It's interesting how 'average' players from this era won more tournaments than some so-called 'legends' from past..

lud

Hall of Fame
For example.
Gasquet has 15 tiles
Isner has 15 title
Simon has 14 titles
Tommy Robredo won 12 titles
Querrey is on 10 titles

And yet we will never see any of these guys on the list of best players without GS.
Only a handful players wuihout GS won more than 15 titles(Davydenko , Enqvist , Rios...)

And 'legendary' players like Nalbandian,Pioline,Todd Martin,Philippoussis,Ljubicic won cirka 10 tournaments in their careers.
I can understand it's because they underperformed at GS so much.. Still,maybe they are in the league of Nalby,Ljubo,Scud,Corretja,Henman...
 

BorgTheGOAT

Professional
For example.
Gasquet has 15 tiles
Isner has 15 title
Simon has 14 titles
Tommy Robredo won 12 titles
Querrey is on 10 titles

And yet we will never see any of these guys on the list of best players without GS.
Only a handful players wuihout GS won more than 15 titles(Davydenko , Enqvist , Rios...)

And 'legendary' players like Nalbandian,Pioline,Todd Martin,Philippoussis,Ljubicic won cirka 10 tournaments in their careers.
I can understand it's because they underperformed at GS so much.. Still,maybe they are in the league of Nalby,Ljubo,Scud,Corretja,Henman...
Who exactly ever said that Martin, Pioline, Philippoussis etc are legends?
 

BorgTheGOAT

Professional
You can nitpick wording and overlook the obvious hyperbole or you can address the broader point he's making. It seems you have chosen the unproductive option.
Hyperbole or not, the point is that Pioline, Martin, Philippoussis etc. are not rated way higher than Gasquet, Isner, Robredo etc. The obvious reason why they are rated higher at all is their relative slam success. All those three have reached two slam finals next to some additional semis. The likes of Isner, Gasquet and Robredo are way ahead in this regard, and seriously who cares about tournaments won if those are 250s.
 

Flash O'Groove

Hall of Fame
Number of lower level tournament wins are a proof of high consistency and longevity, but tell little about peak level.

The second batch of players you mention are not rated very high, but some of them showed higher peak level than the player of the first batch, even though for various reasons they weren't consistent or lacked longevity. Nalbandian is the only one of both list who was touted as a potential great player. Though he didn't deliver on his potential. He won few tournaments but his win include Masters 1000 won in impressive fashion and a World Tour Final.
 

Sparta-cus

New User
There are more tournaments now than previous era. You should put some stats at what level of tournaments they win? ATP1000, 500 etc... would be worth looking into. Last i checked none of the guys you mentioned are winning those unless draw is favorable.

Put a list on how 1 or 2 slam winners have won outside tournament. Roddick, Hewiit, Rafter, kuerten, moya, ferrero etc...


For example.
Gasquet has 15 tiles
Isner has 15 title
Simon has 14 titles
Tommy Robredo won 12 titles
Querrey is on 10 titles

And yet we will never see any of these guys on the list of best players without GS.
Only a handful players wuihout GS won more than 15 titles(Davydenko , Enqvist , Rios...)

And 'legendary' players like Nalbandian,Pioline,Todd Martin,Philippoussis,Ljubicic won cirka 10 tournaments in their careers.
I can understand it's because they underperformed at GS so much.. Still,maybe they are in the league of Nalby,Ljubo,Scud,Corretja,Henman...
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Hyperbole or not, the point is that Pioline, Martin, Philippoussis etc. are not rated way higher than Gasquet, Isner, Robredo etc. The obvious reason why they are rated higher at all is their relative slam success. All those three have reached two slam finals next to some additional semis. The likes of Isner, Gasquet and Robredo are way ahead in this regard, and seriously who cares about tournaments won if those are 250s.
Nalbandian should be rated way higher though. Putting Gasquet and Robredo in the same realm as him is erroneous.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
For example.
Gasquet has 15 tiles
Isner has 15 title
Simon has 14 titles
Tommy Robredo won 12 titles
Querrey is on 10 titles

And yet we will never see any of these guys on the list of best players without GS.
Only a handful players wuihout GS won more than 15 titles(Davydenko , Enqvist , Rios...)

And 'legendary' players like Nalbandian,Pioline,Todd Martin,Philippoussis,Ljubicic won cirka 10 tournaments in their careers.
I can understand it's because they underperformed at GS so much.. Still,maybe they are in the league of Nalby,Ljubo,Scud,Corretja,Henman...
GAS. Great Age Shift.

And careers are a lot longer than they used to be.

Eras cannot be compared. Medical advances extend careers, surface/ball homogenization changed things too. The pro circuit changes all the time, making comparisons absurd and unfair.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
90% of threads here are about comparing current Djokovic to 2003-2007 peak Fed, which was 12-16 years ago and a totally different era. Why aren’t people here taking your advice and belatedly realizing that is absurd and unfair? :unsure:
1. Did you conduct a poll? Are you speaking for everyone here? Are you the Police here?

2. The fact a majority (allegedly) does something does not mean it's true or makes sense.

3. The Weak Era you mention is still within the homogenization post 2001 era hence much more comparable than to the 90s, let alone 80s. OP compared Gasquet to Enqvist indirectly, just an example.

4. 90% of threads?... You need to do a recount...

5. Check your facts before posting.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Take Nalbandian for instance. Not even 200 events entered in his career compared to over 350 for Simon & Robredo. Can't compare this stuff.
There is an obsession with comparing the incomparable. Comparisons are fun, but they have to make sense otherwise zero useful conclusions come out of them. In fact, bad comparisons are very misleading, almost like bad propaganda or something. They spread falsehoods.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Professional
Nalbandian should be rated way higher though. Putting Gasquet and Robredo in the same realm as him is erroneous.
Agree. He reached semis in all four slams and won the WTF which automatically puts him higher than the ones mentioned. Nevertheless on another note I think he gets way overrated here similar to Safin or worst of all Rios. He was a great talent, but never on the level of the big three as some posters here want to believe.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
For example.
Gasquet has 15 tiles
Isner has 15 title
Simon has 14 titles
Tommy Robredo won 12 titles
Querrey is on 10 titles

And yet we will never see any of these guys on the list of best players without GS.
Only a handful players wuihout GS won more than 15 titles(Davydenko , Enqvist , Rios...)

And 'legendary' players like Nalbandian,Pioline,Todd Martin,Philippoussis,Ljubicic won cirka 10 tournaments in their careers.
I can understand it's because they underperformed at GS so much.. Still,maybe they are in the league of Nalby,Ljubo,Scud,Corretja,Henman...
Your data is total garbage.:sneaky: Here we go is a list of players without slams by number of tournaments won. I see lots of double digit winners unworthy of slams;) :
26 NED Tom Okker 27
26 ESP David Ferrer 27
29 ARG Jose Luis Clerc 25
29 USA Brian Gottfried 25
34 USA Harold Solomon 22
34 USA Eddie Dibbs 22
40 USA Brad Gilbert 20
43 SWE Thomas Enqvist 19
44 MEX Raul Ramirez 18
44 CHI Marcelo Rios 18
44 FRA Jo Wilfried Tsonga 18
49 NED Richard Krajicek 17
49 ESP Alex Corretja 17
51 USA Roscoe Tanner 16
51 ESP Jose Higueras 16
51 IND Vijay Amritraj 16
51 AUT Dominic Thiem 16
57 POL Wojtek Fibak 15
57 ESP Emilio Sanchez 15
57 SUI Marc Rosset 15
57 RSA Wayne Ferreira 15
57 GBR Greg Rusedski 15
57 GER Tommy Haas 15
57 FRA Richard Gasquet 15
57 USA John Isner 15
66 USA Gene Mayer 14
66 ESP Alberto Berasategui 14
66 SWE Magnus Gustafsson 14
66 FRA Gilles Simon 14
72 USA Cliff Richey 13
72 HUN Balazs Taroczy 13
72 SWE Joakim Nystrom 13
72 CZE Karel Novacek 13
72 ESP Nicolas Almagro 13
72 CZE Tomas Berdych 13
78 USA Tim Mayotte 12
78 ARG Martin Jaite 12
78 SWE Magnus Norman 12
78 ESP Albert Costa 12
78 ESP Tommy Robredo 12
78 JPN Kei Nishikori 12
84 SVK Miloslav Mecir 11
84 FRA Guy Forget 11
84 UKR Andrei Medvedev 11
84 GBR Tim Henman 11
84 AUS Mark Philippoussis 11
84 CHI Fernando Gonzalez 11
84 ARG David Nalbandian 11
84 GER Alexander Zverev 11
 

lud

Hall of Fame
Your data is total garbage.:sneaky: Here we go is a list of players without slams by number of tournaments won. I see lots of double digit winners unworthy of slams;) :
78 ESP Albert Costa 12
Are you sure 'bout this one?
 

Chadalina

Legend
90% of threads here are about comparing current Djokovic to 2003-2007 peak Fed, which was 12-16 years ago and a totally different era. Why aren’t people here taking your advice and belatedly realizing that is absurd and unfair? :unsure:
How far did you get in math? :D
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
For example.
Gasquet has 15 tiles
Isner has 15 title
Simon has 14 titles
Tommy Robredo won 12 titles
Querrey is on 10 titles

And yet we will never see any of these guys on the list of best players without GS.
Only a handful players wuihout GS won more than 15 titles(Davydenko , Enqvist , Rios...)

And 'legendary' players like Nalbandian,Pioline,Todd Martin,Philippoussis,Ljubicic won cirka 10 tournaments in their careers.
I can understand it's because they underperformed at GS so much.. Still,maybe they are in the league of Nalby,Ljubo,Scud,Corretja,Henman...
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with your Vacuum Era addled mind.:unsure::D

The one salient one I can think of is technology change (Polyester strings). That let a player like Gasquet (and Nadal) come in with ultra levels of spin and bamboozle the all court sheep. It really stands out with Gasquet that early technology aided success. And now with Poly strings valuing serve and stamina more than speed, these players are having much longerer careers. And the corrupt tour is speeding up all the courts over the last three plus years to prop the geriatrics up even further.:sneaky: So yeah you have a few double digit tournament winners who weren't really slam contenders.

Robredo was on clay for many of his wins and his career is and odd one with some early Gasquet like success then seemingly tailing off as the Vacuum closed shut.:whistle: Robredo with some all court clay game so and oddity.

A lot of gut string players had their career shortened by technology so then with above you have your incomplete list/musings.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
There is an obsession with comparing the incomparable. Comparisons are fun, but they have to make sense otherwise zero useful conclusions come out of them. In fact, bad comparisons are very misleading, almost like bad propaganda or something. They spread falsehoods.
I think the OP is onto something and that is the reality that the Vacuum Era really never ended until the Diamond Age started last Fall, just a few more hogs joining Federe at the trough.:sneaky:
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.
For example.
Gasquet has 15 tiles
Isner has 15 title
Simon has 14 titles
Tommy Robredo won 12 titles
Querrey is on 10 titles

And yet we will never see any of these guys on the list of best players without GS.
Only a handful players wuihout GS won more than 15 titles(Davydenko , Enqvist , Rios...)

And 'legendary' players like Nalbandian,Pioline,Todd Martin,Philippoussis,Ljubicic won cirka 10 tournaments in their careers.
I can understand it's because they underperformed at GS so much.. Still,maybe they are in the league of Nalby,Ljubo,Scud,Corretja,Henman...
Simon is a legend
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
90% of threads here are about comparing current Djokovic to 2003-2007 peak Fed, which was 12-16 years ago and a totally different era. Why aren’t people here taking your advice and belatedly realizing that is absurd and unfair? :unsure:
Why are people voting for dictators?

Why are people skiing in forbidden zones?

Why are people succumbing to Rolex Mafia hype?

Questions upon questions... Ask the Dalai Lama, perhaps he can answer.

(90%...? And again speaking in the name of all TTW... You must have been voted TTW's ambassador or something...)
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
I think the OP is onto something and that is the reality that the Vacuum Era really never ended until the Diamond Age started last Fall, just a few more hogs joining Federe at the trough.:sneaky:
The OP is onto something, yes... He is slowly learning about tennis.

We shall help him learn with more speed.
 

Roddick85

Hall of Fame
The players mentioned really don't belong in the "legends" category by any means, not even all-time-great either. They had rather successful career but nothing groundbreaking or worth remembering.
 
Top