Strength of the top 10 through the 'eras'

[Deleted member 307496]

I will start with the year 1990, and determine which (statistically) and in an unbiased manner which era is the strongest by the numbers.

1990:
1 Edberg, Stefan - Titles: (7) Finals: (5) Grand Slam Titles: (1)
2 Becker, Boris - Titles: (5) Finals: (5) Grand Slam Titles: (0)
3 Lendl, Ivan - Titles: (5) Finals: (1) Grand Slam Titles: (1)
4 Agassi, Andre - Titles: (4) Finals: (3) Grand Slam Titles: (0)
5 Sampras, Pete - Titles: (4) Finals: (0) Grand Slam Titles: (1)
6 Gomez, Andres - Titles: (3) Finals: (1) Grand Slam Titles: (1)
7 Muster, Thomas - Titles: (3) Finals: (2) Grand Slam Titles: (0)
8 Sanchez, Emilio - Titles: (2) Finals: (0) Grand Slam Titles: (0)
9 Ivanisevic, Goran - Titles: (1) Finals: (4) Grand Slam Titles: (0)
10 Gilbert, Brad - Titles: (3) Finals: (2) Grand Slam Titles: (0)

1991:
1 Edberg, Stefan - Titles: (6) Finals: (2) Grand Slam Titles: (1)
2 Courier, Jim - Titles: (3) Finals: (2) Grand Slam Titles: (1)
3 Becker, Boris - Titles: (2) Finals: (3) Grand Slam Titles: (1)
4 Stich, Michael - Titles: (4) Finals: (3) Grand Slam Titles: (1)
5 Lendl, Ivan - Titles: (3) Finals: (3) Grand Slam Titles: (0)
6 Sampras, Pete - Titles: (4) Finals: (4) Grand Slam Titles: (0)
7 Forget, Guy - Titles: (6) Finals: (1) Grand Slam Titles: (0)
8 Novacek, Karel - Titles: (4) Finals: (1) Grand Slam Titles: (0)
9 Korda, Petr - Titles: (2) Finals: (3) Grand Slam Titles: (0)
10 Agassi, Andre - Titles: (2) Finals: (1) Grand Slam Titles: (0)

1992:
1 Courier, Jim - Titles: (5) Finals: (4) Grand Slam Titles: (2)
2 Edberg, Stefan - Titles: (3) Finals: (3) Grand Slam Titles: (1)
3 Sampras, Pete - Titles: (5) Finals: (2) Grand Slam Titles: (0)
4 Ivanisevic, Goran - Titles: (4) Finals: (2) Grand Slam Titles: (0)
5 Becker, Boris - Titles: (5) Finals: (0) Grand Slam Titles: (0)
6 Chang, Michael - Titles: (3) Finals: (2) Grand Slam Titles: (0)
7 Korda, Petr - Titles: (3) Finals: (4) Grand Slam Titles: (0)
8 Lendl, Ivan - Titles: (1) Finals: (3) Grand Slam Titles: (0)
9 Agassi, Andre - Titles: (3) Finals: (0) Grand Slam Titles: (1)
10 Krajicek, Richard - Titles: (2) Finals: (1) Grand Slam Titles: (0)

 

[Masayoshi]

You do realize that you can't compare quality of players by # of titles won, right?

If there were 40 guys at the top all at exactly Federer/Nadal level, then they'd each have 0-2 majors, despite being at such a high level.

If there were 4 guys at, say, David Ferrer level and everyone else at Jeremy Chardy level, then the top 4 would seem to dominate, all winning 10-20 slams each, and it would seem like a golden age of 4 all-time-greats, even though the overall level was way lower.

It's all relative.

 

[Russeljones]

You do realize that you can't compare quality of players by # of titles won, right?

If there were 40 guys at the top all at exactly Federer/Nadal level, then they'd each have 0-2 majors, despite being at such a high level.

If there were 4 guys at, say, David Ferrer level and everyone else at Jeremy Chardy level, then the top 4 would seem to dominate, all winning 10-20 slams each, and it would seem like a golden age of 4 all-time-greats, even though the overall level was way lower.

It's all relative.

I agree with the above post, generally speaking. I think it is impossible to use stats to ascertain the absolute performance of a single player during a period of time, much less of a group of players. If you remember, I made a thread comparing top 10s losses to players outside of the 100. That is one angle of discussion and it certainly was not meant to showcase the strength of the respective top 10s. What you are attempting to do here is only going to inspire the 'tennis is for goats' trolls to fling regurgitated and irrelevant wikipedia stats.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

How do we interpret which era was "strongest by the numbers" when people interpret those numbers differently and antithetically?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

You do realize that you can't compare quality of players by # of titles won, right?

If there were 40 guys at the top all at exactly Federer/Nadal level, then they'd each have 0-2 majors, despite being at such a high level.

If there were 4 guys at, say, David Ferrer level and everyone else at Jeremy Chardy level, then the top 4 would seem to dominate, all winning 10-20 slams each, and it would seem like a golden age of 4 all-time-greats, even though the overall level was way lower.

It's all relative.

Well, from determining how many titles the top guys won and overall how many Grand Slam titles they snagged in these respective eras, we can get an idea on the "strength" of a supposed era's top players.

 

[chjtennis]

If we had 2 more players who were as good and consistent as Pistol Pete, everybody would've said that was a weak era. Those 3 players would've won most of the slams. What we have had in 21st century was 3 great players who made the field look weak. I don't think we've had weak era since Hewitt, Roddick, Ferrero and Safin became top players.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

Well, from determining how many titles the top guys won and overall how many Grand Slam titles they snagged in these respective eras, we can get an idea on the "strength" of a supposed era's top players.

Actually you can't say anything about the strength. You can say something about the domination of the top players. Is there a "ruling class" who win everything there is to win, or is it "wide open", with many players having a taste of top success.

Then, you can say which of these two models is strong or weak, and apply it systematically.

A few weeks ago I looked at who was reaching SF and further in slam since 1990. I found that in 1990-1995, few players were monopolizing most of the SF places. From 1996-2003, it was very wide open. You could have nearly 16 differents semi-finalist in some years. Since 2004 until now, it was very stable again.

I concluded that if peoples think that domination at the top means strong era, then the early 90's was strong, and strong again from 2004 onward. On the contrary, if diversity of finalist and semifinalist is seen as strong field (depth), then the 1996-2003 period was stronger.

I think it was interesting because I have seen many people claiming that the early 00's was weak while the late 90's was strong, but I did't find anything that support the idea that there was a difference between these two periods.

Edit: I could find my post if needed.

 

[Inanimate_object]

These players do not operate in a vacuum. We are at zero-sum. There are a finite amount of titles to be awarded to a finite amount of players. The "strength" of a total top 10 must NECESSARILY come at the expense of the "strength" of all the player's individually. That people still fail to see this huge flaw is beyond me.

The OP has nothing to do with the "strength" of the top 10. It's merely looking at the title distribution among the top 10. That's not an indicator of "strength" in any way shape or form.

 

[jg153040]

Well, from determining how many titles the top guys won and overall how many Grand Slam titles they snagged in these respective eras, we can get an idea on the "strength" of a supposed era's top players.

What if those slam titles were against weak draws?

 

[bjsnider]

Actually you can't say anything about the strength. You can say something about the domination of the top players. Is there a "ruling class" who win everything there is to win, or is it "wide open", with many players having a taste of top success.

Then, you can say which of these two models is strong or weak, and apply it systematically.

A few weeks ago I looked at who was reaching SF and further in slam since 1990. I found that in 1990-1995, few players were monopolizing most of the SF places. From 1996-2003, it was very wide open. You could have nearly 16 differents semi-finalist in some years. Since 2004 until now, it was very stable again.

I concluded that if peoples think that domination at the top means strong era, then the early 90's was strong, and strong again from 2004 onward. On the contrary, if diversity of finalist and semifinalist is seen as strong field (depth), then the 1996-2003 period was stronger.

I think it was interesting because I have seen many people claiming that the early 00's was weak while the late 90's was strong, but I did't find anything that support the idea that there was a difference between these two periods.

Edit: I could find my post if needed.

I don't see how "diversity" can mean a strong era. If all the ball players have a real chance to win a major, I think they'd take that situation over needing help, right? In the 2008-present era, does a player outside the top 5 have any chance of winning a major? He'd need help, and a lot of it. If it's RG, he'd need someone to take out Nadal and Djokovic at the very least. If Wimbledon, he'd need someone to take Murray, Djokovic, and Federer off the board. Joe Sixpack top 25 player can't expect to beat any of them. But, in an era that lacks standout players, Joe Sixpack top 25 player can hope to break through without help and win a major. And I think that's a better position to find oneself in than the current one.

Let's say everybody in the top 25 or so is "at Djokovic/Murray/Nadal/Fed's level" whatever the hell that means. I don't know how, beyond results, "level" is measured. But let's stipulate that. So that just means there isn't a standout player and any of these guys can win any match or tournament. The era lacks at least one player that significantly exceeds that level and dominates the others, providing a barrier too strong to overcome. That is a more favourable position for all the players to be in than if such a barrier existed. So, from the standpoint of a player, it's a weak, ie. favourable, era in which to play.

 

[m2nk2]

You do realize that you can't compare quality of players by # of titles won, right?

If there were 40 guys at the top all at exactly Federer/Nadal level, then they'd each have 0-2 majors, despite being at such a high level.

If there were 4 guys at, say, David Ferrer level and everyone else at Jeremy Chardy level, then the top 4 would seem to dominate, all winning 10-20 slams each, and it would seem like a golden age of 4 all-time-greats, even though the overall level was way lower.

It's all relative.

Exactly, now we have 3 guys at the level of Edberg, Becker, Lendl etc. And Nadal being the last young guy that came up. So of course they're gonna win all the slams. It doesn't mean they're better than Edberg, Becker and Lendl lets say.

Cause back when they played there were at least 7-8 Federers and Nadals that competed.

 

[jg153040]

OP, one word for you - Circularreasoning.

Plus this thread shows the strength of posters here on how much they can grasp logic or not.

I wonder which year in TW history had the smartest top 10 posters?

 

[Flash O'Groove]

I don't see how "diversity" can mean a strong era. If all the ball players have a real chance to win a major, I think they'd take that situation over needing help, right? In the 2008-present era, does a player outside the top 5 have any chance of winning a major? He'd need help, and a lot of it. If it's RG, he'd need someone to take out Nadal and Djokovic at the very least. If Wimbledon, he'd need someone to take Murray, Djokovic, and Federer off the board. Joe Sixpack top 25 player can't expect to beat any of them. But, in an era that lacks standout players, Joe Sixpack top 25 player can hope to break through without help and win a major. And I think that's a better position to find oneself in than the current one.

Let's say everybody in the top 25 or so is "at Djokovic/Murray/Nadal/Fed's level" whatever the hell that means. I don't know how, beyond results, "level" is measured. But let's stipulate that. So that just means there isn't a standout player and any of these guys can win any match or tournament. The era lacks at least one player that significantly exceeds that level and dominates the others, providing a barrier too strong to overcome. That is a more favourable position for all the players to be in than if such a barrier existed. So, from the standpoint of a player, it's a weak, ie. favourable, era in which to play.

The idea behind the "diversity means strong era theory" is that none of your 25 players can dominate the 24 others because they are all very strong BUT any of these 25 would dominate in a different eras.

This is the discussion you can see going on in the Muster vs Federer on clay thread: Muster only reached one slam finals, but contrary to Federer, he had to play against excellent players in Chang, Bruguera, Courier, Kafelnikov, Hrbaty, Meligeni, Agassi, Ferreira, Rosset, etc. If Muster played in place of Federer, he would reach as many RG finals, and probably beat Nadal a few times too.

But regarding the bolded part, generally people say that one era is weak because it as you describe, but a single guy can rise his level and dominate. And then for him it is seen as a better situation to be in than having to dominate against another group of less dominant players.

Anyways I think it is very difficult for us fan to say which situation is a strong era and which is a weak one, but at least we can be coherent. If we think that the early 00's were weak because of the absence of a ruling class, then it is logical to say that the late 90's were equally weak for the same reasons.

If on the contrary we think that the current eras is weak because nobody is rising to kick out the big 4, which is true to some extent, then we should likewise see the early 90's as a weaker era for the same reason: the ruling class of the 80's was still dominant.

 

[Indio]

Basing a conclusion upon which "era" is stronger than another by number of tournament wins is difficult because the number of events has changed. For example, in 1995, there were 86 tournaments. In 2014 there were 64.

If you want a rough idea of how the top-ranked players are doing, look at their results in the majors. From one year to the next, there'll be four winners, four finalists, eight semi-finalists and sixteen quarterfinalists (32, in total). How many of these the Top 10 finish with can be used in determining the strength of one year in comparison to another (of course, to get a fuller picture, other factors, for example, match winning percentage, should be used as well). Examples:
1990: 16
1993: 20
1998: 13
2002: 11
2009: 22
2014: 26

 

[bjsnider]

The idea behind the "diversity means strong era theory" is that none of your 25 players can dominate the 24 others because they are all very strong BUT any of these 25 would dominate in a different eras.

This is the discussion you can see going on in the Muster vs Federer on clay thread: Muster only reached one slam finals, but contrary to Federer, he had to play against excellent players in Chang, Bruguera, Courier, Kafelnikov, Hrbaty, Meligeni, Agassi, Ferreira, Rosset, etc. If Muster played in place of Federer, he would reach as many RG finals, and probably beat Nadal a few times too.

But regarding the bolded part, generally people say that one era is weak because it as you describe, but a single guy can rise his level and dominate. And then for him it is seen as a better situation to be in than having to dominate against another group of less dominant players.

Anyways I think it is very difficult for us fan to say which situation is a strong era and which is a weak one, but at least we can be coherent. If we think that the early 00's were weak because of the absence of a ruling class, then it is logical to say that the late 90's were equally weak for the same reasons.

If on the contrary we think that the current eras is weak because nobody is rising to kick out the big 4, which is true to some extent, then we should likewise see the early 90's as a weaker era for the same reason: the ruling class of the 80's was still dominant.

Text in bold - there is no data for that. It's irrational to say any such thing. I don't care if someone is arguing about it in another thread. There are a lot of people here who like to argue for the sake of arguing. If someone is saying Muster would have done better against Nadal than Federer -- that's just a claim backed up by nothing -- 'here's my personal prejudice' etc. Who cares? The easiest person to fool is yourself. Why put any trust into a totally subjective judgement like that, with no facts backing it up at all, and more importantly, why should anyone else care?

I don't understand what you're trying to say in paragraph 3, maybe it's a language barrier.

I agree with paragraph 4 100%. From the way you worded it, it sounds like you think paragraphs 4 and 5 are mutually exclusive, but they aren't. You're talking about different time periods.

The presence of a strong ruling class, a term you used that I like -- which would be a small number of players, at most a handful, effectively impossible for the others to beat, who trade victories with each other depending on the circumstances, is the best definition of a strong era. That means for the vast majority of players, their path to glory is blocked during their best years. If the ruling class has more than one player, it's also a strong era from their perspective, since they might be blocked by other members of the ruling class.

Were that ruling class absent, almost any player could expect to have a chance to get to #1 and/or win majors. If anybody can do it, it's not exceptional. That can't be called strong.