[TopHat]

(Original post by *Hakz*)
LOL Nadal has been consistently beating Federer since 2004 when he was 17 which was their first meeting. Is anyone actually saying that the Nadal never defeated prime Federer?

No, but I thought I'd make sure. You never know with some people.

[kbountra]

(Original post by *Hakz*)
You are calling him the best in this so-called era just because he suddenly made wimbledon final?

Don't you remember the two players that have been making recent finals

It's debatable as to when this so-called era even started. Most people who use this term claim that it began when Djokovic won the Australian Open in 2011- so that's 18 months ago, right! Since then, Nadal has won the French open twice (which he has been doing on a pretty much annual basis since 2005) but apart from that, Djokovic has been the player dominating the slams.

So I'd agree that Djokovic has been the best player over the past 18 months but before then, what did he do exactly?? You can't discredit the years before this when he was lagging behind Federer and Nadal. Likewise, you can't discredit the record consecutive weeks Nadal spent at number 2 behind Federer when he was at the top. It's unfair to claim that Djokovic is the best of this era cos he's had one decent year. What I'm saying is that it's testament to Federer that he's potentially about to leapfrog the 2 players in front of him and prove the doubters wrong who had written him off as being unable to succeed in this post 2011 'era'.

[TopHat]

I don't think it started with Djokovic, if that was directed at me (not sure it was, just checking. ). I'd say it started with Nadal, and Djokovic merely reraised the bar from what Nadal had set.

[Slumpy]

(Original post by TopHat)
That's why I used the comparisons of saying how Nadal now is better than Nadal then, Federer now is better than Nadal then, and Murray now is arguably better than Nadal then, just to give you a relative idea of how our top 4 now are all better than the no. 2 then.



Eh, I disagree. I'm sure there's probably a stat-checker on the internet that'll tell us how many unenforced errors he made each year, I'll try finding it.

My point there was I'm not sure if you're comparing the top, or the rest. Because in 2006, the top was basically just Federer (or Nadal then Feds for clay), whereas now it's the 3 of them. 'The rest' I'm fairly confident aren't much weaker now than then.

Yeah, my point wasn't number (as I said), it was essentially the magnitude of them.

[kbountra]

(Original post by TopHat)
See, this is the way I see it: in 2006, Federer was the best player. Absolutely no doubts at all. However, the Federer of 2006, when pitted against other players from other times, is not the best player. I agree. Federer, in 2006, absolutely beat what was put in front of him. Sadly, what was put in front of him was a meagre fair. It did indeed take far too long for people to rise the bar; although they have now. But let me put things into context for you. In 2006, Nadal was no.2. I (hope) know we can all agree that Nadal now plays much better than Nadal then. Even though he lost, the last few sets of the Australian Open final were a tennis masterpiece. So, the no.2 in 2012 is much better than the no.2 in 2006. Our current no.3 is Federer himself. I think we can all agree that 2012's Federer is better than 2006's Davydenko. 2012's Federer is probably actually still better than 2006's Nadal. So, in our current no.3 player is again better than 2006's no.2 player. Now look at our no.4 player. This might be more controversial, I accept, but I would put money on 2012 Murray against 2006 Nadal, every time (every time that wasn't on a clay court, that is). So our no.4 player is again better than 2006's no.2 player. I could keep going on, but it would be quite dull. What I think should be a pretty uncontroversial point is that 2006's field was weaker than 2012's. I have challenged people numerous times to explain why Davydenko and Ljubicic were so good; nobody has responded.

However, this does not make Federer bad. I am not stupid, I can see Federer is very good indeed. What I would argue, however, is that 2006 and 2007 does not represent the peak of Federer's play. People claim that apparently the Federer of 2006 never made unenforced errors. Well, go look at his defeat of Djokovic in 3 sets at Rome. He made 37 unenforced errors over 3 sets. That's more unenforced errors than he made over a far better Djokovic in 4 sets in this years Wimbledon. People are remembering Federer's high points, and not his lows. Their memories are rather rose-tinted and are glossing over the fact that Federer still made unenforced errors, but it didn't matter particularly because nobody else, at the time, was of a significant enough calibre to use them. I would say that Federer actually continued improving after 2007, but at a much slower rate - what was happening is that his technical skill has continued to increase slowly, but has been offset by decreasing athleticism. I would strongly hold that 2012 Federer is not significantly worse than 2006 Federer. The problem is that these slow improvements have seen Djokovic and Nadal making huge strides at the same time. I think 2011 Djokovic would beat 2006 Federer, and I think 2011 Nadal would beat 2006 Federer. I mean, Pat Cash said that 2012 Federer is actually the best yet. This is not some BBC commentator's ramblings, Pat Cash has been on the tour and knows exactly what he is talking about. Henman, a close friend of Federer, says exactly the same - he is as good as he has ever been, if not better.

Now, this doesn't make Federer bad; it makes him very good indeed. His technical expertise is enough to make him number 1, should he win tomorrow (which in all honesty I expect him to). However, it does make me question this: if Federer, Djokovic and Nadal had all been of the exact same age and turned professional at the exact same time, what would the scoreboard look like now? I cannot say in all confidence that Federer would be unquestionably ahead. For me, that's enough to say that I cannot be certain he is the greatest player, merely an incredibly good one and a tremendously consistent one.

It's worth taking into consideration the gulf in ranking points between Federer and the number 2 player between 2005-2007. At numerous points in this time frame, Federer had more than twice the number of ranking points than the guy below him which is prolific to say the least. It's difficult to compare players of different eras, let alone players of the same era at their peaks and match them up at their supposed best levels. We can only go by statistics- who has won what and where at the end of their careers. There are too many variables to account for this but as you say, it would be interesting to see how differently things would have panned out.

[sil3nt_cha0s]

(Original post by *Hakz*)
LOL Nadal has been consistently beating Federer since 2004 when he was 17 which was their first meeting. Is anyone actually saying that the Nadal never defeated prime Federer?

Without Nadal, Federer would have had like 20 majors, 10 grand slams in a row, all 4 majors like twice over. Nadal's beaten him in 6 of 7 major finals (the other being Del Potro). He's also stopped Djokovic get a career grand slam (all 4 majors, in a row as well). Just an interesting fact

[TopHat]

(Original post by Slumpy)
My point there was I'm not sure if you're comparing the top, or the rest. Because in 2006, the top was basically just Federer (or Nadal then Feds for clay), whereas now it's the 3 of them. 'The rest' I'm fairly confident aren't much weaker now than then.

Yeah, my point wasn't number (as I said), it was essentially the magnitude of them.

It may be controversial, but I really do think Murray belongs in the top 4 now. The 2012 semifinal was absolutely stunning and he has played solid tennis this whole tournament, and while I don't think he'll win tomorrow, I think he'll give Federer a lot more bang for his buck than many people expect. That said, I agree. The top 4 (3 if you're being mean) are in a league of their own. But, that's why I really would love to see all 3 starting at the same time. That's the only way we'd ever know...

That said, I actually think Agassi, under different circumstances, could be the GOAT. He could stalk the baselines back in the serve and volley days, imagine what he could do now! A reverse Roddick, I think.

[*Hakz*]

(Original post by kbountra)
It's debatable as to when this so-called era even started. Most people who use this term claim that it began when Djokovic won the Australian Open in 2011- so that's 18 months ago, right! Since then, Nadal has won the French open twice (which he has been doing on a pretty much annual basis since 2005) but apart from that, Djokovic has been the player dominating the slams.

So I'd agree that Djokovic has been the best player over the past 18 months but before then, what did he do exactly?? You can't discredit the years before this when he was lagging behind Federer and Nadal. Likewise, you can't discredit the record consecutive weeks Nadal spent at number 2 behind Federer when he was at the top. It's unfair to claim that Djokovic is the best of this era cos he's had one decent year. What I'm saying is that it's testament to Federer that he's potentially about to leapfrog the 2 players in front of him and prove the doubters wrong who had written him off as being unable to succeed in this post 2011 'era'.

I agree that Djokovic isn't the best of this era as he only had one and a half good year. It was Nadal that was dominating before that though, where he also missed his chance to hold all 4 slams at once.

And Federer is good enough to succeed in any era to be honest, but I think it's definitely reasonable to say he would find winning slams at this era more difficult.

[*Hakz*]

(Original post by sil3nt_cha0s)
Without Nadal, Federer would have had like 20 majors, 10 grand slams in a row, all 4 majors like twice over. Nadal's beaten him in 6 of 7 major finals (the other being Del Potro). He's also stopped Djokovic get a career grand slam (all 4 majors, in a row as well). Just an interesting fact

Exactly this. If not for Nadal, he would have exactly 22 slams to be exact. Just goes to show that he was the only one trying his best to let that happen.

[kbountra]

(Original post by TopHat)
That said, I actually think Agassi, under different circumstances, could be the GOAT. He could stalk the baselines back in the serve and volley days, imagine what he could do now! A reverse Roddick, I think.

Have you read Agassi's biography 'Open'? Awesome book, goes into real detail about what the guy had to contend with away from the tennis court. Agassi's achievements were somewhat tainted by the personal problems he encountered in his life. I do believe he would have been the stand-out player of that era ahead of Sampras if he'd managed to avoid all of the broken relationships/abuse from his dad/crystal meth incidents etc...

[Sirocco11]

(Original post by kbountra)
It's debatable as to when this so-called era even started. Most people who use this term claim that it began when Djokovic won the Australian Open in 2011- so that's 18 months ago, right! Since then, Nadal has won the French open twice (which he has been doing on a pretty much annual basis since 2005) but apart from that, Djokovic has been the player dominating the slams.

So I'd agree that Djokovic has been the best player over the past 18 months but before then, what did he do exactly?? You can't discredit the years before this when he was lagging behind Federer and Nadal. Likewise, you can't discredit the record consecutive weeks Nadal spent at number 2 behind Federer when he was at the top. It's unfair to claim that Djokovic is the best of this era cos he's had one decent year. What I'm saying is that it's testament to Federer that he's potentially about to leapfrog the 2 players in front of him and prove the doubters wrong who had written him off as being unable to succeed in this post 2011 'era'.

I heard people use 'Golden era' before Djokovic won his second slam - I remember hearing it as early as 2010 when Nadal won his Career Slam; in other words referring to the co-existence of two players who both have career slams. The term came before Djokovic won the AO in 2011, to my recollection. I don't see what the issue with it is - Djokovic didn't have a 'decent' year, he had an incredible one in which he won 3 Grand Slams and won 5 Masters (a record) in addition to his winning streak up to the French Open. To do that when Federer and Nadal had locked everyone else out from the Grand Slams, barring USO 2009, was an entirely unexpected feat and just strengthened the grounds for counting it as a golden era. Only a month ago Djokovic was in touching distance of achieving the Calendar Slam which his previous superiors had also failed to achieve, and to follow so soon after Nadal dominated 2010 was astonishing.

You seem to read the Golden Era as excluding Federer and referring to Nadal and Djokovic's slam dominance, but to me it just means the coexistence of three players whose consistency as well as brilliance at the slams is reason alone to consider it the best era of tennis.

[TopHat]

(Original post by kbountra)
Have you read Agassi's biography 'Open'? Awesome book, goes into real detail about what the guy had to contend with away from the tennis court. Agassi's achievements were somewhat tainted by the personal problems he encountered in his life. I do believe he would have been the stand-out player of that era ahead of Sampras if he'd managed to avoid all of the broken relationships/abuse from his dad/crystal meth incidents etc...

I completely agree. When I went back and watched older matches (I have too much spare time, I know...) Agassi was the one player who really just made me go "wow". I will have to try and find his biography some time.

[Slumpy]

(Original post by kbountra)
Have you read Agassi's biography 'Open'? Awesome book, goes into real detail about what the guy had to contend with away from the tennis court. Agassi's achievements were somewhat tainted by the personal problems he encountered in his life. I do believe he would have been the stand-out player of that era ahead of Sampras if he'd managed to avoid all of the broken relationships/abuse from his dad/crystal meth incidents etc...

Isn't there that story about when Agassi first played Sampras he said to his coach he felt bad for him, because he'd never achieve anything? Would've been good to see him without the incidents as you say.

[kbountra]

(Original post by Sirocco11)
I heard people use 'Golden era' before Djokovic won his second slam - I remember hearing it as early as 2010 when Nadal won his Career Slam; in other words referring to the co-existence of two players who both have career slams. The term came before Djokovic won the AO in 2011, to my recollection. I don't see what the issue with it is - Djokovic didn't have a 'decent' year, he had an incredible one in which he won 3 Grand Slams and won 5 Masters (a record) in addition to his winning streak up to the French Open. To do that when Federer and Nadal had locked everyone else out from the Grand Slams, barring USO 2009, was an entirely unexpected feat and just strengthened the grounds for counting it as a golden era. Only a month ago Djokovic was in touching distance of achieving the Calendar Slam which his previous superiors had also failed to achieve, and to follow so soon after Nadal dominated 2010 was astonishing.

You seem to read the Golden Era as excluding Federer and referring to Nadal and Djokovic's slam dominance, but to me it just means the coexistence of three players whose consistency as well as brilliance at the slams is reason alone to consider it the best era of tennis.

Your interpretation of the 'golden era' is a bit flawed. On one hand you say that Nadal obtaining his career grand slam marked the start of this era (i.e. coexistence of 2 players who have achieved that), when in reality this coincides with the point at which Djokovic began his period of dominance.

Random edit: never knew you went to Sheffield uni and we've been disagreeing on this thread for years. good to know we've got something in common!!

[*Hakz*]

(Original post by kbountra)
Your interpretation of the 'golden era' is a bit flawed. On one hand you say that Nadal obtaining his career grand slam marked the start of this era (i.e. coexistence of 2 players who have achieved that), when in reality this coincides with the point at which Djokovic began his period of dominance.

Random edit: never knew you went to Sheffield uni and we've been disagreeing on this thread for years. good to know we've got something in common!!

To be honest, it is difficult to say exactly when the golden era started.

Djokovic still has a long way to go in order to accomplish the legacy that Nadal and Fed has laid down.

[Gavin Smith]

I thoroughly believe that fed is up there with best ever but now he ain't as good as he was a few years back... This may sound daft and I will probably get shot down but I think Murray throughout wimbledon and today's first 2 sets was excellent and he's up there with "the top 3". I'd actually go as far as to say that on his day can be better than them and play better tennis but for his bottle crashing due to the pressure of the British public and press.

[Sirocco11]

(Original post by kbountra)
Your interpretation of the 'golden era' is a bit flawed. On one hand you say that Nadal obtaining his career grand slam marked the start of this era (i.e. coexistence of 2 players who have achieved that), when in reality this coincides with the point at which Djokovic began his period of dominance.

Random edit: never knew you went to Sheffield uni and we've been disagreeing on this thread for years. good to know we've got something in common!!

Well debates like this are so subjective there are bound to be flaws, but I didn't necessarily say Nadal getting his career slam was the start of the Golden Era as we know it, just that I heard the term becoming more in vogue at the time. Plus, we didn't know at the time that Djokovic was about to go on a tear in 2011 - I'm just remembering it as I perceived it at the time, without the privilege of hindsight. There are many other factors which contribute to being a Golden Era and not just the achievement of career slams I'd say. I don't think it just refers to concrete achievements either, but also to the coincidence of four great players all capable of masterful tennis.

As Hakz said, like defining any kinds of era it's very difficult to put a pinpoint on when the Golden Era started - I do believe as many do that right now we are in the best era of tennis, and many of the retired greats genuinely believe this as well.

[Chief Wiggum]

(Original post by TopHat)

However, this does not make Federer bad. I am not stupid, I can see Federer is very good indeed. What I would argue, however, is that 2006 and 2007 does not represent the peak of Federer's play. People claim that apparently the Federer of 2006 never made unenforced errors. Well, go look at his defeat of Djokovic in 3 sets at Rome. He made 37 unenforced errors over 3 sets. That's more unenforced errors than he made over a far better Djokovic in 4 sets in this years Wimbledon.

I think Wimbledon's unforced error counts are notoriously very low. I think they have some rather generous statisticians.

I mean, Pat Cash said that 2012 Federer is actually the best yet. This is not some BBC commentator's ramblings, Pat Cash has been on the tour and knows exactly what he is talking about. Henman, a close friend of Federer, says exactly the same - he is as good as he has ever been, if not better.

Well, if you took everything a commentator/former player said as irrefutable truth, you wouldn't know what to believe, since they contradict each other all the time etc.

For me, that's enough to say that I cannot be certain he is the greatest player, merely an incredibly good one and a tremendously consistent one.

To illustrate my point about not taking what a commentator says as unquestionable truth, plenty of former players, eg, McEnroe (and Laver I think) have said Federer is the greatest player. Does that mean you have to agree with them? No, of course not; former players often talk nonsense.

But it does raise the issue that if you're saying Cash must be right because he's knowledgeable and played the game, then you would have to extend the same trust to other statements former players have made, some of which will directly contradict what you've posted. (I don't think we should just blindly trust former players on any issue by the way.)

[jhuntley93]

so who is all getting behind johnny marray in the mens doubles final today? 2nd on centre after womens

[Dalek1099]

Roger Federer is going to thrash Andy Murray tommorow,3 sets probably-come on Roger really want him to win because he hasn't won a grand slam for 2 years.If anyone has any faith in Murray think about this,what is better 4 sets Djokovic vs 4 sets Tsonga-obviously Federer,by a long way and Murray hasn't even won a set in a Grand Slam Final and Federer looked on top form,against Djokovic.