metsman
G.O.A.T.
well I have no idea of how to handle pre-open era majors. I don't know much about pre open-era in general but I think my grasp of how to compare players of different eras in the open-era is pretty strong at this point.
Weak Era - where did it go?
- Thread starter Jonas78
- Start date
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
Thing is, the layman doesn't realise that some YECs were considered as valuable as the ITF Slam majors. At least at the time. Then we distort things to fit into broader schemes as time goes on...
Borg won 11 Slam titles but we could argue he won a few more events of similar importance.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Do these players need to be at their best for it to not be a 'weak' win? I never said it was a strong win. I don't think any of those players played badly, in fact I think all of them played well - not their bests (aside for patches) but still well enough for it to be a very valid slam win. Wawrinka was clearly better in this years SF than he was in the 2015 SF for example, Nishikori was absolutely dire in the 2016 QF with Djokovic etc...
Druss
Hall of Fame
Fed2017 would have baffled Safin I'll give you that.
AO '05 Safin would have straight setted this Fed. I'd give AO '04 gassed Safin a 60% chance of winning, that is if Fed got past Hewitt and/or Nalby.
Last edited:
Druss
Hall of Fame
For sure 2009 & 2012 are two of the strongest years in last 3 decades.
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
Very odd question. They have to be better than average for their mention to be relevant in this thread. Why did you mention Federer's top 10 wins? They managed to be in a position for him to play them en route to the title; in their current form. Logically, this should tell us that players way off their best are still lording it over the rest. If this is so (and it evidently is), then the rest must be crap. Is it a weak era, then? How can it be disputed?
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
One Slam doesn't make an era but I was quite unimpressed with the Slam at large and think Nadal played perhaps his second worst Slam final match by raw quality. That's why I'm still cool on Dimitrov who was only relatively impressive compared to where he'd been rather than looking like anything particularly exciting.
Sambuccashake
Hall of Fame
Please, I'm getting confused ever since you changed your avatar!Nadal sure annihilated Zverev and Dimitrov.
NatF
Bionic Poster
I mentioned top 10 players for simplicity as I didn't feel the urge to discuss the merits of every match in the draw. As far as this being a weak win or not goes, that depends on how high your standards are? I would say this win was at least better than the 2016 FO and Wimbledons for example. Perhaps that is just further proof of how weak this era is in your opinion? I can name draws and events that impressed me less going back years and years tbh.
Yes they managed to be in a position to play Federer and advancing through the draw is not necessarily an indication of quality, just as the reverse can be true. I think we agree on this point. However looking at how they played in the individual matches I didn't think the standard was bad at all, as you evidently do. Their current form as you put it is not drastically weaker than it has been for years. Is this a weak era because the current crop are getting worse or because they were never that great to begin with? Like I said, Wawrinka/Nishikori have played far worse than that in big slam matches in the past few years. There was nothing wrong with their current form compared to their average across the period they've been top players - obviously Wawrinka has played several slams at a very high level but he's had many forgettable adventures.
As I have said before an era's strength doesn't necessarily mean there can't be tough draws in weak era's and the opposite can also be true. The era may be weak (hypothetically) but I think Federer's win would rank higher than a more than a few of the last decade - it's definitely not in the bottom 5 at least
nochweiterroger
Rookie
Is this a man thing, this obsession with quantitative comparisons between individual players and between 'eras'? What is an 'era' anyway? Which 'era' is Nadal in, which 'era' was Agassi in? These comparisons are not meaningful. In previous 'eras' the men's field wasn't as strong. Sampras would stroll through a couple of matches. So perhaps today the field as a whole (at least in mens tennis) is stronger, even if the Kei/Raonic group aren't.
Judgements are often subjective. Is Fed really 'over the hill?' I definitely thought Nadal was not the player he'd once been when they played in Oz, whereas Fed compensated for slower movement (was it really slower? I found it hard to judge, but perhaps that's just me) with improved forehand and his serve seems as good as ever - or better.
Weather and fatigue can contribute to the outcome of a match. After a very long match against Delpo Novak was exhausted in the 2013 Wimbledon final - plus both Nadal and Fed went out early. Cilic destroyed Fed at US in 2014? after Fed had saved match points in previous exhausting match vs. Monfils. Kei exhausted at US after very long match vs Novak, even if it was only 4 sets. Weather - Fed destroyed Murray on a very hot, dry day at Wimbledon 2015 in semis. Weather for the final was completely different, damp, heavy, leading to slower court and heavy balls.
None of these observations is an 'either' for or against any of these players, for example, Cilic might have beaten Fed anyway, as he nearly did at Wimb 2016.
The 'weak era' argument was originally dreamed up to belittle Federer, but now seems to have a life of its own. The 'slow courts' argument militates against Novak and his fans, but the truth is everyone has become fed up with the slowness. Even Kevin Mitchell of the London Guardian, who is no fan of Federer and even accused him of dying his hair to conceal his age, recently said that the slow courts and grinding tennis was 'strangling' the game a few years ago. Remember the blue clay at Madrid? Nole and Nadal were furious because it was 'too fast' (and blue).
Judgements are often subjective. Is Fed really 'over the hill?' I definitely thought Nadal was not the player he'd once been when they played in Oz, whereas Fed compensated for slower movement (was it really slower? I found it hard to judge, but perhaps that's just me) with improved forehand and his serve seems as good as ever - or better.
Weather and fatigue can contribute to the outcome of a match. After a very long match against Delpo Novak was exhausted in the 2013 Wimbledon final - plus both Nadal and Fed went out early. Cilic destroyed Fed at US in 2014? after Fed had saved match points in previous exhausting match vs. Monfils. Kei exhausted at US after very long match vs Novak, even if it was only 4 sets. Weather - Fed destroyed Murray on a very hot, dry day at Wimbledon 2015 in semis. Weather for the final was completely different, damp, heavy, leading to slower court and heavy balls.
None of these observations is an 'either' for or against any of these players, for example, Cilic might have beaten Fed anyway, as he nearly did at Wimb 2016.
The 'weak era' argument was originally dreamed up to belittle Federer, but now seems to have a life of its own. The 'slow courts' argument militates against Novak and his fans, but the truth is everyone has become fed up with the slowness. Even Kevin Mitchell of the London Guardian, who is no fan of Federer and even accused him of dying his hair to conceal his age, recently said that the slow courts and grinding tennis was 'strangling' the game a few years ago. Remember the blue clay at Madrid? Nole and Nadal were furious because it was 'too fast' (and blue).
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing. I just deleted the rest of what I was going to say because I know you want this to be a drawn out "discussion", whereas I can't yet believe you're honest about it. I will only say that I disagree vehemently with your assessment of their comparative form (weak era vs peak/prime avg).I mentioned top 10 players for simplicity as I didn't feel the urge to discuss the merits of every match in the draw. As far as this being a weak win or not goes, that depends on how high your standards are? I would say this win was at least better than the 2016 FO and Wimbledons for example. Perhaps that is just further proof of how weak this era is in your opinion? I can name draws and events that impressed me less going back years and years tbh.
Yes they managed to be in a position to play Federer and advancing through the draw is not necessarily an indication of quality, just as the reverse can be true. I think we agree on this point. However looking at how they played in the individual matches I didn't think the standard was bad at all, as you evidently do. Their current form as you put it is not drastically weaker than it has been for years. Is this a weak era because the current crop are getting worse or because they were never that great to begin with? Like I said, Wawrinka/Nishikori have played far worse than that in big slam matches in the past few years. There was nothing wrong with their current form compared to their average across the period they've been top players - obviously Wawrinka has played several slams at a very high level but he's had many forgettable adventures.
As I have said before an era's strength doesn't necessarily mean there can't be tough draws in weak era's and the opposite can also be true. The era may be weak (hypothetically) but I think Federer's win would rank higher than a more than a few of the last decade - it's definitely not in the bottom 5 at least
I agree, this tournament is not the cornerstone of the argument. I only responded to the line of reasoning given by NatF.
NatF
Bionic Poster
In the interests of honesty I almost didn't bother responding to your last post
I'm not interested in a long drawn out discussion either. TBH not sure what your issue is, clearly I've managed to miss it. Don't worry about trying to explain it to me if you cba.2016 RG, Wimbledon and USO worse.
Well yea because Fed is an old man
You heard the call, coming from the Darkness...
90's clay has returned.
Who's the guy in the pic?
Sereger
Hall of Fame
Supreme Leader Snoke, the new villain in Star wars
V
VexlanderPrime
Guest
Dude the era is super strong as of January 2017, didn't u get the memo?It just struck me that there has been very little weak era talk sinse AO.
It is a well known fact that "Weak Era" is simply defined by that a player you dont like is dominating.
Shouldnt we expect a sh1tstorm after AO?
But...Djoker-fans have no interest in this because Djoker just dominated vs the same field 2014-2016. The Vamos-brigade just watched their man reach a very tight slam-final and have no interest in calling it weak. Murray is world nr1, needs no further explanation. Federer won AO, needs no further explanation.
So what is this, the perfect "truce"?
Meles
Bionic Poster
2017 possibly looking much stronger than 2009.
F
Fedfan34
Guest
Meles
Bionic Poster
Serverer would have handled Safin easily.
Meles
Bionic Poster
I have to say I'm tiring a bit of the faster speeds already. Tsonga and Fed like. Djoko really doesn't like.
But far too many serveboty matches where break of serve is a rarity and you just might as well wait for a breaker. The one thing I feared was the true giant Servebots prospering and this just does not seem to be the case. The faster surfaces expose their foot speed. The jury is still out day to day, but must say Auz Open was a roaring success. Enjoying seeing some serve and volley success. In general faster surfaces favor the better server. Really did not enjoy tennis later in 1990s, etc. for similar reasons. I like the slow balance of the game and the more subtle differences between surfaces. Poly has allowed a lot more players to be competitive on clay. Slowing the other surfaces has given clay courters a ghost of a chance on other surfaces. Its possible to break serve on grass. The one think I'd wish for is a drastic change to hard courts. Just too high bouncing with Poly in the game. Plexicushion is a better surface that allows more styles of play. Fast plexicushion at Auz this year was a winner.
DreddyTennis45
Hall of Fame
Mischa Zverev a guy who was ranked in the 1000's not so long ago, reached the QF of a slam. Tells you everything you need to know.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
2017 Federer would have gotten crushed by peak Safin. I also think Gonzalez would have beaten him in 4.Serverer would have handled Safin easily.
2017 Federer would still have beaten Baghdatis.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
2017 is looking the same as 2002-2003. 2009 trumps any year from 2014 to now.2017 possibly looking much stronger than 2009.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Serverer would have handled Safin easily.
Stop spamming random krap please. That 2005 semi was a serve-oriented match (4 breaks in 5 sets for either player), so Federer's slightly improved hold game shall have failed miserably to compensate for his diminished return game.
Meles
Bionic Poster
Perhaps a thread later this year when more has unfolded. Like 2009 the very top is a bit weak this year and just how weak will have much to do with the level of Djokaray. Fedal2017 is looking to be a fine substitute for Djokoray2009.
My very real optimism has to do with the pack of players just outside the top 4 or 5. I've been calling for Zverev and Dimitrov since their level was apparent in early, early 2017 (Fed too.) They certainly have produced and expecting their best has yet to come. Shaping up to be a superior group to 2009, but its way to early to call.
Meles
Bionic Poster
Diminished return game? On hard courts? The stats say you are completely wrong. (Clay and grass diminished) Did you not see what Federer did to Nadal in 5th set of Auz Open? Breakerer alive and well on hard courts.
The Folderer fools have denied this and now we have an 18th slam. Consider yourself slammed and much to goerer this year.
Meles
Bionic Poster
Nope. Mischa had won 51.7% of his hard court points last year. His success this year is no surprise. Happens to have access to some of the best resources in the game thanks to his brother and its paying off.
Dope Reign
Banned
I thought age was irrelevant. Don't get all wishy washy dude, when you have an opinion on monday, don't discard it on tuesday, and then pick it back up on wednesday, have the courage of your convictions.
Meles
Bionic Poster
You doubt Mischa?
DreddyTennis45
Hall of Fame
He hasn't really had "success" though has he. He lost in the second round of Brisbane, Sydney and Open Sud de France. Went out in the first round in Rotterdam. He was lucky to even reach the AO QF given that Isner was two sets up and had a match point, but choked it away. Played very well against Murray no doubt, but even then Murray was pretty poor.
Dope Reign
Banned
Serverer would have handled Safin easily.
Oh come one dude, Safin would've wrecked 2017 Fed. Fed would've crushed his pigeon Murray making their h2h 15-11, if Murray hadn't lost to nobody Zverev who was ranked in the 1000s not long ago. I mean if zverev had injuries ok, but he was quite clearly ranked in the 1000s based on his ability. Lucky for Murray, he escaped the pigeon holing. Safin ofc would've straight setted Fed, not losing a point on serve and adding another win in a very respectable 2-10 h2h.
I see it all now, black-eyed angels, a moon full of stars, and we all went to heaven in a little row boat.
Urkezi
Semi-Pro
And not just that, do you know how many tournaments Mischa won? A big fat 0. Finals? 1, ATP 250, 7 years ago. He has a less than 50 % win record career, and last two years. He is barely at 50 % now. You can pull out as many stats as you want, but the ones that really matter do not show him to be a good player.
Meles
Bionic Poster
Zverev is probably only playing now because of his brother. Plenty of injuries for the Zelder.
Later this year when Fed's current level gains some appreciation
, probably need a thread on Safin vs Grandpaerer.
Meles
Bionic Poster
Wow. Zelder is going to have direct entry everywhere for some time (not expecting anything on clay) due to his high ranking and possibly seeding at slams. Horrible player.
16‑Jan‑2017 Australian Open Hard R16 50 1 Zverev d. (1)Andy Murray [GBR] 7-5 5-7 6-2 6-4 (ch) 1.10 5.1% 1.5% 66.4% 65.9% 45.7% 8/13 3:33
2‑Jan‑2017 Brisbane Hard R16 51 9 (5)Rafael Nadal [ESP] d. Zverev 6-1 6-1 0.36 5.3% 5.3% 65.8% 52.0% 23.1% 3/8 0:55
24‑Oct‑2016 Basel Hard QF 72 3 (Q)Zverev d. (1)Stanislas Wawrinka [SUI] 6-2 5-7 6-1 1.44 3.9% 1.3% 60.5% 80.4% 50.0% 4/6 1:52
10‑Oct‑2016 Shanghai Masters Hard QF 110 1 (1)Novak Djokovic [SRB] d. (Q)Zverev 3-6 7-6(4) 6-3 0.98 9.1% 1.1% 71.6% 71.4% 40.0% 6/9 2:20
I thought age was irrelevant. Don't get all wishy washy dude, when you have an opinion on monday, don't discard it on tuesday, and then pick it back up on wednesday, have the courage of your convictions.
It is because 19 year old Nadal showed us age is just a number same as grandad 35 year old Federer / folderer when he faced djokovic
Tennisanity
Legend
I don't see why some people see it as a double standard. What is a weak era to a player at his peak, is not so weak for another player not at his peak anymore.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
But we're to expect Murray to walk away the winner, what, with his 1-5 record against Federer in majors?
Yet another typical post from Dope Reign.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
In 2009 the very top was greater than this year, with Federer being a strong No. 1, Nadal a decent No. 2, Djokovic again a decent No. 3 and Murray a decent No. 4, with Del Potro finishing off the top 5. The very top in 2009 was very impressive.Perhaps a thread later this year when more has unfolded. Like 2009 the very top is a bit weak this year and just how weak will have much to do with the level of Djokaray. Fedal2017 is looking to be a fine substitute for Djokoray2009.
The top 5 today is not impressive in the slightest.
1) Andy Murray - Good player but him being No. 1 doesn't exactly do your argument justice.
2) Novak Djokovic - Is still losing a lot of ground and is not what he once was.
3) Stan Wawrinka - Don't see how he's more impressive than the guys Fed faced.
4) Milos Raonic - Lol.
5) Kei Nishikori - Lol.
Dope Reign
Banned
Maybe I'm looking at this wrong.1000, 35,17, Numbers trump performance, that's what I'm hearing. Fed winning ranked 17th aged 35 = weak earache.
The last time someone outside the top 5 won AO was Stan in '14, he was ranked 8th. He was playing the number 1 seed who got injured in the final.
The last time someone outside the top 10 won it like fed here was.. well lookee here, all timer, hall of famer tommy J, in da 2002 house. Thomas johansson 16th seed defeated 9th seed Marat Safin. I wonder if he outwinnered him. snicker.
Maybe there's some credence to this weak era talk. tell me more.
The last time someone outside the top 5 won AO was Stan in '14, he was ranked 8th. He was playing the number 1 seed who got injured in the final.
The last time someone outside the top 10 won it like fed here was.. well lookee here, all timer, hall of famer tommy J, in da 2002 house. Thomas johansson 16th seed defeated 9th seed Marat Safin. I wonder if he outwinnered him. snicker.
Maybe there's some credence to this weak era talk. tell me more.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
But we heard the same argument from you guys when Federer was beating players like Baghdatis. Somehow beating an injured Nadal who can barely walk is more impressive than beating a zoning Baghdatis, but people can believe whatever they want I guess.
He also went through the No. 2 seed and defending champion in the QF and a perennial top ten player (although he is a mug to be honest) Berdych in the SF. His run to the title was more impressive than Federer's this year in my honest opinion, or at least more solid.Dope Reign said:
What happened to talking about "form" and not the name? Going back on your own argument like usual?Dope Reign said:
There are no weak or strong eras, but today is not impressive nonetheless. Not when the 5th best player in the world has not won a title in a year.Dope Reign said:
Dope Reign
Banned
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
That was a stroke of genius that I would have never banked on happening. That's why this win is so glorious...
Anyway, it's more about the ground game, which is obviously down from peak due to diminished movement. Again, it was something else seeing Federer boss Nadal around with super groundies while moving as economically as possible, but that would never work against prime Nadal who'd keep sending everything back with interest. On several occasions, Federer managed to get the ball back deep even as he desperately stabbed at it, barely having time to prepare the shot due to being a bit slow. Even a few moonballs were seen from Fed's racquet. That was a very smart display that won him the title, but he isn't gonna be able sustain the intensity throughout the year...don't think that'd be possible.
chjtennis
G.O.A.T.
It just struck me that there has been very little weak era talk sinse AO.
It is a well known fact that "Weak Era" is simply defined by that a player you dont like is dominating.
Shouldnt we expect a sh1tstorm after AO?
But...Djoker-fans have no interest in this because Djoker just dominated vs the same field 2014-2016. The Vamos-brigade just watched their man reach a very tight slam-final and have no interest in calling it weak. Murray is world nr1, needs no further explanation. Federer won AO, needs no further explanation.
So what is this, the perfect "truce"?
35 yo long-past prime Federer proved conclusively that the current field is a joke by winning AO in 2017. What more needs to be said? 2014-2017 is the weakest era ever!
uliks
Banned
Have you been in coma from 2004 to 2007?!35 yo long-past prime Federer proved conclusively that the current field is a joke by winning AO in 2017. What more needs to be said? 2014-2017 is the weakest era ever!
chjtennis
G.O.A.T.
Have you been in coma from 2004 to 2007?!
I was very alert and that era was 10% stronger!
uliks
Banned
Yeah right. With monsters like Roddick, Davydenko, pre prime sperm version of Nadal, Ljubicic, Blake, Gonzalez, Baghdatis as Fed's main opponents that percentage is even higher. LolI was very alert and that era was 10% stronger!
Up to 15 % for sure, maybe even more...
chjtennis
G.O.A.T.
Yeah right. With monsters like Roddick, Davydenko, pre prime sperm version of Nadal, Ljubicic, Blake, Gonzalez, Baghdatis as Fed's main opponents that percentage is even higher. Lol
Good maths.
Weak era nonsense will always bring up useless arguments, but that's the way it is on this board.
90's Clay
Banned
Finals consisting of Old Federer, Old Nadal, Old Serena, Old Venus. All years and years past their best. If there is any time to talk about WEAK ERA its right now.
For the men' and women's side the average age of the participants was like 33-34 years old. ROFLMAO!!!!!
No one in their teens and 20s knows how to win. Stan had a flash there for a bit but not for long and he's 30 now too.
The men and women's side is a joke. These 4 should have been kicked to the curb some years ago and a whole new CAST Of players now making a great resume for themselves.
For the men' and women's side the average age of the participants was like 33-34 years old. ROFLMAO!!!!!
No one in their teens and 20s knows how to win. Stan had a flash there for a bit but not for long and he's 30 now too.
The men and women's side is a joke. These 4 should have been kicked to the curb some years ago and a whole new CAST Of players now making a great resume for themselves.
Similar threads
