Can someone please inform me as to when the "strong era" starts?

edberg505

Legend
So, Roddick (who is from the weak era) beats a player from the strong era. So, is this still the weak era?
 

Breaker

Legend
And another player from the weak era gave him a tougher match than the strong era player..LOL.

I guess it starts when clowns like Federer retire.
 

Rippy

Hall of Fame
A weak era is when Federer wins a slam. A strong era is when Nadal wins a slam.

Simple FedHater logic.
 

shawn1122

Professional
Roddick just crammed a ball down those idiot's throats. He has beaten Djokovic AND Murray in grand slams this year.
 

AAAA

Hall of Fame
Murray has his highest ranking to date and Roddick imo isn't the player he once was and yet still beat Murray when it counts most, in a slam.
 
uh-oh, I guess we need to get used to a lot of threads like this one in the coming weeks.

Well, anyway, let's wait until US Open for Djoko, Murray and Nads to make noise.
 

ChiefAce

Semi-Pro
Anyone who says the era of guys like Hewitt, Roddick, and Fed was weak has no business discussing tennis anywhere. Fed made his competition look weak because he brought the game to a new level and forced everyone else to step up even more .
 

Rippy

Hall of Fame
Anyone who says the era of guys like Hewitt, Roddick, and Fed was weak has no business discussing tennis anywhere. Fed made his competition look weak because he brought the game to a new level and forced everyone else to step up even more .
Incorrect I'm afraid. It's because they were all pathetic tennis players who also choked on many occasions, hence allowing that talentless arrogant player Federer to win slams. All his slams in the weak era have an asterisk because he didn't have to play Nadal.

;)
 

Spidy

Rookie
Incorrect I'm afraid. It's because they were all pathetic tennis players who also choked on many occasions, hence allowing that talentless arrogant player Federer to win slams. All his slams in the weak era have an asterisk because he didn't have to play Nadal.
Well said. Its a shame everyone chokes against him, he is just lucky in all games, especially with the hawkeye. I even heard that Federer financed the hawk eye system to give himself an edge over his opponents. Watch out!
 
Anyone who says the era of guys like Hewitt, Roddick, and Fed was weak has no business discussing tennis anywhere. Fed made his competition look weak because he brought the game to a new level and forced everyone else to step up even more .
You have to admit that Fed doesn't play the same type of game as everyone else. He's not just a better player. He's a very different type of player. If there were a lot of other players playing Fed's style then it might be a stronger era. But there aren't. So long as slams are a two weak long 5 set format I don't see the point of the exhausting style of play of 99% of today's pros. It looks awesome in week 1 and fizzles in week 2. And there are too many injury setbacks.

But that's just my view point on what makes a strong era. That's why I say eras are personal taste.
 
I expected Murray to win but Roddick playing some of his best tennis in his life was able to get it done. And Murray is almost number 1. That says who the better player is.
 

egn

Hall of Fame
uh-oh, I guess we need to get used to a lot of threads like this one in the coming weeks.

Well, anyway, let's wait until US Open for Djoko, Murray and Nads to make noise.
So we are waiting for the three of them to make noise together at 1 slam in the year...thats great some strong players can only perform their best at 1 slam..
 

ChanceEncounter

Hall of Fame
It depends on what you like. For me, if the outcomes are predictable it's a weak era. If the field is strong enough it gets interesting.
So you have the unequivocably 'strongest' era ever, with incredible parity and 'interesting' matches all around.

Then, an alien from another planet that can hit with twice the pace and spin as any human player, can run around and reach balls that no one else can ever sniff, and smokes everyone 6-0, 6-0, 6-0. Does this mean that the aforementioned "strong" era immediately becomes a "weak" era?

Well look at Roddick's ranking in the strong era compared to the weak era. That says it all. It's not like his old or anything. There are 3 more players in the equation now that are consistent.
So no one ever slipped down the rankings before?
 

fps

Legend
Roddick's a far better player now than when he was world number 1, and he played a great match yesterday. especially surprising was that he pulled out a number of clutch short angle volleys at net, though he was lucky to frame a couple he was still there to make it happen.

the weak era strong era nonsense will never end. it's irrelevant to the people who've worked all their lives to make it to the top of the game.
 

danb

Professional
Murray has his highest ranking to date and Roddick imo isn't the player he once was and yet still beat Murray when it counts most, in a slam.
Rodick's backend as of now sucks. He used to have a real weapon on both sides so I do agree with you - he isn't as good as he used to be.
ANyway - he works as hard as always and just beat Murray.
Murray is weak mentally - he doesn't do well in slams.
 

ChanceEncounter

Hall of Fame
Roddick slipped because the competition got better. Murray, Djokovic, and Nadal are very consistent in each tournament. Roddick would never be number 1 in this era or number 2. Possibly number 3 but we'll have to wait and see I guess.
Only problem with your theory is that he was slipping down before Murray and Djokovic moved ahead of him. Ergo, he was slipping down well before the aforementioned "three more consistent players" came along to crash the 'weak era party'.

Roddick was a fluke world #1. It can happen even in strong eras.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Roddick slipped because the competition got better. Murray, Djokovic, and Nadal are very consistent in each tournament. Roddick would never be number 1 in this era or number 2. Possibly number 3 but we'll have to wait and see I guess.
Actually Roddick was slipping in the rankings most in 2006(when Djokovic and Murray were barely making any noise at all)when he even fell out of top 10 briefly,that was quite possibly the biggest slump of his career so far.

He also outperformed both Murray and Djokovic at slams this year and has also beaten both at slams this year.So in the biggest tournaments this year he's better than them.

Rodick's backend as of now sucks. He used to have a real weapon on both sides so I do agree with you - he isn't as good as he used to be.
ANyway - he works as hard as always and just beat Murray.
Murray is weak mentally - he doesn't do well in slams.
Actually Roddick's hitting BH at the moment far better than he ever did.
 

Hueco514

Rookie
Actually Roddick was slipping in the rankings most in 2006(when Djokovic and Murray were barely making any noise at all)when he even fell out of top 10 briefly,that was quite possibly the biggest slump of his career so far.

He also outperformed both Murray and Djokovic at slams this year and has also beaten both at slams this year.So in the biggest tournaments this year he's better than them.



Actually Roddick's hitting BH at the moment far better than he ever did.
Zagor's right, his backhand used to be trash. Connors helped him there in his short time with him. It's his flat forehand that he had with Gilbert that he's missing from his game. It looks like he may get it back, instead of that loopy, crappy forehand.
 

Agassifan

Hall of Fame
The strong era was put on hold when soderling thumped Nadal. It will restart whenever federer loses in a slam to anybody younger than him.
 

Chelsea_Kiwi

Hall of Fame
Roddick slipped because the competition got better. Murray, Djokovic, and Nadal are very consistent in each tournament. Roddick would never be number 1 in this era or number 2. Possibly number 3 but we'll have to wait and see I guess.
Roddick from a few years ago would challenge Nadal with the way he is playing atm.
 
He also outperformed both Murray and Djokovic at slams this year and has also beaten both at slams this year.So in the biggest tournaments this year he's better than them.
Actually Roddick's hitting BH at the moment far better than he ever did.
One win against Murray on Roddick's favorite surface and he is all of a sudden better than Murray in slams? Yes Djokovic is slumping this year. I guess you could say Roddick is having a better year as Djokovic failed in the slams. But most people would still pick Murray over Roddick despite that Wimbledon match in the US Open. Nadal when healthy also has the advantage.
 

grafrules

Banned
One win against Murray on Roddick's favorite surface and he is all of a sudden better than Murray in slams? Yes Djokovic is slumping this year. I guess you could say Roddick is having a better year as Djokovic failed in the slams. But most people would still pick Murray over Roddick despite that Wimbledon match in the US Open. Nadal when healthy also has the advantage.
Hard courts is Roddick's best surface. Roddick in Australia reached the semis while Murray lost 4th round. So yes this year he has been better in the slams. Only at the French did Murray do better by one round.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
One win against Murray on Roddick's favorite surface and he is all of a sudden better than Murray in slams? Yes Djokovic is slumping this year. I guess you could say Roddick is having a better year as Djokovic failed in the slams. But most people would still pick Murray over Roddick despite that Wimbledon match in the US Open. Nadal when healthy also has the advantage.
I wasn't giving an opinion,I was stating a fact-> Roddick outperformed Djokovic and Murray in slams this year overall and has beaten them both at slams this year.Obviously there's still USO so I should have put outpeformed so far.

As for grass being Roddick's favourite surface,you could say the same for decoturf(USO)since he won the title there in 2003.It's not clear cut which surface is his favourite one.

Obviously both Murray and Djokovic are ranked ahead of Roddick but I was talking about performances in biggest tennis tourneys-slams.
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
Strong era is when someone other than Fed or Nadal wins more than one slam.

It's in the distribution.

Federer--15
Nadal--6
Murray--0
Djokovic--1
Del Potro--0
Roddick--1
Simon--0
Tsonga--0
Verdasco--0
Gonzalez--0
 
Last edited:

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
One win against Murray on Roddick's favorite surface and he is all of a sudden better than Murray in slams? Yes Djokovic is slumping this year. I guess you could say Roddick is having a better year as Djokovic failed in the slams. But most people would still pick Murray over Roddick despite that Wimbledon match in the US Open. Nadal when healthy also has the advantage.



Most people would not pick Andy Murray the next time they play. Roddick is actually a favorite. Fast hardcourts are Roddick's specialty.
 
Most people would not pick Andy Murray the next time they play. Roddick is actually a favorite. Fast hardcourts are Roddick's specialty.
The US Open is Andy Murray's favorite surface and I disagree with you saying Wimbledon isn't Roddick's favorite surface. He was closest to beating Federer there. Roddick won US Open 2003 because Federer lost to Nalbandian. Roddick has been to 3 Wimbledon Finals and 1 Semifinal at Wimbledon.









.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
The US Open is Andy Murray's favorite surface and I disagree with you saying Wimbledon isn't Roddick's favorite surface. He was closest to beating Federer there. Roddick won US Open 2003 because Federer lost to Nalbandian. Roddick has been to 3 Wimbledon Finals and 1 Semifinal at Wimbledon.











.



That's such bullcrap. Roddick beat Federer in Montreal in 2003. What's to say he wouldn't beat him again? Roddick beat an absolutely on fire Nalbandian who routined Federer in the previous round. I'd say Roddick wins if they did play.
 

Agassifan

Hall of Fame
Strong era is when someone other than Fed or Nadal wins more than one slam.

It's in the distribution.

Federer--15
Nadal--6
Murray--0
Djokovic--1
Del Potro--0
Roddick--1
Simon--0
Tsonga--0
Verdasco--0
Gonzalez--0

Hewitt and Safin say 'hi'
 
T

TheMagicianOfPrecision

Guest
Incorrect I'm afraid. It's because they were all pathetic tennis players who also choked on many occasions, hence allowing that talentless arrogant player Federer to win slams. All his slams in the weak era have an asterisk because he didn't have to play Nadal.

;)
Incorrect i`m afraid.
ChiefAce said it!
 
That's such bullcrap. Roddick beat Federer in Montreal in 2003. What's to say he wouldn't beat him again? Roddick beat an absolutely on fire Nalbandian who routined Federer in the previous round. I'd say Roddick wins if they did play.
It would have been mighty close between fed and Roddick. Nalbandian was extremely close to routing Roddick in 3 straight sets but Nalbandian pulled one of his choke jobs (like nadal at IW 09) and lost the match in the next 3 sets easily.
 

tudwell

Legend
Strong era is when someone other than Fed or Nadal wins more than one slam.

It's in the distribution.

Federer--15
Nadal--6
Murray--0
Djokovic--1
Del Potro--0
Roddick--1
Simon--0
Tsonga--0
Verdasco--0
Gonzalez--0
Does that mean 2000-2003 is the strongest era ever? No player won more than one slam a year during that time period. Total parity.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
It would have been mighty close between fed and Roddick. Nalbandian was extremely close to routing Roddick in 3 straight sets but Nalbandian pulled one of his choke jobs (like nadal at IW 09) and lost the match in the next 3 sets easily.


Of course it would be close, but at this point I say Roddick has too much confidence to be able to lose.
 
Top