When did the "Strong Era" start? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

When did the "Strong Era" start?

jonathancrane
04-26-2009, 11:08 PM
When did the "Strong Era" start?

Discuss

NadalSharapova
04-26-2009, 11:10 PM
2005 on clay and 2008 overall

moon language
04-26-2009, 11:15 PM
No clear point obviously. Things started looking interesting in 2007.

prima donna
04-26-2009, 11:17 PM
This thread is intended as a spoof, right ?

jonathancrane
04-26-2009, 11:21 PM
2005 on clay and 2008 overall

:worship:

Bazooka
04-26-2009, 11:41 PM
No clear line separates both. We had one very strong player in 2004, another one developed from 2005, and now that it looks like there are 3-4 it's clear that winning a slam has a high cost. Much more than in 2002, aged Sampras would have never won the USO with today's top players.

finishingmove
04-26-2009, 11:46 PM
i would say last year, with the start of murray's breakthrough.

he'll probably win a slam soon and establish himself in the new top 3 with djokovic & nadal.

LinkMage
04-26-2009, 11:54 PM
When Federer started losing.

Up until then it was the weakest era ever and Frauderer could only win because he faced utter clowns like one Slam wonder Roddick, and 2 time Slam wonders Hewitt and Safin.

Instead now it's the strongest era ever which is why Frauderer can't win anymore and we have multiple Slam winners like Djokovic and Murray. Not to mention we have real Spartans like Del Potro, Simon and Monfils in the top 10. :worship:

leng jai
04-26-2009, 11:55 PM
When did Haas play his first ATP tour match? Theres your answer.

MalwareDie
04-27-2009, 12:00 AM
This is a load of bs. The current Top 10 is the weakest Top 10 ever and this era overall is pathetically weak. Federer dominated a stronger field back then and that wasn't a strong era either.

fast_clay
04-27-2009, 12:05 AM
when ken rosewall showed us how to play tennis in 1955...

LinkMage
04-27-2009, 12:06 AM
This is a load of bs. The current Top 10 is the weakest Top 10 ever and this era overall is pathetically weak. Federer dominated a stronger field back then and that wasn't a strong era either.


What are you talking about? :confused:

Frauderer is playing the best tennis of his carrer right now but can't win a title to save his life nowadays. He was very lucky that he played in the weakest era ever or he would be slamless right now. Rafito is very unlucky, if he played in Fed's era he would have 20 Slams by now including 4 consecutive calendar Grand Slams. :worship:


VAMOS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :rocker2:

Har-Tru
04-27-2009, 12:10 AM
when ken rosewall showed us how to play tennis in 1955...

hear, hear.

Har-Tru
04-27-2009, 12:11 AM
anyway the strong era started when Nadal started challeging Fed and was strengthened when Djokovic and Murray arrived at the top.

Bazooka
04-27-2009, 12:14 AM
Strong era:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/5/en/rankings/entrysystem/default.asp?showall=0&RankDate=6%2F17%2F1991&country=&rank=100&image1.x=18&image1.y=9

Weak era:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/5/en/rankings/entrysystem/default.asp?showall=0&RankDate=9%2F15%2F2003&country=&rank=100&image1.x=20&image1.y=11

I would rate the current era as average.

Winners take all
04-27-2009, 12:14 AM
It's 2008, however, not because of Nadal's no.1 spot but because that year marks the first time Djoker won a slam.

moon language
04-27-2009, 12:36 AM
Strong era:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/5/en/rankings/entrysystem/default.asp?showall=0&RankDate=6%2F17%2F1991&country=&rank=100&image1.x=18&image1.y=9

Weak era:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/5/en/rankings/entrysystem/default.asp?showall=0&RankDate=9%2F15%2F2003&country=&rank=100&image1.x=20&image1.y=11

I would rate the current era as average.

Those are good examples. I didn't realize the atp site had that feature, pretty cool.

thrust
04-27-2009, 12:37 AM
The strong era ended about 2000, we are still in a weak era, though a bit stronger the last two years. If Federer rebounds, and/or Murray and Nole improve a bit more we will have a strong era. Right now Nadal is the top man. The others must imporve in order to threaten him. Tsonga also seems to have the ability to win major tournaments and Slams when he is healthy and in the right frame of mind. Gasquet seems to be a lost cause, however, if he really tried he could be a serious contender again. Whenever one player totally dominates, like Roger did for a few years, that is a weak era. Sampras never totally dominated neither did Laver except, for 1969

Rafattack
04-27-2009, 12:47 AM
The strong era began as soon as Djokovic, Murray and Nadal emerged. However, 2008 was namely the year in which the 'strong era' really inflicted their dominance on the game, with achievements such as Wimbledon 2008 for Nadal and the USO semi final for Murray. Such dominance of this new strong era has only continued into 2009 with Murray's impressive form, Nadal's success down under in combination with a string of 'surprise' losses for Federer. Federer's dominance was in a weak era; his 13 GS's were because of 50% skill and 50% luck. Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, etc; don't make me laugh!

finishingmove
04-27-2009, 12:55 AM
mug era

http://i43.tinypic.com/5fn3gp.jpg

Thanos
04-27-2009, 01:05 AM
strong era died in 92


RIP

heartbroken
04-27-2009, 01:59 AM
Strong era:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/5/en/rankings/entrysystem/default.asp?showall=0&RankDate=6%2F17%2F1991&country=&rank=100&image1.x=18&image1.y=9

Weak era:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/5/en/rankings/entrysystem/default.asp?showall=0&RankDate=9%2F15%2F2003&country=&rank=100&image1.x=20&image1.y=11

I would rate the current era as average.

Good examples.

It will be easier to judge the present a few years down the road. Things we don't know at this point:

-Will Federer win more slams?
-Will Nadal get into the upper echelon in tennis history?
-Will Murray and Djokovic fulfill expectations?
-Who else currently in the top 10 or 20 might surprise us down the road?

Forehander
04-27-2009, 02:43 AM
er... Obviously when Roger Federer stepped it up at the end of 2003?

rocketassist
04-27-2009, 02:44 AM
The 1990s.

Debate over.

FedFan_2007
04-27-2009, 03:02 AM
What's amazing is that Nadal will become GOAT before turning 25.

Henry Kaspar
04-27-2009, 03:04 AM
No clear point obviously. Things started looking interesting in 2007.

Suscribed.

leng jai
04-27-2009, 03:57 AM
What's amazing is that Nadal will become GOAT before turning 25.

Suscribed.

robiht
04-27-2009, 04:06 AM
2008 Aug-Sept:
Top4:Nadal,Federer,Djoko,Murray
+4:Tsonga,Simon,Verdasco,Del Potro

I hope someone will join in the Top4.But i don't know who...

Best Era ever:The 1990's
Edberg,Becker,Lendl,Courier,Agassi,Sampras, Wilander,Chang,Ivanisevic,Muster etc...

Stephan
04-27-2009, 04:07 AM
http://www.tennis.com/uploadedImages/Editorial/General/2009_03_31_greatest1.jpg

http://www.tennis.com/uploadedImages/Editorial/General/2009_03_31_greatest2.jpg


http://img2.menstennisforums.com/511/Andre_Gen.jpg


it is already old topic, fans....

FedFan_2007
04-27-2009, 04:13 AM
Stephan - your "analysis" is bogus. In 1992 Sampras and Agassi only had 2 slam wins combined at year end. So the actual 1992 total = 25, not 50.

BaselineSmash
04-27-2009, 04:17 AM
http://www.tennis.com/uploadedImages/Editorial/General/2009_03_31_greatest2.jpg


http://img2.menstennisforums.com/511/Andre_Gen.jpg


it is already old topic, fans....

This isn't legitimate until we find out what the current generation(s) has in store. Within ten years, Murray and Tsonga (with Del Po as an outside bet) could have racked up some majors, thus strengthening the retrospective clout of 2008's top ten. The future is not yet written, and it's too early to bring in 2008 with this kind of comparative criteria.

Stephan
04-27-2009, 04:22 AM
Stephan - your "analysis" is bogus. In 1992 Sampras and Agassi only had 2 slam wins combined at year end. So the actual 1992 total = 25, not 50.

it is not mine "analysis", look on voting number...:)

DartMarcus
04-27-2009, 05:40 AM
2009 july: King Hernandez wins WImbledon
Thats the start of Strong era.

ORGASMATRON
04-27-2009, 06:08 AM
[X]There is no such thing.

Commander Data
04-27-2009, 10:06 AM
When did the "Strong Era" start?

Discuss

When Federer started losing. The fedhaters define weak era as the time when Fed was winning.

ORGASMATRON
04-27-2009, 10:18 AM
When Federer started losing. The fedhaters define weak era as the time when Fed was winning.

Yes its a shame greatness is defined by the amount of haters you have, but it has always been that way.

The genius of Roger Federer.

Commander Data
04-27-2009, 10:25 AM
The genius of Roger Federer.

:worship::worship::worship:

Bazooka
04-27-2009, 10:47 AM
When Federer started losing. The fedhaters define weak era as the time when Fed was winning.

I don't deny Federer is a genious and a monster (or was), however, try to make a list of the truly great players he dominated and denied of greatness. The best result you get is Roddick, because others didn't really play consistently enough to have a win/loss over 70%. Now there are 3 guys with consistency (close to 80%) and all of them are very dangerous to Roger.

This proves nothing, but get your own conclusions... :rolleyes:

vamosinator
04-27-2009, 11:10 AM
This era is going to get weaker as Federer, Murray and Djokovic get older, they look injury prone so we'll have a period where Nadal is the only contender for slams with no threat in sight:o

Bazooka
04-27-2009, 11:52 AM
This era is going to get weaker as Federer, Murray and Djokovic get older, they look injury prone so we'll have a period where Nadal is the only contender for slams with no threat in sight:o

huh? Murray and Djokovic will get older than Nadal? Will get injured more than him? :confused:

Commander Data
04-27-2009, 12:32 PM
I don't deny Federer is a genious and a monster (or was), however, try to make a list of the truly great players he dominated and denied of greatness. The best result you get is Roddick, because others didn't really play consistently enough to have a win/loss over 70%. Now there are 3 guys with consistency (close to 80%) and all of them are very dangerous to Roger.

This proves nothing, but get your own conclusions... :rolleyes:

Well, firstly that isn't Rogers fault.

Secondly, it is impossible to know how he would have reacted had he faced stronger players. Maybe he would have played better himself and still dominated.

Thirdly, I don't think the fact that now there are three players with consistency close to 80 % necesseraly implies the era is stronger. It just means that three guys have seperated themself considerably from the rest in terms of consistency. Could also be because the rest of the field is weaker now then 4 years ago.

And who knows how players would have played if Roger wouldn't have them crushed in 2004-2007? Tennis is about confidence. Maybe if there wouldn't have been a Federer crushing everybody other guys would have gotten more confidennt and would have become multiple Slam winners and nobody would argued for a weak era.

Corey Feldman
04-27-2009, 12:45 PM
Well according to Nadal fans the weak era was when Federer was winning his GS's, now that Nadal is winning them its the strongest era of all time

smart bunch these Nadal fans

Commander Data
04-27-2009, 12:56 PM
Rafael Nadal to Novak Djokovic after Monte Carlo Final:

"you play well this week, you deserve your number 4 ranking, congrats"

Rafa is just too polite these days (unlike that arrogant Federer ;-) ).

Corey Feldman
04-27-2009, 12:57 PM
unreal that he could say that ..... to his face

vamosinator
04-27-2009, 01:12 PM
huh? Murray and Djokovic will get older than Nadal? Will get injured more than him? :confused:

Murray, Djokovic and Federer have all had back/hip injuries, they'll all go long before Nadal does. If you get back and hip injuries in your 20s you don't have a long career. Tendinitis whereas can be maintained for decades, just ask Venus and Serena they've had wrist and knee tendinitis their whole careers (so did Michael Jordan) and outlasted everybody.

Matt01
04-27-2009, 01:26 PM
When Federer started losing.

Up until then it was the weakest era ever and Frauderer could only win because he faced utter clowns like one Slam wonder Roddick, and 2 time Slam wonders Hewitt and Safin.

Instead now it's the strongest era ever which is why Frauderer can't win anymore and we have multiple Slam winners like Djokovic and Murray. Not to mention we have real Spartans like Del Potro, Simon and Monfils in the top 10. :worship:


Eliminate the word "Monfils" in this post and I agree :rocker2:

Corey Feldman
04-27-2009, 01:32 PM
the thing about any era is, a strong player shouldnt be defined by if he has won a GS or 2

thats just an idiots way of thinking

rafa_maniac
04-27-2009, 01:37 PM
the thing about any era is, a strong player shouldnt be defined by if he has won a GS or 2

thats just an idiots way of thinking

Spoken like a true Muzza fan :yeah: ;)

Corey Feldman
04-27-2009, 01:39 PM
Spoken like a true Muzza fan :yeah: ;)well Muzza must be a weak player then, and one of Nadal's biggest rivals

so Nadal's wins are worth jack shit in this weak era

kafemotor
04-27-2009, 02:18 PM
@ FedFan_2007

Notice again what these figures are about. They mean all players in 92 accomplished 50 titles in TOTAL at the end of their carrier ... You will understand it by comparing all those years

kafemotor
04-27-2009, 02:22 PM
it is not mine "analysis", look on voting number...:)

Sthepan, actually this comparison is not worthy polling, yet analysis is better. Many of MTFs only remember recent years, even many dont watch older eras...

philosophicalarf
04-27-2009, 03:23 PM
The strong era ended about 2000....


What sort of strong era has Moya as number 1? Mal Washington in a slam final?

Commander Data
04-27-2009, 03:30 PM
What sort of strong era has Moya as number 1? Mal Washington in a slam final?

The strong era of the Fedhaters. Trying to discredit Fed my all means available. Blinded by hatred the logical part of their brain is shut down.

ORGASMATRON
04-27-2009, 03:35 PM
What sort of strong era has Moya as number 1? Mal Washington in a slam final?

The strong era started about the year 2000.

Action Jackson
04-27-2009, 03:36 PM
Very strong era when Federer has been the second best player on clay for 4 years.

philosophicalarf
04-27-2009, 03:39 PM
2000 wasn't much better. Magnus Norman at no2, Kiefer at no4. No wonder a 20yr old Safin could turn up and win the US Open so easily.

Nor 2001. Arnaud Clement in the Aus Open final.....

Action Jackson
04-27-2009, 03:40 PM
The year Federer won Wimbledon for the first time, Schuettler made a GS final.

jonathancrane
04-27-2009, 03:57 PM
..and last year (32 y.o.) he reached the SF at Wimbledon :lol:

Nathaliia
04-27-2009, 04:01 PM
Strong era:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/5/en/rankings/entrysystem/default.asp?showall=0&RankDate=6%2F17%2F1991&country=&rank=100&image1.x=18&image1.y=9

Weak era:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/5/en/rankings/entrysystem/default.asp?showall=0&RankDate=9%2F15%2F2003&country=&rank=100&image1.x=20&image1.y=11

I would rate the current era as average.
Names change, Santoro stays :lol:

Bazooka
04-27-2009, 04:49 PM
Well, firstly that isn't Rogers fault.

Well, it's good to start admitting that it happened in the first place. I agree with you, what has happened and is a fact, is not Roger's fault. Welcome to reality. :cool:


Secondly, it is impossible to know how he would have reacted had he faced stronger players. Maybe he would have played better himself and still dominated.


Again you admit he could have faced stronger players. We're on the verge of actually agreeing 100%, as I also believe what you say is possible, however let's face it: you can't really play much better than he did 2004-2006, can you? He squeezed the tour, and got the most juice possible out of his domination.


Thirdly, I don't think the fact that now there are three players with consistency close to 80 % necesseraly implies the era is stronger. It just means that three guys have seperated themself considerably from the rest in terms of consistency. Could also be because the rest of the field is weaker now then 4 years ago.


I am sorry but this is absurd. Professional sportmen are on average better and better every year, just check the olympic records every 4 years. The top 20-100 is now pretty stronger physically and technically than the top 20-100 of 1991.

You may get random streaks of performance like Usiain Bolt running the 100m, but take him out and you have a pretty slow evolution, as training & equipment evolves. Expecting sudden bumps either way goes against all reason, guys don't just start running faster and then suddenly run slower the next decade, we're talking about taking the best handful out of millions of people! Mathematical probability works here very strongly.

But Geniuses, Monsters, Greatest are pretty random and can't be predicted or calculated. Otherwise the top 5 would be entirely from countries with better tennis schools and larger player base: USA, France, Germany, Spain, in that order. But you can never predict where or when a genious will be born. Switzerland, Serbia... You can have one in five years, or three, or none. You can have three from Sweden in a dozen years, then none when the sport is more popular.

We had one for a few years, we now have 3, maybe 4. Federer is for me an "overachiever" but please don't get me wrong, I recognize his greatness, beautiful game, etc., It's just that many of his slams have been "easier" to win than what they are now.

Imagine you're a very young and talented player in 2003 trying to storm the tour, what are the great and impassable challenges you will be facing? Hewitt? JCF? Safin? Those are good players, but could easily fall in a tournament by facing someone ranked 25.

But today, if you want to win RG, you're out of luck. It has never been harder, maybe. In fact, try to win anything on clay, and you will fail. Try to win Wimbledon, in each side of the draw you have a guy that is really scary, Fed and Rafa. The USO? has never been dominated like this.

Mint Chip
04-27-2009, 05:18 PM
We are in a weak era for so many reasons. The top ten is absolutely pathetic as your number one player is nothing but a clay court moon ball junkie and ball bashers taking up space. Nobody knows what variety is if it slapped them in the face. When the going gets tough they start hitting hard and harder so boring. Its a sad era :sad:

NyGeL
04-27-2009, 05:23 PM
so, only with 4 or maybe 5 incluiding Del Potro "strong players" we have a strong era?

just compare with other times when there were like 10 or more "strong players" and today tennis sucks. Also, in the '90 or before you had very different styles of play. Now it's all near the same.

fred perry
04-27-2009, 05:25 PM
when carlos moya broker out his sleeveless jersey.

ZakMcCrack
04-27-2009, 05:47 PM
Eliminate the word "Monfils" in this post and I agree :rocker2:

Well, I guess he wasn't exactly serious by mentioning Djokovic and Murray multiple Slam Winners and furthermore bringing in Monfils and Simon, was he?

Henry Kaspar
04-27-2009, 06:01 PM
http://www.tennis.com/uploadedImages/Editorial/General/2009_03_31_greatest1.jpg

http://www.tennis.com/uploadedImages/Editorial/General/2009_03_31_greatest2.jpg


http://img2.menstennisforums.com/511/Andre_Gen.jpg


it is already old topic, fans....

Amazingly wrong stats.

In April 1974, 24 or the 56 titles were not yet won; and many relate to the pure amateur tournaments of the pre-open era that aren't comparable. In April 1985, Becker and Ederg had zero titles, Lendl one. And in April 1992, Agassi had zero titles and Sampras one.

More generally, since these tables just try to capture a maximum of past or future slam titles, they get the timing horribly wrong. The Laver/Rosewall era peaked in the late 1960s, Borg/McEnroe/Connors/Vilas in the late 70s to early 80s, Lendl/Becker/Edberg/Wilander in the late 80s, Sampras/Agassi in the late 1990s.

By contrast, 1974, 85, 92 are all transitional years between eras -- the old guys sliding, the new guys not yet fully there -- that do not stand out particularly.

Rafattack
04-27-2009, 07:11 PM
Spoken like a true Muzza fan :yeah: ;)
Haha! Well said!

Andi-M
04-27-2009, 07:25 PM
AO 2008 Someone other than Fedal wins a slam. is when it started.

I been watching mens tennis since 1999 and this late 2007 onwards period for me has been by far the most interesting.

Andi-M
04-27-2009, 07:34 PM
Stephans stats are flawed in 1992 Sampras and Agassi were no more GOAT candidates than Nole and Murray are now.

Stephan
04-27-2009, 11:36 PM
Stephans stats are flawed in 1992 Sampras and Agassi were no more GOAT candidates than Nole and Murray are now.

again, it is not mine stats: more than 50% of voters say so...:)
http://img2.menstennisforums.com/511/Andre_Gen.jpg
they give their votes for 1992 players

myself i find following: besides Nadal/Federer there are no really high quality players in 2008 list,
similar to 1992-list; in 1992 all players are real "stars"...and it's just my opinion :)

http://www.tennis.com/uploadedImages/Editorial/General/2009_03_31_greatest2.jpg

Nichele Hull
04-27-2009, 11:44 PM
When Borg won five Wimbledons in a row

Henry Kaspar
04-27-2009, 11:52 PM
myself i find following: besides Nadal/Federer there are no really high quality players in 2008 list,
similar to 1992-list; in 1992 all players are real "stars"...and it's just my opinion :)


It coiuld just be though that several other players besides Nadal/Federer turn into real stars until the end of their careers, couldn't it?

ORGASMATRON
04-28-2009, 12:27 AM
When Federer stopped dominating. Theres another one for the dictionary.

Bazooka
04-28-2009, 01:09 PM
myself i find following: besides Nadal/Federer there are no really high quality players in 2008 list,


Easy to say that now, but Djokovic in the first half of 2008 was scary, as was Murray in the second half, both were a factor and denied a slam final to Roger and Rafa.

I don't like Dokovic, and I don't like Murray, but Djoker has been in all four semis at age 20, and Murray this year has defeated all top 3 and won over 90% of his 32 Matches. They may fail for unforeseen reasons but they have the talent to become Greats. If they are denied multiple slams by Rafa in the next years, it will be a great feat.

vamosinator
04-28-2009, 01:15 PM
We are in the strongest era now but it will get weak when Federer, Murray, Djokovic retire with their bad backs and hips, and then Nadal will be the only decent player left and will win in straight sets every grand slam final:o

born_on_clay
04-28-2009, 02:03 PM
Nadal's first Slam

Commander Data
04-28-2009, 02:08 PM
Amazingly wrong stats.

In April 1974, 24 or the 56 titles were not yet won; and many relate to the pure amateur tournaments of the pre-open era that aren't comparable. In April 1985, Becker and Ederg had zero titles, Lendl one. And in April 1992, Agassi had zero titles and Sampras one.

More generally, since these tables just try to capture a maximum of past or future slam titles, they get the timing horribly wrong. The Laver/Rosewall era peaked in the late 1960s, Borg/McEnroe/Connors/Vilas in the late 70s to early 80s, Lendl/Becker/Edberg/Wilander in the late 80s, Sampras/Agassi in the late 1990s.

By contrast, 1974, 85, 92 are all transitional years between eras -- the old guys sliding, the new guys not yet fully there -- that do not stand out particularly.

Wow! Somebody thinking before posting. what are you doing on MTF?!

rafa_maniac
04-28-2009, 02:27 PM
well Muzza must be a weak player then, and one of Nadal's biggest rivals

so Nadal's wins are worth jack shit in this weak era

Nadal has no rival :worship:

vamosinator
04-28-2009, 02:35 PM
I'd say the depth is greater now than ever before in the history of mens tennis, and by depth I mean the talent pool of the top 100.

Commander Data
04-28-2009, 02:39 PM
Another, and probably more logical, way to determine the strengh of an era would be to count the number of pro players or even better the number of people playing tennis.

I wonder what those numbers would look like for Laver, Borg etc..

Seems to me that being the best out of 10 000 000 people is a greater achievement then being the best out of lets say 10 000.

Just by the law of high numbers it is pretty much certain that a greater number of highly talented players form the competition if the totality of players is considerable bigger.