Which is the weakest era since the dawn of the Open Era?

[Druss]

Since the dawn of the Open Era we have seen some years more competitive than others. I have listed 5 eras of a 3-4 year period which are almost always mentioned when there is talk of weak era. I myself don't actually believe in a weak era, I prefer to say instead that there has been some years that were not as competitive as other years. So let's lay this topic to rest once and for all. Which era do you believe was the weakest and why?

1970-73: no real ATGs in their primes, except perhaps for Newcombe, with Laver and Rosewall past their best years and Connors/Borg/Vilas not yet entered the scene.

1996-mid99: with Agassi gone AWOL, Becker, Edberg and Courier washed up, Sampras is left by himself against a bunch of third tier players.

2000-03: though I don't think it's a weak era, pretty much 2002 was, however it is included, as many like to point out that it was a transitional period.

2004-07: again I don't believe it's a weak era, 2006 could be singled-out, but it is included since it's always brought up on the topic.

mid2014-17: with Nadal falling off from mid 2014 and then seeing Djokovic fall off in mid 2016, followed closely by Murray. Then witnessing 2017 being dominated by the resurgent old guards Nadal and Federer thanks to a useless generation.

 

[Sport]

Another butthurt post. Because Nadal is #1, we are in a weak era. Excuses and more excuses from Nadal haters.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

1996-1999.

Washington in a GS final, Corretja winning a YEC, Korda winning a slam, Kafelnikov and Moya at No. 1. Lol.

 

[Xavier G]

1996-mid 99 I think, though 2000-03 wasn't that great either. You could lump that together as 1996-03 tbf.
2016-17 is kinda disappointing too. Lack of competition, Fed was injured and was away, Nadal was poor, injured too etc, Djokovic/Murray then basically dropping off the face of the earth in '17 and Fed/Nadal cleaning up again. The Slams were pretty average in '17 apart from the AO.
The Zverev's, Kyrgios' and Thiem's need to start really challenging in the Slams.

 

[Bukmeikara]

2000-2003 had one weak year ..2002 just like 2003-2007 with 2006. If weak era existed, its probably 2014-2017:

1. Big 4 missed a lot of time and still they are untouchable at the top.
2. In that time only Zverev emerged as a big future star and maybe Thiem
3. Plenty of 30's years old hanging around top 20 and reaching career highs. Lorenzi is 36 and around number 35, ranked higher that Coric

 

[Charlie]

Late 90s and mid2016-present.

 

[MichaelNadal]

2015-2016

 

[Bavaria]

Another butthurt post. Because Nadal is #1, we are in a weak era. Excuses and more excuses from Nadal haters.

I worry about the cholesterol levels of some of these salty posters!

 

[Deleted member 77403]

That late 90s period felt deflated to me, after how insane the late 80s and early 90s were.

On this site, in regards to turn of the century majority go with the consensus that 08-09 and 11-13 were the strong years, all else weak. That's like five years only!

 

[ADuck]

2008-2013 was the weakest era

 

[mike danny]

Another butthurt post. Because Nadal is #1, we are in a weak era. Excuses and more excuses from Nadal haters.

You are the clueless one. In the very same season Federer has won 2 majors, yet even Fed fans agree that this is a weak year.

 

[naxroy]

there are no weak eras really,

 

[AngryBirds]

there are no weak eras really,

You're talking sense. Sense is not allow in this board.

 

[Jonas78]

Another butthurt post. Because Nadal is #1, we are in a weak era. Excuses and more excuses from Nadal haters.

Not really. Although im a fan of Roger and he has won 2 Majors and 2 Masters, 2017 has been poor. Im glad he won, but it is what it is. 2014-2016 was weak, and it's pretty much the same, except now you also miss Djokovic, Wawrinka and Murray.

I really can't see how you can say otherwise. Post peak Nadal and Federer winning Wimbledon and FO without losing a set, the finals without any suspense. And Kevin Anderson reaching a Major final

 

[BGod]

2017 sees Nadal & Federer go by name. Their level of play nowhere near their younger years. But it'll be interesting how people view in hindsight.

2000-03 is the ticket here. You have Goran, Johansson, Ferrero winning Slams. A bunch of weak, weak Finalists like Schuttler & Clement?

 

[peakin11mugs]

Another butthurt post. Because Nadal is #1, we are in a weak era. Excuses and more excuses from Nadal haters.

Lol weak era is one of the only two things vamos brigrade has to cling onto in their obsession with federer and their general infatuation. However, now this exact logic means nadal is OFFICIALLY a weak era slam inflated champion they have gone quiet about this weak era concept.

The second thing? H2H but now Djokovic has gone 7-0 TWICE v nadal, leads the h2h and for the last 3 years federer is 4-0 so by their definition “greater” “better” - vamos brigrade has also retreated on h2h. If fed goes 6-0 or 8-0 they will completely shut up about it. If it’s more like 5-2 they will still mention it occasionally.

If nadal wins WTF suddenly it won’t be an exho. When people point out that fed would have 7x as many they will panic and then call it an exho again.

 

[DismalFuture]

1996-2017