PDA

View Full Version : Weakest field ever. EVER.


tennis_pro
06-15-2011, 11:44 AM
Since all the Nadal fans marvel at the current competition (and why wouldn't they since Nadal is winning majors? - let's make them more worthy!), let me prove you that not only is the current field not tough, it's one of the weakest ever.

Let's look at the semi-final line-up for the biggest 7 tournaments played thus far.

Australian Open semis - Federer, Djokovic, Murray + Ferrer who beat Nadal
French Open semis - Federer, Djokovic, Murray, Nadal

Indian Wells - Federer, Nadal, Djokovic in the semis
Miami - Federer Nadal Djokovic in the semis
Monte Carlo - Nadal Murray in the semis, Djokovic didn't play
Rome - Nadal, Djokovic, Murray in the semis
Madrid - Nadal, Federer, Djokovic in the semis

So out of 28 semi slots in the 7 biggest tournaments this year we had Federer,Nadal,Djokovic,Murray playing in 21 of them (and would've been 22 if Djokovic played in Monte Carlo) and 7 out of 8 in Slams (and if Nadal beat Ferrer in Australia it would've been a shocking 8 out of 8 ) That's insane.

This also proves my point since there is absolutely no-one (and too few up and coming players like Raonic and Harrison - who aren't even halfway) challenging the top 4 for any big tournament.

To further prove my point - I'm predicting all the top 4 players to play in the quarter-finals and at least 3 of them making the semi-finals at Wimbledon.

For those Nadal fans who want to point out that also Federer is a part of this weak field - I agree 100%. If you take out both Nadal and Djokovic, Federer goes unchallenged in Slams for the next year at least. The reason is simple - there is no-one who can beat him. Even Andy Murray who is a part of the "big 4" can't take a set off a 29-year old Federer when it really matters. So if you take the top 2 out who's going to beat him? FERRER? ALMAGRO? FISH? Don't make me laugh.

Li Ching Yuen
06-15-2011, 11:46 AM
This has nothing to do with the Top 4 being amazingly good players even in the large scheme of things.

NOTHING AT ALL...

viduka0101
06-15-2011, 11:51 AM
To further prove my point...

LOL,go back to the beginning and check your flawed logic

batz
06-15-2011, 11:56 AM
Since all the Nadal fans marvel at the current competition (and why wouldn't they since Nadal is winning majors? - let's make them more worthy!), let me prove you that not only is the current field tough, it's one of the weakest ever.

Let's look at the semi-final line-up for the biggest 7 tournaments played thus far.

Australian Open semis - Federer, Djokovic, Murray + Ferrer who beat Nadal
French Open semis - Federer, Djokovic, Murray, Nadal

Indian Wells - Federer, Nadal, Djokovic in the semis
Miami - Federer Nadal Djokovic in the semis
Monte Carlo - Nadal Murray in the semis, Djokovic didn't play
Rome - Nadal, Djokovic, Murray in the semis
Madrid - Nadal, Federer, Djokovic in the semis

So out of 28 semi slots in the 7 biggest tournaments this year we had Federer,Nadal,Djokovic,Murray playing in 21 of them (and would've been 22 if Djokovic played in Monte Carlo) and 7 out of 8 in Slams (and if Nadal beat Ferrer in Australia it would've been a shocking 8 out of 8 ) That's insane.

This also proves my point since there is absolute no-one (and too few up and coming players like Raonic and Harrison - who aren't even halfway) challenging the top 4 for any big tournament.

To further prove my point - I'm predicting all the top 4 players to play in the quarter-finals and at least 3 of them making the semi-finals at Wimbledon.

For those Nadal fans who want to point out that also Federer is a part of this weak field - I agree 100%. If you take out both Nadal and Djokovic, Federer goes unchallenged in Slams for the next year at least. The reason is simple - there is no-one who can beat him. Even Andy Murray who is a part of the "big 4" can't take a set off a 29-year old Federer when it really matters. So if you take the top 2 out who's going to beat him? FERRER? ALMAGRO? FISH? Don't make me laugh.


I'm really, really sorry; but it makes my teeth itch - shouldn't it be 'absolutely no-one'.

Yes - I am a grammar N@zi.

tennis_pro
06-15-2011, 11:57 AM
I'm really, really sorry; but it makes my teeth itch - shouldn't it be 'absolutely no-one'.

Yes - I am a grammar N@zi.

typo, thx for noticing

FlamEnemY
06-15-2011, 11:58 AM
Let's look at the semi-final line-up for the biggest 7 tournaments played thus far.
...
So out of 28 semi slots in the 7 biggest tournaments this year we had Federer,Nadal,Djokovic,Murray playing in 21 of them (and would've been 22 if Djokovic played in Monte Carlo) and 7 out of 8 in Slams (and if Nadal beat Ferrer in Australia it would've been a shocking 8 out of 8 ) That's insane.

This also proves my point since there is absolute no-one (and too few up and coming players like Raonic and Harrison - who aren't even halfway) challenging the top 4 for any big tournament.
...
So if you take the top 2 out who's going to beat him? FERRER? ALMAGRO? FISH? Don't make me laugh.

And I bet if someone like Ferrer, Almagro or Fish actually did beat him, you'd say Federer is a clown to be beaten by such low-level tennis players.

There just ain't pleasing some people. Same thing like when Jesus cured the leper and he complained that it put him out of the begging-business. True story.

Devilito
06-15-2011, 11:59 AM
This has nothing to do with the Top 4 being amazingly good players even in the large scheme of things.

NOTHING AT ALL...

the top 3 aren’t amazing in the way you see it. They are what you would expect as a natural progression of the sport. It's the rest of the players who are extremely weak in comparison. Apart from the top 3 the rest of past decade has had the most forgettable field of players in the history of the sport.

tennis_pro
06-15-2011, 12:00 PM
For those who critisize me - I'm not saying that the top 4 is weak - in fact it's really solid, I'm really worried about the rest of the field.

tennis_pro
06-15-2011, 12:01 PM
the top 3 aren’t amazing in the way you see it. They are what you would expect as a natural progression of the sport. It's the rest of the players who are extremely weak in comparison. Apart from the top 3 the rest of past decade has had the most forgettable field of players in the history of the sport.

That's exactly my point. Who will remember even in 5 years that we had guys like Melzer, Almagro, Fish, Berdych, Ferrer in the top 10 in just about the same time?

batz
06-15-2011, 12:04 PM
typo, thx for noticing

No probs. Apologies again, but it's like fingernails down a blackboard to me.:shock:

NadalAgassi
06-15-2011, 12:13 PM
Yeah the mens field has been really weak ever since 2002 and Federer and Nadal have been the two who have really capatilized on it. Full credit to them though, they took full advantage of what was in front of them. They would be great players in any era, but boy it is easier to dominate and pile up those numbers for both in those one.

Xemi666
06-15-2011, 12:14 PM
Circular arguments FTL.

Sid_Vicious
06-15-2011, 12:16 PM
No probs. Apologies again, but it's like fingernails down a blackboard to me.:shock:
Yeah, I was loosing my mind when I saw that.

li0scc0
06-15-2011, 12:23 PM
Yeah, I was loosing my mind when I saw that.

Losing, not loosing. Additionally, please do not end a sentence with a preposition.
:)

batz
06-15-2011, 12:23 PM
Yeah, I was loosing my mind when I saw that.

:):shock:Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggg ggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Sid_Vicious
06-15-2011, 12:26 PM
Losing, not loosing. Additionally, please do not end a sentence with a preposition.
:)

I could care less about grammer. :)

MichaelNadal
06-15-2011, 12:27 PM
Yeah, I was loosing my mind when I saw that.

Lol was that intentional Sid?

batz
06-15-2011, 12:28 PM
Lol was that intentional Sid?

Of course it was! :)

Sid_Vicious
06-15-2011, 12:30 PM
Lol was that intentional Sid?
yep, I was just joking around with Batz.:)

CyBorg
06-15-2011, 12:33 PM
I could care less about grammer. :)

So you care about Kelsey Grammer?

Mustard
06-15-2011, 12:35 PM
Yeah the mens field has been really weak ever since 2002 and Federer and Nadal have been the two who have really capatilized on it. Full credit to them though, they took full advantage of what was in front of them. They would be great players in any era, but boy it is easier to dominate and pile up those numbers for both in those one.

2002 had no dominant player. Hewitt was number 1 throughout that year because he was the most consistent player of all, but he was never dominant. In fact, Hewitt was 2-3 years away from playing his best level of tennis. I don't believe this "weak era" stuff, though. Federer and Nadal have raised the bar ridiculously high at the very top of men's tennis. Sampras felt like a dominant player in his era, but his dominance is nothing compared to Federer's dominance.

NadalAgassi
06-15-2011, 12:41 PM
2002 had no dominant player. Hewitt was number 1 throughout that year because he was the most consistent player of all, but he was never dominant. In fact, Hewitt was 2-3 years away from playing his best level of tennis. I don't believe this "weak era" stuff, though. Federer and Nadal have raised the bar ridiculously high at the very top of men's tennis. Sampras felt like a dominant player in his era, but his dominance is nothing compared to Federer's dominance.

When Connors and Borg dominated you still had Vilas, Vitas, young McEnroe, Nastase, and various court specialists behind them. When Borg and McEnroe dominated you had Connors, Lendl, young Wilander, Vilas, Vitas, and various court specialists behind them. When Sampras and Agassi dominated you had Becker, Courier, Edberg, Chang, Kafelnikov, Rafter, and various court specialists behind them. When Graf and Seles dominated tennis there were still alot of strong players behind them. Navratilova (even in old age and past her prime was a great player), Sabatini, Sanchez, Novotna, Pierce, Fernandez, Capriati, Martinez. Or when the Williams dominanted in the early 2000s there was Capriati, Davenport, Hingis, Seles, Pierce, Henin, Clijsters, Mauresmo, all behind them. Just because 2 players dominate does not mean the rest have to suck. However most of the current top 10 are tomatoe cans who you couldnt imagine winning a slam in any era.

Tony48
06-15-2011, 12:42 PM
This also proves my point since there is absolutely no-one (and too few up and coming players like Raonic and Harrison - who aren't even halfway) challenging the top 4 for any big tournament.


Not true. Plenty people are challenging Murray. They just end up choking :)

But in all seriousness, I'm content with the way things are with the ATP. If things were like the WTA, it would be an epic mess. The top 4 are the top 4 for a reason: they perform with the most consistency and always deliver. Things weren't always like this; Murray & Djokovic had to bump people out of the way not long ago.

El Diablo
06-15-2011, 12:44 PM
The fact that four players are very dominant in no way demonstrates that other players are "weak." They may in fact be quite good, but not quite to the level of the fearsome foursome. But in fact, I think the data demonstrates a different point, which is that the top players now gear their schedules so much towards the majors that they're less likely to be knocked off in a major because they're less likely to enter a major tired or injured. When I first really got into watching tennis in the 70s the top players played week in and week out -- you don't win over 100 titles as Connors did by not entering lots of tournaments. During the "Summer of Vilas" -- was it '77? -- we saw Vilas play almost every week that summer. More recently the top ranked guys take more time off until a few weeks before a major when they ramp up their schedules.

NadalAgassi
06-15-2011, 12:45 PM
Not true. Plenty people are challenging Murray. They just end up choking :)

But in all seriousness, I'm content with the way things are with the ATP. If things were like the WTA, it would be an epic mess. The top 4 are the top 4 for a reason: they perform with the most consistency and always deliver. Things weren't always like this; Murray & Djokovic had to bump people out of the way not long ago.

The current top 4 are fine. The 5-10 should be players of Nalbandian or Davydenko level atleast though. There is nobody even of that caliber anymore. Soderling was good the last 2 years but he seems in decline already. I doubt he will have any close matches with the top 4 this year. Berdych was a flash in the pan, he isnt even real top 10 caliber let alone someone who can push for the top 5. Ferrer is solid, I guess he is an ok guy to have in the top 10 but he will never be a threat to win a slam, he doesnt even have close to the weaponary to pull it off. And the rest are worse than Ferrer, Soderling and Berdych. How can people like Melzer, Almagro, Fish, Verdasco, all spend time in the top 10 in the last year.

Mustard
06-15-2011, 12:52 PM
If we removed the top 4 from the 2011 Wimbledon draw, who do you think would win the title? Someone would have to step up to the plate ;)

fed_rulz
06-15-2011, 12:57 PM
i can't believe many took the bait and are proposing serious arguments for/against the OP :)

IvanisevicServe
06-15-2011, 12:58 PM
The world didn't just suddenly stop producing good tennis players.

I think Top 10 would look remarkably different if the people who were supposed to be up there were playing like it. If Del Potro were healthy and back in 2009 form, he'd be a lethal #5. Despite all the bashing he gets on this board because of his collapse, Cilic should be a legitimate top 10 player and is a real talent. Strange that a guy renowned for his mental strength has completely lost it. Hate to say it, but I wonder if Goran has something to do with it. Kind of unfair to say that, but when a usually calm guy starts breaking rackets and goes from challenging Murray for the AO final despite being absolutely exhausted to losing in the first round of every slam, something is wrong.

There's plenty of talent right now, there just aren't a lot of guys willing to pay the price/healthy/mentally strong right now. Might be a generational thing. "Tennis? Practice? Bah....I'd rather surf the net on my new iPhone!"

TheNatural
06-15-2011, 01:20 PM
That's exactly my point. Who will remember even in 5 years that we had guys like Melzer, Almagro, Fish, Berdych, Ferrer in the top 10 in just about the same time?

so is this your conclusion?;):

"this is such a mug era, no wonder a well past his prime 30-year old Federer can still well compete for Slams"

tennis_pro
06-15-2011, 01:27 PM
so is this your conclusion?;):

"this is such a mug era, no wonder a well past his prime 30-year old Federer can still well compete for Slams"

If Federer is fit there is simply no-one who can beat him before the semi-finals of a Slam. Playing in semi-finals of Slams means that he's still in contention for majors so techincally yes, you are right.

CocaCola
06-15-2011, 01:28 PM
For me it is way better to have a great top 4 dominant players than having different players wining every tournament and then losing in 1st round next week. Just wait for Del Potro to find his best form and it will be better.

tennis_pro
06-15-2011, 01:35 PM
so is this your conclusion?;):

"this is such a mug era, no wonder a well past his prime 30-year old Federer can still well compete for Slams"

Why do you attribute your own quote to me? I said I agree but that doesn't give you right to use it as MY quote.

Joe Pike
06-15-2011, 02:07 PM
Since all the Nadal fans marvel at the current competition (and why wouldn't they since Nadal is winning majors? - let's make them more worthy!), let me prove you that not only is the current field not tough, it's one of the weakest ever.
...

So out of 28 semi slots in the 7 biggest tournaments this year we had Federer,Nadal,Djokovic,Murray playing in 21 of them (and would've been 22 if Djokovic played in Monte Carlo) and 7 out of 8 in Slams (and if Nadal beat Ferrer in Australia it would've been a shocking 8 out there is no-one who can beat ...

We could improve the field dramatically by killing Federer, Nadal and the Djoker ...

TheNatural
06-15-2011, 02:16 PM
Why do you attribute your own quote to me? I said I agree but that doesn't give you right to use it as MY quote.

the quote is what you said the other day in another thread...so it's your quote not mine.

Magnus
06-15-2011, 02:29 PM
IMO today's field is MUCH worse than the one in 2004-2007, but last time I said it I was attacked by the horde of *******s around here.

Manus Domini
06-15-2011, 02:41 PM
Since all the Nadal fans marvel at the current competition (and why wouldn't they since Nadal is winning majors? - let's make them more worthy!), let me prove you that not only is the current field not tough, it's one of the weakest ever.

Let's look at the semi-final line-up for the biggest 7 tournaments played thus far.

Australian Open semis - Federer, Djokovic, Murray + Ferrer who beat Nadal
French Open semis - Federer, Djokovic, Murray, Nadal

Indian Wells - Federer, Nadal, Djokovic in the semis
Miami - Federer Nadal Djokovic in the semis
Monte Carlo - Nadal Murray in the semis, Djokovic didn't play
Rome - Nadal, Djokovic, Murray in the semis
Madrid - Nadal, Federer, Djokovic in the semis

So out of 28 semi slots in the 7 biggest tournaments this year we had Federer,Nadal,Djokovic,Murray playing in 21 of them (and would've been 22 if Djokovic played in Monte Carlo) and 7 out of 8 in Slams (and if Nadal beat Ferrer in Australia it would've been a shocking 8 out of 8 ) That's insane.

This also proves my point since there is absolutely no-one (and too few up and coming players like Raonic and Harrison - who aren't even halfway) challenging the top 4 for any big tournament.

To further prove my point - I'm predicting all the top 4 players to play in the quarter-finals and at least 3 of them making the semi-finals at Wimbledon.

For those Nadal fans who want to point out that also Federer is a part of this weak field - I agree 100%. If you take out both Nadal and Djokovic, Federer goes unchallenged in Slams for the next year at least. The reason is simple - there is no-one who can beat him. Even Andy Murray who is a part of the "big 4" can't take a set off a 29-year old Federer when it really matters. So if you take the top 2 out who's going to beat him? FERRER? ALMAGRO? FISH? Don't make me laugh.

Shouldn't you also point out that almost all the finals included just top 4 players?

Tammo
06-15-2011, 02:42 PM
I think this is one of the strongest fields ever.

tennis_pro
06-15-2011, 02:50 PM
the quote is what you said the other day in another thread...so it's your quote not mine.

would you bother finding it, instead of talking out of your a**?

Manus Domini
06-15-2011, 02:57 PM
Wait a second, this is a serious thread? You just derailed your own argument rofl... The fact that only 4 players have been consistently winning is a testament to the fact that this era is by far the strongest ever, and it's also irrefutable proof of Nadal's rein as the current GOAT. When there are different players winning every tournament, that means an era is weak. A prime of example of this is woman's tennis 1-2 years ago lol.

Not really.

"A strong era, in my opinion, is whenever I choose it to be. You see, if Federer is winning, it is a strong era. As soon as he loses, it's weak."--*******'s thought process.

Anyway, I see a strong era as one where there are many contenders for the tourneys that count, but there is still a list of who is the best.

MichaelNadal
06-15-2011, 02:58 PM
Not really.

"A strong era, in my opinion, is whenever I choose it to be. You see, if Federer is winning, it is a strong era. As soon as he loses, it's weak."--*******'s thought process.

Anyway, I see a strong era as one where there are many contenders for the tourneys that count, but there is still a list of who is the best.

http://bestanimations.com/Games/Computer/MortalCombat/Sektor/mortalkombatsektorgif-5.gif

r2473
06-15-2011, 03:06 PM
Wait a second, this is a serious thread? You just derailed your own argument rofl... The fact that only 4 players have been consistently winning is a testament to the fact that this era is by far the strongest ever, and it's also irrefutable proof of Nadal's rein as the current GOAT. When there are different players winning every tournament, that means an era is weak. A prime of example of this is woman's tennis 1-2 years ago lol.

Having a few dominant players = weak era

Parity = weak era

I hope you're taking notes. I don't want to have to go over this again.

jamesblakefan#1
06-15-2011, 03:07 PM
I think the quality 5-20 is the weakest it's been in a while. Anyone 5-20 can lose to 21-100. Everyone rips on the WTA for the same thing, but for the ATP it's okay I guess.

Just look at RG, Berdych loses to some French journeymen after having a 2 set lead, Melzer loses to some Czech guy, Almagro loses to a doubles specialist. 3 guys that made the QF or better last year lost to nobodies in the first 2 rounds of the tourney. 1-4 is as strong as ever, but the separation between the top and the next tier is getting wider and wider. Guys like Florian Mayer and JI Chela are top 20? Really?

No disrespect to any of these guys, they're all pros of course and much better than I could ever be. But they're weak relative to what you usually see in the top 20.

A quantitative display of the weakness of the field now - compare the point totals of the top 20 players this time in 2009, 2010, 2011, and of course which top 10 has the least points?

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx?d=08.06.2009&c=&r=1#
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx?d=07.06.2010&c=&r=1#
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx?d=13.06.2011&c=&r=1#

tennis_pro
06-15-2011, 03:13 PM
Wait a second, this is a serious thread? You just derailed your own argument rofl... The fact that only 4 players have been consistently winning is a testament to the fact that this era is by far the strongest ever, and it's also irrefutable proof of Nadal's rein as the current GOAT. When there are different players winning every tournament, that means an era is weak. A prime of example of this is woman's tennis 1-2 years ago lol.

Wait, so the fewer winners the better? Is 2004-2007 the toughest era, then, since only one man was winning almost everything in site?

tennis_pro
06-15-2011, 03:15 PM
I think the quality 5-20 is the weakest it's been in a while. Anyone 5-20 can lose to 21-100. Everyone rips on the WTA for the same thing, but for the ATP it's okay I guess.

Just look at RG, Berdych loses to some French journeymen after having a 2 set lead, Melzer loses to some Czech guy, Almagro loses to a doubles specialist. 3 guys that made the QF or better last year lost to nobodies in the first 2 rounds of the tourney. 1-4 is as strong as ever, but the separation between the top and the next tier is getting wider and wider. Guys like Florian Mayer and JI Chela are top 20? Really?

No disrespect to any of these guys, they're all pros of course and much better than I could ever be. But they're weak relative to what you usually see in the top 20.

A quantitative display of the weakness of the field now - compare the point totals of the top 20 players this time in 2009, 2010, 2011, and of course which top 10 has the least points?

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx?d=08.06.2009&c=&r=1#
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx?d=07.06.2010&c=&r=1#
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx?d=13.06.2011&c=&r=1#

Yep. You needed around 3150 points to be ranked in the top 10 in mid 2009 and mid 2010. Right now you need 2200 (a 30% drop!).

Manus Domini
06-15-2011, 03:17 PM
And this has anything to do with me how...?



That's exactly the kind of failed delusion that so many novices are under... Think back to the 2009 WTA lol...please don't tell me that you think that was good.

I define strong fields for WTA and ATP separately. I mean, years wise.

For me, the WTA was strong when Serena, Venus, Sharapova, Henin, et al were competing for slams and it wasn't guaranteed who would win.

Manus Domini
06-15-2011, 03:19 PM
Not exactly.

For it to be considered a strong era there should be at least 3 very dominant players, not just one, and not 20.

why "at least three"? Why is one not good enough?

tennis_pro
06-15-2011, 03:22 PM
Not exactly.

For it to be considered a strong era there should be at least 3 very dominant players, not just one, and not 20.

Why 3? Why can't there be 1-2 or 10? I want good reasons, not because this era contains 3 great players one of which is your favorite one.

tennis_pro
06-15-2011, 03:25 PM
The same can be applied for the ATP as well. Right now, you have three guys, in Djokovic, Federer, and the GOAT, all contending for Grand Slams, and then you also have players like Murray, Delpo, Soderling, and Berdych, who also have the potential to win, just not as much as the top three.

that doesn't makes sense, there's virtually one guy who's winning Slams right now and it's Nadal, he's won 4 out of the last 5 and I'm sure such a fanboy like you would think that he'd win in Australia if he wasn't injured (that would make it 5 out of the last 5), not the ideal "toughest era" if there's only 1 player, just as in 2004-2007 who's almost dominating everyone completely.

Manus Domini
06-15-2011, 03:25 PM
The same can be applied for the ATP as well.

Not really.

Djokovic, Federer, and the GOAT,

Don't be redundant.

all contending for Grand Slams, and then you also have players like Murray, Delpo, Soderling, and Berdych, who also have the potential to win, just not as much as the top three.


Umm, where does Nadal factor into this?

Manus Domini
06-15-2011, 03:27 PM
Because then it becomes a little difficult to judge just how good the 'one' player is. In Federer's case, one could easily say that the reason Federer was winning so frequently was because there just wasn't many good players, and another could just as easily say that Federer has declined as Nadal has improved, resulting in the reversed roles between the two.

And it serves more of a purpose to have three players whose skills are not clearly tested? How do we know Naderovic is really a powerhouse? How do we really know it isn't weaker than Hewalberick?

Mustard
06-15-2011, 03:31 PM
http://bestanimations.com/Games/Computer/MortalCombat/Sektor/mortalkombatsektorgif-5.gif

Hello Sektor. Haven't seen you for a while :)

tennis_pro
06-15-2011, 03:40 PM
Because you can look at the utter dominance that the current top three are imposing upon the rest of the tour, while 'Hewalberick' were rather inconsistent.

what are you talking about? Hewitt played Federer 5 times in Slams just in 2 years 2004-2005 (and actually took sets off him in most encounters), Roddick played Federer countless times at Wimbledon, 2003-2005, 2009, a couple times at the US Open 2006, 2007 and at the AO 2007, 2009. Federer played Safin at his best in 2 consecutive Australian Opens in 2004-2005, played him again in 2009, faced him at Wimbledon when Marat was on a run in 2008. Nalbandian - played him in both hard courts Slams in 2003 (actually beat him both times), 2004 AO, 2005 US, 2006 French. Actually Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian were very consistant in 2002-2007 and Safin played in QF in Slams or better more often than not (in his best years 2000-2005).

r2473
06-15-2011, 03:54 PM
I really don't like to repeat myself more than once, but I'll humor you.

Do you really think the 2009 WTA was a 'strong era' for woman's tennis lol?

Having a few dominant players = weak era

Parity = weak era

I hope you're taking notes. I don't want to have to go over this again.

Please take notes this time.

NadalAgassi
06-15-2011, 04:07 PM
I think the quality 5-20 is the weakest it's been in a while. Anyone 5-20 can lose to 21-100. Everyone rips on the WTA for the same thing, but for the ATP it's okay I guess.

Just look at RG, Berdych loses to some French journeymen after having a 2 set lead, Melzer loses to some Czech guy, Almagro loses to a doubles specialist. 3 guys that made the QF or better last year lost to nobodies in the first 2 rounds of the tourney. 1-4 is as strong as ever, but the separation between the top and the next tier is getting wider and wider. Guys like Florian Mayer and JI Chela are top 20? Really?

No disrespect to any of these guys, they're all pros of course and much better than I could ever be. But they're weak relative to what you usually see in the top 20.

A quantitative display of the weakness of the field now - compare the point totals of the top 20 players this time in 2009, 2010, 2011, and of course which top 10 has the least points?

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx?d=08.06.2009&c=&r=1#
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx?d=07.06.2010&c=&r=1#
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx?d=13.06.2011&c=&r=1#


I honestly thought about a year ago that Chela was retired. I hadnt heard anything about him in years and I knew he was pretty old. Yet now he is in the top 20!?! I remember back when I considered him a good player in the early 2000s but I dont follow his career enough to know if that is his career high rank, I think it might be. That already sums up much about the current situation of the second and third tier of the ATP.

NadalAgassi
06-15-2011, 04:09 PM
If we removed the top 4 from the 2011 Wimbledon draw, who do you think would win the title? Someone would have to step up to the plate ;)

If you removed the top 4 there would probably be either 16 different winners of the next 16 slams (24 different winners if we go back to starting mid 2009), or Del Potro would return to form and start dominating outside of grass a field without the current top 4. Of course one cant totally predict the future, some of the up and comers might solidify themselves more. Right now there is nobody good enough to take charge right now even of a field without the top 4.

djokovicgonzalez2010
06-15-2011, 04:25 PM
Federer is a rather strong #3
Murray is a fairly good #4
Soderling is a decent #5
Ferrer an acceptable #6
then it goes to ****

lendledbergfan
06-15-2011, 04:56 PM
So you care about Kelsey Grammer?

Its Grammar.

Mustard
06-15-2011, 05:49 PM
I honestly thought about a year ago that Chela was retired. I hadnt heard anything about him in years and I knew he was pretty old. Yet now he is in the top 20!?! I remember back when I considered him a good player in the early 2000s but I dont follow his career enough to know if that is his career high rank, I think it might be. That already sums up much about the current situation of the second and third tier of the ATP.

Chela's highest world ranking was number 15, achieved on the 9th August 2004. He is currently world number 20, so he's close to his career high ranking.

jackson vile
06-15-2011, 07:03 PM
Just compare the past players to the current ones.

So, take the top five from 2004 and put them in either round robin or davis cup scenario and see which ones would win.


2004 (year end)
Pts Pts +/-
Rank This Last Since # Of
Rank Player Nat Diff Year Year +/- Jan 1 Trn*
---- ------ --- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --
1 Federer, Roger SUI 1 6335 4375 1960 1960 20
2 Roddick, Andy USA -1 3655 4535 -880 -880 23
3 Hewitt, Lleyton AUS 14 3590 1450 2140 2140 20
4 Safin, Marat RUS 73 3060 465 2595 2595 24
5 Moya, Carlos ESP 2 2520 2280 240 240 23


20011 (mid season)

Rank Name & Nationality Points Tournaments Played

1 Nadal, Rafael (ESP) 12,070 22
2 Djokovic, Novak (SRB) 12,005 18
3 Federer, Roger (SUI) 9,230 21
4 Murray, Andy (GBR) 6,855 20
5 Soderling, Robin (SWE) 4,595 25

Manus Domini
06-15-2011, 07:05 PM
Because you can look at the utter dominance that the current top three are imposing upon the rest of the tour, while 'Hewalberick' were rather inconsistent.

wait, so a few can be dominant and completely destroy the field? That's strong? But if one person is as dominant as three people, it's weak?

When do you think the world was at its strongest militarily?

Let's compare this strong era (2008-2011) to the weak era (2000-2007) of the past.

Weak Era

Lleyton Hewitt: 4 slam finals, 2 slam victories. 50%

Marat Safin: 4 slam finals, 2 slam victories. 50%

Nalbandian: 1 slam final, 0 slam victories. 0%

Rafael Nadal: 5 slam finals, 3 slam victories. 60%

Roger Federer: 14 slam finals, 12 slam victories. 85.7%

Andy Roddick 4 slam finals, 1 slam victory. 25%

Gustavo Kuerten 2 slam finals, 2 victories. 100%



Strong Era

Rafael Nadal 7 slam finals, 7 slam victories. 100%

Interesting to note that when Nadal's victory in slam finals become perfect, it's a strong era

Roger Federer 9 slam finals, 4 victories, 44.4%

Andy Murray 3 slam finals, all were uber fails. 000000000%

Novak Djokovic 4 slam finals, 2 slam victories. 50%

Andy Roddick 1 slam final, almost had it. 0%

Robin Soderling 2 slam finals, 0%

Juan Martin Del Potro 1 slam final, 1 victory. 100%

Yeah, this is a much stronger era. One guy is 100% at slam finals.

jamesblakefan#1
06-15-2011, 07:55 PM
Just compare the past players to the current ones.

So, take the top five from 2004 and put them in either round robin or davis cup scenario and see which ones would win.

Only the OP wasn't arguing about the strength of the guys of the top, but about the strength of the guys from 6-20. After the top 5 is a bunch of weak guys who regularly flame out early in slams.

From 6-20 in recent years:

2005 - 6-14 were Nalbandian, Agassi, Coria, Ljubicic, Gaudio, Gonzo, Safin, Johannson, Ferrer It gets weak once you hit Ginepri at 15, Gasquet, Ferrero, Hrbaty, Robredo, Stepanek. The guys from 6-14 here are obviously stronger than the guys currently 6-14.

2006 - Nadal/Fed pretty much dominated 2006, and Blake/Davy at 3-4 aren't as strong as Fed/Murray. But after that again I think the field 6-14 is stronger than the one today. Roddick, Robredo (weak), Nalbandian, Ancic, Gonzo, Haas, Baghdatis, Berdych, Ferrer. All solid players. And even 16-18 you had Novak, Murray, Gasquet, young guys actually moving up in the rankings, unlike today where guys like Cilic and Gulbis are underperforming and going backwards, which is another reason why guys like Melzer and Chela are able to reach near career high ranks at a later age.

Today's field you have Fish top 10? Fish is a decent player, but top 10? Roddick is washed up and takes CC season off yet still manages to be top 10. Troicki's solid in small tourneys but shrinks at slams so far. Melzer is going backwards after his early RG loss. Wawrinka? Almagro? Simon? Mayer?

I'm not saying the field of 05-07 were the best ever but they were certainly better than what we're seeing today. These guys are unproven at the big events and no threat to the top players when they face them in slams. That's why the top 4 is dominating right now, the guys 6-20 are weak as heck and really provide little threat to them in the slams.

jamesblakefan#1
06-15-2011, 08:06 PM
You really can't understand the difference? You've got one dominant player from (2000-2007) in Federer. Put him in the current times and he gets his butt whipped by Nole and the GOAT. The difference between the two eras is explicit: before, Federer went unchallenged, while now, Federer is having his *** kicked.

Yeah, because Federer being older has nothing to do with it. :roll:

Oh wait, you just called Nadal the GOAT...I'll be ignoring you now...

Manus Domini
06-15-2011, 08:24 PM
You really can't understand the difference?

Not really.

You've got one dominant player from (2000-2007) in Federer.

He was only dominant from 2004-2007. That leaves 4 years he wasn't winning every non-clay slam, and thus he wasn't dominating

Put him in the current times and he gets his butt whipped by Nole

Like he didn't cream Nole at this RG?

and the GOAT.

Rosewall is retired. I think at his age, Fed would easily beat him.

The difference between the two eras is explicit: before, Federer went unchallenged, while now, Federer is having his *** kicked.

Woah, slow down there. Nadal is dominating clay and grass. Does that mean it is a weak clay and grass era?

Sharpshooter
06-15-2011, 09:06 PM
Dumbest logic ever. EVER.

Your point is because the same 4 players are constantly making the semi's the era must be weak.

So from 2004-2007 there was only 1 player constantly making the semi's so that era must be the ****iest era of all time.

Thank you for further proving that Nadal is facing MUCH tougher competition to win his majors than Fed ever did.

NadalAgassi
06-15-2011, 09:29 PM
Djokovic cant even whip Federer now. Since and including the 2010 U.S Open which I am guessing supporters will say is the start of the new Djokovic, Novak has gone 4-4 vs Federer and lost at both the WTF and French Open since then. Prime Federer would dominate Djokovic on all but perhaps clay.

That said I do sort of feel like Djokovic is better than Roddick, Hewitt, or Safin were even in their primes (Safin at his best was better but he only brought that 10% of the time). And Nadal is definitely better than those plus young Nadal. And even old Federer is better than those. So there is more overall competition in the top 3 but beyond that not really.

...LikeTheWorld
06-15-2011, 09:45 PM
Some finalists and their seeds
2001 Wim - Goran Ivanišević (Wildcard)
2002 Wim - David Nalbandian (28)
2003 AO - Rainer Schüttler (31)
2003 Wim - Mark Philippoussis (Unseeded)
2003 FO - Martin Verkerk (Unseeded)
2004 AO - Marat Safin (Unseeded)
2004 FO - Gastón Gaudio (Unseeded)
2005 FO - Mariano Puerta (Unseeded)
2006 AO - Marcos Baghdatis (Unseeded)

Yeah, '01-'06 was really strong

FlamEnemY
06-16-2011, 12:21 AM
"A strong era, in my opinion, is whenever I choose it to be. You see, if Federer is winning, it is a strong era. As soon as he loses, it's weak."--*******'s thought process.


So much fail in this logic. So either Federer beats a really strong field or he gets his @ss handed to him by nobodies.

Manus Domini
06-16-2011, 07:57 AM
So much fail in this logic. So either Federer beats a really strong field or he gets his @ss handed to him by nobodies.

That's because he's an old man now that can't move ;)

fanboy logic is self-contradictory.

tennis_pro
06-16-2011, 07:59 AM
You really can't understand the difference? You've got one dominant player from (2000-2007) in Federer. Put him in the current times and he gets his butt whipped by Nole and the GOAT. The difference between the two eras is explicit: before, Federer went unchallenged, while now, Federer is having his *** kicked.

What:) ?

How did a 30-year old beat Djokovic riding a 43 match winning streak on clay this year?

TheNatural
06-16-2011, 11:44 AM
What:) ?

How did a 30-year old beat Djokovic riding a 43 match winning streak on clay this year?

because they're both strong so they have close matches in slams, Nadal is just stronger than both in slams so he wins 4 of the last 5 slams now that he has managed to stay healthy.

Dedans Penthouse
06-16-2011, 12:23 PM
We could improve the field dramatically by killing Federer, Nadal and the Djoker ...
Charming.

"The Final Solution" .... always the 'answer' for you Rhine Monkeys. :rolleyes:

http://www.worldwar-2.net/timelines/war-in-europe/western-europe/western-europe-1941.jpg

JustBob
06-16-2011, 12:49 PM
Would a top 10 made up of players of similar but average ability make for a "strong" field? The field would be more evenly matched resulting in a more even distribution of titles. That's parity, but that doesn't necessarily translate into a "strong" field.

fed_rulz
06-16-2011, 02:04 PM
Would a top 10 made up of players of similar but average ability make for a "strong" field? The field would be more evenly matched resulting in a more even distribution of titles. That's parity, but that doesn't necessarily translate into a "strong" field.

logic is futile. explanation is futile.
moronic nostalgiatardism is what counts.

Manus Domini
06-16-2011, 02:16 PM
Would a top 10 made up of players of similar but average ability make for a "strong" field?

what about a top 10 made up of players of similar but amazing ability? Like i the 80s and 90s?

fed_rulz
06-16-2011, 02:19 PM
what about a top 10 made up of players of similar but amazing ability? Like i the 80s and 90s?
what's considererd amazing in 4.5 is mediocre to a 5.5. Just sayin...