What is a weak era or strong era in tennis?

[TMF]

Originally Posted by kiki

Nor is your screaming gonna make Federer an instant 3 times slammer...and it is you who has a problem with the pool size ( seems you are Mr Size, anyway), not certainly me.

It´s great having players from Cyprus,Uzbekhistan,Latvia and Luxemburg, you know.A touch of class indeed.

Fed doesn't need anymore. His resume is more than enough to be argue at #1. And the tennis channel did place him on top.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

You are, read again. I'm not defending "Nalby." I'm saying this is a weak era because of players like Murray who have the game, but not the mental toughness, to be a champion.

The same applies to nalby too , if we are going to be that strict with the mental toughness criteria .... he had the game, but wasn't that mentally strong ......

But the point is if these players had a bit of luck fall their way - like for example the luck that the likes of gaudio, johansson or kafelnikov got, they too would have won slams - that includes all of mecir, nalbandian, rios and murray IMO ...

[kiki]

Originally Posted by TMF

Fed doesn't need anymore. His resume is more than enough to be argue at #1. And the tennis channel did place him on top.

Yes, and President Obama said " Yes, we can".Anyhow, what is Tennis Channel?

[kiki]

Originally Posted by abmk

The same applies to nalby too , if we are going to be that strict with the mental toughness criteria .... he had the game, but wasn't that mentally strong ......

But the point is if these players had a bit of luck fall their way - like for example the luck that the likes of gaudio, johansson or kafelnikov got, they too would have won slams - that includes all of mecir, nalbandian, rios and murray IMO ...

Agreed for Gaudio and Johansson but not for Kalashnikov...Evgeni was a nightmare for many top players and he won 2 not just 1 GS title ( that proves it is no fluke)

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

Yes, and President Obama said " Yes, we can".Anyhow, what is Tennis Channel?

The Tennis Channel is a television station we have in the United States that shows nothing but tennis. It has pro tennis tournaments, instruction on tennis, features on top players etc. The Tennis Channel List is a subjective list of the top tennis players in history. There was no formula for who was at the top. It combined women and men. Therefore you would think they would treat the women with great accomplishments equally with the men but they didn't. I think many forgot about the accomplishments of the great pros pre Open era. So Federer finished first in this list and Laver second.

Actually from my perspective it's amazing to me that Laver finished second. It just shows how his accomplishments have not been forgotten despite the passage of time. People always tend to pick the current men's champion as the greatest. He may be or may not be. Objectively however many of the women could have or should have finished first. When you consider for example that Steffi Graf won over 100 tournaments, 22 majors, a Golden Slam, and had a higher winning percentage than many. All these accomplishments are higher than Federer and yet Federer ranked higher than Graf on this list?? It really doesn't make sense at all that Federer finished first ahead of Graf (and a number of other women like Navratilova) if you are valuing the Women's accomplishments equally with the Men. The obvious answer is that the Tennis Channel List is just a subjective list. I spoke to someone who voted on the list (who actually knows tennis history) and this person thought the list order was ridiculous.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by abmk

The same applies to nalby too , if we are going to be that strict with the mental toughness criteria .... he had the game, but wasn't that mentally strong ......

But the point is if these players had a bit of luck fall their way - like for example the luck that the likes of gaudio, johansson or kafelnikov got, they too would have won slams - that includes all of mecir, nalbandian, rios and murray IMO ...

The point remains, an era in which 2 players win virtually every major championship is a weak era, the depth of non-championship level competition notwithstanding.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

The point remains, an era in which 2 players win virtually every major championship is a weak era, the depth of non-championship level competition notwithstanding.

I think one of the ways we can look at how strong the era is is when we examine how well and how long the players of that era did afterwards or before. For example during the early 1970's to later 1970's tennis had Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Ashe, Nastase, Vilas,Laver, Rosewall, Smith, Gerulaitis, Lendl Panatta, Orantes among others. Connors and McEnroe lasted to the 1990's playing well against Agassi and Sampras even though they generally lost. Vilas was competitive into the 1980's. Gerulaitis was excellent into the 1980's. Lendl was competitive into the 1990's. Dibbs was still competitive into the 1980's. Ashe was excellent until his health stopped him from playing.

Laver was superb until the mid 1970's until he semi retired but Laver started in the late 1950's. Rosewall was great from the early 1950's on until the mid 1970's when the fountain of youth he was drinking from probably dried up. Gonzalez was great from the late 1940's in the early 1970's beating playing from Tilden to Connors. In between he was able to beat Kramer, Sedgman, Laver, Segura, Rosewall, Trabert, Hoad, Roche, Newcombe, Smith, Cooper, Anderson, Budge, Gimeno, Emerson, Ashe and most of these guys he was able to beat a high percentage of the time. John Alexander made a joke that the players expected Gonzalez to slow down any century now.

Players like Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver, Tilden and Connors spanned a number of different eras in tennis and were extremely successful.

This is of course not the end all because some top players can retire early or get burnt out or have to retire because of injury but it is something to think about.

However I do think that you really should look at the total accomplishment of the player over his or her career. So if you have a number of player at their peaks in a certain era and you know their accomplishments over their career you may have a good argument for a strong era.

Look at the 1950's pros, Gonzalez-a great choice for the best ever, Segura-an great career record, Sedgman-a legend, Trabert-a dominant player in the amateur and a top pro, Rosewall-potential GOAT, Hoad-legendary and arguably the best ever at his best, Gimeno-one of the top players in the world for years and you add majors winners in Olmedo, Cooper, Anderson. The top players were unbelievable here. Note that this is the mid to late 1950's here so I don't include the great Jack Kramer and a few others.

Originally Posted by pc1

The Tennis Channel is a television station we have in the United States that shows nothing but tennis. It has pro tennis tournaments, instruction on tennis, features on top players etc. The Tennis Channel List is a subjective list of the top tennis players in history. There was no formula for who was at the top. It combined women and men. Therefore you would think they would treat the women with great accomplishments equally with the men but they didn't. I think many forgot about the accomplishments of the great pros pre Open era. So Federer finished first in this list and Laver second.

Actually from my perspective it's amazing to me that Laver finished second. It just shows how his accomplishments have not been forgotten despite the passage of time. People always tend to pick the current men's champion as the greatest. He may be or may not be. Objectively however many of the women could have or should have finished first. When you consider for example that Steffi Graf won over 100 tournaments, 22 majors, a Golden Slam, and had a higher winning percentage than many. All these accomplishments are higher than Federer and yet Federer ranked higher than Graf on this list?? It really doesn't make sense at all that Federer finished first ahead of Graf (and a number of other women like Navratilova) if you are valuing the Women's accomplishments equally with the Men. The obvious answer is that the Tennis Channel List is just a subjective list. I spoke to someone who voted on the list (who actually knows tennis history) and this person thought the list order was ridiculous.

Graf's acheivements are forever tarnished by the Seles stabbing. That is why Federer was ranked higher.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

The point remains, an era in which 2 players win virtually every major championship is a weak era, the depth of non-championship level competition notwithstanding.

and we're back to the square one .....

plus is it not possible that those 2 players are just that much better than the rest of the field rather than the depth being "bad" ?

The "mental strength" of the players is also influenced by whom they play/when they play ..... it isn't black and white ..

[pc1]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Graf's acheivements are forever tarnished by the Seles stabbing. That is why Federer was ranked higher.

Maybe but she won the Golden Slam before the stabbing and she won at a great rate for her career. Anyway Navratilova won 18 majors, 167 tournaments, had a better winning percentage and is still behind Federer. Same with Chris Evert. Why? Answer-Subjective list. No formula. I believe the recent names, which are more in the public eye as usual has a huge advantage in these lists (aka opinion polls in this case) than the players of the past. I'm sure Sampras would have won it years ago as would McEnroe, Borg, Connors etc. In future years I can see Nadal winning it. Whether any of them deserve it would be debatable.

Originally Posted by pc1

Maybe but she won the Golden Slam before that and she won at a great rate. Anyway Navratilova won 18 majors, 167 tournaments, had a better winning percentage and is still behind Federer. Why? Answer-Subjective list. No formula.

Navratilova dominated an era with no competition, even less than Federer. 1983-1987 was truly the ghost age of the WTA. Almost no talented players in the top 10 outside of Navratilova, a clearly past her best Evert, an erratic Mandlikova, and a very young Graf in 86 and 87. 1983 was the biggest joke ever for the WTA, reporters were irate at the disgustingly low level of play at the U.S Open that year, and even unfairly grilled Martina about it as if it were her fault that her producing the best ever tennis by a women to date coincided with a lackluster Evert, and overall such a hopeless lot of girls to play against. Evert and Court are the ones who make the least sense for Federer to be above, yet Evert is shafted behind Navratilova despite achieving as much or more in singles vs much tougher competition (speaking of her 70s and early 80s achievements) just due to being seen as dominated by Navratilova during Martina's prime, and Court is shafted due to the Aussie Open status. It all becomes complicated.

I do agree for the record that Evert, Navratilova, Graf, and Court should all be above Federer, but there would probably a riot if the top 4 were all women, as people know if the men and women played one another the men would slaughter the women. At best people would insist the men should be on par with the women in the rankings, even if the best women have more achievements than the best men. People would also insist the reason the women have more achievements is the competition is so much less amongst the women (even for what constitutes a strong field for women, and a weaker one for men), and that this is only proof of that fact. That is why men and women lists should not be mixed in the first place. It was almost like they were too lazy to do 2 lists of 100 players, so just made it easier by mixing them.

[BigServer1]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

The point remains, an era in which 2 players win virtually every major championship is a weak era, the depth of non-championship level competition notwithstanding.

I tend to agree with this statement, but for me it's even more about the lack of challengers to the players in the top 3-4 spots.

I remember watching the 2006 French Open, and all the talk was about how incredible it was the the top 4 seeds all reached the semis. Now I feel like that happens all the time. It happened at the 2012 AO, 2011 US Open and 2011 FO, three of the last four majors.

I think the top 20 now is as bad as it's been in a long time, but the top 3 is quite strong, especially when compared with the remainder of the field.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Navratilova dominated an era with no competition, even less than Federer. 1983-1987 was truly the ghost age of the WTA. Almost no talented players in the top 10 outside of Navratilova, a clearly past her best Evert, an erratic Mandlikova, and a very young Graf in 86 and 87. 1983 was the biggest joke ever for the WTA, reporters were irate at the disgustingly low level of play at the U.S Open that year, and even unfairly grilled Martina about it as if it were her fault that her producing the best ever tennis by a women to date coincided with a lackluster Evert, and overall such a hopeless lot of girls to play against. Evert and Court are the ones who make the least sense for Federer to be above, yet Evert is shafted behind Navratilova despite achieving as much or more in singles vs much tougher competition (speaking of her 70s and early 80s achievements) just due to being seen as dominated by Navratilova during Martina's prime, and Court is shafted due to the Aussie Open status. It all becomes complicated.

I do agree for the record that Evert, Navratilova, Graf, and Court should all be above Federer, but there would probably a riot if the top 4 were all women, as people know if the men and women played one another the men would slaughter the women. At best people would insist the men should be on par with the women in the rankings, even if the best women have more achievements than the best men. People would also insist the reason the women have more achievements is the competition is so much less amongst the women (even for what constitutes a strong field for women, and a weaker one for men), and that this is only proof of that fact. That is why men and women lists should not be mixed in the first place. It was almost like they were too lazy to do 2 lists of 100 players, so just made it easier by mixing them.

You are probably right that some were too lazy to do two lists of one hundred but I think it would have been better to have a separate men's and women's list of fifty apiece.

Evert's top years had some fabulous players. If you include 1973, she had to battle Court, King, Goolagong, Navratilova, Wade, Casals, Barker, Stove, Austin among others in the 1970's. Despite that she won about 90% of her matches in her career and 154 tournaments I believe.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

The Tennis Channel is a television station we have in the United States that shows nothing but tennis. It has pro tennis tournaments, instruction on tennis, features on top players etc. The Tennis Channel List is a subjective list of the top tennis players in history. There was no formula for who was at the top. It combined women and men. Therefore you would think they would treat the women with great accomplishments equally with the men but they didn't. I think many forgot about the accomplishments of the great pros pre Open era. So Federer finished first in this list and Laver second.

Actually from my perspective it's amazing to me that Laver finished second. It just shows how his accomplishments have not been forgotten despite the passage of time. People always tend to pick the current men's champion as the greatest. He may be or may not be. Objectively however many of the women could have or should have finished first. When you consider for example that Steffi Graf won over 100 tournaments, 22 majors, a Golden Slam, and had a higher winning percentage than many. All these accomplishments are higher than Federer and yet Federer ranked higher than Graf on this list?? It really doesn't make sense at all that Federer finished first ahead of Graf (and a number of other women like Navratilova) if you are valuing the Women's accomplishments equally with the Men. The obvious answer is that the Tennis Channel List is just a subjective list. I spoke to someone who voted on the list (who actually knows tennis history) and this person thought the list order was ridiculous.

Good to knoe.Anway, how did Tennis Channel rate Mo Connolly? and Helen Wills ?

[kiki]

Originally Posted by abmk

and we're back to the square one .....

plus is it not possible that those 2 players are just that much better than the rest of the field rather than the depth being "bad" ?

The "mental strength" of the players is also influenced by whom they play/when they play ..... it isn't black and white ..

Take Nadal or Djokovic: How many past GS winners have they had to face? Hewitt was hampered with injuries,Roddick and Ferrero , I´ll give you that, Safin was completely out of form from the middle 2000´s...now, their greatest opposition, other than Federer, have been the likes of Murray ( talented but very weak),Ferrer ( a decent journeyman),Berdych and Soderling,Tsonga.None of them ( except for the astonishing win of Del Potro in 2009) never won a major title.

Look, guys like Orantes,Panatta,Gerulatis,Tanner were not even in the top 10 of the 1970´s decades ranking U( if we had to pick the top ten of that decade as a whole)...yet they were able to win majors and top players like Borg,Connors,Newcombe respected them.It is simply out of any possible comparison.