness'.

Clydey2times
03-08-2009, 07:04 PM
By this virtue then, 'standard of play' is a meaningless notion, because it is solely about the spoils of technology.

Okay, let's say that 20 years from now, the NBA institutes a special shoe that allows players to jump 3 times higher and run faster. Does the standard of play improve as well?

I think it would be a meaningless gimmick. But that's just me.



No.

Circa 2004, the NHL made it mandatory for goaltenders to wear smaller goalie pads. They went from 12 inches to 10, or something in that neighbourhood.

This was done to increase scoring in the game. Note that the so-called 'evolution' in technology/equipment (growing goalie pads) was scaled back closer to what it was in the past.

Now, according to your logic, hockey's standard of play would get better because the team with the goalie that wore 12-inch pads (circa, say 2000) would normally beat the team with goalie that wore 6-inch pads (let's say 1976).

That's meaningless. The point here is that changes in equipment/technology are not automatically positive/negative in making the sport better in terms of quality/efficiency/results or whatever it is you spin. Hence the Borg example, you could turn what you're saying around and find the flaw with the whole premise.


That is a poor comparison. That change did not improve the level of play. It merely handicapped the goalies. That isn't an equipment innovation. The hockey players do not hit the puck harder or have more control over the puck. The level of play essentially actually would have suffered as a result, since it lowered the standard of the goalkeeping. It's a bit like raising the height of a tennis net.

In tennis, a player now has more control over the ball. That amounts to better strokes, better volleys, more powerful serves. The level of play is, therefore, higher. The difference is clear. In tennis, the equipment was improved and the level of play improved as a result. In hockey, the equipment wasn't improved. If anything, it was a step backwards. They actually weakened the goalies' equipment.

Clydey2times
03-08-2009, 07:09 PM
It doesn't if everyone is using the same technology. Geez.

In the name of...

The overall standard has improved. The racquets give every player who uses them an advantage. Every player who uses today's racquets has the potential to hit the ball harder, control the ball better, serve harder, and generate more spin.

That is why those racquets are more effective. Therefore, the standard is higher. I am astounded that you seemingly cannot grasp this point.

All things being equal, a person playing with today's technology will beat someone playing with a wooden racquet. Modern technology allows players to play better, so the standard is higher.

CyBorg
03-08-2009, 07:21 PM
That is a poor comparison. That change did not improve the level of play. It merely handicapped the goalies. That isn't an equipment innovation. The hockey players do not hit the puck harder or have more control over the puck. The level of play essentially actually would have suffered as a result, since it lowered the standard of the goalkeeping. It's a bit like raising the height of a tennis net.

Actually, the increase in pad size transformed the way goalies played the game. There was a whole change in the stance - a common goalie from 25 years would have to rely purely on the quickness of his limbs to stop the puck. With larger pads, goaltending became all about positioning and angles.

With smaller pads goalies have had to adjust as well.

The interesting thing about all of this is that the increase in pad size did not make for bad goalies, it simply altered the desired skills from one set to another.

In tennis, a player now has more control over the ball. That amounts to better strokes, better volleys, more powerful serves. The level of play is, therefore, higher. The difference is clear. In tennis, the equipment was improved and the level of play improved as a result. In hockey, the equipment wasn't improved. If anything, it was a step backwards. They actually weakened the goalies' equipment.

Actually, most players say that volleying with wood isn't harder than doing it with graphite. Most affected areas are the return, of course hitting from the back of the baseline with accuracy, power and spin. Volleying is harder for a variety of reasons, including the powerful passing shots.

Again, your idea of 'standard of play' strikes me as meaningless. It is entirely based on the spoils of technology. It asserts that as long as technology is developed that allows players to hit harder then, by that virtue, 'the standard' will also improve. If this is all there is to it then frankly I simply don't care, because 100 years from now they'll probably be using magical glow-in-the-dark strings from outer space. You can chalk that up to a higher standard. I won't.

CyBorg
03-08-2009, 07:23 PM
The overall standard has improved. The racquets give every player who uses them an advantage.

No, they don't. There is no advantage if the opponent is using the same equipment.

All things being equal, a person playing with today's technology will beat someone playing with a wooden racquet. Modern technology allows players to play better, so the standard is higher.

Nobody on the tour plays with wooden racquets, so your point is moot.

Playing with technology that helps one hit harder is not playing better. That is just playing in accordance with what the technology affords the player.

CyBorg
03-08-2009, 07:26 PM
In hockey, the equipment wasn't improved. If anything, it was a step backwards. They actually weakened the goalies' equipment.

Interesting opinion. So the NHL has actually 'lowered its standard of play. I'll be sure to share this with my hockey fan buddies over a beer.

Clydey2times
03-08-2009, 07:28 PM
Actually, the increase in pad size transformed the way goalies played the game. There was a whole change in the stance - a common goalie from 25 years would have to rely purely on the quickness of his limbs to stop the puck. With larger pads, goaltending became all about positioning and angles.

With smaller pads goalies have had to adjust as well.

The interesting thing about all of this is that the increase in pad size did not make for bad goalies, it simply altered the desired skills from one set to another.



Actually, most players say that volleying with wood isn't harder than doing it with graphite. Most affected areas are the return, of course hitting from the back of the baseline with accuracy, power and spin. Volleying is harder for a variety of reasons, including the powerful passing shots.

Again, your idea of 'standard of play' strikes me as meaningless. It is entirely based on the spoils of technology. It asserts that as long as technology is developed that allows players to hit harder then, by that virtue, 'the standard' will also improve. If this is all there is to it then frankly I simply don't care, because 100 years from now they'll probably be using magical glow-in-the-dark strings from outer space. You can chalk that up to a higher standard. I won't.

That is your right. It's very easy to turn that around on you. You could simply keep regressing to the earliest racquet models and say that you don't care about the standard of play from the 80s, since they used better equipment than when tennis was invented.

It doesn't matter what the cause, the standard has risen. You don't like it, nor does it impress you. It is, however, an irrefutable fact. Technology allows players to play more effectively than did wooden racquets.

Clydey2times
03-08-2009, 07:34 PM
Interesting opinion. So the NHL has actually 'lowered its standard of play. I'll be sure to share this with my hockey fan buddies over a beer.

It lowered the standard of the goalies. Unlike tennis, there are two distinct categories of player: outfield player and goalkeeper.

That is partly why it doesn't work as a comparison.

ChanceEncounter
03-08-2009, 07:39 PM
I love that you sat here all day typing out that nonsense.

I didn't say that every single player above Safin is a better player. He has always been woefully inconsistent. There is no doubt that an on-form Safin is top 10 material. However, he rarely plays anywhere near his top level. You must learn to pay better attention, since I stated explicitly that Safin's talent has never been in question, but rather it is his ability to produce consistently that has let him down repeatedly over the years. His inconsistency and the higher standard of play led to an inevitable slide down the rankings.

I never said otherwise. However, the evidence clearly shows that the players of Federer's generation are declining, which means that citing the fact that they are not doing as much in the current landscape as meaning the era is weak is not a logically valid conclusion.

I don't know why that is particularly difficult to understand.

That is simply not true. I have already made it clear that Hewitt's injury is a major part of his dramatic fall from grace. We are not talking about standards improving to the extent that a former world number 1 can barely get into the top 100. Hewitt's problems in recent years are well documented. My point is that even prior to those problems, his results were drying up. The game was moving on.

And my point is, you can't simply say that someone fell precipitously because of one instance. No one rolled out of bed one day and suddenly played tennis a lot worse. While it may be true that the field has gotten better and caught up, players from Federer's generation have declined in recent years, which means that it is impossible to claim that it is due solely to the gains from the new generation.

That is exactly what happened. You seem to be completely contradicting yourself. On the one hand you feel that Roger Federer declined over night (having a fairly lean spell in 2008 compared to his 2007 season), yet on the other hand you think that Sampras must have been showing signs of decline at least 2 years prior to his 2000 USO defeat. You cannot have it both ways.

It's funny that you're trying to reverse everything I say against me. Is this because you lack a real argument?

I believe Federer showed signs of declining in 2007, definitely declined through 2008, and is still declining, simply because of his age.

Pete Sampras began declining in 1998. He had considerably more trouble that year in Wimbledon, he didn't win any of the Aussie or US Open, and did not win either of the two until his miracle win in 2002. That seems pretty consistent with the statement that Sampras was definitely a little over the hill by 2000, which allowed a young Safin to whoop him on the court.

No, he did not begin to lose regularly from the ages of 24 to 25. He barely played a match by the time he was 25. He won the French Open in his last year on tour (he basically didn't play in 1982), lost narrowly to McEnroe at Wimbledon, and again lost to him at the US Open. He lost every time he played at the US Open, so that loss had nothing to do with him declining. Your whole argument essentially boils down to one match. You cannot say that Borg was on the slide based on a narrow loss to McEnroe in the 1981 Wimbledon final.

This is incorrect. Borg's play had already begun to decline throughout the 1981 season, and even before. As I said, McEnroe was starting to beat him with much more regularity. You can look at their career head to head matchups. He was mentally tiring as much as it was physical, but the fact remains that his play was beginning to wane, at roughly the same age that it was for Federer.

You are moving the goal posts. You keep bringing up players who are on the slide by the age of 22-23, yet you stack the deck by using Federer's age of 27 as a point of reference when it is convenient for your argument.

Please. I can barely see your post behind all the straw men.

I'm not moving the goal posts simply because my argument produces a different number. You're being unreasonable again.

I'm stating facts that support the conclusion that tennis is a young man's game, especially a surface like red clay. I didn't say that players start sliding at age 22. I stated that, in the past, players have won the French average a little over 22 years of age (fact).

The conclusion isn't that players age by 22, I never stated such a thing. The conclusion is that tennis is a young man's game, and whatever special skills that tennis has, it becomes harder to maintain after your early to mid twenties Different sports have different shelf-lives. If you're a female gymnast, you're over the hill by 18. Does that mean I'm saying that you become an old woman by 18? No, I never did.

8 of the aforementined 14 players are 25 or over. Once again, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot reference guys like Courier, Hewitt, Bruguera, and Roddick as examples of players who were on the slide at around 22 years of age, yet conveniently use 27 as the point at which players decline simply because it suits your argument. You will have to do better than that.

See above.

You aren't winning any style points by using straw man arguments, really.

Again, reading comprehension is your friend. Read what I wrote:

So looking at this list, it doesn't look like Federer is too out of place, huh?

Meaning, Federer's shelf-life as world #1 seems to be pretty damn consistent with tennis history, which makes the argument that his era was particularly weak not really work.

Get it yet? Do I need to mail you flash cards?

You keep talking about what you feel is my tendency to isolate variables. What is it that you think you are doing when you point to the ageing process as the sole cause of these players slipping down the rankings? Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. Once again, you want to have it both ways.

Again, straw man argument.

Read the post. Think. Repeat. Then post. I'm getting tired of debunking your argument on the bounds that you don't read.

CyBorg
03-08-2009, 07:40 PM
That is your right. It's very easy to turn that around on you. You could simply keep regressing to the earliest racquet models and say that you don't care about the standard of play from the 80s, since they used better equipment than when tennis was invented.

Tennis could hypothetically revert back to older models and players would adjust and do quite fine, I'm sure. Of course, it won't happen because changes in technology occur for corporate reasons.

It doesn't matter what the cause, the standard has risen. You don't like it, nor does it impress you. It is, however, an irrefutable fact. Technology allows players to play more effectively than did wooden racquets.

Convincing argument.

ChanceEncounter
03-08-2009, 07:41 PM
Isn't that what I said when I stated explicitly that the ageing process starts as one reaches adulthood? You would do well to actually read my posts, rather than just skim them.

The point is that the effect of the ageing process is negligible by your mid-twenties. You do not suddenly start puffing and panting at the age of 24 simply because your cardio peaked a year or two prior.

You realize that if you keep repeating the same broken points, this is going to take twice as long, right?

Read my post:

The bottom line is that while aging my be "negligible," any small amount counts when we're talking about the best of the best. A 25 year old won't be able to run around as much as a 22 year old, ceteris paribis. Thus, it makes sense that when similarly skilled, a 22 year old would beat a 25 year old, regardless of era.

Capische?

Do I think it's a coincidence that Borg lost his passion for tennis because he lost in the 1981 US Open final? Yes, I do. Why didn't he lose his passion for tennis when he suffered the same fate in 1980? Why didn't he lose his passion for tennis when he lost in the Quarter Finals of the US Open in 1979? Borg never won the US Open. He could, according to your logic, have lost his passion for tennis as a result of any one of those losses.

It is you who are isolating variables. You are pointing to one match and suggesting that it is the root cause of everything.

I'm not. I'm saying it's not a coincidence that Borg started losing and then quit. I used the US Open as a synecdoche for his whole losing experience, but the argument is that there are two things happening:

a.) Borg was losing matches
b.) Borg was losing interest
then c.) Borg retired

How much of a versus how much of b is uncertain. Unlike you, I don't purport to claim that it was all because Borg lost interest and then quit. Your argument, on the other hand, depends upon all B, because you claim that he was not declining whatsoever.

He failed to do anything when he came back because he wasn't at all committed to tennis. Once again, you are the one isolating a variable. I already told you about his off-court distractions. You seem to be disregarding them because they aren't convenient for your argument.

Again, two things are happening:

a.) McEnroe was losing matches
b.) McEnroe was losing passion for tennis
then c.) McEnroe quit

You, again, are claiming that McEnroe left solely for reason B, when it's also possible that it was reason A.

That is the whole point. There were only a handful of players challenging for majors when Federer was dominating. The game has moved on, so what on earth makes you think that they would still be challenging now? Federer utterly dominated them and he is now one of several favourites, as opposed to being a prohibitive favourite. From that it should be clear that no one else in his age range will be challenging for majors.

This really shouldn't be all that hard to grasp. This is like teaching Latin to a monkey.

No, it's clear that your understanding of logic is so ridiculously miniscule that you've once again deluded yourself into thinking you've won this argument.

You basically argue then, that the top 20, top 50 players in the world today are all better than Federer's rivals during his prime years, since it was only a few years ago, and there isn't a single player from Federer's generation or older that is a slam contender.

This statement, as I said before, is ludicrous. It's like claiming that Robby Ginepri can beat Sampras, because the game as improved so much that the top 60 or so players now are better than te best in 2004.

Thus, the reasoning for why no one from Federer's generation or older aren't slam contenders can't just be because they were marginal players. They have to be getting older/declining as well.

Ergo, it's likely that Federer is declining as well, since he is in the same/typical age bracket as players when they start declining. Do you understand yet?

You're a bit slow on the uptake.

So what were you implying when you stated that Courier did not win a major past the age of 22, if not that he was declining physically?

No, I wasn't. I stated that as a matter of fact.

Let me break some news to you: a fact is not an opinion. A fact is neutral to any argument and you must make a logically valid statement based upon a fact. The fact is that Courier did not win a major after 22.

I, however, do not purport to know exactly why he did not win after that age. I can't isolate variables like you, evidently.

Of course Federer will age. That does not mean he will age at the same rate as Nadal, just as Floyd Mayweather Jnr. did not age at the same rate as Eric Morales. You have to take styles into account. One guy grinds and the other doesn't. It's less physically demanding and puts fewer miles on the clock.

But this doesn't mean he hasn't aged.

More straw man arguments. Care to address the points I make instead of responding to something I didn't even say? The ageing process is not exact. If it was, we would all die at the same time. I seem to be the only one considering those variables you are so fond of talking about.

Not straw man.

I made the claim that Federer has aged. My supporting evidence is that he looks visibly slower, and that most players of his age begin to decline.

Your supporting evidence that he's still the same player is... oh wait, I'm still looking for it. :rolleyes:

He won 6 of his 8 majors after he turned 26. On what planet is that considered declining? This is fun. I love watching you squirm as you try to justify your numerous contradictions.

What's fun is that you don't seem to understand that in 1983, Lendl was 22 years old. In 1987 (the year his long reign ended), he was 26 years old.

Again, where did I say that people over 26 can't win grand slams?

You know, I'm not contradicting anything. My straw man that you built is contradicting things. Your argument is getting more ridiculous.

It's like a slapstick show that's starting to get gory.

ChanceEncounter
03-08-2009, 07:41 PM
Hey CyBorg, you've been here a lot longer than I have.

Is Clydey always this stupid?

CyBorg
03-08-2009, 07:43 PM
He seems fine to me.

ChanceEncounter
03-08-2009, 07:46 PM
He seems fine to me.
If by fine, you mean I have to repeat everything multiple times, then sure.

CyBorg
03-08-2009, 07:48 PM
If by fine, you mean I have to repeat everything multiple times, then sure.

A brisk walk around the block in between arguments helps.:)

ChanceEncounter
03-08-2009, 07:48 PM
No, I wasn't. I stated that as a matter of fact.

Let me break some news to you: a fact is not an opinion. A fact is neutral to any argument and you must make a logically valid statement based upon a fact. The fact is that Courier did not win a major after 22.

I, however, do not purport to know exactly why he did not win after that age. I can't isolate variables like you, evidently.

To elaborate on this, I have presented two facts to you:

Fact Number 1: The average French Open champion over the past 18 years is less than 23 years old (22-23).

Fact Number 2: Most world #1 end their reigns in their mid 20s.

Fact Number 3: Federer is 27, going on 28.

Now, I would say, just by the way history has trended, that Federer seems to be following the natural course of tennis history.

So... how does this mean that Federer's era was weak again? Let's substantiate your claim now.

Clydey2times
03-08-2009, 07:49 PM
No, they don't. There is no advantage if the opponent is using the same equipment.



Nobody on the tour plays with wooden racquets, so your point is moot.

Playing with technology that helps one hit harder is not playing better. That is just playing in accordance with what the technology affords the player.

Once again, missing the point. It gives them an advantage over wooden racquets. If they played with a wooden racquet, they would not be able to play as well. The standard for both players in a match would decline, whether it be volleying poorer, returning poorer, serving poorer etc. And no, making an unsubstantiated claim about most players disagreeing with regards to its effect on volleying isn't a point in your favour. If you show me proof of that, I'll gladly say that I was wrong about the volleying aspect. I don't see how, given that there's a bigger sweet spot and it's easier to control the ball.

Ok, couple of simple questions. No digressing or inserting "buts" into your answer please.

All things being equal, who will win if a player playing with a wooden racquet plays a player who is playing with a modern racquet?

Second part to my question. No matter what the reason is, who is playing the better tennis?

I would say it's the player who serves harder, returns better, volleys better, hits harder strokes, and has more control over the ball.

If a new driver is invented that allows a golfer to hit the ball 500 yards and control the ball better, the fact that every other player who uses that club can do it is irrelevant. The overall standard of driving is higher than that of players who hit the ball 300 yards with less control.

The same thing applies to tennis. It doesn't matter that the other guy also uses moder racquets. The standard of both players has improved.

ChanceEncounter
03-08-2009, 07:49 PM
A brisk walk around the block in between arguments helps.:)

Why? Is arguing against him supposed to be a frustrating chore?

I find him rather entertaining. It's like one of those distortion mirrors that make you look wildly different than you normally are. :)

Clydey2times
03-08-2009, 07:50 PM
He seems fine to me.

Appreciate you saying that. Shows we can have a civil debate. :)

ChanceEncounter
03-08-2009, 07:52 PM
Once again, missing the point. It gives them an advantage over wooden racquets. If they played with a wooden racquet, they would not be able to play as well. The standard for both players in a match would decline, whether it be volleying poorer, returning poorer, serving poorer etc. And no, making an unsubstantied claim about most players disagreeing with regards to its effect on volleying isn't a point in your favour. If you show me proof of that, I'll gladly say that I was wrong about the volleying aspect. I don't see how, given that there's a bigger sweet spot and it's easier to control the ball.

Ok, couple of simple questions. No digressing or inserting "buts" into your answer please.

All things being equal, who will win if a player playing with a wooden racquet plays a player who is playing with a modern racquet?

Second part to my question. No matter what the reason is, who is playing the better tennis?

I would say it's the player who serves harder, returns better, volleys better, hits harder strokes, and has more control over the ball.

If a new driver is invented that allows a golfer to hit the ball 500 yards and control the ball better, the fact that every other player who uses that club can do it is irrelevant. The overall standard of driving is higher than that of players who hit the ball 300 yards with less control.

The same thing applies to tennis. It doesn't matter that the other guy also uses moder racquets. The standard of both players has improved.

The fallacy of your argument is a measure of extremes.

The adjustment from wooden racquets to modern racquets is huge. The adjustment from one modern racquet to a new modern racquet is not as big.

Furthermore, elite tennis players have custom racquets designed for their given style of play. Nadal's racquet is going to be a lot different from Roddick's racquet. Racquet evolution is definitely there; technology is improving, but there's no law stating that the evolution of technology is faster for one style of play over another style of play.

So, all things equal, racquet evolution does not favor one player over another.

Clydey2times
03-08-2009, 07:56 PM
The fallacy of your argument is a measure of extremes.

The adjustment from wooden racquets to modern racquets is huge. The adjustment from one modern racquet to a new modern racquet is not as big.

Furthermore, elite tennis players have custom racquets designed for their given style of play. Nadal's racquet is going to be a lot different from Roddick's racquet. Racquet evolution is definitely there; technology is improving, but there's no law stating that the evolution of technology is faster for one style of play over another style of play.

So, all things equal, racquet evolution does not favor one player over another.

My point is that the overall standard of play has improved as a result of racquet technology. Players hit the ball harder, they serve harder, control the ball better etc. No matter the cause, the result is a higher standard of play than one can produce with a wooden racquet. Right or wrong?

Clydey2times
03-08-2009, 07:58 PM
Why? Is arguing against him supposed to be a frustrating chore?

I find him rather entertaining. It's like one of those distortion mirrors that make you look wildly different than you normally are. :)

Please, let's keep this civil. And stop pretending that you think I'm stupid. You know I'm not. We merely disagree. I don't think that your point of view is idiotic. I simply subscribe to a different one.

CyBorg
03-08-2009, 07:59 PM
Once again, missing the point. It gives them an advantage over wooden racquets. If they played with a wooden racquet, they would not be able to play as well. The standard for both players in a match would decline, whether it be volleying poorer, returning poorer, serving poorer etc. And no, making an unsubstantied claim about most players disagreeing with regards to its effect on volleying isn't a point in your favour. If you show me proof of that, I'll gladly say that I was wrong about the volleying aspect. I don't see how, given that there's a bigger sweet spot and it's easier to control the ball.

Players weren't disagreeing with a claim. It was simply mentioned in a number of articles on the matter that volleying with woodies didn't make a great difference. I recall that the Bryan brothers were among those that said this. If I find the article I'll link it - you don't have to take my word for it if you don't want to. There is no empirical proof - only statements of select players.

I don't know why you're so stuck on the woodies v graphite thing. I've already acknowledged that point - you'll notice that I referred to it as meaningless. Hand Federer a racquet from outer space that produces even more spin and power than the one he currently has and he'll beat Nadal. That's basically your idea of a higher standard of play.

Ok, couple of simple questions. No digressing or inserting "buts" into your answer please.

All things being equal, who will win if a player playing with a wooden racquet plays a player who is playing with a modern racquet?

Already covered.

Second part to my question. No matter what the reason is, who is playing the better tennis?

I would say it's the player who serves harder, returns better, volleys better, hits harder strokes, and has more control over the ball.

Subjective. In my opinion, players used to be better movers, thinkers and more deft at volleying and lobbing. Now, hand a graphite racquet to a player who's accustomed to a woodie and you'll see him do more with it than the contemporary guy. This is assuming that we're talking about players of comparable achievements.

Again, this is purely opinion and is irrelevant, thus not furthering this argument in any way.

If a new driver is invented that allows a golfer to hit the ball 500 yards and control the ball better, the fact that every other player who uses that club can do it is irrelevant. The overall standard of driving is higher than that of players who hit the ball 300 yards with less control.

The same thing applies to tennis. It doesn't matter that the other guy also uses moder racquets. The standard of both players has improved.

Here's when I would acknowledge that the standard of the contemporary golfer has improved:

When/if the contemporary golfer is able to take the driver from 30 years ago and hit with it better (evidently) than players did 30 years ago.

Now that's a higher standard.

CyBorg
03-08-2009, 08:01 PM
Why? Is arguing against him supposed to be a frustrating chore?

I find him rather entertaining. It's like one of those distortion mirrors that make you look wildly different than you normally are. :)

Yeah - it's entertaining, which is why I'm here and not preparing for a presentation I'm supposed to do on Tuesday.

ChanceEncounter
03-08-2009, 08:03 PM
My point is that the overall standard of play has improved as a result of racquet technology. Players hit the ball harder, they serve harder, control the ball better etc. No matter the cause, the result is a higher standard of play than one can produce with a wooden racquet. Right or wrong?

Right, in regards to a wooden racquet.

However, that isn't what we're talking about. I'm not saying that Rod Laver, with his wooden racquet, would beat Nadal of today, with his space-age racquet. I'm saying that there are a number of variables regarding the level of tennis play, and one of them is that the players and courts are adjusted for the new technology. Players have specialized and picked racquets they favor, and courts have slowed down so the new pace doesn't end rallies too quickly.

Unless you want to argue that players have also, at the same time as the evolution in racquets, learned to swing harder or run faster, the point is that while the game has changed, it doesn't inherently bias or favor the game for any one player.

ChanceEncounter
03-08-2009, 08:04 PM
Please, let's keep this civil. And stop pretending that you think I'm stupid. You know I'm not. We merely disagree. I don't think that your point of view is idiotic. I simply subscribe to a different one.
You've one one of two things:

a.) Straw man my point and lace your argument with unsubstantiated logical fallacy.

b.) Claim that I'm a pseudo-intellectual when I call you out for logical fallacies.

So, why should I respect your intelligence? I would have respected it if you attempted to keep it civil, but you threw the first stone and are continuing to throw them.

I'm perfectly capable of being civil. I just need a debate partner that's interested in doing the same thing.

Clydey2times
03-08-2009, 08:05 PM
Here's when I would acknowledge that the standard of the contemporary golfer has improved:

When/if the contemporary golfer is able to take the driver from 30 years ago and hit with it better (evidently) than players did 30 years ago.

Now that's a higher standard.

Yes, that would certainly mean that the player is of a higher standard. The cause of his playing at a higher standard would be his own ability. The cause of tennis players playing at a higher standard is the technology. The result is the same no matter the cause. It might be meaningless in the sense that the athletes aren't any better, but they certainly produce a higher level of play.

I have no real opinion on the value of these innovations. You obviously do, and that's where we seem to be clashing.

CyBorg
03-08-2009, 08:11 PM
Yes, that would certainly mean that the player is of a higher standard. The cause of his playing at a higher standard would be his own ability. The cause of tennis players playing at a higher standard is the technology. The result is the same no matter the cause. It might be meaningless in the sense that the athletes aren't any better, but they certainly produce a higher level of play.

I have no real opinion on the value of these innovations. You obviously do, and that's where we seem to be clashing.

Strange semantics, but understandable now.

Personally I've always thought that a topspin forehand hit with a woodie had a better aesthetic appeal, but most folks on this board, unlike me, prefer the lazer-guided missiles they hit now.

Clydey2times
03-08-2009, 08:11 PM
You've one one of two things:

a.) Straw man my point and lace your argument with unsubstantiated logical fallacy.

b.) Claim that I'm a pseudo-intellectual when I call you out for logical fallacies.

So, why should I respect your intelligence? I would have respected it if you attempted to keep it civil, but you threw the first stone and are continuing to throw them.

I'm perfectly capable of being civil. I just need a debate partner that's interested in doing the same thing.

I had intended to keep it civil until you challenged me so aggressively, implying that I didn't know the true meaning of the phrase "begging the question". I responded to what I felt was you insulting my intelligence.

As for your first point, I feel you are just as guilty of building straw men and littering your arguments with non-sequiturs. You will disagree with that assertion just as I disagree with yours, so let's not pretend that either of us are giving anything other than our own opinion of each other's inadequacy.

ChanceEncounter
03-08-2009, 08:12 PM
They may produce a higher level of play, but they produce a higher level of play regardless of who you are.

For example, Nadal's play is clearly very different than the average player. Yet, both of them have customized racquets that allow them to gain power and spin from their strokes. Thus, all else equal, the level of play improves, but no one player gains a large advantage from the improvement in the level of play. If I have two players that are equally skilled and give them both equally advanced racquets, it stands to reason that they will play a lot of close matches.

I don't believe anyone claimed that the game hasn't changed in the last 30 years, because it certainly has.

ChanceEncounter
03-08-2009, 08:14 PM
I had intended to keep it civil until you challenged me so aggressively, implying that I didn't know the true meaning of the phrase "begging the question". I responded to what I felt was you insulting my intelligence.

As for your first point, I feel you are just as guilty of building straw men and littering your arguments with non-sequiturs. You will disagree with that assertion just as I disagree with yours, so let's not pretend that either of us are giving anything other than our own opinion of each other's inadequacy.

The difference is that each time you claimed I built a straw man, I pointed out to you, clearly, that my point is not what you felt it was, and that you misinterpreted it. I then reiterated to you what my actual point was, and that is not a straw man.

Of course, you can still differ in opinion, but I'm still going to ask you to substantiate that opinion, and as I said, Federer's peak seems to coincide with the peaks of various other elite players, which doesn't lend much credence to the belief that his era was particularly weak.

In order to make that statement, the burden of proof is on you the claim that the players of his generation are particularly weak, as opposed to just, as you claim, natural progression of the sport.

Clydey2times
03-08-2009, 08:16 PM
Strange semantics, but understandable now.

Personally I've always thought that a topspin forehand hit with a woodie had a better aesthetic appeal, but most folks on this board, unlike me, prefer the lazer-guided missiles they hit now.

I wouldn't argue about aesthetics, since it is by its nature completely subjective. Personally, I'm a bigger fan of today's game. I feel that there's more variety to the points.

I recently watched some of Borg-Lendl at the French Open. It honestly nearly put me to sleep. It was an endless stream of 50 shot rallies that would almost invariably end in an error. Points were indistinguishable.

ChanceEncounter
03-08-2009, 08:25 PM
I wouldn't argue about aesthetics, since it is by its nature completely subjective. Personally, I'm a bigger fan of today's game. I feel that there's more variety to the points.

I recently watched some of Borg-Lendl at the French Open. It honestly nearly put me to sleep. It was an endless stream of 50 shot rallies that would almost invariably end in an error. Points were indistinguishable.
I actually agree with you here. Borg matches always seemed to have points that last forever with incredibly long rallies that seem to go on forever.

However, equip Borg with a modern racquet, and I'm pretty sure he would adjust just fine. He was as fundamentally sound as they come.

CyBorg
03-08-2009, 08:26 PM
I wouldn't argue about aesthetics, since it is by its nature completely subjective. Personally, I'm a bigger fan of today's game. I feel that there's more variety to the points.

I recently watched some of Borg-Lendl at the French Open. It honestly nearly put me to sleep. It was an endless stream of 50 shot rallies that would almost invariably end in an error. Points were indistinguishable.

This always seems to be the least favorite match of anyone. I liked it, but still not one of my favs.

Clydey2times
03-08-2009, 08:27 PM
The difference is that each time you claimed I built a straw man, I pointed out to you, clearly, that my point is not what you felt it was, and that you misinterpreted it. I then reiterated to you what my actual point was, and that is not a straw man.

I did exactly the same thing, particularly when it came to Safin and Hewitt. I clarified what I meant continuously.

Of course, you can still differ in opinion, but I'm still going to ask you to substantiate that opinion, and as I said, Federer's peak seems to coincide with the peaks of various other elite players, which doesn't lend much credence to the belief that his era was particularly weak.

In order to make that statement, the burden of proof is on you the claim that the players of his generation are particularly weak, as opposed to just, as you claim, natural progression of the sport.

All either of us can do is give our reasons for holding certain opinions. Whether we satisfy each other with those reasons is another matter. By this point it's clear that we aren't going to change our minds.

My view is in large part due to my own opinion of the players in question. It is not something that can ever be proved empirically, since there are far too many variables. One of those variables is the different rates at which players age. Based on what I have seen, I do not think Federer is in decline.

Clydey2times
03-08-2009, 08:28 PM
I actually agree with you here. Borg matches always seemed to have points that last forever with incredibly long rallies that seem to go on forever.

However, equip Borg with a modern racquet, and I'm pretty sure he would adjust just fine. He was as fundamentally sound as they come.

I have no issue with that. As I said earlier, it's pointless comparing those players to today's players. We have no idea how good they would be with modern technology.

Clydey2times
03-08-2009, 08:31 PM
They may produce a higher level of play, but they produce a higher level of play regardless of who you are.

For example, Nadal's play is clearly very different than the average player. Yet, both of them have customized racquets that allow them to gain power and spin from their strokes. Thus, all else equal, the level of play improves, but no one player gains a large advantage from the improvement in the level of play. If I have two players that are equally skilled and give them both equally advanced racquets, it stands to reason that they will play a lot of close matches.



I never argued against that point. That is exactly the point I have been making. Standards have improved across the board because of the technology. It's impossible to get away from the fact that today's technology allows for a higher standard. This was never about comparing the players from each era.

ChanceEncounter
03-08-2009, 08:35 PM
I did exactly the same thing, particularly when it came to Safin and Hewitt. I clarified what I meant continuously.

And, as I did continuously, I continued to press at what I felt was a weak spot in your argument.

You eventually conceded, pretty clearly, that Safin and Hewitt were both declining, which allowed players to pass him. It's not, then there were simply 60 some odd players that surpassed their level, which would mean that the game has improved ludicrously quickly.

Thus, why is it that Federer is not declining along with his contemporaries? If, for whatever reason, players from his generation are declining, as is the typically trend for tennis players of his age, why is he not declining?

All either of us can do is give our reasons for holding certain opinions. Whether we satisfy each other with those reasons is another matter. By this point it's clear that we aren't going to change our minds.

My view is in large part due to my own opinion of the players in question. It is not something that can ever be proved empirically, since there are far too many variables. One of those variables is the different rates at which players age. Based on what I have seen, I do not think Federer is in decline.

I conceded that we weren't going to change minds in one of my very first posts. I know that people don't change their minds.

That said, I'm still going to call out your argument when I see invalid points. Whether you feel the need to properly defend them, concede, or simply mask it with other invalid or non-sequential points is up to you. I would hope you don't do the latter, but unfortunately, most people would when the alternative is conceding.

Yes, your view is an opinion, but as I said, opinions can be incorrect, especially if they run contrary to presented facts. I'm still waiting for your substantiation that the players of his era were particularly weak.

ChanceEncounter
03-08-2009, 08:37 PM
I never argued against that point. That is exactly the point I have been making. Standards have improved across the board because of the technology. It's impossible to get away from the fact that today's technology allows for a higher standard. This was never about comparing the players from each era.

I believe you claimed that as the game changes, this phases out older players in lieu of younger ones. This statement would imply that the improvement in technology is responsible for the continuous trend of young players surpassing older ones.

I think the explanation is much simpler: tennis is a young man's sport.

Clydey2times
03-08-2009, 08:50 PM
And, as I did continuously, I continued to press at what I felt was a weak spot in your argument.

You eventually conceded, pretty clearly, that Safin and Hewitt were both declining, which allowed players to pass him. It's not, then there were simply 60 some odd players that surpassed their level, which would mean that the game has improved ludicrously quickly.

Thus, why is it that Federer is not declining along with his contemporaries? If, for whatever reason, players from his generation are declining, as is the typically trend for tennis players of his age, why is he not declining?

I didn't concede that point. I said that Hewitt suffered from injury and that's what caused his eventual painfully low ranking. However, prior to the injury he was still there or thereabouts. Federer had simply come along and demonstrated that Hewitt was top dog in a particuarly poor era. I am talking about prior to injuries.

Even if I accept your premise, players still age at different rates. Just because one player goes into decline at 27, it does not mean that another player will do the same. Federer has a relatively undemanding style of play. That is partly why I don't think he is in decline. Hewitt, for example, was a grinder. His style is much more demanding.

That said, I'm still going to call out your argument when I see invalid points. Whether you feel the need to properly defend them, concede, or simply mask it with other invalid or non-sequential points is up to you. I would hope you don't do the latter, but unfortunately, most people would when the alternative is conceding.

Yes, your view is an opinion, but as I said, opinions can be incorrect, especially if they run contrary to presented facts. I'm still waiting for your substantiation that the players of his era were particularly weak.

I can admit when I'm wrong. Any man of science must have the capacity to do that. I simply don't think I'm wrong. It is not a view that can be backed up by empirical evidence, and nor can yours. As I said, my view is based largely on watching the players in question, as opposed to number crunching.

There are far too many things to consider for either of us to claim to be on firm ground. You can point to many players who decline at an earlier age and I can point to players who didn't decline until much later. It's easy for me to say that I believe Federer belongs to the former category. It's not falsifiable.

Clydey2times
03-08-2009, 08:54 PM
I believe you claimed that as the game changes, this phases out older players in lieu of younger ones. This statement would imply that the improvement in technology is responsible for the continuous trend of young players surpassing older ones.

I think the explanation is much simpler: tennis is a young man's sport.

Yes, I'm willing to compare the likes of Hewitt and Safin to Nadal and Murray because they are contemporaries. I wouldn't compare them to Borg and McEnroe. I'd go so far as to say that I wouldn't even compare them to Sampras. It was a different game.

It's impossible to ascertain whether the quality is better now than it was in the 80s. I am of the opinion that it is, but it's not a view I hold with any degree of certainty. I do, however, believe that the current crop of top players are better than those of a few years ago. I don't put that down to technology, since the players in question had access to the same technology.

ChanceEncounter
03-08-2009, 09:23 PM
I didn't concede that point. I said that Hewitt suffered from injury and that's what caused his eventual painfully low ranking. However, prior to the injury he was still there or thereabouts. Federer had simply come along and demonstrated that Hewitt was top dog in a particuarly poor era. I am talking about prior to injuries.

Even if I accept your premise, players still age at different rates. Just because one player goes into decline at 27, it does not mean that another player will do the same. Federer has a relatively undemanding style of play. That is partly why I don't think he is in decline. Hewitt, for example, was a grinder. His style is much more demanding.

If you didn't concede the point about Hewitt, then you'd have to agree that there have been 50 some odd players that have surpassed the level of Safin.

You can't simply affix endless slews of exceptions just so you don't concede the rule. The level of denial you're issuing is starting to get really absurd, especially considering that you claimed, "even if I accept your premise," you still wouldn't give an inch. It's pretty obvious that even if I presented you papers from Roger Federer's physician that claims he is slowing down, you still wouldn't accept it.

No, not everyone ages at the same rate, but everyone does age. Federer may have begun aging and slowing down before some players and after others. I don't think it's a stretch to say that he's slowing down when he's at the age that most players of his stature begin to slow down.

I can admit when I'm wrong. Any man of science must have the capacity to do that. I simply don't think I'm wrong. It is not a view that can be backed up by empirical evidence, and nor can yours. As I said, my view is based largely on watching the players in question, as opposed to number crunching.

There are far too many things to consider for either of us to claim to be on firm ground. You can point to many players who decline at an earlier age and I can point to players who didn't decline until much later. It's easy for me to say that I believe Federer belongs to the former category. It's not falsifiable.

The point is, even if you claimed the latter on the grounds of it being nonfalsifiable, it still doesn't establish your argument, which is what you seem to be missing.

I watch plenty of tennis too, and there are a number of experts that feel that Roger Federer has lost a step. The fact that he's at the age that players usually lose a step or two seem to support it. Even the players that were #1 later (and the list is very short) were not quite as dominant as their #1 forms. Sampras at 28 was not as good as Sampras at 24, and their records will support this.

Your argument depends upon Federer being the exception to the rule. There is no evidence for us to believe that he's the exception to the rule. Visually speaking, he certainly is not as impressive physically as he was a few years ago. He is not as cut, he doesn't move with the same springiness, and it even looks like his forehand has lost a little bit of pace, which if he kept up with racquet technology, as you claim, should not be the case if all else were equal.

The problem with this is that this is not an issue of opinion. This is not, "which flavor of ice cream do you prefer?"

It's fact whether or not Federer has declined, whether or not he's as fast as he used to be. While we don't have empirical numbers to support if he's gotten slower, because they don't keep these statistics on the court, he has either lost a step or he hasn't. There isn't room for opinion. The fact that someone likes Federer or believe he hasn't lost a step does not mean that he won't decline.

Thus, in order to establish Federer as the exception to the rule, which I posted above, requires some substantiation on your part. One that you have repeatedly sidestepped in favor of asserting your "opinion."

Yes, I'm willing to compare the likes of Hewitt and Safin to Nadal and Murray because they are contemporaries. I wouldn't compare them to Borg and McEnroe. I'd go so far as to say that I wouldn't even compare them to Sampras. It was a different game.

It's impossible to ascertain whether the quality is better now than it was in the 80s. I am of the opinion that it is, but it's not a view I hold with any degree of certainty. I do, however, believe that the current crop of top players are better than those of a few years ago. I don't put that down to technology, since the players in question had access to the same technology.

The problem with claiming that the play is better than a few years ago is that the same claim can be said for any era. The players of the early 2000s were beating up on the players of the late 90s. The players of the late 90s were beating the players of the mid and early 90s, and so on and so forth.

This is perhaps the change in the game, but it's consistent throughout the years, which means that a statement like, "the 2000s were particularly weak" is dubious. You need to support this statement.

Clydey2times
03-08-2009, 09:55 PM
If you didn't concede the point about Hewitt, then you'd have to agree that there have been 50 some odd players that have surpassed the level of Safin.

You can't simply affix endless slews of exceptions just so you don't concede the rule. The level of denial you're issuing is starting to get really absurd, especially considering that you claimed, "even if I accept your premise," you still wouldn't give an inch. It's pretty obvious that even if I presented you papers from Roger Federer's physician that claims he is slowing down, you still wouldn't accept it.

There are only so many times I am willing to repeat myself. I am not talking about the injury plagued Hewitt who slid way down the rankings to number 70 in the world. I am talking about the Hewitt who was still a top player when Federer started to dominate. I have stated that continuously, yet you persist with the same argument. The same applies to Safin.

No, not everyone ages at the same rate, but everyone does age. Federer may have begun aging and slowing down before some players and after others. I don't think it's a stretch to say that he's slowing down when he's at the age that most players of his stature begin to slow down.

It's not a stretch. I never said that it was. It's a perfectly valid view, but it's one that I disagree with. You accused me regularly of isolating variables, but it is you who are guilty of doing that. You are picking out various players, most of whom stopped winning majors at wildly different ages. Some stop at 21, some stop at 22, some stop at 23, so on and so forth. Let's look at the list you gave me earlier of players who lost their number 1 spot.

Federer: 27
Rddick: 22
Ferrero: 23
Hewitt: 22
Safin: 21
Agassi: 33
Sampras: 29
Courier: 23
Edberg: 26
Wilander: 24
Lendl: 30
Connors: 31
McEnroe: 26
Borg: 25

Do you notice a pattern there? I certainly don't. The ages range from 21 to 33. There is no trend related to age, which tells us that there are other factors, too numerous to consider. Half of those players lost their number 1 spot by the age of 24. And 6 of those 7 lost it by the age of 23. There is no pattern that says players decline around Federer's age. If anything, the pattern suggests that players decline physically by the age of 23, which means Andy Murray will be past his best one year from now! That is ridiculous. Once again, there are other factors at work. You have isolated one variable and suggested that it is the root cause, despite there being no pattern.

I watch plenty of tennis too, and there are a number of experts that feel that Roger Federer has lost a step. The fact that he's at the age that players usually lose a step or two seem to support it. Even the players that were #1 later (and the list is very short) were not quite as dominant as their #1 forms. Sampras at 28 was not as good as Sampras at 24, and their records will support this.

Arguments from authority don't cut it. They are using the same reasoning as you are. They see that Federer's results have dried up and put it down to age. The alternative is that the competition has improved, which is the view I subscribe to.

Your argument depends upon Federer being the exception to the rule. There is no evidence for us to believe that he's the exception to the rule. Visually speaking, he certainly is not as impressive physically as he was a few years ago. He is not as cut, he doesn't move with the same springiness, and it even looks like his forehand has lost a little bit of pace, which if he kept up with racquet technology, as you claim, should not be the case if all else were equal.

More than half of those players mentioned are the exception to your rule, since they declined much earlier or much later. What is there to suggest that Federer hasn't aged like Lendl, who won 6 of his 8 majors after he turned 26, or Agassi, who was a top player well into his late twenties and early thirties? He has an undemanding style of play, so it is perfectly plausible.

The problem with this is that this is not an issue of opinion. This is not, "which flavor of ice cream do you prefer?"

It's fact whether or not Federer has declined, whether or not he's as fast as he used to be. While we don't have empirical numbers to support if he's gotten slower, because they don't keep these statistics on the court, he has either lost a step or he hasn't. There isn't room for opinion. The fact that someone likes Federer or believe he hasn't lost a step does not mean that he won't decline.


You do not have to lecture me on absolute truth, since I don't believe there is any other kind. It is a fact whether or not Federer has declined, but we cannot possibly establish what that fact is with any degree of certainty. Thus, we are left only with our opinions.

ChanceEncounter
03-08-2009, 10:35 PM
There are only so many times I am willing to repeat myself. I am not talking about the injury plagued Hewitt who slid way down the rankings to number 70 in the world. I am talking about the Hewitt who was still a top player when Federer started to dominate. I have stated that continuously, yet you persist with the same argument. The same applies to Safin.

Again, you're missing the point.

The "prime" version of Hewitt and Safin did not lose to the current crop of players. Thus, we don't know that they are inferior players to today's. Again, your argument is that that era was particularly weak. Thus, the onus is on you to prove that this was the case.

It's not a stretch. I never said that it was. It's a perfectly valid view, but it's one that I disagree with. You accused me regularly of isolating variables, but it is you who are guilty of doing that. You are picking out various players, most of whom stopped winning majors at wildly different ages. Some stop at 21, some stop at 22, some stop at 23, so on and so forth. Let's look at the list you gave me earlier of players who lost their number 1 spot.

Federer: 27
Rddick: 22
Ferrero: 23
Hewitt: 22
Safin: 21
Agassi: 33
Sampras: 29
Courier: 23
Edberg: 26
Wilander: 24
Lendl: 30
Connors: 31
McEnroe: 26
Borg: 25

Do you notice a pattern there? I certainly don't. The ages range from 21 to 33. There is no trend related to age, which tells us that there are other factors, too numerous to consider. Half of those players lost their number 1 spot by the age of 24. And 6 of those 7 lost it by the age of 23. There is no pattern that says players decline around Federer's age. If anything, the pattern suggests that players decline physically by the age of 23, which means Andy Murray will be past his best one year from now! That is ridiculous. Once again, there are other factors at work. You have isolated one variable and suggested that it is the root cause, despite there being no pattern.

I'm not isolating variables. What's so hard for you to understand here?

It seems that you are so entrenched in isolating variables that when someone tries to consider everything, you can't wrap your head around it.

I'm saying, considering this list, Federer's number doesn't stand out. In other words, he looks just like any other dominant world #1 player. In fact, he was the 6th OLDEST world number according the the list, assuming that he never becomes world #1 ever again.

That doesn't look like a guy that was simply beating up on inferior competition. That looks like a guy that was world #1 just like anyone else would be world #1.

Again, it's not my burden of proof to claim that the players Federer beat are different than the standard expected level of competition. It's unreasonable for me to prove a negative. It's your burden of proof to prove that they are weak.

Arguments from authority don't cut it. They are using the same reasoning as you are. They see that Federer's results have dried up and put it down to age. The alternative is that the competition has improved, which is the view I subscribe to.

It isn't an argument from authority. It's an argument from visually seeing the game. I couldn't care less if anyone else saw it the exact same way. I see that Federer has lost a step, and coincidentally, my viewpoint is hardly in the minority.

More than half of those players mentioned are the exception to your rule, since they declined much earlier or much later. What is there to suggest that Federer hasn't aged like Lendl, who won 6 of his 8 majors after he turned 26, or Agassi, who was a top player well into his late twenties and early thirties? He has an undemanding style of play, so it is perfectly plausible.

Most of the players spent the majority of their #1 reigns before the age of 27. I even outlined this outright, but in copying and pasting, you conveniently left off the caveats and corollaries. Is it because it doesn't fit your argument?

I'm sure if you wanted, I could do a statistical analysis of world #1 players just to point out to you that the overwhelming time, the world #1 is younger than Federer's age. Of course, I'm sure you already know this is the case so I don't know why you're arguing otherwise.

You do not have to lecture me on absolute truth, since I don't believe there is any other kind. It is a fact whether or not Federer has declined, but we cannot possibly establish what that fact is with any degree of certainty. Thus, we are left only with our opinions.

Sure we can. We can look at a number of indicators. Since you claim to be a man of science, you would certainly subscribe to the validity of good indicators, right? We have never seen an electron, but all the indicators show that they exist.

There are a number of indicators. His movement doesn't look as springy. The pace on his forehand and serve has declined. His first serve percentages in recent tournaments is lower. His winners have lowered and his unforced errors have risen; the latter is wholly independent of the level of competition and has everything to do with the player's personal movement and level of skill.

All of these indicators seem to point to Roger Federer declining. But according to you, it's all invalid and only a matter of "opinion."

ChanceEncounter
03-08-2009, 10:49 PM
Your argument depends upon a distortion of mine to function properly, that is, that I claim that it's not possible to be a world #1 or grand slam winner while in decline. I never stated such a thing. The fact that Lendl was winning grand slams up until 30 or that Agassi was a brief world #1 in his thirties does not mean that their best years of tennis were behind them at the time. The arguments are not mutually exclusive. Sampras was already declining so that by 2000, he was not as strong of a player that he once was, but this process didn't suddenly start in 2000 just in time for Safin to beat him up. He was clearly aging for some time prior to that, but the process is subtle until it is compounded.

The best years of tennis are behind Federer. While it may be true that the competition has gotten better, it's also likely true that Federer has declined. The visual evidence seems to support the latter assertion just as much as the former, but you insist on the former even to the point of needing to build straw men out of my argument and resorting to claiming that points you concede don't impact your stance (no... you were just debating them for no reason!).

A lot of people will say that Federer's decline began in 2007, and I would agree with them. Federer began to lose a step in 2007. Thus, by the time it's 2009, he's had enough time where the subtle decline in his game become more apparent. He's not as spry as he was when he was 23 years old.

Clydey2times
03-08-2009, 11:09 PM
Again, you're missing the point.

The "prime" version of Hewitt and Safin did not lose to the current crop of players. Thus, we don't know that they are inferior players to today's. Again, your argument is that that era was particularly weak. Thus, the onus is on you to prove that this was the case.

The prime version of Hewitt and Safin did not play today's top players. Therefore, it is impossible for me to provide evidence. You are asking me to give proof that I never claimed existed. It's like you believing that prime Laver was better than prime Federer. If I asked you to provide evidence, you couldn't. My opinion is based on my own observations of those players in their prime, just as your opinion is based on your own observations.

I'm not isolating variables. What's so hard for you to understand here?

It seems that you are so entrenched in isolating variables that when someone tries to consider everything, you can't wrap your head around it.

You're considering everything? You list a bunch of players based on the age at which they lost their number 1 spot and that's you considering everything?

I'm saying, considering this list, Federer's number doesn't stand out. In other words, he looks just like any other dominant world #1 player. In fact, he was the 6th OLDEST world number according the the list, assuming that he never becomes world #1 ever again.

None of the numbers stand out, since they go from one extreme to the other. You were trying to establish a pattern, yet none exists. Some lost their number 1 spot at 21, others lost it at 26, and others lost it in their 30s. What exactly does that demonstrate?

Again, it's not my burden of proof to claim that the players Federer beat are different than the standard expected level of competition. It's unreasonable for me to prove a negative. It's your burden of proof to prove that they are weak.

No, it's not. I'm not required to prove anything, since I never claimed that such evidence actually exists. For that to exist, they would have to have played each other in their primes. I am merely stating an opinion based on my observations, yet you are treating this as an exact science. I never claimed that the proof you require exists.

It isn't an argument from authority. It's an argument from visually seeing the game. I couldn't care less if anyone else saw it the exact same way. I see that Federer has lost a step, and coincidentally, my viewpoint is hardly in the minority.

Citing the opinions of experts is an argument from authority.

Most of the players spent the majority of their #1 reigns before the age of 27.

The majority of players on that list never regained their number 1 spot after the age of 23. What exactly does that prove? If what you are saying is true, those players went into decline by the age of 23. That is ridiculous. All that list proves is that the ages vary wildly, which to me suggests that there are other factors. You could scarcely pick a more diverse list.

I'm sure if you wanted, I could do a statistical analysis of world #1 players just to point out to you that the overwhelming time, the world #1 is younger than Federer's age.

Like I said, what is there to suggest that Federer doesn't belong in the category of Lendl and Agassi?

Sure we can. We can look at a number of indicators. Since you claim to be a man of science, you would certainly subscribe to the validity of good indicators, right? We have never seen an electron, but all the indicators show that they exist.

Certainly not in this case. You are using your own observations and passing them off as indicators, presupposing that your observations are correct.

There are a number of indicators. His movement doesn't look as springy. The pace on his forehand and serve has declined. His first serve percentages in recent tournaments is lower. His winners have lowered and his unforced errors have risen; the latter is wholly independent of the level of competition and has everything to do with the player's personal movement and level of skill.

All of these indicators seem to point to Roger Federer declining. But according to you, it's all invalid and only a matter of "opinion."

You are really comparing this to the evidence for the electron? His movement doesn't look as springy? These are your own opinions. There is nothing factual about them. First of all, the serve is the last thing to go. Your serve doesn't go at the age of 27, so you can throw that one out immediately. Secondly, where is your evidence that the pace on his forehand and serve has declined? Where is your evidence that he is hitting fewer winners and more unforced errors? You are making baseless assertions. Even if you could produce an average of the UEs he made last year compared to previous years, everyone knows that UE counts are subjective. To paraphrase Federer, in France they cannot tell the difference between an unforced error and a croissant.

NamRanger
03-08-2009, 11:15 PM
The prime version of Hewitt and Safin did not play today's top players. Therefore, it is impossible for me to provide evidence. You are asking me to give proof that I never claimed existed. It's like you believing that prime Laver was better than prime Federer. If I asked you to provide evidence, you couldn't. My opinion is based on my own observations of those players in their prime, just as your opinion is based on your own observations.



A bum knee Safin crushed Djokovic at Wimbledon, on Safin's worst surface, and a well out of his prime Hewitt gave Nadal the fight of his life at Hamburg in 2007. I'd say that the players of Federer's era could easily compete in their respective primes against the players of today.

Clydey2times
03-08-2009, 11:26 PM
A bum knee Safin crushed Djokovic at Wimbledon, on Safin's worst surface, and a well out of his prime Hewitt gave Nadal the fight of his life at Hamburg in 2007. I'd say that the players of Federer's era could easily compete in their respective primes against the players of today.

Those are one off matches. It's pretty well documented that Nadal wasn't exactly as fresh as a daisy at Hamburg 07. He lost his streak there and got bagelled by Federer in the process. Hewitt also got destroyed by Nadal in straight sets at RG less than a month later. Neither result proves anything either way.

Like I said about Safin, his ability isn't in question. Safin can beat anyone when he plays well. The game didn't pass him by as I believe it did with Hewitt. Safin was just very inconsistent.

koalakoala
03-09-2009, 12:02 AM
Enjoying reading the posts even though I don't agree with Clydey2times.

Excellent arguments from ChanceEncounter and Cyborg.

Keep it civil, guys ,and thanks.

Clydey2times
03-09-2009, 12:14 AM
Enjoying reading the posts even though I don't agree with Clydey2times.

Excellent arguments from ChanceEncounter and Cyborg.

Keep it civil, guys ,and thanks.

What exactly don't you agree with? I think we've pretty much settled the fact that racquet technology has led to a higher standard of play across the board, which is what I said all along. I'm not sure, therefore, how you can agree with Cyborg and disagree with me.

ChanceEncounter and I are having a separate debate.

koalakoala
03-09-2009, 12:39 AM
What exactly don't you agree with? I think we've pretty much settled the fact that racquet technology has led to a higher standard of play across the board, which is what I said all along. I'm not sure, therefore, how you can agree with Cyborg and disagree with me.

ChanceEncounter and I are having a separate debate.

I disagree with you on two main points:

1) Federer's dominating era was weak
2) Federer is not declining.

I do wish you were right for the second point but I can't cheat my own eyes.

Clydey2times
03-09-2009, 12:46 AM
I disagree with you on two main points:

1) Federer's dominating era was weak
2) Federer is not declining.

I do wish you were right for the second point but I can't cheat my own eyes.

Cyborg and I didn't debate that issue, though.

Doesn't matter. ChanceEncounter and I are going around in circles, so I'm going to politely agree to disagree with him and end the argument.

ChanceEncounter
03-09-2009, 02:46 AM
The prime version of Hewitt and Safin did not play today's top players. Therefore, it is impossible for me to provide evidence. You are asking me to give proof that I never claimed existed. It's like you believing that prime Laver was better than prime Federer. If I asked you to provide evidence, you couldn't. My opinion is based on my own observations of those players in their prime, just as your opinion is based on your own observations.

So basically, you want to claim that Federer's era was particularly weak even though you have no evidence, can't offer anything to suggest or prove the claim, and won't accept any contrary evidence?

Okay, glad we're on the same page.

You're considering everything? You list a bunch of players based on the age at which they lost their number 1 spot and that's you considering everything?

When I'm talking about respect to the age they were when they lost their ranking/the field caught up, yes, that is everything.

I didn't say this proves that Federer is declining. I said this is one of multiple pieces of evidence that would suggest that Federer is at the age where players tend to decline.

Use your head, please.

None of the numbers stand out, since they go from one extreme to the other. You were trying to establish a pattern, yet none exists. Some lost their number 1 spot at 21, others lost it at 26, and others lost it in their 30s. What exactly does that demonstrate?

This is ridiculous, as I said, you can do a statistical analysis of the age of the world #1 player. I'll guarantee you that the answer would be considerably younger than Federer's current age, to where it would be statistically significant at the 99th confidence interval.

Guarantee.

Of course, you would still find a way to ignore this.

No, it's not. I'm not required to prove anything, since I never claimed that such evidence actually exists. For that to exist, they would have to have played each other in their primes. I am merely stating an opinion based on my observations, yet you are treating this as an exact science. I never claimed that the proof you require exists.

Right, you didn't.

You just passed off your "opinion" on a falsifiable subject (for example, if someone were to look at tape and discover that Federer's racquet head speed slowed down, that would be irrefutable evidence that Federer has, in fact, slowed down/declined), without offering any evidence for your opinion.

You don't seek to debate. You just seek to throw in your opinion.

Citing the opinions of experts is an argument from authority./quote]

No ****, Sherlock. Except I'm not using experts' opinions as a premise for my argument, thus it's not a fallacy.

If anything, I'm saying it lends further credence to my personal observation that Federer has slowed down.

[quote]The majority of players on that list never regained their number 1 spot after the age of 23. What exactly does that prove? If what you are saying is true, those players went into decline by the age of 23. That is ridiculous. All that list proves is that the ages vary wildly, which to me suggests that there are other factors. You could scarcely pick a more diverse list.

I'm going to say this one time... real slow... just so you can understand... kay?

No. I. Am. Not.

Christ, you're being daft now. I said that for whatever reason, players are no longer dominant players after the age 27. Whether this is because they declined physically, because the tour adapted to their game, because players worked harder to beat them specifically, because young guns came along that had their number, et cetera, I don't purport to know. As I said, you're the one that's trying to isolate a variable amongst many.

However, the fact remains that the vast majority of the time, the world #1 is held by someone less than the age of 26 years old. A statistical analysis will show you just how unlikely this was if it was simply by 'chance.'

Like I said, what is there to suggest that Federer doesn't belong in the category of Lendl and Agassi?

So, in order for your argument to work, Federer would have to belong with Lendl and Agassi in terms of aging?

I think the fact that the vast majority of players don't age like Lendl and Agassi should be reason enough to suspect that Federer isn't.

In order to claim that Federer would have Agassi like longevity demands an argument.

Certainly not in this case. You are using your own observations and passing them off as indicators, presupposing that your observations are correct.

I didn't presuppose anything. I already stated the possibility that the field has gotten stronger.

I just don't rule out anything either. Federer looks to have declined, and this is not an opinion that's impossible or even unpopular.

Furthermore, if an indicator is valid, then you can use it. You haven't shown how the indicator is invalid.

[quote]You are really comparing this to the evidence for the electron? His movement doesn't look as springy? These are your own opinions. There is nothing factual about them. First of all, the serve is the last thing to go. Your serve doesn't go at the age of 27, so you can throw that one out immediately. Secondly, where is your evidence that the pace on his forehand and serve has declined? Where is your evidence that he is hitting fewer winners and more unforced errors? You are making baseless assertions. Even if you could produce an average of the UEs he made last year compared to previous years, everyone knows that UE counts are subjective. To paraphrase Federer, in France they cannot tell the difference between an unforced error and a croissant./quote]

So the ATP tour numbers, where his yearly UEs and average UE count has gone up, and his yearly winners ad average winners have gone down, is just a coincidence?

Sure the count may be subjective, but he's still competing at roughly the same tournaments, and this is aggregated out over a number of events, so subjectivity and chance error diminishes. Anyone with a knowledge of statistics will tell you that.

Furthermore, your argument depends on, "UE's being subjective"? Or that the "serve is the last thing to go"? Says who? A player with a bad back will find it harder to serve, for example. Who's to say a player's back doesn't go out before his knee?

Basically, you're saying your trend (the serve is the last to go) is valid, while my trend, which I can actually do statistical analysis from (world #1 overwhelmingly under the age of 26) is invalid.

This is getting absurd, you basically claimed that Federer is not declining and the field is getting stronger DESPITE:

1.) No evidence to support the argument that the field is getting strong.

2.) No indicator to even suggest the thought that the field is getting stronger.

3.) Some indicators to suggest that a player of Federer's age would be on the decline.

4.) Indicators from Federer's match stats to suggest that he is, in fact, on the decline.

5.) Subjective opinions on the matter that would suggest that Federer has lost a step.

So basically, without any evidence or any reason to believe you are correct, you want to purport that your viewpoint is, in fact, the right one.

So no, you have no intention of debating, you have no intention of substantiating. You just want to mindlessly interject your opinion.

Well, thanks for nothing.

ChanceEncounter
03-09-2009, 02:49 AM
Cyborg and I didn't debate that issue, though.

Doesn't matter. ChanceEncounter and I are going around in circles, so I'm going to politely agree to disagree with him and end the argument.

You're going around in circles. I've already laid out my argument and it hasn't changed. You have basically confirmed that you have nothing to support your opinion, even when the burden of proof is on you.

In fact, you even went so far as to say that your positivist statement (Federer's era was weak) did not demand proof, and you weren't going to even attempt to substantiate how that was the case! In the meantime, you've laced your post with hasty generalization, begging the question, straw man, ad hominem, questionable cause, burden of proof, and reading comprehension fallacies. And when I call you out on it, you decide to try to turn the tables and act like I have to prove a negative (that Federer's era was not significantly weaker than any other throughout history).

So, yeah, congrats and being a stubborn blowhard. How about trying to actually debate now, please?

Or, should I, as I said in one of my first posts, just embarrass you some more, use you some more for cheap entertainment, and then move on? What will it be?

ChanceEncounter
03-09-2009, 02:56 AM
To paraphrase Federer, in France they cannot tell the difference between an unforced error and a croissant.

So basically, Nadal and Verdasco could be the same type of player even though in their match, Verdasco had way higher winners and unforced errors. I mean, after all, winners/unforced errors are subjective, so it doesn't actually indicate anything!

This 'argument' is starting to smell. I've already accomplished what I set out to do, which is expose that you have no argument whatsoever, which you already admitted. So yeah, have fun. I hope you learn how to debate properly so I don't have to put up with this ordeal the next time we disagree.

koalakoala
03-09-2009, 03:06 AM
Clydey2times, Cyborg had a lengthy debate against your "weak era" comment when he first joined this thread. You have every right to agree to disagree though. BTW, I think Murray is going to be the US open champion one day and I hope he will fully recover very soon.

ChanceEncounter, are you a lawyer? Hehe, you are not only eloquent but also persistent ...hard to really change people's opinions I guess...

ChanceEncounter
03-09-2009, 03:14 AM
Let's go through your 'argument':

Unlike most people, I don't think Federer's level has dropped in the slightest.

Evidence?

The competition is just much stiffer.

Substantiate.

Federer was winning 3 grand slams a year against inferior opposition

Support.

Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Murray >>>> Federer, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin.

Prove.

There's really no comparison.

Then it shouldn't be hard, right?

And no, Safin hasn't been able to hang with today's guys.

A post-surgery Safin marching to the semi-finals in Wimbledon isn't 'hanging'?

Elaborate.

He wasn't even close to being consistent enough to beat these guys regularly.

Corroborate, please.

As early as 2006, guys like Murray (in his first full year on tour) beat 3 of the 4 players mentioned (Hewitt, Roddick, and Federer).

As early as juniors, Murray was giving Djokovic and Nadal trouble too...

a very poor era from a few years ago

Substantiate.

I don't recall ever suggesting that my opinion was tantamount to fact, nor do I recall saying that it is a mathematical certainty. It is merely an opinion, nothing more, nothing less.

Really? Why are you backtracking from your previous statement?

I'm sorry, but I find it laughable that you think a very poor era from a few years ago matches up favourably against today's top players.

So it's laughable people don't share your "opinion" that isn't "tantamount to fact"?

A player who is 26 is not on the slide.

Evidence?

Hewitt is ranked painfully low because of injury. However, even before his injury Federer had started to dominate.

Yes, he wasn't world #1 because Federer was dominating him.

However, you admitted that...

Hewitt couldn't come close to matching his previous success. Hewitt was ranked in the top 10 prior to his injury troubles etc.

And that...

Hewitt is ranked painfully low because of injury.

So if Hewitt is not as good of a player because of injury, then why are you trying to say that Hewitt is not as good of a player, in his prime, as today's players?

He was 29 by that point.

So's Safin, but yet you use Safin's "lack of success against the current players" as evidence that the current players are better. Hypocrisy much?

The game was changing, making serve and volley a much tougher style to be successful with.

They didn't change the surface of Wimbledon until 2002. They didn't change the surface of the Aussie and US Open surfaces in the late 90s either and he didn't win there.

You mean to tell me that racquets themselves changed so much that they prevented Sampras from winning there, such that he wasn't declining in the late 90s? I guess his serve and volley style was still effective at the US Open even with later technology, considering he made three consecutive finals and then won one in 2002.

I have a healthy understanding of the ageing process

Evidently not.

You don't seem to grasp how slow the process is.

Which contradicts what you stated about how Sampras "aged in 2000" but somehow, not 1998, 1999, et cetera.

So apparently the aging process is slow, according to you, but he wasn't declined in 1999, but in 2000, he suddenly became a shell of his former self that Safin beat him up.

Do I need to go on? Your posts are laced with such unsubstantiated crap that it's getting painful to read.

It's time to ask you to PROVE UP. Anyone can spew verbal diarrhea. Why should anyone take yours seriously?

ChanceEncounter
03-09-2009, 03:15 AM
ChanceEncounter, are you a lawyer? Hehe, you are not only eloquent but also persistent ...hard to really change people's opinions I guess...

You could say so. ;)

I know I'm not going to change his opinion. But nothing prevents me from making him look bad for my personal amusement, right?

abmk
03-09-2009, 04:24 AM
Unlike most people, I don't think Federer's level has dropped in the slightest. The competition is just much stiffer. Compare his competition today (Mature Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray) to the competition when he dominated (Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, and a much less mature Nadal).

There's no comparison. Federer was winning 3 grand slams a year against inferior opposition and, in the case of 2007, Nadal hadn't matured on hard courts, Murray still hadn't matured, and Djokovic was just coming into his own that year.

Hmm, to whom else should federer lose to "show" that his level has dropped ?

Fish, roddick,blake are over , hmm davydenko, ferrer are left , maybe he should lose to them too :roll: or is that fish, roddick,blake who'd have no chance of beating a top-form federer have suddenly become stronger and way too difficult to handle even for TMF ?? :rolleyes:

P.S. Just a few names, he did have more unexpected losses in 2008

Gorecki
03-09-2009, 04:30 AM
Nah I think it's best to take out anger on the net in threads rather than wife:
Bashing

if this was adress to me, you would by now already know my name and adress and who are my beating preferences...

again, i look at that avatar and i seem to not be amazed. its's the gangs way!

what wonder me is how this was not reported!

abmk
03-09-2009, 04:46 AM
A post-surgery Safin marching to the semi-finals in Wimbledon isn't 'hanging'?

Elaborate.


Which was on his worst surface and he gave djoko a beatdown along the way ...

Clydey2times
03-09-2009, 04:54 AM
As I said, ChanceEncounter, at no point did I claim that there was empirical evidence. I merely gave an opinion, which you seem to think should be backed up by mountains of evidence. When did I ever claim that my opinion was based on anything but my own observations? Neither opinion is falsifiable.

As I said, we are going around in circles. I answered your points and have repeated myself over and over. I said that I would agree to disagree, since you clearly cannot have a civil dicussion. I asked you to keep this civil, but you couldn't. I am sitting here calmly, while you are typing away frantically. I think that speaks volumes.

One last question, if you'll allow me to digress.

Do you believe in God? I don't, but I'm curious whether or not you do.

Oh, one last thing. You said my opinion was falsifiable. That isn't what you said earlier. In fact, you said the exact opposite when you told me that you couldn't prove a negative (which you can't). If my opinion is falsifiable, go ahead and falsify it.

Clydey2times
03-09-2009, 04:56 AM
Which was on his worst surface and he gave djoko a beatdown along the way ...

And Rainer Schüttlerr made the semis in the same year. What exactly does that prove?

Clydey2times
03-09-2009, 04:59 AM
Hmm, to whom else should federer lose to "show" that his level has dropped ?

Fish, roddick,blake are over , hmm davydenko, ferrer are left , maybe he should lose to them too :roll: or is that fish, roddick,blake who'd have no chance of beating a top-form federer have suddenly become stronger and way too difficult to handle even for TMF ?? :rolleyes:

P.S. Just a few names, he did have more unexpected losses in 2008

He also lost to Canas (twice) and Volandri in 2007, yet he won 3 grand slams. I'm not sure what that is supposed to prove. That he's human?

Clydey2times
03-09-2009, 05:03 AM
You could say so. ;)

I know I'm not going to change his opinion. But nothing prevents me from making him look bad for my personal amusement, right?

You're the one typing frantically and tossing out insults. This is an Internet forum, dude. You're flipping out over an opinion that I never claimed was backed by mountains of evidence. I have freely admitted as much. I told you that my opinion is based on my own observations. There are far too many variables to consider for either of us construct a solid argument. You are isolating age and pointing to it as the root cause for people of 21, 22 and 23 not regaining their world number 1 spot. If you don't realise how silly that is, I don't know what to tell you.

abmk
03-09-2009, 05:15 AM
Arguments from authority don't cut it. They are using the same reasoning as you are. They see that Federer's results have dried up and put it down to age. The alternative is that the competition has improved, which is the view I subscribe to.



This was with respect to federer losing a step with age. You could make out that federer has lost a step by watching , yes, with your very own eyes. You don't have to think too much for it !!

Clydey2times
03-09-2009, 05:19 AM
This was with respect to federer losing a step with age. You could make out that federer has lost a step by watching , yes, with your very own eyes. You don't have to think too much for it !!

Of course you can. I never said that you couldn't. ChanceEncounter has said that his opinion is also based on his own observations, yet he's throwing a hissy fit because I hold mine for the same reason. I didn't say that my opinion was backed by mountains of evidence.

He now claims that he can falsify my opinion. I'm looking forward to seeing how he manages to achieve that.

abmk
03-09-2009, 05:22 AM
And Rainer Schüttlerr made the semis in the same year. What exactly does that prove?

Beating whom exactly 'significant' along the way ???

Safin, who was supposed to be washed up ,manages to straight set "djoko", supposedly a strong era player according to you on safin's worst surface in a GRAND SLAM . He didn't even play at his best, like he did in the USO 2000 F or AO 2005 SF ... And that means nothing ?? Great !

abmk
03-09-2009, 05:25 AM
Of course you can. I never said that you couldn't. ChanceEncounter has said that his opinion is also based on his own observations, yet he's throwing a hissy fit because I hold mine for the same reason. I didn't say that my opinion was backed by mountains of evidence.

He now claims that he can falsify my opinion. I'm looking forward to seeing how he manages to achieve that.

He has a lost a step with age , yes/no ??

Clydey2times
03-09-2009, 05:35 AM
ChanceEncounter, I'm going to take a bunch of your statements and ask you to back them up, since you seem to think that every opinion must be backed up until it is certain beyond any reasonable doubt.

McEroe did decline after 25. Again, it's very convenient of you to claim that he "took a break from tennis" and then, with a questionable cause fallacy, claim that it's because he took a break from tennis. If McEnroe, like Borg, could continue winning at the same rate as they did before, they would still be playing tennis.

Back that statement up.

This is a mathematical and logical fallacy. The field may be getting better, technology is definitely getting better, tennis is evolving, but at the same time, Roger Federer is getting slower.

Prove that last statement. That does not mean point to his results, since you concede that other factors are likely at work. You said that Roger Federer is losing a step. I want you to prove that statement.

Federer is declining because he's 27 years old.

I thought you were considering everything? Once again, prove that statement.

Clydey2times
03-09-2009, 05:40 AM
Beating whom exactly 'significant' along the way ???

Safin, who was supposed to be washed up ,manages to straight set "djoko", supposedly a strong era player according to you on safin's worst surface in a GRAND SLAM . He didn't even play at his best, like he did in the USO 2000 F or AO 2005 SF ... And that means nothing ?? Great !

Mark Petchey beat Michael Stich; Ivo Karlovic beat Lleyton Hewitt when he was defending champion at Wimbldedon; Thomas Johansson beat Marat Safin in a Grand Slam final.

I could list many more. What would that prove other than the fact that upsets happen on tennis on occasion?

Clydey2times
03-09-2009, 05:44 AM
He has a lost a step with age , yes/no ??

I don't think he has. He may have lost a step with age. It's not an absurd point of to subscribe to. I just do not happen to share that view.

Unlike ChanceEncounter, I am not stating anything with absolute certainty. I have my view based on my own observations. He, on the other hand, has stated with absolute conviction that Federer has lost a step because he is 27. He is ignoring every other possible factor and putting it down to age. He might be right, but in the absence of solid proof I have kept an open mind. In the absence of proof, he hasn't.

koalakoala
03-09-2009, 05:45 AM
Clydey2times,

"If McEnroe, like Borg, could continue winning at the same rate as they did before, they would still be playing tennis" - Isn't that a common sense....?

"Roger Federer is getting slower"- A lot of tennis viewers can see that with their eyes. Quite a few experts are also convinced of that.

"Federer is declining because he's 27 years old." - ChanceEncounter has given you a mountain of data to prove that the average age of players starting to decline is 26-27. I will find that post.

It is going around in a circle, I am afraid.

abmk
03-09-2009, 05:52 AM
I don't think he has. He may have lost a step with age. It's not an absurd point of to subscribe to. I just do not happen to share that view.

Unlike ChanceEncounter, I am not stating anything with absolute certainty. I have my view based on my own observations. He, on the other hand, has stated with absolute conviction that Federer has lost a step because he is 27. He is ignoring every other possible factor and putting it down to age. He might be right, but in the absence of solid proof I have kept an open mind. In the absence of proof, he hasn't.

Either he has lost a step with age or he hasn't. There is nothing like maybe in this case. If you can't notice he has lost a step with age, sorry, there is no point in really "arguing" with you !

The matter of competition being stiffer/not being stiffer is something different -> subjective. But this is clearly something which you can see with your own eyes and judge easily. There is NO maybe ...

koalakoala
03-09-2009, 05:53 AM
double posting

koalakoala
03-09-2009, 06:00 AM
Then this just helps my point out even more.

First off, if Safin was ranked in the 70s, your argument, essentially, boils down to the field catching up so much that 60 some odd players have emerged since 2005 to get to a level higher than Safin is.

Does that seem realistic to you? Not really. It's pretty obvious that people of Federer's generation are declining.



Your reading comprehension is nothing to write home about.

You don't seem to understand that by claiming something, if something else is the logical deduction of that statement, you are effectively claiming the latter as well as the former. If you want to claim that Hewitt or Safin aren't elite players by virtue of what they are doing currently, then you have to essentially claim that field has improved so much that there are dozens of players that have surpassed their former level.

That argument is ludicrous. Tennis talent doesn't change that quickly. It's obvious that the best players of Federer's generation (Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Nalbandian, et cetera) are declining.



You can't have your cake and eat it to. Either Sampras was declining at 28 years old (same age as Roger Federer), right around 1999 or 2000, or Hewitt and Safin beat a Sampras that was near the level that he used to be.

He can't be declining at 2000 but have no signs of decline in 1998 and 1999. A decline is just that, a decline, it's not dropping off the face of the earth. Federer is declining because he's 27 years old. Pete began declining when he was 27, 28 years old too (1998 to 1999). He was clearly not in his prime by the time that Safin schooled him in 2000.

Either way, you have to concede one of two things then: Federer and his generation is declining, or the field has gotten so much better that 60, 70 players have surpassed the level that it was in the early to mid 2000s. The latter is pretty ridiculous.



Borg lost most of his games against McEnroe in his mid-twenties. He began losing regularly at the age of 24 to 25. He's not "over the hill," but that's usually the end of the years that tennis champions dominate. Look through the history of world #1s and their respective age.

Hell, I'll do it for you, since you're obviously not too good at crunching the numbers:

Let's start with Borg.

Borg first became world #1 at 21 years of age. He held it for a total of 109 total weeks before he ended his reign at world #1 at 25 years of age.

Spaced between this reign, Jimmy Connors was world #1. He served the bulk of his weeks at #1 (160 out of 268) between the ages of 21 and 24. He did serve a couple weeks at #1 again in his thirties, so he gets credit for aging well, but the bulk of his reign was as a young guy.

For the most part, the guy that succeeded him was John McEnroe, who first became world #1 at 21 years of age, and held it for at otal of 170 weeks, ending his reign at 26 years of age.

Then came Ivan Lendl. He first became world #1 at age 22. He held it for a then record of 270 weeks, ending his last reign at age of 30. However, the bulk of his reign came from 1983-1988, when he was 27 to 28 years of age.

During this time, Mats Wilander served as world #1. He served all of his 20 weeks at the top while he was 24 years old.

Then came Edberg. He started his reign in 1990, when he was 24 years old. He never held the world #1 past 1992, when he was 26 years old.

During this tim, Edberg fought for world #1 with Boris Becker. Becker first became world #1 at 23 years of age. He also last held it when he was 23 years of age.

Then came Jim Courier. He first became world #1 at 21 years of age. He held it up to when he was 23 years of age, in 1993.

Also during this time, Pete Sampras emerged. Pete first became world #1 at 21 years of age. He last held world number 1 at 29 years of age. However, Pete held 233 weeks out of his 286 total before his 26th birthday.

Andre Agassi also had a turn at number one. He became #1 first just shy of his 25th birthday. He last held it when he was an astonishing 33 years of age, which is why he's the ageless wonder. I doubt Federer would stack up to Agassi in terms of how well he ages. I doubt Nadal, Murray, Djokovic, Tsonga, Simon, Delpo, et al will either.

Also during this time, Patrick Rafter seized #1 for a week, he was twenty six.

Marat Safin was also a world #1. He first became #1 at age 20, and then last held it at age 21.

Lleyton Hewitt also served as #1. He first held it at age 20. He last held it at age 22.

Juan Carlos Ferrero served 8 weeks at #1. He did this when he was 23 years old.

Then Andy Roddick was world #1. He first became #1 at age 21, and then lost it before he turned 22.

Then Federer came along. He first became world #1 at age 22, and held it until age 27.

Then we have Nadal, who became #1 at age 22, and he's still 22 and still #1 at the time of this post.

So, excluding Nadal, we have the following ages when players were no longer world #1:

Federer: 27
Rddick: 22
Ferrero: 23
Hewitt: 22
Safin: 21
Agassi: 33
Sampras: 29 (most before 26)
Courier: 23
Edberg: 26
Wilander: 24
Lendl: 30 (most before 27)
Connors: 31 (251 of his 268 weeks at #1 before the age of 27)
McEnroe: 26
Borg: 25

So looking at this list, it doesn't look like Federer is too out of place, huh? Regardless of whether or not these guys 'aged' or the 'field caught up' or whatever justification you want to use, the fact of the matter is that tennis is not dominated by older guys. The best tennis is played by guys in their early to mid twenties!

Fact



Actually, as someone with obviously considerably more knowledge than yourself, I can tell you that a person's cardiovascular health peaks in their late teens and early twenties, and a person's muscular development peaks in their mid twenties. You're welcome to google for scholarly sources to support the claim.

McEnroe and Borg both decided that they should just quit when they were still capable of being their best? You think it's just coincidence that Borg "lost his passion" for tennis after McEnroe spanked him in the 1981 US Open? Or that McEnroe went on his sabbatical after Lendl whooped him in the 1985 US Open?

Really? Conveniently, they both seemed to lose passion for the game after they got their asses kicked. Funny what losing can do to you, huh?

If McEnroe was still in his physical prime, how come he failed to do anything after coming back? Surely he didn't forget how to play tennis. He simply got passed by Ivan Lendl.

Just to help ChanceEncounter, in case he is exhausted.

Good night and don't lose any sleep, guys.

Clydey2times
03-09-2009, 06:03 AM
Clydey2times,

"If McEnroe, like Borg, could continue winning at the same rate as they did before, they would still be playing tennis" Isn't that a common sense....?

No, it's not. Players can stop playing for a variety of reasons. It is a huge leap to say that a player only stops playing because he is starting to lose. He has to prove that statement. Many players continue to play once they begin to lose, including guys like Sampras, Hewitt, Safin, and even McEnroe. He actually came back on the tour and committed himself much later, despite losing much more frequently. That contradicts his statement.

"Roger Federer is getting slower". Tennis viewers can see that with their eyes. Quite a few experts are convinced of that- you can believe your owns eyes if you want.

You are speaking on behalf of all tennis viewers, which is presumptuous. Your opinion is that Federer has lost a step, but that doesn't mean everyone shares that view. Besides, observation does not constitute evidence. I am basing my opinion on my own observations. If that is not good enough for ChanceEncounter, why should his observations constitute evidence?

"Federer is declining because he's 27 years old." ChanceEncounter has given you a mountain of data to prove that the average age of players starting to decline is 26-27.

It is going around in a circle, I am afraid.

No, he hasn't, but let's for argument's sake say he has. He said that the reason for that decline could be due to any number of factors, including increased competition. However, in the above statement he completely contradicts himself. Don't take my word for it. I'll use his own words against him.

Because if Federer has lost a step, this could be attributed to either losing a step or the competition being better.

It's a very circular argument because Federer may have lost a step and the players may have caught up. It may have been Federer losing a step that allowed the players to catch up, or it may have been the players catching up regardless of how Federer has lost a step

And my point is, you can't simply say that someone fell precipitously because of one instance.

Are you telling me that those statements do not contradict the following assertion?

"Federer is declining because he's 27 years old."

hoodjem
03-09-2009, 06:04 AM
Why did FEDERER dump the ROACH???

He spotted the Euro DEA agents on his tail?

To get to the other side?

Clydey2times
03-09-2009, 06:07 AM
Either he has lost a step with age or he hasn't. There is nothing like maybe in this case. If you can't notice he has lost a step with age, sorry, there is no point in really "arguing" with you !

The matter of competition being stiffer/not being stiffer is something different -> subjective. But this is clearly something which you can see with your own eyes and judge easily. There is NO maybe ...

Of course there is a maybe, since we cannot establish it with certainty. Either he has or he hasn't lost a step. I don't think he has, but I have an open mind and I accept that I could be wrong. That is what I mean when I say "maybe he has lost a step". I mean that there is a chance I am wrong.

This whole thing is subjective. You cannot possibly say with certainty that Federer has lost a step. We are both basing our opinions on what we have observed. If you insist on presenting your opinion as a fact you'll have to provide evidence. I don't pretend that I am stating facts. I am merely stating an opinion.

abmk
03-09-2009, 06:14 AM
Of course there is a maybe, since we cannot establish it with certainty. Either he has or he hasn't lost a step. I don't think he has, but I have an open mind and I accept that I could be wrong. That is what I mean when I say "maybe he has lost a step". I mean that there is a chance I am wrong.

This whole thing is subjective. You cannot possibly say with certainty that Federer has lost a step. We are both basing our opinions on what we have observed. If you insist on presenting your opinion as a fact you'll have to provide evidence. I don't pretend that I am stating facts. I am merely stating an opinion.

No, there isn't a maybe. Either he has lost a step or hasn't. Its pretty simple to see, not difficult. Of course you can state your opinion. But to me it is obvious as daylight that federer has lost a step . IMO, any good observer of the game would have noticed it. Hence, I don't really see any point in arguing with you further on this .....

koalakoala
03-09-2009, 06:17 AM
Clydey2times, I amended some posts before I read your reply.

English is not my first language. I need to concentrate to express myself clearly. This is one of the reason I find this thread useful...

Anyway...Enjoy and I really need to go to bed now.

Clydey2times
03-09-2009, 06:18 AM
Of course you can state your opinion. But to me it is obvious as daylight that federer has lost a step . IMO, any good observer of the game would have noticed it. Hence, I don't really see any point in arguing with you further on this .....

It's easy to say that, but there's no evidence. I could easily say that any good observer of the game can tell that today's players are better than those from a few years ago. That would not necessarily make it true.

It's an opinion. The sooner you guys stop pretending that it is an established fact, the sooner this stupid debate will end.

abmk
03-09-2009, 06:23 AM
It's easy to say that, but there's no evidence. I could easily say that any good observer of the game can tell that today's players are better than those from a few years ago. That would not necessarily make it true.

It's an opinion. The sooner you guys stop pretending that it is an established fact, the sooner this stupid debate will end.

Your statement involves a hell lot of variables . Pretty tough to prove that all the variables/most of the variables are in the favour of your argument.

Whereas this -> federer losing a step with age only involves comparing his movement from 2004-2007 with his movement in 2008-now. Very different and much simpler to see and analyse.

Clydey2times
03-09-2009, 06:25 AM
Clydey2times, I amended some posts before I read your reply.

English is not my first language. I need to concentrate to express myself clearly. This is one of the reason I find this thread useful...

Anyway...Enjoy and I really need to go to bed now.

Your English is good. I'd go so far as to say that you write better than most who use English as their first language.

You didn't address the point I made in the post you edited. ChanceEncounter contradicted himself. At several points he said that Federer could be in decline as a result of various factors. He then contradicted this by saying that Federer declined as a result of his age, ignoring any other factor.

By the way, ChanceEncounter's post did not established that players decline at 26-27. Most players on that list are 21-24 years of age. Unless you think that players who are 21-24 are declining because of their age, his list doesn't prove anything.

Clydey2times
03-09-2009, 06:28 AM
Whereas this -> federer losing a step with age only involves comparing his movement from 2004-2007 with his movement in 2008-now. Very different and much simpler to see and analyse.

It's the same thing, since it is based on our own observations. It's not an accurate means of ascertaining who is better.

How do you compare his movement? It is subjective and is based on watching his matches. There is nothing accurate or scientific about watching his matches and then forming an opinion. It does not constitute proof. You think he has slowed down, and I respect that. I simply disagree based on what I have observed.

abmk
03-09-2009, 06:54 AM
It's the same thing, since it is based on our own observations. It's not an accurate means of ascertaining who is better.

How do you compare his movement? It is subjective and is based on watching his matches. There is nothing accurate or scientific about watching his matches and then forming an opinion. It does not constitute proof. You think he has slowed down, and I respect that. I simply disagree based on what I have observed.

I didn't expect anyone to 'prove' /'disprove' that. To me, the difference in his movement is obvious as daylight and IMO ANY good observer of tennis would've noticed that .... Its really pretty simple and does NOT involve a lot of variables to be seen/observed/proved...

Clydey2times
03-09-2009, 06:56 AM
I didn't expect anyone to 'prove' /'disprove' that. To me, the difference in his movement is obvious as daylight and IMO ANY good observer of tennis would've noticed that .... Its really pretty simple and does NOT involve a lot of variables to be seen/observed/proved...

Nor does having an opinion on whether the top 4 from a few years ago is inferior to the current top 4. You can bse your opinion on variables, but they are too numerous to consider. I am basing my opinion on my observations.

koalakoala
03-09-2009, 02:15 PM
Your English is good. I'd go so far as to say that you write better than most who use English as their first language.

You didn't address the point I made in the post you edited. ChanceEncounter contradicted himself. At several points he said that Federer could be in decline as a result of various factors. He then contradicted this by saying that Federer declined as a result of his age, ignoring any other factor.

By the way, ChanceEncounter's post did not established that players decline at 26-27. Most players on that list are 21-24 years of age. Unless you think that players who are 21-24 are declining because of their age, his list doesn't prove anything.

Thank you for your compliments. :)

I am afraid ChanceEncounter did not contradict himself. In a summary, his logic goes this way:
1) Federer losing a step could be contributed to either his being declining or the younger generation being better,or both. ChanceEncounter oberserved that Federer is not playing as well as he used to be. Many tennis viewers and experts agree with ChanceEncounter.
2) He then further supports his viewpoint by providing analysis of historical data. The data show that it has been a general trend that dominant players decline around age 27. The decline is evident but does not happen overnight.
3) He also elaborates on some famous players, e.g. Borg and McEnroe to point out signs of mental/physical decline before their quitting/break.
4) As for your evolution viewpoint, he stresses that the evolution is technical evolution rather than humanbeing evolution.

Cyborg made an impression by saying that a generation of disparity does not necessarily mean a weak generation. He also agreed that players from Federer's generation are declining.

Both ChanceEncounter and Cyborg look at different variables, and rather than provide simple black and white answers, they draw their conclusions based on "what is more likely". I think their arguments are more objective and balanced.

Clydey2Times, at least on this particular thread, I think you let your heart drive your conclusion and tend to ignore evidences that do not favor what you want to believe. We human beings all do this, more or less. And that's why GOAT is such a muddy and never-ending debate.

Clydey2times
03-09-2009, 02:40 PM
Thank you for your compliments. :)

I am afraid ChanceEncounter did not contradict himself. In a summary, his logic goes this way:
1) Federer losing a step could be contributed to either his being declining or the younger generation being better,or both. ChanceEncounter oberserved that Federer is not playing as well as he used to be. Many tennis viewers and experts agree with ChanceEncounter.
2) He then further supports his viewpoint by providing analysis of historical data. The data show that it has been a general trend that dominant players decline around age 27. The decline is evident but does not happen overnight.
3) He also elaborates on some famous players, e.g. Borg and McEnroe to point out signs of mental/physical decline before their quitting/break.
4) As for your evolution viewpoint, he stresses that the evolution is technical evolution rather than humanbeing evolution.

Cyborg made an impression by saying that a generation of disparity does not necessarily mean a weak generation. He also agreed that players from Federer's generation are declining.

Both ChanceEncounter and Cyborg look at different variables, and rather than provide simple black and white answers, they draw their conclusions based on "what is more likely". I think their arguments are more objective and balanced.

Clydey2Times, at least on this particular thread, I think you let your heart drive your conclusion and tend to ignore evidences that do not favor what you want to believe. We human beings all do this, more or less. And that's why GOAT is such a muddy and never-ending debate.

I didn't say that human evolution was at work. I would never say anything like that, since one of my main interests is the theory of evolution. You misinterpreted my comment. Human evolution occurs over hundreds of thousands and millions of years. It would have no bearing on the game of tennis.

And no, my heart has not driven my conclusion. I'm not a Federer fan, nor am I a hater. I am basing my conclusion on what I have observed by watching him. Just because you disagree with me it does not mean that you are using logic and I am basing my opinion on emotion. The fact is that everyone here has an opinion on whether or not Federer's age is the problem. It doesn't matter what we said in this thread, we weren't going to change anyone's mind.

As for your first point, I will once again demonstrate why he contradicted himself.

"Federer losing a step could be contributed to either his being declining or the younger generation being better,or both. ChanceEncounter oberserved that Federer is not playing as well as he used to be. Many tennis viewers and experts agree with ChanceEncounter."

While the above is true, he did say that there could be various factors at work. He contradicted that statement when he said the following:

"Federer is declining because he is 27 years old".

That means he is on the one hand saying that there are various factors possibly at work, and on the other hand he is saying that Federer is declining solely because of his age. That is a contradiction, no matter how you look at it. There's no getting away from it.

How can you fail to see the contradiction?

On the one hand he says:

"Federer could be losing a step because of the competition getting better, because he is aging, because technology is improving, or it could be a combination of factors."

In the above statement he considers various factors.

When he says "Federer is decling because he is 27 years old" he is attributing the decline solely to his age.

I'm going to pick you up on your second point, too. You said he established that dominant players decline around 27 years of age. Here is the list he posted.

Federer: 27
Rddick: 22
Ferrero: 23
Hewitt: 22
Safin: 21
Agassi: 33
Sampras: 29 (most before 26)
Courier: 23
Edberg: 26
Wilander: 24
Lendl: 30 (most before 27)
Connors: 31 (251 of his 268 weeks at #1 before the age of 27)
McEnroe: 26
Borg: 25

Only one player on that listed declined at 27 years of age and that is Federer. Most of the players on that list declined by the time they were 24. Look at the list. Only one player lost their number 1 spot at 27 years of age. Most of the rest lost it much earlier or much later, so in what way did he establish that they declined at 27?

NamRanger
03-09-2009, 03:28 PM
Thank you for your compliments. :)

I am afraid ChanceEncounter did not contradict himself. In a summary, his logic goes this way:
1) Federer losing a step could be contributed to either his being declining or the younger generation being better,or both. ChanceEncounter oberserved that Federer is not playing as well as he used to be. Many tennis viewers and experts agree with ChanceEncounter.
2) He then further supports his viewpoint by providing analysis of historical data. The data show that it has been a general trend that dominant players decline around age 27. The decline is evident but does not happen overnight.
3) He also elaborates on some famous players, e.g. Borg and McEnroe to point out signs of mental/physical decline before their quitting/break.
4) As for your evolution viewpoint, he stresses that the evolution is technical evolution rather than humanbeing evolution.

Cyborg made an impression by saying that a generation of disparity does not necessarily mean a weak generation. He also agreed that players from Federer's generation are declining.

Both ChanceEncounter and Cyborg look at different variables, and rather than provide simple black and white answers, they draw their conclusions based on "what is more likely". I think their arguments are more objective and balanced.

Clydey2Times, at least on this particular thread, I think you let your heart drive your conclusion and tend to ignore evidences that do not favor what you want to believe. We human beings all do this, more or less. And that's why GOAT is such a muddy and never-ending debate.


There's no point; he's not going to listen to you. He's like Nadal_Freak on roids.

Clydey2times
03-09-2009, 03:32 PM
There's no point; he's not going to listen to you. He's like Nadal_Freak on roids.

You have certainly mastered the art of ad hominems.

koalakoala
03-09-2009, 07:40 PM
There's no point; he's not going to listen to you. He's like Nadal_Freak on roids.


:)

Clydey2times loves Murray.

It is OK. A great part of fun of being a fan comes from a biased desire. Though it will be better to have a little bit more of fairness and respect towards the players our favorites compete with.

Fun can also come from a sense of suspension and anxiety. Federer has spoiled this aspect for a long time:twisted: I love him even more now. I believe I am not alone. We owe it to Nadal, Murray and Djoker, to some extent.

Go Roger! Show your true color.

TheTruth
03-09-2009, 08:13 PM
Of course there is a maybe, since we cannot establish it with certainty. Either he has or he hasn't lost a step. I don't think he has, but I have an open mind and I accept that I could be wrong. That is what I mean when I say "maybe he has lost a step". I mean that there is a chance I am wrong.

This whole thing is subjective. You cannot possibly say with certainty that Federer has lost a step. We are both basing our opinions on what we have observed. If you insist on presenting your opinion as a fact you'll have to provide evidence. I don't pretend that I am stating facts. I am merely stating an opinion.

You have summed up many TTW'ers in a nutshell. No one's opinion is a fact which is why you use words like maybe, I think, IMO, etc. Some people think their opinions are facts, or that you think your opinion is a fact. It all comes down to subjectivity, observations, and the maturity to know the difference.

You're a great poster. I enjoy reading your posts.

Clydey2times
03-09-2009, 11:13 PM
You have summed up many TTW'ers in a nutshell. No one's opinion is a fact which is why you use words like maybe, I think, IMO, etc. Some people think their opinions are facts, or that you think your opinion is a fact. It all comes down to subjectivity, observations, and the maturity to know the difference.

You're a great poster. I enjoy reading your posts.

Thanks. I was beginning to think I had committed some grand offense by merely airing my opinion. :)

carlos djackal
03-10-2009, 12:56 AM
Sometimes a roach just gets too small. You can burn your fingers if you hang on to it too long.

Oh, you mean Tony Roche? Next time learn a bit more about what it is you're posting about.



lol..................when i read the title i thought roach who? is it freddie roach the trainer of manny "pacman" pacquiao (the guy ricky hatton will face on may 2), then it was actually tony.......kinda funny to me....

devila
03-10-2009, 01:26 AM
Pretty ignorant to give Roddick and Hewitt
the same declined age. Just because a top player lost dedication, a few years,
doesn't mean he never improved at 26 years old.

Gorecki
03-10-2009, 04:47 AM
There's no point; he's not going to listen to you. He's like Nadal_Freak on roids.

You have certainly mastered the art of ad hominems.

when he losses control of a argument, he start pummeling a buch of radndom latin expressions just to prove how knowledgeable he is...


Yes Nam. i have been there too...

he also mastered the art of "triple jump on conversation" like N_F

Clydey2times
03-10-2009, 04:54 AM
when he losses control of a argument, he start pummeling a buch of radndom latin expressions just to prove how knowledgeable he is...



Yes, it's a random Latin expression. I picked it out of a hat and with it I created a glorious non-sequitur.

Gorecki
03-10-2009, 05:00 AM
Yes, it's a random Latin expression. I picked it out of a hat and with it I created a glorious non-sequitur.

in pace, ut sapiens, aptarit idonea bello ...

Clydey2times
03-10-2009, 05:05 AM
in pace, ut sapiens, aptarit idonea bello ...

You cheeky scamp!

Gorecki
03-10-2009, 05:21 AM
You cheeky scamp!

thanks; i consider you to be my big faced (cheeky) friend (scamp) too...:twisted:

koalakoala
03-10-2009, 05:23 AM
永远的费德勒

I can't wait to see him again.