Why did "The Weak Era" last so long?

Federer20042006 · Jun 2, 2014

We alllll know that Federer played in a weak era from 2003-2007, because that's when he was winning the most and was most impressive, yo. Weak players letting Federer fly all over the court and crush winners and block back their 135 MPH serves.

But what nobody mentions it that 2001 and 2002 were even weaker years in terms of competition. Hewitt #1 in the world.

And so was 2000. Kuerten finished #1 in the world. Headcase Safin was #2. A nearly washed up Sampras (remember, he would lose to Baby Federer the next year at Wimbledon because he was supposedly a shell of his former self...remember?) was #3. Magnus Norman was #4 in the world.

So why did we have an 8 year vacuum in tennis? And why, after we finally didn't have a vacuum anymore for 5 or 6 years, is the new generation of players maybe the worst group of youngsters we've ever seen, suggesting we're heading into another long vacuum once the only legitimate competition of Djokodalrray retire? I mean, the first guy to break the Big 4's reign at all the big tournaments in tennis in the past 5 years or so was a guy who is now 29 years old.

Oh, and weak era players Ljubicic and Roddick won 2010 IW and Miami.

It's almost as if the vast majority of years in tennis history are "weak era"/"vacuum" years.

sureshs · Jun 2, 2014

In the last several years, we have seen a player win the highest number of Slams, then be bulldozed by another player who will equal Sampras' Slam count on Sunday, who in turn can be regularly beaten by a certain very flexible player.

Such talent has never been seen before. Any of these players would have defeated any in the past, even with prime to prime and equipment to equipment equalization.

monfed · Jun 2, 2014

Excellent post.

Hater logic - If Fed doesn't beat Murray/Nole/Nadal esp Nadal it means Fed's era was weak.

AO 06 and 07, Roger faced two players who were on a hot run and beat them convincingly. If you take that away then should we discount Nadal beating Berdbrain in Wim 10? Should we also discount Nadal's USO 10,13 runs because let's face it his draws were a joke and he faced a Nole who wasn't Nole yet, esp in 2010. 2013 Nole was a mental wreck, but when Nole was at his peak in 2011 he did beat Nadal didn't he?

Take Wimbledon for instance. Roddick was the second best grasscourter atleast from 03-05 and he beat him quite convincingly with the exception of the 04 edition. But weak era apologists say Fed didn't face Becker/Edberg/Ivanisevic so his Wimbledons aren't impressive compared to Pete. How about Nadal not having to face any RG champion in his domination such as Guga/Muster/Ferrero heck even Coria flamed out unpredictably.

danishtennisfan · Jun 2, 2014

Federer20042006 said:
We alllll know that Federer played in a weak era from 2003-2007, because that's when he was winning the most and was most impressive, yo. Weak players letting Federer fly all over the court and crush winners and block back their 135 MPH serves.

But what nobody mentions it that 2001 and 2002 were even weaker years in terms of competition. Hewitt #1 in the world.

And so was 2000. Kuerten finished #1 in the world. Headcase Safin was #2. A nearly washed up Sampras (remember, he would lose to Baby Federer the next year at Wimbledon because he was supposedly a shell of his former self...remember?) was #3. Magnus Norman was #4 in the world.

So why did we have an 8 year vacuum in tennis? And why, after we finally didn't have a vacuum anymore for 5 or 6 years, is the new generation of players maybe the worst group of youngsters we've ever seen, suggesting we're heading into another long vacuum once the only legitimate competition of Djokodalrray retire? I mean, the first guy to break the Big 4's reign at all the big tournaments in tennis in the past 5 years or so was a guy who is now 29 years old.

Oh, and weak era players Ljubicic and Roddick won 2010 IW and Miami.

It's almost as if the vast majority of years in tennis history are "weak era"/"vacuum" years.

Funny! You're right-according to some everything was weak in tennis before the mighty Nole, Rafa and Murray. They are the one and only generation that could ever play tennis :???:

tacou · Jun 2, 2014

I sense much playfulness in your post, but I will bite.

First, I don't believe the "weak era" mythos. Tennis is an individual sport, and so it is not as common for "dynastic" players to continuously arise as it is in team sports, where a coach or front office can keep putting together a winning brand.

It makes sense that as the Sampras-led generation of stars faded, a few "second-tier" players advanced up the ranks to fill the holes. Federer began to ascend during this lull, but HE alone makes it not a weak era. Just as he reached his zenith Nadal began to emerge, followed closely by Novak and Murray.

So basically, there can't always be multiple GOAT candidates duking it out. That doesn't mean Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, JCF, Nalbandian, Davydenko, even the oft-maligned Ljubicic did not play fantastic tennis at times and provide some memorable matches.

And this LULL is about to happen again. Raonic, Dimitrov, and Nishikori look like the guys to beat in 2-3 years time, and I don't see any of them developing into more than 1-2 slam type of players at best.

Finesse4sum · Jun 2, 2014

Its only Federer's prior dominance and Djokovic's current co-dominance that gives Nadal any legitimacy at all.

Always the same.

sureshs · Jun 2, 2014

Finesse4sum said:
Its only Federer's prior dominance and Djokovic's current co-dominance that gives Nadal any legitimacy at all.

Yeah considering how many players have a Career Slam with 14 Slams and Olympics singles gold, it is clear that Nadal shines only by reflected light.

Steve0904 · Jun 2, 2014

The weak era lasted as long as Federer was winning. As such it lasted about 4 years consecutively with a break in 2008. It came back in 2009 and was strong again in 2010 and 2011. Then in 2012 it was weak again.

It really is very simple.

mike danny · Jun 2, 2014

It is funny how people claimonly Federer's era to be weak. It's like another weak era did not happen before.

For example the years 1996-1998 were far weaker IMO. There was literally no great player at the top during that period. And we had a guy who was no.1 and never won a slam. If that's not weak I don't know what it is.

mike danny · Jun 2, 2014

Steve0904 said:
The weak era lasted as long as Federer was winning. As such it lasted about 4 years consecutively with a break in 2008. It came back in 2009 and was strong again in 2010 and 2011. Then in 2012 it was weak again.

It really is very simple.

If Federer wins another slam, you know it;s a weak era

The only reason 2008 wasn't a weak era was because Nadal won W that year. Had Federer won that final, the weak era would have extended until 2010

monfed · Jun 2, 2014

Weak era theorists claim that Fed's field was more top-heavy as opposed to Pete where you could go out in the early rounds of a slam.

A top player/Goat contender has two choices -

1) Do you have a consistent main rival(like Roddick/Nadal) throughout your prime?

2) Do you have a field that can take you out in any of the rounds? Remember the big 4 would be virtual locks for the semis before they took each other out? In Pete's era the top guys could go out to a hot blooded youngster early in the tournament, Kinda like Gulbis took out Fed the other day.

Finesse4sum · Jun 2, 2014

sureshs said:
Yeah considering how many players have a Career Slam with 14 Slams and Olympics singles gold, it is clear that Nadal shines only by reflected light.

Nadal fans hang the h2h over our heads and tell us when Federer won it was a dark age of tennis.

The problem was Nadal won most of RG titles in that supposed Dark Age against that hack Roger Federer.

I would speculate that to a run of the mill Nadal fan that your career as a tennis player is supremely defined by whom you beat to get those titles.

Strong Nadal Era Indeed

danishtennisfan · Jun 2, 2014

mike danny said:
If Federer wins another slam, you know it;s a weak era

The only reason 2008 wasn't a weak era was because Nadal won W that year. Had Federer won that final, the weak era would have extended until 2010

Made me smile!

Omega_7000 · Jun 2, 2014

monfed said:
Weak era theorists claim that Fed's field was more top-heavy as opposed to Pete where you could go out in the early rounds of a slam.

A top player/Goat contender has two choices -

1) Do you have a consistent main rival(like Roddick/Nadal) throughout your prime?

2) Do you have a field that can take you out in any of the rounds? Remember the big 4 would be virtual locks for the semis before they took each other out? In Pete's era the top guys could go out to a hot blooded youngster early in the tournament, Kinda like Gulbis took out Fed the other day.

Sampras' H2H:-

vs krajicek :4-6
vs stich : 4-5
vs bruguera : 2-3
vs hewitt : 4-5
vs safin : 4-5
vs roddick : 1-2

Let's look at his rivals,

Agassi --- A good case for him being a chief rival even though he wasn't mentally there during Sampras' prime (meth, daddy issues etc.)...Teenage Nadal did more in 2005-2007 than Agassi from 1986-June 1999. Talk about having a worthy main rival.
Already dominating clay (3 French Open titles and barely any losses)
Already reaching 2 Wimbledon finals (as many as Agassi did in his entire career)
Getting better and better on hard courts with a couple of MS titles and Slam QF appearances

Bruguera --- two majors on clay in 93' and 94'. Irrelevant as Sampras was a non-factor on clay.

Courier --- Two majors on clay in 91' and 92' (Irrelevant as Sampras was a non-factor on clay.) & Two AO's in 92' and 93' (The two AO wins qualify him to be one of Sampras' rivals)

Goran --- Won his only Wim in 2001 when Sampras was wayy past his prime. Roddick is crucified for losing to Federer in important matches after winning a major and being number 1 but Goran is a greater rival than Roddick, Hewitt, Safin even though he was never able to overcome Agassi and Sampras in their primes and was never ranked # 1?

Becker --- won his last major in 1996. Even though he won his last major in 96', he did so by not beating Sampras who lost to Philippoussis in the fourth round...If Federer had lost in the fourth round at the 2006 USO, Roddick could've won his second major. Becker's prime was late 80's,90' and 91'. his prime did not coincide with Sampras' prime.

Edberg -- won his last major in 1992. Only one major coincides with Sampras' prime or his era of dominance. Can you really call him one of his rival? I don't think his prime coincided with Sampras'

Rafter --- Winner of USO in 97' and 98'. Good argument for Rafter to be a rival.

Muster --- Won his only major on clay in 1995. Irrelevant as Sampras was a non-factor on clay.

Chang --- Won his only only major on clay in 1989. Irrelevant as Sampras was a non-factor on clay and this win was way before Sampras won his first major.

So really I would only consider Agassi, Courier and Rafter to be Sampras' rivals. Even though there were other big names...They were just that...Big names who were past their prime and/or won a surface where Sampras never had a chance to begin with.

danishtennisfan · Jun 2, 2014

Omega_7000 said:
Sampras' H2H:-

vs krajicek :4-6
vs stich : 4-5
vs bruguera : 2-3
vs hewitt : 4-5
vs safin : 4-5
vs roddick : 1-2

Let's look at his rivals,

Agassi --- A good case for him being a chief rival even though he wasn't mentally there during Sampras' prime (meth, daddy issues etc.)...Teenage Nadal did more in 2005-2007 than Agassi from 1986-June 1999. Talk about having a worthy main rival.
Already dominating clay (3 French Open titles and barely any losses)
Already reaching 2 Wimbledon finals (as many as Agassi did in his entire career)
Getting better and better on hard courts with a couple of MS titles and Slam QF appearances

Bruguera --- two majors on clay in 93' and 94'. Irrelevant as Sampras was a non-factor on clay.

Courier --- Two majors on clay in 91' and 92' (Irrelevant as Sampras was a non-factor on clay.) & Two AO's in 92' and 93' (The two AO wins qualify him to be one of Sampras' rivals)

Goran --- Won his only Wim in 2001 when Sampras was wayy past his prime. Roddick is crucified for losing to Federer in important matches after winning a major and being number 1 but Goran is a greater rival than Roddick, Hewitt, Safin even though he was never able to overcome Agassi and Sampras in their primes and was never ranked # 1?

Becker --- won his last major in 1996. Even though he won his last major in 96', he did so by not beating Sampras who lost to Philippoussis in the fourth round...If Federer had lost in the fourth round at the 2006 USO, Roddick could've won his second major. Becker's prime was late 80's,90' and 91'. his prime did not coincide with Sampras' prime.

Edberg -- won his last major in 1992. Only one major coincides with Sampras' prime or his era of dominance. Can you really call him one of his rival? I don't think his prime coincided with Sampras'

Rafter --- Winner of USO in 97' and 98'. Good argument for Rafter to be a rival.

Muster --- Won his only major on clay in 1995. Irrelevant as Sampras was a non-factor on clay.

Chang --- Won his only only major on clay in 1989. Irrelevant as Sampras was a non-factor on clay and this win was way before Sampras won his first major.

So really I would only consider Agassi, Courier and Rafter to be Sampras' rivals. Even though there were other big names...They were just that...Big names who were past their prime and/or won a surface where Sampras never had a chance to begin with.

wow -great and convincing post as to rivals for Sampras. Sometimes I think as time passes by people just namedrop as if those champions were "there" all the time and in prime form. Maybe the same will happen for Federer - in a couple of years people will say - look at the tough players Federer faced - Agassi, Nadal, Hewitt, Roddick, Djokovic, Murray, Safin and Nalbandian!

ultradr · Jun 2, 2014

It's not weak era. Drastic surface changes put ATP in somewhat of void state.
And some of top players declined quickly because of that.
It is very unlucky for Nalbandian and Hewitt since the changes happened
right after they reach #1 (or getting close to top tiers).
And it took several years to be filled up with new players.

underground · Jun 2, 2014

Since the start of the Open Era in 1968 we've been in the weak era.

SLD76 · Jun 2, 2014

Omega_7000 said:
Sampras' H2H:-

vs krajicek :4-6
vs stich : 4-5
vs bruguera : 2-3
vs hewitt : 4-5
vs safin : 4-5
vs roddick : 1-2

Let's look at his rivals,

Agassi --- A good case for him being a chief rival even though he wasn't mentally there during Sampras' prime (meth, daddy issues etc.)...Teenage Nadal did more in 2005-2007 than Agassi from 1986-June 1999. Talk about having a worthy main rival.
Already dominating clay (3 French Open titles and barely any losses)
Already reaching 2 Wimbledon finals (as many as Agassi did in his entire career)
Getting better and better on hard courts with a couple of MS titles and Slam QF appearances

Bruguera --- two majors on clay in 93' and 94'. Irrelevant as Sampras was a non-factor on clay.

Courier --- Two majors on clay in 91' and 92' (Irrelevant as Sampras was a non-factor on clay.) & Two AO's in 92' and 93' (The two AO wins qualify him to be one of Sampras' rivals)

Goran --- Won his only Wim in 2001 when Sampras was wayy past his prime. Roddick is crucified for losing to Federer in important matches after winning a major and being number 1 but Goran is a greater rival than Roddick, Hewitt, Safin even though he was never able to overcome Agassi and Sampras in their primes and was never ranked # 1?

Becker --- won his last major in 1996. Even though he won his last major in 96', he did so by not beating Sampras who lost to Philippoussis in the fourth round...If Federer had lost in the fourth round at the 2006 USO, Roddick could've won his second major. Becker's prime was late 80's,90' and 91'. his prime did not coincide with Sampras' prime.

Edberg -- won his last major in 1992. Only one major coincides with Sampras' prime or his era of dominance. Can you really call him one of his rival? I don't think his prime coincided with Sampras'

Rafter --- Winner of USO in 97' and 98'. Good argument for Rafter to be a rival.

Muster --- Won his only major on clay in 1995. Irrelevant as Sampras was a non-factor on clay.

Chang --- Won his only only major on clay in 1989. Irrelevant as Sampras was a non-factor on clay and this win was way before Sampras won his first major.

So really I would only consider Agassi, Courier and Rafter to be Sampras' rivals. Even though there were other big names...They were just that...Big names who were past their prime and/or won a surface where Sampras never had a chance to begin with.

This.

People like to name edberg and becker and wilander etc but those guys were past their best once Pete began to dominate in 1993. By 1996 they were done and our spent. Even courier was burnt out by 1994 so I wouldn't even count him as a rival.

West Coast Ace · Jun 2, 2014

Steve0904 said:
The weak era lasted as long as Federer was winning. As such it lasted about 4 years consecutively with a break in 2008. It came back in 2009 and was strong again in 2010 and 2011. Then in 2012 it was weak again.

It really is very simple.

Pretty much sums up that group's 'logic'...

mike danny said:
For example the years 1996-1998 were far weaker IMO.

Sampras Jock Sniffers to riot in 3....2....1.... Everyone knows Sampras beat all future Hall of Famers and only lost when he wasn't interested or felt sorry for his opponent.

mike danny · Jun 2, 2014

ultradr said:
It's not weak era. Drastic surface changes put ATP in somewhat of void state.
And some of top players declined quickly because of that.
It is very unlucky for Nalbandian and Hewitt since the changes happened
right after they reach #1 (or getting close to top tiers).
And it took several years to be filled up with new players.

Nalbandian never reached no.1

coloskier · Jun 2, 2014

If your definition of a weak era is less than 5 players winning a majority the tournaments, then we are still in a weak era. They have homogenized the surfaces so much that it can't be helped. Imagine what the total GS's would be for Fed, Nadal, and Djoker if they were playing on 80's/90's surfaces. Nadal would continue to win at FO and clay, but wouldn't stand a chance at anything else. Djoker would probably win AO and slow hard courts, but nothing else. Fed (circa 2005-2007) would win WB and USO and all normal (not molasses) hard courts, but nothing else. Now that they have slowed down everything and gave WB an even/high bounce, you no longer get the fast court specialists, so the baseliners can win on all courts. Before 2001 even Borg and Agassi had to play S&V to win WB.

Flash O'Groove · Jun 3, 2014

Another way to look at the strength of an era is too look at how much the new generation challenge the established champions.

In 1974, Borg and Connors overthrew Newcombe et Cie as the new rulers.
Lendl, McEnroe and Wilander replaced them in the early 80's.
Edberg and Becker arrived in the mid 80's.
In the early 90's, Sampras, Courier and Agassi were already there.
In the mid 90's, the only youngster who were really good was Kuerten. As a result, the late 90's was dominated by the same guys born in the early 70's: Sampras, Agassi, Ivanisevic, Rafter.
The early 00's saw Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Federer take control.
They were replaced from 2005-2008 by Nadal, Djokovic, Murray.
In 2010, the young promising players were Cilic, Del Potro, Dolgopolov.
Now the young promising players lose in the first round! We have to get excited when a player under 27 reach the QF of Master 1000 or give a tough match against a top 10.

I don't think we are in a strong era. For all I know, Nadal and Djokovic could decline to 60% of their peak abilities and still rule. Berdych and Ferrer could decline to 60% of their peak and still keep the youngsters out! Maybe they already have. How could we know, they have nobody else to measure themselves again than the same players who were already there in 2007.

Pretty boring.

tipsa...don'tlikehim! · Jun 3, 2014

IMO the thing is, weak era was not weak because Federer was unbeatable in grand slams (except french open), weak era was weak because even outside the grand slams, in master 1000 players could not beat Federer.

The man is not a robot he could get tired. Yet only a 17 years old Nadal could take profit of that, when the others couldn't.

If i remember correctly, 2005 Federer record was 82-4 or something like that, in 2006 he was 90-6 or something similar. The guy played nearly 100 matches a year, yet only Nadal (or young Murray in 2006) would beat him ----> the field was a joke. (Agassi in a grand slam final at 35 years old lol).

NatF · Jun 3, 2014

Yep, in Federer's era you had Roddick, Hewitt, Agassi, Ferrero, Safin, Nadal, Djokovic etc...all taking turns in the top 5. Beneath them you had Moya, Coria, Nalbandian, Davydenko. Beneath them still you had the likes of Blake, Ljubicic, Gonzales and players such as Ferrer, Berdych, Gasquet, Murray (07), Joachim/Thomas Johansson, Grosjean (04-05)who were dangerous top 20 opponents.

Deleted member 77403 · Jun 3, 2014

tipsa...don'tlikehim! said:
IMO the thing is, weak era was not weak because Federer was unbeatable in grand slams (except french open), weak era was weak because even outside the grand slams, in master 1000 players could not beat Federer.

The man is not a robot he could get tired. Yet only a 17 years old Nadal could take profit of that, when the others couldn't.

If i remember correctly, 2005 Federer record was 82-4 or something like that, in 2006 he was 90-6 or something similar. The guy played nearly 100 matches a year, yet only Nadal (or young Murray in 2006) would beat him ----> the field was a joke. (Agassi in a grand slam final at 35 years old lol).

Federer lost plenty of Masters 1000s in 2007, Canas twice, Nalbandian twice, Volandri come to mind. Let's face it. If Nadal had converted any of those break points in the fifth set at Wimbledon, he would have likely won the title and become number one...all Federer haters would have started saying strong era began in 07. And if Djokovic won a few keys points in that US Open final, instead of Federer...yes it was that close, Federer could have gone with only one slam to his name. Basically 08 was 07 with those few points going against Federer.

If Federer had converted a break point chance in that W 08 final, since he was only two points away from denying Nadal again, he would have stay number one, won the most slams for the year, and we would still be in the weak era...so sorrry, not buying what you're selling.

And by your theory, Nadal profited massively also. wasn't his 81 match clay winning streak from 05 to 07? Didn't he also pick up several clay slams, and clay masters along the way? And Federer was less of a challenge in 08 than he was in 05-07 to Nadal, so didn't clay era become even weaker?

tipsa...don'tlikehim! · Jun 3, 2014

Hitman said:
Federer lost plenty of Masters 1000s in 2007, Canas twice, Nalbandian twice, Volandri come to mind. Let's face it. If Nadal had converted any of those break points in the fifth set at Wimbledon, he would have likely won the title and become number one...all Federer haters would have started saying strong era began in 07. And if Djokovic won a few keys points in that US Open final, instead of Federer...yes it was that close, Federer could have gone with only one slam to his name. Basically 08 was 07 with those few points going against Federer.

If Federer had converted a break point chance in that W 08 final, since he was only two points away from denying Nadal again, he would have stay number one, won the most slams for the year, and we would still be in the weak era...so sorrry, not buying what you're selling.

Canas showed the way to other players not named Nadal, i agree.
For me weak era stopped in 2006 and yes began long before, around 2000.
Kuerten, Ferrero number 1 = joke.
-

mike danny · Jun 3, 2014

Hitman said:
Federer lost plenty of Masters 1000s in 2007, Canas twice, Nalbandian twice, Volandri come to mind. Let's face it. If Nadal had converted any of those break points in the fifth set at Wimbledon, he would have likely won the title and become number one...all Federer haters would have started saying strong era began in 07. And if Djokovic won a few keys points in that US Open final, instead of Federer...yes it was that close, Federer could have gone with only one slam to his name. Basically 08 was 07 with those few points going against Federer.

If Federer had converted a break point chance in that W 08 final, since he was only two points away from denying Nadal again, he would have stay number one, won the most slams for the year, and we would still be in the weak era...so sorrry, not buying what you're selling.

That's what I was trying to say repeatedly. Call a strong era when the guy starts losing. Pretty cheap from some guys.

heninfan99 · Jun 3, 2014

Mac had a similar record McEnroe: 82-3 (96.47%), two Grand Slams, 13 tournament wins in his best year.

But what if Nadal and Fed are the two greatest of all time. What if the others weren't weak but these two are the GOATs? I mean this is what Agassi believes.

tipsa...don'tlikehim! said:
IMO the thing is, weak era was not weak because Federer was unbeatable in grand slams (except french open), weak era was weak because even outside the grand slams, in master 1000 players could not beat Federer.

The man is not a robot he could get tired. Yet only a 17 years old Nadal could take profit of that, when the others couldn't.

If i remember correctly, 2005 Federer record was 82-4 or something like that, in 2006 he was 90-6 or something similar. The guy played nearly 100 matches a year, yet only Nadal (or young Murray in 2006) would beat him ----> the field was a joke. (Agassi in a grand slam final at 35 years old lol).

mike danny · Jun 3, 2014

tipsa...don'tlikehim! said:
Canas showed the way to other players not named Nadal, i agree.
For me weak era stopped in 2006 and yes began long before, around 2000.
Kuerten, Ferrero number 1 = joke.
-

Actually 2004,2005 were better years than 2006. In 2006 the guy guys who were at the top in 2004 and 2005 were gone. In 2006 Hewitt got washed up, Safin gone, Roddick in a huge slump etc.

2006 was the weakest year of his domination.

In 2007 things got better again with Nadal and Djokovic playing great.

So no, the transitional era was 2000-2003 when there was literally no dominant player.

tipsa...don'tlikehim! · Jun 3, 2014

heninfan99 said:
Mac had a similar record McEnroe: 82-3 (96.47%), two Grand Slams, 13 tournament wins in his best year.

But what if Nadal and Fed are the two greatest of all time. What is the others weren't weak but these two are the GOATs? I mean this is what Agassi believes.

i am not sure, when i see Ginepri in a semi final of a grand slam and 35 yo Agassi in the final pushing Federer to 3 tough sets before collapsing in the 4th, i can't help thinking the field was weak.

Nadal the same year beat Agassi on hardcourt, and Nadal was a teenager couldn't play on hard court, got kicked out of the US open by Blake and Youzhny the next year, yet the same Nadal obviously beat Agassi, the same Agassi who reached the final of the US open.

mike danny · Jun 3, 2014

tipsa...don'tlikehim! said:
IMO the thing is, weak era was not weak because Federer was unbeatable in grand slams (except french open), weak era was weak because even outside the grand slams, in master 1000 players could not beat Federer.

The man is not a robot he could get tired. Yet only a 17 years old Nadal could take profit of that, when the others couldn't.

If i remember correctly, 2005 Federer record was 82-4 or something like that, in 2006 he was 90-6 or something similar. The guy played nearly 100 matches a year, yet only Nadal (or young Murray in 2006) would beat him ----> the field was a joke. (Agassi in a grand slam final at 35 years old lol).

So what? Mcenroe had an even better record in 1984. Does this mean he had weak competition?

Also young Nadal could not get past the field to face Federer on HC. If the field was so weak how come Nadal couldn't face Fed earlier than 2009 in a HC slam?

And in 2005 young Gasquet beat him as well. Don't tell me Pete did not lose to teenagers in his prime because it is false

Deleted member 77403 · Jun 3, 2014

mike danny said:
That's what I was trying to say repeatedly. Call a strong era when the guy starts losing. Pretty cheap from some guys.

The problem I have is, people will say just about anything to diminish what Roger has achieved. Safin and Hewitt, the weak era guys have dismantled Sampras in US Open finals...you have to be pretty darn good to do that.

And someone please explain to me how strong is the clay era? It was Nadal who was dominating the clay, not Federer.

mike danny · Jun 3, 2014

tipsa...don'tlikehim! said:
i am not sure, when i see Ginepri in a semi final of a grand slam and 35 yo Agassi in the final pushing Federer to 3 tough sets before collapsing in the 4th, i can't help thinking the field was weak.

Nadal the same year beat Agassi on hardcourt, and Nadal was a teenager couldn't play on hard court, got kicked out of the US open by Blake and Youzhny the next year, yet the same Nadal obviously beat Agassi, the same Agassi who reached the final of the US open.

How about Melzer then in a SF of a GS? How about Ljubicic? These were Nadal's SF opponents in some of his slams.

How about Nadal facing 32 year old Fed at the AO in the semis?

How about Connors being 39 in 1991 and in a GS semi?

Or 39 Rosewall in a GS final in 1974?

Or no. 237 in a GS semi in 2000?

These things happen. And as you see it happened plenty of times. Not just to Federer

tipsa...don'tlikehim! · Jun 3, 2014

mike danny said:
Also young Nadal could not get past the field to face Federer on HC. If the field was so weak how come Nadal couldn't face Fed earlier than 2009 in a HC slam?

Because Nadal was a clay player only before 2008.
Yet he beat Agassi in Montreal to win a master 1000 title, the same Agassi who reached the final of the US open.
Nadal lost early at the US open because he was still a clay player, who can't play great on other surfaces.

tipsa...don'tlikehim! · Jun 3, 2014

mike danny said:
How about Melzer then in a SF of a GS? How about Ljubicic? These were Nadal's SF opponents in some of his slams.

But Nadal would beat them easily, in straight sets, while Federer would have been pushed to 5 sets if Agassi won the tie break of the 3rd set (yes a tie break can always go either way).

Deleted member 77403 · Jun 3, 2014

mike danny said:
So what? Mcenroe had an even better record in 1984. Does this mean he had weak competition?

Also young Nadal could not get past the field to face Federer on HC. If the field was so weak how come Nadal couldn't face Fed earlier than 2009 in a HC slam?

And in 2005 young Gasquet beat him as well. Don't tell me Pete did not lose to teenagers in his prime because it is false

The other interesting thing is the statement that Nadal became a HC contender in 08 and not before because he started making semis.

Lets see...He was dismantled by Gonzalez and Tsonga in 07 and 08 respectively. The only reason why 08 was a semi was, because he faced Tsonga one round later. If he faced that in form Tsonga a few rounds earlier, I doubt we would be talking about him making a semi there. And if he faced Gonzalez later in the draw, he could have easily made the semi. Competition and hot players are always there...Verdasco nearly did it also in 09 in one of the greatest HC matches I have ever seen.

And regarding 06. Federer had some battles in Rome, if I remember correctly, he went 7-5 in the final set against Almagro, and 7-6 in the final set against Nalbandian BEFORE even facing Nadal who cruised through.

tipsa...don'tlikehim! · Jun 3, 2014

Also, i may add that the field was weak mentally.
Guys like Nalbandian were great players no doubt (and Safin) but mentally they were crap. And that helped Federer.

tipsa...don'tlikehim! · Jun 3, 2014

If Nalbandian and Safin were as dedicated as Nadal and Djokovic (and Murray 2013), they could have challenged Federer way better.
But they didn't care that much about tennis.
As we all know, Safin and Nalbandian were guys enjoying life outside tennis, not like Nadal and Djokovic today who eat tennis, sleep tennis, breathe tennis.

Deleted member 77403 · Jun 3, 2014

tipsa...don'tlikehim! said:
Because Nadal was a clay player only before 2008.
Yet he beat Agassi in Montreal to win a master 1000 title, the same Agassi who reached the final of the US open.
Nadal lost early at the US open because he was still a clay player, who can't play great on other surfaces.

No clay player gets to within a few games of winning Wimbledon before 08, against a then four time reigning Wimbledon champion.

tipsa...don'tlikehim! · Jun 3, 2014

you are right, Nadal actually played great on grass from year 2007, my mistake.

mike danny · Jun 3, 2014

tipsa...don'tlikehim! said:
Because Nadal was a clay player only before 2008.
Yet he beat Agassi in Montreal to win a master 1000 title, the same Agassi who reached the final of the US open.
Nadal lost early at the US open because he was still a clay player, who can't play great on other surfaces.

In 2008 he was not that good on HC. He was dismantled by Tsonga and beaten reasy by Murray.

TennisLovaLova · Jun 3, 2014

Federer20042006 said:
We alllll know that Federer played in a weak era from 2003-2007, because that's when he was winning the most and was most impressive, yo. Weak players letting Federer fly all over the court and crush winners and block back their 135 MPH serves.

But what nobody mentions it that 2001 and 2002 were even weaker years in terms of competition. Hewitt #1 in the world.

And so was 2000. Kuerten finished #1 in the world. Headcase Safin was #2. A nearly washed up Sampras (remember, he would lose to Baby Federer the next year at Wimbledon because he was supposedly a shell of his former self...remember?) was #3. Magnus Norman was #4 in the world.

So why did we have an 8 year vacuum in tennis? And why, after we finally didn't have a vacuum anymore for 5 or 6 years, is the new generation of players maybe the worst group of youngsters we've ever seen, suggesting we're heading into another long vacuum once the only legitimate competition of Djokodalrray retire? I mean, the first guy to break the Big 4's reign at all the big tournaments in tennis in the past 5 years or so was a guy who is now 29 years old.

Oh, and weak era players Ljubicic and Roddick won 2010 IW and Miami.

It's almost as if the vast majority of years in tennis history are "weak era"/"vacuum" years.

No we don't, I stopped reading right there...

tipsa...don'tlikehim! · Jun 3, 2014

mike danny said:
In 2008 he was not that good on HC. He was dismantled by Tsonga and beaten reasy by Murray.

Yes I know, Nadal was very vulnerable on hardcourt before he finally won the AO 2009 and the US open 2010.

I actually think his peak on hardcourt was the US open 2010.

But yeah 2013 was not bad !! lol

mike danny · Jun 3, 2014

tipsa...don'tlikehim! said:
But Nadal would beat them easily, in straight sets, while Federer would have been pushed to 5 sets if Agassi won the tie break of the 3rd set (yes a tie break can always go either way).

So? In case you forget Nadal did not beat Agassi easily at Montreal 2005. And who's to say he would have beaten him easily at USO?

Juding an entire era based on 1 slam final is flawed. I can judge the entire clay era of Nadal just based on some joke opponents he faced in semis. But it's wrong to do that.

And like I said you could call many eras weak if you look at it that way.

Connors beating a 39(!!!) year old Rosewall in a slam final

Nobody stopping a 17 year old Becker from winning a slam.

Or worse. A slamless player to almost finish no.1 in a year

mike danny · Jun 3, 2014

tipsa...don'tlikehim! said:
But Nadal would beat them easily, in straight sets, while Federer would have been pushed to 5 sets if Agassi won the tie break of the 3rd set (yes a tie break can always go either way).

So when an opponent plays well it's a knock on Federer? But when Nadal dismantles somebody he deserves praise?

Not fair at all. It's like you have an agenda.

Players can get hot for a set and a half. And that's what Agassi did. After that he got routined.

Relentless · Jun 3, 2014

Hitman said:
The problem I have is, people will say just about anything to diminish what Roger has achieved. Safin and Hewitt, the weak era guys have dismantled Sampras in US Open finals...you have to be pretty darn good to do that.

And someone please explain to me how strong is the clay era? It was Nadal who was dominating the clay, not Federer.

Reason why Nadal gets away with weak clay era is because he managed to beat his contemporaries consistently for over a decade even outside his clay prime. Had Djokovic started beating Nadal on clay in 2010-11 and went onto dominate him at RG, we would have been seeing same claims that Nadal dominated weak clay era clowns and feasted on Federer's 1 handed BH. Nadal's somewhat lucky he had age on his side and his tuffest competitor is only 1 year younger.

cronus · Jun 3, 2014

I want to look at it from ****'s perspective,he became a pro 2 years after roger,he won his first slam in 2005 which is again a 2 year gap from roger's first slam win, professionally **** and roger's gap is just 2 years but roger peaked too late which was a big disadvantage for him while **** did that at the right age taking full advantage with a backing of a great mastermind like toni.

People who are jealous of roger's achievement and dominance and also ****'s fans claim 2003- 2007 was a weak era.

So from 2005 - 2007 being a slam winner **** was part of it, the too young 18 year old teenage boy joke cannot be played because there have been many players who have won slams and peaked early and **** is one of them, so the young boy argument is moot, **** was part of 2005 - 2007 field.

From 2007 to 20011 **** had only roger to deal with, almost of all of the other opponents where roger's pigeons or just inconstant zero slam winners or single slam wonders.

The question is why is that **** not dominate the field like roger during this 2007 to 2011 where his major rival was not a rival and considering the fact there was 4 slams to played in those 5 years he should at least won 16, why was he not able to take advantage of the weak field.

The answer is, apart from being a bad match up for roger and being able to win the clay GS which was designed for him **** is just another top 3 player who was also a 21 year old physically super superior bison and has an easier chance than roger to dominate this super weak field but failed to do so.

tipsa...don'tlikehim! · Jun 3, 2014

talent is overrated

hewitt, nalbandian, safin were talented players, no doubt

but today the nadal / djokovic / murray 2013 / federer are way more dedicated to tennis and disciplined

hewitt was dedicated but was unlucky to get injured

safin and nalbandian were great players but they didn't care about tennis that much

roddick was dedicated, but federer was just better than him

-

heninfan99 · Jun 3, 2014

Every era has Ginepris that make a decent run. Vince Spedea of Sampras' time made the quarters of the Aussie, for example.

I saw the Agassi/Fed match in the windy US Open in person. Agassi really looked lost out there against one of the GOATs.

I was watching F. Lopez and thinking his game would have done well in the 90s. He would have been getting deep into slams. Mealosh would already have a slam in the 90s --these players are not weak it's just Nadal, Djoker and even and an aging Fed are tennis freaks.

tipsa...don'tlikehim! said:
i am not sure, when i see Ginepri in a semi final of a grand slam and 35 yo Agassi in the final pushing Federer to 3 tough sets before collapsing in the 4th, i can't help thinking the field was weak.

Nadal the same year beat Agassi on hardcourt, and Nadal was a teenager couldn't play on hard court, got kicked out of the US open by Blake and Youzhny the next year, yet the same Nadal obviously beat Agassi, the same Agassi who reached the final of the US open.

Deleted member 77403 · Jun 3, 2014

Relentless said:
Reason why Nadal gets away with weak clay era is because he managed to beat his contemporaries consistently for over a decade even outside his clay prime. Had Djokovic started beating Nadal on clay in 2010-11 and went onto dominate him at RG, we would have been seeing same claims that Nadal dominated weak clay era clowns and feasted on Federer's 1 handed BH. Nadal's somewhat lucky he had age on his side and his tuffest competitor is only 1 year younger.

Actually that shows that the clay era is pretty bad, that no one has been able to dethrone him if you look at the other side of the coin....and round and round we go in this circular argument. Djokovic is a hard court player first, he is no clay monster. What is making him a threat now is that he is designing his game for one reason and one reason only...beating Nadal at RG. The same way, Nadal did to Federer at W.

Nadal's domination is essentially from April to Mid June. Federer's domination was nearly 11 months for four straight years, minus Nadal on clay...that is a lot longer to stay mentally focused and keeping the contenders at bay.

Why did "The Weak Era" last so long?

Banned

Bionic Poster

Banned

New User

G.O.A.T.

Semi-Pro

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Banned

Semi-Pro

New User

Legend

New User

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Legend

Hall of Fame

Talk Tennis Guru

Bionic Poster

Deleted member 77403

Guest

Talk Tennis Guru

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

Bionic Poster

Deleted member 77403

Guest

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

Deleted member 77403

Guest

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

Deleted member 77403

Guest

Talk Tennis Guru

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Talk Tennis Guru

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

New User

Professional

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

Deleted member 77403

Guest

Similar threads