Fedalovic Wars

[atttomole]

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?

I didn’t know much about tennis before 1988, but I understood from talking to people that it was competitive for most of the 80’s. Around 1989, I began following tennis more closely as a kid. That is when the Sampras-Agassi era began.

Sampras and Agassi dominated that era, with the likes of Ivanisevic in the mix. Agassi could play well on all surfaces, but Sampras was too good for him on faster surfaces, because Sampras was imperial on fast surfaces. However, Sampras on the other hand could barely compete on clay. Sampras’ dominance on fast surfaces was simply because he was too good.

The difference with the Federer/Nadal/Djokovic era is that Federer was reaching finals of all slams, largely because of his all court game, not because of the surface charges. Federer’s levels resulted in Nadal improving his game, and likewise for Djokovic a.bit later.

When I said the field has been weak since 1988, it was in jest because that is the kind of reasoning you like to apply for the Federer/Nadal/Djokovic era. We could debate about why Sampras won 14, Federer 20, Nadal 22 etc.

 

[Kieran]

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.

I think you’re right about McEnroe’s temperament being unable to sustain it. There’s a theory that had Borg continued for a few years that McEnroe wouldn’t have dipped in 1982 and I think there’s truth in that but even still, he was never the most difficult player to distract, and long solid focused domination didn’t seem to be in his DNA.

He was quite the genius, the inspired one who flashed brightest, and to me he’s the most naturally gifted I’ve ever seen, but yeah, 1984 was one of tennis greatest peaks. I’m not sure why he didn’t play play the Australian Open that year, he played in 1983, he might have been banned in 1984, but it was also typical of players to skip it then, as we all know.

1985? He just didn’t have it the same. When he faced Lendl in the USO final I was convinced he’d win - Lendl hadn’t followed up his famous FO win with any more slams - but Lendl beat him in straights, and to me that was an upset, even if that season wasn’t vintage for McEnroe going into the tournament. He’d beaten Lendl twice to win HC tourneys going in..

 

[Kieran]

I didn’t know much about tennis before 1988, but I understood from talking to people that it was competitive for most of the 80’s. Around 1989, I began following tennis more closely as a kid. That is when the Sampras-Agassi era began.

Sampras and Agassi dominated that era, with the likes of Ivanisevic in the mix. Agassi could play well on all surfaces, but Sampras was too good for him on faster surfaces, because Sampras was imperial on fast surfaces. However, Sampras on the other hand could barely compete on clay. Sampras’ dominance on fast surfaces was simply because he was too good.

The difference with the Federer/Nadal/Djokovic era is that Federer was reaching finals of all slams, largely because of his all court game, not because of the surface charges. Federer’s levels resulted in Nadal improving his game, and likewise for Djokovic a.bit later.

When I said the field has been weak since 1988, it was in jest because that is the kind of reasoning you like to apply for the Federer/Nadal/Djokovic era. We could debate about why Sampras won 14, Federer 20, Nadal 22 etc.

You don’t like Pete, do you? But you’re wrong in saying that he could ‘barely compete on clay.’ He won the Italian open, he reached 3 Q/Fs in a row in Paris, losing to Bruguera and Courier in two of them. In 1996, a month after his coach died, Pete went on a tear through the draw - beating Bruguera and Courier on the way to the semi, where he was both physically and emotionally drained.

Pete chose a grass court style of play and ditched his two handed backhand so he could prioritise Wimbledon, this being the most coveted prize for him. He was dominant during the whole of his peak. You mention that we could argue why Pete won 14 and the 3 won 20+ each. We most likely would all draw the wrong conclusions from this. The 3 have had the opportunity to make hay on all surfaces. Relatively they’ve luxuriated in an era where they go undisturbed, except by each other. We have no evidence to suggest that had he risen through the same conditions as them, he’d have been different. We have no evidence that they’d have dominated the 90’s. Great players are of a substance. They take the opportunities they’re given. He did, and so did they..

 

[the AntiPusher]

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.

Well his temperament finally caused him big time vs Lendl at RG 84. Johnny Mac would have had the channel slam plus the US Open with an 85-3 record. That haunts him now and for eternity..It totally changed the men's game..
I think if John's mind and body was dedicated he could have stayed a fixture for a early years of Becker's Wimbledon run but he had zero chance against Agassi and Sampras era with the impact of the improvement in racket technologies..He should have had more GSs than Connors,Lendl and Agassi because he was BETTER tennis talent than all of them.

 

[El Dude]

You don’t like Pete, do you? But you’re wrong in saying that he could ‘barely compete on clay.’ He won the Italian open, he reached 3 Q/Fs in a row in Paris, losing to Bruguera and Courier in two of them. In 1996, a month after his coach died, Pete went on a tear through the draw - beating Bruguera and Courier on the way to the semi, where he was both physically and emotionally drained.

Pete chose a grass court style of play and ditched his two handed backhand so he could prioritise Wimbledon, this being the most coveted prize for him. He was dominant during the whole of his peak. You mention that we could argue why Pete won 14 and the 3 won 20+ each. We most likely would all draw the wrong conclusions from this. The 3 have had the opportunity to make hay on all surfaces. Relatively they’ve luxuriated in an era where they go undisturbed, except by each other. We have no evidence to suggest that had he risen through the same conditions as them, he’d have been different. We have no evidence that they’d have dominated the 90’s. Great players are of a substance. They take the opportunities they’re given. He did, and so did they..

When I started getting into Elo, one of the things I was surprised about was how good Pete was on clay -- by no means great, but still pretty good. This is one of the things Elo is really good at: relative comparisons of players, in terms of peak level. Consider:

Elo Rank By Surface (Sampras) - closest players
HARD: #3 (2524) - Ivan Lendl (2512), Rafael Nadal (2506), Andre Agassi (2500)
GRASS: #7 (2501) - John McEnroe (2517), Ken Rosewall (2500)
CLAY: #74 (2226) - Joakim Nystrom (2228), Jimmy Arias (2224), Casper Ruud (2224)
CARPET: #9 (2407) - Arthur Ashe (2405)
OVERALL: #12 (2407) - Boris Becker (2419)

He was a top 10 clay player for most of 1993-2000, peaking at #3 and in the top five for a few years. So again, not great but pretty good.

But obviously that dropped his overall Elo rating substantially. No one considers Becker to be a better player, but while he was even weaker on clay (#87, 2206), he played a lower portion of tournaments there - just 141 of 927 matches (15.2%) compared to Pete's 190 of 984 (19.3%). Becker was inferior on hards (#17), grass (#11), and clay (#87), but higher Elo on carpet (#4), where he played a whopping 34.7% of his career matches.

 

[Jelenafan]

I think you’re right about McEnroe’s temperament being unable to sustain it. There’s a theory that had Borg continued for a few years that McEnroe wouldn’t have dipped in 1982 and I think there’s truth in that but even still, he was never the most difficult player to distract, and long solid focused domination didn’t seem to be in his DNA.

He was quite the genius, the inspired one who flashed brightest, and to me he’s the most naturally gifted I’ve ever seen, but yeah, 1984 was one of tennis greatest peaks. I’m not sure why he didn’t play play the Australian Open that year, he played in 1983, he might have been banned in 1984, but it was also typical of players to skip it then, as we all know.

1985? He just didn’t have it the same. When he faced Lendl in the USO final I was convinced he’d win - Lendl hadn’t followed up his famous FO win with any more slams - but Lendl beat him in straights, and to me that was an upset, even if that season wasn’t vintage for McEnroe going into the tournament. He’d beaten Lendl twice to win HC tourneys going in..

As great as Mac was at his peak , especially on grass (NOBODY took more advantage of being a lefty than Mac, Laver may have been better but his style was more straight forward ) in hindsight (again so easy to judge by the passage of time) his self destructive tendencies were too ingrained.

Take even his best year by far;1984, the 1984 French Open, he was up two sets and a break on Lendl, but IMO he pulled "a Will Smith", what he was going to accomplish got to him and he succumbed to his overwrought emotions/nerves and tantrums and lost in five. Lendl was toast but Mac imploded.

*IF* he had won the French Open, and then went on to win W and USO as easily as he did, he most certianly would have traveled to Austrailia in NOv/DEC when it was played then to try to complete the CYGS. But again, would the moment have overwhelmed him? One of the great "IFs" of the Open Era..

 

[atttomole]

As great as Mac was at his peak , especially on grass (NOBODY took more advantage of being a lefty than Mac, Laver may have been better but his style was more straight forward ) in hindsight (again so easy to judge by the passage of time) his self destructive tendencies were too ingrained.

Take even his best year by far;1984, the 1984 French Open, he was up two sets and a break on Lendl, but IMO he pulled "a Will Smith", what he was going to accomplish got to him and he succumbed to his overwrought emotions/nerves and tantrums and lost in five. Lendl was toast but Mac imploded.

*IF* he had won the French Open, and then went on to win W and USO as easily as he did, he most certianly would have traveled to Austrailia in NOv/DEC when it was played then to try to complete the CYGS. But again, would the moment have overwhelmed him? One of the great "IFs" of the Open Era..

John Mac would have been overwhelmed by the moment, like Serena and Djokovic. I think Federer would have crumbled as well at the US Open, if he had won the French in 2006 or 2007.

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

John Mac would have been overwhelmed by the moment, like Serena and Djokovic. I think Federer would have crumbled as well at the US Open, if he had won the French in 2006 or 2007.

I think Federer would have gotten it done in 2004, if he had gotten past Gustavo Kuerten at the French Open. Federer was just so much ahead of the field that year. Peak Federer was never going to lose to someone like Gaston Gaudio or Guillermo Coria.

 

[Moxie]

I think Federer would have gotten it done in 2004, if he had gotten past Gustavo Kuerten at the French Open. Federer was just so much ahead of the field that year. Peak Federer was never going to lose to someone like Gaston Gaudio or Guillermo Coria.

That one is a big "woulda, coulda, shoulda" for Roger. If he'd gotten past Kuerten, he might well have won the tournament, and wouldn't have that doubt on him that he only won the French because Soderling knocked out Nadal. But Kuerten won the French 3 times, so it's not surprising, at that stage of things, that he capped Roger. It is what it is.

 

[Kieran]

It’s fairly telling that Kuerten dispatched Roger very easily in that match. A straight set formality. Kuerten was a true clay court specialist…

 

[atttomole]

You don’t like Pete, do you? But you’re wrong in saying that he could ‘barely compete on clay.’ He won the Italian open, he reached 3 Q/Fs in a row in Paris, losing to Bruguera and Courier in two of them. In 1996, a month after his coach died, Pete went on a tear through the draw - beating Bruguera and Courier on the way to the semi, where he was both physically and emotionally drained.

Pete chose a grass court style of play and ditched his two handed backhand so he could prioritise Wimbledon, this being the most coveted prize for him. He was dominant during the whole of his peak. You mention that we could argue why Pete won 14 and the 3 won 20+ each. We most likely would all draw the wrong conclusions from this. The 3 have had the opportunity to make hay on all surfaces. Relatively they’ve luxuriated in an era where they go undisturbed, except by each other. We have no evidence to suggest that had he risen through the same conditions as them, he’d have been different. We have no evidence that they’d have dominated the 90’s. Great players are of a substance. They take the opportunities they’re given. He did, and so did they..

I guess you respected but didn’t like Federer. I liked Sampras, but Federer was simply a far better version of Sampras. Sampras’ fast court tennis was sublime. El Dude provided some stats showing that Sampras performed decent on clay, but honestly he didn’t play consistently well on clay.

You like to say that the big 3 grabbed the opportunities that came their way, forgetting that your favorite Sampras had his own opportunities too. The truth of the matter though is that the big 3 played at a higher level, thanks largely to Federer with his all-court game. Federer raised the standards of the game. Nadal improved significantly, and so did Djokovic, largely because they had to adapt to Federer.

 

[Kieran]

I guess you respected but didn’t like Federer. I liked Sampras, but Federer was simply a far better version of Sampras. Sampras’ fast court tennis was sublime. El Dude provided some stats showing that Sampras performed decent on clay, but honestly he didn’t play consistently well on clay.

You like to say that the big 3 grabbed the opportunities that came their way, forgetting that your favorite Sampras had his own opportunities too. The truth of the matter though is that the big 3 played at a higher level, thanks largely to Federer with his all-court game. Federer raised the standards of the game. Nadal improved significantly, and so did Djokovic, largely because they had to adapt to Federer.

This is all old hat. Tennis progresses so it would be strange if the current top players weren’t better than players from the past. Bjorn Borg probably hit the ball gentler than Serena. But do you think that if Bjorn was born in 1996 and not 1956 that he’d play same as he used to? Every great player is standing on the shoulders of giants that preceded them …

 

[atttomole]

This is all old hat. Tennis progresses so it would be strange if the current top players weren’t better than players from the past. Bjorn Borg probably hit the ball gentler than Serena. But do you think that if Bjorn was born in 1996 and not 1956 that he’d play same as he used to? Every great player is standing on the shoulders of giants that preceded them …

You seem to be muddying the waters here. I agree that the level of fitness of athletes has increased over the years. That applies to most sports, obviously. From a technical point of view though, the big 3 played better than the previous generation, for reasons that I have already given.

Physicality has increased, but we can not make generalizations regarding the technical aspects of the game. Talented players can pop up in any generation. We had the genius of John Mac in 80’s and then Federer came in the early 2000. Their tennis was distinctive.

 

[Kieran]

You seem to be muddying the waters here. I agree that the level of fitness of athletes has increased over the years. That applies to most sports, obviously. From a technical point of view though, the big 3 played better than the previous generation, for reasons that I have already given.

What reasons did you give?

Physicality has increased, but we can not make generalizations regarding the technical aspects of the game. Talented players can pop up in any generation. We had the genius of John Mac in 80’s and then Federer came in the early 2000. Their tennis was distinctive.

Which generalisations was I making regarding technical aspects of the game? And why can’t we make them?

 

[atttomole]

What reasons did you give?

Which generalisations was I making regarding technical aspects of the game? And why can’t we make them?

For the big 3, Federer raised the bar, and other 2 improved. Therefore, the level of tennis was elevated.

You were saying that players of generation are better than players the previous generation, which I think is a generalization from you. And then I explained that talents can pop up any time, but physIcally current players are better.

 

[Kieran]

For the big 3, Federer raised the bar, and other 2 improved. Therefore, the level of tennis was elevated.

You were saying that players of generation are better than players the previous generation, which I think is a generalization from you. And then I explained that talents can pop up any time, but physIcally current players are better.

Read your first 2 sentences:

For the big 3, Federer raised the bar, and other 2 improved. Therefore, the level of tennis was elevated.

Now place this sentence before them: “Sampras raised the bar, and Federer improved and the other two followed.”

That’s observably what happened. Players of each generation improve on those before them. Not always in a competitive sense but always technically and physically. And you know why? Because they have the opportunity to do so…

 

[atttomole]

Read your first 2 sentences:


Now place this sentence before them: “Sampras raised the bar, and Federer improved and the other two followed.”

That’s observably what happened. Players of each generation improve on those before them. Not always in a competitive sense but always technically and physically. And you know why? Because they have the opportunity to do so…

I can agree with that. Sampras raised the bar, and the other 3 followed. It’s fair to give Sampras his due credit.

 

[nehmeth]

Very eloquent and gracious comments from Rafa.

Novak Djokovic is the best in history, says Rafael Nadal | Tennis News - Times of India

Tennis News: In 2022, Rafael Nadal secured his most recent Grand Slam victory at the French Open. However, with Novak Djokovic surpassing his remarkable Grand Slam

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

 

[the AntiPusher]

@El Dude Hey buddy.. recently Rafa said that he has missed 4 1/2 years of Grand slam events over his career..that's a lot. Is there a way to use your superb data analysis to possibly project over the past almost 19 years how many Slams that possible could have been added to his GS title resume?

 

[Kieran]

@El Dude Hey buddy.. recently Rafa said that he has missed 4 1/2 years of Grand slam events over his career..that's a lot. Is there a way to use your superb data analysis to possibly project over the past almost 19 years how many Slams that possible could have been added to his GS title resume?

That would be 18 grand slams. I think he missed about ten since he won his first, but he’s definitely withdrawn from a few once they started, and then there were matches like the 2014 Australian Open final…