IMO
Federer 2004-07
Nadal 2008-10
Djokovic 2011-1?
I think a player doesn't have to be the best player in every year of a certain period for that to be called his era. He would have to become #1 first before we start talking about him having an era. Maybe you will ask me why I didn't extend Fed period into 2009 then, but that is because I wanted Rafa to have his own era.
Federer doesn't have an issue, since he has been the best in all of the years I mentioned. Nadal has 2009, but the other two were amazing. Him beating Fed in 3 Slam finals on 3 different surfaces seals it for me. Stretching it to 2013 would include another two years, 2011 and 2012, where he was far from being the best, and that would be too much. Djokovic has 2013, but he was the best in the previous two and the next two.
Also, I think that two eras cannot have a mutual period, which is why I am not supporting the idea that Fed has 04-09, Rafa 08-13 and Novak 11-1?. To me that looks like a collision and cherry picking for each player. Simply, when one ended, the other started.
Just to make things clear, I am really not trying to make Novak better than he is here. Djokovic does have a longest era according to me, but that doesn't mean he is a greater player. Federer won 11 out of 16 Slams and his #1 spot wasn't taken once during his era, you cannot beat that. Also, Rafa having the shortest era doesn't mean he is the worst. He dominated in smaller waves, and him winning at least 1 Slam for 10 consecutive years just shows that.
And lost 11 times including 2 losses in slam and 6 losses in masters. Ah the mythical unbeatable peak Nadal.
This is a kind of odd.
Federer's era ended in 2009 (in your opinion) but he won the first Major of 2010 (basically there isn't another Major untill the middle of the year.
Also, in 2003 he won Wimbledon and the Tour finals, two of the three biggest tournaments in the second part of the year.
Basically you are taking an year off of his potential era with that calculation.
Nadal's 2008 starts around May 2008 really and ends at the beginning of september. After that there is a string of losses untill the next year, when he beats Federer at the AO and goes on to win a couple of tournaments ending with the win in Rome against Djokovic. After that there are the losses against Federer, Soderling, Del Potro, Djokovic, Del Potro again, Cilic, Davydenko, Djokovic and 3 losses against Djokovic, Davy and Soderling at the WTF not winning a single tournament untill the end of the year. I don't understand how this can be called an era.
The 2008 - 2009 double is disastrous when it comes to such claim and untill april 2010 this is also true!
And overlapy of eras can happen but in the scenario you are describing Nadal doesn't even have two successive years of sustained dominance, which is in direct contradiction with the definition of an "era".
Djokovic doesn't have the problem Nadal is having as he has been dominant in two years or more in succession two times already. In that light you can overlook Nadal's marginally better 2013 and include it in Djokovic's era. Not the case with Nadal and his 2013 connected to 2010
1) It is odd that you go with a definition different than the meaning of the word that we are using to define the said period
2) overlapping of eras that lacks explanation of context
It almost looks like you WANT to give Nadal an era, disregarding everything else.
Well, on the first point one will have to say why he chooses to ignore to most obvious and known meaning of the word for something else.
On the second point I think that I pretty much explained how your "eras" do not match the real situation and at the same time you don't apply the same standard when forming an era for different players.
I understand that you want that all those great players have their "time", but I think that it is going beyond the reasonable to just "award"eras, because that way their legacy looks more complete.
Did Hewitt have his own era?
Nadal just had a cakewalk clay era to enjoy and a cakewalk 2010, and a cakewalk 2013 USO draw. We could do this all day
I disagree though
You never replayed to me before. And what about 7 big loses in a row to same gay in the middle of “his era”?
Yes, by that logic whole open era is Feds era!1. The number of Majors don't say much when it is taken out of context, because if we are going by that measure we are still in Federer's era
2. Post #210 includes some of the reasoning what the real situation is and that you didn't apply the same standard to Djokovic and Nadal in regard to their dominance defining their era.
3. 2003 was Hewitt era?
Really?
1. The number of Majors don't say much when it is taken out of context, because if we are going by that measure we are still in Federer's era
2. Post #210 includes some of the reasoning what the real situation is and that you didn't apply the same standard to Djokovic and Nadal in regard to their dominance defining their era.
3. 2003 was Hewitt era?
Really?
So Rafas players outside the top10 is better than No1es inside top10? And in No1es case, No1e (2011) met Rafa himself (in the middel of "his era") 6 times (as many as Rafa met top10 players overall in his best year)!!!!
This is a kind of odd.
Federer's era ended in 2009 (in your opinion) but he won the first Major of 2010 (basically there isn't another Major untill the middle of the year.
Also, in 2003 he won Wimbledon and the Tour finals, two of the three biggest tournaments in the second part of the year.
Basically you are taking an year off of his potential era with that calculation.
Nadal's 2008 starts around May 2008 really and ends at the beginning of september. After that there is a string of losses untill the next year, when he beats Federer at the AO and goes on to win a couple of tournaments ending with the win in Rome against Djokovic. After that there are the losses against Federer, Soderling, Del Potro, Djokovic, Del Potro again, Cilic, Davydenko, Djokovic and 3 losses against Djokovic, Davy and Soderling at the WTF not winning a single tournament untill the end of the year. I don't understand how this can be called an era.
The 2008 - 2009 double is disastrous when it comes to such claim and untill april 2010 this is also true!
And overlapy of eras can happen but in the scenario you are describing Nadal doesn't even have two successive years of sustained dominance, which is in direct contradiction with the definition of an "era".
Djokovic doesn't have the problem Nadal is having as he has been dominant in two years or more in succession two times already. In that light you can overlook Nadal's marginally better 2013 and include it in Djokovic's era. Not the case with Nadal and his 2013 connected to 2010
Eras have been defined as 10-15 years, if the the definition of an "era" was met.
There is no requirement for an era to be longer or shorter than 5-6 years.
I get the sence that you somehow conflate the era and the generation issue.
But that is the thing.
Because after the middle of 2003 started Federer's era it doesn't necessary mean that before him his predecessors had an era.
The best example of how inaccuracies can lead to bigger issues is the example with 2003 and its inclusion in the Hewitt era, when Hewitt didn't even reach a single final of a Major that year and his best result was a win in IW (if I am not mistaken). Put that against Federer's Wimbledon and Tour finals wins and see what I am talking about.
Hewitt had two successive years as #1 tennis player, so in that sense he had something resembling an era, but even if the formal requirement for using the word is met it still seems to be pushing it to call two successive years with barely dominating the rest a full blooded era. On top of that he concluded it with a year where he didn't do anything to consolidate his position.
) is Federer era even though Nadal just had the better 2008.3. Look clubbing 2003 along with Hewitt was just to prove a point even though I knew he hasn't done anything there. You could very well add it Federer's era. What difference it is going to make to the fact that you could draw a line wherever you want depending on what definition you have for one's era? For some it is part of Federer's era, for some it is Roddick era, for some it is a "period before Fed's utter domination which was dominated by Hewitt". The point is nobody is going to cross examine dates like that when you point who dominated a period in tennis, just like one shouldnt worry too much if someone says 2004-2009 (or for that matter 2003-2009 if it makes you happy
Read the thread from its start.
The answer to your question was given (at least from me).
You are entering BreakPoint theritory with that example, as it is both impossible and barely touches on anything we said.
The only thing it does is to confront one of the main arguments about having an era and it does it without context, so it is basically useless.
Well, if I have written it directly (not implying it) and you still don't see it .....
The bolded part only exacerbates the problem with your thinking.
So, because anyone can think of his own definition of what an "era" means, we will have to forever remain in the dark, who had an era and who didn't and just like that draw arbitrary lines?
You did that to show me it is possible and I just show you how wrong that approach is by just dismantling your point about 2003 being part of the Hewitt era.
After the bolded part: I don't care for someone telling me that it is Roddick's era.
He is free to think whatever he likes, but that is not something a knowledgeable person will agree with.
Same with Nadal.
There is a reason why a number of successive years are required for an era as one of the prerequisites of the era is to have sustained dominance. That way we don't have to look for arbitrary starts and ends of periods as our fancy strikes us. If one does his opponents will have (and rightly so) the opportunity to broaden those arbitrary borders to their advantage.
For example, I can broaden the period 2008-2013 to 2008-2015, because Djokovic and Nadal are of the same generation and Djokovic won his first Major in 2008 and see till the last year where both are competing and guess what ...... Djokovic is miles ahead as he has the numbers and the consistency.
In fact, this is a much more balanced POW when talking about the era after Federer.
1. I am not going to link any post in this thread for your pleasure. I did it once but you behave like you are entitled to it. Go and look for it or stop discussing altogether!
2. BR is a poster who would go to extremes creating scenarios that never materialize to "prove his point"
3. Show me a case of being technically possible and I will make it impossible in a matter of three sentences
4. I am not going to change the words of something written in clear and understandable words in plain sentences with clear logic behind them
5. You cannot be serious. I completely dismantled your argument for 2003 being included in the Hewitt era and you still come back with that nonsense. No wonder you don't understand the above points
6. It has been documented in this very thread and repeated in my converstaion with you. It includes at least two (possibly more) successive years of sustained dominance, along with top results (both as big titles won, results against the competiotion) and recognized position as the #1 in the world
7. It is more balanced, because it includes the entirety of their parallel careers from the point they reached a level where they were of comparable ability
So it can be an era if it is at least two years, and all those years have one player leading in ranking as well as number of big titles won. Well, that explains point 3. for me. But why do you think it is "the definition"? What could be wrong with my definition?
