Stronger, weaker or ?

[Ricardo]

Someone posted this, some different views shared

http://www.ubitennis.net/blog/2015/10/29/was-it-harder-to-win-a-slam-in-marat-safins-era/

one thing stood out for me, that since the players today mostly play the same style; if you know how to beat one you would know how to beat the rest of them.

 

[Ricardo]

though he did say Fedal/Djoker would be just as dominant back then.

 

[britbox]

This is the bones of the story...

In a recent interview with Tennis World USA, Marat Safin claimed that it was much easier to win a grand slam now than in his era. The Russian who won two slams, the US Open in 2000 and the Australian Open in 2005, said: “At that time there were more quality players. In the top 20 there were big names like Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Sampras, Agassi, Kuerten, Norman, Kafelnikov. The level was higher than today. Now there are only four or five players who dominate. The rest are far away”.

So, does he have a case?

Juan Carlos Ferrero was asked about the matter yesterday by Spanish site Punto de Break and he agreed with Safin. “I don’t think the level has gone up but it has stalled a bit and that’s why the players at the top dominate so much. There aren’t 18 or 19 year olds knocking on the door. Back in the day you would face Agassi or Sampras at that age and give them a good match or even beat them. Winning a grand slam is always difficult but on clay before there were more specialists like Nalbandian, Cañas, Coria, Gaudio…now there’s only really Ferrer, Nadal and Djokovic. Before there were ten or twelve players who made it tough for you but now Djokovic or Nadal reach the quarters or semis of Roland Garros with a lot of ease”, said the former world number one.

To analyse the different eras I have taken the period between 1998 and 2006 as Marat Safin’s, and 2007-2015 as the current generation in order for both to have the same amount of years.

From 1998 to 2006 there were seventeen different grand slam champions (Korda, Moya, Sampras, Rafter, Kafelnikov, Agassi, Kuerten, Safin, Ivanisevic, Hewitt, Johansson, Costa, Ferrero, Federer, Roddick, Gaudio and Nadal). In fact in the years 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 ther were four different champions, which is a clear sign that no one dominated the game.

In the period between 2007 and 2015 there have only been seven different champions (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Del Potro, Murray, Cilic and Wawrinka) and there have only been four different winners in a single season in 2012 and 2014.
---
Posted on Ubitennis
----------------------------------------------


I think the first era was a weaker one overall because the top end of it was weaker... and the weakest part is the 1998-2003 segment of it. Safin (who was a favourite of mine) talks about big names and includes Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Sampras, Agassi, Kuerten, Norman, Kafelnikov.

I don't remember Norman being a particularly big name. Ivanisevic was known largely as a nearly man (and a bit of a choker) until he finally won a fairytale Wimbledon title. Krajicek didn't do a whole lot outside of that one Wimbledon triumph although you can blame injury for robbing him somewhat. Sampras and Agassi - sure they were, but Pete was past his best in that era.

The earlier era might have been more competitive because the players were closer in level but that doesn't mean to say it's stronger.... the four players who have dominated the second era have done so because they went a higher level than the rest of the field.

I disagree with Safin and Ferrero and think the second era is stronger.

 

[britbox]

though he did say Fedal/Djoker would be just as dominant back then.

But if they were, then the numbers would be transformed and many of those players would no longer be former grand slam champions and lesser names.

 

[britbox]

Roddick is a good example - he straddled both of those eras and we saw how it went for him. If he was around 4 or 5 years earlier I think he'd have been a lot more successful.

 

[Federberg]

I straddle the opposing views on this. I think the players now are better conditioned than in the past, but I do believe that styles are so uniform now that if you have the key it's easier to dominate the field. This is largely because of surface homogeneity now. This is one of the reasons that Borg ranks much higher on the list of all time greats for me than for most. Winning the channel slam in his day was an entirely different challenge than it is now. There were genuine clay and grass court specialists back then for a reason. The fact that Borg could dominate both is extraordinary

 

[britbox]

I straddle the opposing views on this. I think the players now are better conditioned than in the past, but I do believe that styles are so uniform now that if you have the key it's easier to dominate the field. This is largely because of surface homogeneity now. This is one of the reasons that Borg ranks much higher on the list of all time greats for me than for most. Winning the channel slam in his day was an entirely different challenge than it is now. There were genuine clay and grass court specialists back then for a reason. The fact that Borg could dominate both is extraordinary

Yes, but the eras compared are 98-2006 and 2007-2013, log after Borg's time and not far from recent memory. What are your thoughts on those 2 eras?

 

[Federberg]

^I don't think 98-2006 was that impressive an era. But it's always hard to make these comparisons. Certainly from a charisma point of view there were fewer standouts. But it was far more competitive that's for sure and there was more surface specialism which I deeply regret has gone. I think it's impossible to say how the whole field now would do under those conditions. Would Roger have been as successful on that clay as he has been in this era? I'm not so sure. Similarly would Novak have been as successful on grass? Again I'm not so sure. But I do think that most of those guys would probably have been eaten alive playing in this era

 

[britbox]

My feeling is Roger would have won more on clay in that earlier era... sans Nadal. I think surface specialism was heading out of the window before 1998.

Competitive just means to me that the players were closer in ability/results - it doesn't mean it was stronger... I actually enjoy dominant champions... they set the mark and everyone has to aim at it. Preferable than a crapshoot IMO.

 

[Ricardo]

My feeling is Roger would have won more on clay in that earlier era... sans Nadal. I think surface specialism was heading out of the window before 1998.

Competitive just means to me that the players were closer in ability/results - it doesn't mean it was stronger... I actually enjoy dominant champions... they set the mark and everyone has to aim at it. Preferable than a crapshoot IMO.

I think Fed did well against clay specialists years ago, certainly competed well with the likes of Coria, Gaudio and Guga (though he did lose to him in 04RG) and that was earlier than when he peaked on clay. To me there is no question he would've held his own in the 90s and shouldn't be discounted for losing to Nadal, who i believe would've wiped the floor with any clay specialist before.

 

[Federberg]

My feeling is Roger would have won more on clay in that earlier era... sans Nadal. I think surface specialism was heading out of the window before 1998.

Competitive just means to me that the players were closer in ability/results - it doesn't mean it was stronger... I actually enjoy dominant champions... they set the mark and everyone has to aim at it. Preferable than a crapshoot IMO.

I like dominance too. I think what we've been seeing for the last decade is a bit too extreme though. As for Roger and the old clay courters? Maybe maybe not. It's very clear that he would have enjoyed great success against hard court and grass court players. But back in his earlier years he had a lot of losses against the top clay courters. That's not to say he wouldn't have done well, he probably needed to mature into the clay court game. I'm just saying that I'm not sure he would have been as dominant as he has been

 

[britbox]

Well, I don't think he was ever dominant on clay.. I guess that's the whole crux of the argument. He was overshadowed by Nadal on the dirt... and that's putting it lightly. Remove Nadal from the scene and you are talking about a bunch of majors. Of the clay court specialists a few years earlier... Guga would be an issue.. Gaudio woudn't... 1 slam and everything else would be gravy.

 

[Federberg]

Call it relative dominance if you want. But the guy was regularly making finals, albeit getting spanked by the Spaniard

 

[britbox]

I don't call it any type of dominance fberg... he was never dominant on clay.

 

[Federberg]

tomatoes tomatoes

 

[britbox]

tomatoes tomatoes

Pineapples and sprouts

 

[Moxie]

I'd say that clay is clay, and Federer was so dominant a player that he would certainly have done better on clay w/o Nadal, specialists or no. There are still clay specialists, they just aren't as good as the best players, on or off clay. There are also players who shine on grass, but it only goes so far.

I agree with the consensus that the first era mentioned had a larger number of players at a uniformly 'high/very high' level, but lacked the stratospheric champions of this one. Or, the really talented had other issues: Safin, Nalbandian, Rios, as examples...mostly head issues, with some injuries sprinkled in. The very fact that there was more opportunity probably bred some winning by rather random players. It's not like the era of the Big 3/4 has offered a lot of breathing room, and I do think those below have lacked belief. Hell, even Djokovic admitted to lack of belief v. Fedal until 2010 USO.

I love Safin and Ferrero, but there is no way it was harder to win a Major in their era.

 

[Federberg]

Pineapples and sprouts

Roger was dominant against the rest of the field. There were years where we could pretty much bank it that he would get to the finals. The fact that Nadal was beating him there doesn't take away from that.

 

[Ricardo]

Pineapples and sprouts

I'd go with you on this one without a blink. I have not heard or seen anyone being described as 'dominant' when he kept being second best. By that logic, Nadal dominated 2011 also? no, he kept losing to Novak who was the 'dominant' player. Does anyone say Murray has been dominant recently? again he kept losing to Novak.

To put it into any kind of precision, Roger was dominant overall (but off clay) while Nadal dominated on clay, period. It is not even debatable, i don't think.

 

[Ricardo]

Roger was dominant against the rest of the field. There were years where we could pretty much bank it that he would get to the finals. The fact that Nadal was beating him there doesn't take away from that.

Your logic is wrong, put simply.