How strong is this era now that... [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

How strong is this era now that...

sykotique
09-08-2008, 12:13 AM
...Federer, a potential GOAT candidate, is being legitimately challenged and, for the time being, defeated, at every single Slam by amazing talents like Nadal, Djokovic and now Murray?

Surely we must revise our diagnoses of mugginess! A long time from now, with all the history that's been made, the records being broken, the young talents rising through the rankings and the general depth of the ATP, I think we'll look upon this era with some measure of fondness as one of the greatest.

TMJordan
09-08-2008, 12:16 AM
Mug era.

prima donna
09-08-2008, 12:24 AM
Why are we still talking about Roger as if he were the best player in the world ? The fact of the matter is that Nadal is a better player at this point in their respective careers. Moreover, if Roger wins tomorrow this board will subsequently be bombarded with messages declaring his resurrection coupled with the usual posters possessing an accumulative vocabulary of two words -- mug and choke.

I suppose that one could attribute the defeats mentioned by the author of this thread to players with improved variety in their games, but what a lot of people fail to take into account is that it's perfectly normal to lose to top players in the latter stages of tournaments. Roger has been able to accomplish something that hadn't been seen in ages by routinely beating players in the finals of slams.

Last but not least, no player aside from Nadal has defeated Roger in a slam final and that's because Nadal is a better player than Roger. Neither Djokovic nor Murray are better players than Roger, although it is quite plausible that Murray would be able to disrupt Roger's rhythm and perhaps capitalize on a lackluster performance by the Swiss, but the only player in the history of tennis that could challenge Roger at his best remains Nadal.

Get over it, kids. Roger isn't the best player on tour, he's just trying to reach milestones at this point. This discussion is fundamentally flawed for the very reason that it's based on the premise that Roger is the player to beat. There is no way that he can routinely defeat top players tournament after tournament; Nadal, however, is quite a different story.

Roddickominator
09-08-2008, 12:26 AM
Just wait until Sampras comes back at Wimbledon next year and wipes the floor with all of them. He knows it's a mug era like all knowledgeable of tennis.

Henry Kaspar
09-08-2008, 12:27 AM
Fine era. In the open era, only the late 1970s and the late 1980s/early 90s were better.

Jaz
09-08-2008, 12:27 AM
The truth is that the Nadaltard argument that Federer's era was "poor" was simply unravelling as we speak.

Champions are made out of consistency in every era, Murray might be on a roll, so was Djoko.. so was Nadal...

aulus
09-08-2008, 12:33 AM
i don't think federer's losses mean the era is any stronger or weaker. the main reason for his losses is that federer has declined quite a bit since the '07 AO. he's slower, his FH is weaker and doesn't have the same depth as it did '04-'06. his FH used to be completely dominating, but now it's only above average.

i don't think fish(!!), roddick, blake, volandri, canas, stepanek, etc beat federer b/c they peaked (roddick and blake, for example, have also declined), they won b/c federer has weakened.

richie21
09-08-2008, 12:41 AM
To be considered as a truly outstanding era, i would say the Nadal-Djoker-Murray generation only lacks an equivalent of Federer in term of style of play which could also challenge for the top titles.
Murray is the closest in term of talent but he has not the same grace on the court as Federer
Apart that,i think that it's a pretty strong a exciting era.

sykotique
09-08-2008, 12:48 AM
But prima donna, I don't speak of Federer as the best player in the world, I speak of him as a potential GOAT candidate. I understand that he is after decoration, not adulation.

I do not dismiss the view that Federer is declining, although I believe that reports of his decline are greatly exaggerated. He is the #2 player in the world, which makes him as a legitimate a threat as ever given his record. This notwithstanding, even during his reign at the top throughout 2004-2007, there were times when Federer was able to get away with not playing his best tennis and still win. Of course, he was also far more consistent during that period, but you don't go 92-5 or 81-4 by being consistent, you do it by being able to able to find a way to win when not at your best. With the amount of tennis being played today by top-level players, there are only so many good, or even great, days that players are allowed before they inevitably have a bad day.

So while I acknowledge that, at times, Federer may no longer be the monolith of tennis domination he once was, he is still the standard by which this generation and, by extension, this era will be judged - until one of his peers surpasses his achievements. We have to acknowledge that the players around him have gotten better, that they realised what they would have to do to improve to prevent Roger from making a mockery of competition in a sport as popular and global and competitive as tennis. So now, when Roger Federer has a bad day or rather, a below average performance, he loses - this just happens to coincide with the fact that he is having more bad days than usual, but that doesn't change the fact that during his great run, even his bad days were often sufficient to carry victory.


I think there is sufficient evidence to point us in the direction that the era of tennis we are currently witnessing is approaching its peak in overall strength.

swebright
09-08-2008, 01:11 AM
Nobody will win 3 slams per year for next .... years. It would be fun to see different players grabbing number one spot throughout the year. Of course, not by default; because they just edged out each other.


Roger is at last 5-6 years older than these guys. And, I don't think Nadal can play consistently for that long. He's been playing as hard as he can since he's very young (since he became number #2/for the last 4 years).

prima donna
09-08-2008, 01:11 AM
The success or failure of Roger's game is primarily based on factors which have little or nothing to do with his opponent -- with Rafael Nadal being exempt from this generalization. Roger was able to consistently demolish formidable opponents as a result of his great footwork and timing, there is no antidote or medicine to be prescribed to cure the inherent level of difficulty in returning shots which have been well-disguised, as well as have tremendous mass to them -- which is even further emphasized when a player is unable to anticipate the direction of said shots. As I've initially stated, the only player that has consistently had an answer for this level of play has been Rafael Nadal.

In fact, a match that comes to mind would be that which was played in Dubai, during which Roger was forced to play absolutely flawless tennis to win the 1st set (6-2), that scoreline would later prove to be deceptive as Roger's timing became less certain and Nadal's strokes became even more pronounced in their depth. Ultimately, Roger would end up losing that match despite having played magnificently, it was decided by a lapse in concentration and slight fatigue. The same story applies in Rome, which was more of a case of choking than Nadal's resilient play. I can't recall a match off the top of my head that Roger has lost despite having played so well against any player other than Nadal.

Novak Djokovic played relatively mediocre tennis to capture the 1st set in Australia (after having been down a break) and then started to swing more freely, but at no point during that match was Roger ever playing even close to decent tennis. Murray also had a notable victory against a rather lackadaisical Federer in Dubai. My point is, while the level of competition may indeed be improving, there would be no remedy neither in the form of Novak Djokovic nor Andy Murray to beat Federer at his peak -- which is a fair analysis, given the stature of Federer.

These arguments for what constitutes a weak or strong era are complicated enough without basing them on a few performances against the best player of all time, we should really be basing our conclusions on more visible factors, such as level of play and winning percentages on varying surfaces from player to player.

Synthesis
09-08-2008, 01:26 AM
This is the ultimate MUG era. No Sampras, no Agassi, Becker. Just a bunch of topspin bumrooting mugs.

GlennMirnyi
09-08-2008, 01:29 AM
Joke era. One player in the top 10 can slice, for instance.

One of the worst ever eras when it comes to technical level.

prima donna
09-08-2008, 01:33 AM
Joke era. One player in the top 10 can slice, for instance.

One of the worst ever eras when it comes to technical level.
At a technical level, yes, but in terms of sheer power and spin, this era remains unrivaled.

guga2120
09-08-2008, 01:33 AM
Joke era. One player in the top 10 can slice, for instance.

One of the worst ever eras when it comes to technical level.

If Nadal and 2004-2007 Federer were playing in the 90's they would be 1 and 2.

MatchFederer
09-08-2008, 01:33 AM
A strong era, which Federer is largely responsible for in being a significant catalyst for an overall improvement in the standard of tennis currently, which has moved on an extra level.

MatchFederer
09-08-2008, 01:34 AM
If Nadal and 2004-2007 Federer were playing in the 90's they would be 1 and 2.

1. Federer 2/3 Sampras, Nadal.. mainly due to Nadal's big bulk of clay court points.

MatchFederer
09-08-2008, 01:42 AM
Small side point; Agassi disappears even more than he did due to the insane level of the top players.

GlennMirnyi
09-08-2008, 01:42 AM
At a technical level, yes, but in terms of sheer power and spin, this era remains unrivaled.

Any retarded clown can hit topspin, it's not a sign of a high technical level.

If Nadal and 2004-2007 Federer were playing in the 90's they would be 1 and 2.

:bs:

Nadull would never be top 10 in the 90s. Faster courts = he'd never get past any 4th round in big tournies vs big servers. Better claycourters would send him back to MM clay tournies.

MatchFederer
09-08-2008, 01:44 AM
HAH. Nadal would still be a strong and for periods at least dominant clay courter in the 90's. You must be incredibly stupid to think otherwise.

luie
09-08-2008, 01:47 AM
HAH. Nadal would still be a strong and for periods at least dominant clay courter in the 90's. You must be incredibly stupid to think otherwise.
I'am not too sure, nadal is helped by raquet technology. In the 90's he would be good but not as dominant on CLAY.

guga2120
09-08-2008, 01:48 AM
Better claycourters would send him back to MM clay tournies.

I know you are a :retard: but you could line up Muster,Corretja,Rios,Guga,Borg and Federer on clay and a Nadal might lose a few sets.

And the clay in the 90's was actually much slower than it is now.

prima donna
09-08-2008, 01:48 AM
I honestly think that Pete Sampras against this generation of players would be stuck on the outside looking in. Nadal would crush him on slow to medium paced surfaces, while Sampras would have the edge on grass and indoors.

guga2120
09-08-2008, 01:52 AM
I honestly think that Pete Sampras against this generation of players would be stuck on the outside looking in. Nadal would crush him on slow to medium paced surfaces, while Sampras would have the edge on grass and indoors.

He wouldn't be on the outside he would be 3 or 4 at worst at anytime. He could still win Wimbledon and the US Open, but alot of the Master Series and AO he could not win.

MatchFederer
09-08-2008, 01:54 AM
Well lets not forget that if Fed and Nadal were born into the last era they wouldnt have been as strong as they are now and if Sampras was born into this era he would have been a slightly stronger player. Sampras does well in any era and I agree with you guga... 3 or 4 at worst when hes prime.

GlennMirnyi
09-08-2008, 01:55 AM
I know you are a :retard: but you could line up Muster,Corretja,Rios,Guga,Borg and Federer on clay and a Nadal might lose a few sets.

And the clay in the 90's was actually much slower than it is now.

All those clay courters were better than Nadull and they won RG with way better fields.

I honestly think that Pete Sampras against this generation of players would be stuck on the outside looking in. Nadal would crush him on slow to medium paced surfaces, while Sampras would have the edge on grass and indoors.

Nah. Top Sampras was way better than all those clowns playing today, except on clay.

Jimnik
09-08-2008, 01:56 AM
Nadal making SF of the US Open is roughly the equivalent of Sampras making SF of Roland Garros. The 90s was an era of fast court players while now we're in an era of slow courters.

guga2120
09-08-2008, 01:57 AM
All those clay courters were better than Nadull and they won RG with way better field.

That is such :bs: If Roger Federer were playing the French in the 90's he would have won it, as long as he didn't play Guga.

MatchFederer
09-08-2008, 01:57 AM
However, to a degree you are a product of your era. Bearing that in mind, maybe Sampras really would be on the outside looking in. I doubt it though.

Jimnik
09-08-2008, 01:59 AM
That is such :bs: If Roger Federer were playing the French in the 90's he would have won it, as long as he didn't play Guga.
Federer playing in the 90s might have had a better shot at RG than Wimby. I'm not sure he would have coped as well against Sampras, Ivanisevic and Becker.

MatchFederer
09-08-2008, 02:00 AM
No way. Federer would have still been an excellent grass court player. His junior Wimbledon title is surely some confirmation that he would have adapted his game to be one that could land him success at Wimbledon had the grass stayed the same speed.

Jimnik
09-08-2008, 02:02 AM
Doesn't mean anything. He didn't compete in juniors with any of the 90s players. That's the same generation he plays against now.

guga2120
09-08-2008, 02:04 AM
The speed of the grass court would have very little to do with Roger winning there. Look who won it the year they changed the grass. Movement on grass is just as important as power. Only a few players can move really well on any grass court.

MatchFederer
09-08-2008, 02:04 AM
He wopuld have been a very good/great grass courter, he is too good an athlete. He would have given Sampras fits as well, absolute fits. Federer in the 90's = a great player, he would have been a revelation just as Sampras was.

Jimnik
09-08-2008, 02:07 AM
Maximum 2-3 Wimby titles if he played in the 90s. RG could have been better. It would have been interesting to see him match-up against Bruguera.

finishingmove
09-08-2008, 02:08 AM
this era will be pretty strong when/if the young players develop.

even nadal isnt fully developed yet, there's still room for improvements there.

djokovic and murray are gaining on him fast, and if there's a few more players like these in 2-3 years time its gonna be great for tennis.

MatchFederer
09-08-2008, 02:10 AM
I reckon at least 2 and probably 3, which would be a great showing, with Sampras picking up 4 or 5, but Federer claiming several Aussie Open and a few US open titles and probably 1 maybe 2 RG titles. But hey obviously we are all just speculating, which is fun.

MatchFederer
09-08-2008, 02:10 AM
this era will be pretty strong when/if the young players develop.

even nadal isnt fully developed yet, there's still room for improvements there.

djokovic and murray are gaining on him fast, and if there's a few more players like these in 2-3 years time its gonna be great for tennis.

Yeah, I reckon the depth of tennis at the top will be greater in 2 or 3 years time.

MatchFederer
09-08-2008, 02:11 AM
I'am not too sure, nadal is helped by raquet technology. In the 90's he would be good but not as dominant on CLAY.

Probably not as dominant but i did only say "periods" of dominance.. as a minimum though.

Action Jackson
09-08-2008, 02:12 AM
No revision.

GlennMirnyi
09-08-2008, 02:39 AM
That is such :bs: If Roger Federer were playing the French in the 90's he would have won it, as long as he didn't play Guga.

:rolleyes:

Keep going with your Nadull masturbation.

Federer would have less chance in the 90s than now.

guga2120
09-08-2008, 03:00 AM
:rolleyes:

Keep going with your Nadull masturbation.

Federer would have less chance in the 90s than now.

Keep going with all your :bs:. Everybody in here knows you know nothing about tennis.

Action Jackson
09-08-2008, 03:05 AM
That is such :bs: If Roger Federer were playing the French in the 90's he would have won it, as long as he didn't play Guga.

Hahahahahaha.

selyoink
09-08-2008, 03:33 AM
Joke era.

Amazing how few people understand this. The tour is comprised almost totally of mugs these days.

If Nadal and 2004-2007 Federer were playing in the 90's they would be 1 and 2.

In the 90s Nadull wouldn't even be a top 50 hardcourt or grasscourt player. There were less mugs around and those surfaces were actually still fast. Nadull is entirely a product of a mug era and slower surfaces which reward his moonballing shots. His game is complete trash.

Nadull would never be top 10 in the 90s. Faster courts = he'd never get past any 4th round in big tournies vs big servers. Better claycourters would send him back to MM clay tournies.

Exactly. The best claycourter Nadull has ever played is Federer. Even Coria at 50% of his abilities took Nadull to 5 sets in Rome in 2005. Nadull never played Kuerten or peak Ferrero either.

selyoink
09-08-2008, 03:35 AM
Keep going with all your :bs:. Everybody in here knows you know nothing about tennis.

Anyone who thinks Nadull is a tennis great knows nothing about tennis.

MatchFederer
09-08-2008, 03:46 AM
Anyone who thinks Nadull is a tennis great knows nothing about tennis.

Tennis the sport exists right now. In its current state the current dominant player is Nadal, therefore (why am I even responding to this absolute bull shit post of absolute ----) Nadal is a tennis great. Tennis has changed and will continue to do so.

sykotique
09-08-2008, 01:49 PM
The complaint has always been that, while there was depth throughout the ATP top 100, there was no depth at the very top, where great players were lacking in abundance. Now we have two certifiable greats in Federer and Nadal and two major threats have really come on in the past year, in Djokovic and Murray. And while it would be easy to forget about top 10 guys like Davydenko, Ferrer, Blake, Nalbandian and Roddick, who is lest we forget a Slam winner and former #1, these guys can cause trouble for the top players when they are not on their best form, as evidenced by past results, and they are not has-beens who are past their primes, but middle to late 20s players, who can still produce their best tennis on a consistent basis.

JolánGagó
09-08-2008, 02:59 PM
This thread is utter crap, by the way. It only shows how bored are we all today.

Purple Rainbow
09-08-2008, 03:07 PM
In the 90s Nadull wouldn't even be a top 50 hardcourt or grasscourt player. There were less mugs around and those surfaces were actually still fast. Nadull is entirely a product of a mug era and slower surfaces which reward his moonballing shots. His game is complete trash.


Either you haven't seen Rafa play in the last 3 years, or you don't know the slightest thing about tennis.
Ridiculous post....

FiBeR
09-08-2008, 03:16 PM
MR Disney's Era..

RustyFun
09-08-2008, 04:56 PM
the 90's were golden period for tennis.
Pete-Andre rivalry, Ivanisevic, Courier , Edberg, Becker, Stich.
Too many great players.
Today everything is upon two .

dusk
09-08-2008, 05:11 PM
Pete-Andre rivalry, Ivanisevic, Courier , Edberg, Becker, Stich.


Edberg, Becker, Stich- I agree...first four - :yawn:

oz_boz
09-10-2008, 01:16 PM
This era will probably be comparable to the mid to late 90's. No way to tell yet though, another 10 years is necessary.

you could line up Muster,Corretja,Rios,Guga,Borg and Federer on clay and a Nadal might lose a few sets.

:haha:

Muster - could be a nice matchup for Nadal, basically same player with slightly less firepower, but still harder to beat for Rafa than peak Fed
Corretja - good matchup for Rafa but on par with peak Fed to beat
Rios - too inconsistent to challenge consistently but not without chances in best of 3
Guga - would win some against Nadal, too tall and too good bh (both CC and DTL) and serve to lose everything, although stamina and onsistency not on par with Rafa
Borg - you cannot be serious :lol: Borg's outstanding bh and excellent stamina neutralize Nadal's bread-and-butter tactics on any surface, and the Iceman wouldn't choke or be intimidated either. 50-50 between the two best claycourtrs ever. Do not be a fool and think Borg would play 70's game if he were born 1986.
Fed - no need to examine, figures are there already.
Lendl and to a lesser extent Wilander would also pose a greater challenge for Nadal than anyone of today's players.

RagingLamb
09-10-2008, 03:04 PM
weak era

groundstroke
09-10-2008, 03:11 PM
I still think Federer is the best player in the world but at 27 you cannot expect everything from him anymore, 2 more years and Federer will have to start working really hard in tennis, I still think he plays around 50% of his best in every match and increases the percentage by 10% or 20% in the big points.

groundstroke
09-10-2008, 03:23 PM
Peak Federer took Nadull to five sets on clay.

MisterQ
09-10-2008, 03:23 PM
The level of athleticism and quality of baseline exchanges is pretty awesome in general right now. Players ranked well outside of the Top 10 are hitting the types of shots I used to marvel at when only Agassi could hit them.

Obviously there are certain skills (many of them having to do with net play and approaches) that have declined since a few decades ago; but there does seem to be more variety than I remember from six or seven years ago.

Denaon
09-10-2008, 03:34 PM
:tape:
IMHO, I think people will remember in a few years the likes of Djokovic, Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Nadal, Gonzalez, Federer, Murray, Davydenko, Blake, etc and believe this was not a weak era.

Monteque
09-10-2008, 04:57 PM
:tape:
IMHO, I think people will remember in a few years the likes of Djokovic, Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Nadal, Gonzalez, Federer, Murray, Davydenko, Blake, etc and believe this was not a weak era.

True. I've said many times to all haters in here that what's make the tour seems weaker is the players themselves. It's Fed talent and Nadal's massive power that makes the tour looked easy but it's not.

Tutu
09-10-2008, 05:04 PM
Pathetically weak. Djokovic isn't bad at all but Nadull winning Wimbledon and Murray in the final of USO is, well, plop. :tape:

Anyone who thinks Nadull is a tennis great knows nothing about tennis.

Agreed. :angel:

btw how comes you dont post on wtaw anymore? :p

rocketassist
09-10-2008, 05:44 PM
Pathetically weak. Djokovic isn't bad at all but Nadull winning Wimbledon and Murray in the final of USO is, well, plop. :tape:

If this era is a mug era, then WTA era is...umm ultra mega mug :haha:

groundstroke
09-10-2008, 06:07 PM
:rolleyes:

Keep going with your Nadull masturbation.

Federer would have less chance in the 90s than now.
Don't think so, Federer bagelled a clay court master (Kuerten) in his prime 6-0 at Hamburg, a clay event. With no Nadal - the greatest clay courter ever, Federer would have won a few RG's, and remember this year in the Hamburg and Monte Carlo masters, Fed should have won both, he's a better player physically on clay, just Nadal is better mentality.

Federer is a better player than all clay courters except for Nadal, I think Federer would have thrashed the likes of Borg, Muster, Kuerten, easily, just against Nadal, he's matched up very well..

PiggyGotRoasted
09-10-2008, 06:58 PM
This era was a mug era, until the legend of Oscar Hernandez came along to rescue the situation once again. There may never be a mug era again, due to the influence of the king.

Henry Kaspar
09-10-2008, 07:02 PM
Best era since the 1980s.

PiggyGotRoasted
09-10-2008, 07:08 PM
Best era since the 1980s.

Thanks to oscar hernandez

Fed=ATPTourkilla
09-10-2008, 07:31 PM
This era will be remembered in the same way as the Borg era was, because of the Federer-Nadal matches at Wimbledon. Pete Sampras was a great player but people will only ever have bad memories of his time at Wimbledon (other than the 1999 final against Agassi). His two main Wimbledon rivals were no-groundstrokes Ivanisevic (remember that ridiculous final) and loser Henman.

PiggyGotRoasted
09-10-2008, 07:36 PM
This era will be remembered in the same way as the Borg era was, because of the Federer-Nadal matches at Wimbledon. Pete Sampras was a great player but people will only ever have bad memories of his time at Wimbledon (other than the 1999 final against Agassi). His two main Wimbledon rivals were no-groundstrokes Ivanisevic (remember that ridiculous final) and loser Henman.

You are incorrect, it will be remembered by the Oscar Hernandez - Gasquet type matches of this year :worship:

moon language
09-10-2008, 09:55 PM
Don't think so, Federer bagelled a clay court master (Kuerten) in his prime 6-0 at Hamburg, a clay event.

That was in 2002. Kuerten had his first hip surgery in February that year. He was far from prime form at the time, and never approached his prime level again after that surgery yet still straight setted a prime Federer at Roland Garros in 2004.

Neely
09-10-2008, 10:48 PM
Not sure how strong the "era" is really, but it's a sure thing that lately you have a few more better performing players in the equation that only Federer on everything than clay and Nadal in all clay tournament. Big improvement of joy watching for me if somebody like Murray makes a decent run, if Djokovic wins a surprise Slam, and if maybe a few others are knocking at the door to make some temporary noise.

.

Mimi
09-11-2008, 03:25 AM
didn't roger win against murray in us open? :scratch:
...Federer, a potential GOAT candidate, is being legitimately challenged and, for the time being, defeated, at every single Slam by amazing talents like Nadal, Djokovic and now Murray?

crude oil
09-11-2008, 04:27 AM
depends on how you define an era...this is still the era of federer last time i checked even if nadal has momentarily seized the top spot.

Federer's era is pretty dang imposing....hewitt, safin, roddick, ferrero, nalbandian etc to nadal, djoker, murray etc.

those are some serious players.

Forehander
09-11-2008, 04:49 AM
Nadal vs Federer = horrible match-up. If Nadal was right handed it would be a completely different story with Federer winning tons load more slam. Very unlucky of Roger really. No right-handers have surpassed him yet that's for sure.

For Nadal being on top, it's only going to get harder real fast as younger players learn the bash the ball harder and harder with accuracy above the shoulders (like djokovic). How long will Nadal's brick wall like defense last? We'll sit back and see.