Weak or Strong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 77403
  • Start date Start date
NoleFam said:
Well Djokovic was just winning everything on every surface in 2011 but he still lost to Federer and to Murray in that stretch from AO to USO. Federer didn't quite dominate like that in that stretch and lost matches to guys outside the top 10 that year, especially on clay, but based on their poor record against Federer and their overall results that year, I wouldn't call that a very strong top 10.
Click to expand...
Or maybe Federer just raised his level against the top 10, while still being inconsistent in the early rounds of tournaments. There isca reason why he went through 24 straight finals undefeated.

I hate the logic that for the competition to be strong, a player has to lose more.
 
mike danny said:
By that logic Djokovic's 2011 shouldn't be strong since he went 41 matches undefeated and was 10-1 against Fedal.
Click to expand...

Nah because we know Fedal are monsters, so his record against them in the year is especially impressive. Nobody of such calibre was there to challenge Federer in 2004. Easy pickings in the midst of the weakest era in sports history.
 
NoleFam said:
Well Djokovic was just winning everything on every surface in 2011 but he still lost to Federer and to Murray in that stretch from AO to USO. Federer didn't quite dominate like that in that stretch and lost matches to guys outside the top 10 that year, especially on clay, but based on their poor record against Federer and their overall results that year, I wouldn't call that a very strong top 10.
Click to expand...
Djokovic 2011: 70-6

Federer 2004: 74-6
 
-NN- said:
Nah because we know Fedal are monsters, so his record against them in the year is especially impressive. Nobody of such calibre was there to challenge Federer in 2004. Easy pickings in the midst of the weakest era in sports history.
Click to expand...
Now I know you're joking.

And Fed wasn't the same monster in 2011 overall.
 
Hitman said:
OK, so this is a little game, where you personally decide if something is weak or strong. Just go down the list, and decide whether you feel it is weak or strong. For instance, is a specific season weak or strong, a specific slam weak or strong, a specific rivalry weak or strong, a specific event weak or strong. We will start at 2003, since that is the start of the modern era - The rise of Federer.

Example 2003 - Strong

Seasons - Weak or Strong?
2003 S
2004 S
2005 S
2006 W
2007 S
2008 S
2009 S
2010 W
2011 S
2012 S
2013 S
2014 S
2015 middle
2016 W
2017 W
2018 middle

Rivalry - Weak or Strong?
Federer v Nadal S
Nadal v Djokovic S
Federer v Djokovic S
Nadal v Murray W
Federer v Murray W
Djokovic v Murray W
Federer v Del Potro S
Djokovic v Wawrinka S
Murray v Del Potro W
Del Potro v Nadal W
Murray v Wawrinka S
Wawrinka v Federer W
Nadal v Wawrinka S
Federer v Hewitt W
Federer v Roddick W
Roddick v Djokovic S
Hewitt v Nadal W (not enough prime overlap)
Djokovic v Del Potro W
Del Potro v Wawrinka S
Roddick v Hewitt S
Safin v Roddick S
Safin v Federer W
Hewitt v Safin S
Federer v Agassi S
Davydenko v Federer W
Nadal v Davydenko S
Cilic v Federer W
Nadal v Cilic W
Djokovic v Cilic W
Cilic v Murray W
Federer V Nalbandian S
Nadal v Nalbandian S
Nalbandian v Hewitt S
Federer v Ferrero W
Hewitt v Ferrero S
Roddick v Ferrero W

Event - Weak or Strong?
AO S
IW S
Miami middle
MC S
Madrid W
Rome S
RG W
W S
Canada W
Cincinnati middle
USO Weak now, strong when the surface was faster
Shanghai middle
Paris Indoors W
WTF S
Olympics S
Davis Cup W

Slams - Weak or Strong?
AO 03, W AO 04, S AO 05, S AO 06, S AO 07, W AO 08, S AO 09, Strongest AO 10, S AO 11, W AO 12, S AO 13, S AO 14, S AO 15, W AO 16, W AO 17, S AO 18 W
RG 03, S RG 04, W (just for that chokejob) RG 05, S RG 06, W RG 07, S RG 08, W RG 09, S RG 10, W RG 11, S RG 12, S RG 13, S RG 14, W RG 15, S RG 16, W RG 17, W RG 18 W
W 03, S W 04,S W 05, W W 06, W W 07, S W 08, S W 09, S W 10, W W 11, middle W 12, S W 13, S W 14, S W 15, middle W 16, W W 17, W W 18 S
USO 03, S USO 04, S USO 05, S USO 06, S USO 07, middle USO 08, S USO 09, S USO 10, S USO 11, S USO 12, S USO 13, S USO 14, W USO 15, W USO 16, W USO 17, W USO 18 middle (Nadal's matches partially saved it)
Click to expand...

Answers in S and W form in the quote.
 
mike danny said:
Or maybe Federer just raised his level against the top 10, while still being inconsistent in the early rounds of tournaments. There isca reason why he went through 24 straight finals undefeated.

I hate the logic that for the competition to be strong, a player has to lose more.
Click to expand...

It's more than that. Safin lost in the 1st round of Wimby and US Open, Moya didn't do anything in the majors that year except for RG QF, etc. It just wasn't a considerably strong year in my eyes but it's fine if anyone disagrees.
 
NoleFam said:
We know their records but what does this have to do with my post?
Click to expand...
Go through their losses, it's really not that different. You're engaging in circular reasoning - when my player wins he was better than the strong competition, when your player wins the competition was weak.
 
NoleFam said:
It's more than that. Safin lost in the 1st round of Wimby and US Open, Moya didn't do anything in the majors that year except for RG QF, etc. It just wasn't a considerably strong year in my eyes but it's fine if anyone disagrees.
Click to expand...

Federer had pretty tough draws at all the majors in 2004, a lot of depth rather than top heaviness. He did lose to Henman as well who was a definite top 10 player that year if not right at that moment.

Definitely not a weak year imo.
 
Weak:

2006 (apart from clay), 2010, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018

Average:

2004, 2005, 2013, 2014

Strong:

2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012


Imo
 
Last edited:
EloQuent said:
Go through their losses, it's really not that different. You're engaging in circular reasoning - when my player wins he was better than the strong competition, when your player wins the competition was weak.
Click to expand...

I really don't have to reason with 2011 because we all know it was a very strong year because we can see the field, who they were and the level they were playing. There is no doubt there. 2004? There is doubt there. It has nothing to do with how many losses they have but how were they losing. A couple of those losses, like Cincinnati, Olympics or Miami, Federer only had because he was tired or feeling ill. He just blitzed through virtually every other tournament except clay.
 
NatF said:
Federer had pretty tough draws at all the majors in 2004, a lot of depth rather than top heaviness. He did lose to Henman as well who was a definite top 10 player that year if not right at that moment.

Definitely not a weak year imo.
Click to expand...

We just disagree about 2004. I think we've had this discussion before but I totally respect your opinion and your stance on this.
 
I don’t get how anyone can say 2007 is weaker than 2008? If anything it’s stronger.
Let’s compare Federer to Nadal.

Fed 2007 competition:

Peaking González at AO
Peak Nadal on clay
Peak Nadal at Wimbledon
Young aggressive Djokovic at USO series (level comparable to his 2010/2013 finals)
Nalbandian indoors

Nadal 2008 competition:

AO: peaking Tsonga (L)
Prime Fed at Hamburg/MC... lots of choking in both...
Pathetic Fed at RG
Prime Fed at Wimbledon who made a good comeback but was timid first 2 sets and nowhere near Nadal’s 2007 level
USO: Well playing Murray (L)

What makes 2008 stronger? Fed clearly had it tougher at slams overall.
 
I will base this on a scale of 1-10

2003: Roddick, Federer, Ferrero, Coria, and Nalbandian were in great form. Agassi was still quite good. Hewitt and Safin were in bad form. score=6
2004: Federer, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Henman, Caroia, were in great form. Agassi was still quite good. score=7
2005: Federer, Nadal Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, Safin, and Nalbandian were in great form. Agassi was still quite good, as was Coria. Score=8
2006: Federer, Nadal, Davydenko, and Blake were in great form. Roddick was in good form, Hewitt and Safin stunk. Score=5
2007: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Roddick, Davydenko, and Nalbandian were in great form. Murray was very good, Hewitt and Safin stunk. Score=8
2008: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray were in great form, as was Davydenko, Roddick was good, as was Delpo. Score=8
2009: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Muray, Delpo, Roddick, and Soderling were in great form......Score=9
2010: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Soderling, Berdych were in great form, Roddick Davydenko, Nalbandian, Safin all stunk... score=7
2011: Djoker, Nadal, Murray in great form, Fed was in very good form, Berdych in Tsonga towards peak, Delpo in bad form, Roddick washed up score=6
2012: Djoker, Murray in great form, Fed and Nadal very good, Berdych, Tsonga, Delpo close to peak, Ferrer towards peak...... score=7
2013: Nadal and Djoker in great form, as is Murray, Berdych, Stan, and Delpo towards peak, Federer in terrible form due to injures. score=7
2014: Djoker, Nadal, Stan, and Murray near peak, Federer very good, Raonic, Berdych, Cilic near peak, as was Ferrer.....strong year...score=9
2015: Djoker, Murray, Stan, Berdych near their peak, Fed is very good, Tsonga and Nishi still towards peak......good year.........score=7
2016: Djoker peak for half year, Murray at peak, Fed and Nadal missed at least half of the year, Stan, Nishi, Cilic near peak...weak year....score=5
2017: Nadal and Fed were very good, Djoker and Murray injured for a good chunk, Stan near peak for 6 months, Cilic near peak..weak year...score=5
2018: Djoker near peak for half of year, Fed was good for 3 months, Nadal good for 9 months, Murray MIA, Stan terrible, Cilic very good....weak year...score=5

That's my two cents.

2014 to me was tough. Federer came back strong with his new racket. Djoker was tough, Stan became a slam winner and because a true heavyweight this year, Murray was near peak for most of the year, Raonic splashed onto the scene. This year was extremely tough. And Nobody won more than 1 slam each, which shows strength.

2005 and 2008 battle it out for the next toughest. Nadal was a monster in 2005, along with being a slam winner. Hewitt and Safin were very tough, as was Roddick(These 3 gave 28-31 year old Sampras a very tough time; Safin and Hewitt destroyed Sampras in the USO finals in back to back years). Agassi was still very tough with his great ball-striking(similar to 2015-2016 Fed).

That's my 2 cents. Once again, none of this can be proven. Some matches are swaying my decision, like Safin taking out Federer in the 2005 AO semi, or Nadal taking out Fed at the 2008 Wimby final.
 
NoleFam said:
I really don't have to reason with 2011 because we all know it was a very strong year because we can see the field, who they were and the level they were playing. There is no doubt there. 2004? There is doubt there. It has nothing to do with how many losses they have but how were they losing. A couple of those losses, like Cincinnati, Olympics or Miami, Federer only had because he was tired or feeling ill. He just blitzed through virtually every other tournament except clay.
Click to expand...
If you're saying that subjectively the field was weak, fine, there's nothing to argue about because it's all opinions. But him winning everything proves nothing. (Side note - he won Hamburg and his other clay losses were to top dirtballers)
 
How is 2004 a weak year? Federer went 18-0 against top 10 players, sure, but he pretty much always found another gear back then against those guys. This was the Federer that was uber focused, played big points very well, and was able to save 73% of all break points that he faced. Not to mention he had two of his toughest slam draws in 2004.

2005 wasn't weak either. Tons of great matches that year with Federer vs. Safin, Nadal vs. Coria, Nadal winning that indoor title, thrillers at the USO, Federer vs. Agassi (their Miami match was good despite it ending in straights), and the Federer vs. Nalbandian final was solid too despite Federer being injured.
 
KINGROGER said:
I don’t get how anyone can say 2007 is weaker than 2008? If anything it’s stronger.
Let’s compare Federer to Nadal.

Fed 2007 competition:

Peaking González at AO
Peak Nadal on clay
Peak Nadal at Wimbledon
Young aggressive Djokovic at USO series (level comparable to his 2010/2013 finals)
Nalbandian indoors

Nadal 2008 competition:

AO: peaking Tsonga (L)
Prime Fed at Hamburg/MC... lots of choking in both...
Pathetic Fed at RG
Prime Fed at Wimbledon who made a good comeback but was timid first 2 sets and nowhere near Nadal’s 2007 level
USO: Well playing Murray (L)

What makes 2008 stronger? Fed clearly had it tougher at slams overall.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of people whose agenda does not revolve around acknowledging Fed's greatness simply refuse to accept that the fact that he had mono might have marginally affected his performance negatively(enough so that a steadilly improving Rafa would catch him), and instead they blindly conclude that Fed's level was at least as high in 2008 as in 2007, again simply because it's what suits their own agenda.
 
A strong season has strong contemporaries (current gens) and strong young guns (next gens). If it doesn't have both, it is medium at best.

2003 - strong
2004 - strong
2005 - strong
2006 - strong
2007 - strong
2008 - strong
2009 - strong
2010 - medium
2011 - medium
2012 - medium
2013 - medium
2014 - weak
2015 - weak
2016 - weak
2017 - weak
2018 - weak
 
2003 Medium
2004 Weak
2005 Medium-Weak
2006 Medium
2007 Strong
2008 Strong
2009 Medium-Strong
2010 Medium-Weak
2011 Strong
2012 Strong
2013 Medium
2014 Medium-Strong
2015 Medium-Weak
2016 Weak
2017 Weak
2018 Medium-Weak
 
Honestly wish there was an objective way to assess this. The only thing I'm sure about is that the last couple years have been weak.
 
EloQuent said:
Honestly wish there was an objective way to assess this. The only thing I'm sure about is that the last couple years have been weak.
Click to expand...
There's the problem. If the Top 10 doesn't win enough, it's a weak era because no one is dominating the tour and even journeymen can take out seasoned players. If one player destroys the rest of the tour, it's weak because there is no competition.

The only way to have a strong era, it seems, is to have a top 10 or top 5 that destroy the rest of the tour, but among themselves are pretty even. Such a thing happened in the consensus for "Strong" for most people: 2012.

So the way I would decide if a slam or year is strong is by looking at how many players justified their seeding, and by how much. For instance, if the top 8 seeds all make the quarterfinals, we can assume that is a strong slam. No one has an easy draw. However, if only seed 5 makes the quarterfinals, we can assume that slam is weak. If you'd like, I can make a spreadsheet on this.
 
swordtennis said:
Are you saying years without fed djokovic nadal and murray are stronger than ones without? Is that what you want us to reflect in our votes?
Click to expand...

Don’t want you to reflect anything, vote how you like. But i’m specifically referring to those individuals that are screaming “weak” between 03 and 07, as if by default.

Of course there are exceptions to those posts, but most of the posters have been pretty transparent when it comes to which players they don’t like or respect...
 
Seasons - Weak or Strong?
2003- Good
2003- Solid
2005- Strong
2006- ROFLMAO. Didn't even realize anyone else was on tour except for Fed
2007- Mehh
2008- Solid
2009- Fantastic.
2010- Unreal year by Rafa (3 slams in a row on 3 different surfaces. Never been done. Probably never will be done again) But lets all a spade a spade. Weak
2011- Strong
2012- Fantastic year. Very Strong
2013- Nadal's resurgence made it interesting during the North American Hard swing
2014
2015
2016- All Weak pathetic years. from 2014-present. Not even worth commenting on really. No depth, Slow courts all every where and tennis played the same on essentially different colored surface.
2017
2018
 
duaneeo said:
A strong season has strong contemporaries (current gens) and strong young guns (next gens). If it doesn't have both, it is medium at best.

2003 - strong
2004 - strong
2005 - strong
2006 - strong
2007 - strong
2008 - strong
2009 - strong
2010 - medium
2011 - medium
2012 - medium
2013 - medium
2014 - weak
2015 - weak
2016 - weak
2017 - weak
2018 - weak
Click to expand...

Logic here is weak. You are equating having serious rivals at the top with rising guns who havent ever presented a serious challenge at slams. 3 guys have dominated the tour for well over a decade so how they are playing and the form they're in plus to a much smaller degree outside shot guys like Murray Wawrinka Delpotro Cilic Safin etc will effect how tough it is. But that's a much smaller part of how though it is.

Then when you look at "strong young guns" they have almost no impact on how tough it is , just in theory it makes things deeper but what difference does it make when they dont challenge for slams or even masters really. The only young "rising guns "really who have done so in the last 15 years were Fedalovic themselves! The others were just like whatever guys who werent serious threats to be all time greats for a variety of reasons.

So it's a flaw to give equal weight to the strength of the top guys that can actually threaten eachother and "rising guns"

It would be like giving equating a R2 easy slam opponent with a fellow all time great Final opponent to rate how tough one of Fedovical's slam winning draws was.
 
NoleFam said:
I really don't have to reason with 2011 because we all know it was a very strong year because we can see the field, who they were and the level they were playing. There is no doubt there. 2004? There is doubt there. It has nothing to do with how many losses they have but how were they losing. A couple of those losses, like Cincinnati, Olympics or Miami, Federer only had because he was tired or feeling ill. He just blitzed through virtually every other tournament except clay.
Click to expand...
The bolded perfectly applies to 2011 Novak.
 
NoleFam said:
I really don't have to reason with 2011 because we all know it was a very strong year because we can see the field, who they were and the level they were playing. There is no doubt there. 2004? There is doubt there. It has nothing to do with how many losses they have but how were they losing. A couple of those losses, like Cincinnati, Olympics or Miami, Federer only had because he was tired or feeling ill. He just blitzed through virtually every other tournament except clay.
Click to expand...
So basically Fed had to lose more for his competition to seem strong. I respect your stance on this, but this logic is erroneous.
 
duaneeo said:
A strong season has strong contemporaries (current gens) and strong young guns (next gens). If it doesn't have both, it is medium at best.

2003 - strong
2004 - strong
2005 - strong
2006 - strong
2007 - strong
2008 - strong
2009 - strong
2010 - medium
2011 - medium
2012 - medium
2013 - medium
2014 - weak
2015 - weak
2016 - weak
2017 - weak
2018 - weak
Click to expand...
2011 and 2012 have to be strong. The Big 4 were just too good in those years.
 
TripleATeam said:
There's the problem. If the Top 10 doesn't win enough, it's a weak era because no one is dominating the tour and even journeymen can take out seasoned players. If one player destroys the rest of the tour, it's weak because there is no competition.

The only way to have a strong era, it seems, is to have a top 10 or top 5 that destroy the rest of the tour, but among themselves are pretty even. Such a thing happened in the consensus for "Strong" for most people: 2012.

So the way I would decide if a slam or year is strong is by looking at how many players justified their seeding, and by how much. For instance, if the top 8 seeds all make the quarterfinals, we can assume that is a strong slam. No one has an easy draw. However, if only seed 5 makes the quarterfinals, we can assume that slam is weak. If you'd like, I can make a spreadsheet on this.
Click to expand...
Even in this instance, maybe a lower ranked player can simply catch fire. Like Tsonga AO 2008 or Verdasco AO 2009. Or even Gonzo AO 2007, even though Gonzo was a top 10 player at the 2007 AO.
 
NoleFam said:
We just disagree about 2004. I think we've had this discussion before but I totally respect your opinion and your stance on this.
Click to expand...

Fair enough man. Won't pretend like it doesn't irk me a little when the whole 4/5 year stretch of Federer's best results is labelled weak but you're a good guy really so I'll let it go :P
 
125downthemiddle said:
Logic here is weak. You are equating having serious rivals at the top with rising guns who havent ever presented a serious challenge at slams. 3 guys have dominated the tour for well over a decade so how they are playing and the form they're in plus to a much smaller degree outside shot guys like Murray Wawrinka Delpotro Cilic Safin etc will effect how tough it is. But that's a much smaller part of how though it is.

Then when you look at "strong young guns" they have almost no impact on how tough it is , just in theory it makes things deeper but what difference does it make when they dont challenge for slams or even masters really. The only young "rising guns "really who have done so in the last 15 years were Fedalovic themselves! The others were just like whatever guys who werent serious threats to be all time greats for a variety of reasons.

So it's a flaw to give equal weight to the strength of the top guys that can actually threaten eachother and "rising guns"

It would be like giving equating a R2 easy slam opponent with a fellow all time great Final opponent to rate how tough one of Fedovical's slam winning draws was.
Click to expand...
From 2005 to 2009 you had successful young players emerging like Rafa, Novak, Murray and Delpo. That's 4 players in just 5 years.

The best we got right now are Thiem and Zverev. Clearly there's a difference.
 
mike danny said:
From 2005 to 2009 you had successful young players emerging like Rafa, Novak, Murray and Delpo. That's 4 players in just 5 years.

The best we got right now are Thiem and Zverev. Clearly there's a difference.
Click to expand...

My post addressed what you just said. I have the feeling you didnt read it totally and just went to make your own point.
 
NatF said:
Fair enough man. Won't pretend like it doesn't irk me a little when the whole 4/5 year stretch of Federer's best results is labelled weak but you're a good guy really so I'll let it go :p
Click to expand...

Well I don't really like to use the term weak because it diminishes and minimizes too much. Weaker is better or not as strong.
 
Eye Test said:
WEAK:

2003-2006, 2010, 2016-

AVERAGE:

2007, 2014-2015

STRONG:

2008-2009, 2011-2013
Click to expand...
I have posted a thread about this earlier, and i dont really see the difference between 2007 and 2008. Roger took a step down, Rafa a step up. The only player who made the field stronger is Murray, but can't see him being the difference on strong and medium.

For me it's clearly 2009/2011/2012 that stand out.
 
My view of the various slam wins since 2003, let the flame war commence.

2003

AO: Weak
FO: Weak
WIM: Medium
USO: Medium

2004

AO: Medium
FO: Medium
WIM: Strong
USO: Medium

2005

AO: Strong
FO: Strong
WIM: Medium
USO: Strong

2006

AO: Weak
FO: Strong
WIM: Medium
USO: Medium

2007

AO: Weak
FO: Medium
WIM: Strong
USO: Strong

2008

AO: Medium
FO: Medium
WIM: Strong
USO: Medium

2009

AO: Strong
FO: Medium
WIM: Strong
USO: Strong

2010

AO: Medium
FO: Weak
WIM: Medium
USO: Medium

2011

AO: Medium
FO: Medium
WIM: Medium
USO: Strong

2012

AO: Strong
FO: Medium
WIM: Strong
USO: Medium

2013

AO: Strong
FO: Strong
WIM: Weak
USO: Weak

2014

AO: Strong
FO: Medium
WIM: Strong
USO: Strong

2015

AO: Medium
FO: Strong
WIM: Medium
USO: Weak

2016

AO: Weak
FO: Weak
WIM: Weak
USO: Medium

2017

AO: Strong
FO: Weak
WIM: Weak
USO: Weak

2018

AO: Weak
FO: Weak
WIM: Medium
USO: Weak
 
03-WEAK, Roddick finishing #1, NUFF SAID
04-weak, A little better, but Agassi way past it, Safin inconsistent, Roddick/Hewitt as main competitors, Rafa still a baby
05-ok, due to Safin at AO and Nadal at RG, but Wimby/USO obviously very weak with Hewitt/Roddick/Great grandfather Agassi as the competition
06-ROFLMAO
07-Ok, Nadal at Wimby was ok, Djokovic still a baby at USO, Nadal a baby on hard, Gonzalez reaching the AO final LOL
08-strong, Nadal finally reaches all around prime, Djokovic improves a lot.
09-weak, Nadal injured, Djokovic can't serve, allows guys like Roddick and Davydenko to put up big results LMAO.
10-ok, Nadal too dominant, beats a solid Murray and Djokovic at Wimby/USO
11-STRONG, Nole finally reaches his prime and shuts the door on Fed's vulturing
12-ok, Nadal injured half the year, Nole struggling with grandfather's death, Federer as usual sneaks through beating virgin Murray LOL
13-STRONG, Nadal-Djokovic battling the whole year, Murray very good in 2 slams too
14-weak, Cilic-Mugikori in a slam final ROFLMAOOOO, Both of Nishikori's wins against top guys were in this year, says it all. Wimby was really great though
15-Strong, Nole peak, beats a very good Federer REPEATEDLY, Murray pretty good too and Stan
16-Ok, Nole falls off a bit, RaoMUG in a slam final was a disaster though, oh wow look who failed to stop him...
17-WEAK, Anderson, Cilic in slam finals ROFLMAO
18-Ok, First bit was AWFUL with Sandgren, Chung, Edmund and every other clown out there making a deep AO run, but then Nadal and Djokovic round into form and it's been very good since clay season.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
2017 - 2019 Five set classic countdown
Replies
27
Views
780
Tshooter
Tshooter
Fabresque
Previous rounds at slams that have felt like the final
Replies
38
Views
1K
Deleted member 758560
D
Hitman
Updated - Rank the open era career slams
Replies
16
Views
675
Benf15harp
Benf15harp
Hitman
Rank these five 2013 five set classics
Replies
35
Views
2K
stringertom
stringertom
Hitman
The players that the big 3 had multiple losses to at each slam
Replies
5
Views
117
Aussie Darcy
Aussie Darcy
Back
Top