The big 2

[sid]

I'm going to have the first laugh Haassssss never got the number 1 ranking.I know your love for Haas.

 

[Fiero425]

I'm going to have the first laugh Haassssss never got the number 1 ranking.I know your love for Haas.

IIRC, he did get to #2 during a rather bleak period on the men's tour! There are a few who jumped up there for about a minute and embarrassment should be had by all concerned! I can't even remember him getting to a major final! At least Stich won Wimbledon a couple years before he took over #2! :nono :angel: :dodgy: :cover

 

[Front242]

I'm going to have the first laugh Haassssss never got the number 1 ranking.I know your love for Haas.

He's had 9 (!) surgeries. Major ones. Laugh at that. Imagine how good he'd be without all that or, better still, imagine Andy Murray 4 months from 39 years of age after 9 surgeries. Btw, clearly I wasn't being serious about Haas beating Djokovic or Murray now in a slam but Federer and Stepanek, absolutely possible. Remains to be seen how well Haas will be able to play but he made a monkey out of Djokovic at Miami 2013 so we'll never know just how good he'd be without all the surgeries.

 

[El Dude]

I really don't get the Andy bashing that goes on around here. By my accounting he's the 16th greatest player of the Open Era--ahead of players like Arthur Ashe, Jim Courier, Ilie Nastase, Guillermo Vilas, and Stan Smith--and there is absolutely no shame in that. If he can win another Slam or two, I think he will surpass Wilander and be approaching Becker, Edberg, and Newcombe.

As for Haas, he's got an interesting resume. On the surface of things, he's not much better than someone like Tommy Robredo, who in my mind is the quintessential "third tier" player. Like Robredo, Haas has a single Masters title to his name (most third tier players don't win any). Haas has 15 titles overall, Robredo 12. Robredo has been far more consistent, although mainly due to health. From 2001-09, Robredo ranked consistently in the year-end top 30, going as high as #5 and a year-end ranking of #7 in 2006. From 2010-15, he ranked #51 or better in every season but one. Haas, on the other hand, has been more erratic, although with six seasons ranked #12 or higher (Robredo only has two). Haas also made four Slam semifinals, while Robredo never made it past the QF.

Overall Haas was a better player with a better career, but the gap in their career accomplishments is much smaller than the gap in their ability.

 

[sid]

Haas also is a real hot head he's lost his cool more than most on court.

 

[Fiero425]

I really don't get the Andy bashing that goes on around here. By my accounting he's the 16th greatest player of the Open Era--ahead of players like Arthur Ashe, Jim Courier, Ilie Nastase, Guillermo Vilas, and Stan Smith--and there is absolutely no shame in that. If he can win another Slam or two, I think he will surpass Wilander and be approaching Becker, Edberg, and Newcombe.

As for Haas, he's got an interesting resume. On the surface of things, he's not much better than someone like Tommy Robredo, who in my mind is the quintessential "third tier" player. Like Robredo, Haas has a single Masters title to his name (most third tier players don't win any). Haas has 15 titles overall, Robredo 12. Robredo has been far more consistent, although mainly due to health. From 2001-09, Robredo ranked consistently in the year-end top 30, going as high as #5 and a year-end ranking of #7 in 2006. From 2010-15, he ranked #51 or better in every season but one. Haas, on the other hand, has been more erratic, although with six seasons ranked #12 or higher (Robredo only has two). Haas also made four Slam semifinals, while Robredo never made it past the QF.

Overall Haas was a better player with a better career, but the gap in their career accomplishments is much smaller than the gap in their ability.

You call it bashing, I call it truth telling! Murray's woefully underachieved for the ability and work he's put into his game, even though one of the ugliest; right up there with Nadal! You can say he had to overcome the "Big 3," but he had significant wins over all of them at one time or another! The losses to players outside the top 10 is what's been holding him back in the past; esp. at the USO and FO! He just wears himself out with that silly defensive game! He can be more offensive and take it to players, but he'd rather hang way behind the baseline like Nadal and retrieve, running "suicides" back and forth like an idiot! Lendl gets more out of him for some reason; winning his majors when Ivan's there to keep him calm and always hopeful! I doubt he'll make it to the level of Wilander who was the quintessential player of that style! The only thing he might match is how fast he'll drop out of the top spot! He had a Nole finish last season, but it takes it's toll; esp. since he's approaching 30 with Djokovic! :nono :angel: :dodgy: :cover

 

[Front242]

Haas also is a real hot head he's lost his cool more than most on court.

More than Murray lol? Not a hope. There are too many videos on Youtube of Andy cursing like an ignorant scumbag that we're spoilt for choice.

 

[El Dude]

Fiero, but my point is that he's had a better career than all but fifteen players in the Open Era, and all the while playing alongside three of the truly greatest players of all time. Andy has nothing to be a shamed of. You hold players to such standards, that only the best of the best, at their best, are worthy of your consideration. It just seems ridiculous to me, like if we're talking talking absolute peak Novak, Rafa, Roger, Pete, or Bjorn, might as well go home.

 

[Fiero425]

Fiero, but my point is that he's had a better career than all but fifteen players in the Open Era, and all the while playing alongside three of the truly greatest players of all time. Andy has nothing to be a shamed of. You hold players to such standards, that only the best of the best, at their best, are worthy of your consideration. It just seems ridiculous to me, like if we're talking talking absolute peak Novak, Rafa, Roger, Pete, or Bjorn, might as well go home.

Yep! :angel: If you start giving any and almost everyone accolades, you end up diminishing them all! It's like we've come to this understanding that these 3 are the best of all time because their numbers are so intertwined and exceptional in this era! I also keep in mind the changes technically as well as having one of the weakest eras with few if any specialist! No way should Nadal have won 9 FO but for the incompetent play of "also-rans" that choked away leads; sometimes with match points! It's just plain gutless and it'll always be hard for me to elevate today's tour with our true Golden Age 20 years ago! As I've said, at any given time in a major, we might have 12 GS winners; nowhere near that now with them unable to even squeak out some Masters on clay or indoors! :nono uzzled :cover

 

[El Dude]

As far as the dominance of the Big 3, let's take two statements:
1. The Big 3 dominated because the competition was weak
2. The competition was weak because the Big 3 were so dominant

We can focus on one side (the greatness of the Big 3) or the other (the weakness of the Big 3), or we can take a third--and, in my opinion, more nuanced--perspective: that it is a chicken-and-egg thing, and the two are not separable.

Let's take Roger, for instance. His detractors will say he only won 17 Slams because his generation was weak. His supporters will say his generation was weak because he was so great. We can imagine a scenario where Roger became a Swiss watchmaker instead of a tennis player, and certainly we'd see several players Hell, we'd probably see several players with more Slams--maybe Andy Roddick would be in the 3-4 category, maybe David Nalbandian would have a Slam or two. Andy Murray with 5-8 Slam titles. Now certainly there are no players in his generation who would have been all-time greats without his presence (true greats find a way to win, no matter the competition), but there are several excellent players who would have had better careers: Roddick, Safin, Nalbandian, Hewitt, maybe one or two others.

But we cannot know which is more causal: Roger being great or his generation being weak. All we do know is that Roger was extremely dominant over his generation and became a peer of the next generation of greats (not unlike Jimmy Connors or Ivan Lendl, actually, but more so).

As for cross-generational comparisons, all we can really do is compare players relative to their own generation. We cannot ask, "Who would have won, Rafa vs. Bjorn?" Actually, we can answer that easily: Rafa would have destroyed Borg. But that's taking things out of context. We cannot know what sort of player Bjorn would have been today, with modern training and equipment. It is a pointless speculation, in my opinion. But we can look at how great Bjorn was relative to his era vs. how great Rafa was relative to his.

One final thing. I disagree completely re: Rafa. When he came on the scene there WERE some very good clay court specialists among them Guillermo Coria, whose career and confidence (including service yips)--some believed--was greatly damaged by the emergence of Nadal. And don't forget that he dominated Roger on clay and Roger was an excellent clay player in his prime. He also holds the edge against Novak on clay, 14-7, although Novak his 7-5 on clay from 2011 to the present.

But do you really think that Rafa wouldn't have been able to dismantle Kuerten or Bruguera or Courier, or even peak Agassi? He would have dominated. Whether you like it or not, he is the greatest clay court player in tennis history.

 

[Fiero425]

^^^Very nice analysis! Still reading since it's a "book!" - Will probably save to my blog! :clap

Update: I don't believe Rafa would have been as dominate because of the tech. and different speeds of the courts! His game centers around confidence and I believe players from past generations wouldn't have tried to just outlast him! Believe me, there was a significant difference in play and the courts that would have taken Rafa out of his comfort zone! They also wouldn't have let him get away with all his stalling and gamesmanship! That saved him more times than I can count!

 

[El Dude]

I'm long-winded, if you hadn't noticed ;0

 

[Fiero425]

I'm long-winded, if you hadn't noticed ;0

Congrats! Here ya go; edited down, but a good post to go back to for info and texture of the era! :angel: :dodgy:

- https://fiero4251.blogspot.com/2016/10/whats-up-topic-21-entries-1016-on.html?showComment=1482095529341#c7193190253611623817 -

 

[sid]

Haas also is a real hot head he's lost his cool more than most on court.

More than Murray lol? Not a hope. There are too many videos on Youtube of Andy cursing like an ignorant scumbag that we're spoilt for choice.

Scumbag speak for yourself & your pal

Haas lost his cool near all the time Murray was not as bad,even you have to admit that.

 

[sid]

BBC Sports Personality of the Year 2016: Andy Murray wins for a record third time.

 

[Front242]

BBC Sports (Lack of) Personality of the Year 2016: Andy Murray wins for a record third time.

Fixed that for you.

 

[mrzz]

I really don't get the Andy bashing that goes on around here.

Well, Dude, I guess you need to take it into context. People debate and mix personal preferences with objective analysis, to being with. From the top of my head I remember Front, Fiero and myself bashing
Murray. Neither of us denies that he is a very good player. I guess we all agree that he was the deserving #1 (sorry if I am wrong guys). So this is the fairest bashing on the internet by far...

I admit I really don´t like the guy, but to begin with it has nothing to do with tennis. More importantly, I generally don´t like to see him playing (well, the rants are fun), so that´s the main point on my bashing. Is it an effective style of play? Hell it is.

I reacted to the big2/big3big4 thing because I still think he gets a bit of a ride on the real big 3 greatness. I am pretty sure a lot of players who had no chance to shine under Federer´s dominance would have a fair share of wins against Murray on big finals.

 

[El Dude]

mrzz, it might sound strange but I'm not as much protesting the bashing of him as a person. That isn't my style to do so, but I can admit that he is a tad annoying. But what I'm disagreeing with is bashing him as a player, as if he's some kind of fraud simply because he's not as good as the Bigger Three. My point is that Andy's record stands on its own as one of the twenty best of the Open Era - and there is no shame in that.

I do agree that there's a good argument that Roger suppressed his generation in an unprecedented way, and that several players would have won more Slams if it hadn't been for him. I think a peak Roddick, Safin, and Nalbandian would have still been below the current big three, as well as Andy, but they would have vied with Stan Wawrinka and been ahead of the recent second tier (Tsonga, Berdych, Ferrer, Cilic, etc).

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

Fiero, but my point is that he's had a better career than all but fifteen players in the Open Era, and all the while playing alongside three of the truly greatest players of all time. Andy has nothing to be a shamed of. You hold players to such standards, that only the best of the best, at their best, are worthy of your consideration. It just seems ridiculous to me, like if we're talking talking absolute peak Novak, Rafa, Roger, Pete, or Bjorn, might as well go home.

Yep! :angel: If you start giving any and almost everyone accolades, you end up diminishing them all! It's like we've come to this understanding that these 3 are the best of all time because their numbers are so intertwined and exceptional in this era! I also keep in mind the changes technically as well as having one of the weakest eras with few if any specialist! No way should Nadal have won 9 FO but for the incompetent play of "also-rans" that choked away leads; sometimes with match points! It's just plain gutless and it'll always be hard for me to elevate today's tour with our true Golden Age 20 years ago!As I've said, at any given time in a major, we might have 12 GS winners; nowhere near that now with them unable to even squeak out some Masters on clay or indoors! :nono uzzled :cover

What you elevate depends on who the guys on the top are when you are living your youth and are in heydays. You should praise whosoever comes afterwards too. Nadal beating Federer in 4 finals and a semi-final isn't enough testimony of Nadal's proficiency on clay you think. I don't get that. Federer brought an end to Djokovic's 42-match winning streak on clay. Let's not forget that. In addition to this, he beat Nole in 2 finals and a semi. He dominated the two best other clay-courters in his time. And you shouldn't put Murray and Nadal in the same category of style. Murray's game might have reasons as to why it couldn't make him a 5-time Wimbledon champion but Nadal has one of the most sorted out and well thought of games you will see. Not for a moment is he indecisive in a match. He is a very intelligent player. And he is elegant in his own way. One of a kind. Shouldn't be called ugly in any sense of the term.

 

[sid]

After watching the Qatar Open & other tennis matches it's hard to see past the big 2 @ AO.