Will the next era be the weakest in history (in the Open Era)?

[merwy]

Everyone's talking about weak eras. First Fed's era (around 2000-2006) was weak. Now the Djokovic era is weak (2011-ongoing). I wonder what era ISN'T weak!

To be honest, in the early 2000s we had prime Federer ( the freaking GOAT), Roddick, Nalbandian, Hewitt, Safin, Blake, Gonzalez, Kuerten, Ferrero, pre-prime Nadal and post-prime Agassi. You can't call an era weak if it has 3 players that are still being called the most talented ever (Fed, Nalby, Safin) and when it contains the GOAT and the young clay-GOAT.

It's also hard to call the Djokovic era weak when we're seeing such a high level from the man himself, from Old Fed, from Nadal (except for maybe this season), Murray, and the usual #5-#12 players like Tsonga, Berdych, Ferrer etc.

But what will the tennis world look like in 3-4 more years? Assuming Djokovic, Murray, and everyone older than them have retired. What do we have left? Will we finally have our first, indisputably, objectively weak era?

We'll be stuck with the Lost Generation. I mean, let's face it. There are some interesting faces, but compared to other eras the level is pretty sh*tty. We may find some talent in the younger guys, like Zverev or Coric, but do you really think any of them will be as good as one of the Big 4? No way, man. Dimitroll, Tomic the tank engine, Krygios and Raobotic is all we've got.
We can hope for a rising star that's even younger than that. But if that one prodigy is 15 now, he'll only be 19 4 years later and won't even be in his prime by then.

So yeah, that's my reasoning behind thinking that we will see a very weak era in about 3-4 years. The worst part is that the slams will be distributed over those guys. So there's a good chance that at least one of them will go into the record books as a potential GOAT while he was just abusing a lack of competition.

 

[hup]

any era that your favorite won slams wasnt weak

 

[merwy]

any era that your favorite won slams wasnt weak

You're free to disagree. I explained my reasoning behind it. Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "GOAT" but I thought that was pretty much established.

 

[StannisTheMannis]

Weak era is defined as an era where the player you dislike is dominating. Strong era is defined as the era where your favorite is dominating. So the next era is only weak if you pick the wrong player to like

 

[merwy]

Weak era is defined as an era where the player you dislike is dominating. Strong era is defined as the era where your favorite is dominating. So the next era is only weak if you pick the wrong player to like

Are you and hup the same person? Who gives a crap about the semantics? I just want to talk about the future generation and how it's clearly weaker (i.e. of a lower level) than the recent generations. Stop with BS about how I'm supposedly biased when I'm trying to be as objective as someone can possibly be.

 

[Bukmeikara]

The problem of the next generation is that they can't collect confidence to "unlock" their true potential. Otherwise they are great players just not as good as big 4.

 

[VexlanderPrime]

I think we're just gonna SKIP a whole generation and jump from Oldovic to the Coric/Thiem/Kok generation.

 

[Inanimate_object]

This discussion is meaningless until you very specifically define what a weak era is.

 

[BlackSilver]

The problem of the next generation is that they can't collect confidence to "unlock" their true potential. Otherwise they are great players just not as good as big 4.

Like their potential is anything special.

 

[merwy]

This discussion is meaningless until you very specifically define what a weak era is.

A certain period of time in which the dominating field of players is of a lower level than usually is the case.

Don't tell me that it's impossible to measure a player's level compared to other players that he can't play against. I'm already cringing at the thought of future fans claiming that peak Dimitrov > peak Federer.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Kind of depends on how good the generation after the Lost Boys is and if they will rise quickly, and how long the current dominant generations can hold on for. They might combine to cover the glaring relative hole. In short, it could be the weakest generation in a long time but that might not lead to a weak or weakest era depending on if the older and younger players can cover their arses.

 

[Inanimate_object]

A certain period of time in which the dominating field of players is of a lower level than usually is the case.

Don't tell me that it's impossible to measure a player's level compared to other players that he can't play against. I'm already cringing at the thought of future fans claiming that peak Dimitrov > peak Federer.

You can't act as if you have reasons backing up a claim that this upcoming era is objectively weaker than the all ones before it without having some criteria by which to compare against.

How exactly do you measure the weakness of eras? Do 3 very good players constitute the same era-strength as one great player and two mediocre ones? If you establish a few more guidelines we can do this thing in earnest.

 

[merwy]

You can't act as if you have reasons backing up a claim that this upcoming era is objectively weaker than the all ones before it without having some criteria by which to compare against.

How exactly do you measure the weakness of eras? Do 3 very good players constitute the same era-strength as one great player and two mediocre ones? If you establish a few more guidelines we can do this thing in earnest.

I said right here what my definition of a weak era is.

A certain period of time in which the dominating field of players is of a lower level than usually is the case.

That is more than enough. The rest speaks for itself. This isn't a scientific article and it isn't going to be published in any journal so why would I go to the trouble of designing arbitrary criteria like that?
The problem with objectively defining a weak era is that you can't judge a player by his number of titles won, because that amount could be skewed by how strong his era is (i.e. confounding bias).

Here's a way to judge for yourself: Take a look at the top 10 and tell me if you think those players make up a strong or weak top 10. Should be enough for an experienced tennis fan. If the top 10 consists of Fed, Rafa, Djoko, Muzz, Wawrinka, Ferrer, Berd, Nishi, Tsonga, Cilic, Dimi (at #10) I consider that era stronger than this top 10: Dimi (suddenly at #1), Nishi, Kyrgios, Raonic, Zverev, Coric, Fritz, Sock, Kokkinakis, Chung.

 

[smoledman]

We're talking about the Raonic/Dimitrov era.

 

[Inanimate_object]

I said right here what my definition of a weak era is.

That is more than enough. The rest speaks for itself. This isn't a scientific article and it isn't going to be published in any journal so why would I go to the trouble of designing arbitrary criteria like that?
The problem with objectively defining a weak era is that you can't judge a player by his number of titles won, because that amount could be skewed by how strong his era is (i.e. confounding bias).

Here's a way to judge for yourself: Take a look at the top 10 and tell me if you think those players make up a strong or weak top 10. Should be enough for an experienced tennis fan. If the top 10 consists of Fed, Rafa, Djoko, Muzz, Wawrinka, Ferrer, Berd, Nishi, Tsonga, Cilic, Dimi (at #10) I consider that era stronger than this top 10: Dimi (suddenly at #1), Nishi, Kyrgios, Raonic, Zverev, Coric, Fritz, Sock, Kokkinakis, Chung.

So you want someone to argue for or against this generation being an objectively weak era, without objectively defining what a weak era is? This is straying from common sense. You have, in big bold letters, a claim that this generation is the indisputably, objectively worst era of tennis yet are eschewing any non-trivial manner to measure this. You are simply looking at a list of names and saying: "I feel this group is 'better' (again, you've yet to define what this exactly constitutes) than this other group". A far cry from objectivity and not even close to being beyond dispute.

Does "weak" confer the implication that the strong era group of players could beat the weak era group of players? How is this determinable or even relevant? The players you see now will be different players in 4 years, as will the ones of the current generation you are arbitrarily pitting them against. There is reason to believe that pro tennis athletes have increased longevity across the board. Where past players had the benefit of preying on, and making their names rapidly off the backs of aging stars, this new group of players, arguably has not. It could be due to a lack of skill, or an overwhelming retention of skill by the current top dogs, but either way it's not easy to distinguish which, and certainly not with authority.

 

[Gary Duane]

Kind of depends on how good the generation after the Lost Boys is and if they will rise quickly, and how long the current dominant generations can hold on for. They might combine to cover the glaring relative hole. In short, it could be the weakest generation in a long time but that might not lead to a weak or weakest era depending on if the older and younger players can cover their arses.

The way I look at it is this: the level of the top 100 players in the world is probably about the same over any several year period, so what changes is how the talent is distributed. It's very top heavy right how. In the early 2000s perhaps the very top was not as good, and the players below the top were a bit better.

What I'm waiting to see is this: will the average age of players in the top 20 remain considerably higher?

Not as high as this year, which is extreme, but will players' peaks continue to be longer than they used to be?

If 30 is the new 26 we may see players in their mid 20s take over at the top as they approach 30, with the young guns only seriously threatening when they get into their mid 20s.

 

[PeterHo]

Its how many dominant players we have in an era that defines whether its weak or strong. Dominant players generally have these traits

1. They are naturally talented. They would have already excelled at a young age, in their teens. They would have been one of the best players in their age group.

2. They climb up the rankings quickly. Most of them would reach top 10 by 20.

3. They takeover the top spots by beating the dominant players in the previous generation, usually 5 years their senior.

4. They consistently beat the rest of the competition over their career. They have a career match winning % of around 80%.

5. They can beat other dominant players in their prime.

6. They are capable of dominating the field if there are no other dominant players around. Domination is when they win 2 slams in a year.

7. If motivated, they are capable of staying in the top 10 even at 30+.

If you apply this criteria to the players in history, there's not many of them. They are the all time greats.

 

[Gary Duane]

Its how many dominant players we have in an era that defines whether its weak or strong. Dominant players generally have these traits

1. They are naturally talented. They would have already excelled at a young age, in their teens. They would have been one of the best players in their age group.

2. They climb up the rankings quickly. Most of them would reach top 10 by 20.

3. They takeover the top spots by beating the dominant players in the previous generation, usually 5 years their senior.

4. They consistently beat the rest of the competition over their career. They have a career match winning % of around 80%.

5. They can beat other dominant players in their prime.

6. They are capable of dominating the field if there are no other dominant players around. Domination is when they win 2 slams in a year.

7. If motivated, they are capable of staying in the top 10 even at 30+.

If you apply this criteria to the players in history, there's not many of them. They are the all time greats.

But the big question is this: will young players continue to break into the top 10 by age 20?

If they can't now, does it mean they are really less talented? Or is the playing level of older players maintaining a very high level longer?

Fed seems to be showing the latter. Wawrinka also. The verdict is not in on Nadal yet. If he can't win a single slam next year, if he can't stay very near the top, that will change things.

The early emergence of teen players moving to #1 in the world was always possible because older players faded not far after their mid 20s. The bottom line is that in the past players started to "age" very quickly. The aging process for the whole human race is literally slowing down. Look at what people used to eat and drink just 20 or 30 years ago, then compare it to nutrition now.

These older players are not just old. They are FAST, and they are healthy. They know how to heal from injuries, and nagging injuries can be fixed quickly with minor surgery.

 

[Minion]

I reckon it might be exciting though. You have all these new young players, who all pretty much suck the same - when compared to Fed, Djoko, Nadal, Stan, Murray, more or less.... So, when the big 5 is gone, you're left with the new generation. Seeing as all of them are not even close to the level of current champions, it will create a perfect platform for another great like Sampras, Federer, Nadal or Djokovic (almost forgot Ultron to rise up and b1tchslap their mediocre a$$es then rinse and repeat.

 

[PeterHo]

But the big question is this: will young players continue to break into the top 10 by age 20?

If they can't now, does it mean they are really less talented? Or is the playing level of older players maintaining a very high level longer?

Fed seems to be showing the latter. Wawrinka also. The verdict is not in on Nadal yet. If he can't win a single slam next year, if he can't stay very near the top, that will change things.

The early emergence of teen players moving to #1 in the world was always possible because older players faded not far after their mid 20s. The bottom line is that in the past players started to "age" very quickly. The aging process for the whole human race is literally slowing down. Look at what people used to eat and drink just 20 or 30 years ago, then compare it to nutrition now.

These older players are not just old. They are FAST, and they are healthy. They know how to heal from injuries, and nagging injuries can be fixed quickly with minor surgery.

Indeed, the age of players getting to the top may be changing. My definitions above are just based on what we know in the history of tennis.

In that case, the age in points 2 and 7 may need to adjust.

 

[mattosgrant]

The Raonic/Dmitrov/Nishikori/Tomic era will never be weak or the weakest era, since such an era will never exist in the first place.

 

[Gary Duane]

Indeed, the age of players getting to the top may be changing. My definitions above are just based on what we know in the history of tennis.

In that case, the age in points 2 and 7 may need to adjust.

I think we are going to know in just a few years.

I think all people who are fairly young do not realize how much things have changed, and not just with top athletes.

My family all ate a lot of beef. Steaks, roast beef, so much like that. By my age - I'm 67 - they all sat at home, watching TV. Hard exercise was something that younger people did.

I stopped eating read meat decades ago, also poultry. I eat fish a couple times a week. I run two miles a night.

Life style is totally changing.

People who are 50, 60 and even 70 look younger than they used to, and it's not just cosmetic.

Fed moves like a guy 5 years younger, and he's not the only one. When you see players who can still move that way who are 10 or more years older than you, you can't beat them by wearing them down with youth. You have to beat them with strategy, tactics, but anyone 30 years old should be able to MENTALLY beat someone 10 years younger. In the past older players got worn down, which was also more common when most matches were Bo5 and there were no TBs.

I believe tennis now FAVORS older players, and that's a lot of what is keeping the young guys from moving to the top quicker.

 

[PeterHo]

I think we are going to know in just a few years.

I think all people who are fairly young do not realize how much things have changed, and not just with top athletes.

My family all ate a lot of beef. Steaks, roast beef, so much like that. By my age - I'm 67 - they all sat at home, watching TV. Hard exercise was something that younger people did.

I stopped eating read meat decades ago, also poultry. I eat fish a couple times a week. I run two miles a night.

Life style is totally changing.

People who are 50, 60 and even 70 look younger than they used to, and it's not just cosmetic.

Fed moves like a guy 5 years younger, and he's not the only one. When you see players who can still move that way who are 10 or more years older than you, you can't beat them by wearing them down with youth. You have to beat them with strategy, tactics, but anyone 30 years old should be able to MENTALLY beat someone 10 years younger. In the past older players got worn down, which was also more common when most matches were Bo5 and there were no TBs.

I believe tennis now FAVORS older players, and that's a lot of what is keeping the young guys from moving to the top quicker.

It does look like the trend ATM.

A problem this creates is it also reduces the likelihood of young players ever realising their potential

Instead of getting to the top quickly, it is taking a lot more time and effort. Some young players might just give up. While in the old days a teenager might win a slam, which gives them further belief and motivation to improve.

It is this transition which may be killing off the lost generation, raonic kei and dimi, espescially when 3 all time greats are not going away.

I'm starting to think even a 40yr old fed will still be in top 10, at this rate. Gonna beat Connors.

The big 3 to battle for another 3~5 years?

 

[Lord Anomander]

From the outside a serious weak era might seem very strong and exciting.

Scenario: Top 10: Berdych, Ferrer, Tsonga, Dimitrov, Nishikori, Gasquet, Cilic, Anderson, Raonic (no particular order)

All of them have a realistic shot at winning a GS title. Some of them will fare better on different surfaces, however, there is none of them who will stand out. Finals might be:
AO: Berdych - Tsonga
FO: Ferrer - Nishikori
W: Cilic - Raonic
UO: Dimitrov - Anderson

It is still possible that one of them get upset quite early in the tournament, which stands for a very high density within the top 100. They will most likely reach the QFs of each slam though.

One possible argument: weak era, because none of them dominates and in each final were different players
Another argument: strong era, because none of them dominates and in each final were different players

It just depends on what you want to hear and what you are looking for. I'm pretty sure that Fedalovic ruined the reputation of an entire generation (or two). However, if you manage to breakthrough and win a GS despite the presence of them you're most likely to be considered a superb player (Delpo, Wawrinka and Murray as well, if you exclude him with an Asterisk of the big 3), while the rest is a lost generation. If it weren't for them who could tell whether Berdych chokes a lot or Dimitrov, Nishikori and Raonic cannot live up to there expectations? No one, because they might be able to win big titles. While Delpo, Wawrinka and Murray didn't really dominate the tour you can still be for certain that they would beat most of the guys I just mentioned and would start to dominate without the big 3.

Also @StannisTheMannis is right. If your favorite dominates you won't admit that it's a weak era. I haven't heard a Federer fan say that 2000 - 2007 was pretty weak besides having Nadal on clay. And you won't find a Djokovic fan saying that 2011 - 2015 was weak.

Moreover, Wawrinka broke through with 28. Dimitrov, Tomic, Thiem, Nishikori, ... still have a few years until then. It's possible that they start playing better the older they get. You just will not recognize this if Djokovic, Nadal and Federer are gone by then.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

I think we are going to know in just a few years.

I think all people who are fairly young do not realize how much things have changed, and not just with top athletes.

My family all ate a lot of beef. Steaks, roast beef, so much like that. By my age - I'm 67 - they all sat at home, watching TV. Hard exercise was something that younger people did.

I stopped eating read meat decades ago, also poultry. I eat fish a couple times a week. I run two miles a night.

Life style is totally changing.

People who are 50, 60 and even 70 look younger than they used to, and it's not just cosmetic.

Fed moves like a guy 5 years younger, and he's not the only one. When you see players who can still move that way who are 10 or more years older than you, you can't beat them by wearing them down with youth. You have to beat them with strategy, tactics, but anyone 30 years old should be able to MENTALLY beat someone 10 years younger. In the past older players got worn down, which was also more common when most matches were Bo5 and there were no TBs.

I believe tennis now FAVORS older players, and that's a lot of what is keeping the young guys from moving to the top quicker.

You are right in the long term, but if you look short term, change doesn't apply so quickly. The last time young players broke through early was in the second part of the 2000's, with Djokovic, Murray and Del Potro. Surely things haven't changed all that much since only 10 years, to have such effect on the players we are seeing now.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

It does look like the trend ATM.

A problem this creates is it also reduces the likelihood of young players ever realising their potential

Instead of getting to the top quickly, it is taking a lot more time and effort. Some young players might just give up. While in the old days a teenager might win a slam, which gives them further belief and motivation to improve.

It is this transition which may be killing off the lost generation, raonic kei and dimi, espescially when 3 all time greats are not going away.

I'm starting to think even a 40yr old fed will still be in top 10, at this rate. Gonna beat Connors.

The big 3 to battle for another 3~5 years?

Maybe they're just not "that good".

 

[reaper]

Maybe they're just not "that good".

Sometimes the most obvious answer is the right one. Does anyone seriously believe that Thannasi Kokkinakis or Borna Coric are as good a players as Nadal was at their ages, or that Nick Kyrgios has the same amount of mental strength as Novak Djokovic. The young guys haven't climbed the rankings in recent years because on a relative basis to the top players at the same age they're no good.

 

[Adv. Edberg]

I don't think it can get weaker than it is now. But it sure will be weak.

There wasn't a weak era between 1975-1999. And really strong era between 1985-1995. That was the golden years of tennis. We will never experience such a period again sadly.

 

[reaper]

I don't think it can get weaker than it is now. But it sure will be weak.

There wasn't a weak era between 1975-1999. And really strong era between 1985-1995. That was the golden years of tennis. We will never experience such a period again sadly.

Federer and Nadal will probably retire in the next couple of years. You'll know that it's weaker than it is now if they're replaced in the top 4 (assuming Nadal gets back up there which seems likely) by veterans like Berdytch/Tsonga or the like. The game's not weak at the very top at the moment, but the depth is effectively hollowed out by the vacuum left by the 21-27 age group.

 

[Livedeath]

This weak era argument is wrong. When Roger was winning it was strong and now Novak is winning, it is weak, and they both had similar results, you cant have it both ways.

 

[RF-18]

There is no weak era!

If people would stop treating sports as a video game it would be nice. People clearly don't know what it takes to be a professional at the top of the game.

 

[user]

There is no weak era!

But, there is an era of weak threads, which makes up for it.

 

[reaper]

There is no weak era!

If people would stop treating sports as a video game it would be nice. People clearly don't know what it takes to be a professional at the top of the game.

There are plenty of periods described on here as "weak era" which aren't, but if you ever see Bernard Tomic in the top 5 in the world, you'll know you're in one.

 

[torpantennis]

It's crazy that The Lost Generation is at the peakest peak of their powers RIGHT NOW, and Dimitroll is like what, #30?? Raobotic, #20? Nishikori, what has he done LOL. No wonder 34yo is #2 and Hass has still played LOL.

Something good though: In four years, The Lost Generation will be in decline LOL. That leaves the door open for the next generation and maybe a new young talent.

 

[dominikk1985]

don't Forget that an era like 07-11 is not the norm. you usually don't have 3 all time great Level guys and another very good one in murray at the same time. every era seems to be weak compared to that. the 03-06 era was not great but historically it is an OK era. to have one great, some strong guys like Hewitt, roddick, nalby and safin (murray Level) plus nadal emerging is ok. not stand out but definitely OK.

12-15 was starting to get weaker with fedal declining a lot but still not terrible.

the next years will be weaker than that but you can't always have a Player like Novak or fedal. i feel an era coming up like 98-02.

 

[torpantennis]

don't Forget that an era like 07-11 is not the norm. you usually don't have 3 all time great Level guys and another very good one in murray at the same time. every era seems to be weak compared to that. the 03-06 era was not great but historically it is an OK era. to have one great, some strong guys like Hewitt, roddick, nalby and safin (murray Level) plus nadal emerging is ok. not stand out but definitely OK.

12-15 was starting to get weaker with fedal declining a lot but still not terrible.

the next years will be weaker than that but you can't always have a Player like Novak or fedal. i feel an era coming up like 98-02.

Agree, but why are the peakest peak aged players ranked so low now? It cannot be just due to Fedalovic.

 

[PeterHo]

Agree, but why are the peakest peak aged players ranked so low now? It cannot be just due to Fedalovic.

Yeah indeed its not any of the big 4 stopping them.

Guys like Ferrer, berdych gasquet are all holding off the next generation. I guess kei, raonic and dimitrov are only as good as these guys. The isners Lopez and even 36 yr old karlovic are doing better than most of the young ones.

 

[PeterHo]

There are plenty of periods described on here as "weak era" which aren't, but if you ever see Bernard Tomic in the top 5 in the world, you'll know you're in one.

I think he will get there some day

 

[reaper]

I think he will get there some day

He might. Tomic is the world's highest ranked player aged 23 or under. I watched him yesterday against Wawrinka. He simply doesn't have killer instinct. He led 5-2 in the second set tie break with 2 serves to come, and lost the tie break 7-5. Just looking at his facial expression after losing important points or if a close Hawkeye call goes against him, he seems diffident rather than determined. He's got a decent serve, ground strokes and variety, but is visibly slow around the court....and yet is ranked 18 and rising.

 

[uscwang]

I'll venture to define a strong era:
An era can be called strong when there are two or more great players (5+ career GS titles) playing, all in their GS-winning, prime time (between each player's 1st and last GS title).
Using this definition, in this century, strong years include:
2000-02, Sampras, Agassi
2003, Agassi, Federer
2005-07, Federer, Nadal
2008-12, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic (This is the strongest era of this century. It could extend to when Federer wins another GS.)
2013-14, Nadal, Djokovic
2015 is not a strong year unless Fedal win another GS, or Stan or Murray win 3+ more GS.

The weakest era would be one when ZERO great player is playing in prime time.

 

[Nachiket Nolefam]

Becker won Wimbledon at 17. That was time for players peaking very early. That was also time for changing of racket technology.

I can't believe another 17 year old will win Wimbledon again.

Roger said it correctly, you need faster conditions for young guys to get win. Everything is slower and physically tough guys are winning everything. Young guys need time to get ready physically now.

 

[ollinger]

The OP seems to think a small handful of dominant players means a strong era. I don't. I think the level of play you see from guys in the top 50 or 100 is greater than it's ever been, more speed, power and accuracy than we've ever seen in this game. You don't judge the culinary quality of a great city by 2 or 3 restaurants, the literary appeal of a particular period by a handful of books, and it's silly to judge these so-called tennis eras by a couple of dominant players.

 

[uscwang]

The OP seems to think a small handful of dominant players means a strong era. I don't. I think the level of play you see from guys in the top 50 or 100 is greater than it's ever been, more speed, power and accuracy than we've ever seen in this game. You don't judge the culinary quality of a great city by 2 or 3 restaurants, the literary appeal of a particular period by a handful of books, and it's silly to judge these so-called tennis eras by a couple of dominant players.

Have to disagree.
Number of novels published or their average quality or their sale is hardly relevant when there is no Tolstoy or Dostoevsky.

 

[morten]

Next will be weak yes. And now the kids are thought robot tennis, i think big talents will choose other sports...

 

[ollinger]

^^ Huh?? Do you mean the late 19th century would have been a weak era without Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, despite the presence of Balzac, Flaubert, Chekhov, de Mauppasant, Hugo, Melville, Dickens, Zola, Twain, Wells, and Ibsen??
Have to disagree.

 

[CYGS]

No, because 2004-2009 has been and always will be the weakest.

 

[Calvin27]

When it looks, sounds and feels like the WTA, then it is a weak era.

 

[merwy]

I'll venture to define a strong era:
An era can be called strong when there are two or more great players (5+ career GS titles) playing, all in their GS-winning, prime time (between each player's 1st and last GS title).
Using this definition, in this century, strong years include:
2000-02, Sampras, Agassi
2003, Agassi, Federer
2005-07, Federer, Nadal
2008-12, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic (This is the strongest era of this century. It could extend to when Federer wins another GS.)
2013-14, Nadal, Djokovic
2015 is not a strong year unless Fedal win another GS, or Stan or Murray win 3+ more GS.

The weakest era would be one when ZERO great player is playing in prime time.

That's a pretty good breakdown. It would mean that when the Big 4 retire, the remaining dominating field would be extremely weak, as the others barely have any slams between them.

No, because 2004-2009 has been and always will be the weakest.

I hope you're being sarcastic, as that is probably the strongest era in history.

 

[ultradr]

Everyone's talking about weak eras. First Fed's era (around 2000-2006) was weak. Now the Djokovic era is weak (2011-ongoing). I wonder what era ISN'T weak!

To be honest, in the early 2000s we had prime Federer ( the freaking GOAT), Roddick, Nalbandian, Hewitt, Safin, Blake, Gonzalez, Kuerten, Ferrero, pre-prime Nadal and post-prime Agassi. You can't call an era weak if it has 3 players that are still being called the most talented ever (Fed, Nalby, Safin) and when it contains the GOAT and the young clay-GOAT.

It's also hard to call the Djokovic era weak when we're seeing such a high level from the man himself, from Old Fed, from Nadal (except for maybe this season), Murray, and the usual #5-#12 players like Tsonga, Berdych, Ferrer etc.

But what will the tennis world look like in 3-4 more years? Assuming Djokovic, Murray, and everyone older than them have retired. What do we have left? Will we finally have our first, indisputably, objectively weak era?

We'll be stuck with the Lost Generation. I mean, let's face it. There are some interesting faces, but compared to other eras the level is pretty sh*tty. We may find some talent in the younger guys, like Zverev or Coric, but do you really think any of them will be as good as one of the Big 4? No way, man. Dimitroll, Tomic the tank engine, Krygios and Raobotic is all we've got.
We can hope for a rising star that's even younger than that. But if that one prodigy is 15 now, he'll only be 19 4 years later and won't even be in his prime by then.

So yeah, that's my reasoning behind thinking that we will see a very weak era in about 3-4 years. The worst part is that the slams will be distributed over those guys. So there's a good chance that at least one of them will go into the record books as a potential GOAT while he was just abusing a lack of competition.

My guess is we will have longer average domination cycle from now on.
Average career length of top players are being extended.

I don't think recent generation is that special.

He had very special changes in professional tennis environment early 2000's.
That was a seismic change in tour environment and system.

 

[Inanimate_object]

That's a pretty good breakdown. It would mean that when the Big 4 retire, the remaining dominating field would be extremely weak, as the others barely have any slams between them.


I hope you're being sarcastic, as that is probably the strongest era in history.

I don't think you understand that this system undermines itself. There are a finite amount of slams. If we categorize a strong era as a period in which few players achieve many slams, then hypothesizing what happens when they retire is a self-fulfilling prophecy. By the very fact that this era is strong, the next era, after the retirement of the strong-era players, is necessarily weak under this criteria.

Also this is somewhat biased towards the recent duopoly that tennis has been exposed to recently. May I point out that one of the eras in which many seasoned fans and commentators believe to be the greatest period of tennis, the late 70s to mid 80s, just barely meets the minimal criteria (or doesn't at all in certain years). This despite the fact that this was the age of Connors, McEnroe, Borg, Vitas and Lendl. You'll not find such depth in any other period in tennis. But this is just barely a strong era in this criteria because Connors "only" had 5 slams.