*Please feel free to move if this is on the wrong area*

Well known troll "Perfector" started this thread on the BEEB:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbfivelive/F2148567?thread=3639173

I wanted to start a discussion in a place where I know people speak common sense about the article he refers to by Sean Randell:-

http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2006-10-25/104.php

Do you think he makes some good points about strong/weak eras? I personally thing he makes a good case for the year (2003) when Roddick finished Number 1. Since then Federer has picked up and things have gotten better, but I still think the depth of tennis is not what is was.

What do you think?

As an side on the beeb it turned into a Sampras / Federer debate (as ever). What people didn't do was scroll down in the article to see this quote by Sean Randall himself:-

"People…This is not a Fed v. Sampras thing. Get over it. I like Fed. I am a fan of his. He’s an incredible player. I don’t like Sampras. I almost throw up when he won the US Open in 2002. And as I’ve said before, if Fed were to have played in the period of Pete’s prime, Fed’s No. 1, and he still wins multiple Slams.

I will also add that when Pete was playing in the late 90s, the competition was crap then, too. But in my mind it was not as bad as it is now when you got so many players who simply don’t know how to win when it counts the most."

Gav

No offence but I find this strong era/weak era rather a pointless discussion to be honest.

Who is to say what a strong era and a weak era is? Should the definition of a weak era be one in which there is a dominant one or two players, and the definition of a strong era be one where the slams/major honours are shared out among lots of different players? I'm not so sure.

I'm sure Federer isn't worried about what kind of era this is. His job is to beat the players that are put in front of him, which he keeps doing on a regular basis.

None Taken chap. I just wondered because after reading the article I think good points are made. And as it's impossible to discuss this on the beeb, I thought we might get better opinions here.

I, myself, lean to a greater depth of tennis in the late 80's early to mid 90's than there is now, although this doesn't diminish the fact that Federer is just as bit as good as Sampras (if not better? I am not sure.). Swap them around in era's and I think you would find similar results. As you say, you can only beat what is put in front of you.

I do tend to agree on this point though. But different areas are enjoyable for different reasons I think.

I don't at all subscribe to the theory that because one person is dominating a sport, that it is boring/weak era/etc. I enjoy the fact that he is breaking records and may break more records in the future.

I thought the article was pretty weak, because it just picked out little instances of older players doing well in this era and things like that. But there have been instances of that in the previous 'eras' too. The author made no attempt to demonstrate that such occurances are more common now than before. And there are some good instances of players who did really well against Sampras and co. during that "strong era", who just couldn't seem to hack it when the "new blood" like Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Haas, Kiefer came along.

Of course that's often dismissed as age, etc., which could be true. My contention, though, is that for every bit of anecdotal evidence that this is a weaker era, you can come up with other anecdotal evidence that it is a stronger era.

I tend to think that the top players of today would do quite well in any of the past eras, but it's not something that I can prove.

I lean toward thinking there is great depth of talent today, which makes it that much harder for any of the players to stand out above the rest.

Agreed, proof of this is impossible. It's always objective.

It's all opinions isn't it. Also, some of us tend to hold onto our past and nostalgia can make us think better of things that once happened and think that things could never be better than the good old days..... a real tough one. I always tend to think of Becker as one of the greats and my heart says he would destroy Federer, but my brain butts in and tells me this is simply silly and he would more than likely at peak get about 12 games max (on a good day) in the entire match.

Maybe this kind of nostagia makes me think the depth was better late 80's/early to mid 90's.....

Maybe we need Columbo on the case!

It's not something anyone can prove really. Hence my saying its a bit of a pointless discussion.

It's all ifs and buts and speculation.. I won't deny that it can provide a lively debate though at times.

But if you subtract Federer from the equation, you would interpret the era as being highly competitive. Nadal is unquestionably one of the all time great clay courters, does well on hard courts and grass, but loses to the likes of Blake, Berdych and Youzhny. Ljubicic would seem almost unbeatable on hard fast surfaces and he did put up a good performance in Roland Garros ... Blake has marvellous moments, Davydenko is Mr Consistency, Safin is always lurking. Without Federer, we'd probably be convinced this was a truly competitive era and use it as proof that it is not possible for anyone to dominate anymore.

Federer is the true anomaly.

I second that: it's like the few years before Sampras went on his Wimbledon winnig streak. Before a truely dominating player arises there's always a few years in which there seems to be more competition. Before Sampras: Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Lendl (who of course himself was the previous dominator), after Sampras: Agassi, Kuerten, Moya, Kafelnikov, Rios, (Before Federer:) Safin, Hewitt, Ferrero, Roddick.

There are plenty of former number 1's still playing, just like in Sampras's time. The way Fed has crushed the opposition the last few years is just amazing.

I also believe, by the way, that in today's tennis it is very hard to beat lower ranked opponents all of the time. Unlike some trolls, I don't believe they roll over and die the minute they see Fed. People who think today's players are soft should visit Futures and Challengers to see how hard it is to make the top 100, when there's always someone breathing down your neck to take your place.

Here is my very inept two cents :)

What is an era in tennis? Is it not the domination of one or several top players, a perdiod of time hilighted by certain prolific individuals?

Why do we not refer to 2000-2002 as an era? The fact is because it after the Sampras era and before the Federer era. There was actually more competition than in the 90's in those two short years. You got lots of different slam winners and semi finalists etc.

I can't see how an era would be weak BECAUSE of excessive domination as that is what some are suggesting. Or indeed why should it be strong because of several top players vying for supremacy in the slams like in 2000-2002.

So basically we don't know what an era is, or whether it is weak or strong? So ultimately it is a pointless debate. But it has been interesting to read some of the very articulate and the opinions of people who have thought about this more than me. I agree with 90% of what has been said here :ok:

This is a different era, expect different things.

Ohhhh that was more like 5 grand roflmao

:huh:

O right sorry just got the joke roflmao

Yes I did go on for longer than I intended to :D

If anyone follows Golf a bit,I'm not an expert.When Tiger Woods decided that he would have to rebuild his swing,and take care of his body to prolong his career,the prognosis was that others were simply weak and folded mentally.

Anyway Woods goes through what can only described as a crisis,and flunks in majors for two years.People like Shawn Micheel,and Ben Curtis win majors(where are they now).

Every man and his dog slags off Tiger for basically changing his swing,imagine if Federer said his forehand needed a complete rebuild,and then you can imagine the reception to that.
Two years down the line and it's like it was a distant memory,and Woods is as dominant as ever.

Now you could look at this in two ways and say that the players of this generation are weak as Tiger went and changed his game completely came back and beat up all the mentally weak golfers,because they lacked the skill and the backbone to catch him up.
Or you could say that Tiger is a special talent in a very talented bunch of golfers and lives on a different planet to others.The fact that others have been powerless to stop him even when he was off his game for a considerable amount of time only confirmed that he is indeed special.

Which brings me in a very long winding road back to sean randell's comments.As nick says you can view it in two ways.I mention Woods as an example as a golfer who has basically had rise back to the top in the same era.Posters who discredit Federer like to mention with glee how 90's champs would clean up this era,and how Federer would be an also-ran.
For me Federer is like Woods,he is special,why is this hard for others to grasp?Quite frankly some of the points put across for the nature of why Federer is playing against no-hopers borders on the insane.The suggestion that he is lucky that he came along just after Sampras.I guess some would just rather miss the genius that is going on in front of them.
Roger Federer is a special tennis player and somewhere in that brain of his he sees a tennis court in a very different way.
I remember Peter Fleming commentating on a Dominic Hrbaty match and remarking how coached he looked.Now Hrbaty is a solid pro good enough to be ranked inside the top20 at different periods in his career.I hadn't looked that closely at his game,but when I did you could see the validity of his comment.It was like he had spent a great amount of time learning what to do,where to put the ball etc....
Of course Federer has faced the same thing,but watch him play and he doesn't look coached at all.In fact,why does he need one?He won three majors without a coach.

So weak era's,Sampras is better,others are mentally weak,Safin would kill Federer,the old Hewitt was better,S&V against Federer and he's lost,and any other reasons that you can think of that show Federer up as a show pony.

These reasons are the reasoning of delusion my friends,so I say to all please just enjoy a special tennis player,and a special person play a special game.I'm sure all tennis fans even if you are not a Fed fan can appreciate that.

Sorry for the length of this post,I think I covered everything. roflmao

Hi Brakkus.... I think you are interpreting Sean's comments as Anti Fed when they are not. He jus wishes Fed had more competition. Here are some quotes from his article:-

and scrolling down after people attack him and make it a Fed/Sampras war he says:-

The only remotely anti-Fed thing he says is:-

which I don't happen to agree with.

Point is, he is not slagging off Fed, in fact he is saying Fed is great. He is just commenting on his opposition.

Hi Gav

TBH with you I believe it's impossible to question the competition without calling into question Federer's accomplishments.It's because the form of those outside of Rog&Rafa are relevant to their records.How can you say Federer is great on one hand then say on the other he's playing a bunch of donkeys that Jim Courier could whip or Michael Chang.

If you establish that the competition is in fact weaker then 10 years ago then Federer is not great,because according to that fact he won't win as much.Therfore making him very good,but not great.

He's either on par with Borg,Laver,Sampras,or anyone you consider to be truly great,or he's much further down among the others like Connors,Lendl,Becker(sorry),and Edberg.

His achievements are what they are,we can't rank the dominance compared to someone elses dominance by trying to precisely rank the top50 players actual level of play compared to every top50 player from 10 years ago.

How on earth can anyone claim to be able to debate a truly coherent argument based on that premise?It has to be impossible.
I'm not trying to get anyone to change their opinion here,but I accept what I'm presently seeing,that Federer is the no1 player in the world right now in this time,and when he's gone,there will be a new one.Will another as yet unknown player be able to repeat past feats?Well probably yes,and that's what makes tennis great.

Surely we just have to judge it with our own eyes. My memories of tennis stretch back to the early 70s, I saw all of Borg's victories, McEnroe's great 1984 Wimbledon, Becker and Edberg, and of course Sampras, Agassi and Federer, and in recent years, I've collected many of these matches on DVD.

All I can say is that Federer is the most complete and certainly the most graceful player I've seen in all that time and I'd be surprised if Sampras would prove superior if Dr Who were lend him his police box. As I think the good Dr has other calls on his time (and police box), I'm just going to sit back and enjoy!! And boy have I enjoyed the last three years.

I do understand what you are saying but this is where I disagree (which is good for a debate). Roger can't help it if other players around him aren't as good as the support cast that was playing around Sampras 10 years ago. The trolls on the beeb love questioning Federer's skill simply because of their view that there is a lot of weaknes playing around him, while not actually looking much at Federer's undoubted skill and quality. He is a genius and of that there is no doubt.

Personally I think if you swap Sampras and Federer around in eras they would get similar results (but that is just my opinion), I would add Borg to that as well, I never really have seen much of Laver. Everytime I see footage of Federer he plays so sublimely that I wonder who could ever beat him, but I think the same when I see footage of Sampras, but I am getting away from the debate here I guess and I, myself, am turning this back to a Fed Sampras thing (I am becoming my own enemy).....

Federer can't help that some players around him play the way they do and neither could Sampras, by this being perhaps (in my opinion) a slightly weaker era than 10 years ago I am not calling into question Federers genius, I am simply taking a look at the suporting cas, a lot of which has great potential. I also see Nick's point about subtracting Federer from the current crop of players and you get a competitive state of affairs, my gut feeling after watching tennis over the last couple of decades is that this era is slightly weaker though...

And yup, Brakkus I would put Becker in with the same crowd you spoke of (even though it pains me to do it) ;) , but I would certainly elevate Lendl a little higher than that lot :P

I really do nto knwo if this era is weak or not, but I dont; think so in general. I do think Federer has something very special about him that would make him a great player in ANY era, regardless of the technolgy or racquets etc that was available at the time. Maybe the problem is not so much a weak era, but a an era of lack of genius and stand out qualities? I think cos the ame is tougher these days perhaps we have more players that are a bit mechanical or similar in their style? Maybe :shrug:

The thing is that Sampras lost a lot of matches in his prime to players who you would not claim are great players but whogv had a blinding match on serve, or else Sampras had a poor match against a resolute opponent. Federer, for the last three years, has seemed virtually immune to defeat and this is what has been most remarkable. If you think about it, he hasn't lost a match because the other player has blasted him off the court. Every other fine player, Sampras, Agassi, Nadal, Safin, all of them from time to time come up against opponents, often not great ones, but players whose serve is on fire that day and they lose. It happens in tennis. Or at least, it used to happen. And yet Federer is immune. Just think of his losses: they have nearly all been great matches and mostly pretty evenly matched. Of his ten defeats since the 2004 Olympics, he's had a match point in four of them, all the others have been up and down struggles (even the Murray debacle). Not once has he been blasted off the court, in the way that Johannson beat Nadal the other day.

Irrespective of whether this a great or a poor era, there are more than enough players around who have the fire power to beat Federer. Or so you would have thought. In the end, I think we have to conclude that Federer is simply a significantly better and more consistent returner of serve than has played the game before. This is not to say someone like Agassi might have been superior in hitting return winners. But in terms of neutralising serves (and this is not a soft serving era), there has been no one like him. I think this knack perhaps distorts our perception of this era and other players...

Great post :ok: True Federer never gets totally thrashed does he.

Tennis era weak versus strong: really difficult questions to handle. Why? Because the first step should imply to define what is a Tennis "era". Six months ago I created a thread about this question on the BBC Tennis board.
I have to say I was impressed by the quality of the answers and among them the most synthetic and interesting one was the one provided by urbande (a sort of Tennis encyclopaedia this guy...He knows really a lot in terms of Tennis history B) ). Anyway, urbande posted the following :) :

"I don’t want to make a quality ranking, but in style you have some big changings:

* 20 Tilden staightened out the strokes, before the played werstern forehands and backhands with forehand racket side.

* 30 powerful baseline tennis, Parry "invented" athleticism and early hitting, Budge made backhand a weapon.

* 46 and 50 Big game invented by Kramer, serve and volley technique, Hopman intensivied athletic training

* 60 Laver combined sv with topspin style

* 70 excessive topsin by Borg, Vilas, breakthrough of the dh backhand

* 83/4 new power dimension by composite rackets, big serve and forehand like Lendl, Becker

* 90 more specialisation in fast and slow courters, domination of the big serve on fast courts

*00 Assimilation of surfaces, new baseline style established, end of sv."

At the beginning I should say I was really impressed by this synthetic view:

So, his approach ( I agreed with at the beginning) to solve the era problem in Tennis was simply to try to cut" the Tennis history in "slice" and for each of them define a dominant style, i.e. the style used by the majority of the player during that period. After a while I saw a problem... :huh:

The problem at that stage is who define the dominant style? Who cut the time in "slices"? Quick answer: The great champions are workers able to cut the time and creating the "slices": Tennis style is evolving because of great players and the technique is then moving in one direction and not in another. :D

But then who is telling them to adopt a particular technique which will become, thanks to them (or him), the dominant one? :rolleyes:

Well: They are taking a given technique because it is the best one given the "environment" they are facing, i.e. rackets technologies, surfaces, training and so on and so forth....But then the choices of the great champions are the outcomes of the changes in these external variables: The change in era (“era” being a dominant style of playing Tennis) depends only on the evolution of the external variables. In this approach the great champions are in some sense simply the quickest to adapt (e.g. new rackets and less fast surface have generate the end of the classic serve & volley: the great champion is the one who changes his game faster to perform in this new “environment”)...

To conclude we are facing a problem without solution (objective I mean): We give more importance to the "genius" of the players then each era is due to a great champion (some great champions) imposing a new way of playing Tennis. At the contrary, we give more importance to the external variable s and we reduce the importance of the players in creating new era by imposing a new style. :blink:

OK I am lost. :wacko: ..I do not know.. :wacko: .But I hope it is clear for you (if you reach the end without being lost as well)

After reading more carefully all the previous messages, I guess everyone share the view that great players create the Tennis eras...Still, we should as well discuss about the evolution of the external "variables" to really compare among "eras" and the players who build them?...Or Am I completely out of the subject!!!!... :unsure:

The only point that could be made about Sampras's defeats is that in his time the courts and balls were sometimes faster than they are today. On the other hand, serve speeds such as Roddick's don't seem to be a problem for Fed. Fed's remarkable overhead recoveries (you've probably seen the Roddick and Blake points on Youtube) prove his hand eye coordination is simply unprecedented, I've never even seen Agassi do things like that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Hp-EArV6s8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3Db9asWTLs (at about 1:30)

I thought it was quite a poor article.

Firstly, there was the factual inaccuracy of saying that Dick Norman has reached his career-best ranking this year. He reached his best ranking of 54 on 6th Jan 2003 which means that his best results were in 2002 when he was 31 years old. His current ranking is 87.

Secondly, he says that Roddick has been number one just one time less than Borg. He obviously means year end no.1. If we look at weeks at no.1, Roddick has 13 weeks to Borgs 109, a difference of just under 2 years. He seems to be using the year end no.1 to try and make Roddick appear closer to Borg than he actually is.

Turn that logic around and you could compare Sampras' 6 year end no.1 to Borg's 2. Sampras was no.1 4 more times than Borg who is considered by many to be Sampras' equal. Does that mean that Sampras played in a weak era ??

Most of the tennis experts are saying this, and Federer would have been a great player on any surface in any era . The weak era argument is only an attempt to take away from his success...
Interesting that some of the players who beat Sampras are now struggling against Federer...
Personally, I think the level of tennis competition is always on the increase, but will there really be someone better than Federer some day ? Well, it was unthinkable about Borg,McEnroe, Sampras but it happened... just my opinion of course. :)

Couldn't agree more :ok:

I always think that when each new generation arrives on the scene, they have to raise the bar to compete, and overtake the current crop. Therefore each era becomes stronger and stronger,, so this current era is the strongest, and then when the next era arrives, that will be stronger too :) Or is that flawed logic?

I don't think it's flawed logic Liam no :)

Obviously some individual players from the past are better or would be better if they played now than a lot of the others, and vice versa i.e. people like Fed. But on the whole I would say from every generation/decade of tennis I know about I would say the competition on the whole has definitely got stronger with each era :)

You have more 'greats' in some eras than others but imo that's a whole different kettle of fish to the overall 'strength' of the era.

Thanks :D I think its comparable if Navratilova played Serena in their primes. Navy would be like a resurgent Hingis, and may frustrate Serena with her court craft, but Serenas advanced power play would overwhelm Navy. And in a few years time, Serenas game would look sub par compared to the new girls and THEIR advanced games. etc. until we get to a state, where nobody could beat anyone, because theyre all too good :yikes: roflmao roflmao

Exactly, playing the way she did in 2002 Serena could beat any of the greats of the past :) But I have no doubt that in 10/20 years or so that someone even more fit and powerful could whoop Serena 2002 in straights! Not yet though, she's only 25 and has plenty more slams to win :D

Honestly, comparing Serena, who has destroyed her own body with her limited technique, with someone whose intelligence, technique and physical know-how have made her able to play tennis at the highest level for 35 years is somewhat of an insult to Navratilova.

I agree wholeheartedly. You can't compare Serena to Nav. Serena may be more powerful. But had Nav been playing in this era, she would have found a way to become just as powerful.

I find you comment somewhat insulting, condescending not to mention a little disrespectful to both Liam and myself. We are both fans of womens tennis and view Serena as one of the greats and are perfectly entitled to compare who we wish thank you very much.

And please Serena has destoyed her body? Save the hyperbole for your next Fed-worshipping post :rolleyes: She had an Agassi-esque wander from the top and bagelled the world number one a month ago. Her body is hardly destroyed.

Also are you impying that Serena DOES NOT have intelligence, technique or physical know how? As if you are I would like to see you back it up.

I would agree that Nav has better technique and intelligence; but to say Serena has a lack of technique shows how limited you knowledge is of women's tennis, certainly of Serena.

That's pure conjecture. Nav has one O singles slams in this era, Serena has won 7, including all four in a row on all four different surfaces. Something Nav never did. Fact.

Ouch. Never take a dig at Serena with you about eh?

It was only my thoughts and opinion. Let's see how many GS Tournaments she has at the end of her career shall we? Then perhaps pass judgment.

I think you are being very harsh on scvangils.

I know the feeling that SW19 is getting though - I remember hearing really nasty stuff about Maria when I first went on the Beeb, gets the juices flowing when you get riled by something! :D

Well I think you are both being very harsh on Serena saying she has limited technique and a bit rude to me saying I can't compare her to Nav. Or that I shouldn't.

You are entitled to your opinion of course Gav and I respect it, but there's more to being a great that the numbers of slams you win and it IS purely conjectural to say that Nav would cope with the power and again this Serena may be more powerful, implies that the only aresnal Serena has at her disposal is power. Which is just completely untrue.

I certainly agree with waiting til her career is over before comparing her achievements to Nav :ok:

However I was comparing their styles of playing and what would happen if they met now.

Yes but we should still be careful to accept other opinions. I hasten to add I did not qualify my original post with "in my opinion", but in the case of what we say about players surely this can be accepted as the norm?

EDIT:- I posted this before I saw your above reply. Your comments are fair. What I said was in conjecture, I agree.

Well I may have overreacted slightly, I have a tendacy to do that when it comes to Serena ;) But I still stand by what I said. I suppose in my opinion is a given when it comes to threads like this, and I of course take everyone's opinions in; but I happen to disagree with a couple of the above posts and voiced my disagreement strongly :shrug:

I welcome any further discussion this brings of course.