When will the weak era debate switch from 04-07 to basically the 2015-21 era?

[Sputnik Bulgorov]

Hewitt benefited greatly from the decline of Sampras

Sampras was just 29/30 when Hewitt started beating him everywhere. These next gen guys have no excuse for not dethroning 34/35 years old Nadal and Djokovic.

Both of them have declined, but Zverev, Med and Tsitsipas have failed to take advantage.

 

[Strale]

Or Nadal and Djokovic are better players than Sampras and it is more difficult to dethrone them than Sampras?

 

[Aabye5]

Sampras was just 29/30 when Hewitt started beating him everywhere. These next gen guys have no excuse for not dethroning 34/35 years old Nadal and Djokovic.

Both of them have declined, but Zverev, Med and Tsitsipas have failed to take advantage.

Not yet. And one thing with Lleyton is he was ferocious but not exactly tall. These giants today all have to get used to their height because a lot of them are still growing at 18 and even 20. Lleyton was about as good as he ever was going to be at 20 or 21.

 

[The Guru]

Not yet. And one thing with Lleyton is he was ferocious but not exactly tall. These giants today all have to get used to their height because a lot of them are still growing at 18 and even 20. Lleyton was about as good as he ever was going to be at 20 or 21.

Only true because of injury and the game evolving away from his strengths.

 

[Jonas78]

Or Nadal and Djokovic are better players than Sampras and it is more difficult to dethrone them than Sampras?

So youre admitting tennis is in decline?

 

[Sputnik Bulgorov]

Or Nadal and Djokovic are better players than Sampras and it is more difficult to dethrone them than Sampras?

They are better players than Sampras, but maybe young Hewitt was also just better than them. Both could be true.

Nadal and Djokovic are already 5+ years older than Sampras was during his decline, and next gen still cannot beat them despite being 10+ years younger.

 

[Aabye5]

Only true because of injury and the game evolving away from his strengths.

I don't know, he won only half of his matches against Roger, even though he had his number early on. And on top of that it's not like he wasn't a great baseliner to begin with.

 

[Deleted member 779124]

Because outside of the slams it was actually Fed who a bit inconsistent/missed tournaments? No guarantee Fed beats Safin in both fall masters indoors if he plays them for example, likewise he's not a shoe-in versus Agassi in Cinci etc...Djokovic in 2015 chucked in several rather lackluster matches against the top 10 e.g. Montreal vs Murray, Cinci versus Federer, YEC RR vs Federer. He did infact lose to Henman who was firmly top 10 at the end of 2004 in Rottadam.



Apart from I guess the FO every slam in 2004 had a more competitive and slightly better field IMO.

AO was quite a bit tougher in 2004 than in 2015 IMO.

 

[The Guru]

I don't know, he won only half of his matches against Roger, even though he had his number early on. And on top of that it's not like he wasn't a great baseliner to begin with.

They slowed hard courts down too much for his game and made him kinda toothless. That combined with his chronic hip issues kept it so he peaked very young. If they never changed the game (which I'm generally very happy about) he would've followed a more traditional career arc I'm sure.

 

[The Guru]

AO was quite a bit tougher in 2004 than in 2015 IMO.

Yeah but Federer never had to face any of the goodness that was going on in the top half of the draw. By the time Safin got to Federer he had nothing left and played an absolute crappola final.

 

[Sputnik Bulgorov]

Not yet. And one thing with Lleyton is he was ferocious but not exactly tall. These giants today all have to get used to their height because a lot of them are still growing at 18 and even 20. Lleyton was about as good as he ever was going to be at 20 or 21.

Zverev is 24, Med is 25 and Tsitsipas is 22. They're done growing.

I do think it's only a matter of time before they start beating Nadal and Djo at the Slams more consistently, but it won't be because they stepped up. It would be because Nadal and Djo simply got too old.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Yeah but Federer never had to face any of the goodness that was going on in the top half of the draw. By the time Safin got to Federer he had nothing left and played an absolute crappola final.

As if there's any chance Federer would have lost to Paprinka and Mugray of 2015 AO... well the opposite is also obviously true re 2015 DJokovic with 2004 Fed draw, so no matter. The other half was better in 04 though.

 

[The Guru]

As if there's any chance Federer would have lost to Paprinka and Mugray of 2015 AO... well the opposite is also obviously true re 2015 DJokovic with 2004 Fed draw, so no matter. The other half was better in 04 though.

Agreed so 04 not better than 15 if we're talking winner's run but the tournament overall is clearly better ofc.

 

[Deleted member 779124]

Yeah but Federer never had to face any of the goodness that was going on in the top half of the draw. By the time Safin got to Federer he had nothing left and played an absolute crappola final.

I was talking about the whole slam not just the Federer side of the draw but yes Safin fell off badly in the final.

 

[Aabye5]

Zverev is 24, Med is 25 and Tsitsipas is 22. They're done growing.

I do think it's only a matter of time before they start beating Nadal and Djo at the Slams more consistently, but it won't be because they stepped up. It would be because Nadal and Djo simply got too old.

So if one of these young punks were to take Wimby, you would say it's just because Nole is old?

 

[NoleIsBoat]

As if there's any chance Federer would have lost to Paprinka and Mugray of 2015 AO... well the opposite is also obviously true re 2015 DJokovic with 2004 Fed draw, so no matter. The other half was better in 04 though.

Murray defeated Federer in 2013 there so he could well defeat 2004 Fed too.

 

[Third Serve]

So if one of these young punks were to take Wimby, you would say it's just because Nole is old?

That would depend on how well they play to win it.

 

[Aabye5]

They slowed hard courts down too much for his game and made him kinda toothless. That combined with his chronic hip issues kept it so he peaked very young. If they never changed the game (which I'm generally very happy about) he would've followed a more traditional career arc I'm sure.

No, once Roger started to take off there was no way he was winning another Slam.

 

[Third Serve]

No, once Roger started to take off there was no way he was winning another Slam.

AO 2005 was a very good chance.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Agreed so 04 not better than 15 if we're talking winner's run but the tournament overall is clearly better ofc.

The winner's level was higher in 04 as well.

 

[Aabye5]

That would depend on how well they play to win it.

But that's true of any Slam. Roger didn't play his best tennis in his first Slam final, but he still won it. If one of these guys manage to get a notch on his belt, that alone is worth writing home. They can worry about their best for the next final.

Look at Domi Thiem. No one would call that match a thing of beauty, but he's a still a GS champion

 

[The Guru]

The winner's level was higher in 04 as well.

Probably fair given the ****ty SF but Novak played the better final imo. Fed was going pretty even with poopy Safin for a while there. He got his **** together and straight seated him but was not an overly impressive performance imo.

 

[Aabye5]

AO 2005 was a very good chance.

I don't know. Maybe.

He still managed to get a set, but Marat was coming off a high note, so you never know.

 

[SonnyT]

Lucky for these weaklings that the Big 3 have to get out of their way.

Hewitt-Roddick etc etc did not have that luxury, Sampras got out of their way or was removed by them but someone same aged as them arrived who was the GOAT and nowhere to hide for them

Realistically, Federer and even Nadal have got out of their way. Only Djokovic is standing between them and the trophies.

Nadal, in the last two AO's, has lost to Thiem and Tsisipas before/at QF. And now he's having to deal with exhaustion issues.

 

[Third Serve]

But that's true of any Slam. Roger didn't play his best tennis in his first Slam final, but he still won it. If one of these guys manage to get a notch on his belt, that alone is worth writing home. They can worry about their best for the next final.

Look at Domi Thiem. No one would call that match a thing of beauty, but he's a still a GS champion

Fed played really well in his first Slam final after coming back from the best grass match he’d ever played in the SF, I’m not sure what you’re talking about there. Same with Nadal and Djokovic.

 

[NatF]

AO was quite a bit tougher in 2004 than in 2015 IMO.

I know that's why I said only the FO was maybe the exception. No contest between the AO's.

 

[The Guru]

AO 2005 was a very good chance.

Eh he was much better at Wimbledon than at AO/USO. Roger just too good there. Hewitt did the best with what he had but he was going to be hard pressed to beat any high level opponent at the AO. Better chance at the faster USO but still not as fast as what would suit Hewitt's game.

 

[Sunny014]

Hard Facts for anyone who thinks 04-07 was a weak era.

Lleyton Hewitt lost 13 times in his career in Slams to the eventual champion.
Sir Andy Murray lost 13 times in his career in slams to the eventual champion.
Andy Roddick has lost 10 times in his career in Slams to the eventual champion

Roddick and Hewitt were just unlucky to run into Peak Federer, same would have happened to Murray (& that Stan too) had they been born 1981 along with you know who. They would have been on 0 slams today, they are actually lucky to be born in the Djokovic generation.

 

[Third Serve]

Eh he was much better at Wimbledon than at AO/USO. Roger just too good there. Hewitt did the best with what he had but he was going to be hard pressed to beat any high level opponent at the AO. Better chance at the faster USO but still not as fast as what would suit Hewitt's game.

AO was his best chance to win a Slam given it wasn’t Fed he was going up against. Might not have been his best tournament overall but it was certainly up there. I disagree that Wimbledon was better than any of those two runs.

 

[Aabye5]

Fed played really well in his first Slam final after coming back from the best grass match he’d ever played in the SF, I’m not sure what you’re talking about there. Same with Nadal and Djokovic.

I think he was probably a bit nervous playing his first final. If he had played Mark P. two years later, I think it wouldn't have reached a tie-break. I'm not saying it was a bad final by any means, but I don't think his performance was 10 or 5 times better than the show Tsitsipas put on at RG.

 

[The Guru]

AO was his best chance to win a Slam given it wasn’t Fed he was going up against. Might not have been his best tournament overall but it was certainly up there. I disagree that Wimbledon was better than any of those two runs.

That's fair I guess but for example do you think Fed played better in the 05 USO SF than Safin did in that final. I don't think so and Ashe suited Hewitt more than RLA. I guess Hewitt's best chances were on hard court but that's really only because Federer is not as good on hard. I think Hewitt's best slam was clearly Wimbledon.

 

[Third Serve]

That's fair I guess but for example do you think Fed played better in the 05 USO SF than Safin did in that final. I don't think so and the Ashe suited Hewitt more than RLA. I guess Hewitt's best chances were on hard court but that's really only because Federer is not as good on hard. I think Hewitt's best slam was clearly Wimbledon.

I think Safin played better than Federer in the AO final but Hewitt played better in the USO SF I think.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Probably fair given the ****ty SF but Novak played the better final imo. Fed was going pretty even with poopy Safin for a while there. He got his **** together and straight seated him but was not an overly impressive performance imo.

Typical take based on lack of nuanced analysis. Even tired Safin can still pressure you with hot stuff until the errors pile up too much.

 

[Third Serve]

I think he was probably a bit nervous playing his first final. If he had played Mark P. two years later, I think it wouldn't have reached a tie-break. I'm not saying it was a bad final by any means, but I don't think his performance was 10 or 5 times better than the show Tsitsipas put on at RG.

It went to tiebreaks because Mark was serving bullets that day (bullets that Fed returned extraordinarily well, I might add), not because Fed was nervous or anything like that. It’s one of his statistically best Slam finals and that’s saying something considering Fed has put in some really good Slam finals.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/match-stats-report-federer-vs-philippoussis-wimbledon-final-2003.665136/

 

[Flash777]

The discussion about 15-21 being bad is hilarious and should be reserved after 10 years atleast till we understand where Tsitsipas/Med/Zverev/Thiem/Berettini/Sinner etc end up by twilight of their careers.

Some of them or many of them could end up as Multi-slam winners.

And the only ones who stopped them from taking over much earlier were Novak/Rafa/Fed .

The Big 3 are that good that they are able to hold off many great young talents who otherwise would have won Grandslams much earlier.

03-07 shall remain what it is. Except Nadal on Clay and a washed up Agassi, there were not many who could challenge Fed on a regular basis despite being his counterparts and they didn't stop Novak/Rafa much either after they blossomed.

Novak/Rafa especially on the other hand are outplaying younger and fitter rivals than them even today.

And the only reason Fed won 3 trophies between 17-18 was becoz Novak gifted his pet Slams due to his mind and body going AWOL.

So according to Fed fan logic, That would make an argument for the weakest field ever without Novak in the picture thus putting an asterisk to his 3 slams then?

 

[The Guru]

Typical take based on lack of nuanced analysis. Even tired Safin can still pressure you with hot stuff until the errors pile up too much.

Sounds more like lazy excuses being made for a middling performance. Roger played a pretty rough first set there's no doubt about that. He cleaned up his act and coasted to the finish and he never needed to really up the intensity or call upon his best stuff and if he needed he may well have done just that but you can't tell me that was a great match from Fed.

 

[Sputnik Bulgorov]

So if one of these young punks were to take Wimby, you would say it's just because Nole is old?

Yes, in addition to Federer and Nadal being out of the picture. I would even say they're a couple of years late. I would expect a 22-25 year old to be able to beat a 34 year old by outmatching the latter physically.

 

[Aabye5]

It went to tiebreaks because Mark was serving bullets that day (bullets that Fed returned extraordinarily well, I might add), not because Fed was nervous or anything like that. It’s one of his statistically best Slam finals and that’s saying something considering Fed has put in some really good Slam finals.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/match-stats-report-federer-vs-philippoussis-wimbledon-final-2003.665136/

You may be right on this one. However, Fed won 89% of his 1st serves! He won more 1st serve points than Scud! I think that lowers the quality of that match quite a bit.

 

[The Guru]

You may be right on this one. However, Fed won 89% of his 1st serves! He won more 1st serve points than Scud! I think that lowers the quality of that match quite a bit.

Maybe from an entertainment standpoint but winning 89% of first serves is top notch quality you literally can't be much better than that.

 

[Third Serve]

You may be right on this one. However, Fed won 89% of his 1st serves! He won more 1st serve points than Scud! I think that lowers the quality of that match quite a bit.

89% of first serves won is where we start to venture into the “too good” territory. Maybe it wasn’t a good match because it was relatively one-sided, but Fed played a phenomenal final and you can’t deny that at all.

 

[Sputnik Bulgorov]

The discussion about 15-21 being bad is hilarious and should be reserved after 10 years atleast till we understand where Tsitsipas/Med/Zverev/Thiem/Berettini/Sinner etc end up by twilight of their careers.

Some of them or many of them could end up as Multi-slam winners.

And the only ones who stopped them from taking over much earlier were Novak/Rafa/Fed .

The Big 3 are that good that they are able to hold off many great young talents who otherwise would have won Grandslams much earlier.

03-07 shall remain what it is. Except Nadal on Clay and a washed up Agassi, there were not many who could challenge Fed on a regular basis despite being his counterparts and they didn't stop Novak/Rafa much either after they blossomed.

Novak/Rafa especially on the other hand are outplaying younger and fitter rivals than them even today.

And the only reason Fed won 3 trophies between 17-18 was becoz Novak gifted his pet Slams due to his mind and body going AWOL.

So according to Fed fan logic, That would make an argument for the weakest field ever without Novak in the picture thus putting an asterisk to his 3 slams then?

15-21 is not just about nextgen being bad. It is also about lostgen being bad. The fact that we named an entire generation of players LOST gen speaks of how bad the young competition has been. The next generation of players 5 years younger than Djokovic and Nadal were Dimitrov, Raonic, Nishikori and they've declined even faster than the former.

Two generations of players have failed to step up since the big 3 peaked in 2011-2012 and it's hilarious that people actually try to defend that Djokovic and Nadal have had a complete lack of young ATG level competiton for 5 years and counting now.

Tsitsipas, Zverev and Med will become multiple time Slam winners by default since there would be nobody else to win slams once they are able to beat declined Djokovic and Nadal. They are the best of the worst.

 

[duaneeo]

Or Nadal and Djokovic are better players than Sampras and it is more difficult to dethrone them than Sampras?

Big-3 pigeon Wawrinka (who had 3 wins, 40 losses vs the Big-3 in 2013) beat Djokovic 4 times at the slams (leading to 3 titles), yet two generations of NextGens can't dethrone Djokovic.

 

[Aabye5]

89% of first serves won is where we start to venture into the “too good” territory. Maybe it wasn’t a good match because it was relatively one-sided, but Fed played a phenomenal final and you can’t deny that at all.

Roger Federer won 89% of his serves in 2003. This was a) after the grass had changed and b) this was before Roger's peak.

And given that between the years 1990 - 2005 only 3 times did a men's player get above 88% in terms of percentage of first serves, and that all 3 times it was done by Sampras, twice at Wimbledon (on the fast grass) and once at the USO, I think it has a lot to do with Mark P.

Now, I like Fed, but either he was on dope, you are a dope, or Scud was a dud. Really, I think it's a Scud problem.

 

[Third Serve]

Roger Federer won 89% of his serves in 2003. This was a) after the grass had changed and b) this was before Roger's peak.

And given that between the years 1990 - 2005 only 3 times did a men's player get above 88% in terms of percentage of first serves, and that all 3 times it was done by Sampras, twice at Wimbledon (on the fast grass) and once at the USO, I think it has a lot to do with Mark P.

Now, I like Fed, but either he was on dope, you are a dope, or Scud was a dud. Really, I think it's a Scud problem.

Scud didn't do much outside of serving extremely well, sure. That doesn't diminish Fed's performance, though.

 

[Aabye5]

Scud didn't do much outside of serving extremely well, sure. That doesn't diminish Fed's performance, though.

Yes, I agree. As for Roger's performance, it was good. But after 2004 (his breakthrough year), I could only find one Slam final where made fewer first serves in. That was his final against Baghy in '06.

 

[Strale]

So youre admitting tennis is in decline?

How did you came to that conclusion?

 

[Strale]

They are better players than Sampras, but maybe young Hewitt was also just better than them. Both could be true.

Nadal and Djokovic are already 5+ years older than Sampras was during his decline, and next gen still cannot beat them despite being 10+ years younger.

I guess Sampras lacked work ethic, nutrition and motivation like his co goats...

 

[Strale]

Big-3 pigeon Wawrinka (who had 3 wins, 40 losses vs the Big-3 in 2013) beat Djokovic 4 times at the slams (leading to 3 titles), yet two generations of NextGens can't dethrone Djokovic.

False analogy,Djokovic is quite beatable but he doesn't lose very often...

Medvedev like Wawrinka defeated Novak few times...

Question is dethroning,not beating...Wawrinka never dethroned anyone...

 

[Jonas78]

How did you came to that conclusion?

If noone younger than 34 can win unless Big3 retire/decline, then its hard to see it any other way than a declining level among the young. Younger guys pushing the older ones down from the throne (or at least be competetive) has always been the case in a top level landscape. The young guys cant even pull of a Stan or a Murray.

 

[CCPass]

If noone younger than 34 can win unless Big3 retire/decline, then its hard to see it any other way than a declining level among the young. Younger guys pushing the older ones down from the throne (or at least be competetive) has always been the case in a top level landscape.

The other possibility being Djokodal’s level is so much higher that even an improved generation needs more efforts in bringing them down.