Golden era of tennis [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Golden era of tennis

Nole fan
06-11-2012, 09:43 PM
28 of 29 is proof of tennis' golden era (http://msn.foxsports.com/tennis/story/Column-28-of-29-is-proof-of-tennis-golden-era-29113130)


UPDATED JUN 11, 2012 4:22 PM ET

PARIS (AP)
While a bank of photographers took pictures for posterity and the front pages of the world, Rafael Nadal lovingly studied the champions' names - the likes of Bjorn Borg, Roger Federer and, of course, his own - engraved on the base of the French Open trophy. A huge grin dawned on his face like sunrise. He looked like the happiest person on the planet.

And yet, minutes later, down in the bowels of the Roland Garros arena where Nadal had just made history, his uncle and coach was talking not about the brilliance of the best clay-court player men's tennis has ever seen, but about his rotten luck. The point Toni Nadal was making was that his nephew's career could have been even more stellar if he had been playing in another era - one without Federer and now, increasingly, Novak Djokovic - his defeated opponent in this French Open final.

''Unlucky, unlucky, oh yes,'' uncle Toni said. ''If there wasn't Federer, perhaps Rafael would have been No. 1 for four years. But with Federer, that was impossible.''

He is right, of course. But wrong, too.

Nadal would almost certainly have more major titles by now - this record seventh French Open crown took his total to 11 - if not for Federer and Djokovic. Without those two stones in his shoes, Nadal could have ruled alone at the top of tennis for years.

But would tennis fans have cared as much about the men's game as they do now? No. And would Nadal have become such a good player if first Federer and now Djokovic hadn't forced him to improve? Probably not.

''To just watch these top players push each other, I don't think there's any much further to push,'' Steffi Graf, a 22-time major winner on the women's side, said before this latest momentous chapter in the Djokovic-Nadal-Federer rivalry. ''Men's tennis, definitely, is at the highest it has even been.''

Like musketeers, they're even more glorious as a trio. By building this golden era of tennis together, they share in its glitter. It may sometimes seem like a curse for Toni Nadal, but it is precisely because his nephew is tested so often against opponents of such high quality that we can be absolutely sure of his and their greatness.

To beat each other, they have to lift their game to the highest of standards. All three have been made bigger and stronger by their rivalry, not diminished by it. They are each other's poison, but also each other's magic potion that makes them look good. Together, they have now won 28 of the last 29 majors. So, in men's tennis, it is them on one plane, everyone else on another, and looks likely to stay that way for the immediate future, at least for Nadal and Djokovic. Both in their mid-twenties, they have more time than Federer, 30, to make even more of a mark.

''They are doing something to one another that hasn't been done before,'' said three-time French Open champion Mats Wilander. ''Borg made (John) McEnroe a better player, but Borg quit. And Federer made Nadal a better player, and Federer didn't quit. And Djokovic has beaten the hell out of Nadal, and Nadal didn't quit. So I think they're a very special three players that are not afraid of one another. They're not mentally really disturbed by one another. They just tactically, technically can't handle the other guy. It's very interesting.''

Had he won his first French Open final, Djokovic would have become the first player since Rod Laver in 1969 to hold four majors at the same time.

But Nadal, for his mental health, needed this victory more. Another loss in a major final to the world's No. 1 would have been the fourth in a row for Nadal, an unprecedented Grand Slam of losses that would done untold damage to the Spaniard's confidence.

So he came to this match talking as though he had swallowed a library of self-help motivational books - ''I will be there fighting,'' ''I can't let him feel comfortable,'' ''I have to play aggressive, I have to play my game'' - and executed his plan for the first two sets until rain Sunday made the balls play like grapefruits and take the sting off Nadal's shots.

If looks could kill, there's a patch of red clay on the Philippe Chatrier showcourt at Roland Garros that would need last rites. That was where Djokovic's backhand service return landed on the very first point of the fourth set, with the tide turning Djokovic's way after he won the third. Nadal swung his racket, missed the ball entirely and, convinced he'd had a bad bounce from the increasingly sodden clay, stared furiously at the offending spot. That captured how the wet messed with Nadal's mind and his tennis.

Nadal can count himself lucky that the referee intervened two games later, sending them home until Monday. But he doesn't owe his eventual 6-4, 6-3, 2-6, 7-5 victory to luck. He won as he often does, by soaking up pretty much everything thrown at him and returning it with interest and lashes of topspin.

Nadal is so at home at Roland Garros that the ballkids know, seemingly without being told, to lay out a towel on the red clay next to his bench so his white equipment bag doesn't get dirty. Beating him was always going to require Djokovic's very best tennis, and he only delivered that in patches. To breach Nadal's defenses, Djokovic was forced to aim for the sidelines. Often, the risk didn't pay off. But he did have some success with serve and volley and a few elegant lobs over Nadal's head - variety that may help him unlock the riddle of beating Nadal on his best surface next time.

''How much is he going to improve on clay? So much,'' said Wilander. ''After today, he's going to figure, 'OK, I could have won that match if I do this and this, and I work on my forehand and maybe come in a little more, maybe more surprise serve and volley. Three or four points makes a big difference.' He's right there. They better watch out for him on clay next year, because he'll be heading in the other direction, I think. I really do.''

What a prospect. For many, Federer is the greatest player in tennis history. His record 16 major titles give his fans a gilt-edged argument. Without Nadal, Federer would have had more. Without Federer, so might Nadal. And, without them, Djokovic would not have been forced to hone himself into the force he has become - formidable enough to still be ranked No. 1 despite this defeat.

A golden era, indeed.

''I have great rivals,'' Nadal said. ''For me, you can feel unlucky or lucky. Both.''

Looner
06-11-2012, 09:49 PM
Complete BS.

ossie
06-11-2012, 11:14 PM
this is indeed the strongest era in mens tennis. the tards on this board are the only ones who dont agree.

Jamoz
06-11-2012, 11:17 PM
this is indeed the strongest era in mens tennis. the tards on this board are the only ones who dont agree.

I't must be with GOAT like Delpo ;)

finishingmove
06-11-2012, 11:18 PM
Good article.

And as long as they all remain on the tour they will keep forcing each other to improve.

Mark Lenders
06-11-2012, 11:28 PM
Whether this is a golden era of tennis or not, the fact that 28 of the past 29 Slams were won by only three players proves absolutely nothing.

Tennis is about more than three players and taken in isolation it could also mean that the rest of the field isn't up to mark, which does not constitute a golden era.

star
06-11-2012, 11:28 PM
Thanks, Nole Fan. That was an interesting article.

TBkeeper
06-11-2012, 11:29 PM
Whether this is a golden era of tennis or not, the fact that 28 of the past 29 Slams were won by only three players proves absolutely nothing.

Tennis is about more than three players and taken in isolation it could also mean that the rest of the field isn't up to mark, which does not constitute a golden era.

T H I S

Fed=ATPTourkilla
06-11-2012, 11:31 PM
I almost think it would be a good idea if the "era" arguments were permanently banned from MTF because they are just so boring now. Soon we will have SetSampras on to say that the 1990s were the only true golden era (yes, the 1990s, the era when Rusedski almost got to no 1).

tektonac
06-11-2012, 11:36 PM
toni having a crush on federer or just psyching him for SW19 :lol:

SheepleBuster
06-11-2012, 11:38 PM
Golden era of tennis like the golden era of baseball. lol. What a fucking joke. I am sick and tired of people shitting their pants and not talking about the big elephant in the room

BigJohn
06-11-2012, 11:40 PM
The #1 is a cheater and a faker, the #2 has gamesmanship issue. Not that golden...

LaFuria
06-11-2012, 11:43 PM
The golden era of mugginess perhaps. When you only have 2 guys who can win slams, both of whom can barely serve, it's not a good sign.

Mark Lenders
06-11-2012, 11:44 PM
Golden era of tennis like the golden era of baseball. lol. What a fucking joke. I am sick and tired of people shitting their pants and not talking about the big elephant in the room

Doping is definitely an issue to consider and one that does cross the mind when watching neverending grindathons with Nadal, Murray, Ferrer and others, essentially unbelievably physical matches.

But let's not accuse anyone without evidence. For all we know, they are just supreme athletes with supreme fitness. Unfortunately the doping control in tennis is horrible to put it mildly so it's easy to be suspicious, but until proof in contrary I'll believe the sport is clean.

Stricter doping control should be enforced though, to make sure there are no clouds of suspicion.

GOAT = Fed
06-11-2012, 11:47 PM
brb past year has seen only two players appear in slams
brb no.3 rank is a player who is 31 in 2 months and making SF of slams with relative ease
brb 28 of the past 29 slams have been won by 3 players
brb somehow 2 player making the finals of all slams constitutes a strong era
brb what about the other 126 players in the draw?
brb brb

LaFuria
06-11-2012, 11:48 PM
Doping is definitely an issue to consider and one that does cross my mind when I watch neverending grindathons with Nadal, Murray, Ferrer...

But let's not accuse anyone without evidence. For all we know, they are just supreme athletes. Unfortunately the doping control in tennis is horrible to put it mildly so it's easy to be suspicious, but until proof in contrary I'll believe the sport is clean.

Stricter doping control should be enforced though, to make sure there are no clouds of suspicion.

It's very possible certain guys are just evolutionary freaks of nature, and of course conditioning has never been better - the emphasis on diets and exact exercises is very precise, but there there's reasons to wonder, especially when the best players right now are more famous for their ability to not stop running than they are for their technique.

star
06-11-2012, 11:49 PM
Doping is definitely an issue to consider and one that does cross the mind when watching neverending grindathons with Nadal, Murray, Ferrer...

But let's not accuse anyone without evidence. For all we know, they are just supreme athletes. Unfortunately the doping control in tennis is horrible to put it mildly so it's easy to be suspicious, but until proof in contrary I'll believe the sport is clean.

Stricter doping control should be enforced though, to make sure there are no clouds of suspicion.

You just did accuse without evidence. Djokovic plays Nadal step for step and sometimes he is the one to wear Nadal down physically. I’ve seen it happen several times in 2011. So I suppose you accuse him as well.

ballbasher101
06-11-2012, 11:50 PM
Murray and Del Potro need to step up big time for this era to be considered great. Murray wake up son, this is your time. Del Potro is being killed by injuries, I feel for the big man. This era is becoming a joke due to lack of young upcoming talent. No one apart from Raonic truly stands out, it is a joke.

Mark Lenders
06-11-2012, 11:52 PM
You just did accuse without evidence. Djokovic plays Nadal step for step and sometimes he is the one to wear Nadal down physically. I’ve seen it happen several times in 2011. So I suppose you accuse him as well.

I did't accuse anyone of anything, just said the subject does cross my mind when watching some neverending grindathons, and that tennis should enforce stricter anti-doping policies so that all athletes are above any possible cloud of suspicion.

Didn't accuse anyone of doping, actually said to me everyone was innocent and the sport is clean until proven otherwise. Just said it's a problem that does worry me, and it will remain that way until controls become stricter.

Nole fan
06-11-2012, 11:57 PM
Anyone making assumptions about doping. :facepalm:

Mark Lenders
06-11-2012, 11:57 PM
It's very possible certain guys are just evolutionary freaks of nature, and of course conditioning has never been better - the emphasis on diets and exact exercises is very precise, but there there's reasons to wonder, especially when the best players right now are more famous for their ability to not stop running than they are for their technique.

True, there is reason to wonder. I've long wished tennis enforced a far stricter doping policy to remove any possible clouds of suspicion.

Outside of the tennis fandom, there are many who accuse some of the top guys from doping. It'd be very easy to lift those seeds of doubt by simply applying stricter testing.

Tennis is far from the only sport guilty of lax testing, but being my favorite sport it annoys me even more, hate it when I hear people call some of the top players doped up freaks.

ballbasher101
06-12-2012, 12:00 AM
I did't accuse anyone of anything, just said the subject does cross my mind when watching some neverending grindathons, and that tennis should enforce stricter anti-doping policies so that all athletes are above any possible cloud of suspicion.

Didn't accuse anyone of doping, actually said to me everyone was innocent and the sport is clean until proven otherwise. Just said it's a problem that does worry me, and it will remain that way until controls become stricter.



We do know that the ATP covered for Agassi when he tested positive. If one of the big 4 tested positive one suspects the ATP would probably sweep it under the carpet. Is there doping in tennis? most likely. There is doping in pretty much every sport apart from darts ;). All you need is beer in darts :lol:.

Johnny Groove
06-12-2012, 12:05 AM
Just because an era is dominated by 3 guys doesn't mean it is a mug era.

Tennis history is littered with the game being dominated by a few guys. Fedalovic era now. Sampras and Agassi in the 90's. Lendl, Wilander, Becker, Edberg in the 80's mixed with Mac and Connors. 70's with Borg and Connors. 60's with Laver and Rosewall. 50's with Pancho and whoever challenged Pancho. 40's with Kramer, Riggs, and late Budge. 30's with Vines, Perry, Budge, and late Tilden. 20's with Tilden vs. French, and so on.

A dominant few players with "a bunch of mugs" could be used to describe any era in tennis history.

But, at MTF, you have 3 dominant players, and people call it a mug era cause no one is challenging them. Then, there will be an era where every slam is up for grabs like 1998-2003, and MTF will be all "OMFG, what a mug era! No one is consistent! Anyone can win!" :stupid:

:haha:

Topspindoctor
06-12-2012, 12:07 AM
This era is strongest in history. We no longer have clown one slam flukes like Roddick, Ivanisevic, Krajicek and Johansson.

Mark Lenders
06-12-2012, 12:08 AM
We do know that the ATP covered for Agassi when he tested positive. If one of the big 4 tested positive one suspects the ATP would probably sweep it under the carpet. Is there doping in tennis? most likely. There is doping in pretty much every sport apart from darts ;). All you need is beer in darts :lol:.

Yeah, hope that is not the case though. Would feel a lot 'safer' if the ITF's testing was more rigorous and transparent. Especially as someone who used to be a big cycling fan, I do wonder sometimes if there is doping in tennis and to what extent. There have been some cases, all low profile, I really hope that's all there is to it.

But oh well, I'll believe the sport's clean unless proven otherwise and keep wishing for better testing. I'm sick of fans of other sports telling me that certain tennis player are doped up freaks :o

Orka_n
06-12-2012, 12:12 AM
What utter nonsense. The current era is pretty much shit, and only clowns like ossie believe otherwise. Except for the top 2, a declining great who hasn't won a slam in over 2 years and a certain slam midget, you have nothing in this era. Absolutely nothing. And an era cannot be judged by looking ONLY at the top 3, which some people are.

In the past there were great threats in the top 10 who could really pull an upset on their day: Nalbandian, Safin, Davydenko, Gonzales, Moya, Coria, Henman, Grosjean, Kiefer etc...

But not now. Never has tennis been as predictable as now. This era is nothing but a massive joke.

Topspindoctor
06-12-2012, 12:14 AM
In the past there were great threats in the top 10 who could really pull an upset on their day: Nalbandian, Safin, Davydenko, Gonzales, Moya, Coria, Henman, Grosjean, Kiefer etc...

But not now. Never has tennis been as predictable as now. This era is nothing but a massive joke.

Apart from Safin and Moya, none of the mugs you mentioned could actually pull an upset in a GS. For more proof, see AO 2010 Fed vs Davydenko or Haas vs Fed in RG 2009.

GOAT = Fed
06-12-2012, 12:15 AM
Just because an era is dominated by 3 guys doesn't mean it is a mug era.

Tennis history is littered with the game being dominated by a few guys. Fedalovic era now. Sampras and Agassi in the 90's. Lendl, Wilander, Becker, Edberg in the 80's mixed with Mac and Connors. 70's with Borg and Connors. 60's with Laver and Rosewall. 50's with Pancho and whoever challenged Pancho. 40's with Kramer, Riggs, and late Budge. 30's with Vines, Perry, Budge, and late Tilden. 20's with Tilden vs. French, and so on.

A dominant few players with "a bunch of mugs" could be used to describe any era in tennis history.

But, at MTF, you have 3 dominant players, and people call it a mug era cause no one is challenging them. Then, there will be an era where every slam is up for grabs like 1998-2003, and MTF will be all "OMFG, what a mug era! No one is consistent! Anyone can win!" :stupid:

:haha:
Hence to outright label one era as undoubtedly the greatest is a flawed analogy.

TennisOnWood
06-12-2012, 12:16 AM
This era is strongest in history. We no longer have clown one slam flukes like Roddick, Ivanisevic, Krajicek and Johansson.

Yeah, we are so lucky to have many players who can challenge Nadal, Federer and Djokovic

Pure gold this era

Jamoz
06-12-2012, 12:18 AM
More like a rotten era of Tennis. Three men winning everything year after year is just boring :o

Topspindoctor
06-12-2012, 12:23 AM
More like a rotten era of Tennis. Three men winning everything year after year is just boring :o

It's better than random clowns fluking their way to titles like it's right now on WTA :o

leng jai
06-12-2012, 12:24 AM
The Golden era of tennis coincides with the Golden era of MTF.

NID.

Jamoz
06-12-2012, 12:25 AM
It's better than random clowns fluking their way to titles like it's right now on WTA :o

Is it really? Now this all is very predictable. WTA? what is that :p;)

Henry Chinaski
06-12-2012, 12:36 AM
as has already been pointed out, 28 out of 29 proves precisely fuck all.

the 24 semi-final spots at the last 6 slams being taken up by just 6 players however, proves to me that the field as a whole is weak as piss and that conditions are ridiculously similar all year round.

TennisOnWood
06-12-2012, 12:43 AM
as has already been pointed out, 28 out of 29 proves precisely fuck all.

the 24 semi-final spots at the last 6 slams being taken up by just 6 players however, proves to me that the field as a whole is weak as piss and that conditions are ridiculously similar all year round.

I read your article at the end of last year about few players in finals and 1/2's of Grand Slam tournaments.. be ready to make another one after 2012. cause no one new is comming

LaFuria
06-12-2012, 12:50 AM
More like a rotten era of Tennis. Three men winning everything year after year is just boring :o

More like 2 men, Federer isn't winning another slam I'm afraid.

TennisOnWood
06-12-2012, 12:51 AM
More like 2 men, Federer isn't winning another slam I'm afraid.

That's even worse.. with no young players to challenge them, we will see 50 matches between this two

Mark Lenders
06-12-2012, 12:57 AM
The answer to this problem of excessive duopoly was born in Tandil. Tennis would definitely look very different today if Del Potro had been allowed to build on his first Slam win instead of having his career/development derailed by wrist injury and surgery. How different? Impossible to say for sure, but definitely different.

He still remains the only man with the game and mentality to challenge Djokovic and Nadal - apart from Federer, but Roger is almost 31. It's either Del Potro finally catching a break with his injuries and stepping up to the plate to become a contender, or Djokovic and Nadal completely dominating tennis for the foreseeable future until a young gun rises/they decline.

Fireballer
06-12-2012, 01:05 AM
Delpo has no game to challenge Nadal and Djoker.Maybe Rafa on hardcourt if he plays his ass off but Djoker is superior to Delpo in almost every area and on hard and clay he owns him.I imagine grass too

Nole fan
06-12-2012, 01:08 AM
You people should all retire from tennis, what a disgrace to this magnificent sport you are. Why do you bother watching if it annoys/bores you so much? go watch footie with your boyfriends.

Topspindoctor
06-12-2012, 01:10 AM
The answer to this problem of excessive duopoly was born in Tandil. Tennis would definitely look very different today if Del Potro had been allowed to build on his first Slam win instead of having his career/development derailed by wrist injury and surgery. How different? Impossible to say for sure, but definitely different.

He still remains the only man with the game and mentality to challenge Djokovic and Nadal - apart from Federer, but Roger is almost 31. It's either Del Potro finally catching a break with his injuries and stepping up to the plate to become a contender, or Djokovic and Nadal completely dominating tennis for the foreseeable future until a young gun rises/they decline.

Stop inserting Del-Craptro into every topic, he is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. The big 3 are in another dimension as far as talent and dedication to the game goes. You should savor that fluke slam he won, because it'll be his last.

Mark Lenders
06-12-2012, 01:15 AM
Stop inserting Del-Craptro into every topic, he is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. The big 3 are in another dimension as far as talent and dedication to the game goes. You should savor that fluke slam he won, because it'll be his last.

If you look at the topic, I was not the first person to bring up Del Potro. With him being one of only two Slam winners of the post-Fedal generation, he was bound to be brought up in discussions about this era.

You can keep pretending he's irrelevant, but don't expect that many people to agree with you.

Quadruple Tree
06-12-2012, 01:30 AM
It's better than random clowns fluking their way to titles like it's right now on WTA :o

Gotta love MTF. Anyone outside of the top 5 is a random clown. I guess that is the truth in this mug era, but in earlier decades, the pool of talent ran a little deeper than four guys. All those people who supposedly fluked their way to a title (Korda, Johansson, Costa, Kraijcek, et al.) were top 10 players at one point in their careers. It's not like they were challenger level players coming out of nowhere.

Quadruple Tree
06-12-2012, 01:33 AM
You people should all retire from tennis, what a disgrace to this magnificent sport you are. Why do you bother watching if it annoys/bores you so much? go watch footie with your boyfriends.

Calling people gay as an insult. What is this, 1990? Try to move into the 21st century, OK?

SheepleBuster
06-12-2012, 01:34 AM
Doping is definitely an issue to consider and one that does cross the mind when watching neverending grindathons with Nadal, Murray, Ferrer and others, essentially unbelievably physical matches.

But let's not accuse anyone without evidence. For all we know, they are just supreme athletes with supreme fitness. Unfortunately the doping control in tennis is horrible to put it mildly so it's easy to be suspicious, but until proof in contrary I'll believe the sport is clean.

Stricter doping control should be enforced though, to make sure there are no clouds of suspicion.

I am not accusing anyone. But I have a strong suspicion many top players are on it. Some of the physiques are not natural for a tennis player. There are many blogs who describe how athletes can beat tests and work their way through cycles. I encourage everyone to read them. It's not natural to go for 6 hours on hard court. When people talk about tennis becoming inhuman, well, guess what that means.;

To be perfectly honest, I don't care who is using it. But don't tell me these players are special when they look like body builders or Hercules and run like a horse.

LaFuria
06-12-2012, 01:35 AM
If you look at the topic, I was not the first person to bring up Del Potro. With him being one of only two Slam winners of the post-Fedal generation, he was bound to be brought up in discussions about this era.

You can keep pretending he's irrelevant, but don't expect that many people to agree with you.

You are talking to a Nadaltard who knows Del Potro is Nadull's nightmare on hard courts.

Del Potro still has far too many holes in his game to be a consistent problem against Djokovic, even when healthy, but with the other competition so poor that could still be good enough if he would stop getting injured.

BauerAlmeida
06-12-2012, 01:38 AM
Stop inserting Del-Craptro into every topic, he is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. The big 3 are in another dimension as far as talent and dedication to the game goes. You should savor that fluke slam he won, because it'll be his last.

Del Potro is relevant because he is the only one who won a slam recently besides the TOP 3 and when he was at his peak he showed he could defeat all of them even in Bo5 matches.

And he will do it again, of course.

Topspindoctor
06-12-2012, 01:39 AM
You are talking to a Nadaltard who knows Del Potro is Nadull's nightmare on hard courts.

Del Potro still has far too many holes in his game to be a consistent problem against Djokovic, even when healthy, but with the other competition so poor that could still be good enough if he would stop getting injured.

H2H would suggest otherwise, clown :wavey:

Better celebrate that fluke slam Olderer gifted him, because it'll be his only one. Can't even win masters title. LOL.

Mark Lenders
06-12-2012, 01:48 AM
I am not accusing anyone. But I have a strong suspicion many top players are on it. Some of the physiques are not natural for a tennis player. There are many blogs who describe how athletes can beat tests and work their way through cycles. I encourage everyone to read them. It's not natural to go for 6 hours on hard court. When people talk about tennis becoming inhuman, well, guess what that means.;

To be perfectly honest, I don't care who is using it. But don't tell me these players are special when they look like body builders or Hercules and run like a horse.

Well yeah, I know the tennis testing system very well and it's not satisfactory at all. I'm not here to accuse player x or y of doping, just asking for stricter testing and more transparency to assure that the sport is clean. Given the current testing, it is perfectly normal for some people to ask questions.

The ITF is not doing what it takes to assure transparency.


You are talking to a Nadaltard who knows Del Potro is Nadull's nightmare on hard courts.

Del Potro still has far too many holes in his game to be a consistent problem against Djokovic, even when healthy, but with the other competition so poor that could still be good enough if he would stop getting injured.

On clay too. He is the only guy to take a set from Nadal on clay in the past 12 months bar Djokovic, and with a breadstick no less. It's always a tough matchup for Nadal regardless of form and fitness, Juan almost took him to 5 in that DC match while running on fumes.

And Juan has no matchup issues vs Djokovic imo. Watch their two matches last year, they were very even, there's not a distinct matchup advantage when these two face imo. The only top player who does create matchup issues for Juan is Federer with his incredible variety.

BauerAlmeida
06-12-2012, 01:49 AM
We do know that the ATP covered for Agassi when he tested positive. If one of the big 4 tested positive one suspects the ATP would probably sweep it under the carpet. Is there doping in tennis? most likely. There is doping in pretty much every sport apart from darts ;). All you need is beer in darts :lol:.


It's different if the substance improves the performance of the player....I don't think ATP would have covered for Agassi in that case and I hope they wouldn't do it now.

This era is strongest in history. We no longer have clown one slam flukes like Roddick, Ivanisevic, Krajicek and Johansson.

But, he wave Delpo, he is a one slam fluke too, remember?

juan27
06-12-2012, 01:57 AM
for me , the more stronger era was the 80s , very good players fought by the slams , now , we only have 3.....

the 90s for me are very overrated , because never happened a really true domination , agassi never was very regular for faced sampras like nadal , nole and federer , agassi was not the same nemesis for sampras than nadal for roger , or djokovic for nadal , or roger for nole , because that for me the 90s are overrated


the main problems with today`s era was the top-10 for me , the rest of the field never can do nothing in the slams against the top 3 even in masters1000.....

for me if this era would had the top-10 of federer`s era with peoples like moya , hewitt , safin , coria , nalbandian , roddick , safin , ferrer , henman, ferrero ,gaudio , blake ,davydenko and more of that players , will be more competitive because i think that these players are better than today`s top-10 , these players + delpo and murray would be a great field!!

before peak nole and fed , coria was the only player who was capable to force to the limits nadal , today nobody can do that exept nole and roger maybe.

hipolymer
06-12-2012, 02:05 AM
The problem isn't the players. It's the courts which promote only one style of play. It's what caused Nole to abandon his power game in favor of a more agile game. He lost weight. He became faster. He became more flexible. His serve is nothing compared to what it was in 2007-2008.

BauerAlmeida
06-12-2012, 02:08 AM
The best era is by far end of the 70's, begining of the 80's. Nastase, Borg, Connors, Mc Enroe, Vilas, young Lendl, etc...Not all exactly at the same time but a lot of them.

Sharpshooter
06-12-2012, 02:11 AM
So according to you guys, if Rafa, Fed and Djoker were losing more allowing guys like Murray, Berdych, Delpo and Tsonga to sneak a slam here and there, the era would be stronger???

There's a reason this top 3 is being considered the greatest top 3 in history. They all have very few weaknesses which is why they are very hard to beat in the majors and is the reason why you can only expect them to lose to each other in the majors.

dencod16
06-12-2012, 02:19 AM
I dont think it is the golden era of tennis. It's far from that. And to say that if Federer and Djokovic weren't around Nadal would have won more, i think goes threeways so thats complete bull. I think the golden era is probably 1990's - early 2000's. It was more enjoyable to see people fight for that world no. 1. Today there is no such its more of swap then stay.

juan27
06-12-2012, 02:28 AM
I dont think it is the golden era of tennis. It's far from that. And to say that if Federer and Djokovic weren't around Nadal would have won more, i think goes threeways so thats complete bull. I think the golden era is probably 1990's - early 2000's. It was more enjoyable to see people fight for that world no. 1. Today there is no such its more of swap then stay.

in the 90s who figth for the nº1?????

sampras only had agassi to main rival and andre was very very irregular in comparassion with fed , nadal and djoko , he was out of tenis for 1.5 year!!!!

the 80s was more stronger

Caralimon
06-12-2012, 02:32 AM
The best era is by far end of the 70's, begining of the 80's. Nastase, Borg, Connors, Mc Enroe, Vilas, young Lendl, etc...Not all exactly at the same time but a lot of them.

It's arguable, for me every era (maybe excluding the '50) pales in comparison to the early '90. Especially the second part of the same decade, and the early '00, which are vastly overrated.

This current crop of players are fine. It wouldn't hurt to see more players not being consistently afraid of the top 3, though.

SheepleBuster
06-12-2012, 04:12 AM
It's different if the substance improves the performance of the player....I don't think ATP would have covered for Agassi in that case and I hope they wouldn't do it now.



But, he wave Delpo, he is a one slam fluke too, remember?

I think they would. It's a game of money. Let's say a very top superstar with one or more slams is using it. I am not sold that they would not cover it up. Now imagine if 50% of players are doing it (I am just making up a number)... then what?

Mountaindewslave
06-12-2012, 04:14 AM
80's and 90's were both better eras of tennis than today, fact. extremely weak field and for some odd reason the fans seem to think that just because there are an incredibly great top 5 that that makes up for the horrible rest of the field. it's strange that there are a few great players and then a bunch of rotten eggs, but that is reality. the era is not even close to as strong as it has been in the past. do not be mistaken or blinded by the fact that the ball is hit bigger now, it's all in the technology improvements.

Golden era was without a doubt in the past, not today.

Henry Chinaski
06-12-2012, 05:26 AM
You people should all retire from tennis, what a disgrace to this magnificent sport you are. Why do you bother watching if it annoys/bores you so much? go watch footie with your boyfriends.

the arrogance of a fangirl clown such as yourself calling other fans a disgrace to the sport is pretty hilarious to be honest

Action Jackson
06-12-2012, 05:59 AM
People taking Nole Fan and T-Doc seriously is worse than Go Soeda on clay.

Surface homogenisation great for the money men and fans of the players that keep dominating, but not necessarily for the sport. For people who don't remember tennis before the internet, Twitter or Facebook it never happened, therefore it's irrelevant to them.

There are obvious reasons why it takes longer to breakthrough these days, at the same time the best ones will get there eventually.

As for it being a golden era it depends on what the individual prefers to see. Same guys, hardly adjusting their games to different surfaces because they play so similarly and the biggest factor is movement. Seeing what we have now, if people like this then it's a golden era.

For others who actually remember when the faster courts were actually fast, low bouncing and required a different skill set not employed today, then not maybe not. The game is now safe enough that they could make grass, hardcourts and the like a bit faster that it won't be like the old days, but enough difference from the stuff today.

leng jai
06-12-2012, 06:48 AM
The New Balls picture succinctly sums up why a lot people watching tennis for 10+ years do not enjoy this "era" as much.

sexybeast
06-12-2012, 07:22 AM
To tell the truth a great young generation is missing for this to be called a golden era.

An old player and 2 players in their mid 20s dominating without any early 20s or teenagers knocking at the door cant be called a "golden era", if you take a look at 2007 you had mid 20s Federer and his generation (Safin, Roddick, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Ferrer) and then you had early 20s knocking on the door (Nadal, Djokovic, Delpo, Murray).

That is what is missing in this era, but no one can call an era with such a strong top 3 "weak", I cant recall there ever beeing a stronger top 3. Going for 6th year in a row with the same players in the top 3, simply unbelivable.

cutesteve22
06-12-2012, 07:30 AM
yes, 2004 to present is a great era. just imagine 2017 Tomic, Dimitrov, Raonic, Harrison or other mugs dominant ATP, the would be worse than WTA.

ServeVolley
06-12-2012, 08:56 AM
Yes, a golden era... where a player like Monaco gets seeded #13 in a slam and then manages to win just two games against the #2 seed. :facepalm:

It's up to Berdych, Tsonga, Delpo, and Murray to rise. Otherwise we're not going to see a different slam winner until Djokovic and Nadal retire. :sad:

TennisOnWood
06-12-2012, 09:11 AM
Yes, a golden era... where a player like Monaco gets seeded #13 in a slam and then manages to win just two games against the #2 seed. :facepalm:

It's up to Berdych, Tsonga, Delpo, and Murray to rise. Otherwise we're not going to see a different slam winner until Djokovic and Nadal retire. :sad:

I think we will see 10 more Major finals between this two if we wait for Berdych, Tsonga, Delpo, and Murray to rise. And with no young players we are doomed

I'm pretty sure they will play at least 45 H2H matches

Nr 1 Fan
06-12-2012, 09:21 AM
The answer to this problem of excessive duopoly was born in Tandil. Tennis would definitely look very different today if Del Potro had been allowed to build on his first Slam win instead of having his career/development derailed by wrist injury and surgery. How different? Impossible to say for sure, but definitely different.

He still remains the only man with the game and mentality to challenge Djokovic and Nadal - apart from Federer, but Roger is almost 31. It's either Del Potro finally catching a break with his injuries and stepping up to the plate to become a contender, or Djokovic and Nadal completely dominating tennis for the foreseeable future until a young gun rises/they decline.

Absolutely, without his injury Delpo would have certanily played another slam final and be a serious contender at every slam (except for Wimbledon). His injury basically made him start his career all over again and I am wondering if he ever will be in another slam final again. I really hope so, because I believe in his capacities but he seems to lack the belief himself that he can acutally beat those guys (which he had in late 2009).


Delpo has no game to challenge Nadal and Djoker.Maybe Rafa on hardcourt if he plays his ass off but Djoker is superior to Delpo in almost every area and on hard and clay he owns him.I imagine grass too

He absolutely has. When his game is on, he can blast winners against anywho and he still is pretty consistent. Very agressive and still quite low percentage, that is a deadly combination.

leng jai
06-12-2012, 09:36 AM
Mark Lenders is the Pony version of that other guy (yuri/richie21) who used to weave Gasquet into every discussion.

Sophocles
06-12-2012, 10:12 AM
Apart from Safin and Moya, none of the mugs you mentioned could actually pull an upset in a GS. For more proof, see AO 2010 Fed vs Davydenko or Haas vs Fed in RG 2009.

F. Gonzalez def. R. Nadal 6-2,6-4,6-3, Australian Open QF 2007.

Nole fan
06-12-2012, 10:18 AM
So according to you guys, if Rafa, Fed and Djoker were losing more allowing guys like Murray, Berdych, Delpo and Tsonga to sneak a slam here and there, the era would be stronger???

There's a reason this top 3 is being considered the greatest top 3 in history. They all have very few weaknesses which is why they are very hard to beat in the majors and is the reason why you can only expect them to lose to each other in the majors.

Exactly. Amazing how these clowns don't realise something so simple!

TennisOnWood
06-12-2012, 10:21 AM
F. Gonzalez def. R. Nadal 6-2,6-4,6-3, Australian Open QF 2007.

How many big titles he won?

Shinoj
06-12-2012, 10:21 AM
Top 3 are strong. The Rest just suck.

And where is the variety these days. The Courts are extremely slow for a start. Clay Courts Hard Courts Grass Courts all means one and the same. All you have is a Strong Physical Baseline game.

Where are the Fast Courts, Where is the Serve and Volley. Where are the strong depth in the players?


Where are the Todd Martins,Marc Rossets,Karol Kucera,Michael Stich,Pat Rafters,Goran Ivansevics and the dangerous players who can cause upset. There are none. All you have are Clowns like Mugerr and Clownaco, who are ready to bend over before the match itself.

Sophocles
06-12-2012, 10:25 AM
How many big titles he won?

Not the point. The point was whether he had the ability to upset a top player in a slam.

leng jai
06-12-2012, 10:27 AM
F. Gonzalez def. R. Nadal 6-2,6-4,6-3, Australian Open QF 2007.

Haas Vs Djokovic Wimbledon QF 2009

Why bother when he just mentions the matches convenient for him.

Chirag
06-12-2012, 10:31 AM
Haas Vs Djokovic Wimbledon QF 2009

Why bother when he just mentions the matches convenient for him.

2009 you mean ;) Tommy was brilliant in those 4 weeks

Raferminator
06-12-2012, 10:36 AM
This writer is not looking at the picture objectively. He is including Muger Frauderer because Muger hasn't retired yet forgetting Muger hasn't won a Slam in 2 and a half years. And Muger won all his slams during the "weak sauce" era of Tennis.

Imagine for a moment if these two Spartan Warriors, Rafa and Nole 2.0, were born the same year as Muger Frauderer. Imagine the number of slams they would have devoured like a black hole devouring Solar Systems at this stage in their respective careers. I worked it out using a precise mathematical trigonometric formula. Remember, Rafa started winning RG at age 19; Nole matured later on. As it stands, I would see them having won 43 slams between them entering SW19 2012:

2000 RG - Rafa
2001 RG - Rafa
2002 AO - Nole
2002 RG - Rafa
2002 WM - Rafa
2002 US - Nole
2003 AO - Rafa
2003 RG - Rafa
2003 WM - Rafa
2003 US - Rafa
2004 AO - Nole
2004 RG - Rafa
2004 WM - Rafa
2004 US - Nole
2005 AO - Nole
2005 RG - Rafa
2005 WM - Rafa
2005 US - Nole
2006 AO - Rafa
2006 RG - Rafa
2006 WM - Rafa
2006 US - Rafa
2007 AO - Nole
2007 RG - Rafa
2007 WM - Nole
2007 US - Nole
2008 AO - Nole
2008 RG - Nole
2008 WM - Nole
2008 US - Rafa
2009 AO - Rafa
2009 RG - Rafa
2009 WM - Nole
2009 US - Nole
2010 AO - Nole
2010 RG - Rafa
2010 WM - Rafa
2010 US - Rafa
2011 AO - Nole
2011 RG - Rafa
2011 WM - Nole
2011 US - Nole
2012 AO - Nole
2012 RG - Rafa

Rafa - 25 slams entering SW19 2012
Nole - 18 slams entering SW19 2012
Sampras - 14 slams
Muger Frauderer - 0 slams after 2011 (Retires after U.S. Open for his fans...)

ServeVolley
06-12-2012, 10:45 AM
He absolutely has. When his game is on, he can blast winners against anywho and he still is pretty consistent. Very agressive and still quite low percentage, that is a deadly combination.

Agreed. And we know this is true because, before the wrist injury, he was on a 3-match winning streak against Nadal, and 2-match winning streak against Federer. It's heartbreaking to think what could have been... :sad:

Orka_n
06-12-2012, 10:45 AM
Raferminator should be permabanned for identity theft and prohibited from littering this forum anymore with shit trolling posts like that.

Nole fan
06-12-2012, 10:45 AM
:lol:

Sophocles
06-12-2012, 10:46 AM
Raferminator should be permabanned for identity theft and prohibited from littering this forum anymore with shit trolling posts like that.

Yes, complete troll & baiter, & very stupid indeed. I've got it on Ignore.

ServeVolley
06-12-2012, 10:48 AM
This writer is not looking at the picture objectively. He is including Muger Frauderer because Muger hasn't retired yet forgetting Muger hasn't won a Slam in 2 and a half years. And Muger won all his slams during the "weak sauce" era of Tennis.

Imagine for a moment if these two Spartan Warriors, Rafa and Nole 2.0, were born the same year as Muger Frauderer. Imagine the number of slams they would have devoured like a black hole devouring Solar Systems at this stage in their respective careers. I worked it out using a precise mathematical trigonometric formula. Remember, Rafa started winning RG at age 19; Nole matured later on. As it stands, I would see them having won 43 slams between them entering SW19 2012:

2000 RG - Rafa
2001 RG - Rafa
2002 AO - Nole
2002 RG - Rafa
2002 WM - Rafa
2002 US - Nole
2003 AO - Rafa
2003 RG - Rafa
2003 WM - Rafa
2003 US - Rafa
2004 AO - Nole
2004 RG - Rafa
2004 WM - Rafa
2004 US - Nole
2005 AO - Nole
2005 RG - Rafa
2005 WM - Rafa
2005 US - Nole
2006 AO - Rafa
2006 RG - Rafa
2006 WM - Rafa
2006 US - Rafa
2007 AO - Nole
2007 RG - Rafa
2007 WM - Nole
2007 US - Nole
2008 AO - Nole
2008 RG - Nole
2008 WM - Nole
2008 US - Rafa
2009 AO - Rafa
2009 RG - Rafa
2009 WM - Nole
2009 US - Nole
2010 AO - Nole
2010 RG - Rafa
2010 WM - Rafa
2010 US - Rafa
2011 AO - Nole
2011 RG - Rafa
2011 WM - Nole
2011 US - Nole
2012 AO - Nole
2012 RG - Rafa

Rafa - 25 slams entering SW19 2012
Nole - 18 slams entering SW19 2012
Sampras - 14 slams
Muger Frauderer - 0 slams after 2011 (Retires after U.S. Open for his fans...)

http://freakyts.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/i-would-stop-and-slap-the-shit-out-of-you-but-theres-way-too-much-stupid-in-the-way.jpg?w=640

leng jai
06-12-2012, 10:52 AM
Raferminator should be permabanned for identity theft and prohibited from littering this forum anymore with shit trolling posts like that.

You telling me I've been self completing myself to a set of fraudulent photos?

cardio
06-12-2012, 10:54 AM
2-way race seems kinda weak and not so interesting for me. Before it was Fed- Nadal, now Djoko - Nadal.( Seems like Fed is not serious slam contender any more )

Now is even worse because both top men playing same baseline grinding style. 80-ies had much stronger competition with very different styles: Mac, Lendl, Becker, Wilander, Edberg + one-time surprise winners like Cash,Noah,Chang .You never knew who was going to win or even play in final. Where are modern Lendl vs Becker rivalries ? Where are modern Chang and Cash ? Well, we had Del Potro in 2009 and that was it. Watching top2 to beat crap out of field again and again and again ( even when they are playing sub par ) - I wouldnt call it golden era of tennis. If this is gold, bring back shit-era ASAP ! :devil:

tennis2tennis
06-12-2012, 10:56 AM
it can't be a golden era when one of the protagonists is at the twighlight of his career

Arkin
06-12-2012, 10:59 AM
Imagine for a moment if these two Spartan Warriors, Rafa and Nole 2.0, were born the same year as Muger Frauderer. Imagine the number of slams they would have devoured like a black hole devouring Solar Systems at this stage in their respective careers. I worked it out using a precise mathematical trigonometric formula. Remember, Rafa started winning RG at age 19; Nole matured later on. As it stands, I would see them having won 43 slams between them entering SW19 2012:




a precise trigonometric formula ? tell me more

TigerTim
06-12-2012, 11:11 AM
This era: GOAT (but old), Clay GOAT and Novak Reloaded (could soon be hard GOAT)
1980: McEnroe, Natural Surfaces GOAT (Borg), Lendl (but young) and Jimbo (Bit old)

who wins??

Art&Soul
06-12-2012, 11:14 AM
This writer is not looking at the picture objectively. He is including Muger Frauderer because Muger hasn't retired yet forgetting Muger hasn't won a Slam in 2 and a half years. And Muger won all his slams during the "weak sauce" era of Tennis.

Imagine for a moment if these two Spartan Warriors, Rafa and Nole 2.0, were born the same year as Muger Frauderer. Imagine the number of slams they would have devoured like a black hole devouring Solar Systems at this stage in their respective careers. I worked it out using a precise mathematical trigonometric formula. Remember, Rafa started winning RG at age 19; Nole matured later on. As it stands, I would see them having won 43 slams between them entering SW19 2012:

2000 RG - Rafa
2001 RG - Rafa
2002 AO - Nole
2002 RG - Rafa
2002 WM - Rafa
2002 US - Nole
2003 AO - Rafa
2003 RG - Rafa
2003 WM - Rafa
2003 US - Rafa
2004 AO - Nole
2004 RG - Rafa
2004 WM - Rafa
2004 US - Nole
2005 AO - Nole
2005 RG - Rafa
2005 WM - Rafa
2005 US - Nole
2006 AO - Rafa
2006 RG - Rafa
2006 WM - Rafa
2006 US - Rafa
2007 AO - Nole
2007 RG - Rafa
2007 WM - Nole
2007 US - Nole
2008 AO - Nole
2008 RG - Nole
2008 WM - Nole
2008 US - Rafa
2009 AO - Rafa
2009 RG - Rafa
2009 WM - Nole
2009 US - Nole
2010 AO - Nole
2010 RG - Rafa
2010 WM - Rafa
2010 US - Rafa
2011 AO - Nole
2011 RG - Rafa
2011 WM - Nole
2011 US - Nole
2012 AO - Nole
2012 RG - Rafa

Rafa - 25 slams entering SW19 2012
Nole - 18 slams entering SW19 2012
Sampras - 14 slams
Muger Frauderer - 0 slams after 2011 (Retires after U.S. Open for his fans...)


Why this Dulltard not banned? :rolleyes:

TennisOnWood
06-12-2012, 11:16 AM
This era: GOAT (but old), Clay GOAT and Novak Reloaded (could soon be hard GOAT)
1980: McEnroe, Natural Surfaces GOAT (Borg), Lendl (but young) and Jimbo (Bit old)

who wins??

And it was all about John, Ivan and Jimmy in the 80's? I remember some amazing young players came across the whole decade.. mission impossible today

Orka_n
06-12-2012, 11:18 AM
You telling me I've been self completing myself to a set of fraudulent photos?:lol:

Fireballer
06-12-2012, 11:20 AM
Del Potro is relevant because he is the only one who won a slam recently besides the TOP 3 and when he was at his peak he showed he could defeat all of them even in Bo5 matches.

And he will do it again, of course.

I never seen him defeat Djoker in BO5.That Davis Cup doesnt count when your opponent gets hurt and has to stop playing after 1 set.Delpo has nothing to threaten Djokovic because Djoker loves brainless ballbashers

sexybeast
06-12-2012, 11:27 AM
Haas Vs Djokovic Wimbledon QF 2009

Why bother when he just mentions the matches convenient for him.

Safin vs Djokovic 2008 Wimbledon 1st round, that one is my favorite.

BauerAlmeida
06-12-2012, 11:34 AM
Safin vs Djokovic 2008 Wimbledon 1st round, that one is my favorite.

+1

Great run that Wimby for Marat. But it was 2nd round I think.

Apophis
06-12-2012, 12:05 PM
In a situation where the top 3 stands out from the rest:

Statistically it is more likely that the top 3 players are unusually good than that the players ranked 4 to say, 30 are unusually bad.

Sen no Rikyu
06-12-2012, 12:34 PM
I am not accusing anyone. But I have a strong suspicion many top players are on it. Some of the physiques are not natural for a tennis player. There are many blogs who describe how athletes can beat tests and work their way through cycles. I encourage everyone to read them. It's not natural to go for 6 hours on hard court. When people talk about tennis becoming inhuman, well, guess what that means.;

To be perfectly honest, I don't care who is using it. But don't tell me these players are special when they look like body builders or Hercules and run like a horse.

Like some have already noted, the ITF's anti-doping program is extremely weak. The in-competition testing is predictable. The out of competition testing is minimal. Weaknesses in the program have been noted by a variety of journalists, such as

Sean Calvert: http://www.thesportsjournalist.co.uk/2012/02/16/does-tennis-have-a-problem-with-doping/
Bill Gifford: http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2009/07/steroids_anyone.html
Clement Guillou (in French): http://www.rue89.com/rue89-sport/2012/06/03/le-tennis-ce-sport-ou-le-dopage-nexisterait-pas-232477

Moreover, the man in charge of the ITF's anti-doping program, Dr. Stuart Miller, doesn't seem to think that performance enhancing drugs are particularly helpful to tennis players (see the Gifford article). To have that attitude when the game is becoming more and more physical and endurance related makes no sense.

Shinoj
06-12-2012, 01:03 PM
Look Guys, I wanna be honest on this thread.

The Fact is you cant have it all. You cant have an Ultra Dominant Top 4 and a Deep and dangerous rest of the crew.

The 80s was a special Era because it had both. Dominant Top guys along with dangerous rest of the crew. The Late 80s and Early 90s was also special because of the same reasons. The depth that time, in hindsight, was to the point incredible.

These days You have Djokovic,Nadal,Federer,Murray all appearing on the back end of the Tournament Grand Slam after Grand Slam is truly very good. You can never compare the Eras but this Era has to be one amongst the best.

Chirag
06-12-2012, 01:29 PM
This writer is not looking at the picture objectively. He is including Muger Frauderer because Muger hasn't retired yet forgetting Muger hasn't won a Slam in 2 and a half years. And Muger won all his slams during the "weak sauce" era of Tennis.

Imagine for a moment if these two Spartan Warriors, Rafa and Nole 2.0, were born the same year as Muger Frauderer. Imagine the number of slams they would have devoured like a black hole devouring Solar Systems at this stage in their respective careers. I worked it out using a precise mathematical trigonometric formula. Remember, Rafa started winning RG at age 19; Nole matured later on. As it stands, I would see them having won 43 slams between them entering SW19 2012:

2000 RG - Rafa
2001 RG - Rafa
2002 AO - Nole
2002 RG - Rafa
2002 WM - Rafa
2002 US - Nole
2003 AO - Rafa
2003 RG - Rafa
2003 WM - Rafa
2003 US - Rafa
2004 AO - Nole
2004 RG - Rafa
2004 WM - Rafa
2004 US - Nole
2005 AO - Nole
2005 RG - Rafa
2005 WM - Rafa
2005 US - Nole
2006 AO - Rafa
2006 RG - Rafa
2006 WM - Rafa
2006 US - Rafa
2007 AO - Nole
2007 RG - Rafa
2007 WM - Nole
2007 US - Nole
2008 AO - Nole
2008 RG - Nole
2008 WM - Nole
2008 US - Rafa
2009 AO - Rafa
2009 RG - Rafa
2009 WM - Nole
2009 US - Nole
2010 AO - Nole
2010 RG - Rafa
2010 WM - Rafa
2010 US - Rafa
2011 AO - Nole
2011 RG - Rafa
2011 WM - Nole
2011 US - Nole
2012 AO - Nole
2012 RG - Rafa

Rafa - 25 slams entering SW19 2012
Nole - 18 slams entering SW19 2012
Sampras - 14 slams
Muger Frauderer - 0 slams after 2011 (Retires after U.S. Open for his fans...)

http://static.fjcdn.com/comments/Yes+because+that+is+exactly+how+a+normal+human+fac e+head+_a1c740cc4423ed1dc4efb49b8ce3b136.jpg

This was too funny by the way :superlol:

Lopez
06-12-2012, 01:38 PM
You people should all retire from tennis, what a disgrace to this magnificent sport you are. Why do you bother watching if it annoys/bores you so much? go watch footie with your boyfriends.

Why should people think that this is the greatest era ever to watch and enjoy tennis? I think you're being a bit irrational here.

My two cents, I don't really buy much of this weak/strong era debate. I think that they are pretty much more or less the same, just different (due to court conditions, fitness & training and racket technology). Champions would be champions in any era.

70-68
06-12-2012, 01:46 PM
The Top 2-4 players are so dominant everywhere, because everyone plays the same game everywhere, and the difference between the surfaces are way smaller than before. There are no more real clay and grass specialsts anymore, who could make upsets on the different surfaces. It seems like, in today conditions, the fittest and mentally strongest player will be the best player, and can dominate almost everywhere.

Shinoj
06-12-2012, 02:04 PM
I am losing perspective every 1 hour.What is happening to me:drink:


If you guys feel that this is the Best Era ever. You must have not seen Safin,Federer Match or the Early 90s Tennis with Edberg,Becker,COurier,Sampras and Agassi.


Look This Era is competitive all right. The Nadal Djokovic matches have taken competitiveness to another level but its definitely not the most pleasant one.

Just look at the Edberg Becker Duels to get a different perspective.

Mark Lenders
06-12-2012, 02:41 PM
Mark Lenders is the Pony version of that other guy (yuri/richie21) who used to weave Gasquet into every discussion.

You're probably just tyring to be funny/witty, but I'm really not and a simple look at the threads I started myself (most of them) would be enough to realize that.

Not to mention I wasn't even the one to mention him in this thread first. It's pretty logical that he gets mentioned in a thread regarding the current era considering he's one of only two guys to have won a Grand Slam title post-Fedal.

Mark Lenders
06-12-2012, 02:45 PM
Safin vs Djokovic 2008 Wimbledon 1st round, that one is my favorite.

It was 2nd round.

Marat's last great victory on the tour, continued with an excellent run to the semis. He played great in that match and completely overpowered Nole off his favorite backhand side, but he was also helped by Djokovic's extremely poor serving.

Nole fan
06-12-2012, 02:46 PM
You're probably just tyring to be funny/witty, but I'm really not and a simple look at the threads I started myself (most of them) would be enough to realize that.

Not to mention I wasn't even the one to mention him in this thread first. It's pretty logical that he gets mentioned in a thread regarding the current era considering he's one of only two guys to have won a Grand Slam title post-Fedal.

Are you a Safin fan, Mark? There used to be so many before in MTF but I don't see them anymore.

Corey Feldman
06-12-2012, 02:47 PM
Golden era was 2003-2009

now, meh.

star
06-12-2012, 02:49 PM
Golden era was 2003-2009

now, meh.

Yeah, 2008 was a good year! :D

Mark Lenders
06-12-2012, 02:52 PM
Are you a Safin fan, Mark? There used to be so many before in MTF but I don't see them anymore.

Yeah :) He was the first player I've supported and remains my favorite ever player :D

Well, his retirement probably drove some of his fans away from the site. But last time I checked Marat is winning the favorite retired players poll :D

Nole fan
06-12-2012, 03:03 PM
Yeah :) He was the first player I've supported and remains my favorite ever player :D

Well, his retirement probably drove some of his fans away from the site. But last time I checked Marat is winning the favorite retired players poll :D

Yes, he is a legend even though he didn't achieve much in the end. A real shame, that guy had punch. :)

Mark Lenders
06-12-2012, 03:05 PM
Yes, he is a legend even though he didn't achieve much in the end. A real shame, that guy had punch. :)

I wouldn't say he didn't achieve much. Probably not as much as he could/should have, but 2 Slams, world #1, among other achievements, is definitely a very good career by any objective standards. Far less than his talent could have allowed, but a very good career nonetheless.

And yes, he is a legend :D

Shinoj
06-12-2012, 03:37 PM
Safin was and will always remain a Class Act. So much Natural Talent and Charishma and he didnt even try.

Just look at the current Crop of players with so many Grand Slams and still they try so hard to be popular.:wavey:

Nole fan
06-12-2012, 03:38 PM
I wouldn't say he didn't achieve much. Probably not as much as he could/should have, but 2 Slams, world #1, among other achievements, is definitely a very good career by any objective standards. Far less than his talent could have allowed, but a very good career nonetheless.

And yes, he is a legend :D

Exactly, sorry, that's what i wanted to say. In the end he didn't achieve as much as he could have / should have. :)

thrust
06-12-2012, 05:00 PM
Look Guys, I wanna be honest on this thread.

The Fact is you cant have it all. You cant have an Ultra Dominant Top 4 and a Deep and dangerous rest of the crew.

The 80s was a special Era because it had both. Dominant Top guys along with dangerous rest of the crew. The Late 80s and Early 90s was also special because of the same reasons. The depth that time, in hindsight, was to the point incredible.

These days You have Djokovic,Nadal,Federer,Murray all appearing on the back end of the Tournament Grand Slam after Grand Slam is truly very good. You can never compare the Eras but this Era has to be one amongst the best.

TRUE! 70's: Rosewall, Laver, Newcombe, Connors, Nastasse and Borg.
2000-2005-Weak era
2005-2012- Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, with a close non slammer in
Murrary

NO ONE GOLEDN ERA, IMO!