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

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
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
This might cause some controversy here, but I rate Tsitsipas, Zverev, Medvedev and Thiem as better players than Hewitt and Roddick. My honest opinion. They simply have more well rounded games, and are bigger and stronger.
 

Aabye5

Hall of Fame
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.
No - time will just make the big 3 older. It doesn't necessarily mean the others will get better.
 

NoleIsBoat

Hall of Fame
This might cause some controversy here, but I rate Tsitsipas, Zverev, Medvedev and Thiem as better players than Hewitt and Roddick. My honest opinion. They simply have more well rounded games, and are bigger and stronger.
Nothing controversial at all - if you look at wins over big 3 at slams, they’re all similar level so far. Difference is, the nextgen guys have years left to add slams and more titles to their resume. Their games have less glaring weakness too.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Plenty substantial. Their ceilings are higher, and even now their games are top level and won big things to show for it aswell. They have a strong core to build around, and barely any weaknesses. They are bigger and stronger aswell.
Barely any weaknesses?

:-D :-D :-D :-D

Yeah, Hewitt and Roddick won jack sh*t, what was I saying?
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Plenty substantial. Their ceilings are higher, and even now their games are top level and won big things to show for it aswell. They have a strong core to build around, and barely any weaknesses. They are bigger and stronger aswell.
Don't see these guys as stronger than Roddick lol. They have plenty of weaknesses as well...
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
Barely any weaknesses?

:-D :-D :-D :-D

Yeah, Hewitt and Roddick won jack sh*t, what was I saying?
Yes, barely. There are still things to improve, like return, but their base is well rounded and strong. They move very well (despite their height for Zverev and Med especially) they are strong from the baseline, no glaring weakness in their strokes. They can hold their own from the baseline, while also having nuclear serves and powerful strokes. Yea Hewitt was a terrific mover and great from the ground, but these guys are much bigger while also being very solid movers. Roddick had a great FH, but BH very exploitable and his overall movement and ground game wasn't that great. His serve was the saving grace. His ceiling wasn't as high. These guys have so much they can make of their games cause their core abilities are already very well rounded.
 

duaneeo

Legend
34 year old Djokovic is the youngest multi-slam champion in the game today...solid proof that the past decade is weakest-era ever.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Yes, barely. There are still things to improve, like return, but their base is well rounded and strong. They move very well (despite their height for Zverev and Med especially) they are strong from the baseline, no glaring weakness in their strokes. They can hold their own from the baseline, while also having nuclear serves and powerful strokes. Yea Hewitt was a terrific mover and great from the ground, but these guys are much bigger while also being very solid movers. Roddick had a great FH, but BH very exploitable and his overall movement and ground game wasn't that great. His serve was the saving grace. His ceiling wasn't as high. These guys have so much they can make of their games cause their core abilities are already very well rounded.
These guys are all flawed, dude. Med lacks weapons, Zverev is mentally weak and a DF machine and Tsitsipas lacks a slice and return.

If they were as strong as you're making them out to be, they would've won slams by now. They're in their mid 20's, not like they haven't had the time.

Watch USO 2020 and rell me again how great these guys are (y)
 

The Fedfather

Hall of Fame
Federer and 'weak era' are associated in the minds of some pressed folks, no big secret behind this. Most of the search results are tennis fans debunking the weak era spin on Federer's domination.
 

SonnyT

Hall of Fame
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
There's also more than the possibility that, as soon as Djokovic retires, those guys collect all of the Slams. The difference is that we already know how many Slams Hewitt, Roddick, Phillipousis had!

In their last 11 Slam matches against Djokovic, Federer and Nadal were 1-10. Federer was 0-6, with the 1st defeat being '14 Wim F; Nadal 1-4, with the only win being '20 RG F. Why do you expect the youngsters to shut out Djokovic in the Slams, when two ATG's couldn't?
 
Last edited:

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
Thiem, Zverev, Tsitsipas, and Medvedev have barely any weaknesses?

Bro, they’ve got more holes in their games than Swiss cheese... especially Tsitsipas.
Their games aren't as exploitable cause their base is already very strong, while having the physical aspect aswell. They are incredible movers for their heights.
 

RelentlessAttack

Hall of Fame
Their games aren't as exploitable cause their base is already very strong, while having the physical aspect aswell. They are incredible movers for their heights.
Medvedev has Murray syndrome, he can't penetrate the best players in the biggest moments with his Gilles Simon-esque flat groundies
Tsitsipas and Shapovalov can't return serve. Stef is vulnerable on the BH and Shapo plays a very low margin game
Zverev has all sorts of mental problems and lacks a second serve, also mediocre at the net
Thiem has poor tennis IQ and lack of variety

All of these guys are obviously good players but to say they lack weaknesses is pretty funny
 

SonnyT

Hall of Fame
Winning slams because greater players retired and not because you beat them is pretty meaningless
Ridiculous, plain and simple. If Djokovic didn't beat Federer in their last 6 Slam meetings, Federer would've 5 more slam titles, including 3 at Wimbledon. You're the only one who thinks Djokovic's 3 Wimbledon titles vs Federer are meaningless. For long stretches in '15-16, Djokovic was the only one who could beat Federer; Nadal couldn't!

Same with Nadal, who was definitely not retired when Djokovic beat him. In fact, Nadal was the heavy favorite to win the match and the tournament, entering the '21 RG SF.
 
Last edited:

ND-13

Hall of Fame
There's also more than the possibility that, as soon as Djokovic retires, those guys collect all of the Slams. The difference is that we already know how many Slams Hewitt, Roddick, Phillipousis had!

In their last 11 Slam matches against Djokovic, Federer and Nadal were 1-10. Federer was 0-6, with the 1st defeat being '14 Wim F; Nadal 1-4, with the only win being '20 RG F. Why do you expect the youngsters to shut out Djokovic in the Slams, when two ATG's couldn't?
LOL, what does the mugs winning majors in future have to do with what they did in the times before when they were exposed ?
 

Third Serve

G.O.A.T.
Their games aren't as exploitable cause their base is already very strong, while having the physical aspect aswell. They are incredible movers for their heights.
Their bases aren't all that strong. Competent, yes, but not strong. At least not strong enough to cover up the holes in their games.

With Medvedev, his whole game is the problem: he doesn't have a consistent weapon so he gets pushed to the defensive (which he does handle well) way more often than not. Without a truly elite weapon, Med falls into the Murray category of not having a game that's remotely threatening for any top-tier ATG (and I'm not even talking just the Big 3 here), except Med just does most things even worse. He works with what he's got because he's easily the best tactician from the next gen and his shots aren't outright bad, but it's clear that he's working with some limitations. You can see this in his forehand.

Zverev's forehand is also a completely fine shot, but it's still too passive. There have been countless instances when he could have used it to shift the point in his favor but he instead uses it as a lame rally shot most of the time. It's the same problem Murray's forehand has, though I do think Murray's might have been even worse in that regard; that shot was a genuine weakness in his game rather than a "not-a-strength" as it is for Zverev. Zed's got a backhand and (first) serve though. It's a little bit puzzling how he hasn't done better with the strengths he has which suggests that I might need to place more blame on his mental strength.

Tsitsipas's forehand is actually a good shot, I like it. His problem is the backhand which is a bit loose and prone to shanking. Subjectively, it's kind of ugly for a one-hander imo. It doesn't do anything at all for him, an issue that could be resolved if he decided to slice it more: I rarely see him employ the slice. But the real weakness in his game is the return: it's an awful, awful shot for a top-tier player. Clay hides that weakness a bit (which is a big part of why that's his best surface) but it's a liability on hard courts and an instant KO on grass. I do think his fitness is also decidedly mediocre (and it showed in the RG 2021 final).

Thiem has the best "basics" of all of the next gen (but he's not one himself). Great forehand (and I mean an actual ATG forehand), pretty good backhand, and a decent serve. He's a technically sound player, which can't really be said for his younger peers. One hole in his game is the return which isn't that great, but with Thiem the problem is mental: most of the time, he goes completely AWOL in the big finals, and not just against the Big 3 either. We all know how the US Open 2020 final against Zverev went down, and I wouldn't call his ATP Finals 2019/2020 losses much better in that department. It's frustrating as someone who actually really enjoys watching Thiem because he has a great game but his mental strength is so lacking that all of those advantages disappear in Slam finals (or even Masters finals lmao).

Whether it's physical or mental, all of these players have noticeable weaknesses in their games, and their strengths aren't good enough to counteract them (due either to them not having such effective strengths like Medvedev or having such massive weaknesses that they'd need really good strengths to make up for them like Thiem). Now let's look at Roddick, the person everyone loves to poke fun at for having holes in his game.

Roddick has a pretty laughable backhand, I'll be honest. And his return wasn't great either (barring a few select matches like the Wimbledon 2004 final which featured pretty stellar returning from him). But he actually had elite strengths. His serve was top 5 or top 10 all time (lean the former) and his forehand (specifically the 2003-2004 shot) was an ATG groundstroke. Because both his serve and forehand were that good, his 1-2 punch was devastating. The criticisms levied at post-2004 Roddick are mostly justified because he decided to nerf his forehand into a rally shot rather than a weapon (even if his serve was still an incredible shot), but I won't hear any of that crap about 2003-2004 Roddick. I'd say he covered his weaknesses pretty nicely.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
Medvedev has Murray syndrome, he can't penetrate the best players in the biggest moments with his Gilles Simon-esque flat groundies
Tsitsipas and Shapovalov can't return serve. Stef is vulnerable on the BH and Shapo plays a very low margin game
Zverev has all sorts of mental problems and lacks a second serve, also mediocre at the net
Thiem has poor tennis IQ and lack of variety

All of these guys are obviously good players but to say they lack weaknesses is pretty funny
What is funny is comparing Meds strokes to Simon. Light years difference in quality between them. Medvedev has plenty of power in his strokes. Can't penetrate best players in biggest moments? How did he win 4 masters and now going for 5th, won YECs beating Djokovic, Nadal and Thiem.

And I never said they don't have any weaknessess at all, I said barely. Never said they are complete either, they have plenty to improve still in the attacking phase of the game but it speaks volumes that they already have solid careers with many big titles and huge performances against great players. The sky is the limit for them. Roddick nor Hewitt had any of this potential. Important aspects of their games were already doomed from the start.
 

RelentlessAttack

Hall of Fame
What is funny is comparing Meds strokes to Simon. Light years difference in quality between them. Medvedev has plenty of power in his strokes. Can't penetrate best players in biggest moments? How did he win 4 masters and now going for 5th, won YECs beating Djokovic, Nadal and Thiem.
Medvedev is Simon on steroids. He’s got those flatter, unorthodox strokes and applies similar tactics. With his size comes a bigger serve and some more power, but otherwise similar approach to the game
 

Sunny014

Legend
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.
What is important is that medvedev/tsitsipas/zverev are bad players today, whether they become greats after 3 years is not in relevance.

If someone beat Federer in 2000 then it is not a great win for that person because Federer was horrible in 2000, this doesn't matter if Fed becomes ATG in 2004, the year 2000 Federer would remain a bad player.

Thats the point you miss buddy @NoleIsBoat
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
What is funny is comparing Meds strokes to Simon. Light years difference in quality between them. Medvedev has plenty of power in his strokes. Can't penetrate best players in biggest moments? How did he win 4 masters and now going for 5th, won YECs beating Djokovic, Nadal and Thiem.

And I never said they don't have any weaknessess at all, I said barely. Never said they are complete either, they have plenty to improve still in the attacking phase of the game but it speaks volumes that they already have solid careers with many big titles and huge performances against great players. The sky is the limit for them. Roddick nor Hewitt had any of this potential. Important aspects of their games were already doomed from the start.
Roddick and Hewitt both achieved way more than these guys at this age :laughing:
 

Thriller

Hall of Fame
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
This clown was Top 3.

/endthread
 

zvelf

Hall of Fame
Neither Murray nor Stan are ATGs by vulturing 3 slams.
You know someone has an agenda when they say Wawrinka vultured his slams.

Wawrinka won the 2014 Australian beating Djokovic, Berdych, and Nadal.
Wawrinka won the 2015 French beating Federer, Tsonga, Djokovic.
Wawrinka won the 2016 USO beating del Potro, Nishikori, Djokovic.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
Roddick and Hewitt both achieved way more than these guys at this age :laughing:
Doesn't matter here. I wouldn't call Johansson and Gaudio better players or had better games than for example Ferrer, Tsonga and other guys just cause they failed to win slams.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Doesn't matter here. I wouldn't call Johansson and Gaudio better players or had better games than for example Ferrer, Tsonga and other guys just cause they failed to win slams.
Completely different caliber of players (y)
 

Turing

Rookie
The effectiveness of propaganda and misinformation is primarily through the sheer frequency in which it is disseminated. The **** tactic of the Big Lie is relevant here: "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth." The whole Federer weak era thing was just a Big Lie.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
The effectiveness of propaganda and misinformation is primarily through the sheer frequency in which it is disseminated. The **** tactic of the Big Lie is relevant here: "Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth." The whole Federer weak era thing was just a Big Lie.
Federer does get unwarranted dirt thrown at him and this past year I have never seen so many people gang up on him. It seems like it's getting worse and worse.
 
D

Deleted member 743561

Guest
Federer does get unwarranted dirt thrown at him and this past year I have never seen so many people gang up on him. It seems like it's getting worse and worse.
Do you mean on here?
 

Jonas78

Legend
Because Roger only faced rubbish like Nadal, Agassi, Hewitt, Roddick and Safin 2004-2007.

When strong era came in 2010 Roger was finished, with losses to strong era players Baghdatis, Berdych x2, Gulbis and Montanes.
 
Last edited:

SonnyT

Hall of Fame
Another reason is that, once Nadal and Djokovic came of age starting in '10, Federer's slams dropped off a cliff.
 

NoleIsBoat

Hall of Fame
Because Roger only faced rubbish like Nadal, Agassi, Hewitt, Roddick and Safin 2004-2007.

When strong era came in 2010 Roger was finished, with losses to strong era players Baghdatis, Berdych x2, Gulbis and Montanes.
2004-2007 slam semi finalists:

Kiefer
Grosjean
Henman
Bjorkman

You mean Soderling and Tsonga? That was the two first players stopping him in slams after AO2010.
Nadal already stopped peak Fed in 2008, when he defeated him at Wimbledon!
 

T007

Professional
You know someone has an agenda when they say Wawrinka vultured his slams.

Wawrinka won the 2014 Australian beating Djokovic, Berdych, and Nadal.
Wawrinka won the 2015 French beating Federer, Tsonga, Djokovic.
Wawrinka won the 2016 USO beating del Potro, Nishikori, Djokovic.
Yeah you should also know someone has an agenda to create this thread with all those dirts in mind.

I am also helping a bit to throw in.

Tsonga,Berdych,Nishikori are journey mans with 1 slam appearance
 

T007

Professional
2004-2007 slam semi finalists:

Kiefer
Grosjean
Henman
Bjorkman


Nadal already stopped peak Fed in 2008, when he defeated him at Wimbledon!
Nalbandian,Davydenko,Roddick,Safin were much better than the current next Gen mugs...provided the fact that they player Big 3 in peaks and beat them.
 
Top