Is this a strong or a weak era? Confusing

First topic message reminder :

Given that one of Federer/ Nadal/ Djokovic have to lose before the finals and two have to lose before the tournament ends, it is a strong era. Those are 3 potential all time greats playing together. They could end up with more than 40 grand slams between them.

However, given that the top 4 have made it to the semis in 3 of the 4 slams (with Federer narrowly missing out at Wimbledon), it is a weak era.

Which is it? Or is it neither?

If this continues this thread will also be locked. I strongly suggest you stick to the topic in hand out of respect to the OP

Y I Man wrote: I strongly suggest you stick to the topic in hand out of respect to the OP

The article can be answered in two words:
Strong era

Y I Man wrote:If this continues this thread will also be locked. I strongly suggest you stick to the topic in hand out of respect to the OP

Sorry I didn't see that

SA, Veejay
Can you please give it a rest.

amritia3ee wrote:

Veejay wrote:
"Not at all because tennis is because of Federer. Tennis fans are federer fans. There is no surprise that why any forum is full of federer fans and only some anti tennis fans.' While I don't fully agree with this I can understand the point this person is making
I don't think any true fan of tennis would ever support a player... It indicates they are a Nadal fan,but not a true tennis fan.

Who are you to decide who 'true' tennis fans should support, everyone has their own opinion...

Veejay wrote:


I always ask female Nadal fans is they would be a fan if Nadal looked like Davydenko.I assume you're female so I would like to know if you would?

Firstly huge generalisation.
Secondly I'm a straight male

You're sentence 'I assume...' shows a lot. You keep on assuming things without having hard evidence.

Its my opinion take it or leave it.If you want to go down this route then I would have to ask you and everyone else what right they have to have any opinion.I never said no one has the right to support whoever they want,my point was if you were a fan of the sport not just a particular player you would find such behaviour unacceptable and therefore renders you unable to support that athlete.If this was Federer we were talking about I would say the same thing,no player is above the game for a true tennis fan
As to your second part,I do believe I said its a gross generalisation,but I see you edited that part out in this response
Well Im sorry for offending you,,it was not my intention,I don't know why you assumed I considered your sexual orientation to be gay,the thought never crossed my mind but now that you mention it.....nah just teasing..
Perhaps your passion for Nadal gives off the wrong impression but I admit that doesn't give me the right to assume things
As for assuming....well how wrong could have I have been,one of 2 options and I chose which I thought was the more obvious choice,it can hardly be compared to assuming things when all the information points in one direction
I wouldn't then call that assuming,I would call that suspicion

amritia3ee wrote:

Veejay wrote:and even if Nadal never beat Federer ever I would have those suspicions

Sure you would

OK so you blast me for assuming youre female and now you make an assumption about me when you don't even know me?
It it helps you sleeps better at night,by all means go ahead
I mean my whole world must have fallen apart because Roger loses to Nadal...
What you don't seem to realise is that I actually root for Nadal if he faces Federer,I kinda feel sorry for him.At least he get to beats a 30 years old with 1000 matches in his legs so all is not lost,that should soothe the pain for not being the best player of his own generation
As for Federer losing,I would much rather see Roger lose then see him win resorting to some of the tactics Nadal does

Veejay wrote:At least he get to beats a 30 years old with 1000 matches in his legs so all is not lost.

Yes if only we were in the glorious days of 2004 when Fed always beat Nadal.
Wait a sec...

amritia3ee wrote:

Veejay wrote:At least he get to beats a 30 years old with 1000 matches in his legs so all is not lost.

Yes if only we were in the glorious days of 2004 when Fed always beat Nadal.
Wait a sec...

This is what I love about Federer extremists, they are the ultimate have your cake and eat it too crowd. They live in a sort of logical disconnect where each and every post lives in its own 12th dimension outside the normal 11 dimensional universe and where they are the creators of their own reality. They ignore the fact that Nadal first beat fed in a hardcourt match when he was 17, far from his prime and fed was at his absolute physical peak. And that from day one in their rivalry Nadal had the beating of fed and the advantage. Even when Fed was head shoulders above everyone else and at his peak. They somehow discout nadal and Djoko's victories against Fed today. Yet, what about when fed was at his peak and won 5 straight against a teenage and near teenage Djokovic far from his prime playing Federer at his peak. Pre-prime wins by fed against his rivals count, but wins against a post-prime fed don't count very much if at all.

Welcome to bizarro fed world. Where facts are whatever the fed extremists make them.

To me though it is clear. They act the way they do as they are more like football fans than tennis fans. They knock everything and every player's wins and achievements that challenges Federer's aura. Akin to a Liverpool fan who will tell you that their 70's and 80's domination of English football was so much more pure,true and deserved than the Manchester United era of the 90's and 00's and vice versa with the United fans. You will never change their views on it and you won't get them to pay credit to any other team or in tennis terms any other player. That is why I have said before I really am not overly fussed as far as this forum and posters are concerned if Murray wins a slam as it won't make an iota of difference to them there will be no credit and the usual array of excuses.

amritia3ee wrote:

Veejay wrote:At least he get to beats a 30 years old with 1000 matches in his legs so all is not lost.

Yes if only we were in the glorious days of 2004 when Fed always beat Nadal.
Wait a sec...

Yeah if only...cause things arent looking good
Nadal fans accuse Rohger of dominating a weak era and then use Nadals winning h2h record over him as proof that he is a greater player..so all you end up with is that Nadal has a winning h2h record over a player who is only considered great because he dominated a weak field,which basically means Roger isnt really great and that winning h2h record is really nothing to rave about.What makes this worse is that Nadal has lost 7 straight times to Novak which could suggest Nadal benefitted from a weak era,by dominating weak Federer when he cant dominante his biggest rival from his own generation during his prime
Im just curious what you gain out out of all of this I mean it not like youre benefitting in any way least of all financial,so whats with the desperation? I support Roger and other players I like but I dont need to build him to be something he isnt.I will defend him if need be but that doesnt mean I have to try and proof he is the best all the time.He loses to Nadal,so what..every player loses,no one can win everything all the time its impossible and Nadal is living proof Roger didnt have it easy but still managed to achieve everything he did,which is why I dont believe he benefitted from a weak era.If his losing h2h record tarnishes his legacy,then so be it but I would like you to show me a single player who has a perfect resume

Craig, when Andy wins his first slam, you will see the andy haters start with it was a fluke and he is just a one slam wonder who benefitted from slow conditions line of reasoning. I remember when Novak won his 3 or 4th slam and a certain well known Federer extremist was saying how Novak was a LLeyton Hewitt clone. The federettes can not stand by and have anyone be happy about the success of their favorite player. Unless they happened to beat Nadal in the final that gives them enough joy to last for a few posts before they begin again with how slow conditions are killing tennis and how untalented players are winning because of said fact.

socal1976 wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:

Veejay wrote:At least he get to beats a 30 years old with 1000 matches in his legs so all is not lost.

Yes if only we were in the glorious days of 2004 when Fed always beat Nadal.
Wait a sec...

This is what I love about Federer extremists, they are the ultimate have your cake and eat it too crowd. They live in a sort of logical disconnect where each and every post lives in its own 12th dimension outside the normal 11 dimensional universe and where they are the creators of their own reality. They ignore the fact that Nadal first beat fed in a hardcourt match when he was 17, far from his prime and fed was at his absolute physical peak. And that from day one in their rivalry Nadal had the beating of fed and the advantage. Even when Fed was head shoulders above everyone else and at his peak. They somehow discout nadal and Djoko's victories against Fed today. Yet, what about when fed was at his peak and won 5 straight against a teenage and near teenage Djokovic far from his prime playing Federer at his peak. Pre-prime wins by fed against his rivals count, but wins against a post-prime fed don't count very much if at all.


Welcome to bizarro fed world. Where facts are whatever the fed extremists make them.

This coming from someone who quite clearly wants to have their cake and eat it too re the whole PED subject...Really??.....Really???
Isnt that the pot calling the kettle blind..should have gone to specs savers..they are doing a 2 for one special...

I dont ignore the fact that Nadal first beat Roger at just 17 in Miami on the hard courts,I think I have mentioned it a couple of times in my comments on this forum...so explain to me why did Nadal as the legitimate world no2 for several years never make it to a single grand slam final at the U.S Open or even AO ( where the surface suits his game better the grass),especially at the U.S Open not until his biggest threat up to that point of the season was Berdych and Solderling against the so called weak era? I mean he proved his caliber as hard court plaer by beating the world no1 on a hard court and winning a prestigious title at just 17.So why couldnt he beat the "weaker field?" It couldnt have been a fluke because he beat Roger several times on the hard courts winning a few titles before he ever reach the final of AO in 09
05-07 (04 Im using 05 cause thats when Nadal turned pro) is the so called supposed weak era but yet Nadal couldnt dominate the weak era to make it to the finals of those majors.That doent look good especially now that he is losing to Novak,cause he dominated "weak" Federer but he cant beat a player of his own generation in his prime.All this can be looked at as Nadal benefiting from a weak era..(but I dont believe that)
Its very hypocritical ( theres that double standard again,seriously take my advice and have your eyes tested) to single Federer fans out and say they discredit every other players achievements when many ( not all) Nadal fans constantly claim Roger benefited from a weak era with the sole purpose to diminish his achievements.They want to suddenly value slams when thats never been done before and insult all those players by calling them weak just to take away some of the greatness and the magnitude of what Roger has achieved away from him,because they know Nadal wont ever come close to some of those records
I will admit I have in the past said Nadals titles are tarnished with poor sportsmanship,but thats the truth.It has nothing to do with me trying to take anything away from him.You cannot blame me for the tactics he resorts to to help win matches like you try to penalise Roger for the era he played in.If that was the case wouldnt I claim Nadal benefitted from a weak era on clay?
Apart from Roger,who he enjoys a great match up with who else did he have to challenge him on clay?
Soldelring? A Player who has never won a grand slam and has never been world no1 and if Djokovic beats him at RG then that could also be used as proof cause those muppets who like to trumpet the weak era,also love to trumpet the winning h2h record at the same time and if we use that logic all it proves is Nadal has a winning h2h record over a player who is only great because he dominated weak opponents and the winning h2h record is really nothing to rave about.
And theres that double standard again,blaming Federer fans of trying to have their cake and eat it too when Nadal fans are doing the exact same thing.They want to claim Roger benefitted from a weak era and at the same time use Rogers "GOAT" status and Nadals winning h2h record over him as proof that Nadal is a greater player
They want Roger to have the GOAT title when it suits their agenda to help prove Nadals greatness and then at the same time want to deny him the title by claiming he benefitted for a weak era

My comment about Feds age is fair,he should at his age be losing to the younger generation, if this was another 30 year old no one would complain if I said that so why should it be any different for Roger? Is he not 30?
Of course he was losing 7 out of 10 times to Nadal before he turned 30 but why then rave about Nadal beating Roger when Roger is supposedly only great because he dominated a weak field?

amritia3ee wrote:Veejay I am very disappointed at your comment. You seem to have grossly misjudged what I am saying, and if I did not make it clear then I apologise.
I believe Federer is a great player, for me in the top 5 greatest of all time, who now faces greater competition than ever. He said himself that he now faces greater competition than he has ever faced before in an interview.
At no point did I say Federer was a sh*t player at all, I would never say that about a player I respect so much (Federer).
And I don't really like the term 'weak era.' Any era with great players like Federer and Nadal cannot be called weak. However it is possible to argue that if not for Federer, and Nadal on clay, then it would be a very weak era with Ljubicic possibly number 1 and Baghdatis winning Grand Slams.

Ok,thanks for clearing that up,but going on some of your other comments you have to understand where I was coming from.By the way why are you yelling?
Well if you take Roger ( who is really on his way out),Nadal and Djokovic out of the draw right now,we could possibly be seeing Berdych or even Ferrer winning majors.I think Murray would most definitely be a multiple grand slam winnier,a player who has otherwise proven he wouldnt have been able to even take a set off anyone in a grand slam final if these players were in the draw.Fish could have been the Agassi of this era
But whats the point of questioning all of this,too many ifs = too many variables.It is what it is,so just accept it for what it is.I genuinely dont believe anyone who trumpets the weak era does it for any other reason then to diminish Rogers achievements,for the simple fact that I dont see anyone claiming other players like Nadal who was the second most succesful player during that time,who played in the exact same era and faced the exact same draw along the way to winning his RG titles benefitted from a weak era.Its only ever Roger

Veejay wrote:

amritia3ee wrote: However it is possible to argue that if not for Federer, and Nadal on clay, then it would be a very weak era with Ljubicic possibly number 1 and Baghdatis winning Grand Slams.

Well if you take Roger, Nadal and Djokovic out of the draw right now,we could possibly be seeing Berdych or even Ferrer winning majors.I think Murray would most definitely be a multiple grand slam winning.

Well that's my whole point.
Before to make it a weak era you had to take out Fed from all surfaces and Nadal only on clay (because he really couldn't play well outside clay until 2007 really). Now to make it a weak era you have to take out, Federer+Nadal+Djokovic; and even then you are left with a great player like Murray who has a positive H2H compared to Fed (this does not mean he's better than Fed but proves he is a very good player- how can can you get a H2H 8-6 lead with the great Fed.)
So that's my point. I am not trying to be disrespectful to Fed, in fact I am just repeating what he said in an interview.

Exactly, Veejay, Amirita sums it up perfectly. I would take socalled weak touches of Tsonga, Berdy, Soderling, and JMDP over grandslam winners Thomas Johannson any day of the week and twice on sunday. By the way all these guys have beaten either fed or Nadal or both at a grandslam and somehow they are seen as weak.

And I have on numerous times mentioned quite clearly that weak is a relative term, it is never easy to dominate the ATP tour. And Roger beat the competition in front of him. But if you examine the late 90s till the mid 2000s you will see that it is a weaker overall period of grandslam talent than era before it (Edberg, Becker, Pete, Andre, Courier) and than era immediately after it (Fed, Nadal, and Djoko). Furthermore, in many ways Roger brought the game out of that relatively lower talent pool and deserves the credit for lifting the bar. And he may have benefitted at the early part of his career but one could also say that Agassi and Pete to a large extent benefitted from the weaker era at the end of their careers as their great contemporaries went away and were not replaced by equivalent talent.

Roger is the goat with 16 slams, I have always maintained that but if you want me to pretend that Ferrero, Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, and Moya are on par with Pete, Andre, Courier, Edberg, Becker, and to some extent Lendl I can't say that I agree. Or if you want me to accept that those players could even hope to hold the jock of Novak, Nadal, and yes even murray I can't agree.

amritia3ee wrote:

Veejay wrote:

amritia3ee wrote: However it is possible to argue that if not for Federer, and Nadal on clay, then it would be a very weak era with Ljubicic possibly number 1 and Baghdatis winning Grand Slams.

Well if you take Roger, Nadal and Djokovic out of the draw right now,we could possibly be seeing Berdych or even Ferrer winning majors.I think Murray would most definitely be a multiple grand slam winning.

Well that's my whole point.
Before to make it a weak era you had to take out Fed from all surfaces and Nadal only on clay (because he really couldn't play well outside clay until 2007 really). Now to make it a weak era you have to take out, Federer+Nadal+Djokovic; and even then you are left with a great player like Murray who has a positive H2H compared to Fed (this does not mean he's better than Fed but proves he is a very good player- how can can you get a H2H 8-6 lead with the great Fed.)
So that's my point. I am not trying to be disrespectful to Fed, in fact I am just repeating what he said in an interview.

I dont know if youre saying that the filed was weak or that Roger benefited form a weak era..so which is it?
If you believe Roger benefited from a weak era then you have to consider this,if you take Roger out of the equation not a single player would be sitting with his achievements and records for the simple fact that no other player has shown the ability to match his consistency
Djokovic does look promising but I think his style of play will make him far more prone to injury then Roger and one of the main reasons Roger has been able to be so consistent is because his game and technique is so sound,its virtually risk free,some of the athletes in the draw are playing with a style where they are writing cheques their body wont cash in a few year time.I doubt Djokovic and Nadal will be able to repeat what they did on Sunday when they are going on 30.I coudnt even believe their bodies held up the way it did at their age.But all that wear and tear will someday catch up
I dont believe in weak eras,for that to have any substance the draw would have to be virtually weak for several consecutive seasons,the chances of that every happening with how competitive sport is today is zero.Nor do I think this era is stronger then the previous one,the draw is too inconsistent to be able to calculate such things.Players get hot ,cold get injured,leave the tour come back etc.I merely used your argument by eliminating the top 3 players to prove that this era could be viewed as weak just like the previous one is.The biggest point yore missing here is that its irrelevant,even if the last era is considered weak by some people,you cant proof it, its not going to to change anything

The funniest part about this weak era theory is that if Roger lost more this wouldnt even be an issue cause the Roddicks,Safins and Hewitts could have perhaps have won more majors and become all time greats in their own right,but Roger gets penalised for dominating the filed so comprehensively
Was Roger so good he made the era look weak or was the era so weak it made Roger look good,impossible to tell
As for Roger saying that the competition is tougher,of course its tougher for him,he is declining and finding it harder to beat players he once owned.His battle isnt just on court with the players in the draw he is fighting his body too,the older he gets the longer it takes for his body to recover from tough matches..Naturally the younger generation are improving as they come into their prime,this happens with every generation,it cant be used to prove that the players are better.Thats the way sport goes,when theres someone ahead of the pack in time the rest if the pack will catch up until someone else races away.

Veejay wrote:

Was Roger so good he made the era look weak or was the era so weak it made Roger look good,impossible to tell.

Look at the head2head records.
And Roger is a great player, irrespective of the field he was playing against.

I don't believe Rafa was weak competition off clay until 2008. He made 2 Wimby finals - a 4-setter and a 5-setter.
I don't see any difference in the quality of competition between say, Wimby 2007 and Wimby 2008, as examples.
As I said before, I don't understand how Rafa, in his 1st and 2nd Wimby finals in 2006/2007 can be considered weak competition (thereby reducing Fed's achievement in winning), but Fed in his 1st and 2nd FO finals in 2006/2007 is considered strong competition (thereby increasing Rafa's achievement in winning).
That, to me, sounds like an argument that is not objective about 'weak era/competition', but is designed to make Rafa look better.

socal1976 wrote:Exactly, Veejay, Amirita sums it up perfectly. I would take socalled weak touches of Tsonga, Berdy, Soderling, and JMDP over grandslam winners Thomas Johannson any day of the week and twice on sunday. By the way all these guys have beaten either fed or Nadal or both at a grandslam and somehow they are seen as weak.

And I have on numerous times mentioned quite clearly that weak is a relative term, it is never easy to dominate the ATP tour. And Roger beat the competition in front of him. But if you examine the late 90s till the mid 2000s you will see that it is a weaker overall period of grandslam talent than era before it (Edberg, Becker, Pete, Andre, Courier) and than era immediately after it (Fed, Nadal, and Djoko). Furthermore, in many ways Roger brought the game out of that relatively lower talent pool and deserves the credit for lifting the bar. And he may have benefitted at the early part of his career but one could also say that Agassi and Pete to a large extent benefitted from the weaker era at the end of their careers as their great contemporaries went away and were not replaced by equivalent talent.

Roger is the goat with 16 slams, I have always maintained that but if you want me to pretend that Ferrero, Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, and Moya are on par with Pete, Andre, Courier, Edberg, Becker, and to some extent Lendl I can't say that I agree. Or if you want me to accept that those players could even hope to hold the jock of Novak, Nadal, and yes even murray I can't agree.

Didnt Thomas Johanson retire not long after that> Youre making it sound like he was there through it all
While I do agree that Djokovic is now a much better player then the likes of Safin and Roddick in their hay day,I still maintain my opinion that match ups is what ultimately makes an era look weak or strong
Federer matched up pretty well with most of the draw,but his match up with Roddick cannot be used to prove quality of depth for an entire era just like Rogers match up with Nadal cannot prove the entire draw is weak for a whole era
And this is whats so unfair about this kind of debate,there are too many exceptions and single instances being used to judge a whole era.Would it be fair to say this era is weak because Nadal has lost 7 straight finals to Djokovic?

We are now in a phase where it seems to be a one man show like it was back with Federer,a single player dominating the game,so is he dominating a weak draw or is he so good he is making the draw look weak? Impossible to tell
The other reason why I dont buy weak or strong era theories is because if you look at Rogers career,he has survived through it all,the way the game has changed,the way technology has changed the game and the way the surfaces have changed,he survived the era before him,his own era and at 30 he is still dominating all but 2 players and remains a serious threat to win any title
Roger isnt the only one Ferrer is stil going strong and then of course many previous all time greats have had long careers spanning over several generations.If they could only dominate the weak era they played in then they shouldnt still be where they are today if the era is so much stronger
As for the 90's argument,if Roger lost more this wouldnt even be an issue cause there would have been several players who would have won slams,some multiple slam winners, becoming all time greats in their own right.Roddick could have been a multiple Wimbledon champion rather then retire a 1 hit wonder ,but Roger get penalised for dominating his era so comprehensively

Good post veejay.. not only this one but almost every post of yours.

amritia3ee wrote:

Veejay wrote:

Was Roger so good he made the era look weak or was the era so weak it made Roger look good,impossible to tell.

Look at the head2head records.
And Roger is a great player, irrespective of the field he was playing against.

Finally I agree with you,Rogers losing h2h record against Nadal is proof he didnt have it as easy as people would like to think,but still h2h is heavily affected by match ups.We cant judge a whole era and say its weak by looking at one player and his h2h against another player or the draw.That doesnt tell the whole story,every h2h against every player counts,because every match is different
If Roger is a great player like you say then this argument is futile,because then he was still great and whether he faced weak or strong competition is irrelevant,because it wouldnt have mattered
Old man Laver seems to think that Roger would have been very dominant in his era and thinks some players today are manufactured by technology.Interesting opinion but does that mean this era is weak in the truer sense of being a pro tennis athlete because what players are able to achieve is heavily dependent on technology rather then skill? Earlier you eliminated players,imagine if we gave the players a wooden racket,that would really sort the men from the boys wouldnt it?
Its mind baffling for some to suggest that arguably the greatest clay court player ever stood in Rogers way of winning another 4 RG titles while at the same time saying that Roger was playing in a weak era