All that glitters is not Golden
+12
lydian
sportslover
Josiah Maiestas
legendkillar
newballs
dummy_half
Simple_Analyst
Tenez
HM Murdock
wow
JuliusHMarx
bogbrush
16 posters
The v2 Forum :: Sport :: Tennis
Page 2 of 2
Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
All that glitters is not Golden
First topic message reminder :
I heard yesterday about the so-called "Golden Era" we now live in. Now we know that hyperbole is the stock in trade of the media but I thought perhaps we could be a little more critical in our thinking about this.
Let's look at exactly who makes up this Golden Era:
1. Novak Djokovic: an excellent player, made for the "new" game but with attributes to grace any period.
2. Rafa Nadal: another super player, a clay supremo in any era who has expanded his range as the game has come to him.
3. Roger Federer: far below his best at almost 30, the first suggestion that this may not be so Golden since he can easily maintain a position of 3 and continually challenge at the latter stages of Slams despite being well past his sell by date.
4. Andy Murray: a near fixture at 4 yet well below Slam winning level. I cannot see the difference between Murray and Nalbandian, except Nalbandian won the year end Masters event and is arguably the more talented.
5. Robin Soderling: a limited player.
6. David Ferrer: another player well past his best and a man on whom criticism of the early 2000s era is heaped, yet he was much better then than he is now yet he sits at 6.
7&8 Monfils and Fish. Enough said.
So we have two excellent players, and the rest is made up of two veterens, a solid but not-quite-there #4 and a poor 5.
Exactly what is "Golden" about this? I think part of the answer comes from the patriotic fervour surrounding the #4 which elevates him in the eyes of UK media, and sentimental attachment to the fading #3. Oh, and let's not forget viewing figures, which are rarely helped by suggesting the tournaments are nothing special.
This isn't a weak era; the concept is stupid anyway and only used by fools, but neither is this any kind of special period of excellence. It's a normal era. That doesn't suit TV of course, but it's the balanced fact.
I heard yesterday about the so-called "Golden Era" we now live in. Now we know that hyperbole is the stock in trade of the media but I thought perhaps we could be a little more critical in our thinking about this.
Let's look at exactly who makes up this Golden Era:
1. Novak Djokovic: an excellent player, made for the "new" game but with attributes to grace any period.
2. Rafa Nadal: another super player, a clay supremo in any era who has expanded his range as the game has come to him.
3. Roger Federer: far below his best at almost 30, the first suggestion that this may not be so Golden since he can easily maintain a position of 3 and continually challenge at the latter stages of Slams despite being well past his sell by date.
4. Andy Murray: a near fixture at 4 yet well below Slam winning level. I cannot see the difference between Murray and Nalbandian, except Nalbandian won the year end Masters event and is arguably the more talented.
5. Robin Soderling: a limited player.
6. David Ferrer: another player well past his best and a man on whom criticism of the early 2000s era is heaped, yet he was much better then than he is now yet he sits at 6.
7&8 Monfils and Fish. Enough said.
So we have two excellent players, and the rest is made up of two veterens, a solid but not-quite-there #4 and a poor 5.
Exactly what is "Golden" about this? I think part of the answer comes from the patriotic fervour surrounding the #4 which elevates him in the eyes of UK media, and sentimental attachment to the fading #3. Oh, and let's not forget viewing figures, which are rarely helped by suggesting the tournaments are nothing special.
This isn't a weak era; the concept is stupid anyway and only used by fools, but neither is this any kind of special period of excellence. It's a normal era. That doesn't suit TV of course, but it's the balanced fact.
bogbrush- Posts : 11169
Join date : 2011-04-13
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
Lol. What day, the catalyst for a Federer fan jubilee is Nadal losing a match. So Bogbrush agrees Federer is just a bad match up for Roddick then I see.
Simple_Analyst- Posts : 1386
Join date : 2011-05-13
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
I actually quite like Catalan Power cause besides disliking Federer, which I can easlily understand, he had some good knowledge of the game and wasn't so much pro-Nadal.
On the other hand UE was full of absurd comments and ideas and clearly very similar to SA.
On the other hand UE was full of absurd comments and ideas and clearly very similar to SA.
Tenez- Posts : 5865
Join date : 2011-03-03
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
Yea maybe Tenez..
Either way he is a miserable kid
Either way he is a miserable kid
Josiah Maiestas- Posts : 6700
Join date : 2011-06-05
Age : 35
Location : Towel Island
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
Simple_Analyst wrote:Lol. What day, the catalyst for a Federer fan jubilee is Nadal losing a match. So Bogbrush agrees Federer is just a bad match up for Roddick then I see.
I thank Nole from the bottom of my heart to make this era a very strong one for Nadal and halting his charge towards that elusive number 16.
wow- Posts : 939
Join date : 2011-06-01
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
Have to agree with Simple Analyst if anything tennis is just in the last couple of years coming out of what i would call a very weak era. Lets look at James Blake and Ivan ljubicic as top 5 players back in 2006 and that is all you need to know about how much better the current top 5 is than those guys. Plus Nadal was nowhere near his best. And neither was Djokovic and Murray. 5 years ago you had ljubi and blake in the top 5. Combined they have one master's title and one grandslam semi between the two of them. Today's tour the world #4 Andy murray has 3 finals appearances and 6 masters. Soderling has 1 master's and 2 finals appearances. Berdych has 1 master's and 1 finals appearance. That is one more final appearance than ljubi and blake combined. Even Tsonga a player not ranked in the top ten has one master's title and 2 semi appearances and 1 master's title in paris. In short after a young before his prime RAfa, and Federer there was little to nothing on the shelf in terms of talent and accomplishment.
socal1976- Posts : 14212
Join date : 2011-03-18
Location : southern california
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
socal1976 wrote:Have to agree with Simple Analyst if anything tennis is just in the last couple of years coming out of what i would call a very weak era.
And in 2 years time you will see very talented players able to outplay Djoko physically and talent wise and you will realise how weak this very era is/was.
Frankly, some fail to see the bigger picture here!
Tenez- Posts : 5865
Join date : 2011-03-03
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
I see the bigger picture fine, and having James blake (never won a master's or reached a grand slam semi) and Ljubici ( 1 masters 1 grandslam semi) in the top 5 kind of precludes strong era status. I think tennis from about 1999-2006 was a little down in talent. When Murray and Djoko began to make their push in 07 and later then the tour really strengthend as there was a real pack now hunting down Nadal and Fed. Also the emergence of del po, I think he will get back from injury and will be a top 5 player by next season if he can stay healthy.
socal1976- Posts : 14212
Join date : 2011-03-18
Location : southern california
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
Exactly that's the point as what glitters is not golden. The tour has changed, there have been several changes in ATP, tournaments and in the whole setup (e.g. grass at Wimby). During Fed era he was so dominant that he was winning everything, so it can be termed as not the weak era but the king was too strong.
It is not the case here, Fed has passed his best but he is still no. 3, murray has mental toughness issues, nadal and djoko plays too much physical game so why this era can be termed golden?
It is not the case here, Fed has passed his best but he is still no. 3, murray has mental toughness issues, nadal and djoko plays too much physical game so why this era can be termed golden?
wow- Posts : 939
Join date : 2011-06-01
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
No wow, it was weak. James Blake and Ljubi were weak top 5 players for any era. Did Roger Federer fall into ljubi's half of the draw every grandslam and knock him out before the semis? That would be mathematically impossible the same with James blake. The fact that Nadal who was still barely out of his teenage years and was way weaker in terms of his abilities both on serve and in terms of his variety could be such a dominant number 2 shows the difference. Novak came up around 2007 and brushed aside the Ljubis, blakes, and Davy's of the world as did Murray.
socal1976- Posts : 14212
Join date : 2011-03-18
Location : southern california
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
OK socal; and what do we say of a period where the 29 year old post-injury David Ferrer, the very embodiment of trying hard, is #6. And a 30 year old will go into the next Slam as #3 seed?
I'd be grateful if members could point me to the last time a 29/30 year old spent the whole year between #2 and #3.
"Golden Era" indeed, it's a farce. I'm NOT making a big deal of 2001-7, neither am I of 1991-2000. The point is that all this era stuff is nonsense.
I'd be grateful if members could point me to the last time a 29/30 year old spent the whole year between #2 and #3.
"Golden Era" indeed, it's a farce. I'm NOT making a big deal of 2001-7, neither am I of 1991-2000. The point is that all this era stuff is nonsense.
bogbrush- Posts : 11169
Join date : 2011-04-13
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
Bogbrush, i for one don't discount people's accomplishments and say that weak eras reflect badly on great champions. The players have to win with the competition, and conditions they are given. While I believe that over time tennis gets better, this is not always a lineal progression. Sometimes we have period where the game moves forward two steps and then takes a step back. Frankly, I think tennis had a lengthy golden age that went from the late 70s and early 80s up till the early to mid 90s. From late 90s to around 2006, it was what I call a step back in terms of quality of play. Fed was great from 03-06 but it took a while for the rest of the tour to adjust to his dominance and up there level. And also it took a little while for his skills to degrade to give others a chance to win. But I really think that when the Murray, Djoko, Nadal, Del Po group that came up are sort of a golden generation of talent, and we will only really see what they can do in the next 3 to 4 years.
socal1976- Posts : 14212
Join date : 2011-03-18
Location : southern california
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
The problem here is that everyone seems to think that a top ten in a 'strong era' will be filled from number 1 to number 10 with multiple grand slam and masters series winners. I don't think this will ever be the case, simply because the players ranked the highest will win the majority of the tournaments by default (they must do to maintain their ranking), meaning the players below will be left to look poor in comparison. This seems to be the crux of the argument here; that the likes of Soderling, Ferrer and Monfils are poor players because they have not had the same degree of success as the players above them. There's almost a 'conservation of quality' effect at play here; poorer players at the very top means that the titles are shared out more evenly between the top ten - this could give the illusion of a great era, with players competing evenly for Grand Slam titles, when in fact it's actually the opposite. This is what happened in the brief timespan between the end of the Sampras era and the beginning of the Federer one.
Chazfazzer- Posts : 359
Join date : 2011-06-01
Location : London
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
'I'd be grateful if members could point me to the last time a 29/30 year old spent the whole year between #2 and #3.'
That 29/30 year old is Roger Federer! A player who's won 16 Grand Slams will always be a great player, even if he's lost half a step of pace around the court.
That 29/30 year old is Roger Federer! A player who's won 16 Grand Slams will always be a great player, even if he's lost half a step of pace around the court.
Chazfazzer- Posts : 359
Join date : 2011-06-01
Location : London
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
Well socal I'd wholeheartedly agree that 2011 is a new high point in the physical excellence of players, but not on skill. Let's not forget the help the new strings give to retrievers and hard hitters.
Now hand the top 10 a wooden Dunlop racquet with a tiny sweet spot and gut strings, give them 3 months to practise and what might we see?
Now hand the top 10 a wooden Dunlop racquet with a tiny sweet spot and gut strings, give them 3 months to practise and what might we see?
bogbrush- Posts : 11169
Join date : 2011-04-13
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
Chazz, that is true but to an extent. Take the case of James blake a top 4 player in 2006 who could never reach a grandslam semi. The argument goes that since Fed was great others didn't have a chance to shine. But not even one master's, not one grandslam semi? Federer wasn't knocking Ljubi and Blake out of every slam! Look at soderling today, soderling has played in 2 grandslam finals and won a master's event. Already makes him way more accomplished than Blake or Ljubi ever was. You can compare like to like. As for Ferrer he is very consistent but he never wins anything, he is a guy who gets his ranking points from consistently making the quarters of all the events. Just compare murray's accomplishments as #4 world to then James Blake who was #4 in the world. Murray has had to deal with Fed and Nadal in their peak he still has 6 master's crowns and three final appearances. James Blake has zero and zero, I don't even remember blake ever winning an ATP 500 event even.
socal1976- Posts : 14212
Join date : 2011-03-18
Location : southern california
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
Bogbrush, why just stop at tennis. Why don't we go back in football and require that all the players smoke cigarettes at half time and spend every night drinking till 2 in the morning like the good ole days of 50s and 60s. Every sport is faster and more physical. New technological advances have been part of the sport of tennis since the late 70s. And since then the game has been getting more and more physical moving away from the country club sport of the 50s and 60s to the big money sport it is today. That is a natural progression in all modern sport and it didn't just start with Nadal.
socal1976- Posts : 14212
Join date : 2011-03-18
Location : southern california
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
If you want to bring another sport into it I'd agree that playing around with the balls has made it easy to do what only extrordinary players could do in the 70's - bend it all over the place. Now a show pony can toe-poke it and surprise surprise it wobbles all over the place.
I am not objecting to the fitness, that's great. I do regret the disappearance of the inspirational touch player because of the changes in equipment.
I am not objecting to the fitness, that's great. I do regret the disappearance of the inspirational touch player because of the changes in equipment.
bogbrush- Posts : 11169
Join date : 2011-04-13
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
Well, I think players today have to be well rounded. Djokovic is seen as a poor volleyer, but yesterday he made quite a few successful net forays against Nadal. I would rate murray as a very good touch or finesse player. Really if you want to look at it strictly the last great finesse touch player was John Mcenroe. And even back in the early 80s the power baseline game started to overwhelm mac and it took about a decade or so for the serve and volleyers to slowly dissapear. Players today at the top still have to have touch and ability to do different things to win. That is sort of the lesson we can take from Nadal, in that he has been winning with plan A, but now someone is around that takes that away from him and if he wants to continue to enjoy his type of success he has to add and strengthen different areas of his game. Personally, I don't want the Isner's and Karlovic's of the world lifting wimbeldon titles. The old style tennis lent itself to a lot of specialist players who just won on big serves and nothing else. I hate that style of tennis even more than grinders with no power and weapons. The modern game you need weapons but you also need speed and fitness, I don't have a problem with it.
socal1976- Posts : 14212
Join date : 2011-03-18
Location : southern california
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
bogbrush wrote:I am not objecting to the fitness, that's great. I do regret the disappearance of the inspirational touch player because of the changes in equipment.
So do I. It started with the arrival of that young generation that learnt to play the game with larger frames. We could see Becker whack the ball past McEnroe or send him a ball his lovely tough coudl not control...as well. Even more so later v Sampras.
If you look at Federer returning, you can see he learnt it old school with natural gut strings. It meant standing close to the baseline and block the return as early as possible to use the serve's pace.
A typical example of technology/technique Federer suffered against the current new generation is about the return of serve. Federer has in my view the best eye/hand coordination but his returns are not as good as those new players who can stand further back allowing them to pick up the right side but have the time to swing the racquet and use Luxilon string to compensate for the loss of pace for taking the ball later than Fed. Clearly there Federer would have learnt to return like Djoko and the others had he learnt the game more recently.
That's another reason why comparing eras strengths are plain wrong.
Tenez- Posts : 5865
Join date : 2011-03-03
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
I think we all miss some of the "old school" tennis at times - they need to increase the height of the net 6 inches...lol.
Re: hand-eye cordination, sorry but for me that's hands down Agassi. If anyone saw him destroy Mark Woodforde 6-0 6-0 on a quick indoor carpet court in 1995 at Vienna EA Trophy they would agree that was an awesome spectacle.
Re: hand-eye cordination, sorry but for me that's hands down Agassi. If anyone saw him destroy Mark Woodforde 6-0 6-0 on a quick indoor carpet court in 1995 at Vienna EA Trophy they would agree that was an awesome spectacle.
lydian- Posts : 9178
Join date : 2011-04-30
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
lydian wrote:I think we all miss some of the "old school" tennis at times - they need to increase the height of the net 6 inches...lol.
Re: hand-eye cordination, sorry but for me that's hands down Agassi. If anyone saw him destroy Mark Woodforde 6-0 6-0 on a quick indoor carpet court in 1995 at Vienna EA Trophy they would agree that was an awesome spectacle.
Agassi could not return Sampras serve at Wimbledon.....Federer could!
Tenez- Posts : 5865
Join date : 2011-03-03
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
lydian wrote:I think we all miss some of the "old school" tennis at times - they need to increase the height of the net 6 inches...lol.
Re: hand-eye cordination, sorry but for me that's hands down Agassi. If anyone saw him destroy Mark Woodforde 6-0 6-0 on a quick indoor carpet court in 1995 at Vienna EA Trophy they would agree that was an awesome spectacle.
You are Toni Nadal and I claim my £5.
bogbrush- Posts : 11169
Join date : 2011-04-13
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
Poor old Blake and Ljubicic - bet they never thought they would be argued as the yardstick for mediocrity in tennis.
For the record, they were together in the top 5 at the same time for a grand total of 12 weeks in the latter half of 2006 (those were Blake's only 12 weeks in the top 5, Ljubicic was in the top 5 for about 6 months).
For the record, they were together in the top 5 at the same time for a grand total of 12 weeks in the latter half of 2006 (those were Blake's only 12 weeks in the top 5, Ljubicic was in the top 5 for about 6 months).
JuliusHMarx- julius
- Posts : 22571
Join date : 2011-07-01
Location : Paisley Park
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
Yes Julius, to listen to the weak-era proponents you'd think James sat at the top table throughout the period.
The 2003-7 era was..... normal, except that it was dominated by an extraordinary player who made everyone look ordinary, except one clay expert.
The "Golden Era" is a sham based on patriotism for the #4 and sentiment for the #3, who by hanging around at that level is proving the period to have no depth at all. David Ferrer makes a mess of the whole idea, being at #6 when well past his best and failing to break into the top when at his peak during the alleged "weak era".
The 2003-7 era was..... normal, except that it was dominated by an extraordinary player who made everyone look ordinary, except one clay expert.
The "Golden Era" is a sham based on patriotism for the #4 and sentiment for the #3, who by hanging around at that level is proving the period to have no depth at all. David Ferrer makes a mess of the whole idea, being at #6 when well past his best and failing to break into the top when at his peak during the alleged "weak era".
bogbrush- Posts : 11169
Join date : 2011-04-13
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
Of course Federer did make every one look ordinary especially when you consider the lower the players ranking, the better he actually was. The so-called top players at that time couldn't wait to get knocked out at round 2 in slams by whoever plays that day. When you have Baghdatis ranked 54 making slam finals or Roddick wagging his tail at the thought master Federer tickling him again in a slam match, you know the era has a problem. .
Simple_Analyst- Posts : 1386
Join date : 2011-05-13
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
Indeed, when you have a wild-card winning Wimbledon or Chris Lewis reaching the final or Petr Korda winning a slam, you know the era has a problem. Or it's a normal era.
JuliusHMarx- julius
- Posts : 22571
Join date : 2011-07-01
Location : Paisley Park
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
Lol I don't know about Carl Lewis but comparing Baghdatis to Petr Korda is an insult in itself.
Last edited by Simple_Analyst on Tue 05 Jul 2011, 9:49 am; edited 1 time in total
Simple_Analyst- Posts : 1386
Join date : 2011-05-13
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
Simple_Analyst wrote:Of course Federer did make every one look ordinary especially when you consider the lower the players ranking, the better he actually was. The so-called top players at that time couldn't wait to get knocked out at round 2 in slams by whoever plays that day. When you have Baghdatis ranked 54 making slam finals or Roddick wagging his tail at the thought master Federer tickling him again in a slam match, you know the era has a problem. .
You do recall that Baghdatis was a very good player until ravaged by injury, don't you? Indeed post-injury Baggy took a set off Djokovic and was competitive throughout in this Wimbledon.
Ah well, don't let facts get in the way of worshipping Nadal!
bogbrush- Posts : 11169
Join date : 2011-04-13
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
Chris Lewis, not Carl Lewis - Wimbledon finalist 1983.
Surely you don't rate Korda as a great player? Well past his best when he won the AO. But the point is that these one-offs can happen in any era.
Surely you don't rate Korda as a great player? Well past his best when he won the AO. But the point is that these one-offs can happen in any era.
JuliusHMarx- julius
- Posts : 22571
Join date : 2011-07-01
Location : Paisley Park
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
Simple_Analyst wrote:Lol I don't know about Carl Lewis but comparing Baghdatis to Petr Korda is an insult in itself.
"Carl" Lewis
Says it all really.
bogbrush- Posts : 11169
Join date : 2011-04-13
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
Oh the moral victory I see. Me writing Carl Lewis confirms weak era 2003-2007 never existed.
Oh the costly error of mentioning the great athlete.
Oh the costly error of mentioning the great athlete.
Simple_Analyst- Posts : 1386
Join date : 2011-05-13
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
No, it just underpins that your knowledge of tennis appears sketchy. Yesterday you spent half the time stating that you don't believe in match-up differences before finally accepting they do.
Now this.
Now this.
bogbrush- Posts : 11169
Join date : 2011-04-13
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
Simple_Analyst wrote:Me writing Carl Lewis confirms weak era 2003-2007 never existed
Not at all, I simply corrected the mistake without commenting on it. But Chris Lewis reaching the 1983 Wimby final doesn't mean that 1983 was a weak era, anymore than your example of Bagdhatis does for 2003-2007.
Similarly, citing James Blake as a top 5 player for 12 weeks in 2006 hardly covers 2003-2007.
What exactly was the difference between August 2007 and Jan 2008? Or June 2002 and Jan 2003?
JuliusHMarx- julius
- Posts : 22571
Join date : 2011-07-01
Location : Paisley Park
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
bogbrush wrote:No, it just underpins that your knowledge of tennis appears sketchy. Yesterday you spent half the time stating that you don't believe in match-up differences before finally accepting they do.
Now this.
Yet you 24 hrs later you still haven't answered the simple theory; Federer is not a better player than Roddick, just a bad match up.
Ever care to tell why Djokovic who is suppose to be a bad match up for Nadal lost 16 times to him? Simple really yet so hard for you to understand.
Simple_Analyst- Posts : 1386
Join date : 2011-05-13
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
Well you don't answer theories, you answer questions, but pedantry aside the answers are so obvious even a child could discern them. I hoped you wouldn't need the help, but since you keep pleading for it here goes:
1. Federer, as well as being far more talented than Roddick, actually IS a very bad match for Andy because his strength negated Andys main strength - the serve. That's why he always gets out-aced by a man serving 20mph slower. The double-whammy of better AND match up is what gives you the ridiculous h2h.
2. Djokovic trails Nadal because his fitness and mentality were far behind. That said, even though playing at a much lower level and being beaten by all & sundry at Slams, he continued to give Nadal tougher matches than one might have expected, especially some clay meetings. They especially had some very tight matches such as Madrid '09.
Are we clear now?
1. Federer, as well as being far more talented than Roddick, actually IS a very bad match for Andy because his strength negated Andys main strength - the serve. That's why he always gets out-aced by a man serving 20mph slower. The double-whammy of better AND match up is what gives you the ridiculous h2h.
2. Djokovic trails Nadal because his fitness and mentality were far behind. That said, even though playing at a much lower level and being beaten by all & sundry at Slams, he continued to give Nadal tougher matches than one might have expected, especially some clay meetings. They especially had some very tight matches such as Madrid '09.
Are we clear now?
bogbrush- Posts : 11169
Join date : 2011-04-13
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
Let's say Player A and player B enter the same 100 tournaments. Player A wins 95 of them without playing Player B, who loses to other people. In the other 5 tournaments, Player B beats Player A in the final.
My conclusion would be that Player A is the better player (95 tournament wins against 5) but Player B is a bad match-up for him, holding a 5-0 H2H.
Other people may disagree with my conclusion depending on whether they regard H2H as more important than tournamant wins - that part of it is purely personal opinion.
In the case of Fed/Roddick, Fed wins more tournaments and has the H2H lead, so is both a better player and a bad match-up.
My conclusion would be that Player A is the better player (95 tournament wins against 5) but Player B is a bad match-up for him, holding a 5-0 H2H.
Other people may disagree with my conclusion depending on whether they regard H2H as more important than tournamant wins - that part of it is purely personal opinion.
In the case of Fed/Roddick, Fed wins more tournaments and has the H2H lead, so is both a better player and a bad match-up.
JuliusHMarx- julius
- Posts : 22571
Join date : 2011-07-01
Location : Paisley Park
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
2006 Winners (Blake, Ljubicic)
IW - Federer bt Blake (Federer bt Ljubicic)
Miami - Federer bt Ljubicic (Federer bt Blake)
MC - Nadal bt Federer (Blake DNP, Gonzalez bt Ljubicic)
Rome - Nadal bt Federer (Serra bt Blake, Hrbaty bt Ljubicic)
Hamburg - Robredo bt Stepanek (Ancic bt Blake, Acasuso bt Ljubicic)
Montreal - Federer bt Gasquet (Gasquet bt Blake, Gonzalez bt Ljubicic)
Cincy - Roddick bt Ferrero (Ferrero bt Blake, Robredo bt Ljubicic)
Madrid - Federer bt Gonzalez (Vliegen bt Blake, Murray bt Ljubicic)
Paris - Davydenko bt Hrbaty (Haas bt Blake, Ljubicic DNP)
Top 20 (18 Dec 2006)
1 Federer, Roger (SUI) 8,370 0 19
2 Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 4,470 0 19
3 Davydenko, Nikolay (RUS) 2,825 0 32
4 Blake, James (USA) 2,530 0 26
5 Ljubicic, Ivan (CRO) 2,495 0 22
6 Roddick, Andy (USA) 2,415 0 21
7 Robredo, Tommy (ESP) 2,375 0 27
8 Nalbandian, David (ARG) 2,295 0 17
9 Ancic, Mario (CRO) 2,060 0 24
10 Gonzalez, Fernando (CHI) 2,015 0 20
11 Haas, Tommy (GER) 1,890 0 23
12 Baghdatis, Marcos (CYP) 1,860 0 23
13 Berdych, Tomas (CZE) 1,705 0 25
14 Ferrer, David (ESP) 1,475 0 25
15 Nieminen, Jarkko (FIN) 1,460 0 28
16 Djokovic, Novak (SRB) 1,380 0 21
17 Murray, Andy (GBR) 1,370 0 26
18 Gasquet, Richard (FRA) 1,365 0 25
19 Stepanek, Radek (CZE) 1,340 0 21
20 Hewitt, Lleyton (AUS) 1,315 0 21
If 2006 is a 'Wea Keira' then look at #2, #3, #8, #12 (took a set of the current world #1), #13 (W 2010 finalist), #16 (current #1), #17 (current #4), #18 (current #11).
IW - Federer bt Blake (Federer bt Ljubicic)
Miami - Federer bt Ljubicic (Federer bt Blake)
MC - Nadal bt Federer (Blake DNP, Gonzalez bt Ljubicic)
Rome - Nadal bt Federer (Serra bt Blake, Hrbaty bt Ljubicic)
Hamburg - Robredo bt Stepanek (Ancic bt Blake, Acasuso bt Ljubicic)
Montreal - Federer bt Gasquet (Gasquet bt Blake, Gonzalez bt Ljubicic)
Cincy - Roddick bt Ferrero (Ferrero bt Blake, Robredo bt Ljubicic)
Madrid - Federer bt Gonzalez (Vliegen bt Blake, Murray bt Ljubicic)
Paris - Davydenko bt Hrbaty (Haas bt Blake, Ljubicic DNP)
Top 20 (18 Dec 2006)
1 Federer, Roger (SUI) 8,370 0 19
2 Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 4,470 0 19
3 Davydenko, Nikolay (RUS) 2,825 0 32
4 Blake, James (USA) 2,530 0 26
5 Ljubicic, Ivan (CRO) 2,495 0 22
6 Roddick, Andy (USA) 2,415 0 21
7 Robredo, Tommy (ESP) 2,375 0 27
8 Nalbandian, David (ARG) 2,295 0 17
9 Ancic, Mario (CRO) 2,060 0 24
10 Gonzalez, Fernando (CHI) 2,015 0 20
11 Haas, Tommy (GER) 1,890 0 23
12 Baghdatis, Marcos (CYP) 1,860 0 23
13 Berdych, Tomas (CZE) 1,705 0 25
14 Ferrer, David (ESP) 1,475 0 25
15 Nieminen, Jarkko (FIN) 1,460 0 28
16 Djokovic, Novak (SRB) 1,380 0 21
17 Murray, Andy (GBR) 1,370 0 26
18 Gasquet, Richard (FRA) 1,365 0 25
19 Stepanek, Radek (CZE) 1,340 0 21
20 Hewitt, Lleyton (AUS) 1,315 0 21
If 2006 is a 'Wea Keira' then look at #2, #3, #8, #12 (took a set of the current world #1), #13 (W 2010 finalist), #16 (current #1), #17 (current #4), #18 (current #11).
laverfan- Moderator
- Posts : 11252
Join date : 2011-04-07
Location : NoVA, USoA
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
JuliusHMarx wrote:Let's say Player A and player B enter the same 100 tournaments. Player A wins 95 of them without playing Player B, who loses to other people. In the other 5 tournaments, Player B beats Player A in the final.
My conclusion would be that Player A is the better player (95 tournament wins against 5) but Player B is a bad match-up for him, holding a 5-0 H2H.
Other people may disagree with my conclusion depending on whether they regard H2H as more important than tournamant wins - that part of it is purely personal opinion.
In the case of Fed/Roddick, Fed wins more tournaments and has the H2H lead, so is both a better player and a bad match-up.
Indeed and the lastest illustration of this is between Federer Djoko and Nadal.
Djoko finds it easier to play Nadal than Federer. I am pretty sure. Cause Djoko knows that v Nadal, the match is in his racquet, versus Federer, it very much depends on which Federer turns up.
Tenez- Posts : 5865
Join date : 2011-03-03
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
What I always find odd is that if 2003 - 2007 is meant to be a 'weak' era, surely there must be other 'weak' years like this time frame? Otherwise it does look rather dubious because it coincides with the years Federer was dominant and of course, that's just incidental, right? Or perhaps the idea being peddled is that he's somehow only capable of winning in a 'weak' era.
I would like to know what other years are 'weak' years, because it can't be the case that somehow the weak years only happened recently, they must have happened before too. This is a highly subjective argument from those who suggest weak eras, most of it seems to come from Nadal (occasionally Djokovic) fans, that doesn't necessarily undermine the validity of the argument though. What does undermine is that I've never seen any of them give any other years apart from 2003 - 2007. It might make sense not to take too seriously what the media and pundits say (about a golden era), most of them didn't even think Djokovic stood a chance against Nadal and we seen how wrong they were about that. We got some great tennis players, that much I'll agree with.
I would like to know what other years are 'weak' years, because it can't be the case that somehow the weak years only happened recently, they must have happened before too. This is a highly subjective argument from those who suggest weak eras, most of it seems to come from Nadal (occasionally Djokovic) fans, that doesn't necessarily undermine the validity of the argument though. What does undermine is that I've never seen any of them give any other years apart from 2003 - 2007. It might make sense not to take too seriously what the media and pundits say (about a golden era), most of them didn't even think Djokovic stood a chance against Nadal and we seen how wrong they were about that. We got some great tennis players, that much I'll agree with.
luciusmann- Posts : 1582
Join date : 2011-06-06
Age : 40
Location : London, UK
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
luciusmann wrote:What I always find odd is that if 2003 - 2007 is meant to be a 'weak' era, surely there must be other 'weak' years like this time frame? Otherwise it does look rather dubious because it coincides with the years Federer was dominant and of course, that's just incidental, right? Or perhaps the idea being peddled is that he's somehow only capable of winning in a 'weak' era.
I would like to know what other years are 'weak' years, because it can't be the case that somehow the weak years only happened recently, they must have happened before too. This is a highly subjective argument from those who suggest weak eras, most of it seems to come from Nadal (occasionally Djokovic) fans, that doesn't necessarily undermine the validity of the argument though. What does undermine is that I've never seen any of them give any other years apart from 2003 - 2007. It might make sense not to take too seriously what the media and pundits say (about a golden era), most of them didn't even think Djokovic stood a chance against Nadal and we seen how wrong they were about that. We got some great tennis players, that much I'll agree with.
Great post.
The golden era malarky is just a media fabrication.
Have you not noticed?
Everything in life is supposed to be bigger, stronger, faster, better.
Such is the nature of the world in which we live. Hyperbole and sensationalism. The present is lauded whilst the achievements of the past lose their sheen.
Guest- Guest
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
The golden era in tennis is when the popularity of the sport is at its max or increases x folds. That popularity is down to the personalities in the sport. Nothing to do with talent as we know fans at large can't identify talent, let alone measure it.
It's difficult to argue against the Borg/McEnroe/Connors/Lendl era where perosnalities coudl really express themselves on the court. McEnroe should probably have beeen the most popular if popularity was measured by tennis talent but he probably was the least for a long while.
Nowadays, players can;t afforad to have too much personality on court and therefore it;s harder to warm up to the game. Yet the sport is probably at its peak in terms of fans following it.
Federer and even more so Nadal are certainly hugely responsible for this rise in interest. Federer for his sheer talent and Nadal for his personality and look that certainly hooked up a big share of the women around teh world.
On the other end, Davydenko is at the opposite end of the spectrum. Lb for lb he may be 4 times more talented than Nadal but his cold look and rare baby hair on his nearly bald head won;t do anything to make the game popular....except for the real fans of the game....but that's a minority and not what makes teh sport rich and successful.
It's difficult to argue against the Borg/McEnroe/Connors/Lendl era where perosnalities coudl really express themselves on the court. McEnroe should probably have beeen the most popular if popularity was measured by tennis talent but he probably was the least for a long while.
Nowadays, players can;t afforad to have too much personality on court and therefore it;s harder to warm up to the game. Yet the sport is probably at its peak in terms of fans following it.
Federer and even more so Nadal are certainly hugely responsible for this rise in interest. Federer for his sheer talent and Nadal for his personality and look that certainly hooked up a big share of the women around teh world.
On the other end, Davydenko is at the opposite end of the spectrum. Lb for lb he may be 4 times more talented than Nadal but his cold look and rare baby hair on his nearly bald head won;t do anything to make the game popular....except for the real fans of the game....but that's a minority and not what makes teh sport rich and successful.
Tenez- Posts : 5865
Join date : 2011-03-03
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
Tenez wrote:The golden era in tennis is when the popularity of the sport is at its max or increases x folds. That popularity is down to the personalities in the sport. Nothing to do with talent as we know fans at large can't identify talent, let alone measure it.
It's difficult to argue against the Borg/McEnroe/Connors/Lendl era where perosnalities coudl really express themselves on the court. McEnroe should probably have beeen the most popular if popularity was measured by tennis talent but he probably was the least for a long while.
Nowadays, players can;t afforad to have too much personality on court and therefore it;s harder to warm up to the game. Yet the sport is probably at its peak in terms of fans following it.
Federer and even more so Nadal are certainly hugely responsible for this rise in interest. Federer for his sheer talent and Nadal for his personality and look that certainly hooked up a big share of the women around teh world.
On the other end, Davydenko is at the opposite end of the spectrum. Lb for lb he may be 4 times more talented than Nadal but his cold look and rare baby hair on his nearly bald head won;t do anything to make the game popular....except for the real fans of the game....but that's a minority and not what makes teh sport rich and successful.
"Davy four times more talented than Nadal" - If Fools & Horses decide to run a new series and are looking for a scriptwriter to replace John Sullivan - put your name forward
sportslover- Posts : 1066
Join date : 2011-02-25
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
emancipator, this is correct.
I didn't include it in the original article, but this "Golden Era" nonsense isn't just restricted to tennis; apparantly F1 is now supposedly in one, Barcelona are allegedly the best football team ever seen. I even heard David Haye compared to the young Cassius Clay the other night (before toegate, obviously). It's just the media needing to pander to short attention span public to keep the figures up.
I didn't include it in the original article, but this "Golden Era" nonsense isn't just restricted to tennis; apparantly F1 is now supposedly in one, Barcelona are allegedly the best football team ever seen. I even heard David Haye compared to the young Cassius Clay the other night (before toegate, obviously). It's just the media needing to pander to short attention span public to keep the figures up.
bogbrush- Posts : 11169
Join date : 2011-04-13
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
bogbrush wrote:Well you don't answer theories, you answer questions, but pedantry aside the answers are so obvious even a child could discern them. I hoped you wouldn't need the help, but since you keep pleading for it here goes:
1. Federer, as well as being far more talented than Roddick, actually IS a very bad match for Andy because his strength negated Andys main strength - the serve. That's why he always gets out-aced by a man serving 20mph slower. The double-whammy of better AND match up is what gives you the ridiculous h2h.
2. Djokovic trails Nadal because his fitness and mentality were far behind. That said, even though playing at a much lower level and being beaten by all & sundry at Slams, he continued to give Nadal tougher matches than one might have expected, especially some clay meetings. They especially had some very tight matches such as Madrid '09.
Are we clear now?
So in short Nadal is a far better player and also more talented than Federer. The bad match up also comes from exposing the technically poor Federer backhand. This is easier than I thought. Care to tell me how Federer is a bad match up for all players he dominates?
Simple_Analyst- Posts : 1386
Join date : 2011-05-13
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
Be reasonable S L, Tenez was far more discerning about what would happen in Wimbledon than many others. He was correct that if Djokovic kept the rallies going Nadal would pull the trigger first, I lost count how many times Nadal did that. This is in addition to predicting Djokovic winning too. I believe you were predicting a Nadal win in 4 maybe 5 sets because of Djokovic's lack of encounters on grass with Nadal.
Of course that doesn't mean I agree with Tenez on everything though, but he does know a thing or two about tennis.
Of course that doesn't mean I agree with Tenez on everything though, but he does know a thing or two about tennis.
Last edited by luciusmann on Tue 05 Jul 2011, 2:46 pm; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : updated)
luciusmann- Posts : 1582
Join date : 2011-06-06
Age : 40
Location : London, UK
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
S_A care to comment on my posts re: weak era start/end dates and how H2H can show bad match-ups without necessarily showing the better player?
JuliusHMarx- julius
- Posts : 22571
Join date : 2011-07-01
Location : Paisley Park
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
James Blake in his prime was an awful match uo for Rafa, was 3-0 up head2head
Josiah Maiestas- Posts : 6700
Join date : 2011-06-05
Age : 35
Location : Towel Island
Re: All that glitters is not Golden
sportslover wrote:
"Davy four times more talented than Nadal" - If Fools & Horses decide to run a new series and are looking for a scriptwriter to replace John Sullivan - put your name forward
Exactly what I was talking in my earlier thread. Fans at large don't recognise talent in today's game.
Tenez- Posts : 5865
Join date : 2011-03-03
Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Similar topics
» Golden Era my A** !!!!
» The Golden Era
» Fed's Golden Opportunity #2
» The Golden Oldies
» What was your "Golden Era" for tennis??
» The Golden Era
» Fed's Golden Opportunity #2
» The Golden Oldies
» What was your "Golden Era" for tennis??
The v2 Forum :: Sport :: Tennis
Page 2 of 2
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
|
|