A question for the old-timers!

[El Dude]

By "old-timers" I mean folks with a good memory of the game of the late 20th century. I'm 40 years old so not exactly young, but was a very casual fan until a few years ago, so don't really remember the ins and outs of the 70s, 80s or even 90s.

I've often commented that there are pretty distinct tiers of players in the game today, and over the last few years. The first tier is the Big Four - the true elite of the game and the favorites to win any given Slam or Master's event. The second tier are what I would call the "Contenders," or the near elite - players like Ferrer, Berdych, Tsonga, Del Potro, and recently Wawrinka, who are darkhorse candidates to win a Slam or Masters, and are able to occasionally upset the elite. Beyond that, the third tier would be the "Pretenders" - players who might win an ATP 250 or even 500, but aren't quite yet serious contenders for the bigger tournaments. Think of players like Gasquet, Almagro, Simon, Youzhny, Isner, Robredo, and more recently Raonic and Dimitrov, and more besides. Beyond that there are further tiers, but I don't want to get too bogged down.

So this brings me to my question. It seems that the gap between the tiers today is quite substantial, as we saw with some of the utter demolitions of lesser players by Rafa, Roger, etc. My question is this: were there such distinct gaps in earlier eras? Or is this more of a recent affair and, perhaps, the result of the homogenization of courts (to some degree)? Did Sampras or Lendl or McEnroe utterly destroy #10 players like Roger did Gasquet? What say you?

 

[Federberg]

Good question... In my view the biggest problem is the homogenization of courts. And of course we can't discount balls, and string technology having some impact as well. While the odds did/ and always will favour the best players, the consistency and lack of surprises at the back end of tournaments has never been like this. Certainly not when I was growing up in the late 70s, early 80s. This is one of the reasons I have difficulties with the concept of GOAT. I simply don't believe that the current guys are that much better than the Llendl's and Borg's and Mac's. To my mind they exist in an environment that is supportive of their abilities, and they have been relatively shielded from the negative psychology of really bad losses. It's a circular thing.. the more times you win, the more invincible you become, and more importantly the more impossible it seems to the opposition to get a win against you. Maybe I'm getting too old and want to believe too much in previous golden era's.. but the uniformity of surfaces, just makes me think that the top 4 domination now lacks a bit of credibility in a historic context. Just my opinion though!

 

[brokenshoelace]

Good question... In my view the biggest problem is the homogenization of courts. And of course we can't discount balls, and string technology having some impact as well. While the odds did/ and always will favour the best players, the consistency and lack of surprises at the back end of tournaments has never been like this. Certainly not when I was growing up in the late 70s, early 80s. This is one of the reasons I have difficulties with the concept of GOAT. I simply don't believe that the current guys are that much better than the Llendl's and Borg's and Mac's. To my mind they exist in an environment that is supportive of their abilities, and they have been relatively shielded from the negative psychology of really bad losses. It's a circular thing.. the more times you win, the more invincible you become, and more importantly the more impossible it seems to the opposition to get a win against you. Maybe I'm getting too old and want to believe too much in previous golden era's.. but the uniformity of surfaces, just makes me think that the top 4 domination now lacks a bit of credibility in a historic context. Just my opinion though!

I would have agreed right until the very end. It doesn't lack credibility because the top 4 are competing under the same circumstances as their rivals, the same way Mac/Borg and others competed under the same circumstances as their own rivals.

Ultimately, all players today are playing on the same courts, so the one winning the most is the best. Nothing that diminishes credibility there.

It's ludicrous to look at how good guys like Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are and claim their dominance lacks a bit of credibility just because surfaces are not as different as they used to be. They are the best of their generation. The same way Borg and Mac were the best in theirs, Pete and Andre were the best in theirs, etc...

 

[DarthFed]

Good question... In my view the biggest problem is the homogenization of courts. And of course we can't discount balls, and string technology having some impact as well. While the odds did/ and always will favour the best players, the consistency and lack of surprises at the back end of tournaments has never been like this. Certainly not when I was growing up in the late 70s, early 80s. This is one of the reasons I have difficulties with the concept of GOAT. I simply don't believe that the current guys are that much better than the Llendl's and Borg's and Mac's. To my mind they exist in an environment that is supportive of their abilities, and they have been relatively shielded from the negative psychology of really bad losses. It's a circular thing.. the more times you win, the more invincible you become, and more importantly the more impossible it seems to the opposition to get a win against you. Maybe I'm getting too old and want to believe too much in previous golden era's.. but the uniformity of surfaces, just makes me think that the top 4 domination now lacks a bit of credibility in a historic context. Just my opinion though!

I would have agreed right until the very end. It doesn't lack credibility because the top 4 are competing under the same circumstances as their rivals, the same way Mac/Borg and others competed under the same circumstances as their own rivals.

Ultimately, all players today are playing on the same courts, so the one winning the most is the best. Nothing that diminishes credibility there.

It's ludicrous to look at how good guys like Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are and claim their dominance lacks a bit of credibility just because surfaces are not as different as they used to be. They are the best of their generation. The same way Borg and Mac were the best in theirs, Pete and Andre were the best in theirs, etc...

I think the point Federberg is making is that it is now far more easy to dominate year round due to the homogenization of surfaces. Lacking credibility might not be the best way to put it but I think it is easier to dominate everything in sight IF you are the best player in the world. Now, it must be said that it is not easier to be the best player in the world, some might argue it is harder than ever, but the reward is greater and that's due to similar surfaces and everyone playing the same way. Case in point is the much talked about Channel Slam. To me that accomplishment has been cheapened a bit due to the fact that grass has been greatly slowed down in the past 10 years or so. Borg doing it is more impressive of an accomplishment than Roger and Rafa doing it.

Roger, Rafa and Nole have all benefited from the homogenization of surfaces/playing styles during their periods of domination IMO. The only thing I will say for Roger is that the general slowing down of surfaces has definitely hurt him in his later years.

 

[huntingyou]

myth

the game has speed up, it's faster than ever. If you keep all the surfaces speed identical to the 90s then the game today would be a joke. Surface speed it's just a factor.......the guys hitting the ball are the dominant factor in this equation and there is no doubt about it that today's athletes are just stronger and faster. Technology it's a factor too but all players utilize the same technology which enables them to hit with so much pace at will

The so called homogenization of surfaces it's another myth. Courts play differently from day to day just by weather variation alone. Just take IW and Miami, players have to adapt despite both courts being slow pace rating.

Players choosing to play the similar style it's just natural progresion.

At the end of the day, HC, clay and grass are as different from each other as they have ever been. Somebody alert me when the physical composition changes.

So why people insist? I think the fact that 99% of the tour play from the baseline which is a direct contrats to let's say the 90s where at some point you have a healthy 50/50 split of baseliners and S&V players clouds perception. It's not easier to dominate today in comparison to 1993 for example. When somebody explain to me how Sampras had it more difficult than Federer then we might have a conversation.

 

[DarthFed]

myth

the game has speed up, it's faster than ever. If you keep all the surfaces speed identical to the 90s then the game today would be a joke. Surface speed it's just a factor.......the guys hitting the ball are the dominant factor in this equation and there is no doubt about it that today's athletes are just stronger and faster. Technology it's a factor too but all players utilize the same technology which enables them to hit with so much pace at will

The so called homogenization of surfaces it's another myth. Courts play differently from day to day just by weather variation alone. Just take IW and Miami, players have to adapt despite both courts being slow pace rating.

Players choosing to play the similar style it's just natural progresion.

At the end of the day, HC, clay and grass are as different from each other as they have ever been. Somebody alert me when the physical composition changes.

So why people insist? I think the fact that 99% of the tour play from the baseline which is a direct contrats to let's say the 90s where at some point you have a healthy 50/50 split of baseliners and S&V players clouds perception. It's not easier to dominate today in comparison to 1993 for example. When somebody explain to me how Sampras had it more difficult than Federer then we might have a conversation.

The surface composition has been changed for Wimbledon grass and a lot of hard court events and they also have switched to heavier balls at Wimbledon and other events. The playing conditions slowing down is a fact plain and simple. And the fact that today's athletes are faster, stronger, etc. kind of contradicts the part of the game being a joke if they had kept the same surfaces as the 90's. Not sure how you are getting that.

 

[Tennis Miller]

Good question... In my view the biggest problem is the homogenization of courts. And of course we can't discount balls, and string technology having some impact as well. While the odds did/ and always will favour the best players, the consistency and lack of surprises at the back end of tournaments has never been like this. Certainly not when I was growing up in the late 70s, early 80s. This is one of the reasons I have difficulties with the concept of GOAT. I simply don't believe that the current guys are that much better than the Llendl's and Borg's and Mac's. To my mind they exist in an environment that is supportive of their abilities, and they have been relatively shielded from the negative psychology of really bad losses. It's a circular thing.. the more times you win, the more invincible you become, and more importantly the more impossible it seems to the opposition to get a win against you. Maybe I'm getting too old and want to believe too much in previous golden era's.. but the uniformity of surfaces, just makes me think that the top 4 domination now lacks a bit of credibility in a historic context. Just my opinion though!

I would have agreed right until the very end. It doesn't lack credibility because the top 4 are competing under the same circumstances as their rivals, the same way Mac/Borg and others competed under the same circumstances as their own rivals.

Ultimately, all players today are playing on the same courts, so the one winning the most is the best. Nothing that diminishes credibility there.

It's ludicrous to look at how good guys like Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are and claim their dominance lacks a bit of credibility just because surfaces are not as different as they used to be. They are the best of their generation. The same way Borg and Mac were the best in theirs, Pete and Andre were the best in theirs, etc...

I think the point Federberg is making is that it is now far more easy to dominate year round due to the homogenization of surfaces. Lacking credibility might not be the best way to put it but I think it is easier to dominate everything in sight IF you are the best player in the world. Now, it must be said that it is not easier to be the best player in the world, some might argue it is harder than ever, but the reward is greater and that's due to similar surfaces and everyone playing the same way. Case in point is the much talked about Channel Slam. To me that accomplishment has been cheapened a bit due to the fact that grass has been greatly slowed down in the past 10 years or so. Borg doing it is more impressive of an accomplishment than Roger and Rafa doing it.

Roger, Rafa and Nole have all benefited from the homogenization of surfaces/playing styles during their periods of domination IMO. The only thing I will say for Roger is that the general slowing down of surfaces has definitely hurt him in his later years.

Not sure I agree with including Fed among those who benefitted from homogenization during dominant period. I think he had to change more than Rafa, and I think he's more versatile than just about anyone we've ever seen. There's no other way to explain his 6 YECs to Rafa's 0. For example, I also don't see a young Rafa beating Sampras at Wimbledon 2001 on those courts as they were then.

On today's grass, I'd give Rafa a fighting chance vs Pete, not so much on 90's grass.

Cheers

TM

 

[Moxie]

There is another point about what has changed, which Tignor brought up the other day here on Tennis.com. That the Slams, (and his main point, which is IW and Miami) have changed from 16 to 32 seeds in the last decade. This adds a distinct advantage to higher-ranked players. (He has other points to make about number of seeds, which perhaps deserves its own thread.)

I think over-much can be made of the slowing-down-of/homogenization of the courts. They do play on the same courts against each other, in the same way that they play with the same modern equipment. (Argues against comparing eras, but not players playing at the same time.) However, further privileging top players via seeding might have something cogent to say to the original question.

 

[brokenshoelace]

On today's grass, I'd give Rafa a fighting chance vs Pete, not so much on 90's grass.

Cheers

TM

On today's grass, Nadal would be the favorite against Pete. First, before this turns into a big debate, let's be clear: I'm not talking about the Nadal who lost to Rosol and Darcis, the same way you're not talking about the Pete who lost to Bastl or Washington.

So with that out of the way, let's take a few things into account: If this hypothetical match were to take place in a parallel universe, it would take place in the second week of Wimbledon, which makes a huge difference (with regards to how the surface plays).

Now let's look at the match-up: Pete's serve will always be a factor, on any surface. Slower grass or not. But how is he supposed to break Nadal's serve himself (people forget how difficult Nadal's serve is to break in the second week of Wimbledon)? Chip and charge? Additionally, think about how much Sampras attacks the net on grass, and how much he serves and volleys. Let's see Pete consistently pick up balls from his shoelaces or hit good enough approach shots to avoid being passed. How is his backhand supposed to hold up in the rallies?

Whose game would you say is more suited to today's grass, Sampras or Federer? We'll both agree it's the latter. And yet, watching the 2007 and 2008 Wimbledon finals, I'd say Nadal had more than just a "fighting chance" in both those matches. He's a superior baseliner to Sampras. That makes a difference on today's grass.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Good question... In my view the biggest problem is the homogenization of courts. And of course we can't discount balls, and string technology having some impact as well. While the odds did/ and always will favour the best players, the consistency and lack of surprises at the back end of tournaments has never been like this. Certainly not when I was growing up in the late 70s, early 80s. This is one of the reasons I have difficulties with the concept of GOAT. I simply don't believe that the current guys are that much better than the Llendl's and Borg's and Mac's. To my mind they exist in an environment that is supportive of their abilities, and they have been relatively shielded from the negative psychology of really bad losses. It's a circular thing.. the more times you win, the more invincible you become, and more importantly the more impossible it seems to the opposition to get a win against you. Maybe I'm getting too old and want to believe too much in previous golden era's.. but the uniformity of surfaces, just makes me think that the top 4 domination now lacks a bit of credibility in a historic context. Just my opinion though!

I would have agreed right until the very end. It doesn't lack credibility because the top 4 are competing under the same circumstances as their rivals, the same way Mac/Borg and others competed under the same circumstances as their own rivals.

Ultimately, all players today are playing on the same courts, so the one winning the most is the best. Nothing that diminishes credibility there.

It's ludicrous to look at how good guys like Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are and claim their dominance lacks a bit of credibility just because surfaces are not as different as they used to be. They are the best of their generation. The same way Borg and Mac were the best in theirs, Pete and Andre were the best in theirs, etc...

I think the point Federberg is making is that it is now far more easy to dominate year round due to the homogenization of surfaces.

No it's not. That's what many of the people stuck in the past fail to see. Today, it is easier to be good on all surfaces, yes. However, that doesn't mean it is easier to dominate, since dominating means beating other players consistently, and those other players are also playing on the same "homogeneous" surfaces, and supposedly should have it just as easy to be good on all of them.

In other words, with some notable exceptions, you don't have top players who are non-factor on some surfaces, and therefore, you have to deal with them on every surface. This, in some ways, makes it more difficult.

For example, if you look at Agassi and Sampras, it was clear that Agassi had a distinct advantage on slower hards and clay, while Pete had a huge advantage on grass and faster hards. If you look at Djokovic-Nadal, with the exception of Nadal having an advantage on clay (and even that advantage is not as significant as it used to be), Nadal doesn't have a "go-to" surface against Djokovic. It's an uphill battle everywhere. And the reverse is also true, despite Novak's advantage on hards. I'm only using them as one example.

Federberg's point is one that is often echoed, but it's actually inaccurate. If he were to say: It's easier to be good on all surfaces in today's game, you wouldn't hear an argument from me. Because it would be true.

However, saying it's easier to dominate is a fallacy. Because in order to dominate, you have to beat your peers, not players from the past. It's not like Federer, Nadal and Novak are playing against Pete Sampras and dominating him unfairly due to the homogenization of the surfaces. They are coming up against players who are playing under the SAME conditions.

Question Federberg, Kieran and every other subscriber to that theory:

Does Rod Laver's domination lack credibility? After all, 3 of the majors were played on grass and hard courts were a non factor. Does that mean he wasn't that much better than his peers? Of course he was, since his peers were playing on the same surfaces. And yet, when we talk about this in a historical context, it conveniently get overlooked at the expense of homogenization of the surfaces today. How much more homogeneous can you get that 3 of the slams being played on one surface?

PS: The extent to which people think these surfaces have been homogenized is absolutely ridiculous. If the transition wasn't still very difficult, why on earth did someone like Nadal lose to Rosol and Darcis in rounds 2 and 1 of Wimbledon and struggle so much on grass? I guess that only applies to when a player can achieve a channel slam today: Oh, well yeah, grass and clay aren't THAT different nowadays. But someone like Nadal loses early at Wimbledon: suddenly it's due to his shakiness on grass. Well, which one is it?

 

[Kieran]

Of course it’s easier to dominate. It isn’t “easy”, because you still need to be the exception that rules, but it’s easier because the players have also homogenised in their styles, so if you’re 20% better than a guy on one surface, the move to his favoured surface won’t involve such huge adjustments to your game, and you would still be favoured to win. I think it was Connors who said a few years back, players don’t need to re-learn the game anymore, for the different surfaces. they just bring more or less the same clothes everywhere they go.

Why did Pete ditch the two-hander in his day? If he played today, do you think he would?

Nadal also nearly lost to Isner on clay in Paris in 2011, so being a slow starter at a major isn’t unusual. There are, of course, differences between grass and clay, but they’re not so unsurmountable as they were. Again a huge portion of this is because the styles have become similar. Coaches are creating the one culture within the sport, and that’s the Murray-Djoker model. It gets grades in all major schools.

But the styles have become similar because they work across the board: this is why Sampras ditched the two-hander.

As for Laver, I’ve said it before but it gets lost sometimes. Mats won Oz twice on grass, but never got beyond the qf at Wimbledon. I know, the field wasn’t so strong, but what could be stronger than facing McEnroe on grass? And yet Mats beat him - in four. The grass played differently from slam to slam. In Oz, it was different to Wimbledon. Now, it might be said, ah they’re all grass. Well yeah, but nowadays we have two HC slams, and yet look at all the fine print arguments about the details of how these two HC slams play. So, no, I wouldn’t say Laver’s achievements are diminished. I get your point, but I think that if you look at the game in the 80’s and 90’s, and see two totally different clubs of players playing alien games to each other and thriving on totally different surfaces, and then look at today, we can see that not only has the grass been slowed, but they players have conformed too…

 

[brokenshoelace]

Of course it’s easier to dominate. It isn’t “easy”, because you still need to be the exception that rules, but it’s easier because the players have also homogenised in their styles, so if you’re 20% better than a guy on one surface, the move to his favoured surface won’t involve such huge adjustments to your game, and you would still be favoured to win. I think it was Connors who said a few years back, players don’t need to re-learn the game anymore, for the different surfaces. they just bring more or less the same clothes everywhere they go.

Why did Pete ditch the two-hander in his day? If he played today, do you think he would?

Nadal also nearly lost to Isner on clay in Paris in 2011, so being a slow starter at a major isn’t unusual. There are, of course, differences between grass and clay, but they’re not so unsurmountable as they were. Again a huge portion of this is because the styles have become similar. Coaches are creating the one culture within the sport, and that’s the Murray-Djoker model. It gets grades in all major schools.

But the styles have become similar because they work across the board: this is why Sampras ditched the two-hander.

As for Laver, I’ve said it before but it gets lost sometimes. Mats won Oz twice on grass, but never got beyond the qf at Wimbledon. I know, the field wasn’t so strong, but what could be stronger than facing McEnroe on grass? And yet Mats beat him - in four. The grass played differently from slam to slam. In Oz, it was different to Wimbledon. Now, it might be said, ah they’re all grass. Well yeah, but nowadays we have two HC slams, and yet look at all the fine print arguments about the details of how these two HC slams play. So, no, I wouldn’t say Laver’s achievements are diminished. I get your point, but I think that if you look at the game in the 80’s and 90’s, and see two totally different clubs of players playing alien games to each other and thriving on totally different surfaces, and then look at today, we can see that not only has the grass been slowed, but they players have conformed too…

I'll take a wild guess and say the difference between one grass court an another in Laver's day were less severe than between a clay court and a grass court today. So if you're going to apply one logic to one, you have to apply it to the other.

As far as whether it's easier to dominate. I still don't buy the argument. It's easier to be good across all surfaces. That doesn't automatically translate to domination, since everyone has the same chance to be good on all surface. So everyone is playing on an even playing field.

"so if you’re 20% better than a guy on one surface, the move to his favoured surface won’t involve such huge adjustments to your game, and you would still be favoured to win."

I agree, but is it easier to be 20% better than a guy today than it was 20 years ago? Why? Domination, ultimately comes down to how much better you are. Being better today still bears the same meaning as being better 20 years ago. The changes to surfaces don't change this notion.

PS: Nadal didn't "nearly lose" to Isner. He was dragged to five sets. That's an important nuance. He got an early break in the fifth (after winning the 4th 6-2) and cruised for the rest of the set.

 

[Federberg]

There is another point about what has changed, which Tignor brought up the other day here on Tennis.com. That the Slams, (and his main point, which is IW and Miami) have changed from 16 to 32 seeds in the last decade. This adds a distinct advantage to higher-ranked players. (He has other points to make about number of seeds, which perhaps deserves its own thread.)

I think over-much can be made of the slowing-down-of/homogenization of the courts. They do play on the same courts against each other, in the same way that they play with the same modern equipment. (Argues against comparing eras, but not players playing at the same time.) However, further privileging top players via seeding might have something cogent to say to the original question.

I forgot about seedings. Very good point Moxie

 

[Federberg]

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I'm not convinced that the top 4 now have a greater superiority over their peers than the guys in the early 80s. Again I stress this is just an opinion. It just seems to be that having a marginal superiority in ability reaps greater rewards now than in the past. On the surface B_S you make some good points, but I feel that you're missing the human element. The current era, because they get to beat on the lower orders with regularity end up with a psychological advantage that maybe wasn't as pronounced in earlier eras. I can just imagine a clay court specialist fancying his chances against a Mac, or an Edberg under certain circumstances in the past, in a way that wouldn't occur now. I know that they were both RG finalists But I don't recall feeling a great deal of confidence when either of those guys were playing in clay tournaments back in the day. And believe me.. I was a huge fan of them both!

 

[Kieran]

I'll take a wild guess and say the difference between one grass court an another in Laver's day were less severe than between a clay court and a grass court today. So if you're going to apply one logic to one, you have to apply it to the other.

Well, the obvious observation to make here is that the difference between a grass and clay court in Lavers day was much more severe than today. The differences between the grass? Most likely similar to today's HC slams. Which are both closer to clay and grass than Lavers grass was. I've often seen people diss Laver by saying that 3 of the 4 slams were played on grass in his day, but then to emphasise the difficulty today, then detail the differences between hards in Oz and the US, as if to say the four slams are now played on four different surfaces.

As far as whether it's easier to dominate. I still don't buy the argument. It's easier to be good across all surfaces. That doesn't automatically translate to domination, since everyone has the same chance to be good on all surface. So everyone is playing on an even playing field.

"so if you’re 20% better than a guy on one surface, the move to his favoured surface won’t involve such huge adjustments to your game, and you would still be favoured to win."

I agree, but is it easier to be 20% better than a guy today than it was 20 years ago? Why? Domination, ultimately comes down to how much better you are. Being better today still bears the same meaning as being better 20 years ago. The changes to surfaces don't change this notion.

No, it's not easy to be greater, but if you're greater now, more doors open to you because you're not required to adjust so much and so fast for foreign surfaces. And strange styles. Maybe better than to say that surfaces have homogenised - when clearly there are still distinctions to make - we probably are more accurate to say the game has homogenised - balls, technology, styles of play, surfaces to an extent - and this certainly helps a player maintain his hold over the field.

I'm not saying it's easy: it's easier...

 

[Kieran]

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I'm not convinced that the top 4 now have a greater superiority over their peers than the guys in the early 80s. Again I stress this is just an opinion. It just seems to be that having a marginal superiority in ability reaps greater rewards now than in the past. On the surface B_S you make some good points, but I feel that you're missing the human element. The current era, because they get to beat on the lower orders with regularity end up with a psychological advantage that maybe wasn't as pronounced in earlier eras. I can just imagine a clay court specialist fancying his chances against a Mac, or an Edberg under certain circumstances in the past, in a way that wouldn't occur now. I know that they were both RG finalists But I don't recall feeling a great deal of confidence when either of those guys were playing in clay tournaments back in the day. And believe me.. I was a huge fan of them both!

Bizarrely, I find myself in the position of agreeing with Federberg, which makes me anxious.

There's no question that vulnerability of great players to upset on their least favourite surface used to be much greater than it is today...

 

[DarthFed]

Good question... In my view the biggest problem is the homogenization of courts. And of course we can't discount balls, and string technology having some impact as well. While the odds did/ and always will favour the best players, the consistency and lack of surprises at the back end of tournaments has never been like this. Certainly not when I was growing up in the late 70s, early 80s. This is one of the reasons I have difficulties with the concept of GOAT. I simply don't believe that the current guys are that much better than the Llendl's and Borg's and Mac's. To my mind they exist in an environment that is supportive of their abilities, and they have been relatively shielded from the negative psychology of really bad losses. It's a circular thing.. the more times you win, the more invincible you become, and more importantly the more impossible it seems to the opposition to get a win against you. Maybe I'm getting too old and want to believe too much in previous golden era's.. but the uniformity of surfaces, just makes me think that the top 4 domination now lacks a bit of credibility in a historic context. Just my opinion though!

I would have agreed right until the very end. It doesn't lack credibility because the top 4 are competing under the same circumstances as their rivals, the same way Mac/Borg and others competed under the same circumstances as their own rivals.

Ultimately, all players today are playing on the same courts, so the one winning the most is the best. Nothing that diminishes credibility there.

It's ludicrous to look at how good guys like Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are and claim their dominance lacks a bit of credibility just because surfaces are not as different as they used to be. They are the best of their generation. The same way Borg and Mac were the best in theirs, Pete and Andre were the best in theirs, etc...

I think the point Federberg is making is that it is now far more easy to dominate year round due to the homogenization of surfaces.

No it's not. That's what many of the people stuck in the past fail to see. Today, it is easier to be good on all surfaces, yes. However, that doesn't mean it is easier to dominate, since dominating means beating other players consistently, and those other players are also playing on the same "homogeneous" surfaces, and supposedly should have it just as easy to be good on all of them.

In other words, with some notable exceptions, you don't have top players who are non-factor on some surfaces, and therefore, you have to deal with them on every surface. This, in some ways, makes it more difficult.

For example, if you look at Agassi and Sampras, it was clear that Agassi had a distinct advantage on slower hards and clay, while Pete had a huge advantage on grass and faster hards. If you look at Djokovic-Nadal, with the exception of Nadal having an advantage on clay (and even that advantage is not as significant as it used to be), Nadal doesn't have a "go-to" surface against Djokovic. It's an uphill battle everywhere. And the reverse is also true, despite Novak's advantage on hards. I'm only using them as one example.

Federberg's point is one that is often echoed, but it's actually inaccurate. If he were to say: It's easier to be good on all surfaces in today's game, you wouldn't hear an argument from me. Because it would be true.

However, saying it's easier to dominate is a fallacy. Because in order to dominate, you have to beat your peers, not players from the past. It's not like Federer, Nadal and Novak are playing against Pete Sampras and dominating him unfairly due to the homogenization of the surfaces. They are coming up against players who are playing under the SAME conditions.

Question Federberg, Kieran and every other subscriber to that theory:

Does Rod Laver's domination lack credibility? After all, 3 of the majors were played on grass and hard courts were a non factor. Does that mean he wasn't that much better than his peers? Of course he was, since his peers were playing on the same surfaces. And yet, when we talk about this in a historical context, it conveniently get overlooked at the expense of homogenization of the surfaces today. How much more homogeneous can you get that 3 of the slams being played on one surface?

PS: The extent to which people think these surfaces have been homogenized is absolutely ridiculous. If the transition wasn't still very difficult, why on earth did someone like Nadal lose to Rosol and Darcis in rounds 2 an 1 of Wimbledon and struggle so much on grass? I guess that only applies to when a player can achieve a channel slam today: Oh, well yeah, grass and clay aren't THAT different nowadays. But someone like Nadal loses early at Wimbledon: suddenly it's due to his shakiness on grass. Well, which one is it?

Of course Laver had it easy when it comes to surfaces. Kieran did mention that grass was different tournament to tournament but having 3 on one surface is a big edge. But we are comparing it to the 80's and 90's more. It is much easier to transition from clay to grass now especially in the 2nd week when, in theory, the good players go up against each other.

Facing opponents with the same exact style on more similar surfaces (as compared to 10-20+ years ago) means that if you are the best at said style you are probably going to dominate the field as a whole. That was the point that stands even for Roger who probably could've adjusted and played great on the moon or a surface of ice. Even though Roger is better on faster surfaces the fact that he didn't have to deal with as much variation in player style and surface speeds (even though they are generally slower) made it easier to adjust and dominate year round. Whereas when someone like Pete could play a big serve and volleyer a couple days and then a baseliner the next day it's kind of easy to see how this can be more difficult. And then throw in that the surfaces were playing more different tournament to tournament especially the majors.

 

[El Dude]

As far as whether it's easier to dominate. I still don't buy the argument. It's easier to be good across all surfaces. That doesn't automatically translate to domination, since everyone has the same chance to be good on all surface. So everyone is playing on an even playing field.

Broken, your logic is hard to refute but it misses something crucial, in my opinion. What you say is true for any one tournament separated from all others, but not, I think, in relation to each other. I think that's the key to the idea that its easier to dominate now; not only is there a psychological build up to success on multiple courts, but it means that--as I think Kieran implied--a given great player is bringing less of a court-specific handicap to a tournament, which in turn builds further confidence.

Another way to to put it is that a few factors--most notably court homogenization and seeding--combine in such a way that further separates the elite from the rest of the pack. It accentuates the difference in their ability by taking away some of the obstacles to them bringing as much as their game as they can to any given court or tournament.

While there will always be court-type specialists, I just don't see us having careers like this one anymore, at least unless things change (which they inevitably will):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergi_Bruguera#Singles_performance_timeline

I think Bruguera must have the most lopsided career in Open Era history, at least among multi-Slam winners. Even Kuerten made it to QFs at non-clay Slams and one a few non-clay Masters. Bruguera never made it past the 4R at a non-clay Slam and was a good Masters player, but not a great one. On clay? He was one of the two or three best clay court players of the 90s. I just don't see that kind of lop-sidedness, at least among multi-Slam winners.

 

[huntingyou]

what styles are we talking here? You guys are over stating the contrast between S&V and baseline players to the point of mythifying such constrast in order to elevate the argument of dificulty.

Tennis fundamentals haven't change since the transition from wood to modern racket took place. This is merely a point of tactic and overall strategy. Do you serve and follow to the net and force a passing shot or do you serve, wait for the short reply and hammer away with the forehand? From a returner perspective, it's even worse; chip and charge it's a losing proposition and WAS a losing proposition in the 80s and 90s as well. As a tactic, it can be disruptive when properly applied but you can't clasify a tennis player style of game based on a tactic alone.

If you look at Borg, he dominated the sport in similar fashion to Federer and Rafa. He was winning RG-SW19 and then making finals of the UO. If he were to prevail in one of those finals he would have won the AO as well in December. Look at JMac, he was extremely dominant and at some point virtually unbeatable in 1984 across ALL surfaces. Ivan Lendl, had lower peaks but they were extremely sustain for long periods. Similar to Agassi. The contrast of styles play no role in their ability to dominate or not dominate.......these players fortune relied on THEMSELVES first and their RIVALS and not the overall field with it's mix of S&V players and baseliners.

If you are a great player, you are a great player across ALL surfaces with the exception of few. You guys obscure the fact that great players were winning the vast majority of slams and big tournaments back them as well. AT RG, you had the rare one timer as well as the AO but overall it was Lendl, Wilander, Borg, JMac, Edberg, Becker winning ALL the hardware in the 80s. Once Pete Sampras became The Pistol, he became as dominant as Federer with the exception of clay which is UNIQUELY dependant on Pete's inability instead of the so call "dificulty" posed by "contrast" of styles and surfaces. The guy was #1 from 1993 to 1998............please.

What you guys witnessed with Roger and Rafa and to a lesser extend Novak; ITS NOT THE NORM. We are talking anomalies and all of you we'll see in a few years when these guys are gone.....how easy it's dominate in tennis with their "similar' styles and surfaces.

 

[Kieran]

Hunting: since Laver, only one player had won a career slam (Agassi) until now we have two and maybe soon three.

So, "Lendl, Wilander, Borg, JMac, Edberg, Becker winning ALL the hardware in the 80s" is true and false:

Lendl didn't win "ALL the hardware."

Wilander didn't win "ALL the hardware."

And so on through the list.

Why not?