Mens' tennis is in its best shape in years if not decades [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Mens' tennis is in its best shape in years if not decades

Henry Kaspar
01-27-2009, 02:15 PM
It has been a long time that a grand tournament made me await almost any match from the 4th round with excitement.

With the great champions Federer (who, fortunately, has not lost it)and Nadal, the dangerous Djokovic, the "old" battle horse Roddick, and aspiring and capable players like Murray, Tsonga, Simon, del Potro (yes, he got a lesson today), mens' tennis is in the best shape in years, if not decades. The last time the field was so full of exciting and competitive characters was in the late 80s/ early 90s (old Lendl, Becker, Edberg, young Agassi, Courier, young Sampras, Stich, Ivanisevic, young Chang).

Enjoy as long as it lasts (unfortunately ladies' tennis is not in good shape).

Quadruple Tree
01-27-2009, 02:22 PM
The top 4 are good but after that there is a serious lack of talent. When a guy like Del Potro is top 5 material that tells something about the quality of the field. I cannot imagine a player so one dimensional being so highly ranked in the 80's or 90's.

Action Jackson
01-27-2009, 02:26 PM
The top 4 are good but after that there is a serious lack of talent. When a guy like Del Potro is top 5 material that tells something about the quality of the field. I cannot imagine a player so one dimensional being so highly ranked in the 80's or 90's.

Roddick and Ivanisevic have done it, when it comes to one dimensional players. Ferrero made #1, it just depends on the dimension.

This is far from a golden age in tennis, but every era is a clown era.

duong
01-27-2009, 02:29 PM
Imo it's the best period since the beginning of the 80s,
better than the beginning of the 90s which was also great.

GlennMirnyi
01-27-2009, 02:45 PM
Bullshit.

Tennis is going down the drain, and fast.

2 QFs = 1 retirement and 1 obliteration.

The other 2 QFs are full of mug players and the only world-class player is injured.

Awesome stuff.

Commander Data
01-27-2009, 02:49 PM
It has been a long time that a grand tournament made me await almost any match from the 4th round with excitement.

With the great champions Federer (who, fortunately, has not lost it)and Nadal, the dangerous Djokovic, the "old" battle horse Roddick, and aspiring and capable players like Murray, Tsonga, Simon, del Potro (yes, he got a lesson today), mens' tennis is in the best shape in years, if not decades. The last time the field was so full of exciting and competitive characters was in the late 80s/ early 90s (old Lendl, Becker, Edberg, young Agassi, Courier, young Sampras, Stich, Ivanisevic, young Chang).

Enjoy as long as it lasts (unfortunately ladies' tennis is not in good shape).

Yup I agree 100 % with you. don't listen the the sour grapes. There will always be people that think yesterday was better then today. Usually they are over 60 years old and prepare for death.

...But in MTF this rule seems not to hold....

Quadruple Tree
01-27-2009, 02:54 PM
And the people who think today is always the best are usually teenagers that never had the chance to see the greats of yesterday except on youtube highlights. See I can do sweeping generalizations, too.

Henry Kaspar
01-27-2009, 03:06 PM
The top 4 are good but after that there is a serious lack of talent. When a guy like Del Potro is top 5 material that tells something about the quality of the field. I cannot imagine a player so one dimensional being so highly ranked in the 80's or 90's.

There are always del Potros who do nothing brilliantly but who are competent, consistent and competitive and go further than one would expect. The early 90s also had Muster or Courier, for example.

And for my part I do not see a "serious lack of potential" below the top 4. Certainly Tsonga and Monfils are very talented, Gulbis has potential, Simon as well. They should keep tennis interesting in the coming years.

duong
01-27-2009, 03:07 PM
And the people who think today is always the best are usually teenagers that never had the chance to see the greats of yesterday except on youtube highlights. See I can do sweeping generalizations, too.

I'm 38 and have watched tennis since the beginning of the 80's.

Tennis is played with very different styles according to the generations, which people might like or not.

But I can see when you have 4 very greats and 10 very good.
It's not so often.

Action Jackson
01-27-2009, 03:13 PM
And the people who think today is always the best are usually teenagers that never had the chance to see the greats of yesterday except on youtube highlights. See I can do sweeping generalizations, too.

Yes, and most can't tell their forehand from their forehead.

Caio_Brasil
01-27-2009, 03:13 PM
Bullshit.

Tennis is going down the drain, and fast.

2 QFs = 1 retirement and 1 obliteration.

The other 2 QFs are full of mug players and the only world-class player is injured.

Awesome stuff.

Who is him?

GlennMirnyi
01-27-2009, 03:15 PM
Who is him?

Tsonga?

GlennMirnyi
01-27-2009, 03:17 PM
I'm 38 and have watched tennis since the beginning of the 80's.

Tennis is played with very different styles according to the generations, which people might like or not.

But I can see when you have 4 very greats and 10 very good.
It's not so often.

4 very greats? Nah.

4 greats would be like putting McEnroe, Sampras, Connors and Lendl in the same era. We have nothing like that.

And if you think that every player playing the exact same game on all tournaments the year round is good...

MalwareDie
01-27-2009, 03:18 PM
I have not watched tennis for very long, but tennis can't be in great shape. It's just pathetic seeing tennis ruled by mediocre players and a number one ranked player that has not made a final in nearly 6 months. I hear about the slowing down of the courts so that there is less variety and stupid moonballers have a chance to win slams other than Roland Garros.

Henry Kaspar
01-27-2009, 03:19 PM
I have not watched tennis for very long,

That's understood.

Caio_Brasil
01-27-2009, 03:24 PM
Tsonga?

I don't know, you tell me :lol:

JolánGagó
01-27-2009, 03:25 PM
I have not watched tennis for very long, but tennis can't be in great shape. It's just pathetic seeing tennis ruled by mediocre players and a number one ranked player that has not made a final in nearly 6 months. I hear of the slowing down of the courts so that there is less variety and stupid moonballers have a chance to win slams other than Roland Garros.

Are you insane or just bad digestion?

This thread is ripe for hardcore shameless trolling despite the probably legit intentions of its starter. Only reason there hasn't been much yet is the whole GM seems to be trolling at the same time in every thread. Even though it has already been declared here that Tsonga is the only world-class player in AO QF :lol:

GlennMirnyi
01-27-2009, 03:27 PM
I have not watched tennis for very long, but tennis can't be in great shape. It's just pathetic seeing tennis ruled by mediocre players and a number one ranked player that has not made a final in nearly 6 months. I hear about the slowing down of the courts so that there is less variety and stupid moonballers have a chance to win slams other than Roland Garros.

Exactly.

That's understood.

You must have started 2 months ago then.

I don't know, you tell me :lol:

Am I? ;)

GlennMirnyi
01-27-2009, 03:32 PM
Are you insane or just bad digestion?

This thread is ripe for hardcore shameless trolling despite the probably legit intentions of its starter. Only reason there hasn't been much yet is the whole GM seems to be trolling at the same time in every thread. Even though it has already been declared here that Tsonga is the only world-class player in AO QF :lol:

Top-half, yeah.

Commander Data
01-27-2009, 03:37 PM
And the people who think today is always the best are usually teenagers that never had the chance to see the greats of yesterday except on youtube highlights. See I can do sweeping generalizations, too.

Sorry to disappoint you but I'm 32 and have watched Tennis since the 80's. I have seen McEnroe, Sampras, Connors and Lendl etc. But I like todays Player better. This boring serve and volley shit. I'm happy its over....

Henry Kaspar
01-27-2009, 03:37 PM
Exactly.

You must have started 2 months ago then.

Am I? ;)

Two hormone-sodden teenies teaming up -- how scary. :lol::

duong
01-27-2009, 03:40 PM
4 very greats? Nah.

4 greats would be like putting McEnroe, Sampras, Connors and Lendl in the same era. We have nothing like that.

At the same age, Sampras was not better than Djokovic and Murray.

I don't think that Djokovic and Murray are at the same level as McEnroe and Connors, Nadal only can be considered as applying to that level,

but as Becker, Edberg and Wilander, yes I think Djokovic and Murray are on that stream.

GlennMirnyi
01-27-2009, 03:48 PM
Two hormone-sodden teenies teaming up -- how scary. :lol::

How's viagra working for you, pal?

I think it's blurring your mental capabilities.

At the same age, Sampras was not better than Djokovic and Murray.

I don't think that Djokovic and Murray are at the same level as McEnroe and Connors, Nadal only can be considered as applying to that level,

but as Becker, Edberg and Wilander, yes I think Djokovic and Murray are on that stream.

The age argument is crap, and you know it. Some players blossom earlier than others. You know, as well as I do, that Faker and Clutchray will never achieve half of what Sampras did.

Can't believe you're comparing Edberg and Becker to Fakervic and Murray. If we lived in the days of the inquisition you'd be burnt at the stake. You're comparing some of the biggest legends of the game with some guys who can barely play outside the baseline.

MalwareDie
01-27-2009, 03:48 PM
Two hormone-sodden teenies teaming up -- how scary. :lol::

A 40 year old assuming his opposition are teenies- how mature.

fabolous
01-27-2009, 03:49 PM
but as Becker, Edberg and Wilander, yes I think Djokovic and Murray are on that stream.
please come back when djokovic and murray have won 6+ slams and have been on #1, because that's what becker, edberg and wilander did.

same goes for the guy who compared del potro with muster and courier.

@ thread topic: for years, yes.

Henry Kaspar
01-27-2009, 03:51 PM
At the same age, Sampras was not better than Djokovic and Murray.

I don't think that Djokovic and Murray are at the same level as McEnroe and Connors, Nadal only can be considered as applying to that level,

but as Becker, Edberg and Wilander, yes I think Djokovic and Murray are on that stream.

No. These three have a combined 19 GS titles and 13 finals between them, Djokovic and Murray have one title and two finals. It's will be a long and unlikely path for D/M to get to that level.

This said, when comparing today with then one needs to compare points in time, and Becker Edberg and Wilander did not peak simultaenously. When Wilander climbed to the very top (1983-85) Becker and Edberg just prospects, in the Murray/Djokovic neighborhood. And when Becker and Edberg became not just good but dominant (late 80s) Wilander was well on his way down.

Henry Kaspar
01-27-2009, 03:53 PM
How's viagra working for you, pal?
I think it's blurring your mental capabilities.

At least you can be funny, I give you that. :lol:

GlennMirnyi
01-27-2009, 03:59 PM
At least you can be funny, I give you that. :lol:

Meanwhile, you can't be funny and/or make any sense about tennis.

I'll give you that. :)

shawshank
01-27-2009, 04:05 PM
Bullshit.

Tennis is going down the drain, and fast.

2 QFs = 1 retirement and 1 obliteration.

The other 2 QFs are full of mug players and the only world-class player is injured.

Awesome stuff.

You can't admit anything. Always the same. You just can't stand the fact that Nadal is the best player in the world. Poor you.

philosophicalarf
01-27-2009, 04:15 PM
The top 4 are good but after that there is a serious lack of talent. When a guy like Del Potro is top 5 material that tells something about the quality of the field. I cannot imagine a player so one dimensional being so highly ranked in the 80's or 90's.

Lol. Highlights of the late 90s:

Greg Rusedski, slam finalist and world no4
Bjorkman at world no 4
Moya at world no 1
Kiefer at world no 4
Mal Washington in a slam final
Magnus Norman at world no 2


This is also the decade that saw a 39 year old make the US Open semis.


Looks like we'll have Nadal vs Tsonga, and Fed vs Roddick for our semis this year. Compare with....

Aussie Open 98 semis:
Kucera vs Korda
Escude vs Rios

Aussie Open 99 semis:
Kafelnikov vs Haas
Enquist vs Lapentti



I could go on and on, and on. Second half of the 90s was the weakest period in tennis history.

Quadruple Tree
01-27-2009, 04:18 PM
Sorry to disappoint you but I'm 32 and have watched Tennis since the 80's. I have seen McEnroe, Sampras, Connors and Lendl etc. But I like todays Player better. This boring serve and volley shit. I'm happy its over....

That is why generalizations are bad. I guess you missed the whole point of my post. If you like tennis where 95% of the players are one dimensional baseliners, that is your prerogative I suppose.

GlennMirnyi
01-27-2009, 04:18 PM
You can't admit anything. Always the same. You just can't stand the fact that Nadal is the best player in the world. Poor you.

I can admit you know shit about tennis. What about that? :D

Lol. Highlights of the late 90s:

Greg Rusedski, slam finalist and world no4
Bjorkman at world no 4
Moya at world no 1
Kiefer at world no 4
Mal Washington in a slam final
Magnus Norman at world no 2


This is also the decade that saw a 39 year old make the US Open semis.


Looks like we'll have Nadal vs Tsonga, and Fed vs Roddick for our semis this year. Compare with....

Aussie Open 98 semis:
Kucera vs Korda
Escude vs Rios

Aussie Open 99 semis:
Kafelnikov vs Haas
Enquist vs Lapentti



I could go on and on, and on. Second half of the 90s was the weakest period in tennis history.

What a bunch of crap. It's so bad, so bad, but SO BAD I don't even have words right now.

GlennMirnyi
01-27-2009, 04:19 PM
That is why generalizations are bad. I guess you missed the whole point of my post. If you like tennis where 95% of the players are one dimensional baseliners, that is your prerogative I suppose.

:worship:

Henry Kaspar
01-27-2009, 04:21 PM
Lol. Highlights of the late 90s:

Greg Rusedski, slam finalist and world no4
Bjorkman at world no 4
Moya at world no 1
Kiefer at world no 4
Mal Washington in a slam final
Magnus Norman at world no 2

This is also the decade that saw a 39 year old make the US Open semis.

Looks like we'll have Nadal vs Tsonga, and Fed vs Roddick for our semis this year. Compare with....

Aussie Open 98 semis:
Kucera vs Korda
Escude vs Rios

Aussie Open 99 semis:
Kafelnikov vs Haas
Enquist vs Lapentti

I could go on and on, and on. Second half of the 90s was the weakest period in tennis history.

Nice compilation. Agreed.

crude oil
01-27-2009, 04:22 PM
Nice compilation. Agreed.

seeing lapentii there is kind of :lol:

poor nico.

murray is like kucera except like 10x better in all areas. :lol:

philosophicalarf
01-27-2009, 04:22 PM
What a bunch of crap. It's so bad, so bad, but SO BAD I don't even have words right now.


Were any of the facts wrong? :-)

Moya at world number one tells its own story. This is the same player who, by his own admission, has never been even remotely as good as Nadal.

duong
01-27-2009, 04:24 PM
The age argument is crap, and you know it. Some players blossom earlier than others. You know, as well as I do, that Faker and Clutchray will never achieve half of what Sampras did.

Can't believe you're comparing Edberg and Becker to Fakervic and Murray. If we lived in the days of the inquisition you'd be burnt at the stake. You're comparing some of the biggest legends of the game with some guys who can barely play outside the baseline.

They have different playing styles, but when I see Murray playing against Federer, I'm incredibly impressed.

Borg, Connors and Lendl were baseline players but the three of them are more of a legend than Edberg and Becker.

As for those who are offended because we compare young players with players who have finished their carreer, well I spoke of a "stream", nothing else.

It's true that some players blossom earlier than others, but usually, for the greatest, you can guess something after few years of carreer.

Of course the comparison with Sampras is too much, but I remember Edberg when he was young : he had a lot of potential and was very good, but everybody would have laughed if you had imagined him becoming a "legend".

I speak of a stream only, I'm maybe less confident for Djokovic, but I'm very confident for Murray : he has everything to become one of the greatest.

Quadruple Tree
01-27-2009, 04:27 PM
I suppose I should have been clearer. I should have said early to mid 90s when there guys like Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Chang, Kafelnikov, Bruguera, Muster, and so on were top 10 players. Look at that list. We have serve and volleyers, clay courters, aggressive baseliners, and counterpunchers. That for me is a great era when every matchup presents a different style and a different strategy. Of course, that is just my opinion, and others may disagree.

Action Jackson
01-27-2009, 04:29 PM
Of course the comparison with Sampras is too much, but I remember Edberg when he was young : he had a lot of potential and was very good, but everybody would have laughed if you had imagined him becoming a "legend".

I speak of a stream only, I'm maybe less confident for Djokovic, but I'm very confident for Murray : he has everything to become one of the greatest.

So you understand Swedish then? Edberg won the Junior GS, the only player to do it, he was destined and hyped up to be one of the best players and a future number 1 and multi GS winner. I was far from an Edberg fan, but he is definitely achieved all of that and yes he is one of the greats, albeit on the lower level from Laver, Federer and Sampras.

Henry Kaspar
01-27-2009, 04:30 PM
That is why generalizations are bad. I guess you missed the whole point of my post. If you like tennis where 95% of the players are one dimensional baseliners, that is your prerogative I suppose.

Baseline tennis comes in many shapes. Nadal vs. Federer Wimbledon 08 was phenomenal baseline tennis. Boring baseline tennis is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYds3V-fAXk. And compared to these days, even one-dimensional baseline tennis has become fairly entertaining.

duong
01-27-2009, 04:30 PM
I suppose I should have been clearer. I should have said early to mid 90s when there guys like Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Chang, Kafelnikov, Bruguera, Muster, and so on were top 10 players. Look at that list. We have serve and volleyers, clay courters, aggressive baseliners, and counterpunchers. That for me is a great era when every matchup presents a different style and a different strategy. Of course, that is just my opinion, and others may disagree.

I agree with you, but if you speak about the variety of the games, then the 80's were even better.

I've laughed when I saw the thread about "every era has its clowns" but there were many more "clowns" in the 80's :)

Action Jackson
01-27-2009, 04:32 PM
I suppose I should have been clearer. I should have said early to mid 90s when there guys like Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Chang, Kafelnikov, Bruguera, Muster, and so on were top 10 players. Look at that list. We have serve and volleyers, clay courters, aggressive baseliners, and counterpunchers. That for me is a great era when every matchup presents a different style and a different strategy. Of course, that is just my opinion, and others may disagree.

Well you had more specific surface specialisation which makes sense considering the shit that they were playing indoors was ludicrously fast, as was the grass then. Now they narrowed down the difference surfaces and no surprise that it's pretty easy to play the one game suits all surfaces and do well within that sphere.

duong
01-27-2009, 04:32 PM
So you understand Swedish then? Edberg won the Junior GS, the only player to do it, he was destined and hyped up to be one of the best players and a future number 1 and multi GS winner. I was far from an Edberg fan, but he is definitely achieved all of that and yes he is one of the greats, albeit on the lower level from Laver, Federer and Sampras.

you know that the results in the juniors are not the point.

And for "he was destined and hyped up to be one of the best players and a future number 1 and multi GS winner",

it was exactly the same as Murray and Djokovic now, not more.

Becker was more and was disappointing later, but Edberg not more.

Action Jackson
01-27-2009, 04:35 PM
you know that the results in the juniors are not the point.

And for "he was destined and hyped up to be one of the best players and a future number 1 and multi GS winner",

it was exactly the same as Murray and Djokovic now, not more.

Becker was more and was disappointing later, but Edberg not more.

Considering it was the juniors that got the hype, it all works in together, but you missed that.

Seriously let me know when Murray and Djokovic win 6 or 7 Slams, make all the GS finals at least once, if they do that, if not, then it's just hyperbole.

mgorganchian
01-27-2009, 04:38 PM
The top 4 are good but after that there is a serious lack of talent. When a guy like Del Potro is top 5 material that tells something about the quality of the field. I cannot imagine a player so one dimensional being so highly ranked in the 80's or 90's.

He is one dimensional or 2 (FH and Serve).. but plays well in clay and Hard court.. something that is not common specialy for guys being so tall.

Commander Data
01-27-2009, 04:43 PM
That is why generalizations are bad. I guess you missed the whole point of my post. If you like tennis where 95% of the players are one dimensional baseliners, that is your prerogative I suppose.

What is your point then? Federer is more talented then anybody in the 80's... Nadal's clay games is better then anybody from the 80's. I like different players but for me, the top 8 are enough divers. I'm happy..with it.

If you People think todays tennis is so bad, why are you wasting your time with it? Watch something you like then...Rent some tapes from the 80's.... I would never be so stupid to watch something I don't like in my freetime....

Commander Data
01-27-2009, 04:45 PM
I suppose I should have been clearer. I should have said early to mid 90s when there guys like Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Chang, Kafelnikov, Bruguera, Muster, and so on were top 10 players. Look at that list. We have serve and volleyers, clay courters, aggressive baseliners, and counterpunchers. That for me is a great era when every matchup presents a different style and a different strategy. Of course, that is just my opinion, and others may disagree.

fair enough

GlennMirnyi
01-27-2009, 04:47 PM
Were any of the facts wrong? :-)

Moya at world number one tells its own story. This is the same player who, by his own admission, has never been even remotely as good as Nadal.

So what?

Nadull at #1 tells its own story. Guy can't hit a slice or a volley to save his life. Guy uses a racket with a grip smaller than the size he should. Guy uses a junior racket.

They have different playing styles, but when I see Murray playing against Federer, I'm incredibly impressed.

Borg, Connors and Lendl were baseline players but the three of them are more of a legend than Edberg and Becker.

As for those who are offended because we compare young players with players who have finished their carreer, well I spoke of a "stream", nothing else.

It's true that some players blossom earlier than others, but usually, for the greatest, you can guess something after few years of carreer.

Of course the comparison with Sampras is too much, but I remember Edberg when he was young : he had a lot of potential and was very good, but everybody would have laughed if you had imagined him becoming a "legend".

I speak of a stream only, I'm maybe less confident for Djokovic, but I'm very confident for Murray : he has everything to become one of the greatest.

Borg was a legend because he won Wimbledon S&Ving, not because he was a full baseliner. Connors went to the net a lot and Lendl was an agressive player, much more than Nadull, Faker and Murray.

Murray has proven nothing so far.

groundstroke
01-27-2009, 04:49 PM
Not to mention Baghdatis, Verdasco and Gasquet. All three will eventually beat Fed/Nadal.

shawshank
01-27-2009, 04:52 PM
I can admit you know shit about tennis. What about that? :D



What a bunch of crap. It's so bad, so bad, but SO BAD I don't even have words right now.

Oh! The God of tennis knowledge has spoken. Enlight us with his astonishing knowledge. We are so honored.
It's not a coincidence that you are getting criticized by everybody on the forum.
I'm soo sorry that those shitty players like Guccione, Stepanek or Lapentti keep losing in first rounds. Maybe if they had some sort of success you wouldn't be so frustrated. Grow up or change the discipline for table tennis.

GlennMirnyi
01-27-2009, 05:12 PM
Oh! The God of tennis knowledge has spoken. Enlight us with his astonishing knowledge. We are so honored.
It's not a coincidence that you are getting criticized by everybody on the forum.
I'm soo sorry that those shitty players like Guccione, Stepanek or Lapentti keep losing in first rounds. Maybe if they had some sort of success you wouldn't be so frustrated. Grow up or change the discipline for table tennis.

I know that a Carob Tree looks like a genius compared to you, when talking of tennis, but keep it low, I'm shy.

You're way out of the line if you think everybody here criticises me.

Shitty players = moonballers. No argument about that.

shawshank
01-27-2009, 05:33 PM
I know that a Carob Tree looks like a genius compared to you, when talking of tennis, but keep it low, I'm shy.

You're way out of the line if you think everybody here criticises me.

Shitty players = moonballers. No argument about that.

Nadal stopped being a moonballer few years ago. It shows your great knowledge.

GlennMirnyi
01-27-2009, 05:44 PM
Nadull never stopped being a moonballer.

Dougie
01-27-2009, 05:44 PM
Not to mention Baghdatis, Verdasco and Gasquet. All three will eventually beat Fed/Nadal.

No they won´t. Baggy is suffering from injuries and not really improving anymore. He is not a threat to Fed and Nadal. Verdasco can still become a solid top 10 player, but that´s about it. Gasquet doesn´t seem to be fulfilling his potetntial. It would take a dramatical decline in Fed´s and Nadal´s game for any of these three to beat them constantly.

Henry Kaspar
01-27-2009, 05:45 PM
Nadal stopped being a moonballer few years ago. It shows your great knowledge.

Feed the troll...

philosophicalarf
01-27-2009, 06:03 PM
So what?


So what? Conclusive proof that the late 90s were appallingly poor. Moya was a hack. What was a hack doing at world no1?

Nadal is several dimensions ahead of him in quality.

duong
01-27-2009, 06:04 PM
Considering it was the juniors that got the hype, it all works in together, but you missed that.

Seriously let me know when Murray and Djokovic win 6 or 7 Slams, make all the GS finals at least once, if they do that, if not, then it's just hyperbole.

The juniors are too early to say anything like that :

Gasquet was also incredible in the juniors !

Edberg at Djokovic's and Murray's age, it's the mid-1987.
Edberg was nothing more than Djokovic and Murray now.
Becker was more : twice Wimbledon champion, semi and quarter-finalist in Roland-Garros : people thought he was a future player among the greatest and could win everywhere.
I remember 1989 : everybody thought that Becker would be the king the next year, never Edberg.
Edberg was a top-player but not supposed to be one of the greatest.

Beside that, I will not need to let you know, you will know it yourself.

Who can you see in the current and coming generations to prevent them from doing that ?

Only 4 years younger than them you may have a player who can compete with them : maybe Dimitrov or Tsung Hua Yang. But noone older.

I've been very impressed by Djokovic and even more Murray so far, Edberg only became a legend in 1991, 4 years older than now : before that he was a top-player, even a number 1 in 1990 ... but not a great number 1.

GlennMirnyi
01-27-2009, 06:07 PM
So what? Conclusive proof that the late 90s were appallingly poor. Moya was a hack. What was a hack doing at world no1?

Nadal is several dimensions ahead of him in quality.

The only thing Nadull is ahead of Moya is... well, I can't say, it's censored around here. :)

Rusedski >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Baghdatis and he made a slam final. Why isn't that a proof of a weak era?

MalwareDie
01-27-2009, 06:09 PM
Nadal stopped being a moonballer few years ago. It shows your great knowledge.

Andy Murray, a Nadal fan, hinted that Nadal is a moonballer just recently...

Henry Kaspar
01-27-2009, 06:11 PM
Rusedski >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Baghdatis

Does it hurt to write this?

Snowwy
01-27-2009, 06:18 PM
Rusedski >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Baghdatis

:haha:

The guy's the best ever player from my country and I can't even come close to agreeing with that.

Henry Kaspar
01-27-2009, 06:22 PM
Edberg at Djokovic's and Murray's age, it's the mid-1987.
Edberg was nothing more than Djokovic and Murray now.

Sorry but this simply isn't right. By mid-87 Edberg had won the Aussie open twice and had been semifinalist at both Wimbledon and the US Open. Plus he had won an Olympic gold medal.

Djokovic may be remotely comparable to Edberg at this age (although there is still a gap), but certainly not Murray, who has played in a GS slam semifinal exactly once.

This said, maybe Djokovic and/or Murray will catch up with Edberg later. Who knows. But it's a tall order.

GlennMirnyi
01-27-2009, 06:22 PM
:haha:

The guy's the best ever player from my country and I can't even come close to agreeing with that.

How many TMS titles Baghdatis won?

Exactly, thanks.

Considering their GS finals, Rusedski made the USO final = much more prestigious.

GlennMirnyi
01-27-2009, 06:23 PM
Does it hurt to write this?

Hurts for you.

Truth hurts.

JolánGagó
01-27-2009, 06:29 PM
The amount of idiotic bullshit with pretention of seriousness in this thread can astonish even a well seasoned MTFer, I reckon.

Tom_Bombadil
01-27-2009, 06:30 PM
I think this era seems pretty good because we have Nadal & Federer, but the other ones out there didn't demonstrate anything yet.

duong
01-27-2009, 06:30 PM
Sorry but this simply isn't right. By mid-87 Edberg had won the Aussie open twice and had been semifinalist at both Wimbledon and the US Open. Plus he had won an Olympic gold medal.

Djokovic may be remotely comparable to Edberg at this age (although there is still a gap), but certainly not Murray, who has played in a GS slam semifinal exactly once.

This said, maybe Djokovic and/or Murray will catch up with Edberg later. Who knows. But it's a tall order.

The Australian Open didn't mean much more than a Masters Series in that time.

Djokovic has made two semi-finals plus one quarter-final in Roland-Garros (only lost to the one who is presented as nearly equivalent to Borg on that surface).
He has made one semi-final in Wimbledon, the opposite surface.
Won the Australian Open and was finalist in Flushing Meadow on hard court. Won and lost against one who is considered among the greatest with Laver, Borg and Sampras.
Plus won the Masters Cup.

About Murray, it's more a matter of potential :
so many see him better than Federer and Nadal this year, one who si and one who will probably be ahead of Edberg among the greatest.

Murray beat Federer three times in a row, beat Nadal in US Open semi-final when he was number one, beat Djokovic. And has impressed a lot by his level in these matches.

Edberg in 1987 was far behind Lendl, Wilander and Becker.

Dougie
01-27-2009, 06:32 PM
How many TMS titles Baghdatis won?

Exactly, thanks.

Considering their GS finals, Rusedski made the USO final = much more prestigious.

Rusedski couldn´t hit a backhand to save his life. And how is US open final more prestigious than AO? It´s all subjective, you can´t use arguments like this to back your own cause.

Henry Kaspar
01-27-2009, 06:32 PM
Considering their GS finals, Rusedski made the USO final =

.... where he didn't meet a single seeded player until the final, then got slaughtered by the #13 seed, Pat Rafter.

Otherwise Rusedksi had regularly the greatest difficulties to make it past round 2 in a Grand Slam tournament. Besides he was awful to watch, horrible footwork, random groundstrokes, at best average volley. All depended on his serve.

As someone else wrote, the fact that Rusedski got anywhere in tennis just shows how poor the era was in which he played.

Henry Kaspar
01-27-2009, 06:36 PM
The Australian Open didn't mean much more than a Masters Series in that time.

Very wrong. The Aussie Open's poor phase was from the mid 70s to 1982. By 1985 they were back to being a top tier tournament. Everyone was there, Lendl, McEnroe, Wilander, Becker, Edberg. Edberg won, beating Lendl in the semis and Wilander in the final.

Andi-M
01-27-2009, 06:40 PM
Only been watching since 1998 and it was very different. Alot more players would S&V the grass was fast and you didn't need a 2-handed backhand to be sucessful. It was on the large part boring. Besides Agassi the players had the personalities of wet cloths and I much prefer to watch baseline tennis insead of serve dominated stuff.

The way things are now 2007 onwards has been fantastic and I think this 2009:2012 period could be best in a long time with Murray, Nadal, Fed, Tsonga, Nole et al. All have different personalities (not all good) but it makes it interesting and the tennis that all these guys can produce...:drool: Great stuff!

trixtah
01-27-2009, 06:59 PM
Hmmm...I wonder why pure serve and volley tennis has been phased out. Maybe because it's too dangerous in the modern game to come in off of everything and actually be successful throughout the entire year?

GlennMirnyi
01-27-2009, 07:02 PM
Rusedski couldn´t hit a backhand to save his life. And how is US open final more prestigious than AO? It´s all subjective, you can´t use arguments like this to back your own cause.

It is NOT subjective. Are you any familiar with tennis' history?

.... where he didn't meet a single seeded player until the final, then got slaughtered by the #13 seed, Pat Rafter.

Otherwise Rusedksi had regularly the greatest difficulties to make it past round 2 in a Grand Slam tournament. Besides he was awful to watch, horrible footwork, random groundstrokes, at best average volley. All depended on his serve.

As someone else wrote, the fact that Rusedski got anywhere in tennis just shows how poor the era was in which he played.

The serve is the most important fundament of tennis mate. It's no shame to have a great serve. It's also the most difficult shot to master. No surprise great champions like Sampras and Federer have good serves.

Mug era is an era where every player can only hit topspin and nothing else = this era.

You have serious debility in your arguments.

philosophicalarf
01-27-2009, 07:05 PM
The serve is the most important fundament of tennis mate. It's no shame to have a great serve.

It is a shame for anyone watching when it's the only shot you have.

trixtah
01-27-2009, 07:07 PM
It is NOT subjective. Are you any familiar with tennis' history?



The serve is the most important fundament of tennis mate. It's no shame to have a great serve. It's also the most difficult shot to master. No surprise great champions like Sampras and Federer have good serves.

Mug era is an era where every player can only hit topspin and nothing else = this era.

You have serious debility in your arguments.

So having a big serve and nothing else isn't one dimensional? You also didn't refute any of his other points like how Rusedski didn't meet a seed until the final where he was demolished. So how his USO final any better than Baghdatis? Baghdatis took out 3 top 10 seeds and lost to Roger in the final.

philosophicalarf
01-27-2009, 07:09 PM
Lol, 1997 US Open semi final of Bjorkman vs Rusedski, hard to believe a slam could ever be so poor.

duong
01-27-2009, 07:12 PM
Very wrong. The Aussie Open's poor phase was from the mid 70s to 1982. By 1985 they were back to being a top tier tournament. Everyone was there, Lendl, McEnroe, Wilander, Becker, Edberg. Edberg won, beating Lendl in the semis and Wilander in the final.

Everyone also comes to the Masters Series.

But only in 1988 when it came to a hard court, the Australian Open became really important.

Btw, if you compare the performance of Wilander (or Noah) in those years in the Australian Open and in Wimbledon, it's obvious that you didn't have the real Becker or McEnroe in the Australian Open.

The level of the game was quite poor comparing to other Slams.

You had the real Cash, that's important, yes, but not the real Becker, McEnroe or others.

Dougie
01-27-2009, 07:16 PM
It is NOT subjective. Are you any familiar with tennis' history?


Yes I am. But when two players make a "fluke run" to the GS final, you can´t say which one was better just based on the prestige of the tournament. A lot of it depends on the draw, for example. But judging by your logic, Malivai Washington beats them both because he made it to one Wimbledon final. Then again, I wouldn´t be surprised if you said Wimbledon is a mug tournament compared to the US Open.

Henry Kaspar
01-27-2009, 07:18 PM
Everyone also comes to the Masters Series.

But only in 1988 when it came to a hard court, the Australian Open became really important.

Btw, if you compare the performance of Wilander (or Noah) in those years in the Australian Open and in Wimbledon, it's obvious that you didn't have the real Becker or McEnroe in the Australian Open.

The level of the game was quite poor comparing to other Slams.

You had the real Cash, that's important, yes, but not the real Becker, McEnroe or others.

Not sure what you imply with this. The McEnroes and Beckers travelled to Australia just for a bit of tourism and threw their matches?

duong
01-27-2009, 07:27 PM
Not sure what you imply with this. The McEnroes and Beckers travelled to Australia just for a bit of tourism and threw their matches?

No but they did not really prepare.

That's why I say it's not much more than a Masters Series.

It did not compare to the best players'implication in the three other slams.

Henry Kaspar
01-27-2009, 07:42 PM
No but they did not really prepare.



ANY evidence for this?

duong
01-27-2009, 07:58 PM
ANY evidence for this?

no real evidence of course, but the period for that tournament was quite special (after the season in 1985 and in the beginning in 1987), the surface as well, and they did not play any preparation tournaments. Plus the fact that the tournament did not have the same prestige as the other slams and this is not something which a tournaments get back quickly, even if the best are there.

Plus my memories of a level which was not the level of Wimbledon.

In 1988, the surface change, the inclusion in the season calendar really gave a new impulsion to that tournament.

Commander Data
01-27-2009, 08:04 PM
How many TMS titles Baghdatis won?

Exactly, thanks.

Considering their GS finals, Rusedski made the USO final = much more prestigious.

So what? If there are only clowns around it is no wonder that a clown wins, is it? does that prove his not a clown? No.


Watching some boring all serve Mugs, who wants that? Very few, I reckon, thats why they changed the courts and all.

JolánGagó
01-27-2009, 08:04 PM
no real evidence of course, but the period for that tournament was quite special (after the season in 1985 and in the beginning in 1987), the surface as well, and they did not play any preparation tournaments.

Plus my memories of a level which was not the level of Wimbledon.

or, in other words: bullshit.

duong
01-27-2009, 08:06 PM
or, in other words: bullshit.

Do you have any "real evidence" that it's a bullshit ? ;)

JolánGagó
01-27-2009, 08:16 PM
Do you have any "real evidence" that it's a bullshit ? ;)

Sure. Since BS is by definition any statement not backed by facts, evidence or data and your statement above about unprepared players is such statement, hence your statement is bullshit by definition. There ain't a harder truth than a definition :)

Angle Queen
01-27-2009, 08:20 PM
Tsk. Tsk.

How is it that the thread has turned into a (semi) GOAT discussion (albeit of era rather than player) when I thought the thread-starter intended it to speak positively of the current state of The Game.

I, too, have watched the game for a long time and find much to be encouraged by. Skilled players up and down the ranks, tournaments (and fans) the world over, prize money in the millions, a TV channel completely devoted to the sport. And while I can appreciate Sampras' accomplishments, I was bored to tears with his game and his dominance of the game...and consequently, drifted away. Although (IMHO) his game is more beautiful to watch, Federer threatened to do the same thing to me. Now, I see hope in watching his matches or any match, for that matter. Call it the "On Any Given Day" possibilities.

So...I think the thread title is on target. Certainly for the "years" part.

I'm looking forward for it to continue.

Henry Kaspar
01-27-2009, 08:30 PM
Tsk. Tsk.

How is it that the thread has turned into a (semi) GOAT discussion (albeit of era rather than player) when I thought the thread-starter intended it to speak positively of the current state of The Game.

I, too, have watched the game for a long time and find much to be encouraged by. Skilled players up and down the ranks, tournaments (and fans) the world over, prize money in the millions, a TV channel completely devoted to the sport. And while I can appreciate Sampras' accomplishments, I was bored to tears with his game and his dominance of the game...and consequently, drifted away. Although (IMHO) his game is more beautiful to watch, Federer threatened to do the same thing to me. Now, I see hope in watching his matches or any match, for that matter. Call it the "On Any Given Day" possibilities.

So...I think the thread title is on target. Certainly for the "years" part.

I'm looking forward for it to continue.

Thanks. Beautiful post, and I entirely share your sentiment.

duong
01-27-2009, 08:55 PM
Sure. Since BS is by definition any statement not backed by facts, evidence or data and your statement above about unprepared players is such statement, hence your statement is bullshit by definition. There ain't a harder truth than a definition :)

In that case, nearly all of the posts in this forum are BS according to your definition :D

Action Jackson
01-27-2009, 11:54 PM
The juniors are too early to say anything like that :

Gasquet was also incredible in the juniors !

Edberg at Djokovic's and Murray's age, it's the mid-1987.
Edberg was nothing more than Djokovic and Murray now.
Becker was more : twice Wimbledon champion, semi and quarter-finalist in Roland-Garros : people thought he was a future player among the greatest and could win everywhere.
I remember 1989 : everybody thought that Becker would be the king the next year, never Edberg.
Edberg was a top-player but not supposed to be one of the greatest.

Beside that, I will not need to let you know, you will know it yourself.

Who can you see in the current and coming generations to prevent them from doing that ?

Only 4 years younger than them you may have a player who can compete with them : maybe Dimitrov or Tsung Hua Yang. But noone older.

I've been very impressed by Djokovic and even more Murray so far, Edberg only became a legend in 1991, 4 years older than now : before that he was a top-player, even a number 1 in 1990 ... but not a great number 1.

My original point clearly stands. How many juniors have won the Junior GS? One, and who was that one Edberg. This fed the hype that he was going to make number 1 and win plenty of Slams and have an excellent career and goes down as one of the best ever. Like he was expected to, he achieved what was expected of him. It doesn't matter when a player starts winning the big ones, as long as they get it done.

Don't go back to the age argument, to back up a weak hypothesis so Wilander won 7 Slams by the age of 24 and it was only when he won the 7th, that he became the best player in the world. When a guy can win 7 Slams on 4 different surfaces and only briefly reach number 1, it makes sense because he had an excellent top section to contend with and no this era does not compare with it.

Lendl, McEnroe, Connors, Borg, Becker, Edberg and Wilander as clearly a better overall group of players, that what is around now, it's not close. The lower level has levelled up, that's the difference.

Kaspar is right after 82, the Aussie Open improved its status, but it was confirmed by 88.

Like fabolous and I said come back to me when Murray and Djokovic are multi Slam winners and also win at multiple venues.

Snowwy
01-28-2009, 12:00 AM
Didn't Monfils almost win it and have tons of hype?

Quadruple Tree
01-28-2009, 12:04 AM
Yes, he lost to Murray at the US Open after winning the first three majors of the year.

GlennMirnyi
01-28-2009, 12:18 AM
Yes I am. But when two players make a "fluke run" to the GS final, you can´t say which one was better just based on the prestige of the tournament. A lot of it depends on the draw, for example. But judging by your logic, Malivai Washington beats them both because he made it to one Wimbledon final. Then again, I wouldn´t be surprised if you said Wimbledon is a mug tournament compared to the US Open.

Well when Malivai made the final, it was still real grass, so yeah. Malivai > Rusedski > Baghdatis.

Draw means shit. Players don't choose whom they play.

So what? If there are only clowns around it is no wonder that a clown wins, is it? does that prove his not a clown? No.


Watching some boring all serve Mugs, who wants that? Very few, I reckon, thats why they changed the courts and all.

The courts changed because the ATP is weak under the pressure of top players and for a time, in the beginning of the 2000s, they were the majority. They forced the changes and the generation that followed just made them even more blatant.

Lullaby
01-28-2009, 12:30 AM
Yes, he lost to Murray at the US Open after winning the first three majors of the year.

he actually lost to troicki, andy was too busy beating up on del pony 6-0 6-1 :worship:

Henry Kaspar
01-28-2009, 12:54 AM
Draw means shit. Players don't choose whom they play.


Logic is not for everyone.

GlennMirnyi
01-28-2009, 12:59 AM
Logic is not for everyone.

So?

Do you think that the draw makes a tournament more valuable than other?

oz_boz
01-28-2009, 07:39 AM
Way too early to tell :lol: We have to wait until all top players of today have retired (ca 10 years that is) before we can say anything reasonable abut this.

Remember how Hewitt and Safin were hailed as knights of the new upgraded tennis when they made mince meat of Sampras, how long did they stay in the top?

duong
01-28-2009, 07:43 AM
My original point clearly stands. How many juniors have won the Junior GS? One, and who was that one Edberg. This fed the hype that he was going to make number 1 and win plenty of Slams and have an excellent career and goes down as one of the best ever. Like he was expected to, he achieved what was expected of him. It doesn't matter when a player starts winning the big ones, as long as they get it done.

Don't go back to the age argument, to back up a weak hypothesis so Wilander won 7 Slams by the age of 24 and it was only when he won the 7th, that he became the best player in the world. When a guy can win 7 Slams on 4 different surfaces and only briefly reach number 1, it makes sense because he had an excellent top section to contend with and no this era does not compare with it.

Lendl, McEnroe, Connors, Borg, Becker, Edberg and Wilander as clearly a better overall group of players, that what is around now, it's not close. The lower level has levelled up, that's the difference.

Kaspar is right after 82, the Aussie Open improved its status, but it was confirmed by 88.

Like fabolous and I said come back to me when Murray and Djokovic are multi Slam winners and also win at multiple venues.

Edberg didn't play in the same time as Borg and Connors and had his best in a totally different time as McEnroe, Wilander and Lendl.

It's as if you mixed Nadal and Sampras ! :lol:

The juniors mean nearly nothing to distinguish "great players" from "very good players", I repeat : many players didn't make the GS in juniors because they didn't play all 4 GS, it's seldom that juniors play the 4 GS.
If Gasquet had done it, he would also have won the GS in juniors.

There was a hype about Edberg about that, that's true.
But I can tell you that there also was a hype in France about Gasquet or Forget.

It cannot be compared with the seniors ...

Anyway, my purpose was not to speak about a "Greatest Era of All Times"

but only to make you realize how lucky we are now.

Since I repeat again : in 1987, Edberg was not a better prospect than Djokovic and Murray now.

Djokovic and Murray will surely be great players and win many slams, there is absolutely no reason to think anything else. At least for that simple reason that noone is as promising in 3 later generations.

I believe that if you think that Djokovic and Murray are such players, you will more appreciate this period.

And I really believe that.

There is no evidence at all that it would be bullshit :D
... except the fact that some prefer another style of play like Glenn Mirnyi, which I totally understand. But the future doesn't look bright in that matter if you look at the young players, I'm afraid.
But if you don't have such a preferrence for style, we clearly have 4 "great players" playing in the same period, like Becker, Edberg, Sampras and Agassi in the beginning of the 90's.

JolánGagó
01-28-2009, 10:04 AM
In that case, nearly all of the posts in this forum are BS according to your definition :D

Et voilà!

not that hard, is it? ;)

duong
01-28-2009, 11:12 AM
Et voilà!

not that hard, is it? ;)

:D

leng jai
01-28-2009, 11:20 AM
Quality thread.

Henry Kaspar
01-28-2009, 01:10 PM
Since I repeat again : in 1987, Edberg was not a better prospect than Djokovic and Murray now.

Sorry but this has been proven to be nonsense by now. Edberg 1987 had 2 GS titles, semis at Wimbledon and the US Open, and an Olympic gold medal. Edberg was #2 on the seeding list for the 1987 US Open (where he made anther semifinal), only behind Lendl, and ahead of Wilander, Becker, Mecir, Connors, Cash, McEnroe.

By 1987 Edberg was established top notch world class no questions asked, very much in contrast to the 2009 Andy Murray. If you would have said the 1985/86 Edberg, OK (but also then relative to Djokovic only), but 1987 you are obviously and evidently wrong. It's one thing to make a lighthearted mistake before checking the facts; it's another to insist on it even after the facts have proven the contrary.

duong
01-28-2009, 04:22 PM
Sorry but this has been proven to be nonsense by now. Edberg 1987 had 2 GS titles, semis at Wimbledon and the US Open, and an Olympic gold medal. Edberg was #2 on the seeding list for the 1987 US Open (where he made anther semifinal), only behind Lendl, and ahead of Wilander, Becker, Mecir, Connors, Cash, McEnroe.

By 1987 Edberg was established top notch world class no questions asked, very much in contrast to the 2009 Andy Murray. If you would have said the 1985/86 Edberg, OK (but also then relative to Djokovic only), but 1987 you are obviously and evidently wrong. It's one thing to make a lighthearted mistake before checking the facts; it's another to insist on it even after the facts have proven the contrary.

:bs:

You have not proven anything : I knew every fact you say, then I didn't have to check anything, and I don't agree.

Murray was considered the favorite in the beginning of the tournament, ahead of Federer, better player than all the ones you said, ahead of Nadal, who is a very great, and ahead of Djokovic.

And Murray has an incredible potential.

I remember very well of Edberg 1987. A number on a paper doesn't make the level and the potential of a player : he was clearly considered behind Wilander and approximately the same level as Becker, Mecir and Cash (my work is about numbers then I know what I mean :umbrella: )

Henry Kaspar
01-28-2009, 04:51 PM
Murray was considered the favorite in the beginning of the tournament,

By some British media outlets perhaps, but he was seeded where he belongs: #4.

And Murray has an incredible potential.

No doubt, but this is not the issue here.

I remember very well of Edberg 1987. A number on a paper doesn't make the level and the potential of a player :

Well if that's your way of dealing if evidence -- dismiss and ignore it if it does not match your preconceptions -- I guess the discussion is pointless.

But then please do not sell your personal wishes as facts, but rather present them like

"in my view Edberg should not have been considered stronger in 1987 than Murray in 2009, in spite of his 2 grand slam titles to Murray's 0, his 5 grand-slam semifinals to Murray's 1, and his #2 world ranking to Murray's #4 -- or in a nutshell: inspite of the fact that all hard evidence sugggest the exact opposite".

We would know then right from thes tart what to make of such statements.

he was clearly considered behind Wilander and approximately the same level as Becker, Mecir and Cash (my work is about numbers then I know what I mean :umbrella: )

In your dreamy recollection, quite possible. Fact is though that from mid-year he was ranked and seeded ahead of all these players.

duong
01-29-2009, 11:17 AM
By some British media outlets perhaps, but he was seeded where he belongs: #4.

By everybody.

Read the polls before Aus Open here.

And I'm Freench by the way.


No doubt, but this is not the issue here.


Of course the potential is the issue : Edberg in 1987 and Murray in 2009 are only potential "very great" players.



Well if that's your way of dealing if evidence -- dismiss and ignore it if it does not match your preconceptions -- I guess the discussion is pointless.

But then please do not sell your personal wishes as facts, but rather present them like

"in my view Edberg should not have been considered stronger in 1987 than Murray in 2009, in spite of his 2 grand slam titles to Murray's 0, his 5 grand-slam semifinals to Murray's 1, and his #2 world ranking to Murray's #4 -- or in a nutshell: inspite of the fact that all hard evidence sugggest the exact opposite".

We would know then right from thes tart what to make of such statements.

Yes, the discussion is pointless : if you keep on considering the Australian Open 1985 and 1987 as the equivalent of the other grand slams, and the Olympics 1984 as a very important tournament.

In your dreamy recollection, quite possible. Fact is though that from mid-year he was ranked and seeded ahead of all these players.

Wilander had not played the Australian Open that year while Edberg had won it : that's the only reason why he was behind Edberg. But nobody was surprised when he beat Edberg in the Us Open's semifinals.

Cash had won Wimbledon very convincingly, Mecir had been incredible, and Becker had won Wimbledon twice and played the semifinal in Roland-Garros.

Edberg was number 2 but then ?

Anyway I like very much Edberg but I don't understand why you are so offended about that :shrug:

We are talking about potential and about the future :
if you consider Edberg in 1987, at best he had only won two grand slams and been number 2, which is far from enough to give him an important place in history.

But he had potential for sure.

And so has Murray.
And I precise I'm not Murray's fan at all, but you should be blind not to see his potential, and that he has beaten all of the top-3 in the last matches they played.

Can anybody still consider that Murray has less potential than Djokovic now ?

And for Djokovic, you quite agreed ... especially if you consider who beat him in Roland-Garros (Nadal only ... who is far ahead of Lendl on that surface), the US Open (Federer last two years in semifinal and final, who is among the 3 best players in open era), and Wimbledon (Nadal ... before losing to Federer in 5 sets).

Djokovic and Murray will be very great players, I don't understand how you may think anything else.

They will win several grand slams like Edberg.
Maybe they will not play legendary matches as Edberg did later in his carreer.
That you can say.

But saying that Djokovic and Murray have less potential than Edberg had in 1987 is just bullshit.
That's all I can say.

Actually I meant to say that for young people who have not lived that period,
because of course if you think about Edberg 20 years later, you have the impression that he has always been a genius (some people think like that of Agassi and I've even seen here some people who didn't know that Agassi was very hairy in his youth ! :lol:)

but I didn't expect having to talk with an Edberg's furious fan or maybe a Murray's allergic :?:

RicRoc
01-29-2009, 12:23 PM
Not sure about the shape of Mens-Tennis.But some of the guys are in good shape.;)
The guys in the 2nd row (let's say below No.50) are in better shape.
Can't say the same thing about the girls who are lower ranked.:rolleyes:

Henry Kaspar
01-29-2009, 03:11 PM
By everybody.

Read the polls before Aus Open here.

And I'm Freench by the way.



Of course the potential is the issue : Edberg in 1987 and Murray in 2009 are only potential "very great" players.




Yes, the discussion is pointless : if you keep on considering the Australian Open 1985 and 1987 as the equivalent of the other grand slams, and the Olympics 1984 as a very important tournament.



Wilander had not played the Australian Open that year while Edberg had won it : that's the only reason why he was behind Edberg. But nobody was surprised when he beat Edberg in the Us Open's semifinals.

Cash had won Wimbledon very convincingly, Mecir had been incredible, and Becker had won Wimbledon twice and played the semifinal in Roland-Garros.

Edberg was number 2 but then ?

Anyway I like very much Edberg but I don't understand why you are so offended about that :shrug:

We are talking about potential and about the future :
if you consider Edberg in 1987, at best he had only won two grand slams and been number 2, which is far from enough to give him an important place in history.

But he had potential for sure.

And so has Murray.
And I precise I'm not Murray's fan at all, but you should be blind not to see his potential, and that he has beaten all of the top-3 in the last matches they played.

Can anybody still consider that Murray has less potential than Djokovic now ?

And for Djokovic, you quite agreed ... especially if you consider who beat him in Roland-Garros (Nadal only ... who is far ahead of Lendl on that surface), the US Open (Federer last two years in semifinal and final, who is among the 3 best players in open era), and Wimbledon (Nadal ... before losing to Federer in 5 sets).

Djokovic and Murray will be very great players, I don't understand how you may think anything else.

They will win several grand slams like Edberg.
Maybe they will not play legendary matches as Edberg did later in his carreer.
That you can say.

But saying that Djokovic and Murray have less potential than Edberg had in 1987 is just bullshit.
That's all I can say.

Actually I meant to say that for young people who have not lived that period,
because of course if you think about Edberg 20 years later, you have the impression that he has always been a genius (some people think like that of Agassi and I've even seen here some people who didn't know that Agassi was very hairy in his youth ! :lol:)

but I didn't expect having to talk with an Edberg's furious fan or maybe a Murray's allergic :?:

Well let's leave it here then. I don't think this discussion will yield any further insights.

I agree with you

-- that Stefan Edberg in 1987 did not yet have the status of Stefan Edberg in 1991; and
-- that Murray and Djokovic are talented players who have the potential to go far. Whether they WILL go far is another question, we'll just have to wait and see.

I do not agree with you though that Murray in 2009 has already the status that Edberg had in 1987. The evidence simply does not support this. It's not even close.

Cheers mon cher collègue
HK

duong
01-29-2009, 04:32 PM
I do not agree with you though that Murray in 2009 has already the status that Edberg had in 1987. The evidence simply does not support this. It's not even close.

Cheers mon cher collègue
HK

Cheers :D

Btw, it's quite funny that you're talking about "status" because it's very French actually :lol:

In France when you look for a job, they will consider your "status", diploma, years of experience especially.

I believe Americans are more concerned about potential.
And it was the French one who was talking about that ! :lol:

Anyway, it was nice to talk with you, since not so many people in these forums lived the 80's period (I was still quite young, maybe my memories are worse than yours ... and also I was more a fan of Becker's and always had the impression that when Becker was at his best, he really outplayed Edberg : they didn't have the same style actually, Edberg was cleaner, maybe too clean to be appreciated by an adolescent like me ... and then what a surprise when he became number 1 instaed of Becker ! :eek:)

Henry Kaspar
01-29-2009, 04:55 PM
Cheers :D

Btw, it's quite funny that you're talking about "status" because it's very French actually :lol:

In France when you look for a job, they will consider your "status", diploma, years of experience especially.

I believe Americans are more concerned about potential.
And it was the French one who was talking about that ! :lol:

Anyway, it was nice to talk with you, since not so many people in these forums lived the 80's period (I was still quite young, maybe my memories are worse than yours ... and also I was more a fan of Becker's and always had the impression that when Becker was at his best, he really outplayed Edberg : they didn't have the same style actually, Edberg was cleaner, maybe too clean to be appreciated by an adolescent like me ... and then what a surprise when he became number 1 instaed of Becker ! :eek:)

Becker had the more flamboyant personality but was also more complicated. Head-to-head he owned Edberg (except where it mattered most -- Wimbledon finals...).

I've great memories of some Becker-Leconte matches, btw, notably an epic 5-setter in the fourth round of the 1988 French Open. Even though Leconte never had quite Becker's "status"... ;)

duong
01-29-2009, 05:17 PM
Becker had the more flamboyant personality but was also more complicated. Head-to-head he owned Edberg (except where it mattered most -- Wimbledon finals...).

Yes, and also the game : I loved his backhand passing-shots especially.

And he beat Edberg in a Wimbledon final actually ... but lost twice, it's true :sad:

... and more generally speaking, Edberg has had more success in some crucial moments (for instance in Roland-Garros 1989)

Also in France we had great hopes about Becker on clay : he played such great matches in Monte-Carlo against Mancini especially :
we really thought he would be the next attacking player after Noah to win there, and he had all the shots to do that.

But he played 5 finals in a big tournament on clay (Monte-Carlo, Roma and Hamburg) but lost all of them !! :eek: (one of them against Noah)

Edberg beat him in Roland-Garros semi-final, lost in final of course
:sad: ... but then he played only one final on clay and won it (Hamburg 1992 against Stich).

In the second part of his carreer he was not at all as good on clay : he was more focused on quick courts and on his serve.

But you see maybe that's the reason why in France, Becker was far more considered than Edberg in the 80s.

And then in the beginning of the 90s ... I was so much surprised about Becker's decline and Edberg's ascension.
Becker was nearly two years younger !!

The grand slams in Australia at this period on this surface ... for us Europeans it was too strange to be considered.
I don't know if Becker or McEnroe had a lot of consideration for it ... but certainly not as much as for the 3 other grand slams. Oh sorry for saying it again :o

I have more memories about Leconte against clay players than against Becker actually : it was funnier looking at him preparing his points. On quicker surfaces Leconte lacked power, I had the impression.

Action Jackson
01-29-2009, 10:27 PM
Edberg didn't play in the same time as Borg and Connors and had his best in a totally different time as McEnroe, Wilander and Lendl.

Edberg and Connors 6-6
http://www.atpworldtour.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=edberg&player2=connors

Keep going and dreaming that this some sort of great era. Like others have said wait until they are gone, or until Murray and Djokovic win 4 or more Slams, then it could be considered.

You keep going back to the age argument.

duong
01-29-2009, 10:58 PM
Edberg and Connors 6-6
http://www.atpworldtour.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=edberg&player2=connors

Keep going and dreaming that this some sort of great era. Like others have said wait until they are gone, or until Murray and Djokovic win 4 or more Slams, then it could be considered.

You keep going back to the age argument.


Connors' best year was in 1974, Edberg was 8 years old :lol:

Connors is the same time as Borg, he kept on playing very late, but you cannot consider that as Connors' time.
But thank you for reminding me that Connors had beaten Edberg in the 4th round of the US Open 1989 6/2 6/3 6/1, when he was one year older than Santoro now ! and 2 years older than Agassi when he stopped playing. Connors was such a legend !

The age argument is crucial because once again, when we speak about Edberg today, we don't have the same look on him which we would have had in 1987.

Henry Kaspar may be right that we would have had a look more respectuous on Edberg in 1987 than we have on Murray today, but for sure, this is nothing compared with the look we have on Edberg today. Nothing.

Remember that my purpose was people to enjoy our time because we may (and we shall I believe) see now 4 of the great players of tennis' history playing.

I believe that it helps to really appreciate.

It was the only thing I meant. I didn't intend to shock anybody.

meihaditalab
01-29-2009, 11:55 PM
Bullshit.

Tennis is going down the drain, and fast.

2 QFs = 1 retirement and 1 obliteration.

The other 2 QFs are full of mug players and the only world-class player is injured.

Awesome stuff.


Can't believe how people can be so narrow minded