2004-2009, 2011-2016, and 2018-2023 Competition Compared Purely with Data

[itrium84]

I just think all of this in general is a fruitless endeavor despite you putting in an earnest and thoughtful effort. It's a good read, but this idea about era's, weakness/strength, etc.. it's all subjective to me.

The likes of Tsitsipas, Zverev, Medvedev, are they as good as Tsonga, Berdych, Roddick, etc? Who knows.

People keep using this idea of "Djokovic and Nadal are still winning so clearly everybody else sucks". Djokovic and Nadal are literally pure, unadulterated outliers. They're the two best players ever, they could play some genetically modified freakshow meant to win every tennis match ever and they'd still find a way to beat it.

Look at the other oldie's. Cilic, Delpo, Tsonga, Ferrer, etc... They're all gone or about to be gone. The new generation completely replaced them. Even the likes of Dimitrov, Raonic, etc.. have been replaced with Zverev, Rublev, Tsitsipas. I think that's a better gauge to see if this is truly a "weak era". If Cilic, Delpo, Tsonga, were all still around and still strutting around the top 5-10 beating people, then yep, this would be classed as a weak era to me. But they're not, they're all gone. Fully replaced by the young guys.

The reality is that we cannot and never will be able to quantifiably measure how weak or strong an era was. A lot of people here will rag on about this being an embarrassment of a generation. Andy Roddick was on Twitter during the RG final, and he live-tweeted saying that "Anybody from my generation who thinks they can compete with these guys has no clue". And he specifically mentioned that the movement in the game is different now. If the game from the 80's changed 20 years later to the game in the 2000's, why is it not possible that the game from the 2000's is different to the game 20 years later? The movement is better, the baselining is tougher, strokes are much, much heavier than they used to me. Players are hitting with more depth, better angles, and the overall conditioning is much higher than before. The games evolved, it's totally different to when people from 20 years ago played, even players from 10 years ago. And with that, it's completely impossible to judge if one era is better than another. Who knows.

Zvelf never claimed nor tried to compare "which era was better". He compared opposition strength based on tournament success criteria.

 

[jl809]

Who played at a higher level?

1. Federer Wim 11 QF or Federer AO 12 SF
2. Nadal AO 12 final or Djokovic USO 11 final
3. Djokovic AO 16 final or Nadal Wim 07 final
4. Wawrinka AO 17 SF or Djokovic Wim 22 final
5. Wawrinka RG 15 final or Djokovic AO 13 final

 

[The_Order]

Federer had an era and Djokovic had 2 eras.

Nadal is yet to have an era but Carlos will pretty soon.

Nadal from 2008-2013 won 10 slams...

One less than the amount that Djok won in his "best era" 2011-2016...

That's despite Nadal actually missing a few slams during that time as well due to injuries...

 

[nolefam_2024]

Nadal from 2008-2013 won 10 slams...

One less than the amount that Djok won in his "best era" 2011-2016...

That's despite Nadal actually missing a few slams during that time as well due to injuries...

2009 Federer year end number 1
2011 12 Djokovic year end number 1.

How is it his era when he is not even top player here.

Djokovic 2011 12 14 15 4 years was legitimate number 1.

 

[itrium84]

You read all that? LOL. We don't need a lengthy dissertation to know the A Prime Big 3 with Roddick, Hewitt, Old Agassi, Safin, Nalbandian, Tsonga, Gonzales etc. is far superior to this crap we see on tour today. Today doesn't even past the eye test or smell test

Around 10% superior, nothing to write home about.

 

[itrium84]

Nadal from 2008-2013 won 10 slams...

One less than the amount that Djok won in his "best era" 2011-2016...

That's despite Nadal actually missing a few slams during that time as well due to injuries not being good enough...

There - I corrected it for you.

 

[Fabresque]

He compared opposition strength based on tournament success criteria.

Is this not the exact criteria for how an era’s strength is defined?

 

[itrium84]

Is this not the exact criteria for how an era’s strength is defined?

I don't know. If you define it that way, ok.
Everybody has his own notion, I prefer to stay out of the concept (of era strength) altogether.

 

[The_Order]

2009 Federer year end number 1
2011 12 Djokovic year end number 1.

How is it his era when he is not even top player here.

Djokovic 2011 12 14 15 4 years was legitimate number 1.

He was ye#1 in 08, 10 and 13... one less year than Djok... big deal...

 

[The_Order]

There - I corrected it for you.

If he wasn't good enough, he wouldn't have won 22 slams. Take a seat.

 

[duaneeo]

Nadal from 2008-2013 won 10 slams...

One less than the amount that Djok won in his "best era" 2011-2016...

That's despite Nadal actually missing a few slams during that time as well due to injuries...

That's also despite Nadal not having two slams played on his favorite surface.

 

[jm1980]

That's also despite Nadal not having two slams played on his favorite surface.

How many times does this have to be debunked? The Slam surface distribution hasn't changed since Nadal first picked up a racquet. He became a pro knowing there would be one clay Slam, and he chose to become a clay specialist anyway.

Meanwhile if your favorite surface is HC, yes, it's great that most of the tour is on HC. But most everyone else also likes HC

 

[DSH]

You read all that? LOL. We don't need a lengthy dissertation to know the A Prime Big 3 with Roddick, Hewitt, Old Agassi, Safin, Nalbandian, Tsonga, Gonzales etc. is far superior to this crap we see on tour today. Today doesn't even past the eye test or smell test

Why don't Djokovic's fans admit that this is the main reason why their idol has inflated his numbers at supersonic speed?

 

[Fabresque]

It's sad that I'm not even surprised by this level of reply.

Because I’m right?

 

[duaneeo]

How many times does this have to be debunked? The Slam surface distribution hasn't changed since Nadal first picked up a racquet. He became a pro knowing there would be one clay Slam, and he chose to become a clay specialist anyway.

Nadal became a Roland Garros specialist, and Djokovic became an Australian Open specialist. It explains the similarity of the slam distribution between 2008-2013 Nadal (5-2-2-1) and 2011-2016 Djokovic (5-3-2-1).

 

[The_Order]

How many times does this have to be debunked? The Slam surface distribution hasn't changed since Nadal first picked up a racquet. He became a pro knowing there would be one clay Slam, and he chose to become a clay specialist anyway.

Meanwhile if your favorite surface is HC, yes, it's great that most of the tour is on HC. But most everyone else also likes HC

And funnily enough, Nadal won same amount of US Opens and only 1 less Wimbledon in those comparable time frames...

But you obviously don't realise that nearly all Europeans and South Americans grow up playing on clay... it's actually the most familiar surface to them given that fact.

 

[NatF]

Because I’m right?

Exactly what I'm saying yes

 

[itrium84]

If he wasn't good enough, he wouldn't have won 22 slams. Take a seat.

I didn't say anything about his wins. I commented on you trying to justify his loses.

 

[itrium84]

Why don't Djokovic's fans admit that this is the main reason why their idol has inflated his numbers at supersonic speed?

It's not the main reason. The main reason is his GOATness, he's too good.
Novak didn't inflate his numbers. Quite opposite - his numbers are deflated.

 

[The_Order]

I didn't say anything about his wins. I commented on you trying to justify his loses.

Wrong. I said he missed slams... so he didn't lose them since he never played in them.

He would have been top 2 favorite for WIM09, US12 and AO13...

 

[RS]

That's also despite Nadal not having two slams played on his favorite surface.

Federer fans raising this point more than Nadal fans

 

[itrium84]

Wrong. I said he missed slams... so he didn't lose them since he never played in them.

He would have been top 2 favorite for WIM09, US12 and AO13...

He wasn't the favorite. Because he was not able to provide such a high level. He just wasn't good enough.

 

[The_Order]

He wasn't the favorite. Because he was not able to provide such a high level. He just wasn't good enough.

Typical *******

1. Proven wrong
2. Resort to circle argument

Like I said, he won 22 slams... at his peak entering those 3 he would have been top 2 favorite. Cry all you want, these are the facts.

 

[itrium84]

Typical *******

1. Proven wrong
2. Resort to circle argument

Like I said, he won 22 slams... at his peak entering those 3 he would have been top 2 favorite. Cry all you want, these are the facts.

You didn't prove anything.
I just refuted empty claims you made.
Injury is not an excuse for losing or missing matches, it just means you're not good enough to win.
Woulda coulda and especially shoulda... doesn't help your case. We all know Nadal is hypothetical GOAT, you don't have to remind us.

 

[The_Order]

You didn't prove anything.
I just refuted empty claims you made.
Injury is not an excuse for losing or missing matches, it just means you're not good enough to win.
Woulda coulda and especially shoulda... doesn't help your case. We all know Nadal is hypothetical GOAT, you don't have to remind us.

Keep running in circles chasing your tail... you'll catch it one of these days

 

[zvelf]

Why don't Djokovic's fans admit that this is the main reason why their idol has inflated his numbers at supersonic speed?

The point of this thread was to demonstrate how much stronger or weaker Djokovic's competition has been relative to Federer's in 2004-2009. What the numbers show is that Djokovic had much, much tougher competition in 2011-2016 than Federer in 2004-2009 and slightly weaker competition in 2018-2023 than Federer in 2004-2009. So yes, you can say Djokovic had an advantage from a drop in level of competition in the last 6 years, but it's not much worse than when Federer also had the advantage of a relatively weak period in 2004-2009 and it is more than made up for by the far more difficult level of competition in 2011-2016. In other words, Djokovic's competition over the course of his entire career has more than evened out.

 

[FedeRadi]

I tried to do something like that with 3 years period: 2004-06, 2007-09, 2011-13, 2014-16, 2021-23.
I left out:
2010: Nadal was clearly the best player.
2017-2019: Probably Nadal was the better player in this period too. (5 GS titles, 4 for Nole, 3 for Federer)
2020: Covid shortened season.

I used slightly different parameters: not counted titles, but count more placements in GS and M1000, used GS Winning % too.

The parameters was:
GS Titles: 1 - *0,216/4
GS Finals: 0,5 - *0,108/3
GS SFs: 0,25 - *0,054/5
GS QFs: 0,125 - *0,027/6
Win %: 0,5 - *0,108/0,872
GS Win %: 0,5 - *0,108/0,894
Ranking: 1 (Same way used in the op) - *0,216 (1 #1, 0,95 #2 ecc)

Then I weighted for match played(Top 12 Opp. avg), and weighet for the field with the assumption they played all other matches against 1,25 players(Roughly players with 50% winning % and GS winning %).

Results:

Top 40 opponents relative to the best one:

I'm sorry my work isn't meticoulous like zvelf's one but I think the results can't differ too much using his methodology, and I think there are some interesting talking points here.

 

[ActualTennisPlayer]

Evaluating less opposition cannot be better than evaluating more opposition when trying to determine level of difficulty faced. Even with weak opponents, it matters because by definition, weaker opponents means weaker opposition. Struff is a very weak opponent, far weaker than anyone else here, and he brings down 2018-2023 Djokovic's strength of opposition number.

Yes, so you want to examine the actual competition faced, including all players a person played against.

Im just saying that when people on this forum discuss how tough federers or djokovics competition was, they don’t refer to matches in the first week. They are mostly referring to matches against quality opponents (such as frequently happening in semis or finals), and not against “mugs” in the first week. And I personally think it would be more interesting to only look at the top competition.

 

[zvelf]

Yes, so you want to examine the actual competition faced, including all players a person played against.

Im just saying that when people on this forum discuss how tough federers or djokovics competition was, they don’t refer to matches in the first week. They are mostly referring to matches against quality opponents (such as frequently happening in semis or finals), and not against “mugs” in the first week. And I personally think it would be more interesting to only look at the top competition.

Well, I am doing that as well, just in an unbiased way. When I look at who Federer and Djokovic played the most in a given time period, that usually shows who their best opponents were because to play someone a lot, they would need to encounter them later in draws. It would have to be a fluke to play someone a lot early in draws because those are sheerly random, and granted, we have the Struff outlier case here, but it's not a coincidence that 2004-2009 Federer's most played-opponent, Nadal, was also his toughest and that 2011-2016 Djokovic's most-played opponent, Murray, was also his toughest. Only 2018-2023 Djokovic's most-played opponent, Medvedev, was not his toughest. Nadal was, but the likely explanation is that Nadal was just injured too much of this time, missing 6 majors. So despite Nadal's high level of play, he missed playing Novak as much as would be expected to because he was out with injury. I mean, I can take tougher competition into account like Alcaraz, but does it mean so much when you only play that tough competition 4 times?

 

[Third Serve]

Any subjective analysis of the game inevitably leads to unprovable and unfalsifiable statements that support one's favorite player. Nonsense like "Medvedev doesn't make the Top 10 in 03-07" or "Hewitt would win 10+ Slams in this era"

Any analysis of the game is subjective. Even our choice of how we interpret these stats is subjective.

 

[BrokenGears]

Unironically, for me I think the statistical analysis put forward in this thread decidedly puts to bed the weak era discourse that's been the focal point for debate/discussion in TTW.

Of course, as with everything, there's methodological limitations and qualifications, but I'm not sure there's much that would surpass the quantitative data presented here moving forward.

 

[ActualTennisPlayer]

Well, I am doing that as well, just in an unbiased way. When I look at who Federer and Djokovic played the most in a given time period, that usually shows who their best opponents were because to play someone a lot, they would need to encounter them later in draws. It would have to be a fluke to play someone a lot early in draws because those are sheerly random, and granted, we have the Struff outlier case here, but it's not a coincidence that 2004-2009 Federer's most played-opponent, Nadal, was also his toughest and that 2011-2016 Djokovic's most-played opponent, Murray, was also his toughest. Only 2018-2023 Djokovic's most-played opponent, Medvedev, was not his toughest. Nadal was, but the likely explanation is that Nadal was just injured too much of this time, missing 6 majors. So despite Nadal's high level of play, he missed playing Novak as much as would be expected to because he was out with injury. I mean, I can take tougher competition into account like Alcaraz, but does it mean so much when you only play that tough competition 4 times?

Yes your construct (how often an opponent is played), correlates with playing an opponent late in competitions.

But as you rightly point out you have struff. You have Hurkasz before 2021 (he wasn’t even a top 30 player and never made it past round 3 in a slam and only once in a master 1000). You have Anderson after 2020 (Anderson had an injury and never made it to round four in a slam or master 1000). You could also argue shapo (never a top 10 player).

You call these outliers. Fine. Usually you should address outliers though and not keep them unchanged for your analysis. By having less players in your analysis, a lot of these outliers are addressed.

 

[guga_fan]

Saving this to read later. Seems to be very well done.

 

[Move]

.

 

[GoatNo1]

strength of competition

 

[Third Serve]

strength of competition

ELOL

 

[The Blond Blur]

The actual stronk era was 2007-2013. The latest you could extend it to would be 2014, but I think there’s too big of a drop off from 2013.

 

[Milanez82]

strength of competition

1999 to 2003 definitely felt like weakest ever but watching Ivanisevic win that Wimbledon was epic stuff, Sampras pulling out the magic for one last USO also.

 

[GoatNo1]

1999 to 2003 definitely felt like weakest ever but watching Ivanisevic win that Wimbledon was epic stuff, Sampras pulling out the magic for one last USO also.

it is was the weakest ever. and that is precisely why people experienced 2003-2009 as much stronger. a logical subjective experience because it felt like a clear refreshment that came directly after the vacuum in which tennis has existed. just like the current era feels subjectively extra weak just because it comes after objectively the strongest tennis era in history. so-called golden years of tennis.

 

[Neptune]

Great work by @zvelf
My rudimentary analysis leads to a similar conclusion.

Fed 2004-09 vs Nole 2011-16 vs Nole 2018-23

Fed 2004-09 (Fed1) 14 Slams 32 Big Titles 442-51(90%) Overall 44-23(66%) vs Top5(10%) 91-32(75%) vs Top10(21%) 10-12(45%) vs Elo>2300(2.3%) 42-25(63%) vs Elo>2200(9.5%) Nole 2011-16 (Nole1) 11 Slams 40 Big Titles 427-50(90%) Overall 66-25(73%) vs Top5(15%) 140-34(80%) vs Top10(33%) 57-24(70%)...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com