[Lodger Federer]

The thread derailed into a weak era/strong era debate by the third post.

Impressive.

[thrust]

Originally Posted by MaxPower

Now if he could just hit a volley like Edberg/Becker we wouldn't have to sit through so many long matches where he and his sacred egg powers grind anyone to dust.

He can, but doesn't do it enough to be really confident. Yet, when he is forced to, he usually does hit some great volleys. I agree that if he did volley more he could end many points sooner.

[thrust]

Originally Posted by Honestly

Well thanks but it wasn't very hard.

2004-07 was a very weak era in Men's Tennis. To say otherwise is due to ignorance, stupidity or blind devotion to Federer.

[DrJules]

Originally Posted by Topspindoctor

More like hardcourts are not real surface, tennis used to be played on clay and grass. Imagine Nadal in an era where USO played on clay. Noserer would have zero US Opens then

Bjorn Borg won 6 times at RG, but won 0 US Open even through it was played on Har Tru (different clay) for 3 years. Borg even beat Connors on Har Tru in 1976 at the US Open; Connors would never have won against Borg at RG.

Your assertion is not necessarily true.

[DrJules]

Originally Posted by thrust

2004-07 was a very weak era in Men's Tennis. To say otherwise is due to ignorance, stupidity or blind devotion to Federer.

Given Ferrer is world number 4, is the current era noticably stronger than 2004-2007.

I have much respect for Ferrer, but would not expect to see him at 4.

[Saberq]

Originally Posted by Honestly

Wow. Didn't know you were this much of a mug

I like how you thought I was 100% serious

[incognito]

Originally Posted by DrJules

Given Ferrer is world number 4, is the current era noticably stronger than 2004-2007.

I have much respect for Ferrer, but would not expect to see him at 4.

He's momentarily #4 only due to an anomaly, namely Nadal's longer-than-expected absence. Prior to that, he was #4 only a few weeks back in 2008 when the current top 4 was only beginning to distinguish itself from the rest. You could always reverse the argument by asking whether that doesn't say something about the lackluster state of the top rankings prior to the current "big 4" solidifying themselves at the top. Ferrer being a regular world #5 is OTOH a fair ranking, but it's also clear that it's due to how much he plays (ESPN commentators noted that Ferrer in 2012 was the first non-"top 4" player to end the year with the most wins, for quite a while) and how consistent he is. There are clearly players ranked below him who are much more formidable opponents at any given day (Tsonga, Berdych, del Potro, even someone like Wavrinka) but that's how the ranking system works...

[janko05]

Originally Posted by DrJules

Given Ferrer is world number 4, is the current era noticably stronger than 2004-2007.

I have much respect for Ferrer, but would not expect to see him at 4.

What era are you referring to, cause Ferrer hasn't been no 4 up until a few days back

[BauerAlmeida]

Originally Posted by DrJules

Given Ferrer is world number 4, is the current era noticably stronger than 2004-2007.

I have much respect for Ferrer, but would not expect to see him at 4.

And Boredo was 5 in 2006. That's a lot worse.

[EddieNero]

Not sure whether Djokovic knows who Becker and Edberg are. He thought Nadal won the most RG titles in 2007 or something.

[Honestly]

Originally Posted by thrust

2004-07 was a very weak era in Men's Tennis. To say otherwise is due to ignorance, stupidity or blind devotion to Federer.

Ah, another blind tard falling into the trap of believing that 2004-2007 was a weak era just because Federer was the most dominant player in history during that time. Nice going

[Honestly]

Originally Posted by BauerAlmeida

And Boredo was 5 in 2006. That's a lot worse.

Boredo was young back then. Ferrer is ancient now.

[incognito]

Originally Posted by janko05

What era are you referring to, cause Ferrer hasn't been no 4 up until a few days back

Ferrer was #4 a few weeks in 2008 prior to his current #4 ranking, but that 2008 ranking took into account Djokovic's and Murray's performances in 2007, when they were completely new to the top rankings. Ferrer's subsequent drop in ranking, however, doesn't really serve as an argument for a supposed qualitative decline of the top 10 post-2007.

[Fishnet]

Originally Posted by thrust

He can, but doesn't do it enough to be really confident. Yet, when he is forced to, he usually does hit some great volleys. I agree that if he did volley more he could end many points sooner.

Sorry, but you can't say Djokovic can volley like Edberg and Becker.

Originally Posted by DrJules

Given Ferrer is world number 4, is the current era noticably stronger than 2004-2007.

I have much respect for Ferrer, but would not expect to see him at 4.

Good point.

Originally Posted by incognito

He's momentarily #4 only due to an anomaly, namely Nadal's longer-than-expected absence. Prior to that, he was #4 only a few weeks back in 2008 when the current top 4 was only beginning to distinguish itself from the rest. You could always reverse the argument by asking whether that doesn't say something about the lackluster state of the top rankings prior to the current "big 4" solidifying themselves at the top. Ferrer being a regular world #5 is OTOH a fair ranking, but it's also clear that it's due to how much he plays (ESPN commentators noted that Ferrer in 2012 was the first non-"top 4" player to end the year with the most wins, for quite a while) and how consistent he is. There are clearly players ranked below him who are much more formidable opponents at any given day (Tsonga, Berdych, del Potro, even someone like Wavrinka) but that's how the ranking system works...

Doesn't matter. If he's #4 because Nadal is serv... ooops, because he's injured, then he's still #5 if you put that guy in the picture again. Still awful.

Originally Posted by Honestly

Ah, another blind tard falling into the trap of believing that 2004-2007 was a weak era just because Federer was the most dominant player in history during that time. Nice going

It was a weak era.

The problem is that today's era is even weaker...

[Honestly]

Originally Posted by Fishnet

The problem is that today's era is even weaker...

Dunno about that. This era is pretty string too. You have Djokovic and Murray at their peaks and Roger still playing near peak level if not at peak level. Then you got Nadal as well who is a bit of a question mark at this point but I'm sure he will come back strong in the clay season. Then you have the likes of Berdych, Tsonga, and Delpo too. I'd day it's pretty strong. 2004-2007 was very strong too because you had the GOAT and the clay GOAT in their peaks. They were simply unstoppable and no one else stood a chance. Hence it looked like the rest of the field was weak. Take away Fedal and guys like Roddick, Hewitt, and Safin could have been all time greats.