Why did "The Weak Era" last so long?

[NatF]

Because Nadal was a clay player only before 2008.
Yet he beat Agassi in Montreal to win a master 1000 title, the same Agassi who reached the final of the US open.
Nadal lost early at the US open because he was still a clay player, who can't play great on other surfaces.

He also took Federer to 5 sets in Miami and won Madrid Indoors in 2005, he took Lleyton to 5 at the AO as well. He was a good hard court player in 2005 and onwards, he just often ended up facing on fire opponents. Blake was playing fantastic hard court tennis at that time, that's why he lost early at the USO. The field had a bit of depth to it, Nadal's draws at the USO in 2010 and 2013 was cake walks. Blake hit 53 winners past Nadal in that match at the USO, he was playing way better than anyone Nadal faced in his runs bar Djokovic.

Agassi was in better form at the USO compared to Montreal.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

Actually that shows that the clay era is pretty bad, that no one has been able to dethrone him if you look at the other side of the coin....and round and round we go in this circular argument. Djokovic is a hard court player first, he is no clay monster. What is making him a threat now is that he is designing his game for one reason and one reason only...beating Nadal at RG. The same way, Nadal did to Federer at W.

Nadal's domination is essentially from April to Mid June. Federer's domination was nearly 11 months for four straight years, minus Nadal on clay...that is a lot longer to stay mentally focused and keeping the contenders at bay.

Djokovic is a hard court player only because of Nadal. Without him he would have a very well rounded record. Djokovic has all the qualities of a great clay courters.

The clay field has been hurt by the injuries and illness of Kuerten, Ferrero and Coria, but Federer and Djokovic are two great clay courters. I don't doubt that they could kick the *** of several 90's RG winners.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Djokovic is a hard court player only because of Nadal. Without him he would have a very well rounded record. Djokovic has all the qualities of a great clay courters.

The clay field has been hurt by the injuries and illness of Kuerten, Ferrero and Coria, but Federer and Djokovic are two great clay courters. I don't doubt that they could kick the *** of several 90's RG winners.

Notice the circular argument happening here. Federer's best surface IS grass. Djokovic best surface IS HC....and we continue this on and on and on.

Roddick could have been a great grass court player if not for Federer. Hewitt would be a greater HC or Grass player if not for Federer.

That is why all this rubbish that gets spoken about these greats just to devalue their achievements is pathetic, and it doesn't matter which player you're talking about. All have great accomplishments, but it is only the haters that want to take that away, so they can sleep well at night.

 

[NatF]

It's easy to say in hindsight Roddick, Hewitt etc...were crap competition but at the beginning of 2004 it looked like we'd have an extremely strong era of multiple slam champions. Federer only had a single slam and it looked like several other guys would go on to win several as well.

It was not considered a weak era, it's only now that some call it weak but if you were there that's not how you would remember it. 2004 and 2005 were strong years with depth and strong top 10-20 players.

 

[JSummers]

Since the start of the Open Era in 1968 we've been in the weak era.

<--This. And it's been weaker ever since, how's weakest.

 

[puiacalin91]

weak era? so tennis playing lvl is going down? because from what i;ve seen last 8 9 years tennis is the sport which evolved the most

 

[Bobby Jr]

...But what nobody mentions it that 2001 and 2002 were even weaker years in terms of competition. Hewitt #1 in the world.

And so was 2000....

You forgot to add January 2010 and June 2012 into your weak era.

 

[Wynter]

The key aspect of the era was the slowing of the courts. Fed had to transition from S&V, and Hewitt had to deal with his style of play slowly fading from being effective.

If the courts stayed as they were around 2000-2002 04-07 would have been much more competitive as roddick amd Hewitt's gameplans wouldn't have been impacted,

Although whether Fed would have been even greater is debatable. Due to his skill on Fast Courts, although Hewitt was able to hang with him around 00-02. Roddick won his slam then etc etc;

All conjecture though, we can simply deal with what we have now

 

[Candide]

The answer to this is incredibly easy - because Federer kept winning for so long. When he retires the weak era will officially be finally over.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

Notice the circular argument happening here. Federer's best surface IS grass. Djokovic best surface IS HC....and we continue this on and on and on.

Roddick could have been a great grass court player if not for Federer. Hewitt would be a greater HC or Grass player if not for Federer.

That is why all this rubbish that gets spoken about these greats just to devalue their achievements is pathetic, and it doesn't matter which player you're talking about. All have great accomplishments, but it is only the haters that want to take that away, so they can sleep well at night.

I meant: "Djokovic is perceived as a HC specialist only because clay goat Nadal prevented him to meet success on clay".

If you analysis Djokovic's game, it is obvious he has everything needed and more to be successful on clay. This is true for Roddick and Hewitt on grass as well.

In this regard, despite that Nadal never played against an "all time clay great", I don't agree that the clay field he faced is weak. It would have been better with Coria, Ferrero and Kuerten, but Federer and Djokovic have the game to be successful on clay.

The same is true for Federer on grass. He didn't got to play a 3 times champion who won his last Wimbledon in the previous decade, but he did face great grass courters none the less.

 

[Steve0904]

It's easy to say in hindsight Roddick, Hewitt etc...were crap competition but at the beginning of 2004 it looked like we'd have an extremely strong era of multiple slam champions. Federer only had a single slam and it looked like several other guys would go on to win several as well.

It was not considered a weak era, it's only now that some call it weak but if you were there that's not how you would remember it. 2004 and 2005 were strong years with depth and strong top 10-20 players.

I think this is a very good point that doesn't get enough mention. It is hindsight now that leads some to asinine "weak era" conclusions, but at the time that was not the case at all.

 

[Omega_7000]

He also took Federer to 5 sets in Miami and won Madrid Indoors in 2005, he took Lleyton to 5 at the AO as well. He was a good hard court player in 2005 and onwards, he just often ended up facing on fire opponents. Blake was playing fantastic hard court tennis at that time, that's why he lost early at the USO. The field had a bit of depth to it, Nadal's draws at the USO in 2010 and 2013 was cake walks. Blake hit 53 winners past Nadal in that match at the USO, he was playing way better than anyone Nadal faced in his runs bar Djokovic.

Agassi was in better form at the USO compared to Montreal.

It's simple really...A weak era conclusion can be made about any era. It just depends on where your bias lies.

 

[NatF]

I think this is a very good point that doesn't get enough mention. It is hindsight now that leads some to asinine "weak era" conclusions, but at the time that was not the case at all.

Exactly there have been several other 3 slam years since the open era, yet no one talks about 1974 or 1988 being weak years. Because Federer's level was so high for so long his contemporaries who were all touted as very talented never had the chance.

The equally absurd claim is, "Nadal was #2 based only on clay, if Federer's rivals were good they would have won on hards and grass" errrr hello Federer was cleaning up on those surfaces during his peak years maybe that's why the pickings were slim...

 

[cknobman]

None of those years were weak.

BUT I'd say 07 was the real emergence of Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray. By then Novak had reached #3 and Murray #11.

So if we take pre 07 Roger slam count: 9
Vs 07 and on slam count: 8

Roger has won half his slams since Nadal, Murray, and Djokovic emerged as MAJOR forces on tour.
Oh and he also beat each one of them in a slam final.

Better questions would be why did Novak and Andy lose to "mugs" in Wimbledon 09, during a so called "strong era" which they were supposed to be the reason for?

 

[mike danny]

None of those years were weak.

BUT I'd say 07 was the real emergence of Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray. By then Novak had reached #3 and Murray #11.

So if we take pre 07 Roger slam count: 9
Vs 07 and on slam count: 8

Roger has won half his slams since Nadal, Murray, and Djokovic emerged as MAJOR forces on tour.
Oh and he also beat each one of them in a slam final.

Better questions would be why did Novak and Andy lose to "mugs" in Wimbledon 09, during a so called "strong era" which they were supposed to be the reason for?

This.

It is laughable to not count 2007 since Nadal and Djokovic were top 3 players an challenged Fed in slam finals (Nadal at W, Djokovic at USO).

Also Djokovic in 2007 was much better than in 2010

 

[agreed]

Yes, djoko was so great in 2007 that he choked 6 set points and a 4-2 lead away
Against "unbeatable, sportsmanship award winner, luscious dreamboat and greatest player fed", then djoko only had a few good tourneys for 2 years after that.

He's a late bloomer and yet, he is destroying multiple slam champs and quality journeymen when he tries instead of clown around. He had the undignified old coach that almost turned him into another coria. If you're a pseudo-intellectual feudal fanboy, you keep ignorant about djoko's major obstacle to his success: undiagnosed wheat allergy and breathing problems.
Too bad you were busy watching fake injury and sympathy card players from the 2003-2006 years and phony desperate fedal whines about injuries that somehow didn't stop their ballbashing and running. Lol at the money hungry Roddick and hewitt who had bitter 1st round losses left and right, but they had filthy illegal verbal abuse ready to distract opponents.

 

[agreed]

So when an opponent plays well it's a knock on Federer? But when Nadal dismantles somebody he deserves praise?

Not fair at all. It's like you have an agenda.

Players can get hot for a set and a half. And that's what Agassi did. After that he got routined.

Yeah, cortisone-injected pained Agassi was routined by a lucky smug player who believed he was the best player and gentleman. Fed had the nerve to pretend he felt sorry for Agassi's pain and misery.

Of course, the lucky umpire thief didn't get punished for robbing Agassi in the 2004 indian wells QF with fed. Arrogant Fed smiled widely because he knew Agassi hit the ball way in to break fed's serve at 30-40. He was routined by fed there, in 2003 masters cup where fed saved match point vs. a slower Agassi, and in 2004 us open where the wind helped federette vs. 5 set Agassi. Lol

2003-2006 Strong era. Hewitt, Roddick and safin needed 2 fluke wins in the 2003 us open and 2005 Aussie open combined, in 8 years of the new balls generation. Roddick loved dad fed so much that he couldn't get to the net and win in 3 sets at 2009 Wimbledon.

 

[agreed]

IMO the thing is, weak era was not weak because Federer was unbeatable in grand slams (except french open), weak era was weak because even outside the grand slams, in master 1000 players could not beat Federer.

The man is not a robot he could get tired. Yet only a 17 years old Nadal could take profit of that, when the others couldn't.

If i remember correctly, 2005 Federer record was 82-4 or something like that, in 2006 he was 90-6 or something similar. The guy played nearly 100 matches a year, yet only Nadal (or young Murray in 2006) would beat him ----> the field was a joke. (Agassi in a grand slam final at 35 years old lol).

Exactly. Agassi with no reason to play any longer almost won 2004 us open despite awful pain and poor forward movement in a 5 setter. He schooled fed in the 2005 us open with a 4-1 third set before getting ball bashed down by fed for fed to survive. Roddick crashed out of 1st round because he was no gulbis or raonic.... He was looking for a rich trophy girlfriend and needed to remain on tour for almost a decade to buy a job at a tabloid tv show so that he could bad mouth djokovic and praise federer's dreamboat life.
Money and fraud personality got fake love from charity organizations, Houston clay promoter "mattress Mack" & sponsors during the 2003-2006 era.
Now, people like djoko have brains to know roddick and feudal had no rivalries,
And djoko got pushed on the locker by the humiliated Roddick because roddick was an ignorant that wanted fake friends and insults to protect lies from fed.

 

[agreed]

Excellent post.

Hater logic - If Fed doesn't beat Murray/Nole/Nadal esp Nadal it means Fed's era was weak.

AO 06 and 07, Roger faced two players who were on a hot run and beat them convincingly. If you take that away then should we discount Nadal beating Berdbrain in Wim 10? Should we also discount Nadal's USO 10,13 runs because let's face it his draws were a joke and he faced a Nole who wasn't Nole yet, esp in 2010. 2013 Nole was a mental wreck, but when Nole was at his peak in 2011 he did beat Nadal didn't he?

Take Wimbledon for instance. Roddick was the second best grasscourter atleast from 03-05 and he beat him quite convincingly with the exception of the 04 edition. But weak era apologists say Fed didn't face Becker/Edberg/Ivanisevic so his Wimbledons aren't impressive compared to Pete. How about Nadal not having to face any RG champion in his domination such as Guga/Muster/Ferrero heck even Coria flamed out unpredictably.

Coria was beaten by roddick on cheap clay and knocked himself out with double faults. Roddick was an imitation of himself after 2003 and federer required 17 break point saves and numerous escapes from 0-40 30-40 vs. Roddick, his cheerleader.
Weak era apologist is you because anyone with a brain could see that tennis fell in popularity with Roddick, safin and hewitt around.

Without djokodalray, fed would still win 3 slams per year and 100 titles. What a strong era 2003-2006 was!!!

 

[cknobman]

agreed either you are a kid (which explains a lot) or lack some serious reasoning capabilities in your brain.

All you're doing is spouting opinions and conjecture without a single real fact to back it up.

 

[monfed]

Coria was beaten by roddick on cheap clay and knocked himself out with double faults. Roddick was an imitation of himself after 2003 and federer required 17 break point saves and numerous escapes from 0-40 30-40 vs. Roddick, his cheerleader.
Weak era apologist is you because anyone with a brain could see that tennis fell in popularity with Roddick, safin and hewitt around.

Without djokodalray, fed would still win 3 slams per year and 100 titles. What a strong era 2003-2006 was!!!

Agreed. :lol:

 

[danishtennisfan]

Regarding "weak era" it must surely be this one, when Federer playing his worst tennis since 2001 is still ranked number 4! Think about it...he surely couldn't have had that ranking in 2004 for example.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

And we had a guy who was no.1 and never won a slam. If that's not weak I don't know what it is.

No that means there was a lot of strong players. Or....

 

[rocketassist]

The key difference between 03-07 and 08- onwards is that Nadal, Djokovic and Murray's iron clad defensive abilities made them more often than not able to resist the on-fire shotmaking of the kind of players that bulldozed their way through the draws to meet Federer prior to that.

I don't think it makes the 08 onwards era necessarily stronger. Better physically and defensively yes but not necessarily when it comes to tennis skills/technical skills.

Federer at his peak was ridiculous and denied several players on hot streaks a slam. Gonzalez at the AO was just on a tear and only the variety and complete performance of Roger was able to halt him in his tracks there.

 

[cronus]

agreed either you are a kid (which explains a lot) or lack some serious reasoning capabilities in your brain.

All you're doing is spouting opinions and conjecture without a single real fact to back it up.

Well said... well said.

 

[jelle v]

The weak era lasted as long as Federer was winning. As such it lasted about 4 years consecutively with a break in 2008. It came back in 2009 and was strong again in 2010 and 2011. Then in 2012 it was weak again.

It really is very simple.

This basically is how it works..

 

[henryshli]

It is weak era now. No real threat outside the top two players.

 

[mike danny]

Weak eras: 2004-2007, 2009, 2012.

Strongest eras in mens' tennis

2008,2010,2013

 

[agreed]

2003-2009
embarrassing except for smug fed's 2005 Aussie open semi,
2005 masters cup and consequential fed's injury excuses

Overall: 2003-2006 worst years, poor tv ratings

2011, 2014 strongest and most entertaining

 

[SoBad]

2003-2009
embarrassing except for smug fed's 2005 Aussie open semi,
2005 masters cup and consequential fed's injury excuses

Overall: 2003-2006 worst years, poor tv ratings

2011, 2014 strongest and most entertaining

Federer played an incredible match at the 2005 AO Semi - his best performance on hardcourts to date.

 

[agreed]

Same court he cried at until he got more slam gifts. What a brat!

 

[cknobman]

Weak eras: 2004-2007, 2009, 2012.

Strongest eras in mens' tennis

2008,2010,2013

Yet in another thread you claim to be a Fed fan.

GTFOH troll.

(if your being sarcastic then I retract this post but I dont see any sign of it in this post)

 

[Omega_7000]

Yet in another thread you claim to be a Fed fan.

GTFOH troll.

(if your being sarcastic then I retract this post but I dont see any sign of it in this post)

I'm very sure that was sarcasm...

Weak era my arse! What about this era? How is this not weaker than Fed's era? Where are the upcoming new players? All you have are semi-retired and injured players.

 

[yescomeon]

I'd argue this current era is leaning towards being weak. In every era, we see youngsters coming up to challenge the established greats, but right now, there are none, and its been this way since nadal/djokovic/murray reached their prime. The lack of depth in the atp is shocking, its the same guys appearing in the finals time and time again. People always talk about how nadal will never have the longevity at the top of the game as an Agassi or federer, but I disagree, I wouldn't be surprised if he continues winning slams into his 30s.

 

[yescomeon]

Another way to look at the strength of an era is too look at how much the new generation challenge the established champions.

In 1974, Borg and Connors overthrew Newcombe et Cie as the new rulers.
Lendl, McEnroe and Wilander replaced them in the early 80's.
Edberg and Becker arrived in the mid 80's.
In the early 90's, Sampras, Courier and Agassi were already there.
In the mid 90's, the only youngster who were really good was Kuerten. As a result, the late 90's was dominated by the same guys born in the early 70's: Sampras, Agassi, Ivanisevic, Rafter.
The early 00's saw Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Federer take control.
They were replaced from 2005-2008 by Nadal, Djokovic, Murray.
In 2010, the young promising players were Cilic, Del Potro, Dolgopolov.
Now the young promising players lose in the first round! We have to get excited when a player under 27 reach the QF of Master 1000 or give a tough match against a top 10.

I don't think we are in a strong era. For all I know, Nadal and Djokovic could decline to 60% of their peak abilities and still rule. Berdych and Ferrer could decline to 60% of their peak and still keep the youngsters out! Maybe they already have. How could we know, they have nobody else to measure themselves again than the same players who were already there in 2007.

Pretty boring.

The interesting points are with players like berdych and ferrer, who are on the wind down in their playing career, but somehow they're still well inside the top 10, consistently making QFs as well - usually, only the all-time greats manage this.

 

[tudwell]

IMO the thing is, weak era was not weak because Federer was unbeatable in grand slams (except french open), weak era was weak because even outside the grand slams, in master 1000 players could not beat Federer.

And yet, Djokovic and Nadal have both won five Masters in a year, compared to four for Federer. Is that because they play in a weak era?

Nadal is four years younger and has easily eclipsed Federer's Masters count. Djokovic is five years younger and is two away from tying Federer. Barring some catastrophe, he will easily finish his career with more. Clearly they have fewer challenges in their way than Federer did, so how was Federer's era weaker?

 

[Kobble]

If Nalbandian and Safin were as dedicated as Nadal and Djokovic (and Murray 2013), they could have challenged Federer way better.
But they didn't care that much about tennis.
As we all know, Safin and Nalbandian were guys enjoying life outside tennis, not like Nadal and Djokovic today who eat tennis, sleep tennis, breathe tennis.

That's the truth. Safin was injured too much to get any real momentum. Nalbandian neglected fitness too much.

 

[Bartelby]

Eras seem to get shallower with fewer at the very top.

So this means weaker if you want anyone in the top ten to win a Slam.

 

[Kobble]

The key difference between 03-07 and 08- onwards is that Nadal, Djokovic and Murray's iron clad defensive abilities made them more often than not able to resist the on-fire shotmaking of the kind of players that bulldozed their way through the draws to meet Federer prior to that.

I don't think it makes the 08 onwards era necessarily stronger. Better physically and defensively yes but not necessarily when it comes to tennis skills/technical skills.

Federer at his peak was ridiculous and denied several players on hot streaks a slam. Gonzalez at the AO was just on a tear and only the variety and complete performance of Roger was able to halt him in his tracks there.

Gonzalez had no backhand.

 

[Federer20042006]

Gonzalez had no backhand.

That's a nice myth.