The weak era argument is weak [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

The weak era argument is weak

Tomatoes11
07-21-2012, 07:17 PM
I have noticed a trend where certain fans and haters always mention that the Pete Sampras era was so strong and the Federer era so weak. I think these people forget to factor in some important and fundamental variables when they say one era is weak and another is strong. These people tend to just look at the players and their careers and judge how strong the era is strictly based on this.

However, that would be totally ignoring scientific method and other variables. For example, if Federer didn't exist, you would probably be looking at something like this. While, this is just pure guess work because no one knows how the ATP would be without Federer but this doesn't need to be accurate to prove my point.

Roddick 3 slams
Safin 4 slams
Hewitt 5 slams

So that would most likely be sort of accurate if Federer didn't exist. So according to some Sampras fans, this would fit the criteria for a "strong and competitive" era where everyone has a few slams and battle hard for them.

So what is my point? You can't look at one players dominance and say he dominated because the era was weak. That dominatpnt player could have very well ruined some promising careers by being so dominant, which makes the weak era argument totally weak.

Another example of this fallacy, which happens in a lot of sports, not just in tennis, would be this NHL example.

Take this draft year for example where each team in the NHL drafts the worlds most promising hockey players. It turned out that the 2nd overall pick, Nedved, became a bust and the 5th over all pick, Jagr, became the best player in that draft.


1 1 Quebec Owen Nolan R Cornwall Royals [OHL] 1200 422 463 885 1793
1 2 Vancouver Petr Nedved L Seattle Thunderbirds [WHL] 982 310 407 717 708
1 3 Detroit Keith Primeau C Niagara Falls Thunder [OHL] 909 266 353 619 1541
1 4 Philadelphia Mike Ricci C Peterborough Petes [OHL] 1099 243 362 605 979
1 5 Pittsburgh Jaromir Jagr R Kladno [Czech] 1346 665 988 1653 937
1 6 NY Islanders Scott Scissons C Saskatoon Blades [WHL] 2 0 0 0 0
1 7 Los Angeles Darryl Sydor D Kamloops Blazers [WHL] 1291 98 409 507 755
1 8 Minnesota Derian Hatcher D North Bay Centennials [OHL] 1045 80 251 331 1581

Many unintelligent Quebec, Vancouver, Detroit, and Philadelphia fans would say something retarded like we should have drafted Jagr. Canuck fans especially would say Nedved is a weak pick, but they would be completely ignoring the two huge variables involved. One, the Canuck organization was horrible and Nedved could have very well been awesome too if he played for a better organization. Two, and this one is major, Jagr played with Mario Freaking Lemiux, probably the most gifted professional hockey player ever. Jagr could have been drafted 29th and still would have ended up as the best player in the draft regardless of what his actually ceiling was because he played with Lemiux.

I am not saying Sampras fans are wrong, this could very well be a weak era. I am just saying that I have yet to see a real well put together argument that factors in everything to support that this era was indeed weak rather than certain great players just making these other players look worse than they actually are. Discuss.

TigerTim
07-21-2012, 07:19 PM
Whats weak is this tea I am drinking, off to make some more, then I will respond ;)

EDIT/RESPONSE: What are Canuck's?!

Pratik
07-21-2012, 07:30 PM
Most hater arguments are weak. Get used to it, or you won't last long here(or any other forum, for that matter)

Weak era is just a way for Fed haters to diminish his achievements.


Another example of this fallacy, which happens in a lot of sports, not just in tennis, would be this NHL example.

Take this draft year for example


1 1 Quebec Owen Nolan R Cornwall Royals [OHL] 1200 422 463 885 1793
1 2 Vancouver Petr Nedved L Seattle Thunderbirds [WHL] 982 310 407 717 708
1 3 Detroit Keith Primeau C Niagara Falls Thunder [OHL] 909 266 353 619 1541
1 4 Philadelphia Mike Ricci C Peterborough Petes [OHL] 1099 243 362 605 979
1 5 Pittsburgh Jaromir Jagr R Kladno [Czech] 1346 665 988 1653 937
1 6 NY Islanders Scott Scissons C Saskatoon Blades [WHL] 2 0 0 0 0
1 7 Los Angeles Darryl Sydor D Kamloops Blazers [WHL] 1291 98 409 507 755
1 8 Minnesota Derian Hatcher D North Bay Centennials [OHL] 1045 80 251 331 1581

Many unintelligent Quebec, Vancouver, Detroit, and Philedelphia fans would say something retarded like we should have drafted Jagr. Canuck fans especially would say Nedved is a weak pick, but they would be completely ignoring the two huge variables involved. One, the Canuck organization was horrible and Nedved could have very well been awesome too if he played for a better organization. Two, and this one is major, Jagr played with Mario Freaking Lemiux. He could have been drafted 29th and still would have ended up as the best player in the draft regardless of what his actually ceiling was.


:rolleyes::topic::stupid:
There would be hardly anyone outside Canada/USA who understand a word of this.

Burrow
07-21-2012, 07:31 PM
I have noticed a trend where certain fans and haters always mention that the Pete Sampras era was so strong and the Federer era so weak. I think these people forget to factor in some important and fundamental variables when they say one era is weak and another is strong. These people tend to just look at the players and their careers and judge how strong the era is strictly based on this.

However, that would be totally ignoring scientific method and other variables. For example, if Federer didn't exist, you would probably be looking at something like this. While, this is just pure guess work because no one knows how the ATP would be without Federer but this doesn't need to be accurate to prove my point.

Roddick 3 slams
Safin 4 slams
Hewitt 5 slams

So that would most likely be sort of accurate if Federer didn't exist. So according to some Sampras fans, this would fit the criteria for a "strong and competitive" era where everyone has a few slams and battle hard for them.

So what is my point? You can't look at one players dominance and say he dominated because the era was weak. That dominatpnt player could have very well ruined some promising careers by being so dominant, which makes the weak era argument totally weak.

Another example of this fallacy, which happens in a lot of sports, not just in tennis, would be this NHL example.

Take this draft year for example


1 1 Quebec Owen Nolan R Cornwall Royals [OHL] 1200 422 463 885 1793
1 2 Vancouver Petr Nedved L Seattle Thunderbirds [WHL] 982 310 407 717 708
1 3 Detroit Keith Primeau C Niagara Falls Thunder [OHL] 909 266 353 619 1541
1 4 Philadelphia Mike Ricci C Peterborough Petes [OHL] 1099 243 362 605 979
1 5 Pittsburgh Jaromir Jagr R Kladno [Czech] 1346 665 988 1653 937
1 6 NY Islanders Scott Scissons C Saskatoon Blades [WHL] 2 0 0 0 0
1 7 Los Angeles Darryl Sydor D Kamloops Blazers [WHL] 1291 98 409 507 755
1 8 Minnesota Derian Hatcher D North Bay Centennials [OHL] 1045 80 251 331 1581

Many unintelligent Quebec, Vancouver, Detroit, and Philedelphia fans would say something retarded like we should have drafted Jagr. Canuck fans especially would say Nedved is a weak pick, but they would be completely ignoring the two huge variables involved. One, the Canuck organization was horrible and Nedved could have very well been awesome too if he played for a better organization. Two, and this one is major, Jagr played with Mario Freaking Lemiux. He could have been drafted 29th and still would have ended up as the best player in the draft regardless of what his actually ceiling was.

I am not saying Sampras fans are wrong, this could very well be a weak era. I am just saying that I have yet to see a real well put together argument that factors in everything to support that this era was indeed weak rather than certain great players just making these other players look worse than they actually are. Discuss.

Why would Safin have 4 slams without Federer? That's nonsense.

finishingmove
07-21-2012, 07:32 PM
weak thread is weak

Tomatoes11
07-21-2012, 07:32 PM
I'll try to make it more relevant to places outside of North America. My bad.

samanosuke
07-21-2012, 07:33 PM
only thing which I know about weak/strong era is that plenty of guys from "weak Fed's era" making/made a break though in this "nole/rafa strong era"

Johnny Groove
07-21-2012, 07:35 PM
MTF, where trolls and haters reign and logic goes to die.

OP, pay not attention to stupid arguments like "era strength".

samanosuke
07-21-2012, 07:40 PM
MTF, where trolls and haters reign and logic goes to die.

Fish, Melzer, Lopez, Mayer, Monaco, Kohlscreiber... All these "oldies" reached carrier high in this strong era

Honestly
07-21-2012, 07:40 PM
The weak era argument is truly pathetic. It's a total myth that clowns use to discredit the achievements of players they don't like. Like the argument that 2004-2007 was weak for instance just because the GOAT dominated. Did it ever occur to them that he dominated because he was good? If he wasn't that good guys like Safin, Nalbandian, Roddick, Hewitt, etc would have more slams and all of a sudden by their argument it becomes a strong era. And here Fed is in 2012 still winning slams and #1. Clowns will never learn I guess.

HKz
07-21-2012, 07:47 PM
only thing which I know about weak/strong era is that plenty of guys from "weak Fed's era" making/made a break though in this "nole/rafa strong era"

And Rafa only started making GS finals outside of Wimbledon/RG after Federer's era/prime years :shrug: the discussion is all hypothetical and based on whatever biases you have. There is absolutely no real way to measure an era's strength. Sure you can say there are more slam winners in a particular period of time, but if slams are being divided amongst more players, can't one also hypothetically claim that the top player is not that great?

I mean so many retards at MTF are quite hypocritical. Suppose Federer lost a lot more slams in his dominant years. Instead of the "weak era" discussion, many people would instead complain how bad Federer is. Again, all bullshit and all based on your biases.

Pirata.
07-21-2012, 07:53 PM
only thing which I know about weak/strong era is that plenty of guys from "weak Fed's era" making/made a break though in this "nole/rafa strong era"

Yep.

Alex999
07-21-2012, 07:53 PM
Whats weak is this tea I am drinking, off to make some more, then I will respond ;)

EDIT/RESPONSE: What are Canuck's?!
It's a hockey team from Vancouver. I guess you Brits don't play hockey ;):D
http://canucks.nhl.com/

I prefer Calgary Flames ... ooops didn't mean to derail this thread :D

nole_no1
07-21-2012, 07:55 PM
Nobody is mentioning the weak era besides Fedtards when their idol is losing. When Federer is winning a major title (see Wimbledon this year) everybody is like "another GS in this strong era". When Nadal is winning a GS or Nole is winning a GS they're like "pff weak era. They would've never won so many titles in a strong era like that when Federer peaked"

HKz
07-21-2012, 07:58 PM
Nobody is mentioning the weak era besides Fedtards when their idol is losing. When Federer is winning a major title (see Wimbledon this year) everybody is like "another GS in this strong era". When Nadal is winning a GS or Nole is winning a GS they're like "pff weak era. They would've never won so many titles in a strong era like that when Federer peaked"

Quite the contrary. Saw a lot of fools pointing out how can this "strong era of Rafa/Novak" allow an old crippled man to still rack up another title.

samanosuke
07-21-2012, 08:00 PM
Nobody is mentioning the weak era besides Fedtards when their idol is losing. When Federer is winning a major title (see Wimbledon this year) everybody is like "another GS in this strong era". When Nadal is winning a GS or Nole is winning a GS they're like "pff weak era. They would've never won so many titles in a strong era like that when Federer peaked"


any true nole/rafa tard trademark sentence is " Fed won all those slams just due he was facing mugs like Roddick or Hewitt. When Rafa and Nole came he couldn't win a slam anymore "

Tomatoes11
07-21-2012, 08:00 PM
Now I am wondering how many slams Roddick would have if Federer didn't exist. I am thinking 4 is generous even without Federer. Lol

fsoica
07-21-2012, 08:03 PM
imho, the era of djokovic, nadal and murray is the weak one. only 2 players able to win slams and del potro - one slam wonder and old man federer doing something notable. apart from that, nothing to challenge djokovic and rafa....no present, no future...imagine if fed's rafa, djokovic and muzza (great players 5 years younger than him) would have been the likes of dimitrov, tomic or raonic. Fed would stand at 25 slams easily...

how is this for a great reasoning?


let's forget the weak era argument, now or whenever, and enjoy the tennis. it's really great, as it was 10 or 5 years ago!

samanosuke
07-21-2012, 08:03 PM
I am far from being a Roddick fun but the guy would have had at least one Wimby title with current field without Fed. Nadal returning peak Roddick serve on still decent fast 03-05 grass would be fun

nole_no1
07-21-2012, 08:04 PM
any true nole/rafa tard trademark sentence is " Fed won all those slams just due he was facing mugs like Roddick or Hewitt. When Rafa and Nole came he couldn't win a slam anymore "

Maybe they're just Federer haters i don't know. I never denied any GS title to any player doesn't matter when he won it and how. A GS is a GS. Plus that, Roddick and Hewitt were both redutable players when they peaked.For example I think we all know the problems Djokovic had in the past with Roddick when the american was "in the zone". It's true back then Djokovic was not as good as he is now but still an in-form Roddick could trouble anyone

rocketassist
07-21-2012, 08:07 PM
Roddick, Hewitt and Safin won 5 slams and all reached number 1 but people still mark them down as crappy players, these clowns jumped on the wagon around 2008 or 2011 methinks.

The Fearhand
07-21-2012, 08:08 PM
Listen...personally I think between 2000-2005 that era was weak. There was no one really dominating consistently besides Federer. After 2005 it got really competitive where there were at least 2 very competitive dominant players and a year or 2 later this got to 3. Federer imo played in a weak era during that time from 2000-2005 but that shouldn't take anything away from his greatness. It's not his fault he had no competition no one was as good as him period. Why do people confuse both with eachother ?

What's even more impressive IMO is that Federer at age 31, in the strongest era for a long time maybe ever he dominated and won Wimbledon with style and looks to end the year VERY STRONG. That is Federers greatness, correct ?

That's my objective opinion.

rocketassist
07-21-2012, 08:08 PM
Listen...personally I think between 2000-2005 that era was weak. There was no one really dominating consistently besides Federer. After 2005 it got really competitive where there were at least 2 very competitive dominant players and a year or 2 later this got to 3. Federer imo played in a weak era during that time from 2000-2005 but that shouldn't take anything away from his greatness. It's not his fault he had no competition no one was as good as him period. Why do people confuse both with eachother ?

What's even more impressive IMO is that Federer at age 31, in the strongest era for a long time maybe ever he dominated and won Wimbledon with style and looks to end the year VERY STRONG. That is Federers greatness, correct ?

That's my objective opinion.

2006 with Boredo top 5 was better than 04-05 and Hewitt/Safin decline had begun, really?

samanosuke
07-21-2012, 08:11 PM
Maybe they're just Federer haters i don't know. I never denied any GS title to any player doesn't matter when he won it and how. A GS is a GS. Plus that Roddick and Hewitt were both redutable players when they peaked.For example I think we all know the problems Djokovic had in the past with Roddick when the american was "in the zone". It's true back then Djokovic was not as good as he is now but still an in-form Roddick could trouble anyone

I knew you didn't. that's why we are having on topic conversation ;)

Yep. Roddick is very underrated just because of his h2h with Fed. And the truth is that Fed is more than an awful match up for him. Specially because he had sixth sense for reading Roddick's serves. More than few times Roddick threw the kitchen sink at him but still got second best. Maybe the best Roddick's match against Fed was USO QF '07 . Don't see many guys at peak level who would have beaten Roddick that night and he got straight setted to Fed . Everything what you need to know about being born in wrong time

nole_no1
07-21-2012, 08:12 PM
imho, the era of djokovic, nadal and murray is the weak one. only 2 players able to win slams and del potro - one slam wonder and old man federer doing something notable. apart from that, nothing to challenge djokovic and rafa....no present, no future...imagine if fed's rafa, djokovic and muzza (great players 5 years younger than him) would have been the likes of dimitrov, tomic or raonic. Fed would stand at 25 slams easily...


In my oppinion the top 4 right now is too strong and that's why they make the others look like they can't challenge them. But I do agree about the future of this sport...with players like Tomic,Dimitrov,Raonic and Paire in the spot, the future doesn't look too shine

TigerTim
07-21-2012, 08:15 PM
Just a reminder guys;

Hewitt: 1USO, 1WIM, 2YEC, 2YE No.1, 2DC
Safin: 1USO, 1AO, No.1, 2DC
Roddick: 1USO, No.1, 1DC

not bad eh, plus Roddick has had 4 Finals, Safin and Hewitt 2 each

Snowwy
07-21-2012, 08:16 PM
Which year was a strong era?

samanosuke
07-21-2012, 08:16 PM
Which year was a strong era?

depends who's tard are you

TheFearlessOne
07-21-2012, 08:19 PM
I've always found the "Federer era was weak because he was dominating everyone else" argument ridiculous. I mean, look at WTA - the last 7 Grand Slams have been won by 7 different women, so it's as far from total domination as possible, but the only way you can call it a strong era is if you've forgotten to take your medication in the morning.

rocketassist
07-21-2012, 08:19 PM
Which year was a strong era?

1995, 2003, 2004 and 2008 I believe to be the strongest years in terms of both quality and competitiveness.

Snowwy
07-21-2012, 08:29 PM
1995, 2003, 2004 and 2008 I believe to be the strongest years in terms of both quality and competitiveness.

Why is 2003 a strong era? Because 4 players won slams? Would 2012 be a strong era if Murray wins say the Olympics and Del Potro (just pretend) wins the US Open. That's 5 winners. What if Berdych wins the WTF then.

Also, I have been arguing for years that the 00's have been stronger than the 90's, you have been arguing the opposite, what made you change your mind?

The Fearhand
07-21-2012, 08:39 PM
2006 with Boredo top 5 was better than 04-05 and Hewitt/Safin decline had begun, really?

2005-2010 Fed-Nadal rivalry > 2000-2005.
Greatest tennis rivalry ever.
Federer and Nadal are the only pair of men to have finished six consecutive calendar years as the top two ranked players on the ATP Tour.
Really.

Safin/Hewitt not even close to Nadal/Djoker and I'm not even mentioning Murray, Tsonga etc.
And I like Safin/Hewitt/Roddick so.

My opinion.

rocketassist
07-21-2012, 08:54 PM
Why is 2003 a strong era? Because 4 players won slams? Would 2012 be a strong era if Murray wins say the Olympics and Del Potro (just pretend) wins the US Open. That's 5 winners. What if Berdych wins the WTF then.

Also, I have been arguing for years that the 00's have been stronger than the 90's, you have been arguing the opposite, what made you change your mind?

Nothing, I'm on about individual years rather than a whole decade and I enjoyed 2003 individually as the quality of tennis was high and Agassi, JCF, Fed and Roddick all reached outrageous levels in the four slams and even the TMC.

Schuettler wasn't a great player but his run to the AO final was a minefield but besides Roddick-El Aynaoui it wasn't the greatest slam. RG had Ferrero-Gonzalez and Costa putting up a brilliant defence, Verkerk playing clutch tennis to dump Moya and Coria and then Federer breaking through at Wimbledon with one of his greatest matches in the SF against a Roddick who was being tipped to win it at that point.

The USO had plenty of great quality- Nalbandian def Federer, and then Roddick-Nalbandian and Ferrero def Agassi. Awesome matches. Then the Fed-Agassi and Agassi-Nalbandian in Houston blew the roof off.

Not my fave year ever but it was a bloody good one.

2012 has been OK, miles better than 2010-11, but again same slam winners as usual. Let's see some new champions.

rocketassist
07-21-2012, 08:55 PM
2005-2010 Fed-Nadal rivalry > 2000-2005.
Greatest tennis rivalry ever.
Federer and Nadal are the only pair of men to have finished six consecutive calendar years as the top two ranked players on the ATP Tour.
Really.

Safin/Hewitt not even close to Nadal/Djoker and I'm not even mentioning Murray, Tsonga etc.
And I like Safin/Hewitt/Roddick so.

My opinion.

Nadal was getting sparked off clay by a lot of guys till 2008.

Looner
07-21-2012, 08:56 PM
Listen...personally I think between 2000-2005 that era was weak. There was no one really dominating consistently besides Federer. After 2005 it got really competitive where there were at least 2 very competitive dominant players and a year or 2 later this got to 3. Federer imo played in a weak era during that time from 2000-2005 but that shouldn't take anything away from his greatness. It's not his fault he had no competition no one was as good as him period. Why do people confuse both with eachother ?

What's even more impressive IMO is that Federer at age 31, in the strongest era for a long time maybe ever he dominated and won Wimbledon with style and looks to end the year VERY STRONG. That is Federers greatness, correct ?

That's my objective opinion.

Clown spotted. No matter how many reasonable posts you make after this, your status in the HoF of clowns is assured.

Burrow
07-21-2012, 08:57 PM
Don't know how anyone could totally overlook 2000. It was a great year.

Agassi vs. Kafelnikov at the Australian Open.
Kuerten resisting against a comeback vs. Norman at Roland Garros
Sampras winning his final Wimbledon against Rafter
Safin beating Sampras in the US Open final

5 set Olympic final.

Great 5 set Masters Series finals in Miami, Rome, Hamburg, Stuttgart and Paris.

Year end Number 1 sealed by Kuerten with all of the odds against him defeating Sampras and Agassi indoors in Lisbon.

5 set finals in ISG events, one of which Enqvist beating Federer in Basel.

And surface variation...

Corey Feldman
07-21-2012, 09:14 PM
its always been weak

idiots look at achievments (oh, more players won slams back then) and not advancement or evolution of players as every 10 years goes by

15 years ago, the so called stronger era, you had a handful of guys who could serve 130MPH and were looked at as freaks, now 60 players in the top 100 can serve like that

players are fitter, stronger, faster

makes you wonder what tennis could look like in 20 years from now

Tomatoes11
07-21-2012, 09:15 PM
Listen...personally I think between 2000-2005 that era was weak. There was no one really dominating consistently besides Federer. After 2005 it got really competitive where there were at least 2 very competitive dominant players and a year or 2 later this got to 3. Federer imo played in a weak era during that time from 2000-2005 but that shouldn't take anything away from his greatness. It's not his fault he had no competition no one was as good as him period. Why do people confuse both with eachother ?

What's even more impressive IMO is that Federer at age 31, in the strongest era for a long time maybe ever he dominated and won Wimbledon with style and looks to end the year VERY STRONG. That is Federers greatness, correct ?

That's my objective opinion.

That was my whole point. You can't really say 2000 - 2005 was weak because no one was dominating. For all we know an experienced Sampras and up and coming Federer curbed the players of that era's growth. You can't just look at the record books and pick out weak eras, it doesn't work that way.

There are a lot of other factors. For all we know no one dominated that era because everyone was so fit and so closely matched no one could develop a rhythm and the first person that did would reap the benefits. You can't just look at it and say the gene pool was worse during these years because no one stood out. They could have been just too closely matched for anyone to dominate.

The Fearhand
07-21-2012, 09:15 PM
Clown spotted. No matter how many reasonable posts you make after this, your status in the HoF of clowns is assured.

If that's what needed to pat yourself on the back...go ahead. Because no one else will do that for you.
We all know who the real clowns are. I'm not the one hating on a specific player with a hidden agenda.

It's funny, ironic in a sense, how people mainly like you are quick to point out the x-tards, nadaltards, djokertards but you're exactly portraying the same tardness so in a sense you commenting on someone else as a clown brings the lolz to me so carry on. I am entertained.

Mine is simply an opinion that absolutely has no hidden agenda going for it, it might not be right but at least it's pure without hate in it. People who blindly hate another player simply because said player might be a threat to their favorite player I find extremely sad. Wether this is a fedtard,nadaltard,djokertard (as you guys seem to call them) doesn't matter..all the same. And you fit that bill too. Someone who fits that bill and calls another person a clown is pretty sad.

Like I said. Carry on. I am entertained.

The Fearhand
07-21-2012, 09:19 PM
Nadal was getting sparked off clay by a lot of guys till 2008.

That's why I said 2005-2008...amirite.

JediFed
07-21-2012, 09:42 PM
How many times do you have the same 4 people stay in the top 5 for 4+ years, consecutively?

Now, with Federer, Djokovic, Nadal, Murray and before, with

Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl. That era from, say, 1978-1982 was the strongest in Tennis.

The Fearhand
07-21-2012, 10:17 PM
Yup, I am portraying tardness because I am annulling the achievements of the same players that wiped Nadal's ass in 2006 and 2007, right? When they were in the primes, right? Can you point to me WHY exactly 2000-2005 was a weak era except your irrelevant opinion. Because as far as I know most players that played in 2005, played in 2006. Does this also mean RN's first RG was won in a weak era. What a joke you are :).

Finally, I am an out and out Fedtard. But I don't claim this current era is weak. Explain to me how someone who cannot play a flat FH and wins the USO like it's nothing is not a sign of weak era. I'll leave to you to guess who I'm talking about.

Glad you acknowledge your one of those x-tards. I hope you can overcome that sickness (not healthy imo) and appreciate life on a larger scale with little hate and subjective view on things. But kudos on being honest with yourself about that.

I will gladly answer your question. I think the 2nd half of 2000's are better IMO. The era post 2005 till now I find better, stronger. It is true that pre-2005 there were MUCH more different GS winners, quantity was better but IMO not enough quality for me to say it was a strong era compared to after 2005. If the question was...is the 2000-2005 era worse than 1900-2000 ? I'd say it was slightly stronger. But I'm talking about post 2005 which I think is better because it produced the greatest rivalry ever. That alone is enough of a reason for me to think like that. Does that mean I'm right ? Of course not. But if I was asked a question...would you want to erase pre 2005 or post 2005 I wouldn't hesitate. That doesn't mean I'm right. Besides Fed, Nadal, Djo, Murray, Tsonga and others there were some amazing games like Baghdatis-Agassi 2006 Us open, Isner-Mahut 2010 Wimbledon, Djo-Fed 2010 Us open, Fed-Nadal Wimbledon 2007 final, Verdasco-Nadal SF 2009 AO(Verdasco going past Murray and Tsonga), Fed-Nadal F 2009 AO, Federer-Roddick 2009 Wimby Final, 2008 Nadal-Fed wimby final what the consensus sees are greatest match of all times, Federer at age 31 claiming Wimby 2012 in fashion, Djokovic beasting through 2011, Fed 7 Wimbledon GS's, Nadal 7 RG GS's and many many more great memories which is why I think this era is stronger and pre 2005 weaker in comparison. Sure if you look from a GS winner point of view post 2005 only 3 guys, especially 2 guys got all the GS's nearly except DPotro but if you look at it from a larger scale I personally think there were more memorible, historical matches post 2005 era.

I don't think my opinion is of a clowns level...it is my sincere opinion.
And I have to repeat this...it's just an opinion. Which might not even be correct.
But it is my opinion...deal with it....or don't.

The Fearhand
07-21-2012, 10:19 PM
Does this also mean RN's first RG was won in a weak era. What a joke you are :).


I will say this. Pre 2005 there were amazing clay players like Kuerten. Post 2005 there are very little to none. Nadal played in a weaker clay era. Period. That is my opinion.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
07-21-2012, 10:30 PM
federer era (2003-2007) =/= nadal era (2008-2010) =/= djokovic era (2011+)

Looner
07-21-2012, 10:41 PM
bla, bla, bla

A lot of words and no meaning at all.

All I get is that you think the quality of the latter years of the 00's is higher and that's based on your bias. That's it. Really, you're not using stats, 5-setters or anything. I mean how in hell do you define quality :confused:. And if Nadal's played in a weak clay era, that's a lot more devaluing for him - 7/11 of his slams are clay and Wimbledon week 2 is clay-like. If you think 2010 is a strong year for tennis, then it really is enough to see how wrong you are.

I suppose you're trolling else it'd be worrying.

The Fearhand
07-21-2012, 10:47 PM
A lot of words and no meaning at all. All I get is that you think the quality of the latter years of the 00's is higher and that's based on your bias. That's it. I suppose you're trolling else it'd be worrying.

Based on this famous quote...you sir have won. Congrats.

Don't argue with an idiot he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Looner
07-21-2012, 10:59 PM
Hilarious indeed. You CANNOT defend your point and you call me an idiot. Typical shallow Nadaltard.

Gagsquet
07-21-2012, 11:08 PM
Eras are not weak or strong. They only are.

paseo
07-22-2012, 01:17 AM
Weak arguments against weak era argument.

Looner
07-22-2012, 01:21 AM
Since I was repped by the guy with the line that's how he rolls, I've deleted my post, so I can lose the rep. Here's the deleted bit.

If that's what needed to pat yourself on the back...go ahead. Because no one else will do that for you.
We all know who the real clowns are. I'm not the one hating on a specific player with a hidden agenda.

It's funny, ironic in a sense, how people mainly like you are quick to point out the x-tards, nadaltards, djokertards but you're exactly portraying the same tardness so in a sense you commenting on someone else as a clown brings the lolz to me so carry on. I am entertained.

Mine is simply an opinion that absolutely has no hidden agenda going for it, it might not be right but at least it's pure without hate in it. People who blindly hate another player simply because said player might be a threat to their favorite player I find extremely sad. Wether this is a fedtard,nadaltard,djokertard (as you guys seem to call them) doesn't matter..all the same. And you fit that bill too. Someone who fits that bill and calls another person a clown is pretty sad.

Like I said. Carry on. I am entertained.

Yup, I am portraying tardness because I am annulling the achievements of the same players that wiped Nadal's ass in 2006 and 2007, right? When they were in the primes, right? Can you point to me WHY exactly 2000-2005 was a weak era except your irrelevant opinion. Because as far as I know most players that played in 2005, played in 2006. Does this also mean RN's first RG was won in a weak era. What a joke you are :).

Finally, I am an out and out Fedtard. But I don't claim this current era is weak. Explain to me how someone who cannot play a flat FH and wins the USO like it's nothing is not a sign of weak era. I'll leave to you to guess who I'm talking about.

r3d_d3v1l_
07-22-2012, 01:35 AM
So Federer played in a weak era, fine. But people forget that Nadal sucked hard in hardcourts and indoors during Federer┤s peak time (until 2007) and was only the king of clay. Great, the thing is that he played against the same weak era Federer 7 times (!) during that stretch. Roland GarrosSF2005 Roland GarrosF06/07, MonteCarloF2006/07, RomeF2006 and Hamburg 2007.

What does this has to say about his legacy as probably the best claycourter of all time? The fact that the only player that could compete with him on clay was also the same one that dominated such a weak era?

TennisGrandSlam
07-22-2012, 03:10 AM
If you says that Federer win 17 GSs and insist Sampras' era is strong.

I think 8 GS' Agassi is not great because 5 of them derived in post-Sampras era.

abraxas21
07-22-2012, 04:00 AM
sorry, but when you've got a player like mugnaco approaching the top 10 there are little arguments to support the claim that this isn't a mug era.

Paylu2007
07-22-2012, 04:52 AM
Don't know how anyone could totally overlook 2000. It was a great year.

Agassi vs. Kafelnikov at the Australian Open.
Kuerten resisting against a comeback vs. Norman at Roland Garros
Sampras winning his final Wimbledon against Rafter
Safin beating Sampras in the US Open final

5 set Olympic final.

Great 5 set Masters Series finals in Miami, Rome, Hamburg, Stuttgart and Paris.

Year end Number 1 sealed by Kuerten with all of the odds against him defeating Sampras and Agassi indoors in Lisbon.

5 set finals in ISG events, one of which Enqvist beating Federer in Basel.

And surface variation...

I was about to suggest 2001, thinking it was the year u just stated, but if it was 2000 when it happened, that season was really amazing, the variety, all 16 seeds having chances to advance and defeat each other, You actually watched a match from Rd. of 16 and on, wondering who was going to win.

ssj100
07-22-2012, 05:05 AM
sorry, but when you've got a player like mugnaco approaching the top 10 there are little arguments to support the claim that this isn't a mug era.

Approaching top 10 doesn't mean anything. Let's see if he's in the range of "approaching top 10" for the next 1-2 years or if he breaks into the top 10. In relative terms, every era has a "mugnaco" "approaching the top 10".

I think all objective tennis observers agree that this era is one of the strongest of all time, if not THE strongest.

Pirata.
07-22-2012, 05:12 AM
sorry, but when you've got a player like mugnaco approaching the top 10 there are little arguments to support the claim that this isn't a mug era.

Tipsarevic in top ten should do it.

HKz
07-22-2012, 08:03 AM
2005-2010 Fed-Nadal rivalry > 2000-2005.
Greatest tennis rivalry ever.
Federer and Nadal are the only pair of men to have finished six consecutive calendar years as the top two ranked players on the ATP Tour.
Really.

Safin/Hewitt not even close to Nadal/Djoker and I'm not even mentioning Murray, Tsonga etc.
And I like Safin/Hewitt/Roddick so.

My opinion.

What does one rivalry have to do with the whole field?

sco
07-22-2012, 10:26 AM
The disparity between real grass and clay in the Open era resulted in "specialists." Even then, McEnroe and Edberg reach FO finals while Sampras never wanted to jeopardize his Wimbledon chances by trying to improve his clay game and going after the FO. Would Fed win on clay vs Gomez, Courier, Courier, Bruguera, Bruguera, Muster, Kafelnikov, Kuerten, Moya, Agassi, Kuerten, Kuerten on that clay with the racquets played with then? And would Rafa win Wimbledon playing against Edberg, Stich, Agassi, Sampras, Sampras, Sampras, Krajicek, Sampras, Sampras, Sampras, Sampras, Ivanisevic on that grass with the racquets played with then?

When the surfaces were changed to be more homogenized, the possibility of a CYGS is much greater (5 of the past 9 years of someone winning 3 of the 4 slams in a calendar year vs 2 years in the previous 34 years). With them pushing back Wimbledon another week, that possibility is even greater. I hate when they mess with the calendar, surfaces, balls. It dilutes what the previous champions did e.g. winning the FO/W combo - part of what made it so difficult was winning on such 2 diametrically different surfaces with only 2 weeks between.

tripwires
07-22-2012, 10:31 AM
Approaching top 10 doesn't mean anything. Let's see if he's in the range of "approaching top 10" for the next 1-2 years or if he breaks into the top 10. In relative terms, every era has a "mugnaco" "approaching the top 10".

I think all objective tennis observers agree that this era is one of the strongest of all time, if not THE strongest.

The top 3 players do not make an era.

Tipsarevic in top ten should do it.

I was just about to say that, and at #8, no less.

superslam77
07-22-2012, 10:50 AM
what we have now is basically really old players from the "fed era" still spanking current youngsters. nole and nadull? played back then and still play now. sure only nole improved in 2011 but nadull is getting worse.

so yeah same players, only older and a few youngsters with no talent to even beat 35 year old players from "fed era"...wow what an era this rafa-nole era?
again didn't they play before and now suddenly the era changed :unsure:

MTF tard logic :scratch:

Burrow
07-22-2012, 11:04 AM
The disparity between real grass and clay in the Open era resulted in "specialists." Even then, McEnroe and Edberg reach FO finals while Sampras never wanted to jeopardize his Wimbledon chances by trying to improve his clay game and going after the FO. Would Fed win on clay vs Gomez, Courier, Courier, Bruguera, Bruguera, Muster, Kafelnikov, Kuerten, Moya, Agassi, Kuerten, Kuerten on that clay with the racquets played with then? And would Rafa win Wimbledon playing against Edberg, Stich, Agassi, Sampras, Sampras, Sampras, Krajicek, Sampras, Sampras, Sampras, Sampras, Ivanisevic on that grass with the racquets played with then?

When the surfaces were changed to be more homogenized, the possibility of a CYGS is much greater (5 of the past 9 years of someone winning 3 of the 4 slams in a calendar year vs 2 years in the previous 34 years). With them pushing back Wimbledon another week, that possibility is even greater. I hate when they mess with the calendar, surfaces, balls. It dilutes what the previous champions did e.g. winning the FO/W combo - part of what made it so difficult was winning on such 2 diametrically different surfaces with only 2 weeks between.

Players are still using PC600's, HPS's, Pro Staff's from the 90's, so I don't get your point. People on this forum seem to be unable to understand that racket technology has not advanced in a very long time.

The Fearhand
07-22-2012, 11:16 AM
What does one rivalry have to do with the whole field?

It's one argument as to why I consider this era stronger. It's not ALL.
If you had read my post and not focused on one part you would've seen the other names I mentioned like Djo, Andy, Tsonga not to mention Ferrer, Del Potro etc.
If you say the pre 2005 era is stronger compared to post 2005 I'll respect that and I expect the same vice versa.

The Fearhand
07-22-2012, 11:48 AM
Tipsarevic is in the top 10 so pre-2005 era is stronger and post-2005 era is not. Great logic.

How about 2000 Magnus Norman ? Ranked 2nd.
└lex Corretja ranked 8th. Was even ranked 2nd a year before.
Jiri Novak ? Ranked 5th in 2002.

It's even worse to be ranked 2nd and not win a thing as opposed to being ranked 8th.

How about Andy Roddick ? Dominating pre 2006 up until 2005 when he wasn't even in his prime being number 1.
YET after 2005...from 2006 and on couldn't even stay in the top 6 and dropped out top 10 soon afterwards. And that was supposed to be in his prime. A young Roddick dominating pre 2006 but an experienced, prime Roddick being dominated post 2006 ?

arm
07-22-2012, 12:46 PM
Fish, Melzer, Lopez, Mayer, Monaco, Kohlscreiber... All these "oldies" reached carrier high in this strong era

These are the breakthroughs you meant? Seriously? :lol:

Somebody had to play some decent tennis besides the top 4, I suppose...

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
07-22-2012, 12:55 PM
federer era fringe players are now dominating the so called "greatest era" like a viking ****** crew, ravaging the land finding this era players and destroying them for easy booty to be had for all

imagine nalbanidan safin or federer 2005 playing in these conditions- it would be mass anarchy on a tennis court

The Fearhand
07-22-2012, 01:23 PM
federer era fringe players are now dominating the so called "greatest era" like a viking ****** crew, ravaging the land finding this era players and destroying them for easy booty to be had for all

imagine nalbanidan safin or federer 2005 playing in these conditions- it would be mass anarchy on a tennis court

Or imagine Andy Roddick :eek: mass anarchy indeed.

SheenKJohn
07-22-2012, 01:42 PM
Or imagine Andy Roddick :eek: mass anarchy indeed.

Prime Roddick would straight set 2012 Djoker in Wimbledon :cool:

samanosuke
07-22-2012, 01:47 PM
These are the breakthroughs you meant? Seriously? :lol:

Somebody had to play some decent tennis besides the top 4, I suppose...

obviously in so called "weak" ere there were more capable guys between 10-30th place when guys which I mentioned in their best tennis years couldn't have achieved what they achieved/achieving in this "strong era". Big 4 look this invincible just because these guys ranked between 10-30th, never in tennis history at the same time were so many so bad and limited players ranked on those positions, to make the things worse they are entering top 10 more and more often. If you think that top 4 winning all Slams and all Masters 1000 tournaments in last few years just because due to their effort, you are very wrong

The Fearhand
07-22-2012, 01:56 PM
Prime Roddick would straight set 2012 Djoker in Wimbledon :cool:

Woulda coulda shoulda.

Prime Roddick did such a good job post 2005.
Players reach their prime from 23 and onwards. When did Roddick reach that age ?
From 2005 and onwards. So basically from 2005-2010 Roddick was in his prime. Compare his performance up until 2005/2006 and after 2005/2006 and the answer to the stronger era will be obvious to the naked eye.

Corey Feldman
07-22-2012, 02:11 PM
sorry, but when you've got a player like mugnaco approaching the top 10 there are little arguments to support the claim that this isn't a mug era.just the same as Nicolas Lapentti making the top 8 once during the 90's

TigerTim
07-22-2012, 03:02 PM
just the same as Nicolas Lapentti making the top 8 once during the 90's

No. Lapentti was on performance enhancing Crystal Meth.

sco
07-22-2012, 03:13 PM
Players are still using PC600's, HPS's, Pro Staff's from the 90's, so I don't get your point. People on this forum seem to be unable to understand that racket technology has not advanced in a very long time.

Sorry, meant the whole racquet/strings/surface/balls change over the past 35 years. I really shouldn't post at 5AM in the morning.

atennisfan
07-22-2012, 03:21 PM
Quite the contrary. Saw a lot of fools pointing out how can this "strong era of Rafa/Novak" allow an old crippled man to still rack up another title.

Exactly!

Henry Chinaski
07-22-2012, 07:02 PM
just the same as Nicolas Lapentti making the top 8 once during the 90's

not sure if you're serious here.

lapentti was known for his massive balls.

monaco has no game, no balls, no nothing.

samanosuke
07-22-2012, 07:03 PM
monaco has no game, no balls, no nothing.

agree with first two statements, just don't agree with the last. he has plenty of nothing imo

rocketassist
07-22-2012, 07:06 PM
Lapentti was miles better than Monaco.

Ash86
07-22-2012, 07:15 PM
Such a clown. Please ban this mug for his trolling. Roddick handled your strong era Murray like nothing at Wimbledon 2009 and showed RN how to play tennis on a slow HC in Miami in 2010.

Yes - because one match tells you everything right? By that logic Isner showed Fed how to play on a claycourt at DC this year. Roddick was great in that one Wimbledon 09 match and the IW loss was in 3 sets at a Masters when Roddick was top 10 - hardly the world's biggest ever upset...

Roddick is technically not as good as Djokovic, Nadal or Murray - he is not as complete and much more serve reliant. Hewitt is also game-wise below the current world no.2-4. So yes, Roddick and Hewitt being top competition was easier than when it's Djokovic/Nadal/Muray. Just compare Djokovic/Nadal alone to the Hewitt/Roddick duo - in terms of top level competition the former duo are easily superior.

That said, Safin, Nalbandian etc. were purer talents IMO than Berdych, Tsonga etc. - it's just that they were far too head-casey to get it together most of the time.

JMan22
07-22-2012, 07:32 PM
A lot of that argument is hard to understand because I have no interest in NHL. Because of that, you completely lost me when you got to there and I never really got your message. I'll try to address your point anyway though.

Firstly, I don't really think you can take other players and predict the number of slams they would have had. There are so many other important factors there, as well as luck, so it's hard to predict where they'd be without Federer.

Anyway, I wouldn't say his era has been 'weak' but it's just not as strong as the general standard now. Like it or not, Nadal and Djokovic are on a different level to the likes of Hewitt and Roddick in their primes, while even Murray would still be regarded as better than them. It's not a slight against Federer, because he can only beat those put in front of him, but I certainly think he got it lucky with the era he played in for the most part.

Looner
07-22-2012, 07:38 PM
All I see in this thread are people desperate to undermine Fed's achievements. And it's most obvious when you look how weak their arguments are.

Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero, Nalbandian and Gonzalez were tough players to beat when on. Federer's generation was not consistent ALL the time but in any one slam there were at least 2-3 players who played as well as RN and ND. You don't need the same players to play as well tournament after tournament to make winning one insulated tournament difficult to win.

Corey Feldman
07-22-2012, 07:43 PM
Hewitt and Roddick were far better 10 years ago than they are now, 75% of ppl on this forum dont get that

Becker and Wilander disgusted me on Eurosport "Fed only had Hewitt and Roddick to beat"

the Hewitt who hammered Sampras in a US Open Final
the Roddick who has a winning record v Djokovic and has beaten Nadal countless times even when nowhere near the player he was in 2003-04, probably outplayed Fed in 2 out of 3 Wimbledon Finals

just such clownery :lol:

JMan22
07-22-2012, 07:43 PM
All I see in this thread are people desperate to undermine Fed's achievements. And it's most obvious when you look how weak their arguments are.

Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero, Nalbandian and Gonzalez were tough players to beat when on. Federer's generation was not consistent ALL the time but in any one slam there were at least 2-3 players who played as well as RN and ND. You don't need the same players to play as well tournament after tournament to make winning one insulated tournament difficult to win.

Tough players or not, the fact was that they are not as good as some of the top players today. Nadal and Djokovic are far superior players, while you could argue that Murray and even Del Potro as well are better players too. It's not undermining his achievements, as I think he's the GOAT, it's just admitting that there have been eras with much tougher competition for players to deal with.

Looner
07-22-2012, 07:44 PM
Tough players or not, the fact was that they are not as good as some of the top players today. Nadal and Djokovic are far superior players, while you could argue that Murray and even Del Potro as well are better players too. It's not undermining his achievements, as I think he's the GOAT, it's just admitting that there have been eras with much tougher competition for players to deal with.

WTF is this BS I am reading. How did you decide that exactly? Really some many of the opinions here are presented as facts I sometimes wonder if I've missed 10 years of watching tennis.

I don't even care about this GOAT nonsense anyway as tennis is an evolving sport.

PS On second thought, I give up. These arguments that people try to make are pure and utter nonsense. A half-disabled Hewitt stretched Djoker at this year's AO on a surface that's not even his best and is considered the Djoker's best :facepalm:.

JMan22
07-22-2012, 07:45 PM
Hewitt and Roddick were far better 10 years ago than they are now, 75% of ppl on this forum dont get that

Becker and Wilander disgusted me on Eurosport "Fed only had Hewitt and Roddick to beat"

the Hewitt who hammered Sampras in a US Open Final
the Roddick who has a winning record v Djokovic and has beaten Nadal countless times even when nowhere near the player he was in 2003-04, probably outplayed Fed in 2 out of 3 Wimbledon Finals

just such clownery :lol:

Again, even though they were much better players then, it doesn't mean that they were on the level of top, top players. They generally weren't. You can't use the argument for Hewitt beating Sampras, since Sampras was past his prime by then.

If there's one thing you can't use with Federer arguments, it's head to head record. He has an even record with Murray, a player who he's generally always been far better than, while Nadal has a superior record against him as well.

JMan22
07-22-2012, 07:48 PM
WTF is this BS I am reading. How did you decide that exactly? Really some many of the opinions here are presented as facts I sometimes wonder if I've missed 10 years of watching tennis.

I don't even care about this GOAT nonsense anyway as tennis is an evolving sport.

PS On second thought, I give up. These arguments that people try to make are pure and utter nonsense. A half-disabled Hewitt stretched Djoker at this year's AO on a surface that's not even his best and is considered the Djoker's best :facepalm:.

Well it's quite obvious. Nadal is a player who's dominated clay, including by beating Federer multiple times on it during his prime. Djokovic's tennis in 2011 was far superior over the course of a year than anything Hewitt and Roddick produced. Are you trying to say Hewitt and Roddick were better players than Nadal and Djokovic are now?

Ash86
07-22-2012, 07:50 PM
All I see in this thread are people desperate to undermine Fed's achievements. And it's most obvious when you look how weak their arguments are.

Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero, Nalbandian and Gonzalez were tough players to beat when on. Federer's generation was not consistent ALL the time but in any one slam there were at least 2-3 players who played as well as RN and ND. You don't need the same players to play as well tournament after tournament to make winning one insulated tournament difficult to win.

I'm not undermining Fed's achievements. He's won most of his slams with Nadal around and he's good enough to have dealt with Novak, Murray etc. too in his prime. And yes Nalby, Safin etc. were all good. But none of those players were individually as good as Djokovic and Nadal - that is true. You now have to beat 2 great players to win a slam (more often than not - Murray would have got away with it if he'd won Wimbledon this year) - that was not the case before.

Fed's won 17 because he's one of the all time greats. Fed has IMO some records that he may not have had - e.g. crazy HC streak, if perhaps Novak, Murray etc. had been around at that time because they're just fundamentally more consistent and present a challenge on HCs. But that's not Fed's problem - he was just heads and shoulders above everyone else and made the other players perhaps seem worse than they are. This era is better though because at least the SFs and Fs are exciting - you want some drama and intrigue in those matches. Much of the time Ferrero, Gonzalez, Hewitt, Roddick could not provide that. At all.

Corey Feldman
07-22-2012, 07:54 PM
Again, even though they were much better players then, it doesn't mean that they were on the level of top, top players. They generally weren't. You can't use the argument for Hewitt beating Sampras, since Sampras was past his prime by then.

You also cant prove that how they played at that time was somehow worse than Lendl or Wilander played in the 80's

or say Safin played at his best compared to someone like Courier

thats how i dont get when ppl think an era in the past was stronger, they have no proof

like saying Fred Perry was better than Agassi

i look at evolution, to me the player ranked 20th should be better than the best of players from 20, 30 years ago, nevermind the 20th ranked player of that time

rocketassist
07-22-2012, 08:01 PM
You also cant prove that how they played at that time was somehow worse than Lendl or Wilander played in the 80's

or say Safin played at his best compared to someone like Courier

thats how i dont get when ppl think an era in the past was stronger, they have no proof

like saying Fred Perry was better than Agassi

i look at evolution, to me the player ranked 20th should be better than the best of players from 20, 30 years ago, nevermind the 20th ranked player of that time

This evolution we have currently of slow ass courts everywhere favours players who put running, fitness and physique over natural tennis ability though, how is that good for tennis? It does make Federer's success when past his prime even more remarkable though.

Corey Feldman
07-22-2012, 08:03 PM
Fed's won 17 because he's one of the all time greats. Fed has IMO some records that he may not have had - e.g. crazy HC streak, if perhaps Novak, Murray etc. had been around at that time because they're just fundamentally more consistent and present a challenge on HCs. But that's not Fed's problem - he was just heads and shoulders above everyone else and made the other players perhaps seem worse than they are. This era is better though because at least the SFs and Fs are exciting - you want some drama and intrigue in those matches. Much of the time Ferrero, Gonzalez, Hewitt, Roddick could not provide that. At all.
seen plenty of exciting matches with those names before in GS's

ppl talk about Chang and Courier from the 90's but forget some things, Courier burned out fast and chang never made a Slam final either from 89-95

Becker and Edberg were past their prime by the time Sampras went to the top, 1993, just kinda like Sampras/Agassi when Fed went to the top in 2003 but they enough time left to meet in some great slam matches

Corey Feldman
07-22-2012, 08:06 PM
This evolution we have currently of slow ass courts everywhere favours players who put running, fitness and physique over natural tennis ability though, how is that good for tennis? It does make Federer's success when past his prime even more remarkable though.
they probably are slowing the game to try and keep up with the advancement of how good the players are thesedays

Sampras-Goran 1994 Wimbledon was hardly a match full of great tennis compared to this years Wim final

rocketassist
07-22-2012, 08:07 PM
they probably are slowing the game to try and keep up with the advancement of how good the players are thesedays

Sampras-Goran 1994 Wimbledon was hardly a match full of great tennis compared to this years Wim final

That's cause it was Andy and Roger ;) It was a good final, but last year's was absolute dog shit.

Corey Feldman
07-22-2012, 08:18 PM
ppl saying Fed had it easy are unbelievable rude and ill informed, i made a list of who Fed has beat at Wimbledon in the last 10 years and it would rival any era

they forget he caught the back end of Agassi, Samp, Rafter, Kafelnikov, Kuerten, Corretja, Henman... all of whom beat him at a slam except Sampras

then his own new balls gen - Hewey, Rod, Safin, Ferrero, Coria, Nalbi, Gonzo

then this gen with Nadal, Nole, Muzza, Berdy, Tsonga, Soderling - again... all of them beat him at a slam apart from Muzza

think of Fed's draw at Wimbledon 2002 - Ancic who turned out to be a great player that beat him

Olympics 2004 - Denko and Berdych in 1st two rounds

when did that happen in Wilander or Sampras days? that they could run into really dangerous unknown players in 1st rounds

TigerTim
07-22-2012, 08:25 PM
How did Heya put it? "fed got new balls and tore new hole". I have to agree Federer's talent and not a weak field led to his his dominance.

sco
07-22-2012, 10:28 PM
This evolution we have currently of slow ass courts everywhere favours players who put running, fitness and physique over natural tennis ability though, how is that good for tennis? It does make Federer's success when past his prime even more remarkable though.

It's that physicality that makes people think that this era is better than past eras when really it's the improvement in nutrition, training, etc that's the big push. For example, Fish's (re)surgence is due in large part to his diet. Novak, too, made the big jump when he eliminated gluten from his diet. Without the current knowledge about nutrition/allergies, he'd still be wheezing and breathing hard - not going 6 hours vs Nadal at AO Open. Did the previous generation have that advantage? Heck, who ever heard about gluten and casein free diets before the big explosion of autism.

TennisGrandSlam
07-22-2012, 11:37 PM
Becker, Wilander, Cash are just rubbish, even though you won Lendl in GS finals. But your titles and GS are lesser than Lendl. You three guy are NEVER dominant in 1980s! Cas is ONE SLAM WONDER!

Lendl never criticize Federer, You three guys are not qualified to critics Federer.

TigerTim
07-23-2012, 12:33 AM
Becker, Wilander, Cash are just rubbish, even though you won Lendl in GS finals. But your titles and GS are lesser than Lendl. You three guy are NEVER dominant in 1980s! Cas is ONE SLAM WONDER!

Lendl never criticize Federer, You three guys are not qualified to critics Federer.

:scratch:

Borg and Wilander = 6 slams each and yet they are rubbish :eek:

Sunset of Age
07-23-2012, 03:39 AM
It's just impossible to compare different eras. :shrug:

That said, I think it's a rather disturbing idea that nowadays there seem to be close to none youngsters being able to step it up against the current top-10, all oldies.
Not even to mention the fact that it's a 30+-fellow who's on top of the list right now - that same guy that already completely dominated the tour some six years ago. :o

Draw your conclusions, it's not that hard with some logical line of thinking...

If there were indeed any 'weak era', it's right there now, right in your face - with a 30+-year old still being able to grab a GS title, whereas ALL of his 5-year old minors where right there, in the draw. :o

Sunset of Age
07-23-2012, 03:43 AM
Tough players or not, the fact was that they are not as good as some of the top players today. Nadal and Djokovic are far superior players, while you could argue that Murray and even Del Potro as well are better players too. It's not undermining his achievements, as I think he's the GOAT, it's just admitting that there have been eras with much tougher competition for players to deal with.

http://onlinefocus.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/you-cannot-be-serious.jpg

Yet another poster who started watching tennis in 2011. Oh well. :tape:

HKz
07-23-2012, 04:04 AM
Woulda coulda shoulda.

Prime Roddick did such a good job post 2005.
Players reach their prime from 23 and onwards. When did Roddick reach that age ?
From 2005 and onwards. So basically from 2005-2010 Roddick was in his prime. Compare his performance up until 2005/2006 and after 2005/2006 and the answer to the stronger era will be obvious to the naked eye.

In truth, Roddick from 2005 on-wards only appeared in spurts (US Open series until Australian Open 2007, Dubai 2008, Australian Open 2009 until US Open series, start of 2010 until 2010 clay season). I mean before 2005, he was absolutely hammering the ball, people seem to forget this. Just rewatch that 2004 final between Federer and Roddick. Roddick was just pounding the ball. Yes, he was unable to keep it up which had some to do with Federer who really just gives Roddick a hard time either way, but really Roddick had his chances in that particular match, so no excuse there for him.

BigJohn
07-30-2012, 12:32 AM
Whats weak is this tea I am drinking, off to make some more, then I will respond ;)

EDIT/RESPONSE: What are Canuck's?!

It's a hockey team from Vancouver. I guess you Brits don't play hockey ;):D
http://canucks.nhl.com/




:facepalm:

It's a slang term for Canadians.

Like Yanks for Americans.

Alex... Yankees are more than a baseball team... :facepalm:

JediFed
07-30-2012, 12:41 AM
That said, I think it's a rather disturbing idea that nowadays there seem to be close to none youngsters being able to step it up against the current top-10, all oldies.

Not even to mention the fact that it's a 30+-fellow who's on top of the list right now - that same guy that already completely dominated the tour some six years ago.

Save Del Potro?

Tennis has been in a worse spot. Before Borg broke through in 1974, the previous youngest slam winner was Stan Smith, who was born in December 1946.

That means that by May of 1974 - the youngest slam winner was Smith at 27 years 3 months.

Del Potro will be 24 in two months.

Sure, it's a bit of a downturn, but it's not unprecedented.

JediFed
07-30-2012, 12:59 AM
1973 US Open:

Smith (1) - 1946 (26 years 09 months)
Nastase (2) - 1946 (27 years 03 months)
Ashe (3) - 1943 (30 years 03 months)
Laver (4) - 1938 (35 years 02 months)
Rosewell (5) - 1934 (38 years 10 months)
Kodes (6) - 1946 (27 years 06 months)
Okker (7) - 1944 (29 years 07 months)
Orantes (8) - 1949 (24 years 07 months)
Connors (9) - 1952 (21 years 07 months)
Newcombe(10) - 1944 (29 years 04 months)

So how's that for a top 10? Only one player under 24 and only 2 in their primes.

For the top 16 - you have 3 in all, Connors (born in '52), Panatta (Born in '50), and Orantes (born in 1949), who were under 25.

Right now, we have Cilic (14), (23), and Del Potro (9) 23. We have Dolgo, and Kei who are close. So things really aren't that bad.

Break outs that year at the USO:

Borg (4R loss vs Pilic (4-6 7-5 3-6 4-6)
Alexander (4R loss vs Kodes (6-7 5-7 4-6)
Amritraj's changing of the guard -
V. Amritraj def (4) Laver - 7-6 2-6 6-4 2-6 6-4, loses to Rosewell in quarterfinals.

BigJohn
07-30-2012, 01:12 AM
The weak era argument is retarded

fixed

Haelfix
07-30-2012, 02:39 AM
In truth, Roddick from 2005 on-wards only appeared in spurts (US Open series until Australian Open 2007, Dubai 2008, Australian Open 2009 until US Open series, start of 2010 until 2010 clay season).

Most tennis players prime is somewhere between 22 and 25, with a peak at the center with a slow patchwork decline thereafter. A few peak a year earlier, but almost no one peaks later barring injuries, and its almost universally in that range. Roddick's prime was between 2003-2007 (21-25), so right where you expect mostly. Imo, he was at his best in 2004. He changed strategies a few times in his career, so it seems more up and down than most, but physically that was his best.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
07-30-2012, 03:17 AM
Arod was a great player who had a nightmare matchup

2004 arod prob triple bagel nadal and djokovix rhough

TBkeeper
07-30-2012, 05:48 AM
federer era fringe players are now dominating the so called "greatest era" like a viking ****** crew, ravaging the land finding this era players and destroying them for easy booty to be had for all

imagine nalbanidan safin or federer 2005 playing in these conditions- it would be mass anarchy on a tennis court

Ah ... it would've been Gorgeous if
Prime Nalbandian
Prime Safin
Prime Hewitt
Prime Roddick
Prime Davydenko
Prime Gonzalez
Prime Haas
played now ... spanking some mug field left and right ... superb Anarchy !

EightBall
07-30-2012, 11:29 AM
If God had materialized in human form to play tennis against Federer, Djokovic, Nadal, Agassi and Sampras in an era where they all were in their prime at the same time, MTF would still find a way to ascribe God's success to playing in a "weak era" full of slamless mugs.

bounccer
07-30-2012, 11:35 AM
Sampras had a tougher older generation than Federer but an easier young one.

Imagine Slumperer 2008-2012 in 1998-2002 when Moya/Kafelnikov/Costa/Johansson... was winning slams (i respect these players but they would have a very small chance against the swiss) He would continue to win at fucking least 2 slams per year pretty easily, Sampras was very very washed out and couldn't take advantage like he should.

asmazif
07-30-2012, 11:43 AM
Why would Safin have 4 slams without Federer? That's nonsense.

i think he's suggesting Marat would have bulldozed his way through the 2009 AO

Johnny Groove
07-30-2012, 12:08 PM
Sampras had a tougher older generation than Federer but an easier young one.

Imagine Slumperer 2008-2012 in 1998-2002 when Moya/Kafelnikov/Costa/Johansson... was winning slams (i respect these players but they would have a very small chance against the swiss) He would continue to win at fucking least 2 slams per year pretty easily, Sampras was very very washed out and couldn't take advantage like he should.

You do know this is the same Slumperer losing to the likes of Fish, Gasquet, and Baghdatis, yes? You don't think Costa would have a shot vs. Fed on clay? You don't think Kafelnikov or Moya could beat MonoFed or Whogivesafuck2010erer or Declinerer on a hard court? Past prime Moya in 2004 even won a set vs. Prime Fed in TMC 2004.

bounccer
07-30-2012, 12:47 PM
You do know this is the same Slumperer losing to the likes of Fish, Gasquet, and Baghdatis, yes? You don't think Costa would have a shot vs. Fed on clay? You don't think Kafelnikov or Moya could beat MonoFed or Whogivesafuck2010erer or Declinerer on a hard court? Past prime Moya in 2004 even won a set vs. Prime Fed in TMC 2004.


When did Fed lose to Fish, Gasquet and Baghdatis in slams?

I don't said Fed would win all slams, i said he would win 2 slams/ year at least.

2002 Costa in the French is clearly better than 2008 and 2012 Fed, but against the 2009 2010 or 2011 versions it's 50/50.

But look at the AO 1998, USO 1998, AO 1999, FO 1999, USO 1999, AO 2000, Wimbly 2000, USO 2000, AO 2001, Wimbly 2001, USO 2001, AO 2002, Wimbly 2002, USO 2002, Federer would be the clear favorite in all those slams, i don't said he would win all of them, but many more than the slams he won since 2008.

RG 1998, W 1998, W 1999, RG 2000, RG 2001 RG 2002 he would have a decent chance too.

BigJohn
08-04-2012, 01:42 AM
Some people were wetting their panties last year because Nole had to beat 2 of the best of all time to achieve the success he had. It was a big deal that he outperformed both Federer and Nadal, elevating him to the point one of the best ever himself because unlike Federer, Nole truly had a strong era to contend with...

SO if 2011 was a strong era, 2012 is too. And the fact the Federer at 31 is outperforming both Nadal and Djokovic elevates him to ultimate undisputed GOAT.