How many careers did Fed ruin?
- Thread starter Agassifan
- Start date
KAndersonFan
Semi-Pro
Nah, I'd only say Roddick as being "ruined." Hewitt had a great career before Fed became a major player. Two Slam titles and two year end #1s is a great achievement for any player.. Murray's GS career is just starting.
Rafa would have wrecked his knees regardless.
Rafa would have wrecked his knees regardless.
I would include Nadal as "bigtime ruin" too. He could have been yearend #1 from 2005 to 2009(4 years!!), not to mention with all those weeks at #1 without having to settle #2 for 160 consecutive weeks. He could have 2 more SW19, and atleast a Master Cup, which is still missing in his resume.
charliefedererer
Legend
How many careers did Fed ruin?
Answer: None.
Next question: How many careers did Sampras ruin?
Answer: None.
Agassi is proof of that. It is within the players to rise up and fight or turn tail and run. I don't see much running on the Pro Tour.
Answer: None.
Next question: How many careers did Sampras ruin?
Answer: None.
Agassi is proof of that. It is within the players to rise up and fight or turn tail and run. I don't see much running on the Pro Tour.
He may have ruined many young players' careers at least partially when he was winning basically everything. The mentally weakest of them (all rookies are relatively weak if compared to the older players) could have just thought "why bother even trying when you won't end up winning anything anyway". I think this may have something to do with the fact that astounding junior players like Donald Young and Thiemo de Bakker for example have achieved nothing yet. Also, the "best of the younger generation" (Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro..) have been older than usually. No one except Nadal has been able to gain success at grand slams at under 20 years of age. Not that I'm saying this is for sure, this is just my theory and some more speculation to this forum.
Last edited:
prince
Semi-Pro
Safin ruined Safin
women , parties, liquor , safin beat safin
chaddles
Semi-Pro
How many more careers will Federer ruin?? If he continues for another 4-5 years, there are going to be a lot of players who will miss out on a lot of prize money and trophy's.
The modern player, with there injury toll's, won't make it to 29-30 without losing at least part of their agility and speed. Federer has not lost anything, and with his low impact playing style and tour scheduling, he will be causing heartbreaks for years to come (and enjoyment for his many fans).
The modern player, with there injury toll's, won't make it to 29-30 without losing at least part of their agility and speed. Federer has not lost anything, and with his low impact playing style and tour scheduling, he will be causing heartbreaks for years to come (and enjoyment for his many fans).
djokovicgonzalez2010
G.O.A.T.
Bigtime ruin : Roddick, Davydenko
Partial ruin: Hewitt, Soderling
Indirect ruin: Rafa
Partial ruin: Hewitt, Soderling
Indirect ruin: Rafa
boredone3456
G.O.A.T.
Bigtime: Roddick definitely, I mean, at least 2 of those Wimbledons and that US Open would have been Andy's, so Andy goes from 1 to 4 slams, probably a few more singles titles, more weeks at number 1, the whole hat. He is really the only big one, as others have had other factors besides Fed really hurt them, where many times when Andy has been playing well its been Fed who has stopped him from getting the big prize.
Partial: Hewitt. Fed really stopped Hewitt cold, Hewitt in his prime was great but Fed was just better. Without Fed Hewitt could have done more as well for a another year or 2, but really the last few years Fed was not the major thing hurting Hewitt.
That is really it. Rafa, Novak, Murray, Davydenko, Safin, et al. all had/have other things that have been much bigger contributing factors to their lack of more achievement than Federer. Rafa has his own knees and his insane scheduling (neither of which have to do with Fed directly). Murray can beat fed at small stages but its his own head that stops him at big stages. Novak has his own dedication and mental lapses and confidence issues for which I doubt Fed is the sole cause, Davydenko is inconsistent anyway, and Safin is one of the most streaky ever in some cases and let off court pursuits distract him. None of that is directly because of Fed, although in some cases his presence can be argued as contributing.
Partial: Hewitt. Fed really stopped Hewitt cold, Hewitt in his prime was great but Fed was just better. Without Fed Hewitt could have done more as well for a another year or 2, but really the last few years Fed was not the major thing hurting Hewitt.
That is really it. Rafa, Novak, Murray, Davydenko, Safin, et al. all had/have other things that have been much bigger contributing factors to their lack of more achievement than Federer. Rafa has his own knees and his insane scheduling (neither of which have to do with Fed directly). Murray can beat fed at small stages but its his own head that stops him at big stages. Novak has his own dedication and mental lapses and confidence issues for which I doubt Fed is the sole cause, Davydenko is inconsistent anyway, and Safin is one of the most streaky ever in some cases and let off court pursuits distract him. None of that is directly because of Fed, although in some cases his presence can be argued as contributing.
wangs78
Legend
On Roddick, who really knows. Had Federer not existed maybe he would be 2-3 in slam finals instead of 1-4. Oh, also since I'm sure Federer has defeated ARod in SFs and maybe QFs at the slams it's possible that Roddick would have made it to more slam finals, so maybe he could be 6-2 or 2-6. Who knows. So I don't think you can really say Roger ruined his career.
OddJack
G.O.A.T.
I agree with Hewitt, Rod but Soderling?
Nobody cared about him pre FO 09. He just recently has been deep into majors.
Nah, Sod was not serious enough even without Rodege.
About Davy I am not sure, he always had difficulty in best of 5.
Safin did not try his best, not sure about him either, sure could have better career if he had his head cleaned.
Nobody cared about him pre FO 09. He just recently has been deep into majors.
Nah, Sod was not serious enough even without Rodege.
About Davy I am not sure, he always had difficulty in best of 5.
Safin did not try his best, not sure about him either, sure could have better career if he had his head cleaned.
djokovicgonzalez2010
G.O.A.T.
Not English professor, I presume?
babbette
Legend
Rhino
Legend
I don't think Safin was ever ruined. The guy got to #1 in the world, winning a couple of slams (and a bunch of other tournaments). He's universally liked by fans and women all over the world, had a great time and a balanced life outside of tennis.
99.9999% of pro tennis players would kill for Safins 'ruined' career.
He even stole a slam from Federer in 2005 when Rodge was in his absolute prime.
clayman2000
Hall of Fame
Easily Roddick. I mean Wimby 04, USO 06, Wimby 09, Roddick doesnt loose to anyone else. In fact, if Federer was even 3/4 of what he is then Roddick takes each one. Add USO 07 and thats 4 matches Andy was robbed.
Nadal is next. Both Wimbys he lost in the final, he wouldnt have lost to anyone else. That would give him 8 slams, and like 5 YE no 1's. That would easily put him in Lendl, Connors territory, if not higher
Nadal is next. Both Wimbys he lost in the final, he wouldnt have lost to anyone else. That would give him 8 slams, and like 5 YE no 1's. That would easily put him in Lendl, Connors territory, if not higher
davey25
Banned
That is what all time greats do. These are the careers some others have ruined:
Serena Williams- Venus, Davenport, Safina (not that Safina needs much help), Dementieva, Capriati, Sharapova (bless Serena for that)
Pete Sampras- Agassi, Courier (even more than Agassi), Becker, Ivanisevic, Chang, Martin, Philippoussis
Steffi Graf- Sanchez Vicario, Sabatini, Novotna, Sukova, Navratilova's over 30 career, Seles, Hingis, Martinez, Shriver (she was starting to better vs Chris and Martina in the late 80s but with Graf emerging her slam hopes were kept on ice)
Even Rafael Nadal- Federer's clay court career, Coria, Djokovic
I am not just randomly picking names these players denied possible slams but in each name I picked per player I would be happy to explain how they helped to ruin each players career with the timing of some of those wins, the cummulative effect, etc...
Serena Williams- Venus, Davenport, Safina (not that Safina needs much help), Dementieva, Capriati, Sharapova (bless Serena for that)
Pete Sampras- Agassi, Courier (even more than Agassi), Becker, Ivanisevic, Chang, Martin, Philippoussis
Steffi Graf- Sanchez Vicario, Sabatini, Novotna, Sukova, Navratilova's over 30 career, Seles, Hingis, Martinez, Shriver (she was starting to better vs Chris and Martina in the late 80s but with Graf emerging her slam hopes were kept on ice)
Even Rafael Nadal- Federer's clay court career, Coria, Djokovic
I am not just randomly picking names these players denied possible slams but in each name I picked per player I would be happy to explain how they helped to ruin each players career with the timing of some of those wins, the cummulative effect, etc...
davey25
Banned
Honestly Nadal has done much more damage to Federer's career than vice versa. I dont think Federer has hurt Nadal's career much at all, if any. 2006 Wimbledon I dont think Nadal was that great on grass yet and nothing like he was in 2007 and 2008, he was quite beatable. The reason the final was somewhat competitive was just a reflection of how awful a matchup Nadal has been for Federer, and the mental block Federer has with Nadal. The draw would be different without Federer and Nadal would be in big trouble facing any of Roddick, Berdych, Ancic, or Hewitt that year. 2007 Wimbledon Nadal mostly lost due to an injury sustained during the final. This same injury could have cost him winning to someone else as well. He had a number of near escapes vs Soderling and Youzhny. There is no gaurantee he wins this year either.
As for being #1 all those years other guys have more chance to win or even dominate on hard courts especialy with Federer out. Nadal took until 2008 to start being a major force on hard courts. There is no certainty of that in years like 2005, 2006, or even 2007 either.
davey25
Banned
He didnt ruin Soderling's career. I like Soderling but he wasnt going to win any of the slams last year without Federer, and I dont think his result at any of them would have been much or at all different.
French Open- loses final to Del Potro
Wimbledon- loses round of 16 to one of Roddick, Hewitt, Karlovic, Murray, Haas, Djokovic, possibly even Wawrinka or Cilic pending his draw
U.S Open- maybe he makes the semis here but not the final. Del Potro or Djokovic beat him at that stage.
Federer has in no way shape or form ruined Rafa's career. What holds Rafa back from ever being even greater than he is, is the inability to dominate the field outside of clay, not any one player specifically, his general difficulty with flat ball strikers especialy on medium to fast hard courts, and most of all his wearing game style which give shim a shorter shelf life and already has him seemingly past his prime at 23.
davey25
Banned
It is laughable to say Federer in anyway, shape, or form ruined Safin's career. That said he actually is a horrible matchup for Safin overall and owns him head to head, and was owning him even in the early 2000s when Safin was in his prime and Federer was not. Safin had to play the match of life or one of the matches of his life to beat Federer that one time (he beat him one other time when Federer was 20 I think). Still Federer has not denied Safin enough, or stopped him at a key enough point in his career to really count. When it comes to slams all Fed did was beat a gassed Safin in the 04 AO final which Safin would have lost to anyone at the top as he had nothing in the tank, and beat Safin in the semis of a Wimbledon Safin was never going to win anyway, and beat Safin past his prime in a few other very early rounds.
Funny as it sounds if anyone other than himself ruined Safin's career it would be Johansson and Roddick. Why? Well that huge upset loss to Johansson at the 2002 Australian Open I think set Safin's momentum and confidence back to a point he never fully recovered from. After his sophomore slump in 2001 he came to Australia looking very motivated and I think he might have been on course for more time at #1 and more slams without that loss. Roddick since when Safin was trying his comeback to the top from 2004 onwards it was often Roddick who stopped him in draws, and of course numbers of losses at that point forward sapped Safin's motivation to work and fight.
Funny as it sounds if anyone other than himself ruined Safin's career it would be Johansson and Roddick. Why? Well that huge upset loss to Johansson at the 2002 Australian Open I think set Safin's momentum and confidence back to a point he never fully recovered from. After his sophomore slump in 2001 he came to Australia looking very motivated and I think he might have been on course for more time at #1 and more slams without that loss. Roddick since when Safin was trying his comeback to the top from 2004 onwards it was often Roddick who stopped him in draws, and of course numbers of losses at that point forward sapped Safin's motivation to work and fight.
jazzyfunkybluesy
Banned
Andy doesnt have it too bad though, reaping the rewards of Brooklyn Deckers hot body and consolation efforts.:twisted:
Polaris
Hall of Fame
This guy gets it. All others are beating around the bush
.
Last edited:
D
decades
Guest
are we counting his former coaches?
Fedace
Banned
verdasco ruined his night last night.
davey25
Banned
This guys gets it. All others are beating around the bush
Pete Sampras is still the greatest player in the Open Era and perhaps of All Time according to many people. Even if some rate Federer higher Pete is still regarded as just as much a legend of tennis as he had been previously. Federer has not stolen his spotlight, he has merely joined it.
West Coast Ace
G.O.A.T.
I don't know how anyone could say Davy. He's a huge overachiever - average sized guy making millions, and hanging in the top 8, for so many yrs? He didn't need a major to have a tremendous career.
Same for Rafa. He's going down as the best clay courter ever - sorry Borg fans. And he won enough on other surfaces - without getting many free serve points - to be considered one of the top 15 ever.
Roddick - definitely. He would have 6 or 7 majors and would have been a huge star in the US. I'm confident he could walk through a lot of malls in the US and no one would know him.
Safin would have imploded no matter what other players were in his era. He was just too talented for his own good.
Same for Rafa. He's going down as the best clay courter ever - sorry Borg fans. And he won enough on other surfaces - without getting many free serve points - to be considered one of the top 15 ever.
Roddick - definitely. He would have 6 or 7 majors and would have been a huge star in the US. I'm confident he could walk through a lot of malls in the US and no one would know him.
Safin would have imploded no matter what other players were in his era. He was just too talented for his own good.
cork_screw
Hall of Fame
Djokovic, Agassi.
davey25
Banned
The main ones I think he ruined were Roddick, Hewitt, and to a lesser degree Djokovic. If we look at it just on paper as is he probably denied Roddick the 2003 Wimbledon title, 2004 Wimbledon title, 2006 U.S Open title, and 2009 Wimbledon title. Hewitt was probably denied the 2004 Australian Open title, 2004 U.S Open title, 2005 Wimbledon title, and 2005 U.S Open title. So directly also I would guess 4 more slams each. However there is also the factors of how much more confident each would have been, how much more momentum and fear with other players they may have carried forward, how many ill advised coaching changes Roddick imparticular would no longer have made without Federer.
A big possible victim is Djokovic. He might have won the last 3 U.S Opens without Federer, especialy considering his head to head with Del Potro to date. For sure 2007 and probably 2008 anyway
(maybe not 2009). He also would have been #1 or #2 sooner and likely avoided some of his confidence dips he has suffered.
An increasingly bigger victim is Murray having lost 2 slam finals to Federer, but the last one I think was a far tougher one to take than the first one. I am also not sure if Murray pulls off the 2008 U.S Open in his first slam final (presuming he still makes it) anyway, but the 2010 Australian Open is most likely his. I have a feeling Federer has turned the tables on his rivalry with Murray and Murray will become an increasingly bigger victim of Federer as time goes on.
A lesser victim I guess would be Davydenko. He probably wins the 2006 Australian Open without Federer, has a shot of winning the 2006 and 2007 U.S Opens perhaps too, also a possible shot at the 2009 Australian Open, definitely reaches a French Open final in 2007. I am not sure how many slams he gains, possibly still only 1 but he gains alot more opportunities. Also as well his confidence and self belief could go which indirectly could lead to even more success.
An old Agassi was a victim too as his chances of ever winning a big title again ended with Federer coming into his own in mid 2003. I am not sure if Agassi would have won any of the slams in 2004 and 2005 even without Federer, but he was still stopped by Federer in the 2003 Tennis Masters Cup final, 2004 U.S Open, 2005 Australian Open, and 2005 U.S Open.
One other lesser victim is Nalbandian. There is a silly myth to some that Nalbandian actually owns Federer (LOL) but in fact it is Federer who has owned Nalbandian for the last 75 months now, and even with Nalbandians dominant 5-0 lead at one point he now trails 10-8 as Federer completely reversed that rivalry once he truly came into his own. More importantly he has stopped Nalbandian at an Australian and U.S Open he was a contender to win, and many times in Masters events which might have increased Nalbandian's confidence in slams had he won a few more earlier.
A big possible victim is Djokovic. He might have won the last 3 U.S Opens without Federer, especialy considering his head to head with Del Potro to date. For sure 2007 and probably 2008 anyway
(maybe not 2009). He also would have been #1 or #2 sooner and likely avoided some of his confidence dips he has suffered.
An increasingly bigger victim is Murray having lost 2 slam finals to Federer, but the last one I think was a far tougher one to take than the first one. I am also not sure if Murray pulls off the 2008 U.S Open in his first slam final (presuming he still makes it) anyway, but the 2010 Australian Open is most likely his. I have a feeling Federer has turned the tables on his rivalry with Murray and Murray will become an increasingly bigger victim of Federer as time goes on.
A lesser victim I guess would be Davydenko. He probably wins the 2006 Australian Open without Federer, has a shot of winning the 2006 and 2007 U.S Opens perhaps too, also a possible shot at the 2009 Australian Open, definitely reaches a French Open final in 2007. I am not sure how many slams he gains, possibly still only 1 but he gains alot more opportunities. Also as well his confidence and self belief could go which indirectly could lead to even more success.
An old Agassi was a victim too as his chances of ever winning a big title again ended with Federer coming into his own in mid 2003. I am not sure if Agassi would have won any of the slams in 2004 and 2005 even without Federer, but he was still stopped by Federer in the 2003 Tennis Masters Cup final, 2004 U.S Open, 2005 Australian Open, and 2005 U.S Open.
One other lesser victim is Nalbandian. There is a silly myth to some that Nalbandian actually owns Federer (LOL) but in fact it is Federer who has owned Nalbandian for the last 75 months now, and even with Nalbandians dominant 5-0 lead at one point he now trails 10-8 as Federer completely reversed that rivalry once he truly came into his own. More importantly he has stopped Nalbandian at an Australian and U.S Open he was a contender to win, and many times in Masters events which might have increased Nalbandian's confidence in slams had he won a few more earlier.
RCizzle65
Hall of Fame
I'm sure the same could be said for even superstar Pete Sampras, maybe even Agassi, although he might get some second looks because his book was a stir for a few weeks. But yes I think everyone agrees that Roddick has been on the worse end of Federer, outside of Federer and Nadal, he has been the most consistent person this era, and has made the year end masters for the past like what, 8 years in a row? Federer is the only person that matches this.
RCizzle65
Hall of Fame
Owning isn't the right word, more like match up problem, the only person you can say that 'owns' Federer would be Nadal.
davey25
Banned
I have seen people use words like Nalbandian owns Federer, or that Nalbandian is Federer's nemisis. Those kind of statements are quite ridiculous when it is Nalbandian who has been thoroughly owned overall in the last 75 months now. If you exclude their French Open match which was incomplete due to a Nalbandian injury/retirement the remaining 12 matches in that span have:
Grass- 0-0 (thank goodness for Nalbandian they never played here, LOL)
Clay- 2-0 (again excluding the FO match they didnt finish otherwise 3-0)
Indoor hard court- 3-2 for Federer
Indoor carpet- 1-1
Outdoor hard court- 3-0 for Federer
The only surface Nalbandian has managed to hang with Federer these last 75 months is some form of indoor court. I guess in fairness to Nalbandian he has been very competitive when they played on clay too despite no official wins there in that span. On outdoor hard courts of any kind Federer has owned, and of course if they were to ever play on grass it would be over quickly.
downdaline
Professional
What about a certain French Open Champion named GASTON GAUDIO?
Gaudio was never the same after the double bagel from Fed at the Masters Finals.
Gaudio was never the same after the double bagel from Fed at the Masters Finals.
egn
Hall of Fame
Fed in essence ruined Roddick's career...looking through
2003 Wimby..60/40 he beats the Aussie
2004 Wimby easily his.
2005 Wimby I give Hewitt a bit of an edge here..as he had Roddicks number.
So throw him plus 2 right now.
2009 Wimby is all his..he should have won it. No doubt he doesn't beat anyone he plays in the final he was on an emotional high going in that match after clearing out the Brit.
Plus 3.
2006 US open also his..Davydenko couldn't handle his serve on that surface and blake is a flake.
Plus 4.
07 AO and US he stands a chance but 07 US I would say no...hes not going to beat Djoker but 07 AO he might be Gonzo.
Either way Roddick is looking at oh 3-6 slams possibly another #1 season and a lot more time at the top rankings.
However he didn't ruin his career had Roddick been destined to win 3-6 slams he would have done it in the first place and found a way to beat Roddick.
2003 Wimby..60/40 he beats the Aussie
2004 Wimby easily his.
2005 Wimby I give Hewitt a bit of an edge here..as he had Roddicks number.
So throw him plus 2 right now.
2009 Wimby is all his..he should have won it. No doubt he doesn't beat anyone he plays in the final he was on an emotional high going in that match after clearing out the Brit.
Plus 3.
2006 US open also his..Davydenko couldn't handle his serve on that surface and blake is a flake.
Plus 4.
07 AO and US he stands a chance but 07 US I would say no...hes not going to beat Djoker but 07 AO he might be Gonzo.
Either way Roddick is looking at oh 3-6 slams possibly another #1 season and a lot more time at the top rankings.
However he didn't ruin his career had Roddick been destined to win 3-6 slams he would have done it in the first place and found a way to beat Roddick.
anointedone
Banned
I would also guess him winning Wimbledon 2003 and 2004, and not winning 2005. However I do have to disagree with you that Wimbledon 2004 was "easily his" as if it were a lock, especialy in light of your comments on Wimbledon 2003 and 2005. Do remember in 2004 his main opponent and likely final opponent would have been Hewitt, just like 2005. Hewitt was no worse in 2004 than 2005 either. The big difference is Roddick was playing alot better at Wimbledon 2004 than in 2005, which is why he probably wins in 2004 and probably not in 2005, but I wouldnt got as far as to say easily his. Hewitt would have still been a threat to him in 2004 as well.
Also Hewitt in 2004 would have been more a threat to him than Philippoussis in 2003. I think his odds in the 2003 final are alot better than 60/40 as well. I remember watching the semis and finals where each played Federer and while the final had 2 tiebreaks and the semi only 1, the semi overall was easily the more competitively played match, and the one Federer still reached a higher level of brilliance in too (he had to in order to clearly outclass Roddick in his form at the time). The final after the very good 1st set was a complete bore and mismatch, and the 3rd set going to a tiebreak was pretty much a fluke considering Federer missed an easy open court forehand on one break point, and Mark had a double fault overruled by the chair on another break point in another game. Roddick was so strong there and I dont see any matchup issues Mark would present. Roddick has the superior 1st and 2nd serve, superior return game (speaks more to how bad Mark's is than anything of course), superior ground game, superior movement, superior mental game despite being less experienced. Roddick was passing well enough he wouldnt be too worried about a volleyer of Mark's caliber (which wasnt all that high) coming in on him. Mark was already past his prime though he played a good Wimbledon, he had basically one really big win (Agassi round of 16) then a free ride to the final, but he was never going to win the final vs whomever he played IMO.
Last edited:
GasquetGOAT
Hall of Fame
Actually he did take his spotlight and everyone elses' except Laver.
So Pete Sampras is the correct answer.
egn
Hall of Fame
I agree and disagree. Hewitt in my opinion was playing far better in 05 than 04..Fed dropped the second set to Hewitt but watching the match it would be hard to have believed that happened. He was demolishing him most of the match..Roddick was actually keeping pace in 2004 well with Fed and could have won that match but he blew it. He had tons of opportunities.
I agree Roddick basically wins the final and odds are more like 70/30 but still I don't think it would have been as easy as Fed did. Roddick is still not a strong return of server and Mark would have been able to approach the net a lot more aggressively. Yet all in and all Roddick is more likely to win. I still think 2004 would have been easier than 2003 because Roddick was just that much better in 2004 than 2003 in my opinion.
anointedone
Banned
I guess I feel Hewitt was playing better in 2004 than you do. Remember he also served for the 4th set vs Fed so it nearly went 5!
True. Roddick doesnt have a great return so both he and Mark might have held serve and it might have come down to tiebreakers. I would give the clear edge to Roddick in a tiebreak vs Mark, but even so a tiebreak always can be a bit of a crapshoot. Then again I sort of feel Mark is similar to Rusedski. Only real differences IMO is a much better backhand and not being a lefty, and Roddick was able to get into Rusedski's serve games and break him.
I think Roddick would've had 6-7 slams if it weren't for Fed. Hewitt might have won 4-5 slams.
But someone on this thread got it right. The biggest casuality might be Pete Sampras. As early as 2006 (less than four years after Pete retired), there was talk about Fed being the GOAT.
But someone on this thread got it right. The biggest casuality might be Pete Sampras. As early as 2006 (less than four years after Pete retired), there was talk about Fed being the GOAT.
davey25
Banned
While I respect Roddick's very hard work and unduanted determination to try and make the most of his rather limited (relatively speaking for the very top level) natural talents, and how he keeps getting up off the mat and fighting after dissapointsments, doesnt the fact some of us are saying he would have won about 6 slams without Federer emphasize how the early part of Federer's reign atleast wasnt such a hot era?
Similar threads
