MensTennisForums.com - Reply to Topic
Thread: Endless Era Debates Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the MensTennisForums.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
07-10-2017 10:52 PM
Troll Hunter
Re: Remember when people thought Federer was playing well for his age in 2012?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamprasHewittLOL View Post
LOL, what? Everyone was talking about how Federer was "playing incredible for 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, etc. Let's see how Nadal/Djokovic do when they're 30, 31, 32, 33, 34. They will probably be retired!"

Roger Federer of 2013 was Bad Backerer. Roger Federer of 2014 and 2015 was stopped from dominating the sport by Djokovic.

I picked 2012 because Nadal is where Federer was then age-wise, and he's about to exceed Federer's achievements from then. So it turns out that Federer wasn't some kind of standard of longevity...unless you think Rafael "my body is a broken mess, no?" Nadal is also an insane standard of longevity...and so is Djokovic...and so is Murray, etc.

The reason Federer was and is able to do what he has in his 30s, and the reason Nadal and Djokovic and Murray have and will continue to dominate in their 30s, is there is no new generation to push them out. All 4 of them have played better tennis, and that lesser quality of tennis compared to their prime selves is enough to continue to dominate the men's game for years to come, thanks to the kids born from 1988 onward being pathetic.
Pretty much this
07-10-2017 08:03 PM
Looner
Re: Endless Era Debates

Quote:
Originally Posted by Budadiii View Post
lol at this guy
I cannot believe I made this post. Seriously considered whether my account was hacked back in 2012 .
07-10-2017 12:51 PM
doubletrollt
Re: Which era is the most competitive era for you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steelfin View Post
2003-2007. Every player in the top 100 had a chance against anyone else on a given day. Even Courier said the depth of tennis was never higher.Weakest would be 2013-present.
Since his first GS title at Wimb'03 till the end of 2007, Federer has won 12 out of 14 slams outside RG and Nadal has won all three RG he participated in, always beating Federer on the route and Federer beating Nadal two times at Wimb.

So, taking also into account their combined 25 masters/WTF titles 2004-2007 + 9 finals, it seems like that omni-competitive day was pretty seldom given, though.
07-10-2017 12:24 PM
Steelfin
Re: Which era is the most competitive era for you?

2003-2007. Every player in the top 100 had a chance against anyone else on a given day. Even Courier said the depth of tennis was never higher.Weakest would be 2013-present.
07-10-2017 11:02 AM
David Lee
Which era is the most competitive era for you?

I'm not senior enough to talk about all time cuz I follow tennis from 2003, only 14 years now.
I have only seen 2004-2007, 2008-2010, 2011, 2012-2014, 2015-2016June, 2016June-now(well this is just one way to divide, maybe too many eras this way)
Anyone?Most competitive era for you?
07-10-2017 10:12 AM
mike_g
Re: Endless Era Debates

Quote:
Originally Posted by finishingmove View Post
You conclude it's a weak era because random young players aren't winning random Slams (or reaching random GS finals, like they did to increase Federer's GS count). Your conclusion would be true only if random, young tennis players in the future started winning random Slams again.

It won't happen. The game is harder now. It has permanently gone over an evolutionary threshold.

If you want to watch an antipathic player racking up Slams against subpar competition, go watch old Federer matches, or WTA.
Random young players like most of #1 players?

I bet that Zverev will make at least one GS final before he turns 22.
07-10-2017 09:58 AM
Martin12
Re: Endless Era Debates

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranne View Post
Raonic and Dimitrov are both 26.
Yes, my fault. It is the age range of 22 to 25 that had only 1 player in Wimbledon R32. There were three at 26, including Janowicz. Good thing is that there were 4 below 22.
07-10-2017 09:50 AM
Martin12
Re: Endless Era Debates

Quote:
Originally Posted by finishingmove View Post
You conclude it's a weak era because random young players aren't winning random Slams (or reaching random GS finals, like they did to increase Federer's GS count). Your conclusion would be true only if random, young tennis players in the future started winning random Slams again.

It won't happen. The game is harder now. It has permanently gone over an evolutionary threshold.

If you want to watch an antipathic player racking up Slams against subpar competition, go watch old Federer matches, or WTA.

I am not concluding this, because random young players are not winning random slams. I am quite aware that Federer, Djokovic and Nadal are exceptional and that it is still very difficult to win slams against them. I am concluding it from the fact that, now that Ferrer, Monfils, Tsonga etc, don't reach the later stages very regularly anymore, we have players like Mannarino, Muller, Bautista, and Paire replacing them in R16 instead of players aged 24 or 25 years. But I do see some positive signs in the U21 generation.

Obviously, we can't make a definite conclusion on this right now, we will have to wait and see. But I am actually very much convinced that the average age of the top 10 in 5 years from now will be around 25 years again.
07-10-2017 01:45 AM
finishingmove
Re: Endless Era Debates

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin12 View Post
I think at least for the current situation, there is no need to discuss. There was 1 single player in the age range of 23 to 26 (i.e. Thiem) among the last 32 in Wimbledon. These should be the guys dominating tennis right now!
You conclude it's a weak era because random young players aren't winning random Slams (or reaching random GS finals, like they did to increase Federer's GS count). Your conclusion would be true only if random, young tennis players in the future started winning random Slams again.

It won't happen. The game is harder now. It has permanently gone over an evolutionary threshold.

If you want to watch an antipathic player racking up Slams against subpar competition, go watch old Federer matches, or WTA.
07-09-2017 10:05 PM
Ranne
Re: Endless Era Debates

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin12 View Post
I think at least for the current situation, there is no need to discuss. There was 1 single player in the age range of 23 to 26 (i.e. Thiem) among the last 32 in Wimbledon. These should be the guys dominating tennis right now!
Raonic and Dimitrov are both 26.
07-09-2017 08:46 PM
Martin12
Re: Endless Era Debates

I think at least for the current situation, there is no need to discuss. There was 1 single player in the age range of 23 to 26 (i.e. Thiem) among the last 32 in Wimbledon. These should be the guys dominating tennis right now!
07-09-2017 06:29 PM
Flobeeee
Re: Endless Era Debates

What is weak and what is strong?

I feel it is a matter of prospective; how you look at the current tennis situation.

From 2004 on we had 5 players winning al but 4 (Gaudio, Safin, del Potro, Cilic)
slams and roughly 90% of Masters. So this seems strong? Yes and No

It is certainly really strong what the top performance and success is concerned. We
have 5 players (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka) who more or less won
almost anything that was there to win. They kinda pushed each other to their limits
and created a gap between themselves and the other players.
Taking those 5 players as the referrence the conclusion would be: Super-Strong era

If you take a different approach, maybe the top 15 players, the result would probably
be a lot different: just 4 extra GS victories. 1 active player with 2 or more masters
(Tsonga 2) and a few players winning 1 masters each
So basically there are 5 players win most and the rest win the leftovers. So it is
also an era where the Nr 6 player at any time was very very rarely able to win some-
thing big. And those wins seem to be rather flukes.
Don't get me wrong, Cilic and del Potro played great when winning their GS.
Outside the 5 no player with consistent big wins. result: pretty weak era.

Looking at other times in the past it was the other way around: 90s and early 00s
you had players like Sampras, Agassi and others winning a lot, but they were not
even close to being dominant. From 1990- 2003 we had 10 players winning at least
1 Roland Garros, after we had 1 winning 10.
from 1990 - 2003 each year had 3 or 4 different GS Champions and over 20 different
Champions.
So from 1990 till 2003 it was definately stronger in terms of the density of the field.
It seems a lot of players, when have a good 2 weeks were able to win something big.
And certainly weeker in terms of maximum success or performance.


To make it short:

2004-today: staticly strong
1990-2003: dynamicly strong

What do you think?
07-09-2017 05:56 PM
Budadiii
Re: Endless Era Debates

Current year is quite strong.

Weakest years since Fed age: 2006, 2015

Undoubtedly

Quote:
Originally Posted by Looner View Post
Haha. Look at dem haters hatin' and rollin'. Watch Roger "fluke" 4 slams in a row and dem haters starting to roll so much they lose all sense of direction in their lives.
lol at this guy
07-09-2017 05:47 PM
Tim_T
Re: Remember when people thought Federer was playing well for his age in 2012?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nolevolent View Post
There's nothing weaker than playing Roddick, Hewitt, Phlipoussis, Baghdatis, Gonzalez, Soderling, Safin, Agassi, etc. in slam finals and Bjorkman, Blake, Schuttler, Robredo, etc, in semis and quarters and all the other mugs in the first 6 rounds
Wow! What an interesting thread. Given the number of comments, I guess, people love to discuss this kind of things. I'm not going to go through all the pages and I'm sure what I will say has been said before, but anyway let me participate.

I think, Nole and Nadal have still not surpassed Federer's numbers, because they played in a much stronger era. Some telling statistics:

Player: Slam titles, WTF titles, Masters titles, Olympics singles

Federer's generation

Fed: 18, 6, 26
Roddick: 1, 0, 5
Hewitt: 2, 2, 2
Safin: 2, 0, 5
Ferrero: 1, 0, 4
Davydenko: 0, 1, 3
Nalbandian: 0, 1, 2
Ferrer: 0, 0, 1

Nole's great-and-golden (stronger) Generation -

Nadal: 15, 0, 30, 1
Djokovic: 12, 5, 30
Murray: 3, 1, 14, 2
Stan: 3, 0, 1
Del Po: 1, 0, 0
Tsonga: 0, 0, 2
Cilic: 1, 0, 1
Berdych: 0, 0, 1

Weak Generation: 24, 10, 48, 1
Strong Generation: 35, 6, 79, 2

Nuff said, no?
07-09-2017 05:28 PM
rocketassist
Re: Endless Era Debates

Fedal's return to form has at least made this year more competitive than the previous two, even if Djokeray haven't been on the ball this year.

What the general weak era idea boils down to is that young players didn't come through and phase out the gen before them. Yes, Fedalovic are a unique trio of ATGs, but younger challengers from Gen Useless never emerged, and even the NextGen has, right now, a solitary Masters title among its clique (better than Gen Useless's entire haul, but still, time will tell)

Gen Useless put a brick in the road, of the tradition where each gen was phased out by the one that followed. Nadal, Djokovic and Murray headed their own 86-88 generation that phased the New Balls out bar Federer, but he's just an outrageous athlete full stop.
This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome