"Weak" Era and Rafa's Dominance at the FO

[bobvance]

Found this article by chance when I was searching for today's order of play. It has an interesting take on the idea of Federer's "weak" era, and Rafa's dominance at the French Open. I'm curious to see what you guys and gals think.

http://www.oregonlive.com/the-spin-of-the-ball/index.ssf/2014/10/rafael_nadals_place_in_the_wea.html

 

[Front242]

Well there were clearly more clay court specialists around in the 80's and 90's when said specialists were in fact just that, they were great on clay but not that great on everything else. It was definitely harder to dominate on clay in those 2 decades than today but you can only play in the era you were born in. Same as the Federer "weak competition" arguments in his prime years.

 

[shawnbm]

This is another article attempting to muddy the waters on the Fedal place in the tennis pantheon. As much as we love to engage on conjecture on these things, it is futile. Nadal has clearly been the best clay courter of this generation and Federer has been a distant second, with Novak in third. Federer has clearly been the best grass and hard court player, with Rafa second on grass and Novak a close second on hards, while Rafa has been third best on hards and Novak third on grass. I guess the point is that all three are in the top three across all surfaces, much as Connors and Borg were in their time (neither Mac nor Lendl were at the same levels as top players on clay or grass, respectively, like Jimbo and Bjorn were). Sampras was best on grass and hard courts, with Andre close behind on hards, but really distant on grass and clearly one up on Pete on clay.

I don't buy much into the weak field argument. Each player--Connors, Borg, Lendl, Sampras included--comes up and faces the fading legends, plus the guys they battled through the juniors, and then--if they last and remain top players for more than a year or two--they face the future top guys. Sampras, Connors and Federer have seen that and Rafa has been around long enough at the top to include on that list. Novak, if he is at or near the top another couple years, will be in that group too. So, I still think we are in a truly golden age of legendary players still playing against each other and the next generation, after disposing of the former top players like Hewitt, Roddick, Safin and Ferrero (and Pete in one match). These guys have been as good or better as any other crop of top dogs that we have seen. But does that mean Roger on grass was as good as Pete or that Borg would have outlasted Nadal on the clay of Europe (as he thinks he could have)? We will never know.

 

[Federberg]

I don't think the writer buys the weak era theory, that's the point. As you say.. these guys have done what they had to do. A lot of these guys look "weak" because Fedal has been so good. I think that even the people who promoted the weak era theory, seeing Federer still playing at this level, despite his age... and decline have given up on the idea that Roger isn't a one in a million player. We're well past that nonsense now

 

[bobvance]

I don't think the writer buys the weak era theory, that's the point. As you say.. these guys have done what they had to do. A lot of these guys look "weak" because Fedal has been so good. I think that even the people who promoted the weak era theory, seeing Federer still playing at this level, despite his age... and decline have given up on the idea that Roger isn't a one in a million player. We're well past that nonsense now

This is what I took out of it too. It was just a clever way of saying that if you believe Roger achieved his level of success due to a weak field, then you could make the same argument for Rafa's success at the French Open. In fact, it must really have been a weak field because in all these years Rafa has only had to face one clay-court grandslam champion.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

But, we got to give it to Borg for excelling in RG and Wimby when these two surfaces played
very different, unlike in the last 15 years or so when the differences are much less compared to
the past.

 

[DarthFed]

But, we got to give it to Borg for excelling in RG and Wimby when these two surfaces played
very different, unlike in the last 15 years or so when the differences are much less compared to
the past.

Absolutely, I've long argued what Borg did is significantly greater than Rafa and Roger's Channel Slams even if it is the same achievement on paper.

 

[shawnbm]

I certainly agree that the author is not one who buys into this theory, but far too many still do.

 

[El Dude]

I almost want to play Devil's Advocate here. While I don't buy the "weak era" argument, mainly because I think most sports see incremental improvements over the years, so that the best tennis being played now is the best tennis that has ever been played (in a similar fashion that more linear track records continue to be broken; its not lik there are past peaks in top speeds - these guys just get better and better).

But I do think there is a natural fluctuation of talent and that some periods are stronger than others. Consider the mid-80s, when Jimmy Connors was still excellent, McEnroe and Lendl were peaking, Wilander, Edberg, and Becker were coming into their own. Has their ever been a better year-end top 6 than 1985? (Slam titles in parentheses).

1. Lendl (8)
2. McEnroe (7)
3. Wilander (7)
4. Connors (8)
5. Edberg (6)
6. Becker (6)

Maybe it isn't a coincidence that these guys all won 6-8 Slams? They were keep each others' counts down.

A few years before that you had Connors, Borg, McEnroe and Lendl; and then a few years later Sampras and Agassi entered the mix as some of the older guys faded. So from the late 70s to early 90s is arguably the strongest stretch of the Open Era, with no gaps between multiple all-time greats holding court. I think we see a relatively weak era from the mid-90s--when Becker and Edberg tailed off and only Sampras and Agassi were dominant--to the early-00s. But then it rises again in Federer's prime - and not just Nadal, but Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, and then Djokovic and Murray. But then, since 2008, the Big Four have dominated - and what a strong era that has been.

From 2008-12, a span of five years, you have four players holding the top four spots every year. Federer dropped out of the top four in 2013, but returned in 2014 - and Murray is fighting to get back into the top four by year's end.

Anyhow, the bottom line is that I don't think Roger's peak of 2004-07 was a "weak era"--certainly no weaker than 1993-2002--but I don't think it was as strong as 1980-92, or 2008-14.

 

[Federberg]

That's your opinion Dude. But I'll respectfully disagree. Quite apart from the fact you simply cannot compare eras, 2004 - 07 was the way it was, not because the opposition was poor, but because Roger was that good. It's no surprise that the only player who was able to oppose him is now challenging his status for GOAThood. The most you can do is assess how competitive an era is, but if you're trying to assess the average strength of the top players, you simply can't do it. There are too many variables that cloud the comparison, and the only facts come out in favour of the later players. What I mean by that is greater professionalism, fitness, diet, technique etc..

 

[brokenshoelace]

Sticking strictly to clay, the argument is so flawed. First of all, the way "clay court specialist" is understood, at least traditionally, is someone who excels on clay (but generally not on other surfaces). All right, that's fine. What I don't like is someone like Djokovic is not looked at as a "clay court specialist." Why? Well, it's not because of his lack of clay accomplishments (He's actually won 5 clay masters, reached about 4 other clay masters finals, and has reached 2 Roland Garros finals. That's actually a very good clay resume. The ONLY reason he doesn't have a RG title is for the same reason most other clay specialists wouldn't have a RG title had they played in the same era as Rafael Nadal).

So why is Novak not a clay court specialist? Well, it's because he's great (better) on other surfaces. Well that's irrelevant. What matters is, he's still really, REALLY good on clay. He's not better on other surfaces because he sucks on clay. He's better on other surfaces because despite being great on clay, he's just awesome on hards. So I'm sorry, but if I'm supposed to look at Nadal beating Djokovic and shrug my shoulders because Novak is no clay specialist, unlike killers in the 90's and 80's, then I call BS. Yeah, I'm sorry Novak isn't as great as Bruguera, Moya, or Marcelo Rios.

Now you can bring up the homogenization of the surfaces but as far as Nadal's accomplishments on clay and his opposition on clay, this is irrelevant. Clay still plays for the most part, like clay. Homogenization becomes relevant if we're talking about excelling on both clay and grass, and comparing Borg's channel slams to that of Roger or Rafa. But when strictly talking about competition on clay, what does it matter that grass has been slowed down? It's not like clay requires players to serve and volley now.

And there's of course, that Federer guy. I heard he's pretty good on clay. I could be wrong though. And Nadal had to go through him quite a few times, if memory serves.

And finally, I'd love to know how many clay titles these clay specialists of the 90's would have had they been around Nadal. I tell you, there's no way in hell Rafa would win topple Courier, Bruguera, Muster, Kafelnikov, Moya and Agassi to win RG. Just no way.

The only genuinely intriguing match-up would be Nadal vs. Guga. Coria (who's not a 90's players) could have probably challenged Nadal a bit if he didn't forget how to hold a tennis racket out of the blue. That's one clay rivalry we missed out on. Their clay matches were phenomenal.

PS: Match-up wise, Nadal is a clay specialist's nightmare. Again, in the traditional sense, clay specialists are looked at as grinders. I'd love to see how Michael Chang, Bruguera or Muster are supposed to hurt Nadal.

 

[Federberg]

Completely agree with you BS. All this nonsense about how it was better back in the day. It gets to a certain point where the data doesn't back it up. The simple fact is Roger and Rafa really ARE that good. Guga vs Rafa.. wow that would have been something to see. I would also have liked to watch him play against Muster, Borg and Lendl, and of course Sampras.

As a further aside, I'm not sure there's a match I would like to see more than Novak vs Sampras though. I would love to see if Novak would burrow his way into Pete's head with those returns. It's one thing to handle Agassi's hit or miss returning style, quite another to deal with the depth and consistency Novak sends back at you..

 

[brokenshoelace]

Completely agree with you BS. All this nonsense about how it was better back in the day. It gets to a certain point where the data doesn't back it up. The simple fact is Roger and Rafa really ARE that good. Guga vs Rafa.. wow that would have been something to see. I would also have liked to watch him play against Muster, Borg and Lendl, and of course Sampras.

As a further aside, I'm not sure there's a match I would like to see more than Novak vs Sampras though. I would love to see if Novak would burrow his way into Pete's head with those returns. It's one thing to handle Agassi's hit or miss returning style, quite another to deal with the depth and consistency Novak sends back at you..

Pete vs. Novak is probably my stylistic dream match. I'd probably prefer to see Roger vs. Pete or Rafa vs. Pete due to what they each have accomplished, but from a pure tennis stand-point, I'd love to see Novak/Pete.

On clay, it's obviously a no contest, and I really can't see Pete doing much to Novak on slow/medium hards (there's a reason Novak is so great at the AO, and there's a reason Andre got the better of Pete at that tournament). On grass, even today's grass, I'd give the edge to Pete (on 90's grass Pete would be a huge favorite), and I'd also give Pete a decent edge at the US Open, as I've seen Novak struggle with offensive players there.

 

[Federberg]

^pretty much how I see it too

 

[El Dude]

That's your opinion Dude. But I'll respectfully disagree. Quite apart from the fact you simply cannot compare eras, 2004 - 07 was the way it was, not because the opposition was poor, but because Roger was that good. It's no surprise that the only player who was able to oppose him is now challenging his status for GOAThood. The most you can do is assess how competitive an era is, but if you're trying to assess the average strength of the top players, you simply can't do it. There are too many variables that cloud the comparison, and the only facts come out in favour of the later players. What I mean by that is greater professionalism, fitness, diet, technique etc..

What's my opinion? What are you disagreeing with? I'm just laying out some perspectives and trying to present the other side of the picture. But I'm not arguing for the "Weak Era Theory" (WET), just not totally negating it. So my opinion is simply that there may be some truth to WET, that it isn't totally off but it certainly isn't totally correct. I mean the fact of the matter is that until 2008, from 2004-07, Roger only had to deal with one other all-time great in his prime (except for a bit of Agassi early on) - and against that one player he didn't do all that well. Once Djokovic and Murray started playing at a high level, in 2008 and 2009 respectively, Roger's dominance was over. I mean, do you disagree with the idea that Roger has more top tier competition from 2008-14 than he did in 2004-07?

Ultimately it is all just that - theory. It is nearly impossible not only to make definitive statements, but to compare eras. As you say, we can assess how competitive an era was, and certainly the 1980ish-92ish was rather competitive, more so than the Fedal Age (which we can call 2004-10). But its hard to say how, for instance, the second tier talent of the late 90s--Corretja, Enqvist, Moya, Krajicek, etc--compares to the second tier talent of the last few years--Ferrer, Berdych, Tsonga, del Potro, etc.

One interesting perspective is that there is always a similar level of talent, it is just distributed differently - whether at the very top, or the top 10, or more spread out. Again, I'm not saying it is true, but it is an interesting view to consider.

(In the end, the only thing I disagree with are strong opinions that are presented as factual! )

 

[isabelle]

Would Manacor's bull have beaten Higueras ? And Borg ? And Vilas ? And Solomon ??? Nobody knows so the question is irrelevant

 

[El Dude]

While I think cross-era discussion is difficult, I don't think it is entirely worthless. There are a couple things we can do:

1) We can compare how a given player is compared to his era, and then compare "relative dominance." How good was Sampras compared to his peers? How good was Federer compared to his peers? How do they compare in terms of their relative dominance?

2) We can look at "talent density" at the top and how big titles are distributed.

I think it is hard to say, for instance, that Roger would have had fewer Slams if he was five years younger, but it isn't an unreasonable conjecture. Harder still is to ask how Sampras would have done if he was part of a contemporary "Big Five" or how Rafa would have fared against Borg and Lendl, etc.

But one thing I think we CAN say with some degree of confidence is that a player like Andy Murray likely would have been more dominant if he had peaked in the late 90s-early 00s, that he rather than Hewitt would have dominated the tour in the early 00s. Push Andy back ten years and I think he has 2-3 times as many Slams as he has now.

Ivan Lendl is another player whose Slam count probably doesn't reflect his historical greatness. Lendl is probably the player in the entire history of tennis, certainly the Open Era, that played against more top players during their primes than any other. Lendl played against Connors/Borg/McEnroe, then Wilander/Edberg/Becker, then Agassi/Sampras/Courier. I think his 8-11 Slam final reflects that - not that he choked in finals, but that he played so many great players in their primes (more on this in a moment). I suppose Connors is close, yet swap the last generation (he played those guys, but not when he was at a peak level) with an aging Rosewall/Laver/Newcombe.

With today's greats, Federer and Nadal got a tinge of Sampras/Agassi, but not really. Mainly they've faced themselves and of course Djokovic/Murray. We haven't seen who the next generation of greats will be, but it will be more relevant for Nadal, Djokovic and Murray than for Federer.

 

[shawnbm]

Picking up on what El Dude wrote above about this era of the Big Four from 2008 to now (a seven year period), let's do the numbers. Grand slams--Federer has 5; Nadal has 11; Djokovic has 7; and Murray has 2. Masters Shields? I don't know about 2008, but from 2009 to now Federer has 9; Nadal and Djokovic each have 15 and Murray has 7. That is a pretty good record versus the field, especially for Rafa and Nole, and then the old guy, Federer. It looks as though it is the closest we have to the early 1980s. It is amazing what these four have done, but really what I call FEDALNOLE--those three are right up there with Connors-Borg-McEnroe/Lendl in my view, if not arguably even more dominant.

 

[Federberg]

That's your opinion Dude. But I'll respectfully disagree. Quite apart from the fact you simply cannot compare eras, 2004 - 07 was the way it was, not because the opposition was poor, but because Roger was that good. It's no surprise that the only player who was able to oppose him is now challenging his status for GOAThood. The most you can do is assess how competitive an era is, but if you're trying to assess the average strength of the top players, you simply can't do it. There are too many variables that cloud the comparison, and the only facts come out in favour of the later players. What I mean by that is greater professionalism, fitness, diet, technique etc..

What's my opinion? What are you disagreeing with? I'm just laying out some perspectives and trying to present the other side of the picture. But I'm not arguing for the "Weak Era Theory" (WET), just not totally negating it. So my opinion is simply that there may be some truth to WET, that it isn't totally off but it certainly isn't totally correct. I mean the fact of the matter is that until 2008, from 2004-07, Roger only had to deal with one other all-time great in his prime (except for a bit of Agassi early on) - and against that one player he didn't do all that well. Once Djokovic and Murray started playing at a high level, in 2008 and 2009 respectively, Roger's dominance was over. I mean, do you disagree with the idea that Roger has more top tier competition from 2008-14 than he did in 2004-07?

Ultimately it is all just that - theory. It is nearly impossible not only to make definitive statements, but to compare eras. As you say, we can assess how competitive an era was, and certainly the 1980ish-92ish was rather competitive, more so than the Fedal Age (which we can call 2004-10). But its hard to say how, for instance, the second tier talent of the late 90s--Corretja, Enqvist, Moya, Krajicek, etc--compares to the second tier talent of the last few years--Ferrer, Berdych, Tsonga, del Potro, etc.

One interesting perspective is that there is always a similar level of talent, it is just distributed differently - whether at the very top, or the top 10, or more spread out. Again, I'm not saying it is true, but it is an interesting view to consider.

(In the end, the only thing I disagree with are strong opinions that are presented as factual! )

My point is that the WET as you put it ( I like ) doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. Furthermore re: 04 - 07, you can either look at Federer's dominance as either the competition was weak or he was just too good. My point is that his continuing high level of performance, even far removed from his peak, is evidence that he was simply too good. You aren't going to get multiple slam rivals if one player is just head and shoulders above the rest, that doesn't necessarily mean the others are weak, that's too easy. None of this can ever be presented as fact, it can only really be opinion. As for these cross era comparisons you might as well discuss Serena vs Navratilova to see how pointless it is...

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

other side of weak era. nadals 9 French opens and his opponents.

*puerta junky half wit was a paper tiger who was feeble before during and after.
*Federer on his weakest surface. lets all just pound his backhand lol.
*djokovic arguably his weakest surface and has breathing problems on dusty clay.
*ferrer..feeble mental midget monkey man..and rafa's little pet lol.
*soderling won zip all before or after lol. now erased by severe mono.

so weak era Federer / weak era nadal..the "evidence" is now all there lol. if you want to see it that way.

or maybe rafa n Federer are just so amazing the other blokes don't win so haters/fanbois/gurls of whatever player can now shout "WEAK ERA" to diminish either rafa's or federer's wins.

over to you..people of the Infornetto Supertypewriterway for the next 1'034'855years. (barring global thermonuclear war).