Question about The Strong Era

[Meles]

you can say Murray was almost as amazing as Djoker and that Fed was playing scintillating tennis but much like putting lipstick on a pig...

Nattering nabob of negativity. Try to enjoy tennis this year, I know I will.

My horrible opinion of Roddick matters greatly, but slug fans should take anything I say with a grain of salt.

 

[Meles]

Will always remain a mystery to me why that guy quit hitting the sledgehammer he had in 2002-2005. Sacrificed it for extra consistency against scrubs?

This is an excellent point. Gulbis has developed the forehand yips for sure. I presume Roddick's original forehand was not consistent enough against pressure (like Fed's game). Murray's forehand seems always in need of tinkering. Nadal went bananas at the 2010 US Open with his flatter forehand, but can't think of other succesful forehand form changes. (This stuff makes me think of Tiger Wood's many major swing redesigns in golf.)

No doubt Roddick would have been much more interesting to watch without the pusher game and might have snagged Wimbledon. Isner plays a very similar style in the way that he tries to play very consistent, but Isner still can rock the forehand when he's got a ball coming his way that is punishable.

 

[Sirius Black]

This is an excellent point. Gulbis has developed the forehand yips for sure. I presume Roddick's original forehand was not consistent enough against pressure (like Fed's game). Murray's forehand seems always in need of tinkering. Nadal went bananas at the 2010 US Open with his flatter forehand, but can't think of other succesful forehand form changes. (This stuff makes me think of Tiger Wood's many major swing redesigns in golf.)

No doubt Roddick would have been much more interesting to watch without the pusher game and might have snagged Wimbledon. Isner plays a very similar style in the way that he tries to play very consistent, but Isner still can rock the forehand when he's got a ball coming his way that is punishable.

If you watch old videos of Nadal, his forehand take back used to look a little more bent. Now, it's a little more loopy. I don't know how to describe it, but I see a clear difference.

 

[dante1976]

Fed fans bringing up Baghdatis, Hewitt, Roddick, Haas, Gonzales and Davydenko!!!??? Hmmm.... fear it is

p.s. Possibly the next thing would be describing how Philippoussis and 35 year old Agassi was goating but Fed stopped them from going to 15-20 slams

 

[Meles]

If you watch old videos of Nadal, his forehand take back used to look a little more bent. Now, it's a little more loopy. I don't know how to describe it, but I see a clear difference.

Hmmm. I'm sure Nole, Fed, and Rafa's forehands have all had subtle changes. Murray and Nadal have bulked up an amazing amount from their earlier years so that may change one's game. For the 2010 US Open series, Nadal hit a flatter serve (often hitting 135 mph which was very fast then) and he also flattened out his stroke (others on this site say no grip change) which you would particularly see when he went for cross court winner forehands. I suppose Nadal gets a bit yippy with his forehand when he starts serving up short balls for the opponents to crush by him, so maybe the tinkering has hurt Nadal in subtle ways. (Changed my own forehand grip from western to semi with great results so perhaps these are all just snake bitten forehands by chance. Wawa upped the ante on his forehand a lot with no ill effects.) A pretty strong era for forehands given that Nadal's in 2013 was pretty boss (Murray, the disgusting exception at the top; oh for a forehand.)

 

[mattosgrant]

The whole problem with Roddick and with how certain people try to build him up is he had only that rocket forehand until the end of 2004. Once he dumped Gilbert and took on Goldfine (a ridiculous decision in hindsight) he only had that forehand for bits and starts the rest of his career. At events like Wimbledon 2009, Dubai 2008, and U.S Open 2006 and maybe 2007 he had it, but it wasn't sustained. Given that he already isn't the most complete or polished player, he definitely needed his 2 biggest weapons (serve and forehand) to both be there to be that effective or formidable a player when we are talking about top level competition. So I would say in 2003 and 2004 he was pretty tough competition, but not really so much after that.

 

[mattosgrant]

Roddick was quick in his heyday, he could make you play extra shots and he was very dangerous when running around his backhand.

Yeah, people tend to recycle the same myths on here over and over. Roddick wasn't a complete player - although his backhand with Connors and net game isn't as bad as people make out - but to say he had no weapons at his peak?

His biggest problem wasn't his volleys, which while not pretty looking were actually fairly good. It was hit approach shots to the net and his transition game. That is what hurt him more than anything in those close big finals he lost to Federer when you rewatch them. On big points so many ill fated and clueless approaches to the net. I am surprised he never seemed to fix this at all, but I guess some things just cant be taught. His volleys themselves were not bad, and he certainly could approach of big enough shots to make them easy but it was approaching at the right times, off the right shots, and instinctively knowing this, which he didn't seem to.

 

[PeterHo]

Like the top 10 is all about Hewitt and Roddick. It also has Delpotro and Soderling and Davydenko.

and yet none of them have stopped Federer and Nole from winning slams as much as Nadal has.

1 ATG in Nadal > Delpo soderling davy hewitt roddick all of them combined in terms of competition.

 

[PeterHo]

That's just your definition of a weak/strong era though. For instance it's perfectly possible that Delpo and Cilic had better levels in their USO runs than Rafa and Novak had in theirs (or at least some of them). Impossible to verify. The legacy of a player doesn't determine how well he plays at any single particular tournament.

yes that is my definition, and its actually what i really meant in every single post. It doesn't even have to be the same definition as other fans. not all of them know what they are talking about.

1 ATG in Nadal has stopped Federer/Nole from winnning slams many more times than Delpo/soderling/hewitt/roddick/davydenko all these players COMBINED! In fact its everybody in the field combined!

Therefore, "Depth of field" doesn't have any correlation to an era being "weak". Depth of players doesn't stop a great player eg. Federer from racking up slams.

Its about how many great players in their primes.

And obviously the Big 3 are so good most of the time they are the only guys who can stop each other. Federer has racked up the most slams without playing the other 2, hence the weak era.

 

[metsman]

Hmmm. I'm sure Nole, Fed, and Rafa's forehands have all had subtle changes. Murray and Nadal have bulked up an amazing amount from their earlier years so that may change one's game. For the 2010 US Open series, Nadal hit a flatter serve (often hitting 135 mph which was very fast then) and he also flattened out his stroke (others on this site say no grip change) which you would particularly see when he went for cross court winner forehands. I suppose Nadal gets a bit yippy with his forehand when he starts serving up short balls for the opponents to crush by him, so maybe the tinkering has hurt Nadal in subtle ways. (Changed my own forehand grip from western to semi with great results so perhaps these are all just snake bitten forehands by chance. Wawa upped the ante on his forehand a lot with no ill effects.) A pretty strong era for forehands given that Nadal's in 2013 was pretty boss (Murray, the disgusting exception at the top; oh for a forehand.)

nadal has bulked up since his earlier years?

 

[Gary Duane]

It was not considered a great tournament. Borg, Mac, and Connors pretty much ignored it. Knowing Agassi he was probably afraid his whig would fall off or something. Its probably no more complex than that he did not want to travel that far. He also skipped Wimbledon a couple years. It really goes back to the fact the tournament was second class slam from the early 1970's until the early 1990s.

I'm quite aware why earlier players skipped the AO, but I don't think most people shared that view by 1990.

It does highlight the idea that putting so much weight on just winning slams is a pretty recent thing.

 

[Meles]

I'm quite aware why earlier players skipped the AO, but I don't think most people shared that view by 1990.

It does highlight the idea that putting so much weight on just winning slams is a pretty recent thing.

Australian Open has always been a big deal, but yeah especially the brilliant move of having the tournament over XMAS for years 1977-1981 and then moving earlier in December for a while. So, I'd say by 1990 it still wasn't viewed quite yet as critical. Sampras did not play in 1991 and 1992 (not sure if injury one of those years.)

 

[Meles]

I'm quite aware why earlier players skipped the AO, but I don't think most people shared that view by 1990.

It does highlight the idea that putting so much weight on just winning slams is a pretty recent thing.

Its an awesome thing and I like that we have 4 different surfaces now. Its always interesting when you have players like Borg dominating on clay and grass. Lendl owned the French and US Open. Now Djoko on Auz hard and grass, but not US Open.

One thing that amazes me the current elite group is how strong they are on clay. The clay court specialists of the past have been crowded out completely. I can see this with Nadal's domination, but Ferrer might be the closest thing to clay court only and he's very respectable on hard courts. Clay has gone from something to almost be ignored to perhaps the best surface to watch these players.

 

[Gary Duane]

Its an awesome thing and I like that we have 4 different surfaces now. Its always interesting when you have players like Borg dominating on clay and grass. Lendl owned the French and US Open. Now Djoko on Auz hard and grass, but not US Open.

One thing that amazes me the current elite group is how strong they are on clay. The clay court specialists of the past have been crowded out completely. I can see this with Nadal's domination, but Ferrer might be the closest thing to clay court only and he's very respectable on hard courts. Clay has gone from something to almost be ignored to perhaps the best surface to watch these players.

I think that people who say that there is no difference between grass and clay are exaggerating. It may be true that the difference is diminished due to the different grass, and it may also be true that the modern rackets make it possible to play on these different surfaces with greater success, but it's not as if being great on even slower HCs is guaranteeing wins on slow clay and faster grass.

Also, if everything is playing the same, Novak would surely have easily won at least once at RG.

Mostly I think it is just too hard to win enough to do well only on one surface. Perhaps something about the points now, and how they contribute to ranking. I'm not sure

 

[Gary Duane]

Australian Open has always been a big deal, but yeah especially the brilliant move of having the tournament over XMAS for years 1977-1981 and then moving earlier in December for a while. So, I'd say by 1990 it still wasn't viewed quite yet as critical. Sampras did not play in 1991 and 1992 (not sure if injury one of those years.)

And today it would be unimaginable for any great player to skip the AO, because every champion now is on a hunt for slams.

 

[Meles]

And today it would be unimaginable for any great player to skip the AO, because every champion now is on a hunt for slams.

I believe the ATP will penalize them plus the ranking points. Fed at his seniority is allowed to skip some events. Its better this way.

 

[Gary Duane]

I believe the ATP will penalize them plus the ranking points. Fed at his seniority is allowed to skip some events. Its better this way.

This is something very good about the ATP now. In the 90s players were able to get high rankings by doing well on one surface, or two. To some extent I think this was also true of Sampras. I believe he won exactly one masters in his career on clay. He was not forced to try harder on clay. Players also skipped slams, mostly the AO, but I think Agassi also skipped RG some years. Rome?

Sampras's record at RG was horrible except for rather early in his career. He never go farther than a QF. He lost twice in the first round, four times in the 2nd round. But this year Nadal was practically crucified for losing in the 1st round of the AO, his weakest slam.

In comparison Nadal has done much better on his weakest surface, grass.

There is a lot to like about today's tennis. We just need a couple young players who are aggressive and who can win tournaments in their teens!

 

[Meles]

This is something very good about the ATP now. In the 90s players were able to get high rankings by doing well on one surface, or two. To some extent I think this was also true of Sampras. I believe he won exactly one masters in his career on clay. He was not forced to try harder on clay. Players also skipped slams, mostly the AO, but I think Agassi also skipped RG some years. Rome?

Sampras's record at RG was horrible except for rather early in his career. He never go farther than a QF. He lost twice in the first round, four times in the 2nd round. But this year Nadal was practically crucified for losing in the 1st round of the AO, his weakest slam.

In comparison Nadal has done much better on his weakest surface, grass.

There is a lot to like about today's tennis. We just need a couple young players who are aggressive and who can win tournaments in their teens!

Sampras skipped French in 1990 just as he was emerging as a top player (might have been top 20 roughly around FO.) Sampras's record was pretty bad at the French. SF in 1996 and then just horrible after that. Sampras was a true fast court player with the bulk of his slams at US and Wimby (2 Auz.)

By record Auz is Nadal's weakest surface, but at this stage of his career, Wimbledon is the weakest by far and then probably the US Open. Too much has been made of the fluke Verdasco win in Auz. Nadal is not done. May not even be done at Wimbledon. Dustin Brown was wiping Gasquet off the court at fast hard Montepellier today (6-1, 3-0 in 35 minutes), so even the early Wimbledon exit in 2015 does not mean Nadal is done on grass (won Mercedes Cup on grass before Wimby.)

Zverev is 18 and looks very close.

 

[Gary Duane]

Sampras skipped French in 1990 just as he was emerging as a top player (might have been top 20 roughly around FO.) Sampras's record was pretty bad at the French. SF in 1996 and then just horrible after that. Sampras was a true fast court player with the bulk of his slams at US and Wimby (2 Auz.)

By record Auz is Nadal's weakest surface, but at this stage of his career, Wimbledon is the weakest by far and then probably the US Open. Too much has been made of the fluke Verdasco win in Auz. Nadal is not done. May not even be done at Wimbledon. Dustin Brown was wiping Gasquet off the court at fast hard Montepellier today (6-1, 3-0 in 35 minutes), so even the early Wimbledon exit in 2015 does not mean Nadal is done on grass (won Mercedes Cup on grass before Wimby.)

Zverev is 18 and looks very close.

Yes. Zverev does look close.

And I also think Verdasco's win over Nadal was a fluke, but we have seen a lot of "flukes" in the last couple years regarding Nadal.

The one thing I do not understand is why Nadal has had so much trouble at the AO. To me it seems that the slower courts should be better for him than faster surfaces.

 

[Meles]

Yes. Zverev does look close.

And I also think Verdasco's win over Nadal was a fluke, but we have seen a lot of "flukes" in the last couple years regarding Nadal.

The one thing I do not understand is why Nadal has had so much trouble at the AO. To me it seems that the slower courts should be better for him than faster surfaces.

A lot of end of season injuries and medical procedures. This year was a supreme disappointment given that Nadal looked to be rounding into form.

 

[Adv. Edberg]

The question this poster has is a statement.

Wimbledon 2008 Quarterfinalists:
Federer, Ancic, Safin, Lopez, Schuttler, Clement, Nadal, Murray.

People usually cite 2008-2012 as the epitome of a strong era, but I see of lot of Fed's contemporaries here.

Wimbledon 2009 Quarters:
Federer, Karlovic, Hewitt, Roddick, Murray, Ferrero, Djokovic, Haas.

What's that? Two weak era MUG slam champions, one weak era number one, a one dimensional servebot (apart from Fed, of course), and a walking injury? All of them made a quarterfinal in the "strong" era?

wowzer.

It was a weak era then. Just not as weak as today. That's the truth.

 

[bjsnider]

People usually cite 2008-2012 as the epitome of a strong era

Which people specifically?

 

[Sirius Black]

Which people specifically?

Whenever "weak era" threads pop up, people usually ask when the weak era ended. I've seen a lot of people say that 2008-2012 were particularly strong years.

I'm sorry that I don't have any specific quotes, but these years do correspond to the emergence and dominance of the "big four."

 

[bjsnider]

Whenever "weak era" threads pop up, people usually ask when the weak era ended. I've seen a lot of people say that 2008-2012 were particularly strong years.

I'm sorry that I don't have any specific quotes, but these years do correspond to the emergence and dominance of the "big four."

So, the big four dominated the 2008-2012 time frame, and this wasn't a strong era?

I'm curious, I know my definition, but what's your definition of a strong era, vs. a weak era? What makes an era strong?

 

[Sirius Black]

So, the big four dominated the 2008-2012 time frame, and this wasn't a strong era?

I'm curious, I know my definition, but what's your definition of a strong era, vs. a weak era? What makes an era strong?

I'm not trashing the 2008-2012 years. People make 2004-2007 out to be terrible years based on the lack of big names deep in slams, so I'm simply trying to show people that certain tournaments in the strong era were no different.

I don't believe in weak or strong eras.