If they were in that generation, the only one that couldn't 'continue winning' was Roger, because he never would've started winning. And Andy of course, but he's irrelevant
Why did I make this thread? because fans, such as Nadal or Djokovic, always says. The Roger Federer era did not have competition and weak. Since there was competition now, it became impossible for Roger Federer to win. Although present Roger is already old and decline.
However, even turned 30 years old, old weak Roger Federer is continuing taking a title. I do not understand truly.
Nadal "Sampras, Ivanisevic match. or one between those kind of players, is not enjoyable. It's not really tennis. it is a few swings of the racquet. For me in the past it was just serve. serve". arrogance.
clay excluded. successive win 0. If grass and a hard are fast. Like Sampras era. Nadal is able to win only with clay. power of defense and muscles. boring ugly. All the surface is slow now.
fake time-out. cheat. gamesmanship. too noisy annoying always. excuse. boycotts threatened. always dissatisfaction cry complaints. dissatisfaction to schedule. selfish two-year ranking. bump to player. ugly protest. always exaggerated appeal of self condition. etc. overrated by fanatic arrogant blind fan