NatF
Bionic Poster
Nah, wasn't his 2005-2006 level IMO. Very high but not that high IMO.
Murray's serving broke down in the last couple of sets in 2012, even 2009 Fed would have plenty of break chances
Why is the weak era seen as 2003-2007
- Thread starter The Guru
- Start date
Nah, wasn't his 2005-2006 level IMO. Very high but not that high IMO.
Murray's serving broke down in the last couple of sets in 2012, even 2009 Fed would have plenty of break chances
mike danny
Bionic Poster
I'm trying to say that you consider 2009 overrated because the Big 3 didn't perform as well as they should have. If that's your standard for a great year, then I'm telling you that there are other players involved and tennis isn't just about the Big 3. And it's not like they were chopped liver that year anyway. Djokovic and Murray each reached a slam semi and won big titles, while Nadal was tremendous in the first half, while being decent in the second.
He wasn't as injured as it is proclaimed. Otherwise he would not have moved and defended so well against Soderling. And you're taking all the credit away from Soderling who played one heck of a match to beat him, something nobody else would have managed. And there was no talk of an injury before the match as far as I recall, as Nadal trashed all his other opponents before Soderling. Let's end the fanboyism. Even Nadal was not going to win the FO forever.
Nope, his worst year after 2017 is still 2010. He only had a win over Federer at the USO because Federer himself was in poor form after the 2010 AO. And that was Djokovic's first top 10 win of the year. Against a better Fed, Djokovic would not have sniffed the 2010 USO final. He also lost in straights to Berdych of all people in the Wimb SF. No better than losing to Haas. In 2009, he reached a lot of masters finals and did better against the top 10. 2010 didn't even see him reach a masters final.
Sometimes, there are players who play the tournaments of their lives, like it happened with Soderling at the 2009 FO. The fact that he is the only one to defeat a good Nadal at the FO makes him anything but an average finalist. An average finalist was Nadal at this year's AO.
Roddick pushed a prime Fed to the brink in a Wimb final. That's no small feat. He was a better Wimb finalist than Murray in 2012, Berdych in 2010, Nadal in 2011, Djokovic in 2013, Federer in 2015, Raonic in 2016 and Anderson in 2018. Who cares that he lost many sets? Nadal himself in Wimb 2010 lost 5 sets before the final. Was he average too?
Not really. Nadal only had 11 top 10 wins in a 3-slam season, which is very low for a 3 slam season. Federer in 2006 had 19 top 10 wins. And in 2010, Nadal also played Fedovic a combined 4 times throughout the entire year, so they weren't much of an obstacle for him. By comparison, Federer in 2006 played Nadal alone 6 times.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Oh, ok, fair enough.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Well, he struggled with returning in the Wimb 2008 final too, then. But again, that gets pushed aside because it was against Nadal, instead of Roddick.
You only hear some fans how Fed was average against some non-Djokodal opponents, thus stealing the credit from those opponents, but they never do that when Fed is up against Djokodal. He can never play bad against them, no, they were just too good and made him play bad.
RS
Bionic Poster
Murray 2nd serve is inconsistent and Roddick serves/served better than Murray making harder for Federer to break . But IMO he was better off the ground in the 2012 in the last 2 sets than in 2009 final.Nah, wasn't his 2005-2006 level IMO. Very high but not that high IMO.
Murray's serving broke down in the last couple of sets in 2012, even 2009 Fed would have plenty of break chances
I think Federer was more steady in the 2009 final but had higher peaks in 2012 one.
RS
Bionic Poster
Not a big difference between Federer of 2008 and 2009 on grass. Sort of prime but not peak thing.
And Federer isn’t exactly the most hated player I have also heard much praises for Federer oppenents over Djokdal.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
And Federer doesn't match up well with him? Federer matches up the best against Roddick.
RS
Bionic Poster
That’s generally the case yes.
Sabrina
Hall of Fame
I think he means Roddick does not match up well with Murray?
mike danny
Bionic Poster
He doesn't with Fed either. It's even worse with Fed than with Murray.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Maybe, Federer felt unstoppable once he got the momentum in 2012 but I think Arod's serving would have kept him honest in 2009.
RS
Bionic Poster
I would have no problem with saying Roddick had a slightly higher peak than Murray on grass his 2004/2009 level was quite high anyway.
Federer was raising his game in the 2nd anyway when he broke Murray at the end it was over. Murray was even in the set before that if not a tad better.
Last edited:
The Guru
Legend
I agree that 2017 is worse than 2009 obviously but I kind of think of post 2016 djokovic as a different player. I'm not trying to say Soderling is bad or anything but his performance against Nadal aside what did he do in the second week that makes you think he's anything special as a finalist. Is he better than 2011 Fed? 2012 Djoko? 2013 Djoko (real final)? Like find me the finalist that's worse than him from 2011-2015. Or 06-07 Fed for that matter. My general point is that 2009 is overrated as a year because the matches were entertaining and claiming I have a bias towards Nadal, as many are implying is insane. Fed won more in 07 than 09 so saying 07 is better is good for Fed. I'm a Djokovic fan and Nadal is his main rival (and contender for GOAT imo). Nadal WAS hurt in FO 09. That is just true. Djokovic was pedestrian in slams in 09 also true. In 2007 Djokovic only lost to members of the Big 3 in slams and performed well in masters.
NatF
Bionic Poster
mike danny
Bionic Poster
But Djokovic was worse in 2010 than in 2009.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
2009 Soderling was a better finalist than 2017 Stan, 2013 Ferrer and 2018 Thiem. 2016 Murray also wasn't a decisevely better finalist outside the first set.
RS
Bionic Poster
You said weak era is for people with agenda but then you said 1998/2002 were very weak years though.
RS
Bionic Poster
Djokovic is still a much better player.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
So does Thiem-Federer 5-2
The Guru
Legend
The only one Soderling is definitively better than is 13 Ferrer but the real final was Djokodal. He's in the same tier as Thiem Stan and Murray. It's not like Soderling's level in the SF and F was overly impressive. He barely beat Gonzalez and got creamed by Fed who had struggles throughout the fortnight. I think it's pretty fair to say he was a below average finalist.
AO: Average Winner Extraordinary Finalist
FO: Below Average Winner and Finalist
W: Average Winner and Finalist
USO: Below Average Winner and Above Average Finalist
Top 5:
Fed (Average 1)
Nadal (Below Average 2)
Djok (Well below average 3)
Murray (Average 4)
Del Po (Very good 5)
What about that screams strong year to you.
OldschoolKIaus
Hall of Fame
Only Djoko's TTW fanboy army see 2003-2007 as weak era.
Federer is 12 years older than Thiem.
As usual, you conveniently left out fact to suit your biased agenda.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Well, that ranking is purely subjective.
But overall, the top 10 was pretty strong. And the Big 3 weren't chopped liver either. I certainly don't agree with 2009 Djoko being worse than 2010 Djoko or with 2009 Fed being average or even with Nadal being below average.
You are way too harsh on 2009 for some reason. It was one of the best years of this era.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
If you compare that year to other years in the Open Era, this season certainly doesn't look weak:
Federer is the senior, as was Roddick. So we must assign the variables for someone like you to comprehend.
Thiem-Federer : Young guy > senior
Djokovic-Roddick: Senior > young guy.
QED.
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
LOL Roddick was 5 years younger than the current youngest slam winner
The facts are clear enough. The period of 2013 - 2018 has been very weak regarding the field relative to previous generations of players, probably back to the first few years of the open era. Nobody under the age of 31 has won a major. Players born from 1989-1995 should have started peaking between 2013 and 2019, reaching their 24th birthday and been winning majors. Yet they haven't won even one major. They haven't pushed out the much older generations of players, and therefore allowed them to accumulate more majors.
The older generations' great players (Djokovic, Nadal, Federer) have taken advantage of these players incapable of winning even a single major.
The youngest of these players, Djokovic, has naturally benefited the most without a single great player younger than himself. Nadal close behind, and even much older Federer has taken advantage by winning 3 majors in 2017-2018 when 1993-1994 players should have been hitting their peak at 24. Shockingly, no players even good enough to win a single major came along.
Now imagine for a moment how many majors Federer would have won if Nadal and Djokovic had not been around. Probably 2006-2007 would have been Grand Slam years and one shudders to think how many majors he might have accumulated until losing motivation.
Federer has had much younger great players dogging him since 2005, his 24th year, starting with early blooming Nadal, then Djokovic by 2008 all the way to the present time. That he is even competitive with his significantly younger superb opponents at his age speaks to his overall greatness. By the time Nadal turned 24 in 2010, and Novak turned 24 in 2011, they were peaking as Federer turned 29-30. Federer won Wimbledon in 2012 at close to 31, then had a dry spell for years, as peak/prime Novak and Rafa took turns dominating with contributions from Murray('87) and Wawrinka('85). The 1988 generation fizzled with the injury troubles of del Potro, and the flash of Cilic. Rafa turned 29-30 in 2015-2016, and Novak in 2016-2017 and were ripe for being passed by younger peaking generations of the early 90's, but there were simply none to be found, so these older players eventually returned to form and continued winning and alternated among each other winning an additional 3-5 majors.
There are signs that this dearth of major winners is finally about to change. The 1996-1999 players along with late blooming Thiem('93), are winning big titles like the Tour Finals and Masters1000 here and there and are beginning to show consistency needed to rise high in the rankings, just below the Big 3. Still, as of now, they haven't won a major. However, this age group should start winning majors, as they move from their very early 20's to their peak years. It should happen very soon, 2020, 2021 at the latest, and a new #1 should be crowned when that happens. If it doesn't happen, take away their mobile phones. But seriously, once that does happen, don't be surprised if the big 3 fade from the scene rapidly. They have had their time, even much more.
The older generations' great players (Djokovic, Nadal, Federer) have taken advantage of these players incapable of winning even a single major.
The youngest of these players, Djokovic, has naturally benefited the most without a single great player younger than himself. Nadal close behind, and even much older Federer has taken advantage by winning 3 majors in 2017-2018 when 1993-1994 players should have been hitting their peak at 24. Shockingly, no players even good enough to win a single major came along.
Now imagine for a moment how many majors Federer would have won if Nadal and Djokovic had not been around. Probably 2006-2007 would have been Grand Slam years and one shudders to think how many majors he might have accumulated until losing motivation.
Federer has had much younger great players dogging him since 2005, his 24th year, starting with early blooming Nadal, then Djokovic by 2008 all the way to the present time. That he is even competitive with his significantly younger superb opponents at his age speaks to his overall greatness. By the time Nadal turned 24 in 2010, and Novak turned 24 in 2011, they were peaking as Federer turned 29-30. Federer won Wimbledon in 2012 at close to 31, then had a dry spell for years, as peak/prime Novak and Rafa took turns dominating with contributions from Murray('87) and Wawrinka('85). The 1988 generation fizzled with the injury troubles of del Potro, and the flash of Cilic. Rafa turned 29-30 in 2015-2016, and Novak in 2016-2017 and were ripe for being passed by younger peaking generations of the early 90's, but there were simply none to be found, so these older players eventually returned to form and continued winning and alternated among each other winning an additional 3-5 majors.
There are signs that this dearth of major winners is finally about to change. The 1996-1999 players along with late blooming Thiem('93), are winning big titles like the Tour Finals and Masters1000 here and there and are beginning to show consistency needed to rise high in the rankings, just below the Big 3. Still, as of now, they haven't won a major. However, this age group should start winning majors, as they move from their very early 20's to their peak years. It should happen very soon, 2020, 2021 at the latest, and a new #1 should be crowned when that happens. If it doesn't happen, take away their mobile phones.
But seriously, once that does happen, don't be surprised if the big 3 fade from the scene rapidly. They have had their time, even much more.
Last edited:
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
Kafelnikov-Federer 4-2
Rafter-Federer 3-0
Enqvist-Federer 3-1
Corretja-Federer 3-2
Senior > young guy
But older than Djokovic you fool.
Yes, that was before Federer's peak in 2004! LOL, now you're really digging a hole. Old Andy Roddick was beating peak Djokovic from 2009-2010.
Lew has indicated Djokovic was peak in 2007.
Dedans Penthouse
Legend
mike danny
Bionic Poster
So Sampras was a weak top player?
RS
Bionic Poster
You said weak eras is for desparate but then you called 2002 really week. Kinda went against youe comment not saying you had a agenda.
youngpolyhater
Rookie
Because Federer won everything and then choked Wimbledon 2008 and Australian Open 2009 else the weak era would be extended from 2003 to 2009
youngpolyhater
Rookie
Wrong.
Similar threads
