Which is the weakest year of tennis in new century

[Djokovic2011]

Yeah cuz you're a djokovic fan

Yeah like I'm the only person in this thread who's saying it. Don't ever respond to me again if you're gonna continue coming out with such ridiculous comments cos quite frankly it's tedious.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

A classic case of "anyone who disagrees with my opinion is stupid", I see. Now that's an actually stupid thing to think.

Is it really even an opinion at this point? Lol..

How do you know 2017 Nadal wouldn't have won 2002 RG in straights if he were in Costa's place? Obviously Costa's road was harder, but Nadal's level was higher as well. He's good at making everyone look bad on clay when confidence is there.

Nadal's level of play isn't the point. The fact Costa's road was "harder" is.

What about the actual match quality? The final was largely junk, but so was the 2002 final. Do you think 2002 QFs-SFs were better just for the fact of going the distance (other than Hewitt-Henman)?

The only redeeming thing about Wimbledon this year was Federer. His opponents were mainly jokes.

The upsets have been pretty fun, but yeah, the quality is questionable so far - the tournament's not done yet, though.

Won't get any better.

Roddick was surely better than the likes of Berdych et al., but his playing style fell right into Federer's comfort zone, so he was only dangerous on a handful of occasions (and choked most of them, sad scenes). Hewitt would've been a better challenge off grass had injuries not robbed him of speed.

Roddick was dangerous to everyone else besides Federer. You reckon Nadal or Djokovic would enjoy drawing 2003-2004 Roddick in a major QF or SF? LOL no.

Federer isn't the be all and end all.

 

[deacsyoga]

Regarding 2002 while I do think it was one of the weaker years I agree it wasnt the weakest. What I really liked about the year most of all was the WTF, that was a great event with so many great matches, including both semis and the final, all 3 were the outcome was uncertain until the final point.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Regarding 2002 while I do think it was one of the weaker years I agree it wasnt the weakest. What I really liked about the year most of all was the WTF, that was a great event with so many great matches, including both semis and the final, all 3 were the outcome was uncertain until the final point.

Matches in smaller events like San Jose (Agassi-Hewitt final) where the level of play was great make up a little for the bigger events.. unlike this year which doesn't even have that.

The 02 USO wasn't that bad on Hewitt's half IMO. Sampras' was pretty bad though.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Matches in smaller events like San Jose (Agassi-Hewitt final) where the level of play was great make up a little for the bigger events.. unlike this year which doesn't even have that.

To be fair this year got off to a good start with the Doha final which was pretty fantastic. It all went downhill after that.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

To be fair this year got off to a good start with the Doha final which was pretty fantastic. It all went downhill after that.

Yeah but that was one tournament lol. By July it was really bad with WCs winning 500s.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Nadal's level of play isn't the point. The fact Costa's road was "harder" is.

Chances are, they would look just as bad against Nadal as his 2017 opponents, so you wouldn't even know it was harder. I mean, the reason we talk about RG 2017 being weak is that Nadal beat everyone up, not so much that everyone played terrible compared to 2012 or 2014 or 2016.

The only redeeming thing about Wimbledon this year was Federer. His opponents were mainly jokes.

Schalken and perennial Wimbledon choker Henman versus Raonic and Berdych, hmm. No difference. I remember the semi, Berdych played above his usual level for this season, only underperformed in tiebreaks as expected.

Roddick was dangerous to everyone else besides Federer. You reckon Nadal or Djokovic would enjoy drawing 2003-2004 Roddick in a major QF or SF? LOL no.

Federer isn't the be all and end all.

Of course the World No.1 is the measuring stick of competition. In the same vein, I'm not ranking Berdych highly as a competitor in Djokovic's era, despite him giving Federer quite a lot of trouble in 2009-2013. 1 win over prime Djokovic against 20-odd losses, duh.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Chances are, they would look just as bad against Nadal as his 2017 opponents, so you wouldn't even know it was harder. I mean, the reason we talk about RG 2017 being weak is that Nadal beat everyone up, not so much that everyone played terrible compared to 2012 or 2014 or 2016.

Nah, we talk about it being weak because it sucked. Thiem is a joke for all the hype he gets. Gasquet tier.

Wawrinka was injured and had to take the rest of the year off after. Just lol.

Schalken and perennial Wimbledon choker Henman versus Raonic and Berdych, hmm. No difference. I remember the semi, Berdych played above his usual level for this season, only underperformed in tiebreaks as expected.

At least Schalken wasn't brittle and weak like Raonic. I'd say he played quite a bit better too so already there's a difference lmao..

Not to mention Henman was 4 in the world and Berdych was like 15th (seeded 11th) with some pretty bad results leading up to W.

Of course the World No.1 is the measuring stick of competition. In the same vein, I'm not ranking Berdych highly as a competitor in Djokovic's era, despite him giving Federer quite a lot of trouble in 2009-2013. 1 win over prime Djokovic against 20-odd losses, duh.

Federer wasn't No. 1 the whole time Roddick was a top player rofl. He beat Nadal in 2008 and 2010, two of the 3 years he ended the year at No. 1.

 

[NoleFam]

Nah, we talk about it being weak because it sucked. Thiem is a joke for all the hype he gets. Gasquet tier.

Wawrinka was injured and had to take the rest of the year off after. Just lol.

At least Schalken wasn't brittle and weak like Raonic. I'd say he played quite a bit better too so already there's a difference lmao..

Not to mention Henman was 4 in the world and Berdych was like 15th (seeded 11th) with some pretty bad results leading up to W.

Thiem has won 8 titles and been to 2 Slam SFs and he hasn't even finished his 4th year on tour yet. Gasquet has won 14 titles and been to 3 Slam SFs and has been on tour since 2002. It's a little premature to label him Gasquet level and give the guy a little more time. Some don't get it right away.

Also, as far as I know, Wawrinka was not injured in that RG final and got injured after. He just got completely outplayed.

Also, I know you are a big Hewitt fan but that 2002 Wimbledon was weak, and so was his draw. We have been over this before. I don't think 2002 was the weakest year overall but it did have its low points.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Thiem has won 8 titles and been to 2 Slam SFs and he hasn't even finished his 4th year on tour yet. Gasquet has won 14 titles and been to 3 Slam SFs and has been on tour since 2002. It's a little premature to label him Gasquet level and give the guy a little more time. Some don't get it right away.

Also, as far as I know, Wawrinka was not injured in that RG final and got injured after. He just got completely outplayed.

Also, I know you are a big Hewitt fan but that 2002 Wimbledon was weak, and so was his draw. We have been over this before. I don't think 2002 was the weakest year overall but it did have its low points.

2017 makes 2002 look like 2009.

 

[NoleFam]

2017 makes 2002 look like 2009.

Agreed. I don't think 2002 is weaker because of WTF, US Open and I liked RG that year with the Spanish clay specialists Costa, Corretja and Ferrero duking it out for the title, but it did have some low points like Wimbledon and Australia. 2017 on the other hand...well it's just a really low year quality wise.

 

[Polvorin]

Slam winners in 2002: Johansson, Costa, Hewitt, and a shadow of his former self Sampras.

That's enough to get my vote.

 

[NatF]

It's not about their name is it? It's about their ability
Form matters more than ability.
Sometimes it does.
Sometimes mediocre form star is still often good enough to beat form of his life mediocre player.
If form was the be all, I wouldn't be backing so many losing horses, lol.

How do you judge ability? Note ability isn't necessarily consistency.

What matters is how the players perform on the day, if Djokovic plays an absolute stinker in the final of Wimbledon (2013) is he a tougher opponent than Roddick playing at the top of his game (2004 or 2009)? Some will still say Djokovic is the tougher opponent which boggles my mind frankly. Of course judging by form on the day requires some subjectivity and a rational evaluation which can obviously be influenced biases but I feel it's the only way to judge these things.

 

[Druss]

In the last 25 years since I've been following tennis, the following were all weak years:
1996
1997
1998
2002
2006
2010
2015
2016
2017

If Federer falls apart due to injury, which by the looks of it may happen, 2017 or 2016 will be my picks from the above mentioned.

Just look at the R3/R4 line-up of this USO, my goodness, I might as well go and see the Futures event at Marrakech, same same.

 

[Terry Tibbs]

2002 purely because Hewitt won Wimbledon!

 

[Druss]

2002 purely because Hewitt won Wimbledon!

Hewitt was 10x better than Johannsson who won the AO that year, just saying.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

2002 purely because Hewitt won Wimbledon!

Now I know you're an idiot.

You are aware he beat Sampras and Federer on grass multiple times right?

It's like saying 2016 was weak 'purely' because Murray won Wimbledon. Lmao.

 

[zagor]

2017, followed closely by 2010.

Now I know you're an idiot.

You are aware he beat Sampras and Federer on grass multiple times right?

It's like saying 2016 was weak 'purely' because Murray won Wimbledon. Lmao.

He consistently lives up to his avatar.

 

[Terry Tibbs]

2017, followed closely by 2010.



He consistently lives up to his avatar.

How exactly? I just give my opinions and contribute to the discussions which funnily enough is what a forum is for!