There is a good article available on the web about this subject.
More precisely if you consider this link:

PETE-FED-ERA-COMPARED

You will discover a very interesting analysis which tends to stress that both these eras are similar. Therefore FED results should not be evaluated with a discount by arguing that nowadays we are in a "weak era".

My idea about that it is quite clear: I don't think Federer's era is anymore difficult than Pete's, but I definitely don't think it's any weaker.

FED as Pete before is playing in a "medium-high" competitive era once we agree to define as the most competitive one the Borg-Connors-McEnroe-Lendl era (i.e. end of '70- end of '80)...Do not ask me to tell you which was the "weakest"...I do not know :) : for me there was never a weakest :wacko: .

BTW-1-: Ok I agree with all of you...I can hear (part, or might be even all of you) telling me:
"Please TennisVeritas we have discussed this argument 10000 of times and you want still open another thread on that. Come on..."

I agree and I see your point. :rolleyes: ..But still it is so interesting to discuss this argument. ;)

BTW-2-: A last comment from Borg about FED:

"As long as Roger is motivated then I think it might be a few years before he is dethroned.

"Federer is playing unbelievable tennis and appears to have no weaknesses." :yikes:

Can Wise sleep after that? Some doubt :whistle:

Further details on Borg remarks:

Here

Ciao :P

Hi,Tennisveritas.I read the article about Murray and can't help feeling that the BBC might have been putting words into Borg's mouth again!I'm sure there are other players who look just as likely to be number one as Murray.Have to agree with Borg's views on Fed though. :D

Hi TV, thanks for the article, but in all fairness it's clearly just written by a Federer fan. He does raise some interesting points, and has some knowledge about tennis, but the bias shines through. I could write an equally biased article with all the points that suggest this is a weak era and post it on the net, and it'd have as much relevance as this. I tend to think that although views like this are worth reading, it's what the experts themselves say that's really important, and a lot of past champions all cite the current era as being very weak.

No. Not you Wise, that's not your style, is it?

;)

I meant post it on a site, then paste the link in here and say 'Oh look, another expert proves this era is weak'. I know TV didn't do that, but when Dr_Sincere posts Bill Wertheim slating the current era as weak, everyone says it's rubbish. I just want to make everyone aware that this article is written by a Federer fan, and is therefore no more 'evidence' than you say the well thought out arguments presented by myself and the Dr. are.

Tenez,I don't think Wise A has a very developed sense of irony!

Hi Fedrule - You may be right. I thought I read a few posts of his that made me think he actually had a good sense of Irony. But I don't expect him to admit to it though.

:P

Thanks TV,great post,I always appreciate posters efforts finding little nuggets like this.Whether you agree with the comments in the post or not,it's hard to ignore the fact that someone has actually done some reseaerch into the reasons of a weak era or not.

Myself I'm always prepared to have a decent debate on this,if it isn't based on soundbites of journalists or players,but solid hard facts to prove otherwise.I just can't accept that all of a sudden tennis just got worse between 2002-2003,which yes is only a year between Sampras winning his last slam and Roger winning his first.To be picky it's only 10 months.

As Tenez has always confirmed players are just as fit and fast as their contemporaries,and tennis technique hasn't gone backwards,and no the volley is not superior to the groundstroke either.

What's wrong with the apparent need to dumb down a great athletes achievements?I have never understood it.
I was never a fan of Schumacher,in fact I have never liked him,but I won't deny despite his unsportsman like behaviour,that he is indeed probably pound for pound the GOAT in Formula 1.

Except of course when the "experts" are saying good things about Federer...

I read ths article and I do find it slightly biased. To be honest if the Era is weak or strong I really think there is not much difference in greatness between a Pete Sampras and a Roger Federer, it is not the fault of either if the players around them are weaker or stronger than any other time. Yes it is the same old argument, but it's full of opinions and there can never be any "facts" about a conclusion really.

Hi all,

Simply happy that my initial post has generated some discussion. In any case let me point forward my ideas about this subject:

A. My idea about that it is quite clear: I don't think Federer's era is anymore difficult than Pete's, but I definitely don't think it's any weaker.

B.If there is a difference between the two it is more a question of Tennis style. More precisely, nowadays players'technique is more uniform players are more "similar" among themselves on the court...Why? this is a huge debate that is BTW currently going on in another thread on the board( Rebound Ace)...

Simply IMO the changes that have been introduce in the last 10 years e.g. the surface ,the balls, the racket and stringing technology, change of technique used on returns of serve and improvements in fitness might easily explain IMO the fact that players are now playing in a more similar fashion (BTW: more and more of these guys are coming from the same sort of Tennis schools which reduce as well the diversity).. :rolleyes: .

In any case the FED (as well as Pete at his time) presence simply proof that the genius and the "out of the box" style will be always there to lead Tennis towards new frontiers. B)

I agree TV,that it's the style of tennis that is now being played.I found the Masters tennis quite an eye-opener in that yes the volley is indeed a sweet thing,but it is not the Holy Grail of tennis when it comes to the talent of a particular player.

There is a certain skill called touch,but even then only a few actually achieved this.Edberg,Mcenroe,Becker,Sampras and possibly Henman are the only ones off the top of my head who I can think of that play punch volleys as well as stop-volleys.Just as in Pete's time there were average S&V players,in Federer's time there are average baseliners.

As pete took S&V to a new unseen level,this is exactly what has happened with Roger taking a well rounded game to another boundary,which challenges a new breed of tennis player to eclipse.

Hi Brakkus

:ok: Take my hat off to you: you abstract fully and clearly my thoughts on this subject. Just great :D

I mean if we are thinking to Tennis' future from this starting point:

well it would be simply great to see the new "monsters" :yikes: who will be able to follow and the improve the FED heritage

BTW: You notice that the avatar of Wise, i.e. the Sampras'picture is an Up and down avatar (sometime is there sometime is not) roflmao roflmao just like Wise himself...

roflmao best laugh of this day

It's a bit odd to see a poster like WA is making efforts to talk sense (without the "chilling warning" stuff).

Wise_Analyst = TAFKAP (the analyst formerly knows as prick)

this is probably where I stand on this subject. I just dont think you can say a definite yay or nay on the subject of weak and dominate eras when it comes down to the players around you and the style of play - which has changed considerably over the years.

You can throw stat after stat at these arguments, and whilst they make interesting reading, I cant help but feel that at the end of the day - it comes down to personal choice. You will find those that argue that the greater era comes in the form of Borg, Lendl, Sampras, McEnroe et al - many of whom could play at the net and were relying on rackets of old - and you have the other side who say that todays power tennis is the be all and end all and those that can rise to the top of the game in such a climate are playing the stronger era.

Or you could find the odd little person like me who really doesnt give a monkeys - lives for the game of today and never remembers yesterdays (apart from the odd heartbreak match) and wonders why it needs to be argued to death at all! Like who you like, prefer what you prefer, let it be for everyone else!

That wasnt aimed at you btw TennisVeritas - I like your stuff, I just know that you get tired of reading the same arguments ;)

Look people if there's one thing I have learned from school so far, it's that facts, numbers, statistics can be twisted and turned to prove or disprove a point of view at will (much like the Bible roflmao ) So yes I would definately like to agree with Wise on this matter. HOWEVER, I think that for him to criticise that this analysis was written by a Fedfan (and is thus biased) is ironic, as Wise was always spewing biased "factual analysis" all over the Beeb.
I -like TV- don't think that this era is significantly stronger or weaker than the last one. I think it's all a bit of nostalgia. People enjoy watching sportsmen grow. They feel like a part of it, a witness. The point was once raised (though I can't remember where or by whom), that people will always slightly overrate the era they got most involved in (just like people tend to call the era they spent their teens and twenties in "my day" or "the good old days" or whatever)
Who knows, in a few years time, I'll be a troll spreading "Gasquet would be bagled by a retired Federer" threads all over the place and complaining about "Gasquet worshippers"

I would agree with Wise to some degree :yikes: in that the article can't really resolve the debate. Here are some of the problems we face when trying to compare different times in tennis:

a) Which players we regard as being great opponents depends not only on personal taste, but also on what they've won ... today, there are simply fewer players who win e.g. slams, because Fed takes most of them ...

B) There is no objective measure of how good a game a player is playing --- good players put the pressure on and prevent you from playing your best tennis!

c) Not to mention change in technology and playing surface!

--

That being said, I think some arguments, based on statistics, can be made about which era is likely to have better players. (I'll note that it isn't really possible to make comparisons between the top players based on statistics, as these are, almost by definition, outliers ... however, see below.)

To do this properly would of course take quite a bit of time, but here are two factors (there are more):

a) Intake: how many people are exposed to the sport; how likely are talented players detected and go on as professionals? There is an upper limit to this, but certainly over the past few decades, I am sure that the overall exposure to tennis has increased, with more and more countries producing competitive tennis players.

B) Improved fitness: this is undebatable: the study of how athletes can keep fit, train their bodies etc. has evolved in all types of sports, and today players work with professional fitness trainers.

I could say more about playing strategies, etc etc etc, but I'll leave it at those two. Based on these, I would expect the *average* quality of, say, a player in the top 50 or top 100, to have gone up. The only point you could possibly argue about is a), but I think you would find it hard to argue that the intake of the sport has gone down, in fact so much as to completely offset the improvement brought by B).

One way you could test this hypothesis would be as follows: try to find a sport with a similar profile as tennis, but one which has some objective ways of measuring quality (think of times, distance etc.). Then similarly measure the average quality of the top 50 athletes' achievements, and see if it improves or not ...

****

Anyway, provided we accept the above argument, that average quality should be improving, what should that tell us about Sampras and Federer? Well, we can compare both Sampras and Federer fairly conclusively with the average top 50 player of their era (use rankings, average likeliness of losing to a random player in the top 50 or something similar), and I would expect Federer to be *further* above the average level than Sampras is. From this I conclude the following:

* If you were to teleport peak Sampras to today and made him compete on the tour, Federer would be quite likely to be better. *

Note that I have not made any comments on:
* How the Federer of today would have played in the Sampras era (we would need to consider change in surfaces etc.)
* What kind of player Fed would have become if he had been born when Sampras was
* How good Sampras would have been if he had been born into this era
* (MOST IMPORTANTLY) Whether Federer is "greater" than Sampras: Without Sampras's achievements, today's tennis wouldn't be what it is. Federer wouldn't be the player he is today if Sampras hadn't gone before; neither would anyone else. This is one reason why this comparison of eras business seems pointless to me --- let's just enjoy the tennis!

But then you have learned the wrong thing!

What you should take from that is that doing statistics isn't as simple as it may seem, and conclusions are seldom as clear-cut as they are later presented by politicians or the media.

Rather than distrusting all statistics in general, we need to learn how to spot whether the actual methods being used are correct or flawed. This should always be possible, although it may not always be easy.

For example, there were some people who claimed to do statistical analysis to prove that certain events were predicted, in code, in the bible. (Hey, you brought it up ...) But, rather unsurprisingly, their methods were flawed.

Proper statistics *can* help us understand things and figure out the world, and it is an essential part of most scientific endeavours. However, it is a very delicate thing, and not always really intuitive.

:ok: Hi Pebs, ;)

To be honest with you I am so facinating with this era stuff because it was one of the first discussion I had when (young poster on the BBc board) I was asking the following:

The discussion on that tread was very nice and with a lot of cleaver insights about the subject (Details HERE)...

Still the conclusion was far from being clear or unambiguous. IMO the right approach is to enjoy the moment and the present as about anything in live ...In any case you cannot move on time.

:rolleyes: Best strategy then: Here are you champions please chose your preferred one.

Compare is nice until we do not enter in the nostalgia spiral :yikes: : Past is past and if you like a sport you will always find someone (in the case oof Tennis) who is able to generate a sort of pleasure when he is playing...

BTW the most short and well structured description of the eras of Tennis (in the above thread) was the one of urbande:

Ciao B)

I would just like to point out that I said statistics "can" be twisted, not always "are". This can happen for example with diagramms. An unspectacular looking growth can be made to look more impressive by adjusting scale. This is nothing to do with method. But agree with you wholly, just wanted to add that.

hi TV :)

yep, thats fair enough - I can see why you like the debate - and you do it very well! And you raise some interesting points - how do you define an era? I like Urbandes response, but am fairly sure thats not the definitions that all use - you can pick and choose your fav time and call it an era I should imagine.

Certainly agree with the nostalgia point. I think many of the debates that have descended into 'my players is better than yours' are due to a personal preference for one player and the desire to prove him the best.

Certainly these arguments then can make for an interesting debate - my problem has always been when these turn into slagging off sessions. As a Henman fan, I have witnessed many of those, and during the short bit I did for the BBC website on Henman during Wimbledon, wrote that maybe some people needed to rethink their attitude to the sport and the reasons for watching it. Debates I do. Slagging off I dont.

(unless its about Hewitt or Rudeski ;) )

Hi Pebs it will be with pleasure to help you on both roflmao roflmao

And once again the nostalgia is just what ruins our live in general...You are looking at the past and what you have...well yes in the case of Tennis you might end up with some DVD but nothing more roflmao

Now I have really to go see you tomorrow

Ciao all ;)

Wise and co often refer to "factual" points and "evidence" to substantiate their view but whatever we rational we want to use, the only facts we can actually rely on are the speed guns which were available at both era and that's it. The rest is only imagination. However the more we look at past videos, the more we come to realise that the game was generally slower then than now. This could certainly be proven by studying the 90s videos with computer aid and today's hawk eye but the conclusion is simple. I have watched and heard enough tennis in my life to realise that the tempo between a Blake /FEd USO is faster than any other match of the 90s. I mean a Krajicek Fh may have gone faster there and then but the rhythm played by guys nowadays is generally quicker.

Now does that make them better players? Would Sampras have been able to handle this fast rhythm and these fast returns? probably, maybe, Would he have been that dominant? who know? One thing for sure is that Federer and his peers can play at this faster rhythm and one of them not only can handle it but can also be very dominant. We have no guarantee that any past champions could/would/should have been able to be as dominant in this very pacy era.

Finally, it is typically easier to undo than to do. Hence it is easier to discredit Federer's achievement than to achieve what this guy is doing out there. Many will be able to criticise him, only him can do what he does.

:D always nice to have fellow Hewitt haters on board roflmao

have a nice night hun, catch you later.

The current strength of field in the ATP is actually 4.7% stronger than the average of Sampras' era, but nearly 6% weaker than the peak strength of that era.

What hat d'you pull that one from?

PS: sorry, hit "report" instead of "quote"

I think that comparing tennis eras is always a tough thing to do and no one can really say they have done it accurately when u consider that there were different conditions.
Does a more competitive era translate into a stronger era though?.
Just because Fed is dominating everyone doesn't make this era automatically weaker than others.

:yikes: My post has been reported.

I'll have to start kissing up to the mods now.

styeffo is going to be soooooo excited ;)

Nick Havoc "this factual evidence you've provided confirms beyond any doubt my theory that in a stronger era"...I copy and paste this last sentece...Who is the author??? roflmao roflmao

Sorry if I came across a little bit too forceful ...

It just seems to me that there is a growing attitude among many people that science basically just comes down to opinions, and no-one agrees, so we can just believe what we want. (Take opinions, particularly in the US, on climate change, evolution, etc etc etc.) I find this rather worrying.

I realize that that isn't really what you were saying, so perhaps I am myself guilty of 'twisting' a little ... sorry :blush:

The 'Sampras era peak' however was so short-lived as to be missable by 99 .99 % of non-Sampras fanatics, unlike the 'Federer era peak' which is clearly visible now but still slowly rising and will reach a massive crescendo sometime over the next two years. It is expected that (statistically insignificant from) 100.00% of true tennis fans will witness it ;)
Ill get my coat... :hide:

Didn't Vic Reeves once say that 89.5 of statistics were made up on the spot?? ;)

The peak Sampras era lasted for 2-3 years. All of the rest since then perhaps hasn't been quite as strong, including 5 years of the 90s. The peak Borg/ Mac/ Connors era lasted for 3 years. Everything else between that and the Sampras bit wasn't as strong either.

Particularly strong eras are short-lived exceptions rather than norms. This feels like a relatively normal tennis era in terms of quality of players etc.. One of those more unusual stronger ones might well be round the corner, but it's been a good 10+ years since the last one, and as these things go in cycles, maybe it's due?

That would be the massive crescendo of the Federer era that Al enlightened us with then, (before he made some polite apologies about getting a 'beer from the fridge' and got his coat ;) )

But to address TV's question, it really is fiendishly dificult to compare eras. Everyone will have their opinion, and I can guarantee that no-one will be able to provide cast-iron proof one way or the other. Debating this can be interesting if only to learn more abouut other eras, but if people doing this only have vested interests. bias then it becomes very boring very quickly.

My thoughts are also in line with those of Pebs. I look out for the good players, and enjoy the sort of tennis that I like where I can find it in the current game.. You'll find that this approach may well be far more enjoyable way of approaching the sport :) Yes, also enjoy reminiscing about the Agassis, Sampras', Macs, etc, but not at the expense of enjoying the game as it is today..

This is tennis for me in a nutshell,respect the past,enjoy the future.The trouble is petalp some can't,and what happens is that when we do enjoy today's tennis,we get labelled with the Fed-worshiper thing.I actually thought this debate was excellent,and the last two pages helped me restore my faith in the human race. roflmao
Sounded corny,but the debate was sensible,and really that's what we are aiming for on the board I would have thought.

What about the Lendl era in between Borg/McEnroe and Sampras? I think it was pretty strong. Lendl became as fit and fast as Borg but had harder shots. Lendl was one who even at 33 was still giving Courier, Agassi and Sampras some troubles.

We may have the odd "weak" tournement due to drop of form of key players at the same time but in general, the level is going up, not down. It might not last for ever though as physically it seems we have reached limits of what the joints can support in terms of muscular mass. Careers will probably be shorter than before probably as a result.

Hi Tenez, :)

Two remarks from my side:

Fully agree with your remark concerning Lendl: This guy is an "era" of Tennis in his own...His heritage is so huge.

Once again, and this is why I liked so much the definition of Tennis era provide by urbande (see above) a "fair" classification and definition of eras should be based on the influence on the development of the game provided by each era and by each great champion: Lendl was a great Champion who changed deeply professional Tennis. B)

I tend to disagree with your "limits" argument: I see your point I understand that one day players will reach some sort of physical barrier but in the case of human being these limits are very difficult to define and set...It could be we are near to touch them but it is likely as well that the new generations of players will be able to reach new standard that seem at the moment impossible to reach. :rolleyes: .

Finally, hi Brakkus...I really like a lot your statement:

:ok: Fully shares your views my friend...I really do not understand why this "weak era" virus mainly concerns previous Pete's supporters :whistle: ? It matters so much this GOAT stuff for them but why...really I do not know :shrug:

Hi TV - I wanted to use "plateau" instead of limits. I don't know why I did not but a plateau would be more likely to leave way for improvements but certainly not the way we have seen it in the last 20 years. Also tennis is sport where mobility is becoming key and already, it seems that big statures "suffer" on the tour in the same way as small ones to some extend as if there was an "ideal" size or range of size.

If you look at the high jumping for instance, the time to get from 2.1m to 2.45 will be shorter than to go from 2m45 to 2m60 (or even 2m50) for instance (only predictions but very likely I think due to the state of things now).

So yes limits may not have been the right word.

Tenez ;) ...presented like that I see better your point and I tend to agree: There are definitely some "plateau" which are more difficult to break and it is true that it is really difficult to figure, for instance, a better court coverage :yikes: than the one propose by FED and Nadal at the moment.