Convenient that the "strong" era started when your favourite player began to win more majors, isn't it?
I'm getting fed up with this bullshit. "Weak" this, "strong" that: Jesus fucking Christ, it sounds so idiotic.
Incidentally, how can 2003-2008 be considered "weak" when one of the best players of all time was playing at his peak? Seems like this very factor is enough to make it special.
it`s stupid with this tards trying to talk abut tennis.
if federer is a weak era champion , this era is real cracp , because this weak era champion or goat was nļ1 in this era , and is nļ2 too , won slams , masters cup and all the titles in this era too.
he won more slams than murray since 2008 to now and one or two less than djoko.
old federer and past his peak was the only who could puts harder the thing for 2011 djoko and the last year h2h was 3-2 for djoko , only one match against an old federer......
federer without nadal and with only nole and murray like main rival would have more than 18 slams for sure and much more weak iin nļ1.
murray is not even better than safin or hewitt.