2004-2006 vs. 2014-2016

Which years were stronger?

  • 2004-2006

  • 2014-2016

Results are only viewable after voting.


No give grass too to Nadal, I'm sure you can find a way.
But how was Murray better on HCs? AO lost to the winner: Nadal lost to eventual finalist.

It is an unquestionable fact that the best players between 14-16 were more consistent and reliable than the best players between 04-06. And that's the best reason to believe that era was stronger than the other one.Doesn't matter. That's not the topic of the thread.
The insecurity of Fed fans on fire as usual today. You've taken a thread about which era had tougher competition and made it into a question about whether the players in the second era would beat Federer if they played in the first one. Heads up: this thread isn't about Federer.
of course it isn’t about Federer :D

Deleted member 307496

Anyone who talks about 2012 Hewitt as being the same as 2001-05 knows squat. 2017 Djokovic was closer to his 2015 version than what 2012 Hewitt was to 2005. This person goes on about stats on Hewitt when he was a ghost of his former self, at the same time is quick to discount Djokovic in 2007-09 because he was too young or 2017 because he was whatever...or discounts Nadal in 2005-07 because he was a ‘baby’. Double standards and cherry-picking at its finest.

This is a tiny glimpse into what peak Hewitt was like. Except he had better movement.

Deleted member 307496

You would be a great lawyer.
@NatF is one of my favorite posters here and it isn't because we sit on the same side of the fence. He actually spends time analyzing matches in great detail. He doesn't just throw stats out there. Big respect to him for the time he's spent on tennis and getting into the nitty-gritty.

Which is precisely why he's a better Hewitt fan than me lol. He knows everything about the guy.

Deleted member 307496

Highlights can make Rosol look good.
There's the evidence I've presented to you in this thread too. It's time to admit it, Hewitt was a great player. Not an ATG but he is a tier below them.

He is certainly underrated when he is compared to Tsonga, Berdych and Ferrer. That's a disservice to Lleyton.


Slams aren't everything. :cool:

Hewitt has a winning record against Pete Sampras and an even H2H with Andre Agassi. He has a 9-18 record against Federer which is only behind Murray, Nalbandian and the Big 3.

And you obviously didn't add Hewitt's wins over Nadal in 2004/2005 in majors. The 2005 win should for sure count because he was 3 months off winning a major LOL. Anything to suit your agenda. Not to mention your "stats" aren't even remotely accurate.

No, no it is not. Even in 2011 you had guys like Melzer cracking the top 8 LOL. Only the very top were great in 2011-2013, the tour lacked depth below them.

They wouldn't win majors in any era.
Raonic is a really crap Canadian version of Roddick. And that guy won 1 slam and made multiple Wimbledon finals. He wouldn’t win anything.

Nishikori is a lesser Davydenko.


And he didn't even ever reach a 5th set


Murray got owned in straight sets by a lesser version of Fed in 2008.

He may have been better, but not so distant from good secondary players of 2011-16. What I mean is they're all little relevant when it comes to win slams in the Big3 era. Only Big3 can beat Big3.

These are the players who beat them most times in grand slams, their numbers are very low:

Murray 5
Wawrinka 5
Berdych 5
Del Potro 4
Tsonga 4

I agree.

Hewitt, Roddick, Davydenko, Murray, Old Fed, Nishikori etc they’re all the same level threat to peak Djokovic/Federer (aside from Nadal who can lose to any mug)