The Strong Era

[Spencer Gore]

There is a lot of talk of 'weak eras', but not enough talk of what constitutes a 'strong era'.

A very fair way to measure what has been our strongest latest era is to consider when the Big 3 could reasonably expect to have been competitive across multiple slams.

Looking at the historic record, the earliest age any player previous to the Big 3 won multiple slams was 20 - Wilander won 2 slams at that age.

The oldest multiple slam age was 30- Laver won the grand slam at that age.

Therefore the reasonable assumption of the most competitive era is between the time when the youngest of the Big 3 was 20 and the oldest was 30.

That period was between the French Open in 2007 until Wimbledon 2012.

That is the true strong era.

Slams won in the Strong Era:

Nadal: 9
Federer: 7
Djokovic: 5
Del Potro: 1

The question of who is the GOAT will live long.

The greatest of the Strong Era was Nadal.

 

[PeoplesChamp]

Nah.

You're taking away some peak years for Fedovic.

This won't work.

 

[Lew II]

Slams won in years Big3 had their highest win percentage (2011-15 and 2020):

Djokovic 10
Nadal 5
Federer 1

YE #1 in years Big3 had their highest win percentage (2011-15 and 2020):

Djokovic 4
Nadal 1
Federer 0

H2H in years Big3 had their highest win percentage (2011-15 and 2020):

Djokovic 34-16
Nadal 16-20
Federer 12-26

 

[Backspin1183]

Slams won in years Big3 had their highest win percentage (2011-15 and 2020):

Djokovic 10
Nadal 5
Federer 1

YE #1 in years Big3 had their highest win percentage (2011-15 and 2020):

Djokovic 4
Nadal 1
Federer 0

H2H in years Big3 had their highest win percentage (2011-15 and 2020):

Djokovic 34-16
Nadal 16-20
Federer 12-26

Nadal 2015 was horrible. So that's a weak big 3 season. The best years were 2008-2014 and 2017-2020. Year end #1 Nadal 5 times, Djokovic 4 times and Federer 1 time.

 

[Lew II]

Nadal 2015 was horrible. So that's a weak big 3 season. The best years were 2008-2014 and 2017-2020. Year end #1 Nadal 5 times, Djokovic 4 times and Federer 1 time.

There's also Murray who is not a nobody.

One thing is certain. The king of strong era is not Federer.

 

[Backspin1183]

There's also Murray who is not a nobody.

One thing is certain. The king of strong era is not Federer.

He is not. But then why are strong era champs Nadal and Djokovic behind him if they are the better players?

 

[Lew II]

He is not. But then why are strong era champs Nadal and Djokovic behind him if they are the better players?

Because in strong era it's harder to win slams.

 

[tennisaddict]

There's also Murray who is not a nobody.

One thing is certain. The king of strong era is not Federer.

While Nadal could be the king of strong era, The title for king of weak era is undoubtedly Djokovic - 11 of 17 majors after Fed turned 33.

 

[Lew II]

@Backspin1183

2010 should not be considered among Big3's best years.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/big3-overall-season-score.665224/#post-14170016

Slams / YE #1 in the 5 years Big3 won the most matches (2007-09, 2011, 2015)

Djokovic 7 / 2
Federer 6 / 2
Nadal 5 / 1

Slams / YE #1 in the 5 years Big3 had their highest win percentage (2011-15)

Djokovic 9 / 4
Nadal 5 / 1
Federer 1 / 0

 

[Lew II]

@Backspin1183

2010 should not be considered among Big3's best years.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/big3-overall-season-score.665224/#post-14170016

Slams / YE #1 in the 5 years Big3 won the most matches (2007-09, 2011, 2015)

Djokovic 7 / 2
Federer 6 / 2
Nadal 5 / 1

Slams / YE #1 in the 5 years Big3 had their highest win percentage (2011-15)

Djokovic 9 / 4
Nadal 5 / 1
Federer 1 / 0

Oh, I forgot an important thing.

Slams / YE #1 in the years that are in both lists (2011 and 2015)

Djokovic 6 / 2
Nadal 1 / 0
Federer 0 / 0

 

[PeoplesChamp]

There is a lot of talk of 'weak eras', but not enough talk of what constitutes a 'strong era'.

A very fair way to measure what has been our strongest latest era is to consider when the Big 3 could reasonably expect to have been competitive across multiple slams.

Looking at the historic record, the earliest age any player previous to the Big 3 won multiple slams was 20 - Wilander won 2 slams at that age.

The oldest multiple slam age was 30- Laver won the grand slam at that age.

Therefore the reasonable assumption of the most competitive era is between the time when the youngest of the Big 3 was 20 and the oldest was 30.

That period was between the French Open in 2007 until Wimbledon 2013.

That is the true strong era.

Slams won in the Strong Era:
Federer: 7
Nadal: 10
Djokovic: 6

The question of who is the GOAT will live long.

The greatest of the Strong Era was Nadal.

Federer won 8 in this timeframe, not 7.

07' - 3
08' - 1
09' - 2
10' - 1
12' - 1

 

[PeoplesChamp]

Can't say 07 AO is weak.

Federer went through Djokovic, Roddick, and Gonzales who beat Nadal.

 

[Krish0608]

There is a lot of talk of 'weak eras', but not enough talk of what constitutes a 'strong era'.

A very fair way to measure what has been our strongest latest era is to consider when the Big 3 could reasonably expect to have been competitive across multiple slams.

Looking at the historic record, the earliest age any player previous to the Big 3 won multiple slams was 20 - Wilander won 2 slams at that age.

The oldest multiple slam age was 30- Laver won the grand slam at that age.

Therefore the reasonable assumption of the most competitive era is between the time when the youngest of the Big 3 was 20 and the oldest was 30.

That period was between the French Open in 2007 until Wimbledon 2013.

That is the true strong era.

Slams won in the Strong Era:
Federer: 7
Nadal: 10
Djokovic: 6

The question of who is the GOAT will live long.

The greatest of the Strong Era was Nadal.

This is arbitrary as it can get. Even by your standards.

 

[KINGROGER]

More like 2007 AO - 2013 AO

 

[Sport]

 

[Lew II]

so 2009 and 2010 slams won over Soderling, Roddick, Berdych were strong, while 2014-19 slams won over Federer and Nadal were weak...

 

[PeoplesChamp]

It's only a strong era when Nadal wins outside of clay, so now 2017 and 2019 are also strong era.

 

[Lew II]

Therefore the reasonable assumption of the most competitive era is between the time when the youngest of the Big 3 was 20 and the oldest was 30.

That period was between the French Open in 2007 until Wimbledon 2013.

Excuse me but by this terrible standards the last slam Federer was 30 is Wimbledon 2012, not 2013.

 

[Third Serve]

There is a lot of talk of 'weak eras', but not enough talk of what constitutes a 'strong era'.

A very fair way to measure what has been our strongest latest era is to consider when the Big 3 could reasonably expect to have been competitive across multiple slams.

Looking at the historic record, the earliest age any player previous to the Big 3 won multiple slams was 20 - Wilander won 2 slams at that age.

The oldest multiple slam age was 30- Laver won the grand slam at that age.

Therefore the reasonable assumption of the most competitive era is between the time when the youngest of the Big 3 was 20 and the oldest was 30.

That period was between the French Open in 2007 until Wimbledon 2013.

That is the true strong era.

Slams won in the Strong Era:
Federer: 7
Nadal: 10
Djokovic: 6

The question of who is the GOAT will live long.

The greatest of the Strong Era was Nadal.

Fed turned 31 after Wimbledon 2012, not 2013.

 

[Sport]

Fed turned 31 after Wimbledon 2012, not 2013.

And Laver was 31 in 1969 when he achieved the Grand Slam, so doesn't change much. 31 year old players still could be multiple Slam winners back in late 1960s.

 

[RS]

There is a lot of talk of 'weak eras', but not enough talk of what constitutes a 'strong era'.

A very fair way to measure what has been our strongest latest era is to consider when the Big 3 could reasonably expect to have been competitive across multiple slams.

Looking at the historic record, the earliest age any player previous to the Big 3 won multiple slams was 20 - Wilander won 2 slams at that age.

The oldest multiple slam age was 30- Laver won the grand slam at that age.

Therefore the reasonable assumption of the most competitive era is between the time when the youngest of the Big 3 was 20 and the oldest was 30.

That period was between the French Open in 2007 until Wimbledon 2013.

That is the true strong era.

Slams won in the Strong Era:
Federer: 7
Nadal: 10
Djokovic: 6

The question of who is the GOAT will live long.

The greatest of the Strong Era was Nadal.

2013 was still very good after Wimbeldon. Indoors and Canada/Cincy was very good. USO was not the best but Nadal was in great form and Djokovic and Wawrinka were good as well.

 

[Lew II]

Last 21 slam winners were all over 28 years old so peak age is 28-38.

First slam big3 were 28: French Open 2015
Last slam big3 were 38: Wimbledon 2020

Slams won in this period:

Djokovic 9
Nadal 5
Federer 3

 

[MeatTornado]

Do you guys ever take a moment to laugh at how meaningless this splitting hairs is?

50 years from now the strong era will likely just be considered 2003 to whenever the last major is won by the 3 of them. It'll just go down as "the Big 3 era."

 

[Third Serve]

And Laver was 31 in 1969 when he achieved the Grand Slam, so doesn't change much. 31 year old players still could be multiple Slam winners back in late 1960s.

Yeah, I’m just correcting the op. Nothing to do with the validity of the logic.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Vamos!

 

[Bender]

Slams won in years Big3 had their highest win percentage (2011-15 and 2020):

Djokovic 10
Nadal 5
Federer 1

YE #1 in years Big3 had their highest win percentage (2011-15 and 2020):

Djokovic 4
Nadal 1
Federer 0

H2H in years Big3 had their highest win percentage (2011-15 and 2020):

Djokovic 34-16
Nadal 16-20
Federer 12-26

Highest win % would suggest weak era

 

[Lew II]

Highest win % would suggest weak era

You prefer 2001-02 to 2011-12?

 

[Bender]

You prefer 2001-02 to 2011-12?

Djokovic and Nadal were not active in 2001-2002, so that's not a strong era.

Strong era was when all three were young, strong, and had to fight relatively hard against the field, ie 2007-2012.

 

[Lew II]

Djokovic and Nadal were not active in 2001-2002, so that's not a strong era.

Strong era was when all three were young, strong, and had to fight relatively hard against the field, ie 2007-2012.

I don't get the logic. If they had to fight more against the field they were not stronger.

 

[Bender]

I don't get the logic. If they had to fight more against the field they were not stronger.

A strong era is when the field is strong / competitive, not just the top guys, creating a need to fight harder to edge out the competition.

 

[Lew II]

A strong era is when the field is strong / competitive, not just the top guys, creating a need to fight harder to edge out the competition.

Non-big3 field was strong in 2013-16 (Murray, Wawrinka, etc.).

Not very much since 2017.

 

[Lew II]

2011 and 2012 are the only years everyone agrees were strong...

Djokovic won 4 slams and was #1 in both years.

 

[junior74]

Djokovic and Nadal were not active in 2001-2002, so that's not a strong era.

Strong era was when all three were young, strong, and had to fight relatively hard against the field, ie 2007-2012.

In all honesty, there have been strong eras when those two weren't alive.

 

[Bender]

In all honesty, there have been strong eras when those two weren't alive.

Most definitely

I'm just working with the parameters given here--regardless of what I actually believe

 

[junior74]

Most definitely

I'm just working with the parameters given here--regardless of what I actually believe

I know

I always think of Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Wilander when "strong era" comes up. Quite a gang.

But I'm sure some younger posters will believe Thiem is more talented

 

[Bender]

I know

I always think of Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Wilander when "strong era" comes up. Quite a gang.

But I'm sure some younger posters will believe Thiem is more talented

I do think Thiem is immensely talented. Not sure how I'd rate him against those ATGs though, since I'm one of those people who think "talent" doesn't actually mean much of anything.

 

[junior74]

I do think Thiem is immensely talented. Not sure how I'd rate him against those ATGs though, since I'm one of those people who think "talent" doesn't actually mean much of anything.

He is, I agree. But I fear he would have hidden under the umpire's chair once Lendl started plucking eyebrows
A little like he did when Novak simply "decided" he wanted the AO title.

 

[Lew II]

I know

I always think of Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Wilander when "strong era" comes up. Quite a gang.

But I'm sure some younger posters will believe Thiem is more talented

Big3 won more slams than all these players put together: 56 to 53. If we add Murray, Wawrinka, Del Potro and Cilic to make it a 7 vs 7, it's 64 to 53.

Big4, Wawrinka, Delpo and Cilic belong to the same gen, as they were born within 7 years (1981-88). The players you mentioned were born within 15 years (1952-67).

 

[MeatTornado]

Big3 won more slams than all these players put together: 56 to 53. If we add Murray, Wawrinka, Del Potro and Cilic to make it a 7 vs 7, it's 64 to 53.

Big4, Wawrinka, Delpo and Cilic belong to the same gen, as they were born within 7 years (1981-88). The players you mentioned were born within 15 years (1952-67).

It's not a 1 to 1 comparison when guys like Borg, Mac and Connors pretty much never played Australia.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

I don't get the logic. If they had to fight more against the field they were not stronger.

Tbh, you have never grasped the notion of a transient field, though I'd wager out of obtuseness rather than cognitive failure.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

I think 07 to 12 as a strong era is definitely a fair cop, regardless of arguably 'weaker' periods within.

 

[Lew II]

It's not a 1 to 1 comparison when guys like Borg, Mac and Connors pretty much never played Australia.

True. From 1978 to 1986 only ATGs won RG/WI/UO, except for 1983 RG

But there's something many people don't know: many of the top players skipped those slams. So competition was easier.

 

[Lew II]

Tbh, you have never grasped the notion of a transient field, though I'd wager out of obtuseness rather than cognitive failure.

You need to prove it. How do you prove the strength of the field?

We can say that top players other than Big3 were more consistent in 2013-16 than they were since 2017. That's true.

 

[Lew II]

But there's something many people don't know: many of the top players skipped those slams. So competition was easier.

@MeatTornado

RG/WI/UO participation rate (a method from UTS to determine how many of the top players enter the tournament):

1975-79 --> 74.6%
1980-84 --> 74.3%
1985-89 --> 82.7%
1990-94 --> 88.4%
1995-99 --> 89.2%
2000-04 --> 91.0%
2005-09 --> 91.7%
2010-14 --> 92.5%
2015-19 --> 92.4%

So the players @junior74 mentioned won slams without some of the top players.

 

[MeatTornado]

@MeatTornado

RG/WI/UO participation rate (a method from UTS to determine how many of the top players enter the tournament):

1975-79 --> 74.6%
1980-84 --> 74.3%
1985-89 --> 82.7%
1990-94 --> 88.4%
1995-99 --> 89.2%
2000-04 --> 91.0%
2005-09 --> 91.7%
2010-14 --> 92.5%
2015-19 --> 92.4%

So the players @junior74 mentioned won slams without some of the top players.

Define top players.

 

[Lew II]

Define top players.

Participation percentage measures how much the best players participate in the draw (100% if all top players participate in the draw). Formula: sum(ParticipationWeight(rank)) / sum(ParticipationWeight(1..PlayerCount)): i.e. the sum of participation weights of all players in the draw compared to maximal participation weight if all top players would have participated, where participation weight depend on ranking (see Participation Weights in the Glossary page).

Participation weights: Weights of players participating in the tournament based on their ranking or seeding (depends on context): [1: 100, 2: 85, 3: 75, 4: 67, 5: 60, 6: 55, 7-8: 50, 9-10: 45, 11-13: 40, 14-16: 35, 17-20: 30, 21-25: 25, 26-30: 20, 31-35: 16, 36-40: 13, 41-45: 10, 46-50: 8, 51-60: 6, 61-70: 5, 71-80: 4, 81-100: 3, 101-150: 2, 151-200: 1]

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

<insert rocky music>

who will prevail in this stat'titanic clash ?...
... Spencer Sinus Gore Jr. or Lewclid the Second ?!

place your bets and stay tuned to find out, fellows...
(there's no tennis on TV, anyway)

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

You need to prove it. How do you prove the strength of the field?

We can say that top players other than Big3 were more consistent in 2013-16 than they were since 2017. That's true.

No I don't, and can't. No one can. That's my whole point. In light of this I'm happy to just see what I think when I watch.

 

[Lew II]

No I don't, and can't. No one can. That's my whole point. In light of this I'm happy to just see what I think when I watch.

You can have a objective way to measure competition. It's not necessarily right, but it will certainly make your statement more reliable.

That's what I try to do.

 

[Odinn21]

From 01-01-2007 to 31-12-2013;

(Big tournaments; Grand Slams, Tour Finals, Masters, Olympics)

Federer
Grand Slams; 28 entries / 21 SF+ results / 8 titles / 148-20 (88.10% win rate)
Masters 1000; 54 entries / 30 SF+ results / 9 titles / 153-44 (77.66% win rate)
Titles; 8 Grand Slams + 3 Tour Finals + 9 Masters 1000 + 5 ATP 500 + 7 ATP 250 / 20 Big titles / 32 total titles
Overall 443-91 match W-L record (82.96%) / 85-58 (59.44%) against top 10
Overall 54.45% points W% (+19.52% more) / 51.31% against top 10 (+5.37%) / played 30.53% of his points against top 10 players / 54.37% (+19.14%) in big tournaments

Nadal
Grand Slams; 25 entries / 18 SF+ results / 11 titles / 135-14 (90.60% win rate)
Masters 1000; 56 entries / 43 SF+ results / 20 titles / 205-35 (85.42% win rate)
Titles; 11 Grand Slams + 1 Olympics + 20 Masters 1000 + 9 ATP 500 + 3 ATP 250 / 32 Big titles / 44 total titles
Overall 480-78 match W-L record (86.02%) / 104-47 (68.87%) against top 10
Overall 54.68% points W% (+20.67% more) / 51.51% against top 10 (+6.24%) / played 29.74% of his points against top 10 players / 54.67% (+20.62%) in big tournaments

Djokovic
Grand Slams; 28 entries / 21 SF+ results / 6 titles / 144-22 (86.75% win rate)
Masters 1000; 51 entries / 33 SF+ results / 16 titles / 193-43 (81.78% win rate)
Titles; 6 Grand Slams + 3 Tour Finals + 16 Masters 1000 + 10 ATP 500 + 4 ATP 250 / 25 Big titles / 39 total titles
Overall 490-100 match W-L record (83.05%) / 105-61 (63.25%) against top 10
Overall 54.33% points W% (+18.97% more) / 51.42% against top 10 (+5.85%) / played 30.82% of his points against top 10 players / 54.32% (+18.94%) in big tournaments

The timeline clearly favours Nadal in here with Federer's 2005&2006 seasons being left out just at start, or similar thing for Djokovic's 2015 season.
But looks like Nadal is the king of the strong era.