Why is the weak era generally associated with Federer's opponents?

Jokervich

Hall of Fame
He won most of his slams in an era with no ATGs, apart from Nadal at RG, who he was never able to beat. The biggest winners during that time were Hewitt and Safin, with 2 slams each, along with Agassi who was pretty much retired and finished by that point - not exactly world-beating competition.

Meanwhile, Djokovic and Nadal had to contend with 2 other ATGs, as well as Murray and Wawrinka who are no mugs themselves, with 3 slams apiece. Murray and Wawrinka alone were better than the best competition in 2004-2007, which tells you all you need to know about how weak that era was.
 

Cup8489

G.O.A.T.
He won most of his slams in an era with no ATGs, apart from Nadal at RG, who he was never able to beat. The biggest winners during that time were Hewitt and Safin, with 2 slams each, along with Agassi who was pretty much retired and finished by that point - not exactly world-beating competition.

Meanwhile, Djokovic and Nadal had to contend with 2 other ATGs, as well as Murray and Wawrinka who are no mugs themselves, with 3 slams apiece. Murray and Wawrinka alone were better than the best competition in 2004-2007, which tells you all you need to know about how weak that era was.
The logic isn't sound, no one during Federer's prime earned ATG status because he was beating them all multiple times along the way. You can only play who is in front of you. And those players you mentioned were in fact world beaters. It's how they reached the finals in the first place.
 

Oceans II

Rookie
Wait a couple more years, I believe the current weak era will be spoken for eternity

Hewitt; Roddick, Safin failed to stop 24-25 year Roger

Berretini, Tsitsipas, Medvedev and Zverev fail to stop 34-35 year old Djoker
I think the last few years is starting to be seen as even weaker so it’s changing
I think this view is only held on TTW. The players, experts, commentators, etc seem to believe otherwise.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
He won most of his slams in an era with no ATGs, apart from Nadal at RG, who he was never able to beat. The biggest winners during that time were Hewitt and Safin, with 2 slams each, along with Agassi who was pretty much retired and finished by that point - not exactly world-beating competition.

Meanwhile, Djokovic and Nadal had to contend with 2 other ATGs, as well as Murray and Wawrinka who are no mugs themselves, with 3 slams apiece. Murray and Wawrinka alone were better than the best competition in 2004-2007, which tells you all you need to know about how weak that era was.
Such a stupid post LMAO :-D
 

ND-13

Hall of Fame
I think this view is only held on TTW. The players, experts, commentators, etc seem to believe otherwise.
No, the choke of Tsitsipas and the worthless performance of Medvedev was duly noticed and spoken about .
That basically brought down any hopes of Berretini even before they stepped in the court for the final
 

ND-13

Hall of Fame
I think this view is only held on TTW. The players, experts, commentators, etc seem to believe otherwise.
Also look at this year.. 10 different finalists in 5 different masters

Tsitsipas makes FO finals, gets beaten by Tiafoe R1 at Wimbledon
Medvedev barely wins matches in clay and grass
Zverev loses to FAA
Berretini wins 5 games against 38 year Roger
Thiem is OOO after winning asterisk slam
Rublev wins 250 and 500 but can’t do anything in majors
Shapavalov has rally tolerance of a top 50 player

Scharzman, a dwarf for a tennis player, is top 10
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
I think the last few years is starting to be seen as even weaker so it’s changing
Federer is getting some unwarranted hate thrown at him lately but we are not in a bad state of era currently. Many good players, and you have 6.5 ft players serving bombs while moving and playing from the ground on world class level. See Medvedev and Zverev + others. More and more players at this height with nuclear serves are integrating to the to the top of the game. You have Opelka who is the same height as Karlovic, but moves and plays from the ground on a respectable level. This is unheard of. In 20 years we might have a top 10 who averages 6.5 ft+ tall players while they are moving and baselining like Nadal,Federer and Djokovic.

You may not like it, but it's just how it is.
 

Omega_7000

Legend
Federer is getting some unwarranted hate thrown at him lately but we are not in a bad state of era currently. Many good players, and you have 6.5 ft players serving bombs while moving and playing from the ground on world class level. See Medvedev and Zverev + others. More and more players at this height with nuclear serves are integrating to the to the top of the game. You have Opelka who is the same height as Karlovic, but moves and plays from the ground on a respectable level. This is unheard of. In 20 years we might have a top 10 who averages 6.5 ft+ tall players while they are moving and baselining like Nadal,Federer and Djokovic.

You may not like it, but it's just how it is.
Oh and what have any of those players achieved outside mickey mouse tournaments other than choke to big three in BO5? They are lumbering fools with a one dimensional game.

Only reason they are racking up points from Masters is because Djokodal don't care about ranking or smaller tournaments anymore...The fact that 34/35 year olds dominate tennis and sweep all the slams shows how pathetic they are.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
Oh and what have any of those players achieved outside mickey mouse tournaments other than choke to big three in BO5? They are lumbering fools with a one dimensional game.

Only reason they are racking up points from Masters is because Djokodal don't care about ranking or smaller tournaments anymore...The fact that 34/35 year olds dominate tennis and sweep all the slams shows how pathetic they are.
I wouldn't call the YECs mickey mouse tournaments, nor masters or the Olympics. They have already solid ATP careers, with 4 slam finals combined. And I haven't taken Thiem in the convo either. these players are atleast beating big 3 both in slams and outside of it.
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
He won most of his slams in an era with no ATGs
Fed haters claim the “weak era” was 2003-2007.

In those 5 years, Roger won 12 slams and NINE of those slam finals were won against a players either ranked #1 at the time or had been ranked #1 in their careers. Some weak era.:-D

Consider who Djokovic has defeated this year in his slam finals--- ATG's like Medvedev, Tsitsipas and Berrettini. And their fan base dares call Fed's prime years "weak?"
 
Last edited:

Sunny014

Legend
In my opinion only inferior people allow multiple players from their own generation to be ATGs in their own peak.

Superior people rule like Supermen.

Federer never allowed his generation to be ATGs and Nadal never allowed anyone to be ATG on his surface clay, that is what GOAT level people do.
 
Because Federer's "rivals" in the weak era were Hewitt, Roddick and Baggy. Those were some of the worst "top" players in tennis history.

Hewitt got double bagelled in a Slam final by Federer when an 11-years-older in-the-verge-of-retirement Agassi was able to push the same Federer to the fifth.

Roddick was a servebot with limited game and what made it worse he had a loser mentality. Didn't he say he was ok with losing to Fred or that he was happy? Connors was furious when he heard it iirc.

Baggy the magician never won anything above 250 level his whole career.
 

T007

Professional
He won most of his slams in an era with no ATGs, apart from Nadal at RG, who he was never able to beat. The biggest winners during that time were Hewitt and Safin, with 2 slams each, along with Agassi who was pretty much retired and finished by that point - not exactly world-beating competition.

Meanwhile, Djokovic and Nadal had to contend with 2 other ATGs, as well as Murray and Wawrinka who are no mugs themselves, with 3 slams apiece. Murray and Wawrinka alone were better than the best competition in 2004-2007, which tells you all you need to know about how weak that era was.
Neither Murray nor Stan are ATGs by vulturing 3 slams. Since 2017 those two guys disappeared from 2nd week of slams.

Djokovic Didn't even had an Younger ATG and Nadal himself was injured after in the end of 2014 after which Djoker won 6 slams.

Federer had the toughest one as He lost 10 slam Finals to his Younger not even including the closely fought semis.
 

T007

Professional
Because Federer's "rivals" in the weak era were Hewitt, Roddick and Baggy. Those were some of the worst "top" players in tennis history.

Hewitt got double bagelled in a Slam final by Federer when an 11-years-older in-the-verge-of-retirement Agassi was able to push the same Federer to the fifth.

Roddick was a servebot with limited game and what made it worse he had a loser mentality. Didn't he say he was ok with losing to Fred or that he was happy? Connors was furious when he heard it iirc.

Baggy the magician never won anything above 250 level his whole career.
By that logic Djoker got bagelled by Nadal in Final while playing indoors. Does that make him worst top ranked player.
 

weakera

G.O.A.T.
Fed haters claim the “weak era” was 2003-2007.

In those 5 years, Roger won 12 slams and NINE of those slam finals were won against a players either ranked #1 at the time or had been ranked #1 in their careers. Some weak era.:-D

Being #1 at some point doesn't make someone a great player at a different time, especially not in the early 00's.

In reality 2003-2007 is a weak era and 2021 is a weak year. Whenever a single great player has no genuine threats, the tour is weak.
 

T007

Professional
I wouldn't call the YECs mickey mouse tournaments, nor masters or the Olympics. They have already solid ATP careers, with 4 slam finals combined. And I haven't taken Thiem in the convo either. these players are atleast beating big 3 both in slams and outside of it.
3 wins against big 3 in slams but none in Finals by thiem. That itself shows how poor player he is....He is not even worthy of calling ATG as he never beaten a prime big 3 enroute to his slam triumph.

Where as Safin,Roddick,Hewitt were playing Peak of Big 3 in various stages of their career
 

T007

Professional
Being #1 at some point doesn't make someone a great player at a different time, especially not in the early 00's.

In reality 2003-2007 is a weak era and 2021 is a weak year. Whenever a single great player has no genuine threats, the tour is weak.
2013-21 is weakest of all era. Nadal,murray and Federer were injured at some point. And The ATGs of 250 events ike Raonic,Dimitrov,Nishikori,Berdych were unable to take a set off Big 3 in their best surface.
 

T007

Professional
I honestly don't see a point of these "weak era" discussions. Fed, Novak, Rafa....they call only beat what is in front of them. They all benefited from "lack of competition" at some point in their careers.
Finally I agree with your view...All had their fair share benefits and difficulties in their career
 
Finally I agree with your view...All had their fair share benefits and difficulties in their career
Absolutely. Especially given how long they have been playing. They are bound to encounter weaker competition at some point and low points in terms of their own playing level.
 

NoleIsBoat

Hall of Fame
Because he accumulated most of his statistical position when facing non ATG opponents, then slowed down drastically in the presence of 2 fellow Atg opponents.

Fantastic player but very much a “flat track bully”
 
Last edited:

NoleIsBoat

Hall of Fame
I think the last few years is starting to be seen as even weaker so it’s changing
2019 certainly is stronger than any year Federer dominated.

2021- ? time will tell. We will have to wait and see how Medvedev/Tsitsipas/Zverev careers pan out before calling them weak.
 

Aabye5

Hall of Fame
I think this view is only held on TTW. The players, experts, commentators, etc seem to believe otherwise.
Not quite. It's true that many of the players, experts, commentators would say otherwise, but remember their pockets are based on a successful tour. If they were to call this a weak era, that would do nothing for their bottomlines.
 

Patogen

Rookie
The answer:

What is Guga even doing there? Where's Nalba?

Kuerten played 36 singles matches in 2004, 16 in 2005, 1 in 2006, 9 in 2007 an 4 in 2008. That's 66 matches in 5 years, 13 matches a year on average. He only faced Roger once during that time, in 2004 at RG which was perhaps the last time he was at least semi-competitive.

As for the answer, that's why. Albeit to a varying extent, all of those guys except for Roddick struggled with injuries or personal issues or both.
 

NoleIsBoat

Hall of Fame
Did any of his opponents do well on multiple surfaces and ever challenge him for No. 1? Was Roddick ever a threat on clay?

That's why.
His number 2’s were inconsistent roddick and clay courter baby Nadal. Absolutely 0 threat that’s where the 237 consecutive weeks came from.
 
Top