What is a weak era or strong era in tennis?

I declare this thread officially over, formally and in writing. A round of applause for Kiki.

Chopin, are you basically saying.....

thats-all-folks.jpg
 
Last edited:
Yes, exactly. It was a pleasing conclusion to the thread and a nice prelude to the Summer of Chopin, where the legacy of your boy Borg will be put on trial.

Borg on trial next? So, I guess the Laver threads have now been exhausted, so I suppose it's natural to move on to another great player. Wow, how will he defend himself against Chopin the prosecutor? I didn't know he committed a criminal offense somehow, or is this a civil action that will be brought? Ok, I guess Bjorn Borg will have to busy himself in Sweden by preparing cross complaints and filing petitions of his own against any of his prosecutors lol. This is one of the few situations when someone would have no problem representing himself "Pro Se", with no need even for counsel. Borg's record speaks for itself. He wouldn't have to even say one word during a "trial".
 
Last edited:

Chopin

Hall of Fame
Borg on trial next? So, I guess the Laver threads have now been exhausted, so I suppose it's natural to move on to another great player. Wow, how will he defend himself against Chopin the prosecutor? I didn't know he committed a criminal offense somehow, or is this a civil action that will be brought? Ok, I guess Bjorn Borg will have to busy himself in Sweden by preparing cross complaints and filing petitions of his own against any of his prosecutors lol. This is one of the few situations when someone would have no problem representing himself "Pro Se", with no need even for counsel. Borg's record speaks for itself. He wouldn't have to even say one word during a "trial".

Hey, man, if you're lucky, I'll even bring in Alexander Vladimirovich Volkov.
 
Hey, man, if you're lucky, I'll even bring in Alexander Vladimirovich Volkov.

Yes he's very pertinent to the discussion of Borg's greatness, since he played Borg in the early 1990's (actually no). This should be a good summer of tennis though, that is true. Nadal is likely to win the French Open and Wimbledon, but we'll see. Hopefully Borg will be there to watch at both RG and the AELTC. Basically, the guy is a mix of Nadal and Federer. I think it'll be great if Nadal, Djokovic and Federer are in good form for the remaining majors. Chopin, on Federer, just because he's not winning at the same clip he was before, changing the focus to guys like Laver and Borg instead of your favorite player seems like a big diversion. If you posted about the current players and what your thoughts are on how they'll do, it would be much more interesting. Criticizing Laver and Borg does nothing to somehow "support" the modern game, but if those are your favorite topics in threads, that's up to you. In fact, it has the opposite effect in my opinion. The sport's rich history only enhances the standing of tennis today, not the other way around.
 
Last edited:

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Can't we have a discussion WITHOUT putting down former players and comparing them UNflatteringly to some players today or of just a few years ago?

Why not just discuss achievements of some players today? Could they have achieved more if they changed some things or did they maximized their potential?

The Vijay Amritraj thread is an interesting thread in my mind for example because while I think Vijay had a good career, I think he could have done so much more. Yet some thought Eddie Dibbs was superior in talent. I disagree but that person can easily argue Dibbs had a better career and is therefore perhaps a better talent. And I would agree Dibbs had a better career.

Honestly I see no major benefit because the question cannot possibly be answered. Yes we can argue endlessly about some great of the past not being able to beat David Ferrer today and we can never prove that David Ferrer couldn't crush a great from the past but on the other end we can't prove the player of the past couldn't beat Ferrer like a drum. But it will make for arguments.:-?
 
Last edited:

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Well, if we are pointing finger at Chopin, we should also pointing finger at Data and Kiki for putting down todays' players, especially Federer.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
^^^

Not trying to point fingers but you're right we shouldn't unjustifiably criticize today's players or players of the past.

It's just that I just didn't feel like another round of threads with unflattering comparisons.

Chopin's fine and he can do what he wants. Honestly I wouldn't want to see people in the future comparing Federer unflatteringly either, same with Nadal, Djokovic etc. Any player can be criticized because no player is perfect of course.
 
Last edited:
^^^

Not trying to point fingers but you're right we shouldn't unjustifiably criticize today's players or players of the past.

It's just that I just didn't feel like another round of threads with unflattering comparisons.

Chopin's fine and he can do what he wants. Honestly I wouldn't want to see people in the future comparing Federer unflatteringly either, same with Nadal, Djokovic etc. Any player can be criticized because no player is perfect of course.

I completely agree with you PC1. Well put. Any tennis player has strengths and weaknesses, pluses and minuses.
 
Well, if we are pointing finger at Chopin, we should also pointing finger at Data and Kiki for putting down todays' players, especially Federer.

Nursing your wounds, and then you come back with this?

OR instead of trying to snipe at me yet again out of bitterness because I've corrected your BS a bit more lately, why don't you answer this simple question:

Do you think that Sampras and Courier could compete with Gonzo?

Funny just how scared TMF is of that question... ;-)
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Nursing your wounds, and then you come back with this?

OR instead of trying to snipe at me yet again out of bitterness because I've corrected your BS a bit more lately, why don't you answer this simple question:

Do you think that Sampras and Courier could compete with Gonzo?

Funny just how scared TMF is of that question... ;-)

Nope. I've already explained the reason why you are off track but continue to ignore...

Nope. You are not paying attention. Read the post from Chopin(#474), and mine(#543). Your post #522 was directly target at post #474. I disagree with you, and try to point out Chopin’s post had NOTHING to do with Sampras, Courier and Agassi. But you insist on not staying on topic, and attempt to make Chopin look bad. That’s what we call trolling.

Post #15 ???
That has nothing to do with Laver vs. Gonzo on hard court. Geez. Stay on topic !
 

Chopin

Hall of Fame
Yes he's very pertinent to the discussion of Borg's greatness, since he played Borg in the early 1990's (actually no). This should be a good summer of tennis though, that is true. Nadal is likely to win the French Open and Wimbledon, but we'll see. Hopefully Borg will be there to watch at both RG and the AELTC. Basically, the guy is a mix of Nadal and Federer. I think it'll be great if Nadal, Djokovic and Federer are in good form for the remaining majors. Chopin, on Federer, just because he's not winning at the same clip he was before, changing the focus to guys like Laver and Borg instead of your favorite player seems like a big diversion. If you posted about the current players and what your thoughts are on how they'll do, it would be much more interesting. Criticizing Laver and Borg does nothing to somehow "support" the modern game, but if those are your favorite topics in threads, that's up to you. In fact, it has the opposite effect in my opinion. The sport's rich history only enhances the standing of tennis today, not the other way around.

I was making a joke! God, you have no sense of humor when it comes to Borg. :(
 
Nope. I've already explained the reason why you are off track but continue to ignore...

and I explained clearly with quote the original post to which I responded was about Borg and Gonzalez, and that now I'm asking you if you believe Sampras/Courier would also have struggled with Gonzalez. A very simple progression: both logically and temporally.

Again, anybody can see your protestations are both hypocritical and illogical. I am not "off topic", nor can you tell people what they can or cannot discuss, as i have told you many times, and as others have been telling you in general pro player talk. Unfortunate that you take such an overbearing stance.

However, again, it's you who keep throwing insults. I am simply asking for you opinion on a simple question:

Do you also believe Sampras/Courier could not compete with Gonzo, just as you have opined that Laver/Borg could not?
 

piece

Professional
^^^

Not trying to point fingers but you're right we shouldn't unjustifiably criticize today's players or players of the past.

It's just that I just didn't feel like another round of threads with unflattering comparisons.

Chopin's fine and he can do what he wants. Honestly I wouldn't want to see people in the future comparing Federer unflatteringly either, same with Nadal, Djokovic etc. Any player can be criticized because no player is perfect of course.

In the interest of fairness, Chopin is not the only person who unjustifiably criticizes players (if he does this at all; I'm not sure what exactly he has said on similar topics in other posts). The field and (consequently) the achievements of players from 2000 through to 2010 have unjustifiably been denigrated at various stages in this thread. I haven't seen a single good argument in favour of the conclusion that the era in this period was a weak one, but that hasn't stopped people from advocating this very view.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
In the interest of fairness, Chopin is not the only person who unjustifiably criticizes players (if he does this at all; I'm not sure what exactly he has said on similar topics in other posts). The field and (consequently) the achievements of players from 2000 through to 2010 have unjustifiably been denigrated at various stages in this thread. I haven't seen a single good argument in favour of the conclusion that the era in this period was a weak one, but that hasn't stopped people from advocating this very view.

Didn't say he did. I think a lot of us (including me) have done that at one time or another and that's what I essentially was commenting about.

When I wrote my comment I was responding to something TMF wrote and he wrote a very fair point.

My personal opinion is the era a few years ago, before we had Djokovic, Murray and a stronger more skilled Nadal was in my mind clearly weaker than today. I like the top ten today because I feel we have a number of really skilled players. A few years ago I would have said the only really top skilled player was Federer. Nadal wasn't nearly as skilled as he is today. Nadal today has a better serve, backhand, volley and better touch. He's added a lot and I admire him for that.
 
Last edited:
two different forms.

I know this willsound a little strange..but I view todays tennis as
a different form ofthe game as compared to 40 years ago or even 90's.

I can't speak for american sports..i'mclueless..but In sports like cricket
and rugby there are different forms

eg cricket has A) test match(5 days) B) one day (bout 7hours) and c)20/20

there are different skills required of different importance...it's still the same
game..eg test matches you really need to stay in..but 2020 it's score fast.

I feel lot better about watching all tennis..including this years AO final..
when I think I'mwatching different forms ofthe game.
thus becoming zero judgemntal...and it helps stop thinking strong/weak era.

I draw lines like this

pre68
68-75 (three slams grass/1clay)
75-85 stillwood/pre-graphite
85-01fast/slow range graphite
01-today+ slower surfaces/ graphite +poly

how does it relate tothis thread?

I'm not some bitter petetard, I reallyenjoy todays tennis too, I just see it
for what it is different
(Nadal to win the remaining 3majors this year BTW..providing he stays fit.)
 
Last edited:
I know this willsound a little strange..but I view todays tennis as
a different form ofthe game as compared to 40 years ago or even 90's.

I can't speak for american sports..i'mclueless..but In sports like cricket
and rugby there are different forms

eg cricket has A) test match(5 days) B) one day (bout 7hours) and c)20/20

there are different skills required of different importance...it's still the same
game..eg test matches you really need to stay in..but 2020 it's score fast.

I feel lot better about watching all tennis..including this years AO final..
when I think I'mwatching different forms ofthe game.
thus becoming zero judgemntal...and it helps stop thinking strong/weak era.

I draw lines like this

pre68
68-75 (three slams grass/1clay)
75-85 stillwood/pre-graphite
85-01fast/slow range graphite
01-today+ slower surfaces/ graphite +poly


how does it relate tothis thread?

I'm not some bitter petetard, I reallyenjoy todays tennis too, I just see it
for what it is different
(Nadal to win the remaining 3majors this year BTW..providing he stays fit.)

That's a very interesting way to look at eras, or periods of tennis over the years. It's really useful to note those differences over time. Just to add some notes, I tend to think about some features of different eras such as which tournaments were the four biggest of the year. One change I would make is that in 1975, the US Open went to rubico (har tru) until 1978 when it went to hard courts. I like your concept!

pre-68 (wood racquets, before the Open Era)

68-74 (Dawn of the Open Era, still wood racquets, three slams grass/1 clay)

75-84 (still wood/pre-graphite, transition away from wood,US Open on rubico in 1975-1977, then two majors on grass, one hard, and one clay major. The AO was not considered as important a major, WCT/Masters YEC treated as the 4th most important tournament.)

85-00 (fast/slow range, graphite frames, Wimbledon still on fast grass courts, AO regains status as a important major)

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1815724,00.html (interesting article on the change at the AELTC)

01-today (slower surfaces in general, newer generation graphite frames, poly strings, Wimbledon gets slower)
 
Last edited:

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Well, I hope some of the old-timers are reading this. B/c some of them call it today's tennis is boring for the lacks variety, surfaces are homogeneous, and not enough top players winning slams, no skills. Tennis always change, and the demand for players to adapt and fit in his environment aren't any easier than in the past. And if you have talent but under size, you're doom.
 

piece

Professional
Didn't say he did. I think a lot of us (including me) have done that at one time or another and that's what I essentially was commenting about.

When I wrote my comment I was responding to something TMF wrote and he wrote a very fair point.

My personal opinion is the era a few years ago, before we had Djokovic, Murray and a stronger more skilled Nadal was in my mind clearly weaker than today. I like the top ten today because I feel we have a number of really skilled players. A few years ago I would have said the only really top skilled player was Federer. Nadal wasn't nearly as skilled as he is today. Nadal today has a better serve, backhand, volley and better touch. He's added a lot and I admire him for that.

I actually think 2010 may have been the weakest year since 2003 or 2002. The only top player who showed any consistency whatsoever was Nadal. Murray was strong at the AO but fairly weak in the final, Federer was strong here. Similar story for the finalists at FO and Wimbledon (except they probably weren't quite as impressive over their respective tournaments as Murray was). At the USO, Federer and Djokovic were decent. As for Nadal, he was ok at the AO, fairly poor by his standards at the FO (although he was great in the final), decent at Wimbledon (although very poor for about half the tournament) and great at the USO.

I assume when people try and quantify era strength they're looking at average or aggregate strength of some (probably vaguely defined) group of top players, in which case I believe that due weighting is almost never given to Federer's decline. For example, in your post you talk about how much stronger Nadal is now than 5 years ago, and how much better Murray and Djokovic are than the top players of 5 years ago, but at no stage is it considered that Federer's loss of ability may do much to negate the aforementioned gains in era strength.

I, for one, think Safin, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Agassi, Roddick, Nadal and Federer in 04-06 (before the advent of Djokovic) comprise a more impressive field than Berdych, Soderling, Djokovic, Murray, Nadal, Federer, Del Potro in 08-10. It's no slam dunk either way, but surely the fact that in 04-06 we were witnessing the peak play of the most dominant male Pro of the open era warrants consideration in any evaluation of era strength. I mean, Federer's skill alone has a huge positive impact on the average or aggregate skill of whatever group of top players we are evaluating.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
I actually think 2010 may have been the weakest year since 2003 or 2002. The only top player who showed any consistency whatsoever was Nadal. Murray was strong at the AO but fairly weak in the final, Federer was strong here. Similar story for the finalists at FO and Wimbledon (except they probably weren't quite as impressive over their respective tournaments as Murray was). At the USO, Federer and Djokovic were decent. As for Nadal, he was ok at the AO, fairly poor by his standards at the FO (although he was great in the final), decent at Wimbledon (although very poor for about half the tournament) and great at the USO.

I assume when people try and quantify era strength they're looking at average or aggregate strength of some (probably vaguely defined) group of top players, in which case I believe that due weighting is almost never given to Federer's decline. For example, in your post you talk about how much stronger Nadal is now than 5 years ago, and how much better Murray and Djokovic are than the top players of 5 years ago, but at no stage is it considered that Federer's loss of ability may do much to negate the aforementioned gains in era strength.

I, for one, think Safin, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Agassi, Roddick, Nadal and Federer in 04-06 (before the advent of Djokovic) comprise a more impressive field than Berdych, Soderling, Djokovic, Murray, Nadal, Federer, Del Potro in 08-10. It's no slam dunk either way, but surely the fact that in 04-06 we were witnessing the peak play of the most dominant male Pro of the open era warrants consideration in any evaluation of era strength. I mean, Federer's skill alone has a huge positive impact on the average or aggregate skill of whatever group of top players we are evaluating.

It's always hard to figure out strength of an era since the average winning percentage will always be 50%. However I try to be subjective about it and I just feel that the skills and talents of the top few are in my opinion higher than it was a few years ago.
 

piece

Professional
It's always hard to figure out strength of an era since the average winning percentage will always be 50%. However I try to be subjective about it and I just feel that the skills and talents of the top few are in my opinion higher than it was a few years ago.

I have no problem with a more subjective approach in general, in fact, I've been openly endorsing your definition of a strong era throughout this thread. I'd imagine that your siding against the results-based or achievements-based accounts of era strength comes from a recognition that they are vulnerable to embarrassing counterexamples. That being said, I do take issue with your exact formulation of the criteria for a strong era. Talent and skill do not necessarily translate into high quality play. I mean, look at guys like Gasquet or Berdych - these are guys whose talent is talked up regularly, but who have played nothing better than top 30 tennis for most of their ATP careers. Their talent, alone, clearly doesn't contribute to the strength of the current era. What really makes a strong era is, I would say, quality of play.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
I have no problem with a more subjective approach in general, in fact, I've been openly endorsing your definition of a strong era throughout this thread. I'd imagine that your siding against the results-based or achievements-based accounts of era strength comes from a recognition that they are vulnerable to embarrassing counterexamples. That being said, I do take issue with your exact formulation of the criteria for a strong era. Talent and skill do not necessarily translate into high quality play. I mean, look at guys like Gasquet or Berdych - these are guys whose talent is talked up regularly, but who have played nothing better than top 30 tennis for most of their ATP careers. Their talent, alone, clearly doesn't contribute to the strength of the current era. What really makes a strong era is, I would say, quality of play.

Perhaps when I use the terms talent and skill I should have specified that I meant it should translate into quality of play. For example I thought Miloslav Mecir was more talented than just about anyone but he had some losses to players, even when healthy that he should not have had based on his skills and talent in my opinion. So overall I do feel in general the level of play of players like Nadal, Djokovic, Federer and Murray is superior to it was, let's say 2006.
 
Last edited:
How long is an era in tennis history?

the time between major changes in the sport..eg wood-graphite..2001 atp
vote on slowing everything etc.

thus i think you could marry the answer to this question with my ideas
of ifferent forms of game...infact..

maybe in future atp willspeed everying upagain and we start a new era.

let me be clear to makemy major point>

in many sports such as soccer or baseball..you would need to invade poland
toget a major rule/equipment change! yet we see it almost annually on tennis

remember BP's famous "would stosur win without tech" from last years FO threads?

Thus by dividing the times up it gives lines where we can'tcompare across.
 
Definition of PERIOD
(from Merriam Webster)
1
: the completion of a cycle, a series of events, or a single action


6
a : a portion of time determined by some recurring phenomenon

b (1) : the interval of time required for a cyclic motion or phenomenon to complete a cycle and begin to repeat itself (2) : a number k that does not change the value of a periodic function f when added to the independent variable; especially : the smallest such number


7
a : a chronological division : stage
b : a division of geologic time longer than an epoch and included in an era
c : a stage of culture having a definable place in time and space
 
Last edited:
Definition of ERA
(from Merriam Webster)

1
a : a fixed point in time from which a series of years is reckoned
b : a memorable or important date or event; especially : one that begins a new period in the history of a person or thing
2
: a system of chronological notation computed from a given date as basis
3
a : a period identified by some prominent figure or characteristic feature <the era of the horse and buggy>
b : a stage in development (as of a person or thing)
c : a large division of geologic time usually shorter than an eon <Paleozoic era>
 
Last edited:
I am wondering if a single year is too short.?

Is a ten-year period too long?

Is a five-year period also too long?

I think a year is too short in terms of one year comprising an "era". In looking at different eras, I try looking at both five and ten year periods Hoodjem. For example, I'll look at 1970-1980 (or 1970-1979, either way) which is more of a "big picture" view and then I'll look at both five year periods within those ten years, say 1970-1975 and 1975-1980. Of course, you ultimately end up analyzing every year of the decade by doing this, but I would say you do need to look at 5 year periods, because life at the top tends to change so quickly. Then, look at how those five year periods that create decades of tennis.
 
Last edited:

pc1

G.O.A.T.
I am wondering if a single year is too short.?

Is a ten-year period too long?

Is a five-year period also too long?

I think five years is a pretty decent period of time also. To be good or great for five years is excellent and shows the level of play wasn't a fluke.

I agree with Borg Number One that a single year could be too short to evaluate but we always can discuss weak single years also.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
You can’t pick certain number of years and go from there. But you can group them.

You can debate which players was the most dominant players in five year span. 3 year span. Or 10 year span.

In a 5 year span, I pick Federer as the most dominant player ever.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
You can’t pick certain number of years and go from there. But you can group them.

You can debate which players was the most dominant players in five year span. 3 year span. Or 10 year span.

In a 5 year span, I pick Federer as the most dominant player ever.

In his best five years Federer (if my numbers are correct) won 91.2% of his matches, 49 tournaments out of 88 entered and 12 majors out of 20 entered. Pretty tremendous.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
In his best five years Federer (if my numbers are correct) won 91.2% of his matches, 49 tournaments out of 88 entered and 12 majors out of 20 entered. Pretty tremendous.

I didn't check. And during that period, he set a lot of records too.

I'm curious of how Borg did during his best 5 years. While he didn't win as much slams, but he probably had other amazing numbers.
 

piece

Professional
Perhaps when I use the terms talent and skill I should have specified that I meant it should translate into quality of play. For example I thought Miloslav Mecir was more talented than just about anyone but he had some losses to players, even when healthy that he should not have had based on his skills and talent in my opinion. So overall I do feel in general the level of play of players like Nadal, Djokovic, Federer and Murray is superior to it was, let's say 2006.

Fair enough. But on a quality of play criterion, I think it is a bit of a stretch to call 2010 a better quality year than any of the three years of Federer's prime that I mentioned (except, perhaps, 2006, but Federer did play his best ever this year and Nadal had one of his best years on clay). Federer won 8 slams in those 3 years, Hewitt had two of the best years of his career, Roddick was in his prime, Nadal was just about as good on clay as he is now, Nalbandian was in his prime, Agassi would play great at the AO and USO in 04, 05, Safin had a handful of blindingly good tournaments. I mean, you'd take Djokovic over Roddick (despite the h2h), and you'd take Nadal now over Nadal then. But Would you really take Murray over Hewitt? Or Del Potro over Safin? To be honest I think the drop in Federer's quality of play reduces the strength of this era (in terms of how hard it is for some random player to win a big title) much more significantly than the addition of Murray and Djokovic increase the strength of this era.

It's hard to prove. I'm sure I can't convince you. Still, it does seem that you're failing to properly account for a significant drop in quality of play on the part of the most dominant male pro of the open era, and if anyone's quality of play should be taken into account when assessing the strength of an era that he is a part of, it's Federer's.
 
Bjorn Borg from 1977-1981 won 8 majors out of 14 entered (57.1%). He won 45 titles (these are official atp titles/matches only) out of 81 total tournaments played (55.5%). He won 90% of his matches played over that 5 year period. Top players of the time played a lot of unofficial tournaments as well, so he had a heavy schedule to keep.

'77-1 major won (Wimbledon), prevented from playing the FO, US Open retirement to Stockton, did not play the AO. He played 19 tournaments total.

'78-2 majors won (FO, W), US Open final, did not play the AO. He played 18 tournaments total.

'79-2 majors won (FO,W), did not play in the AO. He played 20 tournaments total.

'80-2 majors won (FO,W), did not play the AO, US Open final, Masters in '80. He played 15 tournaments total.

'81-1 major won (FO), US Open final, W final, did not play the AO, Masters in Jan. '81. He played 9 tournaments total.

I'll look at his 1976-1980 time frame as well and 1976-1981 (6 years) as well.

From 1976-1980, Borg won 8/14 (57.1%) majors played and won 89.2% of total matches played (official only). He won 48 titles in that period, from a total of 88 tournaments (54.5%).

If you look at 1976-1981 (a 6 year period), Borg has 9/17 majors won (53%), 51 titles won out of 89 tournaments played (57.3%), and a 88.9% winning percentage if you factor in his official matches only.
 
Last edited:

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Fair enough. But on a quality of play criterion, I think it is a bit of a stretch to call 2010 a better quality year than any of the three years of Federer's prime that I mentioned (except, perhaps, 2006, but Federer did play his best ever this year and Nadal had one of his best years on clay). Federer won 8 slams in those 3 years, Hewitt had two of the best years of his career, Roddick was in his prime, Nadal was just about as good on clay as he is now, Nalbandian was in his prime, Agassi would play great at the AO and USO in 04, 05, Safin had a handful of blindingly good tournaments. I mean, you'd take Djokovic over Roddick (despite the h2h), and you'd take Nadal now over Nadal then. But Would you really take Murray over Hewitt? Or Del Potro over Safin? To be honest I think the drop in Federer's quality of play reduces the strength of this era (in terms of how hard it is for some random player to win a big title) much more significantly than the addition of Murray and Djokovic increase the strength of this era.

It's hard to prove. I'm sure I can't convince you. Still, it does seem that you're failing to properly account for a significant drop in quality of play on the part of the most dominant male pro of the open era, and if anyone's quality of play should be taken into account when assessing the strength of an era that he is a part of, it's Federer's.

I realize Federer's play perhaps has dropped somewhat but I still feel this is more than compensated by the increase in strength of Nadal and the emergence of Djokovic and Murray, among others. I don't think there's one stroke that Nadal had in the past that isn't better now.
 

piece

Professional
I realize Federer's play perhaps has dropped somewhat but I still feel this is more than compensated by the increase in strength of Nadal and the emergence of Djokovic and Murray, among others. I don't think there's one stroke that Nadal had in the past that isn't better now.

I think Nadal's dropshot used to be better, and his passing shots (while not a stroke in themselves) aren't any better. Also, he's slower now and as a consequence his defense isn't quite as good. But you're right, he's improved in maybe every other respect. However, I'd characterize most of his improvements as falling short of drastic.

And there's no "perhaps" about the drop in Federer's play. If you're willing to acknowledge Nadal's improvement surely you notice Federer's decline. Federer's movement, forehand, backhand and serve have all taken huge hits. His forehand, for one, has regressed to a far greater degree than Nadal's has improved. The only shot Federer has improved is the dropshot.

Although I think Djokovic and Murray have added less to the current era's strength than Federer's decline has taken from it, I understand your thinking otherwise. But would you really maintain that they have added so much that not only do they make up for Federer's decline but also for the absence of prime Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Nalbandian, and Agassi (granting, of course, that some of this deficit is made up by Nadal's improvement). This doesn't seem tenable to me, yet I understand your thinking otherwise. What I don't understand is your confidence in your conclusion that today's top players are stronger than 5 years ago. I think I have good reason to give credence to a contrary conclusion, but either way I'm willing to acknowledge that there's not much in it. That the two eras don't differ dramatically in strength.
 
Thanks Chopin. I respect people when they speak their mind whether if there’s an agreement or not between the two. As I’ve stated before...an older person may not necessary means they are accurate in judgement. Especially when they are biased, it kills their credibility, and it doesn’t matter if that person is 50 yrs older than you. Also, I maybe younger than Data, but I’m very possitive that I’ve watch more tennis than him in this millenium. B/c of that, I should be more informative than him. However, Data think he’s older, so he must have more qualification to make judement. According to logic on this forum, fans that witness old classic tennis have more in depth in knowledge than youngster who haven’t seen it. On the flip side, younger fans can say the same to the old-timer like Data who even admitted that he haven’t watch Federer for quite sometime. It’s laughable to use this the older, and more experience to support their lackluster argument. Strange, very strange. John Kennedy who was elected at such a young age is a big mistake.:rolleyes:

TMF...noone is saying age matters..you're the one bringing up age here.

(once again..another distraction..)

sure..people can say they saw connors..but,for example, I nver saw him(before my time)..BUT NOONES saying the younger dude is automatically wrong. just because of that. but it helps to live through that era, because you have at least an understanding of the technology of the time...see..I bolded,underlined and italiked the point.
It's not so much connors>gonzalez or whatever..

so i don't see point in getting all defensive..over age.
 
Well, if we are pointing finger at Chopin, we should also pointing finger at Data and Kiki for putting down todays' players, especially Federer.

well i wasn't trying to put down federer...

my response to your whole "todays players are *better*(wahtever that entails)...

was that I can't agree or disagree..but I do know the ATP promote today.

anyway..agree with Chopin...we should take a break sometimes.
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
I realize Federer's play perhaps has dropped somewhat but I still feel this is more than compensated by the increase in strength of Nadal and the emergence of Djokovic and Murray, among others.
Where is Murray lately?

He seems to have been MIA.
 
Where is Murray lately?

He seems to have been MIA.

He's been struggling since the AO. He had several first round losses after the final against Djokovic and then at Monte Carlo he had to get a cortisone injection due to an elbow injury. Hopefully, he'll be able to bounce back. He did play well against Nadal at MC, when he pushed him to 3 sets just after receiving a cortisone injection for his elbow injury. He withdrew from the Barcelona Open due to the injury.

http://www.bnd.com/2011/04/19/1682801/murray-out-of-barcelona-open-with.html

219-963Monte_Carlo_Tennis_Masters.sff.standalone.prod_affiliate.98.jpg
 
Last edited:
Fair enough. But on a quality of play criterion, I think it is a bit of a stretch to call 2010 a better quality year than any of the three years of Federer's prime that I mentioned (except, perhaps, 2006, but Federer did play his best ever this year and Nadal had one of his best years on clay). Federer won 8 slams in those 3 years, Hewitt had two of the best years of his career, Roddick was in his prime, Nadal was just about as good on clay as he is now, Nalbandian was in his prime, Agassi would play great at the AO and USO in 04, 05, Safin had a handful of blindingly good tournaments. I mean, you'd take Djokovic over Roddick (despite the h2h), and you'd take Nadal now over Nadal then. But Would you really take Murray over Hewitt? Or Del Potro over Safin? To be honest I think the drop in Federer's quality of play reduces the strength of this era (in terms of how hard it is for some random player to win a big title) much more significantly than the addition of Murray and Djokovic increase the strength of this era.

It's hard to prove. I'm sure I can't convince you. Still, it does seem that you're failing to properly account for a significant drop in quality of play on the part of the most dominant male pro of the open era, and if anyone's quality of play should be taken into account when assessing the strength of an era that he is a part of, it's Federer's.

I think that's definitely worth considering. If you compare say 2007-2009 versus 2010-2011 (approximately), let's look at the top four guys: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray. Overall, I would say that Djokovic is most improved, but I think Nadal is better overall as well. Nadal is now really tough to beat at any of the four majors. He is very possibly a better grass court/hard court player now than he has ever been. Djokovic has definitely improved at the AO/US Open, but what about RG and Wimbledon? At the same time, I do think that Federer has dropped in terms of his overall level of play. Meanwhile, though Murray has shown some impressive flashes at the AO especially, it's tough to argue that he's much better in 2011 as opposed to the 2007-2009 period.

So, it's definitely debatable whether the top guys overall (as a group) are stronger now as opposed to 2007-2009, or even 2006-2009 (although then perhaps you need to look at some different players). I think we'll have to see how the majors play out this year before we get a better handle on it. If both Federer and Murray really struggle for the rest of the year, it'll be hard to argue that the top guys are better overall now as opposed to a few years ago. Of course, we'll have to also see how guys like Soderling, Ferrer, and Berdych play within such a scenario.

We've got three majors left, the French Open, Wimbledon and the US Open. I think that between Nadal, Djokovic, Federer, and Murray, it very well could be 1. Nadal 2. Federer/Djokovic (about equal with results) and 3. Murray in terms of how they'll perform in the remaining three majors for the year. I think that it'll obviously be very difficult to "three peat" again for Nadal, but I do think he could very well win 2 of those 3 majors, leaving one for either Federer or Djokovic. It's going to be very interesting, but in the long term, I see Nadal only cementing his position as the top player in the world. I could be very wrong though. We'll just have to see how they play for the rest of the year.
 
Last edited:

kiki

Banned
That's a very interesting way to look at eras, or periods of tennis over the years. It's really useful to note those differences over time. Just to add some notes, I tend to think about some features of different eras such as which tournaments were the four biggest of the year. One change I would make is that in 1975, the US Open went to rubico (har tru) until 1978 when it went to hard courts. I like your concept!

pre-68 (wood racquets, before the Open Era)

68-74 (Dawn of the Open Era, still wood racquets, three slams grass/1 clay)

75-84 (still wood/pre-graphite, transition away from wood,US Open on rubico in 1975-1977, then two majors on grass, one hard, and one clay major. The AO was not considered as important a major, WCT/Masters YEC treated as the 4th most important tournament.)

85-00 (fast/slow range, graphite frames, Wimbledon still on fast grass courts, AO regains status as a important major)

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1815724,00.html (interesting article on the change at the AELTC)

01-today (slower surfaces in general, newer generation graphite frames, poly strings, Wimbledon gets slower)

Well seen, borg Nº 1.I like your splitting eras like that.One could also go further back and say 1920-1930 were the eras tennis became a worldwide sport but prot ennis was just about to be born, while 1950´s to 1960 would be the dawn of true pro tennis, when a bunch of guys headed by Gonzales,Kramer,Laver,Rosewall,Sedgman and Hoad had a pro status just like nowadays.
 

kiki

Banned
Well, if we are pointing finger at Chopin, we should also pointing finger at Data and Kiki for putting down todays' players, especially Federer.

I have never put down Federer as a single, individualistic great player, and I´ll never use his lack of size or excess of size to judge his talent, ability and stature as a champion.Instead, to put down Laver just because of his mere size is just as stupid as saying that the Sears Towers are a much better building than the Rome Foro, just because it is bigger.Think about it.










nk about it.
 

Chopin

Hall of Fame
I have never put down Federer as a single, individualistic great player, and I´ll never use his lack of size or excess of size to judge his talent, ability and stature as a champion.Instead, to put down Laver just because of his mere size is just as stupid as saying that the Sears Towers are a much better building than the Rome Foro, just because it is bigger.Think about it.










nk about it.

My dear Kiki, please keep posting this stuff.
 

kiki

Banned
¿Is there any contradictory fact in those 2 sentences?

Sentence A: Federer is one of the greatest talents of the open era ( look at my thread " fantasy masters" ).His talent makes him enter in the package of GOAT exclusive memebership.

Sentence B: he played in the weakest open era section in terms of variety and talent among the top 10-15 players.Thus, this deprives him to be automatichally considered the GOAT.


He is a candidate for GOATness, but the era he´s played, in my humble opinion, works more against him than in favour of him in terms of criteria to be the GOAT.


And I don´t give a damn, once again, about sizes, courts,strings,rackets and all the subjective criteria you give so much importance to it.

life is much simpler.¿What would Leonardo da Vinci have achieves in the internet era? ¿What would Bill Gates or Steve Jobs have created in the XVI centruy?.The answer is WE DON´T KNOW.The intuition is BOTH WOULD HAVE LEFT THEIR MARK IN THEIR ERAS.

Again...¿ Is there a contradiction between "A" and "B" , my darling Chopin or TMf or Mr fedrules ?
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
I have never put down Federer as a single, individualistic great player, and I´ll never use his lack of size or excess of size to judge his talent, ability and stature as a champion.Instead, to put down Laver just because of his mere size is just as stupid as saying that the Sears Towers are a much better building than the Rome Foro, just because it is bigger.Think about it.


nk about it.

This is not a good post.

Makes absolutely no sense in relating a stand still object(building) to a living human being.

Now please...stay on topic !
 
Top