Golden era of tennis?

This has been done to death but I thought I would just do my view among others

any feedback would be appreciated ta
http://richard-mills-sports.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/golden-era-what-golden-era.html

LS!

Nice blog post, LS - I don't completely agree, but nice nonetheless.

For me the issues at Hand are quite simple

1) Homogenization has made it easier to win multiple slams, but it has made getting into the club a mission - how do you definitively decide which is better?

2) I'm still not sure I buy the argument that Cash has thrown around. He had twenty years with zero clay court titles... Can't just be because he kept getting outlasted, no? I think there is huge skill involved in baseline tennis, Technically, ones forehand has to be more sound than ever to Win anything. I'm not sure wether homogenization limited the skillset as much as it Changed the requirements.... Hitting good length forehand 30 shots into a rally is as much a matter of technique as it is stamina.
3) Nice selfie - Looking good with the suit and tie.

haha i like all 3 of those points!
I agree though its a hazy area and quite a few views have very merit worthy points.

haha i like all 3 of those points!
I agree though its a hazy area and quite a few views have very merit worthy points.

Are the media still calling it a golden age?
When there was just Rafa and Fed, 3 wasn't enough to make it 'golden'. Even adding Djokovic by himself might not have been enough to tip it into 'golden-ness'

Now that Rafa's been out, Fed's pretty much gone, Djoko is not playing as well as previously and now Murray's out for a while - there's not been more than 2 of them playing well at the same time for well over a year - can't possibly be 'golden' can it?

I certainly don't think so

Nice article. I had a look at the video which led to the freeze-frame still comparison of Federer's serves in 2003 and 2008. It struck me that the 2008 serve appears to strike the line. If so, the ball might well be expected to hold up slightly and bounce higher. It therefore doesn't seem the best comparison. Are there any other similar comparisons available which don't have that potential issue?

I tried quite hard to find anything and this was all i could find, sorry man.

Now breathe....

Too long?

Nah.

The issue at hand is for me the last real golden period of tennis was the mid-late 80's when there was a wealth of top names like Becker/Wilander/Lendl/McEnroe who were still contending Slams. With Federer you get the weak-era theorists. Federer's dominance defined his era and players such as Hewitt/Ferrero/Roddick because of it are not fondly remembered as great players and rightly so. When Federer was winning still with Nadal/Djokovic/Murray it might have been construned as golden, but since he is in decline and so we thought to was Nadal, Murray and Djokovic's achievements are less fondly thought of.

LuvSports! wrote:I tried quite hard to find anything and this was all i could find, sorry man.

No probs. Its a really good illustration and fits well with the article.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Nah.

The issue at hand is for me the last real golden period of tennis was the mid-late 80's when there was a wealth of top names like Becker/Wilander/Lendl/McEnroe who were still contending Slams. With Federer you get the weak-era theorists. Federer's dominance defined his era and players such as Hewitt/Ferrero/Roddick because of it are not fondly remembered as great players and rightly so. When Federer was winning still with Nadal/Djokovic/Murray it might have been construned as golden, but since he is in decline and so we thought to was Nadal, Murray and Djokovic's achievements are less fondly thought of.

I see what you are saying but bear in mind that if you are calling a mid-1980's era as golden but not quite so keen to call the recent one golden I am confused. Federer and Nadal has far exceeded what any of those four achieved in the sport and Novak Djokovic is now on a par with a couple of those already and will likely exceed what they achieved whilst Murray may have more slam wins in him yet. However, in the here and now then no we are not in a golden era - I'd say that ended last year in my opinion.

I agree with Craig, it definitely ended last year. At the start of 2012, all the big hitters were playing very well (see: Aus Open) and continued to do so until Nadal's injury. As for when it started...? I guess you could argue 2007 or 2008, especially the latter.

after the 80s this is the best era I remember, far better than the nineties and early 2000s

Hope you guys enjoyed the article.

I agree with Craig. With Roger, Rafa and Novak at full tilt and Andy pushing hard to get involved I'd describe it as a golden period. But since Roger's form started to fade I'm not sure it can be called that anymore.

Injuries to Rafa and Andy haven't helped, but there is a maximum of 3 top players out there now so it's not going to be as good. I still love watching the sport though.

And I enjoyed reading your article LS.

If I had to pick some tidy bookends of what I consider the best period of recent years, I'd start with AO08 (Novak's first slam) and I'd probably end it USO12 (Andy's first slam).

That period saw the best of the Fedal matches, three players hold 3 slams, three players win, lose and regain the #1 ranking, Novak's winning streak, Fed and Rafa complete the career slam, Del Potro bludgeon his way to a slam, Andy finally get his slam... it was quite a ride!

I wouldn't say it was necessarily the best ever but it was one of tennis' better periods for sure.

Sadly, I think the magic has gone. Andy winning Wimbledon was great, Rafa's form has been thrilling but the year overall has felt a bit flat to me. Fed's decline is a sharp blow to any era, and Andy & Novak have only performed in fits and starts.

HM - I'd agree with that period ending at USO12. It's since then that Roger has struggled.

This year the top 3 have peaked at different times, plus injuries of course, making the slams a little underwhelming. But I think next year if all are fit and on form we could see more fireworks.

thanks danny

2005-2013 has been the fedal era. and it has been great

2008-2012 has been the fed-nadal-djoko-murray era (with soderling and delpo happenings)

and it is quite interesting too

HM Murdoch wrote:If I had to pick some tidy bookends of what I consider the best period of recent years, I'd start with AO08 (Novak's first slam) and I'd probably end it USO12 (Andy's first slam).

That period saw the best of the Fedal matches, three players hold 3 slams, three players win, lose and regain the #1 ranking, Novak's winning streak, Fed and Rafa complete the career slam, Del Potro bludgeon his way to a slam, Andy finally get his slam... it was quite a ride!

I wouldn't say it was necessarily the best ever but it was one of tennis' better periods for sure.

Sadly, I think the magic has gone. Andy winning Wimbledon was great, Rafa's form has been thrilling but the year overall has felt a bit flat to me. Fed's decline is a sharp blow to any era, and Andy & Novak have only performed in fits and starts.

Great post. Except that I've haven't felt it flat this year. Yep, Djokovic excelled at the AO, Murray at Wimbledon - which I do think was incredible to watch because of it's history to us in the UK. There was the story of whether Djokovic could prevail at the FO and the tournament was always focused to that IMO, and as for Rafa, never did I think we'd have seen a US Open triumph from him. Overall, I've really enjoyed it.

people who find it a flat season probably are not nadal fans

amen.

The thing is, I don't feel this year has been quite as good as last year... Yet Murray winning Wimbledon, with all the history and pressure that came with it as a man from these shores, is possibly my favourite sporting moment ever.

So I'm not complaining too much.

My gripe with this year is that there have been very few good finals.

The slam finals were all pretty one-sided (RG painfully so).

At the 1000s, I thought IW was good but not really any others.

What's that saying? One man's meat is another's poison.

During that period of time when the Top 4 were consistently reaching the Masters finals, some considered that boring and wished that someone in the chasing pack would break through. That's happened on some occasions this year, only for them to wilt in the final before the much better player and so the thought of poor finals. Maybe the story is the drama of the competition and not necessarily the final.

But for the Slams, well, 2 tie break sets in Australia, the drama of whether Murray would go 2 sets up, it was tense. Wimbledon might only have been 3 sets, but Novak had plenty, plenty chances but didn't take them, and that final game ... wow. I thought the US Open final was a great match of tennis, and not one sided at all. I would have bet my house on Novak taking that third set, but he didn't. The exception here is the FO final, but David Ferrer versus any one of the other top 3 would have ended in the same result. But overall I thought the French Open had some terrific matches, none more so than that semi-final, Federer's 5 sets against Simon, Robredro's run, Tsonga's victory to become a semi-finalist ... nope, I've enjoyed this year.

nadal djoko semi at the french come on.

Cav, there were some tense moments but the overall matches were lacking I thought.

AO, once Novak won the 2nd set, it was quite plain sailing. Andy didn't break his serve once!

Wimbledon was just weird with Novak resorting to strange drop shots in a strangely flat performance. Andy was the better player by a distance.

USO was very close for a set and a half but Rafa was a league ahead of Novak overall. When he broke back in the third, I said he'd win the set and the match and he did!

In each case I suspect the loser came away feeling that he hadn't played near his best.

So perhaps murdoch you feel this could be a golden era as the top guys are so strong but the matches between the top guys doesn't bring the best out of each other? Big billing but dont believe the hype.

naxroy wrote:nadal djoko semi at the french come on.

It was a dramatic finish but the standard from Novak was poor for a lot of it. The third set was 6-1 and he was terrible in it! A lot of people seem to have forgotten how patchy that match was before Rafa served for the 4th set.

Even Rafa wasn't that great. He choked a few big moments.

LuvSports! wrote:So perhaps murdoch you feel this could be a golden era as the top guys are so strong but the matches between the top guys doesn't bring the best out of each other? Big billing but dont believe the hype.

Pretty much. I think whenever the 'Big 4' play well in the same match, it's exciting and entertaining. It just hasn't happened much this year.

I think tennis has a 'Rafa problem' too. I think only a handful of players approach a match with him determined to chuck everything at him and go for the win. Novak, Del Potro, Gulbis and Isner. Normally Federer too but his form has been bad this year. (I'm excluding Andy because it's been so long since he played him!).

Virtually everyone else comes into the match looking beaten already. It drives me mad!

Completely agree. Pass around the inferiority complex everyone, plenty to go round!

gulbis? lol

naxroy wrote:gulbis? lol

He's never intimidated.

Ernie fears nobody!
Have you seen their matches naxroy? clearly not by that remark.

LuvSports! wrote:Completely agree. Pass around the inferiority complex everyone, plenty to go round!

With the exception of Stan and Delpo, yes.

Of course the top guys being miles better probably plays a part too.

How much of it is down to an inferiority complex, and how much of it is down to downright inferiority...

I mean, its nice to say youre grandmother would show more fight vs Nadal, but your grandmother hasnt endured five years of seeing break points saved by unlikely on the run banana forehands... Its quite deflating

http://m.tennis.com/pro-game/2013/09/venus-kerber-willing-play-best-five-not-kvitova/49311/#.UklRuqa9LCQ

A point mentioned in this is the concept of men's GS tennis going up best of 3. Would that reduce the emphasis on fitness and physical attributes some feel have taken over the men's game?

It would really devalue it for me if the slams reduced down to BO3.

agreed.

I agree with the males for suggesting that, but I would be suprised if any of the big guys actually wanted to play Bo3

The Slams are always about 5 setters. I don't see a need to change that formula unless of course the males do feel that it needs to change.

Wouldn't feel like a Slam to me if it was BO3.