Nadal is lucky to be No.1 in the weakest era of tennis history.

[deme08]

With the great Roger Federer past his prime and Djokovic, the only other decent player left on tour who is yet to realize his potential, if ever (being mentally weak and has health issues), Nadal is real lucky to be playing in such a weak era of tennis. He'd have been crushed during Sampras' era with all the great S&V players on fast grass and much tougher competitions on clay.

Federer was burnt out from being No.1 for 235 weeks straight, Djokovic would've taken over Federer's position if he wasn't such a mental midget on grass. Clearly Djokovic hasn't got what it takes so it's all made easy for Nadal.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

Nadal would love rebound ace of the 90's though. Replace Wimbledon with Australian Open.

 

[Cenc]

i agree with the title of this topic although federer was also in weak era with roddick and other great players like him (someone rememberes roddicks uso quaters 2002?)

 

[bagung]

With the great Roger Federer past his prime and Djokovic, the only other decent player left on tour who is yet to realize his potential, if ever (being mentally weak and has health issues), Nadal is real lucky to be playing in such a weak era of tennis. He'd have been crushed during Sampras' era with all the great S&V players on fast grass and much tougher competitions on clay.

Federer was burnt out from being No.1 for 235 weeks straight, Djokovic would've taken over Federer's position if he wasn't such a mental midget on grass. Clearly Djokovic hasn't got what it takes so it's all made easy for Nadal.

this is not a fair comments....
nadal is the only player that beat federer from time to time.....
even during federer's prime, nadal regularly beat him....
nadal is true No.1...
VAMOS RAFA..

 

[Cenc]

few years ago there were fedfans destroying forums and tennis, now world is full of nadalfans doing same thing

 

[drakulie]

Nadal is real lucky to be playing in such a weak era of tennis. He'd have been crushed during Sampras' era with all the great S&V players on fast grass and much tougher competitions on clay.

Only thing making this era seem "weak", is the fact you have possibly the greatest tennis player of all time playing in it (federer), and posibly greatest clay court player, playing in it (nadal).

Nadal is a well-deserved #1>>> much more than Rios (zero slams and way over hyped), who oh by they way >>>> Played in the Sampras era.

 

[tata]

I think its half half.On one side Nadal has proved himself over the years and is probably one of the players on tour to beat federer consistently.But on the other hand, IMO, it doesnt 'feel' that nadal has surpassed federer,but rather its like federer just playing really crap lately and losing matches he should have won.But yea this is just an opinion coz i know others may see that nadal has just totally overtaken federer.

 

[Zaragoza]

With the great Roger Federer past his prime and Djokovic, the only other decent player left on tour who is yet to realize his potential, if ever (being mentally weak and has health issues), Nadal is real lucky to be playing in such a weak era of tennis. He'd have been crushed during Sampras' era with all the great S&V players on fast grass and much tougher competitions on clay.

Federer was burnt out from being No.1 for 235 weeks straight, Djokovic would've taken over Federer's position if he wasn't such a mental midget on grass. Clearly Djokovic hasn't got what it takes so it's all made easy for Nadal.

Someone is bitter. Nadal and Djokovic were not in their primes in the last 4 years. How many people said that Nadal wasn´t in his prime when Federer dominated? Think about it.
Roddick, Hewitt past his prime and an aging Agassi were not exactly stronger competition. Now we have Nadal, Federer at 26 and Djokovic, three strong contenders on all surfaces. The current top 3 are the strongest we have seen for a long time (none of them is too young or too old right now) and that´s why it was so tough for Nadal to reach the no.1.
He has reached the no.1 overtaking Federer at 26/27, the age when Fed was supposed to dominate the field and maybe win the Grand Slam thanks to his fluid effortless game whereas Nadal should be burnt out.
Maybe you should look at the older threads and don´t rebuild your theories just because Nadal is outperforming Federer this year.

 

[Serve_Ace]

Roddick past his prime? rewatch USO 2007 Roddick vs Federer

 

[Meanstreak]

With the great Roger Federer past his prime and Djokovic, the only other decent player left on tour who is yet to realize his potential, if ever (being mentally weak and has health issues), Nadal is real lucky to be playing in such a weak era of tennis. He'd have been crushed during Sampras' era with all the great S&V players on fast grass and much tougher competitions on clay.

Federer was burnt out from being No.1 for 235 weeks straight, Djokovic would've taken over Federer's position if he wasn't such a mental midget on grass. Clearly Djokovic hasn't got what it takes so it's all made easy for Nadal.

Nadal beat Federer time and time again when Federer was in his prime, so what makes Fed the GOAT, if anything, it is the weak players who regularly failed to put up a fight against Fed in earlier rounds, because even they believed the hype, that got Fed to so many finals, and if he didn't meet either Nadal or Djokovic there, he had a walk over.

 

[Meanstreak]

With the great Roger Federer past his prime and Djokovic, the only other decent player left on tour who is yet to realize his potential, if ever (being mentally weak and has health issues), Nadal is real lucky to be playing in such a weak era of tennis. He'd have been crushed during Sampras' era with all the great S&V players on fast grass and much tougher competitions on clay.

Federer was burnt out from being No.1 for 235 weeks straight, Djokovic would've taken over Federer's position if he wasn't such a mental midget on grass. Clearly Djokovic hasn't got what it takes so it's all made easy for Nadal.

Why don't you celebrate Nadal's achievement instead of finding baseless reasons to rubbish it.

 

[Meanstreak]

With the great Roger Federer past his prime and Djokovic, the only other decent player left on tour who is yet to realize his potential, if ever (being mentally weak and has health issues), Nadal is real lucky to be playing in such a weak era of tennis. He'd have been crushed during Sampras' era with all the great S&V players on fast grass and much tougher competitions on clay.

Federer was burnt out from being No.1 for 235 weeks straight, Djokovic would've taken over Federer's position if he wasn't such a mental midget on grass. Clearly Djokovic hasn't got what it takes so it's all made easy for Nadal.

With all these 'weak players' you talk about, Federer was not able to make the 3rd round in two successive tournaments on what is supposed to be his forte - hard court.

 

[iamke55]

Only thing making this era seem "weak", is the fact you have possibly the greatest tennis player of all time playing in it (federer), and posibly greatest clay court player, playing in it (nadal).

Nadal is a well-deserved #1>>> much more than Rios (zero slams and way over hyped), who oh by they way >>>> Played in the Sampras era.

Good to see that not all one handed backhand players with small rackets and a volleying style are incredibly biased. I think that if there were people from the early 1000's still alive racking up millions of posts on a forum, they'd think the inventor of tennis would be able to beat Nadal because he was the best player in the world at that time, probably won hundreds of grand slams in his farm against the only other people in the world who knew what the sport was, and a strong continental forehand/Eastern forehand grip backhand/drop feed serve has never been seen today so it has to trouble players of this weak era.

 

[matchmaker]

So for years Federer fans have said that this was not a weak era and now Nadal is number one it is a weak era after all... Don't make me laugh.

Luckily we have Nadal and Federer to spice things up. Djoko is there to and Murray seems to be on the rise. Former number ones like Roddick, Hewitt, Moya and Ferrero are now only minor figures on the tour and they still play.

Now, I do agree that this has been a weak era until the last two years. But now there seem to be a couple of dangerous players out there and the competition is much more equal.

 

[federerGOAT]

Sampras should consider himself lucky that he is not playing in this era. He would not even be top 5 and we would not even be having a Fed vs Sampras GOAT debate.

 

[Eviscerator]

While I agree with the overall notion that the competition is not as strong today as it was in past eras, you still must give Nadal his due. He has no control over who his competition is, nor the fact they have slowed down the game. The fact of the matter is that he has worked hard and earned his position. Given his age and early fame, I like the fact he is humble and think he deserves everyones respect even if you do not like his style of play.

 

[tenniko]

I do not agree. Nadal is a fantastic player. He had more ranking points ant nº2 than some number 1's back in the day.

I think he could have a positive record against the likes of Agassi and Sampras.

I don't think Federer is burned out. I think that he has not evolved in the past 3 years anda Nadal has. djokovic also. All theses news guys are trainning hard and improving, while Fed is out playing BS tennis with Sampras.

Nadal deserves nº1 this year. He was the better players, best season win/loss record and best season number os trounaments won (including 2 grand slams).

FYI, the ranking point system has changed I believe from back in the days, where for example top 14 finishes counted towards ranking point and now I think is 19 best finishes. So it is not objective to look at the point system of bygone days and today.

With the great Roger Federer past his prime and Djokovic, the only other decent player left on tour who is yet to realize his potential, if ever (being mentally weak and has health issues), Nadal is real lucky to be playing in such a weak era of tennis. He'd have been crushed during Sampras' era with all the great S&V players on fast grass and much tougher competitions on clay.

Federer was burnt out from being No.1 for 235 weeks straight, Djokovic would've taken over Federer's position if he wasn't such a mental midget on grass. Clearly Djokovic hasn't got what it takes so it's all made easy for Nadal.

Back in the so-called Sampras-days, the top players are just as good as the pros today. In fact, players like Moya and Safin have risen in those days and although they are not doing as well, on their better days they can hold their own with any top players nowadays.

It's just that there are very exceptional players in the top 3, that gives the illusion. Nobody said back then (or at least now) that the tennis was weak when the Fab 4 (Sampras, Courier, Agassi, Chang) "dominated" the tennis world.

Granted the surfaces have changed a little since the 90s, but if the courts were to speed up, the pros will adapt to the changed surface, and there'll be little difference in the top rankings, if the change were to happen today. The top pros didn't get there just because.

 

[Cenc]

i was afraid of the moment when Nadal will become favorite player to American kids, now that is happening...
and you can see that 90% of those are the same people that were *******s before wimbly.

well personally i dont have anything against if young guns watch federer and try to imitate his game since his game used to be very good, one of 3 best overall games i believe (imo after sampras and agassi) although i respect other opinions and posts unless they are written to insult
what makes me really feel disasterous is that i come to tournament (under 14) in croatia and out of 32 players i see 22 playing with babolat aero pro drive and then when they see that i play with wilson ncode they start telling me: this racket is a **** havent you seen what rafa uses and similar comments
i mean 1st thing i would recommend children is to watch either federers or moyas forehand and feds or sampras' serve technique
and yes nadalfans are boring...

 

[viduka0101]

i think this thread is a pure fanboy battle arena


and fanboys are making this forum booooring!

 

[Deleted member 25923]

Cenc, calm down, it is a joke.

 

[Breaker]

With the great Roger Federer past his prime and Djokovic, the only other decent player left on tour who is yet to realize his potential, if ever (being mentally weak and has health issues), Nadal is real lucky to be playing in such a weak era of tennis. He'd have been crushed during Sampras' era with all the great S&V players on fast grass and much tougher competitions on clay.

Federer was burnt out from being No.1 for 235 weeks straight, Djokovic would've taken over Federer's position if he wasn't such a mental midget on grass. Clearly Djokovic hasn't got what it takes so it's all made easy for Nadal.

 

[Cenc]

Cenc, calm down, it is a joke.

well it can be a joke or not but i said several facts. nadal-goat, nadalfreak and others are really making this forum boring sometimes writing so many nonsenses that its a wonder of the modern world

 

[grafrules]

Someone is bitter. Nadal and Djokovic were not in their primes in the last 4 years. How many people said that Nadal wasn´t in his prime when Federer dominated? Think about it.
Roddick, Hewitt past his prime and an aging Agassi were not exactly stronger competition. Now we have Nadal, Federer at 26 and Djokovic, three strong contenders on all surfaces.

Hewitt in 2004 and 2005 was not past his prime. He lost to the eventual champion of 7 straight slams, and 5 of those was Federer. Without Federer he is far more dominant and successful then he was in 2001-2002 when there was virtually no Federer.

There is much more argument that Federer is now perhaps past his prime then Hewitt was the first 2-2.5 years of Federer dominance.

 

[Thor]

OP:

This is the same era as fed - same players - only difference is the upcoming youngsters.
So,if Nadal is lucky to be in a weak era - so is Fed and all of his accomplishments.
So you see,fanboy, you cant eat the cake and leave it whole, either its a weak era and then Fed is not one of the greatest, or Nadal is a deserving #1.

Take your pick

 

[Alafter]

With the great Roger Federer past his prime and Djokovic, the only other decent player left on tour who is yet to realize his potential, if ever (being mentally weak and has health issues), Nadal is real lucky to be playing in such a weak era of tennis. He'd have been crushed during Sampras' era with all the great S&V players on fast grass and much tougher competitions on clay.

Federer was burnt out from being No.1 for 235 weeks straight, Djokovic would've taken over Federer's position if he wasn't such a mental midget on grass. Clearly Djokovic hasn't got what it takes so it's all made easy for Nadal.

A lot of air there.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

Actually the weakest era ended when Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray start to hit their strides. Fed was lucky to be in a weak era for most his slams.

 

[Cenc]

Actually the weakest era ended when Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray start to hit their strides. Fed was lucky to be in a weak era for most his slams.

take murray out from this post and yes i believe last 3 years are still way better than years when roddick was in top 3

 

[akv89]

Of all the arguments diminishing the accomplishments of a great player, the strength of the competition seems to be the most persistent one. It is not that difficult to make this argument for any era.
The only reason Borg, Connors, Laver or any other player during or before the 70's did well was because tennis was not a worldwide sport and therefore the field was not big enough.
The only reason Mcenroe did well in 84 was because Lendl was not in his prime, Borg was retired, and Connors was past his prime.
The only reason Lendl, Becker, Wilander, and Edberg were successful was because everybody from the previous era: Borg, Connors, and Mcenroe were all either retired or in poor form and the players were mentally weak.
Sampras did not face great competition because he rarely had an opponent consistently good enough to beat him.
and now Federer and Nadal are in weak field because etc etc

Just to clarify, the above statements were just me playing devil's advocate. I don't believe a single one of them.
People who think that the 90's was the era of greatest competition seem to forget that these arguments were made back then as well. Does anybody remember Mcenroe trying to convince people that players in the 90's did not have the same intensity or will to win as the players that he faced?

This is not a phenomenon that is reserved for tennis since it is easily observable in any sport where there is a dominant #1.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

take murray out from this post and yes i believe last 3 years are still way better than years when roddick was in top 3

Murray beat Fed in Cincinnati and Dubai. Yes he worth noting as he'll only get better from here on out. Breaking Karlovic 4 times is unbelievable. Nadal is a bad matchup for him as it forces Murray to be an attacker rather than a counter-puncher.

 

[Fay]

With the great Roger Federer past his prime and Djokovic, the only other decent player left on tour who is yet to realize his potential, if ever (being mentally weak and has health issues), Nadal is real lucky to be playing in such a weak era of tennis. He'd have been crushed during Sampras' era with all the great S&V players on fast grass and much tougher competitions on clay.

Federer was burnt out from being No.1 for 235 weeks straight, Djokovic would've taken over Federer's position if he wasn't such a mental midget on grass. Clearly Djokovic hasn't got what it takes so it's all made easy for Nadal.

I think Fed's health is not the greatest so he is not able to play his best. That is a shame. Perhaps the same with Djoker.

But Nadal has worked hard to become an improved and great player ... I am willing to bet he'll now work on his own serve-and-volley game ... I think he likes a challenge and gets bored easily and will continue to bring changes to his game.

 

[TheTruth]

OP:

This is the same era as fed - same players - only difference is the upcoming youngsters.
So,if Nadal is lucky to be in a weak era - so is Fed and all of his accomplishments.
So you see,fanboy, you cant eat the cake and leave it whole, either its a weak era and then Fed is not one of the greatest, or Nadal is a deserving #1.

Take your pick

Great post!

 

[anointedone]

OP:

This is the same era as fed - same players - only difference is the upcoming youngsters.
So,if Nadal is lucky to be in a weak era - so is Fed and all of his accomplishments.
So you see,fanboy, you cant eat the cake and leave it whole, either its a weak era and then Fed is not one of the greatest, or Nadal is a deserving #1.

Take your pick

Exactly. It is the same era as the Federer era. Both Nadal and Federer there. Roddick still there (doing less well now when Nadal is on top, interesting). Biggest difference is Hewitt replaced by Djokovic, well while I respect Hewitt I think most would agree Djokovic is the more talented of the two. Maybe Safin replaced with Davydenko. Safin is way more talented but atleast you get pretty consistent performances in the slams and Masters from Davydenko, you face a less talented player always there to challenge you, rather then a more talented player there once in awhile. Nalbandian still thereabouts, his usual hot and cold self.

 

[daddy]

As long as you want to prove that these two guys - whose careers are pretty much happening at the same time ( Nadal is winning slams since 2005, Fed since late 2003 and they met no less than 18 times in last 4 years ) - are playing a different field you are plain ignorant.

 

[nevisben]

What makes a strong era? If it's four great players then I remember Tim Henman being number 4 for short time during the Sampras era. Not a dig at Henman who I liked but he wasn't GS finalist never mind winner.

The current top 10 features some rising stars in the form of Murray and Gasquet and others like Gulbis breaking through. Add Haas, Tsonga, Roddick, Blake et al to the top three and next season could be very interesting.

 

[NamRanger]

Nadal would love rebound ace of the 90's though. Replace Wimbledon with Australian Open.

Prime Nadal vs Prime Agassi on Rebound Ace. Brutal match-up. I don't even know who would win.

 

[Fay]

OP:

This is the same era as fed - same players - only difference is the upcoming youngsters.
So,if Nadal is lucky to be in a weak era - so is Fed and all of his accomplishments.
So you see,fanboy, you cant eat the cake and leave it whole, either its a weak era and then Fed is not one of the greatest, or Nadal is a deserving #1.

Take your pick

Right on !

 

[danb]

With the great Roger Federer past his prime and Djokovic, the only other decent player left on tour who is yet to realize his potential, if ever (being mentally weak and has health issues), Nadal is real lucky to be playing in such a weak era of tennis. He'd have been crushed during Sampras' era with all the great S&V players on fast grass and much tougher competitions on clay.

Federer was burnt out from being No.1 for 235 weeks straight, Djokovic would've taken over Federer's position if he wasn't such a mental midget on grass. Clearly Djokovic hasn't got what it takes so it's all made easy for Nadal.

The only weaker era was Fed-Adick-Hewitt.

 

[danb]

Exactly. It is the same era as the Federer era. Both Nadal and Federer there. Roddick still there (doing less well now when Nadal is on top, interesting). Biggest difference is Hewitt replaced by Djokovic, well while I respect Hewitt I think most would agree Djokovic is the more talented of the two. Maybe Safin replaced with Davydenko. Safin is way more talented but atleast you get pretty consistent performances in the slams and Masters from Davydenko, you face a less talented player always there to challenge you, rather then a more talented player there once in awhile. Nalbandian still thereabouts, his usual hot and cold self.

On the money.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

The only weaker era was Fed-Adick-Hewitt.

Agreed. Fed's era was a joke. Too bad Nadal couldn't prime in 2003-2007. He would be considered the GOAT than.

 

[ej]

With the great Roger Federer past his prime and Djokovic, the only other decent player left on tour who is yet to realize his potential, if ever (being mentally weak and has health issues), Nadal is real lucky to be playing in such a weak era of tennis. He'd have been crushed during Sampras' era with all the great S&V players on fast grass and much tougher competitions on clay.

Federer was burnt out from being No.1 for 235 weeks straight, Djokovic would've taken over Federer's position if he wasn't such a mental midget on grass. Clearly Djokovic hasn't got what it takes so it's all made easy for Nadal.

Aggasi was playing qualifiers in 1997.

Which is to say

(psst) Pete had it easier.

Pete didn't have the best clay courter in history standing in his way...

and (psst) he still couldn't get past the semis in Paris.

This thread is a joke.

 

[Nadal-GOAT]

Sorry, it is a historic achievement to win Roland Garros and Wimbledon back-to-back. Also he is beating quality players like Federer and Djokovic. This is a very competitive era.

 

[microgel_rad]

wat a rubbish thread. the weakest era of tennis history?
Nadal - greatest claycourter of all time
Federer - possibly greatest tennis player of all time
Djokovic - would beat the crap out of any hard court player that came before him.
Roddick - former no.1 with biggest serve in tennis history

And you forget the Hewitt - Roddick - Safin era. What a mess.

Nadal had the worst luck going up against federer for no.1 (he was no.2 for the most weeks remember) but that he's been able to claw his way into the no.1 spot is friggin amazing, elevating his game to overcome one of the greatest players of all time on clay and grass. Nothing he has achieved can be put down to luck.

btw im a federer fan

 

[Deleted member 3771]

The first half of Feds Era was a weak era with Hewitt and Roddick as Feds biggest challengers. Now the 2nd half of Feds era is much tougher with Joker, Nadal, Murray etc all handling Feds game while their game is still developing. These guys are definitely a level up from Hewitt and Roddick.

 

[NamRanger]

Aggasi was playing qualifiers in 1997.

Which is to say

(psst) Pete had it easier.

Pete didn't have the best clay courter in history standing in his way...

and (psst) he still couldn't get past the semis in Paris.

This thread is a joke.

Of course Pete didn't have Borg in his way. But, Pete did have a whole slew of them in his way. Such as Kafelnikov, Moya, Brugreua, Brugiesta (can't spell names), Muster, Chang, etc.

 

[Oricus]

Considering since Nadal hit the scene in 2005 Federer has won a grand total of 8 Grand Slams, that is eight grandslams in an era that can't be as weak since Nadal arrived right?

See how pointless this has been? Federer has been competing against Nadal longer during that stretch, and boohoo for Nadal being younger and not being able to hit his stride till 2005 instead of 2004. It's not like it would of mattered anyways since Federer would of won all the slams aside from the French in 04.

 

[deme08]

After watching the semi final match, I see Nadal's game still very vulnerable on Hardcourt. Falling completely apart when tested by serious HC players like Djokovic, Tsonga, Roddick and even Davydenko. He was lucky face his all time favorite puppies, aka, Gasquet and Murray enroute to the Toronto final.
Even with his winning streak confidence and supposedly the "aura of invincibility" on becoming No.1 this week, he still had nothing on Djokovic. Unless Nadal adjusts his style of play on HC (stop acting like a topspin monkey for one), I see Djokovic continues to own him on hardcourts for years to come.

 

[deme08]

Nadal's era is truly weak. His era are players born in the last 80s. What decent players are there other than Djokovic? Murray and Gasquet are puppies to Nadal like Blake to Federer. Gulbis is still improving, for all I know he may never be a good as we see him to be. Simon and Cilic will be like any other journeymen on tour by the look of things. Who else? Donald young?LMAO

 

[chrisdaniel]

...

Djokovic - would beat the crap out of any hard court player that came before him.

And you know this because ???

 

[czech09]

wat a rubbish thread. the weakest era of tennis history?
Nadal - greatest claycourter of all time
Federer - possibly greatest tennis player of all time
Djokovic - would beat the crap out of any hard court player that came before him.
Roddick - former no.1 with biggest serve in tennis history

And you forget the Hewitt - Roddick - Safin era. What a mess.

Nadal had the worst luck going up against federer for no.1 (he was no.2 for the most weeks remember) but that he's been able to claw his way into the no.1 spot is friggin amazing, elevating his game to overcome one of the greatest players of all time on clay and grass. Nothing he has achieved can be put down to luck.

btw im a federer fan

I agree with the stuff in the bold and further I think Nadal will be considered one of the greats of all time once all is said and done, barring any sort of serious injury.

 

[35ft6]

wat a rubbish thread. the weakest era of tennis history?
Nadal - greatest claycourter of all time
Federer - possibly greatest tennis player of all time
Djokovic - would beat the crap out of any hard court player that came before him.
Roddick - former no.1 with biggest serve in tennis history

Biggest but certainly not the best, but I agree with the first three more or less. The sport evolves. Becker acknowledged this when he proclaimed Pete the new king of Wimbledon, along with when he talked about how each generation hits the ball harder more consistently than the previous.

I think the problem is about age. People generally worship the guys who dominated when they were growing up. They just can't accept a young whippersnapper like Nadal with his capri pants and no sleeved shirts is as good as the guys they worshipped as a 10 yo.