What is a weak era or strong era in tennis?

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by pc1, Jan 1, 2011.

  1. Fandango

    Fandango Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    275
    this thread is a little perplexing?

    by weakest era, do you mean one where a player was completely dominant and there was virtually no competition?

    Or by the lack of consistency for top players or should I say no top players?

    Or just by the level of play, being absolute garbage?
     
    #51
  2. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Interesting point.

    So what's the difference between Gonzales and Roddick?

    No volley?
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2011
    #52
  3. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Hmmm.

    Interesting distinction: least great versus worst.

    Hmmm.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2011
    #53
  4. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,396
    Gonzalez was a great smooth athlete with great movement, a very good volley and while he didn't have a great backhand, it was good.

    Gonzalez had some of the best footwork in history. Arthur Ashe thought the two players with the best footwork he has ever seen was Gonzalez and Rosewall. Ashe said this when Borg, Connors, Nastase and McEnroe were playing.

    Also unlike Roddick, Gonzalez was great defensively and had tremendous touch. Roddick, once he is on the defensive seems to always lose the point.

    You don't get the record Gonzalez had with just a serve and a forehand.
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2011
    #54
  5. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Yep. Thoughtful analysis. Great points.
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2011
    #55
  6. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,369
    Quite right, what pc 1 wrote about Gainzalez. I must say, i only read about him and saw clips of Gonzalez, and coherent videos of his best matches - let alone his pro peak around 1957-59- are not available. But he seemed to be quite solid and clever in defense, not trying too much with his groundies, but placing them there, where the opponent it didn't like. Also his movement and touch was much better than Roddick's. He moved vertically into the split-position like a panther, and could make the smoothest of dropshots. Some of those i saw in lengthy clips of the famous Pasarell match at Wimbledon, in an old Wimbledon video of 1984 about the history of Wimbledon. The match was played in absolute dark, before it was finally halted in the second set. Pancho was fuming. His angry confrontation with the referee Captain Gibson, a tight- upperlip English officer, was something special. Connors and Mac were often mad on he court, but Pancho was really frightening.
     
    #56
  7. piece

    piece Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,403
    As for number one: it depends what you mean by 'competition'. If you consider competition to be other players being competitive with the dominant player then I wouldn't necessarily consider your first scenario a weak era because the other players could still be of a very high standard and the dominant player may just be a freak. If, on the other hand, when you say 'no competition' you mean to say there were no players of a particularly high standard up against the dominant player, then in this case I would say we are confronted with a weak era.

    For the second scenario: it depends whether the lack of consistency arises because the players are not good enough to be consistent at the top level under any circumstances or whether it is a result of an insanely deep field and a very capable top 10. In the first instance then yes it is a weak era, in the second instance it isn't.

    The third scenario you described is the only one that I consider to be a legitimate indicator of era weakness. It's the level of play that matters. The overall trend in results for the top players of an era can usually be accounted for by explanations that assume a weak era or explanations that assume a strong era, which is to say, the results trend doesn't give us an indication one way or the other. The final arbiter of era strength is the level of play.
     
    #57
  8. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,396
    Hoodjem,

    It occurred to me in my description of Gonzalez that, while they have totally different styles of play, Gonzalez has some things in common with Federer.

    First of all they both have excellent serves and forehands. The backhand is weaker for both. Both of them are superb movers with great footwork. Gonzalez's serve is often considered to be the greatest ever so I would give him the edge there. Federer's forehand is considered by many to be the best ever so I would give him the edge there.

    Both are super defensive players are of course people have ranked both as the potential GOAT.

    The guy moving in this video is a lot smoother than Roddick.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd0gJzm_EQY
     
    #58
  9. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    ^^^ I would add that Fed's baseline game is better, whereas Gonzales's S&V game is better.

    It would a huge clash of titans: 2006 Fed versus 1957 Gonzales on grass.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2011
    #59
  10. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,211
    2000 > 1990 > 1980 > 1970 > 1960 > 1950 > 1940......
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2011
    #60
  11. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,369
    00>90? Nice mathmatics.
     
    #61
  12. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,396
    Why is 51 year John Mcenroe only a bit less than Roddick in Team Tennis then? That is too general an assumption. There are too many factors involved.
     
    #62
  13. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,211
    In 2008, Mac also beat Sampras in Boston(Outback Champions Series). But that doesn't say anything about Mac being a better player.
     
    #63
  14. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,396
    But that proves my point. Sampras is much younger than McEnroe and lost and I'm sure he was trying.

    My point is there isn't any proof each succeeding era is superior to another. It may be true but you have to examine all the info. For example in baseball, with expansion the 1960's may very well have been inferior to the 1950's.

    It occurs to me now that perhaps instead of talking of eras, maybe we all are talking about the top players and whether they are superior or inferior the top of a certain era.

    I think a Pancho Gonzalez with his great physical gifts would be successful in any era. A John McEnroe would be successful as would a Sampras, Nadal or Federer.

    So maybe we should look at the groups of top players and see if we feel they are strong or not.
     
    #64
  15. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    I don't think so.

    2000 was a not so wonderful year for tennis. 1980 was a great year for tennis.
     
    #65
  16. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,396
    Top ten 2000
    Kuerten
    Safin
    Sampras
    Norman
    Kafelnikov
    Agassi
    Hewitt
    Corretja
    Enqvist
    Henman

    Top Ten 1980
    Borg
    McEnroe
    Connors
    Mayer
    Vilas
    Lendl
    Solomon
    Clerc
    Gerulaitis
    Teltscher
     
    #66
  17. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    1980 had probably at least five top-30 GOATs playing.

    2000 had two at the most (and one wasn't in the top-five).
     
    #67
  18. borg number one

    borg number one Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,639
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    Yes, Hoodjem and PC1, that's when someone asks me in conversation to to accept the premise that the "competition just gets tougher year after year" and "era after era", implying that the current era is necessarily stronger than the previous era, and so on, I say "hold your horses" (as some say here in the Lone Star State lol). Extremely strong competition at the very top and the strength/quality of those especially at the top (top 8 at majors, top 10 in rankings especially for example) is indicative of a strong era in my opinion. Of course. There is subjectivity involved in making an assessment and it may be arguable. Yet, I'll take Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, and Vilas in the top 10 in 1980, versus Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Soderling, and Murray. In my opinion, you basically have five hall of fame players versus perhaps 2-3. The ability to win Masters titles and beat the top players once in a while is not enough. Those guys in 1980 (and 1970 and 1960, and 1950) were not just incredibly skilled, but so mentally tough. How many times have you seen a Connors, McEnroe, or Lendl just "check out" in a major? Beating those guys in big matches required you to play a very special match and your very best tennis. Borg for example said "every point was like a match point with Jimmy" and that he was a "great fighter". Lendl and McEnroe were very much like that as well, and then you have Bjorn Borg.
     
    #68
  19. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Yes!

    Talk about digging deep, and playing a very special match--how did Borg come back and win the match after losing that 4th set tie-break 16-18 at Wimbers in 1980?

    Your average pro would have completely wilted.
     
    #69
  20. borg number one

    borg number one Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,639
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    Borg said the following. He said that after that 4th set during the changeover, it was "the worst he'd ever felt". He said, "here I am playing John in a W final, and I had lost so many match points. I thought, now, there's no way I'm going to win this tennis match." He was still feeling that way during his first service game of the 5th set when he was down 0-30. He was still in a daze somewhat. Yet, he held and shook it off. He said slowly he built his confidence back up. He would go on to lose only a few points on serve during the entire fifth set, as he outserve McEnroe to take Wimbledon title five in a row. McEnroe was surprised he would say, because he thought after 4 titles and that tiebreaker, "the guy just had let let down". He was mistaken and he gained a whole new appreciation for what a Champion is like. He said he learned a lot from the epic encounter with the Ice Man. Check out Borg and McEnroe talking about what happened.

    http://video.yahoo.com/watch/1695735/5683378

    http://video.yahoo.com/watch/1702965/5702564
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2011
    #70
  21. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,396
    The most staggering thing about that match was that Borg (according to Bill Scanlon) played the match with a torn stomach muscle.
     
    #71
  22. piece

    piece Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,403
    I think TMF's point is more to do with players in the 00s being better than the players of the 80s - something that can't be quantified by a cursory glance at the achievements of the groups in question. If the general skill level of players has been gradually but continuously increasing over time then it's entirely possible that players of the past decade are objectively better (i.e. would fare better in a combined 80s/00s field - assuming such a thing is possible) than those in the 80s, even though their achievements may be no more impressive, or even worse, than those of the past players in question.

    I don't think I agree with this point, but merely noting that the players in the 80s were greater isn't sufficient to refute it.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2011
    #72
  23. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    ¿Rafter a weak nº 1? He won 2 USO - Roddick 1- played the sf of the french - ¿Roddick??-...Weak nº 1 is Roddick, not Rafter.
     
    #73
  24. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Very, very questionable.

    We've been through this before, and IMO refuted it.
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2011
    #74
  25. BrooklynNY

    BrooklynNY Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,627
    In 2006, Sampras actually beat Roddick in WTT, the complete match used to be on Youtube, you can see Roddick start to get pissed because Sampras was just cracking return winners off his backhand on the rise, if you can find it, its actually a good match.

    Johnny Mac is very good still, also, I think when both players get older, it sort of levels the playing field a bit. Especially for attacking players.

    Edberg also beat Safin, I think on clay!! ha!
     
    #75
  26. piece

    piece Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,403
    Which part is questionable? My interpretation of TMF's argument? My assertion that it is possible that current players are objectively better than others? The former is most certainly questionable - we'd have to ask TMF to be sure; the latter is most certainly not questionable, let alone very questionable. To claim otherwise is to assert that it is impossible that modern players are better than past players, which just seems absurd.

    Perhaps what you meant is that the claim that "modern players are in fact better than past players" is very questionable, and has been refuted. I would be surprised to find that this claim has been refuted. Would you mind relaying the argument you think responsible for this refutation?
     
    #76
  27. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Your assertion that present players are "objectively" better than past players.
     
    #77
  28. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,211
    ^
    My intial argument is if the more athletes competing on the tour(this include in every sport), more likely there's more depth and talented players. And there's more talented players are left out b/c there's no room for them to fill.
    For example, NCAA basketball has a boat load of talented players. Many of them cannot make the NBA b/c there's only a handful that can make it. Plus, many talented European are invading the NBA. No question there's more depth and talented players are in the NBA. Tennis is no different, many talented players are left out too, despite being very talented and would easily qualify to make the tour had they exist in the past decades.

    And I didn't say it is a guarantee that Tennis > past decade since we can't prove it, but at least its very likely. Why? Every sports evolved and they get better.
     
    #78
  29. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    By your simplistic logic (which is ridiculous as usual from you but that is aside the point) then the same would be true for womens tennis. 2000 > 1990 > 1980 > 1970 > 1960, etc...However you are the same one who diminishes Serena's achievements and tries to downplay them further by claiming she played in a weak era. Of course you are in love with Federer and hate Serena, so that is the difference.
     
    #79
  30. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,211
    Nice try though but that’s not going to work. In 2008 the field was WTA was depleted and Serena couldn’t take the advantage of the situation throughout that year. Henin, Kim was gone and injured Sharapova, that would allow Serena to own the field but apparently she wasn’t good enough. Since Fed is the same age as Serena, that would be equivalent to Fed in 2008 without having Nadal, Nole and Murray around. Had this ever happened to Fed, there would be plenty of discussion about Fed’s depleted field. And what’s worse is 2008 Serena allow Jelena, Ivanovic to reached #1, which would be like 2008 Fed allowing Davy, or Roddick reaching #1 and not end the year #1. The competition between the ATP and WTA is as clear as night and day.

    I don’t diminished Serena, but just go by her accomplishment relative to the past great. Same goes for Fed. Comparison these two players is like comparing David vs. Goliath. Fed has something over Laver and Sampras. But what does Serena has over Martina and Graf? Virtually nothing. It may look as I’m diminishing Serena b/c I gave Fed more prop. simply b/c he earned it and Serena has a long way to go.
     
    #80
  31. Devilito

    Devilito Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    4,263
    Rios and Muster hitting number 1 are examples of how deep the era was. Because it has such depth of talent, you didn’t have 1 person clean up all the slams. Often you’d have 3 or 4 different slam winners in a year. What this did was dilute the point totals so the race was much closer. This allowed someone like Rios or Muster who cleaned up on Masters 1000 titles to jump ahead in the point totals. You could argue that this era is so weak that Nadal cleans up everything and nobody else has a shot at being number 1 due to the utter lack of competition. Hopefully Djokovic winning the AO is a sign of change to come. And people need to drop this Agassi and meth BS. You make it sound like he was doing lines between changeovers.
     
    #81
  32. piece

    piece Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,403
    If you drop the modal operator "possibly" from what I said then it certainly becomes debatable. Thankfully, I made no such unqualified assertion in either of my posts.

    But just out of curiosity, how is it that you think the claim that modern players are, as a matter of fact, better than tennis players than past players has been refuted?
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2011
    #82
  33. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Refuted is probably too definitive a word. I retract it (and apologize).

    I think the discussion (as I try to recall) went round and round, and people sort of gave up, because no one was convincing anyone else.

    I believe that the consensus was that there are no objective measure of tennis skills. One can utilize objective measures of the speed of serves, or rpm of balls, but these are a far cry from objective measures of "better" in tennis abilities.

    There is also the statistical pool argument, which indicates (or not) that more pros are playing, but cannot absolutely "prove" that certain players are better. It can only indicate a probability. I believe that someone also suggested that the game of tennis was more popular in the 70s and 80s, and thus more people were playing the game around the world. There was thus a larger pool of recreational players back then.

    There are also the racquet and string technology issues, but these also seemed to go and round because things could not be equalized, so positions devolved to hypotheticals and subjectivity. (It has been discussed.)
     
    #83
  34. piece

    piece Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,403
    Right. In which case the arguments in favour of the position that modern players are better at tennis than past players seem to have been refuted whereas the position itself, while unsupported, hasn't been demonstrated to be false.

    True, it does seem hard to come up with an argument that circumvents the confounding factor of technology change. Maybe if it were possible to quantify exactly how much work the technology does (e.g. how much faster an individual can swing with graphite as opposed to wood) then we could simply deduct the advantage given to modern players by technology from some known statistic (e.g. average groundstroke speed) and then at least have some indication as to who (past or present players) are more capable in certain areas.

    The competition pool arguments are interesting, but I personally don't know which way the numbers fall and, additionally, probably wouldn't find the argument convincing even if one player pool waS shown to be drastically larger than another. Do you recall if the figures you mentioned were for U.S. participation only? Because I can only recall seeing figures regarding that 70s boom that pertained to the American recreational participation rate, rather than an international figure.
     
    #84
  35. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    I am talking about the competition argument you tried to make against Serena. If you are going to tell people they should accept recent players are automatically always better (ridiculous but anyway) then the same has to apply to the women too by your standards. You cant create different rules since you like one player and dont like another.

    And most of Federers success and all of his dominance was before Nadal was an all surface threat, before Djokovic was an established top player for more than a few months, before Murray was any sort of a top player, so no difference then your excuses for Serenas recent success.

    And lastly everyone except you realizes the rankings mean nothing in womens tennis. Players like Jankovic, Safina, Wozniacki, and Ivanovic have won 1 slam between them in the last 4 year period you speak of, and only Jankovic has ever beaten Serena in a slam. Their periodical #1 rankings are meaningless to their limited place amongst the elite.
     
    #85
  36. dominikk1985

    dominikk1985 Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,414
    strong era= the era your favorite played/plays
    weakk era: every other era

    :D
     
    #86
  37. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,396
    Weak era-When Roddick was number one.
    Current era-I think it's pretty good but how strong remains to be seen.

    Of course of a lot of it is opinion because no matter what, the average winning percentage in any year will be fifty percent. To state the rather obvious, a strong era should have a number of top players who are very skilled, able to play a variety of styles and have an excellent variety of shots. And of course you want these players to be top notch physical tennis talent, like great hand speed, mobility, touch.

    Right now I think we have a number of players who fit this like a Nadal, Djokovic, Federer and Murray.
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2011
    #87
  38. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,211
    That’s exactly what I was saying. Had Justine and Henin was playing you wouldn’t hear it from me about the pissed poor 2008. And fans were saying Jankovic/Safina were the worst #1 ever, and would never be in that position had they were in Graf or Martina/Chris’s Era.

    Fed had greater competition than Serena, way better. There is simply no player like Nadal in the WTA. You are wrong about Nadal...he became a force in 2005 and undisputed #2, and by that time Roger won 12 slams up to now.

    If ranking is meaningless than what does that say about the WTA? Fed, Nadal, Nole, and Murray are worthy of rank 1 to 4. Outside of Justine/Kim/Maria, who is worthy of ranked 1 to 4? Don’t tell me it’s Jankovic/Safina, lol.
     
    #88
  39. piece

    piece Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,403
    For the sake of completeness I should add to my previous post that statistical information regarding comparative maximum swing speeds of a player is an insufficient base for the simplistic reasoning I implied might then derive an answer as to who, adjusting for technological differences, has faster groundstrokes on average.

    It's not quite that easy.

    If we were to find that the extra racquet-head speed that can be generated with lighter modern frames was not enough to account for how fast modern players can swing (i.e. modern players can, equalising for frames, swing faster) this would not be enough to establish modern superiority in this area. It might, for instance, be objected that past players deliberately restrained their swings due to the limitations imposed on consistent play by factors like small head size and lively gut strings. Both these factors ensure that any past player taking the kind of cuts at the ball we see modern players take would lose more in consistency than they would gain in power and spin. I'll leave it up to the more knowledgable members of this forum to weigh in on whether past players would deliberately swing slower than they were able to in situations where modern players would plausibly swing nearly as hard as they could.

    What this should show is that it can be easy to analyse data used in this debate in such a way as to systematically exclude relevant variables from consideration. The challenge is noticing when this is occurring. It's conceivable for instance that someone would use the simplistic analysis I suggested in my last post to infer the superiority of modern groundstroking without considering influences like string tech. Is there some way to be sure that one is not ignoring relevant known facts in drawing such a conclusion?

    On a different note, I find the argument from objective improvement in some sports to be quite strong. This is the argument to the effect that since sports in which one can objectively measure improvement over time (track and field events, for example) have in fact shown shown consistent trends of improvement over time, we can safely conclude that in sports like tennis, where objective measurement of relevant attributes is harder to come by, similar gradual improvement over time is the norm.
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2011
    #89
  40. Datacipher

    Datacipher Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,611
    PC, I agree....the era was weak when Roddick was #1, and I think that really continued until...well...perhaps now. The emergence of competitors like Nadal and Djoko were good signs, but other than Nadal, none seemed to have the mental maturity....do they have it now? That remains to be seen! Hopefully we're on the upswing!

    Variety is still the thing I think lags behind past eras. Let's face it...I'd much rather be the #1 of the 2000's and know I am facing the same serve and forehand (slightly inferior to mine) that I faced the round before, and the round before that.....than the #1 who looks ahead and says, geez, is it gonna be the wild lightening flat shots of Korda? Will it be Krajicek coming out to bomb me off the court, and make me pass that 6'5 frame? Giant all courter Todd Martin? The consistent, balanced drives of Kafelnikov? Little Rios with his magic hands? One of the heavy topspin spaniards? How in the hell will Stich decide to play today? Will I have to stay out there all day against Chang? Agassi? Courier? Flipper? Goran? Guga? While any particular guy may not be at any higher level than any one guy today, the sheer variety of styles, and the potential bigness of some of these games, would be a much greater challenge day in and day out. Guys like Murray, Djoko, Nadal....they would have fit in just fine in with the names above....but they to would be facing a much greater variety of styles/strategies.

    I do like the fact that Nadal, Djoko, Murray are developing more balanced games! A good sign! I must really tip my had to Nadal....he's worked hard to round out all aspects of his game as best he can...and he shows a willingness to do it in matches....he certainly isn't nearly as pretty as Fed, but he's actually been the more well-rounded player for quite some time now.
     
    #90
  41. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,396
    I agree that Nadal's been more well rounded than Federer for a while now. Part of being more well rounded to me is strength on both sides and Nadal is strong on the forehand and backhand. He can hurt you consistently on the backhand while Federer doesn't really hurt players on the backhand often. I think he's better volleyer than Federer. Federer misses too many low forehand volleys. Since I've been watching Nadal, he's improved his serve, backhand, volley and even his forehand on fast surfaces. Technically to me he's a thousand times better than when he was 19 and he was an excellent player at 19.

    I'm really happy the top players are so good now because for selfish reasons I like to see great finals in big tournaments. Who really wants to see Federer wipe out another opponent in a major like a Baghdatis? It's boring.
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2011
    #91
  42. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    ^^

    funny because baghdatis was serving for going two sets up vs federer in the AO 2006 final ....
     
    #92
  43. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    LOL, the weak era BS for those who can't accept fed was more of an outlier than any since Laver .....

    there are big servers, aggressive baseliners, counterpunchers etc etc

    for a chang, there is a hewitt
    for a ivanisevic, there is a roddick
    for a rios, there is a nalbandian
    for a kafelnikov, there is a davydenko
    for a Flipper, there is a Soderling

    of course there are nadal, murray,safin, djoker,del potro as well ......

    the difference is in all-courters/volleyers. But you make it out as if there was plenty of variety in the baseliners in the 90s and none in the 2000s , LOL !

    @ the bold part: well how many of the so called "competitors" to sampras had that much of mental maturity ? ( his biggest rival Agassi was AWOL for more than half of his prime , his biggest competitor at Wimbledon, Goran was a headcase) ..... Should I continue ?
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2011
    #93
  44. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,396
    You're right. lol.
    True enough but did any of us really think Baghdatis had a chance? Federer has defeated a lot of great players in the finals like Djokovic, Murray and Nadal. When Federer faces these guys you think he can be defeated and he often wins despite the great opponent. There is also the excitement of potential great rallies and drama. I don't want to see Nadal against a lesser player. I don't want to see Federer against a player he can beat with his eyes closed. I want the best against the best in top tournament finals and we have a lot of players who can beat the top player in the world.

    In any era I want to see great matches. When McEnroe was the best, I wanted him to play a Lendl or a Connors in the final. I didn't want him to play Jay Berger (who served like my wife) in the final. Now that Jay Berger wasn't a good player but the odds are he would be slaughtered by McEnroe.

    Just on a different note, but does anyone look less like a world class tennis player than Baghdatis?:)
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2011
    #94
  45. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    tbh, federer was hot and cold at that AO. Baggy did have a chance considering that , though not a big chance .... Every great player faces strong and less strong players in the path to his GS victories, just a tad bit annoying when some make it seem like federer mainly faced weak opponents and the rest mainly faced strong opponents
     
    #95
  46. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    Also at that very AO, federer faced davydenko in the quarters, who played very well, better than murray did in any of his 3 slam finals, even AO 2010 F ....That was a pretty exciting match , with federer saving 6 SPs in the 3rd set ... It just happens that sometimes the best matches are in the earlier rounds, not necessarily the finals
     
    #96
  47. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,396
    You right. I also think in the US Open, when they play the men's semi the day before the final really hurts the older player. When Sampras lost a few finals in a row without winning a set in 2000 and 2001 that he was hurt by the lack of an off day. He was an older player and even at his best was never known for his stamina. That made for a lot of bad finals for a number of older players like Ken Rosewall in 1974. Connors was clearly better but I think Rosewall would have won a few more games if Rosewall was rested.
     
    #97
  48. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    ^^

    agree..There should a day's rest b/w the SFs and finals @ the USO
     
    #98
  49. tudwell

    tudwell Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,408
    I don't think you necessarily need 6-7 people splitting up majors relatively equally. Look at the recent performance that was demanded of Djokovic to win the Australian, or the one that Del Potro had to put in to win the U.S. Open. Federer and Nadal have simply raised the bar. Not many can match them, at least not consistently. Hell, Gonzalez on his 2007 Australian Open run hit something like 50 winners and 5 unforced errors in the semifinal, then lost in straight sets in the final. It's not that these other players aren't great - they just aren't great enough.
     
    #99
  50. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    True and well-put. I agree that the latter position has not been demonstrated to be false. Just as it has not been demonstrated to be true.

    I guess this leaves it somewhere in between: hypothesized but presently unsupported. (It may indeed be true that any such positions are unprovable by objective means, and thus we are back to only subjective analysis.)
     

Share This Page