Stronger, weaker or ?

[Federberg]

Here's my follow up comparison with who Novak has lost to starting 2011, the year he jumped up to a new level:

2011: Tipsarevic, Ferrer, Tsonga, Nishikori, Del Potro, Murray, Federer
2012: Querrey, Murray (x2), Federer (x2), Del Potro, Nadal (x2)
2013: Nadal (x3), Isner, Murray, Berdych, Dimitrov, Hass, DelPotro
2014: Fed (x3), Nishikori, Robredo, Tsonga, Nadal, Wawrinka
2015: Fed (x3), Murray, Wawrinka, Karlovic
2016: Murray, Jiri Vesely, Querrey

Djokovic has been dominating in the waning days of Fedal, and even still they have featured. But note how few players who are considered below his generation have beaten him (in bold.) IMO, this is the effect of the Lost Generation that isn't there to challenge him. I color-coded the other big 3, to make it clearer. Most of the players that have beaten him in the last 5 1/2 years are within a year or two of his age or older. The most accomplished are all older, except for Murray who is essentially exactly the same age. While there are good names in there, there is a preponderance of big 4, primarily Federer, with Nadal and Murray as we know, at the big moments. As Roger and Rafa have been some of his biggest problems, and given that they are on the wane, it's hard to argue that he's had an otherwise really tough field. So there is an argument that his "dominance" has benefited from a weak era, as Roger has, in his time. There was a ramping up and cooling off of a really strong field. Most were a little too young for Roger in his salad days, and a little too old to trouble Novak now.

I always hesitate with the weak era concept, but I guess the test is how does that era perform when they play lesser tournaments without the dominators? Do they win? Implying the dominant guys really are that good, or do they still not step up implying they truly are as weak as suspected. If I wasn't so lazy I would do the work to find out

 

[Ricardo]

I'm coming to the conclusion that you're not smart enough to realise how silly you're being. Please continue! When you grow up your nonsense will only embarrass you. I guarantee I'm not the only one reading your stuff laughing at you

again you coward out a simple question, and that's showing everyone how exposed your stupidity is.

I'll answer this for you, according to your logic, a guy who kept losing to another guy is 'dominant'......happy?

common response when being exposed, hide behind a laughter hoping no one can see your tears

(if you had anything to back up your argument about being 'dominant', you would've answered the question instead of me taking the time to kick your silly butt)

 

[Moxie]

It's surprising how hard you are working to derail this thread, considering you're the one that started it.

 

[Ricardo]

why don't you give a perspective on who dominated on clay? i thought Rafa and not Fed, apparently someone disagreed and kept on bullish!ting and can't answer a simple question.

 

[mrzz]

Here's my follow up comparison with who Novak has lost to starting 2011, the year he jumped up to a new level:

2011: Tipsarevic, Ferrer, Tsonga, Nishikori, Del Potro, Murray, Federer
2012: Querrey, Murray (x2), Federer (x2), Del Potro, Nadal (x2)
2013: Nadal (x3), Isner, Murray, Berdych, Dimitrov, Hass, DelPotro
2014: Fed (x3), Nishikori, Robredo, Tsonga, Nadal, Wawrinka
2015: Fed (x3), Murray, Wawrinka, Karlovic
2016: Murray, Jiri Vesely, Querrey

Djokovic has been dominating in the waning days of Fedal, and even still they have featured. But note how few players who are considered below his generation have beaten him (in bold.) IMO, this is the effect of the Lost Generation that isn't there to challenge him. I color-coded the other big 3, to make it clearer. Most of the players that have beaten him in the last 5 1/2 years are within a year or two of his age or older. The most accomplished are all older, except for Murray who is essentially exactly the same age. While there are good names in there, there is a preponderance of big 4, primarily Federer, with Nadal and Murray as we know, at the big moments. As Roger and Rafa have been some of his biggest problems, and given that they are on the wane, it's hard to argue that he's had an otherwise really tough field. So there is an argument that his "dominance" has benefited from a weak era, as Roger has, in his time. There was a ramping up and cooling off of a really strong field. Most were a little too young for Roger in his salad days, and a little too old to trouble Novak now.

Good compilation, Moxie. If you add those numbers, you get:

Federer: 9 wins
Nadal and Murray : 6 wins
del Potro: 3 wins
Nishikori, Wawrinka, Tsonga, Querrey(!): 2 wins
All others with one.

So you see what you wanted to point out. His competition comes from the very top, even if this "top" is getting old. If you add to that number the close encounters (five setters against Fedal, mostly), it becomes even more visible.

 

[Federberg]

why don't you give a perspective on who dominated on clay? i thought Rafa and not Fed, apparently someone disagreed and kept on bullish!ting and can't answer a simple question.

Lol! Yet again you're advertising your rather low IQ (or low emotional maturity, take your pick) for everyone to see. Let me see if I can explain this to you in simple terms (I know how difficult joined up writing is for someone like you ). Federer was a dominant player on clay because he consistently got to finals, which means that he was beating the field to get there (go find that dusty dictionary to learn what the word dominant means, please for all our sakes). It is irrelevant whether he won those finals or not, that doesn't detract from his dominance of the field, losing in the finals only means there was someone else even more dominant than he was. Really I can't explain it anymore simply.

I am truly embarrassed for you that you seem unable to understand that concept. All the name calling in the world isn't going to change anything, you have made a fool of yourself and compounded a basic misunderstanding of the English language. I don't mind if you continue with this, I'm loving it. Every time you persist it's entirely to your own detriment, so keep it up!

 

[Tennis Fan]

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.

I think so too, Britbox. I loved that era, but The Big Four took the game to another level. They are stronger, more powerful, move better and cover the court better. Each generation gets better due to advances in nutrition, technology, and medical advances. Sometimes the olden days are/were not better; just different.

 

[Federberg]

^I generally agree with this. My issue is that while players today are better, I'm uncertain that they would have been as dominant in the variety of different playing conditions of previous eras. Would Novak or Rafa have achieved what they have on the grass courts of 20 years ago? Would Roger have been as effective on clay? I'm not so sure. What I do believe is that those players from previous eras would be eaten alive now by this current crop. Just my view

When I speculate on this, let me be clear, I'm looking at the players in both cases only having access to the contemporary technologies

 

[Tennis Fan]

Here's my follow up comparison with who Novak has lost to starting 2011, the year he jumped up to a new level:

2011: Tipsarevic, Ferrer, Tsonga, Nishikori, Del Potro, Murray, Federer
2012: Querrey, Murray (x2), Federer (x2), Del Potro, Nadal (x2)
2013: Nadal (x3), Isner, Murray, Berdych, Dimitrov, Hass, DelPotro
2014: Fed (x3), Nishikori, Robredo, Tsonga, Nadal, Wawrinka
2015: Fed (x3), Murray, Wawrinka, Karlovic
2016: Murray, Jiri Vesely, Querrey

Djokovic has been dominating in the waning days of Fedal, and even still they have featured. But note how few players who are considered below his generation have beaten him (in bold.) IMO, this is the effect of the Lost Generation that isn't there to challenge him. I color-coded the other big 3, to make it clearer. Most of the players that have beaten him in the last 5 1/2 years are within a year or two of his age or older. The most accomplished are all older, except for Murray who is essentially exactly the same age. While there are good names in there, there is a preponderance of big 4, primarily Federer, with Nadal and Murray as we know, at the big moments. As Roger and Rafa have been some of his biggest problems, and given that they are on the wane, it's hard to argue that he's had an otherwise really tough field. So there is an argument that his "dominance" has benefited from a weak era, as Roger has, in his time. There was a ramping up and cooling off of a really strong field. Most were a little too young for Roger in his salad days, and a little too old to trouble Novak now.

Outstanding posts, Moxie. It incorporates all the facts without cherry picking. Hats off to you.

 

[Moxie]

Good compilation, Moxie. If you add those numbers, you get:

Federer: 9 wins
Nadal and Murray : 6 wins
del Potro: 3 wins
Nishikori, Wawrinka, Tsonga, Querrey(!): 2 wins
All others with one.

So you see what you wanted to point out. His competition comes from the very top, even if this "top" is getting old. If you add to that number the close encounters (five setters against Fedal, mostly), it becomes even more visible.

Thanks, Mrzz. But the aging of Fedal is part of the point. When up until 2011, he lost to both more often than not. So much so he only recently passed them in the h2h.

^I generally agree with this. My issue is that while players today are better, I'm uncertain that they would have been as dominant in the variety of different playing conditions of previous eras. Would Novak or Rafa have achieved what they have on the grass courts of 20 years ago? Would Roger have been as effective on clay? I'm not so sure. What I do believe is that those players from previous eras would be eaten alive now by this current crop. Just my view

When I speculate on this, let me be clear, I'm looking at the players in both cases only having access to the contemporary technologies

I see what you're saying, and it does get complicated. I think if we're just comparing a few cross-eras post 2000, it's not as difficult. The new technologies were available, and the surfaces had become, more or less, what they are now. But the progression to this 21st C. game has been steady and involves many changes.

One thing I will say, which is subjective and cannot be proven: I do think that Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are preternaturally talented tennis players. While they may not have been able to make so many adjustments, or win as many MS and Slams in earlier eras, with different conditions, I think that they would have done a lot of beating up on other players. I think it also matters that they played against each other and pushed each other. They all say so. What are the other best 3 playing more or less at the same time, in men's tennis?

 

[Moxie]

Good compilation, Moxie. If you add those numbers, you get:

Federer: 9 wins
Nadal and Murray : 6 wins
del Potro: 3 wins
Nishikori, Wawrinka, Tsonga, Querrey(!): 2 wins
All others with one.

So you see what you wanted to point out. His competition comes from the very top, even if this "top" is getting old. If you add to that number the close encounters (five setters against Fedal, mostly), it becomes even more visible.

Thanks, Mrzz. But the aging of Fedal is part of the point. Up until 2011, he lost to both more often than not. So much so that he only recently passed them in the h2h. They have still beaten him more than others, but they are lions losing their teeth. Murray, of course is in there. And sadly, DelPo, who might have been more of a challenge has physical issues. And so you see the state of his competition, at the moment.

 

[Federberg]

Thanks, Mrzz. But the aging of Fedal is part of the point. When up until 2011, he lost to both more often than not. So much so he only recently passed them in the h2h.

I see what you're saying, and it does get complicated. I think if we're just comparing a few cross-eras post 2000, it's not as difficult. The new technologies were available, and the surfaces had become, more or less, what they are now. But the progression to this 21st C. game has been steady and involves many changes.

One thing I will say, which is subjective and cannot be proven: I do think that Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are preternaturally talented tennis players. While they may not have been able to make so many adjustments, or win as many MS and Slams in earlier eras, with different conditions, I think that they would have done a lot of beating up on other players. I think it also matters that they played against each other and pushed each other. They all say so. What are the other best 3 playing more or less at the same time, in men's tennis?

I agree they would do well in other eras, my uncertainty is about how dominant they would be on their weaker surfaces.

Re other eras with best 3 players contending at the same time, it would have to be the JMac/Borg/Connors era

 

[Moxie]

I agree they would do well in other eras, my uncertainty is about how dominant they would be on their weaker surfaces.

Re other eras with best 3 players contending at the same time, it would have to be the JMac/Borg/Connors era

Good answer on the other Big 3.

It's hard to say about "dominant on their weaker surfaces," because they're not so dominant, as it is, even though they all have the career Slam. Federer would likely have stayed more in the S&V mold, which would have gotten him plenty on grass, and he'd always have done well on fast hards and indoors. I can't see that being different. He may never have had enough game on clay, if he hadn't developed a baseline game. Nadal, who is often compared to Borg, and was committed to winning Wimbledon, might well have still won there, at least once, given his speed and net game. In the era when more Majors were on grass, I'm not sure how long that would have worked out. But on HCs, the game did translate. Djokovic starts with a baseline game, and didn't start with a strong serve. It's possible his game would never have translated to grass, but I think it is more naturally suited to clay than Fed's. Bottom line: if you're comparing them to Connors/Borg/Mac, and think of what those guys did or nearly did, given what they were willing to do and up against, I'd take a couple of Majors off of each, but say that they were still capable of most.

 

[mrzz]

^I generally agree with this. My issue is that while players today are better, I'm uncertain that they would have been as dominant in the variety of different playing conditions of previous eras. Would Novak or Rafa have achieved what they have on the grass courts of 20 years ago? Would Roger have been as effective on clay? I'm not so sure. What I do believe is that those players from previous eras would be eaten alive now by this current crop. Just my view

When I speculate on this, let me be clear, I'm looking at the players in both cases only having access to the contemporary technologies

Fair post in general but I disagree with one part: "players today are better". The big three are better. For the rest, I really think otherwise.

 

[Federberg]

Good answer on the other Big 3.

It's hard to say about "dominant on their weaker surfaces," because they're not so dominant, as it is, even though they all have the career Slam. Federer would likely have stayed more in the S&V mold, which would have gotten him plenty on grass, and he'd always have done well on fast hards and indoors. I can't see that being different. He may never have had enough game on clay, if he hadn't developed a baseline game. Nadal, who is often compared to Borg, and was committed to winning Wimbledon, might well have still won there, at least once, given his speed and net game. In the era when more Majors were on grass, I'm not sure how long that would have worked out. But on HCs, the game did translate. Djokovic starts with a baseline game, and didn't start with a strong serve. It's possible his game would never have translated to grass, but I think it is more naturally suited to clay than Fed's. Bottom line: if you're comparing them to Connors/Borg/Mac, and think of what those guys did or nearly did, given what they were willing to do and up against, I'd take a couple of Majors off of each, but say that they were still capable of most.

not sure about Rafa. Remember I'm talking about using the contemporary technology. I'm not sure that Rafa's game would have translated well to grass. But it's just opinions

 

[Federberg]

Fair post in general but I disagree with one part: "players today are better". The big three are better. For the rest, I really think otherwise.

that's another debate entirely I've been focused on the big guys. Will have a think about that

 

[Ricardo]

Lol! Yet again you're advertising your rather low IQ (or low emotional maturity, take your pick) for everyone to see. Let me see if I can explain this to you in simple terms (I know how difficult joined up writing is for someone like you ). Federer was a dominant player on clay because he consistently got to finals, which means that he was beating the field to get there (go find that dusty dictionary to learn what the word dominant means, please for all our sakes). It is irrelevant whether he won those finals or not, that doesn't detract from his dominance of the field, losing in the finals only means there was someone else even more dominant than he was. Really I can't explain it anymore simply.

I am truly embarrassed for you that you seem unable to understand that concept. All the name calling in the world isn't going to change anything, you have made a fool of yourself and compounded a basic misunderstanding of the English language. I don't mind if you continue with this, I'm loving it. Every time you persist it's entirely to your own detriment, so keep it up!

so beating the field but kept losing the finals to the guy who truly dominated means he 'dominated'? does that mean Rafa dominated in 2011 as well? same question,

YES or NO?

stop avoiding, don't give me more bs run-around rubbish and save your bs explanation nobody wants to see. It's a simple question.

 

[Ricardo]

that's another debate entirely I've been focused on the big guys. Will have a think about that

don't worry about 'thinking', i know exactly what you are trying again loud mouth. As soon as mrzz caught you out on it, you slip to 'focus on the big guys'...... really? if you really mean that, then i got something in store for you, again, to expose your stupidity.

so which way is it? is it just the 'big guys' who are better or? think carefully, or don't think, since i will kick your butt for lack of brain anyway

 

[Federberg]

so beating the field but kept losing the finals to the guy who truly dominated means he 'dominated'? does that mean Rafa dominated in 2011 as well? same question,

YES or NO?

stop avoiding, don't give me more bs run-around rubbish and save your bs explanation nobody wants to see. It's a simple question.

hahahaha! You can't stop can you? Poor poor baby. I can see that even a basic explanation escapes you, so clearly your IQ is even lower than I thought!! Wow! Is someone helping you write this stuff? Out of sheer pity, I'll humour you, but really for adults it's basic syllogistic reasoning, so if you could only understand the original premise I wouldn't have to bother. But yes, absolutely...

Maybe this will help you?

Singles
Season record 68-15 (81.93%)
Calendar titles 3
Year-end ranking No. 2
Ranking change from previous year

1
Grand Slam results
Australian Open QF
French Open W
Wimbledon F
US Open F
Doubles
Season record 9-5 (64.29%)
Calendar titles 1
Davis Cup
Davis Cup W

A year end ranking of no 2. He won one slam, lost 2 to Novak, and was a runner up in a stack of other matches to Novak. So yes, by definition he was dominant. Was he the most dominant player? Well... no! Novak was. But for Rafa to have reached all those finals is clear evidence that he was dominating the field, but losing to a more dominant player.

Now, I'm not even sure if you can read, so maybe you should ask the person who's helping you communicate on this forum, but here's a definition of the word dominant..."occupying or being in a commanding or elevated position." He was clearly in an elevated position, I dare say even a muppet knows that, but I was giving you far too much credit, you're no way near as smart as a muppet. I tried so hard not to point out the obvious, because I really thought you had enough brain cells to figure it out for yourself. I was so so wrong, and I'm sorry for that.

Perhaps you're confusing dominant with predominant? Anyway, lesson over. Now run along little boy, the next time I need to take you to school I'll be forced to charge you

 

[Federberg]

don't worry about 'thinking', i know exactly what you are trying again loud mouth. As soon as mrzz caught you out on it, you slip to 'focus on the big guys'...... really? if you really mean that, then i got something in store for you, again, to expose your stupidity.

so which way is it? is it just the 'big guys' who are better or? think carefully, or don't think, since i will kick your butt for lack of brain anyway

Now now! I know you're not very smart, so if you just get your helper to read through the thread, you'll see (ooops! I mean your helper will tell you) that my focus has been on the big guys. Bye bye