People did exactly the SAME under Sampras!

[The Dark Knight]

Indeed, once Sampras started fading in the early part of 2000, there was a vacuum left. This was particularly noticeable between November 2000 to February of 2004 when the following players were number 1: Marat Safin, Gustavo Kuerten, Lleyton Hewitt, Andre Agassi, Juan Carlos Ferrero, and Andy Roddick.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Exactly the reason when it's all said and done, Sampras will be rated lot higher than people do now.
Ignoring the older generations ,
I rate Sampras and Nadal above Federer anyday

I rate Sampras, Nadal and Federer over Djokovic. Even when he has 18 slams, I'd still rate them over him due to the sheer weakness of his competition.

 

[Sirius Black]

No it's actually in Wikipedia I believe ? I read about somewhere ....and the article literally said something like :

"After Pete Sampras retired , there was a vaccum of talent in the top 10"

Roddick was the #1 player in the world and the big "rivalry" was Federer & Roddick .

It was that era that saw the oldest USO of all time (Sampras vs Agassi ) and actually Roddick shares the #1 spot with someone who's name I can't even remember .

This was probably written in Wikipedia after people coined the term "weak era" circa after Federer's domination, not at the actual time.

 

[swordtennis]

LOL, wut ?

federer with his clearly better FH still had difficulty putting balls past nadal and djokovic would ? LOL !

and nadal was clearly more defensive in 2012 AO final than he was in the 2009 final , coughing up more short balls and yet djokovic only had 57 winners to 71 winners for federer.

the 2009 AO final (even with the 5th set ) was clearly better in terms of quality than the 2012 AO final ..

your post is beyond absurd ...

You are absurd.

 

[swordtennis]

Not sure I get your point. Nadal would have thrashed Djokovic USO 2015, W 2015 and W 2014 at his best? I know what your response is likely to be but by the same token, Djokovic was an active player in 2009!

Are you *************?

 

[Sirius Black]

Indeed, once Sampras started fading in the early part of 2000, there was a vacuum left. This was particularly noticeable between November 2000 to February of 2004 when the following players were number 1: Marat Safin, Gustavo Kuerten, Lleyton Hewitt, Andre Agassi, Juan Carlos Ferrero, and Andy Roddick.

This is the full text:

Indeed, once Sampras started fading in the early part of 2000, there was a vacuum left. This was particularly noticeable between November 2000 to February of 2004 when the following players were number 1: Marat Safin, Gustavo Kuerten, Lleyton Hewitt, Andre Agassi, Juan Carlos Ferrero, and Andy Roddick.

Indeed, the lack of a dominant player was noticeable starting in 1996-1999 when Thomas Muster, Marcelo Rios, Carlos Moya, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, and Patrick Rafter would all spend time at number 1. Admittedly, Sampras had a 102 week period during this time where he was number 1.

Then, came 2004.

The dude is saying that Federer filled the void that was left after Sampras, the GOAT at the time, retired. Just like Djokovic is doing now, only without the Federer retirement.

 

[okdude1992]

Moral of the story is that anybody dominating too much becomes tedious.

This is why I liked Andre and Rafa. Great champions but up and down over the course of their careers.

 

[Fiero425]

Indeed, once Sampras started fading in the early part of 2000, there was a vacuum left. This was particularly noticeable between November 2000 to February of 2004 when the following players were number 1: Marat Safin, Gustavo Kuerten, Lleyton Hewitt, Andre Agassi, Juan Carlos Ferrero, and Andy Roddick.

Vacuum? With Hewitt taking over for a couple years, it was more like a "black hole!" Same with Agassi being more successful; it was literally a joke and unwatchable! ;-)

 

[Djokovic2011]

I rate Sampras, Nadal and Federer over Djokovic. Even when he has 18 slams, I'd still rate them over him due to the sheer weakness of his competition.

If competition's all you care about then there's no way you or any other sane person should rate Sampras or Federer ahead of Djokovic if he gets to 18 slams.

 

[123456789]

I agree with Sabratha. I would even rate guys like Marcelo Rios or Donald Young above Djokovic due to the sheer weakness of competition.

 

[Sirius Black]

If competition's all you care about then there's no way you or any other sane person should rate Sampras or Federer ahead of Djokovic if he gets to 18 slams.

If he gets to 18 he's the goat in my eyes. If he gets to 17 - oh boy.

But if Nadal and Djokovic both get to 17...

 

[123456789]

If he gets to 18 he's the goat in my eyes. If he gets to 17 - oh boy.

But if Nadal and Djokovic both get to 17...

Lmao, Nadal won't get to 17. He is more likely to get rescinded of his titles than win even another slam.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Lmao, Nadal won't get to 17. He is more likely to get rescinded of his titles than win even another slam.

This is a stupid post, but wow, you take no prisoners lol.

 

[123456789]

This is a stupid post, but wow, you take no prisoners lol.

You think Nadal will get to 17?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Vacuum? With Hewitt taking over for a couple years, it was more like a "black hole!" Same with Agassi being more successful; it was literally a joke and unwatchable! ;-)

Nothing compares to today.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

You think Nadal will get to 17?

No of course not - but suggesting his titles will get rescinded is pretty uncalled for.

Still, saying that he's more likely to lose slams than gain them is top-notch banter, so well done lol. Don't let The_Order see you saying that.

 

[Gary Duane]

Can't you all see the same pattern as me?

Absolutely.

It's a never-ending cycle.

2015 WAS a weak year in comparison to others, and 2016 may be worse. But it balances.

Novak's best years on HC were probably 2012 and 2013. But in those years Fed was close to where he was in 2015, and Nadal had a miracle HC year in 2013. The field was stronger then.

So if things are weaker right now (and they are), what about the years when there really was still a Big Three, with Murray still dangerous, and a young DelPo around. I would argue that in those years the field was unusually strong.

Fed and Sampras also had strong and weak years.

I say count up the slams, count up the titles, look at the stats, and then be fair.

Novak from 2011 on has the strongest stats on HCs in the last 25 years. They really are amazing. We all know about Nadal's stats on clay. And we know about Pete and Fed on grass.

It's really simple.

The rest is butthurt.

 

[Tarkovsky]

Indeed, once Sampras started fading in the early part of 2000, there was a vacuum left. This was particularly noticeable between November 2000 to February of 2004 when the following players were number 1: Marat Safin, Gustavo Kuerten, Lleyton Hewitt, Andre Agassi, Juan Carlos Ferrero, and Andy Roddick.

this guy https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/tiBxH5i8d26G_gqEg9bqFyQ/edit#gid=16

rates "Weak Era " as 2000-2002. I don't know how he calculates that but looks very scientific

 

[Bender]

You have to be fair and free of bias when it comes to making value judgments.

Take me, for example. I'm a very fair person. Here's an example:

Just today, I was buying potato wedges for lunch (because I'm trying to get my five a day), when I noticed that the serving lady was giving me all the pale, undercooked wedges. I said to her, "Can I have some of the darker ones, please?" And bingo, there you have it--affirmative action.

 

[The Dark Knight]

Vacuum? With Hewitt taking over for a couple years, it was more like a "black hole!" Same with Agassi being more successful; it was literally a joke and unwatchable! ;-)

Actually that quote about the Vaccum left in the top 10 is not mine ...it's from an article that appeared in wiki .

But I think "weak era" is a misnomer and what really happened is there was a vaccum for about 4 years in the top 10 with the retirement of Pete Sampras .

Maybe rather than calling it a weak era it's should be called maybe "the weak years" or the "Vaccum years " ? It lasted from about 2000-2004 .....

I actually think it may have been Guga who first coined the "Vaccuum years" :

Kuerten said Sampras was "much better' than The Mighty Fed. Drawing an interesting comparison to F-1 car racing, a sport I know absolutely nothing about (except that its most gifted practitioners party-hearty in places like Monte Carlo), Kuerten told Brazil's TV Globo that Federrer moved into the vacuum left by Sampras much like Michael Shumacher took advantage of Ayrton Senna's tragic death to establish his pre-eminence.

 

[Tarkovsky]

You have to be fair and free of bias when it comes to making value judgments.

Take me, for example. I'm a very fair person. Here's an example:

Just today, I was buying potato wedges for lunch (because I'm trying to get my five a day), when I noticed that the serving lady was giving me all the pale, undercooked wedges. I said to her, "Can I have some of the darker ones, please?" And bingo, there you have it--affirmative action.

Have you been reading Kharms lately? Sounds like the beginning of one of his stories

 

[Bender]

Have you been reading Kharms lately? Sounds like the beginning of one of his stories

No, but I have been reading some of Ken M's work. He's a professional comedian and internet troll.

He's not as good as sureshs but I think he can get there with a little more exposure and a small investment of a million dollars.

You can find some of his work here.

 

[Nadal GOAT]

Moral of the story is that anybody dominating too much becomes tedious.

This is why I liked Andre and Rafa. Great champions but up and down over the course of their careers.

Both with the Golden career slam so ultimately have the bragging rights. Strong argument to put Agassi ahead of Sampras except for the losing h2h and failure to win either w or the FO more than once. But it's a debate that clearly rages given they hate each other to this day.

As for nadal he has done it all, golden slam, channel slam, I've no idea why bitter haters troll him on this site, and why it seems to be encouraged given Nadals unpopularity on this site yet his popularity in real life so to speak, it's almost like nadal fans get booted off the site once they make winning arguments.

You would think any tennis fan would simply say...Rafael Nadal...thank you sir for not retiring so we get to see you. He could and should have retired end of 2014. I never thought I'd see him at Rio olympics.

 

[Purplemonster]

What do you call an era where the number 2 is rubbish ? May be we can give it a different name.

Weak era ?!

 

[Jaitock1991]

All eras consist of thousands of thousands of professionals that systematically work their asses of on a daily basis(now perhaps more than ever) to be the best they can possibly be, so there's really no objective reason to believe that one era is noticably weaker than the other. This is all biased shiet talk, based on whichever agenda the given poster has.

 

[mike danny]

Indeed, once Sampras started fading in the early part of 2000, there was a vacuum left. This was particularly noticeable between November 2000 to February of 2004 when the following players were number 1: Marat Safin, Gustavo Kuerten, Lleyton Hewitt, Andre Agassi, Juan Carlos Ferrero, and Andy Roddick.

That was not the case anymore from 2004.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

Vacuum? With Hewitt taking over for a couple years, it was more like a "black hole!" Same with Agassi being more successful; it was literally a joke and unwatchable! ;-)

Hewitt and Agassi were playing at a very high level at the time. Never considered either of them as jokes or unwatchable. Lleyton was always a greater returner and a fierce competitor. Agassi was one of the most talented tennis players of the Open era. Played in 15 slam singles finals, winning more than half of them. No jokes here.

 

[123456789]

All eras consist of thousands of thousands of professionals that systematically work their asses of on a daily basis(now perhaps more than ever) to be the best they can possibly be, so there's really no objective reason to believe that one era is noticably weaker than the other. This is all biased shiet talk, based on whichever agenda the given poster has.

Wrong sir!

 

[Jaitock1991]

Absolutely.

It's a never-ending cycle.

2015 WAS a weak year in comparison to others, and 2016 may be worse. But it balances.

Novak's best years on HC were probably 2012 and 2013. But in those years Fed was close to where he was in 2015, and Nadal had a miracle HC year in 2013. The field was stronger then.

So if things are weaker right now (and they are), what about the years when there really was still a Big Three, with Murray still dangerous, and a young DelPo around. I would argue that in those years the field was unusually strong.

Fed and Sampras also had strong and weak years.

I say count up the slams, count up the titles, look at the stats, and then be fair.

Novak from 2011 on has the strongest stats on HCs in the last 25 years. They really are amazing. We all know about Nadal's stats on clay. And we know about Pete and Fed on grass.

It's really simple.

The rest is butthurt.

Weak years(weak in relative terms; every year is extremely competitive for everyone) I guess do exist to some extent. But one year is not an era. An era imo consists of at least 5-6 years, maybe more. And over such a long period, things even out. Calling one era stronger than the other is completely subjective and nearly impossible to prove, as everything is connected.

One or a few players' great statistics are the rest of the tour's poor statistics. There can only be one winner. So Fed or Djoker winning pretty much everything at their respective peaks, and then using this as proof that the era is weak because "nobody else are winning anything", is as nonsensical as it gets. By this logic, the Fedovic eras would be regarded as stronger eras if Fedovic were weaker players, and lost more titles for others to win.

As you say: Butthurt and immature bias is a big part of this.

 

[kishnabe]

Sampras and Federer were in a strong or decent era.

It is not Djokovic fault that 2014+ is a weak era. Taking nothing away from Novak.

Novak was amazing 2011-13....no doubt. He fought off true competition.....the strong players have declined now.

 

[abmk]

You are absurd.

umm, OK.