WTA and ATP eras since 1988 with no overlap and with overlap

[mattosgrant]

If you were forced to put every year in tennis from 1988 to today into eras for both women and men, one version with no overlap allowed, and another with overlap allowed what would yours be. Here are mine.

Women with no overlap:

1988-1990: Graf
1991-1992: Seles
1993-1996: Graf
1997: Hingis
1998-1999: Davenport
2000-2001: Venus
2002-2003: Serena
2004-2005: nothing
2006-2007: Henin
2008-2010: Serena
2011: nothing
2012-current: Serena

Men with no overlap:

1988-1990: Becker/Lendl/Edberg combined era, no one player
1991-1992: Edberg/Courier combined era
1993-1998: Sampras
1999-2000: nothing
2001-2002: Hewitt era
2003-2007: Federer
2008-2010: Nadal era
2011-today: Djokovic era

Women with overlap now allowed:

1988-1990: Graf era
1990-1993: Seles era
1993-1996: Graf era
1997-1999: Hingis era
1998-2000: Davenport era
2000-2001: Venus era
2002-2003: Serena era
2003-2007: Henin era
2008-2010: Serena era
2010-2011: Clijsters era
2012-today: Serena era

Men with overlap now allowed:

1988-1990: Lendl era
1990-1992: Edberg era
1991-1993: Courier era
1993-1999: Sampras era
1999-2001: Agassi era
2001-2002: Hewitt era
2003-2009: Federer era
2008-2013: Nadal era
2011-today: Djokovic era

 

[mattosgrant]

I guess I am doing this to see which is fairer, versions that allow no overlap (YOU have to choose only 1 person per year at most) or ones that allow overlap. It almost looks like allowing some overlap (which is still only used occasionally) is fairer.

 

[tennisaddict]

Not again this argument of 2011-current being Novak's.

2012-2014 - Rafa won more majors, was ye #1 , beat Novak several times.

Novak's era is 2011 and 2015-...

 

[mattosgrant]

Not again this argument of 2011-current being Novak's.

2012-2014 - Rafa won more majors, was ye #1 , beat Novak several times.

Novak's era is 2011 and 2015-...

Well this is how I look at it:

2011- Novak was best by a huge margin
2012- Novak was clearly best
2013- Nadal was best by small margin probably
2014- Novak was clearly best
2015- Novak was best by a huge margin

Overall it looks like an era to me, despite being usurpsed in 2013 (and even then ITF and many others had Novak #1 over Rafa for the year remember). However that is also why I suggested having an overlap option. If one feels 2013 should still be counted as part of a Nadal era, or one feels both 2008 for Nadal and 2009 for Federer should both be counted as part of their eras, the overlap option I suggested 2nd allows that. The first option does not. Which is mostly what this thread is testing to see which is better.

 

[Phoenix1983]

I'll just do it for the men at the moment, as this is rather time-consuming:

Without overlap

1988 Wilander
1989 Becker
1990-1991 Edberg
1992 Courier
1993-1998 Sampras
1999-2000 Agassi
2001-2002 Hewitt
2003-2007 Federer
2008-2010 Nadal
2011-present Djokovic

With overlap

(pre-1988) - 1990 Lendl
1988 - 1992 Edberg
1993 - 1999 Sampras
1999 - 2003 Agassi
2001 - 2002 Hewitt
2003 - 2009 Federer
2008 - 2013 Nadal
2011 - present Djokovic

I'm tending to agree that the "with overlap" version is better. Let's face it, Wilander and Courier never really had eras. The second list is more representative of the true dominators of the past 30 years. (Hewitt a slight exception, but at least his 2001-2002 were consistent enough to prevent me from putting "nobody", which I certainly would've done if, say, he had lost to Nalbandian in the 2002 W final, or hadn't won YECs in both those years).

 

[mattosgrant]

I'll just do it for the men at the moment, as this is rather time-consuming:

Without overlap

1988 Wilander
1989 Becker
1990-1991 Edberg
1992 Courier
1993-1998 Sampras
1999-2000 Agassi
2001-2002 Hewitt
2003-2007 Federer
2008-2010 Nadal
2011-present Djokovic

With overlap

(pre-1988) - 1990 Lendl
1988 - 1992 Edberg
1993 - 1999 Sampras
1999 - 2003 Agassi
2001 - 2002 Hewitt
2003 - 2009 Federer
2008 - 2013 Nadal
2011 - present Djokovic

I'm tending to agree that the "with overlap" version is better. Let's face it, Wilander and Courier never really had eras. The second list is more representative of the true dominators of the past 30 years. (Hewitt a slight exception, but at least his 2001-2002 were consistent enough to prevent me from putting "nobody", which I certainly would've done if, say, he had lost to Nalbandian in the 2002 W final, or hadn't won YECs in both those years).

Yeah agree with all that. I don't really think Lendl was the best player (in terms of ability level) anymore in 1988-1990 which was probably Edberg or Becker when in top form, but he still overall achieved the best results of that period of anyone, so if we allow overlap we can still consider it his era even if he was nowhere near as dominant as 85-87 anymore, but more consistent than Becker, Edberg, or 1 year wonder (in this period, he had many other very good years before his icon year of 88) Wilander.

Edberg as having an era makes far more sense than Courier having one, and Becker just wasn't really consistent enough ever to have an era even if he was arguably best of 89 and dominant in his era at Wimbledon (well somewhat)

 

[Vanhool]

These seem much too small to be eras, some are just a season or two

 

[mattosgrant]

These seem much too small to be eras, some are just a season or two

How long do you think an era should be minimum. 3 years? If I made eras trying to keep them as long as possible then they would maybe be:

Men

1988-1992: Edberg era
1993-1999: Sampras era
1999-2003: Agassi era
2003-2009: Federer era
2008-2013: Nadal era
2011-current: Djokovic era


Women

1988-1991: Graf era (she even spent some time at #1 in 1991 throughout the year)
1990-1993: Seles era
1993-1996: Graf era
1997-2000: Hingis era
1998-2001: Davenport era (while a joke she did end 2001 at #1 after all her slam wins and other big titles in 98-2000)
2000-2003: Venus era
1999-2005: Serena era
2003-2007: Henin era
2008-today: Serena era


These look even better, so your suggestion helps.

 

[heninfan99]

1999-2000: nothing

 

[Vanhool]

How long do you think an era should be minimum. 3 years? If I made eras trying to keep them as long as possible then they would maybe be:

Men

1988-1992: Edberg era
1993-1999: Sampras era
1999-2003: Agassi era
2003-2009: Federer era
2008-2013: Nadal era
2011-current: Djokovic era


Women

1988-1991: Graf era (she even spent some time at #1 in 1991 throughout the year)
1990-1993: Seles era
1993-1996: Graf era
1997-2000: Hingis era
1998-2001: Davenport era (while a joke she did end 2001 at #1 after all her slam wins and other big titles in 98-2000)
2000-2003: Venus era
1999-2005: Serena era
2003-2007: Henin era
2008-today: Serena era


These look even better, so your suggestion helps.

That's better to me, but I might even go longer, especially if there are overlaps allowed. To me, if you have an ATG who is still putting up results, the whole thing is their era. Serena's era is her era, with others getting sub eras (or mini co-eras) during her injury lapses (or because they were better at that time, if that's what someone believes...I'm not trying to start an argument). 30 years from now, only the most die hard fan will be making claims for the Davenport era. I wish I had more time to think about it but I have to get ready for work

 

[mattosgrant]

That's better to me, but I might even go longer, especially if there are overlaps allowed. To me, if you have an ATG who is still putting up results, the whole thing is their era. Serena's era is her era, with others getting sub eras (or mini co-eras) during her injury lapses (or because they were better at that time, if that's what someone believes...I'm not trying to start an argument). 30 years from now, only the most die hard fan will be making claims for the Davenport era. I wish I had more time to think about it but I have to get ready for work

OK thanks for your views though. I created this thread largely to explore the concept of an era. Some take the other extreme, that you have to be the unquestioned best every single year of your era, but that view generally creates short eras, even for a lot of the GOAT contenders, as already proven.

You are right many years from now nobody will ever think of a Davenport era, Hewitt era, or Courier era (with all due respect to those individuals), or for a real laugh a Wozniacki era.

I also like your idea of a larger era and sub eras.

 

[metsman]

Can't give Federer 03. Also you could give Agassi a good bit of the 99-00 period although he faded at the end of 00.

 

[metsman]

Well this is how I look at it:

2011- Novak was best by a huge margin
2012- Novak was clearly best
2013- Nadal was best by small margin probably
2014- Novak was clearly best
2015- Novak was best by a huge margin

Overall it looks like an era to me, despite being usurpsed in 2013 (and even then ITF and many others had Novak #1 over Rafa for the year remember). However that is also why I suggested having an overlap option. If one feels 2013 should still be counted as part of a Nadal era, or one feels both 2008 for Nadal and 2009 for Federer should both be counted as part of their eras, the overlap option I suggested 2nd allows that. The first option does not. Which is mostly what this thread is testing to see which is better.

how was novak clearly best in 12 and Nadal best in 13 by a small margin?

 

[tacou]

OK thanks for your views though. I created this thread largely to explore the concept of an era. Some take the other extreme, that you have to be the unquestioned best every single year of your era, but that view generally creates short eras, even for a lot of the GOAT contenders, as already proven.

You are right many years from now nobody will ever think of a Davenport era, Hewitt era, or Courier era (with all due respect to those individuals), or for a real laugh a Wozniacki era.

I also like your idea of a larger era and sub eras.

I think the concept of an era belonging to a single player is a mistake, at least when using the word "era," which is literally defined as a "long and distinct period of time." So, 2, 3, even 5 seasons seems pretty short.

In tennis, I'd consider "eras" lasting at least eight seasons, but more like 10+. The changing of conditions, play styles, phasing out of old tournaments, new rules/technology, etc., all define an era for me, not necessarily who is playing the best tennis. That's why the idea of "sub-eras" is so attractive, because dominance lasting more than 2-3 seasons has really only been achieved by a handful of players on either tour.

Using that metric, only players with double digit slam counts could really dominate an entire era. And even then, consider Rafa/Roger/Novak. Nadal won his first major less than 2 years after Roger, and had his first multi-slam season the year Novak won his first major. Personally, I'd say the current era began around 2005, no later than 2007, and in that span Rafa/Roger/Novak have all established themselves as all time greats and potential GOAT candidates. If there is truly no "Roger Federer" or "Rafael Nadal" era, I don't think any player gets their own era, at least on the men's side.

In short, if there was a book called "2005-2018: The Fedalovic Era" I'd probably read that book!

 

[mattosgrant]

Can't give Federer 03. Also you could give Agassi a good bit of the 99-00 period although he faded at the end of 00.

Well many did think Federer was the true best player of 2003. My feeling is Federer was the best player of 2003, but Roddick deserved the #1 ranking for the year (the two are not always one and the same). So considering Federer already has an undisputed era of 2004-2007, for those looking to stretch it, you could include 2003 maybe? Obviously Roddick has no possible era even if you give him 2003.

The complicated thing with Agassi is his 2000 year was almost nothing after Australia. Didn't even win another tournament. Pretty good performance at Wimbledon (semis) and the YEC final (spanked by Kuerten), and that is it, even including the non slam events. I guess you could still give him 99-2000 overall though as he was clearly #1 in 99 and won a slam to start 2000.

 

[mattosgrant]

how was novak clearly best in 12 and Nadal best in 13 by a small margin?

In 2012 Djokovic by years end was best in everything. Best overall in slams (1 slam like Fed and Murray, but 3 finals), YEC champion, most Masters, most titles. Everyone picked him as Player of Year. So pretty much clear and unquestionable #1.

In 2013 Nadal was best in a lot of areas- most slam wins, most Masters titles, most tournament wins. Djokovic however had a win, runner up, runner up, semis in the 4 slams vs Nadal's DNP and 1st round loss in 2 of the 4. Djokovic has the YEC to go with his 3 Masters, vs Nadal with his 5 Masters. ITF picked Djokovic as Player of Year over Nadal, a major source, whether you agree with their decision or not it is hard to ignore. The ITF up until 1985 or so was considered of greater value than the official rankings in fact.

Also IIRC the ranking points gap between Djokovic and 2nd place Federer in 2012 was much more by years end than the rankings gap between Nadal and 2nd place Djokovic in 2013. Another reason when forced to choose which of Federer or Nadal to put 2008-2009 towards if forced to choose one I lean towards Nadal, since IIRC the rankings gap between Nadal and Federer in 2008 was more than than between Federer and Nadal in 2009.

 

[Vanhool]

OK thanks for your views though. I created this thread largely to explore the concept of an era. Some take the other extreme, that you have to be the unquestioned best every single year of your era, but that view generally creates short eras, even for a lot of the GOAT contenders, as already proven.

You are right many years from now nobody will ever think of a Davenport era, Hewitt era, or Courier era (with all due respect to those individuals), or for a real laugh a Wozniacki era.

I also like your idea of a larger era and sub eras.

Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to step on your concept, which is interesting and thoughtful. To pick a less controversial time, I would have Nav's era run the length of her slam winning years. She overlaps onto Evert's era, then gets finished off by Graf's era. She was still contending when Graf was winning but eventually became an old great just hanging in there, even if her fans (which include me) were wishing she would still win. Or you could have her era end with 87, since clearly 88 on was Graf's time. But I guess I feel the greats cast a longer shadow and deserve respect. I feel 99 was was still Graf's era, even though it was similar to Nav in that the one slam she won was the first after a several year drought. I really like the allowance of overlap. Ok I really gotta go now

Edit: I won't touch the Fedalovic era(s) in TTW with a ten foot pole!

 

[The Fedfather]

In 2012 Djokovic by years end was best in everything. Best overall in slams (1 slam like Fed and Murray, but 3 finals), YEC champion, most Masters, most titles. Everyone picked him as Player of Year. So pretty much clear and unquestionable #1.

In 2013 Nadal was best in a lot of areas- most slam wins, most Masters titles, most tournament wins. Djokovic however had a win, runner up, runner up, semis in the 4 slams vs Nadal's DNP and 1st round loss in 2 of the 4. Djokovic has the YEC to go with his 3 Masters, vs Nadal with his 5 Masters. ITF picked Djokovic as Player of Year over Nadal, a major source, whether you agree with their decision or not it is hard to ignore. The ITF up until 1985 or so was considered of greater value than the official rankings in fact.

Also IIRC the ranking points gap between Djokovic and 2nd place Federer in 2012 was much more by years end than the rankings gap between Nadal and 2nd place Djokovic in 2013. Another reason when forced to choose which of Federer or Nadal to put 2008-2009 towards if forced to choose one I lean towards Nadal, since IIRC the rankings gap between Nadal and Federer in 2008 was more than than between Federer and Nadal in 2009.

2012 for Djokovic: best overall in Slams, YEC champion, most Maters, most titles, season record 75–12 (86.21%) = clearly best
2013 for Nadal: best overall in Slams, most Masters, most titles, season record 75–7 (91.46%) = best by small margin probably.
I guess you value YEC very highly.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

2012 for Djokovic: best overall in Slams, YEC champion, most Maters, most titles, season record 75–12 (86.21%) = clearly best
2013 for Nadal: best overall in Slams, most Masters, most titles, season record 75–7 (91.46%) = best by small margin probably.
I guess you value YEC very highly.

I think apart from some new fans and some Novak hater, nealy everybody rates YEC very highly, one of the main reason why I have Hewitt > Murray because of his 2 Yec and 9 extra masters are not good enough to fill 2 yec, atleast for me.
Similarly how big tennis expert put Sampras>Rafa because of his 5 tour finals.

 

[metsman]

Well many did think Federer was the true best player of 2003. My feeling is Federer was the best player of 2003, but Roddick deserved the #1 ranking for the year (the two are not always one and the same). So considering Federer already has an undisputed era of 2004-2007, for those looking to stretch it, you could include 2003 maybe? Obviously Roddick has no possible era even if you give him 2003.

The complicated thing with Agassi is his 2000 year was almost nothing after Australia. Didn't even win another tournament. Pretty good performance at Wimbledon (semis) and the YEC final (spanked by Kuerten), and that is it, even including the non slam events. I guess you could still give him 99-2000 overall though as he was clearly #1 in 99 and won a slam to start 2000.

Fed was too inconsistent in 03 especially on hard. It really wasn't until TMC that he established himself as an elite hard courter. Up until then he was maybe a top 5 player on hard at best. Roddick, Nalbandian, Agassi, Hewitt(when healthy) were still above him on hard and even a guy like Ferrero too. Fed had some downright poor and inconsistent performances on hard. Looking back, it may seem like that was the best player because he won TMC and won a good amount of titles, but no masters and no QF at slams besides Wimbledon. Only after he gained confidence after beating Agassi in that thriller did he rampage over the field in that tournament and establish himself as the player to beat. But over the course of the year he definitely was not the best player imo...he produced maybe the highest level at Wimbledon but was quite ordinary besides that and Roddick/Ferrero were better imo. That YEC was really a stunning turnaround. I didn't expect Fed to win that tournament especially after he got the group he was placed in and his inconsistencies on hard but for him to win it in that fashion confirmed for me that it was going to be his era.

03 was truly an even year imo. Great year for tennis.

 

[The Fedfather]

I think apart from some new fans and some Novak hater, nealy everybody rates YEC very highly, one of the main reason why I have Hewitt > Murray because of his 2 Yec and 9 extra masters are not good enough to fill 2 yec, atleast for me.
Similarly how big tennis expert put Sampras>Rafa because of his 5 tour finals.

Nadal in 2013 had a better win/loss percentage, more GS (2), more titles (10), more Masters 1000 titles (5) compared to Djokovic in 2012 (1 GS, 6 titles, 3 Masters 1000 (the same as Federer but he made more finals)). So Djokovic has only YEC advantage and it's not enough to make such a big difference (clearly best and slightly best) when taking into account other stats that are clearly in Nadal's favour.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

Nadal in 2013 had a better win/loss percentage, more GS (2), more titles (10), more Masters 1000 titles (5) compared to Djokovic in 2012 (1 GS, 6 titles, 3 Masters 1000 (the same as Federer but he made more finals)). So Djokovic has only YEC advantage and it's not enough to make such a big difference (clearly best and slightly best) when taking into account other stats that are clearly in Nadal's favour.

Actually agree with your point but I was talking about YEC importance, in 2013 Novak was behind by some 800 points margin( not sure , can anybody give me the real number), means one more matser win or slam win and he might have finished as number 1 , so Novak may be was doing something right to get this close even it is not apparently visible.

 

[mattosgrant]

2012 for Djokovic: best overall in Slams, YEC champion, most Maters, most titles, season record 75–12 (86.21%) = clearly best
2013 for Nadal: best overall in Slams, most Masters, most titles, season record 75–7 (91.46%) = best by small margin probably.
I guess you value YEC very highly.

Well I look at it like this:

Nadal won 2 slams to Novak's 1 but he didn't even win a match in the other 2 slams. Djokovic went win, runner up, runner up, semis. Nadal still probably ahead but it becomes pretty close when you consider not even winning a match in 2 slams vs doing really well in all 4.

3 Masters + YEC is atleast equal to 5 Masters. Wouldn't you agree the YEC is worth atleast 2 Masters?

I still think Nadal was better that year, but the thing is the ITF ruled differently. It is hard to completely ignore that as it an official ruling from the governing body of the sport. That is the main reason I say only slightly better.

Also what does how Djokovic's year in 2012 compare to Nadal's in 2013 have to do with anything. I am comparing how Djokovic's 2012 compares to Federer's 2012, vs how Nadal's 2013 compares to Djokovic's 2013. How Djokovic's 2012 compares to Nadal's 2013 doesn't really come into play.

 

[The Fedfather]

Well I look at it like this:

Nadal won 2 slams to Novak's 1 but he didn't even win a match in the other 2 slams. Djokovic went win, runner up, runner up, semis. Nadal still probably ahead but it becomes pretty close when you consider not even winning a match in 2 slams vs doing really well in all 4.

3 Masters + YEC is atleast equal to 5 Masters. Wouldn't you agree the YEC is worth atleast 2 Masters?

I still think Nadal was better that year, but the thing is the ITF ruled differently. It is hard to completely ignore that as it an official ruling from the governing body of the sport. That is the main reason I say only slightly better.

Also what does how Djokovic's year in 2012 compare to Nadal's in 2013 have to do with anything. I am comparing how Djokovic's 2012 compares to Federer's 2012, vs how Nadal's 2013 compares to Djokovic's 2013. How Djokovic's 2012 compares to Nadal's 2013 doesn't really come into play.

Nadal still probably ahead, that's it.

A player earns 1500 points for a YEC title and 2000 points for 2 Masters titles so unless you have anything to add I would say it's not clear to me that the YEC is worth at least 2 Masters.

Not sure what made the ITF pick Djokovic. His consistency in GS and the YEC title could very well be the reasons for their, in my humble opinion, wrong decision.

Well, the season record has to do with how the players fared against the field (although Federer's injury in 2013 may have something to do with some of Nadal's wins on HC 2013). With the titles though I agree, doesn't prove my point. I'll try to fix it. In 2013 the next best after Nadal's 10 titles was Djokovic's 7. On the other hand, Djokovic in 2012 shared his leading position in titles with Federer, both of them winning 6 (including 3 Masters 1000 each). In 2013 Nadal won 5 Masters 1000, Djokovic was second best with 3. If we compare GS titles the situation is the same. Clear edge to Nadal.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

Nadal still probably ahead, that's it.

A player earns 1500 points for a YEC title and 2000 points for 2 Masters titles so unless you have anything to add I would say it's not clear to me that the YEC is worth at least 2 Masters.

Not sure what made the ITF pick Djokovic. His consistency in GS and the YEC title could very well be the reasons for their, in my humble opinion, wrong decision.

Well, the season record has to do with how the players fared against the field (although Federer's injury in 2013 may have something to do with some of Nadal's wins on HC 2013). With the titles though I agree, doesn't prove my point. I'll try to fix it. In 2013 the next best after Nadal's 10 titles was Djokovic's 7. On the other hand, Djokovic shared his leading position in titles with Federer, both of them winning 6 (including 3 Masters 1000 each). In 2013 Nadal won 5 Masters 1000, Djokovic was second best with 3. If we compare GS titles the situation is the same. Clear edge to Nadal.

I think ITF picked Djokovic because he won more points at Slams and Davis Cup than Nadal in 2013. Not that I agree that Djokovic was better than Nadal that year overall, but IIRC, GS and DC points are the criteria that ITF use.

 

[Krish872007]

2005-2014: RAFA

No other player in history has won at least 1 Slam for 10 consecutive years. We were all in RAFA's Era (The Era of the DTL Forehand) from 2005 to 2014.

 

[nowhereman]

2005-2014: RAFA

No other player in history has won at least 1 Slam for 10 consecutive years. We were all in RAFA's Era (The Era of the DTL Forehand) from 2005 to 2014.

The second DTL Forehand era will start soon, right after the 2017 AO when he wins the Double Career Slam. RAFA has learned so much these past few years, and he knew that it would be wise to step down and drop his level a bit, only to surprise everyone and come back even stronger. Rafael "The Unpredictable Bull" Nadal will come back with an even deadlier Forehand DTL and will reign supreme for many more years to come. Mark my words.

 

[mattosgrant]

Nadal still probably ahead, that's it.

A player earns 1500 points for a YEC title and 2000 points for 2 Masters titles so unless you have anything to add I would say it's not clear to me that the YEC is worth at least 2 Masters.

Not sure what made the ITF pick Djokovic. His consistency in GS and the YEC title could very well be the reasons for their, in my humble opinion, wrong decision.

Well, the season record has to do with how the players fared against the field (although Federer's injury in 2013 may have something to do with some of Nadal's wins on HC 2013). With the titles though I agree, doesn't prove my point. I'll try to fix it. In 2013 the next best after Nadal's 10 titles was Djokovic's 7. On the other hand, Djokovic in 2012 shared his leading position in titles with Federer, both of them winning 6 (including 3 Masters 1000 each). In 2013 Nadal won 5 Masters 1000, Djokovic was second best with 3. If we compare GS titles the situation is the same. Clear edge to Nadal.

So to put this clear are you saying Nadal was further ahead of Djokovic in 2013 than Djokovic was ahead of Federer in 2012? All I can say is if the ITF had picked Federer as Player of the Year in 2012 it would have created even more controversy than Djokovic pick in 2013 got.

As for your point comparing the ATP points for a YEC and Masters, well according to that 2 Masters = 1 slam title too. Do you believe that?

 

[The Fedfather]

So to put this clear are you saying Nadal was further ahead of Djokovic in 2013 than Djokovic was ahead of Federer in 2012? All I can say is if the ITF had picked Federer as Player of the Year in 2012 it would have created even more controversy than Djokovic pick in 2013 got.

As for your point comparing the ATP points for a YEC and Masters, well according to that 2 Masters = 1 slam title too. Do you believe that?

I'm not saying that. I gave the clear edge to Nadal without counting Djokovic's consistent performance in GS and his YEC titles. I believe though that from if everything is put together it's apparent the were close so if Djokovic in 2012 was clearly the best than it's wrong to say Nadal in 2013 was better only by a small margin.

 

[Gary Duane]

Well many did think Federer was the true best player of 2003. My feeling is Federer was the best player of 2003, but Roddick deserved the #1 ranking for the year (the two are not always one and the same). So considering Federer already has an undisputed era of 2004-2007, for those looking to stretch it, you could include 2003 maybe? Obviously Roddick has no possible era even if you give him 2003.

The complicated thing with Agassi is his 2000 year was almost nothing after Australia. Didn't even win another tournament. Pretty good performance at Wimbledon (semis) and the YEC final (spanked by Kuerten), and that is it, even including the non slam events. I guess you could still give him 99-2000 overall though as he was clearly #1 in 99 and won a slam to start 2000.

I also would not give 2003 to Fed, at the end of 2003 he was only a one slam wonder. It is only obvious later that it was the beginning of his slam run. He didn't even win the last slam of the year. But then you have a year that is not assigned to any "era"...

 

[Noelan]

Actually agree with your point but I was talking about YEC importance, in 2013 Novak was behind by some 800 points margin( not sure , can anybody give me the real number), means one more matser win or slam win and he might have finished as number 1 , so Novak may be was doing something right to get this close even it is not apparently visible.

740

 

[mattosgrant]

I'm not saying that. I gave the clear edge to Nadal without counting Djokovic's consistent performance in GS and his YEC titles. I believe though that from if everything is put together it's apparent the were close so if Djokovic in 2012 was clearly the best than it's wrong to say Nadal in 2013 was better only by a small margin.

Well I already explained I did that mainly only due to the ITF award. It is hard for me to ignore that given its history. Had the ITF picked Nadal (as I fully expected they would) I would have said Nadal was clearly best in 2013, rather than just by a small margin. The ITF award has a lot of history, so it is just hard for me to completely ignore it. I still overrule it to consider Nadal tops that year, just as the rankings do, but less decisively due to the ITF choice.

 

[mattosgrant]

I also would not give 2003 to Fed, at the end of 2003 he was only a one slam wonder. It is only obvious later that it was the beginning of his slam run. He didn't even win the last slam of the year. But then you have a year that is not assigned to any "era"...

Yeah I don't want too many dead years, and you could atleast make an argument for Federer being best player of 2003. He did win the YEC in a year 4 different guy won majors. He did win the most tournaments. And even if Roddick has a better case for deserving #1 (I agree he does) Federer has a good case for subjectively being the "better" player that year, which isn't always the same thing, considering he spanked Roddick silly in their 2 bigger meetings, and barely lost the other, and was clearly better on clay, grass, indoors, all but hard courts. So all considered it is just easier to lump that into a Federer era, even if Roddick was a worthy #1 ranked that year.

 

[metsman]

I also would not give 2003 to Fed, at the end of 2003 he was only a one slam wonder. It is only obvious later that it was the beginning of his slam run. He didn't even win the last slam of the year. But then you have a year that is not assigned to any "era"...

after the TMC it was fairly clear. Before that though, I agree. He showed a glimpse of his ridiculous ability at Wimbledon but still lots of head scratching moments throughout the year.

2003 imo is the true year that belonged to no one. Just so even and so much great talent and tennis looked really well poised for the future. Always hilarious when people say Federer's era was weak basically just cause he rose above them all. One of my favorite tennis years for sure. You had the rise of Federer/Ferrero/Roddick as potential future #1's and multislam winners, Nalbandian was a threat, Agassi was still around and the best part of it was that Safin/Hewitt had injury problems that year so their return made 2004 even more interesting. Fed dominated a pretty strong field in 04...his slam draws were not easy at all.

 

[Gary Duane]

Yeah I don't want too many dead years, and you could atleast make an argument for Federer being best player of 2003. He did win the YEC in a year 4 different guy won majors. He did win the most tournaments. And even if Roddick has a better case for deserving #1 (I agree he does) Federer has a good case for subjectively being the "better" player that year, which isn't always the same thing, considering he spanked Roddick silly in their 2 bigger meetings, and barely lost the other, and was clearly better on clay, grass, indoors, all but hard courts. So all considered it is just easier to lump that into a Federer era, even if Roddick was a worthy #1 ranked that year.

I see your point. I think you make good points for your position. And we do have to consider years in context of careers.

 

[Gary Duane]

after the TMC it was fairly clear. Before that though, I agree. He showed a glimpse of his ridiculous ability at Wimbledon but still lots of head scratching moments throughout the year.

2003 imo is the true year that belonged to no one. Just so even and so much great talent and tennis looked really well poised for the future. Always hilarious when people say Federer's era was weak basically just cause he rose above them all. One of my favorite tennis years for sure. You had the rise of Federer/Ferrero/Roddick as potential future #1's and multislam winners, Nalbandian was a threat, Agassi was still around and the best part of it was that Safin/Hewitt had injury problems that year so their return made 2004 even more interesting. Fed dominated a pretty strong field in 04...his slam draws were not easy at all.

I'll only say that this whole thing of "weak eras" seem to me to be a way to invalidate the accomplishments of great players. If, for example, it is true that things are a bit "weak" right now, giving Novak a boost last year and perhaps this year, it is also true that he was unable to win more big tournaments before 2011 because of being in an incredibly competitive stretch there. Things have a way of balancing out.

2003 was a true "changing of the guard". It will most likely happen again over the next couple years, as Novak and Murray age, Fed finally slows down (which may be starting now with surgery) and Nadal continues to fade. The next couple years may actually be quite exciting. Some guys in their mid 20s will most likely finally fill a vacuum, and the teens look to be making a statement right now.

 

[mattosgrant]

I am not aware how to do tags on this site, if someone can show me it would be much appreciated, but I would like some of abmk, pc1, NatF, Djokovic2011, and Suwanee to contribute their thoughts as I think this is a topic they could contribute their ideas and some suggestions to of how eras should be defined exactly, including with some specific examples.

 

[Vanhool]

I am not aware how to do tags on this site, if someone can show me it would be much appreciated, but I would like some of abmk, pc1, NatF, Djokovic2011, and Suwanee to contribute their thoughts as I think this is a topic they could contribute their ideas and some suggestions to of how eras should be defined exactly, including with some specific examples.

@mattosgrant just type @ and then with no space added, the user's name. Their name should pop up for you to select before you are done typing. That's it, super easy

 

[mattosgrant]

@mattosgrant just type @ and then with no space added, the user's name. Their name should pop up for you to select before you are done typing. That's it, super easy

OK thanks @Vanhool. @abmk, @NatF, @Djokovic2011, @suwanee4712, @Steve0904, @helterskelter , @pc1, @BTURNER, please join this discussion and add your thoughts.