30 year old Lopez reaches career high ranking

In the Golden Era, another veteran thrives.

Just saying.

Forgot to add that feliciano is another veteran with a SV game who woudl have benefitted most on faster conds. Reaching his career high at 30 on slow conds....That spoils teh picture a bit for the great era theorists.

ah it's been a while since we had a "weak era" debate. I just think an era where a player like Fognini can prevent the world n°1 from winning a slam without raising a racquet in anger can't be all that strong

The argument put forth by socal, among others, is that by the very nature of tournament tennis, only the strength of the top 4 counts in making an era strong. So Lopez being ranked high at 30 years of age is irrelevant. If only we had somebody in the top 4 aged above 30 (say someone who won his first slam 9 years ago and is still a major force), we could say that the era is weak. But since we don... oh well!

Tennisanorak wrote:The argument put forth by socal, among others, is that by the very nature of tournament tennis, only the strength of the top 4 counts in making an era strong. So Lopez being ranked high at 30 years of age is irrelevant. If only we had somebody in the top 4 aged above 30 (say someone who won his first slam 9 years ago and is still a major force), we could say that the era is weak. But since we don... oh well!

I don't believe either era is stronger or weaker. I think the top four are consistently better (only slightly) but the surface homogenisation has certainly assisted their consistent results. However, I think the top 20 was stronger 5-6 years ago and there were more dangerous floaters.

bogbrush wrote:In the Golden Era, another veteran thrives.

Just saying.

It would be useful to know what his ranking is...

Players peak at different ages and achieve all sorts of feats at 30+ ie Goran Ivanisevic in the early 2000's.

Just saying...

Tenez wrote:Forgot to add that feliciano is another veteran with a SV game who woudl have benefitted most on faster conds. Reaching his career high at 30 on slow conds....That spoils teh picture a bit for the great era theorists.

Not really any era is determined by the top 3-5 players. Whether someone ranked 9 or 19 is slightly better or worse really doesn't matter all that much in tournament tennis. Nobody looks back at the late 80s and says wow what a strong era Aaron Krickstein was rated number 8 in the world. When talking about the 80s they talk about becker, edberg, lendl; these are the players who determine who wins or loses the major trophies and the slams. Feliciano Lopez, Ferrer, or Fish's racquets have never determined the winner of any slams. Neither one of them has as even won a lone masters title. Whether these players are little stronger or little weaker makes at best minute to non-existent impact on who lifts the big trophies in the sport.

socal1976 wrote:

Tenez wrote:Forgot to add that feliciano is another veteran with a SV game who woudl have benefitted most on faster conds. Reaching his career high at 30 on slow conds....That spoils teh picture a bit for the great era theorists.

Not really any era is determined by the top 3-5 players. Whether someone ranked 9 or 19 is slightly better or worse really doesn't matter all that much in tournament tennis. Nobody looks back at the late 80s and says wow what a strong era Aaron Krickstein was rated number 8 in the world. When talking about the 80s they talk about becker, edberg, lendl; these are the players who determine who wins or loses the major trophies and the slams. Feliciano Lopez, Ferrer, or Fish's racquets have never determined the winner of any slams. Neither one of them has as even won a lone masters title. Whether these players are little stronger or little weaker makes at best minute to non-existent impact on who lifts the big trophies in the sport.

Soc: I have to disagree with you here. The quality of an era isn't necessarily determined by the top 3 and neither top 5 or top 8. This is instead a function of the number of tennis greats playing in the same period of time, which is always a variable. If most agree that in the current era, so far, we have seen mainly 3 players of the highest level, with others like Delpo and Murray still not really catching up with the top guys, in other eras you find that at least 6 or 7 great players were playing at the same time, and necessarily sharing the silverware.

I would suggest to check this article out, as it was written when you weren't posting on here.


https://www.606v2.com/t21913-the-legend-of-the-current-amazingly-strong-era

@ Socal
You are wrong again I am afraid. From the musqueteers, to all the pre-open eras, tennis was actually dominated by 3 or 4 players...even up to Borg, McEnroe, Lendl who consistently ended up against each other. Those were as good as the rest was (relatively) poor.

It's only when competition becomes very fierce that it opens up.

Djoko has just shown how over rated was Nadal. He can beat him on one leg....even on clay.

That is the lesson "great era" theorists like you could learn from the past year.

Tenez wrote:@ Socal
You are wrong again I am afraid. From the musqueteers, to all the pre-open eras, tennis was actually dominated by 3 or 4 players...even up to Borg, McEnroe, Lendl who consistently ended up against each other. Those were as good as the rest was (relatively) poor.

It's only when competition becomes very fierce that it opens up.

Djoko has just shown how over rated was Nadal. He can beat him on one leg....even on clay.

That is the lesson "great era" theorists like you could learn from the past year.

As you have mentioned tennis has always been dominated by a group of 3-4 at most, at most 5 great players. Then you seem to contradict yourself and state that competition only becomes fierce when it opens up. What you say could logically be true. I mean we could get an era of varied results because everyone is just that good. But that isn't what we saw in the late 90s and early 2000s. The players like Hewitt, Roddick, Ferrero, Moya, Coria, Nalbandian, Ljubicic, and Safin who were the other rans of the Fed generation all hit the wall at periods that should have been their primes. Roddick was an also ran at slams by 23 or 24. Hewitt had the game pass him by he didn't fall from 1 to 5 or 10 or 15, he plummeted in his mid twenties out of contention for anything but the most minor events. The clay court guys just didn't have a prayer of winning a FO off Nadal. And Safin struggled to even get in the top 20. Of all of them Ljubi and Roddick where the most consitent. And it wasn't just Fed beating them. The generation of Novak, Nadal, Murray, Berdy, Tsonga, Sod, Monfils, and even Gasquet came in and completely upended them. Do you remember all the tough losses Roddick had at wimby to Murray and Gasquet. Ljubi getting blitzed out of slams by Baghdatis. Yes the old guys collected some scalps, Ljubi in 2010, safin upset Novak at wimby. But in short all of these players that were pertinent as teenages and in their early twenties basically became almost irrelevant at slams by their mid 20s. Doesn't sound like strength and widespread accomplishment to me.

Look at football where you have the largest pool of athletes practicing a sport at a high level. You may have one genius every 5 years or decade but the next 20 players at a given time are extremely close to each others.

That's real competition!

IN tennis we know Nadal, Djoko and Murray are no geniuses. They are very solid players.

Tenez wrote:Look at football where you have the largest pool of athletes practicing a sport at a high level. You may have one genius every 5 years or decade but the next 20 players at a given time are extremely close to each others.

That's real competition!

IN tennis we know Nadal, Djoko and Murray are no geniuses. They are very solid players.

Nole is a prodigy. Tell me one thing he can't do which Federer can and then ask me the same about Federer.

Exactly, If tennis was structured like football where you needed 20-25 players of high quality at ever single good club I would agree with you. Or if the champion of the year was the team that had the most points from 40 week season.

But that isn't the structure of tennis. It is an individual tournament sport. In the nature of tournament tennis at most you have to beat 3 or 4 seeded players to win a tournament. Now if the last three guys you have to beat are Nadal and Fed or Djoko or Murray, let me tell you for 99.9 percent plus of the tour it is just not possible. Parity and more widely distributed talent would impact tennis more if a grandslam championship involved lets say the top 16 playing each other in 15 matches like a football season and seeing who has the most points at the end. But in a tennis tournament you don't have to beat the entire top 10 or 20 in its entirety, but you will have to probably up ended 1 or 2 of the biggest stars of that generation, how good and consistent those stars are is going to determine your percentage chance of winning much more than whether 6, 9, or 22 ranked player is any good.

Yet if the field below the top four is strong it increases the likelihood of earlier upsets as used to be routine until very recently. This in turn makes it tougher to dominate since it means that one has to play at a consistently high level throughout the tournament and not just in the last two rounds.

Furthermore, tennis is a game of matchups which is something I'm sure we can all appreciate. If the number one player in the world matches up favouritably with his immediate rivals, and the rest of the field is much weaker, then it makes his task of dominating the tour much easier. How is this then indicative of greater competition? On the other hand if the tour has a wider distribution of talent, then matchups throughout the course of a tournament become less relevant since you are likely to come up against at least one player who is not going to be a walkover for you in terms of style. Surely this makes the field more competitive?

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:Look at football where you have the largest pool of athletes practicing a sport at a high level. You may have one genius every 5 years or decade but the next 20 players at a given time are extremely close to each others.

That's real competition!

IN tennis we know Nadal, Djoko and Murray are no geniuses. They are very solid players.

Nole is a prodigy. Tell me one thing he can't do which Federer can and then ask me the same about Federer.

A prodigy in what? he had to wait 24 to finally reach the top. He hasn't got the best serve, nor the best FH, nor the best BH, certainly not the best volleys, and finally he needs glasses to see the ball clearly. I can think of better candidates when it comes to prodigy!

His "prodigy" is his stamina but as far as we know he was an athmatic just over 12 months ago.

No. Djoko is a very solid tennis with great "belief" as you say but a genius he is not.

Tenez wrote:Look at football where you have the largest pool of athletes practicing a sport at a high level. You may have one genius every 5 years or decade but the next 20 players at a given time are extremely close to each others.

That's real competition!

IN tennis we know Nadal, Djoko and Murray are no geniuses. They are very solid players.

Than you have to distinguish in between the top players......if guys like Courier, Becker and Agassi were playing in these years I suspect the slam wins of both Nadal and Djokovic would be more than halved. Fed himself would probably be around the double digit but still far ahead the other two.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Than you have to distinguish in between the top players......if guys like Courier, Becker and Agassi were playing in these years I suspect the slam wins of both Nadal and Djokovic would be more than halved. Fed himself would probably be around the double digit but still far ahead the other two.

That is my view is all down to conditions. I dont think Nadal coudl have been close to a Wimbledon final if he had played in the 90s. Remember at the time, the FO winners would not even bother entering Wimbledon. And the best a FO winner coudl do was to get to 1/4 F of Wimbledon.

Had the conds been as slow as now, I would fancy Djoko to win most of the slams as he is doing now....but then we have to factor what if all those players had been trained like him?

And finally I am convinced that the new generation will get the better of Djoko sooner rather than later.

Tenez wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Than you have to distinguish in between the top players......if guys like Courier, Becker and Agassi were playing in these years I suspect the slam wins of both Nadal and Djokovic would be more than halved. Fed himself would probably be around the double digit but still far ahead the other two.

And finally I am convinced that the new generation will get the better of Djoko sooner rather than later.

Yeah, I mean he is good but not outrageously good, I can't see anything in particular where he has moved forward the game. If there were/will be around people of the calibre of Courier, Guga & co. all this discussion of a super stronger era would be put in the bin.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

Tenez wrote:Look at football where you have the largest pool of athletes practicing a sport at a high level. You may have one genius every 5 years or decade but the next 20 players at a given time are extremely close to each others.

That's real competition!

IN tennis we know Nadal, Djoko and Murray are no geniuses. They are very solid players.

Than you have to distinguish in between the top players......if guys like Courier, Becker and Agassi were playing in these years I suspect the slam wins of both Nadal and Djokovic would be more than halved. Fed himself would probably be around the double digit but still far ahead the other two.

Yes and if Fed had to compete for his slams with Andre and Pete in their primes his slam count would be greatly reduced as well. But he didn't instead he had Hewitt and Andy! LOL

socal1976 wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

Tenez wrote:Look at football where you have the largest pool of athletes practicing a sport at a high level. You may have one genius every 5 years or decade but the next 20 players at a given time are extremely close to each others.

That's real competition!

IN tennis we know Nadal, Djoko and Murray are no geniuses. They are very solid players.

Than you have to distinguish in between the top players......if guys like Courier, Becker and Agassi were playing in these years I suspect the slam wins of both Nadal and Djokovic would be more than halved. Fed himself would probably be around the double digit but still far ahead the other two.

Yes and if Fed had to compete for his slams with Andre and Pete in their primes his slam count would be greatly reduced as well. But he didn't instead he had Hewitt and Andy! LOL

Sure man, I have always been of this opinion! In fact I think both this and the Fed's era are anything but spectacular periods of tennis, in average.

bogbrush wrote:In the Golden Era, another veteran thrives.

Just saying.

Cherry picking. What about Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian. Quite the opposite story.

We are in a stronger than average era for me with players ranked 2-4 being above average and 1 and 5-100 being about average as far as I can easily tell, which is not that eaily.

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:Look at football where you have the largest pool of athletes practicing a sport at a high level. You may have one genius every 5 years or decade but the next 20 players at a given time are extremely close to each others.

That's real competition!

IN tennis we know Nadal, Djoko and Murray are no geniuses. They are very solid players.

Nole is a prodigy. Tell me one thing he can't do which Federer can and then ask me the same about Federer.

You're not trying to say Nole can do everything Federer can do are you?? Or are you on a wind up? How about draw gasps of awe from a crowd because the winner was twice as good as it needed to be to win the point and deliberately so? How about hotdog clean winners? How about clutch second serving time and again year after year? How about a forehand of shock and awe? How about a SHBH that makes you admire its elegance? How about not only returning a smash, but going for the winner, and making it? How about having a greatest hits video of his best shots that Nole can only dream of? How about 16 slams?

There are many things that Nole is better at (backhand, consistency, mental strength, physical stamina) but surely you aren't saying Federer doesn't have anything on him. His second serve is miles better than Nole's, so is his first serve, so are his volleys.

Henman Bill wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:Look at football where you have the largest pool of athletes practicing a sport at a high level. You may have one genius every 5 years or decade but the next 20 players at a given time are extremely close to each others.

That's real competition!

IN tennis we know Nadal, Djoko and Murray are no geniuses. They are very solid players.

Nole is a prodigy. Tell me one thing he can't do which Federer can and then ask me the same about Federer.

You're not trying to say Nole can do everything Federer can do are you?? Or are you on a wind up? How about draw gasps of awe from a crowd because the winner was twice as good as it needed to be to win the point and deliberately so? How about hotdog clean winners? How about clutch second serving time and again year after year? How about a forehand of shock and awe? How about a SHBH that makes you admire its elegance? How about not only returning a smash, but going for the winner, and making it? How about having a greatest hits video of his best shots that Nole can only dream of? How about 16 slams?

There are many things that Nole is better at (backhand, consistency, mental strength, physical stamina) but surely you aren't saying Federer doesn't have anything on him. His second serve is miles better than Nole's, so is his first serve, so are his volleys.

Calm down HB, calm doown....

Tennis is not ice-skating to be measured by artistic impression. That is my whole point.

Federer took the game into the beautiful direction and fans of the sport are grateful for it. But that is only one facet of tennis only ONE, not all.

I'd like to believe that I can see Federer with unbiased eyes. There is not a lot not to like there but you can't just dismiss somebody just as good as inferior. Nole is not inferior to Federer.

I don't care what a million and one pundits and commentators say, half of tennis forums are just plain retelling and regurgerating of their semi-intelligent ramblings anyway.

noleisthebest wrote:

It would be useful to know what his ranking is...

ATP #15 on 30 Jan 2012. His two highest point tournaments are an SF in Shanghai and a QF at Wimbledon, both 360 points each.

His highest ranking in the 'Wee Keira' (2003-2008) was 14 Feb 2005 at #20, and the lowest of #96 was on 26 Feb 2007.

In 2011, his highest rank was #20 (5 Dec 2011) and lowest was #44 (20 Jun 2011).

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Feliciano-Lopez.aspx?t=rb

laverfan wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

It would be useful to know what his ranking is...

ATP #15 on 30 Jan 2012. His two highest point tournaments are an SF in Shanghai and a QF at Wimbledon, both 360 points each.

His highest ranking in the 'Wee Keira' (2003-2008) was 14 Feb 2005 at #20, and the lowest of #96 was on 26 Feb 2007.

In 2011, his highest rank was #20 (5 Dec 2011) and lowest was #44 (20 Jun 2011).

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Feliciano-Lopez.aspx?t=rb

Thanks LF, I didn't realise that....BB should've mentioned it in the "article".

TBH, it's getting a bit claustophobic with these fast conditions, weak eras etc, I mean WHO CARES!!!!So much lovely tennis going on in Dubai....

Henman Bill wrote:

bogbrush wrote:In the Golden Era, another veteran thrives.

Just saying.

Cherry picking. What about Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian. Quite the opposite story.

We are in a stronger than average era for me with players ranked 2-4 being above average and 1 and 5-100 being about average as far as I can easily tell, which is not that eaily.

You forgot I mention 'former' world number 3 Ivan Ljubicic. Let's be honest on hard courts and grass during the time fed dominated when nadal had not improved on other surfaces, who was brilliant? Only federer. He had no challenge from anywhere (apart from RG) until nadal learned to play in HC and grass. Djoko and Murray were too young. Roddick had no baseline game and was mentally terrible. Meanwhile players like Ljubicic were number 3 (and 4). Ljubicic got to 3 and only reached 1 Grand slam semi. His one masters came in a one-off win many years later.
It might also interest you that Ljubicic, hardly someone who could challenge federer, reached his only GS semi in FO 2006. Incredibly he did not face anyone in the top 78 before losing the semi. Can you imagine that? Strength in depth? No one even took him to 5 sets.

noleisthebest wrote:

Thanks LF, I didn't realise that....BB should've mentioned it in the "article".

TBH, it's getting a bit claustophobic with these fast conditions, weak eras etc, I mean WHO CARES!!!!So much lovely tennis going on in Dubai....

I agree with you regarding the claustrophobia.

BTW, I still watch 'Grapes of Wrath' (Henry Fonda), 'Once Upon a Time in the West' (Henry Fonda again), but I also enjoy Apocalypse Now (Brando/Sheen).

You are correct, keep in touch with the present, because it is never coming back.

I would not be surprised if there were GOAT debates when my great-grandchildren watch tennis, or whatever it will become.

amritia3ee wrote:Let's be honest on hard courts and grass during the time fed dominated when nadal had not improved on other surfaces, who was good? Only federer. He had no challenge from anywhere...

Let's be honest on clay during the time Rafa dominated when Fed had not improved on clay, who was good? Only Rafa. He had no challenge from anywhere.

Well fed was great on clay at the time too.
And I believe fed was a great player in clay too, as he said and raiders quoted 'my problem was not clay, it was nadal.'
Fed has always been a brilliant player on clay too, whatever SA says. One year nadal lost before the final, federer won.

But you have made a fair point. I was looking back at his 2005 FO and his draw was a joke, apart from the semi. If not for fed, it was a easy win.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:Let's be honest on hard courts and grass during the time fed dominated when nadal had not improved on other surfaces, who was good? Only federer. He had no challenge from anywhere...

Let's be honest on clay during the time Rafa dominated when Fed had not improved on clay, who was good? Only Rafa. He had no challenge from anywhere.

:roflmao:

Laverfan did you bother reading my reply to julius?

amritia3ee wrote:Laverfan did you bother reading my reply to julius?

I have read it several times, on many different threads.

No I can't remember talking about Feds success in RG on any other thread.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:Let's be honest on hard courts and grass during the time fed dominated when nadal had not improved on other surfaces, who was good? Only federer. He had no challenge from anywhere...

Let's be honest on clay during the time Rafa dominated when Fed had not improved on clay, who was good? Only Rafa. He had no challenge from anywhere.

Absolutely true JHM. This is definitely a proof that in recent years the draw has so been poor of big personalities. Just look at the top clay courters Nadal has had to face to build up his "amazing" record on the RG: you will find the names of Puerta, Gaudio, Robredo, Gonzo and Ferrer: that good was mainly the "invincible armada" Nadal has to deal with in his years of RG dominance (boredom?)

"[quote="Tenez"]

A prodigy in what? he had to wait 24 to finally reach the top. "




It makes it even more impressive that he made it in this physical era with his build. And let me remind you , it was now him who started it.

Go back to say 2000, and see who the fittest guy was year by year, also who and how pushed fitness to new limits.
When Nole had his breakthrough in 2007 he looked a beanpole compared to Nadal and a boy compared to Federer.

[quote="noleisthebest"]"

Tenez wrote:

A prodigy in what? he had to wait 24 to finally reach the top. "




It makes it even more impressive that he made it in this physical era with his build. And let me remind you , it was now him who started it.

Go back to say 2000, and see who the fittest guy was year by year, also who and how pushed fitness to new limits.
When Nole had his breakthrough in 2007 he looked a beanpole compared to Nadal and a boy compared to Federer.

Yes he was good....much more promising than Nadal. I remember I posted in 2007 than Djoko was better than Nadal at teh same age. Some Nadal fan got mad at me but in my view it was clear already then. Nadal benefited a lot from that extra year of (physical) maturity and had they been the same age, it coudl have been a very different affair.

But yet, Djoko did not choose to beat Nadal by taking more risk. He chose to beat at his own game: He went the less risky route, the hard work one. Good choice but I do not see a supreme talent in Djoko, but talented for sure. I have always been clear about it.

He doesn't make the gam look easy, nor does he win very easily even if he wins a lot of tournaments nowadays.

[quote="Tenez"]

noleisthebest wrote:"

Tenez wrote:

A prodigy in what? he had to wait 24 to finally reach the top. "




It makes it even more impressive that he made it in this physical era with his build. And let me remind you , it was now him who started it.

Go back to say 2000, and see who the fittest guy was year by year, also who and how pushed fitness to new limits.
When Nole had his breakthrough in 2007 he looked a beanpole compared to Nadal and a boy compared to Federer.

Yes he was good....much more promising than Nadal. I remember I posted in 2007 than Djoko was better than Nadal at teh same age. Some Nadal fan got mad at me but in my view it was clear already then. Nadal benefited a lot from that extra year of (physical) maturity and had they been the same age, it coudl have been a very different affair.

But yet, Djoko did not choose to beat Nadal by taking more risk. He chose to beat at his own game: He went the less risky route, the hard work one. Good choice but I do not see a supreme talent in Djoko, but talented for sure. I have always been clear about it.

He doesn't make the gam look easy, nor does he win very easily even if he wins a lot of tournaments nowadays.

Yes, but he is having to beat Federer and Nadal on the way....

[quote="noleisthebest"]

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:"

Tenez wrote:

A prodigy in what? he had to wait 24 to finally reach the top. "




It makes it even more impressive that he made it in this physical era with his build. And let me remind you , it was now him who started it.

Go back to say 2000, and see who the fittest guy was year by year, also who and how pushed fitness to new limits.
When Nole had his breakthrough in 2007 he looked a beanpole compared to Nadal and a boy compared to Federer.

Yes he was good....much more promising than Nadal. I remember I posted in 2007 than Djoko was better than Nadal at teh same age. Some Nadal fan got mad at me but in my view it was clear already then. Nadal benefited a lot from that extra year of (physical) maturity and had they been the same age, it coudl have been a very different affair.

But yet, Djoko did not choose to beat Nadal by taking more risk. He chose to beat at his own game: He went the less risky route, the hard work one. Good choice but I do not see a supreme talent in Djoko, but talented for sure. I have always been clear about it.

He doesn't make the gam look easy, nor does he win very easily even if he wins a lot of tournaments nowadays.

Yes, but he is having to beat Federer and Nadal on the way....

Federer at 30 can still beat both and make it look easy.

Henman Bill wrote:

bogbrush wrote:In the Golden Era, another veteran thrives.

Just saying.

Cherry picking. What about Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian. Quite the opposite story.

We are in a stronger than average era for me with players ranked 2-4 being above average and 1 and 5-100 being about average as far as I can easily tell, which is not that eaily.

I never mentioned Ferrer or Fish. Or indeed Federer.

Ferrer isn't at a career high ranking he's just staying as consistent as he's ever been (with one off-year IIRC where he didn't make the WTFs).

True, he's made #5 at around 30 when his best in the wee keira was #4.

Still striking that nothing has happened to bury him in his weak era mediocrity given the Golden age of talent we are told we have all around us now.

No i think ferrer has improved.
He is more experienced now and is more consistent from tournament to tournament. I saw him thrash Djokovic last year in London- great game to watch.

Even though Ferrer is number 5 he isn't the biggest threat to the top 4.
In the Wee Keira there was only really one person who could win the HC and grass slams- now there are 4. More competition, no. Not only that but the like of Del Pot and Tsonga are troubling the big guns much more than players like Ljubicic did- even though Ljubi was number 3. But it wasn't that difficult to get to number 3 those days i suppose.

amritia3ee wrote:No i think ferrer has improved.
He is more experienced now and is more consistent from tournament to tournament. I saw him thrash Djokovic last year in London- great game to watch.

You mean he gets beaten less, despite the competition being Golden as opposed to weak.

Let's bend all of reality to accomodate the anomaly of this mediocre player who is riding so high now, while toward the conclusion of his career.

those easy players with terrible records against fed you know them (gonzalez, davydenko, youzhny, blake) have all either demolished nadal at a slam or have a positive head to head over nadal.

Golden era ladies and gentlemen.

amritia3ee wrote:Even though Ferrer is number 5 he isn't the biggest threat to the top 4.
In the Wee Keira there was only really one person who could win the HC and grass slams- now there are 4. More competition, no. Not only that but the like of Del Pot and Tsonga are troubling the big guns much more than players like Ljubicic did- even though Ljubi was number 3. But it wasn't that difficult to get to number 3 those days i suppose.

Though he found it impossible to win a Masters back then, but was able to do it in 2010.

Contorted logic.

amritia3ee wrote:No i think ferrer has improved.
He is more experienced now and is more consistent from tournament to tournament. I saw him thrash Djokovic last year in London- great game to watch.

Wasn't that the same tournament that Fed only won because all his main opposition was injured or exhausted? Or was Djoko only injured/exhausted in matches where he didn't play Ferrer?

Josiah Maiestas wrote:those easy players with terrible records against fed you know them (gonzalez, davydenko, youzhny, blake) have all either demolished nadal at a slam or have a positive head to head over nadal.

Golden era ladies and gentlemen.

Good point.

In fact one might even use Nadal as a guide to the strength of eras.

In one period he couldn't win a Slam off clay, in a later one he's all over finals across the board.

Not necessarily a point I'd push hard, but interesting.

IW 2010 was one-off. no doubt.
And yes JM back in the days when nadal could only play on clay he got beat by loads of people on HC and grass. Muller etc. So?