Today's era is the "waskest" . . . by far.
And Fed is definitely the "wasky" GOAT.
(I'm not sure what it means, but I like it.)
I declare this thread officially over, formally and in writing. A round of applause for Kiki.
Chopin, are you basically saying.....
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".
Hey, man, if you're lucky, I'll even bring in Alexander Vladimirovich Volkov.
^^^
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.
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... ;-)
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 !
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.
Nope. I've already explained the reason why you are off track but continue to ignore...
^^^
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.
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.)
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.
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.
How long is an era in tennis history?
I am wondering if a single year is too short.?a : a fixed point in time from which a series of years is reckoned
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 am wondering if a single year is too short.?
Is a ten-year period too long?
Is a five-year period also too long?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well, if we are pointing finger at Chopin, we should also pointing finger at Data and Kiki for putting down todays' players, especially Federer.
Where is Murray lately?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.
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.
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, 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.
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.