If 2003-2007/08 a weak era then what is 2014/15-2019?

[mike danny]

It is a big difference beating Fed at Wimbledon and USO than Roddick and Hewitt.

That depends. Beating 2015 Fed was no more difficult than beating 2004 Roddick. And beating 2004 Agassi at the USO was also harder than beating 2015 Fed.

And Fed also beat 2006 Nadal at Wimb.

 

[mike danny]

It is a big difference beating Fed at Wimbledon and USO than Roddick and Hewitt.

One last thing:

ATG's in 2004-2006: Agassi-old ATG and Nadal-young ATG.

ATG's in 2014-2016: Federer-old ATG and Nadal-prime ATG (which only lasted for half a year in 2014, so he didn't make too much of a difference.)

Overall, not much is separating the 2 periods.

 

[Lew II]

Murray's second serve is worse than the Roddick backhand, his forehand is relatively better but still a pretty big weakness considering the forehand itself is more important than the backhand.

Murray's serve (1st + 2nd) is better than Roddick's backhand, and so is his forehand.

Murray is more complete than Roddick

 

[Lew II]

One last thing:

ATG's in 2004-2006: Agassi-old ATG and Nadal-young ATG.

ATG's in 2014-2016: Federer-old ATG and Nadal-prime ATG (which only lasted for half a year in 2014, so he didn't make too much of a difference.)

Overall, not much is separating the 2 periods.

Players with 80+% of wins in grand slams:

2014-16 --> 5
2004-06 --> 3

Players with 75+% of wins in grand slams:

2014-16 --> 10
2004-06 --> 5

 

[blablavla]

Players with 80+% of wins in grand slams:

2014-16 --> 5
2004-06 --> 3

Players with 75+% of wins in grand slams:

2014-16 --> 10
2004-06 --> 5

1. how many matches played in GS is the threshold?

2. depending on poster's point of view it may suggest:
- the field is stronger, everyone might beat everyone
- the field is weaker, there are no strong competitors that can regularly beat everyone else
but this data per se doesn't prove anything

3. Do you have similar stats from the glorious past era's of ATG playing vs strong field?

 

[Lew II]

1. how many matches played in GS is the threshold?

2. depending on poster's point of view it may suggest:
- the field is stronger, everyone might beat everyone
- the field is weaker, there are no strong competitors that can regularly beat everyone else
but this data per se doesn't prove anything

3. Do you have similar stats from the glorious past era's of ATG playing vs strong field?

The user I was answering was talking about ATGs.

It's not ATG level if you don't win 75/80% of slam matches.

 

[Lew II]

Slam finals/semifinals played against Big3

Djokovic 28/61 (45.9%)
Nadal 27/60 (45%)
Federer 29/76 (38.2%)

Slam finals/semifinals played against Big4

Djokovic 37/61 (60.7%)
Nadal 33/60 (55%)
Federer 34/76 (44.7%)

 

[MoralTruth]

Players with 80+% of wins in grand slams:

2014-16 --> 5
2004-06 --> 3

Players with 75+% of wins in grand slams:

2014-16 --> 10
2004-06 --> 5

No accounting for 2004-06 having a lot of field depth and variety from different players....2014-16 had less good young talent/a up coming gen/emerging players.
Just admit that 2014-2020 is clearly weaker than 2007-2013 was lol and Djokovic had times were his field did not always tower over Rogers.

 

[Lew II]

Players with 18+ wins in Slams:

2003 - 2
2004 - 1
2005 - 1
2006 - 1
2007 - 3
2008 - 3
2009 - 1
2010 - 3
2011 - 4
2012 - 4
2013 - 2
2014 - 2
2015 - 4
2016 - 2
2017 - 2
2018 - 2
2019 - 3

 

[chjtennis]

I think those two eras are about equal and not weak. 2015-2018 was probably weaker era of those, when aged Big4 still won most of the tournaments. No new players coming up. 2019 has been huge improvements, but it still is a year of Big 3.