Has 2019 really been a strong year?

Has 2019 really been a strong year?


  • Total voters
    54

BVSlam

Professional
Some people think it’s been the best since 2013?
That says more about the years in between.

Let's say it's better than 2017 and a little better than 2018, largely thanks to the post-Wimbledon season. I voted for decent because I do feel like there are finally some great and consistent players emerging that could actually keep it up next season, moreso than the last two years. But now they have to prove it in slams and best-of-5 matches and get to a point where it's not an ultra-stunning upset anymore when they beat a Big 3 member.

Then again, 2017 had the amazing Jack Sock.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NFN

ibbi

Hall of Fame
At 1000 level it probably was, yes. At slam level Wimbledon was better than its been in years, but otherwise it was pretty lame. The younger guys being able to narrow the gap with the big 3 over best of 3 ensured that we had way more strong tournaments in that form of the game than I can recall seeing in a good long while.
 

ReeceSachs

Hall of Fame
For the standards of the sport relative wise 2019 has been have been down. Not really weak I don’t believe in really weak eras in this professional era.
No higher than decent at the very most for any of the last 4 seasons for the high standard of the sport IMO.
 
Last edited:
The level has never been higher. The field has evolved
Coming close to this, but not quite, and not consistently. This is a decent to good year in my opinion.

You still have big3 playing at high levels and the young guys playing at high levels from time to time and improving.

Next year would be a great year if big3 can stay at the same level and the young guys keep improving. Only down side is the 28-32 year old guys don't factor in too much. Keeps it from being great right now too.
 

NFN

New User
I went with decent. A strong second tier of players developed which led to good matches in BO3 but we still had the Big 3 dominating the slams despite their clear decline.
That’s fair. But it’s bloody surprising as a Djokovic fan why people call 2014-2015 weak but rate this year higher when it’s been worse IMO.
 
I don't really see how was this year stronger than 2017-2018. The slams were still dominated by the same players. The only difference was Medvedev's run after Wimbledon, but as we saw in WTF he still has lots of work to do.
 

ReeceSachs

Hall of Fame
At 1000 level it probably was, yes. At slam level Wimbledon was better than its been in years, but otherwise it was pretty lame. The younger guys being able to narrow the gap with the big 3 over best of 3 ensured that we had way more strong tournaments in that form of the game than I can recall seeing in a good long while.
Wimbeldon 2018 SF was something else though. Better than the final this year IMO. Nadal-Muller was better quality wise as well IMO in 2017.
 
Last edited:

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
Pretty weak at slams. Medvedev almost changed that.

decent year at 1000 level and below. Hopefully Thiem, Tisispas, Medvedev etc can break through properly in 2020.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
I don't really see how was this year stronger than 2017-2018. The slams were still dominated by the same players. The only difference was Medvedev's run after Wimbledon, but as we saw in WTF he still has lots of work to do.
Nah, he just needs to get some rest... Djokovic lost all his RR matches in 2011.

And no, I am not saying Medvedev owned 2019 like Djokovic owned 2011. Nooooo...
 

ReeceSachs

Hall of Fame
Any year when the best player is under par is an under par year. Much like 2009. Exciting as the 2009 slam finales may have been...
No way was 2009 under par....
Nadal wasn’t super effective in the 2nd half of the year which brings it down a bit but so many other players were.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
No way was 2009 under par....
Nadal wasn’t super effective in the 2nd half of the year which brings it down a bit but so many other players were.
He came in FO09 somewhat hurt from Rome, then cancelled Wimby, then needed time to recuperate for USO but couldn't. So yeah, best player was AWOL essentially. Crap year.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
2019 has uncanny resemblances with 2017. After 2017 we were starting getting somewhere until the things started regressing again in 2018. If that trend continues the tour might find itself in a pickle, so the "current" gen should be very very careful how they approach their next season. Another repeat and they will find themselves in Thiem's territory.

:cool:
 

clout

Hall of Fame
It’s not on the levels of the 80s or late 2000s/early 2010s but it was definitely an upgrade over the last 2-3 years imo.
 

Fabresque

Professional
I thought it was a pretty average year. The guys that won slams were in their 30s, and only two finalists were under that age. A 38 year old reached a slam final.

At the very least, however, we do finally see nextgen players doing something. It’s gonna be interesting to see what they’ll actually end up doing in 2020, hopefully one will win a slam.
 

ReeceSachs

Hall of Fame
He came in FO09 somewhat hurt from Rome, then cancelled Wimby, then needed time to recuperate for USO but couldn't. So yeah, best player was AWOL essentially. Crap year.
Calling 2009 a crap year for Nadal is not a common opinion. He still achieved a lot in the first half of the year which makes it a good year for Nadal. Not his best year for sure though.
 

aman92

Hall of Fame
Since Tennis keeps on evolving every year, the Big 3 have never been as good as they currently are
 

BeatlesFan

Talk Tennis Guru
How can it be a strong year when two ancient guys win all the majors? 2017 wasn't strong either when 35 year old extremely ancient Fed won 2 slams. A strong year would be the slams being divided among 4 of the younger guys:

AO: Tsitsias
FO: Thiem
W: Anyone new, take your pick
USO: Medvedev

Tennis has been utterly stagnant for over 10 years now. The only two guys who could win a slam in the Big Three era are Murray and Stan.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
If the best player is below par, does that make them not the best player that year?
If someone were to stab Monika Seles, does Sanchez or Graf become automatically the best?

Oops, wait, that already happened...

Injuries are a factor. And assassination attempts even.
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
The level has never been higher. The field has evolved
I wouldn't go that far, though I do agree the level has been very high. I voted Great. There was a Novak- Nadal final at the AO. Nadal-Thiem at the FO, in which Thiem played very well for two sets. The Novak-Roger Wimbledon final was unique, to say the least. The USO final with Rafa-Medvedev was very high quality and exciting. The same is true of the WTF final with Stefanos and Thiem.
 

Third Serve

Hall of Fame
If someone were to stab Monika Seles, does Sanchez or Graf become automatically the best?

Oops, wait, that already happened...

Injuries are a factor. And assassination attempts even.
I thought your use of below-par indicated just a lull in form, excluding injury. Besides, it was clear Nadal had declined in 2009 regardless of injury. His second half of the season can attest to that.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
I thought your use of below-par indicated just a lull in form, excluding injury. Besides, it was clear Nadal had declined in 2009 regardless of injury. His second half of the season can attest to that.
Nadal primarily had an injury problem in 2009. This is as historical a fact as that WW2 started in 1939.
 

Third Serve

Hall of Fame
Nadal primarily had an injury problem in 2009. This is as historical a fact as that WW2 started in 1939.
The injury lasted about three months, from the French Open to after Wimbledon. I don't think it impacted his season otherwise. He was just in terrible form the second half of the year.
 

K-H

Hall of Fame
The WTF was strong because the younger players actually beat the big 3 and the big 3 couldn't do anything about it.
At slam level though, they did nothing really.
Best was USO with Medvedev but even then a big 3 member still won.
So overall decent, but nothing more than that because they big 3 weren't troubled enough at slam level where it actually matters.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
The injury lasted about three months, from the French Open to after Wimbledon. I don't think it impacted his season otherwise. He was just in terrible form the second half of the year.
It impacted the biggest part of his season.

Or is the indoors season his best segment?

It affected two slams...
 

Third Serve

Hall of Fame
It impacted the biggest part of his season.

Or is the indoors season his best segment?

It affected two slams...
And those two slams were, in all likelihood, the only two tournaments actually impacted by his injury. Just like Federer's mono only impacted his AO run (and Indian Wells and Miami, but nothing outside that).
 
Irrelevant really. These were the seasons in which they turned those ages.
I was just being pedantic because I don't like the idea of "rounding up" ages. On a more serious note, I really don't think that 31 or 32 is that old, but that's another discussion. (We don't say that 1982 or 1985 or 1989 are by definition weak years because a 17-year-old won a major in each of those three years, but it is obvious that 17 is a far greater age disadvantage than is 32).
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I was just being pedantic because I don't like the idea of "rounding up" ages. On a more serious note, I really don't think that 31 or 32 is that old, but that's another discussion. (We don't say that 1982 or 1985 or 1989 are by definition weak years because a 17-year-old won a major in each of those three years, but it is obvious that 17 is a far greater age disadvantage than is 32).
Well, it is relative really.

A 31-32 year old against a 25-26 year old ATG? Definitely old.
 

Forehanderer

New User
Lets look at the ages for the finalists of the grandslams
AO - 31 vs 32 - 31 smashed 32 convincingly
RG - 33 vs 26 - 33 who lost convincingly in the previous slam won quite easily against 26
W - 32 vs 37 - 37 dominated for most of the match and handed 32 the trophy after 40-15
US - 33 vs 23 - 33 took the first 2 sets and finished after 5
Conventional wisdom says you have to be a world beater in your early 20s. Only one guy made it to the finals once who is in his early 20s. You can either go with Lendl and his PR about the game or admit that the 20-25 players are useless as was the 25-30 group. 1000 results are because the big3 were absent of not playing to their full potential as they did in the slams
 
Top