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.

I haven't referred to it as weak era if you check back. And come on lk this forum has not only been awash with the talk of no youngsters breaking through but also lack of competition for Novak, the general quality of tennis on show and such-like. It goes deeper than just a few throwaway comments about lack of youngsters breaking through.

You have to be honest and admit people haven't been glowing on here about the tennis on show in recent months. I am not mentioning weak era talk but it seems to prove that there are periods of fluctuations (for want of a better term) from time to time in tennis.

Beyond hilarious to see the logical gymnastics that people who always vociferously shouted down and mocked what me and Socal were arguing but now agree with it, have to go through to hide it.

If you stop saying weak era it might not be difficult to work out. Go figure.

legendkillarV2 wrote:If you stop saying weak era it might not be difficult to work out. Go figure.

You are the one referring to it ...not me.

How long have you posted here lk? Long enough to recall socal et al (who DOES refer to weak eras) adamant they exist and did when Federer mopped up his slams in the early to mid 2000s. That has always been his stance and was berated ferociously for that view point. Now today tennis is being slated not just for lack of youngsters coming through but other reasons I referred to earlier such as no competition for Novak - a very similar point socal made about Federer in his dominant phase. Don't you see the similarities? I never did go with this weak era talk but whatever or however you want to describe it there are similarities between now and the time when Federer dominated.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:If you stop saying weak era it might not be difficult to work out. Go figure.

You are the one referring to it ...not me.

How long have you posted here lk? Long enough to recall socal et al (who DOES refer to weak eras) adamant they exist and did when Federer mopped up his slams in the early to mid 2000s. That has always been his stance and was berated ferociously for that view point. Now today tennis is being slated not just for lack of youngsters coming through but other reasons I referred to earlier such as no competition for Novak - a very similar point socal made about Federer in his dominant phase. Don't you see the similarities? I never did go with this weak era talk but whatever or however you want to describe it there are similarities between now and the time when Federer dominated.

One thing though CC, if I recall correctly, did you not say yourself just yesterday that you also now mainly agree with what me and Socal were saying, but that it's possible it balances itself out (and you said it had between Djok and Federer) ?

I agree with the similarities but not the weak era thing. Just to re-iterate I agree with those who are miffed now that people berating the idea of 'weak eras' (or dips in standards) are now as good as saying the same things themselves although are adamant they are not.

This is not just about the threads bemoaning no youngsters as it goes deeper than that. People are bemused at a perceived lack of competition for Djokovic (and lets make it clear they aren't stating it is because he is so good at present). Also people moaning about the brand of tennis on show and several mocking Nadal as well who is world No.5 after all. So how are we to perceive tennis in the here and now? That is what I'd like to hear from them.

It was always blatantly obvious that the period from 03-06 had limited top level players. I never understood why Federer fans got so defensive about it. It still required an exceptional player to be as dominant as he was and he has proved any doubts about him by performing so well subsequently.

It looks like we may be set for another period now. These things happen in tennis, albeit I will accept its an astonishing stat that Novak is the youngest Masters winner.

Ok to try and get focus back onto this.
The clear message here is that people aren't happy that there is no "chuffing competition" for Novak right now, with little mention of it being due to his skill. There has also been a lot of complaints about the level of quality of the tennis the last year or so.

To that end, how does these views, which we are saying are fair game to talk about, are any different to situation with Federer and the rest in 04-08 ish? Which is a subject we aren't allowed to say much about with it getting fierce?

In short how can we bemoan this period, but not the other? Either competitive levels at the top fluctuate, or they dont

temporary21 wrote:Ok to try and get focus back onto this.
The clear message here is that people aren't happy that there is no "chuffing competition" for Novak right now, with little mention of it being due to his skill. There has also been a lot of complaints about the level of quality of the tennis the last year or so.

To that end, how does these views, which we are saying are fair game to talk about, are any different to situation with Federer and the rest in 04-08 ish? Which is a subject we aren't allowed to say much about with it getting fierce?

In short how can we bemoan this period, but not the other? Either competitive levels at the top fluctuate, or they dont

Nail on the head.

Bear in mind, nobodies is explicitly stating this as a means to demean, or improve a top guys achievements here, least not right now. No matter what, there is huge respect for all the dominant men of their respective eras in how good they were, and how they made their eras look poorer

temporary21 wrote:Bear in mind, nobodies is explicitly stating this as a means to demean, or improve a top guys achievements here, least not right now. No matter what, there is huge respect for all the dominant men of their respective eras in how good they were, and how they made their eras look poorer

Exactly. A World No.1 can only ever beat what is front of him be it in a slam final, Masters final or less. He'll have times when the competition is less potent and others when it is intense and that has happened down the ages in tennis whether now, or the early 2000's or early to mid-1990s.

Born Slippy wrote:It was always blatantly obvious that the period from 03-06 had limited top level players. I never understood why Federer fans got so defensive about it. It still required an exceptional player to be as dominant as he was and he has proved any doubts about him by performing so well subsequently.

It looks like we may be set for another period now. These things happen in tennis, albeit I will accept its an astonishing stat that Novak is the youngest Masters winner.

Yes the whole controversy really erupted when die hard fed fans insisted that the rollover generation were as strong as any group that only Federer kept them from blossoming, although this didn't explain how those guys quickly fell out of the top ten or twenty for most of them. You can argue that Agassi to an extent also benefitted from a bit of a weak era as well feasting on those same guys till his late 30s, the weak era probably extended his slam winning days and his career.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:If you stop saying weak era it might not be difficult to work out. Go figure.

You are the one referring to it ...not me.

How long have you posted here lk? Long enough to recall socal et al (who DOES refer to weak eras) adamant they exist and did when Federer mopped up his slams in the early to mid 2000s. That has always been his stance and was berated ferociously for that view point. Now today tennis is being slated not just for lack of youngsters coming through but other reasons I referred to earlier such as no competition for Novak - a very similar point socal made about Federer in his dominant phase. Don't you see the similarities? I never did go with this weak era talk but whatever or however you want to describe it there are similarities between now and the time when Federer dominated.

Point me to where I referred to a weak era for the IW outcome? Specifically those words.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Point me to where I referred to a weak era for the IW outcome? Specifically those words.

Again this is logical gymnastics, it's a technicality;
I've said that the word weak era should not be used, and Socal agreed with what I said on substance but added it's a poetic phrase.
You're saying the answer is 2+2, but then howling in outrage when people say '4'.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:If you stop saying weak era it might not be difficult to work out. Go figure.

You are the one referring to it ...not me.

How long have you posted here lk? Long enough to recall socal et al (who DOES refer to weak eras) adamant they exist and did when Federer mopped up his slams in the early to mid 2000s. That has always been his stance and was berated ferociously for that view point. Now today tennis is being slated not just for lack of youngsters coming through but other reasons I referred to earlier such as no competition for Novak - a very similar point socal made about Federer in his dominant phase. Don't you see the similarities? I never did go with this weak era talk but whatever or however you want to describe it there are similarities between now and the time when Federer dominated.

Point me to where I referred to a weak era for the IW outcome? Specifically those words.

Did I say you did? Read the posts yourself from Indian Wells thread. It isn't exactly glowing with praise for the tennis produced by the winner - generally speaking.

The first line in that response...

You know what, don't worry. It's like a dementia ward.

But lk you did say the following:-

Just has no BH.

Would be nice for some competition.

There is no-one. The competition has truly dried up.

I think even HMM has given up on the game!

It's a real dark place right now for the sport.

Those don't paint tennis as being in a good place right now don't you think?

legendkillarV2 wrote:The first line in that response...

You know what, don't worry. It's like a dementia ward.

By that I meant you were the one referring to it by alleging that I have used it. Like I said I have never really been one for weak eras but there are certainly fluctuations in levels - nobody I think can really deny that.