Probably The Best Era!

I mentioned this before. Shotmaking wise, the best era was 2003-2006. Players by then had grown up learning to play with natural gut on fastish surfaces. That meant it was harder to keep the ball in court and the better players were simply the best shotmakers out there.
Federer, Blake, Agassi, Nalabandian, Coria, Gonzalez, Ljubicic, Guga were all trying to hit past their opponents while not relying essentially on the serve like the previous generation of players.

Those guys learnt to play a risky game but suddenly in the beginning 2000s upgrade to luxilon (and the likes) which makes their risky shots much safer and allow for a great spectacle like this one below.




Then came the generation who learnt to play with those new strings trying to maximise the ability these strings provide which is in effect to keep the ball in court with purpose. Those strings allowed to hit harder while playing safer. Something Nadal showed to the more motivated player who were ready to embrace the new physical limits such a game was demanding. This led probably to the most demanding tennis ever reaching its peak between 2011 and 2016 with Murray becoming world number 1. You can see below how the best 2 players of that time can engage in rallies at a slower pace than in 2006 but forcing their opponent to run with a match finishing in the 4th set due to exhaustion and cramping of Nadal, just after Djoko took an MTO for back problem (I believe).

That era is often often referred as the best era ever when frankly is was one of the worst in terms of shot making but certainly the toughest physically. This extra fitness allowed the fittest to consistently achieve and ended up winning almost all tournaments their entered...at the expense of crafty shotmaking. Those physical players have shorten the career of that 2003-2006 generation who found themselves quickly overwhelemed by the new physical demand of tennis.

Federer managed to keep up thanks to extraordinary tennis skills but without it would have most likely been retired with Blake and Nalbandian by now.

Not sure that the second extract proves your point - the first three points last 1m and each involves a massive winner.

barrystar wrote:Not sure that the second extract proves your point - the first three points last 1m and each involves a massive winner.

Yes winners but we know that match was one with the highest number of longest rallies ever and as mentioned the is a match which physically killed nadal while Djoko needed a MTO before the end of the 3rd set!

I take your general point - 2011 USO and 2012 AO were of a piece in that respect.

I know Nalbandian, Coria, Blake will never be seen as great players but they were really unlucky to have been born between Federer who grabbed all available in fast conds and the Road runners who prevented all shotmakers success in slams.

Nalbandian is one who certainly could have done better with a bit more dedication but his shots making was outstanding.

I feel another generation of those is developing now so the future looks brighter.

Actually I am liking this era best as there are many “old” players who are able to play level of tennis we have never seen before.

Fed has so much game now and it’s great to watch him solve and dismantle generation after generation like a rubic cube.

Tenez wrote:

Nalbandian is one who certainly could have done better with a bit more dedication but his shots making was outstanding.

Absolutely. Immensely talented. That BH is supreme. Shame about the serve.

Nalbandian is a player, similar to Rios, who relied a bit too much on talent and probably (I throw in the caveat because I don't know the internal workings of his camp) didn't work hard enough off the court.

Should have won a slam.

Emancipator wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Nalbandian is one who certainly could have done better with a bit more dedication but his shots making was outstanding.

Absolutely. Immensely talented. That BH is supreme. Shame about the serve.

Nalbandian is a player, similar to Rios, who relied a bit too much on talent and probably (I throw in the caveat because I don't know the internal workings of his camp) didn't work hard enough off the court.

Should have won a slam.

He was one of the few that, when he turned up, had the beating of Fed on HC at a time when Fed was otherwise carrying all before him - but his best chance for a slam came at USO 2003 when he lost to Roddick in the SF.

So the best era was a period dominated by Fed, with rivals who were so inconsistent (excluding Agassi and Guga whose peaks were before this time period) that they barely ever went far enough in slams to face him with their awe-inspiring shot-making? Seems legit.

Slippy wrote:So the best era was a period dominated by Fed, with rivals who were so inconsistent (excluding Agassi and Guga whose peaks were before this time period) that they barely ever went far enough in slams to face him with their awe-inspiring shot-making? Seems legit.

lol

"the best era" is even a more foggy concept than the "goat"

naxroy wrote:

Slippy wrote:So the best era was a period dominated by Fed, with rivals who were so inconsistent (excluding Agassi and Guga whose peaks were before this time period) that they barely ever went far enough in slams to face him with their awe-inspiring shot-making? Seems legit.

lol

No one will remember Nadal, Djokovic or Murray for their "shots". That's the sad truth. In 10 years time, people will remember Stan's BH, Nalbandian BH, Gonzo FH, Coria silky mouvement, but Murray? Nadal, djoko? they record will represent an achievement but don;t expect the Djoko v Murray v Nadal matches to break the viewing records on youtube!

Funny actually. I just found a new measuring stick! Youtube views by fans around the world.

Example: an 18month old clip of Federer v Nadal AO17 has made more than twice as many viewing than a 6,5 years clip of Nadal v Djoko!

Do you want me to check Djoko v Murray AO finals viewings?

Actually I did: Murray v Djoko 2013 can't even break the 300k views! in 5 years and a half! This is so funny. And I suspect Slippy contributed to 50% of those in spite of Murray's defeat.

But let's be honest who wants to watch Djko v Murray slugging it out? Even Stan v Djoko that same year makes thrice as many views as teh final!

I know it's not a precise science but it says so much about what people want to watch and therefore remember!

Does that mean we can now count Twitter and Facebook fans?

legendkillar wrote:Does that mean we can now count Twitter and Facebook fans?

I'd say that is a bit different. Fans might not be connaisseurs. I might think that those who watch and re-watch those matches want to see something arty or simply talent.

I might guess that McEnroe's youtube clips might be more watched than Wilander for instance.

This idea came to me when OSullivan was asked whether he wanted to beat Hendry's record. His reply was something like "I play for the crowd. The buzz of watching great things ...I want those matches to be viewed many times on youtube!"

And in fact he is right.

Tenez drunk on some corked wine it seems 

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Does that mean we can now count Twitter and Facebook fans?

I'd say that is a bit different. Fans might not be connaisseurs. I might think that those who watch and re-watch those matches want to see something arty or simply talent.

I might guess that McEnroe's youtube clips might be more watched than Wilander for instance.

This idea came to me when OSullivan was asked whether he wanted to beat Hendry's record. His reply was  something like "I play for the crowd. The buzz of watching great things ...I want those matches to be viewed many times on youtube!"

And in fact he is right.

Before youtube there were memories.

youtube wouldn't be a measuring stick I'd use.

Any great performer plays for the sport, not youtube views!

Jahu wrote:Tenez drunk on some corked wine it seems 

Nah, he is spot on here.

Fed is a real magnet you want to see over and over again.
Not many others I can think of.

Well I don't expect you nitb to go against Tenez 

Jahu wrote:Well I don't expect you nitb to go against Tenez 

cheap post.

legendkillar wrote:...
youtube wouldn't be a measuring stick I'd use.

Any great performer plays for the sport, not youtube views!

Yes, of course but time is actually the real measuring stick. Who is remembered, who is not...and more importantly, remembered for what.

Look at Pete...He had the ultimate record, he was the reference but even before his record was surpassed tennis fans knew every part of his game was bettered by Federer and he descended to oblivion before Fed reached his best.

Why would sport be so different than music? In music the youtube and spotify are the real measuring sticks...along with live concerts.

Look at what a shot maker coudl do to Nadal before they slowed everything down.

I suspect this clip is not even telling the whole story as clearly uploaded by a Nadal fan. Still all teh better shots and the win came from Blake.

One for slippy who can;t quite distinguish between talented shotmaking and gruelling sweaty point requiring 1mn rest between points.

On this one, the contrast is even more obvious between the talented shotmaker and the road runner!



Nalbandian completely destroyed Nadal in his first 2 encounters...one on Nadal's ground, Madrid, and one is Paris.

Nadal was very lucky (or was it again?) that for a couple of years before that Nalbandian number 3 or so in teh world never met number 2 Nadal....more so that Nadal avoided Nalbandian at the FO....who of course was on Federer's side.

I have just checked...but bizarely again, Nalby was in 2005, 2006 and 2007 on Federer's side and not Nadal! And guess what the other player with a dangerous 2 hander BH who had a good record v Nadal was also in Fed's draw!

Nadal has been very very very lucky all his career....or was it luck?

Another Gem worth watching. Coria is one of my favourite player ever. Never seen someone moving as well. Always balanced on his shots. He is however a perfect case of mental weakness with no serve.

He coudl serve 40 double faults and still win teh match. That's how talented he was.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HymGHfzkU4A wrote:

Agree Nalbandian was a fantastic player, in particular his backhand was stunning at times. Now that being said, let me debunk nonsense for the 2000th time.

Tenez wrote:

Nalbandian completely destroyed Nadal in his first 2 encounters...one on Nadal's ground, Madrid, and one is Paris.

Yes, when he was not yet 22. The overall head to head between the two was 5-2. We could selectively look at loads of players when they were very young and edit their H2H.  

Tenez wrote:
Nadal was very lucky (or was it again?) that for a couple of years before that Nalbandian number 3 or so in teh world never met number 2 Nadal....more so that Nadal avoided Nalbandian at the FO....who of course was on Federer's side.

I have just checked...but bizarely again, Nalby was in 2005, 2006 and 2007 on Federer's side and not Nadal! And guess what the other player with a dangerous 2 hander BH who had a good record v Nadal was also in Fed's draw!

OK let me look at Nalbandian's French Open record between 2005 and 2008:
2008- lost to Berlocq in R2
2007- lost to Davydenko in R4
2006- lost to Federer in SF- retired due to injury midway through
2005- lost to Hanescu in R4

So out of those years, he only reached the semi once, and then got injured vs Federer. Do you realise how good Nadal is at Roland Garros?

Tenez wrote:
Nadal has been very very very lucky all his career....or was it luck?

It's funny for me to debate you and debunk your incoherent nonsense, but I suspect most Federer fans are probably just bored of it now, even if they don't like Nadal. Nadal is lucky lucky lucky because he avoided drawing Nalbandian in the semis in this 4 year period at the French Open, give me a break.

Well it is quite well known that Nalbandian has had his career plugged with back problems. So you debunk nothing. The talent is there to see when on form.

Your man had to wait for further slowing of the court to be able to rival the great shotmakers of that time.

Nadal fans can’t tell the difference between a moonball and a flat shot.
They think it’s all the same.

And that’s it.

Once they master those baby steps, they may progress to understamd the importance of Nadal’s “OCD” and the rest.

I don’t mind them as they are very amusing in their “devotion”.

Tenez wrote:Well it is quite well known that Nalbandian has had his career plugged with back problems. So you debunk nothing. The talent is there to see when on form.

I didn't say Nalbandian wasn't talented, I said you saying Nadal was very very very very lucky to avoid his half in the French Open when he only reached one semi was laughable.

noleisthebest wrote:Nadal fans can’t tell the difference between a moonball and a flat shot.
They think it’s all the same.

I wouldn't be too quick to lecture us on what's flat, and what's not, if I were you.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:...
youtube wouldn't be a measuring stick I'd use.

Any great performer plays for the sport, not youtube views!

Yes, of course but time is actually the real measuring stick. Who is remembered, who is not...and more importantly, remembered for what.

Look at Pete...He had the ultimate record, he was the reference but even before his record was surpassed tennis fans knew every part of his game was bettered by Federer and he descended to oblivion before Fed reached his best.

Why would sport be so different than music? In music the youtube and spotify are the real measuring sticks...along with live concerts.

Pete faced a double edged sword because 1) his game was perceived boring and 2) he personally was perceived as boring too! Vast majority of tennis observers I know at that time held Agassi as the better and superior player compared to Pete. Every Wimbledon rain delay I remember, the BBC always trotted out the Borg/McEnroe 1980 Final. that was before a time of youtube and that certainly speaks volumes that for them that match was something special. 

Spotify is like I-Tunes. Digital Music has made Music more accessible. Album sales have plummeted and have done for over a decade. To me album sales are always a good measuring stick of how great music is. Like with films when people go watch them. A true measuring stick. I have a Spotify account. However, given my eclectic taste in music, anything can be on. I use Spotify as a navigator for new music. Most of it is miss, but I won't use it to play songs I have on vinyl, tape or CD. That element contributes to the timeless nature of it. Not youtube.

youtube filter: long video (more than 20 minutes) and more views:

keysearch: Federer: 
1,5M (last five games ao17 vs nadal) is the first proper tennis video

keysearch nadal: 1,8M (nadal vs djokovic rallies)

I dont know if search results are different depending on the country

legendkillar wrote:Pete faced a double edged sword because 1) his game was perceived boring and 2) he personally was perceived as boring too! Vast majority of tennis observers I know at that time held Agassi as the better and superior player compared to Pete. Every Wimbledon rain delay I remember, the BBC always trotted out the Borg/McEnroe 1980 Final. that was before a time of youtube and that certainly speaks volumes that for them that match was something special. 

Let's be honest he was not "perceived as"... he simply was boring. His game was pretty good for the time, He was quite complete but to me someone like Goran reached higher peaks....just that he was less consistent. I preferred Pete to Agassi anyway. It was a time where mental strength was a bigger factor than fitness....which is not the case now.

Spotify is like I-Tunes. Digital Music has made Music more accessible. Album sales have plummeted and have done for over a decade. To me album sales are always a good measuring stick of how great music is. Like with films when people go watch them. A true measuring stick. I have a Spotify account. However, given my eclectic taste in music, anything can be on. I use Spotify as a navigator for new music. Most of it is miss, but I won't use it to play songs I have on vinyl, tape or CD. That element contributes to the timeless nature of it. Not youtube.

Youtube is simply a library. You look for and watch pieces of history. The more watched tell you what people prefer to watch...it's as simple as that.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Pete faced a double edged sword because 1) his game was perceived boring and 2) he personally was perceived as boring too! Vast majority of tennis observers I know at that time held Agassi as the better and superior player compared to Pete. Every Wimbledon rain delay I remember, the BBC always trotted out the Borg/McEnroe 1980 Final. that was before a time of youtube and that certainly speaks volumes that for them that match was something special. 

Let's be honest he was not "perceived as"... he simply was boring. His game was pretty good for the time, He was quite complete but to me someone like Goran reached higher peaks....just that he was less consistent. I preferred Pete to Agassi anyway. It was a time where mental strength was a bigger factor than fitness....which is not the case now.

Spotify is like I-Tunes. Digital Music has made Music more accessible. Album sales have plummeted and have done for over a decade. To me album sales are always a good measuring stick of how great music is. Like with films when people go watch them. A true measuring stick. I have a Spotify account. However, given my eclectic taste in music, anything can be on. I use Spotify as a navigator for new music. Most of it is miss, but I won't use it to play songs I have on vinyl, tape or CD. That element contributes to the timeless nature of it. Not youtube.

Youtube is simply a library. You look for and watch pieces of history. The more watched tell you what people prefer to watch...it's as simple as that.

Granted he was boring personally. His game had a bit more than some people would credit him for

Second point nah. I could watch the same video 10 times and it would register at 10 views. Not credible in the slightest and not as simple as that.

God I used to find Sampras boring on and off the court.  I cannot ever remember watching a match featuring him when I did not want him to lose.  I have no problem taking my hat off to that wonderful running forehand, the metronomic quality of his extraordinary second serve, and the cruel beauty of his demolition of Agassi in the 1999 final, but tennis is lucky that he is not the holder of its flagship record anymore.  I never enjoyed a match he played more than 2001 Wimbledon R16.

barrystar wrote:... I never enjoyed a match he played more than 2001 Wimbledon R16.

Yes and people forget that Goran beat Pete in their first encounter at Wimbeldon and their first 2 matches on grass. ...Shame he coud not deliver when it mattered most. But was so close so many times.

Goran was fiery and emotional. And crazy.

When he finally won thst Wimbledon he stripped in his underpants before all the masses that came to greet him in Split.
That was his version of ripping a shirt.

Great character. Not a robot.

naxroy wrote:youtube filter: long video (more than 20 minutes) and more views:

keysearch: Federer: 
1,5M (last five games ao17 vs nadal) is the first proper tennis video

keysearch nadal: 1,8M (nadal vs djokovic rallies)

I dont know if search results are different depending on the country

When you mean 1.5M and 1.8M do you mean search results? Cause that would not be the best way to look for !interest. First cause you may have another famous Federer or Nadal. Or Simply Nadal making a song or being part of a song and that would boost his search result.

The way to have better results I think is to look at specific encounters. Nadal v Djoko, Federer v Djoko, Nadal v Djoko. And look at the number of "views" not the results.And even better divide those resuts by time (number of months for instance).

I am searching youtube only 1,5M is million views