2006 vs 2011 Which era/top 4 was better

The top 4 in Oct 2011 vs the top 4 May 2006:

2011:
Djokovic
Nadal
Murray
Federer

2006:
Federer
Nadal
Ljubicic
Hewitt

There has been a lot of heated debate about which era was better:
This is my verdict:

Djokovic 2011 vs Fed 2006= Draw- close call
Nadal 2011 vs Nadal 2006= Nadal 2011 no question
Murray 2011 vs Ljubicic 2006= Murray -Ljubicic has not reached a GS semi. Once did well in Miami though.
Federer 2011 vs Roddick 2006= Federer, obviously

Therefore: 3-0 to 2011's top players.

Amritia, i'm disappointed in you.Why drag a great era like 2010,11 etc, part of the Golden years of tennis and compare it to the anals of tennis years, 2006?
A more respectable comparison will be the Golden years of the 80s and 90s.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Amritia, i'm disappointed in you.Why drag a great era like 2010,11 etc, part of the Golden years of tennis and compare it to the anals of tennis years, 2006?
A more respectable comparison will be the Golden years of the 80s and 90s.

Well I agree with you that 2011 was better- as you can see in my verdict.
Nevertheless I was still curious as to what the rest of v2 thought- after some posters today alleged that 2006 was better.

Well Federer fans have a strange sense of humour no matter how shameful it is. I for one will like to see and indepth comparison of the 80s golden years to the current one.

Perhaps you can do an article on that?

To be honest i don't necessarily have much interest in long articles or debating long points that much these days. I'll write sometime though and the result will be close but Murray will be the weakest link in such the analysis.

I hope this article is not a deliberate attempt to windup the likes of Tenez & bogbrush

sportslover wrote:I hope this article is not a deliberate attempt to windup the likes of Tenez & bogbrush

Well they've been arguing that 2006 is better...

I'm not convinced a week is an era, unless perhaps you're a fruit fly.
I voted 2006 purely on the assumption the OP would think anyone who voted 2006 must be an idiot.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I'm not convinced a week is an era, unless perhaps you're a fruit fly.
I voted 2006 purely on the assumption the OP would think anyone who voted 2006 must be an idiot.

Are you an idiot? Only you know the answer to that...

JuliusHMarx wrote:I'm not convinced a week is an era, unless perhaps you're a fruit fly.
I voted 2006 purely on the assumption the OP would think anyone who voted 2006 must be an idiot.

Well I just took a random pick. tbh looking at the stats- Roddick spent most of the year at number 3 and Ljubicic at number 4. It wouldn't really make a difference though, would it.

Well Julius that's unfortunately the case. However we will just count how mant voted 2006 to accurately determined how many Federer fans voted. 2 so far.

But even Federer himself admitted 2011 is better

Ljubicic was the No.3 the player in 2006 - he has made one slam semi and amassed one Masters title in his career, (which incidentally only came when he was in his thirties ) - how weak an era was that!!!

And if you throw in Blake, Ancic & Fernando Gonzales for good measure who helped make up the top ten how much stronger does it become

Superb analysis sportslover-

amritia3ee wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:I'm not convinced a week is an era, unless perhaps you're a fruit fly.
I voted 2006 purely on the assumption the OP would think anyone who voted 2006 must be an idiot.

Are you an idiot? Only you know the answer to that...

Yes I am. Now we all know. Trust me, it'll save time in the long run.

Actually the whole concept of weak eras is beyond stupid. It's usually based on a logical epic fail of trying to make out that because some players do/don't win Slams it makes the era strong/weak, forgetting there are 4 to be won every year and so by Slam measurement criteria all years are equal.

If every player only made one semi, maybe that was a staggeringly strong era. Or not. Actually you can't tell from that data.

I can think of a few posters, some on this thread, who are going to be unable to grasp this.

I've not said anything about 'weak era.'
I just asked which Top 4 were of higher quality.

As you voted for 2006 you must think Roddick is better than Federer. Interesting I must say.

amritia3ee wrote:I've not said anything about 'weak era.'
I just asked which Top 4 were of higher quality.

As you voted for 2006 you must think Roddick is better than Federer. Interesting I must say.

See what I mean about logic failures?

I was talking the urine m8

Bogbrush has voted. Now we have had 4 Federer fans voting. Congratulations Amritia, you have accurately helped us know, for every 5 sensible tennis fan here, there are 4 Federer fans too.

Oh yeah, of course you were.......

I still can't understand how even the most biased Fedfan can vote 2006 when Fed himself has said the quality is currently higher.
To achieve overall majority, as long as there are no ties, you need one year to have 3 votes. We can safely assume Fed fans would rate Fed higher than Roddick and Djokovic. Which means they think either;
Nadal 2006 is better than Nadal 2011 which he isn't,
AND Ljubicic is better than Murray.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Bogbrush has voted. Now we have had 4 Federer fans voting. Congratulations Amritia, you have accurately helped us know, for every 5 sensible tennis fan here, there are 4 Federer fans too.

Yep, there's another logic failure. This one was only a matter of time of course.

Why would the guy who doesn't believe in weak eras vote for one over another?

I haven't voted. Do you follow this?

amritia3ee wrote:I still can't understand how even the most biased Fedfan can vote 2006 when Fed himself has said the quality is currently higher.
To achieve overall majority, as long as there are no ties, you need one year to have 3 votes. We can safely assume Fed fans would rate Fed higher than Roddick and Djokovic. Which means they think either;
Nadal 2006 is better than Nadal 2011 which he isn't,
AND Ljubicic is better than Murray.

I've got an awful feeling that you think that's a subtle trap.

So which idiot is convinced Ljubicic is better than Murray and Nadal was better in 2006. Julius did, but then he somehow proclaimed himself to be an idiot- which makes me think he was joking.

I'm just stating the Top 4 from the ATP- I haven't made up these figures

Of course Bogbrush hasn't voted.

That's correct Simplistic. See the limitations of your thinking?

You're too tribal mate, you need to open your mind a bit.

Amritia, your efforts will be better suited to a more credible era comparison of the 80s to this current one which i'm interested in writing. Unfortunately debating the obviously comical and irrelevant year of tennis, 2006 might be a considered a waste of time.

Has the penny dropped with amrita yet who they've chosen as their forum ally?

5-5
50% of this forum are either taking the p*ss or they're nitwits.

lol, allies and foes is all i keep on reading. I should have realised since last week the age of most a Federer fans here has the number; 1, proceeding by God knows which other single digit number.
Seriously allies, foes?

Simple_Analyst wrote:lol, allies and foes is all i keep on reading. I should have realised since last week the age of most a Federer fans here has the number; 1, proceeding by God knows which other single digit number.
Seriously allies, foes?

I just don't think he realises yet that he's on a thread agreeing with everything that the forum idiot types. Thought it may help him to be tipped off.

An interesting question: What is higher- the IQ or age of people voting Ljubicic over Murray (who are actually serious). Both in single digits probably.

Rankings

Month	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
January	Federer	Nadal	Roddick	Hewitt	Davydenko	Nalbandian	Agassi	Coria	Ljubicic	Gaudio
February	Federer	Nadal	Roddick	Nalbandian	Ljubicic	Davydenko	Coria	Agassi	Gaudio	Ferrer
March	Federer	Nadal	Roddick	Nalbandian	Davydenko	Ljubicic	Coria	Gaudio	Agassi	Hewitt
April	Federer	Nadal	Nalbandian	Roddick	Ljubicic	Davydenko	Coria	Blake	Gaudio	Ferrer
May	Federer	Nadal	Ljubicic	Nalbandian	Roddick	Davydenko	Blake	Gaudio	Coria	Gonzalez
June	Federer	Nadal	Nalbandian	Ljubicic	Roddick	Davydenko	Robredo	Blake	Gonzalez	Gaudio
July	Federer	Nadal	Nalbandian	Ljubicic	Roddick	Davydenko	Blake	Robredo	Hewitt	Ancic
August	Federer	Nadal	Nalbandian	Ljubicic	Davydenko	Blake	Robredo	Ancic	Stepanek	Baghdatis
September	Federer	Nadal	Ljubicic	Nalbandian	Robredo	Davydenko	Blake	Baghdatis	Stepanek	Roddick
October	Federer	Nadal	Ljubicic	Nalbandian	Davydenko	Roddick	Blake	Robredo	Baghdatis	Ancic
November	Federer	Nadal	Davydenko	Ljubicic	Roddick	Robredo	Nalbandian	Blake	Ancic	Gonzalez
December	Federer	Nadal	Davydenko	Blake	Ljubicic	Roddick	Robredo	Nalbandian	Ancic	Gonzalez

AO 2006 - Semifinals - Seed #1 (Federer), #21 (Kiefer), #4 (Nalbandian), Unseeded (Baghdatis). Finals - Federer-Baghdatis (Injury withdrawals - Nadal, Agassi, Safin)

FO 2006 - Semifinals - Seed #1 (Federer), #3 (Nalbandian), #2 (Nadal), #4 (Ljubicic). Finals - Federer-Nadal.

W 2006 - Semifinals - Seed #1 (Federer), Unseeded (Bjorkman), #2 (Nadal), #18 (Baghdatis). Finals - Federer-Nadal

USO 2006 - Semifinals - Seed #1 (Federer), #7 (Davydenko), #9 (Roddick), Unseeded (Youzhny). Finals - Federer-Roddick.

Notice that the much-maligned Ljubicic is in the SF of a Clay Slam SF playing Nadal.

bogbrush wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:lol, allies and foes is all i keep on reading. I should have realised since last week the age of most a Federer fans here has the number; 1, proceeding by God knows which other single digit number.
Seriously allies, foes?

I just don't think he realises yet that he's on a thread agreeing with everything that the forum idiot types. Thought it may help him to be tipped off.

I don't think Tenez will take kindly to that.

Of course let's be honest, no one can be that stupid- my guess is like Julius they were taking the p*ss.

laverfan wrote:Rankings

Month	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
January	Federer	Nadal	Roddick	Hewitt	Davydenko	Nalbandian	Agassi	Coria	Ljubicic	Gaudio
February	Federer	Nadal	Roddick	Nalbandian	Ljubicic	Davydenko	Coria	Agassi	Gaudio	Ferrer
March	Federer	Nadal	Roddick	Nalbandian	Davydenko	Ljubicic	Coria	Gaudio	Agassi	Hewitt
April	Federer	Nadal	Nalbandian	Roddick	Ljubicic	Davydenko	Coria	Blake	Gaudio	Ferrer
May	Federer	Nadal	Ljubicic	Nalbandian	Roddick	Davydenko	Blake	Gaudio	Coria	Gonzalez
June	Federer	Nadal	Nalbandian	Ljubicic	Roddick	Davydenko	Robredo	Blake	Gonzalez	Gaudio
July	Federer	Nadal	Nalbandian	Ljubicic	Roddick	Davydenko	Blake	Robredo	Hewitt	Ancic
August	Federer	Nadal	Nalbandian	Ljubicic	Davydenko	Blake	Robredo	Ancic	Stepanek	Baghdatis
September	Federer	Nadal	Ljubicic	Nalbandian	Robredo	Davydenko	Blake	Baghdatis	Stepanek	Roddick
October	Federer	Nadal	Ljubicic	Nalbandian	Davydenko	Roddick	Blake	Robredo	Baghdatis	Ancic
November	Federer	Nadal	Davydenko	Ljubicic	Roddick	Robredo	Nalbandian	Blake	Ancic	Gonzalez
December	Federer	Nadal	Davydenko	Blake	Ljubicic	Roddick	Robredo	Nalbandian	Ancic	Gonzalez

AO 2006 - Semifinals - Seed #1 (Federer), #21 (Kiefer), #4 (Nalbandian), Unseeded (Baghdatis). Finals - Federer-Baghdatis (Injury withdrawals - Nadal, Agassi, Safin)

FO 2006 - Semifinals - Seed #1 (Federer), #3 (Nalbandian), #2 (Nadal), #4 (Ljubicic). Finals - Federer-Nadal.

W 2006 - Semifinals - Seed #1 (Federer), Unseeded (Bjorkman), #2 (Nadal), #18 (Baghdatis). Finals - Federer-Nadal

USO 2006 - Semifinals - Seed #1 (Federer), #7 (Davydenko), #9 (Roddick), Unseeded (Youzhny). Finals - Federer-Roddick.

Notice that the much-maligned Ljubicic is in the SF of a Clay Slam SF playing Nadal.

Yes but Nadal had to face Roger Federer, arguably one of the greatest players of all time, in the final. for wimby final it was his first GS final outside clay- and as he showed in 2007+2008 he was on the verge of making massive improvements on that surface.

laverfan wrote:
Notice that the much-maligned Ljubicic is in the SF of a Clay Slam SF playing Nadal.

Ljubicic was a good player, but not as good as Murray for me.

amritia3ee wrote:An interesting question: What is higher- the IQ or age of people voting Ljubicic over Murray (who are actually serious). Both in single digits probably.

No, not interesting, just you resorting to insulting the intelligence people who don't agree with you. You're doing that on 50% of your posts now I notice.

And all the time doing it with a false premise; some may believe one period is stronger without committing to a specific match-up.

You could be a lot of fun.

bogbrush wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:An interesting question: What is higher- the IQ or age of people voting Ljubicic over Murray (who are actually serious). Both in single digits probably.

No, not interesting, just you resorting to insulting the intelligence people who don't agree with you. You're doing that on 50% of your posts now I notice.

And all the time doing it with a false premise; some may believe one period is stronger without committing to a specific match-up.

You could be a lot of fun.

I take back my comment. :hug;
I hope I have not insulted you, I'm sure you are very intelligent

amritia3ee wrote:

laverfan wrote:
Notice that the much-maligned Ljubicic is in the SF of a Clay Slam SF playing Nadal.

Ljubicic was a good player, but not as good as Murray for me.

Is that a subjective opinion?

Some one has already mentioned Looby winning IW 2010 on blue clay, correct?

Did anyone mention Roddick winning Miami 2010? Was everyone else tired?

Yh they are good players. I believe that was Ljubicic's only Masters win and Roddick has only won 1 other Masters.
I am not saying they are sh*t, but neither of them are as good as Djokovic/Murray.

amritia3ee wrote:Yh they are good players. I believe that was Ljubicic's only Masters win and Roddick has only won 1 other Masters.
I am not saying they are Poopie, but neither of them are as good as Djokovic/Murray.

On the basis of what criteria? Titles? Finals? Matches played? Are the surfaces the same? Is the equipment the same? Are the strings the same?

Or is it just pure opinion. Opinions are like a**holes. Everybody has one.

Well if you think Ljubicic is better than Murray then I apologise.

amritia3ee wrote:Yh they are good players. I believe that was Ljubicic's only Masters win and Roddick has only won 1 other Masters.
I am not saying they are sh*t, but neither of them are as good as Djokovic/Murray.

Yet he won his only Masters when past it, and in 2010, and beating Nadal and Djokovic.

But of course that doesn't count.

No, of course it counts. But its still only 1 Masters though. Murray has more than 1 Masters in his bag.

6-5

amritia3ee wrote:No, of course it counts. But its still only 1 Masters though. Murray has more than 1 Masters in his bag.

Was he 31 and past it?

And did he fail to win one at his peak in the weak era?