A post Nadal, Djokovic, Federer era will resemble 2001-2003...but WORSE

Zardoz7/12

Zardoz7/12

Hall of Fame
Where anyone wins top titles and slams, where there isn't a single dominating force....but it will be even worse than those seasons because the current generation and their lives are seemingly spent on Social Media, a generation of Tsitsipas' posting pseudo-philosophy whilst posing half naked near some ancient landmark after losing in 3 sets to a player ranked 200 in the World. That is the future of tennis and it's going to be tough to watch.
Stefanos-Tsitsipas-shirtless-showing-off-his-muscles-1280x720.jpg


I will say that an unseeded player will win a slam after Nadal, Djokovic and Federer are retired, it will be that bad and the ATP knows it that is why don't be surprised if slams are best of 3 sets and if fast 4 tournaments show up on the tour where you could win ranking points.

I'll post some gems below from 2001-2003, it was a strange time was the post Sampras dominance era but it set the stage for a new generation, a generation which included Federer, Hewitt and Roddick to name a few.
 
I think you mean the 2002-2007 era. And it's hard to imagine anything stealing its crown.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree with you, tennis will change for the worse once big 3 retire. The quality of tennis will worsen considerably, that's without question. We have already got a taste for it over the last year. Norrie winning a masters, Ruud in a slam final, the first time for decades that the top 3 seeds lose in the 1st round of a masters. Unprecedented times.

People's attention spans are that of a peanut these days. Smartphones and social media have fried people's brains. We now need youtube "shorts" because people don't even have the attention span to watch a 2 minute video, they are only capable of watching a 10 second clip. So tennis may revert to 3 sets for slams. That will make all records of the big 3 completely untouchable, because how can you compare winning a best of 3 slam to a best of 5 slam? You can't. But that's the way society is heading. It might get so bad that tennis is best of 1 set.
 
Too many forget the 01-03 era was less about shallow talent and the old guys playing less/inconsistent.

Yet you still had Agassi, Rafter with Ferrero, Hewitt, Safin & Roddick coming up.

It's way worse now. I've been saying for a while imagine in the 04-07 period Agassi and Pete were still dominating against the Johannssons of the world. Fun right?
 
03 is better than 15-current.
01 is similar to 15 and better than 16-current.
Both under-rated years.
02 is the only year that compares with some years in the inflation era of 16-current.
 
metsman said:
01 and 03 are clearly better than every year since 14 (and probably 14 too). 02 has been rehashed millions of times but yeah the first two slams featured big messups by very talented young players, two fluke majors doesn't make a weak era.
Click to expand...
Twenty-two does though (02-07)
 
‘01 AO - incredibly high quality winner
‘01 FO - incredibly high quality winner
‘01 WB - nuff said, Goran or Rafter would pistol whip everyone but Nole in this current field
‘01 USO no exaggeration one of the strongest Slams ever, revisit it

‘03 AO - weak af. But still unreal high quality winner
‘03 FO - Ferrero was monstrous
‘03 Wb - arguably Fed’s 3rd or 4th best wimby
‘03 USO - Roddick is memed here but he was INCREDIBLE in this Slam.

Masters were weak no denying it. But ‘00 was strong, ‘99 was good, ‘98 and ‘02 are the two questionable ones. Still. Better than 2017- present.
 
Kralingen said:
‘01 AO - incredibly high quality winner
‘01 FO - incredibly high quality winner
‘01 WB - nuff said, Goran or Rafter would pistol whip everyone but Nole in this current field
‘01 USO no exaggeration one of the strongest Slams ever, revisit it

‘03 AO - weak af. But still unreal high quality winner
‘03 FO - Ferrero was monstrous
‘03 Wb - arguably Fed’s 3rd or 4th best wimby
‘03 USO - Roddick is memed here but he was INCREDIBLE in this Slam.

Masters were weak no denying it. But ‘00 was strong, ‘99 was good, ‘98 and ‘02 are the two questionable ones. Still. Better than 2017- present.
Click to expand...

03 AO was weak on Agassi's half. Other half was loaded.
Roddick El Ayanoui, El Ayanoui Hewitt, Nalbandian Federer.
 
abmk said:
03 AO was weak on Agassi's half. Other half was loaded.
Roddick El Ayanoui, El Ayanoui Hewitt, Federer Nalbandian.
Click to expand...
In all honesty from ‘00-03 the only one who possibly loses to a 20-22 Slam finalist is ‘02 Costa to Nadal or ‘21 Djokovic, or maybe ‘02 ToJo to Nole.

I’m Serious. ‘00/01/03 Agassi easily better than any AO winner. ‘00/01 Kuerten blows old Nadal away. I favor ‘03 Ferrero too. At Wimby, ‘00 Pete, ‘03 Fed straight set old Novak. ‘02 Hewitt, ‘01 Goran edge him out. To say nothing of Rafter.

‘00 Safin destroys any USO player, so does ‘02 Sampras. ‘01/03 Hewitt Roddick are better than Med Thiem or anyone this year easily. And ‘01-02 Agassi was better ANY of the NextGens .

It’s not the only definition of era strength, of course, but just looking at the top of the game those years are way stronger than this era’s.
 
2000-2003 was an exciting time in men's tennis. NextGens Safin/Hewitt/Ferrero/Federer/Roddick were jockeying for position, winning slams, ending the slam runs of the CurrentGens, and ending the seasons as YE #1.
 
metsman said:
01 and 03 are clearly better than every year since 14 (and probably 14 too). 02 has been rehashed millions of times but yeah the first two slams featured big messups by very talented young players, two fluke majors doesn't make a weak era.
Click to expand...
2002 better than 2021
2003-05/07 nearly as good as 11-12 or better in some cases
2007-09 as good or better than 11-13
2006 better than 2010 and 2015

Did I do it right metsman?
 
Last edited:
metsman said:
01 and 03 are clearly better than every year since 14 (and probably 14 too). 02 has been rehashed millions of times but yeah the first two slams featured big messups by very talented young players, two fluke majors doesn't make a weak era.
Click to expand...
Maybe you prefer to see Agassi vs. Schlüter (?) AO 2003 final over Federer vs. Nadal AO 2017 final, or a Ferrero vs. Verkerk (?) 2017 RG final over Nadam vs. Wawrinka RG 2017 final. The rest of mortals will chose 2017 over the insipid 2003.

By the way 2003 was a weak clay era and weak hard era. 2017 Nadal would have smoked Ferrero let alone Verkerk. How on Earth did Verkerk made a RG final? And how on Earth did Schlüter made the AO final? (Schlüter reached 0 Slam QFs apart from the AO 2003). Even SFs opponents from the AO 2017 (Wawrinka and Dimitrov) are superiror tennis players than Schlüter. And the clay specialist Ferrero made his only Slam final on hard at the US Open 2003 (he was nor better on hard than Pablo Carreño Busta, who made the SFs of the USO 2017 and USO 2020, and won the Bronze Medal at the 2021 Olympics beating Medvedev and Djokovic).
 
Sport said:
Maybe you prefer to see Schlüter vs. Agassi AO 2003 final over Federer vs. Nadal AO 2017 final, or a Ferrero vs. Verkerk (?) 2017 RG final over Nadam vs. Wawrinka RG 2017 final. The rest of mortals will chose 2017 over the insipid 2003.

By the way 2003 was a weak clay era and weak hard era. 2017 Nadal would have smoked Ferrero let alone Verkerk. How on Earth did Verkerk made a RG final? And how on Earth did Schlüter made the AO final? (Schlüter reached 0 Slam QFs apart from the AO 2003). Even SFs opponents from the AO 2017 (Wawrinka and Dimitrov) are superiror tennis players than Schlüter). And the clay specialist Ferrero made his only Slam final on hard at the US Open 2003 (he was nor bwtter on hard than Pablo Carreño Busta, who made the SFs of the USO 2017 and USO 2020, and won the Bronze Medal at the 2021 Olympics beating Medvedev and Djokovic).
Click to expand...
Are you sure RG 17 Nadal takes out RG 03 Ferrero?
 
Last edited:
RS said:
Are you sure RG 17 Nadal takes out RG 03 Ferreo?
Click to expand...
2017 RG Nadal was one of his more indomitable versions, all the clay season bar Rome, but specially at RG, where he lost 0 sets and "bagelled" many of his opponents (Nadal made 3 bagels in the tournament, including vs. Thiem in the SF). On the other hand, Ferrero lost 3 sets at RG 2003 and bagelled no one. Crucially, Ferrero almost lost to the hard specialist González in the QF of RG 2003 (needed 5 sets to beat him), so if he suffered so much with González, imagine with Rafa.

The way he played the final against Wawrinka exhibited one of his most dominants forms ever. He was at his peak. He had everything, speed (not at his absolute peak of velocity, but enough to reach every corner of the Philippe Chatrier on the slow clay court), perfect stamina, healthy, confident backhand, demolishing forehand and drop shots. Crucially, he combined his excellent physical form with a more offensive style than any other version of him pre-2017. So he was hitting bombs with the forehand.

roland_garros-stan_wawrinka-rafa_nadal_222988871_36054597_1024x576.jpg
 
Last edited:
Hewitt racking up 80 weeks at #1 and 2 year end #1s must be a helluva an era. Stop this propaganda of past eras always being better than the present. Early 00s and late 90s was the biggest vacuum in open era, nothing comes close. Before Hewitt, Kuerten and Safin were alternating the #1 spot for a year.
 
Herald said:
I think you mean the 2002-2007 era. And it's hard to imagine anything stealing its crown.
Click to expand...
Have you already deducted 3 Slams from Nadal that he won in that period? Or was the era just weak outside of clay and omfg so tough bery bery on clay?
 
Sport said:
Maybe you prefer to see Agassi vs. Schlüter (?) AO 2003 final over Federer vs. Nadal AO 2017 final, or a Ferrero vs. Verkerk (?) 2017 RG final over Nadam vs. Wawrinka RG 2017 final. The rest of mortals will chose 2017 over the insipid 2003.

By the way 2003 was a weak clay era and weak hard era. 2017 Nadal would have smoked Ferrero let alone Verkerk. How on Earth did Verkerk made a RG final? And how on Earth did Schlüter made the AO final? (Schlüter reached 0 Slam QFs apart from the AO 2003). Even SFs opponents from the AO 2017 (Wawrinka and Dimitrov) are superiror tennis players than Schlüter. And the clay specialist Ferrero made his only Slam final on hard at the US Open 2003 (he was nor better on hard than Pablo Carreño Busta, who made the SFs of the USO 2017 and USO 2020, and won the Bronze Medal at the 2021 Olympics beating Medvedev and Djokovic).
Click to expand...

Federer Nadal AO 17 over AO 03 final. But Agassi 03 was better than both. Agassi's half was very weak, but the other half had Roddick/Hewitt vs El Ayanoui, Nalbandian-Fed etc.
Nadal RG 17 still over Ferrero RG 03
But Fed Wim 03 over Fed Wim 17
Roddick USO 03 over Nadal USO 17. And USO 17 is one of the weakest slams ever. from both halves.

Federer YEC 03 over Dimi YEC 17

You don't even have a 0.1% of clue about tennis in 2003. Verkerk beat both Moya and Coria to make the RG final. final was below par from him, but he played great before the final.
Gonzo also challenged Ferrero in QF.
clay specialist Fererro my a**. He beat hewitt and agassi b2b to make the USO final.
only someone cleueless can equate ferrero to PCB even on HC. ferrero also reached AO SF in 04. also YEC final in 02. PCB didn't beat anyone of note in a full match while making the slam semis.
Ferrero of 02-end, 03 would smoke PCB with eyes closed on HC.

Roddick of USO 03 would easily beat Nadal of USO 17 and it wouldn't be pretty.
 
Last edited:
RF-18 said:
Hewitt racking up 80 weeks at #1 and 2 year end #1s must be a helluva an era. Stop this propaganda of past dras. Early 00s was the biggest vacuum in open era, nothing comes close.
Click to expand...

2001 >> 2020-current
2003 >>> 2020-current
2001,2003 clearly better than 2016-current.
only 2002 compares to the hyper-inflation uselessness that is 2016-current.
 
Last edited:
Sport said:
2017 RG Nadal was one of his more indomitable versions, all the clay season bar Rome, but specially at RG, where he lost 0 sets and "bagelled" many of his opponents (Nadal made 3 bagels in the tournament, including vs. Thiem in the SF). On the other hand, Ferrero lost 3 sets at RG 2003 and bagelled no one. Crucially, Ferrero almost lost to the hard specialist González in the QF of RG 2003 (needed 5 sets to beat him), so if he suffered so much with González, imagine with Rafa.

The way he played the final against Wawrinka exhibited one of his most dominants forms ever. He was at his peak. He had everything, speed (not at his absolute peak of velocity, but enough to reach every corner of the Philippe Chatrier on the slow clay court), perfect stamina, healthy, confident backhand, demolishing forehand and drop shots. Crucially, he combined his excellent physical form with a more offensive style than any other version of him pre-2017. So he was hitting bombs with the forehand.

roland_garros-stan_wawrinka-rafa_nadal_222988871_36054597_1024x576.jpg
Click to expand...
Can Ferrero get 1-2 wins in say 20 matches?
 
Sport said:
On the other hand, Ferrero lost 3 sets at RG 2003 and bagelled no one. Crucially, Ferrero almost lost to the hard specialist González in the QF of RG 2003 (needed 5 sets to beat him), so if he suffered so much with González, imagine with Rafa.
Click to expand...

Imagine calling Gonzalez a HC specialist when 8 of his 11 titles are on clay. has 3 QFs+ at RG , while having 1 QF+ each at AO, Wim and USO.
Gonzo was playing very well in both RG 03 and RG 09 (Soderling barely beat him in 5 in the semi)
 
I don't envision all the gloom and doom projected by so many here. And further, people relentlessly posting here, complaining about younger players/people posting on social media is an irony generated by a total lack of self-awareness.

It's supposed to be hard to replace the greatest legends of a sport, and regardless of who you root for, the retirements of Roger, Rafa and Novak will be difficult. But tennis has survived the retirements of other superstars in the past.

My thing is not to knock 2001-03 - or for some, to 2007. But anybody can find some great matches from any year. And for those who cite names, well, we still currently have, arguably, the two greatest players of the OE, emerging talents in Alcaraz and Sinner, very good (if flawed) players in Med, Tsit and Zverev, etc, and at least 20 other players who are good to watch.

But no, don't expect the next Roger, Rafa or Novak to simply arrive. And don't expect players to eat/sleep tennis 24/7 without using social media.
 
2016-current every year is clearly worse than 2001 and 2003 anyways. Only 2002 compares to the hyperinflation era that is 2016-current.
post COVID is even worse, just so poor.
 
RaulRamirez said:
I don't envision all the gloom and doom projected by so many here. And further, people relentlessly posting here, complaining about younger players/people posting on social media is an irony generated by a total lack of self-awareness.

It's supposed to be hard to replace the greatest legends of a sport, and regardless of who you root for, the retirements of Roger, Rafa and Novak will be difficult. But tennis has survived the retirements of other superstars in the past.

My thing is not to knock 2001-03 - or for some, to 2007. But anybody can find some great matches from any year. And for those who cite names, well, we still currently have, arguably, the two greatest players of the OE, emerging talents in Alcaraz and Sinner, very good (if flawed) players in Med, Tsit and Zverev, etc, and at least 20 other players who are good to watch.

But no, don't expect the next Roger, Rafa or Novak to simply arrive. And don't expect players to eat/sleep tennis 24/7 without using social media.
Click to expand...
Do you think the Big 3 would have been different if they appeared 20 years later?
:cautious:
 
Last edited:
RaulRamirez said:
...if "it"? I'm not sure what your question is?
Click to expand...
I was referring to them, obviously.
Do you think that the Big 3 would have acted and therefore won less if they had played in the current era with so many distractions and a "juicier" prize pool?
:)
 
DSH said:
I was referring to them, obviously.
Do you think that the Big 3 would have acted and therefore won less if they had played in the current era with so many distractions and a "juicier" prize pool?
:)
Click to expand...
It's so hard to know, but my suspicion is that all the distractions, (etc.) wouldn't have changed them that much.
They are each - in their own ways - incredibly driven and "psycho-competitive".
 
Zardoz7/12 said:
Where anyone wins top titles and slams, where there isn't a single dominating force....but it will be even worse than those seasons because the current generation and their lives are seemingly spent on Social Media, a generation of Tsitsipas' posting pseudo-philosophy whilst posing half naked near some ancient landmark after losing in 3 sets to a player ranked 200 in the World. That is the future of tennis and it's going to be tough to watch.
Stefanos-Tsitsipas-shirtless-showing-off-his-muscles-1280x720.jpg


I will say that an unseeded player will win a slam after Nadal, Djokovic and Federer are retired, it will be that bad and the ATP knows it that is why don't be surprised if slams are best of 3 sets and if fast 4 tournaments show up on the tour where you could win ranking points.

I'll post some gems below from 2001-2003, it was a strange time was the post Sampras dominance era but it set the stage for a new generation, a generation which included Federer, Hewitt and Roddick to name a few.
Click to expand...
Only first half of 2002 was outright terrible in that period because of Johansson and Costa winning slams.
 
RF-18 said:
Hewitt racking up 80 weeks at #1 and 2 year end #1s must be a helluva an era. Stop this propaganda of past eras always being better than the present. Early 00s and late 90s was the biggest vacuum in open era, nothing comes close. Before Hewitt, Kuerten and Safin were alternating the #1 spot for a year.
Click to expand...
Better than Medvedev racking up weeks at no.1.
 
Hewitt and Med are boring to talk about :whistle:

Murray and Roddick discussions are better.
 
mike danny said:
Better than Medvedev racking up weeks at no.1.
Click to expand...
Still better than Roddick racking up weeks at N. 1 in the pre-Big 3 era (in 2003 Federer didn't reach the QF at any Slam outside Wimbledon, as soon as he peaked across surfaces, Andy stopped contending).
 
tennis_pro said:
Have you already deducted 3 Slams from Nadal that he won in that period? Or was the era just weak outside of clay and omfg so tough bery bery on clay?
Click to expand...
I actually forgot to subtract his slams from the period, as a simple calculation would reveal. Don't give me any ideas.
 
Sport said:
Still better than Roddick racking up weeks at N. 1 in the pre-Big 3 era (in 2003 Federer didn't reach the QF at any Slam outside Wimbledon, as soon as he peaked across surfaces, Andy stopped contending).
Click to expand...
Roddick didn't need politics to get and stay at no.1.
 
2001-2003 was fine outside of Johannson winning the AO. Pete was still awesome at the US OPen, Agassi was peaking, Hewitt was peaking, Roddick was good, Rafter was still good, Goran was awesome at WImbledon. GOAT like performance in 2001, . Safin was good more or less. We are heading into something 10x worse for sure than 01-03. LOL
 
Sport said:
Roddick didn't compete with Djokovic either.

Soon Medvedev will surpass Roddick's weeks at #1. Well-deserved.
Click to expand...
He did, leads 5-4.

Med also didn't compete with Federer.

Medvedev is only no.1 thank to politics. Wouldn't have managed it otherwise.
 
mike danny said:
He did, leads 5-4.

Med also didn't compete with Federer.

Medvedev is only no.1 thank to politics. Wouldn't have managed it otherwise.
Click to expand...
"Wouldn't have managed it otherwise". Untestable, therefore irrelevant.

That's equally untestable as saying "Medvedev would have achieved the #1 against Roddick in 2003", or "Roddick would have never been #1 if he were 1 year older because Federer would have stopped him".

Roddick didn't compete against peak Novak, nor did he compete against Novak for the #1. Easier field in the pre-Big 3 era.
 
RS said:
2002 better than 2021
2003-05/07 nearly as good as 11-12 or better in some cases
2007-09 as good or better than 11-13
2006 better than 2010 and 2015

Did I do it right metsman?
Click to expand...
2002 stronger winner at 2 majors and YEC than every year 2016-present. And as said, the other two majors were a fluke, Agassi was injured at AO, Haas got injured (surely wouldn't have pulled a Safin in the final) and Safin took a few too many liberties, at RG Ferrero just choked, being a big favorite for his first slam (Safin also mugged up the semi against him bigly).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Zardoz7/12
Are we entering a version of the 2001-2003 ATP Era?
Replies
16
Views
1K
NedStark
N
Sunny014
WEAK ERA Conundrum SOLVED and explained
2 3 4
Replies
193
Views
7K
PETEhammer
P
P
Myth : Federer thrived in a "weak era"
Replies
28
Views
4K
TMF
T
Hitman
Wimbledon 2003 - Wimbledon 2023 - The Big 3 Era
Replies
8
Views
587
WeekendTennisHack
WeekendTennisHack
D
Has Novak Djokovic benefited from a 'weak era' more than Roger Federer?
2
Replies
82
Views
5K
Pagoo
P
Back
Top