The paradox i have is this :
Whenever a player dominates an 'era' there is a school of thought that their opponents are not good enough and are of inferior quality than the previous generations. Yet, could it be that the player dominating is just so good that he makes them look not good enough and doesn't give them opportunties?
Conversely, we say era's were harder because there were more players who won a grand slam or were contending. But is that because they were actually good players or there was no freakishly good talent who was able to dominate them?
This is highlighted by the Sampras vs Federer debate. You find people who say ... well Sampras played Edberg, Courier, Becker, Agassi etc ... therefore had tougher opposition because they won heaps of slams. But could it be that Sampras wasn't good enough to utterly dominate them and therefore they tasted more success? Maybe he had more weaknesses to exploit and take advantage off and thus was beaten more often than not?
The flip, we say Federer's generation is weaker as he had only Roddick, Safin, Nadal, Murray, Nole, Davy, Nalbadian, Hewitt etc to deal with none (bar Nadal) who have won more than 2 Grand Slams. However, is it because they weren't good enough or Federer makes them look second rate because he so consisently good and seemingly has no 'real' weakness (bar troubles against Rafa).
Would Nadal/Murray/Nole won majors in the Sampras era? Would Federer have won 16? Would Agassi have won any had he played in Federer's era?
Haven't put a lot of thought into it ... but always an arguement either way... just an interesting conundrum in my head.
Whenever a player dominates an 'era' there is a school of thought that their opponents are not good enough and are of inferior quality than the previous generations. Yet, could it be that the player dominating is just so good that he makes them look not good enough and doesn't give them opportunties?
Conversely, we say era's were harder because there were more players who won a grand slam or were contending. But is that because they were actually good players or there was no freakishly good talent who was able to dominate them?
This is highlighted by the Sampras vs Federer debate. You find people who say ... well Sampras played Edberg, Courier, Becker, Agassi etc ... therefore had tougher opposition because they won heaps of slams. But could it be that Sampras wasn't good enough to utterly dominate them and therefore they tasted more success? Maybe he had more weaknesses to exploit and take advantage off and thus was beaten more often than not?
The flip, we say Federer's generation is weaker as he had only Roddick, Safin, Nadal, Murray, Nole, Davy, Nalbadian, Hewitt etc to deal with none (bar Nadal) who have won more than 2 Grand Slams. However, is it because they weren't good enough or Federer makes them look second rate because he so consisently good and seemingly has no 'real' weakness (bar troubles against Rafa).
Would Nadal/Murray/Nole won majors in the Sampras era? Would Federer have won 16? Would Agassi have won any had he played in Federer's era?
Haven't put a lot of thought into it ... but always an arguement either way... just an interesting conundrum in my head.
