Indian Wells

First topic message reminder :

Shame for Kyle Edmund. He was playing well in the first set.

Delpo beat Smyczeck 6-4, 6-0.

Fritz lost to Tiafoe.

temporary21 wrote:No need to rag on the current generation so much. look at raonic and the rests recent performances, they've been great and shown massive strides of improvement. Novak just makes them look poor.  What's more likely? One player is an all time great? Or EVERYONE else are simultaneously bad?

Or both.

The question would be, who would clean up if Djokovic was out of the equation? Answers likely would be:

Federer, Murray, Stan or Nadal.

It's silly that players coming of the conveyer belts have little to no chance of any success.

temporary21 wrote:No need to rag on the current generation so much. look at raonic and the rests recent performances, they've been great and shown massive strides of improvement. Novak just makes them look poor.  What's more likely? One player is an all time great? Or EVERYONE else are simultaneously bad?

It's not that everyone is bad.

It's just that a generation has passed without greatness emerging and that's messed the natural order of thing up.

It cant though. When you have a golden period like were just starting to come out of, there is an inevitable comedown. The new crop cant become great players when the old gen has hovered up everything for years, and with it banked reams of experience and practice. It HAS to cycle, theyre not bad but they haven't had nearly the years of hardening that has made Novak what he is now

I don't see it as inevitable comedown at all.
As HM said, Djokovic is playing at a world class level so he is exempt from any criticism (in terms of performance).
But let's have a look at the rankings without Djokovic, and it's clear the competition has got worse, and thus easier for Djokovic to dominate.
Is Federer as good as he was a few years ago ? No, he has declined.
Is Nadal as good as he was a few years ago ? No, he has declined.
Is Murray as good as he always was ? Probably more or less, similar level.
Stan ? OK, Stan has clearly improved, played much better since 2013-now. But inconsistent, very hot/cold
Young players ? Sorry Temp, this may upset you, but they've been really disappointing.

HM, on the other page you wrote a long post on how disappointing the current tour is, not because of Djokovic but because of the lack of challenge. The bad news is I suspect it's going to get even worse. After Djokovic goes, it will be dominated by a plethora of big servers with relatively poor groundstrokes, such as Zverev, Kyrgios, and Raonic.

It can. Last Slam victories:

Federer - 2012
Murray - 2013
Nadal - 2014

Generations coming through are not even winning at Masters level.

Is there not similarities here though? Great players of the 1990s such as Sampras and Lendl left a vacuum when they retired with precious little to shout about taking their place and Federer thrived. Now that Federer and Nadal are on the wain and we have another vacuum of sorts and it is Novak mopping up. The current situation really is nothing new.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Is there not similarities here though? Great players of the 1990s such as Sampras and Lendl left a vacuum when they retired with precious little to shout about taking their place and Federer thrived. Now that Federer and Nadal are on the wain and we have another vacuum of sorts and it is Novak mopping up. The current situation really is nothing new.

I'd argue that vacuums are the exception rather than the rule. Normally the great players tend to replace each other.

Connors gradually gave way to Borg, who gave way to McEnroe, who gave way to Lendl. Then we had a spell of Lendl, Becker and Edberg fighting it out. These players were displaced by Sampras.

Then we have what, in hindsight, looks like an interregnum between Sampras' decline and Federer's emergence.

Then things get back to normal, with Federer gradually yielding to Nadal and Djokovic.

And now we get this odd holding pattern where the heir apparent is yet to make himself known.

That's probably because the last 4 great great players we have had are
Pete-14 slams
Federer-17 slams and about 20 masters at least
Nadal-14 slams and about 27 masters
Djokovic-11 slams and 27 masters

The last 4 guys have REALLY dominated, which has left nothing for the rest to get a foothold into, hence we get a vacuum

This is natural of course generally after one or two great crops of players like the great crop we had that is currently 27-31 you will have a retrenchment. In fact that is exactly what we had from the late 90s all the way to the mid 2000s. We had about a decade in the wilderness from the time the Becker, Edberg, Courier, group went away and Sampras and Agassi started to be really long in the tooth. We also had the same thing in the early 70s as Stan Smith, Nastasie, and those guys weren't to the quality of Laver and Rosewall, and they were quickly supplanted by Connors and Borg. It would be a statistical anomaly if after a quality 5 or 10 years if we didn't have a transitional period of a few years or more. I think the strong era probably collapsed in 2015 and we are at the start of a weak era. So by my calculations if Novak gets about another two to three years of beating up on a weak era he will equal the gravy train that Roger rode from 04-07.

I do find it amusing now that all the people who argued against me that there are no weak eras, (ahum LK, Murdock) are now claiming Djokovic is mopping up in a weak era. So we went from Roger's contemporaries being as good as any, to there are no weak eras, to we are in a weak era and Djokovic is padding his stats in it. I love it. What I am experiencing is like Schadenfreude juiced up on the metaphorical crystal meth of self satisfaction.

Again Socal Theorem is correct, the more you agree with socal the more your chances of being right go up.

socal1976 wrote:
I do find it amusing now that all the people who argued against me that there are no weak eras, (ahum LK, Murdock) are now claiming Djokovic is mopping up in a weak era. So we went from Roger's contemporaries being as good as any, to there are no weak eras, to we are in a weak era and Djokovic is padding his stats in it. I love it. What I am experiencing is like Schadenfreude juiced up on the metaphorical crystal meth of self satisfaction.

Again Socal Theorem is correct, the more you agree with socal the more your chances of being right go up.

Yes, I noticed that too. (The point about people going 'ooh there's nothing called competition or eras' to 'ah yes I agree the lack of young players and decline of Fedal have made things easier for Djokovic now. Not referring to your narcissistic self-worshipping. Although I do admit Soval's theorem maybe has a 90% rating).

It Must Be Love wrote:

socal1976 wrote:
I do find it amusing now that all the people who argued against me that there are no weak eras, (ahum LK, Murdock) are now claiming Djokovic is mopping up in a weak era. So we went from Roger's contemporaries being as good as any, to there are no weak eras, to we are in a weak era and Djokovic is padding his stats in it. I love it. What I am experiencing is like Schadenfreude juiced up on the metaphorical crystal meth of self satisfaction.

Again Socal Theorem is correct, the more you agree with socal the more your chances of being right go up.

Yes, I noticed that too. (The point about people going 'ooh there's nothing called competition or eras' to 'ah yes I agree the lack of young players and decline of Fedal have made things easier for Djokovic now. Not referring to your narcissistic self-worshipping. Although I do admit Soval's theorem maybe has a 90% rating).

Can we now objectively admit that you and I won the weak era argument, when our detractors are now making weak era arguments and even using the terminology that they denounced us as borderline nuts for using? Rarely do you get such a clean cut, black and white victory in terms of online webposting. The weak era proponents won, and there is "no such thing as a weak era/golden era" people lost. I hope Novak can ride this gravy train all the way to 2018 so he can have same amount of time shooting ducks in a barrel that Roger had.

We are not calling the era weak.

We are asking where the chuffing hell has the competition gone and where is it going to come from.

But no, you're not right.

Yes, I am, no competition is like saying weak era, its like the difference between calling something sandwich or a grinder or a hoagie. Different terms that mean the same thing.

Ermmmm not quite.

socal1976 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

Yes, I noticed that too. (The point about people going 'ooh there's nothing called competition or eras' to 'ah yes I agree the lack of young players and decline of Fedal have made things easier for Djokovic now. Not referring to your narcissistic self-worshipping. Although I do admit Soval's theorem maybe has a 90% rating).

Can we now objectively admit that you and I won the weak era argument, when our detractors are now making weak era arguments and even using the terminology that they denounced us as borderline nuts for using? Rarely do you get such a clean cut, black and white victory in terms of online webposting. The weak era proponents won, and there is "no such thing as a weak era/golden era" people lost. I hope Novak can ride this gravy train all the way to 2018 so he can have same amount of time shooting ducks in a barrel that Roger had.

It's the biggest victory/pummelling since Germany beat Brazil in that World Cup Semi-final. If it was a boxing match, this wouldn't even go to the judges, it would be stopped; Pacquiao vs Hatton, Beyonce's sister vs Jay Z, etc.

legendkillarV2 wrote:We are not calling the era weak.

We are asking where the chuffing hell has the competition gone and where is it going to come from.

I'm loving it.

Saying theres no competition and no idea where its coming from, but then saying it isn't weak are the opposite of one another. You cant have both.
Theyre all great players making big strides. They are however, up against a man closing in on ten years of top level play now, so it should be NO surprise theyre gonna come up short for a while.

Just last Novak was taken out by Stan, who was not part of the golden gen at all. Cilic also won a slam, after Nishikori bundled Novak out with relative ease.

Whats happened is not that theyre not competitive, Novak has gotten better and they haven't yet. No better way to see that than how Novak has gained the edge over both his golden period rivals now.

It Must Be Love wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

Yes, I noticed that too. (The point about people going 'ooh there's nothing called competition or eras' to 'ah yes I agree the lack of young players and decline of Fedal have made things easier for Djokovic now. Not referring to your narcissistic self-worshipping. Although I do admit Soval's theorem maybe has a 90% rating).

Can we now objectively admit that you and I won the weak era argument, when our detractors are now making weak era arguments and even using the terminology that they denounced us as borderline nuts for using? Rarely do you get such a clean cut, black and white victory in terms of online webposting. The weak era proponents won, and there is "no such thing as a weak era/golden era" people lost. I hope Novak can ride this gravy train all the way to 2018 so he can have same amount of time shooting ducks in a barrel that Roger had.

It's the biggest victory/pummelling since Germany beat Brazil in that World Cup Semi-final. If it was a boxing match, this wouldn't even go to the judges, it would be stopped; Pacquiao vs Hatton, Beyonce's sister vs Jay Z, etc.

LOL, it is pretty one sided, I mean whatever happened to the idea that all competition levels are the same and or if they are not the same that those different competition levels could never be measured or taken into account?

socal1976 wrote:

LOL, it is pretty one sided, I mean whatever happened to the idea that all competition levels are the same and or if they are not the same that those different competition levels could never be measured or taken into account?

Yeah, I've been really impressed by the high number of people saying that as we can't prove anything over time for sure, really there's no way of telling whether it's easier to beat Federer now as a 34 year old in a Grand Slam or when he was in his mid-late twenties. I mean 27yo Federer has never actually played 34 yo Federer, so we'll just have to assume they're either immeasurable or equal, and if not you're a crazed conspiracy theorist.

Sorry but it is plainly obvious (reading views of people dissing this era due to the lack of youngsters coming through and lack of competition for Novak) that it is exactly the same as calling it a weak era. People cannot have it both ways. If they don't like the standard they are watching then how else would they describe tennis now?

It seems clear that people either should accept there are indeed weak periods/eras/times in tennis or think before talking down the tennis of today.

It Must Be Love wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

LOL, it is pretty one sided, I mean whatever happened to the idea that all competition levels are the same and or if they are not the same that those different competition levels could never be measured or taken into account?

Yeah, I've been really impressed by the high number of people saying that as we can't prove anything over time for sure, really there's no way of telling whether it's easier to beat Federer now as a 34 year old in a Grand Slam or when he was in his mid-late twenties. I mean 27yo Federer has never actually played 34 yo Federer, so we'll just have to assume they're either immeasurable or equal, and if not you're a crazed conspiracy theorist.

Before you get too carried away, there's something you need to address.

If "weak eras" are established (for the record, I think I've always said standards fluctuate), what are you proposing we do with that fact? To what conclusion does it lead us?

CaledonianCraig wrote:Sorry but it is plainly obvious (reading views of people dissing this era due to the lack of youngsters coming through and lack of competition for Novak) that it is exactly the same as calling it a weak era. People cannot have it both ways. If they don't like the standard they are watching then how else would they describe tennis now?

It seems clear that people either should accept there are indeed weak periods/eras/times in tennis or think before talking down the tennis of today.

Exactly, Craig they say there is no competition, that the game is in trouble, and that is basically the functional equivalent of calling out weak era. But a lot of people know they can't use that exact terminology because for nearly a decade they have been arguing against the existence of such mythical beasts as golden or conversely weak eras. They want the two pieces of bread with meat and cheese in between but please don't call it a sandwich.

HM Murdock wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

LOL, it is pretty one sided, I mean whatever happened to the idea that all competition levels are the same and or if they are not the same that those different competition levels could never be measured or taken into account?

Yeah, I've been really impressed by the high number of people saying that as we can't prove anything over time for sure, really there's no way of telling whether it's easier to beat Federer now as a 34 year old in a Grand Slam or when he was in his mid-late twenties. I mean 27yo Federer has never actually played 34 yo Federer, so we'll just have to assume they're either immeasurable or equal, and if not you're a crazed conspiracy theorist.

Before you get too carried away, there's something you need to address.

If "weak eras" are established (for the record, I think I've always said standards fluctuate), what are you proposing we do with that fact? To what conclusion does it lead us?

Nothing, other than it be acknowledged and if you want to talk about GOAT conversations you have to understand the context of a players objective wins and stats. Things like the competition level could with two players with similar or close numbers put one guy above the other, eventhough he may have a few less titles objectively. Nothing earth shaking was ever supposed to happen if weak era/golden era was true or not.

The thing here is whatever is the acceptable term for these spells/times in tennis I don't think it impacts achievements as invariably it always balances itself out. Sampras had spells where the competition was strong then not as strong, Federer had the same as has Djokovic now.

It Must Be Love wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

LOL, it is pretty one sided, I mean whatever happened to the idea that all competition levels are the same and or if they are not the same that those different competition levels could never be measured or taken into account?

Yeah, I've been really impressed by the high number of people saying that as we can't prove anything over time for sure, really there's no way of telling whether it's easier to beat Federer now as a 34 year old in a Grand Slam or when he was in his mid-late twenties. I mean 27yo Federer has never actually played 34 yo Federer, so we'll just have to assume they're either immeasurable or equal, and if not you're a crazed conspiracy theorist.

Yep absolutely, the idea that competition levels in slam finals and semis is not worth discussing or acknowledging as relevant was another laughable one that would be argued against us. Who honestly believes playing Raonic in a final is the same thing as playing a peak or near peak Fed or Nadal or even Murray in a final?

socal1976 wrote:Nothing, other than it be acknowledged and if you want to talk about GOAT conversations you have to understand the context of a players objective wins and stats. Things like the competition level could with two players with similar or close numbers put one guy above the other, eventhough he may have a few less titles objectively. Nothing earth shaking was ever supposed to happen if weak era/golden era was true or not.

So what's the conversion factor?

How many slams would a player have to win in 2008 to 2011 to be an equal achievement to Fed's eleven wins in 2004 to 2007?

HM Murdock wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Nothing, other than it be acknowledged and if you want to talk about GOAT conversations you have to understand the context of a players objective wins and stats. Things like the competition level could with two players with similar or close numbers put one guy above the other, eventhough he may have a few less titles objectively. Nothing earth shaking was ever supposed to happen if weak era/golden era was true or not.

So what's the conversion factor?

How many slams would a player have to win in 2008 to 2011 to be an equal achievement to Fed's eleven wins in 2004 to 2007?

My own handicap, and people would argue one way or the other I would say 8 slams maybe 9.

I don't actually like the phrase 'weak era', it creates a misleading impression that one day the moon went down and tennis was weak, and then the next day as the sun rose a golden light shone across tennis.
It's fluctuating competition, and yes it can fluctuate quite dramatically over many years. Primarily at the top of the game, because the birth dates of All Time Greats can be totally random. You could have two born on the same day, and not another one for 4 years.
Also for your 'conversion factor' point, I never saw it like that, you can have a general impression, but it's impossible to pinpoint an exact conversion.

And in case people didn't understand what I was saying earlier, yes it's blindingly obvious that people who now say that Djokovic's competition is weaker than before because Fedal have declined and the younger players haven't lived up to expectations... that is agreeing with what me and Socal have been saying all along. Some of these same people are the ones who were convinced that there's 'nothing called fluctuating competition' because 'a slam win is a slam win irrelevant of who you'd play', 'it's immeasurable to an exact degree so therefore we can just assume it's all the same/ ignore it' and making other mind boggling claims.

socal1976 wrote:

HM Murdock wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Nothing, other than it be acknowledged and if you want to talk about GOAT conversations you have to understand the context of a players objective wins and stats. Things like the competition level could with two players with similar or close numbers put one guy above the other, eventhough he may have a few less titles objectively. Nothing earth shaking was ever supposed to happen if weak era/golden era was true or not.

So what's the conversion factor?

How many slams would a player have to win in 2008 to 2011 to be an equal achievement to Fed's eleven wins in 2004 to 2007?

My own handicap, and people would argue one way or the other I would say 8 slams maybe 9.

This is the path that I don't think is worth venturing down.

I don't see how a subjective judgement such as GOAT becomes less subjective by applying another subjective judgement about the strength of different periods.

Maybe I'm just lazy!

HM Murdock wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

HM Murdock wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Nothing, other than it be acknowledged and if you want to talk about GOAT conversations you have to understand the context of a players objective wins and stats. Things like the competition level could with two players with similar or close numbers put one guy above the other, eventhough he may have a few less titles objectively. Nothing earth shaking was ever supposed to happen if weak era/golden era was true or not.

So what's the conversion factor?

How many slams would a player have to win in 2008 to 2011 to be an equal achievement to Fed's eleven wins in 2004 to 2007?

My own handicap, and people would argue one way or the other I would say 8 slams maybe 9.

This is the path that I don't think is worth venturing down.

I don't see how a subjective judgement such as GOAT becomes less subjective by applying another subjective judgement about the strength of different periods.

Maybe I'm just lazy!

Or plain sensible...

HM, I actually agree with you as I just said over the 'conversion factor'. Unless we have divine knowledge, working to that sort of exact detail is not really possible. But we can have general impressions, based on what we see and observe.

Is it possible to prove that Federer is easier to beat now than he was in his mid-late twenties ? No.
Can I have the opinion that Federer is easier to beat now than he was in his mid-late twenties ? Yes.

All debates are subjective, we can't prove who has the best forehand currently either. Is it Djokovic ? Nadal ? Federer ? Tsonga ? It's silly to claim you can objectively prove it, but you can have an informed opinion using statistics such as winners, forced errors, lack of unforced errors etc.

But what Socal pointed out, and I find hilarious to see, is people who were so heinously opposed to even the idea that competition could fluctuate (I've listed some of these common arguments & phrases 3 posts above); and now when it's Djokovic playing great with the younger generation clearly not stepping up to the plate... it's a changed tune; let's forget all those long debates and do U-turns that even Gideon Osborne would be proud of. As Socal said, the debate is over, finished like IDS's time in the cabinet, done.

No I don't think any handicap system can be applied. Sure there are times when competition isn't quite as tough but whereas for Federer that was around mid-2000s it then got tougher. It has been the other way around for Djokovic - tough at first and less competitive so equals itself out. Sampras had the same sort of deal as well.

CaledonianCraig wrote:No I don't think any handicap system can be applied. Sure there are times when competition isn't quite as tough but whereas for Federer that was around mid-2000s it then got tougher. It has been the other way around for Djokovic - tough at first and less competitive so equals itself out. Sampras had the same sort of deal as well.

It's impossible to predict whether it will even itself out or not really. May happen, may not.

It Must Be Love wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:No I don't think any handicap system can be applied. Sure there are times when competition isn't quite as tough but whereas for Federer that was around mid-2000s it then got tougher. It has been the other way around for Djokovic - tough at first and less competitive so equals itself out. Sampras had the same sort of deal as well.

It's impossible to predict whether it will even itself out or not really. May happen, may not.

Well in the end the difference is not worth arguing over. In any case, like I always say about slams, you can only beat who you have in front of you. The winning players should not be admonished at all for that.

In any case in the next three or four years when the current top players have retired Raonic may very well become a multiple slam winner and years down the line who knows how he'll be rated then.

I actually predicted this, I said if Djokovic started to dominate for an extended period of time and threatened any of Fed's biggest records that we would see all of sudden people talking about a weak era. Lo and behold, the very things I could see being argued if someone not named Fed would dominate happened precisely that way. The fluctuations in talent are huge on the tour for one key reason that great players don't grow on trees, and so it is the seminal talents of a period the top handful that really determine the quality of tennis. All of sudden you grow up as a great clay courter and you walk out on the clay court with huge promise, and then your run up against a young Nadal, and you realize that your grandslam career has just been reduced to being an also ran or never will be. That is what the difference can be, its hard just being able to see so much more than all my critics. I can feel what Van Gogh felt when he died penniless as his use of bold colors would be ridiculed by more agrarian hands.

If it was a weak era we would have more junior slam winners bridging the transition in the men's game.  Over the past ten years Britain has had a few male junior slam winners and finalists but none made a significant impression in the men's game.  Whatever happened to Oliver Golding?  He won the 2011 US junior slam.  He more or less retired in 2014 having reached a highest ranking of 327.  He is still only 22.

Ps Roger Federer's performances in his later years proves he was every bit as good in his earlier golden years that others claim and his record indicates.   Roger Federer - it is astonishing how well he copes with the big servers - rarely do they beat him.  The same players that Nadal had difficulty with were just defeated in three sets by Federer.  Federer could handle the likes of Pete Sampras without too much difficulty.  It was the relentless consistency, ultra top spin, and returning ability, of Nadal that eventually cut short Federer's reign.  Nadal, now superseded by Djokovic became the "perfect" baseliners of the modern game. Nadal was more or less a clay court specialist that had success on grass and the hard courts also.

How is one defining a weak era? Because by all accounts even the successful players have to be weak for the weak era to warrant the label it does.

Only those interested in glorifying the achievements of favourite players subscribe to it.

In terms of Oliver Golding NS, IIRC he got injured and was sidelined for a few months, fell down the rankings a bit and never recovered the hunger to get back to where he was. A real shame really.

legendkillarV2 wrote:How is one defining a weak era?]

As I said earlier, I don't like the phrase weak era.
Some Sampras fans on the original 606 used it as as a wind-up, and then because it was a catchy phrase I suppose it caught on and people liked using it.

Forgetting the technicalities over language, what me and Socal were talking about were fluctuations in competition, which over a few years can be quite dramatic. I can see why people have problems with using absolute terms like 'weak'- obviously tennis at the top of ATP tour tennis is not 'weak' compared to the local club level tournaments, it's all relative.
But actually agreeing with the substance of an argument is the main thing, what to label the whole debate I think is not that relevant.

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:How is one defining a weak era?]

As I said earlier, I don't like the phrase weak era.
Some Sampras fans on the original 606 used it as as a wind-up, and then because it was a catchy phrase I suppose it caught on and people liked using it.

Forgetting the technicalities over language, what me and Socal were talking about were fluctuations in competition, which over a few years can be quite dramatic. I can see why people have problems with using absolute terms like 'weak'- obviously tennis at the top of ATP tour tennis is not 'weak' compared to the local club level tournaments, it's all relative.
But actually agreeing with the substance of an argument is the main thing, what to label the whole debate I think is not that relevant.

No-one is disputing the fluctuations in competition, however there are follow on questions. Mainly being what is the cause of the trend?

I can say there is no competition for the current top level, but that doesn't mean it's a weak by definition if then by some amazing long odds chance that 2-3 players breakthrough the end of this year and beyond.

How one measures say Djokovic's dominance against Federer's or Sampras's is purely objective qualitative. The forum is divided on preference of style.

It's why I avoid the GOAT debate or any talk of era's.

legendkillarV2 wrote:
No-one is disputing the fluctuations in competition,

Currently*

however there are follow on questions. Mainly being what is the cause of the trend?

Well one reason can be the random nature of when great players are born. We can have 2 born in the same week, and then not another one for 7 years.

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:
No-one is disputing the fluctuations in competition,

Currently*

however there are follow on questions. Mainly being what is the cause of the trend?

Well one reason can be the random nature of when great players are born. We can have 2 born in the same week, and then not another one for 7 years.

Exactly, exactly and exactly that's the point. It's not saying 2015 was weak. The point was why did Novak win IW in what can be described as 1st gear to which "no competition" was a fair comment.

To your second point, I think it stretches beyond that. You will recall like I did the "If Rafa played on fast courts with 90in racquets with natural gut, wouldn't win half of what he has"

It becomes of question of does the equipment, conditions, diets etc make an average player great or below that exceptional? That could be applied across all 'era's I might add.

A weak era is more than the measure of the players who don't win titles.

Well I am sorry I disagree lk.

This forum in recent months has been awash with the bemoaning of lack of youngsters coming through, lack of competition for Novak, the fact that Federer is approaching his mid-30s and is still competitive and drab tennis in general. That is hardly a glowing indictment on tennis in the here and now is it? If we were to look back say a year then how would you say levels of competitiveness, drab tennis on offer or fewer youngsters impressing have improved or deteriorated?

The problem I have here is listening to so many people diss tennis just now yet try backtracking to say they aren't saying things aren't weak or less good as say two years ago?

So which is it to be? Tennis isn't as bad as all that just now and people have been OTT with the criticism or yes tennis is in the doldrums or somewhere in between such as things aren't as good as they were.

Here is how you can tell weak era are there at least three all time greats playing at or near peak, if not you have a weak era. We need a minimum of three near prime greats for a credible era. Why because its Novak, Roger, Rafa, and to lesser extent Murray that decide the big titles and define any period. The guys ranked 5 or 6 all the way down really don't impact the massive tournaments over a long period of time.

Ok don't call it a weak era, weak era became a catchall for various arguments criticizing the talent Roger faced. Of course as the more prudent and restrained IMBL stated it is never easy to be the best or among the best in tennis, even at the heart of the weakest era there are going to be a lot of damn good world class pros out there. There just isn't two or three great gatekeepers that you have to get by, so we can call it a relatively weaker period, but it just isn't as poetic as weak era.

In defense of weak era terminology, to play devil's advocate lets remember that the weakest of all eras, gave birth to this term. I mean we had one shot Andy, dodgy hip Lleyton, Empanada Dave, and the Russian playboy; arguably the weakest era since the dawn of open tennis. An interesting comparison would be comparing whose weak era is weaker, Roger's epic cast of keystone cops or the current disappointing group. I mean it would be like watching the Golden State Warriors play your local girl's team.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well I am sorry I disagree lk.

This forum in recent months has been awash with the bemoaning of lack of youngsters coming through, lack of competition for Novak, the fact that Federer is approaching his mid-30s and is still competitive and drab tennis in general. That is hardly a glowing indictment on tennis in the here and now is it? If we were to look back say a year then how would you say levels of competitiveness, drab tennis on offer or fewer youngsters impressing have improved or deteriorated?

The problem I have here is listening to so many people diss tennis just now yet try backtracking to say they aren't saying things aren't weak or less good as say two years ago?

So which is it to be? Tennis isn't as bad as all that just now and people have been OTT with the criticism or yes tennis is in the doldrums or somewhere in between such as things aren't as good as they were.

Craig your bs meter is fine tuned, I mean what do we see after each and every Novak win in a major event on this site. You would think that it was a bloody funeral in here, I mean the moaning about how there is no competition, no young talent, etc. is also compounded with calls for resurrecting S and V which has been dying slowly since the mid 80s. I mean instead of anyone talking about how great Novak is playing, and his level is bizarrely good and balanced right now, all we hear is how there is no competition and the tour stinks.

As I said before they want to have a piece of ham with some cheese in between two pieces of bread but please don't call it a sandwich.

Tbh if we are allowed to question the competition Novak has now,then the question of how competitive was the sport when Federer dominated HAS to come back on the table, through interests of basic consistency. The latter however gets people crazy, so I would perhaps suggest we don't do that.

I have noted that youngsters and the next gen seem to get a lot of praise, Raonic for making the final and the Aussie open semis, Zverez for his great strides etc.

Yet they seem to get pooped on as soon as they lose to Novak and/or Rafa, suddenly theyre trash and chokers and one dimensional and the tennis world is not very strong relatively (but not weak, that's different presumably).

Do we REALLY expect these guys to be beating two the all time greats? With strong cases for the GOAT? Is this maybe more the frustrations of who is dominating coming out? As opposed to who isn't...

I mean I DO get the frustrations. When one guy wins everything, eventually you just wanna seem some competition, some sense of tension or unpredictability, even if you love the guy at the top. That probably wont come for another couple of years though... for now its the older guard only who really have a shot

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well I am sorry I disagree lk.

This forum in recent months has been awash with the bemoaning of lack of youngsters coming through, lack of competition for Novak, the fact that Federer is approaching his mid-30s and is still competitive and drab tennis in general. That is hardly a glowing indictment on tennis in the here and now is it? If we were to look back say a year then how would you say levels of competitiveness, drab tennis on offer or fewer youngsters impressing have improved or deteriorated?

The problem I have here is listening to so many people diss tennis just now yet try backtracking to say they aren't saying things aren't weak or less good as say two years ago?

So which is it to be? Tennis isn't as bad as all that just now and people have been OTT with the criticism or yes tennis is in the doldrums or somewhere in between such as things aren't as good as they were.

Read the last point of my post. It's clear as mud.

You and other can continue to argue a toss about the achievements of your favoured players and add caveats to heighten those achievements. Either way like HM I can't be @rsed.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well I am sorry I disagree lk.

This forum in recent months has been awash with the bemoaning of lack of youngsters coming through, lack of competition for Novak, the fact that Federer is approaching his mid-30s and is still competitive and drab tennis in general. That is hardly a glowing indictment on tennis in the here and now is it? If we were to look back say a year then how would you say levels of competitiveness, drab tennis on offer or fewer youngsters impressing have improved or deteriorated?

The problem I have here is listening to so many people diss tennis just now yet try backtracking to say they aren't saying things aren't weak or less good as say two years ago?

So which is it to be? Tennis isn't as bad as all that just now and people have been OTT with the criticism or yes tennis is in the doldrums or somewhere in between such as things aren't as good as they were.

You and other can continue to argue a toss about the achievements of your favoured players and add caveats to heighten those achievements. Either way like HM I can't be @rsed.

This has naff all to do with 'favoured players' but more to do with the anti-feeling that oozes out in recent posts about the state of tennis today. Whether we are talking about the also-rans, the world No.1 or the upcoming players - across the board by a large portion of posters the view is negative. How does that paint a favourable picture of tennis compared to a couple of years ago? Not well at all. That being the case that appears to me as if today's tennis is not appreciated to a degree it was in the past by a portion of posters here.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well I am sorry I disagree lk.

This forum in recent months has been awash with the bemoaning of lack of youngsters coming through, lack of competition for Novak, the fact that Federer is approaching his mid-30s and is still competitive and drab tennis in general. That is hardly a glowing indictment on tennis in the here and now is it? If we were to look back say a year then how would you say levels of competitiveness, drab tennis on offer or fewer youngsters impressing have improved or deteriorated?

The problem I have here is listening to so many people diss tennis just now yet try backtracking to say they aren't saying things aren't weak or less good as say two years ago?

So which is it to be? Tennis isn't as bad as all that just now and people have been OTT with the criticism or yes tennis is in the doldrums or somewhere in between such as things aren't as good as they were.

You and other can continue to argue a toss about the achievements of your favoured players and add caveats to heighten those achievements. Either way like HM I can't be @rsed.

This has naff all to do with 'favoured players' but more to do with the anti-feeling that oozes out in recent posts about the state of tennis today. Whether we are talking about the also-rans, the world No.1 or the upcoming players - across the board by a large portion of posters the view is negative. How does that paint a favourable picture of tennis compared to a couple of years ago? Not well at all. That being the case that appears to me as if today's tennis is not appreciated to a degree it was in the past by a portion of posters here.

So what does Weak Era bollox got to do with youngsters not breaking through exactly???

legendkillarV2 wrote:

So what does Weak Era bollox got to do with youngsters not breaking through exactly???

It's not about 'weak era'- it's fluctuations in level of competition... and the fact the current generation of 23-27 year olds seem to be quite disappointing and have no star players, as well as Fedal declining means the level of competition is lower than around 5 years ago ?
It's really not that hard to work out.