How Do You Define 'Strong Era'

[jrepac]

Originally Posted by abmk

well, of course you WON'T see that now. The tour is more "standardized" now, with the top guys mostly playing the major tournaments and not playing too many minor tournaments >> unlike those days where they won small tournaments one after the other playing different tournaments with smaller fields ....

well, just out of curiosity, how many tournaments are there in a year now since they've "standardized"? in the 70's/80's you had something like 50/60 in a calendar year.....have they cut back considerably since?

[it seems so, but hard to tell w/out looking at an ATP event calendar]

also, you don't see many exo events these days....there used to be tons of them and often fun to watch...

perhaps because there isn't as much money to made from them now, as they might have trouble filling the seats/stands?

[Steve132]

Originally Posted by jrepac

well, just out of curiosity, how many tournaments are there in a year now since they've "standardized"? in the 70's/80's you had something like 50/60 in a calendar year.....have they cut back considerably since?

[it seems so, but hard to tell w/out looking at an ATP event calendar]

also, you don't see many exo events these days....there used to be tons of them and often fun to watch...

perhaps because there isn't as much money to made from them now, as they might have trouble filling the seats/stands?

There is far more money in today's game than there ever was in the past. Federer is easily the sport's all time leader in on-court earnings.

The issue is not so much the total number of tournaments held but rather the way in which top players now have to structure their schedules. ALL ATP and WTA top 100 players are expected to take part in all four majors, and all participate unless they are injured. For the top ATP 50 or so players participation in Masters series events (other than Monte Carlo) is also mandatory.

This means that the top players spend most of the year playing in big tournaments with strong fields. To date the four majors and eight of the nine Masters series events have been held. Federer and Murray have played in all 12 events except for Shanghai. Nadal has played in all but Wimbledon. Djokovic has played in all 12. Del Potro has missed only Cincinnati, and Roddick missed only Monte Carlo and Rome.

Today's players cannot accumulate the number of tournament titles that players in previous eras could, because they play in far fewer small events. For example, of Federer's 61 tournament titles 15 are majors and 16 are Masters events. No contemporary player will ever approach Connors - much less Laver or Rosewall - in terms of the number of titles won.

[r2473]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

How Do You Define 'Strong Era'?

[AndrewD]

Originally Posted by Rabbit

Since 2003, when Federer won his 1st major, there have been 7 winners who aren't named Federer or Nadal. That's a total of 28 majors, 21 of which have been won by Federer or Nadal. Just as an aside, the 7 are Agassi, Ferrero, Roddick, Gaudio, Safin, Djokovic, and DelPotro, all with one each.
In that same span, there have been 10 different winners of majors on the WTA. Serena Wiliams and Venus Williams, the most dominant, have accounted for 10 with Henin at 6.

You can look at it like this. In that time frame, Serena Williams and Justin Henin equate to Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal as being genuinely, unequivocally great. You could say that Myskina = Gaudio and Ivanovic = Ferrero. But, where's the men's equivalent of Mauresmo, Venus Williams, Kuznetsova and Sharapova? Those are, in my opinion, Hall of Fame players of the second-tier but where's the male of a similar level? Safin, possibly, but certainly not Djokovic (not yet, if ever). Wind back a bit further and Hingis matches Agassi, Davenport matches Kuerten, Graf matches Sampras but where's the equivalent of Sanchez and Seles?

Regardless, this discussion does a few things that people continually neglect (possibly because they don't like the results).

Firstly, it illustrates that supreme dominance over an extended period of time is the result of a lack of competition.Pete Sampras and Martina Navratilova wouldn't have won as many Wimbledons if they'd had stronger competition. Margaret Court wouldn't have won as many Aus Opens if she'd had stronger competition. Steffi Graf and Roger Federer wouldn't have won as many majors if they'd had stronger competion. Chris Evert wouldn't have won as many clay-court matches or been so consistent at the majors if she'd had stronger competition. Their dominance is simply down to a great player being put up against lesser opposition.

As a contrast, look at Ivan Lendl's record. The guy made it to 19 major finals for 8 wins. What stopped him winning 19 straight was coming up against Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Boris Becker, Cash and Wilander. Of those players, only Cash wouldn't be considered amongst the game's elite but on a grass court -the surface he beat Lendl on- he most certainly would. It wasn't that one guy beat him all the time or that the threw in a few losses to guys beneath him. Each time he lost to a genuinely great player at the very top of their form. Remember, he had to deal with Becker at his absolute peak, McEnroe at his absolute peak and Wilander at his absolute peak.That's why Lendl is better than people admit. Without genuinely great opposition he would have snagged closer to 15 or 16 major all records. With heavy opposition he still made it to the top. Sampras and Federer can't say the same.

Secondly, it reinforces the uniqueness and value of the calendar year Grand Slam. The only reason people undervalue it is because their favourite player can't do it.

[newmark401]

"Originally Posted by Borgforever
Just one consistently great all-timer doesn't make the fiercest era...

you have two - fed and nadal"

I'm not convinced that Rafael Nadal is an all-time great, not yet anyway. He still has a lot to prove. Federer, on the other hand, doesn't, but he is still winning majors. He is supremely motivated.

Much as I admire Jimmy Connors, he could win "only" two US Opens between his great year of 1974 and 1982, after Borg had retired. And Borg could never win the US Open, not even on clay (I know it was American clay).

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by newmark401

Much as I admire Jimmy Connors, he could win "only" two US Opens between his great year of 1974 and 1982, after Borg had retired. And Borg could never win the US Open, not even on clay (I know it was American clay).

I think the strongest era was when there were at least five great players, e. g Connors, Borg, Vilas, McEnroe, Lendl. Does any other era compare? Late 80s-early 90s? 1930s?

At least five multi-slam winners--
Connors: 8 slams
Borg: 11 slams
McEnroe: 7 slams
Lendl: 8 slams
Vilas: 4 slams

[newmark401]

Lendl didn't win his first major until 1984, when he was 24. Borg had been out of the game by three years or so by then, while Vilas was past his best. But Lendl does overlap the Borg-Connors era slightly, with McEnroe in there too.

A 21-year-old Connors thrashed a 40-year-old Rosewall in the 1974 Wimbledon and US Open finals, but the following year he lost the Australian Open final to a veteran John Newcombe, the Wimbeldon final to a veteran Arthur Ashe and the US Open final to the one-time major winner, Manuel Orantes. Connors had a bit of a sinecure at the US Open. Without it, he record in the majors would still be very consistent, but very thin.

McEnroe, like Sampras after him, couldn't win on clay, though McEnroe did have a great chance in the 1984 French Open final against Lendl...

[jrepac]

Originally Posted by AndrewD

As a contrast, look at Ivan Lendl's record. The guy made it to 19 major finals for 8 wins. What stopped him winning 19 straight was coming up against Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Boris Becker, Cash and Wilander. Of those players, only Cash wouldn't be considered amongst the game's elite but on a grass court -the surface he beat Lendl on- he most certainly would. It wasn't that one guy beat him all the time or that the threw in a few losses to guys beneath him. Each time he lost to a genuinely great player at the very top of their form. Remember, he had to deal with Becker at his absolute peak, McEnroe at his absolute peak and Wilander at his absolute peak.That's why Lendl is better than people admit. Without genuinely great opposition he would have snagged closer to 15 or 16 major all records. With heavy opposition he still made it to the top. Sampras and Federer can't say the same.

Secondly, it reinforces the uniqueness and value of the calendar year Grand Slam. The only reason people undervalue it is because their favourite player can't do it.

I think this is very true re: Ivan. I was never a big fan of his, but he was an exceptional player. The only thing that stopped him from winning Wimbledon really, was the guys you listed....he always ran into one of them on grass, inevitably...and then later in his career, you can throw Edberg in the mix of obstacles.

Now that I go back and look at his record, I am truly amazed; plus, in the GS finals he lost, well no shame in who he lost to as most, if not all, are Hall of Fame caliber

Regarding this other post: "Much as I admire Jimmy Connors, he could win "only" two US Opens between his great year of 1974 and 1982, after Borg had retired. And Borg could never win the US Open, not even on clay (I know it was American clay)."

I'm not sure what to say there; he has one of the very best overall records at the USO ever...Jimmy was in 5 straight finals...the clay was not the best for him (losing 2 of those)...having beaten Borg in '76 on clay, was the most impressive, I think...[tho' he beat him the year before in the semis there, again on clay]. He was consistently in the semis 79/80/81, 84/85/87/91 and qtrs at worst, 88/89. I suspect if it hadn't gone to clay, he would've won at least 1/2 more during those 3 years.

[jrepac]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

I think the strongest era was when there were at least five great players, e. g Connors, Borg, Vilas, McEnroe, Lendl. Does any other era compare? Late 80s-early 90s? 1930s?

At least five multi-slam winners--
Connors: 8 slams
Borg: 11 slams
McEnroe: 7 slams
Lendl: 8 slams
Vilas: 4 slams

I think that time period is one of the very best, competitively. I think the late 80s/early 90's perhaps.....Sampras, Courier, Edberg, Becker, Agassi, Chang, stacks up decently, maybe just a notch or two below.

[jrepac]

Originally Posted by AndrewD

Y

Pete Sampras and Martina Navratilova wouldn't have won as many Wimbledons if they'd had stronger competition. Margaret Court wouldn't have won as many Aus Opens if she'd had stronger competition. Steffi Graf and Roger Federer wouldn't have won as many majors if they'd had stronger competion. Chris Evert wouldn't have won as many clay-court matches or been so consistent at the majors if she'd had stronger competition. Their dominance is simply down to a great player being put up against lesser opposition.

Re: the ladies, Martina and Chrissie were just so, so much better than everyone else, particularly on their preferred surfaces (Grass or Clay)....they really made the other girls look like pikers. The only exceptions, I would say, are Tracy and Hana. I think Tracy might've done more if she hadn't gotten injuries, Hana was just inconsistent, but incredibly talented and dangerous. It was not until Steffi and Monica hit the scene that you saw top level talent come thru...along w/some very good players like Aranxta, Davenport, Pierce, etc.....

[abmk]

Originally Posted by newmark401

"Originally Posted by Borgforever
Just one consistently great all-timer doesn't make the fiercest era...

you have two - fed and nadal"

I'm not convinced that Rafael Nadal is an all-time great, not yet anyway. He still has a lot to prove. Federer, on the other hand, doesn't, but he is still winning majors. He is supremely motivated.

Much as I admire Jimmy Connors, he could win "only" two US Opens between his great year of 1974 and 1982, after Borg had retired. And Borg could never win the US Open, not even on clay (I know it was American clay).

5 years of winning a slam atleast, either being no2/no1 for that whole period. If that doesn't qualify as an all-time-great ....

So according to you becker,edberg,wilander aren't all-time greats ?

[lawrence]

Originally Posted by Swissv2

Funny how people's minds work.

• If there were 10 different Grand Slam Winners playing on the ATP Tour right now, we would call it an (inconsistent era), due to no single person being guaranteed to win a Grand Slam
• BUT, if there were 10 different Grand Slam Winners playing on the ATP Tour currently, we would call it a (strong era) due to there being so much "competition".

Yet,

• When one person has a great chance of winning a Grand Slam, the rest of the field is called WEAK.
• When the rest of the field all have chances to win a Grand Slam, everyone is called WEAK
• When a person wins consistently, he is called LUCKY and the rest of the field called WEAK
• When a person doesn't win consistently, he is called WEAK

This. "Strong Era" is a stupid, hypocritical term, made up by Samprastards.
The argument contradicts itself so much it's not funny. But some people are too dense to see that.

[akv89]

DELETED
10 char

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by newmark401

Lendl didn't win his first major until 1984, when he was 24. Borg had been out of the game by three years or so by then, while Vilas was past his best. But Lendl does overlap the Borg-Connors era slightly, with McEnroe in there too.

True, but Lendl did lose to Borg at the 1981 final of the FO, so one could posit that they competed against each other, and thus overlapped in the game.