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

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


  • Total voters
    129

NatF

Bionic Poster
How would you compare 2008 and 2013 these years? Think you told me elsewhere you felt 2013 was overrated.
Its overrated when it's compared to 2011-2012 imo. It's a weird year because Nadal never played Murray who despite the ranking was obviously #3 that year. I think Djokovic had fierce competition that year but from Nadal's perspective? It was good but not sensational.

I'd put 2008 at number one and 2013 in the with 2004/2005/2014 probably.
 

Lew II

Legend
Different Big Tournament finalists in a year since 2003:

2011 / 2015 - 7
2007 - 8
2009 / 2012 / 2013 / 2016 - 9
2014 - 10
2008 - 11
2004 / 2005 / 2010 / 2019 - 12
2006 / 2018 - 13
2017 - 14
2003 - 18
 

RS

Hall of Fame
Different Big Tournament finalists in a year since 2003:

2011 / 2015 - 7
2007 - 8
2009 / 2012 / 2013 / 2016 - 9
2014 - 10
2008 - 11
2004 / 2005 / 2010 / 2019 - 12
2006 / 2018 - 13
2017 - 14
2003 - 18
What’s this meant to show? That 2014-16 was more thick at the top?
 

Lew II

Legend
Apparently less players being good enough to make big finals is indicative of a strong year? :unsure:
Yes. It means there were more players at ATG level, with many big finals in a year.

You can see that years you consider weak as 2010 and 2017-19 are at the bottom.

Do the same for 2003-06.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Yes. It means there were more players at ATG level, with many big finals in a year.

You can see that years you consider weak as 2010 and 2017-19 are at the bottom.

Do the same for 2003-06.
Nah. I would think both extremes are bad. But there's definite way to tell.
 
2016 strong year, huh.

6-1 7-5 7-6(3)

6-2 6-0

6-3 6-3

7-5 5-7 6-0

6-2 3-6 6-3

6-3 6-3

3-6 6-1 6-2 6-4

6-4 7-6(3) 7-6(2)

6-3 7-5

6-4 7-5

6-7(1) 6-4 7-5 6-3

7-6(1) 6-1

6-3 6-7(4) 6-4

6-3 6-4
 

RS

Hall of Fame
2016 strong year, huh.

6-1 7-5 7-6(3)

6-2 6-0

6-3 6-3

7-5 5-7 6-0

6-2 3-6 6-3

6-3 6-3

3-6 6-1 6-2 6-4

6-4 7-6(3) 7-6(2)

6-3 7-5

6-4 7-5

6-7(1) 6-4 7-5 6-3

7-6(1) 6-1

6-3 6-7(4) 6-4

6-3 6-4
I think most people here have said from 2016 the big drop started.
 

RS

Hall of Fame
Its overrated when it's compared to 2011-2012 imo. It's a weird year because Nadal never played Murray who despite the ranking was obviously #3 that year. I think Djokovic had fierce competition that year but from Nadal's perspective? It was good but not sensational.

I'd put 2008 at number one and 2013 in the with 2004/2005/2014 probably.
Yes Nadal USO draw brings his competition down than year other than that at all other big events save from maybe Madrid he had at least one really tough opponent.

2013 was a little lower than 2011 and more clearly lower than 2012 due to Federer being off though and Murray2013 in the 2nd half falling due to injury and time off. I think 2013 is probably a little below 2008 too but it might be better than everything after it which is like 6 seasons in a row.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Yes Nadal USO draw brings his competition down than year other than that at all other big events save from maybe Madrid he had at least one really tough opponent.

2013 was a little lower than 2011 and more clearly lower than 2012 due to Federer being off though and Murray2013 in the 2nd half falling due to injury and time off. I think 2013 is probably a little below 2008 too but it might be better than everything after it which is like 6 seasons in a row.
I quite like 2014 as I think depth wise it was good, but looking at the slam finalists in 2013 and 2014 I'd give 2013 the edge every time except at Wimbledon - though if I did the same exercise for 2006 I'd probably back the 2006 finalists in every slam but the AO so maybe it's meaningless :laughing:
 

RS

Hall of Fame
I quite like 2014 as I think depth wise it was good, but looking at the slam finalists in 2013 and 2014 I'd give 2013 the edge every time except at Wimbledon - though if I did the same exercise for 2006 I'd probably back the 2006 finalists in every slam but the AO so maybe it's meaningless :laughing:
Federer of AO 2006 would have good chance vs Stan of AO14. With the injury not fully healed maybe Stan edges it.
Nadal of FO 06 and Nadal FO14 is close as well IMO. Maybe 2006 would wear 2014 Nadal down in 5 or something.
In 2013 Murray and Nadal were better but Federer was worse and Djokovic was probably a bit worse or at least the same. Wawrinka was better in 2014 but Ferrer,Berdych,Tsonga we’re better in 2013 than in 2014. Lost Gen better in 2014. So maybe it’s not a big difference. Djokovic had tougher draws in 2013 too I think.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Hall of Fame
2004-2006 had peak Federer on grass and close to peak or at least way better than 2014-2016 version of Nadal in clay. On hard you may have an argument for 2014-2016, with Djokovic, but he was not as consistent as Federer was in 2004-2006. Federer 2004-2006: 5 HC slams. Djokovic 2014-2016: 3 HC slams.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
2004-2006 had peak Federer on grass and close to peak or at least way better than 2014-2016 version of Nadal in clay. On hard you may have an argument for 2014-2016, with Djokovic, but he was not as consistent as Federer was in 2004-2006. Federer 2004-2006: 5 HC slams. Djokovic 2014-2016: 3 HC slams.
There's really very little to separate these 2 periods other than personal bias.

Overall, 2004-2006 had one peak ATG, one old ATG and one young ATG.

2014-2016 had one peak ATG and one old ATG. Also a decent one for half a year (Nadal from January 2014 to June 2014).
 

NFN

New User
There's really very little to separate these 2 periods other than personal bias.

Overall, 2004-2006 had one peak ATG, one old ATG and one young ATG.

2014-2016 had one peak ATG and one old ATG. Also a decent one for half a year (Nadal from January 2014 to June 2014).
Nadal was decent/good in the indoor swing of 2015 until his wrist injury on clay in 2016 as well.
 

Drob

Professional
Looks at 2017-2019 Slam results

What next gen?

Level wise I think it's a very continuous slow drop. With some variation obviously. Absolute low was probably the first half of 2018 cause Nadal was pulling out of HC everywhere, Djokovic was still awol and even Fed was losing to Kokkinakis. Now the next gen is slowly getting better but Big 3 is still slowly getting worse, Delpo fell off again, etc.
"Delpo fell off again" ??? You might want to rephrase that.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Nadal was no ATG back then though. He had couple of slams.

And i wouldn't put oldgassi in the same sentence as old Fed. Enormous difference. Federer is in Another league at that age.
Federer is in another league because of his accomplishments in his prime years, which has nothing to do with his level at 34 for example.

At age 34, Fed might very well not be in an entirely different league to 34 year old Agassi.
 

blablavla

Hall of Fame
He gets too much credit if anything.
I beg your pardon.
too much credit in comparison to whom? the feared likes of Thiem? or perhaps Coric? who by age of 27 already have multiple hundreds of weeks at #1? countless GS titles? oh, wait, I was just day dreaming
 

RS

Hall of Fame
I beg your pardon.
too much credit in comparison to whom? the feared likes of Thiem? or perhaps Coric? who by age of 27 already have multiple hundreds of weeks at #1? countless GS titles? oh, wait, I was just day dreaming
Thiem is not at Safin level yet and he gets slated. Coric is hardly mentioned. People talk about Safin like he was a ATG and he was untouchable at his best.
 

blablavla

Hall of Fame
Thiem is not at Safin level yet and he gets slated. Coric is hardly mentioned. People talk about Safin like he was a ATG and he was untouchable at his best.
he might not be an ATG.
yet, Safin didn't wait till Sampras, Agassi and Kuerten will retire to have a chance to win something.
he simply started to win.

from the first meetings with the established great players, like Agassi in the 2nd round of FO.

So 2 GS titles, weeks at #1 clearly say that he was a stronger competitor as opposed to Berdych, Goffin, Thiem, Coric, and many others who let the Big 3 still dominate the ATP.
 

RS

Hall of Fame
he might not be an ATG.
yet, Safin didn't wait till Sampras, Agassi and Kuerten will retire to have a chance to win something.
he simply started to win.

from the first meetings with the established great players, like Agassi in the 2nd round of FO.

So 2 GS titles, weeks at #1 clearly say that he was a stronger competitor as opposed to Berdych, Goffin, Thiem, Coric, and many others who let the Big 3 still dominate the ATP.
He is a strong player better than most currently. Still he gets way too much credit.
 

Lew II

Legend
The same happens with the ATP rankings as well at times...
Nothing is really flawless.
This is what these people do. "Your method is not perfect so my absolutely unbiased eye test is better. Let's go Roger!".

And then they call Nadal's USO draws weak because he didn't face players with great career/ranking/elo...
 

blablavla

Hall of Fame
This is what these people do. "Your method is not perfect so my absolutely unbiased eye test is better. Let's go Roger!".

And then they call Nadal's USO draws weak because he didn't face players with great career/ranking/elo...
@Lew II it goes both ways.
while if everyone would agree that it is a very tough task to reach top 100 and a tougher one to reach top 50 and a tougher one to reach top 20 and a tougher one to reach top 10 and a tougher one to reach top 5, then by default there should NOT be any kind of downplay a-la "weak draw", "mug", "pigeon", etc.

once this narrative starts one way, it of course comes back.

just like attempts to downplay someone results because H2H vs big 3 in some years was negative.
it doesn't matter.
all that matters in tennis is:
titles
ranking
end of the story.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RS

RS

Hall of Fame
This is what these people do. "Your method is not perfect so my absolutely unbiased eye test is better. Let's go Roger!".

And then they call Nadal's USO draws weak because he didn't face players with great career/ranking/elo...
Not to mention Federer oppenents are always playing better.
 

Lew II

Legend
just like attempts to downplay someone results because H2H vs big 3 in some years was negative.
it doesn't matter.
all that matters in tennis is:
titles
ranking
end of the story.
I disagree. I think Federer for example would trade 10 slams won over Roddick, Bagdhatis etc. with 10 slams won over Djokovic/Nadal.
 

blablavla

Hall of Fame
I disagree. I think Federer for example would trade 10 slams won over Roddick, Bagdhatis etc. with 10 slams won over Djokovic/Nadal.
that's why you are getting:
"Your method is not perfect so my absolutely unbiased eye test is better. Let's go Roger!".

And then they call Nadal's USO draws weak because he didn't face players with great career/ranking/elo...
10 slams are 10 slams.
100 top pro players get into the main draw + 16 qualies + 12 WC
If Djokodal failed to reach the final, or if they lost to Fed before the final, it doesn't diminish the achievement.
Just like USO 2018 or 2019 can't be downplayed, cause it's not Novak or Rafa's fault that the other 2 guys from Big 3 failed to reach the final.
They defeated 127 top pro players. Not juniors, not TTW amateurs. Top pro players.
 

RF-18

G.O.A.T.
Federer is in another league because of his accomplishments in his prime years, which has nothing to do with his level at 34 for example.

At age 34, Fed might very well not be in an entirely different league to 34 year old Agassi.
I didn't say his accomplishment is related to his level at 34. I was strictly talking level. And Feds level at that age was higher than Agassis no question about it.
 
I didn't say his accomplishment is related to his level at 34. I was strictly talking level. And Feds level at that age was higher than Agassis no question about it.
Yes question lol. 2004 Agassi > 2015 Federer on HC, luck of the draw/ranking saw him draw Federer/Safin pre-final, is all. Also Oldassi was pickier than 0lderer and didn't collect many points in lesser tournaments as Oldr does to keep his top ranking afloat with the classic Dubai-Halle-Basel treble.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I didn't say his accomplishment is related to his level at 34. I was strictly talking level. And Feds level at that age was higher than Agassis no question about it.
Going down in five to Safin >>> Going down in four to Seppi
Going down in five to Federer >> Going down in four to Djokovic

But yes no question about it :-D
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Going down in five to Safin >>> Going down in four to Seppi
Going down in five to Federer >> Going down in four to Djokovic

But yes no question about it :-D
That Safin-Agassi match at AO was higher quality than anything Fed produced in 2015. He wouldn't be even able to handle that rhytm from the baseline.

Man Agassi is underrated these days, not just strictly speaking about him as a competition to Fed either. He was such a ridiculous talent.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
That Safin-Agassi match at AO was higher quality than anything Fed produced in 2015. He wouldn't be even able to handle that rhytm from the baseline.

Man Agassi is underrated these days, not just strictly speaking about him as a competition to Fed either. He was such a ridiculous talent.
Agassi is Andy Murray without the Big 3 ;)

But yeah the ballstriking from Agassi in that Safin match was insane, it was almost as good in Madrid later in the year when they played as well.
 
Top