Some losses in 2016 that highlighted Federer's once in a lifetime greatness

[McEnroeisanartist]

Some losses in 2016 that really highlighted Federer's once in a lifetime greatness.

When Novak lost the final at Rome, ending his streak of 10 consecutive tournament finals won, it highlighted Federer's streak of 23 consecutive tournament finals won.

When Novak lost in the final at Rome, ending his streak of 17 consecutive matches won against Top 10 players, it highlighted Federer's streak of 26 consecutive matches won against Top 10 players.

When Novak lost in the 3rd round at Wimbledon, ending his streak of 28 consecutive Grand Slams or better reached, it highlighted Federer's streak of 36 consecutive Grand Slams or better reached.

When Novak lost in the 3rd round at Wimbledon, ending his streak of 6 consecutive Grand Slam finals reached, it highlighted Federer's streak of 10 and 8 consecutive Grand Slam finals reached.

When Murray lost in the quarterfinals at the U.S. Open, it highlighted how difficult it is to reach all 4 Grand Slam semifinals in one year, something Federer has done 5 times in his career, Djokovic 4 times, and Nadal once.

When Nadal lost in the 4th round of the U.S. Open, it highlighted Federer's streak of 14 consecutive years of reaching at least one Grand Slam quarterfinal in a year (also reaching at least one Grand Slam semifinal).

 

[DreddyTennis45]

We get it, you are a Fed fan.

 

[Tenez!]

For all the talk about Novak's current invincibility, we forget what the tennis world was like in 2004-2009.
Federer was a massive favourite against EVERYONE except Nadal on clay & outdoor hard. Plus, he almost never had an off day in masters, and never in slams.

I remember having to leave after the first set of that Del Potro final in 2009.
I was so utterly confident he'd win that I had started wondering whether he'd face down Nadal again in 2010 AO for the beckoning Grand Slam. (if you're curious, losses to Nadal account for 25.5% of his 51 defeats in those 6 years)

With time, I've come to appreciate the superhuman effort required to dominate in such a way.
That's why even though Djokovic will never come near a 2006 level of dominance, what he's doing still warrants colossal praise.

 

[Deleted member 743561]

For all the talk about Novak's current invincibility, we forget what the tennis world was like in 2004-2009.
Federer was a massive favourite against EVERYONE except Nadal on clay & outdoor hard. Plus, he almost never had an off day in masters, and never in slams.

I remember having to leave after the first set of that Del Potro final in 2009.
I was so utterly confident he'd win that I had started wondering whether he'd face Nadal again in 2010 AO for the beckoning Grand Slam.

With time, I've come to appreciate the superhuman effort required to dominate in such a way.
That's why even though Djokovic will never come near a 2006 level of dominance, what he's doing still deserves colossal praise.

Hope that was just TV and not live at the stadium?

The greatest thing about it to me was the feast for the eyes, the virtuosity. As the records piled up, it was like "Sweet mother. Art won."

 

[TMF]

Some losses in 2016 that really highlighted Federer's once in a lifetime greatness.

When Novak lost the final at Rome, ending his streak of 10 consecutive tournament finals won, it highlighted Federer's streak of 23 consecutive tournament finals won.

When Novak lost in the final at Rome, ending his streak of 17 consecutive matches won against Top 10 players, it highlighted Federer's streak of 26 consecutive matches won against Top 10 players.

When Novak lost in the 3rd round at Wimbledon, ending his streak of 28 consecutive Grand Slams or better reached, it highlighted Federer's streak of 36 consecutive Grand Slams or better reached.

When Novak lost in the 3rd round at Wimbledon, ending his streak of 6 consecutive Grand Slam finals reached, it highlighted Federer's streak of 10 and 8 consecutive Grand Slam finals reached.

When Murray lost in the quarterfinals at the U.S. Open, it highlighted how difficult it is to reach all 4 Grand Slam semifinals in one year, something Federer has done 5 times in his career, Djokovic 4 times, and Nadal once.

When Nadal lost in the 4th round of the U.S. Open, it highlighted Federer's streak of 14 consecutive years of reaching at least one Grand Slam quarterfinal in a year (also reaching at least one Grand Slam semifinal).

Good job!
Just to point out that it's 24 consecutive tournament final won, not 23.

 

[GabeT]

For all the talk about Novak's current invincibility, we forget what the tennis world was like in 2004-2009.
Federer was a massive favourite against EVERYONE except Nadal on clay & outdoor hard. Plus, he almost never had an off day in masters, and never in slams.

I remember having to leave after the first set of that Del Potro final in 2009.
I was so utterly confident he'd win that I had started wondering whether he'd face down Nadal again in 2010 AO for the beckoning Grand Slam. (if you're curious, losses to Nadal account for almost exactly 25% of his 51 defeats in those 6 years)

With time, I've come to appreciate the superhuman effort required to dominate in such a way.
That's why even though Djokovic will never come near a 2006 level of dominance, what he's doing still warrants colossal praise.

In 2006 Federer reached 4 Slam Finals and won three of them. Same for Nole in 2015. TIE

In 2006 Federer won the WTF. So did Nole in 2015. TIE

In 2006 Federer reached 6 Masters finals and won 4. Nole reached 8 M1000 finals and won 8. ADV NOLE

in 2006 Federer played 23 matches against top 10 players, winning 82.6% of them. Nole played 36 matches against top 10 players and won 86.1% ADV NOLE


There are other factors but the two seasons are very close.

 

[Deleted member 743561]

In 2006 Federer reached 4 Slam Finals and won three of them. Same for Nole in 2015. TIE

In 2006 Federer won the WTF. So did Nole in 2015. TIE

In 2006 Federer reached 6 Masters finals and won 4. Nole reached 8 M1000 finals and won 8. ADV NOLE

in 2006 Federer played 23 matches against top 10 players, winning 82.6% of them. Nole played 36 matches against top 10 players and won 86.1% ADV NOLE


There are other factors but the two seasons are very close.

You've introduced some good new information here, with layered interpretations. However, you may find even more insight in one of the several hundred threads on the topic in this forum.

 

[tennis_pro]

In 2006 Federer reached 4 Slam Finals and won three of them. Same for Nole in 2015. TIE

In 2006 Federer won the WTF. So did Nole in 2015. TIE

In 2006 Federer reached 6 Masters finals and won 4. Nole reached 8 M1000 finals and won 8. ADV NOLE

in 2006 Federer played 23 matches against top 10 players, winning 82.6% of them. Nole played 36 matches against top 10 players and won 86.1% ADV NOLE


There are other factors but the two seasons are very close.

Like facing Claydal instead of Oldal.

 

[GabeT]

Like facing Claydal instead of Oldal.

yes, that makes a big difference. Impossible to fully equalize seasons. On the other hand Nole faced more top ten players in general.

and it wasn't only Nadal. Fed lost in the 2R of Cincy in 2006 (against Murray). Nole reached the final of all 8 masters he played.

 

[tennis_pro]

yes, that makes a big difference. Impossible to fully equalize seasons. On the other hand Nole faced more top ten players in general.

and it wasn't only Nadal. Fed lost in the 2R of Cincy in 2006 (against Murray). Nole reached the final of all 8 masters he played.

There were no 1st round BYE's for the top seeds and tons of MS finals were still BO5. Federer didn't lose to Murray because Murray was outstanding, Federer was just exhausted after Canada.

 

[Mainad]

When Murray lost in the quarterfinals at the U.S. Open, it highlighted how difficult it is to reach all 4 Grand Slam semifinals in one year, something Federer has done 5 times in his career, Djokovic 4 times, and Nadal once.

Murray reached all 4 Grand Slam semi-finals in 2011.

 

[GabeT]

There were no 1st round BYE's for the top seeds and tons of MS finals were still BO5. Federer didn't lose to Murray because Murray was outstanding, Federer was just exhausted after Canada.

Whatever the reason, he lost. No excuses allowed. 2006 and 2015 are probably the two greatest seasons ever, so in comparing any small differences count.

 

[AceSalvo]

Like facing Claydal instead of Oldal.

That and 2006 M1000 were best of 5. ADV Fed.

Easy to secure many top 10 wins against a bunch of oldies where the avg age of Top 50 is 29.

 

[Tiki-Taka]

Federer's once in a lifetime greatness never needed other player's losses in order to be highlighted.

Whatever the reason, he lost. No excuses allowed. 2006 and 2015 are probably the two greatest seasons ever, so in comparing any small differences count.

After Laver's 1969, it's 2015 and 2006, in that order.

 

[Tenez!]

Easy to secure many top 10 wins against a bunch of oldies where the avg age of Top 50 is 29.

That's no argument and you know it. 29 is top physical form nowadays - that's the reason they're ahead.

After Laver's 1969, it's 2015 and 2006, in that order.

 

[GabeT]

Federer's once in a lifetime greatness never needed other player's losses in order to be highlighted.


After Laver's 1969, it's 2015 and 2006, in that order.

I don't think 1969 really compares, but we can agree to disagree.

 

[AceSalvo]

Nole reached 8 M1000 finals and won 8.

Can you enlighten us in which year did this happen?? Since you are using Fed's 2006 to compare.

 

[AceSalvo]

That's no argument and you know it. 29 is top physical form nowadays

Top physical form like how #1 take 2 MTO in a Slam final.

There is no arguing facts that the tour since 2015 featured old players on their final breath.

 

[Tiki-Taka]

Which part you don't agree with?

I don't think 1969 really compares, but we can agree to disagree.

I was basing that on his Grand Slam alone, but he had more losses in the entire season than Djokovic and Federer did in their best seasons if I remember correctly.

 

[mike danny]

Some losses in 2016 that really highlighted Federer's once in a lifetime greatness.

When Novak lost the final at Rome, ending his streak of 10 consecutive tournament finals won, it highlighted Federer's streak of 23 consecutive tournament finals won.

When Novak lost in the final at Rome, ending his streak of 17 consecutive matches won against Top 10 players, it highlighted Federer's streak of 26 consecutive matches won against Top 10 players.

When Novak lost in the 3rd round at Wimbledon, ending his streak of 28 consecutive Grand Slams or better reached, it highlighted Federer's streak of 36 consecutive Grand Slams or better reached.

When Novak lost in the 3rd round at Wimbledon, ending his streak of 6 consecutive Grand Slam finals reached, it highlighted Federer's streak of 10 and 8 consecutive Grand Slam finals reached.

When Murray lost in the quarterfinals at the U.S. Open, it highlighted how difficult it is to reach all 4 Grand Slam semifinals in one year, something Federer has done 5 times in his career, Djokovic 4 times, and Nadal once.

When Nadal lost in the 4th round of the U.S. Open, it highlighted Federer's streak of 14 consecutive years of reaching at least one Grand Slam quarterfinal in a year (also reaching at least one Grand Slam semifinal).

Replace SF's with finals.

I think Fed reaching all 4 slam finals 3 times is probably his greatest accomplishment after the three 3 slam seasons. Nadal's never done it, Djokovic has done it only once and Murray has just discovered at the USO how difficult it is to do it even in his best season (2016).

 

[metsman]

yes, that makes a big difference. Impossible to fully equalize seasons. On the other hand Nole faced more top ten players in general.

and it wasn't only Nadal. Fed lost in the 2R of Cincy in 2006 (against Murray). Nole reached the final of all 8 masters he played.

there were B05 masters final and 6 matches a week to win a masters, and in some cases (clay) both. Did you know that? Didn't think so, or else you would not have made that ignorant comment.

 

[GabeT]

there were B05 masters final and 6 matches a week to win a masters, and in some cases (clay) both. Did you know that? Didn't think so, or else you would not have made that ignorant comment.

You can't help yourself, huh? Like a spoiled child you just feel the need to intrude into other's conversations and insult those that disagree with you. Congrats.

 

[mike danny]

The 24 consecutive finals streak is insane, considering that half of them were even best of 5 finals.

 

[AceSalvo]

Nole reached 8 M1000 finals and won 8.

Can you enlighten us in which year did this happen?? Since you are using Fed's 2006 to compare.

Still waiting.. Why taking so long??

 

[metsman]

You can't help yourself, huh? Like a spoiled child you just feel the need to intrude into other's conversations and insult those that disagree with you. Congrats.

sue me...if you are going to be ignorant about basic facts because you haven't seen tennis before 2011 you're gonna have to deal with it. Nothing to do with disagreement

 

[GabeT]

sue me...if you are going to be ignorant about basic facts because you haven't seen tennis before 2011 you're gonna have to deal with it. Nothing to do with disagreement

Sigh. like a little spoiled child. We are comparing seasons across time. Of course the comparison is not perfect. If you want to argue that any comparisons over time are ultimately useless, OK. But that would shut down half of this board.

2006 and 2015 are widely considered the best two seasons ever. There were changes in what each player had to face but both ended with similar results. So we end up looking at the small differences. Whatever the reasons Fed lost in the 2R of a top tournament in his best season. Nole did not. And if Fed had to deal with longer masters in 2006 Nole had to face more top ten players in 2015. Again, there is no perfect comparison.

 

[AceSalvo]

Nole reached 8 M1000 finals and won 8.

I know being creative is your only good trait.

But I can assure you that record didn't happen in a year.

Fed reached 9 M1000 finals and won 9, that too all of them best of 5. YUGE ADV Fed!

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Sigh. like a little spoiled child. We are comparing seasons across time. Of course the comparison is not perfect. If you want to argue that any comparisons over time are ultimately useless, OK. But that would shut down half of this board.

2006 and 2015 are widely considered the best two seasons ever. There were changes in what each player had to face but both ended with similar results. So we end up looking at the small differences. Whatever the reasons Fed lost in the 2R of a top tournament in his best season. Nole did not. And if Fed had to deal with longer masters in 2006 Nole had to face more top ten players in 2015. Again, there is no perfect comparison.

1969>1984>2015>=2006. Leave it to ignorant disrespectful mugs to demean Laver's 1969 and McEnroe's 1984 seasons. Don't be one yourself.

 

[GabeT]

1969>1984>2015>=2006. Leave it to ignorant disrespectful mugs to demean Laver's 1969 and McEnroe's 1984 seasons. Don't be one yourself.

I think those boats have sailed (is that the phrase?). I really don't think either 1969 or 1984 compare. But we can agree to disagree.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I think those boats have sailed (is that the phrase?). I really don't think either 1969 or 1984 compare. But we can agree to disagree.

Ridiculous disrespect on your part, and you want everyone to just accept it?

 

[uscwang]

Some losses in 2016 that really highlighted Federer's once in a lifetime greatness.

When Novak lost the final at Rome, ending his streak of 10 consecutive tournament finals won, it highlighted Federer's streak of 23 consecutive tournament finals won.

When Novak lost in the final at Rome, ending his streak of 17 consecutive matches won against Top 10 players, it highlighted Federer's streak of 26 consecutive matches won against Top 10 players.

When Novak lost in the 3rd round at Wimbledon, ending his streak of 28 consecutive Grand Slams or better reached, it highlighted Federer's streak of 36 consecutive Grand Slams or better reached.

When Novak lost in the 3rd round at Wimbledon, ending his streak of 6 consecutive Grand Slam finals reached, it highlighted Federer's streak of 10 and 8 consecutive Grand Slam finals reached.

When Murray lost in the quarterfinals at the U.S. Open, it highlighted how difficult it is to reach all 4 Grand Slam semifinals in one year, something Federer has done 5 times in his career, Djokovic 4 times, and Nadal once.

When Nadal lost in the 4th round of the U.S. Open, it highlighted Federer's streak of 14 consecutive years of reaching at least one Grand Slam quarterfinal in a year (also reaching at least one Grand Slam semifinal).

That's all cool. Keep going.
When Novak won 4 consecutive GS on 3 surfaces, with WTF and 5 ATP 1000 titles in between, it highlighted ...
When Novak beat Rafa in 7 finals in a row (3 GS + 4 ATP 1000), it highlighted ...

 

[GabeT]

Ridiculous disrespect on your part, and you want everyone to just accept it?

I happen to have a different opinion.

On 1969 3 of the 4 slams were on the same surface and one of them IIRC (USO?) played only 5 matches instead of 7. And top players met each other much less than today.

On 1984 Mac only won two slams. I think a 3 Slam season is a precondition for any discussion of top seasons.

 

[tennisaddict]

How many titles djoko win and how many did Fed ?

What was the overall win-loss percentage for both ?

After the majors, I look at titles . Any tournament that Fed participates typically has a creditable field

 

[Boom-Boom]

Some losses in 2016 that really highlighted Federer's once in a lifetime greatness.

When Novak lost the final at Rome, ending his streak of 10 consecutive tournament finals won, it highlighted Federer's streak of 23 consecutive tournament finals won.

When Novak lost in the final at Rome, ending his streak of 17 consecutive matches won against Top 10 players, it highlighted Federer's streak of 26 consecutive matches won against Top 10 players.

When Novak lost in the 3rd round at Wimbledon, ending his streak of 28 consecutive Grand Slams or better reached, it highlighted Federer's streak of 36 consecutive Grand Slams or better reached.

When Novak lost in the 3rd round at Wimbledon, ending his streak of 6 consecutive Grand Slam finals reached, it highlighted Federer's streak of 10 and 8 consecutive Grand Slam finals reached.

When Murray lost in the quarterfinals at the U.S. Open, it highlighted how difficult it is to reach all 4 Grand Slam semifinals in one year, something Federer has done 5 times in his career, Djokovic 4 times, and Nadal once.

When Nadal lost in the 4th round of the U.S. Open, it highlighted Federer's streak of 14 consecutive years of reaching at least one Grand Slam quarterfinal in a year (also reaching at least one Grand Slam semifinal).

Goaterer

 

[Tennisanity]

Whatever the reason, he lost. No excuses allowed. 2006 and 2015 are probably the two greatest seasons ever, so in comparing any small differences count.

Federer lost fewer times in 2006. Federer won more titles in 2006. Federer played a better version of Nadal in 2006. Federer had a higher winning % in2006. Nole had 2 more Master's.

 

[Tenez!]

Which part you don't agree with?

That you would seriously compare the 60s, an era of buddies playing each other every third week in 4-round, 16-seed tournaments, with today's inhuman standards of training and practise.
But perhaps you were joking? In that case, I laughed, so well done.

 

[GabeT]

Federer lost fewer times in 2006. Federer won more titles in 2006. Federer played a better version of Nadal in 2006. Federer had a higher winning % in2006. Nole had 2 more Master's.

it is a mix, no doubt. Do we include the smaller tournaments as well in the debate? I was focused only on the top tier.

Personally I see them as too close to call, with a slight bias towards Nole for doing (slightly) better in the Tier 1 tourneys. But it's not a clear cut win.

 

[Tenez!]

I think those boats have sailed (is that the phrase?). I really don't think either 1969 or 1984 compare. But we can agree to disagree.

It's a common idiom, yes, although it tends to stay in the singular. That boat has sailed.

Plus, you're right. Thank goodness for some reason here. Comparing 1969 to the 2000s is as ridiculous as comparing the 1880s to 1969.

 

[AceSalvo]

MCCGOATOAT!

Most Consistent Candidate for GOAT Of All Time.

To kept it simple GOAT.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I happen to have a different opinion.

Of course you do.

On 1969 3 of the 4 slams were on the same surface and one of them IIRC (USO?) played only 5 matches instead of 7. And top players met each other much less than today.

I assume your argument is that those tidbits you mentioned make winning easier. Correct me otherwise.

Try playing 90 games over 5 hours under scorching Australian sun, as Laver and Roche did in their legendary AO '69 SF encounter. It was super tough. Less physical game, but also no pauses during changeovers and no time-wasting during serving.
Tennis was not easy at all. Now top players have large teams and the latest medical technokogies available to them. In those times, players had to look after themselves largely on their own.
Laver actually met top players all the time in majors. Top 20 opponent in R4 + top 12 opponents in QF-SF-F in all four majors in 1969.

Djokovic played four complete matches at the US Open this year, ha. Does that mean Laver's AO '69 >>>>> Djokovic's USO '16?

On 1984 Mac only won two slams. I think a 3 Slam season is a precondition for any discussion of top seasons.

AO wasn't a top 4 tournament at the time. Why should it be relevant for top seasons, then?
Elaborate.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Plus, you're right. Thank goodness for some reason here. Comparing 1969 to the 2000s is as ridiculous as comparing the 1880s to 1969.

Why? We are not comparing absolute level of play. We're comparing greatness. Is it a function of absolutes?

 

[Tennisanity]

it is a mix, no doubt. Do we include the smaller tournaments as well in the debate? I was focused only on the top tier.

Personally I see them as too close to call, with a slight bias towards Nole for doing (slightly) better in the Tier 1 tourneys. But it's not a clear cut win.

Top tier/Tier1 is a completely made up name.

 

[GabeT]

Top tier/Tier1 is a completely made up name.

Yes, but it's also one that has a clear definition. typing 'Tier 1" is simpler than typing "the 14 tournaments every year where most top players meet, including the 4 slams, the WTF, and the nine masters."

 

[Tenez!]

Why? We are not comparing absolute level of play. We're comparing greatness. Is it a function of absolutes?

Yes. Everything in this thread - and, to be fair, in the whole concept of sport - points to absolute level being the ultimate goal.

Otherwise, go back to the 1870 when the first tournament appeared. Check the winner: bingo, you've got a 100% win season.
But that's silly, you'd howl.
And yet that's what you're doing by repeatedly picking 1969 over the far superior player fields of the 2000s.

 

[Tennisanity]

Yes, but it's also one that has a clear definition. typing 'Tier 1" is simpler than typing "the 14 tournaments every year where most top players meet, including the 4 slams, the WTF, and the nine masters."

In 2006, more of those tourney's had best 3/5 than 2/3. That combined with all the other factors more than makes up for Nole's 2 extra M1000s.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Yes. Everything in this thread - and, to be fair, in the whole concept of sport - points to absolute level being the ultimate goal.

That's a concept shift. Sport was originally meant as entertaining competition to see who comes on top. Comparing absolute levels, in addition to being above your actual peers at the time, gained this importance later.

Otherwise, go back to the 1870 when the first tournament appeared. Check the winner: bingo, you've got a 100% win season.
But that's silly, you'd howl.
And yet that's what you're doing by repeatedly picking 1969 over the far superior player fields of the 2000s.

False analogy. Winning percentage isn't the single defining characteristic.

It's simple: I may know more about how the world works than an ancient philosopher/scientist, but that doesn't mean I'm smarter, and I'm certainly not greater. Now that's a clear analogy.

 

[Tenez!]

That's a concept shift. Sport was originally meant as entertaining competition to see who comes on top. Comparing absolute levels, in addition to being above your actual peers at the time, gained this importance later.

False analogy. Winning percentage isn't the single defining characteristic.

It's simple: I may know more about how the world works than an ancient philosopher/scientist, but that doesn't mean I'm smarter, and I'm certainly not greater. Now that's a clear analogy.

What? Coming after a claim that whatever happens, nothing can ever top Laver's season because he hit 100% in 4 slams (despite his far inferior level by any other metric), this sounds very strange. As if you didn't realise what you're basing your "1969 forever!" argument.

About sport, absolute levels started mattering as soon as rigorous methods of mesurement appeared. True, that excludes anything pre-1800, which is a long time...
But even in Ancient Greece, Milo of Croton was known for his unique ability to lift a small calf with each arm, a feat no one could replicate.
He's pretty much the only name that's survived, because he was (or was said to be) the absolute best, not the relative best.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

What? Coming after a claim that whatever happens, nothing can ever top Laver's season because he hit 100% in 4 slams (despite his far inferior level by any other metric), this sounds very strange. As if you didn't realise what you're basing your "1969 forever!" argument.

Laver didn't just win the Grand Slam and flame early in every other tournament, lol. It's been a while since I've looked up his 1969 results, but as far as I can remember, he won 4 of 7 'next tier' tournaments + lost 1 final + played a bunch of finals in lesser tournaments, winning some and losing some. A good record, not too far off other great Open seasons, so the CYGS may be able to compensate and give the edge.

Judging by absolute level privileges modern athletes who have access to modern methods and medicine, and demeans past athletes who did not have that luxury through no fault of their own. For that reason, I don't think it's fair. Comparing the results and level to the maximum that was actually humanly possible at that time in the existing conditions seems fair however I look at it. In other words, how close one's performance is to realistically achievable max.

 

[Tenez!]

Comparing the results and level to the maximum that was actually humanly possible at that time in the existing conditions seems fair however I look at it. In other words, how close one's performance is to realistically achievable max.

I finally get your point of view. I had imagined you were plumping for that date for sillier reason (rose-tinted nostalgia, gripes about ageing), like many here.

You might find you're massively in the minority in he world of sportspersons (humans of the 2000s are physically identical to those in the 1960s, which puts them on an equal footing), but it's a carefully weighed opinion so I can respect that.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I finally get your point of view. I had imagined you were plumping for that date for sillier reason (rose-tinted nostalgia, gripes about ageing).
You might find you're massively in the minority in he world of sportspersons (and I also don't agree, as as from my perspective humans of the 2000s are physically identical to those in the 1960s, thus putting them all on the same footing), but it's a carefully weighed opinion so I respect it. Also, I'm tired, it's 2AM here and I'm working tomorrow.

Humans are probably the same, but equipment, training methods, medical aids, team care have advanced, and most importantly much greater money earnings allow to obtain all that and not go broke, thus helping achieve stronger level. What knowledge I gathered of post-WWII tennis tells me it is not the issue of (top) players slacking off and not putting full effort to perform their best because they could get away with it - no, by that time pro tennis was sufficiently professional (yes, that's a tautology, I know) that the leading pros took it completely seriously as a full-time job. Before WWII someone like Tilden could perhaps go easy at times because no one could punish him (not enough competition). By the 50s this became impossible, with the top pros being close enough to each other in level that slacking off would result in losses, so they had to work hard like modern pros do.