PDA

View Full Version : Which era is the weakest era in tennis


The Dark Knight
06-05-2012, 06:14 AM
Poll is jut too much work. If anyone want to redo the thread with a poll be my guest. It certainly needs one.

NadalAgassi
06-05-2012, 06:16 AM
No point making a poll. TW polls are laughable and nothing more than comedic relief. Federer as the favorite to win Roland Garros every year for instance, LOL!
I would say the weakest era ever was 2002-2006/2007, but the weakest year of all was 2002.

Federererer
06-05-2012, 06:19 AM
Weakest era was first 2/3 of 2008, 2010, 2011.

sureshs
06-05-2012, 06:19 AM
This is the weakest era because posters are unable to create a poll.

mattennis
06-05-2012, 06:20 AM
There are no weaks eras.

It is:

Similar playing conditions: last decade

Varied playing conditions: former eras.

Obviously, the more similar playing conditions are everywhere (plus 32 seeds), the less number of different players winning GS (only one or two players winning everything).

Seriously, it is not that difficult to grasp.

Put four TOTALLY different playing conditions in the four GS and you'll see (on average) 3 or 4 different players winning GS every year.

tennis_pro
06-05-2012, 06:21 AM
There are no "weak eras", there have been years when some of the best players considered at the time where below par:

1986 - Lendl domination, no McEnroe, Connors, Wilander heavily underperformed, Edberg, Becker where there but still kiddos
1996-1998 - Agassi shot mentally, Becker virtually gone apart from 1 or 2 good matches, Chang was reaching slam semis/finals for fun which tells a lot about this period
2001-2003 - there were a lot of good players but nobody who really stood out - Sampras had 1-2 good runs, Hewitt played well, Agassi played well, Safin for parts, the beginnings of Roddick, Nalbandian
2006 - 4/4 majors won, 8/9 Masters, 1/1 WTF, like 17 or so titles combined says it all - complete Federer domination on hard/grass courts, Nadal on clay
2010 - Nadal was the only player in good form throughout the year, Federer was gone for 7 months after winning AO, Murray as well, Djokovic well below par throughot the year, Davydenko, Roddick gone after the first 3-4 months, Del Potro injured

Yet again, it doesn't mean that these seasons were awful, just weaker than the rest.

The Dark Knight
06-05-2012, 06:22 AM
There are no weaks eras.

It is:

Similar playing conditions: last decade

Varied playing conditions: former eras.

Obviously, the more similar playing conditions are everywhere (plus 32 seeds), the less number of different players winning GS (only one or two players winning everything).

Seriously, it is not that difficult to grasp.

Put four TOTALLY different playing conditions in the four GS and you'll see (on average) 3 or 4 different players winning GS every year.

So then you think Laver ranked #1 in the world was equal to Roddick who was also ranked #1 ?

mattennis
06-05-2012, 06:27 AM
The same two players, Djokovic and Nadal, have disputed the last three GS finals (and will possibly clash again next Sunday for the fourth consecutive GS final).

Do you really think it would have been possible in any other era (the same two players in four consecutive GS finals) ?

That does not mean "weak era" nor "strong era", it only means "similar playing conditions everywhere (plus 32 seeds to make it easier still)"

The Dark Knight
06-05-2012, 06:35 AM
The same two players, Djokovic and Nadal, have disputed the last three GS finals (and will possibly clash again next Sunday for the fourth consecutive GS final).

Do you really think it would have been possible in any other era (the same two players in four consecutive GS finals) ?

That does not mean "weak era" nor "strong era", it only means "similar playing conditions everywhere (plus 32 seeds to make it easier still)"

I have a better question.....

Hall of famer Boris Becker one of the greatest of all time was not even able to ever make it to year end #1 in his era.....


Compare that to Andy Roddick who was the #1 player in the world.

Why?????

tennis_pro
06-05-2012, 06:40 AM
I have a better question.....

Hall of famer Boris Becker one of the greatest of all time was not even able to ever make it to year end #1 in his era.....


Compare that to Andy Roddick who was the #1 player in the world.

Why?????

Because the points were more evenly spread in 2003, that's why Roddick finished 2003 as no 1 while Lendl, despite winning AO compared to Becker collecting Wimbledon and US titles still earned more points throughout the year.

You wanna ask how the rankings work?

SwankPeRFection
06-05-2012, 06:45 AM
Generally speaking anything in the past can be considered a weak era in sports. With each passing year, athletes get stronger and stronger, so future eras cannot possibly be weaker than the past. Every once in a while, you get a dominant athlete that seems to be ahead of their time... that's when legends are built.

mattennis
06-05-2012, 06:47 AM
I have a better question.....

Hall of famer Boris Becker one of the greatest of all time was not even able to ever make it to year end #1 in his era.....


Compare that to Andy Roddick who was the #1 player in the world.

Why?????

My answer is basically the same (related to "similar conditions everywhere").

I sincerely believe that Roddick could have won at least 1 or 2 Wimbledons and maybe one more US OPEN had the playing conditions stayed as they were in the 90s, 80s....

But the thing is that they changed the playing conditions, slowed down Wimbledon and the US OPEN (and most hard courts tournaments in general, removed carpet...) and in the "standard medium type" of court everywhere (non clay) Federer was clearly the best one. It harmed Roddick, Hewitt (Lleyton loved fast and low-bouncing grass, and the fastest hard courts) and Federer was the most beneficiary of those changes at that time.

But as years passed by, new players like Nadal and Djokovic arose even more adapted to these homogeneous conditions "slow-to-medium-slow everywhere".

mattennis
06-05-2012, 06:51 AM
The key is "varied conditions" versus "similar conditions" (you all could see what happened in Madrid).

In other words: the top player (ot the two top players) have it way easier to win many GS tournaments (and the four of them) today and in the last decade, than in any other former tennis era.

helloworld
06-05-2012, 06:54 AM
I have a better question.....

Hall of famer Boris Becker one of the greatest of all time was not even able to ever make it to year end #1 in his era.....


Compare that to Andy Roddick who was the #1 player in the world.

Why?????

Becker had to contend with Lendl, McEnroe, Edberg, Wilander, Agassi, Sampras, Courier, etc. throughout his entire career. There was simply no time for him to become number 1, whereas Roddick was lucky to hit his prime in 2003 where Sampras was already retired and Federer has yet to reach his prime.

The Dark Knight
06-05-2012, 06:57 AM
Becker had to contend with Lendl, McEnroe, Edberg, Wilander, Agassi, Sampras, Courier, etc. throughout his entire career. There was simply no time for him to become number 1, whereas Roddick was lucky to hit his prime in 2003 where Sampras was already retired and Federer has yet to reach his prime.

Agreed.....in other words roddicks era was a weaker era.

FlashFlare11
06-05-2012, 06:58 AM
Such a thing does not exist.

However it appears that the OP lacks basic cognitive ability. Therefore, he is unable to grasp the concept because he is so consumed by hatred. The poor guy has never watched tennis before 2010 and thinks he can comment on Roddick's pre-2010 ability.

merlinpinpin
06-05-2012, 06:59 AM
Becker had to contend with Lendl, McEnroe, Edberg, Wilander, Agassi, Sampras, Courier, etc. throughout his entire career. There was simply no time for him to become number 1, whereas Roddick was lucky to hit his prime in 2003 where Sampras was already retired and Federer has yet to reach his prime.

But he *did* become #1, you know. Just like Roddick, he slipped in a few weeks after Lendl's prime and before the next great came in. Becker's curse was that his prime came when Lendl was still too dominant for him to take advantage of it, Lendl being essentially a stronger player than Becker (although Boris almost always beat him in slams).

Feather
06-05-2012, 07:00 AM
Agreed.....in other words it was a weaker era.

Actually people should NOT debate with you.

For this question tennis_pro offered an answer to you. You are not bothered to address that. Instead you picked something that suit your agenda and quoted that..

You don't want to rationally debate. You only want to further your agenda :)

merlinpinpin
06-05-2012, 07:01 AM
Agreed.....in other words roddicks era was a weaker era.

Lol! Roddick was #1 for 13 weeks. Do you consider 13 weeks an era?

What about Rafter's era, then? Lasted for all of one week. Jolly good! But was it strong or weak?

mattennis
06-05-2012, 07:02 AM
Said in yet another different way: "current players from nš5 to nš10 have it way more difficult to win a GS today (and in the last decade) than in any other former tennis era"

Why?

Because they have at least 4 players that are better than them at the one and only way of playing tennis today everywhere.

Whereas in the past, for example, a nš7 in the world Pat Cash could very well be the best or the second best tennis player in one (grass courts) of many different playing conditions that were at that time (or a nš 10 Sergi Bruguera could be the best or the second best tennis player in one (clay courts) of many different playing conditions that were at that time.

Note: I am not saying they were exactly nš7 and nš10 prior to their 1987 Wimbledon or 1993 Roland Garros, I don't remember their exact ranking at those moments, but could be something like that.

The Dark Knight
06-05-2012, 07:12 AM
Said in yet another different way: "current players from nš5 to nš10 have it way more difficult to win a GS today (and in the last decade) than in any other former tennis era"

Why?

Because they have at least 4 players that are better than them at the one and only way of playing tennis today everywhere.

Whereas in the past, for example, a nš7 in the world Pat Cash could very well be the best or the second best tennis player in one (grass courts) of many different playing conditions that were at that time (or a nš 10 Sergi Bruguera could be the best or the second best tennis player in one (clay courts) of many different playing conditions that were at that time.

Note: I am not saying they were exactly nš7 and nš10 prior to their 1987 Wimbledon or 1993 Roland Garros, I don't remember their exact ranking at those moments, but could be something like that.

No need to make it more complicated though.....the simpler stroke is the more effective stroke.

The reason Becker never made it to #1 but Roddick did is because Roddicks era was weaker.

Gorecki
06-05-2012, 07:17 AM
any era with players who bring people like the OP to tennis is a weak era.

Feather
06-05-2012, 07:18 AM
any era with players who bring people like the OP to tennis is a weak era.

lol

10 lol chars

BigServer1
06-05-2012, 08:20 AM
Agreed.....in other words roddicks era was a weaker era.

Roddick never had an "era". He was ranked #1 for NINE WEEKS. He was ranked #1 at ONE Major, the 2004 Australian Open. I cannot believe how the weak era conspiracy theorists on this board prop Roddick up like he was the greatest player of an entire generation, and then cut him down, saying he is the worst #1 ever.

Rios was #1 for 6 weeks in 1998...He never won a slam. That means that Rios' era was super weak, right? How on earth could a player like Rios rise to #1, without winning a slam, unless the era was super weak?

In regards to your question, I think that 2000-Present is a bit weaker overall when compared to the 30 years that preceded it, but I agree with others that said it has more to do with surface homogenization than anything. I do think (especially right now) that the top 3-4 is as strong as it's been in a while, but the majority of the top 30 is a joke. There are exceptions, but I think depth in that regard is at one of it's weakest points.

LuckyR
06-05-2012, 08:25 AM
The weakest era? The one when your least favorite Hall of Famer was active...

The Dark Knight
06-05-2012, 08:32 AM
Roddick never had an "era". He was ranked #1 for NINE WEEKS. He was ranked #1 at ONE Major, the 2004 Australian Open. I cannot believe how the weak era conspiracy theorists on this board prop Roddick up like he was the greatest player of an entire generation, and then cut him down, saying he is the worst #1 ever.

Rios was #1 for 6 weeks in 1998...He never won a slam. That means that Rios' era was super weak, right? How on earth could a player like Rios rise to #1, without winning a slam, unless the era was super weak?

In regards to your question, I think that 2000-Present is a bit weaker overall when compared to the 30 years that preceded it, but I agree with others that said it has more to do with surface homogenization than anything. I do think (especially right now) that the top 3-4 is as strong as it's been in a while, but the majority of the top 30 is a joke. There are exceptions, but I think depth in that regard is at one of it's weakest points.

Roddick was year end #1 .....Rios only made it to #1.....and by the way Rios was a far better player than Roddick which proves my point .


Rios & Becker for that matter did in fact make it to #1 but they never could become a year end #1 as well.....a feat only Roddick was able to do.

The other difference is that Roddick was #2 for quite a while as was Becker. Clearly even you would have to admit that Becker was a far better #2 than Roddick could ever dream of being .

Are you honestly standing for the proposition that Roddick & Becker are equal? Or are you just supporting your favorite player?

BigServer1
06-05-2012, 08:58 AM
Roddick was year end #1 .....Rios only made it to #1.....and by the way Rios was a far better player than Roddick which proves my point .


Rios & Becker for that matter did in fact make it to #1 but they never could become a year end #1 as well.....a feat only Roddick was able to do.

The other difference is that Roddick was #2 for quite a while as was Becker. Clearly even you would have to admit that Becker was a far better #2 thank Roddick could ever dream of being .

Are you honestly standing for the proposition that Roddick & Becker are equal? Or are you just supporting your favorite player?

Roddick becoming YE #1 was all about timing. He happened to get there at the end of the year. He also won Indy, Montreal, Cincy and the US Open, and made the Semis at the Australian Open and Wimbledon. He had a great year, and happened to have the best stretch of his year at the end. It was 100% timing.

Rios was far more talented than Roddick, but he wasted his talent. It's inarguable. He was a hothead, didn't take well to coaching, wouldn't adjust, wanted to be all flash. He made one slam final, and was destroyed.

Becker was a better #2. So what? Roddick was #2 in 2004 and the first half of 2005. Again, it's the idea that Roddick was #2 for like 10 years. After the French Open 2005, Rafa became #2, and didn't leave that spot until 2008, when he became #1.

Michael Chang became #2 in the world in 1996 and 1997. During that time he didn't win a slam...Does that make that era weak? Michael Chang isn't a shining beacon of a world #2. One Major, with multiple losses in Major finals (remind you of anyone???).

I'm a huge Fed fan. I've never hidden the fact that he's my favorite player. Sampras was my favorite before Fed, so it's not like I'm trying to disparage Pete here either. I do think it's ridiculous that "Weak era" guys cherry pick examples to try to prop up their view points, but won't accept anything from the other viewpoint. It's cool if you disagree with me, but just shouting "RODDICK IS AWFUL" isn't really an argument.

The Dark Knight
06-05-2012, 09:26 AM
The million dollar question:

Do you believe the current "golden era of tennis" was equal to the period when Roddick was #1 and #2. ???

The second million dollar question:

Do you believe the original golden era of tennis (Borg , McEnroe , Connors) was equal to the period when Roddick was #1 and #2??




.

Gorecki
06-05-2012, 09:27 AM
The gaziillion dollar question:

Do you believe the current "golden era of morons" was equal to the period when Lone Wolf and Zaragoza was #1 and #2. ???

helloworld
06-05-2012, 09:31 AM
Becker is simply a better player than Roddick. Both have huge serves, but Becker could back it up with a complete game. Becker has perfect volleys, and very solid and powerful groundstrokes. Becker is overall a better version of Roddick. To compare Roddick and Becker is simply disrespectful to Becker...

BigServer1
06-05-2012, 09:36 AM
The million dollar question:

Do you believe the current "golden era of tennis" was equal to the period when Roddick was #1 and #2. ???


.

This IS NOT a golden era of tennis. I have said this 100 times on this board, but I'll say it again: The top 3 now is as good as it's been in a while. After that, it's largely a wasteland.

Do I think the #1, #2 and #3 players from Roddicks nine weeks at #1 are as strong as 1-3 today? Of course not. Duh. You are trying to compare, however 1-2 years (2003-2004), with the last 4-5 years (2007/8-Present), which is A) unfair and B) misguided.

Djokovic is in his prime right now. Nadal sure looks close. Federer is clearly not the guy he was 5-6 years ago, but he still has a ton of ability. After those three, where is your golden age? Is it Tipsarevic in the top 10? Fish? Isner? Murray who is a mental midget on the big stage and is 0/3 in Major finals? Is it Ferrer, who has dismal records against the guys ranked above him? How about Tsonga, Del Potro and Berdych, who have huge games and can beat anyone on their day, but are wildly inconsistent (at best)? Where are the players that make this a golden era? Are we really going to rely on the top 3 alone with little competition around them? Is it a golden era when the same 3-4 guys make every major Semi/Final?

Andy Roddick, your idea of the worst player ever, was in the top 10 for 10 consecutive years, spanning 2001-2011. He has a winning record over Djoker and has scored a couple big wins over Nadal (Miami 2010). You disparage him in favor of your golden era, yet fail to see that even FAR past his prime, he was still competitive with the guys at the top now. What does that say to you about Roddick's abilities?

We are not in a golden era of tennis. We're in an era with a great top 3 and a lousy top 30.

BigServer1
06-05-2012, 09:38 AM
Becker is simply a better player than Roddick. Both have huge serves, but Becker could back it up with a complete game. Becker has perfect volleys, and very solid and powerful groundstrokes. Becker is overall a better version of Roddick. To compare Roddick and Becker is simply disrespectful to Becker...

No one is comparing Becker and Roddick, there's no comparison...Becker >>> Roddick.

NadalAgassi
06-05-2012, 09:48 AM
I agree right now is not the Golden Era of tennis but it sure as heck isnt 2003-2007 which fools like The Master of Fail would try and have you actually believe.

BigServer1
06-05-2012, 09:51 AM
I agree right now is not the Golden Era of tennis but it sure as heck isnt 2003-2007 which fools like The Master of Fail would try and have you actually believe.

I agree with you, 100%. And LOL at creative bolding...Credit where it's due.

For my money, the golden age was the McEnroe/Borg era (spanning a bit before McEnroe and a bit after Borg), but I know there are people around who would disagree with that. The surfaces were crazy different, there were specialists everywhere, and tennis was at the height of it's popularity. I wish we could get back to those days.

The Dark Knight
06-05-2012, 01:57 PM
This IS NOT a golden era of tennis. I have said this 100 times on this board, but I'll say it again: The top 3 now is as good as it's been in a while. After that, it's largely a wasteland.

Do I think the #1, #2 and #3 players from Roddicks nine weeks at #1 are as strong as 1-3 today? Of course not. Duh. You are trying to compare, however 1-2 years (2003-2004), with the last 4-5 years (2007/8-Present), which is A) unfair and B) misguided.

Djokovic is in his prime right now. Nadal sure looks close. Federer is clearly not the guy he was 5-6 years ago, but he still has a ton of ability. After those three, where is your golden age? Is it Tipsarevic in the top 10? Fish? Isner? Murray who is a mental midget on the big stage and is 0/3 in Major finals? Is it Ferrer, who has dismal records against the guys ranked above him? How about Tsonga, Del Potro and Berdych, who have huge games and can beat anyone on their day, but are wildly inconsistent (at best)? Where are the players that make this a golden era? Are we really going to rely on the top 3 alone with little competition around them? Is it a golden era when the same 3-4 guys make every major Semi/Final?

Andy Roddick, your idea of the worst player ever, was in the top 10 for 10 consecutive years, spanning 2001-2011. He has a winning record over Djoker and has scored a couple big wins over Nadal (Miami 2010). You disparage him in favor of your golden era, yet fail to see that even FAR past his prime, he was still competitive with the guys at the top now. What does that say to you about Roddick's abilities?

We are not in a golden era of tennis. We're in an era with a great top 3 and a lousy top 30.

Well there you have it.....the top three are stronger now....hence the "Roddick " era was weaker than the current "golden era",


By the way do you know how long the original golden era lasted? It was only a couple of years.....Borg retired early and with him the Borg McEnroe Connors era died as well.

Federer was competing in the "wasteland " as you call it for 12 slams.

Doesn't mean he is the Goat? Possibly.....does it mean he wouldn't have had 16 slams.....definitely.

Just take a look at this open....in the past Fed would only have to go through Nadal......now he has to deal with delpptro , joker and Nadal.

In fact out of those early 12 slams did even one go to 5 sets? I can't remember because they were such utter blowouts I don't even remember them. The only grandslams wins that Fed has that are memorable are against Nadal or Djokovic .....the rest as you termed are a "wasteland".

BigServer1
06-05-2012, 02:40 PM
Well there you have it.....the top three are stronger now....hence the "Roddick " era was weaker than the current "golden era",


By the way do you know how long the original golden era lasted? It was only a couple of years.....Borg retired early and with him the Borg McEnroe Connors era died as well.

Federer was competing in the "wasteland " as you call it for 12 slams.

Doesn't mean he is the Goat? Possibly.....does it mean he wouldn't have had 16 slams.....definitely.

Just take a look at this open....in the past Fed would only have to go through Nadal......now he has to deal with delpptro , joker and Nadal.

In fact out of those early 12 slams did even one go to 5 sets? I can't remember because they were such utter blowouts I don't even remember them. The only grandslams wins that Fed has that are memorable are against Nadal or Djokovic .....the rest as you termed are a "wasteland".

I can't even have this discussion with you...Roddick NEVER had "an era". Like I mentioned before, He was #1 for nine weeks. I suppose we should also talk about the Safin era, the Ferrero era, the Rios era. Are you kidding me?

3 players doesn't make an era strong. It can make the last two rounds of a Major interesting, but it doesn't help the cause when it's by the book for the first 5 rounds. There is no one in tennis today that can challenge the top 3/4 players. That doesn't mean it's a strong era, it means it horrible from a depth perspective. Look at the records of DelPo, Ferrer, Berdych, Tsonga against the top 3 guys. Look at how Murray has fared against those three in Grand Slam matches.

I can see why someone would think that today is stronger than say, 2005. I don't agree with it, but I can see it. What I can't see is how anyone looks at today's ATP and sees a "Golden Age".

tennis_pro
06-05-2012, 02:58 PM
No need to make it more complicated though.....the simpler stroke is the more effective stroke.

The reason Becker never made it to #1 but Roddick did is because Roddicks era was weaker.

Becker did make it to #1 but Roddick was lucky to accumulate more points than anyone at the END OF THE YEAR which made him the YEAR-END-NO-1, Becker in that regard was unlucky as he was a stable top 3 player but always lacked a couple of points to be at the top.

The-Champ
06-05-2012, 02:59 PM
My answer is basically the same (related to "similar conditions everywhere").

I sincerely believe that Roddick could have won at least 1 or 2 Wimbledons and maybe one more US OPEN had the playing conditions stayed as they were in the 90s, 80s....

But the thing is that they changed the playing conditions, slowed down Wimbledon and the US OPEN (and most hard courts tournaments in general, removed carpet...) and in the "standard medium type" of court everywhere (non clay) Federer was clearly the best one. It harmed Roddick, Hewitt (Lleyton loved fast and low-bouncing grass, and the fastest hard courts) and Federer was the most beneficiary of those changes at that time.

But as years passed by, new players like Nadal and Djokovic arose even more adapted to these homogeneous conditions "slow-to-medium-slow everywhere".

Nadal has been winning majors since 2005. He is not really a new player..

The Dark Knight
06-05-2012, 06:11 PM
Becker did make it to #1 but Roddick was lucky to accumulate more points than anyone at the END OF THE YEAR which made him the YEAR-END-NO-1, Becker in that regard was unlucky as he was a stable top 3 player but always lacked a couple of points to be at the top.

A lucky shot or two a let cord here or there is luck......

Making it to the year end #1 player in the world is not luck . It comes from winning hard match after hard match.

Becker was simply not able to do it because the competition was so tough. Roddick on the other hand was able to do ot because te competition was far weaker than what Becker had to deal with.

Becker was never year end #1 despite winning Wimbledon and the US open in the same year.

Becker is a far better player than Roddick could ever dream of being . So why couldn't Becker be year end #1 while Roddick was able to attain the #1 spot?

You explanation is luck? Do you really honestly believe luck is the answer?

The Dark Knight
06-05-2012, 06:16 PM
Nadal has been winning majors since 2005. He is not really a new player..

He has been winning the FO since 2005. He only started winning grandslams other than clay since 2008.

Nadal at heart is still a clay court player who has been able to adapt his game to other surfaces

Joker has always dominated Nadal on hard.....ALWAYS.

billnepill
06-05-2012, 06:21 PM
Did this thread relieve our anger that Fed won today :lol:

The weakest era of tennis is the era in which the top player won 70 Mil $. It all makes sense that increased financial stimulus is less attractive to talents and hence Federer's era is the weakest in history.

Here you go, now you have scientific proof as well. You can quote me on that.

The Dark Knight
06-05-2012, 06:41 PM
Did this thread relieve our anger that Fed won today :lol:

The weakest era of tennis is the era in which the top player won 70 Mil $. It all makes sense that increased financial stimulus is less attractive to talents and hence Federer's era is the weakest in history.

Here you go, now you have scientific proof as well. You can quote me on that.

Good for Fed....but you miss the point.

Its a perfect example.....he barely won today against Delpotro in 5 hard sets. Now he has to take on Djokovic and then possibly Nadal......

You dont see that as tougher competition than baghdatis?

TopFH
06-05-2012, 06:49 PM
TDK, are you a Nadalovic fan?

IvanisevicServe
06-05-2012, 06:52 PM
Good for Fed....but you miss the point.

Its a perfect example.....he barely won today against Delpotro in 5 hard sets. Now he has to take on Djokovic and then possibly Nadal......

You dont see that as tougher competition than baghdatis?

Didn't realize Federer played Baghdatis all the time when he was winning slams.

And those last 3 sets were far from "hard." Del Potro's knee doesn't give out, Federer's out in the quarters. The way Federer is going with Nadal and Djokovic at the top of their games now, he won't win another slam. If he's playing the best tennis of his career, then essentially, what you're saying is prime-Federer wouldn't win any Grand Slams at all if he'd had Djokovic and Nadal both in their primes competing with him.

The Dark Knight
06-05-2012, 06:55 PM
TDK, are you a Nadalovic fan?

No a truth fan.....

You guys think I'm trying to say that Feds not the GOAT.

I'm not saying he is or he is not .....rather all I'm saying is that I don't think he would have won 16 slams given today's competition......he still however may be the GOAT.

I just don't think saying "Fed won 16 slams so that automatically makes him the GOAT"......

I just don't buy that argument ......


But I'll tell you what......if he wins this FO then there is no doubt he is the GOAT.

Feds test and always has been Nadal.....he has to get through him to **** everyone up, otherwise he will never hear the end of it.

lambros
06-05-2012, 06:57 PM
Do we really need anothe weak era thread?

The Dark Knight
06-05-2012, 07:04 PM
Do we really need anothe weak era thread?

Get rid of all the others . :-)

TopFH
06-05-2012, 07:38 PM
I just don't think saying "Fed won 16 slams so that automatically makes him the GOAT"......

Fed has a ton more records than just 16 slams.

Also, to use your argument against you. There would be no way a guy has a 93% on clay without having a weak clay era. Especially if that guy has never defended a title outside clay.

Anyone know who this guy is?

tennis_pro
06-05-2012, 07:58 PM
A lucky shot or two a let cord here or there is luck......

Making it to the year end #1 player in the world is not luck . It comes from winning hard match after hard match.

Becker was simply not able to do it because the competition was so tough. Roddick on the other hand was able to do ot because te competition was far weaker than what Becker had to deal with.

Becker was never year end #1 despite winning Wimbledon and the US open in the same year.

Becker is a far better player than Roddick could ever dream of being . So why couldn't Becker be year end #1 while Roddick was able to attain the #1 spot?

You explanation is luck? Do you really honestly believe luck is the answer?

You're crazy, Roddick dominated the American US swing in 2003 winning the big 3 Canada/Cincinnati Masters and the US Open among others (took out Federer in one of those who was fresh from winning his first Wimbledon title) and was the most consistent player that year reaching the semis in the AO and Wimbledon.

mcenroefan
06-05-2012, 08:12 PM
I think this era lacks depth of excellence which makes it much easier on the top three. There also is no rise of a great young players at this point.

The Dark Knight
06-06-2012, 03:40 AM
You're crazy, Roddick dominated the American US swing in 2003 winning the big 3 Canada/Cincinnati Masters and the US Open among others (took out Federer in one of those who was fresh from winning his first Wimbledon title) and was the most consistent player that year reaching the semis in the AO and Wimbledon.

Oh please.....it's not even close . Do you really want to compare Becker to Roddick?? It's not even close...

Boris Becker beat freaking Stefan Edberg at freaking wimbledon in 1989 and then turned around and beat #1 Ivan Lendl at the US Open in 1989!

And that still wasn't enough.....just the fact that he had to face Stefan edberg at Wimbledon and then Lendl proves its more competition. Who the hell did Roddick beat to win his US open?? :

Andy Roddick beat Juan Carlos Ferrero to win his US Open.....your comparing Ferrero on a FAST hard court to freaking Edberg on FAST grass and Lendl on hard court??? You think that's equal completion ???

Come on .....Roddick as the #1 player in the world?? Comparing him to Boris Becker??? And you are calling me crazy?

Hey Feds great but get off your bias horse ......Becker has wayyyyyy more competition than Roddick did and that's why Becker was not the #1 player in the world .

sbengte
06-06-2012, 04:04 AM
Nadal at heart is still a clay court player who has been able to adapt his game to other surfaces


Actually it is the surfaces and draws that have adapted to Ralph :D

Feather
06-06-2012, 04:25 AM
Actually it is the surfaces and draws that have adapted to Ralph :D

You really rock :)

The Dark Knight
06-06-2012, 04:54 AM
Actually it is the surfaces and draws that have adapted to Ralph :D

Actually it's the fact that Sampras retired leaving a vacuum on the ATP tour which allowed Roddick to rise to #1 . His competition was Juan Carlos Ferrero in the open.

This vacuum of talent is what Federer walked into in the wake of the Sampras retirement .

Flash O'Groove
06-06-2012, 05:45 AM
You guys think I'm trying to say that Feds not the GOAT.

I'm not saying he is or he is not .....rather all I'm saying is that I don't think he would have won 16 slams given today's competition......he still however may be the GOAT.

I just don't think saying "Fed won 16 slams so that automatically makes him the GOAT"......

I just don't buy that argument ......

Well....were Federer of the same age than Nadal...I don't think Nadal Would have 6 (7) RG titles...
And it's not because Nadal has 6 (7) RG titles...and many more clas master 1000....that he is the clay goat....
I just don't buy the argument....

The Dark Knight
06-06-2012, 05:49 AM
Well....were Federer of the same age than Nadal...I don't think Nadal Would have 6 (7) RG titles...
And it's not because Nadal has 6 (7) RG titles...and many more clas master 1000....that he is the clay goat....
I just don't buy the argument....

Except that Nadal is 6-2 against Roger in slams.

Feds only wins came on grass and that was only as Rafa was developing and learning to play on grass.

Flash O'Groove
06-06-2012, 06:05 AM
Feds only wins came on grass and that was only as Rafa was developing and learning to play on grass.

But Nadal only defeated Fed outside grass since 2008, and that was only as Fed was declining...

So if you want to make a virtual competition between 24 years old Fed and 24 years old Nadal, do it to the end. Oh yes...Fed is better at 30 than he was at 24....I forgot that...

The Dark Knight
06-06-2012, 06:13 AM
But Nadal only defeated Fed outside grass since 2008, and that was only as Fed was declining...

So if you want to make a virtual competition between 24 years old Fed and 24 years old Nadal, do it to the end. Oh yes...Fed is better at 30 than he was at 24....I forgot that...

Declining or not is all opinion. I don't know of he is or isn't and no one knows for sure.

But the fact is that Nadal was Called a clay court specialist and that was his first Wimbledon ever ! And I think he was only 20? ( help me out on that please).

The second meeting at Wimbledon Fed had a legit win. That was the second greatest match of all time in my opinion.

Fed would win slams given the current competition there's no question . But there is no way he would win 16 in my opinion .

Fed came along during what I call the "Vacuum effect". He came along the year after Sampras retired causing a vacuum in the top 10.

I think Federer still may be the GOAT but he is not quite as invincible as we all thought he was.....it was just that there was a "vacuum" in the top 10. It was a transitional phase.

You had one of the GOATS come around at the perfect time to dominate .

Feather
06-06-2012, 06:15 AM
Except that Nadal is 6-2 against Roger in slams.

Feds only wins came on grass and that was only as Rafa was developing and learning to play on grass.

Laughable at best. How many years do you think Rafa spent learning to play on grass?

The Dark Knight
06-06-2012, 06:22 AM
Laughable at best. How many years do you think Rafa spent learning to play on grass?

Don't know.....but that was his first Wimbledon final ever at the age of 20?

How many years could he have possibly played on grass? He was up against a guy who beat Sampras on fast grass......that's a tall order for a 20 year old Spanish dirtballer .....dont you think?

I was amazed that Rafa even was in the finals ! I think Nadal himself was in shock to be there. He probably thought to himself "hey maybe I can play on this stuff?" that's why he returned the next year with a vengeance ....

Make no mistake.....even today Rafa is a dirtballer at heart.

Apun94
06-06-2012, 06:24 AM
Weakest era was first 2/3 of 2008, 2010, 2011.

Shut up ****! You are a disgrace to Fed fans. Stop worshipping Fed and get a life...

JRAJ1988
03-11-2014, 08:04 AM
2013-

10weakeras

Smasher08
03-11-2014, 09:12 AM
Lol! Roddick was #1 for 13 weeks. Do you consider 13 weeks an era?

What about Rafter's era, then? Lasted for all of one week. Jolly good! But was it strong or weak?

Personally I consider that era to have been a weak week. ;)