Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

[Kieran]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

Gonzo was a sniper. He was never gonna win a big final, no matter how well he played in the rounds.

Depends who he played in the final and that's the point. He ended up facing the guy who at that time was beating just about everyone. That doesn't men Gonzo wouldn't have won a slam if he faced someone other than Roger.

Brother, since 2003 there's nobody other than 3 players basically winning all the slams. The last 10 years has been thin on the ground for makeweights making the weight...

EDIT: Apologies to Muzza for his two - and then the pub quiz names who popped up singly in that time...

Yeah but you acknowledge how well Gonzo played to beat Nadal and then Haas but then lost to Federer. Surely that shows how well Fed was playing to beat an absolutely sizzlingly on fire Gonzo. Let's say Fed missed that slam and it was Nadal against Gonzo or Haas in that final. So clearly it wasn't a weak era. Roger just ended up beating all the players who were beating everyone else and that includes Roddick who had wins over Nadal during Roger's prime as I mentioned earlier (US Open R64 - a drubbing).

It sounds more like the calm before the storm, and Roger faced the calm. In his 18 slam finals, Rafa has faced Roger or Nole in 14 of them - 15 if we include this years FO semi as the final before the fact. Rafa seems to never have had it simple in his career, but sure, he's never one to complain... :nono

:lolz:

Anyway, nice looking back at guys like Gonzo. Loved his monster forehand. Some of them left divots in hard courts. And Safin's name was mentioned too. He's the great loss from that time, but I'm sure he sees it differently...

 

[Front242]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

Gonzo was a sniper. He was never gonna win a big final, no matter how well he played in the rounds.

Depends who he played in the final and that's the point. He ended up facing the guy who at that time was beating just about everyone. That doesn't men Gonzo wouldn't have won a slam if he faced someone other than Roger.

Brother, since 2003 there's nobody other than 3 players basically winning all the slams. The last 10 years has been thin on the ground for makeweights making the weight...

EDIT: Apologies to Muzza for his two - and then the pub quiz names who popped up singly in that time...

Yeah but you acknowledge how well Gonzo played to beat Nadal and then Haas but then lost to Federer. Surely that shows how well Fed was playing to beat an absolutely sizzlingly on fire Gonzo. Let's say Fed missed that slam and it was Nadal against Gonzo or Haas in that final. So clearly it wasn't a weak era. Roger just ended up beating all the players who were beating everyone else and that includes Roddick who had wins over Nadal during Roger's prime as I mentioned earlier (US Open R64 - a drubbing).

It sounds more like the calm before the storm, and Roger faced the calm. In his 18 slam finals, Rafa has faced Roger or Nole in 14 of them - 15 if we include this years FO semi as the final before the fact. Rafa seems to never have had it simple in his career, but sure, he's never one to complain... :nono

:lolz:

Anyway, nice looking back at guys like Gonzo. Loved his monster forehand. Some of them left divots in hard courts. And Safin's name was mentioned too. He's the great loss from that time, but I'm sure he sees it differently...

Gonzo's FH was unreal alright and eventhough he was miles past his prime in Wimbledon 2007 that performance from Safin against Djokovic was mighty. Re the calm and storm allusion, my point was Roger beat the guy who beat Nadal. When an all-time great gets beaten on route to a final that shows just how high the opponent's level was and I'm quite sure the score would've been the same had Gonzo played Nadal or Haas in the final of the AO '07 and that's the point. Roger didn't beat a nobody there. He lost to an on fire Safin two years prior at the AO '05 legendary semi so clearly he played tough players at that point.

 

[DarthFed]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

Gonzo was a sniper. He was never gonna win a big final, no matter how well he played in the rounds.

Depends who he played in the final and that's the point. He ended up facing the guy who at that time was beating just about everyone. That doesn't men Gonzo wouldn't have won a slam if he faced someone other than Roger.

Brother, since 2003 there's nobody other than 3 players basically winning all the slams. The last 10 years has been thin on the ground for makeweights making the weight...

EDIT: Apologies to Muzza for his two - and then the pub quiz names who popped up singly in that time...

Yeah but you acknowledge how well Gonzo played to beat Nadal and then Haas but then lost to Federer. Surely that shows how well Fed was playing to beat an absolutely sizzlingly on fire Gonzo. Let's say Fed missed that slam and it was Nadal against Gonzo or Haas in that final. So clearly it wasn't a weak era. Roger just ended up beating all the players who were beating everyone else and that includes Roddick who had wins over Nadal during Roger's prime as I mentioned earlier (US Open R64 - a drubbing).

It sounds more like the calm before the storm, and Roger faced the calm. In his 18 slam finals, Rafa has faced Roger or Nole in 14 of them - 15 if we include this years FO semi as the final before the fact. Rafa seems to never have had it simple in his career, but sure, he's never one to complain... :nono

:lolz:

Anyway, nice looking back at guys like Gonzo. Loved his monster forehand. Some of them left divots in hard courts. And Safin's name was mentioned too. He's the great loss from that time, but I'm sure he sees it differently...

Rafa and his fans are always there to complain. Can't play the "final before the fact" game or you can "credit" Roger with a lot more finals with losses in the semis (RG '05, AO '05, '08, and '11) in particular.

 

[Haelfix]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

Era's kinda wax and wane. Certain parts of Federer's era were very strong, even by today's standards. For instance, 2003 and 2004 were very strong years, but then 2006 not so much (mostly due to injuries).

I actually find a lot of the modern years relatively weak compared to say 2008 or 2004, simply b/c there hasn't been a strong presence of young players. It's basically all the old guys, still dominating the field.

No I don't think that the top ten today is better necessarily than the top 10 from before, i'd argue that players are more specialized today in the sense that the top 10 basically reflects who the best slow hardcourt players are. That there has been gradual improvement in tennis, is basically that people have refined that slow game to basically an exact science. That's why the same guys win basically every single time.

The larger variety in the old days made playing a certain style much more difficult. The miracle of Federer was that his game was so complete in so many different areas, that he could still pull off wins even when he had to play serve and volley for instance.

Arguably, a lot of the super fast court, dead ball gamestyle that the older generation knew how to play, has been lost. Its no coincidence that old Hewitt still can pull off major upsets on some of those surfaces.

 

[Kieran]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

No, we've no complaints. I mean, Rafa was only 20 in 2007. I know people think his peak began when he was 11, but give him his due. What did Roger do in Oz, aged 20? You wouldn't expect much from any 20 year old. Picking out Rafa defeats from his calf years as evidence of Gonzo or Roddick as being tough guy US Navy SEALS is not really going to give us much to go on now, is it?

 

[Front242]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

Era's kinda wax and wane. Certain parts of Federer's era were very strong, even by today's standards. For instance, 2003 and 2004 were very strong years, but then 2006 not so much (mostly due to injuries).

I actually find a lot of the modern years relatively weak compared to say 2008 or 2004, simply b/c there hasn't been a strong presence of young players. It's basically all the old guys, still dominating the field.

No I don't think that the top ten today is better necessarily than the top 10 from before, i'd argue that players are more specialized today in the sense that the top 10 basically reflects who the best slow hardcourt players are. That there has been gradual improvement in tennis, is basically that people have refined that slow game to basically an exact science. That's why the same guys win basically every single time.

The larger variety in the old days made playing a certain style much more difficult. The miracle of Federer was that his game was so complete in so many different areas, that he could still pull off wins even when he had to play serve and volley for instance.

Arguably, a lot of the super fast court, dead ball gamestyle that the older generation knew how to play, has been lost. Its no coincidence that old Hewitt still can pull off major upsets on some of those surfaces.

Great post as so many of yours always are.

 

[Front242]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

No, we've no complaints. I mean, Rafa was only 20 in 2007. I know people think his peak began when he was 11, but give him his due. What did Roger do in Oz, aged 20? You wouldn't expect much from any 20 year old. Picking out Rafa defeats from his calf years as evidence of Gonzo or Roddick as being tough guy US Navy SEALS is not really going to give us much to go on now, is it?

Only 20 and how many French Opens had he by then? He had beaten Federer already in 2004. Maybe it just shows prime Roddick was actually a formidable player, which he most definitely was.

 

[drm025]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

So it seems, a lot of people are talking about 1 or 2 AOs in particular, but that's not my point. I'm talking about the entire 4 year period. Yes, players like Gonzalez and Safin were super talented. Whoever asked me to watch the Safin vs. Federer semi in 2005 AO, I actually just watched it a week ago and it was an extremely high level match. I'm not saying that these players weren't talented, I'm saying they weren't consistent, hence the "weak era". If Safin played at that level consistently, I'm sure he would have a lot more to show for his career, same for Gonzalez, Roddick, etc.

Again, the average player that Federer beat in finals from 2004-2007 was ranked 19! In comparison, during their No. 1 years, Nadal's opponents were ranked 9 and Djokovic's ranked 6. That's a big difference, and it shows that the good players were not consistently making finals in Fed's era. And while Nadal was around, he still wasn't having much success off of clay.

Since 2008, we have had 3 all-time greats playing, with Murray being a potential fourth. Yes, the 4 of them have been dominating everything, but that doesn't make it easier for any one of them to win a huge title.

 

[drm025]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

No, we've no complaints. I mean, Rafa was only 20 in 2007. I know people think his peak began when he was 11, but give him his due. What did Roger do in Oz, aged 20? You wouldn't expect much from any 20 year old. Picking out Rafa defeats from his calf years as evidence of Gonzo or Roddick as being tough guy US Navy SEALS is not really going to give us much to go on now, is it?

Only 20 and how many French Opens had he by then? He had beaten Federer already in 2004. Maybe it just shows prime Roddick was actually a formidable player, which he most definitely was.

By what credentials was Roddick a formidable player from 2004 on? Remember we're talking from 2004-2007. Big wins here or there does not bring you greatness. It's being able to finish a tournament and take home the trophy. He could not sustain his level, it's as simple as that. And neither could Safin, Gonzalez, Nalbandian, etc. Sure, they had some brilliant matches, but if they can't sustain that, all it takes to beat them over the long haul is consistency. That's what Federer brought to the table. I still think Roger's one of the greatest players ever, I just think he dominated in a weaker era. And I think the numbers prove that, unless ranking and big tournament wins are irrelevant.

 

[shawnbm]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

Roger Federer did not dominate in a weak period. He was number one four straight years, fell to number two for 2008, then returned to be number one the following year. Only Sampras and Connors had close to that kind of dominance--and Rafa too (#2 for three straight, #1, then #2, then back to #1 in 2010). Federer was just the best all around player and when he was dominating, nobody was saying it was because there was no competition. It was because folks had not seen anything like him in many years. There was talk in 2005 that he might be the best ever and he played for years under that expectation. He has battled and won majors over Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Nadal, Murray and Djokovic.

 

[Front242]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

So it seems, a lot of people are talking about 1 or 2 AOs in particular, but that's not my point. I'm talking about the entire 4 year period. Yes, players like Gonzalez and Safin were super talented. Whoever asked me to watch the Safin vs. Federer semi in 2005 AO, I actually just watched it a week ago and it was an extremely high level match. I'm not saying that these players weren't talented, I'm saying they weren't consistent, hence the "weak era". If Safin played at that level consistently, I'm sure he would have a lot more to show for his career, same for Gonzalez, Roddick, etc.

Again, the average player that Federer beat in finals from 2004-2007 was ranked 19! In comparison, during their No. 1 years, Nadal's opponents were ranked 9 and Djokovic's ranked 6. That's a big difference, and it shows that the good players were not consistently making finals in Fed's era. And while Nadal was around, he still wasn't having much success off of clay.

Since 2008, we have had 3 all-time greats playing, with Murray being a potential fourth. Yes, the 4 of them have been dominating everything, but that doesn't make it easier for any one of them to win a huge title.

Yes, it's hard to win a slam now with the top players currently around, but while while Nadal, Djokovic and Murray weren't in their prime in 2004-2007, they still had won slams and a large amount of big wins and "weak era" is just an insulting term to those who featured in 2004-2007. They weren't weak players back then. One guy just happened to be that much better. Rather than highlighting the competition it shows how good Fed was.

 

[Front242]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

No, we've no complaints. I mean, Rafa was only 20 in 2007. I know people think his peak began when he was 11, but give him his due. What did Roger do in Oz, aged 20? You wouldn't expect much from any 20 year old. Picking out Rafa defeats from his calf years as evidence of Gonzo or Roddick as being tough guy US Navy SEALS is not really going to give us much to go on now, is it?

Only 20 and how many French Opens had he by then? He had beaten Federer already in 2004. Maybe it just shows prime Roddick was actually a formidable player, which he most definitely was.

By what credentials was Roddick a formidable player from 2004 on? Remember we're talking from 2004-2007. Big wins here or there does not bring you greatness. It's being able to finish a tournament and take home the trophy. He could not sustain his level, it's as simple as that. And neither could Safin, Gonzalez, Nalbandian, etc. Sure, they had some brilliant matches, but if they can't sustain that, all it takes to beat them over the long haul is consistency. That's what Federer brought to the table. I still think Roger's one of the greatest players ever, I just think he dominated in a weaker era. And I think the numbers prove that, unless ranking and big tournament wins are irrelevant.

Let's see..Roddick was runner up in Wimbledon 2004, 2005 and the US Open 2006. So he beat everyone else he played there and lost to the one guy we're discussing who was beating everyone. No real shame in that, and as has been pointed out, he was unlucky to have been in his prime facing the guy who was beating everyone. If it wasn't for Federer, Roddick would have 5 slams instead of one. I felt gutted for him in 2009 when he again lost to Roger in the Wimbledon final. Equally deserved the title there imo for how well he played all that tournament. But specific to the years of 2004-2006 as I pointed out above, he lost to the guy everyone was losing to. So in that respect he was very much a formidable player reaching 3 slam finals from 2004-2006.

 

[DarthFed]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

So it seems, a lot of people are talking about 1 or 2 AOs in particular, but that's not my point. I'm talking about the entire 4 year period. Yes, players like Gonzalez and Safin were super talented. Whoever asked me to watch the Safin vs. Federer semi in 2005 AO, I actually just watched it a week ago and it was an extremely high level match. I'm not saying that these players weren't talented, I'm saying they weren't consistent, hence the "weak era". If Safin played at that level consistently, I'm sure he would have a lot more to show for his career, same for Gonzalez, Roddick, etc.

Again, the average player that Federer beat in finals from 2004-2007 was ranked 19! In comparison, during their No. 1 years, Nadal's opponents were ranked 9 and Djokovic's ranked 6. That's a big difference, and it shows that the good players were not consistently making finals in Fed's era. And while Nadal was around, he still wasn't having much success off of clay.

Since 2008, we have had 3 all-time greats playing, with Murray being a potential fourth. Yes, the 4 of them have been dominating everything, but that doesn't make it easier for any one of them to win a huge title.

So we can degrade Federer for 2004-2007 and then use the past his prime/washed up version to bolster up today's competition? Murray was also an easy out in the few GS finals he reached until 2012. He was great competition...until it mattered most.

You can also look at single years of dominance on their own. In 2010 Rafa won GS finals vs. Sod, Berd and WTA serving Nole. I find his 2013 much more impressive on the competition side of things but he won 2 instead of 3, and lost to Marcy Darcy's husband in the 1st round of Wimbledon. Nadal's 2008, Djokovic's 2011 and Federer's 2007 were pretty damn good competition wise too. Djokovic did not have a dominating 2012 or 2013.

 

[drm025]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

So it seems, a lot of people are talking about 1 or 2 AOs in particular, but that's not my point. I'm talking about the entire 4 year period. Yes, players like Gonzalez and Safin were super talented. Whoever asked me to watch the Safin vs. Federer semi in 2005 AO, I actually just watched it a week ago and it was an extremely high level match. I'm not saying that these players weren't talented, I'm saying they weren't consistent, hence the "weak era". If Safin played at that level consistently, I'm sure he would have a lot more to show for his career, same for Gonzalez, Roddick, etc.

Again, the average player that Federer beat in finals from 2004-2007 was ranked 19! In comparison, during their No. 1 years, Nadal's opponents were ranked 9 and Djokovic's ranked 6. That's a big difference, and it shows that the good players were not consistently making finals in Fed's era. And while Nadal was around, he still wasn't having much success off of clay.

Since 2008, we have had 3 all-time greats playing, with Murray being a potential fourth. Yes, the 4 of them have been dominating everything, but that doesn't make it easier for any one of them to win a huge title.

Yes, it's hard to win a slam now with the top players currently around, but while while Nadal, Djokovic and Murray weren't in their prime in 2004-2007, they still had won slams and a large amount of big wins and "weak era" is just an insulting term to those who featured in 2004-2007. They weren't weak players back then. One guy just happened to be that much better. Rather than highlighting the competition it shows how good Fed was.

I didn't say the players were weak I said they were inconsistent, I don't know how you could argue that. From 2004-2007, only Nadal had won slams and they were only FOs. Nadal isn't really part of the argument either, since he had a positive head-to-head with Federer.

 

[drm025]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

No, we've no complaints. I mean, Rafa was only 20 in 2007. I know people think his peak began when he was 11, but give him his due. What did Roger do in Oz, aged 20? You wouldn't expect much from any 20 year old. Picking out Rafa defeats from his calf years as evidence of Gonzo or Roddick as being tough guy US Navy SEALS is not really going to give us much to go on now, is it?

Only 20 and how many French Opens had he by then? He had beaten Federer already in 2004. Maybe it just shows prime Roddick was actually a formidable player, which he most definitely was.

By what credentials was Roddick a formidable player from 2004 on? Remember we're talking from 2004-2007. Big wins here or there does not bring you greatness. It's being able to finish a tournament and take home the trophy. He could not sustain his level, it's as simple as that. And neither could Safin, Gonzalez, Nalbandian, etc. Sure, they had some brilliant matches, but if they can't sustain that, all it takes to beat them over the long haul is consistency. That's what Federer brought to the table. I still think Roger's one of the greatest players ever, I just think he dominated in a weaker era. And I think the numbers prove that, unless ranking and big tournament wins are irrelevant.

Let's see..Roddick was runner up in Wimbledon 2004, 2005 and the US Open 2006. So he beat everyone else he played there and lost to the one guy we're discussing who was beating everyone. No real shame in that, and as has been pointed out, he was unlucky to have been in his prime facing the guy who was beating everyone. If it wasn't for Federer, Roddick would have 5 slams instead of one. I felt gutted for him in 2009 when he again lost to Roger in the Wimbledon final. Equally deserved the title there imo for how well he played all that tournament. But specific to the years of 2004-2006 as I pointed out above, he lost to the guy everyone was losing to. So in that respect he was very much a formidable player reaching 3 slam finals from 2004-2006.

I'll use the same argument I used for Hewitt in the original post. Roddick lost to Federer in the big tournaments 9 times from 2004-2007. There were 56 big tournaments in that time. He won 2 of them, that leaves 45 big tournaments where he did not lose to Federer, i.e. Federer was not the reason Andy didn't win. I see that your focus is more on the GS's, but I think results in the Masters is just as important. Andy couldn't win those tournaments, and a majority of the time it had nothing to do with Federer.

 

[drm025]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

So it seems, a lot of people are talking about 1 or 2 AOs in particular, but that's not my point. I'm talking about the entire 4 year period. Yes, players like Gonzalez and Safin were super talented. Whoever asked me to watch the Safin vs. Federer semi in 2005 AO, I actually just watched it a week ago and it was an extremely high level match. I'm not saying that these players weren't talented, I'm saying they weren't consistent, hence the "weak era". If Safin played at that level consistently, I'm sure he would have a lot more to show for his career, same for Gonzalez, Roddick, etc.

Again, the average player that Federer beat in finals from 2004-2007 was ranked 19! In comparison, during their No. 1 years, Nadal's opponents were ranked 9 and Djokovic's ranked 6. That's a big difference, and it shows that the good players were not consistently making finals in Fed's era. And while Nadal was around, he still wasn't having much success off of clay.

Since 2008, we have had 3 all-time greats playing, with Murray being a potential fourth. Yes, the 4 of them have been dominating everything, but that doesn't make it easier for any one of them to win a huge title.

So we can degrade Federer for 2004-2007 and then use the past his prime/washed up version to bolster up today's competition? Murray was also an easy out in the few GS finals he reached until 2012. He was great competition...until it mattered most.

You can also look at single years of dominance on their own. In 2010 Rafa won GS finals vs. Sod, Berd and WTA serving Nole. I find his 2013 much more impressive on the competition side of things but he won 2 instead of 3, and lost to Marcy Darcy's husband in the 1st round of Wimbledon. Nadal's 2008, Djokovic's 2011 and Federer's 2007 were pretty damn good competition wise too. Djokovic did not have a dominating 2012 or 2013.

Never degraded Federer's play, just said his competition was weaker than it is today. That says nothing about Federer's level. I said he is definitely one of the greatest players ever. So, yes beating him is still a pretty big deal. And the other top 3 all have winning records against him since 2008. Sure, you can say his level just suddenly wasn't as good anymore after 2007, but it is what it is.

 

[Moxie]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

^ Agreed Darth that there's a risk of playing both sides, there. With respect to the OP drm025, and all the work put into sorting out the ranks of players that Federer played to win his major titles, it still comes back to an enormous effort put out to denigrate the achievement, which I don't really get. Britbox likes to remind us, when folks talk about Roger's consecutive QF record in Slams that it only demonstrates consistency, which isn't a goal, in and of itself. However, here I think it's germane. In some of the earlier years of his dominance, players like Safin and Nalbandian weren't as consistent. Roger was always there, against all comers, and plenty of them were formidable in their own ways. He got them all, most of the time, even in their variety of styles and on all surfaces. In this "weak era" conversation, does it occur to no one that playing a lot of different players/styles all the time might be as difficult as facing the same players over and over, even if it's at a high level? Players such as Nalby and Safin could float around like land mines in weird parts of the draw.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

Average Ranking of Opponent:
Federer (2004-2007) QFs and after: 26, SFs and after: 22, All Finals: 18, Won Finals: 19
Nadal (2008,2010,2013*) QFs and after: 21, SFs and after: 15, All Finals: 8, Won Finals: 9
Djokovic (2011, 2012) QFs and after: 15, SFs and after: 9, All Finals: 5, Won Finals: 6

*Disregard opponents from Vina del Mar and Sao Paulo in 2013, as these are tournaments he played only due to the 7-month absence from the game (neither Djokovic nor Federer went through this)

This is the age old "asterisk" argument which is widely considered to be a bad argument.
One can only beat the opponent across the net. It is not Fed's fault if his opponent is
not ranked high enough for your taste.

Actually, it is ever worse than asterisk argument, as you are talking about "Weak Era".
So, did Murray win Wimbledon in a "Weak two week period" just because he did not have
to face Federer or Nadal. The fact that Federer and Nadal were part of the field, makes
the field strong. Or did Bartoli win in a weak field as she did not have to face Serena?

The same argument applies to Fed's wins. If he is winning against #19 in Final,
is it because #2 through #18 were taking carribean cruise and so not participating
or is it because they got kicked out by other players?

A field is weak if the average rank of all the players in the field is unusally large.
That will happen extremely rarely (when many players choose to skip the event for
one reason or another).

For example, if you look at the field of Doha and Brisbane 2014, you can clearly
say that Brisbane is a weaker field as the average rank of players participating in it
is much higher than the average rank of players participating in Doha.

Of course, when you are talking about events like GF or ATP 1000, all the players
(barring a few) participate. So, when you are comparing two GF from two different
eras, the only way you can say that one field is weaker than other if the average
rank of the field in one GF is substantially higher than in another GF. Actually,
even this figure can be misleading in some cases (for example UK trying to give
wild cards to british players only to find that their best is ranked 1456784534
and still handing it to them). So, one should take average of only regular
entry players' rankings. If you do that, you will see that the average ranking
does not vary much at all from GF to Gf or even from era to era.

Now, you might say, it all looks theoretical and surely some era is stronger
than other era. But, it is really a perception and not an objective reality.

Say in ERA 1, two players dominate and win every event. You could say
each player gave tough competition to the other player and so it is strong era.
You could also say, no other player besides these two won anything and
therefore all other players sucked and therefore it is a weak era.

If you are talking about another ERA 2, where all events are won by different
players, you could say that this era is so strong that no one could win more than
once. Alternatively, you could say this era is so weak as it did not have any
dominant player.

It all depnds on how you want to spin. We know how you want to spin.
What you fail to realize is that other people can spin the same facts
equally well and reach the opposite conclusion.

 

[drm025]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

Roger was always there, against all comers, and plenty of them were formidable in their own ways.

In what ways were they formidable? They were very talented, and won some big matches, sure. But they weren't able to bring in the trophies, again not solely because of Roger Federer, but because of their inconsistencies. Today's top players are talented, have big match wins, and can actually win big tournaments. That is the difference! Why are the all-time greats the ones that win a lot of tournaments? Because its not enough to be talented and put together good matches here and there. Safin, Roddick, Nalbandian, and Davydenko, are not regarded as highly as Djokovic, Nadal, and even Murray, and rightly so.

 

[britbox]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

Another glaring issue is that the stats don't take into account losses or provide context.

For instance, Federer would be penalised on those statistics for beating 86 ranked Marat Safin in the final of the AO in 2004. Safin had been out for the best part of a year with injury which saw his ranking plummet. Nobody can seriously suggest he was the 86th best player in the world. He was really Top 5 and finished the Year there.

Also, Nadal's loss to Darcis would not feature at all in the stats.

So in short, Federer winning the AO beating Safin would be regarded as a worst result than losing to Darcis in the first round of Wimbledon as a contribution to the stats.