Mens Tennis Forums banner

This is a:

Endless Era Debates

237K views 4K replies 586 participants last post by  tribalfusion 
#1 · (Edited by Moderator)
With a 31 year old very-past-his-prime Federer dominating and winning Slams at the same time in which there's a peak Djokovic and a very strong Nadal, who sweeped the red clay season like he usually does, and with a guy like Mónaco reaching the top 10, you've got to wonder about this.

Those are only a few examples and I'm sure others have consider this possibility as well. This didn't happen in a vacuum of course. In fact, there might be some truth to the experts' talk that tennis has been getting progressively more physical over time, and thus with less talent required to actually play.

What do you think?
 
#2 ·
Re: Do you think this era will be remembered as a subpar era?

With a 31 year old very-past-his-prime Federer fluking and winning 1 Slam at the same time in which there's a peak Djokovic and a very strong Nadal, who sweeped the red clay season like he usually does, and with a guy like Mónaco reaching the top 10, you've got to wonder about this.

Those are only a few examples and I'm sure others have consider this possibility as well. This didn't happen in a vacuum of course. In fact, there might be some truth to the experts' talk that tennis has been getting progressively more physical over time, and thus with less talent required to actually play.

What do you think?
Corrected
 
#3 ·
Re: Do you think this era will be remembered as a subpar era?

Hmm... a 31 year old Federer grabbing 1 slam after 2,5 years sounds a lot better than say...Gaston Gaudio winning a slam during Roger's peak
 
#8 ·
Re: Do you think this era will be remembered as a subpar era?

No, it wont. If for not any other reason because the next era is going to be truly horrific!
 
#12 ·
Re: Do you think this era will be remembered as a subpar era?

If you ignore the top 3, who are made to look better than they actually are due to lack of competition and surface homogenisation, there are actually very few players out there who are capable of true brilliance and to challenge for a big title.

Same can't be said about the 90's and early 2000's.
 
#500 ·
Re: Do you think this era will be remembered as a subpar era?

If you ignore the top 3, who are made to look better than they actually are due to lack of competition and surface homogenisation, there are actually very few players out there who are capable of true brilliance and to challenge for a big title.

Same can't be said about the 90's and early 2000's.
Your opinion is just another point of view.
 
#14 ·
Re: Do you think this era will be remembered as a subpar era?

According to MTF, every era was shit.

3 greats dominating and the rest hardly making a dent? Mug era.

A bunch of guys able to win a slam at any given time, but no dominant force? Mug era.

Me? I think every era was great.
 
#17 ·
Re: Do you think this era will be remembered as a subpar era?

According to MTF, every era was shit.

3 greats dominating and the rest hardly making a dent? Mug era.

A bunch of guys able to win a slam at any given time, but no dominant force? Mug era.

Me? I think every era was great.
Tennis shouldn't be judged on who is winning what. It should be judged on the quality of tennis played and the environment that surrounds.
 
#18 ·
Re: Do you think this era will be remembered as a subpar era?

Of course this is a subpar era. Any time when the number one player in the world is defending less slams than any other current player is clear evidence of a subpar era.
 
#51 ·
Re: Do you think this era will be remembered as a subpar era?

Of course this is a subpar era. Any time when the number one player in the world is defending less slams than any other current player is clear evidence of a subpar era.
June 2010 anyone?



And to answer the original question, yes, it is a clown era.

Fed unmasked the "strong era" clownery becoming number 1 at 31 when his "Spartan" rivals are still in their primes. :facepalm:
 
#21 ·
Re: Do you think this era will be remembered as a subpar era?

It is a weak era, three great players surrounded by a bunch of stiffs for the most part.
 
#25 ·
Re: Do you think this era will be remembered as a subpar era?

It is a weak era, three great players surrounded by a bunch of stiffs for the most part.
So was the Borg/Connors/McEnroe era weak because it was 3 great player surrounded by stiffs?

What of the Laver/Rosewall era? Or Sampras/Agassi? Both had only 2 dominants.

Or Edberg/Becker/Lendl?

How 'bout the Budge/Vines/Perry era in the 30's and before the 2nd War? What an era that was.

Or Tilden vs. the French in the 20's?
 
#23 ·
Re: Do you think this era will be remembered as a subpar era?

It's so difficult to compare eras. To say an era is "subpar" is equally hard, as you need to know what a "par" era is.

Like that Groove poster, I think every era has its own qualities, and I am enjoying this one a lot. To be able to follow tennis at a time when two of the greatest players to ever play the game are competing, and when another player is winning multiple slams at the same time - well, it's pretty good, no?
 
#24 ·
Re: Do you think this era will be remembered as a subpar era?

What is a weak era? An era where loads of players win 1 or 2 slams (wta) or an era where 2 or 3 players win everything?
 
#31 ·
Re: Do you think this era will be remembered as a subpar era?

Nadal won slams off of clay, so yes, very subpar era.
True. Also, Murray is the no. 3 seed and he's never won a slam. Ferrer the no. 4 seed, and he's never won a slam. 31 year old as the no. 1 seed. Isner as no. 10 seed? Joker as no. 2 seed, and he's never won the French. Weak era indeed. Man, why don't we just say they all suck actually. Hang on...
 
#38 ·
Re: Do you think this era will be remembered as a subpar era?

There is no era. It's a fiction.

It's just a way of making it easier to hate those who are dominating and those who fluke GS's :eek:
 
#40 ·
Re: Do you think this era will be remembered as a subpar era?

How do you determine a subpar ERA?

One way is how hard it is to win a slam, is it easier to win a slam now than in the past?

Just take players from the past and put them in today's field, how would they do?

On clay we have Nadal, Fed and Djokovic as stoppers.

On hards we have various players that can be dangerous besides Fed, Djokovic and Murray.

On grass we have Nadal, Fed and Djokovic guarding that one.

Players from the past would also have to upgrade their endurance without a doubt so that's one area they come up short in.
 
#44 ·
Re: Do you think this era will be remembered as a subpar era?

No era is as subpar one where a 31+ year old wins all four slams and numerous other titles in the same year (while beating younger players).
Except that the 31 year old is the GOAT? How about when 31 year old Agassi (or was he 32?) was world no. 1? Does that mean that era was even worse then?
 
#48 ·
Re: Do you think this era will be remembered as a subpar era?

this era will be remembered as a hater era.
 
#49 ·
Re: Do you think this era will be remembered as a subpar era?

somewhat. although I think that 2007-present hasn't been THAT bad. I would say the 2000s certainly will be remembered as a poor era which also so happened to have the best player of all time playing
 
#50 ·
Re: Do you think this era will be remembered as a subpar era?

i think most people would agree this is the toughest era the mens game has ever seen. the four different slam winners of this era are all goat candidates not serve bot mugs that fluke their way to a slam title. i don't think we will ever see an era as strong as this one.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top