De-lurk: Observations on era strength
josephm...@netzero.com
regular reader of rst, and have been vastly entertained by the subtle
and not-at-all-repetitious discussions of Federer, Sampras, Nadal,
Borg, Graf, Seles, chips, chimps, goats, knives, clowns, etc. The
reason for my de-lurk is to offer some observations on the relative
strength of the current and recent past tennis eras.
I. The Missing Champions
I define the top champions of men's tennis in the open era as those who
have won six or more slam titles. There seems to me to be a clear
difference -- in terms of career achievements, short-term dominance,
reputation, and lasting impact on the game -- between the players in
the 6+ group and those below. For example, many more people are likely
to consider Becker a true all-time great than, say, Vilas.
For the purpose of this analysis, a champion's career is "launched"
when the player reaches his first slam final (doesn't have to win it,
although most of them do). That's the point at which he truly announces
himself as a force to be reckoned with in the game.
Below is the list of 6+ slam champions in the open era, listed by year
of launch. I have grandfathered in Laver and Newcombe because they each
won five slams in the open era, plus more as amateurs, making their
inclusion reasonable. Leaving them out would have given a distorted
perspective of the dawn of the slam era, suggesting that there were no
greats active. I also have listed the blank years to make it easy to
visualize the length of the gaps.
1968 Laver
1969 Newcombe
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974 Connors, Borg
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979 McEnroe
1980
1981 Lendl
1982 Wilander
1983
1984
1985 Edberg, Becker
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990 Agassi, Sampras
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003 Federer
2004
2005 [Nadal?]
Note that the gap between 2003 (Fed) and 1990 (Agassi/Sampras) is more
than twice as long as the typical five-year gap that recurs throughout
the rest of the era. Also note that champions tend to launch in pairs,
either in the same year or in adjacent years. Thus, if the years since
1990 had followed the pattern of the rest of the era, we would have
expected that an additional *four* 6+ slam champions would have
launched after Andre and Pete but before Fed. Where are they?
These are the missing champions.
It is now pretty obvious that Safin, Hewitt, and Roddick are not going
to become 6+ champions. Nadal perhaps has a chance. In any event, none
of these players can cure the deficiency identified here. Nor does the
explanation lie in the fact that Sampras, with his long career and
heavy bag of slams, somehow "suppressed" the emergence of other
champions. In the 1990s there were about 33% *more* slams available to
be won than previously, because most of the top players entered the
Australian Open routinely, instead of skipping it routinely as they had
in the 70s and 80s. Also, even if Sampras were counted as two players
to reflect his outsized slam total, we would still be short three 6+
players. Pete is not the cause of the missing champions.
II. What Happened? Equilibrium
It's simplistic and misleading to define the 1990s and beyond as an era
(or eras) of "clown." In fact, it has been an era of equilibrium.
Equilibrium in a system tends to reduce the extremes -- in the case of
tennis, the number of very high (and very low) achievers. We have fewer
6+ champions now because the relative equilibrium of the current era
has produced a type of parity that makes it less likely that any given
player will greatly exceed the performance of his peers.
For a detailed explanation of this phenomenon, I refer you to the book
"Full House" by Stephen Jay Gould, which uses the theory of system
equilibrium to explain why there were lots of .400 hitters in the
early, immature days of major league baseball, but fewer, and then none
at all, in the league's mature era. Hitters didn't become "worse";
rather, as the system matured it achieved a greater equilibrium among
all its elements (hitting, pitching, defense, strategy, etc.), making
it more difficult for one element to dominate another.
I am arguing that a sports system also can move from equilibrium to
disequilibrium. A single dramatic change can be sufficient. Baseball's
steroid craze in the 90s produced hitting and slugging statistics that
were markedly discontinuous with those of the previous decades. The
National Hockey League's expansion at the beginning of the 980s,
through the absorption of entire teams from the defunct World Hockey
Association, created the conditions for the explosive scoring and
incredible stats of the Gretzky/Lemieux era.
Grand slam tournament tennis in 1968 was pretty similar to grand slam
tournament tennis in 1948. The system had reached equilibrium. But over
the next 20 to 25 years, the sport underwent a series of drastic
changes that destabilized it and paved the way for the emergence of
large numbers of high achievers -- our 6+ champions. Here are some
examples:
Players
* Influx of pros
* Globalization of the sport
Rackets
* Disappearance of wood
* Rise and fall of metal
* Rise of composites
* Rise of large-head models
* Rise of wide-body frames
Surfaces
* Decline of grass
* Rise and fall of Har-Tru/green clay
* Rise and fall of carpet
* Rise of hard courts
Techniques
* Rise of two-handed backhand
* Rise and fall of heavy topspin
* Decline of serve-and-volley
* Rise of power hitting
Tournaments
* Rise and fall of WCT
* Decline and resurrection of Australian Open
* Venue and surface changes at U.S. Open
Preparation
* Spread of rigorous training
* Rise of coaches
As these changes rippled through the game in the open era, they were
assimilated at different rates and to different degrees by different
players. As a result, the game viewed as a system was very unstable.
The disequilibrium yielded more standout champs (and chumps too,
according to Gould's theory, though we often tend not to notice them
down there at the bottom of the ladder). When the major developments
had been incorporated into the game for a while, and the rate of change
diminished, tennis entered a period of relative equilibrium, making it
harder to excel. This was in the mid-1990s and beyond -- the era of the
missing champions.
III. Counterintuitive Conclusion
Most people in rst seem to hold the view that a relative dearth of top
champions makes it easier for a good player to become dominant and pad
his slam totals. Borg, Connors, and Mac had to contend with each other,
goes this line of reasoning -- who is Federer's challenger? However,
viewing tennis as a complex system rather than as a series of
disconnected battles between pairs of players yields the opposite
conclusion: it is *more difficult*, not less difficult, for a standout
champion to emerge in an era of equilibrium. Parity tends to suppress
extremes in performance, so Fed's success actually defies the odds. He
has become a 6+ champion in an era in which we might reasonably have
expected the 6+ champ to be extinct.
Joe Ramirez
David White
[snip]
> Most people in rst seem to hold the view that a relative dearth of top
> champions makes it easier for a good player to become dominant and pad
> his slam totals. Borg, Connors, and Mac had to contend with each
> other, goes this line of reasoning -- who is Federer's challenger?
> However, viewing tennis as a complex system rather than as a series of
> disconnected battles between pairs of players yields the opposite
> conclusion: it is *more difficult*, not less difficult, for a standout
> champion to emerge in an era of equilibrium. Parity tends to suppress
> extremes in performance, so Fed's success actually defies the odds. He
> has become a 6+ champion in an era in which we might reasonably have
> expected the 6+ champ to be extinct.
Oh my. In a nutshell, you appear to be arguing scientifically that Federer has actually
been _underrated_ so far, even by Hazel. He will frame your post and refer to it
constantly henceforth I expect.
David
Breeder
Yes. The above is just fucking stupid. It's fairly easy to discern the
exceptional players from the very good; you do so by "watching them"
and "knowing what to look for." Aside from Federer & Nadal, there
exists a dearth of players with both great tennis talent and great
mental strength. This is a fallow period, aside from those two. Yawn.
stephenj
> Note that the gap between 2003 (Fed) and 1990 (Agassi/Sampras) is more
> than twice as long as the typical five-year gap that recurs throughout
> the rest of the era. Also note that champions tend to launch in pairs,
> either in the same year or in adjacent years.
good insight.
> In the 1990s there were about 33% *more* slams available to
> be won than previously, because most of the top players entered the
> Australian Open routinely, instead of skipping it routinely as they had
> in the 70s and 80s. Also, even if Sampras were counted as two players
> to reflect his outsized slam total, we would still be short three 6+
> players. Pete is not the cause of the missing champions.
well-supported conclusion.
> II. What Happened? Equilibrium
>
> It's simplistic and misleading to define the 1990s and beyond as an era
> (or eras) of "clown." In fact, it has been an era of equilibrium.
> Equilibrium in a system tends to reduce the extremes -- in the case of
> tennis, the number of very high (and very low) achievers. We have fewer
> 6+ champions now because the relative equilibrium of the current era
> has produced a type of parity that makes it less likely that any given
> player will greatly exceed the performance of his peers.
Ok, but then why are the 6+ champs who have emerged better than average
amongst the 6+ guys? Agassi (8 slams) and Sampras (14 slams) both won
more slams than most of the other 6+ guys did. And Federer, with 7, will
surely join them.
So why is it that the decline in pairs had led to fewer champs, but
those fewer champs are exceptional even by champ standards?
> For a detailed explanation of this phenomenon, I refer you to the book
> "Full House" by Stephen Jay Gould, which uses the theory of system
> equilibrium to explain why there were lots of .400 hitters in the
> early, immature days of major league baseball, but fewer, and then none
> at all, in the league's mature era. Hitters didn't become "worse";
> rather, as the system matured it achieved a greater equilibrium among
> all its elements (hitting, pitching, defense, strategy, etc.), making
> it more difficult for one element to dominate another.
Yes, but to equal what we have now in tennis, we should have seen say
one .500 hitter (equal to Sampras or a federer) to replace three .400
hitters (becker, edberg, lendl). But of course we haven't seen that in
baseball. Baseball lost the three .400 hitters but didn't gain a .500
hitter.
--
"when i visited Aden before collectivization,
all the markets were full of fish product. After
collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared."
- Aleksandr Vassiliev, Soviet KGB official
josephm...@netzero.com
I am attempting to analyze and compare eras systematically, not
players. Federer's achievements are interesting because they are
unexpected, in view of the current equilibrium. They do not necessarily
make him "better" or "greater" than past champions. An inability to get
beyond head-butting one-on-one comparisons seems to be a curse of rst.
Joe Ramirez
David White
> David White wrote:
>>
>> Oh my. In a nutshell, you appear to be arguing scientifically that
>> Federer has actually been _underrated_ so far, even by Hazel. He
>> will frame your post and refer to it constantly henceforth I expect.
>>
>> David<<
>
> Yes. The above is just fucking stupid. It's fairly easy to discern the
> exceptional players from the very good; you do so by "watching them"
> and "knowing what to look for." Aside from Federer & Nadal, there
> exists a dearth of players with both great tennis talent and great
> mental strength. This is a fallow period, aside from those two. Yawn.
I'm not so sure. Statistically it's highly unlikely that the entire tour bar one or two
players will be hopeless all at the same time compared with a decade earlier. It's the
opposite of stephenj's nonsense contention that Steffi Graf would have been cannon fodder
for today's "big babes". You are just as unlikely to get a fall in standards across the
board as you are to get a rise. Humans haven't suddenly evolved to be relatively super
beings compared with a decade ago. Nor have they de-evolved to become worse.
David
Dave Hazelwood
Anybody with eyes and an open mind can see this for themselves. The field is
better and deeper than ever before and more equal meaning in the absence of
Fed you would have two or three times as many slam winners with fewer slams
than previous eras.
The fact that Fed can manage to dominate in such an era is truly remarkable.
Then again having seen all the greats play since Borg I can say that Fed is the
best I have ever seen. It's not even close. Not talking about records now but
just what I see with my own eyes. His game is so versatile. He relies on no one
particular strength like Sampras did with his serve. He can change his game
easily and almost instantaneously, something Nadal says is impossible for him.
Because of his versatility Fed has a more secure game and one which is easy
on his body and that means longevity. As he gets older he will be able to use
this to stay effective for longer. Much longer than a Nadal or a guy who relies
on a big serve.
Sure, somebody may come along down the road who will also rise above the
rest but even if they manage (unlikely) to equal Fed I can't see them
bettering him because Fed is about as good as a human being can get as a
tennis player.
I say in all seriousness that as great as Pete was, Federer is far better. This is
because while he does nothing in particular, he does it all very well.
Forget Nadal, he is a nice kid but not in the same league. Not even close.
Nadal is not versatile, can't change his game, can't hit anything useful except
top spin and is 100% reliant on his legs and therefore his longevity is short.
josephm...@netzero.com
Well, in addition to "watching them" and "knowing what to look for,"
and perhaps on occasion "getting up from the couch to go to the
bathroom," I also try "thinking" from time to time. But it's not
obligatory -- enjoy your yawns.
Joe Ramirez
David White
> David White wrote:
>>
>> Oh my. In a nutshell, you appear to be arguing scientifically that
>> Federer has actually been _underrated_ so far, even by Hazel. He
>> will frame your post and refer to it constantly henceforth I expect.
>>
>> David
>
> I am attempting to analyze and compare eras systematically, not
> players. Federer's achievements are interesting because they are
> unexpected, in view of the current equilibrium. They do not
> necessarily make him "better" or "greater" than past champions.
But that seems to be the unavoidable conclusion. You've argued that we are in a period of
equilibrium, so we are less likely to have a dominating player than in a period of change.
Yet Federer is dominating.
> An
> inability to get beyond head-butting one-on-one comparisons seems to
> be a curse of rst.
Well, I'm objective where Federer is concerned. He's good to watch, but it doesn't bother
me particularly if he loses.
David
Vari L. Cinicke
Enjoyed reading that. I will have to think about that and read Gould's
book -- in reverse order perhaps.
Cheers,
vc
Dave Hazelwood
Yeah right. All the newborns now playing in this generation somehow
had their genes stunted, their parents denied them meat to eat and
all the tennis schools decided to leave anyone with talent behind.
Far more likely is that with the huge amounts of money in the game
today there is far more talent being bred, raised and trained to play
top tennis than ever before and this is what has led to the "equilibrium"
mentioned in the subject post.
It is far far far far far more likely that Federer is just an anomaly, a once
in a lifetime truly great player than it is to believe the entire world of
tennis building ironically fell apart just for him.
As Wendy says ..... Get Real !
josephm...@netzero.com
First, Sampras is exceptional, but Agassi is not. His total is about
average for the 6+ group. Second, I don't know. I don't claim that my
analysis answers every question. I am looking mainly at the numbers of
high achievers, not relative levels of achievement within the group of
high achievers.
Still, there are many ways of considering the data. It may be, for
example, that the tennis system is capable of supporting no more than
about one 10+ slam champ per decade. I.e., Laver in the 60s, Borg in
the 70s, Sampras in the 90s, and Federer (probably) in the 00s. Lendl
would have completed the pattern in the 80s had he won his slam finals
at the rate normally expected of top champions.
> > For a detailed explanation of this phenomenon, I refer you to the book
> > "Full House" by Stephen Jay Gould, which uses the theory of system
> > equilibrium to explain why there were lots of .400 hitters in the
> > early, immature days of major league baseball, but fewer, and then none
> > at all, in the league's mature era. Hitters didn't become "worse";
> > rather, as the system matured it achieved a greater equilibrium among
> > all its elements (hitting, pitching, defense, strategy, etc.), making
> > it more difficult for one element to dominate another.
>
> Yes, but to equal what we have now in tennis, we should have seen say
> one .500 hitter (equal to Sampras or a federer) to replace three .400
> hitters (becker, edberg, lendl). But of course we haven't seen that in
> baseball. Baseball lost the three .400 hitters but didn't gain a .500
> hitter.
You are correct that the tennis system and the baseball system have not
responded identically to patterns of equilibrium and disequilibrium.
However, they are very different sports (the team vs. individual aspect
is probably enough to explain much). I think it's sufficient that both
sports *have responded.*
Joe Ramirez
ccrevival
As I said before, imagine if Fed never appeared: Hewitt, Safin,
Roddick, and Nadal would each be taking turns winning GS's (USO, AO, W,
and FO respectively, perhaps?) with no one exclusively dominating the
field, ie. parity. The main reason why the first three have had recent
problems is because Fed has completely demoralized them and/or forced
them to change their game against him, causing their fall in the ranks.
josephm...@netzero.com
While I do not want to get sucked into the "Federer vs. the world"
debate, I should state that Dave's argument here correctly identifies
an implicit premise of my analysis that I probably should have made
explicit: There are no *biological* (e.g., current players are weaker,
slower, or stupider than those of the past) or *social* (e.g.,
outstanding athletes are no longer going into tennis) reasons that
would explain the decline in the number of 6+ champions in recent men's
tennis. If anything, the biological and social factors (better
nutrition, more money) would seem to be conducive to the creation of
top champs. That is why we have to seek a systematic explanation, and
that's what I've tried to do.
Joe Ramirez
Sasidhar
But I think I can argue that the field's equilibrium was not first
broken by Federer but by Sampras. You are ignoring the fact that even
before Federer, Sampras threw a kink in your system by winning a
disproportionate number of slams.
If you split Sampras's mammoth 14 slams into two rough halves --- one
from 1990 - 1995 and another from 1995-2002 then I think you'll find
your HUGE GAP between 1990 and 2003 is not so big anymore.
So, sampras was the first one to break the ice - to put it crudely.
I DO think that depth of the field has increased since 1990's cuz of
the reasons you mentioned and I think both Sampras AND Federer are
amazing for dominating even under such "equilibrious" conditions.
However, I also think that this sort of dominance sort of precludes the
possible slams of some decent tennis players.
I mean with the absence of Federer you may have your 2 or more 6+ slam
winners -- with Roddick dominating Wimbledon, Roddick/Nadal/Hewitt
dominating US Open, and Nadal dominating French Open. So, you may get
your 6+ slam winners but that doesn't prove anything about the actual
field of players - since their own quality of game hasn't changed --
its just that someone better hasn't appeared.
For instance, if Laver dominated the Newcombe years, by continuing to
win THE Grand Slam because of his own brilliance then would that reduce
the worth of the field of players of that generation and of Newcombe?
Breeder
David White wrote:
> Breeder wrote:
> > David White wrote:
> >>
> >> Oh my. In a nutshell, you appear to be arguing scientifically that
> >> Federer has actually been _underrated_ so far, even by Hazel. He
> >> will frame your post and refer to it constantly henceforth I expect.
> >>
> >> David<<
> >
> > Yes. The above is just fucking stupid. It's fairly easy to discern the
> > exceptional players from the very good; you do so by "watching them"
> > and "knowing what to look for." Aside from Federer & Nadal, there
> > exists a dearth of players with both great tennis talent and great
> > mental strength. This is a fallow period, aside from those two. Yawn.
>
> I'm not so sure. Statistically it's highly unlikely that the entire tour bar one or two
> players will be hopeless all at the same time compared with a decade earlier.<<
Which of course was not my point. Right now we have a lot of "very
good" players, but very few "exceptional" players, or even "very, very
good" players.
Kermit The Frog
It's a shame we don't get more of these... Not that I agree or
disagree, but your opinion is thought out and well presented.
SFBay
I think your "equilibrium" is one case of a stable system. The opposite
example
of a "stable system" is one like the sampras era, and even more so the
current
Federer era where one dominates the field.
In a stable system, where there is no revolution of techniques,
surface, etc,
talent (which is orthogonal to the other factors) becomes the only
differentiator.
In a stable system, a truely exceptional player has the chance to
dominate the
field for a longer time -- for lack of the elements to disturb the
order.
-sfbay
HardCell
news:1143774264.0...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Most people in rst seem to hold the view that a relative dearth of top
> champions makes it easier for a good player to become dominant and pad
> his slam totals. Borg, Connors, and Mac had to contend with each other,
> goes this line of reasoning -- who is Federer's challenger? However,
> viewing tennis as a complex system rather than as a series of
> disconnected battles between pairs of players yields the opposite
> conclusion: it is *more difficult*, not less difficult, for a standout
> champion to emerge in an era of equilibrium.
Ahhh, but sometimes a good cigar is just a good cigar. And
all of the time, a clown is a clown is a clown. Take one very
gifted player and put him in a field mainly comprised of palookas
and chumps, and what do you have? Dominance, of course.
Roger's "Bum of the Day" club.
topspin
josephm...@netzero.com wrote:
> This is my first post since early November of 2004, but I've remained a
> regular reader of rst, and have been vastly entertained by the subtle
> and not-at-all-repetitious discussions of Federer, Sampras, Nadal,
> Borg, Graf, Seles, chips, chimps, goats, knives, clowns, etc. The
> reason for my de-lurk is to offer some observations on the relative
> strength of the current and recent past tennis eras.
Thanks for the post. Very interesting and thought-provoking. You are
undoubtedly right about the nature of the shocks to the tennis system.
A couple of observations:
Scale of scrutiny
If you increase your scale of scrutiny to 11+ slams (actually you could
say 9+), and your time period back a bit, and take Emerson out as an
outlier (because he didn't join the pro tour when that was the norm),
you get
Gonzalez 1948
Laver 1960 (gap =12 years)
Borg 1974 (gap =14 years)
Sampras 1990 (gap =16 years)
Federer 2003 (gap =13 years)
So maybe truly exceptional ;'championship winning' players arrive about
every 14 years, irrespective of shocks to the 'system'; Federer has
arrived exactly on schedule; the next oustanding player will arrive in
about 2017. And we have had 5 outstanding players since WW2 - but the
way they have demonstrated their oustanding ability has been affected
by the times in which they play.
When you down to 6+ you see perturbations (but see my comment
below)...what happens at 4+? I'm not suggesting anyone looks at it (!),
but it is a thought.
Sample size/period
Is there really a 'hole' after Sampras?.....the number of sample's and
time period is relatively short. So maybe a longer gap is the 'norm',
and the series analysis started an an exceptionally short interval
period. We will only know after a much longer period of time - by when
we will all be dead of avian flu (now that will affect the numbers!!),
or tennis will have changed so much again it won't be the same sport....
topspin
PS I might as well go for broke.....!
Tilden 1922
Budge 1937 (gap = 15 years)
Gonzalez 1948 (gap = 11 years)
David White
news:1143785755.8...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I'm not so sure. Statistically it's highly unlikely that the entire tour
bar one or two
> > players will be hopeless all at the same time compared with a decade
earlier.<<
>
> Which of course was not my point. Right now we have a lot of "very
> good" players, but very few "exceptional" players, or even "very, very
> good" players.
Maybe. I don't know. Statistically again, you'd expect roughly a certain
number of players of any given quality, with the frequency decreasing and
the relative deviation increasing as the quality increases. The small
numbers involved near the very top do mean that an anomaly there is not
particularly unlikely, though I'd be surprised if
lower-than-statistically-likely quality extended below the top five to ten
players.
As far as I can recall, in past eras even the no. 1 player regularly had
tough matches against much lower ranked players. Five-set matches at slams
in which a high seed scraped through, or even lost, against no. 20 or lower
weren't all that rare, except maybe on a surface on which the high-ranked
player had an obviously huge advantage. For as long as I can remember before
Federer, everyone seemed to agree that the standard on the men's side, even
down to below no. 100, was so high that the top seeds were vulnerable
against almost anyone if they weren't in pretty good form.
So, it would be interesting to look at the top players' results from _all_
matches during comparatively similar periods of their careers, because you'd
be measuring them against a good representation of the entire,
stable-quality field. You could then compare Federer with Nadal and Roddick
et al, and each of them with players of similar rank or achievements from
past eras and find out if, statistically at least, Federer is too good or
his closest rivals are below par or both.
David
stephenj
> stephenj wrote:
> Still, there are many ways of considering the data. It may be, for
> example, that the tennis system is capable of supporting no more than
> about one 10+ slam champ per decade. I.e., Laver in the 60s, Borg in
> the 70s, Sampras in the 90s, and Federer (probably) in the 00s. Lendl
> would have completed the pattern in the 80s had he won his slam finals
> at the rate normally expected of top champions.
Ok.
josephm...@netzero.com
> Interesting Post.
>
> But I think I can argue that the field's equilibrium was not first
> broken by Federer but by Sampras. You are ignoring the fact that even
> before Federer, Sampras threw a kink in your system by winning a
> disproportionate number of slams.
>
> If you split Sampras's mammoth 14 slams into two rough halves --- one
> from 1990 - 1995 and another from 1995-2002 then I think you'll find
> your HUGE GAP between 1990 and 2003 is not so big anymore.
I think I answered your objections about Sampras in my original post.
Pete's slam total was not the cause of the missing champions, and
splitting him in two is not the solution.
Also note that neither Sampras nor Federer "broke" equilibrium, which
is a systemic value that cannot be affected by a single player. It's
the result of maturity and stability in the system as a whole. Don't
confuse equilibrium with parity, which appears to be an effect of
equilibrium in the tennis case.
Finally, Sampras launched in the last part of the era of
disequilibrium, when significant changes were still being assimilated.
By my reckoning, equilibrium set in about the mid-1990s, which the same
time we first notice missing 6+ champs.
Joe Ramirez
josephm...@netzero.com
I don't disagree -- see my response to Jaros in this thread, where I'm
saying something similar about 10+ champs.
> When you down to 6+ you see perturbations (but see my comment
> below)...what happens at 4+? I'm not suggesting anyone looks at it (!),
> but it is a thought.
A weakness of my analysis is its lack of rigor in this regard. I think
that my choice of 6+ to define top champions accurately reflects the
collective subjective view of the tennis world -- it's the "common
sense" definition. However, someone would have to do more work to show
that the difference between winning six slams and winning fewer than
six is statistically significant before my conclusions could be
confirmed. But that someone will not be me. :)
Joe Ramirez
Dr. GroundAxe
When did tennis become a closed system?
topspin
I don't blame you! And I agree about the 6+ view.
Whisper
>
> Yeah right. All the newborns now playing in this generation somehow
> had their genes stunted, their parents denied them meat to eat and
> all the tennis schools decided to leave anyone with talent behind.
>
> Far more likely is that with the huge amounts of money in the game
> today there is far more talent being bred, raised and trained to play
> top tennis than ever before and this is what has led to the "equilibrium"
> mentioned in the subject post.
Far more money means no motive to bust a gut out there - people
criticize Hewitt/Roddick, but they are multi-millionaires living the
good life. You're theory is demolished in a couple seconds....
Whisper
True, but they aren't that great - mainly because there's too much money
in the game & competition is no longer life or death. Roddick makes
more money in 1 summer than Borg in his whole career, & he's won 1 slam....
Whisper
> While I do not want to get sucked into the "Federer vs. the world"
> debate, I should state that Dave's argument here correctly identifies
> an implicit premise of my analysis that I probably should have made
> explicit: There are no *biological* (e.g., current players are weaker,
> slower, or stupider than those of the past) or *social* (e.g.,
> outstanding athletes are no longer going into tennis) reasons that
> would explain the decline in the number of 6+ champions in recent men's
> tennis. If anything, the biological and social factors (better
> nutrition, more money) would seem to be conducive to the creation of
> top champs.
I think the exact opposite - even great natural talents like Gasquet are
very wealthy & they've won nothing. Where's the motivation to bust a
gut on the practice court 10 hrs/day when you have millions in the bank
& can bang hot chicks every day..?
Whisper
Yes, & Sampras clearly repressed many guys from great careers - eg
Courier would have career slam & about 8 total if no Sampras, Agassi
12-14....
josephm...@netzero.com
> Yes, & Sampras clearly repressed many guys from great careers - eg
> Courier would have career slam & about 8 total if no Sampras, Agassi
> 12-14....
Possibly true, but irrelevant to the system-wide phenomenon I've
described. I rebutted this argument in my original post, yet it won't
die. "No Sampras" means Courier becomes Agassi, Agassi becomes Sampras,
and the leftover slams are distributed among some "clowns." "No
Sampras" probably adds at most one net member to the 6+ group, so the
recent era remains three 6+ champs short. Sampras is not the
explanation.
Joe Ramirez
Whisper
Becker would also have 6 Wimbledons, Goran 4.....
Dr. GroundAxe
Fuck that. Donald Young is a millionaire and is yet to win a set on the
ATP tour.
coop-a-loop
facing 10th best from Country A (who probably wouldn't be in the draw
if more countries were involved). The likelihood of you getting upset
by Country B's best player is higher than if you were playing 10th best
from (AUS) or (USA).
Of course, when the Macs/Jimbos/Borgs played the best from the smaller
countries in the past, keep in mind those places were in infant stages.
It was like watching Dream Team basketball vs. the rest of the World
in 1992. Now with proper training, know-how, interest from more
people, the rest of the world has leveled the playing field. US
basketball team loses to Puerto Rico, LMAO. 20 years ago, that just
could not happen. It doesn't mean the USA won't win gold next time or
soon. But it's no longer a sure thing. Times are changing.
Level playing field is what has happened in tennis. Shows how special
you have to be (i.e. Federer) to be able to stand out. It might not
last too much longer, but it's impressive to have lasted even this
long. Nadal has been great as well, but we've seen recently how it is
just to get the two of them to meet. Nadal has been close enough to
the rest of the pack to keep it from happening. It'd be nice if he
could become the consistent rival instead of becoming more of a weekly
casualty going thru the mine field draws. Yes, the timing of their
injuries hasn't helped, either.
Hops
"Dr. GroundAxe" <grou...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:UO9Xf.45419
. Parity tends to suppress
>> extremes in performance, so Fed's success actually defies the odds. He
>> has become a 6+ champion in an era in which we might reasonably have
>> expected the 6+ champ to be extinct.
>
>
> When did tennis become a closed system?
Only four slams per year. Usual method of measuring greatness is slam wins
can only be measured in context of peers. If we cloned 20 Samprases and put
them all on the tour at the same time, they can't all win 14 slams.
Dr. GroundAxe
Is Federer the reason the likes of Nalbandian, Ljubicic, Davydenko and
Coria aren't winning slams? Their results suggest not.
Sasidhar
post :)
My apologies,
Sasidhar
Sasidhar
Safin, Hewitt, and Nadal aren't winning as many slams :)
Habib
> No... its the reason - they aren't getting a chance -- while Roddick,
> Safin, Hewitt, and Nadal aren't winning as many slams :)
Bingo - throw Agassi into that mix, incidentally. :-)
cos...@gmail.com
sport evolved. My arguments against that is that first of all your
sample size is not long enough (at least for tennis). What if Fed
suppresses 6+ champs for the 2000s, then another champ does the same in
the 2010 decade, etc, etc. Then this latter pattern would be more
evident than the earlier pattern of having 6+ champs.
Also, comparison with baseball or basketball does not work since they
are team sports so they have many more variables that affect the
equilibrium.
CZ
Habib
> Also, comparison with baseball or basketball does not work since they
> are team sports so they have many more variables that affect the
> equilibrium.
I don't know that I agree with this. After all, the roles in a team
sport, especially baseball, are very specific and defined. A first
baseman does this, a pitcher does that, a shortstop does this, etc...
As such, a baseball "team" can be seen as a sum of its parts, much like
a tennis player.
The equilibrium will develop through the alternating evolution of it's
multiple parts. First, for example, let's say players start working
mainly on hitting very well, since offense is generally the most
enjoyable and most directly rewarding part of any sport. Over time, the
individual defensive players will develop increasingly better skills to
cope with this superior firepower. Defensive players might get faster -
to track down more balls; stronger - allowing them to throw faster and
for more distance, perhaps reducing would-be triples to doubles, and
doubles to singles. Or, for another possibility, development of
advanced tactics could come next instead, to help the inferior defenses
deal with the hitters through better preparation and awareness. The
evolution of these different facets would come, for the most part, in
spurts, and rarely simultaneously. Look at basketball today - virtually
everyone can dunk and display some pretty spectacular one-on-one
offensive talent. But coaches can't count on any but a hand-full of
players to shoot a decent free-throw or three-pointer. So perhaps the
next step of the basketball evolution is a rise of long-distance
marksmen, who would complete a MUCH more balanced offense, and pose a
huge problem for many of today's defenses - potentially causing them to
evolve new tactics. And so on, and so forth.
Tennis is an individual sport, but comprised of a number of facets.
Shotmaking, endurance, speed, power, control, groundstrokes,
volleys,serves, backhands, forehands, even equipment technology,
etc...the list descends on and on into finer and finer details. These
things evolve in very spurts which are more than comparable to those we
observe in team sports. For one example, the 90's saw the evolution of
the serve - perhaps the second such evolution, the first being when it
began to be used as an offensive weapon - into a match-altering, if not
sport-altering, facet of the game. Player's began cracking the 120mph
barrier - a barrier which, nowadays, is considered a pretty good speed.
Pretty good. What began happening towards the late-90s, and continues
today? The evolution of the serve return. Players like Hewitt, Safin,
Federer, Nalbandian, etc..., who can get even the biggest of serves
back into play. As technology improved in the 90's, players began to
hit harder in general, the result? Players today are fitter and faster
in order to chase down said shots. Certainly, you can argue that as a
result of these alternating improvements, all aspects of tennis improve
in each era. And this, I would argue, is true to an extent. However,
certain periods till become well-known for a particular advancement -
or a particular regression. The 90's will likely be known more for the
rise of the big serve, whereas the late 90's-to-early-00's will be
known for the rise of the big hitters and regression of variety. Again,
not because players can't play a varied game, but because they're not
taught it because the big-hitting game is so effective.
To me, this, as I've mentioned before, is one reason I think the label
of 'clown era' for today's field is inaccurate. Many of these clowns
would likely blow many of the 90's all-court, mentally-strong (going by
HC's definition) non-clowns right the hell off the court. Chang would
probably take one look at Gonzalez's 100mph forehand, unleashed against
Federer *down the line* at last year's Wimbledon, and piss himself near
to drowning.
Sasidhar
game.
However, I think that's also the reason that Federer is so *special*,
because he is showing that variety is also useful if used in the right
doses.
Mikko Ämmälä
It has not changed since era of Pancho Gonzales who had dozens of luxury
cars and one palace-like mansion...
And of course remember inflation...
.mikko
Habib
Sasidhar wrote:
> However, I think that's also the reason that Federer is so *special*,
> because he is showing that variety is also useful if used in the right
> doses.
Well, yes, of course. The truly great players, who win the
afore-mentioned 6+ slams, generally are better than the rest of the
field at something. Sampras had the huge serve and humongous forehand,
not to mention the great movement, and fantastic net skills later on in
his career. Mac is considered perhaps the most talented volleyer of all
time, and had a great serve for his day as well, etc...
Dave Hazelwood
i think macs serve was very underrated. i think mac was a far better
player than sampras. too bad he was a bit of a loon. but then again
that is what made mac mac.
Hops
> Whisper wrote:
>> ccrevival wrote:
>>
>>> Wow, good post!
>>>
>>> As I said before, imagine if Fed never appeared: Hewitt, Safin,
>>> Roddick, and Nadal would each be taking turns winning GS's (USO, AO, W,
>>> and FO respectively, perhaps?) with no one exclusively dominating the
>>> field, ie. parity. The main reason why the first three have had recent
>>> problems is because Fed has completely demoralized them and/or forced
>>> them to change their game against him, causing their fall in the ranks.
>>>
>>
>>
>> True, but they aren't that great - mainly because there's too much money
>> in the game & competition is no longer life or death. Roddick makes more
>> money in 1 summer than Borg in his whole career, & he's won 1 slam....
right, Agassi never let money and the trappings of fame affect his
dedication ... players should be more like Gerulaitis was in the old days.
'Vitas, come to the party with us'
'No, tennis is life and death. I must practice, sorry'.
Whisper
>
> To me, this, as I've mentioned before, is one reason I think the label
> of 'clown era' for today's field is inaccurate.
You have mentioned it, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Many of these clowns
> would likely blow many of the 90's all-court, mentally-strong (going by
> HC's definition) non-clowns right the hell off the court. Chang would
> probably take one look at Gonzalez's 100mph forehand, unleashed against
> Federer *down the line* at last year's Wimbledon, and piss himself near
> to drowning.
>
So why is Agassi competing for blue-chip slams v Federer & almost
beating him at 36, yet never came as close v Sampras when he was younger...?
Whisper
Variety? With sub-par volleying/net skills...?
Whatever...
Dave Hazelwood
Agassi beat Sampras 14 times. Agassi hasn't beat Fed in 4 years ! Agassi has
NEVER beat Fed at his peak. Agassi beat Sampras all the time at his peak.
Conclusion:
Agassi beat peak Sampras 41% of the time.
Agassi has NEVER beat peak Fed.
Habib
> > would likely blow many of the 90's all-court, mentally-strong (going by
> > HC's definition) non-clowns right the hell off the court. Chang would
> > probably take one look at Gonzalez's 100mph forehand, unleashed against
> > Federer *down the line* at last year's Wimbledon, and piss himself near
> > to drowning.
> >
>
>
> So why is Agassi competing for blue-chip slams v Federer & almost
> beating him at 36, yet never came as close v Sampras when he was younger...?
Almost beating? You are one biased son of a bitch. Going down a set is
far from 'almost losing,' and Federer wasn't even playing well in the
beginning while Agassi was playing as well as he possibly could. Once
Fed hit his stride he made Andre look like Yzaga.
Mikko Ämmälä
> ccrevival wrote:
>
>> Wow, good post!
>>
>> As I said before, imagine if Fed never appeared: Hewitt, Safin,
>> Roddick, and Nadal would each be taking turns winning GS's (USO, AO, W,
>> and FO respectively, perhaps?) with no one exclusively dominating the
>> field, ie. parity. The main reason why the first three have had recent
>> problems is because Fed has completely demoralized them and/or forced
>> them to change their game against him, causing their fall in the ranks.
>>
>
>
> True, but they aren't that great - mainly because there's too much money
> in the game & competition is no longer life or death.
Competition in tennis has never been life or death.
Until Connors generation (blue collar tennis) came the top players were
usually from wealthy families.
.mikko
topspin
Mikko, Usually you are pretty accurate with your tennis history, but
I'm not so sure you are right here.
Just off the top of my head - Perry, Gonzalez, Hoad, Rosewall, Laver,
in fact most of the amateur Australians, Althea Gibson, Arthur Ashe,
Goolagong... all came from modest backgrounds. The thing about Connors
was that he brought a blue-collar *attitude* very clearly into the
game, and did not adopt the accepted *middle class* attitudes that were
the norm. Previous generations, like Laver, accepted the prevalent
attitudes.
I think it was more to do with societal changes generally in the 70s.
Whisper
Agassi led Fed in USO final 3-6 6-2 4-2 & had game point for 5-2 - + the
yr before it took Fed 6-3 in the 5th to squeaze past him... hardly
controversial? Unless you subscribe to the Dias theory of 'coasting'...?
arnab.z@gmail
Whisper wrote:
> Habib wrote:
> >> Many of these clowns
> >>
> >>>would likely blow many of the 90's all-court, mentally-strong (going by
> >>>HC's definition) non-clowns right the hell off the court. Chang would
> >>>probably take one look at Gonzalez's 100mph forehand, unleashed against
> >>>Federer *down the line* at last year's Wimbledon, and piss himself near
> >>>to drowning.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>So why is Agassi competing for blue-chip slams v Federer & almost
> >>beating him at 36, yet never came as close v Sampras when he was younger...?
> >
> >
> > Almost beating? You are one biased son of a bitch. Going down a set is
> > far from 'almost losing,' and Federer wasn't even playing well in the
> > beginning while Agassi was playing as well as he possibly could. Once
> > Fed hit his stride he made Andre look like Yzaga.
> >
>
>
>
> Agassi led Fed in USO final 3-6 6-2 4-2 & had game point for 5-2 -
That's does not qualify for "almost beating". It was a five-setter
final. Agassi was at least more than 1 and a half sets away from
beating Fed.
You can say Nadal was almost beating Fed in Miami 2005. That qualifies.
> + the
> yr before it took Fed 6-3 in the 5th to squeaze past him... hardly
> controversial?
It was a wind-affected match that hurt both of their natural games.
Plus it was played over two days. Fed was up 2 sets to 1 in the night
before. It was extremely windy the next morning and they split the last
two sets. The gusts were so strong that they were struggling to keep
the ball in play, let alone play their natural shots. Hardly anything
conclusive can be drawn from this kind of an abnormal match.
Whisper
> Whisper wrote:
>
>>
>>Agassi led Fed in USO final 3-6 6-2 4-2 & had game point for 5-2 -
>
>
> That's does not qualify for "almost beating". It was a five-setter
> final. Agassi was at least more than 1 and a half sets away from
> beating Fed.
>
er, I think most players would consider being in deep shit at that point....
> You can say Nadal was almost beating Fed in Miami 2005. That qualifies.
>
>
>>+ the
>>yr before it took Fed 6-3 in the 5th to squeaze past him... hardly
>>controversial?
>
>
> It was a wind-affected match that hurt both of their natural games.
> Plus it was played over two days. Fed was up 2 sets to 1 in the night
> before.
6-3 2-6 7-5 - Agassi almost won that 3rd set....
> It was extremely windy the next morning and they split the last
> two sets. The gusts were so strong that they were struggling to keep
> the ball in play, let alone play their natural shots. Hardly anything
> conclusive can be drawn from this kind of an abnormal match.
>
Sure 1 match doesn't say much, but 2 in a row at USO when Fed is at peak
& Agassi 35....? C'mon, just be happy the right player won - nothing
conclusive about either match....
Mikko Ämmälä
> Mikko Ämmälä wrote:
>
>>Whisper wrote:
>>
>>>ccrevival wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Wow, good post!
>>>>
>>>>As I said before, imagine if Fed never appeared: Hewitt, Safin,
>>>>Roddick, and Nadal would each be taking turns winning GS's (USO, AO, W,
>>>>and FO respectively, perhaps?) with no one exclusively dominating the
>>>>field, ie. parity. The main reason why the first three have had recent
>>>>problems is because Fed has completely demoralized them and/or forced
>>>>them to change their game against him, causing their fall in the ranks.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>True, but they aren't that great - mainly because there's too much money
>>>in the game & competition is no longer life or death.
>>
>>Competition in tennis has never been life or death.
>>
>>Until Connors generation (blue collar tennis) came the top players were
>>usually from wealthy families.
>
>
> Mikko, Usually you are pretty accurate with your tennis history, but
> I'm not so sure you are right here.
It was not possible to fly all over the world participating amateur
tournaments without background financial support as there was no prize
money nor sponsorships.
It is of course relative, but tennis was definitely high-class sport
until 70:ies.
.mikko
Mikko Ämmälä
Connors at age of 37 sent Edberg home at USO 1989 with total routing:
2 6 3 6 1 6
Sometimes an old geek can do it...
Or can we draw conclusions that Borg would have still been a king until
90:ies as he always routed Connors?
.mikko
Dave Hazelwood
>Or can we draw conclusions that Borg would have still been a king until
>90:ies as he always routed Connors?
>
>.mikko
Borg was the best really (at least till Federer).
Shame he quit. I still could cry over it.
Had he not, he would have overcome Mac I am sure, and went
on to win many many more slams.
We tennis fans were the losers because another few years of
Borg/McEnroe would have been truly great for tennis no matter
who you were rooting for.
It was the greatest rivalry ever but far too short.
Habib
only was Agassi playing out of his mind (his last USO run was
unbelievable tennis), but where, once Federer stopped tra-la-laing
around the court, he destroyed him in the final sets. The USO match of
2004 is a stupid example because, as has been pointed out, it wasn't a
tennis match. It was a 'keep the ball in the court' match.
If I wanted to bring a simimilarly unusable comparative example, I
could say near-peak Sampras was destroyed by a green Safin at 2000 USO
final. Clearly, considering how Safin is doing nowadays, Sampras played
in a clown era, since Safin got flattened by freakin Jarko Niemenen.
It's scary to think what Niemenen would do to Sampras!!
Incidentally, in 2002 Sampras was a set down to Jarkko at the Miami
TMS. As that was a best of 3 match, it must be accurate to say Jarkko
almost won that one.
Whisper
>>
>>> It was extremely windy the next morning and they split the last
>>> two sets. The gusts were so strong that they were struggling to keep
>>> the ball in play, let alone play their natural shots. Hardly anything
>>> conclusive can be drawn from this kind of an abnormal match.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Sure 1 match doesn't say much, but 2 in a row at USO when Fed is at
>> peak & Agassi 35....? C'mon, just be happy the right player won -
>> nothing conclusive about either match....
>
>
> Connors at age of 37 sent Edberg home at USO 1989 with total routing:
> 2 6 3 6 1 6
>
> Sometimes an old geek can do it...
Yes, that's why I said 2 straight matches in same slam....
>
> Or can we draw conclusions that Borg would have still been a king until
> 90:ies as he always routed Connors?
>
The overriding fact is Mac had thumped Borg last 2 USOs, & last 3 slam
finals....
Sasidhar
above par.
And variety is not just about volleying, he uses the slice backhand
more effectively than anyone else I have ever seen. He varies length
of groundstrokes - his drop shot is excellent -- I could go on and on.
Essentially, no holes. If you had seen the last couple of tournaments,
he seems to be volleying really well now. Just hope he can keep it up.
ccrevival
and is truly pathetic that he is reduced to playing semantic games.
Recently, he's been caught describing Pete's 4 set USO win against Haas
as "smashed" and his 4 set W win over Rafter as "comprehensively
beaten". And yet he keeps bringing up Fed "almost losing" to Agassi at
the USO!?!?
This coming from a guy who bases his entire existence here on who has
won more GS's!?!?
Again, pathetic and hypocritical.
Mikko Ämmälä
Indeed. We just cannot draw conclusions from single matchups...
.mikko
Dave Hazelwood
He didn't fucking "thump" anybody you twit.
Jesper Lauridsen
>The overriding fact is Mac had thumped Borg last 2 USOs, & last 3 slam
>finals....
Those 3 matches were a 5-setter, and two 4-setters where Borg won the
first set. By your own Agassi - Federer standard, Mac was in deep shit,
almost beaten by Borg.