Lets take a look at career rankings against the top 10, what does it tell us?

Winning percentage this year and career against players ranked in the top 10.
1. Bjorn Borg .000 - 0-0 .705 - 67-28
2. Roger Federer .615 - 3-7 .660 - 138-71
3. Rafael Nadal .692 - 12-6 .656 - 84-44
4. Boris Becker .000 - 0-0 .651 - 121-65
5. Ivan Lendl .000 - 0-0 .643 - 119-66
6. Pete Sampras .000 - 0-0 .636 - 124-71
7. John McEnroe .000 - 0-0 .570 - 85-64
8. Andy Murray .500 - 2-5 .550 - 44-36
9. Andre Agassi .000 - 0-0 .548 - 109-90
10. Arthur Ashe .000 - 0-0 .540 - 27-23
11. Gustavo Kuerten .000 - 0-0 .514 - 38-36
12. Novak Djokovic .720 - 14-1 .510 - 53-51
13. Jimmy Connors .000 - 0-0 .503 - 84-83
14. Mats Wilander .000 - 0-0 .500 - 54-54
15. Marat Safin .000 - 0-0 .495 - 49-50
16. Lleyton Hewitt .000 - 0-2 .492 - 60-62
17. Michael Stich .000 - 0-0 .470 - 39-44
18. Roscoe Tanner .000 - 0-0 .463 - 31-36
19. Stefan Edberg .000 - 0-0 .460 - 97-114
20. Ilie Nastase .000 - 0-0 .453 - 34-41
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliability-Zone/Reliability-Versus-Top-10-Career-List.aspx


Interesting when measuring the current big 4's record against top 10 players against the record's of past champions and we see that the big 4 stacks up remarkably well. I think what this list shows is that clearly winning against top 10 competition is not easy when players like Edberg are at a 46 percent winning percentage. Good to see the clearly superior Boris, at #4 on the list. Bjorg the ethereal one is at the top of the list. The big 4 of today; Fed, Nadal, murray, and Djoko come in respectively at #2, 3, 8, and 13. Andy Murray very impressive with a career win percentage that puts him ahead of agassi. ALTHOUGH CURRENT PLAYERS IN THEIR PRIME YEARS LIKE RAFA, DJOKO, AND ANDY ARE GOING TO HAVE MORE INFLATED NUMBERS, afterall like Fed they will start losing more of these matches against top 10 guys in years to come. Djokovic however is the fastest mover on the charts. He has WON AN INCREDIBLE 14 OF 15 matches against top 10 guys this year to date. He is streaking up the charts and may be able to get into the top 5 or 10 on this list with the way he is playing. Andy's strong numbers indicate what many of us have been saying. Andy has seperated himself from the rest of the tour, but there is still some distance between him and the big 3.

By the way the second column of win percentage is for their careers. The first column of win percentage is year to date that only has a figure for current players the chart didn't come out to well and I am too lazy to fix it.

socal interesting stuff. You can also look by factors like surface, winning the deciding set in a 3 or 5 set match ...etc..etc. A veritable tennis geek's bible in fact!

Yes that is my favorite page on the ATP website as well really lets you break down percentages on a host of interesting categories. Otherwise I think the AtP does a poor job in keeping statistics. I would like them to track winners, both forehand, backhand, as well as errors on both sides and they don't.

Also it would be good if they kept running lists of net approaches and percentage of successesful attempts as a running tabulation as well.

Nice work socal

Thank lydian, what is kind of a telling statistic is that Nadal is winning nearly 70 percent of his matches in 2011 against top ten opponents. Again, its just one guy in the top then that he is losing to right now. Nadal is not having a down season, he actually has a higher win percentage in 2011 against top ten players than he has over the course of his career. This year he is winning about 4 percentage points higher than his career average.

Indeed socal, not really a bad year when you look at his deep runs in tournaments, he's been there for just about every final Sunday. Clearly Novak is having a blinder of a year but he'll know if he slipped a few percentage points that the others will be breathing down his neck. The US hardcourt season should prove very interesting and of course this is Nole's strongest part of the season usually which is somewhat scary..!

Yes, these stats do kind of shed light a little bit on how well the top 4 are playing. I was impressed by how there are 4 current players featured in the top 13, and Novak the lowest guy on the list has been shooting up the charts and figures to get much higher up on the list as his career progresses. Nadal, Murray, and fed might lose a bit off of their very impressive win percentages. Fed will lose a few more matches now probably than he did in the past to top 10 talent. Murray's sample is a little skewed because he is still in his prime. You would think the same would apply to Novak. But Novak is 14-1 on the year v. top ten so you got to think he will make his way up the chart in the next 2 or 3 years and then maybe give back some of his gains.

Hide this from hawkeye who feels Andy is awful against top ranked players. Here in this list he is up with a record amongst the legends of the game.

Interesting list. Just imagine what it would be like with all those greats playing each other in their prime. Mouthwatering.

Like all this stuff, these statistics prove very little and what it does indicate is debatable. Interesting though, for fun.

However, unlike most statistics they are especially misleading as younger players haven't been through the twilight stage, where their ratio degrades.

Ha Ha! No don't hide it from me I love things like this. Don't know if everyone realises but you can play about with the chart if you follow the link posted by social1976.

Total number of career wins against top ten players is useful. A good win/loss percentage can be gained playing fewer matches and may not reflect the same achievement as a player with a poorer win/loss percentage but who has won more matches.

1/ Federer (138) Wow!
2/ Sampras (124)
3/ Becker (121)
4/ Lendl (119)
5/ Agassi (109)
6/ Edberg (97)
7/ McEnroe (85)
8/ Nadal (84)
9/ Connors (84)
10/ Borg (67)

This table favours older or retired players. The win/loss table as bogbrush pointed out favours younger players. What is remarkable is that it contains two players that are still active. Federer tops the list! Every now and then I'm reminded of what an amazing player he is. Pretty sure Nadal has plenty of time to move a few more places up that chart too...

some of the more interesting things it tells us include:

a. the arrangement of the ATP tour means that top players face each other more often than they used to before the "super 9" series started (currently the TMS). The likes of Nastase, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, and Borg played relatively fewer matches against top-class opposition compared to players that came later. This reinforces the fact that statistical comparisons with the present era need to be made against players who were not too far off from their peak in about 1990 to have validity.

b. Murray seems to get himself up for bigger matches - it's interesting that his rate is higher than Djoko's despite the latter's amazing run this year

c. Becker was an enigma - a great winner of matches and tournaments, but inconsistent in that he was only ever No. 1 for 12 weeks in total - his overall record is quite a contrast with his direct competitor Edberg's in that way.

socal1976 wrote:Yes that is my favorite page on the ATP website as well really lets you break down percentages on a host of interesting categories. Otherwise I think the AtP does a poor job in keeping statistics. I would like them to track winners, both forehand, backhand, as well as errors on both sides and they don't.

I think they do track them, but do not post them to the website. I have seen these on the ATP-covered matches as well as on TennisTV.

However, that list of yours hawkeye can be debated with as well. It would be interesting to see Fed's record once the young guns arrived on the scene such as Nadal, Djokovic and Murray and not just drool over the figures as early 2000's top ten players he beat as face facts they weren't a patch on the top ten now plying their trade. Hence Fed filled his boots so as to speak.

CaledonianCraig

So your not too impressed with Federer? His stats are amazing but he's still a pretty good player quite capable of beating the young (or middle aged in tennis terms) guns. Did you watch his FO semi? Or the FO final? He lost that match but IMO one of the best slam finals in the last few years. Federer still has a bit of boot filling to do.

Very impressed with Federer in his dominant years but there is no doubt this year his form has dipped. The highlight of his year this far was the French Open but apart from that he'll be disappointed with the year. To encapsulate that he lost his first ever match at Wimbledon from two sets up - another clear sign he is not the force he was.

However, his past records do show him in my book to be the greatest of all-time and nothing can take that away from him though Nadal may have a crack at it.

CaledonianCraig wrote:However, that list of yours hawkeye can be debated with as well. It would be interesting to see Fed's record once the young guns arrived on the scene such as Nadal, Djokovic and Murray and not just drool over the figures as early 2000's top ten players he beat as face facts they weren't a patch on the top ten now plying their trade. Hence Fed filled his boots so as to speak.

Safin (10-2), Rios (2-0), Moya (7-0), Kafelnikov (2-4), Henman (7-6), Del Potro (6-2), Srichaphan (4-0) were/are pretty good.

H2Hs
... against ATP #1

Nadal - 8-17
Djokovic - 14-9
Hewitt - 17-8
Ferrero - 9-3
Roddick - 20-2

... against ATP #2

Murray - 6-8
Haas - 10-2

... against ATP #3

Nalbandian - 11-8
Ljubicic - 13-3
Davydenko 15-2


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Federer_career_statistics

And of course this leads into an era debate...whether it was harder to beat other top 10'ers in the 80s vs 90s vs 00s.

lydian wrote:And of course this leads into an era debate...whether it was harder to beat other top 10'ers in the 80s vs 90s vs 00s.

... and 'Era' debates lead to GOAT debates...
Was Corretja harder to beat for Sampras, or was Djokovic hard to beat for Federer?

It does show a marked difference in results against pre-2005 top three/four players compared to those of the current era where it isn't as noticeably good.

CC - you might find a few people arguing it was easier to beat the top 10 of say 04-07 than 08-11.

LF - who knows? Sometimes its a matter of match-ups too. Although Corretja didnt achieve 'that' much in the game Sampras always found him a tricky player. Re: Era/GOATs, yes they tend to get linked.

CaledonianCraig wrote:It does show a marked difference in results against pre-2005 top three/four players compared to those of the current era where it isn't as noticeably good.

Superficial.

Maybe so Lydian but those stats speak
for themselves there. Besides as a Murray fan I know what era I'd sooner he broke through in - at the turn of this century. Rios or Federer no contest. Satin or Nadal one again no contest and we haven't even mentioned Djokovic yet. I am sure as well that Federer (who played across the eras) would much sooner be facing his old foes rather than those that stand in his way today.

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:It does show a marked difference in results against pre-2005 top three/four players compared to those of the current era where it isn't as noticeably good.

Superficial.

How so exactly?

Soc: I have been absent just a couple of days and I see you let me down again!

Aren't we all in agreement that the overall accomplishment achieved by a top player across his entire career should be judged mostly on the basis of the results in slams?

If so, this is the list that should be looked upon. This, obviously by discounting the results of the player that are currently in their prime (evidenced in bold characters) and therefore find their performance in the list grossly overstated.

I believe this list, although only partial, gives definitely more justice to some greats of the past!

Grand Slams Current* Index YTD Titles YTD Win-Loss Career Index Career Titles Career Win-Loss
1. Bjorn Borg .000 0 0-0 .898 11 141-16
2. Rafael Nadal .923 1 17-2 .878 10 137-19
3. Roger Federer .833 0 15-3 .871 16 223-33
4. Rod Laver .000 0 0-0 .857 5 60-10
5. Pete Sampras .000 0 0-0 .842 14 203-38
6. Ken Rosewall .000 0 0-0 .829 4 92-19
7. Jimmy Connors .000 0 0-0 .826 8 232-49
8. Ivan Lendl .000 0 0-0 .819 8 222-49
9. John McEnroe .000 0 0-0 .815 7 167-38
10. John Newcombe .000 0 0-0 .814 5 92-21
11. Novak Djokovic .923 2 18-1 .811 3 103-24
12. Andre Agassi .000 0 0-0 .809 8 224-53
13. Boris Becker .000 0 0-0 .803 6 163-40
14. Mats Wilander .000 0 0-0 .796 7 144-37
15. Stefan Edberg .000 0 0-0 .791 6 178-47
16. Arthur Ashe .000 0 0-0 .791 3 106-28
17. Andy Murray .818 0 16-3 .760 0 73-23
18. Jim Courier .000 0 0-0 .756 4 118-38
19. Guillermo Vilas .000 0 0-0 .753 4 137-45
20. Andy Roddick .667 0 5-2 .752 1 121-40
21. Lleyton Hewitt .250 0 1-2 .738 2 135-48
22. Jo-Wilfried Tsonga .750 0 9-3 .738 0 45-16
23. Tony Roche .000 0 0-0 .736 0 67-24
24. Yevgeny Kafelnikov .000 0 0-0 .733 2 99-36
25. Roscoe Tanner .000 0 0-0 .732 1 90-33
26. Jan Kodes .000 0 0-0 .726 3 85-32
27. David Nalbandian .625 0 3-2 .722 0 83-32
28. Manuel Orantes .000 0 0-0 .719 1 69-27
29. Michael Stich .000 0 0-0 .716 1 78-31
30. Tom Okker .000 0 0-0 .716 0 73-29

CaledonianCraig wrote:Maybe so Lydian but those stats speak
for themselves there. Besides as a Murray fan I know what era I'd sooner he broke through in - at the turn of this century. Rios or Federer no contest. Satin or Nadal one again no contest and we haven't even mentioned Djokovic yet. I am sure as well that Federer (who played across the eras) would much sooner be facing his old foes rather than those that stand in his way today.

Federer won his first slam in 2003. 2005 is two years later. Let us look at slams pre- and post-2005.

Pre-2005 slams won - 6 (2003 W, US; 2004 AO, W, US; 2005 W, USO)
Pre-2005 slam finals - 2005 AO

Post-2005 slams won - 10 (2006 AO, W, USO; 2007 AO, W, USO; 2008 USO; 2009 W, FO; 2010 AO)
Post 2005 - slam finals - 6 - FO (2006, 2007, 2008, 2011), 2009 AO, USO

Bulk of Federer's 16 slam finals are post-2005. Is post-2005 easier than pre-2005?

This is Borg (prior to 1983)....

Rod Laver (5–2)
Ken Rosewall (1–0)
Jimmy Connors (15–8)
Ivan Lendl (6–2)
John McEnroe (7–7)
Ilie Năstase (10–5)
Guillermo Vilas (17–5)
Arthur Ashe (7–7)
Tony Roche (1–1)
Adriano Panatta (9–6)
John Newcombe (1–3)
Pancho Gonzales (0–1)

Interesting that people talk in reverence of the Borg-McEnroe rivalry (7-7), but never the Borg-Ashe rivalry (7-7).

Pretty certain Fed would himself tell you who he thought were his toughest opponents (and the stats in matches against him show that ie not as hot head-to-heads against Nadal, Djokovic and Murray). Fed's purple patch came around 2004 to 2008. The purple patch ended when Nadal began beating him more times than not in slams and lately Djokovic has largely had the upper hand on him hence his slams have slowed to a trickle and for the time being and possibly terminally has stopped. It is common knowledge he was a different animal in his early years until he was sculpted into shape and found his game and confidence around 2003.

Jeremy, I think this is an important statistic but one that can not be relied on entirely to judge a worth of player. But it does show how tough it is at the very top. Certainly winning percentage in slams is a good indicator but for these stats to mean anything you have to look at a variety of different indicatiors.

To a degree I agree with those that state that most likely active younger players like Nadal and Djoko or Murray should be discounted because they have not played later in their years when wins against tougher competition are harder to come by. But, that assumes that the younger player has peaked. For example Djokovic at the start of the year was way down on this list well under .500. If he plays anything like he is now he will move up before maybe giving back a couple of spaces. It depends on which younger player we are talking about. Interestingly Nadal has won a huge percentage of matches this year against the top ten, he has only consistently lost to one guy, Novak.

Nadal has been beaten in 5 consecutive finals by Djokovic in 2011. What do you think of Nadal?

He indeed was a different animal. In 2001 seeded #15, he gets to W QF. Then mentally disappears till 2003, the same timeframe when Peter Carter (Aug 2002) passed away. Lundgren documents very well the melancholy and moroseness that surrounded Federer.

http://www.worldtennismagazine.com/archives/2901
http://federermagic.blogspot.com/2004/12/who-is-peter-carter.html

Remember the travails that Nadal went through during his parent's divorce.

Lydian has already posted links (with Paganini) on Federer's physical transformation.

Weak era and other such arguments have no factual basis and never will. For example, Blake beat Gulbis yesterday, beat Federer in Olympics 2008. There has been quite a bit of discussion re Looby, Blake and others (the 'weak' top 10).

I would suggest looking at the Top 10 from 2003 onwards. Nadal was a consistent #2 for several years (25 Apr 2005 - #7, 25 Jul 2005 - 11 Aug 2008 - #2; http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Rafael-Nadal.aspx?t=rh)

Well Federer himself said the best he felt he had ever played was against Andy Murray in the 2010 Australian Open Final (his words) so tells us he was in a lot different vain of form to early to mid 2000's. Now Ljubicic around that era got to world No.3 (a player who has a woeful head to head with Andy Murray), other players to reach the top echelons such as Safin and Rios certainly do not get mentioned in the same categories of greatness as Federer and Nadal and even Djokovic. Similarly look how tough Lleyton Hewitt has found it in recent years against the top players. The only player to hand around in the top ten in the present day who played in the early 2000's is Andy Roddick. Yes I know age catches up with all players and they can't keep going for ever but tell me why the current top four has remained pretty constant for a few years now (maybe two or three years) with the odd exception whereas the Ljubicic, Rios and Hass's of this world were nowhere near as consistently in the top echelons? I'd say it was because they were not so much better than the players ranked below them. Another clue comes from Tim Henman who was ranked 4 in the world for a time yet openly admits he is not in the same class as Andy Murray. More evidence I'd say that the game today is much tougher in terms of strength in depth and depth of talent.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well Federer himself said the best he felt he had ever played was against Andy Murray in the 2010 Australian Open Final (his words) so tells us he was in a lot different vain of form to early to mid 2000's.

Remember he had lost US 2009, after winning W and FO 2009. There is no quantitative measurement of 'form' and becomes a matter of interpretation. .

CaledonianCraig wrote:Now Ljubicic around that era got to world No.3 (a player who has a woeful head to head with Andy Murray), other players to reach the top echelons such as Safin and Rios certainly do not get mentioned in the same categories of greatness as Federer and Nadal and even Djokovic.

Ljubicic was #3 for 14 Aug 2006 - 16 Oct 2006 (3+ months). He also won IW 2010 beating Nadal. Djokovic was in hiatus since his 2008 AO win, but remained consistent in Top 4. Safin's talent is undisputed, but his 'extra-curricular' activities have occupied the front stage more than anything else. He is also known in some tennis circles as the Tennis Rasputin.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Similarly look how tough Lleyton Hewitt has found it in recent years against the top players. The only player to hand around in the top ten in the present day who played in the early 2000's is Andy Roddick. Yes I know age catches up with all players and they can't keep going for ever but tell me why the current top four has remained pretty constant for a few years now (maybe two or three years) with the odd exception whereas the Ljubicic, Rios and Hass's of this world were nowhere near as consistently in the top echelons?

Top 10 -

13 Jan 2011 - Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Soderling, Murray, ----- Berdych, Ferrer, Roddick, Verdasco, Youzhny
4 Jan 2010 - Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro, ----- Davydenko, Roddick, Soderling, Verdasco, Tsonga
19 Jan 2009 - Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Murray, Davydenko, ----- Del Potro, Tsonga, Simon, Roddick, Blake
7 Jan 2008 - Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Davydenko, Ferrer, ----- Roddick, Gonzalez, Gasquet, Murray, Nalbandian
15 Jan 2007 - Federer, Nadal, Davydenko, Ljubicic, Blake, ----- Robredo, Roddick, Nalbandian, Gonzalez, Ancic
2 Jan 2006 - Federer, Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, ------ Nalbandian, Agassi, Coria, Ljubicic, Gaudio
10 Jan 2005 - Federer, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Moya, ----- Coria, Henman, Agassi, Nalbandian, Gaudio
12 Jan 2004 - Roddick, Federer, Ferrero, Agassi, Coria, ----- Schuettler, Moya, Nalbandian, Grosjean, Philippoussis
27 Jan 2003 - Hewitt, Agassi, Ferrero, Moya, Federer, ----- Roddick, Safin, Costa, Nalbandian, Novak (Jiri)

Players appearing across years in this list means consistency for individual players. For example Henman appears once, while Murray appears four times, indicating Murray is more consistent than Henman. Hewitt got knocked out W 2003 in first round (Karlovic) and does not make the list in 2004. Look at Davydenko, 5-years in Top 10, very consistent.


Roddick won Miami 2010 and should not be overlooked despite the lack of slams. Hass's career has been marred with injuries. Rios was in Top 10 during 19 Jan 1998 - 17 Apr 2000 (dropped out of Top 10 for a bit). Federer was playing Wimbledon Juniors then.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I'd say it was because they were not so much better than the players ranked below them. Another clue comes from Tim Henman who was ranked 4 in the world for a time yet openly admits he is not in the same class as Andy Murray. More evidence I'd say that the game today is much tougher in terms of strength in depth and depth of talent.

Ask Andy how tough it is to win just one slam and what herculean effort it requires.

Yes but are you honestly trying to tell me he would have found it tougher to win a slam if he were a pro from say 1999 to 2005 in his peak? I'd say most definitely not. I really don't see how it is open for debate either as if we take top three of 2003 and compare it to todays:-

Hewitt V Djokovic (Close with both men in their prime but potential wise I am sure Novak has the edge)
Agassi V Nadal (Agassi was a legend of his era but Nadal already more slams with more to come and again has the edge for me)
Ferrero V Federer (No contest. Fed is the GOAT in many people's opinion)

Also don't you think it odd that players in the top ten from 2003 to 2005 failed to kick on in their careers.

Juan Carlos Ferrero (still playing but since winning French Open in 2003 and reaching US Open Final in 2004 he has fallen steadily down the rankings)

Carlos Moya (Similarly won the French Open in 1998 but by the end of 2004 was beginning to fall down the rankings when in his late twenties)

Marat Safin (Top player who many feel wasted his talent with a bad attitude and his career saw him win two slam titles but since mid-2005 his titles dried up at the age of 25 and he tumbled down the rankings)

Albert Costa (Won the French Open but the rest of his slam career was disappointing. Retired in 2006 due to injury and lack of appetite for the game according to sources)

David Nalbandian (Still playing today but all his top slam form came in the early to mid-2000's. Still in his late twenties like Federer but struggling to find past glories)

Sebastian Grosjean (Retired in 2010 at the age of 31 his best years came in the first half of the 2000's with little acheived post-2005)

Ivan Ljubicic (Still competing and winning tournaments as recently as last year but his best slam year came in 2006 but has fallen away in that category since then)

Craig, with all due respect, I don’t understand what you are trying to achieve by questioning the so called era of Federer’s achievements, and you should consider the following points in your arguments:
1. Federer reached 23 consecutive grand slam semi finals. I think that is from W 2004- RG 2010. The next on the list is Llendl with 10 consecutive slam semi finals!
2. Federer again tops the list with 10 consecutive grand slam finals W 2005- USO 2007. The next on the list is Federer again (this time in your supposed golden era) with 8 from RG 2008-AO 2010. I believe the best Nadal has managed is 3 in a row, and Novak and Murray 1 in a row during this same period.
3. Federer has beaten all of his fellow fab four (these gods of the golden age) in grand slam finals (and Murray twice comprehensively, and I say that as a big Murray fan) though obviously Nadal has very much the edge over him. This may be because a) Nadal is better b) he is not the greatest match up for Fed, just as Novak may turn out to be Nadal’s major irritant – I think that debate is always going to be largely a matter of opinion. It is perfectly true that Nadal is Fed’s Achilles heel (not his Nemesis because Fed is still v much here) but one should consider that a) the h2h might have been different if Nadal had not often been seen off by ‘weak era’ players in the US open and had met Fed on his surface sometime during 2004 to 2008/9 – who knows!
4. Fed still has it in him to cause an upset – think O2 WTF last year when he beat the then No 1,3,4,5 and Ferrer (who may have been 6) – yes the golden boys must have been off form to have been beaten (Novak and Murray comprehensively) by the ‘weak era’ master.
5. Fed has frequently met Novak in semi finals and has beaten him. Okay he got beaten by Novak in 2008, but until USO 2010, although always v close, the old guy had the edge. Novak has beaten Roger in 2 consecutive slam semi finals recently, for Roger to roll back the years and beat Novak at RG this year.
6. Fed is the only player ever to win 5 consecutive tournaments at two different grand slams – W 2003-2007 and USO 2004 – 2008 – enough said on that score, I think. I believe he has achieved the following a) playing within the time and b) without any MTOs, but I guess he is just very lucky.
7. Since melt down at AO 2009, Fed has won a further 3 slams and Rafa in his ascendancy has won 4, Novak 2 and Murray 0, JMDP 1. He seems not to have done too shabbily in the ‘golden era’ though it is reasonable to expect that with a strong 3 in the top four who are respectively 5 and 6 years younger than him, that they will begin to turn the tables. Please don’t tell me Rafa was injured – the history books just won’t care about that, and the extent of his injuries has not meant that he has had to go under the knife like poor Hewitt (who you have rubbished) who has undergone hip surgery as has the brilliant Nalbandian or JMDP who had wrist surgery.
8. I could talk about his record consecutive weeks as No 1 and standing 2nd to Sampras (short by a week) of overall weeks at No 1, but if you still think he needs apologising for, then there is not a lot I can add.

I think I may have slightly over reacted to your posts Craig, and that you are actually making a case for Murray rather than a case for questionning Fed's achievements?

Fed is the GOAT no debate on that front just now but if you were to ask Federer what years have been more competitive during his slam winning years I know which ones he'd say. Likewise as an Andy Murray fan I am sure a slam win would have been far easier for him to achieve in the early years of this century that is all I am saying. People may hate these era debates but eras exist and are invariably weaker/stronger/or the same. The current one though who has two players with a valid claim of being greatest of all-time. Currently that is Federer but in coming years could change to Nadal - we shall see.

If you only base greatness on slam totals, then Nadal may well overtake Federer but there are many other considerations for 'greatest' as my list attests. It is not that simple. Consistency over a long period is one very impressive statistic which balances out other favourable factors.

Let's see if Rafa, Novak and Andy are all still as competitive in their late twenties and early thirties as the players you are unwisely dismissing - some of whom have quite good records over the 3. Outside your top four, who is so very different from the early years?????

In fact, the above 3 have not faced the challenges of consistently good and healthy young 20yr olds that today's 30 year olds did. If any few years is beginning to look as though - where is the new blood? - it is now!!!

You see, you can look at things through many different spectrums.

Yes time please but however you judge greatest you would NOT be able to throw Safin, Moya etc into the debate which is the point I am making here.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes time please but however you judge greatest you would NOT be able to throw Safin, Moya etc into the debate which is the point I am making here.

Ask a whole spectrum of tennis fans young and old, ex and curent tennis pros, tennis coaches and tennis experts to compile a top ten of all-time and would be see the likes of Safin and Moya in any list? I think not - Agassi perhaps but I'd be gobsmacked if Federer, Nadal and maybe even Djokovic didn't appear in many of those lists.

I think most tennis fans have thoroughly enjoyed watching both play, and most experts would probably say that Safin underachieved and didn't fulfill his undoubted promise (despite winning two slams) because he just wasn't prepared to work as hard as he could. And for that reason alone, you're right he cannot make anyone's top ten, but I won't draw the obvious conclusion here, ok I will, apart from Federer (winning over two eras if we follow your argument to its logical conclusion) and Nadal, who out of the 'new generation' are you confident will make the top ten of all time? You are presuming quite a lot. Perhaps your argument could be made better, or not as the case may be, in 5 years time?

Safin and Moya may have faded, but the current top twenty contains many of the same players as the early 2000s, and you have yet to convince me that Rafa, Novak and Andy are facing the same challenges from up and coming players now - perhaps this era has been stagnating for a while?

Anyway, have to go but all our difference of opinion proves is that.........there are several ways to look at everything, and you cannot possibly package up your argument or mine and make it a definitive fact.

Well first evidence is that (ask fans, coaches, tennis experts) for their all time top ten and you'll get more entrants in from the current era than that of the 2000-2005 era. Ask yourself why that is? And five years down the line you may also have another player or two from this era forcing their way into that top ten.

If you look at those that won slams in the early 2000's such as Safin, Costa etc they actiually ended up winning less tournaments in their career than say Andy Murray who is still waiting on his first slam win which speaks volumes for the comparative strengths in depth of the eras.

This current crop has Rafa Nadal rated as one of the very best (if not THE best) clay courters of all-time (French Open record says it all) and Roger Federer rated similarly on grass. Early 2000's can't hold a claim to that sort of quality in my opinion.

As a Murray fan I have no doubt he would have had a better chance of a slam or two in an era minus Federer, Djokovic and Nadal which again tells me the current era is stronger but as you say it is all opinion but the majority of opinions (of all ages) would rate Federer, Nadal and Djokovic above Safin, Moya and Agassi.

Craig your first sentence just doesn't hold water - you can't make a statement like that and not bring in a quote to back up your argument. It's moonshine frankly.

I.Above Agassi eh? Maybe in time, but Novak has a way to go yet - you're a tad premature.
2. As the first man since the wonderful Laver to win a career grand slam, Agassi is there and thereabouts in most peoples' mind and will be remembered.
3. 2000 also still featured a certain Pete Sampras - when was his last slam triumph - ok he was in his twilight years, like a certain RF is today, so if you discount one, then erase the other from this year too please - ooh that is going to dilute your argument a little!
4. Fed may say he was playing his best tennis in 2010 AO, and it certainly was a return to form - but his best? (Haven't you worked out that Fed is super defensive about his game with journalists who got bored with his supremacy and are ALWAYS questionning him about his 'decline' - interestingly they are starting to do that with Rafa now straight after his RG triumph - fickle lot, the press) Fed obviously hates it, and is slightly in denial about losing a yard, some courage and some consistency). I think most people would not say he was better than ever in 2010 AO whatever bravado he assumes or claims. Agassi claimed never to have faced anyone like him before USO final (was that 04?) His demolition of Roddick in 2006 W, his epic battle (which he lost) over 5 sets and 4 plus hours against Nadal in Rome 06, his creative net play against Sampras in 2001 to name but a few - he played better in WTF last year than he did in that final in 2010 and yet he still beat Andy. I don't think Andy or Novak would have gone toe to toe with him in slams in his purple patch, there is only one among the top four who could have hoped to look him in the eye during that period in a slam (In my opinion) and that is Nadal. And so, it is very shortsighted of you just to assume that Andy would automatically have beaten Roddick (remember Wimbledon 2009 anyone ) or Hewitt in their prime, or Safin or etc, etc. I saw Hewitt when he had the beating of Fed, and he was an awesome counterpuncher like Andy and Novak but without the self doubt that has sometimes held both of them back in the past. Federer, just turned out to be better in the end, and then poor Hewitt has had injuries that would have retired a lesser player over and over again.
4. How would you rate Federer on hard, you claim he is one of the best on grass, but arguably his hard court USO triumphs (lets discount the AO) are even better achievement as there are so many hard court specialists and he has won it having the advantageous 1st semi on Stupid Sat and the 2nd.

I sympathise with you Craig in trying to make your case, but you belittle Andy as well by doing so as if his achievements over the other top three, particularly his masters triumphs over Fed need embellishing. They do not - he is a wonderful player and will remain so even if he can't clinch that elusive slam.

Enjoy what he is doing, don't make excuses (he doesn't need or deserve them) and keep your fingers crossed, as I have, that his efforts reap a major. Lovely to debate with you but really, really have to go now - catch you later.[b]

"You had the reception without me" - in a very Catherine Tatesque tone in Dr Who (The Runaway Bride).

CaledonianCraig wrote:Ask a whole spectrum of tennis fans young and old, ex and curent tennis pros, tennis coaches and tennis experts to compile a top ten of all-time and would be see the likes of Safin and Moya in any list? I think not - Agassi perhaps but I'd be gobsmacked if Federer, Nadal and maybe even Djokovic didn't appear in many of those lists.

I would highly recommend reading Lance Tingay or Bud Collins or some of the other well-known historians to see a longer time horizon. We have had a GOAT debate across a broad spectrum of articles on this forum.

I will give you examples of Rosewall, Laver, Pancho Gonzalez, Hoad, Ashe, Roche, (some of these I have seen play). After 1969 (or 1973) the debates are much easier.

Ask Mark Edmondson or Petr Korda if winning a slam was an easy task. Do you think these guys are great? Was Rios great, or Ivanisevic, or Becker, or Lacoste?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World-number-one_male_tennis-player_rankings

Any assumption that a player across the net in slams is easy to beat is a misnomer.

Murray may have struggled to win a slam in any era.

Slams are always tough to win.

The tour adapts it's play to the prevailing conditions.

If Murray had played in the late nineties with his current style, he would most likely have been blasted off the faster courts by the likes of Sampras, who had the best game for such conditions.

On the slower courts, he probably would have been outgrinded by the likes of Courier.

However, the chances are that he would have grown up playing a different style of tennis to complement the conditions.

The 'weak era' theory is ridiculous.

Changes in conditions and technology as well as improved understanding of fitness, nutrition, training and sports psychology ensure that the proceeding generations always have an advantage when comparing speed, fitness etc. Does that mean that they are more talented? Of course not.

The competition has always been just as tough as it is now, under the prevailing circumstances of each era.

I think this has been true from at least the mid 1980's.

In the earlier years of the open era one could perhaps argue that tennis was not as much a global sport as it is now and thus competition was not as acute.

10 years from now the players of today will look slower and less explosive than the newer generations; does that then relegate this era to the 'weak era' class?

Finally, to contend that Federer played in a weak era because his contemporaries are struggling today is poor form. It is expected that such players would struggle as they get older.

Interestingly, apart from Del Potro, Djokovic is actually the youngest player in the top 20; there are four 29+ year olds in the top 12 and Roddick (almost 29) is still at number 10.

I also note from Laverfan's stats that Blake was back in the top 10 in Jan 2009 - amazing isn't it?

Let me throw in an example here to see if it resonates with the posters here.

Pancho Gonzalez (41 yo) def Charlie Pasarell (25 yo) 22-24, 1–6, 16-14, 6–3, 11-9. (2 days - 112 games)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancho_Gonzalez#One_of_the_greatest_matches_ever_played

No Tiebreaks during this match.

Nadal (22+ yo) def Federer (27 yo) 6-4, 6-4, 6-7 (5), 6-7 (8), 9-7 (4:48 - 62 games)

Two sets in tie breaks.

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/wimbledon08/news/story?id=3475473

Which one is the greater of these two matches?

My subjective opinion is Gonzalez-Pasarell, and it was not even the final.

CaledonianCraig wrote:
Now Ljubicic around that era got to world No.3 (a player who has a woeful head to head with Andy Murray)

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=MC10&oId=L360

Are you sure?

I think the previous one is better than this one...

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=MC10&oId=F324

Time please, I have said time and again that Roger Federer is, in my opinion, greatest of all-time and the majority of these slam wins have come in the middle years of the 2000's to late 2000's. In no way shape or form have I belittled his achievements. All I have said is that the era we have now is stronger than that of say 2000 to 2005. Do a straw opinion poll and would you find that the early 2000's were stronger I'd say not. But of course it is all about opinions - era debates always are.

Good work Laverfan,

4:3 to Murray, hardly woeful.

Let's not forget that an ageing, creaking Ljubicic managed to get a set off Murray this year at W and fought him pretty close despite having a vociferous crowd against him.

You used to get "surprise" finalists and sometimes surprise winners. Johannsson was the last of the latter and, as for the former, well I'm not sure.

The reality is that in the last ten years or so these surprises have disappeared simply because they would have to beat at a minimum 2 maybe 3 top class players to make the final. It just doesn't happen any more and that kind of player has to contend himself with one giant slaying victory if that.

Of course the ironic thing is that it's in the ladies where we're more likely to see surprise finalists and winners as they don't have the same dominant top 3 or 4 players at present for varying reasons.