Weak Era or Strong Era?

[The_Order]

Agree with this but you forgot to add Murray's slump after 2010 AO and his upset loss to Stan at USO.

Overall I personally think 2009 is better than 2010 by a noticeable margin, IMO 2009 along with 2011 and 2012 was one of the toughest years competition wise in the modern era while 2010 was one of the weakest (I'm glad Ljubo finally won a masters title when he was way past his prime though), even at AO while I think that Murray played some of his career best HC tennis on the way to the final he was once again overly passive once he got there (Fed did play great but Murray just tried to breakdown his BH and didn't eveb try to adapt his tactic until he was already 2-0 down).

What somewhat salvages 2010 were Nadal's standout performance in 2010 USO and Fed's at WTF, other than the level of play was pretty lackluster.

Novak, Murray and Soderling all performed better at the majors in 2010 compared to 2009. Not to mention, in 2009 Nadal was absent for a couple months and when he got back his form wasn't anywhere near what it was at the beginning of the season.

Fed's level wasn't great in 2010 after AO either, but at least he was there, he wasn't absent for 2 months.

Also, you are leaving out 2008 as one of the toughest? 2008 was WAY tougher than 2009 & 2010 and it was also tougher than 2012 by not by a big margin.

As for the "way past his prime Ljubicic" comment, Ivan himself said he played the best tennis of his life at IW2010. It's not like he got to #3 like he did in 2006 though...

 

[Deleted member 77403]

I fully agree, zagor. The stars had alligned for Verdasco that day. Or, to be more accurate and less poetic, his hard work was paying off and his confidence was at an all time high. His trajectory after that has been such a letdown.

Really aggressive tennis from Dasco that day, with Nadal being his worst nightmare on the other side of the net.

This is what makes this match so remarkable. Nadal has been a nightmare for Verdasco in so many ways, yet it was against a fully zoning Nadal who happened to play his greatest HC match that day also, is what makes Verdasco's performance so special.

I think he hit over 90 winners in that match. And Nadal was no slouch either, he was redlining his shots also. And after every point the question kept getting asked, how are they going to top this point? Well, they continued to answer that question emphatically.

 

[IgnatusP]

This is what makes this match so remarkable. Nadal has been a nightmare for Verdasco in so many ways, yet it was against a fully zoning Nadal who happened to play his greatest HC match that day also, is what makes Verdasco's performance so special.

I think he hit over 90 winners in that match. And Nadal was no slouch either, he was redlining his shots also. And after every point the question kept getting asked, how are they going to top this point? Well, they continued to answer that question emphatically.

Yes, this is absolutely true. It was insane. Everybody gave Nadal for dead in the Final against Federer, including me. He managed to pull it, but I think the physical expense he incurred in set the foundation for the debacle that followed later that year.

 

[kragster]

Yeah I don't think 2009 was a great year either if you were not a Fed fan just like 2010 was not a great year unless you were a Nadal fan. Djoker was pretty horrible in majors in 2009 and Murray wasn't his best either.To be fair, I think it is hard to find a year when all the top guys were firing simultaneously. I guess 2012 is the closest given the 4 way split of slams and the fact that each guy made the finals at multiple big events

Rafa - AO, FO finals
Djoker - AO, FO, USO, WTF finals
Fed - Wimby, WTF, Olympics finals
Murray - Wimby, Olympics, USO finals

 

[IgnatusP]

Yeah I don't think 2009 was a great year either if you were not a Fed fan just like 2010 was not a great year unless you were a Nadal fan. Djoker was pretty horrible in majors in 2009 and Murray wasn't his best either.To be fair, I think it is hard to find a year when all the top guys were firing simultaneously. I guess 2012 is the closest given the 4 way split of slams and the fact that each guy made the finals at multiple big events

Rafa - AO, FO finals
Djoker - AO, FO, USO, WTF finals
Fed - Wimby, WTF, Olympics finals
Murray - Wimby, Olympics, USO finals

Yes, from that perspective it was the most balanced year in recent times. Nadal being out the second half helped make this happen.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Yes, this is absolutely true. It was insane. Everybody gave Nadal for dead in the Final against Federer, including me. He managed to pull it, but I think the physical expense he incurred in set the foundation for the debacle that followed later that year.

Yep. It was heroic from Nadal to win the title in the end, but he did pay the ultimate price for it. But at least that match will always be there.

Yeah I don't think 2009 was a great year either if you were not a Fed fan just like 2010 was not a great year unless you were a Nadal fan. Djoker was pretty horrible in majors in 2009 and Murray wasn't his best either.To be fair, I think it is hard to find a year when all the top guys were firing simultaneously. I guess 2012 is the closest given the 4 way split of slams and the fact that each guy made the finals at multiple big events

Rafa - AO, FO finals
Djoker - AO, FO, USO, WTF finals
Fed - Wimby, WTF, Olympics finals
Murray - Wimby, Olympics, USO finals

Here is a extended list
Rafa - AO, MC, Rome, FO finals
Djoker - AO, Miami, MC, Rome, FO, Canada, Cincy, USO, Shanghai, WTF finals
Fed - IW, Madrid, W, Olympics, Cincy, WTF finals
Murray - W, Olympics, USO, Shanghai finals

2012 the start of the REAL strong era!

 

[The_Order]

You're right. Murray was a no show for quite a while, failing badly at IW and Miami that year, after having made the finals of both the year before.

2009 level of competition throughout the year was incredibly high, the following year just couldn't follow that high level sadly.

Oh really? An incredibly high level?

So high that in RG, Fed was a fluke FH away from going out in the 4th round to Haas, Nadal was nowhere near his best at RG, Sod played crap in the RG final. Nadal's 2010 RG level was way higher than any level any player played at RG 2009.

Or in Wimbledon where Karlovic made the QF and Haas made the SF, while Novak was nowhere to be found because he lost to Haas. Everyone says Murray slumped in 2010, but it took an in form Nadal to beat him at WIM in 2010 whereas in 2009 Roddick beat him in the QF stages. Roddick hadn't been in a WIM final in 4 years, with Novak and Rafa a non issue and Murray playing bad, Roddick made the final again. If Fed had been in WIM08 form he'd have beat Roddick in 4 sets. But Fed was playing poorly against Roddick by his standards. It was one of the only matches where I've seen Fed struggle to return Roddick's serve so much to the point that he didn't break him until the end of the fifth set. Roddick played well, he must be given credit for that, but if Fed wasn't in as bad form as he was, he would've taken Roddick in 4 sets.

Then there's the US Open where Murray lost early on getting belted by Cilic, Nadal wasn't in great form and had an ab injury, Novak had his worst match against Fed at the USO in history (07,08,2010 and 2011 were all better showings by Novak vs Fed up there) and Fed wasn't even playing that well.

The only reason 2009 was tough was because it was Fed's best year (major wise) since 2008. Funny stuff.

 

[Feather]

Oh really? An incredibly high level?

So high that in RG, Fed was a fluke FH away from going out in the 4th round to Haas, Nadal was nowhere near his best at RG, Sod played crap in the RG final. Nadal's 2010 RG level was way higher than any level any player played at RG 2009.

Or in Wimbledon where Karlovic made the QF and Haas made the SF, while Novak was nowhere to be found because he lost to Haas. Everyone says Murray slumped in 2010, but it took an in form Nadal to beat him at WIM in 2010 whereas in 2009 Roddick beat him in the QF stages. Roddick hadn't been in a WIM final in 4 years, with Novak and Rafa a non issue and Murray playing bad, Roddick made the final again. If Fed had been in WIM08 form he'd have beat Roddick in 4 sets. But Fed was playing poorly against Roddick by his standards. It was one of the only matches where I've seen Fed struggle to return Roddick's serve so much to the point that he didn't break him until the end of the fifth set. Roddick played well, he must be given credit for that, but if Fed wasn't in as bad form as he was, he would've taken Roddick in 4 sets.

Then there's the US Open where Murray lost early on getting belted by Cilic, Nadal wasn't in great form and had an ab injury, Novak had his worst match against Fed at the USO in history (07,08,2010 and 2011 were all better showings by Novak vs Fed up there) and Fed wasn't even playing that well.

The only reason 2009 was tough was because it was Fed's best year (major wise) since 2008. Funny stuff.

Oh right! You want to hail Roger's performance in 2008 to claim indirectly and claim Nadal beat him when he played better. Fact is 2008 was Roger's worst year in tour ever since he won a major in 2003. His win % was the lowest in that year, he didn't win a single masters, he did poorly at WTF, didn't even make it to the semi final, was losing matches to guys he never lost and was struggling the entire year and you say Roger was better in Wimbledon 2008 than 2009, like how he converted just one out of thirteen break points in 2008!

Roddick played very well, so did Roger. It's not everyday that you hit 100 winners in a Tennis match. Give credit where it's due. Roddick was fantastic that day. Try facing 140 miles serves followed 100 mph forehand shots. Roger didn't play badly. If he had played badly he would have lost. Roddick played very well in that tournament beating Hewitt and Murray.

Funny thing is Roger beat Murray in 2009 but in 2008 he even lost to Roddick, that too at Miami.

Opinions can be biased but facts are facts. It's a fact that 2008 was Federer's worst year since 2003 with lowest win percentage and with just four titles. He didn't win a masters 1000 and he didn't even reach sf in WTF

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Okay, normally I don't really bother with long drawn out battles here. Because I express my opinion and frankly don't give a you know what whether people agree or not. Nothing against you, that's just me. But, I like you, so I will honor your post with a reply, but I am not going to continue after that, with all due respect.

Oh really? An incredibly high level?

Yeah, sure, why not? My opinion, and I am entitled to it.

So high that in RG, Fed was a fluke FH away from going out in the 4th round to Haas, Nadal was nowhere near his best at RG, Sod played crap in the RG final. Nadal's 2010 RG level was way higher than any level any player played at RG 2009.

Oh, are you talking about how Federer's whole world was rocked when he found out that Nadal had been eliminated and this could be his last chance ever to win the French? Yeah, I can imagine that wasn't going through his mind when he stepped on court, and all eyes of the world were expecting him to win now, otherwise it would be a calamity. He must have soooo calm.

Regarding Nadal's level at 2010, yes it was great. But where was everyone else. Soderling you say? Well he didn't do much in that final. But I guess that is because Nadal was so much better...wouldn't that mean that it was weak era. If Federer steam rolls guys like a zoning Gonzalez in finals, it's considered weak, right?

Or in Wimbledon where Karlovic made the QF and Haas made the SF, while Novak was nowhere to be found because he lost to Haas.

Are we talking about the Novak who in 2009 put on a triology of some of greatest clay battles leading into the FO with Nadal. With matches that left both broken and beaten up? He did plenty that year, but after that trilogy, the RG and W were just too soon for him.

Everyone says Murray slumped in 2010, but it took an in form Nadal to beat him at WIM in 2010 whereas in 2009 Roddick beat him in the QF stages.

Roddick beat him in the semis, by completely changing his tactics. He was be outplayed by Murray, who was on a roll, having won Queens. Roddick started to serve and volley, and played more aggressive, and took the match away from Murray.

Roddick hadn't been in a WIM final in 4 years, with Novak and Rafa a non issue and Murray playing bad, Roddick made the final again. If Fed had been in WIM08 form he'd have beat Roddick in 4 sets. But Fed was playing poorly against Roddick by his standards. It was one of the only matches where I've seen Fed struggle to return Roddick's serve so much to the point that he didn't break him until the end of the fifth set. Roddick played well, he must be given credit for that, but if Fed wasn't in as bad form as he was, he would've taken Roddick in 4 sets.

Like I said above, Roddick outplayed a confident Murray in the semis. You have your opinion, and I have mine. And he was serving big all tournament long, for once Federer could not read that serve. Maybe Federer of 08 would have won, maybe not, because Federer was also serving better in 09 than he was in 08.

Then there's the US Open where Murray lost early on getting belted by Cilic,

And Cilic lost to Del Potro. The very same Del Potro who was more than a match for Federer and Nadal.

Nadal wasn't in great form and had an ab injury, Novak had his worst match against Fed at the USO in history (07,08,2010 and 2011 were all better showings by Novak vs Fed up there) and Fed wasn't even playing that well.

I agree about Novak not playing as well. But Federer played a great event. His match with Soderling was sensational in the quarters, and that final was just massive from Del Potro.

The only reason 2009 was tough was because it was Fed's best year (major wise) since 2008. Funny stuff.

Just like how 2008 was remarkably the strong era because Nadal won multiple slams? Or 2010 perhaps? You're right, funny stuff.

 

[Feather]

Roddick beat him in the semis, by completely changing his tactics. He was be outplayed by Murray, who was on a roll, having won Queens. Roddick started to serve and volley, and played more aggressive, and took the match away from Murray.

Like I said above, Roddick outplayed a confident Murray in the semis. You have your opinion, and I have mine. And he was serving big all tournament long, for once Federer could not read that serve. Maybe Federer of 08 would have won, maybe not, because Federer was also serving better in 09 than he was in 08.

And Cilic lost to Del Potro. The very same Del Potro who was more than a match for Federer and Nadal.

Federer served much better in 2009 than in 2008. His break points conversion too was much better against a better server Roddick. It's silly to say that Roger played badly when actually Roddick played a very good match.

Roddick was really good that day, final. It was really sad that one of those guys had to lose

 

[The_Order]

Yeah, sure, why not? My opinion, and I am entitled to it.

Of course you are, but the reason I ask is because I'm having trouble understanding where you draw your conclusion from that 2009 was an incredibly high level when Novak was MIA at the majors, Murray was worse than 2010, Sod was worse and Nadal was missing for 2 months and returned well below his best.

Oh, are you talking about how Federer's whole world was rocked when he found out that Nadal had been eliminated and this could be his last chance ever to win the French? Yeah, I can imagine that wasn't going through his mind when he stepped on court, and all eyes of the world were expecting him to win now, otherwise it would be a calamity. He must have soooo calm.

Can say the same thing about a lot of Fed's slam matches. in 2004 he never won the AO before, he seemed to handle the pressure well. He never won the USO, he handled it well. In 2003 he never won WIM but when the time came he handled it well. In 2008, he was under immense pressure to win a major and handled it quite well at the USO. I'm sure a guy like Haas would be no problem even for a nervous Fed, he was just playing average level tennis but hit a brilliant shot to keep himself in the match.

Regarding Nadal's level at 2010, yes it was great. But where was everyone else. Soderling you say? Well he didn't do much in that final. But I guess that is because Nadal was so much better...wouldn't that mean that it was weak era. If Federer steam rolls guys like a zoning Gonzalez in finals, it's considered weak, right?

Nadal's already proven that his high level tennis at RG is unbeatable. Rog otoh hasn't proven his high level tnnis at AO is unbeatable, see Safin05, Rafa09 and 2012. In fact Fed has only ever beat ONE top 4 opponent (#3 JC Ferrero AO04)on his way to winning 4 AO titles. His record against top 4 opponents is 1W and 6L (2 x Nadal, 2 x Novak, 1 x Murray & 1 x Safin). Sure he beat really good players to win them, but nobody of an elite calibre level. Nadal at RG when playing well would beat anybody.

Are we talking about the Novak who in 2009 put on a triology of some of greatest clay battles leading into the FO with Nadal. With matches that left both broken and beaten up? He did plenty that year, but after that trilogy, the RG and W were just too soon for him.

Yep, same Novak. What you're basically saying here is Novak was great during the clay season leading up to RG and he was, but after that, then what? He went out early in RG09, in WIM09 and in the USO he played his worst match against Federer in their h2h history up there.

Roddick beat him in the semis, by completely changing his tactics. He was be outplayed by Murray, who was on a roll, having won Queens. Roddick started to serve and volley, and played more aggressive, and took the match away from Murray.

Of course he played better than Murray, that's why he won. Murray had a poor 1st serve percentage that day and when you couple that with his always poor second serve, that's what allowed Roddick into the match.

Like I said above, Roddick outplayed a confident Murray in the semis. You have your opinion, and I have mine. And he was serving big all tournament long, for once Federer could not read that serve. Maybe Federer of 08 would have won, maybe not, because Federer was also serving better in 09 than he was in 08.

No he wasn't. He had a higher 1st serve percentage in WIM08 (66% to 64% in 09) despite having almost the exact same number of first serves (195 in 08 and 197 in 09). He had the exact same 1st serve average speed. The only reason people say he served better was because he had 50 aces in 09 compared to 25 in 08. Are you forgetting he played an on fire Rafa in 08? Rafa >>>> Roddick FACT.

And Cilic lost to Del Potro. The very same Del Potro who was more than a match for Federer and Nadal.

What's that got to do with anything? Nadal was injured which hampered his serve, allowing Delpo to dictate play off Rafa's serves. Against Fed I think it's fair to say Fed didn't play his best in USO09 either, but credit to Delpo for having the mental strength to take out the 2 best players in a row in his first major final.

I agree about Novak not playing as well. But Federer played a great event. His match with Soderling was sensational in the quarters, and that final was just massive from Del Potro.

Yep against Sod Fed was in great form, but it dropped off against Novak and he was letting little things like Hawkeye and the umpire bother him in the final.

Just like how 2008 was remarkably the strong era because Nadal won multiple slams? Or 2010 perhaps? You're right, funny stuff.

No, I said 2009 and 2010 were the weakest years from 2008-2012. I certainly didn't say 2010 was an incredibly high level even though the top players were performing better at the majors and Fed's 2010 form was better than Rafa's 09 form at the majors. Fed 2010: won AO, QF RG, QF WIM, SF US. Rafa 2009: won AO, rnd4 RG, DNP WIM, SF US. My point here is that Fed was producing more in 2010 than what Rafa was in 2009 at the majors.

IMO, the difficulty during 2008-2012 goes like this (from weakest to strongest):

2009
2010
2012
= 2008 & 2011

The reason I have 2008 and 2011 equal was because in both years the top 3 were in all making it to the later stages of majors. 2012 fell off with the absence of Rafa he could've had a BIG say in who won the US Open and Wimbledon if he was fit.

 

[tennis_pro]

Nadal's already proven that his high level tennis at RG is unbeatable. Rog otoh hasn't proven his high level tnnis at AO is unbeatable, see Safin05, Rafa09 and 2012. In fact Fed has only ever beat ONE top 4 opponent (#3 JC Ferrero AO04)on his way to winning 4 AO titles. His record against top 4 opponents is 1W and 6L (2 x Nadal, 2 x Novak, 1 x Murray & 1 x Safin). Sure he beat really good players to win them, but nobody of an elite calibre level. Nadal at RG when playing well would beat anybody.

You're making the same mistake over and over again. Murray was ranked 4th at the 2010 Australian Open but was seeded 5th. At the time when the draw was announced Del Potro was still holding ranking points from his win in Auckland from 2009 so he was ranked higher but because he failed to defend them, he dropped to no 5 on January 18th 2010. Because the draw was announced 2-3 days later he was the no 4 seed based on his ranking from the previous week.

"The 2010 Australian Open was a tennis tournament that took place in Melbourne Park in Melbourne, Australia, from 18 to 31 January. It was the 98th edition of the Australian Open, and the first Grand Slam event of the year."

 

[The_Order]

You're making the same mistake over and over again. Murray was ranked 4th at the 2010 Australian Open but was seeded 5th.

"The 2010 Australian Open was a tennis tournament that took place in Melbourne Park in Melbourne, Australia, from 18 to 31 January. It was the 98th edition of the Australian Open, and the first Grand Slam event of the year."

Give credit to JMDP. He earnt the 4th seed after winning the USO and having a strong showing at the YEC and IF Murray was seeded 4th, the draw would've been completely different. For example a fresh Cilic in the 4th round would've been very tough for Murray considering he smashed him in the USO. But Cilic was exhausted after back to back 5 setters against JMDP and Roddick and couldn't keep it up against Murray in the SF stage.

 

[tennis_pro]

Give credit to JMDP. He earnt the 4th seed after winning the USO and having a strong showing at the YEC and IF Murray was seeded 4th, the draw would've been completely different. For example a fresh Cilic in the 4th round would've been very tough for Murray considering he smashed him in the USO. But Cilic was exhausted after back to back 5 setters against JMDP and Roddick and couldn't keep it up against Murray in the SF stage.

Stop backpedalling. Murray was ranked 4th at the time of the 2010 AO (when Federer beat him in the final) - true or false?

 

[The_Order]

Stop backpedalling. Murray was ranked 4th at the time of the 2010 AO (when Federer beat him in the final) - true or false?

I'm not back pedalling anywhere. If Murray was 4th he would've been seeded 4th. Instead he was 5th and rightly so. 1W, 6L vs top 4 opponents FACT.

 

[tennis_pro]

I'm not back pedalling anywhere. If Murray was 4th he would've been seeded 4th. Instead he was 5th and rightly so. 1W, 6L vs top 4 opponents FACT.

Again.

The draw was announced 2 days before the tournament (January 16h 2010) when Del Potro was ranked 4th and Murray 5th. Because Del Potro failed to defend his Auckland title, his ranking dropped to 5th on January 18th, just when the Australian Open began. Therefore when Federer beat Murray in the final Murray was ranked no 4.

What's so hard to understand? Or are you just being an idiot on purpose who doesn't want to admit that he's wrong?

If you wanna stay with your 1 win and 6 loss policy you're gonna have to modify it from "against the top 4" to "against the top 4 seeds" cause otherwise you're flat out wrong.

 

[Indio]

In response to the original question about weak era-strong era, I believe that it's easier to identify weak years and strong years as opposed to eras. I make the assumption that the playing level of the rank and file of the pros doesn't change significantly from one year to the next, so the relative strength of one year compared to another is determined by how the top group of players does. There are plenty of stats and facts that can help with this, including the following:

Number of SFs or better reached by the year-end Top 10s in the majors from 1992 to 2012.

2011 16
2012 16
2007 15
1995 14
2009 14
1992 13
2003 13
2008 13
2010 13
1993 12
1994 12
2001 12
2004 12
2005 12
1997 11
2000 11
2006 11
1996 10
1998 10
1999 9
2002 8

Obviously there's not enough information here to say conclusively that, with two closely ranked years, one is stronger than the other (for example, 1997 with 11 SF+ finishes versus 1998 with 10, but other data shows that 1997 was actually the weaker, in fact, one of the weakest of the Open era), but it should be indisputable that the years at the top of the list were stronger than those at the bottom.

 

[mightyrick]

In response to the original question about weak era-strong era, I believe that it's easier to identify weak years and strong years as opposed to eras. I make the assumption that the playing level of the rank and file of the pros doesn't change significantly from one year to the next, so the relative strength of one year compared to another is determined by how the top group of players does. There are plenty of stats and facts that can help with this, including the following

I did this exact thing in another thread. Here is the top-10 from the end of 2004 to end of 2009. It shows the percentage of ATP points held by each player in the Top-10 -- relative to the Total Points held by the Top-100. It also shows the percentage of ATP points held in total by the Top-10... relative to the Total Points held by the Top-100.

In 2004, the Top-10 held 30% of the ATP points in the Top-100. In 2009, the Top-10 held 41% of the ATP points in the Top-100. So which Top-10 do you think is stronger or weaker based on that? You'd probably say 2009 was stronger.

Now you look at the percentage of point distributions of the Top-10 within those years. In 2004, it was 6/4/4/3/3/2/2/2/2/2. In 2009, it was 7/6/6/5/5/3/3/2/2/2. So which Top-10 do you think is stronger or weaker based on that? You'd probably say 2009 was stronger.

I could have extended this to the Top-250 and the results would be the same.

Now, let's look at some lopsidedness. In 2006, the percentage of point distributions in the Top-10 was 8/4/3/2/2/2/2/2/2/2. Much more lopsided than in 2004 or 2009. Was the field better in 2006 or worse? Were the players in the Top-10 itself more or less competitive with the field and each other in 2006?

If anyone wants to take a look at it, they can. It just requires pulling the numbers and starting to interpret them. Conclusions can be drawn from that.

 

[abmk]

Novak had his worst match against Fed at the USO in history (07,08,2010 and 2011 were all better showings by Novak vs Fed up there) and Fed wasn't even playing that well.

actually novak's 2010 USO match was a worse showing than his 2009 match vs fed ...just that fed was much much worse in USO 2010 ...

fed played absolutely brilliantly in the semi in USO 2009 (after a slow serving start in the first half of the first set) ... LOL, what exactly do you watch ?

he had played a brilliant match in the QF vs soderling as well ...

 

[The_Order]

actually novak's 2010 USO match was a worse showing than his 2009 match vs fed ...just that fed was much much worse in USO 2010 ...

fed played absolutely brilliantly in the semi in USO 2009 (after a slow serving start in the first half of the first set) ... LOL, what exactly do you watch ?

he had played a brilliant match in the QF vs soderling as well ...

Ahh, so you've resurfaced. Good.

Now can you please post Federer's serving stats from the 09AO semi he had with Roddick and alongside or just below post the serving stats he had against Roddick in AO07 semi final.

Also please explain the 3 injection marks on Rafa's knee at WIM12. If he wasn't injured, why did he have them?

And as for Novak having a worse showing in 2010 than 2009. That's a matter of opinion. Hitman already agreed with me that 2010 was a better showing by Novak than 2009. Fed was **** in the 2nd and 4th sets, but was quite competitive in the others and still lost.

 

[Indio]

In 2004, the Top-10 held 30% of the ATP points in the Top-100. In 2009, the Top-10 held 41% of the ATP points in the Top-100. So which Top-10 do you think is stronger or weaker based on that? You'd probably say 2009 was stronger.

The alteration of the points system in 2009 appears to have skewed the results. For example, Federer had a stronger year in 2004 than in 2009, yet his % was 6 in 04 and 7 in 09.
The results for the Top 10s are surprisingly similar for 04 to 08. However, if it's limited to the Top 5, there are differences:
2004 20%
2005 19%
2006 19%
2007 23%
2008 23%

 

[abmk]

Ahh, so you've resurfaced. Good.

Now can you please post Federer's serving stats from the 09AO semi he had with Roddick and alongside or just below post the serving stats he had against Roddick in AO07 semi final.

Also please explain the 3 injection marks on Rafa's knee at WIM12. If he wasn't injured, why did he have them?

already posted in the other thread .......

only the wimby 2007 vs 2008 stats comparison is left ...

And as for Novak having a worse showing in 2010 than 2009. That's a matter of opinion. Hitman already agreed with me that 2010 was a better showing by Novak than 2009. Fed was **** in the 2nd and 4th sets, but was quite competitive in the others and still lost.

fed's play in 2009 semi leaves no room for doubt that he played darn well ...... stats show that as well .....

as far as djoker is concerned, he had very similar stats vs fed in both the matches, only fed was much worse in the 2010 match .... he played better in the 2009 semi .....

 

[abmk]

Strong era and weak era knowledgebale posters, please help solve my dilemma.

If Nadal had won the fifth set at Wimbledon 07, and had Djokovic converted those set points in USO 07, resulting in Nadal ending year number one...would 07 have been the strong era?

Conversely, if Federer somehow won the two points he needed to win Wimbledon 08, thus remaining number one through to the end of the year....would that have made 08 part of the weak era?

Would Nadal dominating FO 08 the way he did, make that a very weak era on clay compared on 05-07 when he was challenged a bit more? If not, wouldn't the same rules apply to Roger on the other surfaces between 04-07?

Also is 09 part of the strong era or weak era? This bit is always grey.

Or did the real strong era begin in '11 when Fedal era was officially over?

as you yourself said before, if fed had defeated rafa in wim 08, the weak era would have been from 2004-09 ......

 

[abmk]

Agree with this but you forgot to add Murray's slump after 2010 AO and his upset loss to Stan at USO.

Overall I personally think 2009 is better than 2010 by a noticeable margin, IMO 2009 along with 2011 and 2012 was one of the toughest years competition wise in the modern era while 2010 was one of the weakest (I'm glad Ljubo finally won a masters title when he was way past his prime though), even at AO while I think that Murray played some of his career best HC tennis on the way to the final he was once again overly passive once he got there (Fed did play great but Murray just tried to breakdown his BH and didn't eveb try to adapt his tactic until he was already 2-0 down).

What somewhat salvages 2010 were Nadal's standout performance in 2010 USO and Fed's at WTF, other than the level of play was pretty lackluster.

agreed ...... it was funny though that in desperation, in the 3rd set, murray started to hit to the federer forehand after having been stung badly by the federer BH .......

 

[abmk]

To me it was one of the best tennis matches I've ever seen, period.

IMO any tennis fan who hasn't watched it owes himself to do so.

People can say what they want about Dasco (and he does warrant a lot of criticism) but his level of play that day was off the charts.

yep, agreed , that was an amazing spectacle ; brilliant brilliant from both verdasco and nadal ........

but sadly, in a few years, revisionists who haven't watched will be saying verdasco who and match will not be regarded highly by them ...

somewhat like roddick-el ayanoui in AO 2003 ....... though rafa is obviously of a superstar than nadal and el ayanoui a lesser player overall than verdasco, therefore the AO 2009 SF is less likely to go down that much ........

 

[sbengte]

I did this exact thing in another thread. Here is the top-10 from the end of 2004 to end of 2009. It shows the percentage of ATP points held by each player in the Top-10 -- relative to the Total Points held by the Top-100. It also shows the percentage of ATP points held in total by the Top-10... relative to the Total Points held by the Top-100.

Great work ! There should definitely be ways to objectively look at this debate on strength of the field at any given point in time without relying on mere opinions on the level of play. Never had the patience to go look for this data and bring it here. Thanks for this, it is a lot more interesting than long drawn debates with no real data to back it up, especially by proponents of the 'weak era'.

 

[abmk]

Of course you are, but the reason I ask is because I'm having trouble understanding where you draw your conclusion from that 2009 was an incredibly high level when Novak was MIA at the majors, Murray was worse than 2010, Sod was worse and Nadal was missing for 2 months and returned well below his best.

here are some clues that could explain it, maybe, just maybe ?

1. federer was clearly better in 2009 , no contest , just as the reverse is true for rafa

2. djoker was clearly better in 2009 (if he was "MIA" in majors in 2009, he was so in 2010 as well )

3. delpo was playing well - especially RG 2009, USO 2009 and YEC 2009 ...wasn't there in 2010 ....

4. sod was just as good in 2009 in majors as he was in 2010, actually slightly better .....similar level in RG, wimbledon and USO (in fact, he was better in USO 2009 than he was in 2010 ), he was a bit better in other events in 2010 overall than in 2009, but that's it ....

5. as far as murray goes, he was taken out verdasco playing brilliantly in that AO in 2009, not much of a difference in the majors in 2009 .... but he did play better in non-major events in 2009 clearly

6. roddick was playing quite a bit better in 2009 than he was in 2010

 

[sbengte]

In response to the original question about weak era-strong era, I believe that it's easier to identify weak years and strong years as opposed to eras. I make the assumption that the playing level of the rank and file of the pros doesn't change significantly from one year to the next, so the relative strength of one year compared to another is determined by how the top group of players does. There are plenty of stats and facts that can help with this, including the following:

Number of SFs or better reached by the year-end Top 10s in the majors from 1992 to 2012.

Thank you for this. However, I am not sure if looking at the results of the top 10 as a whole serves the purpose. The whole 'weak era' theory is usually used to discredit one single player, so IMO, it makes sense to look at the top ranked player's stats in comparison with the rest of the top 10. For eg, SF made by no.1 / SF made by 2-10/ SF made by rest of the field.

 

[timnz]

Athletic gains are negligible

Athletics never go backward. Today's players are always bigger, faster, stronger, and better than any era in the history of the game of tennis.

Improvement is a lot slower than people think. Running endurance and explosive running are two aspects of tennis. Mile record on track hasn't improved for 14 years. 100 metre record only improved by 3.5% in 30 years. So athletic gains are tiny even over decades.

 

[Wilander Fan]

Weak era now

This (past 5 years) is the weakest era probably since the mid 80s where we saw the giant new talent pool of young players sweep aside the top players.

The evidence is in the number of players from earlier in the decade having revivals. Its the reason Federer has such a golden twilight. Its the reason Nadal can take 6 months off and win a 1000.

 

[zagor]

Novak, Murray and Soderling all performed better at the majors in 2010 compared to 2009. Not to mention, in 2009 Nadal was absent for a couple months and when he got back his form wasn't anywhere near what it was at the beginning of the season.

You're focusing on specific player's performances while I'm mostly looking at slams (which are tourneys that entertain me the most, always did) and my opinion on level of play.

In 2009 we had:

-2 top echelon players in great form at AO, Fed and Nadal (the level of play off the ground in their match was sick).

-At 2009 FO while Fed was a nervous wreck in Haas match (understandably given that Nadal got upset the previous day and it was now or never for Fed) his level of play was pretty high the rest of the tourney (especially in his SF against Delpo), Soderling was playing really well obviously, Delpo was also playing terrific tennis (something people forget, I watched him throughout the tourney and this is the 1st time I thought that this guy might be a slam winner soon) and it was the last slam in which Gonzo played at a very high level.

-2009 Wimbledon, Fed and Roddick were on fire, Roddick's aces per match in that tourney were Goran like (and on slower grass) and his transition to the net was never as smooth as it was in that tourney, before or since, finally he approached well and used his serve to great effect (even against Fed).

-2009 USO, Fed and Delpo were in great form.

That's for slams, those aside, there were great Nadal-Novak CC battles in every CC masters, Novak played terrific in 2009 Paris masters and Kolja was in the form of his life in 2009 YEC/WTF.

Fed's level wasn't great in 2010 after AO either, but at least he was there, he wasn't absent for 2 months.

It wasn't great is putting it lightly, it was mostly horrid for his standards, especially his Wimbledon performance where he played some of his worst grasscourt tennis in his career (he looked better in his 2002 1st round Wimbledon loss to Ancic and 2000 1st round Wimbledon loss to Kafelnikov than he did against Falla).

Also, you are leaving out 2008 as one of the toughest? 2008 was WAY tougher than 2009 & 2010 and it was also tougher than 2012 by not by a big margin.

2008 is up there.

2008 AO - Novak was playing some of his best tennis, Tsonga was in the zone and Fed played good but not as good as he did the next year IMO.

2008 FO - Best career performance from Nadal on clay and probably the single most dominant slam performance I've ever seen.

2008 Wimbledon - Enough said, epic tourney even though I didn't like the outcome.

2008 USO - this is where the level wasn't on par, Fed won mostly through solid play and say what you will about many of the 1st time slam finalists in this era but they all showed more fight than Murray did in that final.

Still, despite that USO performance this was a breakthrough year for Murray, won Cinci, reached USO final and then won Madrid after so that's a plus.

As for the "way past his prime Ljubicic" comment, Ivan himself said he played the best tennis of his life at IW2010. It's not like he got to #3 like he did in 2006 though...

What else is he gonna say after his biggest win? Sampras said he played his best ever in 2002 after he won USO, Novak claimed that 2012 he played as good as he did in 2011, Agassi was claiming he played his best tennis in his 30s etc.

I don't take anyone's statement/opinion as a given, I form my own opinion and no while Ljubicic was playing very good tennis and did well to take advantage of the opportunity when it presented itself his overall level of play was much higher in 2005 and 2006, I followed the guy almost his entire career and there's no doubt about that for me.

 

[zagor]

agreed ...... it was funny though that in desperation, in the 3rd set, murray started to hit to the federer forehand after having been stung badly by the federer BH .......

But that's the point, he should have mixed it up more, he played Fed in a slam final like he played him in a masters tourney.

Not saying Fed wouldn't have won anyway (he really played well in that final) but Murray's form during that tourney (can you name any slam in which Murray played higher level of play leading up to a slam) deserved more than a straight set loss.

yep, agreed , that was an amazing spectacle ; brilliant brilliant from both verdasco and nadal ........

but sadly, in a few years, revisionists who haven't watched will be saying verdasco who and match will not be regarded highly by them ...

somewhat like roddick-el ayanoui in AO 2003 ....... though rafa is obviously of a superstar than nadal and el ayanoui a lesser player overall than verdasco, therefore the AO 2009 SF is less likely to go down that much ........

Rafa is a bigger superstar than Nadal :twisted: ?

Sadly, that is the way it will go, people don't realize that some players can potentially play as good as the all time tennis greats on a given day, they just don't repeat those performances or have other issues (injuries, fitness, lack of dedication/motivation).

I think that match alone should be enough to stop people from calling Verdasco Nadal's pidgeon or lapdog and similar.

 

[abmk]

But that's the point, he should have mixed it up more, he played Fed in a slam final like he played him in a masters tourney.

Not saying Fed wouldn't have won anyway (he really played well in that final) but Murray's form during that tourney (can you name any slam in which Murray played higher level of play leading up to a slam) deserved more than a straight set loss.

yeah, I don't think he's played significantly better leading upto a slam final than he did in AO 2010 ....murray wasn't at his best in the final, but he did play some good tennis ..obviously could've done better .... I disagree with those who lump his AO 2010 final performance with that in USO 2008 and AO 2011 finals

But its happened on many other occasions for other players as well .... for example gonzo in AO 2007 final, he played quite a better than murray did in the AO 2010 final , but still lost in straights .....

slightly OT, but surely roddick didn't deserve a straight set loss in USO 2007 QF either ... that'd probably be on top of the list of matches where a player played at a very high level and still lost in straights in a grand slam ?

Rafa is a bigger superstar than Nadal :twisted: ?

Sadly, that is the way it will go, people don't realize that some players can potentially play as good as the all time tennis greats on a given day, they just don't repeat those performances or have other issues (injuries, fitness, lack of dedication/motivation).

I think that match alone should be enough to stop people from calling Verdasco Nadal's pidgeon or lapdog and similar.

eh, you know I meant rafa is a bigger superstar than roddick ....

I don't think even that match will stop people from calling him nadal's lapdog .....verdasco in general is a mental weakling ( even more so vs top players ), , same goes for almagro too to an even greater extent....

 

[mightyrick]

The alteration of the points system in 2009 appears to have skewed the results. For example, Federer had a stronger year in 2004 than in 2009, yet his % was 6 in 04 and 7 in 09.

The points system in 2009 skew only point totals. This is why I used "percentage of the whole" statistics for each individual in the Top-10... as well as the entire Top-10 itself.

Regardless of that, you are pointing out a VERY important statistical point which shouldn't be ignored about 04 and 09.

Many people say he had a better year in 04. The only thing they use to support that is his slam count. IMHO, this is wrong. Slam counts should not be the only factor.

In 09, he made the finals in all four slams and won 2 of them. He also amassed more of the available ATP points than he did in 04. He achieved this in a year where the Top-10 had 41% of the ATP points held by the Top-100. A full 11% more than in 04. That Top-10 was incredibly strong.

Honestly, I don't know how people think he did better in 2004. He won one less slam... big deal. Look what else he did against that field. The guy was the pinnacle of achievement in 2009.

The results for the Top 10s are surprisingly similar for 04 to 08. However, if it's limited to the Top 5, there are differences:
2004 20%
2005 19%
2006 19%
2007 23%
2008 23%

Absolutely. But it still points to the same thing. A lot of people point to 2009 and say that it was worse than 04. Or that 2009 was the start of his decline or whatever. I just don't get it.

In my opinion, 2009 was an incredibly strong year for the Top-10. He made all four finals. He won two of them. He had a higher percentage of ATP points ... even given the strong Top-10.

I think 2009 was extremely impressive. His best.

I'd love to do this for a player in a past era. To see if anyone has matched his results in 2009 with regards to these stats.

 

[Indio]

This (past 5 years) is the weakest era probably since the mid 80s where we saw the giant new talent pool of young players sweep aside the top players.

The evidence is in the number of players from earlier in the decade having revivals. Its the reason Federer has such a golden twilight. Its the reason Nadal can take 6 months off and win a 1000.

Present your evidence.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

In 2004 Federers winning % was 93, in 2009 84.

 

[NadalAgassi]

The current era greatly lacks depth but is very top end heavy in strength. So something in the middle. 2008-around mid 2011, was the strongest recent era since you had people like Del Potro, Soderling, Tsonga, and Berdych who were very strong, giving it some depth as well as top end strength. 2002-2007 was the weakest, having neither top end strength or depth.

 

[tennis_pro]

The current era greatly lacks depth but is very top end heavy in strength. So something in the middle. 2008-around mid 2011, was the strongest recent era since you had people like Del Potro, Soderling, Tsonga, and Berdych who were very strong, giving it some depth as well as top end strength.

You're full of nonsense. So The current era greatly lacks depth but 2008-2011 was stronger because it had Soderling, Tsonga, Berdych and Del Potro?

Since you haven't noticed we've got an identical situation currently with the big 4, the lesser 4 (Berdych, Tsonga, Del Potro, Ferrer) and everyone else being non-factors.

2002-2007 was the weakest, having neither top end strength or depth.

What a joke. Let me guess - Federer dominates = weak era. So let's see - the strongest era was April-August 2008 and April-August 2010, right?

2002-2003 wasn't top heavy but had tons of very good players playing in patches - Sampras was still there, a revitalized Agassi, Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, a young Federer, the Moya's, Kafelnikov's, Nalbandian's.

 

[Hops]

The points system in 2009 skew only point totals. This is why I used "percentage of the whole" statistics for each individual in the Top-10... as well as the entire Top-10 itself.

This is not correct. In addition to doubling the winners' point totals for GS and MS, the 2009+ ranking system also changed the relative value of F, SF, QF etc. to create more point separation for better results.

2000-2008 rank system - slam points / % of W points

1000 W
700 F 70%
450 SF 45%
250 QF 25%
150 R16 15%
75 R32 8%
35 R64 4%

2009+ rank system - slam points / % of W points

2000 W
1200 F 60%
720 SF 36%
360 QF 18%
180 R16 9%
90 R32 5%
45 R64 2%

Since the top ten players take most of the W/F/SF points in GS/MS, the effect of the new system is to give top players a larger % of the overall points available. Using the same methodology, going back to 2000:

Year Top 10/Top 100 points

2000 29.1%
2001 29.2%
2002 27.1%
2003 30.6%
2004 29.8%
2005 30.4%
2006 31.4%
2007 32.3%
2008 31.9%
2009 41.1%
2010 38.1%
2011 40.1%
2012 41.5%

The spike after 2009 is due to the relative point value changes. In order to to do a fair comparison you'd have to scale the player's points back to the prior system, or vice versa.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

2002-2007 was the weakest, having neither top end strength or depth.

But without Federer, it would be a fiercely competitive era.

 

[NadalAgassi]

But without Federer, it would be a fiercely competitive era.

No, it wouldnt. It would be the equivalent of the WTA when Serena doesnt play with 30 something journeywomen winning the odd slam as there are no strong players at the top. It would also be an era so weak that Roddick wins 4+ slams and is the dominant player, which already says enough. 18 year old Nadal who couldnt play on anything but clay yet, and posted terrible results at all the non French slams, would already have been the dominant #1 in 2005, thousands of points ahead of the others in the rankings.

 

[Indio]

The only thing they use to support that is his slam count. IMHO, this is wrong. Slam counts should not be the only factor.

I am definitely not one of those count-slams-only people. IMO every match played is of some importance (with the exception of exhibitions). With that in mind, all of the following should be considered when evaluating a player's results:
Match won-lost record
Tournaments won
Results in majors (not just wins, but all of his finishes)
Results in Masters events (same as above)
Head-to-head results
Early-round losses (how many and what are the rankings of victors?)
Has there been a significant increase in early losses compared to the previous year?
Results on different surfaces

There's more, but I've presented enough to make my point.

It can be claimed that 2009 Federer wasn't quite at the same level as earlier Federer because he won only four tournaments in total and his won-lost record of 61-12 doesn't compare favorably with those of 2004 to 2007. On the other hand, only two of his twelve losses were inflicted by players ranked lower than #7, which was actually better than 2007 in that regard, when five of his nine were suffered at the hands of players lower than #7. And it can also be claimed that his opposition in 2009 was stronger than that of his earlier years (against Top 10s in majors, he finished 6-2).
Essentially, you're correct--Federer 09 appears to have been more or less on par with earlier Federer (although Federer 08 was not).

 

[Povl Carstensen]

No, it wouldnt. It would be the equivalent of the WTA when Serena doesnt play with 30 something journeywomen winning the odd slam as there are no strong players at the top. It would also be an era so weak that Roddick wins 4+ slams and is the dominant player, which already says enough. 18 year old Nadal who couldnt play on anything but clay yet, and posted terrible results at all the non French slams, would already have been the dominant #1 in 2005, thousands of points ahead of the others in the rankings.

Yes it would. For instance USA would be going bananas over how great Roddick is/was. Rightly so.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Yes it would. For instance USA would be going bananas over how great Roddick is/was. Rightly so.

If Roddick were the best player the whole whole 1998-2007 period could produce even more evidence of what an epic weak era it would have been. People also wouldnt be going bananas over Roddick even in the U.S. Did they go bananas over Jim Courier? So why would they over a Jim Courier like career.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

If Roddick were the best player the whole whole 1998-2007 period could produce even more evidence of what an epic weak era it would have been.

Its all relative. But I did not say he would be the best. Nadal probably would not have spent 2½ years as nr 2 for instance.

People also wouldnt be going bananas over Roddick even in the U.S. Did they go bananas over Jim Courier? So why would they over a Jim Courier like career.

Jim was overshadowed by Sampras. Just like Federer left Roddick with a not as noteworthy as it could have been career. And this is not a discussion about whether Roddick has more public appeal than Courier.

 

[Federer20042006]

Was Federer lucky to play in a weak era, or was he unlucky to end up playing in an unusually strong one?

What if Rafael Nadal is the greatest player in history? In that case, Federer is unlucky. Imagine if he hadn't had the misfortune of playing at the same time as the greatest player in history.

What if Djokovic is also a Top 5 all-time player?

Imagine the number of slams and titles he would've won if not for those 2.

On the other hand, if Nadal and Djokovic really aren't that great, and merely the kind of competition you'd expect in tennis, then you'd have an argument for him benefiting from a "weak era."

But there's absolutely no way of knowing. They can't play players from the past, with everyone in or near their prime, with the same racket technology and experience with said racket technology.

Then there are the surface differences in different eras.

You have to look at the actual abilities of the players involved. Should Roddick have won more slams, or did he achieve exactly what he should have, or maybe more than he should have? That's where the real debate lies.

 

[tennisfan2015]

"The thing you have to appreciate about Djokovic, is that he's doing it in one of the best eras in men's tennis," Wilander said. "It's harder today. When Roger did it, Djokovic and Murray were not yet in their prime.

http://espn.go.com/tennis/aus16/sto...ander-novak-djokovic-win-all-four-majors-2016

Pft...

 

[PDJ]

What have I learned from this thread? Definitely a strong era for those posters subsequently banned.

 

[junior74]

Lolander is so tabloid.

 

[user]

I don't know... ATG like Wilander should know how hard it is to win 1 Slam, let alone 4 in a row.