Which era is the weakest era in tennis

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by The Dark Knight, Jun 5, 2012.

  1. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Poll is jut too much work. If anyone want to redo the thread with a poll be my guest. It certainly needs one.
     
    #1
  2. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    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.
     
    #2
  3. Federererer

    Federererer Banned

    Joined:
    May 14, 2012
    Messages:
    695
    Weakest era was first 2/3 of 2008, 2010, 2011.
     
    #3
  4. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,025
    This is the weakest era because posters are unable to create a poll.
     
    #4
  5. mattennis

    mattennis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,228
    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.
     
    #5
  6. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,790
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2012
    #6
  7. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    So then you think Laver ranked #1 in the world was equal to Roddick who was also ranked #1 ?
     
    #7
  8. mattennis

    mattennis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,228
    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)"
     
    #8
  9. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    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?????
     
    #9
  10. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,790
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    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?
     
    #10
  11. SwankPeRFection

    SwankPeRFection Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,509
    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.
     
    #11
  12. mattennis

    mattennis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,228
    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".
     
    #12
  13. mattennis

    mattennis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,228
    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.
     
    #13
  14. helloworld

    helloworld Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,670
    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.
     
    #14
  15. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Agreed.....in other words roddicks era was a weaker era.
     
    #15
  16. FlashFlare11

    FlashFlare11 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,328
    Location:
    Philadelphia, United States
    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.
     
    #16
  17. merlinpinpin

    merlinpinpin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,553
    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).
     
    #17
  18. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,520
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    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 :)
     
    #18
  19. merlinpinpin

    merlinpinpin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,553
    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?
     
    #19
  20. mattennis

    mattennis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,228
    Said in yet another different way: "current players from nº5 to nº10 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 nº7 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 nº 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 nº7 and nº10 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.
     
    #20
  21. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    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.
     
    #21
  22. Gorecki

    Gorecki G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    13,230
    Location:
    Puerto y Galgo....
    any era with players who bring people like the OP to tennis is a weak era.
     
    #22
  23. Feather

    Feather Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    3,520
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    lol

    10 lol chars
     
    #23
  24. BigServer1

    BigServer1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,037
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
    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.
     
    #24
  25. LuckyR

    LuckyR Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2006
    Messages:
    6,404
    Location:
    The Great NW
    The weakest era? The one when your least favorite Hall of Famer was active...
     
    #25
  26. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    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?
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2012
    #26
  27. BigServer1

    BigServer1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,037
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
    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.
     
    #27
  28. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    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??




    .
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2012
    #28
  29. Gorecki

    Gorecki G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    13,230
    Location:
    Puerto y Galgo....
    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. ???
     
    #29
  30. helloworld

    helloworld Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,670
    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...
     
    #30
  31. BigServer1

    BigServer1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,037
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
    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.
     
    #31
  32. BigServer1

    BigServer1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,037
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
    No one is comparing Becker and Roddick, there's no comparison...Becker >>> Roddick.
     
    #32
  33. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    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.
     
    #33
  34. BigServer1

    BigServer1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,037
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
    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.
     
    #34
  35. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    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".
     
    #35
  36. BigServer1

    BigServer1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,037
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
    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".
     
    #36
  37. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,790
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    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.
     
    #37
  38. The-Champ

    The-Champ Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Messages:
    6,541
    Location:
    Sweden
    Nadal has been winning majors since 2005. He is not really a new player..
     
    #38
  39. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    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?
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2012
    #39
  40. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    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.
     
    #40
  41. billnepill

    billnepill Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    2,075
    Location:
    UK
    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.
     
    #41
  42. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    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?
     
    #42
  43. TopFH

    TopFH Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,448
    TDK, are you a Nadalovic fan?
     
    #43
  44. IvanisevicServe

    IvanisevicServe Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    858
    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.
     
    #44
  45. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    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.
     
    #45
  46. lambros

    lambros Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2008
    Messages:
    118
    Location:
    Toronto
    Do we really need anothe weak era thread?
     
    #46
  47. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Get rid of all the others . :)
     
    #47
  48. TopFH

    TopFH Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,448
    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?
     
    #48
  49. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,790
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    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.
     
    #49
  50. mcenroefan

    mcenroefan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,527
    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.
     
    #50

Share This Page