What era do you feel is stronger? 2004-2007 or 2008-Present? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

What era do you feel is stronger? 2004-2007 or 2008-Present?

SetSampras
01-24-2011, 09:27 PM
At this point in time?

You still had some of the old guard around like Agassi still making some waves at an advanced age. Fed reaching his peak You had Roddick and Hewitt in their primes, Nadal rising in 05 etc. By late 07-08 you had Murray and Djokovic coming up on the radar etc and Nadal finally coming into his own as the dominant player by 08

Pirata.
01-24-2011, 09:45 PM
2003-2007, imo

Clydey
01-24-2011, 09:49 PM
2008-now. No real competition for Fed in those years.

ossie
01-24-2011, 09:50 PM
2008-now. No real competition for Fed in those years.pretty much

Experimentee
01-24-2011, 09:52 PM
2008 to present is stronger.

For example, I can now think of quite a few legitimate contenders for the AO. In 2004 to 2007, you would struggle to think of anyone other than Fed who would win Slams apart from RG.

luie
01-24-2011, 09:57 PM
2008-now. No real competition for Fed in those years.
By that token I can say nadull has no competition currently,its not enough to isolate the anomaly.
More evidence is required since its in your interest that this era be stronger because of Murray.

nole_no1
01-24-2011, 09:58 PM
I think the competition is stronger now but still at the top in the last 20 GS tournaments only 2 were not won by Fedal (Djokovic AO 2008 and Del Potro US Open 2009)
I still think this is the stronger era 2008-present

Chartreuse
01-24-2011, 09:58 PM
The current top players: Nadal, Fed, Nole and Murray are way more consistent. Nole and Murray have been in the top 4 for a long time now. While the likes of Ljubo and Blake didn't last long in the top 4...

Kiedis
01-24-2011, 09:59 PM
Now. Only Fedtards will say the contrary.

ossie
01-24-2011, 10:01 PM
By that token I can say nadull has no competition currently,its not enough to isolate the anomaly.
More evidence is required since its in your interest that this era be stronger because of Murray.:haha:

luie
01-24-2011, 10:04 PM
Now. Only Fedtards will say the contrary.
Negative everyone is biased to a certain extent,,fans of players of previous eras will always claims their era is stronger as fans of the current players,,this will continue also in the next generation when fans of tomic/dimitriov claim their era is stronger tennis moves on.

luie
01-24-2011, 10:06 PM
:haha:
Whats funny about that post.. I didn't say that 04-07 is stronger than now, I said the simple reason of using 1 player to prove a point is insufficient.

philosophicalarf
01-24-2011, 10:17 PM
Kohlschreiber has said tennis is considerably stronger now than in 2007.

rocketassist
01-24-2011, 10:18 PM
03-07. Fed was THAT good. He had no competition because he was THAT good. Unplayable. If he was at peak level now, he'd destroy this lot more easily than he did peak Roddick, peak Hewitt, peak Safin and peak Nalbandian.

Fed's generation as a whole have better careers than Nadal's too. All bar Nalbandian are slam winners and #1s, while Murray, Djokovic and Del Potro have just 2 slams and no weeks at the top.

sexybeast
01-24-2011, 10:18 PM
Difficult to say, I dont know where I would place lets say Djokovic against Safin, or Murray against prime Hewitt. I think there is more potential in Murray than Hewitt, but Hewitt was more of a champion than Murray. Roddick was quite good 2004-2005 and still today can defeat Murray and Djokovic, even Nadal has his hands full with Roddick everytime I have seen them play.

We have also talented players like Davydenko and Nalbandian with their peak 2005-2007, I would say they are greater than the likes of Soderling and Berdych, we have seen both Davy and Nalbandian handle Nadal's game without any problems and Nalbandian would actually beat peak Federer more often than not indoors. I think even Ljubo showed how we underestimate the guys that played good tennis 2004-2007 when he defeated Nadal and Djokovic in Indian Wells. Gonzalez was also a quality player, better than many current routine top 10 players like lets say Verdasco. Old Agassi was also still a force to count on, he really had it in him to beat anyone not named Roger Federer on hardcourt 2003-2005, I got a feeling that 2004-2005 Agassi would beat 2010 Nadal in a USOPEN final, but that is pure speculation from my part.

The greatest talent out of the young guns (except Nadal) which is Del Potro has been stopped by injuries, I dont value much anyone in this era except Djokovic, Murray and Del Potro. Only Djokovic which is the least talented out of the 3 has lived up to his full potential, so I feel Murray is kind of the new Nalbandian (without the physical problems but with tactical problems and a too defensive gameplan) and Del Potro is a new Safin without mental problems but instead loads of injuries and physical problems. Djokovic is slightly better than Hewitt and Roddick but not by much, overall I cant say this era is more talented than the one 2004-2007.

Arakasi
01-24-2011, 10:29 PM
2008-Present.

But peak Federer would have dominated the field (bar Nadal) just as much today as he did back then so it's irrelevant.

Clydey
01-24-2011, 11:03 PM
By that token I can say nadull has no competition currently,its not enough to isolate the anomaly.
More evidence is required since its in your interest that this era be stronger because of Murray.

Nadal has plenty of competition. No one thought anyone other than Fed had a realistic chance of 3 of the 4 majors from 2004-2007. That certainly isn't the case now. Far more competition. Nadal is the overwhelming favourite for only one major.

Clydey
01-24-2011, 11:05 PM
Whats funny about that post.. I didn't say that 04-07 is stronger than now, I said the simple reason of using 1 player to prove a point is insufficient.

I didn't use 1 player. You projected. I said nothing about Murray. It's simply a fact that slams are more open because the competition is better.

Action Jackson
01-24-2011, 11:06 PM
Neither.

Clydey
01-24-2011, 11:08 PM
03-07. Fed was THAT good. He had no competition because he was THAT good. Unplayable. If he was at peak level now, he'd destroy this lot more easily than he did peak Roddick, peak Hewitt, peak Safin and peak Nalbandian.

Fed's generation as a whole have better careers than Nadal's too. All bar Nalbandian are slam winners and #1s, while Murray, Djokovic and Del Potro have just 2 slams and no weeks at the top.

They have slams because there was no competition. Hewitt was number 1 in a transtional era. Same with Roddick. Every single one has said that tennis is much stronger now. There's no upside to them saying that. It simply devalues their own achievements. And frankly, they are far better judges than you or me.

luie
01-24-2011, 11:11 PM
Nadal has plenty of competition. No one thought anyone other than Fed had a realistic chance of 3 of the 4 majors from 2004-2007. That certainly isn't the case now. Far more competition. Nadal is the overwhelming favourite for only one major.

I didn't use 1 player. You projected. I said nothing about Murray. It's simply a fact that slams are more open because the competition is better.
Nadull has plenty competition on paper but in reality no. Nadull was injured last year recieved 2 blood-spinning treatments during the year & had the flu coming into the AO11 yet he on course to hold 4 majors @ once yet his opponents have difficulty winning sets against him @ grand-slam level far less the match.
You say its more open yet I only see one uni-dimensional player bagging slams.
Fact is in feds era, no one can deal with fed,similiarly in nadull prime even an unhealty nadull is too-much for his contemporaries.

luie
01-24-2011, 11:15 PM
They have slams because there was no competition. Hewitt was number 1 in a transtional era. Same with Roddick. Every single one has said that tennis is much stronger now. There's no upside to them saying that. It simply devalues their own achievements. And frankly, they are far better judges than you or me.
Yes,,Yes every-ones says its a strong era now yet an injured/fatigued player is carrying all the slams to mallorca.:rolleyes:
The strong era can't win sets against nadull.

rocketassist
01-24-2011, 11:17 PM
They have slams because there was no competition. Hewitt was number 1 in a transtional era. Same with Roddick. Every single one has said that tennis is much stronger now. There's no upside to them saying that. It simply devalues their own achievements. And frankly, they are far better judges than you or me.

Of course, if they said the opposite, they'd come across as extremely bitter, wouldn't they?

Roddick with his pusher game beats Nole more often than not and Murray in GS semi finals, so imagine what his peak game would have done to them?

The sport is weaker now. Same surfaces, same players, same uni-dimensional factory brand of tennis. Do you seriously think there's any variety? Clay tennis and grass tennis are dead, quite frankly.

rocketassist
01-24-2011, 11:19 PM
peak Nalbandian :haha:

Peak Nalbandian would be a more awkward match up for Rafito than anything we're getting right now, not to mention he had more talent and variety in his little finger than any top player bar Fed now.

sexybeast
01-24-2011, 11:22 PM
They have slams because there was no competition. Hewitt was number 1 in a transtional era. Same with Roddick. Every single one has said that tennis is much stronger now. There's no upside to them saying that. It simply devalues their own achievements. And frankly, they are far better judges than you or me.


I think they cant acknowledge that they got slower so they say tennis got better today, I dont know how to compare eras but eras that are just next to each other can be compared by if the old guns have been blown away by the new generation. I still see Roddick beating Djokovic most often when they play each other, Nadal having great difficulties with old Davydenko, even Ljubicic found a way to win a big title facing a difficult draw with the 2 top new generation players in Nadal and Djokovic. I cant really see any basis for this era beeing a great improvement from the last one (unlike lets say 2004-2007 compared to 2001-2003).

Clydey
01-24-2011, 11:24 PM
Nadull has plenty competition on paper but in reality no. Nadull was injured last year recieved 2 blood-spinning treatments during the year

Nadal was not injured throughout 2010. You have simply made that up. Show me something, an article, that suggests Nadal was carrying an injury throughout 2010.

& had the flu coming into the AO11 yet he on course to hold 4 majors @ once

He beat Marcos Daniel, Ryan Sweeting and Bernard Tomic while recovering from the flu. Not a single one of those players is relevant at the top of the game, so your argument is utter nonsense. He's on course to hold all 4 majors because he beat those guys while perspiring a little more than usual? He is yet to face the best players. He lost in Doha when he was actually sick.


yet his opponents have difficulty winning sets against him @ grand-slam level far less the match.

So he didn't get taken to 5 sets by lower ranked opposition twice at Wimbledon?


You say its more open yet I only see one uni-dimensional player bagging slams.

That's 3 slams in one year, not 11 slams in 4 years. I'd say the latter demonstrates much greater dominance.

Fact is in feds era, no one can deal with fed,similiarly in nadull prime even an unhealty nadull is too-much for his contemporaries.

Again, he wasn't unhealthy. You're just making shit up to bolster your argument.

luie
01-24-2011, 11:27 PM
Nadal was not injured throughout 2010. You have simply made that up. Show me something, an article, that suggests Nadal was carrying an injury throughout 2010.



He beat Marcos Daniel, Ryan Sweeting and Bernard Tomic while recovering from the flu. Not a single one of those players is relevant at the top of the game, so your argument is utter nonsense. He's on course to hold all 4 majors because he beat those guys while perspiring a little more than usual? He is yet to face the best players. He lost in Doha when he was actually sick.



So he didn't get taken to 5 sets by lower ranked opposition twice at Wimbledon?



That's 3 slams in one year, not 11 slams in 4 years. I'd say the latter demonstrates much greater dominance.



Again, he wasn't unhealthy. You're just making shit up to bolster your argument.
So thats the basis for your arguement I making it up. Nadull recieved 2 blood spinning treatments last year one after the AO /1 after wimby;)
Thats the best you can do.
http://www.tennistalk.com/en/news/20100929/Nadal_knee_doctor_says_treatment_may_need_repeatin g

Ibracadabra
01-24-2011, 11:28 PM
03-07. Fed was THAT good. He had no competition because he was THAT good. Unplayable. If he was at peak level now, he'd destroy this lot more easily than he did peak Roddick, peak Hewitt, peak Safin and peak Nalbandian.

Fed's generation as a whole have better careers than Nadal's too. All bar Nalbandian are slam winners and #1s, while Murray, Djokovic and Del Potro have just 2 slams and no weeks at the top.

Del potro would have won another slam by now and been world number one if it wasn't for his wrist.

Clydey
01-24-2011, 11:30 PM
Of course, if they said the opposite, they'd come across as extremely bitter, wouldn't they?

That makes no sense. How would it make them seem bitter? You're reaching. All it does is devalue their achievements. Tellingly, Federer is the only player I know who hasn't committed to an answer when asked that question. I wonder why that is.

Roddick with his pusher game beats Nole more often than not and Murray in GS semi finals, so imagine what his peak game would have done to them?

Roddick played one of the matches of his life at Wimbledon, so you're twisting the facts. It's hilarious that you think 2003-2005 Roddick is better than Murray and Djokovic. I'm assuming you're not serious?

The sport is weaker now. Same surfaces, same players, same uni-dimensional factory brand of tennis. Do you seriously think there's any variety? Clay tennis and grass tennis are dead, quite frankly.

If that was true, you'd expect the claycourters to do well on grass. Other than Nadal, they don't.

It's irrelevant what you or I say. What the players say is most telling. They have nothing to gain by saying that the standard is much higher now.

nobama
01-24-2011, 11:30 PM
:zzz:

rocketassist
01-24-2011, 11:30 PM
Del potro would have won another slam by now and been world number one if it wasn't for his wrist.

Given his match-up against Nadal, perhaps the USO- but the guy's too much of a factory produced drone to enhance this era by winning GSs, IMO.

Clydey
01-24-2011, 11:32 PM
I think they cant acknowledge that they got slower so they say tennis got better today, I dont know how to compare eras but eras that are just next to each other can be compared by if the old guns have been blown away by the new generation. I still see Roddick beating Djokovic most often when they play each other, Nadal having great difficulties with old Davydenko, even Ljubicic found a way to win a big title facing a difficult draw with the 2 top new generation players in Nadal and Djokovic. I cant really see any basis for this era beeing a great improvement from the last one (unlike lets say 2004-2007 compared to 2001-2003).

Hewitt doesn't need to acknowledge that he got slower. He accepts that injuries hurt his career. He isn't in denial. Guys like Ferrero, Roddick and Hewitt only devalue their own achievements by making that kind of statement, so you really cannot argue with it. There's no upside to it.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
01-24-2011, 11:34 PM
2003-2007

best strongest era ever

started off in 2003 with a handful of players all worthy of dominating the era

roddick, hewitt and possibily safin were the most likely- no one gave roger a chance. he was too flakey they said- all the talent in the world but a total head case who cant string 2 wins together

in 2004 federer was unstoppable

in 2005 he actually improved

and in 2006 he probably played the best any tennis player in history has ever played

absolutely peaking at the AO in 2007

strangely from such dizzying heights came a sharp fall...

2008 onwards federer was in freefall, djokovic- the man tipped to be king, imploded in front of the world

nadal picked up easy pickings really

2009 AO, federer was 50 % of the player he used to be, but with his huge fighting heart he took nadal to 5 sets- nadal for his part came through and proved he was more than a clay courter

del potro gave hope that it would be more than the aging federer and nadal show, but sadly injuries have basically screwed that thought

andy murray 2008 onwards has been expected to take his place at the top with a slam win- so far not being abe to convert his talents to gold

so 2008 onwards it has been a huge mug era, with nadal destroying everyone and federer's slow decline not obvious because everyone else is a mug except nadal

Clydey
01-24-2011, 11:35 PM
So thats the basis for your arguement I making it up. Nadull recieved 2 blood spinning treatments last year one after the AO /1 after wimby;)
Thats the best you can do.
http://www.tennistalk.com/en/news/20100929/Nadal_knee_doctor_says_treatment_may_need_repeatin g

I never said that he didn't receive treatments. I said he wasn't injured throughout the year.

That article says nothing about Nadal being injured. Getting "maintenance" work done does not mean you are injured. Look, here's a quote from your own article, genius.

"The tendon is cured. At the moment I'm not doing anything, but will probably have to return."

rocketassist
01-24-2011, 11:37 PM
That makes no sense. How would it make them seem bitter? You're reaching. All it does is devalue their achievements. Tellingly, Federer is the only player I know who hasn't committed to an answer when asked that question. I wonder why that is..

He knows it's because his own level has declined and he's slowed down that the likes of Djokovic and Del Potro have beaten him in GS tournaments. Him playing his best wipes both out in straights.



Roddick played one of the matches of his life at Wimbledon, so you're twisting the facts. It's hilarious that you think 2003-2005 Roddick is better than Murray and Djokovic. I'm assuming you're not serious?

2003-05 Roddick won a GS, had the best serve in the game (better than Karlovic) and one of the best forehands in the game. If you think him playing a more 'intelligent' pusher game makes him a better player than that, then you've been sucked in big time.

He mixed up against Murray, but Murray still hit more winners in the match. Roddick was clutch on serve and in the breakers.


If that was true, you'd expect the claycourters to do well on grass. Other than Nadal, they don't.

It's irrelevant what you or I say. What the players say is most telling. They have nothing to gain by saying that the standard is much higher now.

They have their credibility to lose if they didn't answer the question. Roddick's still competitive. Hewitt and Safin, they suffered very bad injuries that slowed them down and ultimately burnt them out. This was a major factor in their early decline.

Ferrer's reached fourth round twice. Almagro has I think. Gimeno-Traver beat Taylor Dent at Wimbledon. Wawrinka hates grass and nearly beat Murray. Safin reached the semis of Wimbledon on slower grass (giving the 'stronger' era Nole a schooling). Where are the grass specialists now?

Everyone plays hardcourt tennis now.

GlennMirnyi
01-24-2011, 11:38 PM
2004 was probably the beginning of the end.

If I must choose one option, I'd say 2004-2007, but obviously they were still weak.

luie
01-24-2011, 11:38 PM
I never said that he didn't receive treatments. I said he wasn't injured throughout the year.

That article says nothing about Nadal being injured. Getting "maintenance" work done does not mean you are injured. Look, here's a quote from your own article, genius.
Tendonistis cannot be cured genius, its undercontrol, he had follow-up treatments.Why if it is cured.
Why would you need maintainance, work,, because it began too flare up,,no one uses that treatment unless they have too because of the side effects. His movement was compromised anyway you look @ it.
If you recieve a treatment without it being absolutely neccessary you run the risk of developing resistance,which could have long term medical risk ,far beyond his tennis career.

Arakasi
01-24-2011, 11:41 PM
That makes no sense. How would it make them seem bitter? You're reaching. All it does is devalue their achievements.

Are you serious? Them saying'04-'07 was weaker is just meaningful as them saying they are playing better now than at their peak. Players talk shit all the time.

ossie
01-24-2011, 11:46 PM
03-07. Fed was THAT good. He had no competition because he was THAT good. Unplayable. If he was at peak level now, he'd destroy this lot more easily than he did peak Roddick, peak Hewitt, peak Safin and peak Nalbandian.

Fed's generation as a whole have better careers than Nadal's too. All bar Nalbandian are slam winners and #1s, while Murray, Djokovic and Del Potro have just 2 slams and no weeks at the top.fed would not have half his slams if todays nadal and his generation were around when fed was beating roddick and hewitt to win slams lol

allpro
01-24-2011, 11:48 PM
Samprass is the GOAT!!!
You could rest easy now untill after the AO11, then you could make a thread like this that have been discussed to death already.

i wasn't aware sampras played between 2004-2007.

Nadal was not injured throughout 2010. You have simply made that up. Show me something, an article, that suggests Nadal was carrying an injury throughout 2010.

He beat Marcos Daniel, Ryan Sweeting and Bernard Tomic while recovering from the flu. Not a single one of those players is relevant at the top of the game, so your argument is utter nonsense. He's on course to hold all 4 majors because he beat those guys while perspiring a little more than usual? He is yet to face the best players. He lost in Doha when he was actually sick.

So he didn't get taken to 5 sets by lower ranked opposition twice at Wimbledon?

That's 3 slams in one year, not 11 slams in 4 years. I'd say the latter demonstrates much greater dominance.

Again, he wasn't unhealthy. You're just making shit up to bolster your argument.

disregard luie’s analysis as it relates to nadal. he thinks nadal hasn’t improved his hc game since the blake, youzhny, berdych era beatdowns and that federer’s backhand became a liability starting in 2004 (the year that marked the beginning of the fedal rivalry).

he’s capable of making reasoned arguments but he allows his irrational fear and loathing of nadal to get the best of him.

GlennMirnyi
01-24-2011, 11:48 PM
fed would not have half his slams if todays nadal and his generation were around when fed was beating roddick and hewitt to win slams lol

:bs:

Peak Frauderer would eat the top 4 today for breakfast.

Clydey
01-24-2011, 11:48 PM
He knows it's because his own level has declined and he's slowed down that the likes of Djokovic and Del Potro have beaten him in GS tournaments. Him playing his best wipes both out in straights.

Not according to him. Hewitt known for being obscenely modest?

2003-05 Roddick won a GS, had the best serve in the game (better than Karlovic)

No, it wasn't. It was faster, but it sure as fuck wasn't better. There's a reason guys like Ivo and Isner generally hold serve more than anyone else. Ivo in particular doesn't offer anything from the back of the court, yet he still exceeds or at least equals percentage of points won behind his first serve than Roddick even at his peak.

and one of the best forehands in the game. If you think him playing a more 'intelligent' pusher game makes him a better player than that, then you've been sucked in big time.

I didn't say it made him a better player. I said he has never been better than Murray or Djokovic at any stage of his career.

He mixed up against Murray, but Murray still hit more winners in the match. Roddick was clutch on serve and in the breakers.

So Roddick winning the big points in one match is your whole argument?

They have their credibility to lose if they didn't answer the question. Roddick's still competitive. Hewitt and Safin, they suffered very bad injuries that slowed them down and ultimately burnt them out. This was a major factor in their early decline.

Yep, they would certainly lose credibility by asserting that 2003-2007 was a stronger era, simply because it so obviously wasn't. Again, it just devalues their own achievements. You can't get away from it by simply calling them liars.

Ferrer's reached fourth round twice. Almagro has I think. Gimeno-Traver beat Taylor Dent at Wimbledon. Wawrinka hates grass and nearly beat Murray. Safin reached the semis of Wimbledon on slower grass. Where are the grass specialists now?



Nice list. And Sampras reached the semis of the French. No less unlikely than Safin's run. I'll ignore the rest since naming a handful of Spaniards who have scraped into the second week is desperate.

GlennMirnyi
01-24-2011, 11:51 PM
Nice list. And Sampras reached the semis of the French. No less unlikely than Safin's run. I'll ignore the rest since naming a handful of Spaniards who have scraped into the second week is desperate.

Sampras is the greatest player to have held a racket after Laver. What's your point. He made the semis of the FO in a much stronger era (especially on clay) and on a much slower clay.

Clydey
01-24-2011, 11:52 PM
Tendonistis cannot be cured genius, its undercontrol, he had follow-up treatments.Why if it is cured.
Why would you need maintainance, work,, because it began too flare up,,no one uses that treatment unless they have too because of the side effects. His movement was compromised anyway you look @ it.
If you recieve a treatment without it being absolutely neccessary you run the risk of developing resistance,which could have long term medical risk ,far beyond his tennis career.

I have arthritis. I get treatment every 2 weeks and it's not because it has gotten worse. It's preventative. It isn't for when it flares up. More to the point, it does not mean he was injured throughout 2010. Again, you're reaching.

Tendonitis is very similar. You're taking the doctor too literally, when English isn't even his first language. I'm sure he knows it isn't curable.

Clydey
01-24-2011, 11:53 PM
Are you serious? Them saying'04-'07 was weaker is just meaningful as them saying they are playing better now than at their peak. Players talk shit all the time.

Yep. You don't like what they have to say so you call them liars/delusional. That's one way to make your point, I guess.

Clydey
01-24-2011, 11:55 PM
Sampras is the greatest player to have held a racket after Laver. What's your point. He made the semis of the FO in a much stronger era (especially on clay) and on a much slower clay.

The point I'm making is that bringing up Safin's run is irrelevant. It's one example.

There's no doubt that surfaces are more similar now, but it's dumb to say they are the same. The facts just don't back that up.

BlueSoul Formula
01-24-2011, 11:56 PM
It is ridiculous to compare eras and their relative strength. Each year brings new blood, each new organ system brings new variety, new openings and a different outlook. If you cannot accept the past or if you cannot accept the present, then you do not truly love what the sport of tennis means. The game evolves every day. We should cherish the past because it was best for its times but also embrace the present and future.

Jaz
01-25-2011, 12:01 AM
Completely arbitrary times and points, shifting goal posts such that the OP can gave a stronger case. The true reality is that this so called era probably won't end until federer retires. Equally it's a bit of a mugs game since Sampras retired in 2003, the end of the previous era. It would make more sense to declare this era over when federer retires, the dude who was the longest #1 and winner of GS titles.

luie
01-25-2011, 12:01 AM
I have arthritis. I get treatment every 2 weeks and it's not because it has gotten worse. It's preventative. It isn't for when it flares up. More to the point, it does not mean he was injured throughout 2010. Again, you're reaching.

Tendonitis is very similar. You're taking the doctor too literally, when English isn't even his first language. I'm sure he knows it isn't curable.
What I'am saying he wasn't 100% throughout the year,especially around the slam period,his movement was compromised.
Did he recover enough for the slams,maybe but he has an underling condition that affected his slam performance & preparation. He skiped barcelona & took it easy inthe USO series as a direct result of the flare-up/treatment.
I really don't know what you are driving @.Getting 2 treatments of PRP with-in 6 months is anything but routine but anyway you can go on pretending it had 0 effect on his performances @ the strong era can't win sets against nadull.
http://www.dierenartshoegaerts.be/nl/therapie/injecties/documents/prpguide.pdf
No professional player will run the risk of calcification & other side effects if it was not absolutely neccessary & the condition would affect their performances.
PRP is not a QUICK FIX
You can't go in for treatment a 2 weeks later be 100%, you are better but not 100%

Clydey
01-25-2011, 12:04 AM
What I'am saying he wasn't 100% throughout the year,especially around the slam period,his movement was compromised.
Did he recover enough for the slams,maybe but he has an underling condition that affected his slam performance & preparation. He skiped barcelona & took it easy inthe USO series as a direct result of the flare-up/treatment.
I really don't know what you are driving @.Getting 2 treatments of PRP with-in 6 months is anything but routine but anyway you can go on pretending it had 0 effect on his performances @ the strong era can't win sets against nadull.

It didn't affect his performance. Getting treatment does not mean your condition has flared up. It is preventative. Given that I get inflamed joints, I'm in a good position to judge.

luie
01-25-2011, 12:11 AM
It didn't affect his performance. Getting treatment does not mean your condition has flared up. It is preventative. Given that I get inflamed joints, I'm in a good position to judge.
Ok then, that settles it, read my post again I posted a link, it isn't a quick fix, he gets better but 2 weeks you are not 100%.
In any event you are the expert,it seems.;)

GlennMirnyi
01-25-2011, 12:12 AM
The point I'm making is that bringing up Safin's run is irrelevant. It's one example.

There's no doubt that surfaces are more similar now, but it's dumb to say they are the same. The facts just don't back that up.

They're not the same but the style you can play to win is.

It is ridiculous to compare eras and their relative strength. Each year brings new blood, each new organ system brings new variety, new openings and a different outlook. If you cannot accept the past or if you cannot accept the present, then you do not truly love what the sport of tennis means. The game evolves every day. We should cherish the past because it was best for its times but also embrace the present and future.

Nobody's obliged to accept the crap tennis has become. The true fan isn't just a blind follower.

Zagor
01-25-2011, 12:12 AM
Hard to say,I reckon neither of these time periods are that great given that 2 players completely dominated it but then again who knows,maybe Fed/Nadal are just that good.

sexybeast
01-25-2011, 12:15 AM
If you compare Federer's usopen draws 2004-2008 to Nadal's 2010 you really cant see Nadal surviving any of Federer's draws. Ofcourse we also had Nadal's QF, SF and F opponents all coming from really hardfought 5 set matches, even if that wasnt the case I think Fed's draws are more difficult than Nadal's:

2004: QF Agassi SF Henman F Hewitt

This is the most plausible draw for Nadal to get through, I think Agassi would still be good enought on hardcourt to stop 2010 Nadal in QF, Hewitt could still do some damage.

2005: QF Nalbandian SF Hewitt F Agassi

Nadal could go out against any of these, Nalbandian had his greatest year 2005 and Federer got him in 3 sets.

2006: QF Blake SF Davydenko F Roddick

Nadal 2010 would not be favorite in any of these matchups

2007: QF Roddick SF Davydenko F Djokovic

Djokovic was greater 2007 than he is today, once again I dont see Nadal 2010 getting through this draw.

2008: QF Muller SF Djokovic F Murray

This is actually the start of this era, you still have Federer in slight decline handling Djokovic and Murray without any problems. Nadal 2010 would not take fresh Murray and Djokovic back to back, lets see if he can do it in Australian Open (you can bookmark this if I am wrong).

We can even take a look at Feds draw 2009-2010:

2009: QF Soderling SF Djokovic F Del Potro
2010: QF Soderling SF Djokovic

I dont know if Nadal would beat a fresh Soderling and Djokovic back to back, but all 7 draws Federer had have in fact been constantly difficult draws while Nadal's 2010 draw:

QF Verdasco coming from 5 setter SF Old Youzhny coming from 5 setter and F Djokovic coming from 5 setter

Ofcourse there is alot of events which are purely circumstansial but still to see old Youzhny go to a grand slam semifinal is not a good sign for this era, it could be just a happening, but I saw signs of this same weakness during clay era when Meltzer defeated Djokovic and was in RG SF, Ferrer, Almagro and Verdasco became the best clay players behind Nadal, without actually playing better tennis than before, the rest of the atp was simply playing bad tennis, on grass Nadal had a difficult draw but still we saw Berdych going to the final of Wimbledon, the likes of Roddick and Hewitt atleast knew how to play on grass, in fact they still are capable of beating the younger generation on that surface.

BlueSoul Formula
01-25-2011, 12:19 AM
They're not the same but the style you can play to win is.



Nobody's obliged to accept the crap tennis has become. The true fan isn't just a blind follower.

Crap(I feel lessened to use that word) that tennis has become? Have you watched a match recently. The past was a great time for tennisbut so is the present. Great athleticism and skill. I emplore you to watch a match in Australia today and see what tennis has become and open your closed eyes to the light you are missing.

GlennMirnyi
01-25-2011, 12:26 AM
Crap(I feel lessened to use that word) that tennis has become? Have you watched a match recently. The past was a great time for tennisbut so is the present. Great athleticism and skill. I emplore you to watch a match in Australia today and see what tennis has become and open your closed eyes to the light you are missing.

If I want to watch athleticism I watch the marathon or the decathlon.

And no way tennis players today are more skilled than in the 90s and before. No bloody way. Players today can only hit topspin and any amateur can hit topspin.

I want to watch TENNIS. Contrast of styles, touch, inventiveness...

abraxas21
01-25-2011, 12:27 AM
2008-now. No real competition for Fed in those years.

or maybe fed has just gotten worse?

just because things are more competitve for fed nowadays doesn't mean this is a stronger era.

Zagor
01-25-2011, 12:36 AM
or maybe fed has just gotten worse?

just because things are more competitve for fed nowadays doesn't mean this is a stronger era.

Yeah,Fed does seem to have declined quite a bit since 2008.It's not just Nadal/Novak/Murray that caused him problems,he has lost to Fish,Blake,Roddick,Stepanek,Karlovic,Bennetau etc. Heck just in this year's AO he has struggled with Robredo who himself is nowhere near as good as he was before and last year he was down 0-2 in 1st round of Wimbledon!

SetSampras
01-25-2011, 12:44 AM
Fed has declined but not a whole heck of alot. Dominated the YEC. Won Doha. Is reaching the very least a QF of each slam. Not bad for a decline.

Arakasi
01-25-2011, 12:47 AM
Fed has declined but not a whole heck of alot. Dominated the YEC. Won Doha. Is reaching the very least a QF of each slam. Not bad for a decline.

It doesn't matter if he finishes the season undefeated. He has still declined. Considerably.

Mungo
01-25-2011, 01:13 AM
LOL is this thread a joke or what? Of course it's stronger since 2008 when Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro grew up as players while Federer is still one of the top players.

Zagor
01-25-2011, 01:19 AM
Fed has declined but not a whole heck of alot. Dominated the YEC. Won Doha. Is reaching the very least a QF of each slam. Not bad for a decline.

Doha's just a small warmup tourney and as for YEC last year I think the main reasons Fed won in such fashion are:

-He was choosing the right tactics which has mostly to do with him finally hiring a coach again.

-Novak and Murray underperformed against Roger and overall played passive and allowed Fed to dictate the outcome completely(probably because they're used to grinding down Fed).Notice that Soderling gave him a pretty tough match because unlike them he played agressive tennis.

-Nadal was always gonna have trouble against Fed on low bouncing courts like say old grass and indoor carpet(sadly those kind of surfaces don't exist anymore)because they take away his main gameplan against Fed,meaning the ball sits up in Fed's wheel zone so he holds his own much more in CC rallies.Don't forget he beat Nadal in straights at Yec in 2006 and 2007.

As for slams,keep in mind Fed was extremely close to losing in the first round of his best slam,heck he was closer to losing to Falla than Sampras was to Barry Cowen in the year he lost to Fed at Wimby.

Leo
01-25-2011, 01:20 AM
Similar level. While I think the Top 4 is stronger now (Murray and Djokovic really playing tennis in a 3-4 league of their own behind the other two), I think the Top 20 was stronger in 2004-2007.

allpro
01-25-2011, 01:23 AM
2003-2007 best strongest era ever

are you a member of the Flat Earth Society?

Benny_Maths
01-25-2011, 01:46 AM
By that token I can say nadull has no competition currently,its not enough to isolate the anomaly.
More evidence is required since its in your interest that this era be stronger because of Murray.

Exactly. I've seen fail logic before but the 'one man won basically every tournament over a period of X months so it was a weak era' is about as fail as it gets. Granted, if the people who used that logic did it consistently then there wouldn't be too many holes in their arguments. But you'll find that most who do use the aforementioned reasoning, tend to say 'Fed dominated a weak era because he won most of the big tourneys'. That's fine but then they do a 180 and say Laver is the GOAT because he attained the calendar slam, seemingly without realising that it means he dominated the competition and hence (according to their own logic) he won the CYGS in a weak era.

abraxas21
01-25-2011, 01:47 AM
Fed has declined but not a whole heck of alot. Dominated the YEC. Won Doha. Is reaching the very least a QF of each slam. Not bad for a decline.

compared to how much he was winning in 2005-2006, it is.

GlennMirnyi
01-25-2011, 01:57 AM
or maybe fed has just gotten worse?

just because things are more competitve for fed nowadays doesn't mean this is a stronger era.

Anyone who has watched Fed from 2005-2006 seasons can't say with a straight face he isn't playing much worse.

tennishero
01-25-2011, 02:05 AM
probably 03-07.. a lot of variety and different players in the top 10 during those times.
also argentinian players dominated the tour during 04/05, i can't remember exactly but there was something like 4 players in the top 10 and 8 in the top 20.

i wouldnt count that as an era though, a decade would be an era.

shiaben
01-25-2011, 02:09 AM
Present, given that players have become so experienced to the point, where they compete harder than Agassi/Sampras ever did. And the only reason for this is simply because of Federer and Nadal. Their games are so unique and complex, that they have to work beyond their limits to try and attempt to figure them out. And the moment they do.... assuming they defeat them....these two evolve their game to the point where its like cat and mouse. You defeat them 1x, then the next time you play them, they are totally different animals. It is frustrating but good for the sport. Makes it challenging.

tests
01-25-2011, 02:10 AM
Fed has declined but not a whole heck of alot. Dominated the YEC. Won Doha. Is reaching the very least a QF of each slam. Not bad for a decline.

your perspectives so fucked up. Not bad for another all time great, but it is not great for a all time GOAT. He is definately pass his CONSISTENT prime, but he can still turn it on once in a while.

GlennMirnyi
01-25-2011, 02:13 AM
Present, given that players have become so experienced to the point, where they compete harder than Agassi/Sampras ever did. And the only reason for this is simply because of Federer and Nadal. Their games are so unique and complex, that they have to work beyond their limits to try and attempt to figure them out. And the moment they do.... assuming they defeat them....these two evolve their game to the point where its like cat and mouse. You defeat them 1x, then the next time you play them, they are totally different animals. It is frustrating but good for the sport. Makes it challenging.

:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:

This post is funnier than the following pic:
http://assets0.ordienetworks.com/images/user_photos/1173029/batman-backpack-fail_fullsize.jpg?112d666e

SaFed2005
01-25-2011, 02:52 AM
03-07

Haelfix
01-25-2011, 03:03 AM
Equal. 2003-2005 were very competitive years, 2006-2007 not so much. 2008 was a very tough and deep year, 2009-2010 not so much. The not so much years tend to have injuries to the better players and you can feel it in the depth of talent.

stzenit
01-25-2011, 03:09 AM
03-07 easily. I find tennis very boring now days. Even WTA has more interesting matches.. ok i wouldn't go that far.

Mike473
01-25-2011, 03:11 AM
I would say the current period is stronger. My best argument is Agassi during the earlier period. And, I am a huge Agassi fan, grew up watching him.

Agassi hit his career groove in 1999-2002 and grabbed one last slam in AO 2003. However, 99-2001 he was clearly playing his best. Agassi was 3-4 years past his top play in 2004 & 2005, yet stayed in the mix. Weaker competition must have been a factor here. How could a 35-36 year old man who could not train or practice properly due to mounting injuries remain relevant in a strong era? If so, how great was the real deal Agassi in 99-2001 when a much younger version trained super hard to play extended matches in the heat?

Lleyton_
01-25-2011, 03:15 AM
The strongest 'era' was September 2009 - February 2010 :worship:

Mechlan
01-25-2011, 03:17 AM
Similar level. While I think the Top 4 is stronger now (Murray and Djokovic really playing tennis in a 3-4 league of their own behind the other two), I think the Top 20 was stronger in 2004-2007.

This is similar to how I feel. Every year has its ups and downs. Last year, for example, was pretty poor for the top guys in general. This year could be good. But in the larger scheme of things, not much really changes in a single year, only the level of the players. Even if this year turns out to be more competitive than last year, it's probably because the same guys are playing at a better level, not that there are so many new guys now. So I don't think the level has changed that much in ~5 years.

Mjau!
01-25-2011, 03:18 AM
Well, I may not have watched tennis in 2003-2007 (or before that) per se, but it must have been a weaker era if "journeymen" like Hewitt, Safin and Ferrero were top players.

Corey Feldman
01-25-2011, 03:28 AM
here we go again :lol:

1972 was the strongest era

Ichiban1920
01-25-2011, 04:25 AM
Any era with Nadull being in the top 10 is a weak era.

tests
01-25-2011, 04:32 AM
This is similar to how I feel. Every year has its ups and downs. Last year, for example, was pretty poor for the top guys in general. This year could be good. But in the larger scheme of things, not much really changes in a single year, only the level of the players. Even if this year turns out to be more competitive than last year, it's probably because the same guys are playing at a better level, not that there are so many new guys now. So I don't think the level has changed that much in ~5 years.

last years competition was piss poor. Almost all the slams (Except AO) had no competition. Wimbledon had flukes (nadal and fed getting 5 setters) but pretty weak imo.. Djokervic made the wimby sf ffs.

USO was also kinda weak. Could use potro back!

Chartreuse
01-25-2011, 09:56 AM
Any era where a 35 year old reaches a slam final must be weak, USO 2005...

Shirogane
01-25-2011, 10:12 AM
Every era is full of clowns, but Agassi 2005 wasn't one of them.

Quadruple Tree
01-25-2011, 12:43 PM
There is no depth in this era. The Slams are dominated by the same four players. It's been 18 matches (soon to be 20 after the impending straight set destruction of Dolgopolov and Ferrer) for the top four so far in the Australian Open, and only Federer has been challenged by an opponent. It is really a joke how weak the rest of the field is compared to them. Wawrinka plays lights out against Roddick, and then shits himself against Federer. The same thing happened to Berdych, and the same thing will happen to Dolgopolov.

Start da Game
01-25-2011, 04:38 PM
of course 2008-present.......even a pet dog would know which bone to pick of the two if they are marked

1. nadal
2. federer
3. djokovic
4. murray
and co.

and

1. federer
2. nadal
3. davydenko
4. ljubicic
5. blake of all
and co.

sexybeast
01-25-2011, 04:56 PM
of course 2008-present.......even a pet dog would know which bone to pick of the two if they are marked

1. nadal
2. federer
3. djokovic
4. murray
and co.

and

1. federer
2. nadal
3. davydenko
4. ljubicic
5. blake of all
and co.

That is very selective to list Blake and Ljubocic who havent been that many weeks in top 5, the top 5 I remember from 2004-2005 had most frequently Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, old Agassi and Nalbandian. Davydenko is a good player aswell, I would love to have him around in the usopen semifinals instead of Youzhny, or in the roland garros semifinal instead of Meltzer or Berdych.

Murray and Djokovic are good players but still they have both got their ass kicked by old newborn pusher Roddick in some of the most important matches of their respective careers, imagine what kind of damage Roddick with a bigger serve and a bigger forehand could do in 2003-2005? I think even old Safin gave Djokovic a lesson on how to play on grass (!) in Wimbledon, even really old Haas (more of a 2001-2002 era player) was too much for Djokovic to handle. Nalbandian has shown indoors that even fat and old he can outplay any player in this era, Davydenko has gone out and defeated them all in big tournaments and even grandpa Ivan Ljubicic had it in him to win a big title in this era playing the 2 best of the mid 80s generation in Djokovic and Nadal on slow hardcourt.

So I cant see any empirical evidence that the old era is weaker than this one, I wouldnt say any era is much stronger than the other one. I am fairly sure this era is weaker on grass (I cant see Berdych going to the final 2003-2007) and maybe on clay, maybe a little bit stronger on outdoor hardcourt but much weaker indoors (I miss prime Nalbandian, Henman, Safin...).

Maybe it looks like I am making a case against the strength of this era, I simply question if people who think this era is much stronger than the old eras are bandwagoning and have a selective memory. Nadal and Federer ofcourse make any era strong, this one has a prime Nadal and weaker Federer while 2005-2007 had an unevolved Nadal and prime Federer. It is just that I really thought last year was a bad tennis year, Murray and Djokovic beeing abscent for much of the season until midseason, Federer beeing in the moon during summer, Del Potro and Davydenko injured and other talents like Cilic just beeing headcases. Clay season was the worst I have ever seen, Nadal was playing out of his mind but before we atleast had some "decent" good competitors on clay in Federer, Davydenko, Djokovic and Del Potro. This year the best claycourt players behind Nadal were Ferrer and Verdasco....

Usopen 2010 was just really bad, Federer playing a horrible match against Djokovic, no Del Potro, no Davydenko, Murray out early, Nadal playing 3 tired opponents in a row to get the title, 2 tired mugs in Verdasco and Youzhny. It is not like Nadal always gets this lucky, I consider his 2 Wimbledon titles truly heroic and the Australian open 2009 aswell, but usopen might have been the most fortunate happening of events to the eventual champion I have seen in a while. Comparable to the true mug era champs 2001-2003, champs like Gaudio rg 2004, Agassi ao 2003, Johansson ao 2002, Hewitt Wimbledon 2001....

Start da Game
01-25-2011, 05:17 PM
That is very selective to list Blake and Ljubocic who havent been that many weeks in top 5, the top 5 I remember from 2004-2005 had most frequently Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, old Agassi and Nalbandian. Davydenko is a good player aswell, I would love to have him around in the usopen semifinals instead of Youzhny, or in the roland garros semifinal instead of Meltzer or Berdych.

Murray and Djokovic are good players but still they have both got their ass kicked by old newborn pusher Roddick in some of the most important matches of their respective careers, imagine what kind of damage Roddick with a bigger serve and a bigger forehand could do in 2003-2005? I think even old Safin gave Djokovic a lesson on how to play on grass (!) in Wimbledon, even really old Haas (more of a 2001-2002 era player) was too much for Djokovic to handle. Nalbandian has shown indoors that even fat and old he can outplay any player in this era, Davydenko has gone out and defeated them all in big tournaments and even grandpa Ivan Ljubicic had it in him to win a big title in this era playing the 2 best of the mid 80s generation in Djokovic and Nadal on slow hardcourt.

So I cant see any empirical evidence that the old era is weaker than this one, I wouldnt say any era is much stronger than the other one. I am fairly sure this era is weaker on grass (I cant see Berdych going to the final 2003-2007) and maybe on clay, maybe a little bit stronger on outdoor hardcourt but much weaker indoors (I miss prime Nalbandian, Henman, Safin...).

the quality of tennis was below par on all surfaces except indoors........only when nadal got into his own and djokovic arrived on the scene that we started watching quality shit in slams again........add to that murray and del potro.......things got interesting and tennis moved to a new level.......

few instances of old weak era boys whipping the present ones does not cut it in favor of weak era........consistency was a serious issue in the top 5 and the level of players was pathetic.......the haas or ljubicic or anyone you mention who kissed the top 5 were never as consistent as the current top 4 or 5........even their overall level of play was rather poor.......

sexybeast
01-25-2011, 05:32 PM
the quality of tennis was below par on all surfaces except indoors........only when nadal got into his own and djokovic arrived on the scene that we started watching quality shit in slams again........add to that murray and del potro.......things got interesting and tennis moved to a new level.......

few instances of old weak era boys whipping the present ones does not cut it in favor of weak era........consistency was a serious issue in the top 5 and the level of players was pathetic.......the haas or ljubicic or anyone you mention who kissed the top 5 were never as consistent as the current top 4 or 5........even their overall level of play was rather poor.......

You are beeing selective again, I was talking about Safin, Nalbandian, Hewitt, Roddick, Davydenko and Agassi as really good competitors. In 2004-2005 Ferrero, Gaudio, Coria were still forces on clay and they were much better than Ferrer, Almagro and Verdasco IMO. I just mentioned that Haas and Ljubicic who really never won anything in any era still today can produce some of their best results and beat young guys like Murray and Djokovic in a good day. Roddick doesnt simply beat Murray and Djokovic on rare occasions but actually beats them more often than not when it really matters.

If Del Potro wouldnt been injured this season maybe last year would produce greater tennis, but last year Roland Garros and usopen were the worst I have ever seen and it got nothing to do with Nadal winning the tournaments, he was the only one to play great tennis in these tournaments(ok, Soderling played good in Roland Garros). Have Federer ever had a usopen draw as easy as Nadal's in usopen 2010? Has Nadal ever had a draw as easy as his Roland Garros 2010? Has Nadal ever had such an easy clay season, barely facing Federer, Djokovic, Del Potro and other champions but instead playing against Ferrer and Verdasco in finals? I remember 2005-2008 we would have Federer and Djokovic playing Nadal 2-3 times, almost in every single tournament on clay, they could atleast take a set from Nadal. Coria and Gaudio 2005 could push Nadal around aswell, even Ferrero could show flashes of brilliance against Nadal but not the guys we had competing against Nadal this year, clayseason was the greatest yawnfeast I have witnessed in tennis. I wont remember a single match Nadal played this year on clay as something special, atleast I remember 2005 epics against Coria and even the final against Puerta, 2006 we had some real marathons against prime Federer and Mathieu played 2 levels above anything he has ever produced to challenge Nadal in Roland Garros, 2007-2009 Davydenko, Federer and Djokovic all produced some special matches against Nadal on clay. I even remember clay mug Murray having a brilliant set against Nadal in Monte Carlo, I dont even think I witnessed anything like that last year.

GlennMirnyi
01-25-2011, 05:43 PM
Trying to have a serious debate with a Raflukel Nadull fangirl must be one of the easiest ways to throw your life out of the window. Absolutely pointless.

Start da Game
01-25-2011, 05:48 PM
You are beeing selective again, I was talking about Safin, Nalbandian, Hewitt, Roddick, Davydenko and Agassi as really good competitors. In 2004-2005 Ferrero, Gaudio, Coria were still forces on clay and they were much better than Ferrer, Almagro and Verdasco IMO. I just mentioned that Haas and Ljubicic who really never won anything in any era still today can produce some of their best results and beat young guys like Murray and Djokovic in a good day. Roddick doesnt simply beat Murray and Djokovic on rare occasions but actually beats them more often than not when it really matters.

If Del Potro wouldnt been injured this season maybe last year would produce greater tennis, but last year Roland Garros and usopen were the worst I have ever seen and it got nothing to do with Nadal winning the tournaments, he was the only one to play great tennis in these tournaments(ok, Soderling played good in Roland Garros). Have Federer ever had a usopen draw as easy as Nadal's in usopen 2010? Has Nadal ever had a draw as easy as his Roland Garros 2010? Has Nadal ever had such an easy clay season, barely facing Federer, Djokovic, Del Potro and other champions but instead playing against Ferrer and Verdasco in finals? I remember 2005-2008 we would have Federer and Djokovic playing Nadal 2-3 times, almost in every single tournament on clay, they could atleast take a set from Nadal. Coria and Gaudio 2005 could push Nadal around aswell, even Ferrero could show flashes of brilliance against Nadal but not the guys we had competing against Nadal this year, clayseason was the greatest yawnfeast I have witnessed in tennis. I wont remember a single match Nadal played this year on clay as something special, atleast I remember 2005 epics against Coria and even the final against Puerta, 2006 we had some real marathons against prime Federer and Mathieu played 2 levels above anything he has ever produced to challenge Nadal in Roland Garros, 2007-2009 Davydenko, Federer and Djokovic all produced some special matches against Nadal on clay. I even remember clay mug Murray having a brilliant set against Nadal in Monte Carlo, I dont even think I witnessed anything like that last year.

safin - was mentally fucked up to produce his best day in day out.......consistency was the last thing he could boast about.......

nalbandian - just not consistent again and i say this as his fan.......another mental patient unable to stick his focus to tennis.......talent alone does not cut it, commitment is more important than talent.......

hewitt - uber one dimensional overrated pushing mug, enough said.......

roddick - do we even need to start?

davydenko - funny that you mention him.......

it's also funny that you bring up nadal matches of 2005 2006 on clay........nadal was 50% on clay back then of what he is on clay today........he was beating corias, ferreos, robredos with just a solid forehand, lightening speed and rolling down first serves at 120-130 k.......

a 35 year old of the 90s was whipping fed's competition and making finals.......

Start da Game
01-25-2011, 05:52 PM
Trying to have a serious debate with a Raflukel Nadull fangirl must be one of the easiest ways to throw your life out of the window. Absolutely pointless.

stinkanek fangirls don't belong in the discussion........take the milk bottle and get back into your walker.......

sexybeast
01-25-2011, 06:10 PM
safin - was mentally fucked up to produce his best day in day out.......consistency was the last thing he could boast about.......

nalbandian - just not consistent again and i say this as his fan.......another mental patient unable to stick his focus to tennis.......talent alone does not cut it, commitment is more important than talent.......

hewitt - uber one dimensional overrated pushing mug, enough said.......

roddick - do we even need to start?

davydenko - funny that you mention him.......

it's also funny that you bring up nadal matches of 2005 2006 on clay........nadal was 50% on clay back then of what he is on clay today........he was beating corias, ferreos, robredos with just a solid forehand, lightening speed and rolling down first serves at 120-130 k.......

a 35 year old of the 90s was whipping fed's competition and making finals.......

Why is it funny I mention Davydenko? Federer had to beat him on hardcourt grand slam SF and QF 4 times and also in Roland Garros. Even today at 29 he defeats Nadal almost every time they play each other, even on clay Davydenko can make Nadal sweat. Davydenko can beat actually beat anyone when his game is clicking, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro, Soderling. He pretty much beat everyone of them to win TMC 2009.

You could make the same selective choise of weaknesses with players from this generation:

Murray: Can actually lose to anyone who is on fire in early rounds, megapusher with talent to do some damage but resorts to push even on grass (!) when he actually could even play serve and volley if he would have some guts. Master series specialist, no killer instinct at all in slams. Couldnt "outpush" Roddick in a match were he was the clear favorite in Wimbledon, hopes for Federer to make mistakes in slam finals, even Roddick plays more aggressive against Federer than Murray in slams.

Del Potro: Career destroyed by injuries so far.

Djokovic: Stamina problems, gets tired after 2 sets in grand slam finals, often retires in slam semifinals and quaterfinals. I have never seen any top player retire as much as Djokovic. Has serious problems playing Roddick, Murray, Nadal, Federer. Actually he is not much of a favorite against anyone important anywhere, except in hardcourt master series against Nadal. His volleys, slice, dropshot and overall touch is actually worse than most in the top 50 and the top 50 cant really volley in this era at all.

Soderling:One dimensional is the word you would look for to describe his game.

Cilic:Dont need to go there, right?

Berdych: Couldnt do shit for most of 2004-2008, just hanged around to play in the 4th rounds of slams. Beats the likes of Djokovic, Roddick, Federer, Murray and Nadal 20% of their meetings. Really found an oppurtunity to take advantage of how weak everyone except Nadal was playing to accomplish some good results.

GlennMirnyi
01-25-2011, 06:15 PM
stinkanek fangirls don't belong in the discussion........take the milk bottle and get back into your walker.......

Stop projecting your own issues.

Everko
01-25-2011, 06:18 PM
Stop projecting your own issues.

sad man you are

Start da Game
01-25-2011, 06:19 PM
Why is it funny I mention Davydenko? Federer had to beat him on hardcourt grand slam SF and QF 4 times and also in Roland Garros. Even today at 29 he defeats Nadal almost every time they play each other, even on clay Davydenko can make Nadal sweat. Davydenko can beat actually beat anyone when his game is clicking, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro, Soderling. He pretty much beat everyone of them to win TMC 2009.

You could make the same selective choise of weaknesses with players from this generation:

Murray: Can actually lose to anyone who is on fire in early rounds, megapusher with talent to do some damage but resorts to push even on grass (!) when he actually could even play serve and volley if he would have some guts. Master series specialist, no killer instinct at all in slams. Couldnt "outpush" Roddick in a match were he was the clear favorite in Wimbledon, hopes for Federer to make mistakes in slam finals, even Roddick plays more aggressive against Federer than Murray in slams.

Del Potro: Career destroyed by injuries so far.

Djokovic: Stamina problems, gets tired after 2 sets in grand slam finals, often retires in slam semifinals and quaterfinals. I have never seen any top player retire as much as Djokovic. Has serious problems playing Roddick, Murray, Nadal, Federer. Actually he is not much of a favorite against anyone important anywhere, except in hardcourt master series against Nadal. His volleys, slice, dropshot and overall touch is actually worse than most in the top 50 and the top 50 cant really volley in this era at all.

Soderling:One dimensional is the word you would look for to describe his game.

Cilic:Dont need to go there, right?

Berdych: Couldnt do shit for most of 2004-2008, just hanged around to play in the 4th rounds of slams. Beats the likes of Djokovic, Roddick, Federer, Murray and Nadal 20% of their meetings. Really found an oppurtunity to take advantage of how weak everyone except Nadal was playing to accomplish some good results.

davydenko does the donkey work for ATP.......he entertains the masses who do not have much to do and are looking for some amusement.......he is just happy that he gets paid for it and is also cashing on through betting........there's a reason why mentally balanced people never talk about him among slam contenders........

you can go on writing essays.......it does not satisfy the big criterion: consistency.......besides that, the low level of play is another reason why pre 2007 was weak as shit.......even nadal was weak outside clay.......

BlueSoul Formula
02-08-2011, 12:33 AM
The largest problem with these discussions is that it forced people to grapple for negatives that don't exist in order to argue that their generation is the best. Generational conflict is the saddest thing on this earth

.-Federers_Mate-.
02-08-2011, 12:36 AM
quite clearly 2004-2007.

Mungo
02-08-2011, 12:46 AM
quite clearly 2004-2007.

The question is not when Federer was stronger mate ;)

Good to know you're still alive after the AO, I was wondering.

Johnny Groove
02-08-2011, 12:46 AM
It doesn't take a genius to realize this thread is simply yet another Fed vs. Nadal thread and who's era is stronger.

The fact that it was started by the biggest Samprastard helps my argument.

.-Federers_Mate-.
02-08-2011, 12:53 AM
The question is not when Federer was stronger mate ;)

Good to know you're still alive after the AO, I was wondering.

Did i mention Federer? no. tennis was stronger back then. Right now all i'm seeing are mentally weak baseliners will no gameplan or independence. I was at the AO and the quality was appauling. Iv'e been in 2005,2008,2009 and 2010 and this years was easily the worst.

I did however catch the young guys e.g Tomic,Dimitrov etc and thye look very good. Dimitrov will be top 20 this year defo. Berankis is overrated.

Mjau!
02-08-2011, 01:16 AM
Sampras_fan would be dedicating his entire MTF existance to downplaying all of Nadal's achievements instead if he had been the first to overtake Petros. :rolleyes: :o

tribalfusion
02-08-2011, 09:36 AM
Dimitrov will be top 20 this year defo

Welcome back and with the predictions no less :)



These threads are like traffic accidents but in any case it is interesting to note that Federer himself (along with many others who have played in both periods) has stated on more than one occasion that he feels the field is tougher today.

I am exceedingly sure that this inconvenient fact will be disregarded, particularly by his most rabid fans.

zlaja777
02-08-2011, 11:04 AM
2008-Present by far.

Jaz
02-08-2011, 11:15 AM
Sampras_fan would be dedicating his entire MTF existance to downplaying all of Nadal's achievements instead if he had been the first to overtake Petros. :rolleyes: :o

You're right.

Vida
02-08-2011, 11:19 AM
this is stronger era, at the top at least.

though if it turns out that murray is a choker of gigantous proportions (and hes nearly there), it might not be as strong. I mean having a choker as a slam contender ... just not right.

Puschkin
02-08-2011, 11:20 AM
It doesn't take a genius to realize this thread is simply yet another Fed vs. Nadal thread and who's era is stronger.
exactly and therefore :zzz:

Sophocles
02-08-2011, 01:17 PM
Hmm. 2004-5 were decently competitive in my opinion, with prime Federer, Hewitt & Roddick pretty much at peak, Agassi still at a high level (yes he was mid-30s but his peak achievements were early 30s, not mid-20s as with most players), Nadal breaking through but being challenged by Coria, Federer, Gaudio, & even Gasquet, Safin sometimes hitting top form, Moya still competitive, Nalbandian playing well at times, guys like Henman still around to add a bit of variety, & players we tend to forget such as Grosjean & Ancic pretty dangerous. 2006 was relatively weak apart from Federer & Nadal: Hewitt & Roddick were fading, the older guys mentioned were by then past it. 2007-8 were a bit better thanks to the emergence of Murray & Djokovic, though by then Roddick & Hewitt, let alone Safin & the rest, were non-factors & Federer was declining. 2009-10 you had the emergence of Del Potro, cut short by injury, & a high level from Nadal (interrupted by injury), but this is not enough to make up for Federer's continuing decline AND the apparent regression of Djoker & Murray.

rocketassist
02-08-2011, 04:30 PM
this is stronger era, at the top at least.

though if it turns out that murray is a choker of gigantous proportions (and hes nearly there), it might not be as strong. I mean having a choker as a slam contender ... just not right.

It's just not- especially with Fed now 30 and on the decline. Then again Rafole have so many delusional fans on here they are like dual GOATs.

At the top in 04-05 you had NinjaFed, Hewitt, Roddick, Agassi, Nalbandian, Safin, Henman, Coria, an emerging hotshot Nadal (his 2005 RG is his most impressive RG by an absolute MILE) amongst others.

Now you have old man Fed, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, sicknote basher Del Potro, Soderling, pusher Roddick.

It's just not even a contest.

Start da Game
02-08-2011, 04:34 PM
It's just not- especially with Fed now 30 and on the decline. Then again Rafole have so many delusional fans on here they are like dual GOATs.

At the top in 04-05 you had NinjaFed, Hewitt, Roddick, Agassi, Nalbandian, Safin, Henman, Coria, an emerging hotshot Nadal (his 2005 RG is his most impressive RG by an absolute MILE) amongst others.

Now you have old man Fed, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, sicknote basher Del Potro, Soderling, pusher Roddick.

It's just not even a contest.

04-05 "ninja" clowns were getting buttkicked by agassi at 34, 35.......

rocketassist
02-08-2011, 04:37 PM
04-05 "ninja" clowns were getting buttkicked by agassi at 34, 35.......

Agassi's ground game at 34-35 is arguably IMO better than 30-year old Federer's ground game.

Agassi's groundies kept going- his fitness and his ability to run and last in matches didn't, which was key.

Fed's forehand is shaky these days and his ground game simply not so crisp anymore so he has to often win points using other ways.

abraxas21
02-08-2011, 04:40 PM
04-05 "ninja" clowns were getting buttkicked by agassi at 34, 35.......

at 34-35 jimmy connors was a threat to every "great player" of the mid-late eighties and was going deep in several tourneys. i don't see people dismissing that era on the basis that old man connors was still highly competitive against the very best.

Start da Game
02-08-2011, 04:52 PM
Agassi's ground game at 34-35 is arguably IMO better than 30-year old Federer's ground game.

Agassi's groundies kept going- his fitness and his ability to run and last in matches didn't, which was key.

Fed's forehand is shaky these days and his ground game simply not so crisp anymore so he has to often win points using other ways.

irrelevant, agassi at that ripe old age made a joke of federina's competition.......quite aptly he was still getting beaten by baby nadal everywhere.......

Start da Game
02-08-2011, 04:54 PM
at 34-35 jimmy connors was a threat to every "great player" of the mid-late eighties and was going deep in several tourneys. i don't see people dismissing that era on the basis that old man connors was still highly competitive against the very best.

because others were not clowns.......

Tonkie13
02-08-2011, 04:55 PM
this era

Filo V.
02-08-2011, 04:57 PM
Probably 2004-07, better at the top of the game. With that said, the overall quality isn't much different. Personally, I think there is more overall depth now in terms of talent within the top 100. Let's stop this bullshit Fed v Nadal stuff and just respect both as great champions, and stop trivializing their accomplishments.

Tonkie13
02-08-2011, 04:58 PM
Probably 2004-07, better at the top of the game. With that said, the overall quality isn't much different. Personally, I think there is more overall depth now in terms of talent within the top 100. Let's stop this bullshit Fed v Nadal stuff and just respect both as great champions, and stop trivializing their accomplishments.

;)

rocketassist
02-08-2011, 05:03 PM
irrelevant, agassi at that ripe old age made a joke of federina's competition.......quite aptly he was still getting beaten by baby nadal everywhere.......

Because Agassi was still GOOD and could still strike the ball cleanly, plus his playing style is making the opponent run and move, not him.

He beat Hewitt and Roddick back to back in Cincinnati, but he lost to Safin in Melbourne 04 and Coria on clay a few times.

Also yeah one match in Montreal didn't really prove a lot- the Wimbledon match Agassi was nowhere near in a fit capacity to go toe to toe. As for 'baby Nadal' he was already a GS champ having come through the toughest RG field he'll ever face in his life (2005)

abraxas21
02-08-2011, 05:07 PM
because others were not clowns.......

http://www.archaicchristianity.com/PictureUpload/Pic203.jpg

Start da Game
02-08-2011, 05:18 PM
Because Agassi was still GOOD and could still strike the ball cleanly, plus his playing style is making the opponent run and move, not him.

He beat Hewitt and Roddick back to back in Cincinnati, but he lost to Safin in Melbourne 04 and Coria on clay a few times.

Also yeah one match in Montreal didn't really prove a lot- the Wimbledon match Agassi was nowhere near in a fit capacity to go toe to toe. As for 'baby Nadal' he was already a GS champ having come through the toughest RG field he'll ever face in his life (2005)

agassi looked good because the field was pretty dumb.......agassi pretty much owned all of them and even pulled federina for 4 sets and 5 sets at us open.......nadal was a baby outside clay and still managed to beat that oldy who was hammering fed's competition and having a laugh with steffi.......

luie
02-08-2011, 05:18 PM
]Probably 2004-07, better at the top of the game[/B]. With that said, the overall quality isn't much different. Personally, I think there is more overall depth now in terms of talent within the top 100. Let's stop this bullshit Fed v Nadal stuff and just respect both as great champions, and stop trivializing their accomplishments.
Good post.

Jaz
02-08-2011, 05:36 PM
this is stronger era, at the top at least.

though if it turns out that murray is a choker of gigantous proportions (and hes nearly there), it might not be as strong. I mean having a choker as a slam contender ... just not right.

Course it's the strongest, now that your dude is playing and won something.

This thread is just a pissing contest.

There's just stupidity and logical failures throughout.

1) Why the years 2004-2007? Why these years? What is the criteria of the cut-off why not 2003-2010 or 2003-2009?
2) Subjectivity in question. What is "stronger"? Stronger by number of players competing for slams? Number of slams? Point accumulated?

The original OP has obvious subjective views, and the question is modelled in such a way to support this.

DrJules
02-08-2011, 05:36 PM
Excluding Federer and Nadal 2004-2007 has the edge on 2008-2010. I feel Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Nalbandian and Agassi outweigh Djokovic, Murray, Berdych, Soderling and Ferrer (Del Potro only really a key player for less than a year). However, while 2008-2010 has Federer an Nadal the whole period 2004-2007 only sees both as key players from early-mid 2005.

Overall little difference between the periods.

Mjau!
02-08-2011, 06:55 PM
Excluding Federer and Nadal 2004-2007 has the edge on 2008-2010. I feel Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Nalbandian and Agassi outweigh Djokovic, Murray, Berdych, Soderling and Ferrer (Del Potro only really a key player for less than a year). However, while 2008-2010 has Federer an Nadal the whole period 2004-2007 only sees both as key players from early-mid 2005.

Overall little difference between the periods.

Those players are not so good. That's why they not win from 2008 to present.

Mats Wilander says Federer is playing better than ever.

BlueSoul Formula
02-16-2011, 01:23 AM
If I want to watch athleticism I watch the marathon or the decathlon.

And no way tennis players today are more skilled than in the 90s and before. No bloody way. Players today can only hit topspin and any amateur can hit topspin.

I want to watch TENNIS. Contrast of styles, touch, inventiveness...


Players in today's game hit topspin as their strong foundation. Without a foundation there is no building. The building is the entire game. The game has evolved to the point where it is necessary to have a strong base, which is the topspin baseline shot. But the contrast of style and inventiveness as you mentioned is what makes tennis beautiful, so I agree with you. But I disagree with your point that it does not exist anymore. Styles are more different now than ever. The baseline foundation game allows for more variety than a serve and volley style. There is a wider multitude of shot variance from the baseline.

tealeaves
02-16-2011, 01:24 AM
2008-2010 is boring.

BlueSoul Formula
03-08-2011, 01:12 AM
This needs to be addressed again. My points have yet to be contradicted by any valid points.

rocketassist
03-08-2011, 05:56 AM
Fed is playing better than ever. Wrong, he's playing worse than he did in 2001
More variety now. Wrong
Most players use topspin. Wrong, only one or two do

juan27
03-08-2011, 06:12 AM
in 2004-2007 inside top-10 many players have grand slams, for example: safin,hewitt,roddick,ferrero,gaudio,moya,agassi,na dal,etc......

in 2008-present, without roger or nadal, only nole has two grand slams, the rest of top-10 can`t win a grand slam.

In my opinion, i saw many very good matches and beatiful game in the period 2004-2007.

federer loses more matches because is natural... young boys defeat a player with 30 years old, but this federer(2008-present) defeats many time djokovic(13-8) and with murray never lost in a grand slam, what is so wonderful of this new generation????????????

Caralimon
03-08-2011, 06:19 AM
We don't get guys like Ljubicic, Nalbandian or Blake in the top 3 nowadays, so I reckon this is a better era by a considerable margin.

rocketassist
03-08-2011, 07:13 AM
We don't get guys like Ljubicic, Nalbandian or Blake in the top 3 nowadays, so I reckon this is a better era by a considerable margin.

Nalbandian was/is at his prime a bigger talent than two of the current top 3. Though of course talent never meant results.

Topspindoctor
03-08-2011, 08:13 AM
Nalbandian was/is at his prime a bigger talent than two of the current top 3. Though of course talent never meant results.

Playing well on indoor hard isn't talent.

oranges
03-08-2011, 08:31 AM
Playing well on indoor hard isn't talent.

Semis in all slams, but he's an indoor specialist. only by topspinclown :worship:

Sophocles
03-08-2011, 09:33 AM
Ljubo/Blake in the Top 3 was embarrassing, but mercifully it wasn't for long, & occurred during the relatively uncompetitive year of 2006. In terms of competitiveness I'd rank the last few years thus: 2005>2003>2007>2004>2008>2009>2006>>>>>>2010.

Start da Game
03-08-2011, 05:29 PM
Ljubo/Blake in the Top 3 was embarrassing, but mercifully it wasn't for long, & occurred during the relatively uncompetitive year of 2006. In terms of competitiveness I'd rank the last few years thus: 2005>2003>2007>2004>2008>2009>2006>>>>>>2010.

arse buffoon competition is held in november, not this month.......

rocketassist
03-08-2011, 05:37 PM
arse buffoon competition is held in november, not this month.......

He's right though! :lol:

tribalfusion
03-08-2011, 06:15 PM
He's right though! :lol:

No, he isn't.


Not by a long-shot.


Everyone from Federer to Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and Sod say it is more competitive now but hey, you guys know best.

Rock on dudes.

Shirogane
03-08-2011, 06:29 PM
One shouldn't expect them to say otherwise.

DrJules
03-08-2011, 06:33 PM
Ljubo/Blake in the Top 3 was embarrassing, but mercifully it wasn't for long, & occurred during the relatively uncompetitive year of 2006. In terms of competitiveness I'd rank the last few years thus: 2005>2003>2007>2004>2008>2009>2006>>>>>>2010.

I think the majority of the objective posters on this site would agree with that order although 2010 was only marginally weaker than 2006.

ossie
03-08-2011, 06:40 PM
No, he isn't.


Not by a long-shot.


Everyone from Federer to Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and Sod say it is more competitive now but hey, you guys know best.

Rock on dudes.touche, from experts to (retired) players everyone agrees this is the strongest era in mens tennis. only the fanboys on mtf seem to think otherwise.

locyka19
03-08-2011, 07:32 PM
I'd say the previous era.Federer in his prime,Safin's big moments,Hewitt's great matches and a not ready yet Nadal but very exciting moments. The whole field was more open. I was not sure that time that Federer will be this dominating. Even after his first 4 slams.

shiaben
03-08-2011, 07:47 PM
Post 2008.

You have robot Nadal that obliterated everyone at the USO 2010. You have top tier Djokovic that played first class tennis at the Australian Open. And you have competitor Federer, who continues to make deep runs and has the potential to win a few more slams.

It's no longer dominated by 1 man. More and more players are developing and perhaps in the future, we'll have 8 legitimate competitors. But for now, the top 3 are not pushers, and their games are above everyone elses.

Perhaps Andy Murray one day can change his mechanic and add a devastating forehand. He's got the accuracy and defense, now enough of the bullshit, and add the killer forehand with a high serve %, to break through.

mark73
03-08-2011, 08:04 PM
Im not sure which is stronger setsampras but surely the fed/nadal era is nothing compared to the 90's. In the 90's players reached top physical condition. Surprsingly everybody in the post Sampras era became weaker tennis players as expert MTF players like yourself aknowledge it as a mug era.

I believe what happened is that like in the army homesexuality has become accepted(as it should be) So most players in the mem's locker room are necking now with eachother. Thus the increase in Mono and the result is that tennis has become the ONLY sport where players conditioning has worsened. The mug era is the mono era.

So yes setsampras sampras is the greatest in fact I hink he is god.

jcempire
03-08-2011, 08:34 PM
all looks suck to me.

Haelfix
03-08-2011, 08:51 PM
2004-2007 generally speaking was a little deeper and stronger competition wise! 2008 was a very deep year, but 09 and 10 were plagued by injuries and retirements. I think 2011 is shaping up to be a rather competitive year though, which is why it is exciting. All those new young players finally breaking out is great.

Generally speaking i'd say 2005>2004>2008>2003>2007>2006>2009>2010. The real lowpoint was 2002 strictly speaking, as there was a passing of the guard and a power vacuum that lasted for about a year. Couple that with the fact that a lot of the premiere young talent had injuries that ended their careers (eg Kuerten and Rios).

DrJules
03-08-2011, 08:55 PM
When the depth of field and quality are both considered I think overall the difference is only ever likely to be marginal as standards do not change so dramatically over such a short time scale.

Caralimon
03-08-2011, 10:42 PM
I don't remember any other top player who was consistent enough (I mean, for a extended period of time) during that 2004-2007 period, outside Nadal and Federer. Safin, Hewitt, Agassi, Coria; they all had their moments, but no one is even close to Murray or Djokovic when it comes to long term consistency and stability in the top of the game. Probably the same could have been said for Del Potro if it wasn't for his injury, but that's the case too with some other players.

rocketassist
03-08-2011, 11:00 PM
No, he isn't.


Not by a long-shot.


Everyone from Federer to Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and Sod say it is more competitive now but hey, you guys know best.

Rock on dudes.

Apart from Federer, those guys weren't at the top of the game in the previous era so have no idea what it was like. Besides he's not going to say 'I'm past it' is he?

rocketassist
03-08-2011, 11:01 PM
touche, from experts to (retired) players everyone agrees this is the strongest era in mens tennis. only the fanboys on mtf seem to think otherwise.

It fucking isn't, and you're a delusional Fedal fanboy. Fed the greatest serve ever, Fed 2nd best on clay ever... ever thought of therapy?

shiaben
03-08-2011, 11:44 PM
2004-2007 had the worst of rivals for Federer.

1. Safin
2. Hewitt
3. Roddick

Nadal was the only rival to make things interesting. Funny thing was, some fans back then were hoping that Nadal was either a "temporary deal" (troubling Federer for a few years and would go away) or just strictly a "clay deal" (A typical clay-based rival like Kuerten and other players of this nature.)

But Nadal proved that clay court players that play their best games on clay, can if they work hard, avoid becoming one dimensional and share success on other surfaces like grass and hard court.

rocketassist
03-08-2011, 11:46 PM
2004-2007 had the worst of rivals for Federer.

1. Safin
2. Hewitt
3. Roddick

Nadal was the only rival to make things interesting. Funny thing was, some fans back then were hoping that Nadal was either a "temporary deal" (troubling Federer for a few years and would go away) or just strictly a "clay deal" (A typical clay-based rival like Kuerten and other players of this nature.)

But Nadal proved that clay court players that play their best games on clay, can if they work hard, avoid becoming one dimensional and share success on other surfaces like grass and hard court.

They've won five GS titles between them, two YEC and reached another eight finals. They're better than Nadal's rivals, especially Del Robot, one of the most uni-dimensional robots ever to snatch a big title)

shiaben
03-08-2011, 11:54 PM
They've won five GS titles between them, two YEC and reached another eight finals. They're better than Nadal's rivals, especially Del Robot, one of the most uni-dimensional robots ever to snatch a big title)

That's a good point; I should keep that in mind.

Del Potro, Soderling, Berdych, can be exploited if their footwork is not properly functioning. I've seen Nadal and other players torture and abuse them.

As for Murray he has everything he needs except power and serve consistency. If he can add those two things into his bag, he should be well prepared.

Now with Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, and even Nalbandian replaced with Soderling, Berdych, Murray, and possibly Del Potro (if he gets his form), we'll see if they can manage to obtain more titles than the former.

Footwork and consistency is key for these guys.

I hope to see players like Dolgopolov become the main rivals to the top 3. He has everything he needs for the most part, just needs more practice and experience to cut off the UE ratio.

at the Top /\
03-09-2011, 11:29 AM
AKA Fed-era vs not-so-much Fed-era.
Lets rewind a litlle bit more.
2001-2004 was dark ages for tennis.Hope it won't repeat any time soon.
So IMO,it was the best time for new-young blood to jump in and fill that giant blanc.
2004-07 was 1-man-show.Without any competitiveness,tennis is bit less interesting to watch though it made Fed looked like a GOAT.Which he might be,but that's very arguable,which wasn't the case til '08.At least for me(with all due respect to 'pistol',favourite player to watch).
The thread name should be renamed to -II- outside the top5,so it would be something to debate with.

Sophocles
03-09-2011, 11:44 AM
2004-2007 had the worst of rivals for Federer.

1. Safin
2. Hewitt
3. Roddick

Nadal was the only rival to make things interesting. Funny thing was, some fans back then were hoping that Nadal was either a "temporary deal" (troubling Federer for a few years and would go away) or just strictly a "clay deal" (A typical clay-based rival like Kuerten and other players of this nature.)

But Nadal proved that clay court players that play their best games on clay, can if they work hard, avoid becoming one dimensional and share success on other surfaces like grass and hard court.

You've missed out Nadal & for that matter Djokovic, who had surely attained rival status by the end of 2007. Since 2008 Nadal has had rivals who consistently stay in the Top 5 but who are nonetheless prone to alarming long-term slumps & (apart from Federer) have been *less* consistent at slams than Roddick or Hewitt were. The fact they've been able to hold on to their Top 5 ranking despite all this says little for the quality of the rest of the field. 2003-5 Moya, Ferrero, Nalbandian, Henman, Agassi, Coria, & Davydenko were a far stiffer challenge to the hegemony of the top players than the likes of Tsonga, Verdasco, Ferrer, Berdych, & clapped-out Roddick.

BodyServe
03-09-2011, 11:58 AM
There is no such thing as a stronger era between these two, only one which is less weak.

juan27
03-10-2011, 02:13 AM
AKA Fed-era vs not-so-much Fed-era.
Lets rewind a litlle bit more.
2001-2004 was dark ages for tennis.Hope it won't repeat any time soon.
So IMO,it was the best time for new-young blood to jump in and fill that giant blanc.
2004-07 was 1-man-show.Without any competitiveness,tennis is bit less interesting to watch though it made Fed looked like a GOAT.Which he might be,but that's very arguable,which wasn't the case til '08.At least for me(with all due respect to 'pistol',favourite player to watch).
The thread name should be renamed to -II- outside the top5,so it would be something to debate with.

2004-2007 without any competitiveness¿¿¿????¿???

top-10 in that era have more gs than actually top-10.

only nole(without roger or rafa) has 2 gs...........

Idon`t see the big actual compètitiveneses