Tennis Eras

Another variant of the GOAT debate, tennis eras is one of those topics that just does not go away.

Most of us have our minds made up and reasoning behind it, however, whether a current or retired pro, an amateur or a rec, or just an avid tennis watcher, we all have something to say about it.

For the masses, tennis eras come in two extremes: they can either be  golden or weak. Nothing in between.

When you strip it all to the bare bones, it's often just an effort from anti-Federer fans (read Nadal's/Sampras') to diminish his achievements.

Some brave souls have even attempted to compare different eras. I say - hard work!

In that respect it was quite interesting to watch Mecir's son play today. Apart from obvious physical likeness, there were also a lot of tennis related similarities.
However, I could not help but feel sorry for the Mecir Junior as his style was less pure than his father's, and due to change in technology and "evolution", for all his effort and the same playing spirit,  he looked quite worse-off in today's conditions.

Here is what Ljubicic, a freshly retired "oldie" had to say on the subject today, he gives it a different angle altogether:

"The difference between these top guys and the top guys back then are these guys are so unbelievably consistent. You can’t take off any point. When you played Sampras, you felt that in return games he played one or two sets, and on clay he was nowhere near his best. People actually wanted to play against him on clay. Every one of them would have parts of the season where they would lose matches and that made them vulnerable. But then again, Sampras finished No. 1 for six seasons? He had his goals and he reached them. The thing with Federer, Nadal and Djokovic is that their goal is to win every single match and that wasn’t the case with the older generation.”



What are your thoughts on tennis eras?
What angle do you look at them from?

Lovely picture.

Regarding eras or anything else actually I try not to generalise. To start with we cannot talk about eras then and eras now..cause we had many past eras and the current era(s) can also be divided. On top of that an era can be summed up by a playe'rs dominance or 2 or more players rivalries. All never quite starting at a given time and not finishing at the same time.

In my view the best way to define an era is one define by technology and level of competion.

For instance Borg played in the same techological era than Laver for instance or McEnroe but competition started to become much harder cause money attracted many players suddenly while Laver was essentially facing week in week out the rare few players who were part of a circus travelling the world while most other players simply coudl not afford too.

Then Borg and his success attracted many more players and again competition became fiercer by the week. All this happened while players were all playing with Nat gut and small frames of which 99% were wood. So though it was a level field technology wise....competition was much harder for Borg's successors (McEnroe, Lendl) than it was for Laver and his peers.

Then technology started to really impact the game and shorten the career of players who learnt the game with a small frame. The mid size racquet started a new era. It also brought in clay and grass specialists and they coudl not be compared....except that once again, grass favoured powerful and/or talented players while clay favoured good movers and stamina.

The key factor with technology change is how early one player adopts it. McEnroe who ended playing with mid-frame graphite racquet did not make the most of the raquet cause he had learnt the game with a wooden racquet. So when some youngsters (Becker, Edberg, Pete) came along ready to swing at every shots (helped by the confidence of the bigger frame), McEnroe quickly became overwhelmed by the power and again was dealing with a too powerful ball that his touch game could not quite cope with. Agassi for instance could not have developed this make of break game (taking the ball early and swing at it) with a small wooden racquet...not a chance.

Another important fact when talking eras is how one player can affect the success of others. Champions defining eras are those who are consistant. Pete had a consistent second serve which was deadly on the then fast surface. He was not the most talented player but had the most consistent weapon for those fast surfaces. In a way not that different than Nadal or Djoko being very consistent on those slow surfaces.

So the reason I do not like to generalise is that we have one player who got even more consistent than all of those players but not due to one weapon (serve or lungs) but simply talent. He won a lot of his sklams versus talented players where talent was still a factor to win slams…and therefore it was harder to win slams then cause talent is pretty fragile factor when winning slams. There have been talented players winning multiple slams but usually they don’t make the top of the GOAT list. The ones who in my view won most slams on talent alone are McEnroe (7), Edberg (6), and then Becker (6) and Agassi(8). I do not rank Agassi that high though he achieved quite a bit as he essentially achieved most of his slams when Pete retired and often against players who were more talented than him but even more emotional . Lendl had the talent but it is only when becoming physically very strong that his talented allowed him to win slams. His game was a very risky one and often was too emotional and ran out of breath early out in his career.

Federer on the other hand managed to completely dominate his era (those of his age learning the game with the same technology as his). No-one who learnt the game with nat strings and heavier racquets on faster surfaces achieved nearly as close as he did….Hewitt is his closest rival with 2 slams and even he had to rely on much more fitness than federer to win those…to the point of burning early.

The new era of synth string lighter racquets, special diet , and slower conds is a very peculiar one…..in a way sending us back to the Borg, Vilas, Clerc era on clay. Long and boring matches where talent is seriously disregarded as a useless asset in a 5 hour marathon match.

What and absolutely fantastic post, T, thank you !       

As Robbie Koenig coined it last week: one for the rocking chair!

Wonderful guide through tennis history through a unique perspective, there is so much in it.
The last paragraph duly deserved the least space leaving us on the edge of our seats waiting with bated breath for what is going to happen next.

Everything looking dead and desolate tennis wise, real tennis and talent pushed to marginal rounds and courts.
It was a parody that last summer when I had a great ticket for Court One in Wimbledon, I spent most of my day happily huddled  on the step of court 14 watching Adrian Mannarino play his 5 sets against Kubot, or get warned by the warden for standing on the chairs or killing my knees kneeling on some metal bar of the opposite courts from court 15 in order to get a better view/glimpse of Mannarino play Dustin Brown, while on show courts, soulless bashing was taking place, putting everyone to sleep.

And in this very moment of dark tennis history/evolution and atmosphere, we have Roger Federer who has spanned a few eras on his talent alone, refusing to go away and keeping the flame burning, swimming against the tide and into the strongest of winds, keeping us all still awake and alive.

If you're a true Nadal fan, and look very closely; you'll be able to see something in that photo between the lines.

Julia Santamaria wrote:If you're a true Nadal fan, and look very closely; you'll be able to see something in that photo between the lines.

I am happy to report that I do not see anything discernible

Thanks NITB.

JS - What is this picture? Looks like a graph showing seconds taken between points of a given match for a certain player. All pretty close to 50s! do they give a clue who that player is?

They are right....Un8elievable!

Julia Santamaria wrote:If you're a true Nadal fan, and look very closely; you'll be able to see something in that photo between the lines.

Sorry JS, I am only able to read, not look between the lines....I suppose you'll have to tell us what you can see in it regarding tennis eras.

luvsports! wrote:http://richard-mills-sports.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/golden-era-what-golden-era.html

You make excellent points there LS. This era is indeed the physically toughest of all time. It is fair to say that never players were as fit as now but likewise it's one of the lowest skill wise where be it through sheer spin and power a player like Nadal can destroy all his opponents' skills and subtle shots...or like Djoko, Murray simply bringing back all balls back asking one more effort, suicidal shot from their opponents. There were always players like that in the past but they coudl only win on clay. Nowadays they win everywhere thanks to techn and conds.

It's also intersting to see that in athletics there is much less stress on eras. No-one woudl say the Lewis era was great compared to now cause though there were some great athletes, most of the current players simply race as fast if not faster. Nowadays some (typical of Socal arguments for instance) might say that Borg, McEnroe, Ederg, Becker etc..were great eras with plenty of great champions but like in athletics....most players nowadays woudl lesson them. I said that Llodra probably beat peak Edberg...in fact my money woudl be on Llodra.

No different that quite a few racers nowadays can race faster than Lewis and most we do not even know the name.

So in a way the toughest era is always the latest...does it make it golden? certainly not.....as we saw in tennis we have less characters nowadays, less skills, and more borng long rallies where the less talented but fittest guy wins.

the good news is that things will move on and we will look at the 2000s up to mid 10s, imo, at the Federer era and then at the lung busting era and the new generation will erradicate the previous one like they all have in the past. It's only in the fans head that their idol's era is the greatest....but even those fans will mature eventally.

Tenez wrote:Thanks NITB.

JS - What is this picture? Looks like a graph showing seconds taken between points of a given match for a certain player. All pretty close to 50s! do they give a clue who that player is?

They are right....Un8elievable!

LOL.
Look really really closely.


(btw if you can't see it try putting the contrast on your screen down)

noleisthebest:
For the masses, tennis eras come in two extremes: they can either be golden or weak. Nothing in between.

Not necessarily and certainly not for me; if you can track the last post to Truffin on another thread I say I don't think it's a case of 'golden' or 'weak.' The amount of world class all time greats at the top tends to fluctuate.

Julia Santamaria wrote:

noleisthebest:
For the masses, tennis eras come in two extremes: they can either be golden or weak. Nothing in between.

Not necessarily and certainly not for me; if you can track the last post to Truffin on another thread I say I don't think it's a case of 'golden' or 'weak.' The amount of world class all time greats at the top tends to fluctuate.

Interesting.
So you too look at tennis eras through "tennis greats". How do you the compare those eras?
Do you compare them at all in fact or are they all the same to you and you just measure tennis achievements by how much a player has won thus making that particular era greater than the other?

noleisthebest wrote:

Julia Santamaria wrote:

noleisthebest:
For the masses, tennis eras come in two extremes: they can either be golden or weak. Nothing in between.

Not necessarily and certainly not for me; if you can track the last post to Truffin on another thread I say I don't think it's a case of 'golden' or 'weak.' The amount of world class all time greats at the top tends to fluctuate.

Interesting.
So you too look at tennis eras through "tennis greats". How do you the compare those eras?
Do you compare them at all in fact or are they all the same to you and you just measure tennis achievements by how much a player has won thus making that particular era greater than the other?

I think it's very difficult in the first place to pigeonhole different time periods into eras... as I said it is continuously and constantly fluctuating.
I'd say at any one moment in time, we should see how hard would it be a player who is suited to the conditions at the time to win a Grand Slam:
-Who would be the players that can stop them? The hardest matches are likely to come in the latter stages of slams- how many world class all time great players are there at the top to provide this top level challenge.
And the other 'world class ATG' players themselves would have to be able to play at a high level on those conditions. For example if we had 4 clay slams, and then brought Sampras back to his prime- even though he is a world class ATG he wouldn't provide the top level challenge on those certain conditions.
What we've had over the last few years is many world class ATG players at the top making it very very hard to win slams (the slams have been shared out between these players), but not much strength in depth below the top 4 (so it was relatively easy to reach the SFs if you're a top player).

Tenez looked at a different angle, he analysed what skills you have to have to be 'suited' to certain conditions.
I'm looking a bit past that, I'm assuming you are well suited to those conditions- and then seeing how hard it is.

For example:
a) If we have only 2 world class ATGs whose ages are similar, they are likely to share the slams over the 5 year 'prime level' period.
b) If we have only 1 world class ATG at a certain age he/she is likely to win a large share of slams during his/her prime.
c) If we have 3 world class ATGs at similar age they are likely to share slams to an even greater extent.
Think about the situation above ^
In this case they could all be as good as each other, but statisitcally the player in situation B would have far better stats as he has not had to contend with another world class ATG his age.

Here's a question for you JS,
if as you suggested we had 4 clay GSs, and say transport Nadal into the early 80s instead  of Sampras, how many slams do you think Nadal would have won with a wooden racquet?

noleisthebest wrote:Here's a question for you JS,
if as you suggested we had 4 clay GSs, and say transport Nadal into the early 80s instead  of Sampras, how many slams do you think Nadal would have won with a wooden racquet?

It's difficult to say.
Certainly I think he'd have to adapt his game and change it- the same tactics now wouldn't work then with different rackets.
How would he be able to adapt and change his game? It's difficult to tell.

I don't think it's difficult at all.
All you would need to imagine is how Nadal would play without the left bicep, because in those days, it would have been useless, as ball-striking was all about timing and coordination.
It would be priceless though to see him try and hit his lasoo FH from 5m behind the baseline with an old Dunlop.

noleisthebest wrote:I don't think it's difficult at all.
All you would need to imagine is how Nadal would play without the left bicep, because in those days, it would have been useless, as ball-striking was all about timing and coordination.
It would be priceless though to see him try and hit his lasoo FH from 5m behind the baseline with an old Dunlop.

No, but that's the whole point. In different conditions and technology Nadal would have had to adapt a different game to the one he does currently- how well he would do after adapting we can't know for certain.

Julia Santamaria wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:I don't think it's difficult at all.
All you would need to imagine is how Nadal would play without the left bicep, because in those days, it would have been useless, as ball-striking was all about timing and coordination.
It would be priceless though to see him try and hit his lasoo FH from 5m behind the baseline with an old Dunlop.

No, but that's the whole point. In different conditions and technology Nadal would have had to adapt a different game to the one he does currently- how well he would do after adapting we can't know for certain.

The problem is only players without talent are those that "adapt", the ones that have it - don't need to.
Believe me JS, Nadal would give his left bicep and all all his fake trophies if he could play like Fed. I am sure he is not enjoying tennis and all the physical suffering he has to go through in order to win a match. I don't know how he's doing in his conscience department, but have a pretty good idea.
He can thank Nike and a few other friends for giving him the opportunity he would have never, ever had had he been born 20, even 10 years earlier.

Tenez wrote:

luvsports! wrote:http://richard-mills-sports.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/golden-era-what-golden-era.html

You make excellent points there LS. This era is indeed the physically toughest of all time. It is fair to say that never players were as fit as now but likewise it's one of the lowest skill wise where be it through sheer spin and power a player like Nadal can destroy all his opponents' skills and subtle shots...or like Djoko, Murray simply bringing back all balls back asking one more effort, suicidal shot from their opponents. There were always players like that in the past but they coudl only win on clay. Nowadays they win everywhere thanks to techn and conds.

It's also intersting to see that in athletics  there is much less stress on eras. No-one woudl say the Lewis era was great compared to now cause though there were some great athletes, most of the current players simply race as fast if not faster. Nowadays some (typical of Socal arguments for instance) might say that Borg, McEnroe, Ederg, Becker etc..were great eras with plenty of great champions but like in athletics....most players nowadays woudl lesson them. I said that Llodra probably beat peak Edberg...in fact my money woudl be on Llodra.

No different that quite a few racers nowadays can race faster than Lewis and most we do not even know the name.

So in a way the toughest era is always the latest...does it make it golden? certainly not.....as we saw in tennis we have less characters nowadays, less skills, and more borng long rallies where the less talented but fittest guy wins.

the good news is that things will move on and we will look at the 2000s up to mid 10s, imo, at the Federer era and then at the lung busting era and the new generation will erradicate the previous one like they all have in the past. It's only in the fans head that their idol's era is the greatest....but even those fans will mature eventally.

Cheers Tenez, good post!

Yes, the comparison with athletics and irrelevance of "era" talk is quite telling.

In some way, that 2012 AO final was both terrible and good at the same time as it was an eyeopener for a lot of people.

I really hope both tennis fans as well as players never have to go through that torture again.

It can probably be marked as the rock bottom in tennis history.
Shame journalists did not make a bit more noise, it could have made a bigger difference, but even the 25 second implementation that was a direct positive consequence of that match did bring some improvement.

Today, watching two tall hard hitting players Gulbis & JJ definitely looked like a different era altogether. A more watchable one, too.

An era of ball bashers or an era of herculean fitness?

luvsports! wrote:An era of ball bashers or an era of herculean fitness?

The bashers.
As always, they fall in two groups: the talented and untalented ones.
Gulbis and JJ are definitely the former ones as they don't keep the ball in play.
Delpo, Berdych and Pospisil are somewhere in between, Delpo in particular as despite his size does not mind a bit of rallying these days
The horrid, untalented ball-bashing giant group for me are Anderson, Raonic, Isner. I avoid watching them at all cost, they are worse even than the "herculeans".

Tenez wrote:Thanks NITB.

JS - What is this picture? Looks like a graph showing seconds taken between points of a given match for a certain player. All pretty close to 50s! do they give a clue who that player is?

They are right....Un8elievable!

I think I see something in the image.. yep.. it's a guy, Spanish looking, holding a needle near his arm..........hmm.. wonder what he's doing!?

I think Rao will probably end up being a better player than Delpo. It;s all about confidence in his regard...and I don;t say that of many players.

Didn't he run him close a couple of weeks ago already?

Tenez wrote:I think Rao will probably end up being a better player than Delpo.

Del Potro hits the ball bigger than Rao...

truffin1 wrote:

Tenez wrote:Thanks NITB.

JS - What is this picture? Looks like a graph showing seconds taken between points of a given match for a certain player. All pretty close to 50s! do they give a clue who that player is?

They are right....Un8elievable!

I think I see something in the image.. yep.. it's a guy, Spanish looking, holding a needle near his arm..........hmm.. wonder what he's doing!?

Wrong!
It's actually Nadal holding a trophy.

I'm afraid this proves what I'm saying all along. Your vision is skewed. Specsavers have failed you. Only my objective eye could see what was really between the many black lines.

Julia Santamaria wrote:

Tenez wrote:I think Rao will probably end up being a better player than Delpo.  

Del Potro hits the ball bigger than Rao...

Yes, but his short-ish swing is going to ruin his wrists because of all the bashing he does in order to generate the pace.
Having said that, I saw him in Wimbers this summer and his FHDTL is quite something. A very nice shot.

noleisthebest wrote:

Julia Santamaria wrote:

Tenez wrote:I think Rao will probably end up being a better player than Delpo.  

Del Potro hits the ball bigger than Rao...

Yes, but his short-ish swing is going to ruin his wrists because of all the bashing.

Del Potro has shown time and time again that he can murder the ball (not literally) time and time again with ridiculous power and precision; meanwhile Raonic (at the age Del Potro had already won his US Open Title) has just been made to look like an absolute mug by Benoit Paire.

Maybe if Del Potro gets injured as you predict, then yes, ok Raonic may have a better future; but that's probably the only way.

Tenez wrote:I think Rao will probably end up being a better player than Delpo. It;s all about confidence in his regard...and I don;t say that of many players.

Didn't he run him close a couple of weeks ago already?

Rao's game is a right mess atm, he is neither coming nor going. He started off really well and then totally ruined the simplicity he used to have.
Just like Dimitrov, he also transformed in the negative direction.
I am not sure Ljubicic is doing him any good as a coach, although Raonic was attacking a lot more tonight than last time I watched him in Belgrade where the only thing that kept him was his serve.
His returning is quite 2nd rate as well.

He needs to change the coach asap and make sure he finds someone who can really focus on uncluttering the chaos he seems to have been playing for over a year now.

Nadal pulls out of Basel.. Paris prob next.. He's working, cycling hard for that coveted 1st WTF Title!

Julia Santamaria wrote:

truffin1 wrote:

Tenez wrote:Thanks NITB.

JS - What is this picture? Looks like a graph showing seconds taken between points of a given match for a certain player. All pretty close to 50s! do they give a clue who that player is?

They are right....Un8elievable!

I think I see something in the image.. yep.. it's a guy, Spanish looking, holding a needle near his arm..........hmm.. wonder what he's doing!?

Wrong!
It's actually Nadal holding a trophy.

I'm afraid this proves what I'm saying all along. Your vision is skewed. Specsavers have failed you. Only my objective eye could see what was really between the many black lines.

You mean he's hiding the drugs in his trophy!  Brilliant.

I don't know, I still see that needle..

truffin1 wrote:You mean he's hiding the drugs in his trophy!  Brilliant.

Look I don't think the French Open Organisers would put drugs in his trophy, unless they had a weird sense of humour.

truffin1 wrote:
I don't know, I still see that needle..

Either you have a bad eyesight or there's a needle stuck to your computer screen.

Julia Santamaria wrote:

truffin1 wrote:You mean he's hiding the drugs in his trophy!  Brilliant.

Look I don't think the French Open Organisers would put drugs in his trophy, unless they had a weird sense of humour.

truffin1 wrote:
I don't know, I still see that needle..

Either you have a bad eyesight or there's a needle stuck to your computer screen.

All joking aside, knowing the French-- I wouldn't put it past them!! Remember the Nadal cartoon?

That was a satirical cartoon, slightly different from the French Open organisers lol