As Per Statistics 2011-2012 is Possibly the Strongest Period in the Open Era

travlerajm

Talk Tennis Guru
We can take Federer as an example.
And perhaps we can start with the assumption that a player’s prime on average includes the 6-year period where he is age 22,23,24,25,26,27.

We can then divide the prime into two halves.
Age 22,23,24 & age 25,26,27.

We can then compare slam record in those two halves.
Let’s say we use slam semi’s reached as an easy metric because it can quickly be scraped off of wiki.

Fed age 22,23,24: 10 of 12
Fed age 25,26,27: 12 of 12

So in this case, it points to Fed’s first 3 years of his prime (2003–2006) being more difficult strength of field than the last 3 years of it (2006-2009).

But this is only N of 1. Repeat for a large number of players and you get your answer from it.
 

Razer

Legend
We can take Federer as an example.
And perhaps we can start with the assumption that a player’s prime on average includes the 6-year period where he is age 22,23,24,25,26,27.

We can then divide the prime into two halves.
Age 22,23,24 & age 25,26,27.

We can then compare slam record in those two halves.
Let’s say we use slam semi’s reached as an easy metric because it can quickly be scraped off of wiki.

Fed age 22,23,24: 10 of 12
Fed age 25,26,27: 12 of 12

So in this case, it points to Fed’s first 3 years of his prime (2003–2006) being more difficult strength of field than the last 3 years of it (2006-2009).

But this is only N of 1. Repeat for a large number of players and you get your answer from it.

This kind of analysis is not at all right.
Everyone knows Fed had it more difficult in 07-09 than in 04-06 because he had to battle youngsters, so why would you prove that making less semis before 25 is tougher than making more semis after 25 ? that kind of analysis does not work.
Plus primes cannot be defined at 22-27, primes can be continued till 31 as well for some athletes and some people mature early as well... limiting anything to 27 is nonsense, that kind of analysis always favors federer, this is old fed fan logic.....
 

travlerajm

Talk Tennis Guru
This kind of analysis is not at all right.
Everyone knows Fed had it more difficult in 07-09 than in 04-06 because he had to battle youngsters, so why would you prove that making less semis before 25 is tougher than making more semis after 25 ? that kind of analysis does not work.
Plus primes cannot be defined at 22-27, primes can be continued till 31 as well for some athletes and some people mature early as well... limiting anything to 27 is nonsense, that kind of analysis always favors federer, this is old fed fan logic.....
I just picked Fed as an example and crunched a few numbers. I have no dog in this fight.
 

Razer

Legend
I just picked Fed as an example and crunched a few numbers. I have no dog in this fight.

A better and more simple way to see things is just filter decade vs decade vs decade and see what was the performance you and your same aged rivals ..... with same aged I mean a max of 2 &1/2 years older or 2&1/2 years younger..... that means +/- of 2 & 1/2 years and do this for 3 decades

2010s
Djokovic - 15 slams
Nadal - 13 slams
Murray - 3
Wawrinka - 3
Cilic - 1

Looks robust, this means same aged guys did make life hell for Novak to "earn" those 15 slams and not being gifted by bums.

2000s
Federer - 15 Slams
Hewitt - 2
Safin - 2
A Rod - 1
JCF - 1

So Federer did make a mockery of his same aged men and as @Holmes would say, if those men had been tougher then Roger would have had more difficulty to win his.

1990s
Sampras - 12
Agassi - 5
Courier - 4
Bruguera - 2
Rafter - 2
Kafelnikov - 2
Krajicek - 1

So

Novak for his 15 slams was up against his own peer group who were capable of winning 20 slams against him.
Federer for his 15 slams was up against his peer group who were capable of winning 6 slams only against him.
Sampras for his 12 slams in 1990s was against his peer group who were capable of winning 16 slams against him.


So this means Novak and Sampras have been doing heavylifting in their decades while Federer has been lifting light weights ?

@NonP would say, Pistol has been the ultimate Stud, I would say even Novak has been stud, not sure about Roger since he was stud among kids.
 
Last edited:

Holmes

Hall of Fame
A better and more simple way to see things is just filter decade vs decade vs decade and see what was the performance you and your same aged rivals ..... with same aged I mean a max of 2 &1/2 years older or 2&1/2 years younger..... that means +/- of 2 & 1/2 years and do this for 3 decades

2010s
Djokovic - 15 slams
Nadal - 13 slams
Murray - 3
Wawrinka - 3
Cilic - 1

Looks robust, this means same aged guys did make life hell for Novak to "earn" those 15 slams and not being gifted by bums.

2000s
Federer - 15 Slams
Hewitt - 2
Safin - 2
A Rod - 1
JCF - 1

So Federer did make a mockery of his same aged men and as @Holmes would say, if those men had been tougher then Roger would have had more difficulty to win his.

1990s
Sampras - 12
Agassi - 5
Courier - 4
Bruguera - 2
Rafter - 2
Kafelnikov - 2
Krajicek - 1

So

Novak for his 15 slams was up against his own peer group who were capable of winning 20 slams against him.
Federer for his 15 slams was up against his peer group who were capable of winning 6 slams only against him.
Sampras for his 12 slams in 1990s was against his peer group who were capable of winning 16 slams against him.


So this means Novak and Sampras have been doing heavylifting in their decades while Federer has been lifting light weights ?
You forgot Goran who got a major and Andre who actually got 7 before PETE won his last. So Pete's merry group of slammers got 19 against him. And yes, Fed played clowns.
 

travlerajm

Talk Tennis Guru
A better and more simple way to see things is just filter decade vs decade vs decade and see what was the performance you and your same aged rivals ..... with same aged I mean a max of 2 &1/2 years older or 2&1/2 years younger..... that means +/- of 2 & 1/2 years and do this for 3 decades

2010s
Djokovic - 15 slams
Nadal - 13 slams
Murray - 3
Wawrinka - 3
Cilic - 1

Looks robust, this means same aged guys did make life hell for Novak to "earn" those 15 slams and not being gifted by bums.

2000s
Federer - 15 Slams
Hewitt - 2
Safin - 2
A Rod - 1
JCF - 1

So Federer did make a mockery of his same aged men and as @Holmes would say, if those men had been tougher then Roger would have had more difficulty to win his.

1990s
Sampras - 12
Agassi - 5
Courier - 4
Bruguera - 2
Rafter - 2
Kafelnikov - 2
Krajicek - 1

So

Novak for his 15 slams was up against his own peer group who were capable of winning 20 slams against him.
Federer for his 15 slams was up against his peer group who were capable of winning 6 slams only against him.
Sampras for his 12 slams in 1990s was against his peer group who were capable of winning 16 slams against him.


So this means Novak and Sampras have been doing heavylifting in their decades while Federer has been lifting light weights ?
No it doesn’t mean that.
 

Holmes

Hall of Fame
No it doesn’t mean that.
People claim that Federer's dominance signifies unparalleled greatness, but I think if at the absolute pinnacle of a professional sport an entire field is incapable of winning more than 6 slams against a player over a decade, it says more about the field than said player. Champs find a way to win, no matter who is across the net.
 

travlerajm

Talk Tennis Guru
People claim that Federer's dominance signifies unparalleled greatness, but I think if at the absolute pinnacle of a professional sport an entire field is incapable of winning more than 6 slams against a player over a decade, it says more about the field than said player. Champs find a way to win, no matter who is across the net.
My point is that we can’t use the distribution of slams won to judge the strength of the era. It says nothing about the strength of the field.
 

Razer

Legend
People claim that Federer's dominance signifies unparalleled greatness, but I think if at the absolute pinnacle of a professional sport an entire field is incapable of winning more than 6 slams against a player over a decade, it says more about the field than said player. Champs find a way to win, no matter who is across the net.

Yes champs should find ways to win. Roddick should have won 2009W. 2 Slams on his resume would have made it very respectable.

I am using "respectable" 2 slam winner for Roddick because he was never supposed to be Fed's main rival, the main rivals who should have won more were Nalby & Safin. They should have made Roger a better player so that he could have tackled Nadal at least until 2012. Would have been much better.
 

Holmes

Hall of Fame
My point is that we can’t use the distribution of slams won to judge the strength of the era. It says nothing about the strength of the field.
Perhaps not as the sole metric, but it definitely does tell us something about the strength of an era.
 

Razer

Legend
My point is that we can’t use the distribution of slams won to judge the strength of the era. It says nothing about the strength of the field.

Ok lets modify our criteria. Yes Slams can be won by the better player, so lets see finals, if you are good then you should at least appear in the final .

We'll keep the range at 2 &1/2 older to 2&1/2 younger.

2010s

Djokovic - 23 Finals
Nadal - 19 Finals
Murray - 10 Finals
Wawrinka - 4 Finals
Cilic - 3 Finals
Anderson - 3 Finals
Berdych - 1
Nishikori - 1
Del Potro - 1

2000s

Federer - 21 Finals
Roddick - 5 Finals
Hewitt - 4 Finals
Safin - 4 Finals
JCF - 3 Finals
Nalbandian - 1 Final
Coria- 1 Final
Gonzales - 1 Final

1990s

Sampras - 14 Finals
Agassi - 10
Courier - 7
Stich - 3
Chang - 3
Bruguera - 3
Ivanisevic - 3
Rafter -2
Kafelnikov - 2
Todd Martin - 2
Pioline - 2
Krajicek - 1
Washington - 1
Rusedski - 1
Berasategui - 1

So...

Novak 23 finals up against his peers who have 42 Finals
Federer 21 Finals up against his peer who have 19 Finals only ? :rolleyes:
Sampras 14 Finals up against his peers who have 41 Finals


Sampras's men appeared almost 3 times as him in the finals and Novak's men were 2 times as him in the finals while Federer's boys were unable to even reach as many finals as him combined, that is so embarrassing. @Holmes you were right about the clowns part :sick:
 

Holmes

Hall of Fame
Yes champs should find ways to win. Roddick should have won 2009W. 2 Slams on his resume would have made it very respectable.

I am using "respectable" 2 slam winner for Roddick because he was never supposed to be Fed's main rival, the main rivals who should have won more were Nalby & Safin. They should have made Roger a better player so that he could have tackled Nadal at least until 2012. Would have been much better.
Yes. Roddick and Hewitt maximized their potential. Hewitt's was limited, Roddick's was low. Nalby and Safin were extreme underachievers who as you say should have been multiple slam champs knocking on ATG status, but who essentially waltzed Federer to 12 slams in 4 years with their mugginess.
 

Holmes

Hall of Fame
Ok lets modify our criteria. Yes Slams can be won by the better player, so lets see finals, if you are good then you should at least appear in the final .

We'll keep the range at 2 &1/2 older to 2&1/2 younger.

2010s

Djokovic - 23 Finals
Nadal - 19 Finals
Murray - 10 Finals
Wawrinka - 4 Finals
Cilic - 3 Finals
Anderson - 3 Finals
Berdych - 1
Nishikori - 1
Del Potro - 1

2000s

Federer - 21 Finals
Roddick - 5 Finals
Hewitt - 4 Finals
Safin - 4 Finals
JCF - 3 Finals
Nalbandian - 1 Final
Coria- 1 Final
Gonzales - 1 Final

1990s

Sampras - 14 Finals
Agassi - 10
Courier - 7
Stich - 3
Chang - 3
Bruguera - 3
Ivanisevic - 3
Rafter -2
Kafelnikov - 2
Todd Martin - 2
Pioline - 2
Krajicek - 1
Washington - 1
Rusedski - 1
Berasategui - 1

So...

Novak 23 finals up against his peers who have 42 Finals
Federer 21 Finals up against his peer who have 19 Finals only ? :rolleyes:
Sampras 14 Finals up against his peers who have 41 Finals


Sampras's men appeared almost 3 times as him in the finals and Novak's men were 2 times as him in the finals while Federer's boys were unable to even reach as many finals as him combined, that is so embarrassing. @Holmes you were right about the clowns part :sick:
Great work.
 

fedfan24

Hall of Fame
In that case there is no way then to determine strength with respect to other eras, you can only dominate your era and one can only judge your rivals if they are good/bad. There is no time travel tennis.

Simple logic is that if power is distributed in competitors then it becomes easier to divide and rule, like 00s when Roger won 15 slams and next best were on 6, 2, 2, 1 type figures. Unlike in 2010s when Novak won 15 and next best is his rival on 13 in that decade, third best is 5. So that makes it more difficult.
why is it more difficult? Nadal won most of his slams against murray, nextgens and geriatric fed… not nadal
 

fedfan24

Hall of Fame
This kind of analysis is not at all right.
Everyone knows Fed had it more difficult in 07-09 than in 04-06 because he had to battle youngsters, so why would you prove that making less semis before 25 is tougher than making more semis after 25 ? that kind of analysis does not work.
Plus primes cannot be defined at 22-27, primes can be continued till 31 as well for some athletes and some people mature early as well... limiting anything to 27 is nonsense, that kind of analysis always favors federer, this is old fed fan logic.....
it’s not nonsense at all it’s science… we start declining towards our mid-late 20s.
 

fedfan24

Hall of Fame
Ok lets modify our criteria. Yes Slams can be won by the better player, so lets see finals, if you are good then you should at least appear in the final .

We'll keep the range at 2 &1/2 older to 2&1/2 younger.

2010s

Djokovic - 23 Finals
Nadal - 19 Finals
Murray - 10 Finals
Wawrinka - 4 Finals
Cilic - 3 Finals
Anderson - 3 Finals
Berdych - 1
Nishikori - 1
Del Potro - 1

2000s

Federer - 21 Finals
Roddick - 5 Finals
Hewitt - 4 Finals
Safin - 4 Finals
JCF - 3 Finals
Nalbandian - 1 Final
Coria- 1 Final
Gonzales - 1 Final

1990s

Sampras - 14 Finals
Agassi - 10
Courier - 7
Stich - 3
Chang - 3
Bruguera - 3
Ivanisevic - 3
Rafter -2
Kafelnikov - 2
Todd Martin - 2
Pioline - 2
Krajicek - 1
Washington - 1
Rusedski - 1
Berasategui - 1

So...

Novak 23 finals up against his peers who have 42 Finals
Federer 21 Finals up against his peer who have 19 Finals only ? :rolleyes:
Sampras 14 Finals up against his peers who have 41 Finals


Sampras's men appeared almost 3 times as him in the finals and Novak's men were 2 times as him in the finals while Federer's boys were unable to even reach as many finals as him combined, that is so embarrassing. @Holmes you were right about the clowns part :sick:
horrible analysis that gives weight to wins over Murray , and nadal simply “existing” in the 2010s… when djokovic only won 5 slams facing him directly in the whole decade.
 
Top