Federer's career, what could he have done better

[nolefam_2024]

Nothing. The guy is loved by all but the most fanatical fans of his rivals. He dominated for 4-5 straight years. He managed to continue to have some success even with the emergence of two GOAT candidates 6 years younger than him. The fact that ZERO GOAT candidates have emerged among those 6 and 12 years younger than Nadal and Djokovic has really skewed the view of what Federer has done. The guy has had a dream of a career. I wouldn't change a thing.

Aside from US open 2014?

 

[BauerAlmeida]

He improved his backhand way too late in his career, should do it in 2006/07 right after realizing it's extremely exploitable by Rafa (and others later). During his goating period, he felt no urgency to improve overall, that opened a window of opportunity for Rafa and future GOAT to push him aside.
At least later Fed offered us a glimpse of how his improved backhand completely destroyed Rafa's one-dimensional matchup game plan.

His backhand improved a lot in late 2003/early 2004 when he started dominating. That's one of the big reasons he changed so much in that period.

In 2017 it peaked probably, but that's a different story.

And, I never liked the racquet change. Afterwards, he lost control of one of his most effective weapons: The FH. So many big points have been lost on erratic forehands.

I'm not sure the racket change was as good as it's sometimes hailed. It helped him against Nadal for sure, but he lost his best shot.

 

[ForehandCross]

The single greatest myth I encountered on this forum is that Federer BH was worse before his racquet change.

You people do realise angles, variety, slices matter too, The new BH is Federer with a little more depth. But look up his stats from previous matches, the shanks and Error remain the same.


People don't understand, there is something called "natural game", that uses your entire arsenal and ability . Federer old BH was an essential part of his natural game.

Anyone watching his past matches can see how he uses his slice and pace variations to build points his way. The new BH is an adjustment, and thus doesn't touch the utility the old one had.


And anyone talking about BUUUUT RAFA!!!

Wawrinka BH>>>>>> Federer BH.

And guess what happens to Wawa BH when he faces Nadal.

 

[VashTheStampede]

He won 20 grand slams. I don’t think there’s much he should have changed.

If I was Roger, the only thing I would regret is waiting only until Peter Carter’s death to start training seriously. I always thought it was unfortunate that Carter never got to see what Roger eventually achieved.

 

[James P]

Honestly has very little to hang his head over. He shouldn't have many regrets. Not even sure there was much technical, tactical, or equipment-wise he did wrong.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Probably getting a coach in his prime years

 

[TTMR]

The single greatest myth I encountered on this forum is that Federer BH was worse before his racquet change.

You people do realise angles, variety, slices matter too, The new BH is Federer with a little more depth. But look up his stats from previous matches, the shanks and Error remain the same.


People don't understand, there is something called "natural game", that uses your entire arsenal and ability . Federer old BH was an essential part of his natural game.

Anyone watching his past matches can see how he uses his slice and pace variations to build points his way. The new BH is an adjustment, and thus doesn't touch the utility the old one had.


And anyone talking about BUUUUT RAFA!!!

Wawrinka BH>>>>>> Federer BH.

And guess what happens to Wawa BH when he faces Nadal.

I don't know. What happened in 2014?

Fed coasted on his talent and didn't see Nadal challenging him outside of the French (which Fed didn't really care about in the mid 2000s, see loss to Kuerten in 2004 for evidence) so why mess with what works?

Fed also had a mediocre mental game (better than most of the tour, but far worse than a Sampras or Lendl). Djokovic's mental game is better than Fed's but no way the GOAT. Nadal had the best mental game of the three, but Wawrinka was the only true mental giant of the 2010s. But the reality is today's players are too spoiled, pampered and feminized for the most part to develop the resolve, tenacity and determination of the more hard-scrabble masculine players of old.

 

[BGod]

Work on the backhand and be more aggressive in crucial points such as BP or MP. He would routinely play it safe in crucial points. In fact he appeared to go for it more when facing BP/MP than when he had them in hand.

This is not an actionable change. You cannot train ahead of time for this. Converting match points needs a bit of luck and mental fortitude. Note Federer is mentally strong else he would not have won 20 GSs.

False, he's mentally weak and has always been mentally weak. Federer was always incredibly talented and therefore his talent was able to cover up his mental fragility. This was true in his early days before winning Slams as he routinely choked in matches he should have won. He's both one of the most talented players in history and the greatest choker in history. You can absolutely be both.

 

[BayAreaBooster]

The single greatest myth I encountered on this forum is that Federer BH was worse before his racquet change.

You people do realise angles, variety, slices matter too, The new BH is Federer with a little more depth. But look up his stats from previous matches, the shanks and Error remain the same.


People don't understand, there is something called "natural game", that uses your entire arsenal and ability . Federer old BH was an essential part of his natural game.

Anyone watching his past matches can see how he uses his slice and pace variations to build points his way. The new BH is an adjustment, and thus doesn't touch the utility the old one had.


And anyone talking about BUUUUT RAFA!!!

Wawrinka BH>>>>>> Federer BH.

And guess what happens to Wawa BH when he faces Nadal.

Great point. With the new racquet, Federer effectively lost his low backhand slice that was nigh unplayable for tall players on grass. He did strengthen his top spin BH and BH drive at the expense of a diminished slice.

 

[Winners or Errors]

Aside from US open 2014?

Not even that. I just don't expect perfection. What he has done is enough for me.

 

[T007]

There's little peak/prime Roger Federer could've done better. Sure he suffered upsets, but no player is perfect. He typically performed at his top capabilities, won matches he should've won, and dominated when he should've dominated. Roger won his first slam in 2003, and surpassed Pete's slam record in six years.

Post-prime Federer could've hired a sports psychologist. And, I never liked the racquet change. Afterwards, he lost control of one of his most effective weapons: The FH. So many big points have been lost on erratic forehands.

Agree with you with bigger racket his FH started to shank....the timing was off as struggled to Find the sweet spot

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

How “competent” are you talking about? I think it would have taken something more than how I understand the term competent to stop Nadal at some of the Roland Garroses in recent years, especially the one in 2017. I don’t think anyone other than Borg (or a younger Nadal, of course) would have had much chance at that first one.

Well, I don't mean generally competent at tennis, of course. I mean having players not noticeably worse than their previous-era counterparts, if you will, and for the very best to not be a massive downgrade. Anything non-MUG would have likely made for a more interesting few years, even if it would have taken ATG talents to threaten at some particulars, as you suggest.

 

[Sunny014]

Change to bigger racquet right after 2006 Wimbledon when nadal started going toe to toe with him on grass as well.

He still would not have won clay + he was at his peak, that wouldn't have made sense.
However after the 2008 wimbledon it would have made sense, or maybe after his loss to potro at 09, that was the first time he failed to win both HC slams in an year. Grass he still had under control however HCs arethe surface that have 2 slams and rise of Nadal on it + rise of novak (2010uso) should have told Fed that he must change it for sure in 2010

 

[Spencer Gore]

There is nothing he could have done better. Alongside Emerson he is the player in tennis history who really grabbed his opportunity to shine when it was presented to him.

 

[TTMR]

He still would not have won clay + he was at his peak, that wouldn't have made sense.
However after the 2008 wimbledon it would have made sense, or maybe after his loss to potro at 09, that was the first time he failed to win both HC slams in an year. Grass he still had under control however HCs arethe surface that have 2 slams and rise of Nadal on it + rise of novak (2010uso) should have told Fed that he must change it for sure in 2010

He didn't have grass under control in 09. He lost in 08 and lost badly in 10 to Berdych. 09 he struggled to get through a tournament full of his 04-07 pigeons and barely beat perennial runner-up Roddick. Fed was either coming out of his physical prime or was mentally decimated by the AO loss to Nadal that he no longer could be counted on to cakewalk through the field.

 

[nolefam_2024]

There is nothing he could have done better. Alongside Emerson he is the player in tennis history who really grabbed his opportunity to shine when it was presented to him.

Lol.

Federer is second best player in open era. Emerson might be good player, no idea. But Federer bashing has gone too far. He whooped Rafa in Melbourne at what age? 34/35?

He is oldest number 1 in the history. He has 12 finals at Wimbledon, the most prestigious slam and 8 titles, both records. He has 100+ more weeks at number 1 than Rafa. He has 5+ slams at 3 out of 4 venues. Highest grass match wins in open era also. And you are comparing him to Emerson. Lol.

 

[Sunny014]

He didn't have grass under control in 09. He lost in 08 and lost badly in 10 to Berdych. 09 he struggled to get through a tournament full of his 04-07 pigeons and barely beat perennial runner-up Roddick. Fed was either coming out of his physical prime or was mentally decimated by the AO loss to Nadal that he no longer could be counted on to cakewalk through the field.

Physically he did dip in 08 bigtime but I guess by 09 he was back to a higher level physically than 08 but lower level than 07.
So in a way 08W loss, 09AO loss, 09 USO loss, then 2010USO loss (Novak started hitting brutally out of nowhere, this was supreme hitting that should have told Fed that if I am to match this guy I need more power). ..... SO you can say somewhere between 08W and 10USO Fed should have changed the racquet.

 

[Spencer Gore]

Lol.

Federer is second best player in open era. Emerson might be good player, no idea. But Federer bashing has gone too far. He whooped Rafa in Melbourne at what age? 34/35?

He is oldest number 1 in the history. He has 12 finals at Wimbledon, the most prestigious slam and 8 titles, both records. He has 100+ more weeks at number 1 than Rafa. He has 5+ slams at 3 out of 4 venues. Highest grass match wins in open era also. And you are comparing him to Emerson. Lol.

If you don't know anything about Emerson why are you commenting?

Emerson was the slam record holder, same as Roger. Although Emerson stood alone for much longer.

 

[Sunny014]

It is easy for us to say things on changes that he should have done, however when you are already being hailed as the GOAT in the mid 00s by Mcenroe and Mary Carillo then you happen to develop a certain ego or you tend to become complacent. So coming to reality with the fact that your backhand was being targeted by some teenage punk from mallorca and you need to go to Henin or some other coach to develop a new uber backhand was a bit difficult for Federer.

 

[BayAreaBooster]

Physically he did dip in 08 bigtime but I guess by 09 he was back to a higher level physically than 08 but lower level than 07.
So in a way 08W loss, 09AO loss, 09 USO loss, then 2010USO loss (Novak started hitting brutally out of nowhere, this was supreme hitting that should have told Fed that if I am to match this guy I need more power). ..... SO you can say somewhere between 08W and 10USO Fed should have changed the racquet.

Don't think so. The racquet change has seriously affected his Wimbledon performance. For example, with a bigger frame, I doubt he would have beaten Djokovic enroute to winning in W2012. With his 90s stick, his backhand slice and Forehands were near unplayable at Wimbledon. Federer did the smart thing in exhausting all options with his 90 before switching to the 97.

 

[Sunny014]

If you don't know anything about Emerson why are you commenting?

Emerson was the slam record holder, same as Roger. Although Emerson stood alone for much longer.

Everyone in this forum knows that you started watching tennis in 2008, you are a Nadal fanatic and a rabid Federer hater, my guess is you dislike Djokovic as well but your dislike for Fed as the main target prevents you from bashing novak and of course Novak's records are so much complete+he spanked Rafa too many times, so your tongue is tied.....

So stop hiding behind names like Emerson/Borg/Laver that you have merely read about and yet you use them as if they are super heavyweights, lol in reality these oldies might struggle to even beat Murray/Roddick/Hewitt types, let alone these big 3...

 

[BayAreaBooster]

It is easy for us to say things on changes that he should have done, however when you are already being hailed as the GOAT in the mid 00s by Mcenroe and Mary Carillo then you happen to develop a certain ego or you tend to become complacent. So coming to reality with the fact that your backhand was being targeted by some teenage punk from mallorca and you need to go to Henin or some other coach to develop a new uber backhand was a bit difficult for Federer.

Great point. I always felt it got to his head a bit especially how he attributed his success to his talent in the 2010 AO final post-presser.

 

[NoleIsBoat]

Everyone in this forum knows that you started watching tennis in 2008, you are a Nadal fanatic and a rabid Federer hater, my guess is you dislike Djokovic as well but your dislike for Fed as the main target prevents you from bashing novak and of course Novak's records are so much complete+he spanked Rafa too many times, so your tongue is tied.....

So stop hiding behind names like Emerson/Borg/Laver that you have merely read about and yet you use them as if they are super heavyweights, lol in reality these oldies might struggle to even beat Murray/Roddick/Hewitt types, let alone these big 3...

How do they know this? @Spencer Gore himself tells us he started watching tennis in the 70s.

 

[Sunny014]

Don't think so. The racquet change has seriously affected his Wimbledon performance. For example, with a bigger frame, I doubt he would have beaten Djokovic enroute to winning in W2012. With his 90s stick, his backhand slice and Forehands were near unplayable at Wimbledon. Federer did the smart thing in exhausting all options with his 90 before switching to the 97.

But his options did get exhausted by the year 2009
At the end of 09 he lost both HC slams in same year, Nadal problem was more servere than ever, in 2010 the year was horrible and Djokovic at the USO was more problems for him (remember Fed had won vs Novak for 3 straight years and this time Novak is hitting hard, this was subtle trailer of what was going to come at the AO next year) so Federer should have appeared at the AO in 2011 itself with a new racquet, the year ending of 2010 should have been when Fed 100% should have changed to 97.

He would have won wimbledon 2012 anyway, No chance of Novak stopping him, at that point Novak was an inferior player on Grass to both him and murray. So Fed's 2014 wimbledon level he could have reached in 2011 itself, maybe he could have won that wimbledon too...and then you never know, 2013 wimbledon loss to some clown in earlier rounds also might not have happened, he would have had beaten Murray in the final ..... 2014 onwards Novak was stronger on grass so there was a new challenger and Fed turned 33 then, it was too late

Point is : Age 29-35 Federer won nothing except 1 wimbledon, this was became of his late change

 

[Sunny014]

How do they know this? @Spencer Gore himself tells us he started watching tennis in the 70s.

He is someone in his 20s and started watching in 2008, confirmed by @zagor @Third Serve and some other posters....

 

[kevaninho]

He improved his backhand way too late in his career, should do it in 2006/07 right after realizing it's extremely exploitable by Rafa (and others later). During his goating period, he felt no urgency to improve overall, that opened a window of opportunity for Rafa and future GOAT to push him aside.
At least later Fed offered us a glimpse of how his improved backhand completely destroyed Rafa's one-dimensional matchup game plan.

He did try to improve his backhand early.

I have to laugh at Fed fans who want to believe he only started trying to make his BH better in like 2017 LOL

 

[NoleIsBoat]

He is someone in his 20s and started watching in 2008, confirmed by @zagor @Third Serve and some other posters....

Right, and where’s their proof for this? They have hacked his account and found out who he really is?

 

[Sunny014]

With new racquet at the end of 2010.

01. Federer wins 2011 Wimbledon (the 2014 form of his would come in 2011 itself)
02. Federer wins 2012 Wimbledon as usual
03. Maybe Federer progresses to second week of 2013 and then we never know his chance, could be he beats Murray and wins the final vs Novak.
04. Even if Fed fails to win wimb 2013 yet 2014 he would have had a better chance as he would be accustomed to the new racquet for 3-4 years now, his chances in 2015 at the W also go up.

05. 2011 USO choking might also not have happened, maybe match would not have gone to 5 sets and he would have won vs Novak, then it would be a 50-50 call vs Nadal in the final
06. He would have won 2012 US open as well ..... berdych loss wont have happend and he definitely would have beaten Murray as well after that Wimbledon win.
07. 2015 US open he would have been using the racquet for like 4-5 years, his chances would have been much better.


See so many openings arrived for Federer with new racquet, his 2014-2015 resurgence could have come from 2011 itself, he delayed it and lost 29-35 window and this is what cost him the slams race

I see him winning 4-5 extra slams had he made this change earlier.

 

[Kenten123]

He improved his backhand way too late in his career, should do it in 2006/07 right after realizing it's extremely exploitable by Rafa (and others later). During his goating period, he felt no urgency to improve overall, that opened a window of opportunity for Rafa and future GOAT to push him aside.
At least later Fed offered us a glimpse of how his improved backhand completely destroyed Rafa's one-dimensional matchup game plan.

Could you explain how Federer's backhand improved? Would like to know more

 

[nolefam_2024]

If you don't know anything about Emerson why are you commenting?

Emerson was the slam record holder, same as Roger. Although Emerson stood alone for much longer.

Everyone knows this wikipedia knowledge. What I meant is I haven't watched him play. You are that borg guy right? Lol. Federer broke your borg's record of 6 straight finals. He has 3 more than your precious borg. Chew on that.

 

[itrium84]

Could you explain how Federer's backhand improved? Would like to know more

I'm a layman in sport (tennis) biomechanics, but I believe more than few guys here can explain it well. Help anyone?

 

[Red Rick]

Nothing. The guy is loved by all but the most fanatical fans of his rivals. He dominated for 4-5 straight years. He managed to continue to have some success even with the emergence of two GOAT candidates 6 years younger than him. The fact that ZERO GOAT candidates have emerged among those 6 and 12 years younger than Nadal and Djokovic has really skewed the view of what Federer has done. The guy has had a dream of a career. I wouldn't change a thing.

Also 0 GOAT candidates in the 10 years before Federer.



Okay give or take a 5 days.

 

[Sunny014]

Also 0 GOAT candidates in the 10 years before Federer.



Okay give or take a 5 days.

Was Sampras not a GOAT candidate? last I checked he is 10 years before Federer.

Plus if GOAT candidates emerged 5 years after Sampras then Sampras would not have been a GOAT candidate, he would have been an 8-9 slams winner at best.... and Andre would be another mooray type career ....

 

[Milanez82]

Also 0 GOAT candidates in the 10 years before Federer.



Okay give or take a 5 days.

ATGs by year of birth

1934 Rosewall
1936 Emerson
1938 Laver
1952 Connors
1956 Borg
1959 Mcnroe
1960 Lendl
1964 Wilander
1966 Edberg
1967 Becker
1970 Agassi
1971 Sampras
1981 Federer
1986 Nadal
1987 Djokovic

Its interesting that Laver did his cygs at a very old age of 31, and that until Connors there was a 14 year old gap for legit atg player to show up.
I would also say that Wilander, Edberg, Becker barely belong to this group of players.

 

[Sunny014]

ATGs by year of birth

1934 Rosewall
1936 Emerson
1938 Laver
1952 Connors
1956 Borg
1959 Mcnroe
1960 Lendl
1964 Wilander
1966 Edberg
1967 Becker
1970 Agassi
1971 Sampras
1981 Federer
1986 Nadal
1987 Djokovic

Its interesting that Laver did his cygs at a very old age of 31, and that until Connors there was a 14 year old gap for legit atg player to show up.
I would also say that Wilander, Edberg, Becker barely belong to this group of players.

With focus, dedication and work ethic there could have been Marat Safin in the 1980 in this list as well..... but he drifted away

 

[Milanez82]

With focus, dedication and work ethic there could have been Marat Safin in the 1980 in this list as well..... but he drifted away

Living life is more fun compared to sleeping on court

 

[Sunny014]

Living life is more fun compared to sleeping on court

It should have been Safin cleaning up all slams from 2000-2003-04 and then Federer joining in with wimbledon 03 and subduing Safin in 04-05 and then continuing till 2011 when Novak takes over, I believe a stronger Safin would have created a stronger Federer as well, Fed might have worked more on his backhand to counter Marat's power, infact a stronger david nalbandian would also have created a stronger Federerer that delayed the rise of Nadal outside of clay..... lot of IFs and BUTs but things would have been better with a stronger Safin,..... Fed's 09 and 10 years could also have been stronger for him.....

 

[Kralingen]

ATGs by year of birth

1934 Rosewall
1936 Emerson
1938 Laver
1952 Connors
1956 Borg
1959 Mcnroe
1960 Lendl
1964 Wilander
1966 Edberg
1967 Becker
1970 Agassi
1971 Sampras
1981 Federer
1986 Nadal
1987 Djokovic

Its interesting that Laver did his cygs at a very old age of 31, and that until Connors there was a 14 year old gap for legit atg player to show up.
I would also say that Wilander, Edberg, Becker barely belong to this group of players.

Ivan Lendl deserves so much more credit in hindsight.

 

[Sunny014]

Ivan Lendl deserves so much more credit in hindsight.

McEnroe too.
He was the guy who sent Borg into retirement, then the change in racquet technology brought down McEnroe....

 

[Kralingen]

McEnroe too.
He was the guy who sent Borg into retirement, then the change in racquet technology brought down McEnroe....

Yeah, but Lendl I genuinely think was not only hurt by competition, he was one of the only players who would actually excel more in a modern environment. He dominated the AO once they put in Rebound Ace. and many players have said that he would be unstoppable on slow 2010s Wimbledon too.

But like: look at the competition he faced at the US Open (he 'only' has 3 titles there)
'82 - beat 23 yr old McEnroe, loses to 30 yr old Connors
'83 - beats Wilander, loses to 31 yr old Connors
'84 - loses to arguably GOAT season McEnroe
'85 - beats Connors and McEnroe back to back to win
'86 - beats Edberg and Mecir to win
'87 - beats McEnroe, Connors, then Wilander in QF/SF/F
'88 - beats Agassi, loses to Wilander
'89 - beats Agassi, loses to Becker
'90 - loses to Pete Sampras in first Slam win
'91 - loses to Edberg after a 5 setter with Stich
'92 - loses to Edberg

Seriously, wtf is that record. He plays at least one ATG in 10 straight US Opens, and beat at least one in 6 of those years.

 

[Sunny014]

Yeah, but Lendl I genuinely think was not only hurt by competition, he was one of the only players who would actually excel more in a modern environment. He dominated the AO once they put in Rebound Ace. and many players have said that he would be unstoppable on slow 2010s Wimbledon too.

But like: look at the competition he faced at the US Open (he 'only' has 3 titles there)
'82 - beat 23 yr old McEnroe, loses to 30 yr old Connors
'83 - beats Wilander, loses to 31 yr old Connors
'84 - loses to arguably GOAT season McEnroe
'85 - beats Connors and McEnroe back to back to win
'86 - beats Edberg and Mecir to win
'87 - beats McEnroe, Connors, then Wilander in QF/SF/F
'88 - beats Agassi, loses to Wilander
'89 - beats Agassi, loses to Becker
'90 - loses to Pete Sampras in first Slam win
'91 - loses to Edberg after a 5 setter with Stich
'92 - loses to Edberg

Seriously, wtf is that record. He plays at least one ATG in 10 straight US Opens, and beat at least one in 6 of those years.

Yeah Lendl's game would complement well with the modern era.

I checked list and found 1 entry for lendl and 2 for mcenroe where they beat 3 ATGs to win slams

- John McEnroe defeated Ivan Lendl, Jimmy Connors and Bjorn Borg to win USO 1980
- John McEnroe defeated Stefan Edberg, Jimmy Connors and Ivan Lendl to win USO 1984
- Mats Wilander defeated Boris Becker, John McEnroe and Ivan Lendl to win FO 1985
- Ivan Lendl defeated John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors and Mats Wilander to win USO 1987
- Michael Chang defeated Peter Sampras, Ivan Lendl and Stefan Edberg to win RG 1989
- Peter Sampras defeated Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe and Andre Agassi to win USO 1990

 

[BGod]

Yeah Lendl's game would complement well with the modern era.

I checked list and found 1 entry for lendl and 2 for mcenroe where they beat 3 ATGs to win slams

- John McEnroe defeated Ivan Lendl, Jimmy Connors and Bjorn Borg to win USO 1980
- John McEnroe defeated Stefan Edberg, Jimmy Connors and Ivan Lendl to win USO 1984
- Mats Wilander defeated Boris Becker, John McEnroe and Ivan Lendl to win FO 1985
- Ivan Lendl defeated John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors and Mats Wilander to win USO 1987
- Michael Chang defeated Peter Sampras, Ivan Lendl and Stefan Edberg to win RG 1989
- Peter Sampras defeated Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe and Andre Agassi to win USO 1990

1992 USO Stefan Edberg defeats Krajicek, Lendl, Chang all in 5 sets then Sampras in the Final.

 

[Kralingen]

Yeah Lendl's game would complement well with the modern era.

I checked list and found 1 entry for lendl and 2 for mcenroe where they beat 3 ATGs to win slams

- John McEnroe defeated Ivan Lendl, Jimmy Connors and Bjorn Borg to win USO 1980
- John McEnroe defeated Stefan Edberg, Jimmy Connors and Ivan Lendl to win USO 1984
- Mats Wilander defeated Boris Becker, John McEnroe and Ivan Lendl to win FO 1985
- Ivan Lendl defeated John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors and Mats Wilander to win USO 1987
- Michael Chang defeated Peter Sampras, Ivan Lendl and Stefan Edberg to win RG 1989
- Peter Sampras defeated Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe and Andre Agassi to win USO 1990

Reading stuff like this I can start to understand how all the 'weak era' stuff got started. Although the late 90s were arguably weaker than mid-2000s anyways.

We just didn't know how much worse it could get....

 

[Sunny014]

1992 USO Stefan Edberg defeats Krajicek, Lendl, Chang all in 5 sets then Sampras in the Final.

Thats an impressive list too.... however Krajicek was a 4th round journeyman in 92-93, he would attain his peak some years later

 

[helterskelter]

Well, I don't mean generally competent at tennis, of course. I mean having players not noticeably worse than their previous-era counterparts, if you will, and for the very best to not be a massive downgrade. Anything non-MUG would have likely made for a more interesting few years, even if it would have taken ATG talents to threaten at some particulars, as you suggest.

I get your point overall, although I do think it would have taken something pretty special to stop Nadal at Roland Garros 2017, and not something that comes along every generation.

Underlying that thought, I suppose what I was hinting at is that the discussion about the current generations of players born from 1989 onwards often seems to presuppose without directly stating it that every previous era has had top players. But that's not true. There was a clear relative dearth among players born in the late 1970s compared to either the early 1970s or the early 1980s. Around the time of the 2000 AO, there were definite discussions of how Sampras and Agassi were still the clear top two despite both approaching 30. (This was in part because they played a de facto final in the semis of that tournament, similar to Nadal and Djokovic at the 2013 RG or 2018 WI).

One could definitely argue that nobody "competent" was born in the late 1970s or perhaps even between 1972 and 1980, inclusive. Nobody born in those nine years got to 4+ slams in his career. Only Kuerten got to three, and they were all at Roland Garros and he never made the semis of any other major. This certainly means using a higher bar than for anyone born after the start of 1989 to date, but it's still a long period without anyone that good.

Not saying you assumed that all previous eras were equally as good as each other, but do you see why I think it's sometimes suggested by discussions on this topic here?

 

[helterskelter]

Thats an impressive list too.... however Krajicek was a 4th round journeyman in 92-93, he would attain his peak some years later

Krajicek made the semis of the AO in 1992. I think some thought he would give Courier a decent test in the semis, but he had to pull out injured. He also made the semis of RG in 1993. He also finished as #10 in 1992, and he "only" ended up with four top ten finishes, and only in 1996 was he higher than #10 at year's end.

So, it's not true that he was only a R4 journeyman in those years. He was raw and inconsistent but he did some good work.

 

[Sunny014]

Reading stuff like this I can start to understand how all the 'weak era' stuff got started. Although the late 90s were arguably weaker than mid-2000s anyways.

We just didn't know how much worse it could get....

Easy way to judge weak eras is to check if oldies + mugs are vulturing or not, thats when we we know era is slightly weak.

00-03 .... Agassi vultured many slams, Thomas Mug Johansson vultured, era was weak as it was transitional
04-15 .... youngsters are at their peak and no oldie vultured, so era pretty strong ...
16 onwards ..... murray became 1, fedal vultured in 17-18 and then biggest vulture arrived to prey on weakling .... no prize for guessing who he is...era is total bogus from the late 2016 onwards.

 

[helterskelter]

Easy way to judge weak eras is to check if oldies + mugs are vulturing or not, thats when we we know era is slightly weak.

00-03 .... Agassi vultured many slams, Thomas Mug Johansson vultured, era was weak as it was transitional
04-15 .... youngsters are at their peak and no oldie vultured, so era pretty strong ...
16 onwards ..... murray became 1, fedal vultured in 17-18 and then biggest vulture arrived to prey on weakling .... no prize for guessing who he is...era is total bogus from the late 2016 onwards.

What about if youngsters are winning? Doesn't that make it weak, too? Youngsters should be at an age disadvantage compared to middle-aged players just as oldies should be, so if youngsters are winning, that should also suggest that the era is slightly weak. By youngsters, I don't mean players in their early 20s, but players in their teens, and especially mid-teens. If it's a sign of a weak era that several men in their 30s won slams in the last five years or so, it should also be a sign of a weak era that three 17-year-old boys won slams in the 1980s. If a peak ATG wouldn't lose to a 32-year-old, then a peak ATG also wouldn't lose to a 17-year-old.

To my mind, being 17 should be much more of an age disadvantage than being 32 in men's tennis, but that's another matter.

 

[NoleIsBoat]

Easy way to judge weak eras is to check if oldies + mugs are vulturing or not, thats when we we know era is slightly weak.

00-03 .... Agassi vultured many slams, Thomas Mug Johansson vultured, era was weak as it was transitional
04-15 .... youngsters are at their peak and no oldie vultured, so era pretty strong ...
16 onwards ..... murray became 1, fedal vultured in 17-18 and then biggest vulture arrived to prey on weakling .... no prize for guessing who he is...era is total bogus from the late 2016 onwards.

04-07 was pretty weak too. 11 slams for Fed with virtually 0 competition outside of a young Nadal on grass and a young Djokovic in 2007.

 

[Sunny014]

What about if youngsters are winning? Doesn't that make it weak, too? Youngsters should be at an age disadvantage compared to middle-aged players just as oldies should be, so if youngsters are winning, that should also suggest that the era is slightly weak. By youngsters, I don't mean players in their early 20s, but players in their teens, and especially mid-teens. If it's a sign of a weak era that several men in their 30s won slams in the last five years or so, it should also be a sign of a weak era that three 17-year-old boys won slams in the 1980s. If a peak ATG wouldn't lose to a 32-year-old, then a peak ATG also wouldn't lose to a 17-year-old.

To my mind, being 17 should be much more of an age disadvantage than being 32 in men's tennis, but that's another matter.

17 year old Becker or Chang types guys, maybe you are right, that age guys should not win, an 18 yr old alcarez is also physically weaker than a 34 yr old novak but someone like shapovalov who is 21 isn't weak, he is stronger, faster and better in every way, if his game isn't better then that raise question marks .... not his physical built...