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

First topic message reminder :

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.

Exactly newballs.

I think it is quite clear objectively that first half of the decade was weaker than the current competition. Caledonian has made a strong case. The tour consistently gets tougher and stronger, but this progression isn't always in a straight line. I see the players of the late 90s and the early 2000s as a step back from the golden age of early to mid 90s( back even to the 80s) and the current golden generation of Nadal, Murray, and Novak. If you look the late 90s and early 2000s you will see that most of the weak and transitional #1s in the history of the game reigned in this period. Consider this like tennis taking two steps forward, and then one step back, this period was a step back. For example:Roddick, Ferrero, Safin, Moya, Rios etc; all where very weak #1s historically speaking and all reigned in the late 90s to early 2000s. Again Fed would have tremendous success in any era and it doesn't diminish him. As other observers have stated it is NEVER EASY TO DOMINATE THE TOUR, and Fed has had success in both eras.

But I think any objective tennis fan will look at the depth at the depth of the current game and say that tennis is advancing and getting better than it was 5-10 years ago. Hewitt and Roddick are perfect examples of dominant players in the weaker early part of the decade, when the golden generation of (murray, novak, nadal, monfils, berdych, gasquet, and Tsonga) came up they easily supplanted Roddick and Hewitt (also Ferrero). Two dominant players who at their physical peak, by their mid twenties had the game pass them up.

newballs wrote: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.

Lots to choose from...

Surprise finalist (in slams)

Berdych - W 2010, Roddick - W 2009, Philippoussis - W 2003, Nalbandian - W 2002

Soderling - FO 2009,

Tsonga - AO 2008, Fernando Gonzalez - AO 2007, Baghdatis - AO 2006, Hewitt - AO 2005, Schuettler - AO 2003, Clement - AO 2001,

Surprise winner (in slams)

Ivanisevic - W 2001

Safin - AO 2005

Costa - FO 2002, Ferrero - FO 2003, Gaudio - FO 2004

Del Potro - USO 2009

newballs wrote: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.

Not based on the list here.

Socal you really have little understanding of tennis.

Pushing your reasoning further, Novak is showing us how poor were actually the last 6 years as the man who dominated that "clay era" could not even take a set out of an injured Novak while himself at his peak. And what will that tell about this current era when Novak get kicked around in 2 years by more stylish and more physical players?

Did you really start to watch tennis yesterday?

Basically, says it all socal and is what I was trying to clumsily put across. Legends dominate their eras as was the case with the Borg, McEnroe and Connors era of the mid to late 70's into the early to mid-80's and we are seeing the same in the current era due to the great strength of the very best in the world at the moment. The early 2000's never held that dominant strength in depth - Agassi was an exception and by this time Sampras better years were behind him and those that stepped into the breach just couldn't dominate the tennis scene. Players like Safin, Rios and Moya were top players of their time hence their slam wins but legendary status they never achieved.

Tenez it is clear that this year Novak has taken his game to a new level of excellence that the rest just can't compete with at the moment - nothing to do with Nadal's poorness at all but much more to do with Djokovic level. He is playing at new levels much like Federer did a few years ago when he was untouchable. For all we know Novak could be set for his own period of dominance but it takes nothing away from Nadal's multiple slams on all surfaces or Federer's.

socal1976 wrote:I think it is quite clear objectively that first half of the decade was weaker than the current competition. Caledonian has made a strong case.

I would not consider it objective by any means.

socal1976 wrote:The tour consistently gets tougher and stronger, but this progression isn't always in a straight line. I see the players of the late 90s and the early 2000s as a step back from the golden age of early to mid 90s( back even to the 80s) and the current golden generation of Nadal, Murray, and Novak. If you look the late 90s and early 2000s you will see that most of the weak and transitional #1s in the history of the game reigned in this period.

Back to the 'weak' era discussion.

socal1976 wrote:Consider this like tennis taking two steps forward, and then one step back, this period was a step back. For example:Roddick, Ferrero, Safin, Moya, Rios etc; all where very weak #1s historically speaking and all reigned in the late 90s to early 2000s.

Roddick played W 2009. . Safin won AO 2005.

socal1976 wrote:But I think any objective tennis fan will look at the depth at the depth of the current game and say that tennis is advancing and getting better than it was 5-10 years ago. Hewitt and Roddick are perfect examples of dominant players in the weaker early part of the decade, when the golden generation of (murray, novak, nadal, monfils, berdych, gasquet, and Tsonga) came up they easily supplanted Roddick and Hewitt (also Ferrero). Two dominant players who at their physical peak, by their mid twenties had the game pass them up.

Murray - Turned Pro 2005
Djokovic - Turned Pro 2003
Nadal - Turned Pro 2001
Monfils - Turned Pro 2004
Berdych - Turned Pro 2002
Gasquet - Turned Pro 2002
Tsonga - Turned Pro 2004.

Players left out from Top 20 (conveniently... )

Soderling - Turned Pro 2001
Ferrer - Turned Pro 2000
Fish - Turned Pro 2000
Roddick - Turned Pro 2000
Melzer - Turned Pro 1999 (same age as Federer)

Did Ferrero just win a title @ Stuttgart?

Laverfan, you look at when these guys turned pro when discussing the current generation of top players. But these guys didn't start to make an impact en masse until the second half of this decade. Nadal made his push in 2005 and Djoko and Murray in 2007. Every objective measure finds the players in the early part of the decade lacking. Take Blake for example, a good pro, an incredible gentleman. Yet a highly deficient world #4. Lets compare blake's career accomplishments to the player's of similar ranking today? Blake zero Masters, zero ATP 500s, no grandslam semis. Now current world #4 Andy Murray has been to the semi of every grandslam, has 3 grandslam finals and 6 master's. By any OBJECTIVE CRITERIA THE CURRENT WORLD #4 is superior than the world #4 James Blake. Lets compare Blake to Soderling, Sod 1 masters, 2 grandslam finals. Lets compare to Berdych, Berdy 1 masters 1 grandslam final. So even today's #5 and #6 players are more accomplished than #4 James Blake. And I don't want to hear about Roger's dominance, Roger and blake rarely played in grandslams and Roger wasn't knocking blake out of every single grandslam before the semi stage. In my mind 1999-2006 was a step back in depth at the top. When compared to the generation before it and the generation after it.

Tenez wrote:Socal you really have little understanding of tennis.

Pushing your reasoning further, Novak is showing us how poor were actually the last 6 years as the man who dominated that "clay era" could not even take a set out of an injured Novak while himself at his peak. And what will that tell about this current era when Novak get kicked around in 2 years by more stylish and more physical players?

Did you really start to watch tennis yesterday?

Tenez coming from you I take this as a compliment. I find your analysis to be completely lacking of anything other than your biases and predetermined conclusions. If the previous clay court era was weak how much do we discount Roger's French open Tenez? Keep trying to argue that Ferrero's, Hewitt's, and Roddick's of the world are talent equivalents of Nadal and Djoko. Any objective tennis fan sees that these players are weaker, and that they were weaker even in their primes. And it isn't the case of Fed just dominating these guys. After the arrival of the Nadal, Murray, Novak generation the Roddick's, Ferrero's, and Hewitt's (still in their physical peaks) were getting mauled by all the top guys tour not just Roger. Tennis took a step up with the arrival of Nadal in 05 and another step up in 07 when murray and Djoko made their presence felt.

Blake was in the top 5 for 12 weeks! Does 12 weeks make an era?!

Is today's top ten stronger than earlier top tens? Maybe today's top three are more dominant but not to sure about the strength of the rest.

Djokovics H2H with players ranked 4-10

Murray 6-3
Soderling 6-1
Ferrer 6-4
Monfils 6-0
Berdych 6-1
Fish 6-0
Roddick 3-5

Nadal's H2H with players ranked 4-10

Murray 12-4
Soderling 6-2
Ferrer 13-4
Monfils 8-1
Berdych 10-3
Fish 6-0
Roddick 6-3

Federer's H2H with players ranked 4-10

Murray 6-8
Soderling 16-0
Ferrer 11-0
Monfils 6-0
Berdych 9-3
Fish 6-1
Roddick 20-2

Apart from Djokovic's losing record against Roddick (3-5) and Federer's losing record against Murray (6-8) the top three all have dominant records against the rest of the players in the top 10. Federer has cruel records against Soderling (16-1) and Roddick (20-2).

Maybe we have a stong top three but a relatively weak top ten.

I think it's safe to say BY ANY OBJECTIVE CRITERIA that the current world No. 3 is better than Michael Chang. Yet Chang was No. 2 in 1996. Better stretch that weak era back to 1996!

As for the Borg/Mac/Connors era - it lasted all of 2 years - '79 to '81. Before that is was just Borg/Connors, neither of whom played the AO much and Connors didn't bother with the FO. After that it was McEnroe/Connors. But this mythical decade when they all played each other is just that - a myth.
I even saw one poster recently lump Sampras and Connors in the same era!

JuliusHMarx wrote:I think it's safe to say BY ANY OBJECTIVE CRITERIA that the current world No. 3 is better than Michael Chang. Yet Chang was No. 2 in 1996. Better stretch that weak era back to 1996!

Is this the new PC word for words like 'irrefutable', 'fact', NID, etc.?

Good to 'see' you here.

Can someone please explain to me why players strong in the early 2000's such as Ferrero, Safin, Nalbandian etc never moved on and continued mixing it with the top players now? They had brief spells of success but have fallen away for one reason or another when the likes of Fed, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray took the game to a new level - a level others can't live with hence why those four are consistently at the business end of slam events.

Safin like partying, Nalbandian liked donuts, Ferrero ran for US Vice-President. No, hang on, that was Geraldine Ferraro.

Or simply they couldn't compete at the new levels of tennis being played. I suppose it is akin to athletes with a personal best of 10.00 seconds in 100metres. In an era without Usain Bolt and Asafa Powell they would have been competitive but now those two have taken the event to higher levels they just can't compete.

Or not.
Nalby was No 3 in 2006 and injury hit in 2007, although he did beat Djoko, Rafa and Fed in the same tournament. This is 2007, when apparently I'm told he couldn't mix it with the top players anymore.

Safin suffered injuries in 2006, and never really got back to his best, but still made the Wimbledon semis in 2008, beating Djoko in straight sets along the way even though reliable sources say he could no longer mix it with the top players after 2005.

Ferrero, well, maybe he was never that great.

Safin - has titles (15) and finals (12) ....

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Marat-Safin.aspx?t=tf

Nalbandian - has titles (11) and finals (11) ...

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/David-Nalbandian.aspx?t=tf

Ferrero - has titles (16) and finals (18) ...

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Juan-Carlos-Ferrero.aspx?t=tf

Ljubicic - has titles (10) and finals (13)...

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Ivan-Ljubicic.aspx?t=tf

Blake - has titles (10) and finals (14)...

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/James-Blake.aspx?t=tf

Rios - has titles (18) and finals (13)...

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Ri/M/Marcelo-Rios.aspx?t=tf

Moya - has titles (20) and finals (24)...

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Mo/C/Carlos-Moya.aspx?t=tf



Socal mentioned

Monfils - titles (3) and finals (10) ....

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Gael-Monfils.aspx?t=tf

Berdych - titles (5) and finals (6) ....

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Tomas-Berdych.aspx?t=tf

Tsonga - has titles (5) and finals (3) ...

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Jo-Wilfried-Tsonga.aspx?t=tf

Gasquet - has titles (6) and finals (8) ...

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Richard-Gasquet.aspx?t=tf

----

I will leave the Top 4 out of this and ask the question, again. Can someone here provide quantitative proof of a 'weak' era, so I can research and prove it otherwise?

Edit: Now the argument I anticipate is that these specific titles are somehow inferior?

Yes but that is the point - two of those I mentioned had brief moments of competitiveness circa 2005/06 but no locking out of slam semis consistenly like the current top four have done. The current top four have raised the standards to new levels in recent times and apart from sporadic slams well scattered Federer, Nadal and Djokovic of late have been dominant whilst Murray may not have won a slam he is consistently there or thereabouts unlike Nalbandian, Berdych, Ferrero etc etc

laverfan I beg to differ.

At Wimbledon Berdych may well have been a surprise as expected to lose to Federer but then again he also beat Djokovic.

The Scud and Nalbandian weren't (both these guys made the final when Sampras was on his way out and who else do you suggest would have been in the final - Henman ???)

At the FO Soderling that big a surprise? Yes beating Nadal was but then he had a "relatively" straight forward run until losing to Federer.

At the AO yes you have a point - but then again historically that has always been the case until very recent times.

In terms of winners Ivanisavic was only a surprise because everybody thought he was past it. You may as well add Hewitt into the mix. They both won it because it was between the Sampras and Federer eras of domination.

Costa, Ferrrero and Gaudio. Do me a favour did you expect those well known top ranked "clay court specialists" Sampras and Roddick to win instead? Now that would have been a surprise. They won because they were good enough on clay and that invincible champion Nadal wasn't yet on the scene.

Del Potro maybe was a surprise winner at the time but then why not add Roddick to that list too? Bet you anything you like Del Potro doesn't remain a one slam wonder unlike Andy and won't remain on your surprise list.

But it's easy to turn the argument around and say that just shows the weakness of the players outside the top 4, whereas previously there was more strength in depth.
And with the top 4 not changing, maybe it's easier to get to a GS semi now than ever before, but harder to win a GS from that point on?

With regards to e.g. Ferrero, can we say the same about, say, Jim Courier - was 91 - 93 a weak era that allowed him to win slams, but then after that he could no longer compete with the better players that came along.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Safin like partying, Nalbandian liked donuts, Ferrero ran for US Vice-President. No, hang on, that was Geraldine Ferraro.

And Julius how exactly does this refute the points that Craig and I have been making. Precisely, Safin liked Vodka and fashion models more than tennis, and Nalbandian loved to eat. The two most singular talents of that period outside of Roger didn't have nearly the committment to the game of other champions. This point of yours actually validates my theory.

If you want to look at blake, there is no way James Blake is better than michael chang, in fact if these two played on a slow surface I would favor Chang to beat blake handily. Chang has won numerous masters along with a grandslam Blake to my recollection has never even collected an ATP 500 event. Additionally, you can fixate on blake but fail to adequately answer why the dominant players of the early 2000s who were all young and should have peaked in the middle of the decade simply had the game pass them by. Roddick in particular actually improved as a player in my mind the second half of his career and still was never able to match his accomplishments in his early twenties. Roddick of 09 wimbeldon was a better player than Roddick of 03, but he could not replicate the same result

Laverfan, your list is not applicable. It would be a fair comparison if you measured these players after there careers are over. And you didn't compare the top 3 at all, and the reason you didn't was that they blow the likes of Ferrero and Ljubi out of the water. But even based on the next tier of today's players, you are comparing players who have basically finished their careers to players who are just entering their primes and getting better. Murray for certain will surpass many of the tournament titles and victories in 5-6 years when he is the same age as the other players you have mentioned. Of course players who have been on tour years more are going to have more finals and more wins than players entering their mid 20s, that is just about all your list proved.

socal, I'd be happy if no-one ever mentioned Blake again. Some posters seem fixated on using his 12 weeks in the top 5 as proof that 1999 - 2005 were a weak era. Even though he was in the top 5 at the end of 2006. For 12 whole weeks.

And I did not compare Chang to Blake. I compared him to Federer. If Chang was No 2 in 1996, surely 1996 is a much weaker era than 2011, when Fed is No. 3. Especially with Muster as No 1.

And if Bjorkman was No 4. in 1997, surely 1997 was weak as well.

As for Safin and Nalby, they showed that when focussed and fit, they could match Rafa, Fed and Djoko. And they were focussed and fit mainly in the early 2000s. Which makes the early 2000s weak?

Another way of looking at this era being stronger is Federer and Nadal will retire as legends of the sport and the way Djokovic is going he will join them. Can we say the same of Safin, Moya, Rios, Ferrero, Nalbandian - no of course not. Agassi yes but that is your lot from that era.

When focussed and fit? Sorry but focus and fitness is another mark of greatness. Injury is a trump card to play and I'd hazard a guess that Nalbandian has played Nadal when both are carrying injuries and Nadal came out on top. Safin lacked the discipline as well yet that still took him to top spot pre-2005 but once today's breed came to the fore his lack of professionalism was found out.

Exactly, Craig, if you look at the transitional number #1s they all took place from about 1996-2003 till the rise of federer. Before this time period as well you never really had any transitional #1s as players would contend for years before raising their game to that level. By the late 90s agassi and Sampras where past their best, Pete especially. Andre is another player who shows how the early 2000s was pretty weak. In 2003 at the age of 33 he reached #1 in the world again for the last time in his career. A completely spent force of pete Sampras won the 02 US open. But by 1999 Pete was not the same and you had a parade of weak number 1s.

And no one has come up with a real answer (other than the tour just got better) as to why world #1s Hewitt, Roddick, and Ferrero all completely dissappeared from contention at what should have been their physical primes. Hewitt had some injuries but even when he had lenghty periods of health he was just not a contender for slams. Roddick has been healthy and durable and has never suffered burnout and yet from about 24 on he was not getting the same type of results. In fact, Roddick may have been a much better player in the second half of the decade than he was when he reached #1 in 03.

CC, what about Muster?
From 96 - 98, Sampras' chief rivals were Rios, Muster, Chang. Did Sampras benefit from a weak era in those 3 years?

Can anyone tell me what makes 1999 a weak year, but 1996 a strong one?
Or 2005 a weak one, but 2006 a strong one?

As for focussed and fit, I'm not measuring their greatness, I'm answering the question that was asked of why their careers didn't last at the same level i.e. not through lack of talent.

I would say 1996 was a stronger year in my opinion than late 90s early 200s. I believe that was the year Boris Becker won the Australian open. Can't see Muster, Chang, and Rios being a particularly weak class of rival for the next tier. Agassi was still playing, Becker was still relevant. And most importantly Pete himself was dominating in the mid 90s.

Transitional No 1's?
That would be Hewitt at 80 weeks, longer than Edberg
Keurten at 43 weeks, longer than Wilander
Roddick at 13 weeks, longer than Becker.

I personally see Muster, Rios and Chang as very weak competition for Sampras. Agassi had gone AWOL for most of that time.

Yes but nobody in their rght mind would rate hewitt, kuerten or Roddick in the same stratosphere of tennis talent to the other 3 players mentioned. Julius you do realize that the argument of how weaker players like Roddick could get to #1 easier than a wilander or becker is actually proving my point. When Wilander and Becker reached #1 there was more depth at the top of the game. That is why guys with 6 and 7 slams had so much trouble getting to world #1. In the late 90s and early 2000s six slams would have gotten you way, way more weeks at number #1. The very fact that 3 mediocre talents (relatively speaking they are great players) like Kuerten, one shot Andy, and no shot Hewitt, could spend more weeks at #1 than the likes of Becker, Wilander, and Edberg proves this disparity in quality that I have been talking about between the two differing eras.

Chang is not weak competition, the guy won lots of masters and a grandslam and played in a couple more grandslam finals. Chang never reached number one in his era (relatively stronger at the top) although if he posts the same numbers of

newballs wrote:At Wimbledon Berdych may well have been a surprise as expected to lose to Federer but then again he also beat Djokovic

... and losing in the first round of FO 2011....

newballs wrote:The Scud and Nalbandian weren't (both these guys made the final when Sampras was on his way out and who else do you suggest would have been in the final - Henman ???)

Why not? If Rusedski could make the US Open?

newballs wrote:At the FO Soderling that big a surprise? Yes beating Nadal was but then he had a "relatively" straight forward run until losing to Federer.

He was down 1-4 in the fifth set against Gonzalez.

newballs wrote:Costa, Ferrrero and Gaudio. Do me a favour did you expect those well known top ranked "clay court specialists" Sampras and Roddick to win instead? Now that would have been a surprise. They won because they were good enough on clay and that invincible champion Nadal wasn't yet on the scene.

Agreed.

newballs wrote:Del Potro maybe was a surprise winner at the time but then why not add Roddick to that list too? Bet you anything you like Del Potro doesn't remain a one slam wonder unlike Andy and won't remain on your surprise list.

Hope he does well in the future, but no crystal ball to predict it.

Chang was just about the most ordinary No. 2 I've ever seen. He could run forever, but had nothing else. Connors at 38 took him to a 5th set at the French on his favourite surface.

If you want to argue that 1996 onwards was relatively weak, fair enough, but I see little difference between 1996 and 1999 and the years in between and can't see that the 1999 was the start of anything.

If 1996-1999 was kept strong by Sampras alone, surely 2004 onwards was kept strong by Federer alone.

If you want to argue 2005 was weak, then explain why 2006 wasn't.
If you want to argue 2006 was weak, then explain why 2007 wasn't.

I just wish you'd stick to the same criteria for each year.

The problem, I suspect, is that you don't want to go far enough back to denigrate most of what Sampras did or far enough forward to denigrate what most of what Nadal has done, but are quite happy to denigrate most of what Federer did. If I'm wrong, then I apologize in advance.

socal1976 wrote:When Wilander and Becker reached #1 there was more depth at the top of the game. That is why guys with 6 and 7 slams had so much trouble getting to world #1. In the late 90s and early 2000s six slams would have gotten you way, way more weeks at number #1.

Remember Becker started in 1985-86. Wilander had three slams in 1988, but retired by 1991.

JuliusHMarx wrote:
The problem, I suspect, is that you don't want to go far enough back to denigrate most of what Sampras did or far enough forward to denigrate what most of what Nadal has done, but are quite happy to denigrate most of what Federer did. If I'm wrong, then I apologize in advance.

I have already pointed out that Nadal was a #2 in 2005 (25 Jul 2005). So the window of opportunity for 'weak' era is between 2000-2005. I have already pointed out in an earlier post that Federer won more slams after 2005(10 - same number as how many Nadal holds now) than before 2005 (6).

If you look at players successful in the early 2000's a pattern is there:-

Safin made four slam finals and won two against Sampras who was coming to the end of his career and Leyton Hewitt in 2000 and 2005. One of his slam final defeats was against Roger Federer and lost in three other ATP Finals against Federer never beating him when it mattered and in total made seven slam semis. Age wasn't a factor in his demise as in 2005 he was still only 25.

Juan Carlos Ferrero's best years were 2003/04 when he had a decent spell but since then he has fallen away so why isn't he up in the top echelons?

Andre Agassi was more of a player dominant in the mid to late 90's but still had a spell of dominance in the early 2000's. Agassi would make the legend category for me.

Marcelo Rios - his best years were clearly the late 90's as far as slams were concerned. In the early 2000's up until the end of his career he has two Masters semis defeats and no slam semis so certainly not a great force yet No.1?

Carlos Moya - Likewise his best tennis came in the late 90's where he reached two slam finals (winning one) and two slam semis whilst in the 2000's his best run at a slam was to reach the quarter-finals.

Leyton Hewitt was to have his most fruitful years in the early 2000's with two slam wins and once beaten finalist in 2005. Since then his ranking has dropped away. Okay he has had injuries but also lengthy fit spells and he has made no impression at slams.

There isn't one player in that group of early 2000's top players who have taking up the challenge laid down by Federer, Nadal and Djokovic on a consistent basis ie like Murray has done of late reaching many slam semis.

I just want to add a final thought to this thread -

everyone is a transitional number one!

SF and higher since 2000 (up to 2005) at the four slams...

AO

2000 - Agassi, Sampras, Norman, Kafelnikov - Winner - Agassi
2001 - Clement, Grosjean, Agassi, Rafter - Winner - Agassi
2002 - Haas, Safin, Novak, Johansson - Winner - Johansson
2003 - Roddick, Schuettler, Ferreira, Agassi - Winner - Agassi
2004 - Safin, Agassi, Ferrero, Federer - Winner - Federer
2005 - Safin, Federer, Hewitt, Roddick - Winner - Safin

Safin, Agassi, Roddick, Federer appear multiple times.

FO

2000 - Squillari, Norman, Kuerten, Ferrero - Winner - Kuerten
2001 - Kuerten, Ferrero, Grosjean, Corretja - Winner - Kuerten
2002 - Costa, Corretja, Ferrero, Safin - Winner - Costa
2003 - Costa, Ferrero, Verkerk, Coria - Winner - Ferrero
2004 - Nalbandian, Gaudio, Coria, Henman - Winner - Gaudio
2005 - Federer, Nadal, Davydenko, Puerta - Winner - Nadal

Kuerten, Ferrero, Corretja, Coria appear multiple times.

W

2000 - Sampras, Voltchkov, Rafter, Agassi - Winner - Sampras
2001 - Henman, Ivanisevic, Rafter, Agassi - Winner - Ivanisevic
2002 - Hewitt, Henman, Malisse, Nalbandian - Winner - Hewitt
2003 - Roddick, Federer, Grosjean, Phillippoussis - Winner Federer
2004 - Federer, Grosjean, Ancic, Roddick - Winner - Federer
2005 - Federer, Hewitt, Johansson, Roddick - Winner - Federer

Agassi, Rafter, Henman, Grosjean, Roddick, Federer, Hewitt appear multiple times.

USO

2000 - Hewitt, Sampras, Safin, Martin - Winner Safin
2001 - Kafelnikov, Hewitt, Safin, Sampras - Winner - Hewitt
2002 - Hewitt, Agassi, Sampras, Schalken - Winner - Sampras
2003 - Agassi, Ferrero, Roddick, Nalbandian - Winner - Roddick
2004 - Federer, Henman, Hewitt, J Johansson - Winner - Federer
2005 - Federer, Hewitt, Ginepri, Agassi - Winner - Federer

Safin, Hewitt, Sampras, Agassi, Federer appear multiple times.

There is some consistency with players being able to get to the SF stages of slams. Does it imply a 'weak' era? IMO, it does not.

Socal hasn't got a clue about tennis....very much like Lydian and they are not worth wasting your time.

The facts are clear, the competition at the top of the game is not always consistent there are retrenchment periods, basically the late 90s till mid 2000s. Just the list of attrocious number 1s we had in that period of time alone should prove the point. (Roddick, hewitt, kuerten, safin, rios, ferrero, moya) Frankly don't think a single one of them other than Safin if he was feeling like he cared could even break into the top 3 today, and lets just forget about #1. Again these guys are great players, they just aren't great number one players.

Now, does this mean that Federer somehow can't be goat, no it doesn't. As I have said before a player can only win with the tour he is given and control what he can control. Roger Federer would probably be the greatest player of pretty much any generation. But it does not take away from the fact that the early part of his grandslam run was somewhat weaker than the current competition. I mean is Rafael Nadal better now or when he was 18 and first became #2 in the world. In 2005 Nadal was good enough for #2 in the world, yet he could barely get his serve over 100 miles an hour. Agassi at age 33 became #1 in the world and won the Australian open. Nadal right now is world #2 but is a much, much better player than when he first reached that ranking at 18.

socal1976 wrote:The facts are clear, the competition at the top of the game is not always consistent there are retrenchment periods, basically the late 90s till mid 2000s. Just the list of attrocious number 1s we had in that period of time alone should prove the point. (Roddick, hewitt, kuerten, safin, rios, ferrero, moya) Frankly don't think a single one of them other than Safin if he was feeling like he cared could even break into the top 3 today, and lets just forget about #1. Again these guys are great players, they just aren't great number one players.

Now, does this mean that Federer somehow can't be goat, no it doesn't. As I have said before a player can only win with the tour he is given and control what he can control. Roger Federer would probably be the greatest player of pretty much any generation. But it does not take away from the fact that the early part of his grandslam run was somewhat weaker than the current competition. I mean is Rafael Nadal better now or when he was 18 and first became #2 in the world. In 2005 Nadal was good enough for #2 in the world, yet he could barely get his serve over 100 miles an hour. Agassi at age 33 became #1 in the world and won the Australian open. Nadal right now is world #2 but is a much, much better player than when he first reached that ranking at 18.

1. No socal, the 'facts' or 'lies, lies and statistics ' as one politician called so called numbers, are open to many different interpretations. I respectfully suggest that it is rather arrogant of you to assume that your interpretation is 'the facts'

2. The top four are extremely strong and consistent, even with Fed falling from his high standards a little and there are many very entertaining and talented players below. However

.........I don't think anyone outside the top four has shown that they have the stuff, whether it be desire, health or consistent talent to challenge the top positions. I cannot remember another period in tennis when it was a surprise if it wasn't the top four constantly in the semis. The rest of the field is made to look ordinary regularly, perhaps because they are not exceptional.

3. Please show me the 20 (just one of them) yr old challenger to Murray, Djoker and Rafa as the guys you dismiss had in these v talented trio. Raonic - great serve, injured already, good forehand, not the best mover - is it likely he could dominate them (don't think so). Tomic much hyped at Australian, loudly fancied his chances against Rafa (out with a whimper). Obviously likes grass like all the Ozzies, gutsy but really apart from W has not set every hack's pen scribbling frantically. Dimitrov - beautiful game, flaky, etc.

4. There is no other time when there has been such a LACK of 20 year olds in the top 100 - that is a FACT

5. Look at the top players of any other time and you will find a young (18-21) challenger to their crown - please show me that challenger now - the one the press, the fans and the experts that Craig keeps loosely quoting are all buzzing about.

6. Novak is doing brilliantly - great to see him live up to his potential, but don't try and discount the guys who are a few years older than him please. The only way now for him after, hopefully a good reign at No1, is down so you don't want to end up looking foolish when one of the 'weak' guys has his day in one tournament - hey, by the law of averages, it will happen - there are more of them than young guns in the top 100

PS, As a Fed fan, I do appreciate your generosity in saying that despite everything you can't blame Federer because he can only play what is in front of him

I must remember to look up all the 'weak era' guys head to head with the few 20 year olds around. After all, one should confidently expect these challengers that the Nos 1,2, and 4 at are so gallantly battling all the time to, to be able to take out the weak era 29 -33 year olds with great ease, 100 per cent of the time.

Can anyone help me please?

Tell me why then that Juan Carlos Ferrero (reached No.1 in the rankings in the early 2000's and slam winner) has such a poor record against current world No.4 Andy Murray who has never reached No.1 or won a slam in this era?

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=MC10&oId=F316

Also Marat Safin at the top of his game in 2005 in his one game against a very green Andy Murray who had fitness issues etc at the time and a lot of improving to do had to fight hard for his one win in their only meeting:-

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=MC10&oId=S741

David Nalbandian's wins came in Murray's formative years and one of his wins came with Murray leading 2-0 in sets and physical fitness let him down. Previous two meetings of them in 2010 Murray won:-

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=MC10&oId=N301

And just remember this is Murray's head to head records against players who flourished in the early 2000's remembering that Andy is stuck at world No.4 just now with no slams to his name which tells you in itself what strength in depth this era has.

Marat Safin's records against today's legends that are Federer and Nadal doesn't make for good reading either:-

Safin V Federer:-

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=S741

Safin V Nadal:-

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=N409&oId=S741

If you match up Safin's record against players in the early 2000's it is far more comparable. That alone tells me the newer era's levels were too hot for him hence he fell away pretty quickly after 2005 when he was so successful as this is when the likes of Nadal and Djokovic began breaking through and standards rose as the top players began pushing up the level needed to compete.

I don't think you actually bother to consider any one else's point of view Craig because you keep coming back with exactly the same points.

Murray is a terrific player - he is not a great player, I do hope he will prove himself to be.

One thought for you if you can manage to think a bit more laterally around the point, people first hailed Murray as talented and looked forward to great things from him, feeling the sky could be the limit because of the way he played Nalbandian and Safin and the like, not despite it.
Forgive me for mentioning it because you seem to be so up to date on what all the experts, fans and, who else was it - or yes the coaches, thinks
So Craig, rubbish and dismiss Safin and Nalbandian away you just can't or won't see that by doing so you are vastly diminishing Murray's claims to being a genuine contender for major titles

No not at all. I am re-iterating the point how strong this era is. Which it is. We have two players who are up amongst the greatest of all-time in Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal and Novak Djopkovic is on a very hot streak at the moment where he has taken his game to a new level this year. I am a Murray fan but feel if he misses out on a slam it won't be from want of trying or lack of talent just a testament to the players that stand in his way at the moment.

CaledonianCraig wrote:No not at all. I am re-iterating the point how strong this era is. Which it is. We have two players who are up amongst the greatest of all-time in Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal and Novak Djopkovic is on a very hot streak at the moment where he has taken his game to a new level this year. I am a Murray fan but feel if he misses out on a slam it won't be from want of trying or lack of talent just a testament to the players that stand in his way at the moment.

Yes, but you want to do it at the expense of the years preceeding your strong era, completely and wilfully disregarding the fact that most of those guys are still in the top 100 and there are less than a handful of 20 year olds in that 100 (never before in any era has that happened and it is slightly worrying about the strength of the competition going forward)

You still can't see that it is you, not the people arguing for Fed and his contemporaries, who are actually (sadly in your haste to make a case for Murray) who are diminishing his achievements by refusing to acknowledge that the era before had extremely talented guys too.

There is no reason to assume that Murray would have beaten Safin in his two slam finals, especially as Safin went through Federer in 2005 en route to AO title - let's not go there, shall we?

Anyone who can beat 2005 Federer in a Slam is to be taken seriously. Far more seriously than players who couldn't beat him from 2008 onwards.

Unless you hadn't realised ALL sports and even other forms of entertainment have their weak/strong eras whether people want to admit to it or not and it is all about opinion. Currently, Tomic looks like he could develop into a top player and who knows about any of the other juniors doing the rounds but that is up to them to grasp the mettle just like Nadal, Djokovic and to a lesser extend (thus far) Andy Murray did from 2005 to 2007.

My assumptions are that Federer is a better player than Safin (care to disagree not many would) and look how successful Fed was against Safin. Two of Andy's slam defeats came against Federer at his peak and that is why going by those facts I'd fancy Andy's chances more against Safin. No disrespect to Safin but that is just the way it is. I am being realistic enough to admit that Murray's best in this era may not be enough (I hope I am wrong)to win a slam but time will tell.