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)
Yesterday 11:31 PM
monfed
Re: If 04-07 was a weak era, what was 01-03?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tutsi Frutsi View Post
How did you define Fed was post prime in that match and Djokovic at his peak? See, you made that up
See now you're just denying facts. So our discussion ends here.
Yesterday 06:25 PM
Greatness
Re: Endless Era Debates

Quote:
Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
Is it really so tough to understand that the level of a tennis player varies from match to match?
It just so happens that Federer's level always varied when he played teenagers. That's the excuse? Ok.
Yesterday 06:21 PM
Singularity
Re: Endless Era Debates

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatness View Post
When you lose to a 19 yo clay courter Nadal on fast hard courts of Dubai 2006, it's hard to brag about your level being the highest.
Is it really so tough to understand that the level of a tennis player varies from match to match?
Yesterday 06:06 PM
Three Days Grace
Re: If 04-07 was a weak era, what was 01-03?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tutsi Frutsi View Post
Hewitt can win back to back the most important and hardest tournament named WTF which is the equivalent of World Cup in football. Nadal always fails when it matters the most, he's the opposite of big match player.
Football WC = tennis GS = the most important and the toughest tournament to win. Whether you like it or not.
Yesterday 05:56 PM
Greatness
Re: Endless Era Debates

Transitional years from 01-03.

Hewitt was 7-2 against Federer until 2003.

Agassi was 3-0 against Federer until 2003.

Rafter was 3-0 against Federer until he retired in 2002.

Henman was 5-1 against Federer until 2003.

Basically, top players of previous generation reaching thirties and declining while best players of new generation started getting injured or paid more attention to gold chains.
What a coincidence that's when Federer started winning slams.
Yesterday 05:32 PM
Tutsi Frutsi
Re: If 04-07 was a weak era, what was 01-03?

Quote:
Originally Posted by monfed View Post
Post prime Fed beat peak Djokovic at RG 11 SF but any problem cannot be found.

argument
How did you define Fed was post prime in that match and Djokovic at his peak? See, you made that up
Yesterday 05:21 PM
monfed
Re: If 04-07 was a weak era, what was 01-03?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tutsi Frutsi View Post
Peak Cilic > Peak Federer. And Cilic is a potato bag in today's field, that's how strong 2014-present era is.
Post prime Fed beat peak Djokovic at RG 11 SF but any problem cannot be found.

argument
Yesterday 05:02 PM
Tutsi Frutsi
Re: If 04-07 was a weak era, what was 01-03?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PerfectAce753 View Post
I often find it difficult to tell whether you're trolling or not.

01-03 was a transitional era, had a lot of great names. Take a look at the draw for Stuttgart 2001 (the masters Haas won):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_S...%80%93_Singles

Almost every single name, including unseeded players, is notable. Today there are even seeded players who are utterly irrelevant. I guess I prefer an open tour with lots of depth as opposed to a singularly dominated tour with a lack of depth.
I've an open mind on tennis and I'm prone to adjust my views with new knowledge integrating useful info into my understanding.

The field of Stuttgart 2001 looks really good on paper, but imagine the damage peak Isner could have made in that indoor Masters
Yesterday 05:01 PM
Tennis4Lyf
Re: If 04-07 was a weak era, what was 01-03?

1969 was the weakest era. Only one man winning all slams with no competition. #endoferadebate
Yesterday 04:53 PM
PerfectAce753
Re: If 04-07 was a weak era, what was 01-03?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tutsi Frutsi View Post
Hewitt can win back to back the most important and hardest tournament named WTF which is the equivalent of World Cup in football. Nadal always fails when it matters the most, he's the opposite of big match player.
I often find it difficult to tell whether you're trolling or not.

01-03 was a transitional era, had a lot of great names. Take a look at the draw for Stuttgart 2001 (the masters Haas won):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_S...%80%93_Singles

Almost every single name, including unseeded players, is notable. Today there are even seeded players who are utterly irrelevant. I guess I prefer an open tour with lots of depth as opposed to a singularly dominated tour with a lack of depth.
Yesterday 04:22 PM
Tutsi Frutsi
Re: If 04-07 was a weak era, what was 01-03?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Three Days Grace View Post
2001 and 2002 were even more dreadful than following years. World #1 won 2 Slams and 1 Masters in two years
Hewitt can win back to back the most important and hardest tournament named WTF which is the equivalent of World Cup in football. Nadal always fails when it matters the most, he's the opposite of big match player.
Yesterday 04:15 PM
Three Days Grace
Re: If 04-07 was a weak era, what was 01-03?

2001 and 2002 were even more dreadful than following years. World #1 won 2 Slams and 1 Masters in two years
Yesterday 04:10 PM
Tutsi Frutsi
Re: If 04-07 was a weak era, what was 01-03?

Peak Cilic > Peak Federer. And Cilic is a potato bag in today's field, that's how strong 2014-present era is.
Yesterday 04:08 PM
bouncer7
Re: If 04-07 was a weak era, what was 01-03?

weak but not like
04-07 - the weakest one, even Haas and Hewitt where injured
Yesterday 04:04 PM
SamprasHewittLOL
If 04-07 was a weak era, what was 01-03?

Just curious.

Or was the weak era actually 01-07?

And of course, 97 and 98 as well.
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