Early Years of "Generation Federer" (early 00s) - a question

[El Dude]

I didn't follow tennis very closely back then, in the early 2000s, so have a question for those who did. But first, I want to set the stage.

By the time we get to 2000, the great strongly American generation that dominated the 90s - let by Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi, but also Jim Courier, Michael Chang, as well as lesser luminaries like Goran Ivanisevic, Patrick Rafter, and Sergi Bruguera - was fading. Sampras and Agassi were still elite, but 24-year old Gustavo Kuerten took the #1 ranking, the leader of a weak generation in its prime. But 2000 was also the year that a new young group began to emerge: with 20-year olds Marat Safin and Juan Carlos Ferrero, and 19-year old Lleyton Hewitt, all finishing in the top 20 - and Safin even winning a Slam and being #1 for a short time.

The next few years saw other talented young players emerge: Roger Federer and Andy Roddick joined the top 20 in 2001, and David Nalbandian in 2002, along with several others. While Safin was the first to win a Slam, Hewitt was the first to reign as #1 for an extended period of time.

2000-03 were the earlier years of this generation's reign, but it wasn't until 2004 that one player emerged to dominate the group, and in a way that a player hadn't dominated his own generation since Bjorn Borg in the 70s.

If you dial back to as late as the beginning of 2004, it doesn't seem clear who will emerge to lead the pack - at least looking at the record. Consider that the the beginning of 2004, Hewitt was the only player of that group to have 2 Slams, with Federer, Roddick, Ferrero, and Safin all a Slam each. Yet a year later, all of a sudden Federer has 4 total and is clearly the top player of the generation.

So here's my question, which has several parts: At what point did many/most people start suspecting that Roger would be the best of the group? And at what point was it generally agreed? I have no idea about the first, but I'm guessing that by the time Roger won Wimbledon in 2004, his second of the year and third overall, he was really starting to separate himself from the pack. But even then, going into 2005, I'm wondering if people were expecting Safin or Hewitt or Roddick, or even Nalbandian, to surge and start winning more Slams. Certainly Safin winning the Australian Open probably sparked re-interest in the talented Russian. But when Roger won Wimbledon and the US Open, I'm guessing it was rather clear that he was the best of his group and that this wasn't going to change (Interestingly enough, it wasn't a member of Roger's generation who would emerge as a second superstar, but a Mallorcan teenager from the younger generation).

So look back...do you remember when people started to talk about Roger as the best of his generation? And at what point did that become crystal clear? In those early years, 2000-03, but also 2004 and into early 2005, was it expected that one or more of the other members of that generation going to challenge Roger?

 

[Fiero425]

It got to be monotonous and boring to hear the same refrain from all the sports' shows; "Roger's the GOAT"! It started as a question, but after 3 seasons winning 3 majors by 2007, he was a done deal; even if something happened and he left the sport before breaking Sampras major record! No one had dominated like that; even Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, & Sampras at the height of their powers! Roger really only had 1 challenger and it was rationalized that it was due to advantage Nadal had on clay for the most part! I stopped watching as much and concentrated on the women's game with the return of Hingis and the domination of Henin! :clap :angel: :dodgy: - - - Nole Blog - - -

 

[El Dude]

Fiero, I think you are right that the GOAT talk really heated up in 2007, but that's not quite what I'm talking about. Rather, I'm wondering at what point the talk of him being the best of his cohort really started, and when it became a done deal. Consider the career total Slam titles:

18: Federer
2: Safin, Hewitt
1: Roddick, Ferrero

But at the end of 2003, it was:
2: Hewitt
1: Roddick, Ferrero, Safin, Federer
0 (but with Slam-winning potential): Nalbandian, Coria, eventually Davydenko

If you look at those Slams in 2003, you'd think the generation's Slams would be more evenly distributed, but the group outside of Federer would win only one more Slam, Safin in 2005. So I'm just interested when people started to realize how dominant Roger would be over his peers as it certainly wasn't clear after 2003, at least based upon the record.

 

[Haelfix]

Everyone expected more slams from Roddick, Hewitt, Safin and Nalbandian, that much was obvious. Going back a few years before, the belief was that Rios, Coria, Haas and Kuerten would also win a lot more than they did. Contrary to popular beilief, they were really all excellent tennis players, that peaked early and had huge crashes while still young.

Now some people saw Roger as the next Sampras quite early in his career. I personally didn't. He started to really impress me with his game and talent only in 2002 and of course when he won Wimbledon in 2003, but it wasn't until 2004 where his game just came together and where it was hard not to wonder if tennis had ever been played at such a high level.

By late 2004 the belief was that only a throwback match from Agassi, or the talent of Safin/Nalbandian could beat him in a slam other than the French. Roddick and Hewitt were being soundly trounced and the rest of the tour wasn't even getting close.

 

[Kieran]

I remember watching Wimbo 2003, and a lot of commentators thought it would be a parade for Roddick, who was brash, American, handsome, and seemed like the leader of a new bunch of potentially great players. Then Federer exposed Roddick painfully in the semis, and the gushing crossed over to the other side of the net. Roddick recovered and had a great summers hards, while Roger adjusted to his breakthrough, but once 2004 began, and I think Roger had fired his Swedish coach, Roddick was beginning to feel stretched. He did well in 2004, but he was never going to be the great player people presumed he'd be. He bashed the ball a bit, but was about a subtle as a New York Irish cop beating a bum a huge bully club.

The field was essentially left clear for Federer, without a viable rival until a young kid from Mallorca came along. And boy, did Federer make hay. By the way, I mark Hewitt's demise to the date when he fired Darren Cahill - at the behest of his dad, I think - and was never a strong contender at slams afterwards...

 

[El Dude]

Everyone expected more slams from Roddick, Hewitt, Safin and Nalbandian, that much was obvious. Going back a few years before, the belief was that Rios, Coria, Haas and Kuerten would also win a lot more than they did. Contrary to popular beilief, they were really all excellent tennis players, that peaked early and had huge crashes while still young.

Now some people saw Roger as the next Sampras quite early in his career. I personally didn't. He started to really impress me with his game and talent only in 2002 and of course when he won Wimbledon in 2003, but it wasn't until 2004 where his game just came together and where it was hard not to wonder if tennis had ever been played at such a high level.

By late 2004 the belief was that only a throwback match from Agassi, or the talent of Safin/Nalbandian could beat him in a slam other than the French. Roddick and Hewitt were being soundly trounced and the rest of the tour wasn't even getting close.

Thanks, Haelfix, that's exactly the type of response I was hoping to get. Very interesting.

I'm wondering, after Roger didn't win the first two Slams in 2005, was there a sense that 2004 would be a one-off, and others would close the gap?

 

[Haelfix]

I think the belief was that this would go on for awhile. People usually didn't mantain dominance for that long in the old days, but 2004 was very much the beginning and so people expected more of the same in 2005. Rogers generation was filled with very talented players, and the tour was quite young and up and coming. The problem for many of them was that they had major matchup problems with him. People like Davydenko or Blake, who could easily hold their own against almost anyone, were
completely neutralized against Roger. In many ways Federer was lucky that he had so many favorable matchups against otherwise great players.

Still it was obvious that he was many levels above everyone else from a quality standpoint and only Nalby/Safin were viewed as legitimate rivals (they also didn't have the same matchup issues as other players and rallies were far less one sided). And yea it was like this for 3-4 more years until Roger fell out of his prime and Rafa/Novak/Murray emerged on hards/grass. He rarely was contested much by anyone in his prime, other than Rafa on clay and a few Nalbandian/Agassi/Safin matches. I don't think we've ever seen quite that level of dominance before or since.. the sort of inevitability of the outcomes of matches. So were people expecting a clean sweep? No, not like he did, but I think most people knew he was going to win a bundle of slams in a hurry.

The only comparable thing would be people's expectations for Rafa on clay. Where there was basically no hope for anyone, until Djokovic came into his prime.

 

[El Dude]

I would also add Novak in 2015 until mid-2016. By the time we got to 2016, it seemed impossible that he would ever lose again.

Anyhow, what you say furthers my view that the so-called "Weak Era Theory" is just fallacious, or at least it is a chicken-egg thing. Roger's generation was not actually weak, but filled with many talented players who were dominated by their best peer (and I find it interesting that you say that another weak generation, the one before, was actually filled with a lot of talented but under-performing players).

I suppose all eras have their under-performers, but the late 90s to early 00s seem to have an especially large group of players who fall into the "what could have been" category. I would say Marcelo Rios, Marat Safin, and David Nalbandian in particular, although also Tommy Haas and several others.

 

[Busted]

I didn't follow tennis very closely back then, in the early 2000s, so have a question for those who did. But first, I want to set the stage.

By the time we get to 2000, the great strongly American generation that dominated the 90s - let by Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi, but also Jim Courier, Michael Chang, as well as lesser luminaries like Goran Ivanisevic, Patrick Rafter, and Sergi Bruguera - was fading. Sampras and Agassi were still elite, but 24-year old Gustavo Kuerten took the #1 ranking, the leader of a weak generation in its prime. But 2000 was also the year that a new young group began to emerge: with 20-year olds Marat Safin and Juan Carlos Ferrero, and 19-year old Lleyton Hewitt, all finishing in the top 20 - and Safin even winning a Slam and being #1 for a short time.

The next few years saw other talented young players emerge: Roger Federer and Andy Roddick joined the top 20 in 2001, and David Nalbandian in 2002, along with several others. While Safin was the first to win a Slam, Hewitt was the first to reign as #1 for an extended period of time.

2000-03 were the earlier years of this generation's reign, but it wasn't until 2004 that one player emerged to dominate the group, and in a way that a player hadn't dominated his own generation since Bjorn Borg in the 70s.

If you dial back to as late as the beginning of 2004, it doesn't seem clear who will emerge to lead the pack - at least looking at the record. Consider that the the beginning of 2004, Hewitt was the only player of that group to have 2 Slams, with Federer, Roddick, Ferrero, and Safin all a Slam each. Yet a year later, all of a sudden Federer has 4 total and is clearly the top player of the generation.

So here's my question, which has several parts: At what point did many/most people start suspecting that Roger would be the best of the group? And at what point was it generally agreed? I have no idea about the first, but I'm guessing that by the time Roger won Wimbledon in 2004, his second of the year and third overall, he was really starting to separate himself from the pack. But even then, going into 2005, I'm wondering if people were expecting Safin or Hewitt or Roddick, or even Nalbandian, to surge and start winning more Slams. Certainly Safin winning the Australian Open probably sparked re-interest in the talented Russian. But when Roger won Wimbledon and the US Open, I'm guessing it was rather clear that he was the best of his group and that this wasn't going to change (Interestingly enough, it wasn't a member of Roger's generation who would emerge as a second superstar, but a Mallorcan teenager from the younger generation).

So look back...do you remember when people started to talk about Roger as the best of his generation? And at what point did that become crystal clear? In those early years, 2000-03, but also 2004 and into early 2005, was it expected that one or more of the other members of that generation going to challenge Roger?

At what point did many/most people start suspecting that Roger would be the best of the group? And at what point was it generally agreed?

I was following both the men and women's tours pretty closely at that time. I think it was pretty much decided in 2001 when he beat Sampras that Roger was Neo - The One. All the experts thought Federer had finally "arrived." When he lost in the next round and then didn't win a Slam the next year they all started to question his head but not his talent. As Federer put it maybe the others his age (Hewitt, Safin, Roddick) were more mature or "fully grown" and more confident. He was still searching for his comfort zone and trying to center his mind. But everybody knew - if he ever got that right the rest of them were toast. The exception to that was probably Safin though because everybody thought he was almost as talented as Federer. But, we all know Marat's a free spirit, ie head case. LOL!

If you want to take that a bit further, then I'd say by the time he won the US Open in 2004 everybody knew it was going to take someone special to dislodge him at number one. Now, I know everybody loves to say that was a "weak era" but the reality is - the guys Roger had to play week in and week out were better than the wannabes of Djokovic/Nadal/Murray's era and the guys who are 3-5 years younger. Nishikori, Raonic, Berdych, Monfils, Tsonga, Cilic and DelPo (even though they both have a Slam), Gasquet, Isner, etc. At least Roger's competition had won Slams - Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Ferrero, Agassi, Moya, Johansson, Gaudio - all Slam winners before Federer started dominating. And that doesn't even include guys like Davydenko, Nalbandian, Soderling, Fenando Gonzalez, James Blake, Mardy Fish, Tim Henman, Coria, Robredo, Ljubicic, Ferrer, and Haas. Just because he beat them all it doesn't mean they were mediocre players. I'd take any of these guys over the competition the "Big Four" have had the last 8-9 years.

Also, I've purposefully left Wawrinka out of this because really - nobody ever picked him to win Slams. They all thought he was Top 10 but couldn't hold it together mentally long enough to put 7 straight matches together. And as we see from his results the last 3-4 years - he's really NOT much of a factor week-to week or even at every Slam.

So to say Federer's early years was a "weak era" is disingenuous. If you look at Nadal's competition - it's been Federer, Djokovic and Murray. If you look at Djokovic's competition it's been Federer, Nadal and Murray. At least 12-13 years ago Roger had a lot more players who were capable of competing with him and making him earn his Slams. And if you look at it logically - Roger is 5-6 years older than Nadal, Djokovic and Murray. That's literally another generation in tennis terms, so why is he still in the mix and not someone in their own age group? Because he's THE ONE.

A quick anecdote - During this year's AO, Darren Cahill was commentating for ESPN and told a story about the 2003 Masters Cup. Federer barely won his RR against Agassi 6-7, 6-3, 7-6 (7). It was the first time he'd ever beaten Agassi. Five days later he played Agassi in the final and thumped himi 6-3, 6-0, 6-4. Cahill said he went into the locker room after the match and expected to find Agassi depressed about his loss. Instead he said Agassi was smiling and when he asked him why he said Agassi said, "This guy is going to change our game." Agassi went on to lose their last 8 matches after winning their first 3. So there ya go...Agassi knew it in November 2003.

Also, if you want to take a closer look at that era you should watch the docu Facing Federer about the 2004 Masters Cup - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfpLBr9kOYQ. And remember this was before he REALLY started to dominate. This was year 1 of a 3 year stretch when he was all but untouchable. The competition wasn't that "weak" - Federer was just that good.

 

[El Dude]

Great post, Busted - love the Agassi anecdote and will watch that video later.

I also agree that the "Weak Era Theory" is, well, weak and doesn't hold up to deeper scrutiny. That said, I don't think the last 8-9 years were weaker, just different in terms of how the talent pooled. In the Rafa-Novak era (which we could say began in 2010), the talent was more pooled at the top, with the second tier weaker than Roger's generation.

I would also say that the Rafa-Novak generation looks stronger than it actually is because the generation after it is the weakest in Open Era history. But like Roger's relative dominance over his peers, it is a chicken-egg thing: It is hard to separate out the weakness of the group born in 1989-94ish from the strength of the players born 1984-88ish. They go together, and impact each other.

 

[Busted]

Great post, Busted - love the Agassi anecdote and will watch that video later.

I also agree that the "Weak Era Theory" is, well, weak and doesn't hold up to deeper scrutiny. That said, I don't think the last 8-9 years were weaker, just different in terms of how the talent pooled. In the Rafa-Novak era (which we could say began in 2010), the talent was more pooled at the top, with the second tier weaker than Roger's generation.

I would also say that the Rafa-Novak generation looks stronger than it actually is because the generation after it is the weakest in Open Era history. But like Roger's relative dominance over his peers, it is a chicken-egg thing: It is hard to separate out the weakness of the group born in 1989-94ish from the strength of the players born 1984-88ish. They go together, and impact each other.

I've thought about this about - the theory of Roger's "weak era" vs. today's players. Beyond "The Big Four" + Stan - who's really a threat at a Slam on a consistent basis? Nobody. For instance - last yea'rs Wimbledon SF between Roger & Raonic - if Roger hadn't been injured, had played his regular schedule and had his normal Wimbledon preparation and training - do you think Raonic would have won that match? Under normal circumstance - do you see Roger double-faulting and having to play a tie-breaker in the 4th, losing it and going to a 5th set - against Raonic? No way, no how. Against Safin in 2004-2005? Maybe...but Raonic? No.

Don't even get me started on the players ranked 6-20 right now. If had to imagine say -2005-era Safin, Roddick or Hewitt vs. Raonic, Cilic, Stan (yes, Stan, too), Berdych, Nishikori, Tsonga? I think those guys would have done very well against these players at this time in tennis history. Heck, I think even 33-35 year-old Andre Agassi would have those guys for a snack - they're not even a full meal. I think even Davydenko, Nalbandian, Soderling, Blake and Fish would fare well against these current players. Maybe not Henman though because he was a serve & volley player with not much of a baseline/power game.

 

[Haelfix]

I suppose all eras have their under-performers, but the late 90s to early 00s seem to have an especially large group of players who fall into the "what could have been" category. I would say Marcelo Rios, Marat Safin, and David Nalbandian in particular, although also Tommy Haas and several others.

Rogers generation was definitely not weak. That argument was always absurd, and you could simply eye test it. I mean players like Safin, years out of his prime was able to straight set Djokovic at Wimbledon a few months after Novak had won the AO. E.g. He was more than capable of holding his own against the best young players of the future.

Now the generation five years before Roger is more suspect. You can make an argument about mediocrity there, even if I don't quite agree. Instead I think it was the case that a lot of them peaked early and faded early, and a lot of them had big injury worries. I mean, a player like Gustavo Kuerten was a phenomenal tennisman, in every sense of the word. He would have likely been competiting with Rafa for FOs well into the 2010s as he was a fundamentally better claycourter than say Roger.

The loss of that generation tainted the early 2ks and that's where the idea of a weak gen originally started. So yes, there was a vacuum for a year or two from 2001-2002, but the competition quickly ramped back into high levels again by say 2003. It actually went down again in late 06 bc of multiple injuries but was back to being high levels from 2007 onwards, at least until 2009 where so many of Rogers generation fell off a cliff, leaving the quasi monopoly on tennis by the big four.

 

[backhandslapper]

I had a hunch after the AO 2004. His game was already flawless, BUT also; the best of his contemporaries besides maybe Roddick entered the jam phase of their careers.

Safin on his mental rollercoaster ride (it was obvious tennis was just a means to him).

Hewitt returning from his ATP break (one suspected he would never return to his best)

Ferrero struggling with those nagging little injuries everywhere (he began giving the glass man vibe).

Roddick not all that great.

These guys were not a weak era as far as talent goes. They all just peaked too early for various reasons, and only in Roddick's case, I felt the reason was solely Federer. Meanwhile Roger had to wait for his turn and you could tell he was hungry for success. If anyone hoped he would get satiated after a couple of Grand Slams, I think their hopes died right after the rain break at Wimbledon in 2004.

The final nail of the coffin took place at the US Open 2004.

Hewitt looked pretty good advancing to the final, he looked driven to return on top and he still led the H2H against Federer -- only to get annihilated in the actual match.

From then on, Federer was in everyone's head for years to come. (¿Que paso?)

 

[backhandslapper]

Rogers generation was definitely not weak. That argument was always absurd, and you could simply eye test it.

If Roddick is the number two player in the world for years, those years are definitely not loaded, any way you slice it. And if the field is so strong that a nineteen-year-old can establish himself as the undisputed and sovereign number two, then we can definitely talk about a weak era even if the nineteen-year-old is Nadal.

It didn't have to do as much with talent as it did with health and personal issues of his contemporaries, but Federer did enjoy an unprecedented freeway. That's pretty commonsense.

 

[Ricardo]

If Roddick is the number two player in the world for years, those years are definitely not loaded, any way you slice it. And if the field is so strong that a nineteen-year-old can establish himself as the undisputed and sovereign number two, then we can definitely talk about a weak era even if the nineteen-year-old is Nadal.

It didn't have to do as much with talent as it did with health and personal issues of his contemporaries, but Federer did enjoy an unprecedented freeway. That's pretty commonsense.

Roddick was #2 for years, how long exactly was that? and 19 yo Nadal was #2 meant evidence of a weak era? sure, Roddick past his prime still was able to beat Novak at AO yeah he must be weak. 19 yo Nadal won everything on clay and that alone was gonna give anyone enough points to have #2 ranking, and i don't think anyone would debate that Nadal would dominate clay in any era....put simply, he would reach #2 in any era given how he just dominates clay events.

Sorry there isn't a single common sense in your post.

 

[britbox]

If Roddick is the number two player in the world for years, those years are definitely not loaded, any way you slice it. And if the field is so strong that a nineteen-year-old can establish himself as the undisputed and sovereign number two, then we can definitely talk about a weak era even if the nineteen-year-old is Nadal.

It didn't have to do as much with talent as it did with health and personal issues of his contemporaries, but Federer did enjoy an unprecedented freeway. That's pretty commonsense.

Roddick was #2 for 52 weeks.

 

[backhandslapper]

Roddick was #2 for years, how long exactly was that? and 19 yo Nadal was #2 meant evidence of a weak era? sure, Roddick past his prime still was able to beat Novak at AO yeah he must be weak. 19 yo Nadal won everything on clay and that alone was gonna give anyone enough points to have #2 ranking, and i don't think anyone would debate that Nadal would dominate clay in any era....put simply, he would reach #2 in any era given how he just dominates clay events.

Sorry there isn't a single common sense in your post.

The Roddick '09 was the best Roddick since 2005, meanwhile Djokovic that same year was not the Djokovic who would later break some records. Aberration / exception to the rule never makes for a good argument. Quite the opposite.

As for the bolded, eh...

Throw in a healthy Kuerten and you can bet Nadal would not have enjoyed such a huge clay success at that age.

Again, the weak era is not an argument. It's a fact. If you can't see a big difference between Davydenko, an injury-riddled bunch of Nalbandian, Hewitt, Ferrero and -- on the other hand -- Djokovic, Murray or Nadal, words will do little here.

52 weeks at number 2 for Roddick. My bad, but it only shows: As a number one, Federer was being chased by his actual contemporary for a mere 52 weeks after which, Roddick was (probably) surpassed by a nineteen-year-old (who -- on his preferred surface -- enjoyed just as quiet and harmless opposition as Federer).

I wasn't arguing. I was telling. My mind is made up on this, because I don't approach this as a fan of any particular player, rather as a fan of the sport.

 

[britbox]

I vaguely recall Sampras tabbed Hewitt as the future dominant #1 back in the day.

The race to #1 between Roddick, Ferrero and Federer seemed far from weak at the time. It was a new era with young bucks chewing at the bit. Federer put some space between himself and the rest in 2004... Everyone knew he was special... he just started transforming the talent into results. Safin's return from injury in 04 was exciting, culminating in that classic AO Semi (05)... Nalbandian had Federer's number for a while (as did Hewitt)... all rivalries turned around.

It gets called weak in hindsight... but I don't remember it being thought of that at the time at all... it seemed loaded. Federer was just the dominant force that emerged from the pack. Nadal arrived... not sure Kuerten would have had the answers for him to be honest. Coria was supposed to be the upcoming clay beast before Nadal supplanted him in no time at all.

Djokovic is a huge talent in his own right, but I think Federer and Nadal pushed him to that level. I don't think Murray would have made a dent in Federer's spoils if you used a time machine and put him back in that era. Old man Federer solved Murray in Murray's own era.

 

[backhandslapper]

I vaguely recall Sampras tabbed Hewitt as the future dominant #1 back in the day.

The race to #1 between Roddick, Ferrero and Federer seemed far from weak at the time. It was a new era with young bucks chewing at the bit. Federer put some space between himself and the rest in 2004... Everyone knew he was special... he just started transforming the talent into results. Safin's return from injury in 04 was exciting, culminating in that classic AO Semi (05)... Nalbandian had Federer's number for a while (as did Hewitt)... all rivalries turned around.

It gets called weak in hindsight... but I don't remember it being thought of that at the time at all... it seemed loaded. Federer was just the dominant force that emerged from the pack. Nadal arrived... not sure Kuerten would have had the answers for him to be honest. Coria was supposed to be the upcoming clay beast before Nadal supplanted him in no time at all.

Djokovic is a huge talent in his own right, but I think Federer and Nadal pushed him to that level. I don't think Murray would have made a dent in Federer's spoils if you used a time machine and put him back in that era. Old man Federer solved Murray in Murray's own era.

After Hewitt blew 2003, whoever won a GS title ended up a number one. It was vacant. The difference for Federer being, by 2004/2005, most of his contemporaries were past it. Injuries, lack of motivation, whatever. Read my first post. The era was not weak because of the lack of talent (no coincidence Marat, Lleyton, JC and even Ady made it before Roger), but because of health and personal issues. Nonetheless, it really was getting weak just as Roger's butt landed on the throne. Part of it was Federer finally making the most of his talent. Part of it was the best men being idle / struggling to find their form.

And man, was it boring too. Roger's dominance was perhaps the most boring era I have ever watched.

EDIT: Coria went pffft real quick. I would have definitely put my money and / or pride on Guga rather than Coria against Nadal.

It's interesting how people anoint Nadal as an unbeatable clay savant now, when back then, a lot of people thought he was just a one trick pony who thrived on shock factor, benefitted from the lack of quality clay competition and was gonna get owned by Feds at the FO either in 06 or 07 -- or later. Because that's how I remember it. Plenty of people didn't think Nadal was anything but a niche curiosity that will last only a couple of years before injuries take their toll and the rest of guys figure him out.

 

[britbox]

Yeah, sure. 23 year old Hewitt, 24 year old Safin, 22 year old Roddick, 24 year old Ferrero, 23 year old Nalbandian were all way past their best. Federer was so lucky to get these old burnt out relics.