This Is A Weak Era

[Slice&Smash]

This is not an attempt to troll or to trash any tennis player out there. I seriously believe this is a weak tennis era where the majority of players have failed to catch up and challenge a small group at the top. To start, let's first define what I believe a weak looks like:

1. A period of 3 years or more during which few or no up-and-coming talent are consistently challenging the top player(s).
2. A period where 90% or more of the major tournaments (MS, WTF, GS) are won by the pre-tournament favorite
3. An almost static ranking with a few players swapping places at the very top despite age, physical conditions, or personal issues affecting their performance.
4. An almost ridiculously one-sided head to head record between the top players and the rest of the field.

If we can agree on the above as a definition, then the 2005-present is one of the weakest eras in tennis. Just look at the facts:

• Only two grand slams were won by anyone other the the top 3 players (AO 2005, USO 2009). That is two out of 25 or 8%.
  
• Out of the last 57 MS1000 events (to 2005), only 12 have gone to anyone out of the current 4 players. That is less than 21%.
  
• The current top 3 players have been sharing the top two ranking for 6 straight years (with the exception of a few weeks by Murray)
  
• Out of the last 9 WTF events, only two have gone to anyone but Federer or Djokovic
  
• We had only one major upset during the last 7 years (USO 2009) and he was ranked as high as sixth.
  
• If you want to find a winner who was outside the top-4, you have to go all the way back to the FO 2004.
  
• The head-to-head of Federer, Nadal, and now Djokovic against the rest of the field is very one sided. It is not uncommon to see 18-1, 12-0, 22-3.

The end result is usually predictable tournaments with boring matches all the way to the QF and an exciting semi-final and final between the top 4. The top guys are almost always expected to win against anyone outside their group.

What is happening here and why? Are the top 3 just really that much better than everyone else? Perhaps the cost of maintaining such a high level is beyond the means of anyone but very wealthy athletes? Did the harmonization of the surfaces play it's part?

Why isn't Ferrer, Tsonga, Berdych or anyone else within the top 20 stepping up?

 

[Magnus]

To me today's era is far weaker than 2003-2007 which people claim is the weak era. Its also far more boring and when Fed retires it will be basically as good as dead.

 

[DRII]

To me today's era is far weaker than 2003-2007 which people claim is the weak era. Its also far more boring and when Fed retires it will be basically as good as dead.

Only a Federer-worshiper would say such a thing!

The entire last decade has been weaker than previous time periods, particularly 2003-2006 where Federer won many of his slams!

The OP is correct and you know it! Although i would not say weak but just weaker. Any world class competitive sport, with millions in prize money and the oppurtunity to make players rich, is not going to be 'weak' -- but the current era (last decade or so) has certainly been weaker.

 

[Sim]

Imo, the field is weak while the top 4 are just so much better than the rest.

 

[Mike Sams]

Imo, the field is weak while the top 4 are just so much better than the rest.

Or maybe the rest of the field hasn't yet gone gluten-free or doping to the extent of the top 2?

 

[Magnus]

Only a Federer-worshiper would say such a thing!

The entire last decade has been weaker than previous time periods, particularly 2003-2006 where Federer won many of his slams!

The OP is correct and you know it! Although i would not say weak but just weaker. Any world class competitive sport, with millions in prize money and the oppurtunity to make players rich, is not going to be 'weak' -- but the current era (last decade or so) has certainly been weaker.

1) I'm no Federer fan, I'm done with Federer and couldn't care less about any of the top 4 players in the world.

2) Its true.

 

[Sim]

Or maybe the rest of the field hasn't yet gone gluten-free or doping to the extent of the top 2?

Well, if the whole field starts doping, you can't ban them all can you? :twisted:

 

[veroniquem]

It's just an era when the elite is extremely strong, a far cry from the Rios/ Rafter/ Kuerten, etc years. The end of the 90s, beginning of 2000 were a weak era in terms of elite (not consistently dominant or not efficient on all surfaces) so a lot of players like Kafelnikov, Korda, Johansson were able to win slams, they probably wouldn't today.

 

[brettsticker86]

It's just an era where the elite is extremely strong, a far cry from the Rios/ Rafter/ Kuerten, etc years. The end of the 90s, beginning of 2000 were a weak era in terms of elite (not consistently dominant or not efficient on all surfaces) so a lot of players like Kafelnikov, Korda, Johansson were able to win slams, they probably wouldn't today.

Agreed, I think men's tennis is very deep. You get into the 20s and 30s of the rankings and there are still plenty of guys that can play some serious ball. I think the problem(not really a problem is that the big guys at the top, ie nadal, murray, fed and djok are just playing at such an incredibly high level. Just take federer and nadal, 2 guys, 1 of which already carries the GOAT tag, and the other who people are talking about could possibly take the GOAT tag from him. Fed-GOAT, nadal-clay court GOAT, djokovic-Longest winning streak to open a year, out of these 3, 2 have won all four and the other has 3 out of 4. I guess you can argue that they have done that because the field is weak, but my own personal opinion is that they have set the level that much higher than the rest. Purely personal speculation I guess.

 

[elpolaco84]

 

[veroniquem]

Very well put. ITA. (to Brettsticker)

 

[jones101]

It's just an era where the elite is extremely strong, a far cry from the Rios/ Rafter/ Kuerten, etc years. The end of the 90s, beginning of 2000 were a weak era in terms of elite (not consistently dominant or not efficient on all surfaces) so a lot of players like Kafelnikov, Korda, Johansson were able to win slams, they probably wouldn't today.

Exactly!

Fedal have been dominating together since 2005, then Murray and Djoker since 2008. It is only being called a weak era by the OP because they have throughly dominated the field collectively.

Take away the top 3/4 guys from the game from 2005 onwards and the slam winners of the last 7 years would be (some multi slam winners)

Safin
Hewitt
Roddick
Del Potro
Bhagdatis
Gonzalez
Tsonga
Berdych
Verdasco
Soderling
Peurta
Nalbandian
Cilic

Is the OP really insinuating that having lesser players winning slams equates to a stronger era? Thats rubbish and he knows it.

 

[1HBH Rocks]

To start, let's first define what I believe a weak looks like:

1. A period of 3 years or more during which few or no up-and-coming talent are consistently challenging the top player(s).
2. A period where 90% or more of the major tournaments (MS, WTF, GS) are won by the pre-tournament favorite
3. An almost static ranking with a few players swapping places at the very top despite age, physical conditions, or personal issues affecting their performance.
4. An almost ridiculously one-sided head to head record between the top players and the rest of the field.

Or maybe the top players are simply too good... You see, that's the problem behind people calling eras "weak" with the kind of points you're making: they're omitting very conveniently an other conclusion which is equally consistent with the facts they present.

With a limited amount of tournaments, when we compare wins and losses, all we get -- if the data is deemed representative -- is a comparison between the players which played: we know how much of a margin separate them. However, when you're declaring an era weak, you're essentially saying that, compared with other periods, these players are lesser of a threat... and you do it despite the obvious fact that the data you will use do not allow you to make this inference as it can't disprove the other alternative. In short, your conclusion to explain the gap is a non sequitur fallacy: you can't disregard the other explanation and can't force yours, hence you're jumping to the conclusion without sufficient evidence.

 

[tennis_pro]

Agreed, I think men's tennis is very deep. You get into the 20s and 30s of the rankings and there are still plenty of guys that can play some serious ball. I think the problem(not really a problem is that the big guys at the top, ie nadal, murray, fed and djok are just playing at such an incredibly high level. Just take federer and nadal, 2 guys, 1 of which already carries the GOAT tag, and the other who people are talking about could possibly take the GOAT tag from him. Fed-GOAT, nadal-clay court GOAT, djokovic-Longest winning streak to open a year, out of these 3, 2 have won all four and the other has 3 out of 4. I guess you can argue that they have done that because the field is weak, but my own personal opinion is that they have set the level that much higher than the rest. Purely personal speculation I guess.

I don't think it's the level of the top 4 that makes them so much better than everyone else but the general consistency. Federer was the first all-time great who kept reaching semis/finals on a regular basis making it look like it was nothing. Nadal followed soon afterwards, then Djokovic and to a certain degree Murray - these guys are so far ahead in the rankings that it's not even funny.

That's what I think is the biggest difference between the Sampras and Federer eras. Sampras was far less consistent - he could go dominate Wimbledon one year and then bow out to Yzaga or Kodra at the early stage of the US Open - thus made it possible for others to shine (like Kafelnikov, Rafter, even to a degree Agassi). Right now to win majors you need to go through all the top players which seems impossible to do if you're not a member of the top 4 yourself.

All in all I don't think that one era is neccessarily worse than the other, it's just different. The one and only period when it was extremely difficult to win majors was 1987-1993, it got significantly worse after 1993. Becker, Edberg, Courier, Wilander, Lendl all in their primes plus the beginnings of Agassi, Sampras.

 

[brettsticker86]

Exactly!

Fedal have been dominating together since 2005, then Murray and Djoker since 2008. It is only being called a weak era by the OP because they have throughly dominated the field collectively.

Take away the top 3/4 guys from the game from 2005 onwards and the slam winners of the last 7 years would be (some multi slam winners)

Safin
Hewitt
Roddick
Del Potro
Bhagdatis
Gonzalez
Tsonga
Berdych
Verdasco
Soderling
Peurta
Nalbandian
Cilic

Is the OP really insinuating that having lesser players winning slams equates to a stronger era? Thats rubbish and he knows it.

And that's what you have to keep in mind, if the top 3 were taken out, then people would be calling the ATP weak overall just like most people claim the WTA is weak for not having a few dominating forces in it.

 

[veroniquem]

Exactly!

Fedal have been dominating together since 2005, then Murray and Djoker since 2008. It is only being called a weak era by the OP because they have throughly dominated the field collectively.

Take away the top 3/4 guys from the game from 2005 onwards and the slam winners of the last 7 years would be (some multi slam winners)

Safin
Hewitt
Roddick
Del Potro
Bhagdatis
Gonzalez
Tsonga
Berdych
Verdasco
Soderling
Peurta
Nalbandian
Cilic

Is the OP really insinuating that having lesser players winning slams equates to a stronger era? Thats rubbish and he knows it.

And the top 4 players in your list DID manage to win slams, just mostly before 2004 when Fed's domination started taking insane proportions. I would not include Murray in the "insane domination" business though, it's mostly Fed (goat contender), Nadal (clay goat and best competitor), Djoko (1 of the best seasons/winning stretches in open era) and unlike Sampras, Djoko and Fed are serious (think consistent) heavyweights on clay, none of those 3 guys are clear surface specialists, they can strike real hard on all surfaces.
Just a tiny correction though, I don't think Djoko and Murray have been the dominant top players since 2008. 2009: Nadal and Fed, 2010: mostly Nadal, 2011: mostly Djoko. 2012? All of Djoko, Fed and Nadal so far but the season is young.

 

[mattennis]

It is not weak or strong eras, it is:

"Very different playing conditions and because of that clearly different and competitive game styles"---> Many more different GS winners=top players "look" less consistent.

Versus

"Much more homogenized playing conditions everywhere and because of that almost one unique playing style (baseline game)"---> The best ones at that, win everything and because of that the top players win more GS and "look" much more consistent.


Where would you see more different event winners, in a "normal" decathlon (with 10 different events like long jump, high jump, 100m run, 200m run....) or in a "repeat the same event (for example, long jump) ten times"?

That is the main difference between this era and previous eras.

 

[1970CRBase]

If we had a wider and sharper diversity of surfaces, we'd see a broader distribution of slams amongst the top because a greater range of playing styles would be required. What we have is racquet string tech on one hand that makes it impractical to come forward but on the other, one slow surface only with four different colours that makes it nearly impossible to hit through. It is only a shallow era if the standard of tennis is low and the quality of play is poor. And it isn't, even if everybody plays nearly exactly the same way and rallies for 9876 shots until one poor guy keels over is extremely exhausting to watch. Their ability is high, just very boring. Therefore IMO this era has been just as deep as the 90's but it is a narrow era where fewer players are able to take their place in the spotlight and shine through because the stage is smaller, but not because their talent is low.

That said, the next generation for the men could end up in a broken strata for a few years because I do not see any real stars in the making.

 

[tennis_pro]

Point is, as Rios once said, the conditions are identical for everybody. If Federer could dominate in 2004-2007 why the rest of the field couldn't? If Sampras dominated grass in 1993-2000 why was there no-one to challenge him?
Why has Nadal lost a handful of matches on clay since 2005? The tour was so dumb that no-one though of an idea : "hey I'll just play left-handed and use a topspin forehand, should work!"?

 

[tennis_pro]

If we had a wider and sharper diversity of surfaces, we'd see a broader distribution of slams amongst the top because a greater range of playing styles would be required. What we have is racquet string tech on one hand that makes it impractical to come forward but on the other, one slow surface only with four different colours that makes it nearly impossible to hit through. It is only a shallow era if the standard of tennis is low and the quality of play is poor. And it isn't, even if everybody plays nearly exactly the same way and rallies for 9876 shots until one poor guy keels over is extremely exhausting to watch. Their ability is high, just very boring. Therefore IMO this era has been just as deep as the 90's but it is a narrow era where fewer players are able to take their place in the spotlight and shine through because the stage is smaller, but not because their talent is low.

That said, the next generation for the men could end up in a broken strata for a few years because I do not see any real stars in the making.

That's probably one of the reasons why Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray will remain in the top 4 for another 5 years.

 

[mattennis]

Point is, as Rios once said, the conditions are identical for everybody. If Federer could dominate in 2004-2007 why the rest of the field couldn't? If Sampras dominated grass in 1993-2000 why was there no-one to challenge him?
Why has Nadal lost a handful of matches on clay since 2005? The tour was so dumb that no-one though of an idea : "hey I'll just play left-handed and use a topspin forehand, should work!"?

You just did not understand what 1970CRBase and I just wrote above.

Think of the "decathlon example" if it helps...

 

[Slice&Smash]

Is the OP really insinuating that having lesser players winning slams equates to a stronger era? Thats rubbish and he knows it.

It's not about just about winning, nor is it just about slams.

It's about going head-to-head with these guys and winning GS, MS1000, and ATP500. I'm quite certain that if you look at any event where at least two of the top 3 entered, it is 80-90% of these events are won by one of them.

It is an unbelievable level of consistency by Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic that has never been done before for such a long period of time, across all surfaces, and over a different kind of events.

I'm also not disputing the fact that the top three are amazing athletes. I'm trying to discuss why the others are unable to match them.

 

[1HBH Rocks]

Only a Federer-worshiper would say such a thing!

The entire last decade has been weaker than previous time periods, particularly 2003-2006 where Federer won many of his slams!

The OP is correct and you know it! Although i would not say weak but just weaker. Any world class competitive sport, with millions in prize money and the oppurtunity to make players rich, is not going to be 'weak' -- but the current era (last decade or so) has certainly been weaker.

Prove your point: why do you say that this era is weaker than the previous one? And don't do as the OP did... he made a complete non sequitur. If you don't see why, let's give you a mathematical example of how far it fails to prove his point.

Let's say that the top player in era 1 is Y and their competition is X. In era 2, we have A at the top and B as the rest. If I tell you that the difference between Y and X is greater than the difference between A and B (Y-X > A-B), can you tell me which between X or B is the greater number? Of course not. We can't infer from Y-X > A-B that X > B, no more than we can say that B < X. Numerically, we could as much see 300-275 > 45-44 as 25-5 > 400 - 300.

The data he used to compare eras are titles which are earned at the hands of other players: it tells us how big the difference between the top and the rest is, under certain conditions. If we follow the OP's line of thought, we can answer the question I asked above just by comparing which of the two differences is the greatest. It's non sense: we can't.


So, if you're going to defend your point, please find a statistically justifiable way to compare Y with A or X with B and then use the difference in each era to make the inference.

 

[veroniquem]

Great reply tennis pro and sorry but grass play is still radically different from clay play. A lot of that "surface homogenization" business is an excuse-making, agenda motivated sham.
One thing I would concede though is that adjusting/refining the seeding system had an impact as it reduced the risk of top players' early exits

 

[1HBH Rocks]

It is not weak or strong eras, it is:

"Very different playing conditions and because of that clearly different and competitive game styles"---> Many more different GS winners=top players "look" less consistent.

Versus

"Much more homogenized playing conditions everywhere and because of that almost one unique playing style (baseline game)"---> The best ones at that, win everything and because of that the top players win more GS and "look" much more consistent.


Where would you see more different event winners, in a "normal" decathlon (with 10 different events like long jump, high jump, 100m run, 200m run....) or in a "repeat the same event (for example, long jump) ten times"?

That is the main difference between this era and previous eras.

That's the best explanation I have encountered so far. You see, I never even thought of it, but it's fairly possible that the homogeneity of the conditions tend to favor over and over the same group of people. At least, it's justifiable.

 

[Slice&Smash]

That said, the next generation for the men could end up in a broken strata for a few years because I do not see any real stars in the making.

Absolutely true. Young players needs the confidence achieved by winning big titles but it's not going to happen anytime soon.

 

[Sentinel]

OP makes a very strong argument for weak era.

Well done, Sir.

 

[1970CRBase]

It is not weak or strong eras, it is:

"Very different playing conditions and because of that clearly different and competitive game styles"---> Many more different GS winners=top players "look" less consistent.

Versus

"Much more homogenized playing conditions everywhere and because of that almost one unique playing style (baseline game)"---> The best ones at that, win everything and because of that the top players win more GS and "look" much more consistent.


Where would you see more different event winners, in a "normal" decathlon (with 10 different events like long jump, high jump, 100m run, 200m run....) or in a "repeat the same event (for example, long jump) ten times"?

That is the main difference between this era and previous eras.

If we had a normal Olympics where we had say 100 events and 10000 athletes participating, all at the very absolute top of their discipline and in their peak form. Then it is suddenly announced that the only event that will be held for ALL 10000 athletes is the 100M. So everybody, long jumpers, high jumpers, sprinters , javelin throwers..... all run the 100M. The top 3 all run 9.50, number 4 (whose name happens to be Andy), runs 9.51 and gets nothing... Is that a weak era because there are only three medalists?

 

[mattennis]

Great reply and sorry but grass play is still radically different from clay play. A lot of that "surface homogenization" business is an excuse-making, agenda motivated sham.

Yes, it is not exactly as my "decathlon example", but then you can get the idea.

The homogeneization of conditions is something very real. They are still different conditions, of course, but it is nothing even remotely close to the situation, the difference that were prior to 2002.

2 months ago everybody here saying that Dubai was extremely fast and that all the players were making a ton of unforced errors because it was very difficult to play there. That just shows you how similar (and slow) are conditions everywhere today (because that court of Dubai this year, even though was faster than the rest of hard courts today, was IN NO WAY as fast as 1/3 of the season was in the 90s, 80s, 70s and before).

 

[tennis_pro]

You just did not understand what 1970CRBase and I just wrote above.

Think of the "decathlon example" if it helps...

I was refering to something else. Also I do agree with the "decathlon example" that's a very good comparison.

 

[Ballistec_J]

if you take away the top 3 players in the World, Andy Roddick would have won way more grand slams...

Wimbledon 2003, AO 2004, Wimbledon 2004 & 2005, USO 2006, AO 2007, AO 2008, AO 2009, Wimbledon 2009, USO 2011

Imagine a world where Andy Roddick owned 11 grand slams.

IMO that'd be a much better world than this (never have loved fed but I've learned to like him).

Even without Fed, Andy would have about 5-7 more grand slam titles. I think if you take out the top three he might have had a shot to win the French Open in 2009 seeing as he would have probably been ranked #1 or #2 in the world.

 

[Slice&Smash]

If we had a normal Olympics where we had say 100 events and 10000 athletes participating, all at the very absolute top of their discipline and in their peak form. Then it is suddenly announced that the only event that will be held for ALL 10000 athletes is the 100M. So everybody, long jumpers, high jumpers, sprinters , javelin throwers..... all run the 100M. The top 3 all run 9.50, number 4 (whose name happens to be Andy), runs 9.51 and gets nothing... Is that a weak era because there are only three medalists?

You are assuming the change was sudden but it's not. If you give these high jumpers, sprinters, etc. 7 years to prepare for 100 meter run, will the top 3 still win all the races?

 

[Tammo]

Fed has gotten to 23 grand slam finals here are the first eleven
2003 W over Philipoussous
2004 AO over Safin
2004 W over Roddick
2004 USO over Hewitt
2005 W over Roddick
2005 USO over Agassi
2006 AO over Baghdatis
2006 FO lost to Nadal
2006 Wimbledon over Nadal
2006 USO over Roddick
2007 AO over Gonzalez

Here are his last 12
2007 FO lost to Nadal
2007 W over Nadal
2007 USO over Djokovic
2008 FO lost to Nadal
2008 Wimbledon lost to Nadal
2008 USO over Murray
2009 AO lost to Nadal
2009 FO over Soderling
2009 W over Roddick
2009 USO lost to Delpo
2010 AO over Murray
2011 FO lost to Nadal

In the first part of the list Fed played Nadal 2 times and Roddick 3. In the second part Fed played Murray 2 times and Nadal 6 times. Now if you can't see the difference then you Fed fans are blind.

 

[BeHappy]

if you take away the top 3 players in the World, Andy Roddick would have won way more grand slams...

Wimbledon 2003, AO 2004, Wimbledon 2004 & 2005, USO 2006, AO 2007, AO 2008, AO 2009, Wimbledon 2009, USO 2011

Imagine a world where Andy Roddick owned 11 grand slams.

IMO that'd be a much better world than this (never have loved fed but I've learned to like him).

Even without Fed, Andy would have about 5-7 more grand slam titles. I think if you take out the top three he might have had a shot to win the French Open in 2009 seeing as he would have probably been ranked #1 or #2 in the world.

You think Andy Roddick had a chance at winning the 2007 AO?

 

[tennis_pro]

In the first part of the list Fed played Nadal 2 times and Roddick 3. In the second part Fed played Murray 2 times and Nadal 6 times. Now if you can't see the difference then you Fed fans are blind.

No, Federer faced Roddick twice instead of 3 times in the first period while in the second he played Nadal 5 times instead of 6.

 

[mattennis]

I think that maybe many people here is too young to have lived what it was for Ivan Lendl to try to win Wimbledon in the 80s.

He could be destroying everybody from the baseline on clay and hard courts tournaments, and suddenly, in Wimbledon (with a grass much more faster, low bouncing and on top of that, many BAD bounces) he had to try to beat people like Becker, Edberg, Cash...absolutely brilliant serve and volleyers, players that DID NOT ALLOW you to play your game on the baseline, and Lendl was forced to just try return winners and passing-shots all the time and trying himself to serve and volley (because if not, he would be at the baseline trying to hit a passing-shot off of a ball that didn't bounce high and could bounce bad half of the times).

Don't you think Lendl would have loved to play today?

Don't you think that Becker and McEnroe would have loved to play on RG with last year's balls?

Don't you see how they tend to push all the conditions to a "fair middle" (to a slowness I would so, but anyway...) and the huge impact it has had in many things in tennis (only baseline style, suddenly the two best players win all the four GS where it was only done once or twice in 40 years?, suddenly the top-4 always get to SF....)

 

[1HBH Rocks]

Great reply tennis pro and sorry but grass play is still radically different from clay play. A lot of that "surface homogenization" business is an excuse-making, agenda motivated sham.
One thing I would concede though is that adjusting/refining the seeding system had an impact as it reduced the risk of top players' early exits

Well, there's certainly something material in the alteration of the playing style in the last decade... grass courts are by now only a very marginal portion of the tour -- one grand slam and a masters 500 (well, two at the same time) -- and clay doesn't get much either, although it's better -- there's also a slam, but 3 masters 1000 (it accounts this for a third of masters 1000 and one fourth of all slams). One major difference between now and say 20-25 years ago is that you see an ultra-strong dominance of the hard courts on the tour. Although they all have their peculiarity, they're still all hard courts.

Players also have other type of equipment and seem to all highly favor a fundamental baseline play as they did way back when clay courts were more popular. Kramer noted in '77 that in his youth, he modeled his game after players who played clay and that, although he was reputed for his serve and volley, he only got to get earn an edge from his serve and net skills when he turned pro where grass courts became more common than the clay courts of his youth. I suspect that it's not a pure social construction -- i.e, players didn't simply change trend like fashion does with time; they changed their game to adapt to new material conditions and it's those changes which altered the "tennis culture", not the other way around.

As far as I can tell, if you pile up the equipment, the greater amount of hard courts and even the use of faster balls on clay (look at RG last year!), as well as how surfaces might indeed be all a tad slower, give it a while and people start to take advantage of these things. I would guess that since Federer, the trend is for top players to do well everywhere or else flinch; if we go back to Sampras' era, we don't see that... maybe it makes sense to call it more homogeneous.

However, we could as well go the other way around and claim it's fundamentally social. What if players started to look for a more complete game? We saw Federer bring rather unusual stuff to the court in his earlier years and this variety certain gave him an edge over everyone else as he could better adapt to more situations. But, more recently, he added drops shots, started to hit even closer to the baseline than before; we also noticed how Nadal slowly turned his game into a more aggressive style and still does, flattening out more than he used to his forehands, standing closer... Djokovic also proves the virtue of having a complete game, good court coverage and dependable ground strokes. These tendencies also seem to always act in response of what other people were doing: Nadal was surely good on clay, but he needed something else on hard courts and grass -- he adjusted so he could keep himself in the match; Federer improved his backhand and altered his tactic, committing to hit more top spin off that wing to remain competitive...

As usual with humans, if both answers seems to match the fact, maybe the two sorts of mechanisms overlap. In any event, players indeed play a more similar game and regardless of how it happened, it still means you will see more coherence in the results if many variables remain rather constant.

 

[El Diablo]

Is this what's called sophistry?? The OP sets out four criteria to define a weak era, those criteria being a description of what's prevailed in men's tennis the last few years, and declares "see!! this is a weak era!!" Ingenious.

 

[joechiang]

It's just an era when the elite is extremely strong, a far cry from the Rios/ Rafter/ Kuerten, etc years. The end of the 90s, beginning of 2000 were a weak era in terms of elite (not consistently dominant or not efficient on all surfaces) so a lot of players like Kafelnikov, Korda, Johansson were able to win slams, they probably wouldn't today.

We currently have Tipsy in Top 10.

 

[Sentinel]

You are assuming the change was sudden but it's not. If you give these high jumpers, sprinters, etc. 7 years to prepare for 100 meter run, will the top 3 still win all the races?

Yes, high jumpers and throwers are quite different from sprinters. Similarly, you can't expect a 400m sprinter to dominate 100m sprints. Muscle fiber quantities and percentages are different.

A weak era argument there would probably be if one runner won everything from 100m to 800/1500 meters.

 

[Tammo]

No, Federer faced Roddick twice instead of 3 times in the first period while in the second he played Nadal 5 times instead of 6.

Not in my list

 

[tennis_pro]

Not in my list

You want me to hit you in the face with that list to prove you're wrong?

 

[Slice&Smash]

Is this what's called sophistry?? The OP sets out four criteria to define a weak era, those criteria being a description of what's prevailed in men's tennis the last few years, and declares "see!! this is a weak era!!" Ingenious.

There is not scientific theory to validate a subjective opinion. I'm stating a number of numerical characteristics of the last few years which I would interpret as a a strong top 3/4 and a weak 5+.

Let us know if you have an opinion on the subject.

 

[crosscourt]

In the mens' game this is the strongest era I can remember. And the standard/quality of the product at the top of the mens' game is better than it ever has been.

 

[Slice&Smash]

Yes, high jumpers and throwers are quite different from sprinters. Similarly, you can't expect a 400m sprinter to dominate 100m sprints. Muscle fiber quantities and percentages are different.

A weak era argument there would probably be if one runner won everything from 100m to 800/1500 meters.

I get your point, but I still think the factor of time will play a major role here.

1- Other athletes will very soon refocus all their training on the 100M run. In addition, young athletes in their mid-late teens will be also aiming for the 100M glory. How much better will they be after 5-7 years?

2- You are assuming the three top players will still be at the same level or better after 7 years regardless of age and motivation challenges.

 

[hoodjem]

To me today's era is far weaker than 2003-2007 which people claim is the weak era. Its also far more boring and when Fed retires it will be basically as good as dead.

Nah. Impossible. Really?! But how can it be weak--Fed is the GOAT. And he carries the era on his shoulders.

And (oops, I guess) when he loses, that just makes it . . .

 

[1970CRBase]

You are assuming the change was sudden but it's not. If you give these high jumpers, sprinters, etc. 7 years to prepare for 100 meter run, will the top 3 still win all the races?

Then you will end up with only 100M runners, most of whom, although they are elite athletes in say high jump, long jump, javelin, 5000 metres, swimming, gymnastics.... etc, are not relatively speaking best at running 100M with their born with talents, compared to those who were innately best suited to run 100M to begin with. You have 1 event and 1 gold medalist and not 100 different events and 100 gold medalists in that situation. If you held the same 100M event 100 times, it will still be the same group of top elite 100M runners winning all the races, beating all the people who would have been the swimmers, jumpers, throwers etc, if the events hadn't been changed, over 100M.

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

Strongest era was 2004-2007, followed by 2011.

Weakest era 2008 (May to August), first quarter of 2009 and last 3 quarters of 2010.

See this is how that moron DRII sounds Can someone please explain to me how someone can be so dumb? Perhaps I should ask lolvile?

 

[DRII]

And that's what you have to keep in mind, if the top 3 were taken out, then people would be calling the ATP weak overall just like most people claim the WTA is weak for not having a few dominating forces in it.

Exactly!!!!

 

[DRII]

Strongest era was 2004-2007, followed by 2011.

Weakest era 2008 (May to August), first quarter of 2009 and last 3 quarters of 2010.

See this is how that moron DRII sounds Can someone please explain to me how someone can be so dumb? Perhaps I should ask lolvile?

Idiocy as usual!

Wall still blocking the sunlight, I see...

Please stop making a fool of yourself, its getting old.