When my fave is doing well, it is a strong era.

When my fave's competitor in GOAT discussions is doing well, it is a weak era.

 

when top players constantly make final stages of big tournaments it is the strong era. for exemple. top8 in average met 13 top10 players during feds best season and 20,1 in noles best season. it shows how constant top players was to meet each other in 2006 and 2015. random players in final stages of big tournaments means weak filed!

you can not have realy strong 100 players. but 6-10. if top10 players is mostly in all QFs of big tournaments you have very strong top players and filed. if you have random players in the QsF of big tournaments it means that who ever can make it and that it is not realy strong guys on the top (maybe just a single guy or 2). becouse they do not reach final stges so often. and it couse not many meatings between top players.

 

Weak era = if Federer wins a lot.

 

Is this all u guys think about? Really?

 

What if it's the opposite that it's a deep field? Meaning the top 20 is strong vs. Just top 8?

Top 8 2008-2015 was pretty consistent

 

probability of 20 very strong players at the same time istead of non or a just few is not great. and i do not think it was just top20 players in final stages of big tournaments. as it was not top20 who played in last master final. non consistant players and filed is a sure sign of weak filed.

fed titles in 2006, (rankings of opponents in QF, SF, F):

doha: 55, 45, 30
AO: 5 (denko), 25, 54
IW: 6 (ljuba), 61, 14
miami: 9 (blake), 11, 6 (ljuba)
halle: 29, 26, 15
W: 10 (ancic), 59, 2 (rafa)
canada: 41, 16, 51
USO: 7 (blake), 6 (denko), 10 (roddick)
tokyo: 1078, 72, 55
madrid: 47, 4 (nalbandian), 10 (gonzales)
basel: 15, 54, 7 (gonzales)
WTF: SF 2 (rafa), F 8 (blake)

top10 in QF+: 3x blake 2x denko, ljuba, rafa, gonzales, 1x ancic, roddick, nalbandian (14 matches)

noles titles in 2015, (rankings of opponents in QF, SF, F):

AO: 8 (milos), 4 (wawa), 6 (muzza)
IW: 35 WO, 4 (muzza), 2 (fed)
miami: 7 (ferrer), 24, 4 (muzza)
MC: 10 (cilic), 5 (rafa), 8 (berdich)
rome: 6 (nishikori), 8 (ferrer), 2 (fed)
W: 9 (cilic), 20, 2 (fed)
USO: 19, 9 (cilic), 2 (fed)
beijing: 13, 7 (ferrer), 8 (rafa)
shanghai: 20, 2 (muzza), 15
paris: 5 (berdich), 4 (wawa), 3 (muzza)
WTF: SF 5 (rafa), F 3 (fed)

top10 in QF+: 5x fed, muzza, 3x ferrer, cilic, rafa, 2x wawa, berdich, 1x nishikori, milos (25 matches)

so from QF and on, for his 11 titles nole had only 2 opponents outside top20 (#35 and #24) while fed for his 12 titles had 16 players outside of top20 and 12 lower ranked than noles lowest ranked opponent. all noles QF+ opponents was top35 and all but 2 was in top20 while feds 12 opponents was outside of top40. but maybe fed had a very strong filed with super strong top 1078 (suzuki) players!

 

38 year old being the 3rd best player is a solid sign.

The top two being absent for 1 masters 1000 and it is won by some journeyman who have never been in the top 100.

 

Vacherot would definitely win at least two Slams in Federer's era.

 

As I have said earlier, ELO is not correlated with eras. Weak, strong, ELO simply does not begin to tell us that. Any indications of a strong era is the same as religious indications, they're in the believers heads. If you're not brought up in that particular religion then they're not visible.

Just do a full stop in era strength comparisons. We do not have the tools. Talk instead about eras with high winner concentration and eras with low winner concentration. They do not tell us about strength but that's at least something you can differentiate on.

 

As I have said earlier, ELO is not correlated with eras. Weak, strong, ELO simply does not begin to tell us that. Any indications of a strong era is the same as religious indications, they're in the believers heads. If you're not brought up in that particular religion then they're not visible.

Illogical to pick out religion there as...

if you're not brought up in a particular country, your allegiance to that country is also not visible...

...hmmm

 

Easiest way to recognize it pretty quickly. Nothing further needs to be said

 

Easiest way to recognize it pretty quickly. Nothing further needs to be said

View attachment 435794

Every era had a player who bent over top dogs. It just doesn't mean anything.

 

An all time great is not a constant. They have good periods and bad periods.

Indeed, an All-Time Great career is almost never a linear one. However, it's not very difficult to differentiate the good/solid years and periods from the down ones with most All-Time Greats.

Plus we have the endless discussions about who the all time greats are. Not every case there is clear cut. So I would not use this method either.

Problem with that is there's no standard definition of what an ATG is and, even if there was, there's still the potential issue of 1 or more players being so good ("super ATG"?) that they prevent other players from achieving it.

The number of players who are tilting one way or the other is a single-digit one so far. For most others it's pretty clear who is an All-Time Great and who isn't, at least among most tennis fans (you'll always have a minority that puts the standard too low as well as a minority that puts the standard extreme high).
As for a so-called Super All-Time Great that prevents others from even entering the All-Time Great debate achievements-wise, there hasn't been one so far. In case one existed, he'd have at least one opponent consistently reaching the final 4 stages of Big Tournaments more often than not, beating the rest of the top field at least 2 times out of 3. In the real world of tennis, a player who puts himself in such positions on a regular basis will likely find his fair share of wins against the All-Time Greats as well, like Andy Murray did. He's in the All-Time Great debate at the very least.

You have to ask yourself, why look for weak and strong eras? What is it that you’re hoping to achieve by it?

Why this isn't something I'm focused on, it can give a valuable context to certain results and achievements, it shows what is behind the numbers.
The level of competition one faces to win the biggest titles can make a serious difference.

 

The number of players who are tilting one way or the other is a single-digit one so far. For most others it's pretty clear who is an All-Time Great and who isn't, at least among most tennis fans (you'll always have a minority that puts the standard too low as well as a minority that puts the standard extreme high).
As for a so-called Super All-Time Great that prevents others from even entering the All-Time Great debate achievements-wise, there hasn't been one so far. In case one existed, he'd have at least one opponent consistently reaching the final 4 stages of Big Tournaments more often than not, beating the rest of the top field at least 2 times out of 3. In the real world of tennis, a player who puts himself in such positions on a regular basis will likely find his fair share of wins against the All-Time Greats as well, like Andy Murray did. He's in the All-Time Great debate at the very least.

Take the example of Roddick. If Federer didn't exist, he quite possibly wins 3 Wimbledons and 2 US opens and that's just giving him the slams where Federer beat him in the final (you can make decent arguments for others ones where Federer took him out earlier - Wimbledon 2003 for example). A resume that includes 3 Wimbledons, 2 US opens and reaching world no 1 would, at the very least, have him in the conversation for being an ATG.

 

Age does not tell us strength of eras either. Nothing does. People want to identify weak and strong eras, because they always manage to favour their own favourite players while doing so. It's like a Rorschack test. You see what you see. Don't expect anyone else to see the same.
One test of a truly unbiased observer is that he or she has the ability to look past this weak era nonsense. Now, while not as bad as .... etc etc

In Insecure's "brain," 24/7, whether it's a butterfly or a ghost, no matter his age, the Rorschark test will always give the same "reading": it will be Federer 24/7.

If Federer wins, it's a weak era.
If Federer loses, it's a strong era.
😌

You have to ask yourself, why look for weak and strong eras? What is it that you’re hoping to achieve by it?

To ask the question is to answer it

 

Nolefam should stop racking their brains and stop thinking of Federer as an ATG.

A random passing player like Ruud, Zverev, Anderson, Kyrgios, Berrettini, Tsitsipas, etc.

At best, a successful Medvedev or Thiem, nothing else... they'll sleep better that way.

 

It is weakest era during big 3 period. Nadal is able to vulture RG every year. Djokovic vulture the useless 90s gen and Federer is in the mix as well vulturing the same competition. Its not possible for them to amass so many slams each in a strong era where young players replace the old.

 

as i said before. if you have top guys (top 5-6 or 8) who are constantly in the QF and SF of big events it is strong era. if you have random players, often out of top40 in QF and SF of big events it is weak era. and ELO can perfectly show if top guys are constant or not. and it is other methods too. i present 3 of them. and if you look ranking of feds oponents in QF (top8), SF (top4) and the F in 2006 for his 12 titles and compare with noles opponents ranking in his 11 titles run in 2015 you will see enormuos differance in quality of the opponents!

 

"Weak era" is the same word marker as "vulturing". Clear sign that there is no need to read further.

 

The best way to tell is simply the eye test. Watch the standard of play yourself with your own eyes, and it'll be quite obvious.

If that's not enough, then here's another example. In the current field that exists at the moment, if Sinner and Alcaraz were both injured for the Australian Open at the start of next year, Djokovic, who by his own admission cannot compete with them physically, will immediately become the favourite. He will very likely win the Australian Open based on what I've seen.

In the current top 10, aside from those mentioned, there is only Zverev, who is known to be enormously mentally suspect, and Fritz, ditto with a one-dimensional game, who have even been to a Grand Slam final. If you look at the rest of the top 10, it would be extraordinary if any of them won a Grand Slam in the foreseeable future. None of them look anywhere near that standard.

Furthermore, there are no dangerous floaters. I suppose you could make a case for Medvedev, who seems out of form at the moment. If he was playing his best tennis, he would be number three in the world. The fact is he's not playing anywhere near his best level. I don't see anyone outside of the top 10 who you would really think could beat Sinner or Alcaraz, or, in fact, even Djokovic.

Whereas, if you look back to a few years ago, you had, off the top of my head, Del Potro, who had won a Grand Slam, very dangerous player. Tsonga, who had been to a Grand Slam final. Berdych, who had been to a Grand Slam final. Soderling, Roddick, Nalbandian, Cilic, Raonic, Ferrer, I could go on, these are all dangerous players who often weren't at the absolute top, but were very dangerous.

And that's without mentioning Murray and Wawrinka, who are bona fide great players. I think it is not terribly difficult to contrast that with the current situation.

 

The best way to tell is simply the eye test. Watch the standard of play yourself with your own eyes, and it'll be quite obvious.

Quite obvious? Give details, then.

• How many hours do you estimate you have to watch before you have a full grasp of an era’s strength? Of course you have to watch several matches for each player, but how far down do you go in the rankings?
• How do you compensate for improvements in technology when comparing to earlier eras?
• How do you determine what kind of surface changes have taken place and how much they influence the play?
• How do you compensate for difficult conditions, such as excessive wind or heat?
• How do you annotate all of this to allow for comparisons to be made when you inevitably have forgotten most of what you watched initially?

 

They say 'weak era' is the era where your favorite player isn't winning.

Look at the people who got triggered by this post and see who their favorite player is. Pretty much the same guy.

Just a mere mention of the term 'weak era' is enough to make them go livid.

Hahahahahaha.

 

Stron era = Robin Haase competed

Weak era = Players not shitting themselves because Robin Haase no longer competes