[ssj100]

Originally Posted by Smoke944

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...

[Mark Lenders]

Originally Posted by ssj100

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. Man, why don't we just say they all suck.

Using this logic, it's a very strong era where even unseeded players like Hewitt have 2 Slams and 80 weeks as world #1, not to mention Roddick too.

[ssj100]

Originally Posted by Mark Lenders

Using this logic, it's a very strong era where even unseeded players like Hewitt have 2 Slams and 80 weeks as world #1, not to mention Roddick too.

Just trying to make the point that there is no such thing as a "weak" era. If anything is true, it's that the skill and fitness of tennis players are getting stronger on average with each year. This means eras are actually getting "stronger" and "stronger".

[Topspindoctor]

Originally Posted by Mark Lenders

Krajicek and Ivanisevic are far more talented player than Ferrer. Their serves alone are worth more than Ferrer's entire 'game'. They won Slams because they had the weapons to beat the best players of their era in the super fast grass of Wimbledon, it's far from an atrocity.

You are allowing your bias get better of you, as usual. By no means does a serve bot deserve a slam. I have watched plenty of Ivanisievic matches. His ground game made my eyes bleed, he was basically a worse version of Isner of that era. Serving on a fast surface and doing not much else and capturing the biggest title in the sport is somehow fine. While a guy who worked hard all his life, has solid consistency, decent ground game - but never made a slam final or won masters because he admittedly lacks weapons is now an atrocity?

Just because you can serve players off court does not make you good, skilled or deserving. Players like Goran and Krajicek would never approach a title beyond 250 today.

[Mark Lenders]

Originally Posted by ssj100

Just trying to make the point that there is no such thing as a "weak" era. If anything is true, it's that the skill and fitness of tennis players are getting stronger on average with each year. This means eras are actually getting "stronger" and "stronger".

The new era seems to be weak though. Only two players under 25 years old have even made a Slam semifinal: Del Potro and Cilic. No other U-25 has been even particularly close to reach a semifinal so far.

This does not speak volumes of the strength of the new generation of players.

[redshift36188]

Originally Posted by Mark Lenders

But everyone knows that's not the case, he's not even among the 10 best players. His seed is a result of abusing the flawed ranking system to no end, like Boredo once did to get his high seedings. There are bound to be mugs getting top 5 seeds in any era, strong or weak, as long as the current ranking system isn't changed to prevent this kind of abuse, it says nothing about the strength of the era.

The system is not flawed. No one breaks the 5000 points barrier without being good. Ferrer is without a doubt among the 10 best players in the world.

[Mark Lenders]

Originally Posted by Topspindoctor

You are allowing your bias get better of you, as usual. By no means does a serve bot deserve a slam. I have watched plenty of Ivanisievic matches. His ground game made my eyes bleed, he was basically a worse version of Isner of that era. Serving on a fast surface and doing not much else and capturing the biggest title in the sport is somehow fine. While a guy who worked hard all his life, has solid consistency, decent ground game - but never made a slam final or won masters because he admittedly lacks weapons is now an atrocity?

Just because you can serve players off court does not make you good, skilled or deserving. Players like Goran and Krajicek would never approach a title beyond 250 today.

They'd definitely have a good shot to win a Slam if there was a surface like the lightning fast grass of the 90s. Given the surface where they won those titles, it is far from an atrocity.

The current slow surfaces benefit Ferrer's game just as much as that grass benefitted Goran and Krajicek, yet Ferrer hasn't even come close to sniffing a Slam title because he's simply not good enough no matter what kind of surface he's playing on.

There was a kind of conditions where players like Ivanisevic and Krajicek were as good as anyone else and could beat anyone, that kind of conditions simply doesn't exist for Ferrer. That's why those two deserve a Slam and Ferrer does not.

[BroTree123]

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

[ssj100]

Originally Posted by Mark Lenders

The new era seems to be weak though. Only two players under 25 years old have even made a Slam semifinal: Del Potro and Cilic. No other U-25 has been even particularly close to reach a semifinal so far.

This does not speak volumes of the strength of the new generation of players.

You could look at it in so many ways. You could easily say that not many U-25 players have made it to semi-finals in Grand Slams because the top 4 guys are too strong. Perhaps these U-25 players are just as good as Sampras/Agassi/Borg/McEnroe, but they are being over-shadowed by the top 4 guys and the depth of the competition has increased (hence explaining earlier round losses?). So again, you could argue that the "new" era is in fact stronger than ever.

It's difficult to know without transporting peak Sampras/Agassi/Borg/McEnroe into this current era - how can one scientifically prove that they will do well or not? Perhaps they may "just" be top 20 players and rarely make it into the semis of Grand Slams? Who really knows?

[swisht4u]

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.

[Mark Lenders]

Originally Posted by redshift36188

The system is not flawed. No one breaks the 5000 points barrier without being good. Ferrer is without a doubt among the 10 best players in the world.

It is clearly flawed. It allows players to get to the top by vulturing weak optional tournaments and then stay up there by enjoying the ridiculously high protection that the seeding system offers - really I struggle to think of a sport that protects its top players more than tennis.

For instance, Berdych has been crap ever since the clay season, yet he's under no threat to go below the top 8. The ranking and especially the seeding system in tennis lead to a hierarchy that's very hard to break.

[Matt01]

Originally Posted by abraxas21

With a 31 year old very-past-his-prime Federer dominating

Stopped reading at this point.

Originally Posted by DJ Soup

shit thread so far, I've lost the plot

Same here.

[Benny_Maths]

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).

[ssj100]

Originally Posted by Benny_Maths

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?

[Benny_Maths]

Originally Posted by ssj100

Except that the 31 year old is the GOAT?

Except that's subjective? Except that in making that comment in this thread you've made many implicit assumptions? (Such as assuming the skill differential between that supposed GOAT and the players he beat is not greater than the skill differential between the top player of this era and the players he is superior to).

How about when 31 year old Agassi (or was he 32?) was world no. 1? Does that mean that era was even worse then?

Irrelevant. There's no point in me engaging in this particular debate because I know exactly how it's going to go. I give whatever my opinion is and then we'll go in circles due to people not stating what their assumptions are. It boils down to people's own opinions and you can't 'prove' that someone else's opinion is 'wrong'.