[Fishnet]

Originally Posted by Honestly

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.

So you think an era where only 4 players have a chance to win a slam is a strong era?

This is probably the definition of lack of depth and a clear sign of a weak era.

[retister]

Originally Posted by Honestly

30 year old Fed beat Djoker at his very peak in 4 at the FO. 31 year old Fed beat him in 4 at Wimby.

Next.

Love it how tards are ready to dismiss whole Nadal-Federer head-to-head as a proof that Rafa is a superior player, and yet they use this one match at RG to prove that Fed's peak is higher than Nole's

[Honestly]

Originally Posted by Fishnet

So you think an era where only 4 players have a chance to win a slam is a strong era?

This is probably the definition of lack of depth and a clear sign of a weak era.

Or it means that the top 4 is just that good. This is what the tards refuses to admit. When you have a couple of guys or 4 guys dominating it said absolutely nothing about the strength or depth of the era. I think I made myself clear enough now.

[Honestly]

Originally Posted by retister

Love it how tards are ready to dismiss whole Nadal-Federer head-to-head as a proof that Rafa is a superior player, and yet they use this one match at RG to prove that Fed's peak is higher than Nole's

Everyone except the tards know that Fed's peak is higher than Nole's. And everyone except them knows that Federer is by far the superior player to Nadal.

Next.

[Fishnet]

Originally Posted by Honestly

Or it means that the top 4 is just that good. This is what the tards refuses to admit. When you have a couple of guys or 4 guys dominating it said absolutely nothing about the strength or depth of the era. I think I made myself clear enough now.

So you think 4 guys making pretty much every single semifinal of all majors is ok.

They're not as good as you people think. They're painted as legends because they're winning every title but they have no competition.

Tennis has thrown its tradition away. They've betrayed years and years of history to make dirty money with 4 guys marketed as idols and legends but without any claim to those titles whatsoever.

[MIMIC]

Originally Posted by Honestly

Everyone except the tards know that Fed's peak is higher than Nole's. And everyone except them knows that Federer is by far the superior player to Nadal.

Next.

Are you trolling on behalf of BigJohn or something? Jesus Christ.

[Honestly]

Originally Posted by MIMIC

Are you trolling on behalf of BigJohn or something? Jesus Christ.

How is telling the truth trolling?

[Serverer]

The problem isnt that the top 4 is that much talented than everyone else. Other than Fed, they are just pushers with amazing fitness. So they are very hard to beat when every surface fits their game perfectly.

[DrJules]

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...

All very true.

Overall do not feel the quality of each generation varies that significantly from generation to generation. Obviously there is general physical condition of players improvement.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Fishnet

So you think 4 guys making pretty much every single semifinal of all majors is ok.

They're not as good as you people think. They're painted as legends because they're winning every title but they have no competition.

That's sort of the definition of dominating. If you're so much better than everyone else then of course you have no competition.

[Honestly]

Originally Posted by Serverer

The problem isnt that the top 4 is that much talented than everyone else. Other than Fed, they are just pushers with amazing fitness. So they are very hard to beat when every surface fits their game perfectly.

Well yeah now that you actually put an argument together unlike that other poster this era can be seen as weaker because of the slowness of the conditions. It doesn't allow for much diversity does it?

[Saberq]

Originally Posted by Serverer

The problem isnt that the top 4 is that much talented than everyone else. Other than Fed, they are just pushers with amazing fitness. So they are very hard to beat when every surface fits their game perfectly.

stop posting mug...............

[Time Violation]

Originally Posted by Fishnet

Tennis has thrown its tradition away. They've betrayed years and years of history to make dirty money with 4 guys marketed as idols and legends but without any claim to those titles whatsoever.

Can you be any more delusional? Fed and others are not winning because they have the attention. On the contrary, they got the attention because they were so good and winning in the first place. There are also examples of players who were hyped without anything to back it up, and they are barely top 100 now. Hype or no hype, quality will find the way to the top.

[retister]

Originally Posted by Honestly

Everyone except the tards know that Fed's peak is higher than Nole's. And everyone except them knows that Federer is by far the superior player to Nadal.

Next.

I'm not even a fan of Rafa's, let alone his tard, yet it is clear to me that Rafa is by far the superior tennis player to Roger. Their H2H clearly shows it.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by retister

I'm not even a fan of Rafa's, let alone his tard, yet it is clear to me that Rafa is by far the superior tennis player to Roger. Their H2H clearly shows it.

And Santoro is by far the superior tennis player to Safin.