This is why the weak era doesn't exist...

[wy2sl0]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_IKDaDCRRQ
Winning H2H versus Djokovic, including win @ slam

Wins over Nadal, including arguably Nadals best HC season (probably 2013 now) @ Indian Wells

Wins over Murray, including @ slam @ Wimbledon

But wait!!! Since Federer man handled him, he must be weak...along with Hewitt, Gonzalez, Ferrer, and Safin.

Just making it clear anytime you say things like this you sound very ignorant.

By the way, the wins mostly came out of his prime, which with Roddick was painfully obvious.

 

[tennisaddict]

If Roddick had played between 1995-2003, he would have won like 6-8 majors. Probably most Wimbledons.

 

[MonkeyBoy]

Players prime Roddick lost to in slams:

Federer
Hewitt
Baghdatis
Muller
pubescent Murray
Igor Andreev
Gasquet
Kohlschreiber
Tipsarevic
Bird flu Djokovic
Isner
Monfils
... I can go on

 

[Sid_Vicious]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_IKDaDCRRQ
Winning H2H versus Djokovic, including win @ slam

Did you actually watch the match for which you included a video of? Djokovic played like garbage. That is like me including a video of Roddick get man-handled by Max Miryni in straight sets in Paris 2004 in order to support my claim that it was a weak era (Roddick was the world number 2 while Miryni was 71).

Roddick after the match: “To be frank, Novak didn’t play that well today. I snuck through the second set."

Wins over Nadal, including arguably Nadals best HC season (probably 2013 now) @ Indian Wells

The only thing that was special about Nadal's 2010 season HC-wise was his USO Open. He was extremely vulnerable in the early part of the year on HC, but I agree the Miami win was fantastic.

Just making it clear anytime you say things like this you sound very ignorant.

By the way, the wins mostly came out of his prime, which with Roddick was painfully obvious.

Yes, Roddick was a fantastic player, but you sound quite ignorant yourself. Most of these Roddick victories you boast about came when Nadal and Djokovic were not playing their best..and it was painfully obvious.

 

[msc886]

Did you actually watch the match for which you included a video of? Djokovic played like garbage. That is like me including a video of Roddick get man-handled by Max Miryni in straight sets in Paris 2004 in order to support my claim that it was a weak era (Roddick was the world number 2 while Miryni was 71).

Roddick after the match: “To be frank, Novak didn’t play that well today. I snuck through the second set."


The only thing that was special about Nadal's 2010 season HC-wise was his USO Open. He was extremely vulnerable in the early part of the year on HC, but I agree the Miami win was fantastic.


Yes, Roddick was a fantastic player, but you sound quite ignorant yourself. Most of these Roddick victories you boast about came when Nadal and Djokovic were not playing their best..and it was painfully obvious.

This kind of argument can go around in circles i.e Federer's losses to Nadal on non-clay surfaces was because Federer wasn't playing that well.

Consistency is part of the game and although Djokovic is overall better than Roddick, a win is a win and Roddick's wins over Djokovic are legit.

 

[Sid_Vicious]

This kind of argument can go around in circles i.e Federer's losses to Nadal on non-clay surfaces was because Federer wasn't playing that well.

Consistency is part of the game and although Djokovic is overall better than Roddick, a win is a win and Roddick's wins over Djokovic are legit.

Yes, and the OP said it was painfully obivious that Roddick was past his best when he beat Murray, Djokovic, and Nadal. This was obviously done in an attempt to elevate Roddick even more and bring down the other three. Well, if OP is going to do that, he should also consider that a lot of Roddick's wins came when Djokovic and Nadal were not at their best either.

 

[Backspin1183]

I don't believe 2004-2007 was a weak era. It's just that the competition got a lot tougher since 2008 when Djokovic his first slam, Nadal his first Wimbledon, and Murray played his first slam final at US Open.

The likes of Nadal, Djokovic, Murray are much much better than the Roddicks and Hewitts.

 

[BrooklynNY]

Djokovic's serve looks horrible in that video.

That was during his weird funk he was in when he switched to the head racquet. Djoker also got tooled on by Michael Llodra this year

He isn't the same player he is now - also if you think Roddick was winning Wimbledon from 95-2003 idk what to say

 

[Agassifan]

I don't believe 2004-2007 was a weak era. It's just that the competition got a lot tougher since 2008 when Djokovic his first slam, Nadal his first Wimbledon, and Murray played his first slam final at US Open.

The likes of Nadal, Djokovic, Murray are much much better than the Roddicks and Hewitts.

Yeah.. but Fed declined post 2008.

 

[Backspin1183]

Yeah.. but Fed declined post 2008.

He was 26 for most part of 2008. He was destroying everyone his way to Wimbledon final where he lost to Nadal.

And guess what? Fed won 3 slams the following year in 2009. Clearly, he hadn't declined much. Fed again won the AO in 2010 and kept going deep in the biggest tournaments until this year.

 

[msc886]

Yes, and the OP said it was painfully obivious that Roddick was past his best when he beat Murray, Djokovic, and Nadal. This was obviously done in an attempt to elevate Roddick even more and bring down the other three. Well, if OP is going to do that, he should also consider that a lot of Roddick's wins came when Djokovic and Nadal were not at their best either.

It's true that Djokovic and Nadal were not at their best for that match. However in the bigger picture looking at the stages of their respective careers, Roddick was at a disadvantage.

 

[90's Clay]

Yea pick 2010. THe year Nole was a SHELL of what he has been the last few years. Nole of 2011-present would completely TEAR Rod boy to pieces

 

[sbengte]

I don't believe 2004-2007 was a weak era. It's just that the competition got a lot tougher since 2008 when Djokovic his first slam, Nadal his first Wimbledon, and Murray played his first slam final at US Open.

The likes of Nadal, Djokovic, Murray are much much better than the Roddicks and Hewitts.

It is a very subjective opinion and all speculation, so we will never know.

But, it is far easier to believe that Fed's mono related slump and eventual decline since 2008 had something to do with the era appearing tougher than a sudden surge of players who were all better than their predecessors.

Also, Djoko winning a slam in 2008 was more of an aberration and he was never a serious threat at the slams till 2011. Nor was Murray till he won his first slam in 2012. So yeah, competition was more or less the same till 2011, maybe a tad weaker because Fed also started declining, and Nadal reaped the benefits until Djoker decided to get serious in 2011 for a while.

If the competition really got that tough, a way past his prime Fed should never have been able to get the #1 ranking back when all the strong era stalwarts were at their peaks. Nor should past their prime weak era mugs like Ferrer and Haas be having the run of their lives which they couldn't do during Fed's prime.

 

[anantak2k]

I don't believe 2004-2007 was a weak era. It's just that the competition got a lot tougher since 2008 when Djokovic his first slam, Nadal his first Wimbledon, and Murray played his first slam final at US Open.

The likes of Nadal, Djokovic, Murray are much much better than the Roddicks and Hewitts.

It did not magically get better in 2008. If anything it got worse. Delpotro is the only half decent youngster and even he is only 1 or 2 years younger than Nadal/Djoko/Murray. After Djoko/Murray the new generation has been the worst I have ever seen in the history of tennis. I cannot even think of someone with grand slam potential. And that is really sad and depressing to think about.

Soon mens tennis is going to be where womens tennis is right now.
It will be random players like Schiavone, Stosur, Na Li, etc. 2nd rate players winning slams. Djoko Nadal Murray will be comparable to Serena, Sharapova, and I guess let me throw in Azarenka in there...

 

[Povl Carstensen]

But, it is far easier to believe that Fed's mono related slump and eventual decline since 2008 had something to do with the era appearing tougher than a sudden surge of players who were all better than their predecessors.

If the competition really got that tough, a way past his prime Fed should never have been able to get the #1 ranking back when all the strong era stalwarts were at their peaks.

This.
10chx

 

[mike danny]

I don't believe 2004-2007 was a weak era. It's just that the competition got a lot tougher since 2008 when Djokovic his first slam, Nadal his first Wimbledon, and Murray played his first slam final at US Open.

The likes of Nadal, Djokovic, Murray are much much better than the Roddicks and Hewitts.

why include 2008 when murray reached his first slam final and not include 2007 when Djokovic reached his first slam final? and actually gave federer a hell of a fight compared to murray?

 

[mike danny]

See this is why i hate these things. Without Federer Nadal would have won his first W even earlier and djokovic would have been a grand slam champion in 2007 before 2008. but because Federer still managed to edge them in 2 tough slam finals obviously the weak era continued.

Had Fed won the 2008 match i bet the weak era would have been available for 2008 as well

 

[mike danny]

i say the comp got a big tougher in 2007 with Nadal and Djokovic pushing Fed hard in grand slam finals

 

[The Dark Knight]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_IKDaDCRRQ
Winning H2H versus Djokovic, including win @ slam

Wins over Nadal, including arguably Nadals best HC season (probably 2013 now) @ Indian Wells

Wins over Murray, including @ slam @ Wimbledon

But wait!!! Since Federer man handled him, he must be weak...along with Hewitt, Gonzalez, Ferrer, and Safin.

Just making it clear anytime you say things like this you sound very ignorant.

By the way, the wins mostly came out of his prime, which with Roddick was painfully obvious.

I agree ....Roddick and Ferrero are the greatest number ones of our time.

 

[dominikk1985]

He was 26 for most part of 2008. He was destroying everyone his way to Wimbledon final where he lost to Nadal.

And guess what? Fed won 3 slams the following year in 2009. Clearly, he hadn't declined much. Fed again won the AO in 2010 and kept going deep in the biggest tournaments until this year.

IMO Fed began to decline in mid 2010. in early 08 he was weakened by mono but in the FO he already reached the final again.

I think by wimbledon he was at full strength again (remember he lost in 5 to nadal and won in 5 the year before -if he got weaker it would only be a tiny bit) and then he won the USO. in 09 he was as strong as ever and very good 10 AO too.

in mid 2010 he began declining by losing to other players than nadal. the begin of rogers decline was when he lost to other players than nadal.

 

[wy2sl0]

Some of you are nuts. Extremes to both ends.

I am not saying Roddick is at the level of Djokovic, or ever was. I am saying he is nowhere near as pathetic as most make him out to be. If you want to say Top 10 for 8+ years is not consistent then you really need to rethink your methods of analyzing.

He was NOWHERE NEAR as naturally gifted as Murray, Djokovic, Nadal, or Federer however he worked hard and battled his way through his career, and still managed to win some huge matches despite being an old man.

My argument was that the weak era is a myth.

 

[TMF]

See this is why i hate these things. Without Federer Nadal would have won his first W even earlier and djokovic would have been a grand slam champion in 2007 before 2008. but because Federer still managed to edge them in 2 tough slam finals obviously the weak era continued.

Had Fed won the 2008 match i bet the weak era would have been available for 2008 as well

Exactly. Had Roger won 2 slams in 2008, they will say the competition was weak. Catch-22.

 

[TMF]

I agree ....Roddick and Ferrero are the greatest number ones of our time.

You're back after being banned for 7 days.

Stay out of trouble now and stop fighting with Death Master.

 

[Morj]

Oh god... Roddick being used as an example of a "strong" era??! Lets be clear, Roddick wasn't even world no. 2 during Fed's prime, baby-Nadal was.

Roddick had two shots: Serve, FH. And after a while he just had the serve. Movement, backhand, returns, volleys were all mediocre. Compare him to any other all-time great and they have way more weapons and a better-rounded game than him.

"Fed stopped him from winning slams or he'd have 6-8". The only reason he got to Slam Finals in that era is because the field in general was weak, everyone was extremely inconsistent. Roddick was consistent compared to Hewitt/Safin/Nalby etc, so he made some finals because he was a solid, mentally strong player.

You can certainly make the argument that Roddick could have had multiple slams, probably a Wimbledon title, but he is by no means an all-time great.

 

[Gonzalito17]

There is no such thing as a weak era, just faulty perceptions by fans and media. Tennis is always tough to win a major tournament, no matter how big the opponent's name is. Nobody reached a major final by not earning it.

 

[TMF]

Oh god... Roddick being used as an example of a "strong" era??! Lets be clear, Roddick wasn't even world no. 2 during Fed's prime, baby-Nadal was.

Roddick had two shots: Serve, FH. And after a while he just had the serve. Movement, backhand, returns, volleys were all mediocre. Compare him to any other all-time great and they have way more weapons and a better-rounded game than him.

"Fed stopped him from winning slams or he'd have 6-8". The only reason he got to Slam Finals in that era is because the field in general was weak, everyone was extremely inconsistent. Roddick was consistent compared to Hewitt/Safin/Nalby etc, so he made some finals because he was a solid, mentally strong player.

You can certainly make the argument that Roddick could have had multiple slams, probably a Wimbledon title, but he is by no means an all-time great.

Logical Fallacies or Fallacies in Argumentation

 

[Morj]

There is no such thing as a weak era, just faulty perceptions by fans and media. Tennis is always tough to win a major tournament, no matter how big the opponent's name is. Nobody reached a major final by not earning it.

Imagine a player who is highly consistent with his results and possesses a solid degree of talent, lets use Djokovic for example. If we dropped Djokovic into an era where all the top players are incredibly inconsistent with their results and prone to early losses, lack of focus, or have randomly fluctuating levels of play then the consistent player, Djokovic, would dominate. Not to the same degree as Federer of course, but he would still dominate. This is because Djokovic has been placed in a weak field, not necessarily an untalented field, but an inconsistent one. This is what constitutes a weak era.

This is not a knock on Federer. Fed fans are always so defensive that they feel that they must make excuses for every little flaw in Fed's resume. Just because Fed played in a weak era does not mean he's not GOAT, nobody's saying that. All it means is that he happened to dominate a weak field. However, its clear that he would have been dominant no matter what era he played in since he was still so strong post-2008, even when he was past his prime.

 

[mike danny]

Imagine a player who is highly consistent with his results and possesses a solid degree of talent, lets use Djokovic for example. If we dropped Djokovic into an era where all the top players are incredibly inconsistent with their results and prone to early losses, lack of focus, or have randomly fluctuating levels of play then the consistent player, Djokovic, would dominate. Not to the same degree as Federer of course, but he would still dominate. This is because Djokovic has been placed in a weak field, not necessarily an untalented field, but an inconsistent one. This is what constitutes a weak era.

This is not a knock on Federer. Fed fans are always so defensive that they feel that they must make excuses for every little flaw in Fed's resume. Just because Fed played in a weak era does not mean he's not GOAT, nobody's saying that. All it means is that he happened to dominate a weak field. However, its clear that he would have been dominant no matter what era he played in since he was still so strong post-2008, even when he was past his prime.

I say federer wins double digits number of slams in any era.
Having said that i tihink he win at least 11-12 in any era

 

[Povl Carstensen]

"Fed stopped him from winning slams or he'd have 6-8". The only reason he got to Slam Finals in that era is because the field in general was weak, everyone was extremely inconsistent.

Had Federer not been around, he would have been higher regarded, also by you.

 

[dudeski]

Weak era does exist. It is called 2013. Haven't you all seen the quarterfinalists at 2013 USO?

 

[Morj]

Logical Fallacies or Fallacies in Argumentation

I ask that you at least respond with an argument rather than shut your ears and say "you're wrong!" like a child

 

[mike danny]

Oh god... Roddick being used as an example of a "strong" era??! Lets be clear, Roddick wasn't even world no. 2 during Fed's prime, baby-Nadal was.

Roddick had two shots: Serve, FH. And after a while he just had the serve. Movement, backhand, returns, volleys were all mediocre. Compare him to any other all-time great and they have way more weapons and a better-rounded game than him.

"Fed stopped him from winning slams or he'd have 6-8". The only reason he got to Slam Finals in that era is because the field in general was weak, everyone was extremely inconsistent. Roddick was consistent compared to Hewitt/Safin/Nalby etc, so he made some finals because he was a solid, mentally strong player.

You can certainly make the argument that Roddick could have had multiple slams, probably a Wimbledon title, but he is by no means an all-time great.

I never claimed Fed's generation had all-time greats but don't you think hewitt with 4 slams (instead of 2) and Roddick with 5 slams(instead of 1) would be viewed better without fed around? both of them would have had jim courier like careers, which would be nothing to sneeze at

 

[Morj]

I say federer wins double digits number of slams in any era.
Having said that i tihink he win at least 11-12 in any era

And when do I say otherwise? If post-prime Federer can reach world no. 1 and win Wimbledon at age 30, past his prime, in the era of prime Djokovic, prime Nadal, prime Murray, then he would certainly be able to dominate in any era.

Im just pointing out that the era he did dominate happened to be weak, which is no fault of his own. This does not change his achievements, everyone knows how good Federer was. Fed fans get so defensive over even the most minor of issues. Just accept that it was a weak era, realize it doesnt change Fed's accomplishments, and move on. It doesnt matter.

 

[mike danny]

And when do I say otherwise? If post-prime Federer can reach world no. 1 and win Wimbledon at age 30, past his prime, in the era of prime Djokovic, prime Nadal, prime Murray, then he would certainly be able to dominate in any era.

Im just pointing out that the era he did dominate happened to be weak, which is no fault of his own. This does not change his achievements, everyone knows how good Federer was. Fed fans get so defensive over even the most minor of issues. Just accept that it was a weak era, realize it doesnt change Fed's accomplishments, and move on. It doesnt matter.

Well agree to an extent. The weak era was a myth because Federer showed that it was his ability that helped him dominated more than weak competition itself

 

[mike danny]

And when do I say otherwise? If post-prime Federer can reach world no. 1 and win Wimbledon at age 30, past his prime, in the era of prime Djokovic, prime Nadal, prime Murray, then he would certainly be able to dominate in any era.

Im just pointing out that the era he did dominate happened to be weak, which is no fault of his own. This does not change his achievements, everyone knows how good Federer was. Fed fans get so defensive over even the most minor of issues. Just accept that it was a weak era, realize it doesnt change Fed's accomplishments, and move on. It doesnt matter.

Also just because you think it was a weak era it does not mean it is a fact. You are entitled to your opinion but i still considered it a good era with many interesting matches but just weaker compared to the present one

 

[Indio]

Roddick had two shots: Serve, FH. And after a while he just had the serve. Movement, backhand, returns, volleys were all mediocre. Compare him to any other all-time great and they have way more weapons and a better-rounded game than him.

QUOTE]

Roddick finished his career with a record of 612-213 and over 30 titles. I don't know off hand how many titles all of the top opposition from the previous era had, but I do know that only Agassi, Becker, Edberg and Sampras had better match won-lost percentages. That's not too bad for such a "mediocre" player, is it?

 

[cork_screw]

If Roddick had played between 1995-2003, he would have won like 6-8 majors. Probably most Wimbledons.

Any era that federer isn't in, he's got a good chance.

 

[sbengte]

The only reason he got to Slam Finals in that era is because the field in general was weak, everyone was extremely inconsistent.

I also take it that the same four players making it to the last four stages almost every time in the past 2-3 years implies that the field in general is weak as everyone else is extremely inconsistent as well. Thanks for proving that we are in a weak era.

People like Ferrer and Haas having a better run at 30 and 35 respectively than they did in their primes ( which was the "weak era" by your definition), also proves my point.