This is infact the weakest tennis era

NatF said:
It would be interesting to look at.

I think some people that try to define tennis almost soley in terms of stats end up missing the forest from the trees - especially something like Elo which isn't even a direct stat but a combination of different things.

I prefer stats which focus directly on the matches and what happened in them, often times those people touting stats even ignore basic stuff like the scoreline. Logically to me it doesn't make sense to rip on someone who loses in 4 sets on one hand and then build up someone who loses in 4 on the other - unless you're also arguing that one winner is clearly better than the other. In which case maybe it's just evolution of the game and relatively speaking there was nothing wrong with the competition?
Click to expand...
Yeah, the stats are interesting to look at, and then when you analyse how they come to be is when you can have a better view of what it means.
 
RF-18 said:
I can definitely understand their struggles. I don't get how you people can't understand. These three in-form are too good especially on their fav surfaces, that's the truth. They are not coming up against Puertas, Philipoussis, Roddicks and Hewitts of he world. This is players who have 51 slams amongst eachother and are arguably three of the greatest players to pick up a racket.
Click to expand...
They would struggle with the Hewitts and Roddicks of the world too.
 
RF-18 said:
But even on HC they'd be figured out eventually. They are not fedalovic.

Coria was good, but not Nadal level. I'd fancy Thiems chances.
Click to expand...
You're over-hyping these young ones. They haven't done anything to prove they can handle even the Hewitts and Roddicks of the world.
 
Ann said:
Ummm no. America is no longer (and hasn't been for decades) a country that cares about tennis. I don't expect to ever see another American in the top 5, so your point was a heaping, rotting, pile of horse dung.
Click to expand...
Is this prediction for the top 5 only in relation to americans in the mens game? If so, why?
 
Red Rick said:
Not sure.

Think there's more than one dimension to it. Fields were definitely deep in 2009 but not super top heavy.
Click to expand...

Depends on how many top players you consider. I decided to check for 2009 YE top 9* in QF berths and here it is:

AO: 7 (Simon)
IW: 7 (Ljubicic)
Miami: 7 (Tsonga)
MC: 5 (Wawrinka [SF], Ljubicic, Beck)
Rome: 5 (Gonzalez, Monaco, Zverev)
Madrid: 7 (Ljubicic)
RG: 5 (Gonzalez [SF], Robredo, Monfils)
Wimbledon: 4 (Haas [SF], Hewitt, Ferrero, Karlovic)
Canada: 7 (Tsonga [SF])
Cincy: 4 (all of Big 4 made the semis while all of the QF losers were non-YE top 10 players)
USO: 6 (Gonzalez, Cilic)
Shanghai: 4 (Lopez in SF + 3 QF losers)
Paris: 4 (Monfils [F], Stepanek [SF], Cilic, Tsonga)

*I chose the top 9 because a) #9 Verdasco got to play the YEC since Roddick withdrew; b) #8 Söderling and #9 Verdasco were separated by 110 points while #9 Verdasco and #10 Tsonga were separated by 425 points (and Tsonga only overtook #11 Gonzalez by 5 points so it would be misleading to include one but not the other, and top 11 would be too much I thought).


Solid top9 heaviness on HC, Cincy and Shanghai not so but the former had Big4 in the semis and the latter had Davydenko besting Djokodal consecutively in epic fashion - only Paris was relatively weaker, as usual.
Less so on clay, but the Djokodal trilogy makes up for it, Novak presenting a new and exciting challenge.
That leaves Wimbledon and RG, which are rather remembered for specific matches: RG the SöderKing upset and the five-set semis (plus the Fedsterclass in the final but that's not a plus for competitiveness), Wim for Roddick beating Hewitt and Murygoat in cool battles and then becoming the best GS losing finalist ever (ehehehe). Certainly more memorable than some 'strong era' slems.
 
Subway Tennis said:
Is this prediction for the top 5 only in relation to americans in the mens game? If so, why?
Click to expand...
This is going to be condensed because it's been discussed so many times here.

Anyone that's a solid athlete is going to go into different sports in the states, where the money and prestige is at higher levels. Tennis is seen as a country club sport or a sport for middle-aged women with time to burn in America.
 
Ann said:
This is going to be condensed because it's been discussed so many times here.

Anyone that's a solid athlete is going to go into different sports in the states, where the money and prestige is at higher levels. Tennis is seen as a country club sport or a sport for middle-aged women with time to burn in America.
Click to expand...
But are you saying this only holds true for the mens game?
 
Chanwan said:
where do you see current Elo?
Click to expand...
It is one of the many rankings on the Ultimate tennis statistics rankings pull down. Overall still has Murray at 4; current 74. I like it. Doesn't rate Cilic or Isner as high as their ranking. If you chart players by the age option it will give a very detailed history. Works into parts of 1968 quite well as the short tail good for building backwards.
 
reaper said:
2 of the top 4 players missing as well as Khachanov who won a masters in similar conditions a fortnight ago hasn't helped this event.
Click to expand...
Nadal wouldn’t have been a factor even had he played. He’s tried to win this event for 13 years and has never come close.
 
justasport said:
sorry mate...it's not possible to hurt this event...it's second only to the slams
Click to expand...
Love the decibel meter this year. Whatever helps the players and fans rejoice in the spirit of pressure-free Christmas exo environment. How about topless dancers serving bellinis and champagne cocktails to the player after each ace and hotshot?
 
BeatlesFan said:
Nadal wouldn’t have been a factor even had he played. He’s tried to win this event for 13 years and has never come close.
Click to expand...
He wouldn't win, but not calling him a factor is a bit harsh. He's been to the final twice and lost a few semis to Fed. Hasn't played 13 times for sure either, more like 8-9 (without checking)
 
wtatp said:
The atp finals have finally proven that this is actually the weakest tennis era. 37 year old beating 25 year old who is supposed to be in his prime. 21 year old complaining about how long the schedule is as a reason for his terrible performance. A top 10 player winning only one game and getting destroyed. None of the matches so far have been good and I know this has been told over and over.
Will tennis ever be great again? :(
Click to expand...
No. Continue going downhill.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ann
George Turner said:
The OPs statement is correct.

There's a huge void of talent of players born from 1989 to the mid 90's. The best are;

Nishikori; Weak serve, does not have a winners mentality.
Dimitrov; No big weapons, mentally frail.
Raonic; Clumsy servebot.
Goffin; A cross between Ferrer and Simon.
Thiem; Claycourt specialist.
Schwartzman; No serve, prone to having very bad offdays.
PCB; Lol.

And that's it, there's no better players born between the years 1989-1995

Few, if any players in history have won majors with such glaring weakenesses as these guys have.
Click to expand...

All the others okay, take exception to the nishikori weak serve. He's 5 ft 10, so he'll never get as many free points as the others.
 
ABCD said:
Calling this era weak is like saying "Karlovic is short", "Djokovic is fat" and similar. Every time Djokovic plays well there are "Weak era" threads. In 2015 that was like half of all threads. In 2017 no one has mentioned weak era. Usual strategy of many Federer "fans" (quotations are to indicate that these are not real Federer fans, but people using Federer as a tool to address their mental health issues) when Djokovic plays well is to post rubbish.
Click to expand...

You are making arguments up. No one is saying 2017 was strong. It was weak year so much so a 36 year old mopped up. 2014-2018 are mug years. Note 2017 maybe weak but for fed at 36 that is rather inconsequential as he isnt 24 peak and mopping up.... that is novak in 2018 peak world no 1 mopping up an unbelievably weak era. 2018 is so weak novak became world no 1 with a score so low every other years world no 2 has more points than novaks no 1 haul!
 
Of course it is.The fact that Federer,Nadal and Djokovic have won all Majors in 2017 and 2018 shows how pathetic the current field is.The Lost Gen failed to challenge the Big 3 for years.The whole thing that they are playing better than ever is just not true.In reality most of the current tennis field sucks.I mean Djokovic become Number one with only 9000 points.Federer managed to stay in Top 3 despite not playing clay and Nadal played only 9 tournaments and almost finished Number one - without a doubt a weak era.
 
Oh how I yearn for the Golden Age of tennis when poet warriors like Terrible Timmy Mayotte were ranked in the top 10.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

OTMPut
Weakest Era
Replies
1
Views
658
tacou
tacou
Lautrec
Weakest <25 era ever?
Replies
49
Views
6K
helterskelter
H
iceman_dl6
2025 Shanghai M1000 Final - Sign of one of the Weakest Era in Tennis’ History?
Replies
19
Views
650
messiahrobins
messiahrobins
RobA2345
The weakest era in mens tennis...ever!
2
Replies
51
Views
6K
70後
70後
Nadalgaenger
Wawrinka Weak Era Theory
Replies
24
Views
6K
Nadalgaenger
Nadalgaenger
Back
Top