Don't think that necessarily means a weak era. If Ferrer was the 4th best player on tour, then it'd be the weakest era of all-time for sure, I wouldn't even watch tennis if the sport had such a dire lack of talent.
But everyone knows that's not the case, he's not even among the 10 best players.
Idiotic post. Ferrer is the 4th best player in the world when taking into account the whole year and that is it. He is more consistent than players with more talent than him and there are no questions about that.
At least he has no slam, unlike a billion clowns fluking slams left and right in the 90s/early 2000's. Krajicek and Flukenisevic both winning wimbledon is a much bigger atrocity than Ferrer as the 4th seed.
Absolutely. 90s was the weakest era ever. Cedric Pioline in slam finals? LOL. Michael Chang in the final of a hard court slam? You want weak, look at the draws Sampras had for most of his GS wins. Complete joke of draws. Who actually could play in the 90s? Drugged up Agassi? Aging Becker? Rafter? The top 3 we have now is far better than any of those.
Krajicek and Ivanisevic are far more talented player than Ferrer. Their serves alone are worth more than Ferrer's entire 'game'. They won Slams because they had the weapons to beat the best players of their era in the super fast grass of Wimbledon, it's far from an atrocity.
More stupidity from you. The talent those guys had was being tall. That's it. The serve bots of the 90s like Ivanisevic would be easily beaten by the serve bots we have now like Karlovic, Isner and Raonic. Just thankfully the game has moved away from all-serve game and these days you need rallying skills to get somewhere. Karlovic, Isner and Raonic would all be multiple GS champions in the joke era that was the 90s.