Could this end up being the greatest era in tennis when everything is said and done? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Could this end up being the greatest era in tennis when everything is said and done?

Ozone
06-30-2010, 04:14 PM
"This maybe the best tennis has ever been", "The game is the deepest it's ever been"- P. McEnroe.

With Federer and Nadal struggling, is the field getting that much better, or are these guys getting worse? It seemed to me like Berdych (only seeded 12th) play amazing and Federer didn't play any worse than he has been. Soderling, ranked 6th, has been on fire an we've seen him take out Rafa in RG '09 and Federer in RG '10. Murray is consistently getting better and can beat anyone and Nole is always a feared opponent and can beat anyone. Davydenko's game, even though he's been out for awhile, has improved so much over the last 5 years. Marin Cilic isn't even in the top 10 and he has the ability to beat anyone. The same with John Isner.

Their are so many guys today that can beat the top players, and many aren't in the top 10. It's not like the top 2 are just average top 2 players either. It seems like many tennis eras do not compete with this one. Thoughts?

andy neyer
06-30-2010, 04:15 PM
Fuck no.

Action Jackson
06-30-2010, 04:17 PM
Not even close.

This thing has been done more times than Annabel Chong.

Ozone
06-30-2010, 04:18 PM
Fuck no.
Can you at least explain why? You probably can't.

tennis2tennis
06-30-2010, 04:18 PM
what's more mathametically plausible that MOST OF THE PLAYERS have improved or that the main duo have declined?

Jaz
06-30-2010, 04:19 PM
No, they all play the same, two-handed backhand, big flat forehand.

Very few player willingly want to come to the net, few serve and volley if at all...

ReturnWinner
06-30-2010, 04:20 PM
No

Langers
06-30-2010, 04:28 PM
:haha: Is this a serious question? :haha:

HarryMan
07-05-2010, 07:06 AM
Federer currently has 16 slam titles, Nadal has 8. The second highest slams won at the moment is Sampras with 14. Let's take situation wherein, when everything is said and done, Nadal surpasses Sampras in the total slam column (or equals him). Now if we have two players from the same era and if they end up being one and two in the all time total slam titles won column (including all of the other great achievements that they manage to achieve till they play the sport like weeks at number one, ms events won, davis cup, etc. and so on)

If such a thing happened, would you think it would be fair to call this the greatest era with two all time greatest players?

gorgo1986
07-05-2010, 07:21 AM
Federer currently has 16 slam titles, Nadal has 8. The second highest slams won at the moment is Sampras with 14. Let's take situation wherein, when everything is said and done, Nadal surpasses Sampras in the total slam column (or equals him). Now if we have two players from the same era and if they end up being one and two in the all time total slam titles won column (including all of the other great achievements that they manage to achieve till they play the sport like weeks at number one, ms events won, davis cup, etc. and so on)

If such a thing happened, would you think it would be fair to call this the greatest era with two all time greatest players?

Without a doubt, they would have surpassed the Sampras, Courier, Agassi, Ivanišević, Becker era.
And I think when its all said and done, Murray will have probably won a slam or two, maybe Nole one or two more, possibly Del Potro(and than we already had players like Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, etc. at the beginning) and who knows who else... So the Federer-Nadal era is turning out to be the golden age of tennis, its rewriting a lot of what was considered to be tennis history.

And if it ends with the number one and two of all time well than there is no questions asked this will be a new peak for tennis.

careergrandslam
07-05-2010, 07:31 AM
i think so, and the great thing about it is not only are roger and rafa 2 of the alltime greats, but their rivalry is probably the greatest rivalry ever.
and they are such classy champions and have made tennis popular all around the world and brought in new fans to tennis.

this truly is a golden era in tennis history.

ys
07-05-2010, 07:37 AM
Not sure..
Current field. One player knows how to play on clay. No player knows how to play on grass. Everyone knows how to play on hard. Because it is simple. Just whack the ball.
I would really love to see Nadal playing Sampras on grass. That would be fascinating. For one, I don't think all changes in racket technology or surface would make Sampras any less effective on grass.

careergrandslam
07-05-2010, 08:01 AM
Not sure..
Current field. One player knows how to play on clay. No player knows how to play on grass. Everyone knows how to play on hard. Because it is simple. Just whack the ball.
I would really love to see Nadal playing Sampras on grass. That would be fascinating. For one, I don't think all changes in racket technology or surface would make Sampras any less effective on grass.

nadal would pass sampras all day long.
nadal is the greatest passing shot maker ever.
he hits passing shots from places no one even dreams of.

coonster14
07-05-2010, 08:26 AM
nadal would pass sampras all day long.
nadal is the greatest passing shot maker ever.
he hits passing shots from places no one even dreams of.

This. :yeah:, just when you think you have the volley knocked off for a winner, all of a sudden, this crazy whizzy spin of a forehand just goes right past you, that is rafael nadal's signature shot.

Mechlan
07-05-2010, 10:21 AM
I think it could be the greatest rivalry ever. Greatest era? No. Two players does not make an era.

rocketassist
07-05-2010, 10:33 AM
No.

Bobby
07-05-2010, 11:17 AM
Absolutely not. What we have is an era, where two guys win a lot of Grand Slams. It's not enough. There's no contrast in styles and the masters series tournaments do not motivate some players and we see some utterly shit performances there. 500 and 250 tournaments struggle to attract players as well. Expect Simon or Tursunov win Toronto and Cincinnati, because the top players are so tired and want to rest before the US Open. This is one of the legacies of this era.

Action Jackson
07-05-2010, 11:20 AM
No

Shirogane
07-05-2010, 11:26 AM
Nope

laurie-1
07-05-2010, 11:35 AM
I would like to see Djokovic, Murray and Tsonga make more of an impression and win slam tournaments. Del Potro has made an impression but is injured.

Right now its still about 2 names in the media's eyes.

Sophocles
07-05-2010, 12:20 PM
Absolutely not. What we have is an era, where two guys win a lot of Grand Slams. It's not enough. There's no contrast in styles and the masters series tournaments do not motivate some players and we see some utterly shit performances there. 500 and 250 tournaments struggle to attract players as well. Expect Simon or Tursunov win Toronto and Cincinnati, because the top players are so tired and want to rest before the US Open. This is one of the legacies of this era.

Yep, pretty much.

Commander Data
07-05-2010, 12:31 PM
Yes.

MacTheKnife
07-05-2010, 12:36 PM
No.. both have been feeding on weak field for years. Not much change in sight.

Sophocles
07-05-2010, 12:39 PM
2 great players. Um no.

LaFuria
07-05-2010, 01:16 PM
Definitely not. The past year especially has been one big mugfest.

Persimmon
07-05-2010, 01:26 PM
Two GOAT candidates. Indeed. Specially if Nadal ends up in the double digits at the slams.

born_on_clay
07-05-2010, 01:31 PM
wait some more years and you can call it the best era ever

rocketassist
07-05-2010, 01:50 PM
It's not a great era when surfaces are so similar and everyone plays the same game be it on grass, clay or hard- two guys just happen to be better at it than the others.

ys
07-05-2010, 03:29 PM
nadal would pass sampras all day long.
nadal is the greatest passing shot maker ever.
he hits passing shots from places no one even dreams of.

If he would be able to get his racket on a ball .. current tour does not have anyone with a serve even close to Sampras caliber, and no one with comparable ( even if considered far from best at the time ) volleying skills. You prolly forget how Sampras played. He also faced not some schmucks but few of the best returners and passing shot masters of in Agassi, Kafelnikov. Yet none of them had nothing on Sampras on grass. 40:30 on Sampras serve was considered a rare look at break opportunity. :lol:
For one, I think Sampras would be able to handle Rafa on grass. Probably even Goran and Krajicek would.

TheBoiledEgg
07-05-2010, 04:51 PM
nadal would pass sampras all day long.
nadal is the greatest passing shot maker ever.
he hits passing shots from places no one even dreams of.


clowns like Haase who are 0.001% of a Sampras pushed Nadull to 5
Pete would have killed him, so would most of the players in 80's and 90's
he'd never have made it out of week 1

careergrandslam
07-05-2010, 04:55 PM
no one would be able to handle rafas topspin esp. when in the 2nd week of wimby when the courts are torn up.
if federer stuggles against rafa at wimby, then sampras has no chance.
federer is far better than sampras at wimby.
a young and inexperienced federer beat a sampras on a 4 title winning streak.

Johnny Groove
07-05-2010, 04:57 PM
It depends on whether you prefer an era where two all time greats dominate the game or if you prefer several not-as-great but still pretty damn good players duking it out for the slams.

ys
07-05-2010, 05:04 PM
federer is far better than sampras at wimby.
a young and inexperienced federer beat a sampras on a 4 title winning streak.

Geez.. You serious? ABout then the grass masters like Corretja and Bastl were also beating him on grass. He was way past his prime by 2001. In all fairness, he should not have even won it in 2000, when Pat choked really badly. But at his prime? His first serve placement was 130mph, totally unreadable and with placement easily within a square foot. His second serve was better than Rafa's first. No one serves like that these days. Leave alone, no one volleys like him .. that is pretty obvious..

The problem is not that s&v no longer works on grass. It does, perfectly. Problem is.. It no longer works on hardcourts. And because of that there is simply too little of incentive to polish and develop s&v game.

Action Jackson
07-05-2010, 05:13 PM
Geez.. You serious? ABout then the grass masters like Corretja and Bastl were also beating him on grass. He was way past his prime by 2001. In all fairness, he should not have even won it in 2000, when Pat choked really badly. But at his prime? His first serve placement was 130mph, totally unreadable and with placement easily within a square foot. His second serve was better than Rafa's first. No one serves like that these days. Leave alone, no one volleys like him .. that is pretty obvious..

The problem is not that s&v no longer works on grass. It does, perfectly. Problem is.. It no longer works on hardcourts. And because of that there is simply too little of incentive to polish and develop s&v game.

The old classic thing, these people seem to forget there was actually surface diversity. It's obvious that Nadal wouldn't play the same way in that timeframe and Sampras wouldn't be same, but hey lets forget the obvious.

Start da Game
07-05-2010, 05:42 PM
no.......the baseline game is of real high quality but the huge minus here is the lack of variety........90s was the most balanced in all angles and it's incredible how sampras managed to squeeze out 14 slams from that era.......the fact that agassi breathed a sigh of relief after 2000 and started winning some slams in his 30s is enough proof of the strength of 90s.......a 35 year old agassi was playing with roddicks, hewitts etc.......

to me, 90s will go down as the greatest era ever, sampras the greatest player ever and nadal the greatest fighter in the history of the sport.......

ys
07-05-2010, 06:11 PM
no.......the baseline game is of real high quality but the huge minus here is the lack of variety........90s was the most balanced in all angles and it's incredible how sampras managed to squeeze out 14 slams from that era.......the fact that agassi breathed a sigh of relief after 2000 and started winning some slams in his 30s is enough proof of the strength of 90s.......a 35 year old agassi was playing with roddicks, hewitts etc.......

35 yo agassi played a very even US Open final against Federer. And that, taking into account that older folks never do well at US Open as playing two days in a row against elite players is really difficult to handle for older body. At that, 30 yo Sampras comfortably beat 32 yo Agassi.


to me, 90s will go down as the greatest era ever, sampras the greatest player ever and nadal the greatest fighter in the history of the sport.......

I agree. With the technology of his time serve and volley was a reasonable approach for most of surfaces, but that did rule out clay success. Hence Sampras never figured out RG. On the other hand, should we have had 2 Slams on clay and one on hardcourts, Nadal could have easily been already ahead of Federer in Slam count.

Mechlan
07-05-2010, 06:30 PM
I agree. With the technology of his time serve and volley was a reasonable approach for most of surfaces, but that did rule out clay success. Hence Sampras never figured out RG. On the other hand, should we have had 2 Slams on clay and one on hardcourts, Nadal could have easily been already ahead of Federer in Slam count.

And if we had 4 slams on grass, Sampras would be far and away the GOAT. :lol: :shrug:

Sampras had a great ground game in his prime. It just wasn't good enough to win him RG. Really, Sampras was primarily a S&Ver only at Wimbledon, and more at other slams as he got older.

ys
07-05-2010, 07:46 PM
And if we had 4 slams on grass, Sampras would be far and away the GOAT. :lol: :shrug:

Sampras had a great ground game in his prime. It just wasn't good enough to win him RG.

As most of serve & volleyers he was eastern-gripper. With amount of topspin coming on clay from good claycourt specialists, eastern grip was not going to cut it for ground game along on clay. Simply not comfortable to handle/generate topspin.

thrust
07-06-2010, 01:52 AM
This Era: Fed-16 Slams most won before Nadal reached his near peak, Nadal-8 Slams,Djokivic-1, Roddick-1, del Potro-1

Sampras Era: Pete-14 Slams, Agassi-8, Courier-4, Becker-6, Edberg-6, Lendl-8, Hewitt-2, Rafter-2

Persimmon
07-06-2010, 02:23 AM
to me, 90s will go down as the greatest era ever, sampras the greatest player ever ......

Apparently the 80s was the best era ever. Most competitive.

ys
07-06-2010, 02:54 AM
This Era: Fed-16 Slams most won before Nadal reached his near peak, Nadal-8 Slams,Djokivic-1, Roddick-1, del Potro-1

You have to throw in the numbers for Hewitt and Safin. Even if they are irrelevant these days, they are this Era.


Sampras Era: Pete-14 Slams, Agassi-8, Courier-4, Becker-6, Edberg-6, Lendl-8, Hewitt-2, Rafter-2
Replace Hewitt with Kafelnikov/Bruguera here.. Take out Lendl completely. He has nothing to do with Sampras Era.

EMTENNIS
07-06-2010, 04:23 AM
No

brent-o
07-06-2010, 05:19 AM
I think people confuse greatest era with greatest depth. But anyway, it's already an amazing era in tennis because of Rafa and Roger. I couldn't say if it's the greatest ever, but it sure is fun for these two great champions to coexist in the same era.

JolánGagó
07-06-2010, 05:22 AM
Total bullshit.

River
07-06-2010, 05:29 AM
2 Players do not make an Era.

It's basically a time about 2 players, and a leg race by the other hundred players to see who can topple them.

I mean seriously, are we really going to remember Davydenko, Nalbandian, and etc 50 years from now the same way we treat the players of the 80s and 90s?

Remember that technology plays a huge part of the game now, where you can spin the ball so hard that any shot that used to fly to the back wall would actually land in.

This era needs more talent to be called the greatest era... not just two people trying to one-up each other and hug in the end.

Everko
09-16-2010, 02:37 PM
Not even close.

This thing has been done more times than Annabel Chong.

you slam people for not seeing the past but I think you have an even more serious bias against the present.

Action Jackson
09-16-2010, 02:39 PM
Of course no.

Shirogane
09-16-2010, 02:45 PM
This thing has been done more times than Annabel Chong.

:rolls:

borracho
09-16-2010, 02:50 PM
A tennis era takes more than two players. Playing level might be higher than ever, only the game itself is more boring nowadays since serve&volley died. A player can win all slams with the exact same gameplan. Tennis supporters lost. One of the dullest era's imo.

Gabe32
09-16-2010, 03:11 PM
It has to be close. How is everyone measuring it? Total slams owned by active players? Competitiveness?? All these one word answers are ambiguous.

Absolutely speaking, as in any sport, modern players would demolish older generations since the game has evolved considerably. So you can't just site "no serve and volleying" as a reason why this generation is worse.

Relatively speaking, the competition does not seems to be as great as it used to be. It is just Nadal and Federer dominating for 7 years, with people like Safin/Roddick/Djokovic stealing a slam here and there.

oranges
09-16-2010, 03:13 PM
If such a thing happened, would you think it would be fair to call this the greatest era with two all time greatest players?

For the millionth time, two players do not make an era, so no. An era with 3-4 exceptional players with multiple slams, all of whom are more than capable of beating each other, plus some who do not have the same consistency but are perfectly capable of beating them as well, think Mecir, Stich, Krajicek, Goran, etc. that's a great era.

borracho
09-16-2010, 03:26 PM
It has to be close. How is everyone measuring it? Total slams owned by active players? Competitiveness?? All these one word answers are ambiguous.

Absolutely speaking, as in any sport, modern players would demolish older generations since the game has evolved considerably. So you can't just site "no serve and volleying" as a reason why this generation is worse.

Relatively speaking, the competition does not seems to be as great as it used to be. It is just Nadal and Federer dominating for 7 years, with people like Safin/Roddick/Djokovic stealing a slam here and there.

Tennis is played to entertain spectators. And as a spectator I find this era the dullest. Differences between surfaces get smaller and smaller, so I hardly see players adjust their game to surface anymore. Wimbledon completely devaluated imo, and only that is reason enough for me not to find this era the greatest. That the absolute playing level is higher means very little to me.

Henry Kaspar
09-16-2010, 03:31 PM
Certainly one of the greatest.

I would be nice though if the #3-6 players would be able to put more pressure on the RogRaf duopoly at the slams. Around 1980 there were Borg and McEnroe, but there were also Connors and Lendl. The Connors and Lendl types are the ones missing today.

Gabe32
09-16-2010, 03:43 PM
Tennis is played to entertain spectators. And as a spectator I find this era the dullest. Differences between surfaces get smaller and smaller, so I hardly see players adjust their game to surface anymore. Wimbledon completely devaluated imo, and only that is reason enough for me not to find this era the greatest. That the absolute playing level is higher means very little to me.

Fair enough.

It's a completely subjective and loaded question. But for me, having really only seen this generation, it is tough to go back and watch older matches. For instance, the Tennis Channel had an old French Open match on the other day (it looked like from the 70s). I understand these guys were the absolute top athletes back in the day, but to me, used to guys like Nadal chasing down every ball and diving, etc... it just seemed like these guys were casually walking over to the ball and then not even hitting it at 75% of their power.

I am not bashing the older game (I still really enjoyed the match). If I were around to watch the older generation I am certain I would prefer it to todays game as well.

borracho
09-16-2010, 04:01 PM
fully agree the question is very subjective :)

Action Jackson
09-16-2010, 06:33 PM
:rolls:

Well it's getting ridiculous now.

star
09-16-2010, 06:42 PM
"This maybe the best tennis has ever been", "The game is the deepest it's ever been"- P. McEnroe.

With Federer and Nadal struggling, is the field getting that much better, or are these guys getting worse? It seemed to me like Berdych (only seeded 12th) play amazing and Federer didn't play any worse than he has been. Soderling, ranked 6th, has been on fire an we've seen him take out Rafa in RG '09 and Federer in RG '10. Murray is consistently getting better and can beat anyone and Nole is always a feared opponent and can beat anyone. Davydenko's game, even though he's been out for awhile, has improved so much over the last 5 years. Marin Cilic isn't even in the top 10 and he has the ability to beat anyone. The same with John Isner.

Their are so many guys today that can beat the top players, and many aren't in the top 10. It's not like the top 2 are just average top 2 players either. It seems like many tennis eras do not compete with this one. Thoughts?

I thought I'd try to respond with my serious thoughts just to add a counterpoint to the sort of position taking and trolling that is going on. I've seen more eras that most on this board.

Every era has its excitement and drama, and every new generation of fans tends to think that the era when they discovered tennis was the best era. I can't say what is "best" because I don't think that way really. I tend to think that today is better than yesterday and tomorrow will be even better.

But that said, we have seen something extraordinary here in the last 6 years. We've seen the rise of an extraordinary champion who has compiled an unmatched number of GS titles. It's something that hasn't been done before. Also during this 6 year period, we've also seen the rise of another extraordinary champion who also has done something not done before in tennis. So, both of these things happening during the same era is very special.

I also tend to think that the late 70s and early 80s was a great time for tennis. I didn't like McEnroe or Connors, but they both brought a lot of fire and a lot of interest to the game and along with them there was Borg -- So three great champions at the same time.

Pirata.
09-16-2010, 08:24 PM
It's not a great era when surfaces are so similar and everyone plays the same game be it on grass, clay or hard- two guys just happen to be better at it than the others.

:yeah:

shiaben
09-16-2010, 09:09 PM
Well agree with what everyone said above. Can't just limit it down to 2 players. If Djokovic, Murray, Soderling, Berdych, or whomever can at the least, capture a slam per year. Like having 4-5 players actively playing who have 2-3 slams each, next to Federer and Nadal, I think that would make it amazing. This way, you're not sure, WHO is going to win the next slam, because there will be some 4-6 solid players who have already won slams, and each one is equally capable of defeating the other. If such a situation is present, that would make it a great era. But until then it's a great rivalry, not as much an era.

I think currently Djokovic is the closest one to Nadal/Federer's experience. He can definitely challenge them or surprise us. He showed why he shouldn't be counted out when he makes the SFs. Hopefully if he can remain consistent, and play at this level, this will make things really damn interesting, who knows he might KO Nadal next, and open our heads up.

But the thing is, it can't be a 1x thing like Soderling or Berdych defeating a few top players here and there, and then just playing mediocre in the next slams. The level has to remain consistent on all 4 slams, or else this ruins the pt.

So I really do hope, with the players available (a lot of amazing and talented players in the top 12), if at least 4-6x of them, can capture a few slams within the coming years, this will make things extremely competitive and unpredictable. Rather than already knowing that Federer will win this slam, or Nadal will win that one. There's no competition, it's just too predictable.