Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 41 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,390 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Around 2008, Federer and Nadal were often compared to Sampras and Agassi, the last two all-time greats before them. It seemed like Federer would reach a similar slam count as Sampras, and the same for Nadal and Agassi. However, by the end of 2010 Federer had surpassed Sampras, and Nadal had surpassed Agassi, with both achieving the career Grand Slam. It didn't stop there though. Nadal went on to tie Sampras's slam tally last month, and he has gone far beyond Sampras's combined WTF/Masters's tally. Right now, it looks like both Federer and Nadal will end up ahead of Sampras and Agassi in terms of the most important career achievements.

Enter Djokovic. With his 7th slam, he is on his way to tie and exceed Agassi's slam count, and he's a good candidate for the career Grand Slam. Djokovic has already surpassed Sampras and Agassi in combined WTF/Master's count. As of today, he is one week ahead of Agassi as world number 1. Djokovic is on track to surpass all Open Era players except probably Federer, Nadal, Sampras, and Borg, and even the possibility of him reaching 11 slams cannot be ruled out yet.

It seems surprising how 3 men playing in the same era (each pair has played at least 33 matches thanks to Federer's longevity) could potentially end up as the numbers 1, 2, and 5 in the entire Open Era by 2018, its 50 year anniversary. Of course reasons for their dominance have been offered; court homogenization and a weak 1990s generation are allowing them to dominate across all tournaments for a long period of time. But I think those reasons do not tell the whole story. Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic are simply extremely talented and determined, and we are very lucky to watch them play each other. This is a golden era for sure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,734 Posts
Exactly.

We are very very lucky to watch them play each other. This is a golden era for sure.

We are witnessing something AMAZING. :worship::worship::worship:

50 years from now, people will look at this era as the greatest ever.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,230 Posts
3 players don't make an era.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,004 Posts
Definitely one of the greatest eras, however, the: Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Borg era was pretty good too. So was the Sampras, Agassi, Courier era with Becker, Wilander, straddling both eras. On the pro tour there was the Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver and Hoad era. Weeks at #1 and 1000 tournaments are irrelevent to different eras. Year end rankings and slams are the most important critera. I tend to think that there was more top competition in those eras than today. Federer, Nadal, and Novak are just far superior to the other top players, with the exception of Murray, at times.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,390 Posts
Discussion Starter #6 (Edited)
Definitely one of the greatest eras, however, the: Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Borg era was pretty good too. So was the Sampras, Agassi, Courier era with Becker, Wilander, straddling both eras. On the pro tour there was the Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver and Hoad era. Weeks at #1 and 1000 tournaments are irrelevent to different eras. Year end rankings and slams are the most important critera. I tend to think that there was more top competition in those eras than today. Federer, Nadal, and Novak are just far superior to the other top players, with the exception of Murray, at times.
As for an Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Borg era:
1. Borg and Lendl were hardly in the same era, they played fewer matches than Federer and Agassi, and only once in slams compared to 4 times for Federer-Agassi.
2. McEnroe and Borg only played three more matches than Federer and Agassi.
So, Borg was hardly in the same era as Lendl and McEnroe. Otherwise you might just as well claim that Rosewall and Connors were in the same era, or Connors and Becker.

Gonzales and Laver played many matches but were born 10 years apart, and in those days top players played each other all the time anyway.

Either way, those were great times as well of course.

It's true that Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are superior, but that's precisely what makes this era so special. That, and the large number of matches they play against each other.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,390 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
I should add though, if Djokovic were to reach #5 in slams in the Open Era with a 9th title, the likes of Connors and McEnroe were at a disadvantage because they didn't know how important the Australian Open would become after their time. Otherwise, they may have played it every year. Same for Borg.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,858 Posts
Exactly.

We are very very lucky to watch them play each other. This is a golden era for sure.

We are witnessing something AMAZING. :worship::worship::worship:

50 years from now, people will look at this era as the greatest ever.
Why wait fifty years? If youre wise you know its never going to get any better than this. THREE AMAZING PLAYERS. With 38 slams between them and counting at least for Nadal and Djokovic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,769 Posts
Djokovic is on track to surpass all Open Era players except probably Federer, Nadal, Sampras, and Borg, and even the possibility of him reaching 11 slams cannot be ruled out yet.
Precisely why he won't win 11 plus slams.

All the 11 plus slam winners of the open era had 11 to 13 slams when they were Djokovic's age. His career trajectory is similar to Lendl's but a bit better. Lendl had 6 slams when he was Djokovic's age. Djokovic only has one more slam at the same age. Might end up with 9 slams. Soon to be a father.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,721 Posts
Definitely one of the greatest eras, however, the: Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Borg era was pretty good too. So was the Sampras, Agassi, Courier era with Becker, Wilander, straddling both eras. On the pro tour there was the Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver and Hoad era. Weeks at #1 and 1000 tournaments are irrelevent to different eras. Year end rankings and slams are the most important critera. I tend to think that there was more top competition in those eras than today. Federer, Nadal, and Novak are just far superior to the other top players, with the exception of Murray, at times.
Yes there are so many great past eras that get overlooked by people who are new to tennis. But regardless, people will always remember this era as well. I am no Nadal fan as people know, and I don't like the fact that he has 14 slams due to playing style and behaviour.
But I think regardless of whether you like players or not, there is no denying the Fedalovic era is something people will be talking about for years to come. There have been so many great matches, some which didn't have the outcome I would have liked (Wimbledon 2008, AO 2009) and some that have (US open 2011, Wimbledon 2007, AO 2012). I think even if you strongly dislike one of those players you can say there were some historic matches and moments between them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,059 Posts
Precisely why he won't win 11 plus slams.

All the 11 plus slam winners of the open era had 11 to 13 slams when they were Djokovic's age. His career trajectory is similar to Lendl's but a bit better. Lendl had 6 slams when he was Djokovic's age. Djokovic only has one more slam at the same age. Might end up with 9 slams. Soon to be a father.
Just stop posting fucking stats out of your ass.Trolling on MTF and TW in the same time just fucking go away you ignorant useless troll
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
520 Posts
Precisely why he won't win 11 plus slams.

All the 11 plus slam winners of the open era had 11 to 13 slams when they were Djokovic's age. His career trajectory is similar to Lendl's but a bit better. Lendl had 6 slams when he was Djokovic's age. Djokovic only has one more slam at the same age. Might end up with 9 slams. Soon to be a father.
And this is based on a statistical sample of, what, 6 players?

As long as we are predicting the future, why not compare Djokovic to Agassi? Similar playing style, similar athletic capabilities. How many slams did Agassi win before the age of 27, and how many after?

The truth is we don't know the future. Maybe Djokovic will impersonate Agassi and win 6-7 more slams. Maybe he gets tired of tennis and pulls a Borg and retires at the end of the year.

What we do know is that Fedalovic STILL don't appear to have any serious competition in a form of young future superstars. How many current 22-23 year olds do we have with multiple Slam wins, or at least finals? That's right, zero.

Dimitrov and Raonic made it to the Wimbledon semifinals and for both it's the achievement of their career so far. They are both 23 year old.

Maybe Thiem or Kyrgios will be the next superstars and multiple slam winners. Or maybe, just maybe, both Nadal and Djokovic will still be playing at age of 32 and competing for Slams.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,390 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Djokovic is on track to surpass all Open Era players except probably Federer, Nadal, Sampras, and Borg, and even the possibility of him reaching 11 slams cannot be ruled out yet.
I failed here. :facepalm: Apologies to Djokovic fans.

On the other hand, that makes the main point even clearer. If Djokovic goes on to pass Sampras, what are the odds that the top 3 players in a 50-year period (or even history) played mostly at the same time?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,489 Posts
On the other hand, that makes the main point even clearer. If Djokovic goes on to pass Sampras, what are the odds that the top 3 players in a 50-year period (or even history) played mostly at the same time?
That is something that will hit all these MTF tards 20 years from now, when they realize what they were witnessing while they bickered in their childish GOAT debate threads.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,311 Posts
I failed here. :facepalm: Apologies to Djokovic fans.

On the other hand, that makes the main point even clearer. If Djokovic goes on to pass Sampras, what are the odds that the top 3 players in a 50-year period (or even history) played mostly at the same time?
It's likely that Federer, Nadal and Djokovic will be top3 Open Era players very soon, which is incredible. What are the odds? I can tell you what are chances that top3 players from 50-year period are born at most 6 years apart (between oldest and youngest). There are 125000 possible assignments of these three players to 50 possible birth years. However there are only 5804 such assignements that the difference between them is at most 6 years (calculated as difference in birth years). So mathematical chances are 4,6 percent - small probability but I think that some expected even smaller. But this is based only on year of birth. It's much harder to pack top3 players in one period simply because they'll have to share slam wins. For this reason 4,6 percent is upper bound of our probability. Actual probability is smaller, maybe even a few times.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
3 players don't make an era.
This. I'd choose any time a world in which none of the big 3 has more than 10 slams, but we have a Berdych and Tsonga playing at their full potential and having more slam finals, playing them more competitively, winning a couple of them each. A consistent injury-free Del Potro getting to no.1 for at least a dozen of months, and winning 3-5 slams. Generation useful with Nishikori, Dimitrov, Raonic being solid top 10 players and, of course, slam winners. Something like that. I don't like this era where you only have good matches in the finals and semifinals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
520 Posts
This. I'd choose any time a world in which none of the big 3 has more than 10 slams, but we have a Berdych and Tsonga playing at their full potential and having more slam finals, playing them more competitively, winning a couple of them each. A consistent injury-free Del Potro getting to no.1 for at least a dozen of months, and winning 3-5 slams. Generation useful with Nishikori, Dimitrov, Raonic being solid top 10 players and, of course, slam winners. Something like that. I don't like this era where you only have good matches in the finals and semifinals.
Remove the Big 4 and that's exactly what you would have.

So an era without 3 GOATS and 1 already all time great is better than an era that has those players?

Right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,407 Posts
These three players HAVE made this era. You can pretend otherwise, but you'll be wrong. You will also know that you are wrong. History is made by great men, not forgettable journeymen. Read Carlyle.

Most people will forget Berdych and Baghdatis just like they forgot the b-rate failures of Borg and McEnroe's eras (whoever they were).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
883 Posts
This. I'd choose any time a world in which none of the big 3 has more than 10 slams, but we have a Berdych and Tsonga playing at their full potential and having more slam finals, playing them more competitively, winning a couple of them each. A consistent injury-free Del Potro getting to no.1 for at least a dozen of months, and winning 3-5 slams. Generation useful with Nishikori, Dimitrov, Raonic being solid top 10 players and, of course, slam winners. Something like that. I don't like this era where you only have good matches in the finals and semifinals.
I completely disagree with the premise. An era is always defined by the great players that played in it. People dont remember for the most part the players that won a couple slams in an era, but the guys who made history in that era.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
62,003 Posts
It's likely that Federer, Nadal and Djokovic will be top3 Open Era players very soon, which is incredible. What are the odds? I can tell you what are chances that top3 players from 50-year period are born at most 6 years apart (between oldest and youngest). There are 125000 possible assignments of these three players to 50 possible birth years. However there are only 5804 such assignements that the difference between them is at most 6 years (calculated as difference in birth years). So mathematical chances are 4,6 percent - small probability but I think that some expected even smaller. But this is based only on year of birth. It's much harder to pack top3 players in one period simply because they'll have to share slam wins. For this reason 4,6 percent is upper bound of our probability. Actual probability is smaller, maybe even a few times.
It's quite special indeed. I can't think of any other sport with an at least 50-year long history that saw the three best players compete at the same time. And it's not a small overlap, like Lendl and Borg, but big ones where they've been on tour together for more than a decade now.
 
1 - 20 of 41 Posts
Top