You mean 2007. Nadal won his third Slam title in 2007.
There was nothing about 2010 that makes it stronger than 2003-2007.
Nah, 2009 was better than both 2007 and 2008. The best year of the Big 3 era along with 2012.
It's close for the latter.
2009 not for the big 3. That’s 2007-2008 and 2011-2012. 2009 for the depth of the field. Big 3 were worse than some other top years.
Perhaps, but the slams were so much better in 2009 than in 2008. Other than Wimb, what other slam was super memorable in 2008?
No. We're talking about seasons. 2008 was the first season since 2002 that started with two competitive players with 3 or more slams.
The early 90s was among the toughest periods ever thoFellas, fellas, fellas, the 90's (specifically 96-99 when a bunch of dudes who had no business being #1 were playing muscial chairs with the top spot) was clearly the weakest decade/era in tennis.
I agree with you, but how does memorability factor into strength of the field?
Not quite. It had great slam finals and the slam that didn't have a great final had 2 great semis instead. It had a very strong top 10, all or most of whom achieved significant stuff. Tennis isn't only about the Big 3, you know. There are other players involved.
His injury at the FO is way too overstated. An injured player doesn't move and defend the way he did against Soderling. At best, it was a minor niggle that worsened after his effort in the Soderling match. And at Wimb, even if he had been healthy, he would have had to navigate through a very difficult draw, consisting of Hewitt, Roddick, Murray and Federer.
The worst year of his prime was 2010, not 2009.
Only the FO was really shaky from him. But that was because of pressure mostly. At Wimb he cruised until the final, so his level wasn't bad. Roddick simply played out of his mind and would have been a handful for anyone. No shame in struggling against a top form opponent like that. It's not like Roddick was some mug.
Uh, Delpo and Soderling at the FO? Roddick at Wimb? Delpo at the USO? I don't know how you can claim something like this.
More like 2010 is in the same category as 2006.
Well, 2009 had a very strong top 10, stronger than in 2008, IMO.
On that I also agree. Take a look at Davydenko. If winning the WTF and an additional Masters 1000 only gets you as high as number 6 in the world, it tells you that the field is very strong. I think the top 10 as a whole was stronger than even 2012, but 2012 had a better Big 4 so it evens out.
How do you know?
IIRC he didn't manage a single top 10 win until the US Open that year.
Federer in 2014 is actually pretty close; it'd be a tough call, though I'd still favor Roddick slightly.Ah right, the old 'never loses when healthy' adage.
Also, which losing Wimbledon finalist played better than Roddick since 2009? Nadal in 2011? Murray in 2012? ...Federer in 2019?
I still find it shocking that he still managed to end the year ranked higher than Murray who had won two Masters and made the AO final, AND had a much better year.
It was a perfect storm caused by technology change. Adapterer switched and finally took to Poly after a couple years. Most of his peers went extinct pretty quickly due to several reasons:
Regarding the bolded, this weakness seems to have existed inside the top 5 as well:It was a perfect storm caused by technology change. Adapterer switched and finally took to Poly after a couple years. Most of his peers went extinct pretty quickly due to several reasons:
1. Injury (Hewitt and perhaps even Oldassi and many, many more) simply could not handle the new hard hitting, grueling baseline game that developed.
2. All courters got rude awakening as passing shots started flying by them
3. Roddick adapted his game to the new reality (old forehand unreliable in the more frequent baseline barages), but was not as good. He at least survived and might have even thrived a bit in some ways as Poly seems to help serve games.
4. Wave of new players eventually showed up who were proficient baseliners and things eventually got stronger and stronger.
We can deny this as many a fraudulent fan might wish, but then denies Fed's greatest achievement; overcoming technology change. What he's doing now would be like John McEnroe being a slam threat in the year 2000. Maybe some things rolled his way early on, but he keeps adapting to extend his career. All of his peer hit a huge speed bump, while Fed put the pedal to the metal.
I'd also say the Big4/5 period quite weakish outside the top5. Normally you'd have some player that were quite good in the top 10. Roddick was around some of the time and we can say Delpo and Soderling (though I demur) would have been those players.
AO 2008 was very good as was the USO in that year.
Federer was good in the Wimbeldon 2009 final but not a world though that day imo. Relied a lot on servebotting and was not returning as well as he usually does.Ah right, the old 'never loses when healthy' adage.
Also, which losing Wimbledon finalist played better than Roddick since 2009? Nadal in 2011? Murray in 2012? ...Federer in 2019?
The last decade you mean the top 5? Big 4 have had a lot of off years from 2013 onwards with Wawrinka filling in most years and Zverev the last two years (2017-2018 of course.)
Finally we have a good crop of players, but now we're all spoiled by the Big 4 running rough shod over a weak field. When you have 8 strongish players, suddenly slam QFs are good results and that is what will be upon us in a few years. If Zedrot was anywhere near good form we'd have 7 solid players at the top. Expecting De Minaur, Shapo, and possibly Rublev to make a big move towards top 10 so its going to get quite crowded at the top, but with LostGen so weak it almost seems too easy for NextGen.
It was a 4th round match: Gasquet-Murray.
The same can be said for Wimb 2014, yet that gets praised because he lost to Djokovic, instead of struggling against Roddick.
Wimbeldon 2014 wasn’t Federer in prime form though. Federer was better in 2009.
I do. Federer was on fire in the last 2 sets with the roof on. That was his 2005-2006 grass level.
