Is our Great Era really debunked?- point by point dissection

First topic message reminder :

Hello all
Some of you may have noticed Tenez wrote an article recently about the 'great era debunked.' Here I have taken the opportunity to write a 'counter article' aiming to disprove his points. I am not trying to insult Tenez, just disprove the points he has made.

These are 4 points, going in ascending order of importance of seriousness (with a context for people who don't know what's going on):

Context: In Tenez's article Tenez gave stats showing how the rallies have become more slower and also pointed out that there are more shots per rallies these days. These days apparently its about 'grinding' and in 2006 more about 'talent.' As a conclusion it was implied that 2006 should be seen in better respect compared to 2011.

POINT NUMBER 1:
Firstly Tenez unfortunately could only compare a few points in the respective matches. A completely full-proof
research would have been to record every single point but this was not realistically possible.

POINT NUMBER 2:
Another unfortunate shortcoming is that the matches used were played by very different players. Federer and Blake will always have shorter points and faster rallies than Nadal-Djokovic- whichever surface you play on!

POINT NUMBER 3;
Who decided that if the matches are played with longer rallies it meant that the people playing were 'less talented.' The awesome defensive skill shown by Nadal and Djokovic in the US Open final were immense- clearly this should also be recognised as talent???

POINT NUMBER 4- MY MAIN POINT:
My main point. Even if my first 3 points were wrong Tenez's theory would still be incorrect.
Let's say that next year the top 10 all suffered injuries for 1 year. Then let's say all the courts were speeded up a lot so it was super-fast. The finalists could then Wawrinka-Monfils- who could get to finals of Grand Slams by playing similar levels as in 2011- but the competition would be less. Tenez could then do a similar article showing how the quality has risen between 2011 and 2012 as the rallies are now faster- which it would be. However as neither Monfils or Wawrinka are currently not in the Top 10- and are not that young either- we can firmly say that 2012 would not have been better quality than 2011. Of course I am not saying that this was the case by any means in 2006, the quality might have been better, but the fact of the matter is Tenez's analysis would not hold water- whatever the facts and the circumstances.

BONUS POINT- DIFFERENT SET SKILLS NEEDED IN 2006?
This point for me is often the most misleading. After the stats were shown many posters jumped to the conclusion that to prosper on 2006 you need different skills -aka more attacking. However in 2006 neither murray, nadal or djokovic were at their prime. Nadal had not yet adjusted to HC while the likes of murray and djokovic were too young. I would like to point out that federer lost to henman when he was not at his prime so no one can claim that this is irrelevant.
I feel, as would many others, that if the current top 4 were all at their prime in 2006, they would be the top
4. Then we could have a nadal djokovic semi-final which would show long rallies and longer points than fed-Blake in 2006 in the same tournament. Therefore I believe this theory of different skills needed is completely wrong.

Thanks for reading and leaver your comments if you agree/disagree with any points I have made.
Thanks

BTW, you've referred to Murray's positive H2H vs Federer, what's the H2H in best of 5 sets? That really tells us how much of a threat Murray is in the slams.

amritia3ee wrote:In 2012 who would fed choose to face (if all 6 were at prime). Give me 3 names.

Hmmm...2012 isn't part of the 2008-2011 era so it's difficult to answer that until we see what the era brings.

I'd say Murray, Gonzalez (but only just & Nadal was part of the 2003-2006 era), Roddick (but only really obvious since US Open 2010).

There are some interesting points raised in this thread.

Amritia3ee seems to be trying to "prove" something that cannot be proven, like trying to prove Monet is better than Constable. By the same token of course, it cannot be disproven. The ATP do not provide stats for how "strong" a particular period is. So it is all a matter of personal opinion.

My opinion is that 2008-2011 seems slightly stronger than 2003-2006 in terms of consistent top 4 competition. But the argument that a lower ranked player on a hot streak is equally tough is a good one.

As people have pointed out, neither Federer or tennis journalists/pundits are completely neutral - they need to "big up" the current tournaments. Amritia3ee, if I could find a quote from in at any time from 2003-2006 from Federer saying the competition was strong would that change your opinion? Or would his opinion be dismissed. If in 2013, he says the competition is stronger than ever, will you reclassify 2008-2011 as weak?

(PS My first post here - wasn't sure whether to get involved in essentially an old argument or not. It will be interesting to see who comes out on top at the start of 2012)

Welcome YvonneT

One thing for sure is that if in the future they make conditions so fast that SVing becomes the best weapon in tennis again, Ndal and Djoko might not be in the latter stages of slams.

Woudl that mean the game will have improved and that the era is then stronger?

yes is my answer.

This era is the strongest physically. I am not convinced players have better volleys or better FHs than in the past. Certainly not obvious. We know Nadal has a poor BH, average serve and needs 10 FHs on average to score a point while Garcia lopez can score a point more easily than Nadal.

You might want to define what you mean by "strong" era.

YvonneT wrote:

(PS My first post here - wasn't sure whether to get involved in essentially an old argument or not. It will be interesting to see who comes out on top at the start of 2012)

Very balanced and erudite post, if I may say so, Yvonne.

Amritria3ee, my choices were on your first set of choices btw.

You mixed them around to offer different choices later.

Looking at the context in your original article, you say you are trying to disprove the arguments in Tenez's article (I haven't read it all, sorry) implying that "2006 should be seen in better respect compared to 2011".

You recent posts though seem to be trying to prove that 2011 was better than 2006. What is your motivation here?

carrieg4 wrote:Welcome YvonneT

Thank you. And laverfan too.

amritia3ee wrote:Murray, nadal2011, Djokovic.
Agassi had lost it by 2003. Nadal was better in 2011 than in 2006. Safin never went back to the same level after he won his first slam.
Now answer my question.

Is that an order?
You've left many of my points and questions unanswered, and now I don't even get a 'please'?

Welcome to v2 Yvonne
I think there was a mix-up, I might have changed the options.

Were you saying a prime Gonzalez (aus 2007) is harder than nadal (RG 2011) who has a 4-1 HC outdoor H2H and beat him in Miami (2004).

Remember nadal took one match on HC to equal all of gonzalez's career wins against federer.

Julius

Who would federer prefer to be playing in GS semis/finals:
Bagdatis prime or Murray 2011
Roddick prime or nadal 2011
Gonzalez prime or Djokovic 2011

Give me 3 names, please



 

amritia3ee wrote:
Were you saying a prime Gonzalez (aus 2007) is harder than nadal (RG 2011) who has a 4-1 HC outdoor H2H and beat him in Miami (2004).

Remember nadal took one match on HC to equal all of gonzalez's career wins against federer.

If that question is to me, I answered your original question of "Who would Federer prefer to meet in a GS semi/final? Gonzalez or Nadal" with Gonzalez. Of course, he could prefer a challenge but I was answering it on the basis of who I thought he would feel more confident of beating.

Out of those 6 I would say Bagdatis, Murray and Gonzales (as the 3 weakest). I notice the focus there is very much on 2011.

So how about this one. If 2011 is the strongest year ever and Djoko is by far the best player of 2011 - does that make Djoko the best player ever?

Oh, I'm terribly sorry Yvonne I thought you were saying the tougher matches
Anyway this means overall you thought djoko-nadal-murray combo was stronger

Who said 2011 was the STRONGEST, I was just saying it's stronger than 2006. Personally I think 2012 is going to be stronger.
Also your 3 players aren't possible in my question:
Bagdatis prime or Murray 2011
Roddick prime or nadal 2011
Gonzalez prime or Djokovic 2011

amritia3ee wrote:Oh, I'm terribly sorry Yvonne I thought you were saying the tougher matches
Anyway this means overall you thought djoko-nadal-murray combo was stronger

Well, it means I thought Federer would be more confident of a win against the earlier set of finalists (by 2 to 1), and you extrapolated that to say they were stronger.

You didn't answer all the questions I raised in my first post either. If Federer is still playing in 2013 and says the competition is stronger than ever, will you reclassify 2008-2011 as a weak era? It's hypothetical of course, for now....

Well if the level of play in 2013 was higher than the competition 2008-2011, and federer confirmed this, then I would be happier to say that it would be a stronger era.

I remember Safin in 2001/2002-ish saying that tennis was stronger than ever, as anyone in the top 100 could challenge the top players on any given day. That's certainly not the case now. He could have been wrong, of course. Tennis players rarely say negative things about 'today'.

amritia3ee wrote:Well if the level of play in 2013 was higher than the competition 2008-2011, and federer confirmed this, then I would be happier to say that it would be a stronger era.

How do you measure level of play and compare from year to year across matches between different players though? It's entirely down to your personal opinion. So added to your opinion, you just need one or two quotes from Federer and you are happy to give a definitive statement of relative strength.

It's really just an opinion. My opinion is that 2008-2011 is slightly tougher - not that I would argue that diminishes Federer's achievements in any way nor Nadal's.

Welcome to the forum YvonneT! A very sensible and well thought out first post. I can't remember my first post being quite as good!

A number of us are waiting on amritia3ee to address all the questions we ask, but we only seem to get answers to this and that. Best to get used to it.

I'd be interested to hear from amritia3ee a rather more convincing explanation of why Federer would say anything but positive stuff about the current era. So far it seems to be fairly clear why Federer would actually only say predominantly positive stuff.

If fed said competition in 2006/2007 was better it would make federer at his prime seen as a better player.
For example: let's say Gonzalez 2007 was better than Djokovic 2011.
In 2007 fed beat gonzo in AO final quite easily. However he lost to Djokovic in 2 out of 3 slam meetings. In this case, if gonzo 2007 was better than djoko 2011, federer could argue that at his 'peak' he beat Gonzo, thus he would also have beaten Djokovic 2011 easily if he was at his peak.

Therefore saying the competition was higher in 2006 would make the 'peak' federer look even better. However this is cowpat as djoko 2011 is better than Gonzo 2007.

I am afraid this article has gone off topic. I will be creating a new article for the 2006 vs 2011 debate.
If anyone wants to comment on my 5 points then do so in this article.
Thanks

amritia3ee wrote:If fed said competition in 2006/2007 was better it would make federer at his prime seen as a better player.

You seem to ignore the concept of progress and experience. There is no impact of the environment. Phillippoussis could serve at 130+ MPH in 2003. Nadal could get to 130+ MPH in 2010. Was 2010 better or 2003?

amritia3ee wrote:For example: let's say Gonzalez 2007 was better than Djokovic 2011.

What are the criteria for being 'better'? You have no definition of better, but keep using the term 'better'.

Let me give you an example from Computers. In 1980, a DEC-Tops10 computer with 1 MB of memory and 512 MB of disk could support 40-60 users. Now a laptop with 8 GB of memory and 500 GB hard disk supports a single user. Which one is better?

amritia3ee wrote:In 2007 fed beat gonzo in AO final quite easily. However he lost to Djokovic in 2 out of 3 slam meetings.

The 2/3 Djokovic is 2011 only, not all slams. Nadal also lost to Djokovic in 2 slams (USO and W).

You consider 7-6(2), 6-4, 6-4 (AO 2007) an easier win then a 6-3, 6-4, 7-6(13) (AO 2010).

In 2007 Federer was 1-1 against Gonzo. Federer won AO 2007, but lost TMC 2007.

amritia3ee wrote:In this case, if gonzo 2007 was better than djoko 2011, federer could argue that at his 'peak' he beat Gonzo, thus he would also have beaten Djokovic 2011 easily if he was at his peak.

You seem to have lost the concept of time, between 2007 and 2011.

amritia3ee wrote:Therefore saying the competition was higher in 2006 would make the 'peak' federer look even better.

Not better, but able to win given the-then competition. No wins are easy, just ask Murray.

amritia3ee wrote:However this is cowpat as djoko 2011 is better than Gonzo 2007.

You seem to quote your own opinion, despite the video evidence I have posted earlier.