What is a weak era or strong era in tennis?

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by pc1, Jan 1, 2011.

  1. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    But, the field of players with championship level competitiveness was very shallow in the mid 2000's.
     
  2. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,039
    Who said it's easy to make it to the top?

    I told you the difference is the degree of difficulty. With more athletes, more talent players, bigger pool only makes it harder and harder. If they spit the current pool into 10 fields, and have Fed compete in one of them, perhaps it's comparable to the strength of 60s.

    Tom Okker, so what? He didn't compete in today's era and who knows if he can qualify for the 128 draw at the slam
     
  3. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,039
    And I suppose you'll tell me you can prove it? (sigh...)

    Hewitt/Roddick was playing their best tennis. Nadal established clay dominant. Even Ljubicic, an unknown to some of you who don't watch him, was playing his best tennis in 2005/06.

    Also, since Fed win over 10 titles per year and basically all the major events, it's an allusion that the field lacks competitiveness. It's because Fed was GREAT.
     
  4. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    When a top 10 includes 80% of journeymen like Fish,Issner,Tipsarevic or Almagro,Monfils,Verdasco, you know you have a big big problem.It never happened in 70´s,80´s and early 90´s (Golden Era)
     
  5. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,039
    Nothing better to say. Getting desperate now?
     
  6. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    It is terrific that the name of the game today is journeymanship.

    Any case, my point is that I understand that you are in paradise with this era since you never watched tennis before.I don´t blame you for that.it´s human nature.But you should be humble enough to listen carefully when seasoned tennis fans give arguments in favour of an era and against another era.You s- and most posters here- should learn from experienced posters.
     
  7. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,039
    Journeymen from University is better than top players in high school.
     
  8. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,706
    Location:
    U.S
    easy to say those words, but define championship level competitiveness .....

    gaudio, thomas johansson,korda etc = championship level competitive players ?

    nalbandian, murray, rios, mecir etc != championship level competitive players ?
     
  9. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,706
    Location:
    U.S
    they hold only 2 of the final spots in the top 10 - tipsy, isner ...

    and isner beat fed at davis cup on clay in best of 5, took nadal to 5 at RG last year and beat djoker at IW ...all acts of a journeyman I suppose ...:roll:

    the rest 8 are: djoker, nadal, fed, murray, ferrer, delpo ,tsonga, berdych

    you fail again ....
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2012
  10. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    Berdych has done no better than a Solomon and a Gottfried.Nobody would call them stars of their time but good and competitive players.Delpotro has one grand slam title, Panatta also won a Gs ( plus a few semis) but didn´t rank as high as the argentinian because of a tougher competition.Ferrer?? hahaha, no better than Eddie Dibbs or Jose Higueras ( look at their records).a very limited player...Murray, a big failure.tsonga is a bit more talented but guys like Tanner or Gerulaitis were much more succesful, winning majors and playing many majors finals.He pales in comparison.

    and Tipsarevic,Fish,Issner,Almagro,Monfils,Verdasco were all top ten memers.
     
  11. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,224
    You got guys like Nadal and Fed who are all time greats but CLEARLY passed their best days still at the top. Murray the best of the rest still stuck in slamless purgatory despite a half a dozen years on chances to get in that top of the heap. Ferrer in the top 5?

    For the past 3 years the only guy really could have made a major run and threat to the top was Del Potro back in 2009 and that was cut short by injuries.

    If you want the classic definition of a "weak era" look at this one. Everyone outside the top 3 seems completely incapable of doing anything of note.
     
  12. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,746
  13. helloworld

    helloworld Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,672
    Outside of the top 3, this era is by far the weakest era since 1950s...
     
  14. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    Nalbandian and Mecir were/are probably championship level competitors, but, injuries prevented them from achieving what they could have. For the rest, obviously they are not.
     
  15. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Nalbandian is not better than Murray, so I dont see how Nalbandian could be champion level and not Murray. Champion level competitor is the ironic word to use for Nalbandian as well, as that is frankly the last thing he was, a champion level ballstriker off the ground maybe, but that is it. Granted it is possible Nalbandian has more overall technical talent, but Murray is a better athlete, much harder worker, much fitter, alot more consistent, more dedicated, so factoring in all the mental, physical, tactical, and technical attributes Murray is easily superior overall, and their career achievements via each other playing in basically the same era shows it. Nalbandian's poor training habits and contstantly being overweight held him back more than injuries.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 19, 2012
  16. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    IMO, Nalbandian is better than Murray in every respect except for his serve. Better forehand, backhand, net game, everything. Murray hasn't been stricken with the injuries Nalbandian has. When you are injured, you don't play or train as you otherwise would.
     
  17. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    I think Murray has the better first serve, movement, overall defense, and net game personally. Backhand, return of serve I would call a virtual tie, but if one wants to give Nalbandian those then fine. Forehand probably Nalbandian, although I dont think either has an amazing forheand, and probably second serve Nalbandian. The huge difference between the two is fitness, commitment, and desire. Granted Murray is a bit of a choker in big matches, but he still gives his all to his career, which Nalbandian never did, even when he went through long healthy droughts. There is no excuse to be carrying a big gut like that around most of your career, just like Serena's injuries dont excuse her frequent lack of fitness, but in her case she is such an insane talent per gender and the WTA has also fallen apart so badly of late she gets away with. Murray's 8 Masters titles, 3 slam finals, many slam semis, and consistent top 4 ranking sets his well apart from Nalbandian who never had the day in and day out consistency or focus for such results. JMO of course.

    Dont get me wrong though, I definitely understand those who think Nalbandian was more technically talented despite his inferior career.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 19, 2012
  18. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    Murray has a better first and second serve. That's it. Nalbandian's forehand is better, his backhand is much better, and he is the best net player and volleyer of the past decade. And when in shape and healty, just as quick as Murray.
     
  19. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    He almost never is, healthy or not. That is the point.
     
  20. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,706
    Location:
    U.S
    can't disagree with much, but the bold part ..... nalby's net game is by some distance and it isn't even close
     
  21. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,706
    Location:
    U.S
    how is it "obvious" that murray,rios are not championship material where mecir and nalby are ?

    again, like I said define it - championship level competitors .... how do you determine ?

    its not like nalbandian/mecir set the world on fire in their slam finals, did they ?
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2012
  22. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    Not, before.1950´s is maybe the toughest era at the very top : kramer,Sedgman,Gonzales,Hoad,Rosewall,Trabert and very good second stringers such as Cooper,Olmedo,Anderson and Segura.Emerson,Fraser and Laver were also top amateurs in the last years of the decade...
     
  23. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    Nalbandian had a legitimate chance, although he was still very young, and, IMO, had he remained healthy, he'd have 3-4 major titles by now, maybe more. Mecir, not really. His game was always hampered by back injury and he could never serve to his potential as a result. The others don't have any excuses. They had the games, but not the spirits, to be champions. It's as simple as that.
     
  24. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,344
    Hard to define championship level competitors because it's all so subjective at times. Actually I think all of the four names you mentioned above are championship level and by that I mean I believe that they have or had the talent to winner a number of majors tournaments.
     
  25. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    By championship level I meant major champions. When you have numerous players with the hearts, minds and compatitive spirits to be major champions playing against each other, that's a strong era.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2012
  26. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,706
    Location:
    U.S
    define legitimate chance ..... if anything murray has had more chances to win majors than nalby ( he was in 3 finals to nalby's one ) ..... he isn't as fragile mentally as nalby can be ......

    again it isn't that simplistic as you make it out be ..... never was, never is and never will be .....

    I think all 4 of them - mecir, rios, nalbandian and murray had/have the ability to win majors, certainly more than the likes of johansson/gaudio ...... Just because those 2 managed to get their lone majors , would you really say they have more heart/ability or more championship ability ? well, I wouldn't ....

    its a combination of level of play that the players exhibit in those years and their records that should matter for evaluation of an era ; not just the so called championship level abilities ..... it never is that simple ....
     
  27. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,706
    Location:
    U.S
    exactly .....
     
  28. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,344
    Mecir was incredibly gifted and talented. Yes the back injury hurt him but you can argue that he did win the Olympics which to some is perhaps as important or perhaps more important than a major. And he did defeat strong players to win the Olympics.

    I agree with you that Nalbandian may have won a number of majors now if he was healthy and was totally dedicated. Sometimes he seemed out of shape to me but perhaps it was because of his injuries that he was out of shape.

    Essentially you're writing that these two didn't have the mental strength to be the winner of majors and I am not sure if I agree with that with these players or a number of players. Sometimes it's just the luck of the draw. How many players could have beaten Chris Lewis in the 1983 Wimbledon final? I think many top players, had they reached that Wimbledon final could have beaten Chris Lewis even if they are off their games and I guess by definition choking.

    If a top player is competitive with any great and reaches a number of finals in the majors, odds are he will eventually win a major. I've seen Andy Murray in finals of majors and I do believe he is a nervous wreck in the finals but I don't think it's because he doesn't have the fortitude to be a champion. Murray does have more of the burden on him than perhaps any top player because of where he is from and the expectations on him.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2012
  29. 1970CRBase

    1970CRBase Guest

    A weak era or year is one in which players like Li/Sam/Fran who are tier 3 or 4 players in a strong era suddenly win slams, and in Vera's case, makes 2 slam finals and somebody like Woz is number one. THAT is a shallow era.
     
  30. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    Actually, I'm saying the opposite. They did have the mental strength, but not the health. The others that AMBK referred to had the physical gifts and games, but not the mental strength.
     
  31. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    You're making my point for me. Murray has had more chances than Nalbandian because he's been healthy, and yet, has nothing to show for it.
     
  32. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,706
    Location:
    U.S
    I'm not ... read again:

    he isn't as fragile mentally as nalby can be ......

    nalby blew quite a few chances, not related to his health, but rather his mental fragility.

    was up 2 sets and had MP vs roddick in USO 2003 SF and lost ..he'd have had an excellent shot vs ferrero in the finals
    lost to gaudio in the semis of FO 2004 after beating kuerten in the QFs ... he'd have had a pretty good chance vs coria in the finals
    lost to baghdatis in the semis of AO 2006 SF after being up 2 sets to love ..federer wasn't in the best of form in AO 2006 ....so nalby would have more than a decent shot in the finals

    none of these had anything to do with his health.

    He was fairly healthy till 2006 or so ... It was only since 2007 that injuries began to take a serious toll on him ...
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2012
  33. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,410

    There you go again with your rationalization of Federer's luck (and talent).

    How you can hypocritically dismiss this rule of yours when it comes to the women is insane!

    Women are people, correct?
     
  34. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    You are, read again. I'm not defending "Nalby." I'm saying this is a weak era because of players like Murray who have the game, but not the mental toughness, to be a champion.
     
  35. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,039
    (SIGH...)
    Clueless DRII. Fed is an active player, which prove my point. Duh !
     
  36. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,410
    You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
     
  37. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    While I agree Mecir was very talented, I don´t think his OG was a major feat when Olimpics were a bit of an exo ( just like Gran Slam Cup ).I think Mecir´s best tennis was played around 87-88.His two greatest wins being WCT Finals ( knocking out Mc Enroe) and Miami/Key Biscaine ( topping the nº 1 player of the world,I Lendl in straight sets).He was a very streaky player, almost unstoppable when inspired.
     
  38. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    Oh¡¡ so your Greek Gods Bagdhatis, Ferrero and Roddick happened to be BEATABLE...by a mortal like Nalbandian?? Aren´t you downgrading Federer´s heroic feats?
     
  39. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,039
    And you are clueless, as usual.
     
  40. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    Oh¡¡ TMF never lets facts bother his opinions...
     
  41. zcarzach

    zcarzach Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Messages:
    803
    I think its clear: a strong era is when your favorite player is most successful; a weak era is when your least favorite player is most successful.
     
  42. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,344
    That's if you're not objective about the era.

    The mid 1950's to late 1950's were extremely strong in my opinion. They had Pancho Gonzalez at the peak of his career. Segura and Sedgman were unbelievable players who could beat anyone that ever lived. Trabert was a fantastic player with no stroke weaknesses. Vines compared Trabert to Don Budge but a bit slower. And of course you had Hoad and Rosewall. You add Olmedo, Cooper and Anderson and that is unbelievable depth of great players. A number of these players have been called the GOAT.
     
  43. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,039
    But there are members who believe tennis gets better over time....60<70<80<90<00. Now does that automatically means the current great players > than the past great by default? No, they have to backup with their perfomance...winning slams, stats, records, domination, etc. Fed is the current player, but had he only achieved half of what he has right now, then he's not a goat candidate, but qualify in the top 10. All fans would place him behind Borg, Laver, or Sampras, regardless if he's playing in a current generation with higher standard. In the future, if a player(ie Nole) that matches(no need to surpass) Fed's accomplishment, I would have to put him ahead simply because the bar is higher.
     
  44. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    Hahaha! You're living in the past, TMF. It was a great run while it lasted. But, it's over. Djokovic is the current player who plays at a higher level than Nadal, who plays at a higher level than Federer.

    :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2012
  45. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,039
    16>11>5

    When Nole mached Fed's accomplishment, he's ahead of Roger, simple as that. Unless the ATP does some crazy thing like split the field into two(amateur, pro) and Nole winning 11 more slams, then he's still behind Fed(but still ahead of Laver).

    Despite Fed/Nole are competing against the same field, I'm big enough to put him ahead of Roger(if he ever gets there), but you can't accept Fed > Laver when they are 40 years apart !! LOL
     
  46. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    You missed the point, as usual. Read again.
     
  47. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    This is the most stupid comment ever made here¡¡¡ Djokovic above Laver????

    Just because Djokovic was born in the 80´s and Laver in the 30´s???? What a logic¡¡¡
     
  48. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    The Master of Fail has claimed Roddick and Nalbandian are better players than Laver, so of course he would consider Djokovic better than Laver. Why act shocked.
     
  49. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    In fact, he surely consider " caro" wozniacky? better than the Rocket ( yes, because we all should know that human nature has improved with the ages...)
     
  50. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,039
    LOL...learn to read old man. I said if Nole reach 16 slams, he's ahead of Laver.
     

Share This Page