If the Federer era was weak, what was missing to make it strong?!..

Smecz

Semi-Pro
If Roger Federer played in the weak era, what were Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal and Andy Murray doing then?!

Were they passing balls or towels?!..

After all, it was the strongest foursome in tennis that could appear...


Were the strong Andy Roddick, Marat Safin, Fernando Gonzalez, Nikola Dayvedenko, David Nalbadian, Richard Gasquet, Ivan Ljubicic, Grigor Dimitrov missing for complete happiness?!...

Would you change your mind if 4 men lost instead of winning?!..

What would have to be different in the 4 Goat era (which was sometimes boring and bland, but still provided a lot of emotions) for you to say it was a strong era?!
 

nolefam_2024

Talk Tennis Guru
Hey rookie thanks for bringing them up.

At the age fed won his first slam which was few weeks before his birthday, the other three were at similar boat.

Nadal won a lot on clay but he was still struggling on hc and a bit more successful than fed on grass at same age.

Fed won his 12 slams when Nadal reached the age fed won his first. So you can't expect the oldest among the three to challenge fed in their teens more than fed challenged his elders.

By 2010 fed was finished. He won 5 slams since start of 2010. So you bring the big 4 or whatever you want and you see how they stopped fed.

Don't bring illogical points.

The Roddick's and nalbandians couldn't even stop nole and andy in their young form. What would they do in 2010s. They will get wrecked.

From 2007 Nole stayed in top 3 and from 2008 Andy stayed in top 4. They completely replaced federers prime competition.

That's it.
 

TripleATeam

G.O.A.T.
I don't subscribe to weak or strong era discussion in general, but it was strange to hear

"If Roger Federer played in the weak era, what were Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal and Andy Murray doing then?!"

like... 2003-2006? When Murray/Djokovic were 16-19? Nadal won a couple of RGs but he was still young and not world-beater level on every surface. People aren't complaining about 2007-2014 being weak (except for individual years in that period for some).
 

Smecz

Semi-Pro
I don't subscribe to weak or strong era discussion in general, but it was strange to hear

"If Roger Federer played in the weak era, what were Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal and Andy Murray doing then?!"

like... 2003-2006? When Murray/Djokovic were 16-19? Nadal won a couple of RGs but he was still young and not world-beater level on every surface. People aren't complaining about 2007-2014 being weak (except for individual years in that period for some).
Yes years 2003-2006,that is, the total domination of Federer, with a few mishaps(for example AO 2005,Rome2006 etc) meant that to this day the Federer era is said to be weak!!.

But for example Safin,Nalbadian,Roddick,Hewitt they could have tried harder to beat Roger.!!

Next thing in 2007,his dominance began to slow down,but in AO 2007,and each year it got worse, until Nadal was joined by Djokovic and then Murray started to lose his dominance...

Probably the worst thing his opponents did was burn themselves like Gonzalez, Roddick, Nalbadian.

All it took was a little more cold head and they could have won more, like AO 2007, Wimbledon 2009, Roland Garros 2004 etc..
 

nolefam_2024

Talk Tennis Guru
Yes years 2003-2006,that is, the total domination of Federer, with a few mishaps(for example AO 2005,Rome2006 etc) meant that to this day the Federer era is said to be weak!!.

But for example Safin,Nalbadian,Roddick,Hewitt they could have tried harder to beat Roger.!!

Next thing in 2007,his dominance began to slow down,but in AO 2007,and each year it got worse, until Nadal was joined by Djokovic and then Murray started to lose his dominance...

Probably the worst thing his opponents did was burn themselves like Gonzalez, Roddick, Nalbadian.

All it took was a little more cold head and they could have won more, like AO 2007, Wimbledon 2009, Roland Garros 2004 etc..
They could have tried harder and then won? What if they aren't great player anyway. They wouldn't win.

They tried hard but were not good enough. Real thing.
 

nolefam_2024

Talk Tennis Guru
The era would've been stronger if Federer were a little worse at tennis
What happened when these players faced baby Nole and baby Andy. They were not good players. That's why they all combined wouldn't be as accomplished as 1 of Nadal or Djokovic.

The weak era was real. Not fan imagination. Federer beating these players regularly meant they got a strong champion at the top like Sampras was or Nole is.
 

Smecz

Semi-Pro
They could have tried harder and then won? What if they aren't great player anyway. They wouldn't win.

They tried hard but were not good enough. Real thing.
Right,but in my opinion, players like Safin,Nalbadian,Gonzalez,Roddick could easily overcome Roger,they have a strong skills.

They were never as resourceful and clever as Roger,however he was afraid to play with them!!!
 

nolefam_2024

Talk Tennis Guru
The best players in federers era the nalby's the Roddick's and the Daveydenko's can't match with the best players in Nadal's era the Nole's the Murray's. Or in Nole's era the Murray's the Wawrinkas.

Everyone by now understand that Federer actually never got the mental strength to rival Rafole because of his early competition was weak. While Rafole became mental giants because they faced Federer as teenagers.
 

daggerman

Hall of Fame
What happened when these players faced baby Nole and baby Andy. They were not good players. That's why they all combined wouldn't be as accomplished as 1 of Nadal or Djokovic.

The weak era was real. Not fan imagination. Federer beating these players regularly meant they got a strong champion at the top like Sampras was or Nole is.

The next generation being better than the previous one doesn't make the previous one "weak." The game is supposed to evolve in this way.

The reality is Fed was awesome and ahead of his time.
 

NYTennisfan

Professional
What was missing was Federer not being 3-4 years younger. Peak Fed years occurred before Peak Djokodal years so Federer feasted on a bunch of 2nd tier players relative to an ATG scale. It was also sandwiched between prime Agassi/Sampras and Djokovic/Nadal/Murray years so it was a period of transition for tennis in the mid 2000s. Probably stronger than current tennis era which Djokovic is feasting on so take that for what it's worth but still weak in terms of all time eras.

If Federer was born 3-4 years later, Peak Fed would have occurred at the time of Peak Djokodal and all the other high level players of the early to mid 2010s. Unfortunately Peak Fed became merely Prime Fed by late 2000s, early 2010s which was just slightly level below Peak Fed but enough of a drop off to be #3 of that era.

Interestingly what we're seeing now can be somewhat comparable to the mid 2000s when the torch was being handed off to the new generation with the differences being that old Agassi isn't as good as old Djokovic and baby Alcaraz is likely better than baby Hewitt.
 

Smecz

Semi-Pro
The best players in federers era the nalby's the Roddick's and the Daveydenko's can't match with the best players in Nadal's era the Nole's the Murray's. Or in Nole's era the Murray's the Wawrinkas.

Everyone by now understand that Federer actually never got the mental strength to rival Rafole because of his early competition was weak. While Rafole became mental giants because they faced Federer as teenagers.
Yes, I agree,and except that Federer shoul be a happy that there was no strong serve and volley in the years 2003 to 2006 because it could cause a lot of damage!!!
 

Neptune

Hall of Fame
Big 4 at each of the big 3's peak 6-year span:

It is very interesting to notice, each of the big 3 lost 24 matches against the other 3 big 4 during their own peak 6-year span.

But Fed only got 20 wins, losing 20-24 to the 3 baby big 4 while playing only 2 matches more than Nole and 6 less than Rafa.

Rafa got 41 wins, winning 41-24 against the 3 big 4, slightly ahead Nole, dominated Fed and Murr. Playing 4 more than Fed and 7 less than Nole.

Nole got 56 wins, winning 56-24 against the 3 big 4, dominated each of them while playing at least 30 more than each of them.

Total ATP points: Nole 78,535 Fed 74,987 Rafa 63,652
 

Smecz

Semi-Pro
What was missing was Federer not being 3-4 years younger. Peak Fed years occurred before Peak Djokodal years so Federer feasted on a bunch of 2nd tier players relative to an ATG scale. It was also sandwiched between prime Agassi/Sampras and Djokovic/Nadal/Murray years so it was a period of transition for tennis in the mid 2000s. Probably stronger than current tennis era which Djokovic is feasting on so take that for what it's worth but still weak in terms of all time eras.

If Federer was born 3-4 years later, Peak Fed would have occurred at the time of Peak Djokodal and all the other high level players of the early to mid 2010s. Unfortunately Peak Fed became merely Prime Fed by late 2000s, early 2010s which was just slightly level below Peak Fed but enough of a drop off to be #3 of that era.

Interestingly what we're seeing now can be somewhat comparable to the mid 2000s when the torch was being handed off to the new generation with the differences being that old Agassi isn't as good as old Djokovic and baby Alcaraz is likely better than baby Hewitt.
All right, I think there were no players like Patrick Rafter in his career, then maybe he wouldn't have dominated the years 2003 to 2006.
And his era would be strong, I'm sure his career would be worse!!.
 

Neptune

Hall of Fame
What was missing was Federer not being 3-4 years younger. Peak Fed years occurred before Peak Djokodal years so Federer feasted on a bunch of 2nd tier players relative to an ATG scale. It was also sandwiched between prime Agassi/Sampras and Djokovic/Nadal/Murray years so it was a period of transition for tennis in the mid 2000s. Probably stronger than current tennis era which Djokovic is feasting on so take that for what it's worth but still weak in terms of all time eras.

If Federer was born 3-4 years later, Peak Fed would have occurred at the time of Peak Djokodal and all the other high level players of the early to mid 2010s. Unfortunately Peak Fed became merely Prime Fed by late 2000s, early 2010s which was just slightly level below Peak Fed but enough of a drop off to be #3 of that era.

Interestingly what we're seeing now can be somewhat comparable to the mid 2000s when the torch was being handed off to the new generation with the differences being that old Agassi isn't as good as old Djokovic and baby Alcaraz is likely better than baby Hewitt.
From the way Fed 2008-09 struggle against prepeak young big 4, if they were all same age, highly likely there will be no Fed to talk about, could be smoked from the beginning.
 

Sputnik Bulgorov

Professional
What happened when these players faced baby Nole and baby Andy. They were not good players. That's why they all combined wouldn't be as accomplished as 1 of Nadal or Djokovic.

The weak era was real. Not fan imagination. Federer beating these players regularly meant they got a strong champion at the top like Sampras was or Nole is.

Roddick and Safin are a combined 3-1 vs Djokovic in slams.
 

duaneeo

Legend
Peak Murray. If he can beat peak Nole in two slam finals, surely he would beat peak Federer in several slam finals.

Oh, and definitely peak Wawrinka. If he can win 3 different slams by beating peak Djokovic, imagine the damage he would've done during Federer's peak.
 

DSH

Talk Tennis Guru
The era would've been stronger if Federer were a little worse at tennis
No, if Safin and Nalbandian had had Federer's discipline and work ethic, the story would have been different, since they both had talent in abundance.
The period 2004-2007 would have been much more remembered than that for the dominance of a single tennis player, bar Nadal on clay.
:D
 

daggerman

Hall of Fame
No, if Safin and Nalbandian had had Federer's discipline and work ethic, the story would have been different, since they both had talent in abundance.
The period 2004-2007 would have been much more remembered than that for the dominance of a single tennis player, bar Nadal on clay.
:D

My point is that you can always warp the language about era strength to suit your purposes. In this scenario there's nothing stopping somebody from saying, for example, "Safin, Nalbandian, and Federer are winning all the titles now, but Federer and Nalbandian couldn't reach their prime until after Sampras and Agassi declined. They just happen to be playing in a weak era. Hewitt is injury prone. Roddick is too one-dimensional. Nadal is a clay specialist. Agassi is old and slow. etc."

Eras aren't strong or weak. They are described as strong or weak depending on which players you support.
 

Neptune

Hall of Fame
Well, if Federer wasn’t so good and allowed Roddick an extra couple slams, and gift another each to Safin and Hewitt, then that era, along with Agassi (2003-05), doesn’t look shabby at all.
Nah, none of those has a peak Elo 2300, let alone 2400.
 

The Sinner

Semi-Pro
Nah, none of those has a peak Elo 2300, let alone 2400.
Interesting. I’d love to know how many of Sampras’ contemporaries had ELO ratings above 2300 or 2400. Also, since 2018, who had ELO at 2300+? Pretty sure grandpa Fed and ol’ cripple Nadal didn’t have either, so who did? Rublev? Meddy? Zverev? Tsitsipas?
 

Neptune

Hall of Fame
Interesting. I’d love to know how many of Sampras’ contemporaries had ELO ratings above 2300 or 2400. Also, since 2018, who had ELO at 2300+? Pretty sure grandpa Fed and ol’ cripple Nadal didn’t have either, so who did? Rublev? Meddy? Zverev? Tsitsipas?
2300: Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Courier (Sampras and Becker hit 2400)

Nole Fed Rafa all above 2400 even after 2018 (Fed still 2394 at 2019 Wimb final)
other 2300: Alcaraz, Medvedev, Zverev
 

The Sinner

Semi-Pro
2300: Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Courier (Sampras and Becker hit 2400)

Nole Fed Rafa all above 2400 even after 2018 (Fed still 2394 at 2019 Wimb final)
other 2300: Alcaraz, Medvedev, Zverev
Not sure where you getting them stats from, but the one I got it’s only showing Djoko above 2300 (2407), current that is. Alcaraz at 2200, the rest of top 10 around 2000.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
What was missing was Federer not being 3-4 years younger. Peak Fed years occurred before Peak Djokodal years so Federer feasted on a bunch of 2nd tier players relative to an ATG scale. It was also sandwiched between prime Agassi/Sampras and Djokovic/Nadal/Murray years so it was a period of transition for tennis in the mid 2000s. Probably stronger than current tennis era which Djokovic is feasting on so take that for what it's worth but still weak in terms of all time eras.
There was no transition anymore once Fed arrived.
Interestingly what we're seeing now can be somewhat comparable to the mid 2000s when the torch was being handed off to the new generation with the differences being that old Agassi isn't as good as old Djokovic and baby Alcaraz is likely better than baby Hewitt.
No, it's much worse than the mid 2000's, not in any way comparable.
 

ChrisRF

Legend
Well, if Federer wasn’t so good and allowed Roddick an extra couple slams, and gift another each to Safin and Hewitt, then that era, along with Agassi (2003-05), doesn’t look shabby at all.
Yes, exactly this. That's the classic circular logic of some people. To dominate a stronger era, Federer must lose way more often. But wait, how does he dominate then? ;)
 

nolefam_2024

Talk Tennis Guru
Yes, exactly this. That's the classic circular logic of some people. To dominate a stronger era, Federer must lose way more often. But wait, how does he dominate then? ;)
No. Then the same players will come up short against baby Nole and baby Rafa. These players were inconsistent vs others as well.

The biggest difference between them and 2007-2015 was there were 3/4 guys at the top beating the rest. And even then I think there was more challenge at the top than during federers peak where only he was at the top.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
No. Then the same players will come up short against baby Nole and baby Rafa. These players were inconsistent vs others as well.

The biggest difference between them and 2007-2015 was there were 3/4 guys at the top beating the rest. And even then I think there was more challenge at the top than during federers peak where only he was at the top.
LOL.
 

Razer

Legend
After the decline of Sampras post wimbledon 2000 there were 12 different slam winners in 15 slams from US open 2000 to French open 2004, Federer regularly started to take everyone but there was nobody else to share the spoils with him until baby Nadal arrive to win clay, then the weak era ended once Nadal hit his peak in 08 and thats when Federer had a full fledge rival who was an atg and at his peak. This is the weak era of 2001-2007.
 

nolefam_2024

Talk Tennis Guru
After the decline of Sampras post wimbledon 2000 there were 12 different slam winners in 15 slams from US open 2000 to French open 2004, Federer regularly started to take everyone but there was nobody else to share the spoils with him until baby Nadal arrive to win clay, then the weak era ended once Nadal hit his peak in 08 and thats when Federer had a full fledge rival who was an atg and at his peak. This is the weak era of 2001-2007.
2007 federer has 7100 and Rafa 5700
2006 Federer had 8400 and Rafa 4400

Rafa in 2006 was very green. In 2007, he was playing much better. Heck if Nole didn't rise at the same time Nadal would be more than 6000 pts ahead. And that's really hardcore in old rankings.

Also Rafa became better on grass while Nole became a threat on hc and at the end of the year, went to the third position. I would say strong era started in 2007 itself. In 2006 Nadal wasn't ready to be number 1, in 2007 he was. What do you think.
 

Neptune

Hall of Fame
2007 federer has 7100 and Rafa 5700
2006 Federer had 8400 and Rafa 4400

Rafa in 2006 was very green. In 2007, he was playing much better. Heck if Nole didn't rise at the same time Nadal would be more than 6000 pts ahead. And that's really hardcore in old rankings.

Also Rafa became better on grass while Nole became a threat on hc and at the end of the year, went to the third position. I would say strong era started in 2007 itself. In 2006 Nadal wasn't ready to be number 1, in 2007 he was. What do you think.
Big3 Era: 2007-19 (starts and ends the years with all in top3)
Big4 Era: 2008-16 (the first and last year Murray in top4)
 

Ace7

New User
Sure, they're better, but not that better. Fed at 34 owned both. And he's done better in big matches vs them than Djokovic.
Yes its all in small margins. I personally think the decline of Federer as an example here is way over exaggerated. a 33 year old Federer isnt as far away from his peak as people think. they act like he is twice the Player with 25 years than with 33. Hell they even think a 29 year old fed in 2011 is past his prime. thats not the case im sure about that.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Yes its all in small margins. I personally think the decline of Federer as an example here is way over exaggerated. a 33 year old Federer isnt as far away from his peak as people think. they act like he is twice the Player with 25 years than with 33. Hell they even think a 29 year old fed in 2011 is past his prime. thats not the case im sure about that.
Sure, I'll trust your clearly unbiased judgement over actual reality.
 

Ace7

New User
Sure, I'll trust your clearly unbiased judgement over actual reality.
What do you mean reality? If we only look at the reality aka the numbers Djokovic towes above everybody. but that does not tell the full Story right? Im not even biased i can asure you that. Im interested in your opinion tho so you think fed >>> everybody else easily?
 

Smecz

Semi-Pro
After the decline of Sampras post wimbledon 2000 there were 12 different slam winners in 15 slams from US open 2000 to French open 2004, Federer regularly started to take everyone but there was nobody else to share the spoils with him until baby Nadal arrive to win clay, then the weak era ended once Nadal hit his peak in 08 and thats when Federer had a full fledge rival who was an atg and at his peak. This is the weak era of 2001-2007.
I have an observation that with the departure of serve and volley players, practically from 2003 they started to abandon this way of playing.

In 2000, there was still Sampras, Rafter, Ivanisevic, and in general, the serve and volley game was still there, and after 2003 it started to disappear.

And I think that's when Roger started to dominate, because there was no pressure at a net like that...

Patrick Rafter has a record of 3:0 and hasn't won a single match, maybe who knows, if such players had continued to play from 2003 to 2006, he would have dominated so much?!..

Then, from 2007, strong counterpunchers or defense players had to appear if no one put pressure on him to serve and volley.

And maybe that's why many people say that the Federer era was weak, because his three years were easy and pleasant, and there were no serve and volley players.

And I want to emphasize that this handful of players such as Feliciano Lopez, Nicolas Mahut, Ivo Karlovic are still not at the same level as in the 80s and 90s!!

So, in order to stop Federer, players had to appear who were strong from deep inside the court, and with that, they had to play better passing shots when Roger went to the net.

And it seems that the Federer era was not that weak at all, but the biggest weakness of his era was the departure from the serve and volley style!!!.

And as I know, playing at the net is crucial in tennis!!!. and yet it is used less and less effectively!!!.
 

Razer

Legend
2007 federer has 7100 and Rafa 5700
2006 Federer had 8400 and Rafa 4400

Rafa in 2006 was very green. In 2007, he was playing much better. Heck if Nole didn't rise at the same time Nadal would be more than 6000 pts ahead. And that's really hardcore in old rankings.

Also Rafa became better on grass while Nole became a threat on hc and at the end of the year, went to the third position. I would say strong era started in 2007 itself. In 2006 Nadal wasn't ready to be number 1, in 2007 he was. What do you think.

Hard Courts are 50% of Slams held, Nadal was still nothing on HCs in 2007, Nole was inexperienced 20 years old, So no 2007 was not a strong era. Federer would have won 2 slams for free even if Nadal had won the wimbledon. That is not what a strong era looks like.

The Strong era started when Djokovic won the Aus open in 2008.
 
Top