Couple of Questions - *Warning May Contain 'Era'*

First topic message reminder :

This was pm'ed to me. I would like it if some could exchange views on this without descending into madness.

As you may know a lot of talk on 606v2 is to do with comparing different eras, something which we can all agree that is a very difficult job; taking into account all the variables.

But as I said, this article is not going to about comparing different eras, well not directly anyway.
I believe tennis moves in a cyclical way- we have one generation dominating, then this generation get older and decline, while the younger generation get in their prime and take over. No one can deny that this is the general movement of events, although there may be some discrepancy with players maturing at different ages.

Now I'm sure you will also all agree with me that there will be a time period where one generation are at their prime, and although many have tried I think it is frankly impossible to pigeonhole one particular exact time period- but we can highlight an estimation of the years which we think this was the case.
During the time period where this generation are at their prime, the slams will be shared between the counterparts- the number of slams in a given year is always fixed.
But my main point is this:
-The more great players there are in a specific generation, the more likely the chances of the slams being shared evenly between them.
Take this example: We have Player A, whose prime lasts 5 years. He is a great player- let's give him an arbitrary rating of 9.8 There are no great players 3 years either side of him- and he accumulates 19 slams in this 5 year period largely unchallenged.
But let's visit the same hypothetical scenario, and the same 5 years (so we can't comparing different time periods as such). His arbitrary rating is also 9.8, but this time there are three other great players who are all of a similar age to him. The slams are shared between these four great players, and Player A manages to win 6 slams.
So far I have not really seen anyone able to convince me that competition within a specific generation will not have an influence in watering down/ inflating the stats of different players. The more great players there are who peak at a similar time, the less records each player will be able to accumulate. Common sense, or not?

Now onto the slightly controversial issue of Federer, and this may explain why I wanted to share this article with you guys rather than put it out on the forum.
Let me make one thing clear- when someone tells me a guy has dominated a time period, the first thing which naturally pops into my mind is: Wow, this player must be great, he dominated his able competitors. No one would naturally assume that his competitors all lacked greatness, you assume that Roger just dominated their greatness.
However in the case of Roger Federer, I think there are questions that can seriously be asked, in terms of his challengers. The ones of similar age to him, not the ones who are younger. Trying to argue that Djokovic is better than him, just because Djokovic is dominating now is flawed logic, as Federer is past his prime. But arguing the players who are his age weren't great, in my eyes is a valid question.

I have some questions here:
1/ How was Rafael Nadal able to get to world number 2 so comfortably from 2005, and remain there so damn comfortably. During Nadal's earlier years, his focus in training was mainly clay- he mainly trained on clay when he was younger (something that I think we can all tell ), and his results on the ATP tour seemed to match this- with many of his points coming from the clay events. The most popular surface played on however, was hard courts.
How could Rafael Nadal, a teenager who could only really perform at the highest level on one surface at the time, not only get to number 2; but stay there basically unchallenged? Doesn't this itself show a lot about the other players Federer's age, who at their prime (around the years 24-27), they could not touch a teenager in the rankings who only really accumulated most of his points on one surface.

2/ Where did Safin disappear after AO 2005? Why did Hewitt decline to the extent that he exited the top 10 after 2005, and has never managed to come back in the top 10. Why did Nalbandian stall in slams so much- after 2003 he never even reached a slam final. Why did he underperform so much?
The only player who was Federer's age who regularly played him in Grand Slam finals was Andy Roddick. With all respect to Roddick, he had a great serve, but his groundstrokes and baseline play was abysmal. Only in 2009 when Stefanki improved Roddick from the baseline did he come close to challenging Federer and impress me as an all round player- watch him in his prime getting absolutely torn to shreds by a young Murray in Wimbledon 2006.
I've posted a stats before that you may have seen- showing that between 2004 and 2008 Murray's 4 measly wins against Federer were more than all the Grand Slam finalists he played in that period apart from Nadal and Djokovic, as well as many other players his age. My point was not that Murray is better than Federer, far from it; but the lack of greatness within the players who were in the same generation to Federer- it's no wonder a teenage clay courter could get and stay at number 2.

Yes because all of Roddick's defeats to fed in the finals were as close as the one in 09 at wimby, Julius you make it too easy sometimes. And you didn't address the fact that many of these one time finalists often play their worst match of the tournament in the finals as their lack of experience and championship pedigree finally begins to tell. (ie berdych, soderling, baggy, and gonzalez)

Roddick does better vs Fed than Murray does in slam finals despite Murray being golden and Roddick being useless. socal, you make it too easy sometimes.

Again with the word 'often' - lke 'majority' and 'normally'. Yet when I try to bring up specifics, no-one is interested in doing the full analysis. I don't blame you for not being bothered though, it's a lot of work - far better to stick to generalizations and probabilities and cross your fingers and hope you got it right.

Having said that, IMBL has volunteered to watch every Fed slam match from 2007 and 2011 in pursuit of his goal. I'm not sure how long that will take though.

By the way, you left Tsonga off the list - a Freudian slip no doubt.

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Having said that, IMBL has volunteered to watch every Fed slam match from 2007 and 2011 in pursuit of his goal. I'm not sure how long that will take though.

I've already done it.
My comment 'it's a pity I haven't done so' earlier was sarcastic.

And are you seriously trying to argue that Roddick is a tougher player to beat in a Grand Slam final compared to Federer? Based on the fact Federer beat him in 2009?

This analogy rings more true than ever now:

You are on a branch, and are about to jump off. I say 'don't jump' because I assume that you jumping will mean you fall on the ground. However there is a minute possibility that there is a see-through silk net just below the branch that we can't see which would catch you.
You, while on the branch, then tell me off for making assumptions (in saying you may fall off if you jump) because I haven't checked to see if there's a silk net.

I can't believe this guy is saying Roddick is a tougher Grand Slam final opponent than Federer, based on the fact Federer beat him in 2009 Wimbledon. I mean, what sort of weird crazy logic is that?

Red what JHM is saying is do you really think the FO 2008 Federer was more of a challenge for Nadal than Roddick 2009 Wimbledon was for Federer?

Red wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Having said that, IMBL has volunteered to watch every Fed slam match from 2007 and 2011 in pursuit of his goal. I'm not sure how long that will take though.

I've already done it.
My comment 'it's a pity I haven't done so' earlier was sarcastic.

And are you seriously trying to argue that Roddick is a tougher player to beat in a Grand Slam final compared to Federer? Based on the fact Federer beat him in 2009?

I'm trying to argue that on occassion Roddick was a tougher player than Federer in a slam final. And that for a proper analysis of 'slam difficulty rating' you'd need to watch each of the seven matches and evaluate how well the opponent was playing during the match. Otherwise you're just making assumptions based on probabilties and generalizations. No-one has yet argued against that - instead they've tried to change the argument to something else.

btw Roddick certainly appears to be a tougher opponent overall than Murray in slam finals.

Red wrote:This analogy rings more true than ever now:

You are on a branch, and are about to jump off. I say 'don't jump' because I assume that you jumping will mean you fall on the ground. However there is a minute possibility that there is a see-through silk net just below the branch that we can't see which would catch you.
You, while on the branch, then tell me off for making assumptions (in saying you may fall off if you jump) because I haven't checked to see if there's a silk net.

I can't believe this guy is saying Roddick is a tougher Grand Slam final opponent than Federer, based on the fact Federer beat him in 2009 Wimbledon. I mean, what sort of weird crazy logic is that?

Obviously that is not what I'm saying. HM, LK and Silver all seem to have no problem understanding my arguments, so I can only assume it's you.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Red what JHM is saying is do you really think the FO 2008 Federer was more of a challenge for Nadal than Roddick 2009 Wimbledon was for Federer?

Either he knows what I'm saying and is trying to avoid it, or he doesn't know what I'm saying in which case no further explanation will help.

Amrit, Julius's position could be stated in this way:

Nadal won RG 2008 6-1, 6-3, 6-0.

He won Wimbledon 2010 6-3, 7-5, 6-4.

The scores tell us that Wimbledon 2010 was the tougher of the two matches to win.

If you only look at the identity of the opponents though, you would assume that RG08 must have been the tougher final because Federer is a better player than Berdych.

That was not the case though because on that particular day, Fed did not play well.

So the key factor in measuring the difficulty of a slam win is not who the opponent is but rather what level of performance was faced on that particular day.

You guys convinced me federer is just Nadal's patsy in slam finals.

socal1976 wrote:You guys convinced me federer is just Nadal's patsy in slam finals.

It took us to convince you of that? I thought you knew tennis.
It's not dissimilar to the way Nadal is Djoko's patsy in slam finals.

Slams H2H:
Nadal 8-2 Federer
Nadal 5-3 Djokovic

The word 'finals' in my previous post conveniently ignored. Please excuse me while I have a little chuckle to myself.

JuliusHMarx wrote:The word 'finals' in my previous post conveniently ignored. Please excuse me while I have a little chuckle to myself.

Djokovic is 3-2 up in finals H2H.
The third one was AO 2012 final.

If you honestly believe that domination is equivalent to the Nadal slam final domination over Federer, you're in dreamland.

He doesn't believe it Red, at some point this discussion has descended into talking around each other about subjectivities. It is clear for the weight of objective evidence that Roger had no real rival in the early part of his run, and Nadal was still developing off of the the clay and Djokovic was maturing. If the lack of wins before or after the rise of Roger by the rollover generation doesn't convince people and objective lack of consistent success is no measure of quality well then I don't know how much mileage can be gained. Roger fans seem to want to simultaneously talk down the current level of competition while convincing us that the early 2000s guys are as strong as any. If this isn't a logical tightrope of incongruity I don't know what is.

I am aware, of course, that it is 6-2 vs 3-2, although I fail to see the relevance of the AO 2012.
I am also aware of some posters vigourously proclaiming that stats don't tell the whole story. Luckily those posters don't then do a post with only stats in it.

Did HM's explanation finally makes things clear?

God you guys are so disappointing. Laughably dissing Hewitt & Safin while defending the current period where the #2 managed to limp through to his last Wimbledon, and David Ferrer easily holds down a top 5 slot for years while plying his mediocre game into his thirties.

Anyway, ever since 31 year old Federer trounced peak Djokovic & Murray last year the reputations of early Hewitt and Roddick soared. After all, they had to face Federer rising to challenge them at his best level, not the half-crippled version we see nowadays who's been there to be shot at for years,

Federer wasn't at his best in 2006 and 2007 BB? Or did Murray and Djokovic beat a crippled federer in his mid 20s when they were mere puppy versions of themselves and years away from their prime. Yes Roddick's reputation has soared and Djokovic and Murray have been exposed! Whatever you say.

socal, the lack of a single real rival does not objectively in itself make the early slams easier to win. It would take a great deal more analysis to reach that conclusion - analysis which no-one on this boad is (hopefully) willing or daft enough to do.

As such generalizations and probabilities are put forward as evidence and any counter to these is ignored for the sake of brevity of argument.

The lack of a real rival might well make it easier to get to No 1 but then he was No 1 both before and after Rafa.

Life is a series of generalizations and probabilites Julius everything in the known universe is between 99.99999-.0000000001 percent etc probability, very few things are 100 percent.

Actually if quantum physics is to be believed nothing is a 100 percent.

And that's an excuse for using probablities instead of research and evidence and then presenting it as fact? Ah, the scientific method....

Not an excuse, you want 100 percent certainty it just doesn't exist in anything not this discussion and not most discussions.

OK how many wins did Murray and Djoko have against Fed in his peak and how many did Hewitt and Roddick in the years 04-07? And it is obvious that Djoko and murray were nowhere near their prime, and Roddick was in his prime and Hewitt had periods when he was healthy and competed at that time as well.

You dismiss Roddick as (insert denigrating adjective) and praise Murray as (insert glowing adjective) yet the scorelines shows that Roddick has been more of a challenge to Fed in slam finals than Murray.

So, no, I don't want 100% certainty. And your final paragraph doesn't even address the points I've raised, it diverts from them.

All I can say is peak Hewitt never got schooled by veteran Federer playing an event he'd almost pulled out of due to a bad back.

No it doesn't BB claimed that a shell of federer beat murray and djoko and that at least Roddick had to play federer at his peak ignoring the fact that pre-prime Djoko and pre-prime Andy beat Roger more than one shot Andy did during that period.

Keep argueing that on the strength of one performance, (by the way in 09) not even in the period in question Roddick is a tougher opponent in slam finals than murray. Yes 2-19 h2h spells tough finals oppnent in my book. By the way, 09 is the best Roddick has ever played, and no it doesn't fall into the weak era period so your point is actually moot. Is there anyone argueing tht 09 was a weak era?

Yes BB, that is all that is left for you to say after your ridiculous commentary about how Djokovic and murray didn't play Roger in his peak was exposed by facts. Pre-prime Djoko and murray scored more wins against Roger at his best than any of the rollover boys did. But I forgot you guys don't like to compare objective results, we just have to take your word for it that the rollover generation is as strong as any.

Whats all this nonsense about "pup" Djokovic & Murray getting the better of peak Federer at Slams?

In reality the only Slam win either Djokovic or Murray got over Federer until 2010 was when Federer had Glandular Fever. Discounting that, neither of them ever beat Federer in anything like his peak years.

More myths exposed.

bogbrush wrote:All I can say is peak Hewitt never got schooled by veteran Federer playing an event he'd almost pulled out of due to a bad back.

Yes keep argueing that murray and djoko are inferior to hewitt, I am sure that one will be a winner now and for years to come.

Right Novak and Andy were less competitive against Roger in 04-07 than Hewitt and Roddick. Who said anything about in slams, Roger didn't have a lot of slam losses in that period anyway. By the way the two players in question were mere schoolboys when they first beat the great man, not experienced pros rolling over for him like his contemporaries.

Never got a sniff at a Slam while he was anywhere near his peak, except when he had Glandular Fever.

Up to US 2010 it's 6-1* over the pair in Slams.

* GF affected.

These are facts. Learn and reflect.

Oh you mean they were expected to win slams in 2004 and 2005, at 15 and 16 years old or else forever be doomed to inferior status to the rollover boys. Roger's peak did not coincide with these two and their peak, pre-prime both beat federer more often than his contemporaries. Now twist the facts if you like anyway you like but you are grasping at straws and it is quite apparent.

socal1976 wrote:Oh you mean they were expected to win slams in 2004 and 2005, at 15 and 16 years old or else forever be doomed to inferior status to the rollover boys. Roger's peak did not coincide with these two and their peak, pre-prime both beat federer more often than his contemporaries. Now twist the facts if you like anyway you like but you are grasping at straws and it is quite apparent.

Actually, it was you who tried to argue they troubled peak Federer. I just pointed out how badly wrong you are.

Sorry.

They troubled Federer more than Roddick and hewitt did at that time do you deny that? I believe Roddick had a total of zero wins over federer during Roger's peak.

No they didn't. Roddick severely pushed Federer at Wimbledon. The 2004 final was a very tight match.

It's so easy to forget matches and just look at the records.

socal1976 wrote:Keep argueing that on the strength of one performance, (by the way in 09) not even in the period in question Roddick is a tougher opponent in slam finals than murray.

How can I keep arguing that when I didn't argue that in the first place? I shall have to remember that most posters can read and understand my posts quite easily and others either don't read them or don't understand them.

gotta love a bit of Fed fanatics vs socal, entertainment at its finest

Mad for Chelsea wrote:gotta love a bit of Fed fanatics vs socal, entertainment at its finest

Yes BB, seems to think I am claiming murray and djoko are better than Federer, I am not. But come on empanada dave, the little aussie with the dodgy hip, the Russian playboy, and one shot Andy are hardly the murder's row of grandslam greats. The fact remains, that Roger's closest rivals at HIS ABSOLUTE PEAK (2007) was not his contemporaries, the rollover boys but a 19 year old serbian screech look a like and a 20 year old spaniard, BOTH NOT HAVING REACHED THEIR PHYSICAL PRIMES. Roger is deemed the greatest player of all time because of his accomplishments, but don't look at the objective accomplishments or lack thereof of his earlier rivals to determine their strength. Those poor guys were destroyed by little more sand in the hardcourts and a different grass at wimbeldon. Or in Dave's case too many delicious entrees in the player's lounge.

Quite the reverse; I don't like to see bad knowledge distort the history of the game.
I mean, degrading the level of Hewitt by labelling him a little Aussie with a bad hip is just stupid. The guy would be really at home in 2013 if he was 20 and fit, contesting the latest stages of most Slams.

And when it comes to who challenged Federer most at Slams; until 2010 there was only Nadal able to beat him in semis/finals really, though honourable mentions go to Del Potro twice in 2009, and Roddick at Wimbledon in 2004 & 2009. Nobody else, at least not unless he was ill.

The best effort by Djokovic or Murray by far was Djokovic US Open 2007, though he didn't quite get a set but was extremely close.

Yes he was so ill that he made it to the semis. Personally I think he got sick after the Australian and decided to use the diagnosis to explain away his ass thumping.

So let me ask you do you see hewitt as the equal talent wise of Djokovic? Or superior?

I posted a link recently to a contemporary report of Hewitt's USO victory in which it was said he played tennis at a higher level than anyone who had previously played the game.
I also remember a BBC Wimbledon commentator, after his victory there, saying he was so good he could win 10 Wimbledons (i.e. more than Sampras).
But is there really any point asking does anyone "see hewitt as the equal talent wise of Djokovic? Or superior?" Surely it would be simpler to say that you don't and accept that other opinions may differ. They're similar enough that it can't be proven one way or the other, except to say that Djoko has had greater longevity/more success, possibly due to a) Hewitt's injuries and b) surface changes, both of which knocked a few % off Hewitt's game - which is all it takes.

If you were a big Hewitt fan and not a Djoko fan, you may have a different opinion. It's hard for a fan of one player to be objective about that player, so I undersatnd your pov. Also, if the goal is to wind up Fed fans, then it's easy to see why you use the terminology that you do as regards Hewitt, Roddick etc.

JHM, the man can speak for himself if he thinks hewitt is better than Djoko he can answer or he doesn't have to its up to him. He keeps talking about how hewitt in his prime would never have lost to a half crippled federer or whatever terminolgy he used and I just want some clarification of his position.

Like I said the fact that you guys think that Hewitt is the equal or could be the equal of Djokovic just shows how far gone you are in my opinion. But I forgot even with 10 slams he won't be able to match poor super talented dave whose career was destroyed by a few extra grains of sand in the hardcourt.

I didn't realise the question was only intended to BB - I thought anyone could answer it.

I know you think that anyone who rates Hewitt as similar to Djoko talent-wise is 'far gone', but then as you say, that's your opinion, which a) you are entitled to and b) doesn't carry much weight with me, in this regard (possibly due to your lack of objectivity, being a Djoko fan and also your dislike of Fed fans)

In the ATP public vote at the end of 2010, Hewitt was voted the third best player of the decade, behind Fed and Rafa, but above Djoko. Obviously Djoko has progressed since then, but it's another example of how you underrate Hewitt (but again, if Hewitt had not been a contemporary of Fed, I doubt your condemnation of him would be so vociferous).

Obviously the mention of Nalby is a strawman, although the use of flowery language at least makes it readable.

Each individual Slam over the years is unique to itself hence the difficulty in actually aportioning value.

An un-seeded player or player of lesser success in titles who makes the final of a Slam or Masters event does not constitute a 'weak' era or Slam or Masters title for that matter.

Without being deliberately obtuse can we at least acknowledge that every Slam there has ever been has yielded different performance levels?

Once that bridge is overcome, maybe the 'Era' talk can be disposed of once and for all.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Once that bridge is overcome, maybe the 'Era' talk can be disposed of once and for all.

The era talk will only be disposed of when :-
a) Posters lose the desire place player(s) they like above player(s) they dislike
b) Posters lose the desire to 'prove' other posters 'wrong', based on other posters' preferred players
c) Hell freezes over

Based on current weather c) might be a posibility

c) is the only possibility

I really do hate all these inconsistencies in people's arguments. Federer is widely regarded as GOAT on the grounds of him winning more slams than anyone else. Yet we have people here trying to argue Hewitt is/was better than Djokovic. Eh? How so since Djokovic has more slam wins already under his belt. Likewise people hinting Roddick being better than Murray. How so? Both have won one slam but Murray's career stats already surpass those of Roddick and he isn't finished yet. So if we want to use slam wins as the behemoth of greatness scale to pin tags on Federer then please be consistent and use the same scale right down the line.

Oh my days people are not that stupid surely.

Read the argument for phuck sake!

No-one is saying Hewitt is better than Djokovic or Roddick is better than Murray.

Let me simplify the argument and case people are making.

Federer FO 2008 trounced in straight sets by Nadal v Roddick Wim beaten in close 5 setter by Federer. On the performances on the day who would you argue was the tougher opponent?

legendkillarV2 wrote:Oh my days people are not that stupid surely.

Read the argument for phuck sake!

No-one is saying Hewitt is better than Djokovic or Roddick is better than Murray.

Let me simplify the argument and case people are making.

Federer FO 2008 trounced in straight sets by Nadal v Roddick Wim beaten in close 5 setter by Federer. On the performances on the day who would you argue was the tougher opponent?

Lk this is a reference to posts made within the thread - not your OP.