What era was stronger 2004-2006 or 2014-2016?

What era was stronger 2004-2006 or 2014-2016?


  • Total voters
    44
  • This poll will close: .
Are you even trying to argue Nadal's US Open draws over the years have not been weak?????
He beat Djokovic twice, and a very in-form Medvedev in 2019. All that talk about his USO draws is just BS. Yeah, because Djokovic's USO 2015 and 2018 draws were SO HARD, just unreal. And of course Federer didn't beat Andy Murray in USO 2008 final.
 

NFN

New User
Of course and Djokovic in 2015 is clearly > than Nadal in 2013. Yea because Federer didn't have as many big wins against Nadal and didn't dominate him as much (7 wins in a row twice).
This. He is getting defensive about the USO draws again btw.
 

Lotus_Island

New User
He beat Djokovic twice, and a very in-form Medvedev in 2019. All that talk about his USO draws is just BS. Yeah, because Djokovic's USO 2015 and 2018 draws were SO HARD, just unreal. And of course Federer didn't beat Andy Murray in USO 2008 final.
Agreed. Monumental draws playing an in form Medvedev and Anderson. Lol.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Tsists was disappointing at Wimbledon and the USO. He beat the big 3 this year which many players don't do in one single year. Even Medvedev didn't do that.

Again I said 2019 can be seen as good, especially in comparison to the 2 years that preceded it, and in general have said 2017-2019 is clearly weaker than both periods: 2004-2006 and 2014-2016. I'm not interested in getting on the merry-go-round and talking about 2004-2006 for seems like the hundredth time.
You're in the wrong thread then lol.

And OK fair fair enough.
 
No, he didn't. Give me a harder draw then. He faced a decent Kohlschreiber in the fourth round, Djokovic faced Granollers (who the hell is that?) at the same stage. Djokovic's path to the semifinals was just as easy, if not easier. Wawrinka was obviously tougher than Gasquet, but Nadal in his USO 2013 form would probably beat this Wawrinka easier than Djokovic did.
Are you seriously touting Kohlschreiber lol. I guess Simon was goat then in 2011/16 AOs.

Agree that Novack was kinda meh before Nads though. The worse it looks then that Nadal could have well been 1-2 down if he didn't pull the clutch act out of his backside.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
He beat Djokovic twice, and a very in-form Medvedev in 2019. All that talk about his USO draws is just BS. Yeah, because Djokovic's USO 2015 and 2018 draws were SO HARD, just unreal. And of course Federer didn't beat Andy Murray in USO 2008 final.
Federer's draws in NY were clearly tougher than Nadal's. I won't take that away from him. Djokovic's in 2015 and 2018 weren't extremely tough but he had multiple years of making it deep in that tournament and failing at the finish line because of his tough paths: 2007, 2010, and 2012. Were any of Nadal's draws as tough as those?
 
Are you seriously touting Kohlschreiber lol. I guess Simon was goat then in 2011/16 AOs.

Agree that Novack was kinda meh before Nads though. The worse it looks then that Nadal could have well been 1-2 down if he didn't pull the clutch act out of his backside.
My point is that Djokovic's draw wasn't any harder until the semifinals. But he is never being bashed for facing Granollers and old Youzhny, right? Nadal was 100% going to beat anybody except Djokovic in this tournament, and against Djokovic he was a slight favorite.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
You're in the wrong thread then lol.

And OK fair fair enough.
I have said that 2005 was a pretty good year as I have recalled. Really it was only 2006 I felt wasn't, and of course that period doesn't compare to the lackluster past 3 years. So I don't see what has you worked up.
 
Federer's draws in NY were clearly tougher than Nadal's. I won't take that away from him. Djokovic's in 2015 and 2018 weren't extremely tough but he had multiple years of making it deep in that tournament and failing at the finish line because of his tough paths: 2007, 2010, and 2012. Were any of Nadal's draws as tough as those?
I'll give you that he lost to very strong opponents in 2007 and 2010, but Nadal also lost to strong opponents in 2009 and 2011, no? But 2012? Murray wasn't GOATing in this final by any means, and Djokovic has only himself to blame for not being able to adapt to the wind. Djokovic was destroying the field in this tournament, and just dropped his level dramatically in the final. Doesn't mean his draw was hard.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I have said that 2005 was a pretty good year as I have recalled. Really it was only 2006 I felt wasn't, and of course that period doesn't compare to the lackluster past 3 years. So I don't see what has you worked up.
Maybe I mis-remembered you calling 2004-2006 weak, I was just contrasting what I thought your stance on those years was with you saying 2019 was good. If I got that wrong than apologies.

I'm not worked up though, I've been posting in good spirits...
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
I'll give you that he lost to very strong opponents in 2007 and 2010, but Nadal also lost to strong opponents in 2009 and 2011, no? But 2012? Murray wasn't GOATing in this final by any means, and Djokovic has only himself to blame for not being able to adapt to the wind. Djokovic was destroying the field in this tournament, and just dropped his level dramatically in the final. Doesn't mean his draw was hard.
Having to through 3 top 10 players and a former champion, as well as top 20 Wawrinka is a hard draw. He also had years I didn't even mention like 2008 and 2009 where he was blocked by Federer. So Nadal's tough 2009 and 2011 do not compare to his tough 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012.
 
Wait wait, what was tough about 2007/12 draws? In 07 Noel had an early epic with Sexypanek but then scated nicely through Monaco, Moya and Ferrer, no HC titans. In 2012, Potro could've been tough but Djo played brilliantly to straight-set him, then Ferrer was easy again (dropped first set on account of a terrible hurricane, normal service restored next day).
Well, this is a guy who believes Dimitrov played in USO 2019 just as well as in AO 2017. :-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D

Thought I think he might be just trolling. If he really believes that then I'm not sure how to react.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Wait wait, what was tough about 2007/12 draws? In 07 Noel had an early epic with Sexypanek but then scated nicely through Monaco, Moya and Ferrer, no HC titans. In 2012, Potro could've been tough but Djo played brilliantly to straight-set him, then Ferrer was easy again (dropped first set on account of a terrible hurricane, normal service restored next day).
You're asking about 2007? The talk of the tournament was the Djokovic/Stepanek match in the 2nd round. Then he played Moncao in another tough one, and went through Ferrer and Del Potro as well, although they weren't great versions of themselves, and had to face peak Federer in the final. Tough path for Djokovic in 2007 as Stepanek almost took him out. Djokovic played great in 2012 to handle his tough draw and the level dropped in the final but in 2012 he had already played Wawrinka, Del Potro and Ferrer before the final.
 
Having to through 3 top 10 players and a former champion, as well as top 20 Wawrinka is a hard draw. He also had years I didn't even mention like 2008 and 2009 where he was blocked by Federer. So Nadal's tough 2009 and 2011 do not compare to his tough 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012.
Another proof you don't watch the game, just the rankings. And didn't Wawrinka retire in the middle of the match? When Djokovic did that this year you somehow didn't give credit to Wawrinka for going through the world number 1. :unsure:
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Well, this is a guy who believes Dimitrov played in USO 2019 just as well as in AO 2017. :-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D

Thought I think he might be just trolling. If he really believes that then I'm not sure how to react.
How do you react to a guy who says 2019 was a not a good year for Nadal when he is holding 2 Slams, 2 Masters and is #1? That's a question for all of us hopy51. Give us some more of those gems you post on Youtube. Lmao.
 

ReeceSachs

Hall of Fame
Have you seen Laver play? It was boring.

Being an ATG in that kind of era isn't difficult. Laver would basically be feeding of scraps in the time of Nadal, Djokovic and Federer.
Have not seen a huge amount of Laver but you judge it based on what you did in you era greatness/ATG status.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Another proof you don't watch the game, just the rankings. And didn't Wawrinka retire in the middle of the match? When Djokovic did that this year you somehow didn't give credit to Wawrinka for going through the world number 1. :unsure:
Take out Wawrinka and it is still a tough draw beating #8 Del Potro, #5 Ferrer and then facing #4 Murray. Has Nadal ever faced 3 top 10 players at the USO in the same tournament? No. So why are you still talking?
 
How do you react to a guy who says 2019 was a not a good year for Nadal when he is holding 2 Slams, 2 Masters and is #1? That's a question for all of us hopy51. Give us some more of those gems you post on Youtube. Lmao.
Djokovic has the YE#1, not Nadal. Nadal was #1 for 2 weeks, so that proves he was great? Ok, lol.
 

Lotus_Island

New User
May
Have not seen a huge amount of Laver but you judge it based on what you did in you era greatness/ATG status.

The Ford T model was at one point the first car made, hence the best car made.

The Lamborghini Gallardo in it's time was never considered the best car.

Are you going to argue that the Ford T is a better car than a Gallardo?
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
Big3 are so above anyone else in the 2000s that the level of the game is defined by their form.

Of these years regarding Big3's overall results I would say 2015 > 2014 > 2006 > 2005 > 2016 > 2004
 

ReeceSachs

Hall of Fame
May



The Ford T model was at one point the first car made, hence the best car made.

The Lamborghini Gallardo in it's time was never considered the best car.

Are you going to argue that the Ford T is a better car than a Gallardo?
??
I did not say Laver was the best ever. Just he was a ATG unlike Cllic.
 

ReeceSachs

Hall of Fame
Big3 are so above anyone else in the 2000s that the level of the game is defined by their form.

Of these years regarding Big3's overall results I would say 2015 > 2014 > 2006 > 2005 > 2016 > 2004
Was very close between them in 17. Fed won all the big matches vs Nadal but not clay and the poor summer swing after Wimbeldon did not help.
 
I disagree with that but i agree with a lot of what Nolefam writes.
According to his comments I really doubt he is even watching tennis. It more looks like he is watching rankings and stats. To say Dimitrov was great in USO 2019 is a joke, but comparing it to AO 2017 is...I can't even find the word. Dimitrov was one of the most irrelevant players this year and how he can be used as an indicator of 2019 being a strong year is beyond me.
 

Third Serve

Hall of Fame
This thread got to three pages quickly. Such is the magic of the weak era.

On hard, it’s 2014-2016 by a bit.
On grass, they’re pretty close. 2004 had the best Roddick at Wimbledon (up with 2009) and it was a difficult test. 2014 had a very solid Federer who took the match to five. You pick.
On clay, it’s 2004-2006 easily. No debate.
On indoor surfaces, I feel like 2004-2006 had players who were much better conditioned to the, well, conditions. However, 2014-2016 had Federer and Djokovic, who were two very experienced indoor players. Maybe 2004-2006 by a bit.

My subjective ranking of the years:
2005
2014/2015
2004
2016
2006
 

ReeceSachs

Hall of Fame
Big3 are so above anyone else in the 2000s that the level of the game is defined by their form.

Of these years regarding Big3's overall results I would say 2015 > 2014 > 2006 > 2005 > 2016 > 2004
At least one member of the big 3 or 4 was off form at some point from 2013 onwards at some point of the year though in a big slump.......
 
May



The Ford T model was at one point the first car made, hence the best car made.

The Lamborghini Gallardo in it's time was never considered the best car.

Are you going to argue that the Ford T is a better car than a Gallardo?
Obviously Ford T is the greater car by leagues. I know more about the world than Aristotles, does that mean I'm greater than him? LOL
 

Lotus_Island

New User
Obviously Ford T is the greater car by leagues. I know more about the world than Aristotles, does that mean I'm greater than him? LOL
Notice how I said, 'is the Ford T a better car'? The words greater and Aristotle did not factor in my post. Feel free to Lol when you interpret my post correctly.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Fedfans insist that he made his 2004-2006 Era seem weak because he prevented all his pigeons from winning (more) slams, but that is easily disprovable.

Not only did he always get different slam finale opponents every time (except the teenage Nadal) which proves a lack of consistency at the top 5 level, but RF waited until 2003 to win a slam and until 2004 until he finally started fulfilling his potential. So the years 2000-2002 (when the 1977-1979 birth year gen should have dominated because they were just at the right age to peak, and which Fed's 1980-1982 gen should have also been winning a lot) should be full of slam wins from the 1977-1982 gens? They are not.

Until 2003 Gonzalez, Safin, Haas, Kiefer, and many others had plenty of time to loot the slams in RF's "absence" yet they didn't. Who won the slams 2000-2003?

Sampras, Agassi, Ivanisevic (1970-1972 should already retire gen) combined won a whopping 5 slams, plus 1973-1976 gen Kuerten, Costa and Johansson 4 more = 9.

That's NINE slams out of a possible 12. The other three slams - JUST THREE - were won by Hewitt and Safin and ZERO were won by the 1977-1979 gen, that pigeon generation that RF could push around because they were useless. (How ironic that one of those pigeons is now RF's coach - as if that gen was created just to advance the GOAT cause...)

In other words, both the 1977-1979 gen and the 1980-1982 gen underperformed, because already the next gen Rafa/Djokovic/Delpo won their first slams either as teens or 20/21 year-olds. Because back in that era it was NORMAL and EXPECTED that talents win slams already at the age of 20-22. This was before GAS, the Great Age Shift.

This proves that RF did NOT prevent the crap gen (1977-1979) from winning anything. In fact, Gaudio won the only slam for this gen during RF's reign in 2004 when Kuerten beat RF in straight sets at FO).

So no, Fedfans trying to spin and spin and spin how strong 2004-2006 era was simply has no basis in facts. It is called the Weak Era by most experts for a reason.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Was very close between them in 17. Fed won all the big matches vs Nadal but not clay and the poor summer swing after Wimbeldon did not help.
This meant to be for me? Fed won basically the only strong slam for 1.5 years at the AO that year, that's why I give him the edge. Winning the AO in 2018 as well basically confirmed for me that he was the best player in that period hands down.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
Big3 slam wins:

2011 - 68
2008 - 66
2007 - 65
2010 / 2019 - 64
2012 / 2014 - 57
2009 / 2015 / 2018 - 56
2006 - 53
2013 - 51
2017 - 50
2005 - 42
2016 - 36
2004 - 25
2003 - 16
 
Notice how I said, 'is the Ford T a better car'? The words greater and Aristotle did not factor in my post. Feel free to Lol when you interpret my post correctly.
Since when do you have the authority to assert which interpretation is correct, lol.
Yep, Ford T was a better car also in terms of advancing the car industry. Later cars being faster and more comfortable doesn't mean 'better' from a historical perspective, though they are better for driving obviously.
 

Lotus_Island

New User
Yep, Ford T was a better car also in terms of advancing the car industry. Later cars being faster and more comfortable doesn't mean 'better' from a historical perspective, though they are better for driving obviously.
But you buy a car for driving................................

Obviously this guy is some clown trying to argue for the sake of arguing.
 

ReeceSachs

Hall of Fame
This meant to be for me? Fed won basically the only strong slam for 1.5 years at the AO that year, that's why I give him the edge. Winning the AO in 2018 as well basically confirmed for me that he was the best player in that period hands down.
Mistake quoted Lew so yeah. Federer was the best in the AO 17-IW18 frame thanks to the AO18 win. Federer did win the most impressive slam in 2017 but IMO it is about the whole year too.
 

ReeceSachs

Hall of Fame
Fedfans insist that he made his 2004-2006 Era seem weak because he prevented all his pigeons from winning (more) slams, but that is easily disprovable.

Not only did he always get different slam finale opponents every time (except the teenage Nadal) which proves a lack of consistency at the top 5 level, but RF waited until 2003 to win a slam and until 2004 until he finally started fulfilling his potential. So the years 2000-2002 (when the 1977-1979 birth year gen should have dominated because they were just at the right age to peak, and which Fed's 1980-1982 gen should have also been winning a lot) should be full of slam wins from the 1977-1982 gens? They are not.

Until 2003 Gonzalez, Safin, Haas, Kiefer, and many others had plenty of time to loot the slams in RF's "absence" yet they didn't. Who won the slams 2000-2003?

Sampras, Agassi, Ivanisevic (1970-1972 should already retire gen) combined won a whopping 5 slams, plus 1973-1976 gen Kuerten, Costa and Johansson 4 more = 9.

That's NINE slams out of a possible 12. The other three slams - JUST THREE - were won by Hewitt and Safin and ZERO were won by the 1977-1979 gen, that pigeon generation that RF could push around because they were useless. (How ironic that one of those pigeons is now RF's coach - as if that gen was created just to advance the GOAT cause...)

In other words, both the 1977-1979 gen and the 1980-1982 gen underperformed, because already the next gen Rafa/Djokovic/Delpo won their first slams either as teens or 20/21 year-olds. Because back in that era it was NORMAL and EXPECTED that talents win slams already at the age of 20-22. This was before GAS, the Great Age Shift.

This proves that RF did NOT prevent the crap gen (1977-1979) from winning anything. In fact, Gaudio won the only slam for this gen during RF's reign in 2004 when Kuerten beat RF in straight sets at FO).

So no, Fedfans trying to spin and spin and spin how strong 2004-2006 era was simply has no basis in facts. It is called the Weak Era by most experts for a reason.
Both eras a have been called weak....
The only periods which everybody seems to agree is strong from 2000 to now is 2008-2009 and 2011-2012. Everything else has been called weak.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Mistake quoted Lew so yeah. Federer was the best in the AO 17-IW18 frame thanks to the AO18 win. Federer did win the most impressive slam in 2017 but IMO it is about the whole year too.
Sure but I still think Federer was better in 2017 alone. Nadal had the better slam results, Fed was better elsewhere but the difference between the AO and USO that year is just so steep I go with Federer...
 

ForehandRF

Professional
Both eras are considered or have been called weak....
The only periods which everybody seems to agree is strong is 2008-2009 and 2011-2012. Everything else has been called weak.
I
The problem is that when somebody calls years like 2005 or 2007 weak you know immediately that they have an agenda.2013 was also a good year.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Both eras are considered or have been called weak....
The only periods which everybody seems to agree is strong is 2008-2009 and 2011-2012. Everything else has been called weak.
I
There is no such thing as either or.

I.e. some eras are weak, some are weakER, some are strong, some are strongER. There are degrees of weak and strong, it isn't a YES or NO kind of thing. If humans were robots then yes, you could argue that there are only two types of eras, weak and strong.

2014-2016 was not weak, it was slightly weakER than the years before it, but it was still stronger than Weak Era 2004-2006 because RF was playing great again in 15/16, Novak was in best form ever, and Murray was at his best too, even Stan was at his best. The 2004-2006 Federer And His Pigeons Era was Weak Era because of the reasons I listed in my previous post. Those are all facts that cannot be denied.

Except by fan-agenda denialists of course.
 

Third Serve

Hall of Fame
There is no such thing as either or.

I.e. some eras are weak, some are weakER, some are strong, some are strongER. There are degrees of weak and strong, it isn't a YES or NO kind of thing. If humans were robots then yes, you could argue that there are only two types of eras, weak and strong.

2014-2016 was not weak, it was slightly weakER than the years before it, but it was still stronger than Weak Era 2004-2006 because RF was playing great again in 15/16, Novak was in best form ever, and Murray was at his best too, even Stan was at his best. The 2004-2006 Federer And His Pigeons Era was Weak Era because of the reasons I listed in my previous post. Those are all facts that cannot be denied.

Except denialists of course.
Fed had a pretty bad season in 2016.
 

ReeceSachs

Hall of Fame
There is no such thing as either or.

I.e. some eras are weak, some are weakER, some are strong, some are strongER. There are degrees of weak and strong, it isn't a YES or NO kind of thing. If humans were robots then yes, you could argue that there are only two types of eras, weak and strong.

2014-2016 was not weak, it was weakER than the years before it, but it was still stronger than Weak Era 2004-2006. The 2004-2006 Federer And His Pigeons Era was Weak Era because of the reasons I listed in my previous post. Those are all facts that cannot be denied.

Except denialists of course.
I agree with you Feds generation was not a great just but just a good one you have had Federer generation. No 2nd ATG. But you left out some stuff that are important like 2014-16 not have any young talent to rock the top or having no surface ATG at peak level besides Djokovic on a constant basis even with Djok slumping in the 2nd half of the year.
The last few generations have been worse than the Roger gen as well.
To call the oppenents Federer faced piegons is harsh indeed it is lacking respect for oppenents.
 
Top