Least good year of modern era? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Least good year of modern era?

Everko
06-12-2009, 11:02 PM
I say 2002. 2 of the worst slam winner of all time, Johansson and Costa. There wer no favoites, upsets galore and there was no established patterns. Anyone could win a slam.:help:

what's your opinon? The least good year that you have witnessed and why.:aplot:

sanpo
06-12-2009, 11:08 PM
Have to say 2001-2004 as well. Andre past his peak, No.1 rankings were always up for grabs (much like WTA lol). And no one was dominating, besides Ferrero, Coria, Hewitt, Agassi which were never dominant unlike the Fedal era that we have now.

philosophicalarf
06-12-2009, 11:08 PM
The entire period 96-02 has too many disgraces to tennis to mention. Washington and Rusedski in slam finals. Moya as the number 1 ranked tennis player on the planet. Scumbag drugs cheat Korda winning the Aus Open. Muppet Clement in the Aus Open final.

Action Jackson
06-12-2009, 11:10 PM
Clement won the Aussie Open, that's a new one.

Every year from 1969-2009.

Arkulari
06-12-2009, 11:19 PM
2002 :help:

MisterQ
06-12-2009, 11:30 PM
Have to say 2001-2004 as well. Andre past his peak, No.1 rankings were always up for grabs (much like WTA lol). And no one was dominating, besides Ferrero, Coria, Hewitt, Agassi which were never dominant unlike the Fedal era that we have now.

I thought 2003 was a wonderful year for tennis, despite the lack of a clear dominating figure. There were some glorious moments for past/future legends, as well as great appearances by some underdogs. The Australian Open was notable for Agassi's last major title (which helped him reach No. 1 during the year) -- but the true entertainment value came largely from Younes El Aynaoui, who played a great match to defeat Hewitt and then an epic classic against Roddick (the American prevailed 21-19 in the fifth).

Felix Mantilla scored an impressive victory in Rome.

At the French there was a second chance for Ferrero, who had squandered his chances at the title the year before. And Verkerk's run to the final out of nowhere was bizarre but entertaining.

At Wimbledon Federer finally put his game together -- his form in the victory over Roddick in the semifinals made the commentators swoon. And Philippoussis made his way past Agassi in a dramatic 5 setter all the way to the final.

The summer hardcourt season belonged to Roddick, and for a very brief period there the idea of a budding Roddick-Federer rivalry actually seemed plausible. (Unfortunately for Roddick, the Montreal third-set win was to be his last against Federer for a very long time!)

The US Open struggled with weather issues, but it still provided some great matches, including Roddick's comeback victory over Nalbandian, saving match points in the semis. I disagree with those who say that this title was handed to Roddick, or robbed from Nalbandian... but that topic has been discussed amply elsewhere. ;)

In the Masters Series Agassi and Federer put on an amazing and dramatic round robin match. Agassi followed this with tight victories against Ferrero and Nalbandian. And then in the final Roger turned up in incredible, jaw-dropping form -- this was really the start of his years of domination.

Well, I didn't mean to write that much about 2003, but I had fun thinking back to it. :lol:

guga2120
06-12-2009, 11:32 PM
and Rusedski in slam finals.

You selling Rusedski short. He was a great all around player.;)

Action Jackson
06-12-2009, 11:35 PM
Got to love humans.

It's shit, if there are no dominant players , wah wah wah. Then when Federer and Nadal are winning everything, with the odd bit of scraps elsewhere, people zone out, because they know pretty much how it's going to end.

Har-Tru
06-12-2009, 11:39 PM
1969.

Har-Tru
06-12-2009, 11:40 PM
Got to love humans.

It's shit, if there are no dominant players , wah wah wah. Then when Federer and Nadal are winning everything, with the odd bit of scraps elsewhere, people zone out, because they know pretty much how it's going to end.

I knew you'd say it. I thought 2002 was a very entertaining year.

Action Jackson
06-12-2009, 11:43 PM
I knew you'd say it. I thought 2002 was a very entertaining year.

How is it not true, my statement about the dominance and the lack of dominance.

Har-Tru
06-12-2009, 11:44 PM
How is it not true, my statement about the dominance and the lack of dominance.

I was agreeing with you...

Action Jackson
06-12-2009, 11:50 PM
I was agreeing with you...

Funniest about 2002 is the bitterness it seems to generate. Costa was one of the best players on clay from 1996-2000, and good enough to win RG then, but did it when not expected.

Like I said 1969-2009, all of them are fucked.

Har-Tru
06-12-2009, 11:58 PM
Funniest about 2002 is the bitterness it seems to generate. Costa was one of the best players on clay from 1996-2000, and good enough to win RG then, but did it when not expected.

Like I said 1969-2009, all of them are fucked.

And Johansson played an impressive AusOpen. His 3rd round match against El Aynaoui had some superb tennis and beating Safin in the final required some pretty good skill especially after losing the first set. But if Safin had won it would have given the tourney a better name cause people know him.

out_here_grindin
06-13-2009, 12:06 AM
I sort of liked the unpredictability honestly.

marcRD
06-13-2009, 12:49 AM
2001 was great...

GugaF1
06-13-2009, 12:49 AM
i enjoy both when A player or players show excllence beyond the field and when things are unexpected as well. I think each type of era has its charm. I mean you take Federer and Nadal out now, and I don`t think the game would benefit from it, on the contrary. I enjoy every year of tennis, every tournament and almost every match. So I can`t answer this shallow question.

straitup
06-13-2009, 01:17 AM
Every different year has it's own "goodness" - I really don't think any specific year can be called the least good. I mean, the years of unpredictability are thrilling because those are the times when the best matches usually come out. Think about Roland Garros this year...Nadal's loss made the tournament unpredictable, and we got 2 outstanding semifinal matches because all 4 players knew they had a pretty good chance.

Basically what i'm saying is that each year has it's own unique qualities that make it good...last year we saw the start of Federer's "vulnerability", we've seen some good dominance from both Federer and Nadal in 06 and 07. In 2005 we saw many of the best matches of this decade (Coria-Nadal, Fed-Safin, etc), 2004 we saw a breakthrough for Fed and that crazy Gaudio victory.

GlennMirnyi
06-13-2009, 01:21 AM
Every year after 2004.

asmazif
06-13-2009, 01:29 AM
2006.

Black Adam
06-13-2009, 01:32 AM
1988,2004,2006,2007.

CmonAussie
06-13-2009, 01:50 AM
...
For me personally the years where Sampras dominated were the most boring:: so 1993--96 [97 was good because Kuerten won FO & Rafter won the USO]<:)

Har-Tru
06-13-2009, 01:56 AM
1988,2004,2006,2007.

That USO final was a display of excellent tactical tennis from Wilander.

Henry Kaspar
06-13-2009, 02:56 AM
1973, 1998, 2002.

leng jai
06-13-2009, 03:04 AM
2008 by a country mile. A moonballer winning Wimbledon....hahahahahahahha.

finishingmove
06-13-2009, 03:16 AM
2010 - Andy Murray wins his first Grand Slam. His opponent is carried off court and placed in an institution to live as a plant for the rest of his life.

Soon after, the plague spreads on the majority of ATP players. All that is left of tennis is the weekly Murray - Boggo exho.

Har-Tru
06-13-2009, 03:24 AM
1973, 1998, 2002.

1973 is a good one. The other two aren't.

Har-Tru
06-13-2009, 03:25 AM
2008 by a country mile. A moonballer winning Wimbledon....hahahahahahahha.

I can't believe it took 25 posts for someone to say it.

GlennMirnyi
06-13-2009, 03:28 AM
I can't believe it took 25 posts for someone to say it.

Exactly. It's so obvious it goes without saying.

duong
06-13-2009, 09:32 AM
1998-2003

blank_frackis
06-13-2009, 11:37 AM
I sort of liked the unpredictability honestly.

Unpredictability is fine, in and of itself, but most of the time it's just a product of a lack of quality or depth. Consistency is the primary factor which separates great players from mediocre ones.

Yves.
06-13-2009, 12:01 PM
2008. Despite the best match in the history of tennis (Wimbledon final). I couldn't stand Nadal taking over the No. 1 position.

Burrow
06-13-2009, 12:04 PM
2008. Despite the best match in the history of tennis (Wimbledon final). I couldn't stand Nadal taking over the No. 1 position.

How the F was that the best match in tennis history? Are you kidding me? :o

Burrow
06-13-2009, 12:05 PM
Well I have found it boring as hell in the last few years.

I enjoyed 2000-5 and 6 was alright but from there on it has got boring as hell.

Doesn't help that I can't stand the top 4 with the exception of Federer.

rocketassist
06-13-2009, 01:58 PM
2008. Weak.

2002 was strong and had a better depth of competition.

Sapeod
06-13-2009, 03:05 PM
2008 :o Djokovic winning AO. Nadal winning Wimby. The last part of the season was great. Federer wionning UO and Murray running wild on hardcourt. Tennis was saved Robin Soderling this year in Paris and hopefully many others will do the same from Wimby onwards. :D

Yves.
06-13-2009, 03:13 PM
How the F was that the best match in tennis history? Are you kidding me? :o

WHy not? High level, great comeback, drama, lots at stake, etc. etc.

leng jai
06-13-2009, 03:16 PM
WHy not? High level, great comeback, drama, lots at stake, etc. etc.

High level of clownishness in the first 2 sets.

MacTheKnife
06-13-2009, 03:17 PM
How the F was that the best match in tennis history? Are you kidding me? :o

That generally translates into "the best match I've seen in my 12 to 16 years of life".

Yves.
06-13-2009, 03:20 PM
That generally translates into "the best match I've seen in my 12 to 16 years of life".

Obviously I mean the Open Era.

MalwareDie
06-13-2009, 06:10 PM
Federer hitting everything into the net equals a high quality match. That Wimbledon final had to be the best match in tennis history.

jonathancrane
06-13-2009, 08:18 PM
"Every era was full of clowns"
Remember?

Burrow
06-13-2009, 08:37 PM
Obviously I mean the Open Era.

Federer was playing rank and he still took it to 5.

One of my favourite matches of the past few years are Safin-Federer 2005 AO. Peak Federer vs Safin playing pretty much as well as he can, crisp ball striking and attacking tennis throughout.

The Wimbledon final was just a sluggish Federer playing absolute dog crap and Nadal just moon balling as usual.

If it wasn't the Wimbledon final, people wouldn't make it out to be half as much as they do.

and what do you mean by open era? that's 50 odd years of tennis and you think that was the best? Bollocks.

LEGENDOFTENNIS
06-13-2009, 09:51 PM
There have been better matches then the 2008 wimbledon final, but i have to agree the last 2 sets were QUALITY. The Federer vs Nadal Rome match was better IMO.