PDA

View Full Version : Is this the weakest top 10 ever?


tennis_pro
04-17-2011, 11:14 AM
I'm not talking about the top 4 here, they're alright even tho Federer is almost 30 years old and Murray is a headcase.

Look at the 6 top 10 players we have as of today:

5. Soderling
6. Ferrer
7. Berdych
8. Verdasco
9. Melzer
10. Monfils

If it wasn't enough Mardy Fish comes next at 11 and Nicolas Almagro is at 12.

The sad part is that the top 10 looked VERY strong just a year ago

Look at the rankings from 2010 after the AO:

1. Federer
2. Djokovic
3. Murray
4. Nadal
5. Del Potro
6. Davydenko
7. Roddick
8. Soderling
9. Tsonga
10. Cilic

It all sort of fell apart after that, Federer has been rather poor for his standards especially in Slams, Del Potro has been out for a full year and is only midway through his comeback, Davydenko has been total crap since then, same with Roddick with some small exceptions (hasn't played a Slam quarter for a year and 3 months), Cilic and his slump is a mistery for me.

It looked back then that we're going to witness some great matches from the top 10 but it all fell apart.

Anyone with me?

YodaKnowsBest
04-17-2011, 11:45 AM
I'm not talking about the top 4 here, they're alright even tho Federer is almost 30 years old and Murray is a headcase.

Look at the 6 top 10 players we have as of today:

5. Soderling
6. Ferrer
7. Berdych
8. Verdasco
9. Melzer
10. Monfils

If it wasn't enough Mardy Fish comes next at 11 and Nicolas Almagro is at 12.

The sad part is that the top 10 looked VERY strong just a year ago

Look at the rankings from 2010 after the AO:

1. Federer
2. Djokovic
3. Murray
4. Nadal
5. Del Potro
6. Davydenko
7. Roddick
8. Soderling
9. Tsonga
10. Cilic

It all sort of fell apart after that, Federer has been rather poor for his standards especially in Slams, Del Potro has been out for a full year and is only midway through his comeback, Davydenko has been total crap since then, same with Roddick with some small exceptions (hasn't played a Slam quarter for a year and 3 months), Cilic and his slump is a mistery for me.

It looked back then that we're going to witness some great matches from the top 10 but it all fell apart.

Anyone with me?


http://files.abovetopsecret.com/uploads/ats47849_tumbleweed_3.gif

dominikk1985
04-17-2011, 12:00 PM
well a few guys are missing.

-DP will come back
-davydenko is in bad bad. will he come back?
-I think roddick also will make the top10 again

with those guys back in the top 10 would be much stronger again.

YodaKnowsBest
04-17-2011, 12:02 PM
I would rather have Verdasco in top 10 then James Blake in top 4. :oops:

tennis_pro
04-17-2011, 12:03 PM
I would rather have Verdasco in top 10 then James Blake in top 4. :oops:

Anything is better than Verdasco in the top 10 who has been there for the last 2 years in comparison to Blake who was in the top 4 for a couple of weeks. Blake in 2006 was better than Verdasco will ever be, that's another thing.

Btw isn't it the same James Blake who once led Nadal 3-0 in the h2h series?

YodaKnowsBest
04-17-2011, 12:07 PM
Anything is better than Verdasco in the top 10 who has been there for the last 2 years in comparison to Blake who was in the top 4 for a couple of weeks

Btw isn't it the same James Blake who once led Nadal 3-0 in the h2h series?

Damn, he's that great? :shock: How many slam finals has he made or masters has he won? :lol:

Devilito
04-17-2011, 12:11 PM
how about this top 10 circa 92-93

1 Courier, Jim (USA) 3,599
2 Edberg, Stefan (SWE) 3,244
3 Sampras, Pete (USA) 3,203
4 Becker, Boris (GER) 2,751
5 Ivanisevic, Goran (CRO) 2,716
6 Chang, Michael (USA) 2,373
7 Korda, Petr (CZE) 2,174
8 Lendl, Ivan (USA) 1,985
9 Agassi, Andre (USA) 1,852
10 Krajicek, Richard (NED) 1,801

everyone of these players a slam winner at one point or another

i mean Verdasco, Melzer, Monfils lol

tennis_pro
04-17-2011, 12:15 PM
Damn, he's that great? :shock: How many slam finals has he made or masters has he won? :lol:

At least he gave his all and was no-one's pigeon like Verdasco is for both Federer and Nadal.

tennis_pro
04-17-2011, 12:17 PM
how about this top 10 circa 92-93

1 Courier, Jim (USA) 3,599
2 Edberg, Stefan (SWE) 3,244
3 Sampras, Pete (USA) 3,203
4 Becker, Boris (GER) 2,751
5 Ivanisevic, Goran (CRO) 2,716
6 Chang, Michael (USA) 2,373
7 Korda, Petr (CZE) 2,174
8 Lendl, Ivan (USA) 1,985
9 Agassi, Andre (USA) 1,852
10 Krajicek, Richard (NED) 1,801

everyone of these players a slam winner at one point or another

i mean Verdasco, Melzer, Monfils lol

I was gonna bring that up at one point. I mean dang what a top 10! Together they won 50 Slams throughout the years.

A pity that THAT'S the top 10 the ***********s use to say how Pete's competition was tough, they forget that it got way worse and by 1996-1998 it was rather poor.

aphex
04-17-2011, 12:20 PM
At least he gave his all and was no-one's pigeon like Verdasco is for both Federer and Nadal.

Verdasco is the biggest disgrace in the history of the top 10.

He was on his knees thanking his master for letting him get a point exactly one year ago.

Mugdasco is an embarrassment.

aphex
04-17-2011, 12:21 PM
I was gonna bring that up at one point. I mean dang what a top 10! Together they won 50 Slams throughout the years.

A pity that THAT'S the top 10 the ***********s use to say how Pete's competition was tough, they forget that it got way worse and by 1996-1998 it was rather poor.

How many had all of these won at THAT point?

tennis_pro
04-17-2011, 12:24 PM
How many had all of these won at THAT point?

If you count at the end of 1992: 25
If you count at the end of 1993: 28

Good point there, tho. We're gonna look at the current (or the 2008-2010 top 10 at least) top 10 a couple years from now saying how strong it actually was, Federer could win another 1-2 majors, Nadal has a couple more in him, same with Djokovic, Murray and Del Potro could win a Slam here and there making the total of them close to 50 (it's 27 for Federer/Nadal/Djokovic already at this point)

stringertom
04-17-2011, 12:24 PM
The opposite side of the coin is year-ending '01 rankings in which 6 of the top ten were multiple major winners and a seventh holds one major.
1. Hewitt
2. Kuerten
3. Agassi
4. Kafelnikov
5. Ferrero
6. Grossjean
7. Rafter
8. Haas
9. Henman
10. Sampras

Also, consider this: two short years later the y-e list had disintegrated to only 2 multiple major winners, one of whom had only won one at the time (Fed).
1. Roddick
2. Federer
3. Ferrero
4. Agassi
5. Coria
6. Schuettler
7. Moya
8. Nalbandian
9. Phillipoussis
10. Grossjean

2.

YodaKnowsBest
04-17-2011, 12:25 PM
At least he gave his all and was no-one's pigeon like Verdasco is for both Federer and Nadal.

Now please, compare Murray (4) with James Blake. (4)
Murray: 16 titles (6 masters I believe), 3 grandslam finals and still counting.
James Blake: 2 titles (500 atp) in 2002. :lol: so basically he hasn't won anything during his best period and still managed to grab that 4th place. How deserving is that when we look how much Murray has struggled to keep his 4th spot?

YodaKnowsBest
04-17-2011, 12:27 PM
At least he gave his all and was no-one's pigeon like Verdasco is for both Federer and Nadal.

speaking of pingeons, does Roddick come in mind? :lol: :lol: :lol:

tennis_pro
04-17-2011, 12:33 PM
Now please, compare Murray (4) with James Blake. (4)
Murray: 16 titles (6 masters I believe), 3 grandslam finals and still counting.
James Blake: 2 titles (500 atp) in 2002. :lol: so basically he hasn't won anything during his best period and still managed to grab that 4th place. How deserving is that when we look how much Murray has struggled to keep his 4th spot?

Why compare Blake with Murray now? ISN'T VERDASCO A STRONG ENOUGH ARGUEMENT LUL?

There wasn't much room to manouver that year since Federer swept everything on hard courts and grass courts while Nadal took every title on clay. Obviously somebody had to finish at no 3, 4, 5 and so one, thus Blake finished at no 4 having won 5 titles and reached the finals of Indian Wells and the Tennis Masters Cup (losing both to Federer which was ANYTHING but a disgrace).

Verdasco was on his knees when he won a point against Nadal on clay, now that's a sign of a top top player if you ask me.

YodaKnowsBest
04-17-2011, 12:38 PM
Why compare Blake with Murray now? ISN'T VERDASCO A STRONG ENOUGH ARGUEMENT LUL?

There wasn't much room to manouver that year since Federer swept everything on hard courts and grass courts while Nadal took every title on clay. Obviously somebody had to finish at no 3, 4, 5 and so one, thus Blake finished at no 4 having won 5 titles and reached the finals of Indian Wells and the Tennis Masters Cup (losing both to Federer which was ANYTHING but a disgrace).

Verdasco was on his knees when he won a point against Nadal on clay, now that's a sign of a top top player if you ask me.

I see... Federer was just to good hmmm... I have another question for you. How come baby Murray defeated Federer in 2006 and prime James Blake couldn't? :oops:

tennis_pro
04-17-2011, 12:39 PM
speaking of pingeons, does Roddick come in mind? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Roddick almost always gave it his best shot against Federer but Fed was just way too good, not only for Roddick but also for guys like Hewitt (15 losses in a row), Safin (10-2), Agassi (lost 8 last matches against Federer), I gues they were all pigeons.

It's not Roddick's fault that he didn't have enough weapons to challenge Federer but he was far from being his pigeon.

Look at the 2006 Masters Cup RR match (had match points)
Look at 2009 Wimbledon (double break point up to be serving for the match)
Look at 2004 Wimbledon (very tough 4-setter)
Look at 2009 Madrid (took a set off Federer on clay)
Look at 2007 US Open (super high quality first 2 sets)

He never wilted against Federer saying Oh please lord Federer mercy! unlike Verdasco

MichaelNadal
04-17-2011, 12:40 PM
Joke thread. Maybe we've had the strongest top 2 ever?

tennis_pro
04-17-2011, 12:41 PM
I see... Federer was just to good hmmm... I have another question for you. How come baby Murray defeated Federer in 2006 and prime James Blake couldn't? :oops:

If you actually saw the match you'd see that Federer was visibly tired having played 3-setters every day for a week just prior to that. I even remember what he said in the press conference: "it's tough when you play a long tournament and you're scheduled to play another pair of matches 1-2 days later"

That's when the 1st round byes were brought to life in the Masters.

YodaKnowsBest
04-17-2011, 12:45 PM
Roddick almost always gave it his best shot against Federer but Fed was just way too good, not only for Roddick but also for guys like Hewitt (15 losses in a row), Safin (10-2), Agassi (lost 8 last matches against Federer), I gues they were all pigeons.

It's not Roddick's fault that he didn't have enough weapons to challenge Federer but he was far from being his pigeon.

Look at the 2006 Masters Cup RR match (had match points)
Look at 2009 Wimbledon (double break point up to be serving for the match)
Look at 2004 Wimbledon (very tough 4-setter)
Look at 2009 Madrid (took a set off Federer on clay)
Look at 2007 US Open (super high quality first 2 sets)

He never wilted against Federer saying Oh please lord Federer mercy! unlike Verdasco

Far from being his pingeon??? :confused: Are you serious? 20-2 !!!
Even a baby Djokovic and Murray defeated a prime Federer once so there is no excuse why a prime Roddick couldn't do it. So many trolls on this board are killing me with their stupidity. The mods should step in.

tennis_pro
04-17-2011, 12:45 PM
Joke thread. Maybe we've had the strongest top 2 ever?

You missed the point. I also think the Federer-Nadal is the best duo ever but compare the top 10 from 2 years ago to the current one.

cc0509
04-17-2011, 12:46 PM
how about this top 10 circa 92-93

1 Courier, Jim (USA) 3,599
2 Edberg, Stefan (SWE) 3,244
3 Sampras, Pete (USA) 3,203
4 Becker, Boris (GER) 2,751
5 Ivanisevic, Goran (CRO) 2,716
6 Chang, Michael (USA) 2,373
7 Korda, Petr (CZE) 2,174
8 Lendl, Ivan (USA) 1,985
9 Agassi, Andre (USA) 1,852
10 Krajicek, Richard (NED) 1,801

everyone of these players a slam winner at one point or another

i mean Verdasco, Melzer, Monfils lol

Now, this is a real top 10! The top 10 today, aside from the top 4, is a joke. The only one that I can say I don't mind watching play is Ferrer from rank 5 to 10. The rest, forget it.

YodaKnowsBest
04-17-2011, 12:48 PM
If you actually saw the match you'd see that Federer was visibly tired having played 3-setters every day for a week just prior to that. I even remember what he said in the press conference: "it's tough when you play a long tournament and you're scheduled to play another pair of matches 1-2 days later"

That's when the 1st round byes were brought to life in the Masters.

Hey troll, aren't you the one who told me:

who cares? if you make a decision to play, there are no excuses unless you actually retire in a match showing VISIBLE pain, Djokovic got his a** handed to him by that "clown" Verdasco twice in a row

tennis_pro
04-17-2011, 12:57 PM
Hey troll, aren't you the one who told me:

LOOK WHO CALLED ME A TROLL LOL

Federer actually wanted to skip Cincinnati that year but HE WAS FORCED TO PLAY, if you want an example what a well rested Federer can do to Murray when it counts, check out 2008 US Open or 2010 AO

tennis_pro
04-17-2011, 01:02 PM
Far from being his pingeon??? :confused: Are you serious? 20-2 !!!
Even a baby Djokovic and Murray defeated a prime Federer once so there is no excuse why a prime Roddick couldn't do it. So many trolls on this board are killing me with their stupidity. The mods should step in.

Do you know what being a pigeon means? It means handing your butt to the opponent before the match even started, Roddick gave it his best shot against Federer in many matches, another story is that it wasn't enough.

And LOL at Murray and Djokovic beating a prime Federer. Funny how Murray can't beat a way past his prime Federer when it matters even though he's having his best years now.

Djokovic barely squeaked out a win 7-6 2-6 7-6 over Federer in Canada in 2007 and he got a straight set beatdown from Federer at the US Open just a month later.

MichaelNadal
04-17-2011, 01:03 PM
You missed the point. I also think the Federer-Nadal is the best duo ever but compare the top 10 from 2 years ago to the current one.

But that's the thing, if the top 2 are the best ever, everyone is is GOING to look weak in comparison.

tennis_pro
04-17-2011, 01:08 PM
But that's the thing, if the top 2 are the best ever, everyone is is GOING to look weak in comparison.

Again, you missed the point.

Federer and Nadal were both there in 2010 and 2011, now compare the top 10 in both years. Fedal being tough doesn't have to do anything with Melzer, Berdych, Monfils, Verdasco being a top 10 fail.

Davydenko, Del Potro, Roddick were there in the top 10 in 2010 that's why THAT year looked better even though Fedal swept all 4 Slams in 2010.

You get the point?

YodaKnowsBest
04-17-2011, 01:18 PM
LOOK WHO CALLED ME A TROLL LOL

Federer actually wanted to skip Cincinnati that year but HE WAS FORCED TO PLAY, if you want an example what a well rested Federer can do to Murray when it counts, check out 2008 US Open or 2010 AO

Please read again:

who cares?if you make a decision to play, there are no excuses unless you actually retire in a match showing VISIBLE pain, Djokovic got his a** handed to him by that "clown" Verdasco twice in a row

YodaKnowsBest
04-17-2011, 01:20 PM
Do you know what being a pigeon means? It means handing your butt to the opponent before the match even started, Roddick gave it his best shot against Federer in many matches, another story is that it wasn't enough.

And LOL at Murray and Djokovic beating a prime Federer. Funny how Murray can't beat a way past his prime Federer when it matters even though he's having his best years now.

Murray is leading the head 2 head against Federer. Roddick is not! 20-2!!!

Djokovic barely squeaked out a win 7-6 2-6 7-6 over Federer in Canada in 2007 and he got a straight set beatdown from Federer at the US Open just a month later.

Does it matter if you win in 2 or 3 sets? A win is a win and that's something Roddick never experienced against a prime Federer.

tennis_pro
04-17-2011, 01:21 PM
Please read again:


If your brain wasn't the size of a peanut you'd know that it wasn't Federer's decision to play in Cincinnati in 2006, the ATP forced him to participate

Do you see the difference between "I'm playing because I hope everything is alright" and "I don't wanna play cause I know I'm tired but the ATP won't let me skip the tournament"

MagneticCurls
04-17-2011, 01:22 PM
What's so hard to understand? Federer is likely the best ever, and current Djokovic is poised to be second best ever. Simple.

tennis_pro
04-17-2011, 01:23 PM
Does it matter if you win in 2 or 3 sets? A win is a win and that's something Roddick never experienced against a prime Federer.

It actually does cause Roddick had a huge match-up issue against Federer AS HE HAD against great returners. He was 1-5 against Agassi even though they played only in the 2002-2004 period.

What does it say for Djokovic to have a 3-5 h2h against a guy who was somebody's "pigeon"?

YodaKnowsBest
04-17-2011, 01:26 PM
If your brain wasn't the size of a peanut you'd know that it wasn't Federer's decision to play in Cincinnati in 2006, the ATP forced him to participate

Do you see the difference between "I'm playing because I hope everything is alright" and "I don't wanna play cause I know I'm tired but the ATP won't let me skip the tournament"

and again:

who cares?if you make a decision to play, there are no excuses unless you actually retire in a match showing VISIBLE pain, Djokovic got his a** handed to him by that "clown" Verdasco twice in a row

YodaKnowsBest
04-17-2011, 01:33 PM
It actually does cause Roddick had a huge match-up issue against Federer AS HE HAD against great returners. He was 1-5 against Agassi even though they played only in the 2002-2004 period.

What does it say for Djokovic to have a 3-5 h2h against a guy who was somebody's "pigeon"?

A bad match-up is still not a good excuse for a 20-2 head 2 head. Nadal is also a bad match-up for Federer, but you don't see Federer losing every single time.

tennis_pro
04-17-2011, 01:38 PM
and again:

this is turning into a ****-war so I'll end it here

tennis_pro
04-17-2011, 01:42 PM
A bad match-up is still not a good excuse for a 20-2 head 2 head. Nadal is also a bad match-up for Federer, but you don't see Federer losing every single time.

Nadal is not a typical match-up against Federer, even now Federer has won more hard+grass court matches against Nadal than the other way round. The 12 matches on clay out of 23 played skews the h2h big time.

You want more examples of a bad match-up?

Who do you consider better, Davydenko or Blake? Well guess what the h2h is - Blake 7-0

Safin-Santoro, another one

that's just on top of my head

JeMar
04-17-2011, 02:25 PM
But that's the thing, if the top 2 are the best ever, everyone is is GOING to look weak in comparison.

Oh, god. This is so ironic.

rovex
04-17-2011, 02:32 PM
well a few guys are missing.

-DP will come back
-davydenko is in bad bad. will he come back?
-I think roddick also will make the top10 again

with those guys back in the top 10 would be much stronger again.

I'm not talking about the top 4 here, they're alright even tho Federer is almost 30 years old and Murray is a headcase.

Look at the 6 top 10 players we have as of today:

5. Soderling
6. Ferrer
7. Berdych
8. Verdasco
9. Melzer
10. Monfils

If it wasn't enough Mardy Fish comes next at 11 and Nicolas Almagro is at 12.

The sad part is that the top 10 looked VERY strong just a year ago

Look at the rankings from 2010 after the AO:

1. Federer
2. Djokovic
3. Murray
4. Nadal
5. Del Potro
6. Davydenko
7. Roddick
8. Soderling
9. Tsonga
10. Cilic

It all sort of fell apart after that, Federer has been rather poor for his standards especially in Slams, Del Potro has been out for a full year and is only midway through his comeback, Davydenko has been total crap since then, same with Roddick with some small exceptions (hasn't played a Slam quarter for a year and 3 months), Cilic and his slump is a mistery for me.

It looked back then that we're going to witness some great matches from the top 10 but it all fell apart.

Anyone with me?

How many clones does this anaconda have? So far I've counted 6 and im sure there are more. Dominekk in this thread is another one. This is pretty unique:

Mainad
04-17-2011, 02:36 PM
Do you know what being a pigeon means? It
And LOL at Murray and Djokovic beating a prime Federer. Funny how Murray can't beat a way past his prime Federer when it matters even though he's having his best years now.


Well, he did beat Fed in straight sets in the finals of Toronto and Shanghai last year!

Admittedly not so good against him in GS finals,though.

tennis_pro
04-17-2011, 02:37 PM
How many clones does this anaconda have? So far I've counted 6 and im sure there are more. Dominekk in this thread is another one. This is pretty unique:

I guess one has to be completely different than the other not to be considered a clone.

Cassius Clay
04-17-2011, 05:13 PM
Nadal is not a typical match-up against Federer



That "bad match-up" thing is nonsense. If you can't adjust your game to your rivals' then you are a complete loser. I'm not saying that any player who has a favorable H2H against any other player is, per se, the better player, because many factors should be taken into consideration. But when the players have played +20 matches and the H2H is so lopsided, then there are no doubts as to who the better player is.



even now Federer has won more hard+grass court matches against Nadal than the other way round.



By the same token, Nadal has won more clay+hard or clay+grass matches against Federer than the other way round.



The 12 matches on clay out of 23 played skews the h2h big time.



Nadal and Federer could only meet ONCE a year (at most) on grass (Wimbledon) and most likely in the final, so you can't expect them to have a H2H evenly distributed among all surfaces. More than anything you should be thankful that most of the tournaments are played on HC (favoring Federer's title count big time). They have played 12 matches on clay and 8 on hard, not a big deal. On top of that, they are 4-4 so it wouldn't have made much of a difference if they had played 12 matches as well.

MagneticCurls
04-17-2011, 05:34 PM
Therefore davydenko >>> Nadal :rolleyes:

tennis_pro
04-17-2011, 05:35 PM
Nadal and Federer could only meet ONCE a year (at most) on grass (Wimbledon) and most likely in the final, so you can't expect them to have a H2H evenly distributed among all surfaces.

Who's talking about grass courts here? It's not even Federer's best surface as they're becoming slower and slower each year.

Matches played on particular surfaces SHOULD be evenly distributed but you can't really talk about that in the Federer-Nadal case since they've played more than half of their matches on clay which, like it or not, is a minor part of the season.

A fair distribution would be something more like hard courts 65-70 %, clay courts 25-30 %, grass around 5 % and it's 50 %+ on clay instead. So like it or not, clay is a major factor in their h2h.

More than anything you should be thankful that most of the tournaments are played on HC (favoring Federer's title count big time). They have played 12 matches on clay and 8 on hard, not a big deal. On top of that, they are 4-4 so it wouldn't have made much of a difference if they had played 12 matches as well.

Why I should be thankful? Hard courts have been the most dominant surface since they were introduced for the very first time, just because Nadal struggles on the surface won't make the ATP bring more clay court tournamens to life. It's Nadal's problem that's hes a far worse hardcourter in an era where hard courts are the domain of men's tennis. More than anything, Nadal should be thankful that the depth of level on clay is far worse than on hard courts, for years only Federer seemed to rise to the challenge on clay as he was chasing the GOAT status and needed to prove himself on clay.
They have played 12 matches on clay and 8 on hard, not a big deal

Not a big deal, huh?

Let's see how the h2h changes when we change the distribution to a more fair one.

23 matches - 15 played on hard courts (65 %), 6 played on clay courts (27 %), 2 played on grass courts (8 %)

So it's 7-7 on hard courts (8-7 either way), 5-1 on clay, and 1-1 (or 2-0 Federer, depends on how you look at it)

Now the scenario changes to either 13-10 Nadal or 12-11 Nadal, not a big deal, looks nothing better than 15-8

Of course there are tons of different factors we have to take into consideration like, the majority of matches played in 2004-2007 or post 2007, what kind of hard courts/clay courts.

The facts are, Nadal wasn't good enough to challenge Federer outside of clay till 2008 by the time Federer hit 27. We can't just make up hypothetical matches cause there are too many factors to analyse.

MagneticCurls
04-17-2011, 05:36 PM
"Tennis prowess comes not from dominating a single opponent, but rather, the field"

- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Semi-Pro
04-17-2011, 05:40 PM
"Tennis prowess comes not from dominating a single opponent, but rather, the field"

- Ralph Waldo Emerson

I like this quote!

My new signature :)

Bobby Jr
04-17-2011, 05:50 PM
how about this top 10 circa 92-93

1 Courier, Jim (USA) 3,599
2 Edberg, Stefan (SWE) 3,244
3 Sampras, Pete (USA) 3,203
4 Becker, Boris (GER) 2,751
5 Ivanisevic, Goran (CRO) 2,716
6 Chang, Michael (USA) 2,373
7 Korda, Petr (CZE) 2,174
8 Lendl, Ivan (USA) 1,985
9 Agassi, Andre (USA) 1,852
10 Krajicek, Richard (NED) 1,801

everyone of these players a slam winner at one point or another

i mean Verdasco, Melzer, Monfils lol
Yeah, but at the time Ivaniseevic, Korda, Krajicek and Agassi (depending on the date) hadn't yet won a slam - so the list looks way better when viewed retrospectively.

If Verdasko, Melzer and Monfils ever win slams in their career then the current top ten will be mostly full of slam winners too. Unlikely I know but then again Andres Gomez, Yannick Noah, Thomas Johansson, Petr Korda etc (could maybe even include Ivanisevic) never really entered slams as favourites either.

Cassius Clay
04-17-2011, 05:56 PM
Therefore davydenko >>> Nadal :rolleyes:




That H2H is pretty even, and they have only played 10 matches. We can't take much info out of that.


Who's talking about grass courts here? It's not even Federer's best surface as they're becoming slower and slower each year.

Matches played on particular surfaces SHOULD be evenly distributed but you can't really talk about that in the Federer-Nadal case since they've played more than half of their matches on clay which, like it or not, is a minor part of the season.

A fair distribution would be something more like hard courts 65-70 %, clay courts 25-30 %, grass around 5 % and it's 50 %+ on clay instead. So like it or not, clay is a major factor in their h2h.

Why I should be thankful? Hard courts have been the most dominant surface since they were introduced for the very first time, just because Nadal struggles on the surface won't make the ATP bring more clay court tournamens to life. It's Nadal's problem that's hes a far worse hardcourter in an era where hard courts are the domain of men's tennis. More than anything, Nadal should be thankful that the depth of level on clay is far worse than on hard courts, for years only Federer seemed to rise to the challenge on clay as he was chasing the GOAT status and needed to prove himself on clay.
They have played 12 matches on clay and 8 on hard, not a big deal

Not a big deal, huh?

Let's see how the h2h changes when we change the distribution to a more fair one.

23 matches - 15 played on hard courts (65 %), 6 played on clay courts (27 %), 2 played on grass courts (8 %)

So it's 7-7 on hard courts (8-7 either way), 5-1 on clay, and 1-1 (or 2-0 Federer, depends on how you look at it)

Now the scenario changes to either 13-10 Nadal or 12-11 Nadal, not a big deal, looks nothing better than 15-8

Of course there are tons of different factors we have to take into consideration like, the majority of matches played in 2004-2007 or post 2007, what kind of hard courts/clay courts.

The facts are, Nadal wasn't good enough to challenge Federer outside of clay till 2008 by the time Federer hit 27. We can't just make up hypothetical matches cause there are too many factors to analyse.

You are missing the point that most of the tournaments are played on outside HC and Nadal leads 4-1 in that department (if I'm not mistaken), so Nadal would still own the H2H by a big margin.

On top of that, at the beginning of the rivalry Federer had the advantage of playing Baby Nadal and now Nadal will have the upper hand when facing Old Federer, thus making the H2H even more embarrasing for Federer.

So there is no reason to suggest that their H2H is deceptive whatsoever.

MagneticCurls
04-17-2011, 05:58 PM
That H2H is pretty even, and they have only played 10 matches. We can't take much info out of that.



Even/lopsided are subjective terms which you use at your own preferences and are coloured by your biases. The bottom line is Davydenko has beaten Nadal more than Nadal has beaten Davy. Likewise with Nadal against Federer. Whether you call it lopsided or fairly even is meaningless and arbitrary. Numbers don't lie.

Cassius Clay
04-17-2011, 06:04 PM
"Tennis prowess comes not from dominating a single opponent, but rather, the field"

- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Yeah, and Nadal owns almost every single one of them, except maybe Davydenko, on the other hand Federer...

Cassius Clay
04-17-2011, 06:05 PM
Even/lopsided are subjective terms which you use at your own preferences and are coloured by your biases. The bottom line is Davydenko has beaten Nadal more than Nadal has beaten Davy. Likewise with Nadal against Federer. Whether you call it lopsided or fairly even is meaningless and arbitrary. Numbers don't lie.

6-4 is not lopsided. Period. Numbers don't lie.

MagneticCurls
04-17-2011, 06:06 PM
6-4 is not lopsided. Period. Numbers don't lie.

6-4 is "lopsided". Now what? :)

Sid_Vicious
04-17-2011, 06:06 PM
The *********s are out in full force today.

MagneticCurls
04-17-2011, 06:06 PM
Yeah, and Nadal owns almost every single one of them, except maybe Davydenko, on the other hand Federer...

Did you forget Hrbarty? :)

tennis_pro
04-17-2011, 06:08 PM
That H2H is pretty even, and they have only played 10 matches. We can't take much info out of that.

You are missing the point that most of the tournaments are played on outside HC and Nadal leads 4-1 in that department (if I'm not mistaken), so Nadal would still own the H2H by a big margin.

On top of that, at the beginning of the rivalry Federer had the advantage of playing Baby Nadal and now Nadal will have the upper hand when facing Old Federer, thus making the H2H even more embarrasing for Federer.

So there is no reason to suggest that their H2H is deceptive whatsoever.

Lol at the outdoor hardcourt being a different surface again. You never get bored of it, do you?

Cassius Clay
04-17-2011, 06:12 PM
Lol at the outdoor hardcourt being a different surface again. You never get bored of it, do you?

It's obvious they are not played the same, so you have to take that into consideration as well.

Sid_Vicious
04-17-2011, 06:13 PM
Lol at the outdoor hardcourt being a different surface again. You never get bored of it, do you?
Lol I love it. The generic *******:

"outdoor hardcourt record..."

"Rafa was just a mere fetus when he started beating Roger"

FEDERERNADAL13
04-17-2011, 06:16 PM
Well, I don't really agree with this Prime Fed stuff, but from 04-07 (apparently Fed's prime) Nadal lead the H2H 8-6. Interestingly, by surface, it was 6-1 Nadal on clay, 3-2 Fed on Hard, 2-0 Fed on grass. In grand slam matches, it was 3-2 Rafa, with 3 RG matches, and 2 SW19 matches. Also, from 2004-2007 the H2H was 6-4 for Rafa in finals. In semis, it was 2-1 Fed, and in other rounds (R32 to be exact) Nadal won the one match. Now, that's a pretty even H2H, and without clay events, that's 6-2 Fed. So, if you say that there's an equal amount of matches played on each surface, I tend to disagree, when Fed was in his "prime" at least.

aldeayeah
04-17-2011, 06:16 PM
1 Nadal, Rafael (ESP)
2 Djokovic, Novak (SRB)
3 Federer, Roger (SUI)
4 Murray, Andy (GBR)
5 Soderling, Robin (SWE)
6 Ferrer, David (ESP)
7 Berdych, Tomas (CZE)

I'd say the current top 7 is rather nice. With 2 slams coming, we're in for a severe reshuffling though.

tennis_pro
04-17-2011, 06:19 PM
It's obvious they are not played the same, so you have to take that into consideration as well.

Hey, why don't we just take hard courts out of the equation? Let's just stick with natural surfaces as real tennis should be played!

What was it? 11-4 for Nadal, then. Not good enough? Nadal not in his prime in 2006-2007, take out both Federer's wins at Wimbledon and in Hamburg. 11-1 Not good enough? Oh, Nadal was tired in Madrid in 2009. That gives us 11-0, thx for playing!

TheTruth
04-17-2011, 06:23 PM
Well, I don't really agree with this Prime Fed stuff, but from 04-07 (apparently Fed's prime) Nadal lead the H2H 8-6. Interestingly, by surface, it was 6-1 Nadal on clay, 3-2 Fed on Hard, 2-0 Fed on grass. In grand slam matches, it was 3-2 Rafa, with 3 RG matches, and 2 SW19 matches. Also, from 2004-2007 the H2H was 6-4 for Rafa in finals. In semis, it was 2-1 Fed, and in other rounds (R32 to be exact) Nadal won the one match. Now, that's a pretty even H2H, and without clay events, that's 6-2 Fed. So, if you say that there's an equal amount of matches played on each surface, I tend to disagree, when Fed was in his "prime" at least.

Federer is 5-7 years older than the guys you're comparing him to. So, Fed's prime is an unfair advantage to the youngsters he played against.

Basically, and this is a circular argument, people tend to say "prime Fed," but that also means the other players were barely coming out of their teens.

For example: Lleyton and Safin beat Sampras when he was 29-30 years old, IIRC, they never beat him during his prime. They were too young to be included in the competition, so this argument is full of holes, imo.

Cassius Clay
04-17-2011, 06:37 PM
Hey, why don't we just take hard courts out of the equation? Let's just stick with natural surfaces as real tennis should be played!

What was it? 11-4 for Nadal, then. Not good enough? Nadal not in his prime in 2006-2007, take out both Federer's wins at Wimbledon and in Hamburg. 11-1 Not good enough? Oh, Nadal was tired in Madrid in 2009. That gives us 11-0, thx for playing!

We don't have to take anything out of the equation. The real numbers are very telling. Nadal leads by a big margin on the two most played conditions: Outdoor HC and clay. Many of their matches were played by baby Nadal against prime Federer, so from now on it will get worse.

FEDERERNADAL13
04-17-2011, 06:41 PM
Federer is 5-7 years older than the guys you're comparing him to. So, Fed's prime is an unfair advantage to the youngsters he played against.

Basically, and this is a circular argument, people tend to say "prime Fed," but that also means the other players were barely coming out of their teens.

For example: Lleyton and Safin beat Sampras when he was 29-30 years old, IIRC, they never beat him during his prime. They were too young to be included in the competition, so this argument is full of holes, imo.

But since 19, Nadal has been the best clay courter around, so its not such a holey argument. So "barely coming out of their teens" is an odd argument. On grass and hard, maybe it was a younger, less dominant Nadal, but in my mind Fed continued to improve on clay far after his "prime" as well. So, neither was in top form on clay until later on in their careers. Plus, Nadal was a very early bloomer, compared to Fed who was a later bloomer in comparison (in tennis talk, that is). I don't want to get into a flame war, I just want to get my opinion across.

MagneticCurls
04-17-2011, 06:51 PM
Federer is 5-7 years older than the guys you're comparing him to. So, Fed's prime is an unfair advantage to the youngsters he played against.

Basically, and this is a circular argument, people tend to say "prime Fed," but that also means the other players were barely coming out of their teens.

For example: Lleyton and Safin beat Sampras when he was 29-30 years old, IIRC, they never beat him during his prime. They were too young to be included in the competition, so this argument is full of holes, imo.

Thank you for proving why H2H is meaningless.

TheTruth
04-17-2011, 07:07 PM
But since 19, Nadal has been the best clay courter around, so its not such a holey argument. So "barely coming out of their teens" is an odd argument. On grass and hard, maybe it was a younger, less dominant Nadal, but in my mind Fed continued to improve on clay far after his "prime" as well. So, neither was in top form on clay until later on in their careers. Plus, Nadal was a very early bloomer, compared to Fed who was a later bloomer in comparison (in tennis talk, that is). I don't want to get into a flame war, I just want to get my opinion across.

Me either. We should all be able to voice our opinions without people getting angry and resorting to name calling and flaming each other. I appreciate your approach and understand that's what you're doing, trying to get your point across.

The way I see it is, regardless of when Nadal demonstrated his clay court prowess, that was just a bonus. At the time many speculated that he would never continue it since he was an early bloomer a la Chang and Hewitt who he was compared to ad nauseum. But he did, and not only that he parlayed his success onto other surfaces. However, he was still at a disadvantage because he had to cut his teeth on the Blakes, Davydenkos, Murrays, and Djokovics on the tour simultaneously.

Nadal had to play the reigning "GOAT" and his peers (talented up and comers) while being the main rival to Federer.

On the other hand, when Federer went through those same years he had Pete, Agassi, Rafter, Kafelnikov, etc. to go through. He was able to play without even being in the same argument as Pete and co. That too is a big difference. He was able to perfect his game as he grew, and wasn't held to the same lofty standards.

I am not saying this to say Nadal is greater, or Fed is greater. That doesn't matter to me, because that too is a circular argument. Everyone can like who they want and come up with reasons why they feel that way and I don't have a problem with that.

I am just expressing my opinion on debates that imo, are illogical.

I have enjoyed the tennis that they have played against each other as I feel they have played some brilliant matches. But who is the greatest? I don't really care. We all have our opinions and preferences, but is that really a reason to go at each other's throats? I don't think so.

Omega_7000
04-17-2011, 07:29 PM
Thank you for proving why H2H is meaningless.

LOL :D

cc0509
04-17-2011, 07:50 PM
Even/lopsided are subjective terms which you use at your own preferences and are coloured by your biases. The bottom line is Davydenko has beaten Nadal more than Nadal has beaten Davy. Likewise with Nadal against Federer. Whether you call it lopsided or fairly even is meaningless and arbitrary. Numbers don't lie.

Right, and if you are going to say that h2h is the most important thing to judge who the greater player is, then you have to use this stat across the board. You can't make exceptions and qualifications that favor your own bias. If you believe Nadal>Federer based on h2h then Davydenko>Nadal.

cc0509
04-17-2011, 07:51 PM
The *********s are out in full force today.

And making more excuses and less sense than ever I may add!

Sid_Vicious
04-17-2011, 07:54 PM
And making more excuses and less sense than ever I may add!
The good thing is Yoda is getting great competition from them when it comes to arguing about who the "king" is. :lol:

MagneticCurls
04-17-2011, 07:54 PM
Right, and if you are going to say that h2h is the most important thing to judge who the greater player is, then you have to use this stat across the board. You can't make exceptions and qualifications that favor your own bias. If you believe Nadal>Federer based on h2h then Davydenko>Nadal.

Egggggggggggzactly. Why is all of this so difficult for *********s to comprehend?

cc0509
04-17-2011, 08:02 PM
Egggggggggggzactly. Why is all of this so difficult for *********s to comprehend?

I haven't the foggiest idea. I really try to understand it, but I don't get it. It really is a very simple concept. Only thing I can figure is they don't like Federer so they use whatever flimsy theories they can come up with to discount Federer and elevate Nadal? Other than that, I am stumped. I swear to God I like both Federer and Nadal but to me the stats and numbers are as plain as day right now. If they change in favor of Nadal, I will be the first one to support that.

cc0509
04-17-2011, 08:04 PM
The good thing is Yoda is getting great competition from them when it comes to arguing about who the "king" is. :lol:

LOL! The only King I know of is Elvis!

Cassius Clay
04-18-2011, 06:13 AM
Right, and if you are going to say that h2h is the most important thing to judge who the greater player is, then you have to use this stat across the board. You can't make exceptions and qualifications that favor your own bias. If you believe Nadal>Federer based on h2h then Davydenko>Nadal.

haha I think you are believing your own lies..

15-8 is not the same as 6-4. I wouldn't say Murray owns Federer, even though he is 8-6 ahead. You have to know how to interpret the data.

Heracles
04-18-2011, 06:20 AM
It is definitely not the weakest ever, some of Federer prime top 10 were very very bad with Ljubicic number 3, Blake number 4 (eventough I like Blake he was not top 5 material).

Robredo was even ranked number 5!!!!!!!!!!


That being said:

Monfils has been very average and he is 8th, that can't be explained.

Fish only plays well in america and has entered the top 10. That's bad.

Soderling being top 5 is not very good as well. At least he is no longer number 4.

tacou
04-18-2011, 06:55 AM
it is a bit weak right now but some injuries are going around with top guys..surprised Monfils is top 10 I cant remember the last time I saw him play, Paris?

more surprising is Almagro at 12. what does he do to get his points..?

hoodjem
04-18-2011, 07:11 AM
how about this top 10 circa 92-93

1 Courier, Jim (USA) 3,599
2 Edberg, Stefan (SWE) 3,244
3 Sampras, Pete (USA) 3,203
4 Becker, Boris (GER) 2,751
5 Ivanisevic, Goran (CRO) 2,716
6 Chang, Michael (USA) 2,373
7 Korda, Petr (CZE) 2,174
8 Lendl, Ivan (USA) 1,985
9 Agassi, Andre (USA) 1,852
10 Krajicek, Richard (NED) 1,801

everyone of these players a slam winner at one point or anotherThis suggests an interesting point: that we cannot evaluate the present era as weak or strong until all of these players retire, and then we know how many or few are slam winners.

MagneticCurls
04-18-2011, 07:18 AM
haha I think you are believing your own lies..

15-8 is not the same as 6-4. I wouldn't say Murray owns Federer, even though he is 8-6 ahead. You have to know how to interpret the data.

You mean with your own meaningless adjectives? 100000000-0 is 'lopsided'. 943333-3 is 'close'. Is that giving you any clue?

Cassius Clay
04-18-2011, 07:24 AM
You mean with your own meaningless adjectives? 100000000-0 is 'lopsided'. 943333-3 is 'close'. Is that giving you any clue?

You are the one in need of clues.

aphex
04-18-2011, 07:26 AM
You are the one in need of clues.

http://i726.photobucket.com/albums/ww261/OvisAmericanis/get-a-clue.gif

Mainad
04-18-2011, 07:31 AM
It is definitely not the weakest ever, some of
Monfils has been very average and he is 8th, that can't be explained.


Does seem strange.The last time I recall Monfils doing anything significant was in getting to the final of the Paris Masters late last year.Since then he's either absent from the tour through injury or goes out in the early rounds.Where has he built up his ranking points? I would have thought Tsonga was doing better than him.

Mainad
04-18-2011, 07:41 AM
it is a bit weak right now but some injuries are going
more surprising is Almagro at 12. what does he do to get his points..?

He won a couple of titles in South America at the start of the year (both 250s) and got to the final of a 500 event in Acapulco.He seems to build up his points by doing consistently well in the lower level tournaments.

As of today,he's moved up to no.11!

tenniswarrior
04-18-2011, 11:06 AM
Almagro is a WTA player.

cc0509
04-18-2011, 02:47 PM
haha I think you are believing your own lies..

15-8 is not the same as 6-4. I wouldn't say Murray owns Federer, even though he is 8-6 ahead. You have to know how to interpret the data.

Nice try but you will have to do better than that. Looking at the h2h as the sole criterion to determine if any player is better than another is stupid. You have to look at all the other statistics and records, etc. You are not going to change my mind, so don't even bother trying. Also, if you are going to use the h2h for one player you have to use it for the next. You can't qualify things according to your own bias. That is not why statistics were invented and that is not how they are supposed to be used--i.e. for your own mindless interpretation. You can't say h2h should not be used just because two players have not played a certain number of matches. Who says? You? Not good enough, sorry.

tacou
04-18-2011, 03:42 PM
He won a couple of titles in South America at the start of the year (both 250s) and got to the final of a 500 event in Acapulco.He seems to build up his points by doing consistently well in the lower level tournaments.

As of today,he's moved up to no.11!

Yes I know he gets a lot of his points on the Latin swing but didn't realize he did as well this year, i.e. I remember 2 or so years ago he did incredibly well in the Latin swing but was nowhere near top10. oh well I guess we will see...

Cassius Clay
04-18-2011, 04:43 PM
Nice try but you will have to do better than that. Looking at the h2h as the sole criterion to determine if any player is better than another is stupid. You have to look at all the other statistics and records, etc. You are not going to change my mind, so don't even bother trying. Also, if you are going to use the h2h for one player you have to use it for the next. You can't qualify things according to your own bias. That is not why statistics were invented and that is not how they are supposed to be used--i.e. for your own mindless interpretation. You can't say h2h should not be used just because two players have not played a certain number of matches. Who says? You? Not good enough, sorry.

I'm not trying to change your mind because I'm talking about facts and don't need you approval. There is no room for interpretation. If a player repeatedly beats another on different surfaces and the number of matches is big enough to make sure that bad days and injuries don't screw up the data, then that player is the better one. Period. Maybe not the most accomplished (yet) but certainly the better player.

Nadal- Davydenko -> 10 matches are not many, but if the H2H were 10-0 it could tell us much more. It's 6-4 and in the last match Nadal was ill, so that single match kind of screws the H2H a little bit. That's the reason why we need plenty of matches in order to draw conclusions from the H2H. 23 matches are quite enough to claim that Nadal is better than Federer (in general), especially when considering that Nadal is the younger. If it were 12-11 then we wouldn't be able to say much, but it is not.

And it's going to get worse because both Federer and Davydenko are getting older by the minute.

cc0509
04-18-2011, 04:51 PM
I'm not trying to change your mind because I'm talking about facts and don't need you approval. There is no room for interpretation. If a player repeatedly beats another on different surfaces and the number of matches is big enough to make sure that bad days and injuries don't screw up the data, then that player is the better one. Period. Maybe not the most accomplished (yet) but certainly the better player.

Nadal- Davydenko -> 10 matches are not many, but if the H2H were 10-0 it could tell us much more. It's 6-4 and in the last match Nadal was ill, so that single match kind of screws the H2H a little bit. That's the reason why we need plenty of matches in order to draw conclusions from the H2H. 23 matches are quite enough to claim that Nadal is better than Federer (in general), especially when considering that Nadal is the younger. If it were 12-11 then we wouldn't be able to say much, but it is not.

And it's going to get worse because both Federer and Davydenko are getting older by the minute.

But you are only looking at the h2h to determine who the better player is and that to me is wrong. What about all the other pertinent statistics and records that say Federer is currently still better. Do you simply ignore those?

Cassius Clay
04-18-2011, 05:21 PM
But you are only looking at the h2h to determine who the better player is and that to me is wrong. What about all the other pertinent statistics and records that say Federer is currently still better. Do you simply ignore those?

Federer right now is much more accomplished than Nadal, and if Nadal retired just now Federer would be considered the GOAT, no doubt about it, but Nadal has shown over the years that he is the better one by defeating him over and over, he just has to maintain this level to surpass Federer's titles count. Federer at Nadal's current age was not as accomplished as him.

Nadal might not be able to maintain his level for many years...who knows...it's just a matter of consistency.

MagneticCurls
04-18-2011, 05:23 PM
haha I think you are believing your own lies..

15-8 is not the same as 6-4. I wouldn't say Murray owns Federer, even though he is 8-6 ahead. You have to know how to interpret the data.

I'm not trying to change your mind because I'm talking about facts and don't need you approval. There is no room for interpretation. If a player repeatedly beats another on different surfaces and the number of matches is big enough to make sure that bad days and injuries don't screw up the data, then that player is the better one. Period. Maybe not the most accomplished (yet) but certainly the better player.


LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL, *********s at their best! :oops:

MagneticCurls
04-18-2011, 05:25 PM
Federer right now is much more accomplished than Nadal, and if Nadal retired just now Federer would be considered the GOAT, no doubt about it, but Nadal has shown over the years that he is the better one by defeating him over and over, he just has to maintain this level to surpass Federer's titles count. Federer at Nadal's current age was not as accomplished as him.

Nadal might not be able to maintain his level for many years...who knows...it's just a matter of consistency.

Wow, now a contradiction within the same post! :)

Bryan Swartz
04-18-2011, 05:26 PM
It isn't a contradiction. The argument being made is that Nadal is better, but Federer has achieved more due to having a longer career to date.

MagneticCurls
04-18-2011, 05:33 PM
Interesting, why wouldn't the better player achieve more? :) If Nadal is truly better, then we don't even have to wait for his career to end. The error you make is that your "betterness" is subjective. Only achievements matter, nothing more.

Bryan Swartz
04-18-2011, 05:39 PM
Cassius Clay's point is that Federer has had a much longer career, ergo total achievements are not a fair comparison until Nadal has reached the end of his career.

If you want to directly compare their achievements, do so when Federer was Nadal's age. That's the only direct comparison of achievements you can make.

MagneticCurls
04-18-2011, 05:41 PM
Cassius Clay's point is that Federer has had a much longer career, ergo total achievements are not a fair comparison until Nadal has reached the end of his career.

If you want to directly compare their achievements, do so when Federer was Nadal's age. That's the only direct comparison of achievements you can make.

I see so you don't want to compare achievements until Nadal's career is done, yet you want to declare him "better" before both of their careers are done. If you don't see that as a contradiction, then there is something wrong with you.

cc0509
04-18-2011, 05:42 PM
This is truly stupid. Whether Federer is the better player or has merely achieved more is a moot point. At the end of both of their careers, let's look at their achievements and records. We can then see who the better or player that has achieved more is. Long story short, it does not matter what any one of us thinks. If Nadal does not win 8 more slams nobody(aside from the extreme *******s) will consider him either better or as having achieved more than Federer. Simple.

tacou
04-18-2011, 05:45 PM
But you are only looking at the h2h to determine who the better player is and that to me is wrong. What about all the other pertinent statistics and records that say Federer is currently still better. Do you simply ignore those?

it is the word "better" that is being misused I think. Nadal is a bad matchup for Fed, as demonstrated by their h2h. if you had to wager your life on a Fed/Nadal match on a neutral surface, I don't know why anyone would bet on Fed because he loses to Nadal more often than he wins. those are the numbers.

all this does though, as I said, is prove that in a 1vs1 situation Nadal matches up "better" against Fed than vice versa. Who has had the "better" career? Federer without question.

I agree h2h is silly when talking about putting a career in perspective. If nadal led 14-2 or something, maybe it would be relevant to Fed's legacy, but as it stands Roger completely dominated the field, dominated the majors and masters, just dominated everything. his "career" with a single other player is very miniscule in comparison to his other numbers.

tennis_pro
04-18-2011, 05:45 PM
Wow, now a contradiction within the same post! :)

not only in the same post but in the same sentence!

MagneticCurls
04-18-2011, 05:45 PM
Whether someone thinks someone is better is a matter of opinion. The only objective criterion is achievements. If Nadal does not surpass Federer's slam count, he will never be considered 'better'. No matter how many times you harp on the H2H. Else Davydenko comes into the picture too! :)

cucio
04-18-2011, 05:53 PM
Hey! A Nadal is better than Federer or viceversa thread! Now this is new and exciting, and those arguments you guys bring up are mind-blowing.

This is my contribution:

http://shhac.info/x/b/sticky_this_thread.jpg

Bryan Swartz
04-18-2011, 05:57 PM
I see so you don't want to compare achievements until Nadal's career is done, yet you want to declare him "better" before both of their careers are done. If you don't see that as a contradiction, then there is something wrong with you.

No, that isn't what I said.

First of all, it isn't my argument. It's Cassius Clay's. I'm simply demonstrating how you are misrepresenting it.

Secondly, there's nothing against comparing achievements. But you don't compare 12 years of achievements against 7 and pretend it's an even comparison. So you either compare Federer's achievements at Nadal's age against Nadal's present achievements, or you wait until both players are done.

Cassius was declaring Nadal better based on the former: what Nadal has done vs. what Federer had done at the same age. We know this is his argument not because I say so but because he said so:

he just has to maintain this level to surpass Federer's titles count. Federer at Nadal's current age was not as accomplished as him.

Now if you want to actually address that argument, then the thread could possibly get somewhere ;).

Cassius Clay
04-18-2011, 06:02 PM
Whether someone thinks someone is better is a matter of opinion. The only objective criterion is achievements. If Nadal does not surpass Federer's slam count, he will never be considered 'better'. No matter how many times you harp on the H2H. Else Davydenko comes into the picture too! :)

Numbers are not a matter of opinion. 15-8 is domination and if Nadal hasn't surpassed Federer's slam count it's because he is almost 5 years younger, but he sure is the better player. As for Davydenko I'm not going to repeat myself, learn to read before posting about something already explained.

MagneticCurls
04-18-2011, 06:05 PM
If you use 15-8 to say Nadal is better than Federer, than you must use 6-4 to say Davy is better than Nadal. I can't really make this any clearer, and if you don't get it, then so be it.

bjk
04-18-2011, 06:05 PM
The latest top 10:


Nadal, Rafael (ESP)
Djokovic, Novak (SRB)
Federer, Roger (SUI)
Murray, Andy (GBR)
Soderling, Robin (SWE)
Ferrer, David (ESP)
Berdych, Tomas (CZE)
Melzer, Jurgen (AUT)
Monfils, Gael (FRA)
Fish, Mardy (USA)

bjk
04-18-2011, 06:06 PM
Something very piscatorial about this list . . .

MagneticCurls
04-18-2011, 06:08 PM
Something very piscatorial about this list . . .

Probably won't last long, Mardy is a flash in the pan.

Cassius Clay
04-18-2011, 06:11 PM
If you use 15-8 to say Nadal is better than Federer, than you must use 6-4 to say Davy is better than Nadal. I can't really make this any clearer, and if you don't get it, then so be it.

You are the one who doesn't get it. Already explained.

fruitytennis1
04-18-2011, 06:28 PM
I think tennis pro and MagneticCurls are competing for most useless posters

MagneticCurls
04-18-2011, 06:44 PM
You are the one who doesn't get it. Already explained.

Likewise I'm sure.

borg number one
04-18-2011, 06:52 PM
I think "weakest EVER" is a overstatement. You have Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic at the top. We'll see. If any of those three really decline significantly, the top ten would look pretty weak in my opinion overall. Murray and Soderling have been pretty tough in some majors, but their results have been pretty inconsistent, especially in finals. If the top three play really well this year though, I think that the majors will be really fascinating to watch this year.

powerangle
04-18-2011, 07:01 PM
Only at TW are there qualifications for Top 10 lists. :)

DjokerIsTheBest
04-18-2011, 07:27 PM
Sorry, but weak era theories just don't hold water.

Mikael
04-18-2011, 07:42 PM
Kind of ridiculous to say this is the weakest top 10 ever when the top 4 or even 5 are consistent slam contenders.

If you want to see a weak top 10 look no further than early 2000s or even more recently circa 2006 when friggin' Ljubicic was ranked 3. Today the same Ljubicic would be maybe 8 or 9.

RoddickAce
04-18-2011, 07:44 PM
No, that isn't what I said.

First of all, it isn't my argument. It's Cassius Clay's. I'm simply demonstrating how you are misrepresenting it.

Secondly, there's nothing against comparing achievements. But you don't compare 12 years of achievements against 7 and pretend it's an even comparison. So you either compare Federer's achievements at Nadal's age against Nadal's present achievements, or you wait until both players are done.

Cassius was declaring Nadal better based on the former: what Nadal has done vs. what Federer had done at the same age. We know this is his argument not because I say so but because he said so:



Now if you want to actually address that argument, then the thread could possibly get somewhere ;).

If we are to properly compare the years spent playing tennis vs. accomplishments, then we should compare achievements at the same amount years spent on tennis rather than the same age.

Nadal started playing when he was 3 (turned pro at age 15)

Federer started playing when he was 8 (turned pro at age 17)

At age 24, Nadal spent roughly 21 years playing tennis. Federer with 21 years of tennis is at age 29. Federer has 16 slams, Nadal has 9.

At age 24, Nadal spent roughly 9 years on the ATP tour. Federer with 9 years of professional tennis is at age 26. Both had 9 slams.

*Note that the above analysis only takes into consideration accomplishments based on years spent playing tennis, which is a completely different argument than whether one is competent enough to win at a younger or older age.

lendledbergfan
04-18-2011, 07:57 PM
How about this as the weakest top-10?

1 Federer, Roger (SUI) 8,370 0 19
2 Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 4,470 0 19
3 Davydenko, Nikolay (RUS) 2,825 0 32
4 Blake, James (USA) 2,530 0 26
5 Ljubicic, Ivan (CRO) 2,495 0 22
6 Roddick, Andy (USA) 2,415 0 21
7 Robredo, Tommy (ESP) 2,375 0 27
8 Nalbandian, David (ARG) 2,295 0 17
9 Ancic, Mario (CRO) 2,060 0 24
10 Gonzalez, Fernando (CHI) 2,015 0 20

Bryan Swartz
04-18-2011, 07:58 PM
If we are to properly compare the years spent playing tennis vs. accomplishments, then we should compare achievements at the same amount years spent on tennis rather than the same age.

No, because nothing that anybody achieves between age 3 and 8 has any significance in a discussion of who was better as a pro. When comparing achievements, you are talking about what they did as professionals. Furthermore, when looking ahead to what it will look like when both are retired, nobody will care if Nadal went pro two years earlier. If his achievements are greater than Federer's, the fact that he was pro at 15 and Fed at 17 is not a consideration.

Pozarevacka
04-18-2011, 08:12 PM
how about this top 10 circa 92-93

1 Courier, Jim (USA) 3,599
2 Edberg, Stefan (SWE) 3,244
3 Sampras, Pete (USA) 3,203
4 Becker, Boris (GER) 2,751
5 Ivanisevic, Goran (CRO) 2,716
6 Chang, Michael (USA) 2,373
7 Korda, Petr (CZE) 2,174
8 Lendl, Ivan (USA) 1,985
9 Agassi, Andre (USA) 1,852
10 Krajicek, Richard (NED) 1,801

everyone of these players a slam winner at one point or another

i mean Verdasco, Melzer, Monfils lol

I'd like to see if anyone can find a better top 10 at any point of history than that. Not many points separating those guys either.

Pozarevacka
04-18-2011, 08:13 PM
Almagro is a WTA player.

hahah, I thought this was pretty funny...

Pozarevacka
04-18-2011, 08:17 PM
I think tennis pro and MagneticCurls are competing for most useless posters

I don't know. I think Magneto has been on his game this thread. Hard to find any flaws.

borg number one
04-18-2011, 08:31 PM
1 Courier, Jim (USA) 3,599
2 Edberg, Stefan (SWE) 3,244
3 Sampras, Pete (USA) 3,203
4 Becker, Boris (GER) 2,751
5 Ivanisevic, Goran (CRO) 2,716
6 Chang, Michael (USA) 2,373
7 Korda, Petr (CZE) 2,174
8 Lendl, Ivan (USA) 1,985
9 Agassi, Andre (USA) 1,852
10 Krajicek, Richard (NED) 1,801

That's a great top 10 no doubt. 1980 was also stacked as well with Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Vilas, Gerulaitis, Clerc, Tanner, Pecci, and Gene Mayer in the top 10 for much of the year.

RoddickAce
04-18-2011, 08:38 PM
No, because nothing that anybody achieves between age 3 and 8 has any significance in a discussion of who was better as a pro. When comparing achievements, you are talking about what they did as professionals. Furthermore, when looking ahead to what it will look like when both are retired, nobody will care if Nadal went pro two years earlier. If his achievements are greater than Federer's, the fact that he was pro at 15 and Fed at 17 is not a consideration.

Please note the last sentence in my previous post:

"*Note that the above analysis only takes into consideration accomplishments based on years spent playing tennis, which is a completely different argument than whether one is competent enough to win at a younger or older age."

cc0509
04-18-2011, 08:42 PM
No, because nothing that anybody achieves between age 3 and 8 has any significance in a discussion of who was better as a pro. When comparing achievements, you are talking about what they did as professionals. Furthermore, when looking ahead to what it will look like when both are retired, nobody will care if Nadal went pro two years earlier. If his achievements are greater than Federer's, the fact that he was pro at 15 and Fed at 17 is not a consideration.

Bravo! I could not agree more.

georgerou
04-18-2011, 08:42 PM
Joke thread. Maybe we've had the strongest top 2 ever?



HAHA Yea right

tennis_pro
04-19-2011, 07:23 AM
I'd like to see if anyone can find a better top 10 at any point of history than that. Not many points separating those guys either.

I found one in which the top 7 looks very tough

Year-end-1985 rankings

1. Ivan Lendl
2. John McEnroe
3. Mats Wilander
4. Jimmy Connors
5. Stefan Edberg
6. Boris Becker
7. Yannick Noah
....
....
8. Anders Jarryd
9. Miroslav Mecir
10. Kevin Curren

bjk
04-19-2011, 09:09 AM
How about this as the weakest top-10?

1 Federer, Roger (SUI) 8,370 0 19
2 Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 4,470 0 19
3 Davydenko, Nikolay (RUS) 2,825 0 32
4 Blake, James (USA) 2,530 0 26
5 Ljubicic, Ivan (CRO) 2,495 0 22
6 Roddick, Andy (USA) 2,415 0 21
7 Robredo, Tommy (ESP) 2,375 0 27
8 Nalbandian, David (ARG) 2,295 0 17
9 Ancic, Mario (CRO) 2,060 0 24
10 Gonzalez, Fernando (CHI) 2,015 0 20


Only three slam winners. That's a pretty good contender for weakest.

blipblop
04-19-2011, 09:19 AM
This suggests an interesting point: that we cannot evaluate the present era as weak or strong until all of these players retire, and then we know how many or few are slam winners.

+1 to this. also, we have more access to recent data, whereas the farther you go back, the harder it is to find a ranking list at any given time. anything before 2006 in this thread (that i can remember) has been a year-end ranking. there may have been a span in say, 1998, that may have had some "weak" players in the top ten, but no one can see it.

so while it's hard to say for sure, i will say that yea there probably are some guys up there now that may not deserve to be. but hey, that's the nature of the game, i believe the ranking system does a decent job overall.

lastly, recent data may also be skewed if you're mainly looking at the number of guys who have won a slam out of the ten. two of the greatest players ever (if not the top two ever) are on the list, and they have been hogging all the slams with the exception of djoker. delpo got injured, and to me still has to prove if he can get it back together. it's definitely a transitional period, with roger not AS dominant as he used to be, and the year isn't over yet.

tennis_pro
04-19-2011, 10:32 AM
Only three slam winners. That's a pretty good contender for weakest.

Exactly as it is right now with only Djokovic Nadal and Federer as Slam winners even though Fed is almost 30 and looks unlikely atm to add to his tally.

tennis_pro
04-19-2011, 10:40 AM
Found another pretty weak top 10: (mid 2000)

1 Agassi, Andre (USA)
2 Sampras, Pete (USA)
3 Kafelnikov, Yevgeny (RUS)
4 Norman, Magnus (SWE)
5 Kuerten, Gustavo (BRA)
6 Pioline, Cedric (FRA)
7 Lapentti, Nicolas (ECU)
8 Kiefer, Nicolas (GER)
9 Enqvist, Thomas (SWE)
10 Henman, Tim (GBR)

The field dominated by 2 players aged around 30 should tell you the whole story.

kiki
04-19-2011, 12:29 PM
I was gonna bring that up at one point. I mean dang what a top 10! Together they won 50 Slams throughout the years.

A pity that THAT'S the top 10 the ***********s use to say how Pete's competition was tough, they forget that it got way worse and by 1996-1998 it was rather poor.

...and Bruguera,Stich,Muster out of the top 10¡¡¡

kiki
04-19-2011, 12:32 PM
1980:
1.Borg
2.Mc Enroe
3.Connors
4.Lendl
5.Vilas
6.Gerulaitis
7.Clerc
8.Mayer
9.Tanner
10.Solomon

6 multiple slam winners .Not bad.

Dilettante
04-19-2011, 12:39 PM
If you count at the end of 1992: 25
If you count at the end of 1993: 28

Good point there, tho. We're gonna look at the current (or the 2008-2010 top 10 at least) top 10 a couple years from now saying how strong it actually was, Federer could win another 1-2 majors, Nadal has a couple more in him, same with Djokovic, Murray and Del Potro could win a Slam here and there making the total of them close to 50 (it's 27 for Federer/Nadal/Djokovic already at this point)

Smart point.

tacou
04-19-2011, 02:14 PM
anyone know the "closest" top 10, i.e. least amount of points separating 1 and 10 ?

TMF
04-19-2011, 02:37 PM
1980:
1.Borg
2.Mc Enroe
3.Connors
4.Lendl
5.Vilas
6.Gerulaitis
7.Clerc
8.Mayer
9.Tanner
10.Solomon

6 multiple slam winners .Not bad.

I'm sure any of the old-timers can poke holes from those list but they aren't going to. E.g. Lendl didn't win his 1st slam til 1984. And were some of those players have past their prime? Just asking.

borg number one
04-19-2011, 02:55 PM
I'm sure any of the old-timers can poke holes from those list but they aren't going to. E.g. Lendl didn't win his 1st slam til 1984. And were some of those players have past their prime? Just asking.

TMF, Lendl was definitely a bit like Murray (but he had way more game in many ways). He didn't break through with a win at a major until the 1984 FO, but look at who he had losses to at the majors: Borg at the FO, McEnroe/Connors at Wimbledon and the US Open (from 1981-1983). Extremely tough customers. That's a part of the reason I think he got so tough later. Look at the tennis lessons he got through 1984! Even then, he was extremely good by 1980. For example, see this excerpt on his record from 1979-1981.

Lendl made an almost immediate impact on the game after turning professional. After reaching his first top-level singles final in 1979, he won seven singles titles in 1980, including three tournament wins in three consecutive weeks on three different surfaces. The success continued in 1981 as he won 10 titles including his first season ending Masters Grand Prix tour title defeating Vitas Gerulaitis in five sets.

In 1982, he won in total 15 of the 23 singles tournaments he entered and had a 44-match winning streak.

As for the others, Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Vilas, and Clerc were all still quite young and very, very good. Gene Mayer couldn't sustain that 1980 level much longer (injuries partly to blame). Tanner and Solomon were both still very good and in their late 20's. Then, you had very tough players from 11-20 as well, including players like Higueras, Amritraj, Pecci, Dibbs, and Kriek. In short, 1980 was stacked with a lot of great players. The top five in 1980 just might be the best top five ever. It's right up there with any top five that you'll see.

Moose Malloy
04-19-2011, 05:33 PM
anyone know the "closest" top 10, i.e. least amount of points separating 1 and 10 ?

maybe this? less than 1300 pts between 1 & 10.

3/2/98

1 Sampras, Pete (USA) 3,716
2 Korda, Petr (CZE) 3,391
3 Rafter, Patrick (AUS) 3,211
4 Kafelnikov, Yevgeny (RUS) 3,027
5 Bjorkman, Jonas (SWE) 2,985
6 Rusedski, Greg (GBR) 2,806
7 Rios, Marcelo (CHI) 2,777
8 Chang, Michael (USA) 2,686
9 Corretja, Alex (ESP) 2,551
10 Krajicek, Richard (NED) 2,457


Rios would be #1 on 3/30/98 going from #7 to #1 in just 2 tournaments.

Moose Malloy
04-19-2011, 05:43 PM
1022 pts between 1 & 10

3/8/99

1 Sampras, Pete (USA) 3,449
2 Kafelnikov, Yevgeny (RUS) 3,382
3 Corretja, Alex (ESP) 3,250
4 Moya, Carlos (ESP) 3,234
5 Rafter, Patrick (AUS) 3,134
6 Rios, Marcelo (CHI) 2,880
7 Henman, Tim (GBR) 2,764
8 Krajicek, Richard (NED) 2,619
9 Agassi, Andre (USA) 2,491
10 Rusedski, Greg (GBR) 2,427

Moya would be #1 the following week.

kiki
04-20-2011, 12:00 PM
1 Courier, Jim (USA) 3,599
2 Edberg, Stefan (SWE) 3,244
3 Sampras, Pete (USA) 3,203
4 Becker, Boris (GER) 2,751
5 Ivanisevic, Goran (CRO) 2,716
6 Chang, Michael (USA) 2,373
7 Korda, Petr (CZE) 2,174
8 Lendl, Ivan (USA) 1,985
9 Agassi, Andre (USA) 1,852
10 Krajicek, Richard (NED) 1,801

That's a great top 10 no doubt. 1980 was also stacked as well with Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Vilas, Gerulaitis, Clerc, Tanner, Pecci, and Gene Mayer in the top 10 for much of the year.

I love your 1980 top ten.No match in talent´s terms.And in style´s diversity.

kiki
04-20-2011, 12:05 PM
I'm sure any of the old-timers can poke holes from those list but they aren't going to. E.g. Lendl didn't win his 1st slam til 1984. And were some of those players have past their prime? Just asking.

Sorry, 7 GS winners, I left out Tanner ( AO champ in 77).Sorry for that,Roscoe...
and, sure, Lendl wasn´t at his peak, but from what I saw in 80-81, he didn´t play much better later on.But, to compensate , Borg was at HIS PRIME in 1980 , as much as Vitas and Roscoe.Born Nº1 added Pecci ( probably instead of Solomon).I agree.This top 10 is unbelievable...but in 75 we had:

Connors-Ashe-Borg-Newcombe-Vilas-Rosewall-Laver-Orantes-Panatta-Tanner

¿ do you know how many slams they won combined?

kiki
04-20-2011, 01:19 PM
Only three slam winners. That's a pretty good contender for weakest.

Very very weak era.Not that the players weren´t talented to compete in another era.But the books will pass through it fast.

kiki
04-20-2011, 01:26 PM
TMF, Lendl was definitely a bit like Murray (but he had way more game in many ways). He didn't break through with a win at a major until the 1984 FO, but look at who he had losses to at the majors: Borg at the FO, McEnroe/Connors at Wimbledon and the US Open (from 1981-1983). Extremely tough customers. That's a part of the reason I think he got so tough later. Look at the tennis lessons he got through 1984! Even then, he was extremely good by 1980. For example, see this excerpt on his record from 1979-1981.



As for the others, Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Vilas, and Clerc were all still quite young and very, very good. Gene Mayer couldn't sustain that 1980 level much longer (injuries partly to blame). Tanner and Solomon were both still very good and in their late 20's. Then, you had very tough players from 11-20 as well, including players like Higueras, Amritraj, Pecci, Dibbs, and Kriek. In short, 1980 was stacked with a lot of great players. The top five in 1980 just might be the best top five ever. It's right up there with any top five that you'll see.

BN1, you are just calling out the golden era of tennis¡¡¡.Now, Borg,Lend,Mc andJimbo were the cream on top of the cake.very good second stringers ( which are much better than today´s 5-8 players) included AO champs like Gerulaitis and Tanner, 4 slams winner like Vilas and his country man Jose Luis Clerc.

¿ going downwrds?

Kriek ( 2 AO), Noah ( 1 FO), Gomez (1 FO), Gottfried,Fibak,Amritraj,Ramirez,Pecci,Higueras,Ma yer,Teacher (1 AO), Gildemester,Solomon,Fibak,Dibbs,Barazutti, Orantes (1 USO, 1 YEC), Panatta ( 1 FO, 1 DC), Sadri,Scanlon,Curren,Mottram,Gunthardt,Taroczy,Smi d,Teltscher,Purcell....

lendledbergfan
04-20-2011, 01:28 PM
Exactly as it is right now with only Djokovic Nadal and Federer as Slam winners even though Fed is almost 30 and looks unlikely atm to add to his tally.

The problem with the 2006 list is that only Nalbandian among the others had reached a major final (and that too way back in 2002). Gonzalez had not yet reached a major final (that would be 2007). So 6 players hadn't yet reached a major final, and one other will have only played one of them.

Compare it to today. Murray - 3 major finals. Soderling - 2. Berdych - 1.

The other four all have reached major semis.

In the 2006 one, Blake and Robredo never reached major semis. Gonzalez didn't reach a single semi till then. I agree this field is pretty weak, but the 2006 one was even weaker.

(And I agree with someone else, that one year back, the field very pretty strong, just after the AO '10).

kiki
04-20-2011, 01:40 PM
In the early 80´s you had guys that ranked below top ten like Kriek ( 2 AO) ,Noah ( 1 FO),Gomez (1 FO).Curren played 2 GS finals, yet he was a top 20...¿Can you imagine a GS winner today ranked in the 16, 17 th position?

Heracles
04-20-2011, 01:42 PM
Almagro needs one more win to enter the top 10.

With a good seed he can rack up the points during the clay season.

kiki
04-20-2011, 02:23 PM
We lack the perspective to affirm this is the weakest top 10 of any time.It certainly isn´t a strong top ten.But we have to give its players, 2-3 more years to improve the rating.After that, we can give a stronger opinion...

FlamEnemY
04-20-2011, 02:24 PM
In the early 80´s you had guys that ranked below top ten like Kriek ( 2 AO) ,Noah ( 1 FO),Gomez (1 FO).Curren played 2 GS finals, yet he was a top 20...¿Can you imagine a GS winner today ranked in the 16, 17 th position?

Why yes, I can. There's a two-time GS winner ranked 61st.

Your point?

kiki
04-20-2011, 02:29 PM
Why yes, I can. There's a two-time GS winner ranked 61st.

Your point?

You are refeering to old , out of form guys ? I don´t know what you mean, if Ferrero is an example, it is a bad one.When I refeered to the early 80´s and gave the cases of a Noah or a Gomez, those guys were near their peak, which isn´t the case of a Ferrero.

I just used those names to enhance the utter competitiveness of an era that the people that lived through called, not by chance, the Golden Era.If today is the Golden Era, I must say, take all the gold with you...and switch off.

TMF
04-20-2011, 03:00 PM
Sorry, 7 GS winners, I left out Tanner ( AO champ in 77).Sorry for that,Roscoe...
and, sure, Lendl wasn´t at his peak, but from what I saw in 80-81, he didn´t play much better later on.But, to compensate , Borg was at HIS PRIME in 1980 , as much as Vitas and Roscoe.Born Nº1 added Pecci ( probably instead of Solomon).I agree.This top 10 is unbelievable...but in 75 we had:

Connors-Ashe-Borg-Newcombe-Vilas-Rosewall-Laver-Orantes-Panatta-Tanner

¿ do you know how many slams they won combined?

Using number of slam combined is misleading. Laver has 11 slams in 1975 but he was way past his primed. Would you rather have Fed today(16 slams) or Fed in 2005(6 slams)? Sampras 2002(14 slams) or Sampras 1995(7 slams)? See my point? The list you have are either they past their prime or still young and improving.

Plus, the top 100 must be pretty weak in compared to today since those players didn’t have hard time hovering around the top 10.

kiki
04-20-2011, 03:11 PM
Using number of slam combined is misleading. Laver has 11 slams in 1975 but he was way past his primed. Would you rather have Fed today(16 slams) or Fed in 2005(6 slams)? Sampras 2002(14 slams) or Sampras 1995(7 slams)? See my point? The list you have are either they past their prime or still young and improving.

Plus, the top 100 must be pretty weak in compared to today since those players didn’t have hard time hovering around the top 10.

Any year top ten will be static, since there will be stablished players going down ( laver and Rosewall in 75), player reaching their peak (Connors,Vilas,Borg), and up and coming guys.I agree.But that will happen to any given list.

I don´t think the deepth is better now than in the late 70´s or early 80´s.Back then, and this is just my impression, the top 100 guys were just as competitive as today.Just forget about equipment, strings and rackets for a while.We are just talking about competitiveness.Don´t forget that tennis was, in that time, extremely popular ( i.e US never had as much top 100 players like then), with a borad base, and increasing given the professionalism and the money involved.If you mean today´s nº 89 would beat 1980 ranked 89, I just don´t know.But the platform for, at least , the top 1000 players, I cannot see it was weaker then than it is now.

TMF
04-21-2011, 01:12 PM
Any year top ten will be static, since there will be stablished players going down ( laver and Rosewall in 75), player reaching their peak (Connors,Vilas,Borg), and up and coming guys.I agree.But that will happen to any given list.

I don´t think the deepth is better now than in the late 70´s or early 80´s.Back then, and this is just my impression, the top 100 guys were just as competitive as today.Just forget about equipment, strings and rackets for a while.We are just talking about competitiveness.Don´t forget that tennis was, in that time, extremely popular ( i.e US never had as much top 100 players like then), with a borad base, and increasing given the professionalism and the money involved.If you mean today´s nº 89 would beat 1980 ranked 89, I just don´t know.But the platform for, at least , the top 1000 players, I cannot see it was weaker then than it is now.

Today’s top 10 players are all in their 20s. None of them are under 20 or over 30 yrs old. The depth of the competition doesn’t allow players well past their prime to sustain in the top 10, or teenage players making the top 10.

In 1975, 5 out of the 10 top players from your list are not in their 20s. Borg was under 20s. Ashe, Newcombe, Laver are over 30s. Rosewall was over 40 !
It’s a testament of the top 100 players was WEAK which allowed them to hovering in the top ten. It’s obvious the top players doesn’t get challenge much since there wasn’t much talented players exist during those day. Winning slams means you have to compete and beat the entire field. And I can only say it’s easier to win slams in those day if you have some talent. Today, having talent doesn’t even ensure you to make the pro tour.

It’s very difficult for players in their 30s today staying the top ten, let alone a 40+.

LetsGoRoddick
04-21-2011, 09:50 PM
I disagree somewhat. Soderling, Ferrer and Berdych are all great players who have shown that they can go deep at slams and masters.

kiki
04-22-2011, 01:36 AM
Today’s top 10 players are all in their 20s. None of them are under 20 or over 30 yrs old. The depth of the competition doesn’t allow players well past their prime to sustain in the top 10, or teenage players making the top 10.

In 1975, 5 out of the 10 top players from your list are not in their 20s. Borg was under 20s. Ashe, Newcombe, Laver are over 30s. Rosewall was over 40 !
It’s a testament of the top 100 players was WEAK which allowed them to hovering in the top ten. It’s obvious the top players doesn’t get challenge much since there wasn’t much talented players exist during those day. Winning slams means you have to compete and beat the entire field. And I can only say it’s easier to win slams in those day if you have some talent. Today, having talent doesn’t even ensure you to make the pro tour.

It’s very difficult for players in their 30s today staying the top ten, let alone a 40+.

If you compare top 10 players of 75 to today´s, career wise, I think only federer and nadal would make that list.

BTW, here are guys not ranked in the top 10 - some never broke even in the top 15- and now tell me if that´s weak

Ramirez,Dibbs,Solomon,Gottfried,Stockton,Barazutti ,Fibak,Alexander,Dent,Roche,Mottram,Cox,Fillol,Cas e,Higueras,Drisdale,Moore,Hewitt,Lutz,Riessen,Smit h,Richey,Franulovic,Meiler,Kodes,Okker,Tanner,Geru laitis,Sandy Mayer,Metrevali,Borowiak,Amritraj.....I´m usre any, absolutley any fan that has followed tennis from then till now will exaclty place in their minds

kiki
04-22-2011, 01:37 AM
Today’s top 10 players are all in their 20s. None of them are under 20 or over 30 yrs old. The depth of the competition doesn’t allow players well past their prime to sustain in the top 10, or teenage players making the top 10.

In 1975, 5 out of the 10 top players from your list are not in their 20s. Borg was under 20s. Ashe, Newcombe, Laver are over 30s. Rosewall was over 40 !
It’s a testament of the top 100 players was WEAK which allowed them to hovering in the top ten. It’s obvious the top players doesn’t get challenge much since there wasn’t much talented players exist during those day. Winning slams means you have to compete and beat the entire field. And I can only say it’s easier to win slams in those day if you have some talent. Today, having talent doesn’t even ensure you to make the pro tour.

It’s very difficult for players in their 30s today staying the top ten, let alone a 40+.

If you compare top 10 players of 75 to today´s, career wise, I think only federer and nadal would make that list.

BTW, here are guys not ranked in the top 10 - some never broke even in the top 15- and now tell me if that´s weak

Ramirez,Dibbs,Solomon,Gottfried,Stockton,Barazutti ,Fibak,Alexander,Dent,Roche,Mottram,Cox,Fillol,Cas e,Higueras,Drisdale,Moore,Hewitt,Lutz,Riessen,Smit h,Richey,Franulovic,Meiler,Kodes,Okker,Tanner,Geru laitis,Sandy Mayer,Metrevali,Borowiak,Amritraj.....I´m usre any, absolutley any fan that has followed tennis from then till now will exactly place in their minds ALL OF THOSE PLAYERS MENTIONED.ALL OF THEM.

Now, tell me, how many today´s fans would really have a clear picture of guy ranked 35 or 45? that´s just a bit of a difference, isn´t that?

cork_screw
04-22-2011, 01:56 AM
This thread is pretty much a waste of time. It's more or so a debate between 9 or 10. I don't see how you could argue the #5 seed being a weaker player than 10. Oh yeah and I forgot a little something. THEY'RE RANKED ACCORDING TO THEIR RESULTS, NO SH*T THEIR RANKING IS GOING TO INDICATE WHO IS A BETTER PLAYER OVER THE NEXT. What is wrong with people?

kiki
04-22-2011, 12:23 PM
Came up after watching live the best cc players in an ATP Tournament ( all of hem except Federer)..sorry, kids, but Laver is still the GOAT.

tennis_pro
04-22-2011, 01:20 PM
Came up after watching live the best cc players in an ATP Tournament ( all of hem except Federer)..sorry, kids, but Laver is still the GOAT.

No offence but even if he played today with today's equippment etc. he'd still be nowhere near the top, a guy who's 5 ft 7 in (170 cm) today's game has a Rochus-type career. The SHORTEST player in the top 10 is David Ferrer who is 5 ft 9 (175 cm) and the rest is at least 6 ft 1 (185 cm).

LOL

Bud
04-22-2011, 01:34 PM
Joke thread. Maybe we've had the strongest top 2 ever?

I think this is more the case :)

We're in an era where 2 players - Nadal/Federer - have won nearly every GS title since 2003. Federer has been dominant on HC and grass (and excellent on clay) while Nadal has been dominant on clay and grass (and excellent on HC). If these 2 were not around, the GS trophies would have been spread around more evenly like in that 1992/93 lineup.

We potentially have the two most successful players in the Open Era playing concurrently. Would be great if people recognize, honor and appreciate that fact.

TheBoom
04-22-2011, 01:44 PM
Melzer can actually be very successful but he is somewhat inconsistent however he is very successful in doubles. Berdych Soderling and Ferrer are all good as well. I think that we focus so much on Nadal Federer and Djokovic it seems that everyone else is second rate when in reality this is not necessarily the case

TMF
04-22-2011, 01:45 PM
If you compare top 10 players of 75 to today´s, career wise, I think only federer and nadal would make that list.

BTW, here are guys not ranked in the top 10 - some never broke even in the top 15- and now tell me if that´s weak

Ramirez,Dibbs,Solomon,Gottfried,Stockton,Barazutti ,Fibak,Alexander,Dent,Roche,Mottram,Cox,Fillol,Cas e,Higueras,Drisdale,Moore,Hewitt,Lutz,Riessen,Smit h,Richey,Franulovic,Meiler,Kodes,Okker,Tanner,Geru laitis,Sandy Mayer,Metrevali,Borowiak,Amritraj.....I´m usre any, absolutley any fan that has followed tennis from then till now will exactly place in their minds ALL OF THOSE PLAYERS MENTIONED.ALL OF THEM.

Now, tell me, how many today´s fans would really have a clear picture of guy ranked 35 or 45? that´s just a bit of a difference, isn´t that?

I don't see your point at all. Just b/c you listed the names of those players doesn't say anything about them in the same level as today. There's been discussion about the top 100 today vs. the top 100 in the past, and fans have conceded that today's depth > past(ask BN#1, he'll tell you).

There's no point of comparing career wise b/c these players are still active.


One can argue that there's no way a 40+ Rosewall can hovering around the top ten in this era. He would be in a senior tour.

kiki
04-22-2011, 01:56 PM
No offence but even if he played today with today's equippment etc. he'd still be nowhere near the top, a guy who's 5 ft 7 in (170 cm) today's game has a Rochus-type career. The SHORTEST player in the top 10 is David Ferrer who is 5 ft 9 (175 cm) and the rest is at least 6 ft 1 (185 cm).

LOL

In fact I saw Ferrer recently play at his top...if you ain´t seen Laver play, please, shut up your mouth and listen to people that knows a bit about this sport¡¡¡

borg number one
04-22-2011, 02:38 PM
Laver is NOTHING like Rochus. The difference is like night and day (and that is not a criticism of Rochus, Laver is just not comparable). Laver was a little taller and much stronger than Rochus. Beyond that, he could do about 1000 things with the ball that Rochus could not.

On the topics discussed above by TMF, I think we are mixing apples and oranges up a bit in the discussion. I think that nowadays, with more total players competing in the pros (more prize money, the game has spread to asia, eastern europe, and south america even more, yet the traditional powers (Australia, G.B., and the U.S.A.) are producing fewer players than the late 1970's for example), I do think there is some more TOTAL DEPTH in the Game (say in the 50-1000 range generally speaking). So, yes, more competition in that way with more players competing. Yet, I also look at basically "depth at the very top". I do not think that the field is deeper today relative to many past eras/time periods (certain past eras, not every past era). Looking at 1-10, or 1-20 in a given year is different than looking at the depth from say 500-1000. In the past, I think there were several times, 1980, 1985, 1990, and 1995 for example when there was more "depth at the top", meaning the top 10 was better/tougher as well as the top 5, and probably top 20 as well. These are the very top guys in a given year/era. I do not think that more "overall depth" translates into more great players being produced automatically. In addition, there is something special that happens when great players face off against each other and make each other better. I think it's another reason why the top 10 today is somewhat lacking when compared to say the top 10 in 1980 or 1995. Steel sharpening steel so to speak. So, when you have say Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Vilas, Gerualitis, and Clerc in the top 10, you have a stronger top 10 than today, and it's not just because you don't have just two guys winning the majors. In 1980-1981, only McEnroe and Borg won the big majors (not the AO, because they didn't even play it back then), but that did not prevent other players from exhibiting greatness. Lendl was super tough. So was Vilas, Gerulaitis, and even Clerc didn't win any big majors in those years, but they were still better than guys like Murray, Soderling, Berdych, and Ferrer. Just my opinion.

borg number one
04-22-2011, 02:42 PM
If you think bigger numbers AUTOMATICALLY produce more great players, I want you to answer this question:

Why hasn't Spain produced another player even in the top 100 under the age of about 24 since Nadal and company have thrived in recent years? They've got more players training right? Why is there not another Ferrer, Ferrero, Moya emerging then? It should be automatic with the bigger numbers, the training systems in place, bigger investments, etc. Where are the young guys that are about 20 at least in the top 100?

Producing great players is not automatic and you can't simply manufacture them with a system. Champions are born and not just made.

On the topic of no young guys or older guys in the top 10, I think part of the problem is that players are more injury prone these days given the predominant playing style and also the emphasis on hard courts (more injuries, more wear and tear). So, more players are getting injured badly (knee, hip, ankle injuries), which prevents them from competing well past 30 (contrast that with Rosewall playing many years on grass and clay). So that's one difference. On the lack of really young players, I think that could very well change in a few years ( I think that is a bit more random). Having said that, look at Nadal. He's been a prodigy and he's on top now, with achievements that have closely tracked Borg's rise between the ages of 18-24, so I don't think the lack of really young guys is really going to be very permanent. I do think that in the future, given current conditions, guys past 30 will find it harder and harder to remain in the top 10.

heftylefty
04-22-2011, 02:54 PM
borg number one, Dude, will you stop making sense with reasoned remarks and go back to posting cool @ss pics of Borg.

Thanks.

fed_rulz
04-22-2011, 05:32 PM
If you think bigger numbers AUTOMATICALLY produce more great players, I want you to answer this question:

Why hasn't Spain produced another player even in the top 100 under the age of about 24 since Nadal and company have thrived in recent years? They've got more players training right? Why is there not another Ferrer, Ferrero, Moya emerging then? It should be automatic with the bigger numbers, the training systems in place, bigger investments, etc. Where are the young guys that are about 20 at least in the top 100?

Producing great players is not automatic and you can't simply manufacture them with a system. Champions are born and not just made.

On the topic of no young guys or older guys in the top 10, I think part of the problem is that players are more injury prone these days given the predominant playing style and also the emphasis on hard courts (more injuries, more wear and tear). So, more players are getting injured badly (knee, hip, ankle injuries), which prevents them from competing well past 30 (contrast that with Rosewall playing many years on grass and clay). So that's one difference. On the lack of really young players, I think that could very well change in a few years ( I think that is a bit more random). Having said that, look at Nadal. He's been a prodigy and he's on top now, with achievements that have closely tracked Borg's rise between the ages of 18-24, so I don't think the lack of really young guys is really going to be very permanent. I do think that in the future, given current conditions, guys past 30 will find it harder and harder to remain in the top 10.

you've answered your own question -- it's not exclusive to spain to produce top players; players from other countries too can fill the top 100 slots, a testament to greater depth owing to larger numbers.

fed_rulz
04-22-2011, 05:37 PM
If you compare top 10 players of 75 to today´s, career wise, I think only federer and nadal would make that list.

BTW, here are guys not ranked in the top 10 - some never broke even in the top 15- and now tell me if that´s weak

Ramirez,Dibbs,Solomon,Gottfried,Stockton,Barazutti ,Fibak,Alexander,Dent,Roche,Mottram,Cox,Fillol,Cas e,Higueras,Drisdale,Moore,Hewitt,Lutz,Riessen,Smit h,Richey,Franulovic,Meiler,Kodes,Okker,Tanner,Geru laitis,Sandy Mayer,Metrevali,Borowiak,Amritraj.....I´m usre any, absolutley any fan that has followed tennis from then till now will exactly place in their minds ALL OF THOSE PLAYERS MENTIONED.ALL OF THEM.

Now, tell me, how many today´s fans would really have a clear picture of guy ranked 35 or 45? that´s just a bit of a difference, isn´t that?

you make no sense.. more popular /= greater..

Fabrice Santoro - highest rank #17
Younes el ayonaui - highest rank # 85

I'm sure most on this board know these names pretty well. I can list more names outside the top 25 that are quite popular. What's your point?

borg number one
04-22-2011, 06:04 PM
you've answered your own question -- it's not exclusive to spain to produce top players; players from other countries too can fill the top 100 slots, a testament to greater depth owing to larger numbers.

I think Spain just had greater players in the past in guys like Ferrer, Ferrero, Costa, Nadal, Moya, etc. Despite the bigger numbers of players from Spain, and more development, more academies, they don't have as many really great players that are emerging. There may be some change in terms of overall depth during the last few years, but I don't think that't the primary reason. Perhaps it's a contributing factor as well. Yet, I think you had greater players from Spain in the past and then also, you have the steel sharpening steel effect, so to speak. Those guys trained together and got better together. There was a lot of great competition between them in practice. That's a big reason Nadal started surging. Look at Moya's influence on him for example. That's another factor as well for the fact that despite all those juniors from Spain, there aren't any in the top 100 that are under 24 years of age.

borg number one
04-22-2011, 07:53 PM
borg number one, Dude, will you stop making sense with reasoned remarks and go back to posting cool @ss pics of Borg.

Thanks.

Lol, thanks heftylefty.

http://www.worldtennismagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/rod-laver.jpg

http://www.kicksfc.com/Borg-Fila-zeldzaam-shirtkle.gif

http://top-10-list.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Pete-Sampras-Andre-Agassi-1995.jpg

http://www.livetennisguide.com/wp-content/uploads/Roger-Federer-Rafael-Nadal-Novak-Djokovic1.jpg

borg number one
04-22-2011, 08:04 PM
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/05/27/article-1022136-011B5837000004B0-421_468x332.jpg

kiki
04-29-2011, 02:42 PM
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/05/27/article-1022136-011B5837000004B0-421_468x332.jpg

That may have been the first time in their lives that the Big Three of 78-82 wore ties AT THE SAME TIME.:)

dcdoorknob
04-29-2011, 04:45 PM
you make no sense.. more popular /= greater..

Fabrice Santoro - highest rank #17
Younes el ayonaui - highest rank # 85

I'm sure most on this board know these names pretty well. I can list more names outside the top 25 that are quite popular. What's your point?

El Ayonaui's career high was #14 in singles. Knew 85 couldn't be right. You appear to have listed his career high doubles ranking, which was indeed 85th.

Not that it invalidates your point at all it was just bothering me.