Fedalovic Wars

[Moxie]

By "truth" I mean trying to weigh as many factors with as little bias creeping in, to come to reasonable conclusions. Of course there are always reasonable variations of opinion, but there are also unreasonable ones. And really, it is a spectrum: from nearly irrefutable ("Rod Laver was vastly better than Roy Emerson") to absurdly unreasonable ("David Nalbandian's peak level was higher than anyone else because, you know, two or three matches and sporadic moments of brilliance").

Love that you used the Nalbandian example. We did used to have a poster around here would argue exactly that.

By "truth," I thought you were arguing about behavior and choices. If you want to argue about his tennis, there is truth to how great it is, but there is then weighing against the other greatest of his era, and that's a harder "truth" to arrive at, for all the reasons that we argue records and time lines. We're not arguing the "nearly irrefutable" or the "absurdly unreasonable." We're arguing the times they lived in and flourished in, and, between the Big 3, there are fine points to be argued. Showing up late to the party has benefitted Novak. I know you like your facts a bit hard and cold, but I think there are edges around them that blur, nor are they so ice-cold.

 

[Kieran]

Good old Toni Nadal:

"Current Novak Djokovic Well Below That of 5-10 Years Ago": Rafael Nadal's Former Coach Rips Into Current Generation

Former coach to Rafael Nadal has made a bold claim saying Novak Djokovic was better 5-10 years ago then he is now.

thesportsrush.com

I agree that current Novak isn't as good as 2011-16 Novak. Not sure about the rest, though - that the supporting cast was better a decade ago than it is now. Maybe?

The supporting cast obviously was better a decade ago though, no? How else could a Djokovic today - who’s not as good as he was then - exceed what he did then?

 

[Moxie]

Good old Toni Nadal:

"Current Novak Djokovic Well Below That of 5-10 Years Ago": Rafael Nadal's Former Coach Rips Into Current Generation

Former coach to Rafael Nadal has made a bold claim saying Novak Djokovic was better 5-10 years ago then he is now.

thesportsrush.com

I agree that current Novak isn't as good as 2011-16 Novak. Not sure about the rest, though - that the supporting cast was better a decade ago than it is now. Maybe?

Yeah, that article dares to suggest that Novak might be at "the peak of his powers now." That seems ridiculous to suggest...that he's stronger, fitter, faster than his peak at middle 20s? His serve is better, but Nadal's improved late, as well. That's not weird. He's very fit, and also experienced and confident, which comes with age and accomplishment. But if he's at the height of his powers, that IS lack of competition.

You can't possibly suggest that Novak didn't have stiffer competition with Federer and Nadal in the mix, even if waning. I get if there's perhaps more depth now, but that barely/rarely affects the top. Plus the real up-and-comers are still green.

 

[El Dude]

The supporting cast obviously was better a decade ago though, no? How else could a Djokovic today - who’s not as good as he was then - exceed what he did then?

As far as Slams go, well, Rafa mainly, but also Roger and Andy. The article is focused on the rest of the pack, as far as I can tell.

 

[El Dude]

Yeah, that article dares to suggest that Novak might be at "the peak of his powers now." That seems ridiculous to suggest...that he's stronger, fitter, faster than his peak at middle 20s? His serve is better, but Nadal's improved late, as well. That's not weird. He's very fit, and also experienced and confident, which comes with age and accomplishment. But if he's at the height of his powers, that IS lack of competition.

You can't possibly suggest that Novak didn't have stiffer competition with Federer and Nadal in the mix, even if waning. I get if there's perhaps more depth now, but that barely/rarely affects the top. Plus the real up-and-comers are still green.

See my response to Kieran. I do agree with Toni that Novak was better in 2011-16, which is supported by Elo. But I think what is unclear is whether the non-Big Four talent of 10 years ago was better than it is now.

 

[Moxie]

See my response to Kieran. I do agree with Toni that Novak was better in 2011-16, which is supported by Elo. But I think what is unclear is whether the non-Big Four talent of 10 years ago was better than it is now.

I see your response to Kieran. But you can't exclude the Big 4, is my point. The article may be implying that they mean everyone else, but surely Toni didn't. He used Nadal, Murray, del Potro and Wawrinka as examples. If that's the kind of competition we're talking about, even excluding Federer, it's better competition than is on offer right now. (Given that Federer and Del Potro (and Ferrer, whom he also mentioned) are retired, Nadal is out with injury, and Murray and Wawrinka are basically playing for the love of the game in wounded warrior status.

 

[atttomole]

Since 1988, slam totals for top players have been inflated due to lack of competition. Imagine someone winning at least 6 titles at a single grand slam tournament. For many players, 6 slams is a stellar career.

 

[Moxie]

Since 1988, slam totals for top players have been inflated due to lack of competition. Imagine someone winning at least 6 titles at a single grand slam tournament. For many players, 6 slams is a stellar career.

It's kind of a chicken or egg thing, isn't it? I absolutely believe we had 3 ATGs living in (mostly) the same era, which left little space for others. I just don't see how you can deny that, given how long they lasted. However, we did all think there would be more to step up to the plate, at least occasionally. Del Potro was sadly a loss to injury. Wawrinka started late, and so had a small peak period. Murray at least hung with the big 3, and defeated Novak in 2 Majors, which is why he gets a category of his own. Cilic was basically a one-off. (Someone tried to debate that recently, but I don't agree.)

If it were one player hoovering up the Majors with no one to compete, I'd agree it was inflated. But there were 3++ who were fully capable of competing at the highest level, and then a bunch of also-rans.

 

[Kieran]

See my response to Kieran. I do agree with Toni that Novak was better in 2011-16, which is supported by Elo. But I think what is unclear is whether the non-Big Four talent of 10 years ago was better than it is now.

But the fact that you say there was a ‘Big 4’ ten years ago is proof of what he’s saying. There’s Novak and Carlos now, which we can refer to as ‘Big’. And Carlos is still serving his apprenticeship. Novak is grabbing slams now like Roger did from 2003-2007, and we all know what people said about that era…

 

[Kieran]

It's kind of a chicken or egg thing, isn't it? I absolutely believe we had 3 ATGs living in (mostly) the same era, which left little space for others. I just don't see how you can deny that, given how long they lasted. However, we did all think there would be more to step up to the plate, at least occasionally. Del Potro was sadly a loss to injury. Wawrinka started late, and so had a small peak period. Murray at least hung with the big 3, and defeated Novak in 2 Majors, which is why he gets a category of his own. Cilic was basically a one-off. (Someone tried to debate that recently, but I don't agree.)

If it were one player hoovering up the Majors with no one to compete, I'd agree it was inflated. But there were 3++ who were fully capable of competing at the highest level, and then a bunch of also-rans.

I agree with @atttomole here, because if the field was more competitive it was would have dented the records of the Big 3. They were great but they were also encouraged by having a compliant field. Having 3 great players at the same time isn’t unusual, but the field has been unusual for a long time..

 

[atttomole]

I agree with @atttomole here, because if the field was more competitive it was would have dented the records of the Big 3. They were great but they were also encouraged by having a compliant field. Having 3 great players at the same time isn’t unusual, but the field has been unusual for a long time..

To be clear, I think it slso applies to the Sampras/Agassi era. Sampras had 14 and Agassi 7 slams. If I am not mistaken, Agassi went away for a couple of years. Both had limitations in their tennis repertoires.

I also have to add that game wise, Federer raised the bar, but Nadal and Djokovic were able to negate Federer’s game. They all continued to improve. Technically, their levels of play were so much higher than what we saw with SamprasAgassi. As a result, the big three were able to separate themselves from the rest.

I am not sure I saw that much improvement in Sampras’ game over time.

 

[Kieran]

To be clear, I think it slso applies to the Sampras/Agassi era. Sampras had 14 and Agassi 7 slams. If I am not mistaken, Agassi went away for a couple of years. Both had limitations in their tennis repertoires.

This doesn’t even make sense. Lendl had 8 slams. Were the slam totals inflated in the 70’s and 80’s too? What about Borg’s 11 slams? McEnroe on seven?

I also have to add that game wise, Federer raised the bar, but Nadal and Djokovic were able to negate Federer’s game. They all continued to improve. Technically, their levels of play were so much higher than what we saw with SamprasAgassi. As a result, the big three were able to separate themselves from the rest.

I believed you to be saying above that the field were not competitive. My mistake was to not notice you’d mentioned 1988 as your starting date. Why did you pick that date? You saw a difference between competitiveness in the field in 1987 and 1989?

If so, tell us what happened?

 

[El Dude]

I see your response to Kieran. But you can't exclude the Big 4, is my point. The article may be implying that they mean everyone else, but surely Toni didn't. He used Nadal, Murray, del Potro and Wawrinka as examples. If that's the kind of competition we're talking about, even excluding Federer, it's better competition than is on offer right now. (Given that Federer and Del Potro (and Ferrer, whom he also mentioned) are retired, Nadal is out with injury, and Murray and Wawrinka are basically playing for the love of the game in wounded warrior status.

I hear that, and really I think he was talking about players to challenge Novak. And of course I agree that the overall field--with or without Novak--was stronger ten years ago.

I would also note that the field changes year to year. In 2013 Wawrinka was knocking at the door of the top 10, but it wasn't until he won at the AO in 2014 that he became a real threat. I sort of imagine it like a heat map...hmm, maybe a future project.

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

This doesn’t even make sense. Lendl had 8 slams. Were the slam totals inflated in the 70’s and 80’s too? What about Borg’s 11 slams? McEnroe on seven?

I believed you to be saying above that the field were not competitive. My mistake was to not notice you’d mentioned 1988 as your starting date. Why did you pick that date? You saw a difference between competitiveness in the field in 1987 and 1989?

If so, tell us what happened?

This is what I can think of:

1. This was the year that the AO changed from grass to hard courts.

2. Mats Wilander won 3 slams that year. He was 23/24 at the time, and had 7 slams under his belt. Inexplicably, after that season, he fell off pretty hard and never won anything meaningful again.

 

[Kieran]

This is what I can think of:

1. This was the year that the AO changed from grass to hard courts.

2. Mats Wilander won 3 slams that year. He was 23/24 at the time, and had 7 slams under his belt. Inexplicably, after that season, he fell off pretty hard and never won anything meaningful again.

But what does that tell us? For instance, McEnroe never won another slam after 1984, when he had one of the most dominant seasons in history. I’m not too sure that there’s any significance to 1988 being important in terms of a less competitive field…

 

[El Dude]

Regarding the question around what (if anything) happened in the late 80s, in terms of drop in talent, Elo actually has something interesting to say about this (for what it's worth).

Connors, Borg, McEnroe and Lendl all had peak Elo ratings about 2500 - and Borg being one of only two players in the Open Era (along with Novak) to surpass 2600. After Lendl dipped below that stratospheric level in early 1988, never to return, we haven't seen a player reach the 2500 level until Federer in 2005. He was followed by Rafa and Novak a few years later and then, for a moment, Andy Murray touched 2500.

The point being, from early 1988 until early 2005, we didn't see a 2500 Elo rating. Now 2500 is very rare - only nine players have reached it turning the Open Era. If we lower the bar a bit to 2400, which is still great, we add a few others, including Becker in the late 80s and Sampras during the 90s (Wilander, Edberg, and Agassi never reached that level, peaking in the 2370s), and Roger reached 2400 in late 2004.

Consider the number of players by decade, who reached 2400 Elo at some point during that decade:

1970s: 5 (Laver, Connors, Vilas, Borg, McEnroe)
1980s: 5 (Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Becker)
1990s: 1 (Sampras)
2000s: 2 (Federer, Nadal)
2010s: 4 (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray)
2020s: 2-3+ (Nadal, Djokovic, Alcaraz)

Looking at Elo rankings of top players, there is a definite dip in the early 90s after Lendl phased out. Sampras didn't reach 2400 until 1993, and only for a brief spell. For most of the 90s, the top Elo ratings were in the low 2300s - which is about peak Del Potro, Ferrer, Medvedev, and Zverev. From mid-2000 until early 2004, there wasn't even a 2300 Elo player.

NOTE: Remember also that Elo isn't how good a player could be in a particular match, but more of a consistent peak level over a period of time. So players like David Ferrer are benefited, while players like Pete Sampras suffered from it (because his clay performance tended to reduce his overall Elo).

 

[Kieran]

Regarding the question around what (if anything) happened in the late 80s, in terms of drop in talent, Elo actually has something interesting to say about this (for what it's worth).

Connors, Borg, McEnroe and Lendl all had peak Elo ratings about 2500 - and Borg being one of only two players in the Open Era (along with Novak) to surpass 2600. After Lendl dipped below that stratospheric level in early 1988, never to return, we haven't seen a player reach the 2500 level until Federer in 2005. He was followed by Rafa and Novak a few years later and then, for a moment, Andy Murray touched 2500.

The point being, from early 1988 until early 2005, we didn't see a 2500 Elo rating. Now 2500 is very rare - only nine players have reached it turning the Open Era. If we lower the bar a bit to 2400, which is still great, we add a few others, including Becker in the late 80s and Sampras during the 90s (Wilander, Edberg, and Agassi never reached that level, peaking in the 2370s), and Roger reached 2400 in late 2004.

Consider the number of players by decade, who reached 2400 Elo at some point during that decade:

1970s: 5 (Laver, Connors, Vilas, Borg, McEnroe)
1980s: 5 (Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Becker)
1990s: 1 (Sampras)
2000s: 2 (Federer, Nadal)
2010s: 4 (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray)
2020s: 2-3+ (Nadal, Djokovic, Alcaraz)

Looking at Elo rankings of top players, there is a definite dip in the early 90s after Lendl phased out. Sampras didn't reach 2400 until 1993, and only for a brief spell. For most of the 90s, the top Elo ratings were in the low 2300s - which is about peak Del Potro, Ferrer, Medvedev, and Zverev. From mid-2000 until early 2004, there wasn't even a 2300 Elo player.

NOTE: Remember also that Elo isn't how good a player could be in a particular match, but more of a consistent peak level over a period of time. So players like David Ferrer are benefited, while players like Pete Sampras suffered from it (because his clay performance tended to reduce his overall Elo).

This could actually be read to mean that the years between 1988 and 2005 were the most savagely competitive..

 

[the AntiPusher]

But what does that tell us? For instance, McEnroe never won another slam after 1984, when he had one of the most dominant seasons in history. I’m not too sure that there’s any significance to 1988 being important in terms of a less competitive field…

McEnroe had Issues "Tatum, young family plus the New York limelight" consumed his schedule and he tried to become a part time ATP tour player which was no match for Lendl and a rejuvenated Jimmy Connors and the next gen players Becker Edberg pre Gen players Chang , Sampras and Agassi

 

[Jelenafan]

McEnroe had Issues "Tatum, young family plus the New York limelight" consumed his schedule and he tried to become a part time ATP tour player which was no match for Lendl and a rejuvenated Jimmy Connors and the next gen players Becker Edberg pre Gen players Chang , Sampras and Agassi

But the point is the field did get more competitive regardless of McEnroe’s distractions.

While Mac still did relatively well in 1985, a dip frim his 1984 form was to be expected, whereas Lendl improved significantly in 1985.

In hindsight, that vintage 1984 year by Mac wasnt a preview of a long domination by him. Certainly that year was not a fluke, his domination on faster surfaces was too complete , but rather that his temperment & persona couldn't sustain that level of rarified consistency for long.

 

[El Dude]

This could actually be read to mean that the years between 1988 and 2005 were the most savagely competitive..

Yes, I think that's valid, with the caveat that--at least according to Elo--it was more "savagely competitive" because the talent was less concentrated at the top, and the top wasn't as high.