Weak Era - where did it go?

Steve0904 · Feb 22, 2017

Dolgopolov85 said:
Well said. There are more players capable of getting to a slam final in the WTA. Far fewer capable of beating Serena in a slam final. Long term (or I should say medium term) it's still the ATP that's looking at falling off the cliff. Of course, it's possible that the public may not be enthused about watching WTA after Serena retires but their preferences don't determine the intra-field competitiveness. Ergo, I am not saying it's easier in terms of absolute tennis level to get to an ATP final than a WTA one but that the gap in competition is less in the WTA. With no.1 and 2 out, AO 2017 was the perfect tournament for the young ones, heck the mid 20 pack whom we have now accepted as 'young ones', to step up and instead two guys coming off a long break reach the final, both taking out fancied mid-20s opponents en route. When the Big Four retire, the situation may be similar to a Serena-less WTA but the Big Four are unlikely to all retire at the same time so some of them will still get to cash in on the gap between them and the rest.

But now we can go in circles. Sure there's intra field competitiveness in the WTA, but is that what makes an era strong or at least not weak? When one woman wins one week and then next week she loses 1st RD and we have an entirely different winner. Or is it when we have 4 guys that go deep consistently, but only one of them wins 90% of the time because he's the one still in the prime of his career. Kind of begs the question, is there any such thing as a weak era if we keep going around in circles?

Not only that but Dimitrov was points away from making a slam final. Is the era all of a sudden not weak because Dimitrov would've made a slam final? Or is it still weak because the oldest of them all (meaning the Big 4) would be waiting in a slam final? There's no real answer to this question. Federer's side of the draw was the old guard at the end of it anyway. The QF'ists were Federer, M. Zverev, Stan, Tsonga. The only "odd one out" so to speak is Zverev, and he would've been replaced by 29 year old Murray.

Ultimately it comes down to this. I saw a tweet from Jim Courier (I think) at the AO. It said: "The tennis ball doesn't know how old you are."

Dolgopolov85 · Feb 22, 2017

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil said:
Well I will be among the first to say that Federer is the superior player at a good part of events if we compare his and Novak's best forms. However one guy's claim that both Federer and Djokovic were at their best in the Wimbledon final (or at any point in time) could not trigger the discounting of many Djoker's wins that's been going on for years now. If that poster never existed it would have still been the same excuses, Fed is 80 years old. And you will hardly ever find fans of the same player calling each other out. I have hardly ever seen anyone do that among Fed's or Nadal's group either so I don't see the point of bringing that up.

See, there you go, it's not an excuse when the player is well above 30. It seems you don't think so (yet) but will probably soon find out for yourself. Only, there's yet no strong challenger to him the way he himself challenged Fed and Nadal but at the moment he's still losing anyway (again, shades of Fed's 2010). Re calling out, you should know that one of the very few people on my ignore list is a diehard Fed fan. I have not put any Nadal or Djokovic fans on ignore because things never escalated to that level with them. So I would disagree with you there.

donquijote · Feb 22, 2017

Who cares about the weak era (at least for a few months) when the GOAT is re-writing the history once again after coming back from a 6-month injury absence, beating 4 Top-10 players and his kryptonite to win his 18th GS at the age of 35 1/2.

Steve0904 · Feb 22, 2017

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil said:
Well I will be among the first to say that Federer is the superior player at a good part of events if we compare his and Novak's best forms. However one guy's claim that both Federer and Djokovic were at their best in the Wimbledon final (or at any point in time) could not trigger the discounting of many Djoker's wins that's been going on for years now. If that poster never existed it would have still been the same excuses, Fed is 80 years old. And you will hardly ever find fans of the same player calling each other out. I have hardly ever seen anyone do that among Fed's or Nadal's group either so I don't see the point of bringing that up.

Yes, and if one Djokovic fan/troll doesn't say Federer circa 2015 is at his absolute best then another one will. So, same "excuses", just like the Federer fans that exaggerate about him being 80 years old.

No true Federer fan will argue that Federer is terrible now. He is still a fantastic player, but if somebody says he's at his best then that's an issue. Hence the responses of him being 80 years old.

And if the Federer fans/trolls start the debate then the Djokovic fans/trolls go around saying Federer is playing his best.

It's the circle of TTW life.

Dolgopolov85 · Feb 22, 2017

Steve0904 said:
But now we can go in circles. Sure there's intra field competitiveness in the WTA, but is that what makes an era strong or at least not weak? When one woman wins one week and then next week she loses 1st RD and we have an entirely different winner. Or is it when we have 4 guys that go deep consistently, but only one of them wins 90% of the time because he's the one still in the prime of his career. Kind of begs the question, is there any such thing as a weak era if we keep going around in circles?

Not only that but Dimitrov was points away from making a slam final. Is the era all of a sudden not weak because Dimitrov would've made a slam final? Or is it still weak because the oldest of them all (meaning the Big 4) would be waiting in a slam final? There's no real answer to this question. Federer's side of the draw was the old guard at the end of it anyway. The QF'ists were Federer, M. Zverev, Stan, Tsonga. The only "odd one out" so to speak is Zverev, and he would've been replaced by 29 year old Murray.

Ultimately it comes down to this. I saw a tweet from Jim Courier (I think) at the AO. It said: "The tennis ball doesn't know how old you are."

Oh, I wasn't commenting from a weak/strong era perspective but from the point of view of whither the two tours are headed. Re Dimitrov, no, I don't think it would make it a strong era if he just made the slam final (Raonic got there too last year) but if he did beat one of the Big Four in the final, it would mark the beginning of a new era. Or at least ought to, unless he just inexplicably falls flat thereafter. That wouldn't be going around in circles but rather just taking cognisance of change. So I think as such weak and strong eras do exist. And I agree that age by itself is not so relevant but in this case we can see that both players (Fedal) aren't quite as amazing as they used to be when they were younger though they are still bloody amazing. This indicates that barring Djokovic and intermittent Murray/Wawrinka, nobody has stepped up to a level where they can unseat Fedal off the top tier. I mean permanently, just shut them out, the way youngsters shut out aging champions earlier. That's not happening. I get that with the advancement in sports science and all, it's harder now but if the minimum level required to win a slam on the tour isn't going up, it indicates a weak era.

Sysyphus · Feb 22, 2017

Weak or not – and you surely have to believe it's a little weak now – what's become abundantly clear is that the under-29 generation is absolutely and completely useless by historical standards, and it seems to extend all the way down to Zverev at least, and who knows when someone will break the spell; but also that the 29-and-older are an exceptionally strong generation – a historical anomaly to have that many greats clustered together, and the contrast with the lost gen makes it extra clear.

Steve0904 · Feb 22, 2017

YetAnotherFedFan said:
The paradox is that if Serena Williams did not exist people would be labelling it a strong era!

I don't buy the weak era talk in the men's game either. The fact is that due to the slowdown in the rate of technological change the men's game has plateaued at an extremely high level from 2008 onwards. When the Big 4 finally hang up their rackets then we can say the weak ea has arrived. Increased professional, nutrition, training regimes and the general entourage surrounding the top guys has allowed them to push their careers into the mid 30's. All these people hoping for a Djokovic decline could be in for a rude surprise. I see no reason, beyond desire and hunger, while he still won't be contesting GS finals into his mid 30's too.

I agree that Djokovic will eventually bounce back, but he may not contest as many slam finals in his 30's as Federer has because of his style of play. Even Nadal who only turned 30 last year and just contested his first slam final in his 30's has had a huge decline since 2013.

Dolgopolov85 · Feb 22, 2017

Sysyphus said:
Weak or not – and you surely have to believe it's a little weak now – what's become abundantly clear is that the under-29 generation is absolutely and completely useless by historical standards, and it seems to extend all the way down to Zverev at least, and who knows when someone will break the spell; but also that the 29-and-older are also exceptionally strong.

Almost a perfect storm scenario when you put it that way, ha ha. Like we will HAVE to keep watching the same four faces in slam finals for a few more years.

EDIT: I am not counting out Zverev just yet. I was close to doing so last year when he fell flat against Berdych at Wimbledon but this year, he showed more heart in a five set loss to Nadal. So maybe, maybe he can step up. I did not know that his nature was of a positive, optimistic sort (which is how his elder brother describes it); wouldn't have guessed it from watching him in tough losses, lol.

Jonas78 · Feb 22, 2017

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil said:
Don't be selective, buddy. A lot of people have said that Djokovic made no improvements whatsoever in 2015-16 and that it was just other guys' declines that got him better results compared to the previous 3 years. Not to mention that a good part of his wins over Fed and Rafa "don't count" but all of theirs over him are "legit".

Of course there are bad fans on each side

. For me it is important that people can acknowledge that players have ups and downs, pre-prime, peak and post-prime. Although you are correct about Djoker, i think im right when i say Federer usually is the ultimate gold standard;The one player who has been on top of the game sinse 2003 and who everyone and everything else is being compared to. Its almost as people need him to be at same level 2003-2017 so that eras and players can be compared.

I have been a lot on this forum and except maybe you and Hitman i dont think i can remember Djoker-fans who acknowledge Federer ever having a bad stretch or being post-peak. Surprisingly enough i have seen more Djoker-fans saying he played better 2014-2016 than 2004-2007. I find that very strange, and i think most Fed-fans will agree Djoker currently is playing well below peak, so there is a difference between the fan-bases

You have watched Djoker closer than me, and if you say he improved a lot 2015-2016 i have no problem taking your word for it

Sereger · Feb 22, 2017

When was the strong era period u think? Was it 08-14? No player has ever dominated more than 1 CY.
08: Nad
09: Fed
10: Nad
11: Nole
12: big 3+Mur
13: Nad
14: big 3 +...

Bukmeikara · Feb 22, 2017

In soccer also a lot of players go deep in their 30's. Someone like Ronaldo could play til 40 chasing every single record he can. We are a bit too harsh on the newer generation. Is not easy to come as 18-20 years old and start grinding from the first round against someone like Simon or Ferrer. At the time you reach Big 4 you are dead tired, suffer a 6-1 6-2 loss, lose some confidence and pretty much stagnate at one spot for years. Every single year Federer and Nadal invite a top 50 Pro to train with them in some private resort, surrounded by the best coaches and physios - I mean unless your father is some rich guy - you can't have these things earlier in your career.

Sysyphus · Feb 22, 2017

Dolgopolov85 said:
Almost a perfect storm scenario when you put it that way, ha ha. Like we will HAVE to keep watching the same four faces in slam finals for a few more years.

EDIT: I am not counting out Zverev just yet. I was close to doing so last year when he fell flat against Berdych at Wimbledon but this year, he showed more heart in a five set loss to Nadal. So maybe, maybe he can step up. I did not know that his nature was of a positive, optimistic sort (which is how his elder brother describes it); wouldn't have guessed it from watching him in tough losses, lol.

Agreed on Zverev. What I meant to say is that he's the first one since the Novak/Murray/Delpo gen who really looks like the real deal. Slam champ and potential #1 talent if he stays fit and relatively injury free with his tall frame. The players between him and the Novak gen, however, have truly been lost.

Also agreed that I wouldn't have picked him as the optimistic sort based on his on-court demeanor, but I do think he's a hard worker with a solid mindset nevertheless. Hardly anything like Kyrgios, hue hue.

Steve0904 · Feb 22, 2017

Dolgopolov85 said:
Oh, I wasn't commenting from a weak/strong era perspective but from the point of view of whither the two tours are headed. Re Dimitrov, no, I don't think it would make it a strong era if he just made the slam final (Raonic got there too last year) but if he did beat one of the Big Four in the final, it would mark the beginning of a new era. Or at least ought to, unless he just inexplicably falls flat thereafter. That wouldn't be going around in circles but rather just taking cognisance of change. So I think as such weak and strong eras do exist. And I agree that age by itself is not so relevant but in this case we can see that both players (Fedal) aren't quite as amazing as they used to be when they were younger though they are still bloody amazing. This indicates that barring Djokovic and intermittent Murray/Wawrinka, nobody has stepped up to a level where they can unseat Fedal off the top tier. I mean permanently, just shut them out, the way youngsters shut out aging champions earlier. That's not happening. I get that with the advancement in sports science and all, it's harder now but if the minimum level required to win a slam on the tour isn't going up, it indicates a weak era.

I don't think it necessarily has to mark the beginning of a new era though. Even if Dimitrov had won this AO most people would be skeptical of calling him the favourite for Wimbledon and/or the USO for example because the consistently proven commodities are still there. But I think part of that may come back to what you said about Dimitrov not being at a consistently high enough level to continually beat the Big 4 in the slams. Not as high as when Federer took over in 2004 or especially when Djokovic took over in 2011. So it's hard to say whether it would be because a guy (not necessarily Dimitrov) is not ready to take over, or the other guys are still good enough to beat him at important events.

With our knowledge today we're learning not to count out the older guys, whereas when people first saw the declines of McEnroe and Wilander for example and they never came back to their previous levels people counted them out and were proven right. Now even if we count out an older legend we're being proven wrong. That's the difference. They are harder to knock off.

Plus I find there are a few variables behind the minimum level to win a slam going up. Mainly it's too match up oriented. I know that Federer was better in 2009 at the AO than he was in 2017, but let's take the 2 HC slams that Wawrinka has won for example. In both he beat the cover off the ball on his way to the title and so he's playing at a high level. But then Federer can have him falling all over himself when they play on a HC. And then let's say A. Zverev wins a slam this year (unlikely, but humour me) showing an extremely high level. Then that level is compared favourably to Federer from AO 2017, but it doesn't necessarily mean that Zverev would beat that Federer if they played each other.

The funny part about it though is that we're arguing about it now, but what will the tour look like if nobody steps up and all 4 guys are eventually retired?

Jonas78 · Feb 22, 2017

Bukmeikara said:
In soccer also a lot of players go deep in their 30's. Someone like Ronaldo could play til 40 chasing every single record he can. We are a bit too harsh on the newer generation. Is not easy to come as 18-20 years old and start grinding from the first round against someone like Simon or Ferrer. At the time you reach Big 4 you are dead tired, suffer a 6-1 6-2 loss, lose some confidence and pretty much stagnate at one spot for years. Every single year Federer and Nadal invite a top 50 Pro to train with them in some private resort, surrounded by the best coaches and physios - I mean unless your father is some rich guy - you can't have these things earlier in your career.

It doesnt quite hold up. 18-20 is one thing, but what about the players born 89-92? They should be peaking now in their mid to late 20's. Djoker totally dominated tennis at 24 in 2011, same with Federer, and Rafa did it even earlier. Mankind hasnt changed in the 5 years sinse 2011.

Bukmeikara · Feb 22, 2017

Jonas78 said:
It doesnt quite hold up. 18-20 is one thing, but what about the players born 89-92? They should be peaking now in their mid to late 20's. Djoker totally dominated tennis at 24 in 2011, same with Federer, and Rafa did it even earlier. Mankind hasnt changed in the 5 years sinse 2011.

Since Djokovic - Murray came along the player with the biggest impact younger than them is Del Potro - we are talking for about ten year period. These are at least 3 generations of players - we should look beyong the "bad material" answer.

Dolgopolov85 · Feb 22, 2017

Steve0904 said:
I don't think it necessarily has to mark the beginning of a new era though. Even if Dimitrov had won this AO most people would be skeptical of calling him the favourite for Wimbledon and/or the USO for example because the consistently proven commodities are still there. But I think part of that may come back to what you said about Dimitrov not being at a consistently high enough level to continually beat the Big 4 in the slams. Not as high as when Federer took over in 2004 or especially when Djokovic took over in 2011. So it's hard to say whether it would be because a guy (not necessarily Dimitrov) is not ready to take over, or the other guys are still good enough to beat him at important events.

I do agree with this highlighted part and it probably goes back to a discussion where it was suggested that tennis, well at least men's tennis, has solved all problems. So it's become more difficult than ever before for the new generation to raise the level. Say when somebody like Safin bludgeoned Sampras in the 2000 USO final, the commentators were raving about his game because they hadn't seen anything like it. Even with the most promising of the young bunch like say Zverev, we are unable to go quite that far. Heck, Dimitrov gets praise for somewhat resembling Fed in his strokemaking so imitation itself has become a tall order.

Steve0904 said:
With our knowledge today we're learning not to count out the older guys, whereas when people first saw the declines of McEnroe and Wilander for example and they never came back to their previous levels people counted them out and were proven right. Now even if we count out an older legend we're being proven wrong. That's the difference. They are harder to knock off.

Agreed and again this relates to what you have said above as well as my response to that.

Steve0904 said:
Plus I find there are a few variables behind the minimum level to win a slam going up. Mainly it's too match up oriented. I know that Federer was better in 2009 at the AO than he was in 2017, but let's take the 2 HC slams that Wawrinka has won for example. In both he beat the cover off the ball on his way to the title and so he's playing at a high level. But then Federer can have him falling all over himself when they play on a HC. And then let's say A. Zverev wins a slam this year (unlikely, but humour me) showing an extremely high level. Then that level is compared favourably to Federer from AO 2017, but it doesn't necessarily mean that Zverev would beat that Federer if they played each other.

Yes, very much match up oriented. Which too is unlike the situation before. When Wilander was on a roll in 1988, he did well everywhere except Wimbledon. Djokovic too did that twice in his career but to my mind, he had to attain a much higher level and punish himself a lot more to be able to leapfrog over the rest of the tour's level as such. As you say, Wawrinka had to play incredible tennis to beat him at the French, but it didn't hurt Wilander at his weakest link.

Steve0904 said:
The funny part about it though is that we're arguing about it now, but what will the tour look like if nobody steps up and all 4 guys are eventually retired?

It could resemble the 2001-02 situation when Hewitt-Roddick was supposed to be the main rivalry to watch. I don't think I personally would be too disappointed because I watch the game a lot more keenly now than in 2001. But I didn't watch the 2002 Wimbledon final at all and I have to think most casual fans are going to react in a similar way unless there's a tremendous feel good factor about whomsoever surges ahead. Fed captured the imagination of tennis fans because they thought the classic game was on its way out with players like Hewitt and Safin at the top and he proved them wrong. I am not sure who among the current crop of upcoming players is going to appeal so strongly to our sense of aesthetics as to provoke a similar reaction. There has to be an element of awe and that, I suspect, is going to be difficult to find. Or maybe I am just a terrible ageist and somebody is going to take tennis beyond the limits of my weak imagination.

Deleted member 740774 · Feb 22, 2017

We are in the peak of the weak era. I honestly think Fed's AO win is the worst level of a win at a slam in a long time

sarmpas · Feb 22, 2017

Dolgopolov85 said:
They're just gonna brazen it out and start afresh. Already, there's talk that Fedal lucked out because they didn't have to play either of Djokovic or Murray. Yeah, totally Fedal's fault that nos. 1 and 2 lost to weaklings, huh.

It just shows how much Djokoray rely on a large element of grinding to achieve their results, that's largely why they flopped in Melbourne.

SinjinCooper · Feb 22, 2017

DelPo2016 said:
We are in the peak of the weak era. I honestly think Fed's AO win is the worst level of a win at a slam in a long time

I could almost agree, had the 2016 U.S. Open and Wimbledon not happened, both of which had completely undeserving finalists. Djokovic's spot in the USO final was worse, of course, since he got almost no real wins the entire tournament in NYC.

Zara · Feb 22, 2017

Weak era depends on who won the last Slam - at least on TTW. If it's Federer then the rules are like the Fight Club, we don't talk about it. But if Djokovic wins then clearly it's the weakest time in tennis.

Zara · Feb 22, 2017

DelPo2016 said:
We are in the peak of the weak era. I honestly think Fed's AO win is the worst level of a win at a slam in a long time

I agree. Doesn't leave for much when someone in his mid 30s takes a few months off and comes back and still wins a Slam.

Enigma_87 · Feb 22, 2017

With Nishikori losing in Rio, him, Goffin and Raonic (4th, 10th and 5th in the world) hold zero titles among them at the moment. I think it's worth a note.

Meles · Feb 22, 2017

Pagoo said:
Nailed it. Nothing has changed. Younger players are still clowning. Nothing highlights a weak era more than the latest AO.

But still stronger than 2003-2007.

Fed only has like about 5 legit slams.

Meles · Feb 22, 2017

Kalin said:
+1

Very well said. And, to drive it home, just look at the next big tournament - effing Tsonga wins it and Birdman makes it all the way into the semis. Even when the (old) top guns aren't there, the second-string old timers are still too strong for the very best young pretenders. Bloody dispiriting, if you're a strong-era believer Luckily, I ain't one of 'em.

That's only because Zverev was tuckerd out from laying waste to Tsonga the week before.

Meles · Feb 22, 2017

Sambuccashake said:
I think AO pretty much finalized the weak era presence since #nextgen was completely annihilated by the old guard.
So the reason no one is talking about it is that there is nothing left to talk about. The small linger of hope was mercilessly vanquished.

Nadal sure annihilated Zverev and Dimitrov.

Meles · Feb 22, 2017

SinjinCooper said:
Well, yes and no.

Federer obviously squashed any talk that nextgen had any hope of catching up with him any time soon, but even those clowns are now leaving Djokovic and Murray in their dust.

Grinders just don't age well.

Cool story bro

Meles · Feb 22, 2017

Jonas78 said:
This!! This is the worst thing about the Fed-haters. Im the first one to say that Djokers game significantly dropped after FO16. His loss to Istomin was far from peak-Djoker. Even if Federer played Djoker at AO and won i would admit he wasnt facing peak-Djoker. But when it comes to Federer there are no excuses whatsover. He still is in his prime and the only reason he won so much in 2004-2007 is because of weak competition. The only reason he just won 3 titles 2010-2017 is because of strong era, he hasnt declined a bit.

On hard courts Federer is still awfully good, but no where near prime on clay(return). And return game not as good on grass either. But otherwise.

Fedfan34 · Feb 22, 2017

You heard the call, coming from the Darkness...

90's clay has returned.

Deleted member 307496 · Feb 22, 2017

Meles said:
But still stronger than 2003-2007. Fed only has like about 5 legit slams.

How many legit slams does Djokovic have then with Andy Murray coming back from back surgery as his toughest competition?

Meles · Feb 22, 2017

Sabratha said:
How many legit slams does Djokovic have then with Andy Murray coming back from back surgery as his toughest competition?

I'm just trolling the weakeraerers. You're biting doesn't count.

All of Djokovic's slams are legit. Federer's win at 2017 Auz pretty much cements him as the #2 slam contender for most of Djokovic's slams and a very solid 2.

Time to wake up from the weakeraerer spell that the entire tour has fallen apart because Grandpaerer is still competitive.(Its just laughable.)

Wormtonguerers all of them.

Meles · Feb 22, 2017

Fedfan34 said:
You heard the call, coming from the Darkness...

90's clay has returned.

Jonas78 · Feb 22, 2017

"Legit slams", what kind of stupid expression is that?

.

People here creating their own reality, where players have as many slams as they subjectively think is "legit", is as close to a psychosis as you get

. Wake up! Slap yourself in the face! Believe it or not, the slam count is the same for everyone, just like the earth is round for everyone!

Druss · Feb 22, 2017

DelPo2016 said:
We are in the peak of the weak era. I honestly think Fed's AO win is the worst level of a win at a slam in a long time

Murray's 2016 Wimby win was worse, so were a couple of Djokers', but I agree this was a weak slam. To put this in perspective, Fed AO'17 would not have won a slam in the period 2004-07, except perhaps AO & WM 2006.

Urkezi · Feb 22, 2017

Jonas78 said:
"Legit slams", what kind of stupid expression is that?.

People here creating their own reality, where players have as many slams as they subjectively think is "legit", is as close to a psychosis as you get. Wake up! Slap yourself in the face! Believe it or not, the slam count is the same for everyone, just like the earth is round for everyone!

Not for everyone

Meles · Feb 22, 2017

Druss said:
Murray's 2016 Wimby win was worse, so were a couple of Djokers', but I agree this was a weak slam. To put this in perspective, Fed AO'17 would not have won a slam in the period 2004-07, except perhaps AO & WM 2006.

Fed2017 would have baffled Safin I'll give you that.

Jonas78 · Feb 22, 2017

Druss said:
Murray's 2016 Wimby win was worse, so were a couple of Djokers', but I agree this was a weak slam. To put this in perspective, Fed AO'17 would not have won a slam in the period 2004-07, except perhaps AO & WM 2006.

Nice one, i like it

. Im sure the "2004-2007 weak-era Brigade" wont let that one go unnoticed

kabob · Feb 22, 2017

I'm still wondering. If this was such a "weak" era, when was there ever a "strong" era? The 70s? 80s?

Urkezi · Feb 23, 2017

kabob said:
I'm still wondering. If this was such a "weak" era, when was there ever a "strong" era? The 70s? 80s?

Not sure about before, but late 80's early 90's definitely. Also years 2009, 2011 and 2012 are generally considered strong, even on this forum.

metsman · Feb 23, 2017

Meles said:
Fed2017 would have baffled Safin I'll give you that.

He would have been torched by Safin.

-NN- · Feb 23, 2017

metsman said:
He would have been torched by Safin.

What's a major?

Jonas78 · Feb 23, 2017

Urkezi said:
Not sure about before, but late 80's early 90's definitely. Also years 2009, 2011 and 2012 are generally considered strong, even on this forum.

There was a thread regarding this recently. 2004-2007 and 2014-2016 always turn into a war, but people mostly agreed on 2009, 2011, 2012 as the strongest years post 2000. I think a poll would ended 2012/2009 > 2011.

mxmx · Feb 23, 2017

NatF said:
I hope Federer cements this as the weakest era of all time by winning another 2 slams this season

I too believe this is a weak era. But only compared to some other eras. The problem is when one or two players are as strong as other era players vs the majority of weak players. As soon as the contrast is gone weak vs weak players will just maybe be more interesting because what does one really measure weak against? All the pros are better than the club players so does it really matter that this is a weak era? It only maybe matters when old players still win when historically they should not.

mxmx · Feb 23, 2017

Dolgopolov85 said:
Oh, I wasn't commenting from a weak/strong era perspective but from the point of view of whither the two tours are headed. Re Dimitrov, no, I don't think it would make it a strong era if he just made the slam final (Raonic got there too last year) but if he did beat one of the Big Four in the final, it would mark the beginning of a new era. Or at least ought to, unless he just inexplicably falls flat thereafter. That wouldn't be going around in circles but rather just taking cognisance of change. So I think as such weak and strong eras do exist. And I agree that age by itself is not so relevant but in this case we can see that both players (Fedal) aren't quite as amazing as they used to be when they were younger though they are still bloody amazing. This indicates that barring Djokovic and intermittent Murray/Wawrinka, nobody has stepped up to a level where they can unseat Fedal off the top tier. I mean permanently, just shut them out, the way youngsters shut out aging champions earlier. That's not happening. I get that with the advancement in sports science and all, it's harder now but if the minimum level required to win a slam on the tour isn't going up, it indicates a weak era.

you said what I tried to say. Fully agree...

NatF · Feb 23, 2017

mxmx said:
I too believe this is a weak era. But only compared to some other eras. The problem is when one or two players are as strong as other era players vs the majority of weak players. As soon as the contrast is gone weak vs weak players will just maybe be more interesting because what does one really measure weak against? All the pros are better than the club players so does it really matter that this is a weak era? It only maybe matters when old players still win when historically they should not.

Well I wasn't trying to seriously say this is a weak era. I think the question of how strong an era is needs a deeper analysis than most on here are willing to give. Even if this is a weak era I don't think Federer's recent slam win was weak - beat 4 top 10 players. Regardless I do think the young generation being crap/the old guard declining (e.g. Tsonga, Ferrer, Berdych) has been giving the top players an easier ride to the SF and Finals of events for years now. It just depends on whether the rest of the field including the top is strong enough to balance that out. This also says nothing for the standard of tennis being played in the various slam finals which is independent from the name and achievements of the players.

-NN- · Feb 23, 2017

NatF said:
Well I wasn't trying to seriously say this is a weak era. I think the question of how strong an era is needs a deeper analysis than most on here are willing to give. Even if this is a weak era I don't think Federer's recent slam win was weak - beat 4 top 10 players. Regardless I do think the young generation being crap/the old guard declining (e.g. Tsonga, Ferrer, Berdych) has been giving the top players an easier ride to the SF and Finals of events for years now. It just depends on whether the rest of the field including the top is strong enough to balance that out. This also says nothing for the standard of tennis being played in the various slam finals which is independent from the name and achievements of the players.

That's why we need to get on with shizzle.

NatF · Feb 23, 2017

-NN- said:
That's why we need to get on with shizzle.

I've done the very first player including TB's now, I'll try and get on with some more later.

metsman · Feb 23, 2017

-NN- said:
What's a major?

well I think the definition is pretty clear today. My guess is you're trying to get at past eras when the AO was not at the quality of the other 3. In that case, I suppose I view the Masters as the 4th major but the B03 format doesn't quite put it in that status, but either way it was the 4th biggest event of the time.

The bigger takeaway I guess is to just apply context. Don't be the guy who does an apples to apples comparison of Borg's major count and modern major counts.

Russeljones · Feb 23, 2017

NatF said:
Well I wasn't trying to seriously say this is a weak era. I think the question of how strong an era is needs a deeper analysis than most on here are willing to give. Even if this is a weak era I don't think Federer's recent slam win was weak - beat 4 top 10 players. Regardless I do think the young generation being crap/the old guard declining (e.g. Tsonga, Ferrer, Berdych) has been giving the top players an easier ride to the SF and Finals of events for years now. It just depends on whether the rest of the field including the top is strong enough to balance that out. This also says nothing for the standard of tennis being played in the various slam finals which is independent from the name and achievements of the players.

Orly? The best of Berdych we've seen, no doubt. Same with Nishikori. Best of Nadal? Best of Wawrinka? Best of Federer? Are these 5 even representative? Use your eyes.

Steve0904 · Feb 23, 2017

The problem with the idea of a "weak era" is exactly that. It's an idea. An abstraction. I'd love to eventually see @NatF's analysis, but no number of stats is going to tell you anything concrete because an idea is subjective. It is a perception and you're very unlikely to change any opinions here. Not that it matters if you change opinions, but I'm going to watch tennis in 2017 without worrying at all whether it's a strong or weak era.

The only concrete thing I do know is that the weak era started when Federer started winning slams between 2004-2007. Then stopped until USO 2008 and was strong again at AO 2009, but quickly went back to being weak at RG and Wimbledon 2009. Then was strong again at USO 2009, but weak again at AO 2010. Then was weak again at Wimbledon 2012. Then stopped between Wimbledon 2012 and AO 2017, and here we are. Back in the weak era again.

-NN- · Feb 23, 2017

metsman said:
well I think the definition is pretty clear today. My guess is you're trying to get at past eras when the AO was not at the quality of the other 3. In that case, I suppose I view the Masters as the 4th major but the B03 format doesn't quite put it in that status, but either way it was the 4th biggest event of the time.

The bigger takeaway I guess is to just apply context. Don't be the guy who does an apples to apples comparison of Borg's major count and modern major counts.

Thanks for your answer. It shows how problematic it truly is because you went as far as comparing tournaments that are at least still traditional majors as we view them today, yet the question extends way deeper down the rabbit hole than that (pro majors, anyone? And what of the great YECs which were considered de facto majors at the time?)

As you rightly point out or allude to, it's problematic even when just keeping the focus on solely the ITF Majors

Weak Era - where did it go?

Talk Tennis Guru

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Hall of Fame

Legend

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

Legend

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Deleted member 740774

Guest

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Zara

Guest

Zara

Guest

Professional

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Fedfan34

Guest

Deleted member 307496

Guest

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Legend

Hall of Fame

Semi-Pro

Bionic Poster

Legend

Hall of Fame

Semi-Pro

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

G.O.A.T.

Similar threads