Nadal And Djokovic Dominant Top Two

The end of year ranking points for the top ten are as follows (apart from Davis Cup Final points)

1) Nadal 13,030
2) Djokovic 12,110
3) Ferrer 5,800
4) Murray 5,790
5) Del Potro 5,250
6) Federer 4,205
7) Berdych 4,180
8) Wawrinka 3,730
9) Gasquet 3,300
10) Tsonga 3,065

Has there ever been a more dominant top two? I'm not sure but in the years when Federer and Nadal consistently held the top two spots were they as far as this ahead of the pack? Both Nadal and Djokovic have more than double the ranking points of the rest of the top five and three times the ranking points of the rest of the top ten. There is roughly a 6,000 point gap between them and the chasing pack. Nadal has a remarkable 10,000 points more than the number ten ranked player.

Nadal and Djokovic are a very dominant top two!

Yes, it's a huge gap. But say Murray does well at the French and then later in the year when he has no points to defend? Say Rog does well at Wimbledon and the US. These seemingly huge points differences can very quickly disappear.
Still, it's a remarkable gap at the moment. Fitting these two should fight it out last night and perhaps fitting if they were in the AO final in January 2014 as well

Indeed they are streets ahead of the chasing pack, the question remains however can they defend those points that they have accumilated in 2014.

I can't wait to see what 2014 brings us.

Comparisons can be made here - http://www.tennis28.com/rankings/point_totals_year.html

The points system changed after 2008 though.

Fed in 2006 is impressive - not far off double Rafa's No 2. points.
Djoko in 2011 was 11000+ ahead of the No. 10.

Keurten & Safin look quite far ahead in 2000.

hawkeye wrote:The end of year ranking points for the top ten are as follows (apart from Davis Cup Final points)

1) Nadal 13,030
2) Djokovic 12,110
3) Ferrer 5,800
4) Murray 5,790
5) Del Potro 5,250
6) Federer 4,205
7) Berdych 4,180
8) Wawrinka 3,730
9) Gasquet 3,300
10) Tsonga 3,065

Has there ever been a more dominant top two? I'm not sure but in the years when Federer and Nadal consistently held the top two spots were they as far as this ahead of the pack?

Nadal and Djokovic are a very dominant top two!

Perhaps you can check it yourself by selecting random years on the ATP website. For example YE 2006:

1 Federer, Roger (SUI) 8,370
2 Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 4,470  
3 Davydenko, Nikolay (RUS) 2,825
4 Blake, James (USA) 2,530  
5 Ljubicic, Ivan (CRO) 2,495
6 Roddick, Andy (USA) 2,415
7 Robredo, Tommy (ESP) 2,375  
8 Nalbandian, David (ARG) 2,295  
9 Ancic, Mario (CRO) 2,060
10 Gonzalez, Fernando (CHI) 2,015

seems to me even more elitarian than current year (mind that in Y2006 the ranking system was different as most tournament were worth less ranking points than today -----> eg <Fed's 8000 points would be probably in the range 14000 in today's system.

My question for the expert would be ; are we still witnessing a tennis Golden era or perhaps this is a rollover generation remake??

That they have so many points shows that they have been good enough to win them. If they have been good enough to win them this year it is evidence that they may be good enough to win them next year.

Having a lot of points to defend is a good thing (not a bad thing as some appear to believe) as it demonstrates past achievements. For example Nadal is pretty good on clay and always has pretty much maximum points for the entire clay season to defend. That doesn't mean he is likely to win few points in the clay season it mean he is likely to win lots.

Sorry if this is a bit obvious...

Federer in 2006 was very impressive. If it wasn't for that pesky teenager pfft!

The problem with Nadal though is that he has a historic tendancy NOT to be able to defend his points off clay. In fact he has never done it. So while Nadal has always been good enough to win them..he has, as yet, never been good enough to defend them. So I certainly think its a valid point to raise about if they can be defended.

re JK, I think it's a very interesting point you raise!!

Jonnyjeep. It isn't necessary to win the same tournaments in order to win a similar amount of points. Nadal has proved that he's pretty good on hard court by winning the US Open. So he could go out in the first round of the US Open next year or even sit that tournament out but if healthy he will be one of the favorites to win the AO.

As a pair, they accumulated 3 of the 4 slams, 8 of the 9 Masters and the WTF title.

And the remaining slam and Master were won by one other guy.

So three players swept the board!

^ Ha ha! Murray always manages to get given equal credit (by some) when others are doing the hard sweeping.

Murray's only a part-time sweeper.

hawkeye wrote:^ Ha ha! Murray always manages to get given equal credit (by some) when others are doing the hard sweeping.

I knew you would say that!

Hi HE,

No it's not obviously. But because he has done so well, he's going to do very well to not defend the points he currently has away from clay - and pick them up elsewhere. So his previous inability to defend points I think is very relevant.

He chances are extremely limited now. Mainly because he either won or got to the final of every tournie he played and the number of 'missed' tournaments available to him are so small.

He came back on the 10th February. So, and I know you like to term him a 'part-time' player, he has infact played a full season. The only tournie he could play to add more points are AO and Miami. I would wager he is still going to miss at least one of the HC 1000 series next season. So they cancel each other out.

Any points he doesn't defend therefore means he would to have to pick them all up at AO (and I suppose Wimbo). Again not impossible, but impropable I would say. It's not a criticism. It's just statistically unlikely. Based on both his playing history and the finite amount of ranking points available. He's basically going to have to do something he has never done before in order to maintain his points - defend non-clay tournies.

I think Novak and Nadal are a significant step up in class from the competition. Murray is the only guy who has potential to break into that echelon of player, he is not quite there yet but and he may not ever get there. Nadal for me has replaced Federer as the greatest player ever, I thought he was better than fed for years but he didn't have a full enough trophy case of accomplishments till this year to supplant federer. Djokovic in the last two years has been able to match him closely but he has arrived late to party. Both a historic level talents and the rest of the pack aren't so it is not surprising that they dominate they way they do.

Socal - assuming Murray comes back fully healthy from his op, then I believe he will challenge for and win some big prizes. But will he ever do it consistently, week after week to challenge for number 1? I don't believe so. His best is good enough, but he doesn't bring his best as regularly as the other two.

Of course, we don't know how much of that inconsistency is down to the back that he's apparently been managing for 18 months, but I don't think even fully healthy he'd have been as consistent as the other two.

And I'm a Murray fan saying that!!

Yes as I stated above Danny, Murray is the only one of the rest that even has the potentiality to reach that level. That does not mean that I believe or know for a fact that he will reach such an elevated status. He may or may not it remains to be seen. I will give Murray fans some hope, most believed Djokovic had this in him in Dec. of 2011, by February and March of 2011 it was apparent to everyone. I think Murray has been extremely injury prone in his career as well as you mention his back. Where Djokovic has been more durable like Federer playing 80 matches a year on average for the last 6 seasons, this contributes to this gap although does not explain away all of it.

Yeah I expect more of the same over the last couple of years, challenging for and winning slams. The odd masters, but some inconsistent performances too.

In 3 slams a year he's up there with the other two, the rest of the year he's not. That inconsistency and his average clay form means he's destined for number 3 for the short and long term in my view.

He doesn't have the week to week intensity. Credit to the other two for bringing it pretty much every week. It's phenomenal.

socal1976 wrote:I think Novak and Nadal are a significant step up in class from the competition..

Interesting. Fed on the other hand, he didn't raise the games level in his peak years, instead were the competitors who lowered theirs, am I understanding you well?

socal1976 wrote:Nadal for me has replaced Federer as the greatest player ever..

.

That's your opinion, which btw is not even supported by factual evidence, so why stating it every time?

The interesting dynamic is I believe Murray is a bigger threat to Djokovic than Nadal. Its all about match ups. A fully fit Murray may make for some interesting line ups and results.

I do wonder if Djokovic can keep up this form based on truly exceptional and flexible movement on outdoor courts. He's the indoor king now no doubt, but besides WTF I don't think Nadal will be in panic stations yet. Otherwise, these 2 are head and shoulders above the rest.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I think Novak and Nadal are a significant step up in class from the competition..

Interesting. Fed on the other hand, he didn't raise  the games level in his peak years, instead were the competitors who lowered theirs, am I understanding you well?

socal1976 wrote:Nadal for me has replaced Federer as the greatest player ever..

.

That's your opinion, which btw is not even supported by factual evidence, so why stating it  every time?

Actually, JK, I often give Federer credit for being the one who raised the bar and bringing us out of the dark ages of the weak era. I have said this in fact on numerous occasions; Fed raised the bar and helped rescue the game from dull big serve tennis and weak era contemporaries. So you are completely misrepresenting my position. Without Fed; Nadal, Djoko, and Murray would not be as complete athletes and players that they currently are. Please try to pay attention to what I say, if you later want to criticize me then at least absorb the entire argument.

As for part 2, clearly there are plenty of facts in support of Nadal and Nadal didn't have years of padding his stats against clearly weaker opposition.

socal1976 wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I think Novak and Nadal are a significant step up in class from the competition..

Interesting. Fed on the other hand, he didn't raise  the games level in his peak years, instead were the competitors who lowered theirs, am I understanding you well?

socal1976 wrote:Nadal for me has replaced Federer as the greatest player ever..

.

That's your opinion, which btw is not even supported by factual evidence, so why stating it  every time?

Actually, JK, I often give Federer credit for being the one who raised the bar and bringing us out of the dark ages of the weak era. I have said this in fact on numerous occasions; Fed raised the bar and helped rescue the game from dull big serve tennis and weak era contemporaries. So you are completely misrepresenting my position. Without Fed; Nadal, Djoko, and Murray would not be as complete athletes and players that they currently are. Please try to pay attention to what I say, if you later want to criticize me then at least absorb the entire argument.

As for part 2, clearly there are plenty of facts in support of Nadal and Nadal didn't have years of padding his stats against clearly weaker opposition.

Apart from 2005 - 2007, of course, when he won 23% of his slams, 35% of his Masters and 38 % of all his career titles
And of course, in the FO 2008, Fed played at less-than-Baghdatis level, so we have to discount that one as well since it's only the quality of the opponent in the final that counts.

Julius again you are making arguments that I don't make. Federer raised the bar in 04-07 and others struggled to meet the challenge, almost all failed except for the 3 players significantly younger than him who even as teenagers where Fed's most dangerous opponents far from their prime. Fed by himself raised the bar and the game was better for it but he had no rival on the faster surfaces worth mentioning till Nadal challenged him at wimby and till Djoko and Murray began beating him in the masters and seriously challenging for slams. Fed deserves great credit for raising the bar, however I don't simply look at the stats you mention as telling the whole story. I look at competition level and the closest rivals he had were still years from their prime, while his contemporaries for whatever reason could not maintain what little relevance they had in terms of challenging him.

socal1976 wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I think Novak and Nadal are a significant step up in class from the competition..

Interesting. Fed on the other hand, he didn't raise  the games level in his peak years, instead were the competitors who lowered theirs, am I understanding you well?

socal1976 wrote:Nadal for me has replaced Federer as the greatest player ever..

.

That's your opinion, which btw is not even supported by factual evidence, so why stating it  every time?

Actually, JK, I often give Federer credit for being the one who raised the bar and bringing us out of the dark ages of the weak era. I have said this in fact on numerous occasions; Fed raised the bar and helped rescue the game from dull big serve tennis and weak era contemporaries. So you are completely misrepresenting my position. Without Fed; Nadal, Djoko, and Murray would not be as complete athletes and players that they currently are. Please try to pay attention to what I say, if you later want to criticize me then at least absorb the entire argument.

As for part 2, clearly there are plenty of facts in support of Nadal and Nadal didn't have years of padding his stats against clearly weaker opposition.

I am glad you are beginning to recognize that the exceptional career Fad has had is due to the quality of the player and not "solely" (in your frame of mind obviously) to the mediocrity of the opposition during his peak years. Still, I wonder why you seem to believe that the recent run of the Nadal/ Djoko ticket is due to their outstanding qualities and in this case the weak opposition argument never come into play, or at least not as often...... To me that looks like a nice way to big up your champion, at the same time diminishing the stature of "other" champions: eg to be biased.

Regarding to Goat Nadal I was just wondering why you are so keen to state your opinion in every occasion even when this is totally out of contest. I am just imagining you meeting a girl on a tennis court: Hello, I am Socal would you like to play and btw Nadal not Federer is the Goat!!

I agree though there are plenty of facts to support your idea:

- Nadal was probably something in between to V1 and 2 while now hes happily reached V4.
- Other players were all rubbish.

cheers

socal1976 wrote:Julius again you are making arguments that I don't make. Federer raised the bar in 04-07 and others struggled to meet the challenge, almost all failed except for the 3 players significantly younger than him who even as teenagers where Fed's most dangerous opponents far from their prime. Fed by himself raised the bar and the game was better for it but he had no rival on the faster surfaces worth mentioning till Nadal challenged him at wimby and till Djoko and Murray began beating him in the masters and seriously challenging for slams. Fed deserves great credit for raising the bar, however I don't simply look at the stats you mention as telling the whole story. I look at competition level and the closest rivals he had were still years from their prime, while his contemporaries for whatever reason could not maintain what little relevance they had in terms of challenging him.

Arguments you don't make? You said Rafa "didn't have years of padding his stats against clearly weaker opposition." In 2005 - 2007 he had the same opposition as Fed and I gave the stats for those 3 years.
You use those 3 years as an argument against Fed, but refuse to take them into account for Rafa.

You have also said Rafa is "clearly" the GOAT, but when questioned about Laver and Borg said that you don't really know enough about them to consider them.

Much as I find your hyperbole and turn of phrase enjoyable, it actually ends up weakening your argument, because it presents them in extremis.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I think Novak and Nadal are a significant step up in class from the competition..

Interesting. Fed on the other hand, he didn't raise  the games level in his peak years, instead were the competitors who lowered theirs, am I understanding you well?

socal1976 wrote:Nadal for me has replaced Federer as the greatest player ever..

.

That's your opinion, which btw is not even supported by factual evidence, so why stating it  every time?

Actually, JK, I often give Federer credit for being the one who raised the bar and bringing us out of the dark ages of the weak era. I have said this in fact on numerous occasions; Fed raised the bar and helped rescue the game from dull big serve tennis and weak era contemporaries. So you are completely misrepresenting my position. Without Fed; Nadal, Djoko, and Murray would not be as complete athletes and players that they currently are. Please try to pay attention to what I say, if you later want to criticize me then at least absorb the entire argument.

As for part 2, clearly there are plenty of facts in support of Nadal and Nadal didn't have years of padding his stats against clearly weaker opposition.

I am glad you are beginning to recognize that the exceptional career Fad has had is due to the quality of the player and not "solely" (in your frame of mind obviously) to the mediocrity of the opposition during his peak years. Still, I wonder why you seem to believe that the recent run of the Nadal/ Djoko ticket is due to their outstanding qualities and in this case the weak opposition argument never come into play, or at least not as often...... To me that looks like a nice way to big up your champion, at the same time diminishing the stature of "other" champions: eg to be biased.

Regarding to Goat Nadal I was just wondering why you are so keen to state your opinion in every occasion even when this is totally out of contest. I am just imagining you meeting a girl on a tennis court: Hello, I am Socal would you like to play and btw Nadal not Federer is the Goat!!

I agree though there are plenty of facts to support your idea:

- Nadal was probably something in between to V1 and 2 while now hes happily reached V4.
- Other players were all rubbish.

cheers

Actually, your first line is a complete misrepresentaion and you chose to stick to it, I am not "beginning to recognize" fed's exceptional career. Till Nadal's victory at the USO I considered Fed the GOAT and often stated. For years on here and old 606 I have stated that fed brought us out of the weak era and raised the bar. Nadal/djoko/and Murray are all much better players and much more accomplished players and will go down as head and shoulders above any of Fed's contemporaries when it is all said and done. The fact that Fed's closest competitors are all three 5 years younger than him and their names are not Roddick, Hewitt, and Safin proves how soft his competition was in the early days.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Julius again you are making arguments that I don't make. Federer raised the bar in 04-07 and others struggled to meet the challenge, almost all failed except for the 3 players significantly younger than him who even as teenagers where Fed's most dangerous opponents far from their prime. Fed by himself raised the bar and the game was better for it but he had no rival on the faster surfaces worth mentioning till Nadal challenged him at wimby and till Djoko and Murray began beating him in the masters and seriously challenging for slams. Fed deserves great credit for raising the bar, however I don't simply look at the stats you mention as telling the whole story. I look at competition level and the closest rivals he had were still years from their prime, while his contemporaries for whatever reason could not maintain what little relevance they had in terms of challenging him.

Arguments you don't make? You said Rafa "didn't have years of padding his stats against clearly weaker opposition." In 2005 - 2007 he had the same opposition as Fed and I gave the stats for those 3 years.
You use those 3 years as an argument against Fed, but refuse to take them into account for Rafa.

You have also said Rafa is "clearly" the GOAT, but when questioned about Laver and Borg said that you don't really know enough about them to consider them.

Much as I find your hyperbole and turn of phrase enjoyable, it actually ends up weakening your argument, because it presents them in extremis.

I answered you weak clay court critique, first off Nadal would have had no trouble with the Gaudios, and Costas of the world who preceded him before his rise on the clay. Second between 04 and 07 Nadal won a total of three slams. If you consider that period weak, like your assuming for your false comparison then Nadal won 3 weak era slams and Federer won a dozen, so who really padded their stats in the weak era. I actually think 05-07 was a period were the game was strengthening but still not part of the strong top level competition we saw from 08-13.

You're stuck in the Fed-Rafa debate, which has been done to death and holds relatively little interest for me.
I try to open it up to the broader picture, you ignore it (because if it doesn't involve Federer, perhaps you're not interested?).
If Rafa won 3 weak era slams and a fourth against a Fed who was useless on the day, and includes later final victories over Soderling and Berdych, then surely that would then cast doubt that he is "clearly" better than Borg, Laver or Sampras, so I'd like you to go back and re-evaluate their slams and careers and return with your conclusions.

I am rating Borg and laver on stats and reputation, I never watched them play. Also the more remote in time you get the changes in conditions and technology make comparison difficult. However I did regularly watch Mac, Lendl, Sampras, Roger, Rafa, and Agassi and therefore I can rate these player more effectively. If you want to split hairs fine, this is what I will say about Nadal, he is the greatest player I have ever seen. If not GOAT then lets say he is the GOMT. Greatest of My Time.

socal1976 wrote:I am rating Borg and laver on stats and reputation, I never watched them play. Also the more remote in time you get the changes in conditions and technology make comparison difficult. However I did regularly watch Mac, Lendl, Sampras, Roger, Rafa, and Agassi and therefore I can rate these player more effectively. If you want to split hairs fine, this is what I will say about Nadal, he is the greatest player I have ever seen. If not GOAT then lets say he is the GOMT. Greatest of My Time.

OK

socal1976 wrote:I am rating Borg and laver on stats and reputation, I never watched them play. Also the more remote in time you get the changes in conditions and technology make comparison difficult. However I did regularly watch Mac, Lendl, Sampras, Roger, Rafa, and Agassi and therefore I can rate these player more effectively. If you want to split hairs fine, this is what I will say about Nadal, he is the greatest player I have ever seen. If not GOAT then lets say he is the GOMT. Greatest of My Time.

So (through no fault of your own I grant you - hence your last sentence) you are changing the methodology by which to measure a players 'greatness'. That, unfortunately, will always bring skewed data by which to support any conclusions. You are rating Borg and Laver on stats but not Federer and Nadal? You can't measure Federer and Nadal on stats because ultimately Federer wipes the floor with him. Which doesn't support your conclusion. So now you are injecting a new unknown and impossible to measure variable (The Socal Factor?) by which to elevate Nadal. Even if their careers have ultimately been against the same opposition give or take 24 months. Plus their are only a finite amount of trophies to go around. By one person dominating so much will give the illusion of weaker competition. Saying that, in 10 years time, I'm sure people will look on Ferrer, Gasquet, Berdych and Wawrinka as giants of the game.

What was the competition level like for Laver? No one ever seems to talk about that when discussing him. Or any other past tennis legend.

Nadal is the greatest athelete I've ever seen on a tennis course. But not the best tennis player.

socal1976 wrote:
Actually, your first line is a complete misrepresentaion and you chose to stick to it, I am not "beginning to recognize" fed's exceptional career. Till Nadal's victory at the USO I considered Fed the GOAT and often stated. For years on here and old 606 I have stated that fed brought us out of the weak era and raised the bar. Nadal/djoko/and Murray are all much better players and much more accomplished players and will go down as head and  shoulders above any of Fed's contemporaries when it is all said and done. The fact that Fed's closest competitors are all three 5 years younger than him and their names are not Roddick, Hewitt, and Safin proves how soft his competition was in the early days.

I am gonna leave this silly and pointless weak era argument here. I think how this whole story is made up and biased is for everyone to see. you have just stated that two former n.1 and multi slam champions are in yours words "head and shoulder" below Murray who has two slams but no n1 to him. That says it all Socal!!

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

socal1976 wrote:
Actually, your first line is a complete misrepresentaion and you chose to stick to it, I am not "beginning to recognize" fed's exceptional career. Till Nadal's victory at the USO I considered Fed the GOAT and often stated. For years on here and old 606 I have stated that fed brought us out of the weak era and raised the bar. Nadal/djoko/and Murray are all much better players and much more accomplished players and will go down as head and  shoulders above any of Fed's contemporaries when it is all said and done. The fact that Fed's closest competitors are all three 5 years younger than him and their names are not Roddick, Hewitt, and Safin proves how soft his competition was in the early days.

I am gonna leave this silly and pointless weak era argument here. I think how this whole story is made up and biased is for everyone to see. you have just stated that two former n.1 and multi slam champions are in yours words "head and shoulder" below Murray who has two slams but no n1 to him. That says it all Socal!!

Yes, Murray's career is not over and he already has more slams and Master's than Hewitt and Safin. Hewitt's best year 1 slam 2 masters and 6 tournament wins would gain him a third place ATP points ranking in 2013. There is no bias in this statement, pure numbers and ranking points. But the fact that you deem objective facts like comparing the number of slams and Masters Murray has won compared to the role over boys, with years to go in his career as my bias tells us all we need to know about where your biases lie.

Johnyjeep wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I am rating Borg and laver on stats and reputation, I never watched them play. Also the more remote in time you get the changes in conditions and technology make comparison difficult. However I did regularly watch Mac, Lendl, Sampras, Roger, Rafa, and Agassi and therefore I can rate these player more effectively. If you want to split hairs fine, this is what I will say about Nadal, he is the greatest player I have ever seen. If not GOAT then lets say he is the GOMT. Greatest of My Time.

So (through no fault of your own I grant you - hence your last sentence) you are changing the methodology by which to measure a players 'greatness'. That, unfortunately, will always bring skewed data by which to support any conclusions. You are rating Borg and Laver on stats but not Federer and Nadal? You can't measure Federer and Nadal on stats because ultimately Federer wipes the floor with him. Which doesn't support your conclusion. So now you are injecting a new unknown and impossible to measure variable (The Socal Factor?) by which to elevate Nadal. Even if their careers have ultimately been against the same opposition give or take 24 months. Plus their are only a finite amount of trophies to go around. By one person dominating so much will give the illusion of weaker competition. Saying that, in 10 years time, I'm sure people will look on Ferrer, Gasquet, Berdych and Wawrinka as giants of the game.

What was the competition level like for Laver? No one ever seems to talk about that when discussing him. Or any other past tennis legend.

Nadal is the greatest athelete I've ever seen on a tennis course. But not the best tennis player.

What are you talking about 24 months Johnny Jeep. Federer won the vast majority of his slams in 04-07, Nadal won 10 of his 13 slams after said period. I find this finite number of tournament argument completely nonsensical. It also ignores the fact that the rollover boys not only were dominated by Federer they got dominated by Murray, Nadal, and Djokovic as well. Many of them struggled to even maintain a top ten ranking post 07 even when healthy (ie Safin and Nalbandian). I mean the only one of the rollover boys who has legitimate claim to Federer stunting his slam count was Roddick who lost 4 slam finals to federer, of course we can't assume if someone else played him in those finals that he would have won all or even a majority of them. I mean how many slam finals or hell semis did Nalby, Hewitt, and Safin get in post 2007? The answer is zero and very few finals.

The fact remains not all periods of grandslam competition at the elite levels is equal, I mean many of the people who refuse to accept that Fed's contemporaries are weaker by a significant margin have no problem in pointing out the weakness of the young guys compared to those that came before them. So what keeps them from drawing this conclusion is there bias and love for Federer, not objective facts. Fed is the greatest therefore his competition in his heyday can not be weaker because he is so great.

You could say; for me Murray is even better - ok., but to state he is "head and shoulder" above two former n1 and multi slam Champions is just ridiculous. Hewitt won two Slams, 2 WTF and reached N1, are you going to give the right credit to these achievements or else?

You understand that saying that Hewitt today wouldn't be number one with the tournaments he won in 2002 is at risk of stripping the N1 from some 95% of open year former champs. I bet thay won't agree with it.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:I am gonna leave this silly and pointless weak era argument here. I think how this whole story is made up and biased is for everyone to see. you have just stated that two former n.1 and multi slam champions are in yours words "head and shoulder" below Murray who has two slams but no n1 to him. That says it all Socal!!

I'm not certain why you've said you don't want to have "pointless weak era arguments" and then decided to use some stats about Murray from a different era, to support your stance for 'former number ones

Being number one is not a factor in a weak era debate

What is a factor, is how one player who played during two era's, at a similar standard for eight years (before finally deteriorating) faired over this time, i.e. the career stats of Andy Roddick

Socal, has also made a brilliant point about how Roger had to raise his level to beat his three current rivals and even then, had worse stats than he did against his peers - even though these younger rivals were nowhere near their peak

It's sad that Nalbandian was mentally away with the fairies, Hewitt injury prone, Agassi too old and Safin only interested for half of each year - but that's how the cookie crumbles sometimes  

It's getting a bit childish the way some will ignore any formal stat, because it gets in the way of there '2002 was great because good old tommy Haas was No.2'  

Incidentally, I'm not convinced that this is the best era - but I am convinced that 2000-3 was one of the poorest since about 1975

socal1976 wrote:The fact remains not all periods of grandslam competition at the elite levels is equal, I mean many of the people who refuse to accept that Fed's contemporaries are weaker by a significant margin have no problem in pointing out the weakness of the young guys compared to those that came before them. So what keeps them from drawing this conclusion is there bias and love for Federer, not objective facts. Fed is the greatest therefore his competition in his heyday can not be weaker because he is so great.

   The rank hypocrisy of those (and only those) who love all things Roger, is never recognised by these people. Recently we had a poll where some people actually think Roger will be somewhere in the Top 3 by the end of next year. It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic  

banbrotam wrote:
I'm not certain why you've said you don't want to have "pointless weak era arguments" and then decided to use some stats about Murray from a different era, to support your stance for 'former number ones

Being number one is not a factor in a weak era debate

Sure, that is why reasonble people don't buy into the silly and preposterous weak era argument. BTW: I am not using stats from different eras ( which is Socal favourite task apparently....). I am using facts; having been N1 = FACT. Weak era = Fact that happened in Socal's mind.

BTW; If it was so weak; wonder why Socal and Bambro didn't win much slams back then, ah wait..............

But if we accept that Nalby, Hewitt, and Safin were past their peak by 2008, why can we not accept that Fed was also past his peak? There is no way of knowing how Fed would have dealt with Rafa, Murray and Djoko if he had been, say, three years younger, and grown up with current conditions instead of having them change midway through his career. He certainly wouldn't be using that small racquet.
The age difference has worked against Fed, once the next generation appeared.

If you want to argue weak era, then you could also argue that Fed was never pushed to show his best at the time when he would have been able to show it.
In the end it all comes down to opinion, not objective facts, which is what I wish more people would acknowledge. More often than not posters will either a) come down in favour of the player they like the most or b) against the player they dislike the most. As such it's hard to accept that such opinions are not inherently biased and not objective, and the stronger the emotion, the less the objectivity.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:You could say; for me Murray is even better - ok., but to state he is "head and shoulder" above two former n1 and multi slam Champions is just ridiculous. Hewitt won two Slams, 2 WTF and reached N1, are you going to give the right credit to these achievements or else?

You understand that saying that Hewitt today wouldn't be number one with the tournaments he won in 2002 is at risk of stripping the N1 from some 95% of open year former champs. I bet thay won't agree with it.

That is my honest appraisal, I mean Murray will most likely win at least another couple of slams, at least and make it quite clear how superior he is to Hewitt. He already about a little more than half way through his career has as many slams and way more masters. The fact that he can't get to higher than #3 in his career at this point shows how tough it is to be number #1 and the best as compared to the late 90s to mid 2000s, which was terribly poor period of tennis when comparing it to the incredible 80s and early to mid 90s or compared to what we have seen in the last few years. In short, I stand firmly behind my position that Murray is head and shoulders better than any of the rollover boys and a couple of more slams on his part will again show tennis fans how obviously correct my statement is.

banbrotam wrote:

socal1976 wrote:The fact remains not all periods of grandslam competition at the elite levels is equal, I mean many of the people who refuse to accept that Fed's contemporaries are weaker by a significant margin have no problem in pointing out the weakness of the young guys compared to those that came before them. So what keeps them from drawing this conclusion is there bias and love for Federer, not objective facts. Fed is the greatest therefore his competition in his heyday can not be weaker because he is so great.

   The rank hypocrisy of those (and only those) who love all things Roger, is never recognised by these people. Recently we had a poll where some people actually think Roger will be somewhere in the Top 3 by the end of next year. It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic  

Exactly, Banbro, this tooth and nail Stalingrad like defense of Roger's contemporaries and denunciation of weak eras is completely exposed at how quickly the same people point out how the game is dying because of how weak and soft the current crop of players are. So apparently, weak eras exist, but no era Federer dominated in could possibly be weak.

I thought it was the other way around. The rank hypocrisy that those who believe in 'weak eras' only accept that the period that Fed dominated was 'weak', not that any other period could possibly be 'weak', certainly not the current one.

Federer occupied a transition era between serve & volley dominated era (as regards grass & hard courts with clay courts favouring classic baseline style) to a baseline dominated era. It seems that technology (racket & strings) was the main determiner of this change in the sport. Nadal was the first to optimise himself to the new baseline dominated era (with help from Toni). Although Federer is generally labelled as a baseline player he is a more of an in-betweener (especially since he never developed a capable double handed back hand).

socal1976 wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:You could say; for me Murray is even better - ok., but to state he is "head and shoulder" above two former n1 and multi slam Champions is just ridiculous. Hewitt won two Slams, 2 WTF and reached N1, are you going to give the right credit to these achievements or else?

You understand that saying that Hewitt today wouldn't be number one with the tournaments he won in 2002 is at risk of stripping the N1 from some 95% of open year former champs. I bet thay won't agree with it.

That is my honest appraisal, I mean Murray will most likely win at least another couple of slams, at least and make it quite clear how superior he is to Hewitt. . In short, I stand firmly behind my position that Murray is head and shoulders better than any of the rollover boys and a couple of more slams on his part will again show tennis fans how obviously correct my statement is.

I never said it wasn't honest, I just said it was a tad ludicrous and I also stand quite firmly behind my position.  

I think two significant factors get missed in the 'era debate'.

1) Fedal W08, AO09. Fed Djokovic US11, RG11. Djoko Nadal US11, AO12, RG13, Madrid 09. Djoko Wawrinka AO13. Epic matches all of them. Did we get any similar battles in 00 - 06? Certainly not in such abundance.

2) How often we are 'wowed'. I consider Roddick, Nalby, Safin and especially Hewitt as very decent players. But they never stunned me in the way that Fed, Rafa, Novak and Andy have over the last few years. Seriously, does anyone here watch videos of Roddick etc and really think it's as impressive as the 'Big 4'?

I'm posing this as a genuine question. Does anyone here think tennis was better in 00 to 06 than it has been since 06?

Hard to say for my part HM. I certainly watched more tennis back then, because the players I was most interested in were playing - Agassi and Henman. So for me it was 'better' in that I got more enjoyment out of it.
I would expect the overall quality of tennis to have risen over the last decade - given the advances in strings, rackets, biomechanics, diets, fitness regimes etc - and also that each generation strives to surpass the previous one.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I thought it was the other way around. The rank hypocrisy that those who believe in 'weak eras' only accept that the period that Fed dominated was 'weak', not that any other period could possibly be 'weak', certainly not the current one.

Actually, I think if some of the young guys and second tier guys don't start developing soon we will be in another weak era. The three Rolls Royces are the ones that are driving this period at the moment. But the loss of fed as a great champion must be replaced by another couple of new guys coming up to win slams and challenge for the number 1. I have no problem in saying that the strong period of 08-13 may end completely in a couple of years time unless someone else comes along and raises their game to grandslam level. But so far I think Nadal, Djoko, and Murray's improvement have at least kept this strong period going. In fact I take the weak era back to before even Federer's rise, somewhere back to the late 90s 98/97 when Edberg/Becker/Lendl/Courier left and were not replaced. How is it possible that weak era is only about Federer when I draw the date of it back to the late 90s when fed was a teenager? In many ways Sampras and Agassi also benefitted from a weak era, but no one comes close to Federer in terms of being to pad their numbers against the rollover boys.

Nore Staat wrote:Federer occupied a transition era between serve & volley dominated era (as regards grass & hard courts with clay courts favouring classic baseline style) to a baseline dominated era.  It seems that technology (racket & strings) was the main determiner of this change in the sport.  Nadal was the first to optimise himself to the new baseline dominated era (with help from Toni).  Although Federer is generally labelled as a baseline player he is a more of an in-betweener (especially since he never developed a capable double handed back hand).

Technology, and conditions played a part but Federer a great player was able to adjust while other lesser players couldn't. You can call it transitional if you like that is just a diplomatic way of saying weak in my opinion. I mean the dark ages were also a transitional period on a historic scale between the renaissance and the death of the Roman Empire, transitional eras are usually not deemed to connote strength.

HM Murdoch wrote:I think two significant factors get missed in the 'era debate'.

1) Fedal W08, AO09. Fed Djokovic US11, RG11. Djoko Nadal US11, AO12, RG13, Madrid 09. Djoko Wawrinka AO13. Epic matches all of them. Did we get any similar battles in 00 - 06? Certainly not in such abundance.

2) How often we are 'wowed'. I consider Roddick, Nalby, Safin and especially Hewitt as very decent players. But they never stunned me in the way that Fed, Rafa, Novak and Andy have over the last few years. Seriously, does anyone here watch videos of Roddick etc and really think it's as impressive as the 'Big 4'?

I'm posing this as a genuine question. Does anyone here think tennis was better in 00 to 06 than it has been since 06?

I can't think of a more one dimensional and less polished grandslam champion than Roddick when he won the 03 USO. In fact Roddick became a much better player later in his career when he lost weight, improved his backhand, his slice backhand and volleys. The best Roddick ever was the Roddick of late 09 till mid 2010. He should have won that 09 final at wimby and in early 2010 he was a whisker away from winning the prestigious IW/Miami double. He won Miami and lost in the final of IW. And as for Hewitt the best year he ever had in terms of match wins, tournaments, slams, and Masters would have garnered him a #3 ranking today. Safin was a really great talent who just never applied himself like today's big 4; I don't even think Marat would argue that point.

JHM, it's the other way round for me.

I must admit, I didn't watch the tennis of 00 to 03 and think it was awful. I thought it was perfectly enjoyable at the time.

But the period in which we had Fed, Rafa, Novak and Andy has gripped me. It has been blockbuster entertainment!