[jjbrr]

jdonn, on Jul 6 2009, 11:51 AM, said:

andrei, on Jul 6 2009, 10:53 AM, said:

Lets look at todays "top" players. Davydenko was number 4 in the world in 2007 without reaching any final of any tennis tournament that year until late October in Moscow.

Maybe he couldn't because Nadal and Federer are so great.

Quote

Andy Roddick has only 4 wins against Top 10 players in slams for his whole carrer, 2 of them coming after his opponent retired.

Maybe he doesn't have more because Nadal and Federer are so great.

It's a great big circular argument. Federer and Nadal are so great that they win almost everything, therefore other top players don't win very often, therefore their competition is bad, therefore they are not that great after all.

I consider a different argument based on logic. There are, say, 6.5 billion people on earth, and more of them play tennis than ever before. When Sampras was winning Wimbledon, there were, say, 5.0 billion people on earth, with a smaller percentage having availability to tennis. So who is more likely to be better. The best of 6.5 billion people with widespread availability and advanced training available, or the best of 5.0 billion people with less widespread availability, and less advanced training available? And if you need a tiebreaker, perhaps note that the first of those players is going to end up with a LOT (20?) more grand slam titles than the second of those players. How can anyone even dispute this?

This year's spelling bee champion is THE BEST SPELLER OF ALL TIME.

[Phil]

I would just leave it with Borg, Sampras, Laver and RF are the best players of their respective 'time periods'.

I would even say they are the best of their generations, since I think there is enough spacing between their careers.

It gets tricky when you talk about the best of their 'era', much less the best of 'all-time'.

By the way, I don't agree with everything Josh says about performance, at least as it applies to golf. A 3' putt to win a major tournament in 1950 is no easier than one in 2009. Any gains in performance are offset by 'conditions'.

With tennis, sure the players are in better shape, but equipment is a heck of a lot easier to use.

[andrei]

jdonn, on Jul 6 2009, 11:51 AM, said:

andrei, on Jul 6 2009, 10:53 AM, said:

Lets look at todays "top" players. Davydenko was number 4 in the world in 2007 without reaching any final of any tennis tournament that year until late October in Moscow.

Maybe he couldn't because Nadal and Federer are so great.

The guy played in 30 tournaments in 2007 and his head-to-head record against Federer was 0-3 and against Nadal was 0-1.

[mike777]

"You totally misunderstood my "level of competition" argument.

I am sure Federer would SLAUGHTER Borg or Laver or whatever, but this will never happen because they will never play against each other. So then how do they measure who is the GOAT: by the number of GS tournaments won. Was it easier for Federer to win GS that it was for Sampras? I'd say yes, because of the LEVEL OF COMPETITION (meaning the other tenismens) they had to face."



I got to say Laver is still the greatest of all time by a long shot.

It is true if Laver played today he will do poorly but he is what 70?

OTOH if Laver was 18 or 20 and grew up with the current level of competition, high tech rackets, medical practice, etc, who knows but fun debate.

OTOH how good would Federer be growing up with the old level of competition, rackets, health care, etc and playing against Laver when he was in his prime?

[Phil]

mike777, on Jul 6 2009, 12:32 PM, said:

OTOH how good would Federer being growing up with the old level of competition, rackets, health care, etc and playing against Laver when he was in his prime?

I doubt he'd be that great. At 5'8" he's a shrimp compared to Roddick and Federer (6"1 /6'2").

[mike777]

Phil, on Jul 6 2009, 12:42 PM, said:

mike777, on Jul 6 2009, 12:32 PM, said:

OTOH how good would Federer being growing up with the old level of competition, rackets, health care, etc and playing against Laver when he was in his prime?

I doubt he'd be that great. At 5'8" he's a shrimp compared to Roddick and Federer (6"1 /6'2").

Of course he may be taller, stronger today, given today's modern medicine and eating habits. I assume they affect how tall people are. If not you may have a point.

[luke warm]

jjbrr, on Jul 6 2009, 11:57 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 6 2009, 11:51 AM, said:

andrei, on Jul 6 2009, 10:53 AM, said:

Lets look at todays "top" players. Davydenko was number 4 in the world in 2007 without reaching any final of any tennis tournament that year until late October in Moscow.

Maybe he couldn't because Nadal and Federer are so great.

Quote

Andy Roddick has only 4 wins against Top 10 players in slams for his whole carrer, 2 of them coming after his opponent retired.

Maybe he doesn't have more because Nadal and Federer are so great.

It's a great big circular argument. Federer and Nadal are so great that they win almost everything, therefore other top players don't win very often, therefore their competition is bad, therefore they are not that great after all.

I consider a different argument based on logic. There are, say, 6.5 billion people on earth, and more of them play tennis than ever before. When Sampras was winning Wimbledon, there were, say, 5.0 billion people on earth, with a smaller percentage having availability to tennis. So who is more likely to be better. The best of 6.5 billion people with widespread availability and advanced training available, or the best of 5.0 billion people with less widespread availability, and less advanced training available? And if you need a tiebreaker, perhaps note that the first of those players is going to end up with a LOT (20?) more grand slam titles than the second of those players. How can anyone even dispute this?

This year's spelling bee champion is THE BEST SPELLER OF ALL TIME.

perfectly logical

[gwnn]

Roddick's serve was deteriorating as time went on, especially during the fifth set. He had 2 break points at something like 7-7, but then none (IIRC). After that game, Federer dropped only 2 or 3 points in the subsequent 7-8 service games. It's sort of funny to talk about 7-8 service games subsequent to 7-7.

I completely agree with jdonn with regard to this era vs. past eras. Just look at great epic matches from the 80s and 90s. They're like slow motion in comparison to today's matches. Of course this is partly explained by new rackets and all but I don't think it's nearly as simple as that.

[Aberlour10]

andrei, on Jul 6 2009, 10:53 AM, said:

I just presented my arguments why I think it was more dificult to win GS tournaments 15 years ago as opposed to today, because then there were many players specialized on a single surface. Nowadays the claycourts are playing much faster then 15 years ago and the grass courts much slower. The grass from Wimbledon is not the fastest surface anymore, if you believe John McEnroe the surface from US Open is.

I agree.

Do you know that such a champion like Boris Becker was not able to win a single ATP tournament on the clay court during his whole professional career? not even a $100 000 one in Casablanca or Estoril. Ivan Lendl in his best time dominated all, but these 2 weeks in Wimbledon were a kind of nightmare for him, he acted often helpless vs these all "serve and volley guys". John McEnroe im Paris? not much better. etc etc....

Robert

[jdonn]

I find the spelling bee comments kind of funny because they are almost surely true. Not necessarily that this year's winner is the best speller ever (in that age group), but that the best speller ever probably comes from the last, say, 5 years of the competition.

It's like bridge. Take the best players of all years before 1980 in their primes and hold a long match against the best players since then, and the current players will totally destroy the prior players. More countries have bridge now. People can play from home 24 hours a day now. People can practice bidding with partners who live around the world now. Over time, increasing playing-populations and increasing science/technology simply increase ability levels, both on average and at the top.

The same will continue to be true btw. Federer is probably the best player ever, but I doubt if he will still be so 30 years from now. Even if someone doesn't win more majors, someone will definitely come along who plays better than he does.

[jjbrr]

Ya i was trying to be sarcastic but then i wiki'd the past spelling bee champs and in the beginning the winning words were like "interning" and "deteriorating" and "intelligible" and "promiscuous." the recent winners had to spell laodicean, guerdon, serrefine, and ursprache.

there almost certainly is more truth in my statement than i intended.

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

Ivan Lendl in his best time dominated all, but these 2 weeks in Wimbledon were a kind of nightmare for him, he acted often helpless vs these all "serve and volley guys"

??? True he didn't win and once joked about being "allergic to grass", but do 2 finals and something like 5 semis constitute "nightmare"? It's nothing like Sampras at the French. I think he might have done better had he not try to alter his game so drastically for the grass, serve & volley for 2 weeks when he didn't the rest of the year.

And anyway, to me the lack of surface specialists is a sign of the competition getting *better*, not worse. People have better all-around games now. The big hitters are more consistent and move faster, you can't be a clay specialist retriever/pusher now since you'll get blown off the court, even clay, if you have no power yourself. On a faster surface, you can't have a serve and nothing else, since the returners can get more balls back and pass you.

And if you measure level of competition by number of majors won, as Josh said it's circular, since if one guy sucks up all the titles his peers won't have any. If Fed had slipped earlier & let Hewitt/Roddick win another instead of slaughtering them, that makes him look better since then his competition has more major wins?

[andrei]

Stephen Tu, on Jul 6 2009, 11:57 PM, said:

"It's nothing like Sampras at the French.  I think he might have done better had he not try to alter his game so drastically for the grass, serve & volley for 2 weeks when he didn't the rest of the year."

I don't want to sound disrespectful, but it seems you don't know what you are talking about. Sampras have been doing server & volley for only 2 weeks a year? C'mon, that was his game. He has been doing s&v for 50 weeks a year, the only 2 weeks when he played another style was at French, and maybe that's why he didn't do better.

Stephen Tu, on Jul 6 2009, 11:57 PM, said:

"And anyway, to me the lack of surface specialists is a sign of the competition getting *better*, not worse.  People have better all-around games now.  The big hitters are more consistent and move faster, you can't be a clay specialist retriever/pusher now since you'll get blown off the court, even clay, if you have no power yourself.  On a faster surface, you can't have a serve and nothing else, since the returners can get more balls back and pass you."

That is simply not true, in my opinion. It is much more dificult to win on clay against players that are specialized on clay and to win on grass against players that are specialized on grass courts, than it is to face Andy Roddick on clay or grass and beat him over and over.

Think about swimming, Michael Phelps won 5 individual golds at 2008 Olympic Games. However, he almost lost the 100 meter butterfly against Milorad Cavic. Cavic only races 100 meter butterfly, only trains for that. If Phelps would compete against the same swimmers over 5 individual races, do you think he will have any sorts of problems?

[TimG]

andrei, on Jul 7 2009, 09:16 AM, said:

Stephen Tu, on Jul 6 2009, 11:57 PM, said:

"It's nothing like Sampras at the French.  I think he might have done better had he not try to alter his game so drastically for the grass, serve & volley for 2 weeks when he didn't the rest of the year."

I don't want to sound disrespectful, but it seems you don't know what you are talking about.

Read it again, he was talking about Lendl changing his game for the grass.

[andrei]

TimG, on Jul 7 2009, 09:50 AM, said:

andrei, on Jul 7 2009, 09:16 AM, said:

Stephen Tu, on Jul 6 2009, 11:57 PM, said:

"It's nothing like Sampras at the French.  I think he might have done better had he not try to alter his game so drastically for the grass, serve & volley for 2 weeks when he didn't the rest of the year."

I don't want to sound disrespectful, but it seems you don't know what you are talking about.

Read it again, he was talking about Lendl changing his game for the grass.

ok, could be this way too, I thought he was refering to Sampras.

[barmar]

It seems like there are several ways to look at this, and you'd have to do some analysis to determine what's actually going on.

1. Most of the top players are generalists now, whereas they tended to specialize in previous eras. Generalizing certain means that they possess more skills, but it's hard to tell if they're as good on each surface as the previous champs of those surfaces were in their day. I.e. we could now have a bunch of "jack of all trades, master of none."

2. There are still lots of specialists who are as good or better on their surfaces as the champs of yesteryear. But Federer is able to beat all of them, so he's a true master of all trades.

I haven't matched much tennis since the McEnroe days, so I certainly can't say which way it is, but gut feelings may be misleading. I'm not even sure how you would go about figuring out the answer, since there's no way to directly pit Federer against past specialists.

[Stephen Tu]

barmar, on Jul 7 2009, 02:24 PM, said:

I haven't matched much tennis since the McEnroe days, so I certainly can't say which way it is, but gut feelings may be misleading.  I'm not even sure how you would go about figuring out the answer, since there's no way to directly pit Federer against past specialists.

Well I've watched a ton of tennis for the past 27 years or so, and in my opinion between equipment, training methods, and technique, there's no question that today's players are better. Just watch old matches, the speed of the ball and the speed of the average top player is not the same. Before you could specialize with just power on the fast surfaces, just speed & consistency on the slow surfaces. Now to get to the top you need both power & speed, otherwise you cannot be top 30 even (minor exception for freaks like Karlovic). So you can't be top on clay without doing at least OK on hard court.

There have been video analysis of the amount of spin the top players are using:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/sports/2...45821.html?_r=1
More spin = can hit harder and still get it in the court.

The sport of tennis evolves. I once read interview where Lendl talked about this, how it used to be he could just camp out in ad-court, pounding his inside-out forehand to opp's backhand, eventually opp misses or gives short ball to be pounded away. But then players like Agassi showed up who could take backhand early, and slam it down-the-line to the open deuce court. Lendl said he really didn't like that

And Agassi played long enough to see both 90s and Federer, and he himself says against Federer he felt that he had no chance if Federer playing well, no weakness to attack, while he didn't feel that against other players, including Sampras.

And to me swimming is such a different sport, comparisons are irrelevant.

[mike777]

Depends on how you want to compare but always fun discussion.

I think the older players if playing today would use all the new methods in bridge or tennis or baseball so.......

Keep in mind Laver won 2 Grand slams! Laver was banned from tourneys for years that current players would not be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Laver

[Stephen Tu]

Laver undoubtedly would have won some more had tennis been open, in the years prior to his 2nd slam. But he might have won fewer in his days of amateur competition (his first slam), had the pros been allowed to compete! It took him a couple years or so after he turned pro before he got to be the clear #1 pro. So probably that cancels out to a certain extent, give him a few more net gain?

Plus, in Laver's day 3/4 slams were on grass, and the early rounds at least were by everyone's account a lot easier as there were fewer good players. Sampras & Federer might have had a few extra slams if they were still on grass other than the French.

Also did you see how short Laver was standing next to Fed/Sampras/Borg after the match?

Anyway, it's hard to really compare when the eras are so far apart, do you make Fed play with a wood racket, or let Laver have graphite & modern training?

[mike777]

Stephen Tu, on Jul 7 2009, 07:25 PM, said:

Laver undoubtedly would have won some more had tennis been open, in the years prior to his 2nd slam.  But he might have won fewer in his days of amateur competition (his first slam), had the pros been allowed to compete!  It took him a couple years or so after he turned pro before he got to be the clear #1 pro.  So probably that cancels out to a certain extent, give him a few more net gain?

Plus, in Laver's day 3/4 slams were on grass, and the early rounds at least were by everyone's account a lot easier as there were fewer good players.  Sampras & Federer might have had a few extra slams if they were still on grass other than the French.

Also did you see how short Laver was standing next to Fed/Sampras/Borg after the match?

Anyway, it's hard to really compare when the eras are so far apart, do you make Fed play with a wood racket, or let Laver have graphite & modern training?

Yes, but I assume for tennis fans winning a Grand slam is a big deal.

I guess one thing to discuss is the spread between great players of the same generation and then compare the spread over generations.

For homework Compare the spread of the Blue Team to the Nickell team or ACES.