The weak era - july 2012 to current .

fastgrass

Banned
************* always crying that fed got 17 slams due to weak era .but IMO weak era started after RG 2012 and still
we are in weak era.
I got some reasons for that

1) Federer is declined a lot
2) nadal is injured for rest season in 2012 and missed ao 13
also.
3) surprisingly world no 1 is not playing well since RG 2012.
I cannot say his is declined but he lost his god factor
surely
4) this is most important reason - lack of young talent
The young guns are not impressive at all
Actually players like dimitrov , tomic , raonic, JJ
should have replaced nadal , nole as they replaced
federer who was also at 26

Result of weak era -

1) 27 years old nadal is still dominating the tour especially hc . winning 9 titles at the age of retirement

2) mug like Murray won two slams!! This is most embarrassing thing that the guy without any weapons
winning slams .if young guns were talented like nadal
nole in 2007,2008 they have destroyed this lucky
Labrador.

3) very frequent nole vs murra matches in GS
no final in open era history was having low level like
USO 12!!.I can't understand why peoples were sitting in
stands managed to watch that bloody encounter for 4 hrs
same for wimby final 13. in both finals novak forgot
how to hit forehand and still Labrador require 5 sets to
beat nole .0001

4) old federer won 7th Wimbledon and recapture no 1 spot
this shows that how weak this field is . ******* beat both
nole and Labrador back to back matches at GS at 31

5) guy like ferru at no 4!!!(this won't need any explanation )


So does anybody has doubt that this is weak era?
IF YOUNG TALENT WILL NOT ARRIVE SOON WE WILL ENTER
DARK ERA OF TENNIS , THIS IS JUST START OF IT!
 
Wikipedia

The early 2000s were seen as a time of transition in tennis, with older players retiring and a few players breaking through at the very top of the game.[16] Roger Federer had first played on the ATP Tour aged 17 in 1998,[17] finishing his first full ATP season the following year before finishing 2002 ranked sixth in the world, his first year-end ranking in the top 8. His breakthrough came in 2003 when he won his first Grand Slam tournament,[18] and finished the year as world number 2 behind Andy Roddick. The following two years he had almost complete solo dominance, winning five of eight Grand Slams and losing just ten matches in 2004 and 2005.

Nadal had won his first ATP Tour match aged 15 years and 10 months in April 2002,[19] and he defeated Federer in their first meeting in 2004 at Miami.[20] 2005 was Nadal's breakthrough year, in which he won 24 consecutive matches on clay, including his first French Open beating Federer en route in the semifinals,[21] and he finished as world number 2 whilst Federer remained number 1 for a second straight year.

The period between 2005 and 2008 was subsequently dominated by the Federer-Nadal rivalry. They won 11 consecutive Grand Slams, meeting in every French Open and Wimbledon final from 2006–2008. The 2008 Wimbledon final—which Nadal won—has been lauded as the greatest match ever by many long-time tennis analysts.[22][23][24][25] From 2005–2010 they ended every year as the world's top two players.
 

ilovetennis212

Professional
I don't know much about Golden era or weak era.
But It is certainly such a boring era.
It's boring without federer or nadal in the finals.
 

Fedinkum

Legend
People always talk of a weak era, but era of what?? Time runs continuously!! Good and bad players come and go. And when was the strong era?? All I can say is we are lucky to have four exceptional men battling it out right now!!
 

WhiskeyEE

G.O.A.T.
The funny thing is that Nadal is playing worse than ever, but achieving greater results than ever.

The current era is flat out embarrassing and makes the ATP look bush league.
 

Crose

Professional
The early and mid 2000s was a weaker era because there wasn't anyone even remotely as good as Rafa and Novak. Even Murray is better than most of them from that era.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
************* always crying that fed got 17 slams due to weak era .but IMO weak era started after RG 2012 and still
we are in weak era.
I got some reasons for that

1) Federer is declined a lot
2) nadal is injured for rest season in 2012 and missed ao 13
also.
3) surprisingly world no 1 is not playing well since RG 2012.
I cannot say his is declined but he lost his god factor
surely
4) this is most important reason - lack of young talent
The young guns are not impressive at all
Actually players like dimitrov , tomic , raonic, JJ
should have replaced nadal , nole as they replaced
federer who was also at 26

Result of weak era -

1) 27 years old nadal is still dominating the tour especially hc . winning 9 titles at the age of retirement

2) mug like Murray won two slams!! This is most embarrassing thing that the guy without any weapons
winning slams .if young guns were talented like nadal
nole in 2007,2008 they have destroyed this lucky
Labrador.

3) very frequent nole vs murra matches in GS
no final in open era history was having low level like
USO 12!!.I can't understand why peoples were sitting in
stands managed to watch that bloody encounter for 4 hrs
same for wimby final 13. in both finals novak forgot
how to hit forehand and still Labrador require 5 sets to
beat nole .0001

4) old federer won 7th Wimbledon and recapture no 1 spot
this shows that how weak this field is . ******* beat both
nole and Labrador back to back matches at GS at 31

5) guy like ferru at no 4!!!(this won't need any explanation )


So does anybody has doubt that this is weak era?
IF YOUNG TALENT WILL NOT ARRIVE SOON WE WILL ENTER
DARK ERA OF TENNIS , THIS IS JUST START OF IT!

This is silly. You are just using your own definition of a weak era. Is a weak era when top 2 are declining or when entire top 10 is declining? Or when the entire field lacks talent? Or do we use only top 30 players?

Or maybe when just 1 top player declines like Fed? This is so relative. You can interpret numbers any way you want and make any era look weak, strong, medium.

I can say, look, Fed was in a weak era now that others are better he is no longer winning. Or I can say, look Fed was in his prime but now others are winning just because he declined.

More gs champions can mean they are all great, tough era. Or it can mean a weak era, they all suck, cuz nobody is able to dominate as much.

And, I don't get why some people here don't want to understand this basic reasoning.

The same with the argument that young talent is lacking. Does that mean they are bad? Or does it mean other top players are so good, that teens can no longer dominate?

It depends on your personal preference. Fed fans will argue Fed declined and 2003-2007 were toughest and he made them look bad. Nadal fans will argue Nadal didn't develop and that 2008-2012 are the toughest and Fed is not as good.

Don't you see that you are basing the entire argument comparing others only relative to Fed? What is more likely, the terrible fluctuations of one guy or entire field?
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
The early and mid 2000s was a weaker era because there wasn't anyone even remotely as good as Rafa and Novak. Even Murray is better than most of them from that era.

How do you know they weren't as good? You are making an assumption. Doesn't more gs champions mean a tougher era? Like 2012?

In 2012 is the competition good? Or they all equally suck?

The difference between some eras is the distribution of majors among competitors. In some eras you have more gs champions. In some era you have less gs champions but those guys have more majors.

Hypothetical era has 5 years, that is 20 majors. Which era is tougher? One guy winning 20 majors others 0? Two guys winning 10 majors? Or 5 guys having 4 majors each? How about 20 guys having 1 major each?

More competitive era can mean all are amazing players or all equally suck and nobody can be as dominant as Fed, Pete, Nadal...

I guess it's impossible to compare the level of competition by using numbers.
We need to use the level of play. How fast they move. How fast they strike the ball. How much knowledge they have from previous generations. For example, kids today know more than Einstein cuz they have a head start, that doesn't mean they can be tougher competition in science or are greater.
We also need to see current form and how good a guy is on the surface.
Sampras has 14 majors, looks tough on paper, but on clay he is not a tough competiton. Nadal was nr.4 at RG? But we know he is the toughest.

My point is, using just numbers to measure the competition is illogical. Also even if competition is weak, that doesn't prove a guy can't raise his level if the competition is tougher. Because dominant players have a gap and only put as much effort as necessary.

We also have a problem with the decline. If a dominant player could sustain his level for 10 years, we could compare competition. But we know he can't, also we don't know how much he declines. How do we know that competition got better, or that a dominant player declined?
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
The early and mid 2000s was a weaker era because there wasn't anyone even remotely as good as Rafa and Novak. Even Murray is better than most of them from that era.

Federer from the mid 2000's was better than both Novak and Rafa...
 

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
The weak era began after Pete and Andre left leaving a gaping hole in a tour with no predecessor. Haas was mostly injured, Lleyton and Juan Carlos got the chicken pox, Safin and Nalbandian were MIA. Nadal. Djoker, and Murray were toddlers. Who was left? Roddick, Baghdatis, Phillippoussis came back after being off injured forever. How can that not be a weak era?
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
The weak era began after Pete and Andre left leaving a gaping hole in a tour with no predecessor. Haas was mostly injured, Lleyton and Juan Carlos got the chicken pox, Safin and Nalbandian were MIA. Nadal. Djoker, and Murray were toddlers. Who was left? Roddick, Baghdatis, Phillippoussis came back after being off injured forever. How can that not be a weak era?

How is a weak era when an era has a goat and a surface goat dominating everything?

In the 90s an era didn't have so dominant players being nr.1 and nr.2. And Nole is way better than Courier.

In Feds era we had Fed, Nadal, Nole. That is equivalent of Laver, Borg, Agassi, but all being even more consistent than those. Agassi was away half of the time.

Are you saying an era where Laver, Borg and Agassi are playing is a weak one?

And I didn't even mention other dangerous players. Murray, Delpo, Hewitt, Roddick, even old Agassi.

Name me where other greats had anyone who was as good as Nadal, Nole as their competition?
 

Omega_7000

Legend
Yeah no question about...The only reason this era has multiple major winners is because Nadal is so inconsistent on anything other than clay...If he didn't skip majors, and lost in the 1st round for two years in a row, Murray would still be slamless and Djokovic would not have as many slams.

Djokovic is the only consistent player...and he too is not playing as well as he did in 2011...when Federer beat him on his worst surface at 31!

What does this era have?
* "32 year old bad back wayyyyyyyyyy past his prime not sure which racket to use" Federer

* "Injured all the time" DelPotro

* "Cheerleader Berdych". LMAO

* 31 year old Ferrer.

* "So bad on clay that he doesn't even bother to show up on it and can't even reach semifinals/finals on his favorite surface" Murray...The same Murray who Federer owned in majors until he was 31 years old!

* Extremely inconsistent Tsonga

* An era in which a player like Milos Raonic who has zero game besides his serve is ranked # 11

* And where's the young talent? There is no player pushing the top guys....It's actually kinda pathetic.

I personally don't thinkyou can compare eras but If you're going to claim Fed's era is bad, then this era is worse! LMAO


Yeah strong era! :roll:
 
Last edited:

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
How is a weak era when an era has a goat and a surface goat dominating everything?

In the 90s an era didn't have so dominant players being nr.1 and nr.2. And Nole is way better than Courier.

In Feds era we had Fed, Nadal, Nole. That is equivalent of Laver, Borg, Agassi, but all being even more consistent than those. Agassi was away half of the time.

Are you saying an era where Laver, Borg and Agassi are playing is a weak one?

And I didn't even mention other dangerous players. Murray, Delpo, Hewitt, Roddick, even old Agassi.

Name me where other greats had anyone who was as good as Nadal, Nole as their competition?

Fed's era is Hewitt, Haas, Roddick, Safin, Juan Carlos, Nalbandian, and Youzny. Those are the guys that are Fed's age, not Nadal, Djoker, and Andy. They are five to six years younger than Federer. Rafa just tiptoed into Fed's era. He wasn't supposed to be there.

Your statement is like saying that this is Dmitrov, Raonic, and Janowicz's era. No it's not, they are amassing the tools they need to compete at the highest level now. del Potro is 24 years old. Are you kidding me? He's eight years younger than Federer.

Using your logic we need to subtract 6-8 years from Rafa, Nole, and del Potro and say that someone that's 22 should be at the same place as Rafa. Or, 21 and be at the same place as Nole and Andy. But here's the kicker, this person should be 19 and be in the same place as del Potro. They're not in the same generation because they're playing at the same time. No, they have to come on tour and learn how to play on the professional level. That requires time, maturation, and experience.

In the 90's players actually competed against each other. There wasn't this "it's okay to lose to Pete" spiel that went on from 2003-2007. Were you watching tennis then?

To the bolded: WHAT? You've got Laver who played in what era? Borg was the 70's and 80's (I think), what do they have to do with the weak era? :confused:.

Edit: Do you think Hewitt and Sampras were contemporaries too? Pete was 10 years older than Hewitt. Pete's contemporaries were Andre, Courier, Krajicek, Schalken, etc. Tommy, Andy, and Lleyton were the youngbloods, but they were in no way Pete's peers.
 
Last edited:

Omega_7000

Legend
Laver was truly great, and at his best he could make other top-notch players look second-rate. Same goes for Federer...If Federer allowed his competition to win more majors, they would look stronger too.

Nadal......Not so much....He never was consistent enough...

It's funny how some folks here are blaming Federer for not allowing his rivals to win more majors. :roll:
 

clayqueen

Talk Tennis Guru
************* always crying that fed got 17 slams due to weak era .but IMO weak era started after RG 2012 and still
we are in weak era.

IF YOUNG TALENT WILL NOT ARRIVE SOON WE WILL ENTER
DARK ERA OF TENNIS , THIS IS JUST START OF IT!

You make some very good points. What differentiates this era from Fed's weak era is that there are 4 players not just one who are far better than the rest and Nadal is the best of the best.

The question is, is it because the top players are so good that until they retire, it's impossible for anyone to play better than them on a regular basis and unseat them?

That question was settled in the TMF days when a young player, Nadal, emerged and unseated Federer and later on, two more emerged in Novak and Andy. That's what proved that Fed's was a weak era. You have to wait and see if any player evolves that are better than the current top players.
 
Last edited:

Omega_7000

Legend
Federer was unseated after he dominated from 2004-2007...If his level had not dropped (which is impossible because every great players level will drop), then he would still be #1.

Nadal is good right now but he was absent after losing in the 1st round at wimbledon last year...If he was consistently as good on surfaces other than clay, this era would not have any majors either....Djokovic maybe a couple, but Murray would have none.

The fact is that there is no one who plays consistently at the highest level like Federer did during his peak years.
 

Antonio Puente

Hall of Fame
Laver was truly great, and at his best he could make other top-notch players look second-rate. Same goes for Federer...If Federer allowed his competition to win more majors, they would look stronger too.

Nadal......Not so much....He never was consistent enough...

Fed made other top players look 2nd rate while Nadal did not? Am I reading a post from bizarro world? Nadal has a winning H-2-H against every all-time great he encountered while Fed is a combined 34-45 against Nadal, Djokovic and Murray. Sure, when Roddick, Haas and Hewitt were the competition, it was a party.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
Fed's era is Hewitt, Haas, Roddick, Safin, Juan Carlos, Nalbandian, and Youzny. Those are the guys that are Fed's age, not Nadal, Djoker, and Andy. They are five to six years younger than Federer. Rafa just tiptoed into Fed's era. He wasn't supposed to be there.

Your statement is like saying that this is Dmitrov, Raonic, and Janowicz's era. No it's not, they are amassing the tools they need to compete at the highest level now. del Potro is 24 years old. Are you kidding me? He's eight years younger than Federer.

Using your logic we need to subtract 6-8 years from Rafa, Nole, and del Potro and say that someone that's 22 should be at the same place as Rafa. Or, 21 and be at the same place as Nole and Andy. But here's the kicker, this person should be 19 and be in the same place as del Potro. They're not in the same generation because they're playing at the same time. No, they have to come on tour and learn how to play on the professional level. That requires time, maturation, and experience.

In the 90's players actually competed against each other. There wasn't this "it's okay to lose to Pete" spiel that went on from 2003-2007. Were you watching tennis then?

To the bolded: WHAT? You've got Laver who played in what era? Borg was the 70's and 80's (I think), what do they have to do with the weak era? :confused:.

Edit: Do you think Hewitt and Sampras were contemporaries too? Pete was 10 years older than Hewitt. Pete's contemporaries were Andre, Courier, Krajicek, Schalken, etc. Tommy, Andy, and Lleyton were the youngbloods, but they were in no way Pete's peers.

Ok, if those guys aren't Feds contemporaries, than you can't really use their h2h against him, either. This means Fed is undisputed best even on clay in his era. You can't have it both ways.

The thing is this, how do you know Nole is better than Hewitt? You argue that Feds 17 are inflated, that means Hewitt could be deflated also.

If Fed is not greater than Pete because 17 vs 14, I guess Djokovic can't be greater than Safin,Hewitt because of 6 vs 2.

And we are back to square one. Never ending circular argument that goes down to personal feelings. You can dissect any numbers to make any era look strong, weak or medium.

You say Fed didn't have enough competition. We can also say, he was so good not letting others amass majors, like Nadal lets to Murray and Djokovic and to old Fed and letting Nole be nr.1.

Does it mean Fed is that good, or does it mean Rafa has tougher competition? What if Fed declined after 2010 and Rafa is not that great as peak Fed, and that is why others have more majors.

I guess Nadal fan will argue his way, Fed fan his way, Sampras fan his way.

But at least you proved Nadal and Fed aren't from the same generation, so we can't use his h2h vs Fed, like we can't use h2h with Fed vs Agassi, Or Hewitt vs Pete.

Those guys, Hewitt and Roddick were doing as Nole and Rafa. They were capitalizing on Sampras and Agassi declining. Now, Rafa and Nole and Murray and others are winning cuz Fed is declining.

My point is that weak era comes down to personal opinions. Nadal fan will say Nadal was developing in Feds era. Fed fan will say Nadal is not good as Fed, that's why he can't win as much.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
Fed's era is Hewitt, Haas, Roddick, Safin, Juan Carlos, Nalbandian, and Youzny. Those are the guys that are Fed's age, not Nadal, Djoker, and Andy. They are five to six years younger than Federer. Rafa just tiptoed into Fed's era. He wasn't supposed to be there.

Your statement is like saying that this is Dmitrov, Raonic, and Janowicz's era. No it's not, they are amassing the tools they need to compete at the highest level now. del Potro is 24 years old. Are you kidding me? He's eight years younger than Federer.

Using your logic we need to subtract 6-8 years from Rafa, Nole, and del Potro and say that someone that's 22 should be at the same place as Rafa. Or, 21 and be at the same place as Nole and Andy. But here's the kicker, this person should be 19 and be in the same place as del Potro. They're not in the same generation because they're playing at the same time. No, they have to come on tour and learn how to play on the professional level. That requires time, maturation, and experience.

In the 90's players actually competed against each other. There wasn't this "it's okay to lose to Pete" spiel that went on from 2003-2007. Were you watching tennis then?

To the bolded: WHAT? You've got Laver who played in what era? Borg was the 70's and 80's (I think), what do they have to do with the weak era? :confused:.

Edit: Do you think Hewitt and Sampras were contemporaries too? Pete was 10 years older than Hewitt. Pete's contemporaries were Andre, Courier, Krajicek, Schalken, etc. Tommy, Andy, and Lleyton were the youngbloods, but they were in no way Pete's peers.

Ok, if those guys aren't Feds contemporaries, than you can't really use their h2h against him, either. This means Fed is undisputed best even on clay in his era. You can't have it both ways.

The thing is this, how do you know Nole is better than Hewitt? You argue that Feds 17 are inflated, that means Hewitt could be deflated also.

If Fed is not greater than Pete because 17 vs 14, I guess Djokovic can't be greater than Safin,Hewitt because of 6 vs 2.

And we are back to square one. Never ending circular argument that goes down to personal feelings. You can dissect any numbers to make any era look strong, weak or medium.

You say Fed didn't have enough competition. We can also say, he was so good not letting others amass majors, like Nadal lets to Murray and Djokovic and to old Fed and letting Nole be nr.1.

Does it mean Fed is that good, or does it mean Rafa has tougher competition? What if Fed declined after 2010 and Rafa is not that great as peak Fed, and that is why others have more majors.

I guess Nadal fan will argue his way, Fed fan his way, Sampras fan his way.

But at least you proved Nadal and Fed aren't from the same generation, so we can't use his h2h vs Fed, like we can't use h2h with Fed vs Agassi, Or Hewitt vs Pete.

Those guys, Hewitt and Roddick were doing as Nole and Rafa. They were capitalizing on Sampras and Agassi declining. Now, Rafa and Nole and Murray and others are winning cuz Fed is declining.

My point is that weak era comes down to personal opinions. Nadal fan will say Nadal was developing in Feds era. Fed fan will say Nadal is not good as Fed, that's why he can't win as much.

I mistook you for the Order once again, sorry. Just realized. You actually are ok and I've been a bit harsh. You don't deserve it :).
 

Omega_7000

Legend
Fed made other top players look 2nd rate while Nadal did not? Am I reading a post from bizarro world? Nadal has a winning H-2-H against every all-time great he encountered while Fed is a combined 34-45 against Nadal, Djokovic and Murray. Sure, when Roddick, Haas and Hewitt were the competition, it was a party.

Again with the H2H :roll:

Dude Nadal was gone after Wimbledon last year until clay this year...What are you smoking?

If Federer had skipped 7 months during his peak/prime, lost in 1st rounds in majors, not gone deep in every major, you don't think other players would've won majors...Or do you think they would've handed the trophies to Federer just because :roll:
 

Omega_7000

Legend
Ok, if those guys aren't Feds contemporaries, than you can't really use their h2h against him, either. This means Fed is undisputed best even on clay in his era. You can't have it both ways.

The thing is this, how do you know Nole is better than Hewitt? You argue that Feds 17 are inflated, that means Hewitt could be deflated also.

If Fed is not greater than Pete because 17 vs 14, I guess Djokovic can't be greater than Safin,Hewitt because of 6 vs 2.

And we are back to square one. Never ending circular argument that goes down to personal feelings. You can dissect any numbers to make any era look strong, weak or medium.

You say Fed didn't have enough competition. We can also say, he was so good not letting others amass majors, like Nadal lets to Murray and Djokovic and to old Fed and letting Nole be nr.1.

Does it mean Fed is that good, or does it mean Rafa has tougher competition? What if Fed declined after 2010 and Rafa is not that great as peak Fed, and that is why others have more majors.

I guess Nadal fan will argue his way, Fed fan his way, Sampras fan his way.

But at least you proved Nadal and Fed aren't from the same generation, so we can't use his h2h vs Fed, like we can't use h2h with Fed vs Agassi, Or Hewitt vs Pete.

Those guys, Hewitt and Roddick were doing as Nole and Rafa. They were capitalizing on Sampras and Agassi declining. Now, Rafa and Nole and Murray and others are winning cuz Fed is declining.

My point is that weak era comes down to personal opinions. Nadal fan will say Nadal was developing in Feds era. Fed fan will say Nadal is not good as Fed, that's why he can't win as much.

I mistook you for the Order once again, sorry. Just realized. You actually are ok and I've been a bit harsh. You don't deserve it :).

This should be a sticky on every weak era thread.

That's exactly right and something I've said several times before. Anyone can twist numbers to show their favorite player had a strong era.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
This should be a sticky on every weak era thread.

That's exactly right and something I've said several times before. Anyone can twist numbers to show their favorite player had a strong era.

And that is only half of the problem. Numbers don't say anything about current form or bad matchups. Who is tougher in a HC gs final for Nadal? Davydenko or Federer? Tough to say. In 2011 Nole was tougher on clay to Nadal, but it was only Fed that beat him on clay.

And defeating 2006 Fed and 2011 Fed at uso or ao is not the same either.

Would Nole and Murray win against peak Hewitt, Roddick, Safin?
They were all tough on hc. Roddick even has a winning h2h against Nole. And they had to beat those guys before even playing peak Fed.
 

iceman_dl6

Professional
To OP: I know what you mean, that is why we are seeing the likes of Gasquet and Wawrinka in the semis and Robredo in the quarters of the USO 2013. The effect is that the entertainement value of the matches (not all) these days have suffered a bit, ie Rafa vs Robredo. I agree that this "weak" era wouldn't be as bad if the up-in-coming young players like Raonic, Dimitrov, Tomic (to name a few) would step up their game and take over the top 10.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
To OP: I know what you mean, that is why we are seeing the likes of Gasquet and Wawrinka in the semis and Robredo in the quarters of the USO 2013. The effect is that the entertainement value of the matches (not all) these days have suffered a bit, ie Rafa vs Robredo. I agree that this "weak" era wouldn't be as bad if the up-in-coming young players like Raonic, Dimitrov, Tomic (to name a few) would step up their game and take over the top 10.

But this is the problem. Maybe this is the strongest era and that is why teens and younger players can no longer step up. Now just being a prodigy is not even enough, you have to be also physically developed. That's why it took Fed so long to dominate. And Nadal dominated so early because he is a genetic freak of nature (I mean this in a good way). I mean he was overpowering other clay court top players when he was just 16.

Today it is tough.
 

fastgrass

Banned
my main point is lack of young talent like nole and rafa.
fed was also very strong at Wimbledon but rafa beat him
at Wimbledon at the same age of Dimitriv ,JJ,and raonic.
nole won his first slam at 21 by beating fed at ao
We are lacking such a talent.
if nole and rafa would have same competition as they given
to fed they were out of top 4 already and Labrador slamless.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
my main point is lack of young talent like nole and rafa.
fed was also very strong at Wimbledon but rafa beat him
at Wimbledon at the same age of Dimitriv ,JJ,and raonic.
nole won his first slam at 21 by beating fed at ao
We are lacking such a talent.
if nole and rafa would have same competition as they given
to fed they were out of top 4 already and Labrador slamless.

Does this mean Fed had it even harder than Rafa and Nole? They have old Fed that is like old Agassi. But they don't have young equivalents of Rafa and Nole.
 

iceman_dl6

Professional
But this is the problem. Maybe this is the strongest era and that is why teens and younger players can no longer step up. Now just being a prodigy is not even enough, you have to be also physically developed. That's why it took Fed so long to dominate. And Nadal dominated so early because he is a genetic freak of nature (I mean this in a good way). I mean he was overpowering other clay court top players when he was just 16.

Today it is tough.

I agree your perspective on today's young players having a tough time to step up in the rankings. However, the fact remains that we are seeing perennial mediocre players such as Gasquet, Robredo, Wawrinka (to name a few) stepping up and capitalizing on the weak era as described by the OP
 

rafafan20

Professional
Hahahahahah

image.png
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
I agree your perspective on today's young players having a tough time to step up in the rankings. However, the fact remains that we are seeing perennial mediocre players such as Gasquet, Robredo, Wawrinka (to name a few) stepping up and capitalizing on the weak era as described by the OP

The only difference is Fed declining. They are capitalizing on this, yes. Because before Fed on his side of the draw didn't let those guys to finals.

Wawrinka didn't capitalize, he beat the defending champ, took nr.1 HC player of last years to 5 sets twice. He is the real deal.

Apart from Fed declining, I don't see how an era is weaker.
 

fastgrass

Banned
yes you got the point .
fed had enough competition from younger generation .
generally 20-22 is the age for as stepping up for the young
guns and outplay former champs
its not true that it is difficult for youngs to step up if
earlier generation had great players.
Sampras got outplayed by safin , Hewitt which are considered as weak era clowns.
but today's young generation is not good enough than
this clowns. this is why at 26 mug like Murray winning
first slams.
and rafa is still dominant.
 

iceman_dl6

Professional
The only difference is Fed declining. They are capitalizing on this, yes. Because before Fed on his side of the draw didn't let those guys to finals.

Wawrinka didn't capitalize, he beat the defending champ, took nr.1 HC player of last years to 5 sets twice. He is the real deal.

Apart from Fed declining, I don't see how an era is weaker.

I agree with your comments on Wawrinka, that was an awesome match vs Djokovic. However, the fact of the matter is it's a long time coming since we had a great and entertaining season since 2009 when it was Fed, Rafa, Djoker, Delpo, Murray and Roddick running the show instead of only Rafa, Djoker and maybe Murray right now. Back then, even the earlier rounds were interesting to watch, now even quarterfinals and semis are boring (ie Robredo/Rafa and Rafa/Gasquet USO 2013)
 

RunDatGame

Semi-Pro
Weak era will start after Big4. Mens tennis will be like WTA today with no real champions.
When they done, Big 4 will prob have like 50+ slams together so what do you think how will history remeber this era you r calling weak and boring?
Whats coming after them huh?
You will beg to see someone like Nadal, Fed and Novak again...
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
I agree with your comments on Wawrinka, that was an awesome match vs Djokovic. However, the fact of the matter is it's a long time coming since we had a great and entertaining season since 2009 when it was Fed, Rafa, Djoker, Delpo, Murray and Roddick running the show instead of only Rafa, Djoker and maybe Murray right now. Back then, even the earlier rounds were interesting to watch, now even quarterfinals and semis are boring (ie Robredo/Rafa and Rafa/Gasquet USO 2013)

I guess this era is not as exciting. I see your point. It's strong, just not as exciting.

It's because of Federer. Federer dominated and Rafa was the challenger. Now Rafa doesn't have this kind of aura and isn't this dominant and doesn't have younger greats challenging him. Also with Fed you had many contenders for majors. You had old Agassi, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Ferrero.
You had really different styles and dangerous floaters like Nalbandian, Davydenko, Blake, Gonzalez. And after those he had the next generation greats: Murray, Nadal, Nole.

And after Fed, even if Rafa dominates, people are like : Ok, been there, done that, what else is new.

I guess there are four things to make an era exciting to the public:
-Domination of a player, the more dominant the better.
-His playing style
-He has young players challenging his throne
-More contenders for majors

But trends change. Maybe things will change and people will start seeing guys like Nole and Rafa entertaining. It's about perspective. People adapt to trends.

Or maybe a guy will come to evolve tennis to bring back serve and volley. We don't know.
 

fastgrass

Banned
Wikipedia

The early 2000s were seen as a time of transition in tennis, with older players retiring and a few players breaking through at the very top of the game.[16] Roger Federer had first played on the ATP Tour aged 17 in 1998,[17] finishing his first full ATP season the following year before finishing 2002 ranked sixth in the world, his first year-end ranking in the top 8. His breakthrough came in 2003 when he won his first Grand Slam tournament,[18] and finished the year as world number 2 behind Andy Roddick. The following two years he had almost complete solo dominance, winning five of eight Grand Slams and losing just ten matches in 2004 and 2005.

Nadal had won his first ATP Tour match aged 15 years and 10 months in April 2002,[19] and he defeated Federer in their first meeting in 2004 at Miami.[20] 2005 was Nadal's breakthrough year, in which he won 24 consecutive matches on clay, including his first French Open beating Federer en route in the semifinals,[21] and he finished as world number 2 whilst Federer remained number 1 for a second straight year.

The period between 2005 and 2008 was subsequently dominated by the Federer-Nadal rivalry. They won 11 consecutive Grand Slams, meeting in every French Open and Wimbledon final from 2006–2008. The 2008 Wimbledon final—which Nadal won—has been lauded as the greatest match ever by many long-time tennis analysts.[22][23][24][25] From 2005–2010 they ended every year as the world's top two players.

Does this mean Fed had it even harder than Rafa and Nole? They have old Fed that is like old Agassi. But they don't have young equivalents of Rafa and Nole.

Weak era will start after Big4. Mens tennis will be like WTA today with no real champions.
When they done, Big 4 will prob have like 50+ slams together so what do you think how will history remeber this era you r calling weak and boring?
Whats coming after them huh?
You will beg to see someone like Nadal, Fed and Novak again...

I am not agree with you.
its nature's rule that new champions will come.
anyone imagined that Pete's record will get broken
in just 8 years
It may happen that great will arrive and win 25 slams
or it may take time but it is true that feds slam record
will not remain unbroken up to end of the world!!
 

90's Clay

Banned
Murray, Djokovic, Berdych,Ferrer,Wawrinka etc.>>>>>>>Roddick,Hewitt,Davydenko,Baghaditis, Gonzales, Ljubicic, Blake etc


What era is weak again? ROFLMAO
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
Murray, Djokovic, Berdych,Ferrer,Wawrinka etc.>>>>>>>Roddick,Hewitt,Davydenko,Baghaditis, Gonzales, Ljubicic, Blake etc


What era is weak again? ROFLMAO

But you don't have a lot of credibility having 90s in your nickname. That shows a bit of emotional bias. But this bias shows also in the posting tone.

It's like a guy who has a nickname Fedisthegoat saying Fed is greater than Rafa.
It just doesn't sound objective and credible.

So, I can't take your arguments seriously, especially about any weak eras.

And even using your flawed argument, Fed owned Murray, Djokovic, Wawrinka, Ferrer anyway.
 

90's Clay

Banned
Fed never owned Murray (Doesn't Murray have the h2h advantage over Roger?) , he sure a shell has NEVER owned Djokovic.



Do you know what "owning" is? Owning is Fed's h2h with Roddick or Hewitt (The era that you guys supposedly say is better than this one. ROFLMAO)
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
Fed never owned Murray (Doesn't Murray have the h2h advantage over Roger?) , he sure a shell has NEVER owned Djokovic.



Do you know what "owning" is? Owning is Fed's h2h with Roddick or Hewitt (The era that you guys supposedly say is better than this one. ROFLMAO)

Owning is subjective. It means different for different people. Also the terms strong and weak are subjective.

Roddick has a winning h2h with Nole. How is he such a bad player?
 

90's Clay

Banned
Owning is subjective. It means different for different people. Also the terms strong and weak are subjective.

Roddick has a winning h2h with Nole. How is he such a bad player?

Roddick managed 1 measly slam in his entire career. Nole will probably grab 9 or better along with the career grand slam
 
90's clay what a joke you are!!!!

thiis year 2013 is even worst than 2010 , nadal will be nº1 without playing AO and lost in first round of wimledon after more than 7 months out!!!

nole , federer and murray are in bad level , much worst than in 2012 , this is a 2010 year with mugs like wawrinka or gasquet , janowicz in semis of slams.

ferrer and bedych are clows in comparassion with peak coria or nalbandian , even peak davydenko.

ferrer this year was nº3 and made RG final losing in a patetic way with nadal LOLLLLLLLLLLLLL , HE IS A WORST Nº3 THAN CORIA , NALBY OR DAVYDENKO.

coria had more masters1000 than ferrer , and nalbandian and davydenko too with the plus of the masters cup and semis in all slams.

It`s federer`s era is weak , an era in where the second best player ( agass=) was 2 years out of tennis and more worried for hair and look than for won rg it`s a joke.
 
Top