Fed defeat kills talk of Golden Era

Really that was quite a bad defeat for Federer; sure, he may well have won the 1st set and sneaked through but it's clear that he is a pale shadow of the man who amassed 16 Slams and dominated the game. Current Fed would probably be lucky to avoid 3 sets of baked goods against his former self; the old Federer would run this one into the ground. JWT said after the match that lots of players are improving, but that is simply illogical. The simpler explanation is that 30 year old Federer is way past it and that Andy Murray has been disorientated by years of close encounters with the top of the game. Rafa Nadal may already be slipping, but if not that point can't be too far away, not with his type of game.

Of course Federer is the clear #3. Miles clear of anyone else. Which really makes you shake your head about the absurd idea that we are in some kind of "Golden Era", as VIs in the media would have us believe. A Golden Era would have him down around #10, being piled on my young stars, but this isn't the case.

Clearly the competition has slipped just as Djokovic has made improvement, making him the stand out player by a distance, and good for him - he spent enough time waiting for the top boys to come back to him and he's worked on his game otherwise he'd be scrapping with, rather than lording it over, them.

I wonder when the game will pick up? There doesn't seem much around in the younger set, although one or two may make it interesting. However, my fear is that we stay in a situation where we have two oldies in the top 6 and a Federer unfit to lace the boots of his prime self a credible candidate for Slams.

fed had a good run

I was thinking the same thing! "We've never had it so good?". I must have been adding up whilst you posted this...

An alternate explanation could be that Federer in his prime was just that good; ie he was so far ahead of the competition that it is impossible to really judge how the current Federer would have fared in the days of 05-07. Watching some of the replays of Federer playing in his prime really reminds you how complete his game was back then; he not only had no weaknesses, but was able to hit winners seemingly at will, without the risks that seem to accompany his shots today. In my opinion a player like Federer comes along very rarely, and it is difficult to judge the relative strength of a tennis 'era' based on how players fare against him. Even now I think Roger is more than capable of one last grandslam title; he may not have the movement speed anymore, but when his game is on he is still nigh on unstoppable, as the French Open semi vs Djokovic showed.

Funny, Agassi was ranked #1 in the world in 2003 at the age of 33, the fact that a guy in his mid thirties attained the #1 ranking doesn't make that era weak, but Roger being a distance 3rd at barely 30 years of age makes this era weak. Don't worry BB, Roger's ranking will start to slide real fast especially if he can't repeat his results of winning the year end championship and all those indoor titles he has to defend at the end of they year. Typical, that BB will argue that eras can't be deemed weak when it would hurt Fed's legacy, but the current era is obviously weak. This is just another post in your lengthy agenda to dismiss and denigrate the champions that come after fed (ie Nadal and Djoko).

Here is the funny thing, if Fed was still winning easily, BB would make the same argument. He would say "how could this era be strong when a broken down Federer beats these socalled stars of the modern era". So this era, because Fed isn't dominating is called weak by BB. If Fed was winning he would also turn around an call this era weak because an old Fed was winning. Just part of the agenda, make Roger look good make Nadal and Novak look bad.

Agassi played the best tennis of his career from the age of 29-32. Federer clearly isn't. So I don''t think that's a valid comparison.

So this era, because Fed isn't dominating is called weak by BB

I don't think he's saying that tbh. He's saying that because Federer is still number 3 in the world despite playing way below his prime level, the current era is weak. Ie Federer may not be dominating anymore, but he's still right up there at the top.

Yes and at 35 years of age he still made the final of USO, even older than the peak period you pointed out and was ranked #6 in the world. Why doesn't Agassi having a high ranking in the obviously weaker 2000-05 period make that era weak? If Fed was winning more often this era would be called weak by BB, if Fed loses the era is called weak by BB. The man is not capable of doing an honest analysis that makes sense frankly.

Attack Fed fans, why aren't all the federettes attacking BB for having the audacity to make a weak era argument. I thought it was illogical, heretical, a crime against nature to make a weak era argument. Oh i get it, it is only wrong to claim that any era Roger dominated had weaker competition. Thank you BB, for exposing the hypocrisy of your fellow ludicrous extremist Fed fans with this post.

socal1976 wrote:Yes and at 35 years of age he still made the final of USO

Connors made the semi at 39 in '91. Was '91 weak?

Because the intelligent posters know quite well that I'm not on one of your insane "weak era" trips.

What I'm saying is that there is no Golden Era; it's the exact opposite of what you infer, the exact opposite.

A way past-it player is #3. It isn't a Golden Era. Geddit? Anyone not consumed by your obsession to try to argue that Djokovic is some kind of historical tennis great, a delusion that drives you to post many dozens of times a day on the same subject, would see that.

socal1976 wrote:Yes and at 35 years of age he still made the final of USO, even older than the peak period you pointed out and was ranked #6 in the world. Why doesn't Agassi having a high ranking in the obviously weaker 2000-05 period make that era weak? If Fed was winning more often this era would be called weak by BB, if Fed loses the era is called weak by BB. The man is not capable of doing an honest analysis that makes sense frankly.

You forgot the scenario where Federer is down to #10 or so because the good young players are plentiful. I can understand you forgetting it because it doesn't exist, but that would be your "Golden Era" - one where the quality was high and deep enough to relegate this former great to the outer fringes. Not this sham thing we have now, no more or less powerful than any period in tennis history, including 2002.

Bogbrush, is not's quite as simple as you make out. Federer's won 16 grandslam tournaments for a reason; he was a great player. You seem to be treating him as if he was any old run of the mill pro who's getting a bit older. Even Federer at 70-80% is still good enough to beat most players whatever the 'era'.

p.s. I hate the use of the term 'era'. There's an utterly meaningless term if ever there was one.

The guy just had his 30th birthday last week. Like I said BB, if Fed can reach a grandslam final at 35 and still be ranked in the top 6, like Agassi did in the true weak era, then I will happily accept your thesis that this era is soft. If Roger keeps playing like this he may struggle to hold his #3 ranking for very long eventhough a big gap exists he has most of his points to defend from after the USO till the end of the indoor season. He plays like this in the indoor season and even Soderling might be passing him. Like I said, the hypocrisy of the Federettes (extreme fed fans not the nice people most fed fans are) is on display in all it shining glory, like the whore of Babylon at 4am on a saturday night. Why does Fed being ranked #3 in this period at 30 years old and 1 week make this current era weak, while Agassi reaching a grandslam final at age 35, and reaching #1 in the rankings at age 33 does not make that era weak? Ill tell you the answer ladies and gentleman, it has nothing to do with logic, the only thing that this post and thread reveal is the hypocrisy of the extremist federer fan.

Chazfazzer wrote:An alternate explanation could be that Federer in his prime was just that good; ie he was so far ahead of the competition that it is impossible to really judge how the current Federer would have fared in the days of 05-07. Watching some of the replays of Federer playing in his prime really reminds you how complete his game was back then; he not only had no weaknesses, but was able to hit winners seemingly at will, without the risks that seem to accompany his shots today. In my opinion a player like Federer comes along very rarely, and it is difficult to judge the relative strength of a tennis 'era' based on how players fare against him. Even now I think Roger is more than capable of one last grandslam title; he may not have the movement speed anymore, but when his game is on he is still nigh on unstoppable, as the French Open semi vs Djokovic showed.

This is so spot on, i can't believe i didn't write it

socal1976 wrote:The guy just had his 30th birthday last week. Like I said BB, if Fed can reach a grandslam final at 35 and still be ranked in the top 6, like Agassi did in the true weak era, then I will happily accept your thesis that this era is soft. If Roger keeps playing like this he may struggle to hold his #3 ranking for very long eventhough a big gap exists he has most of his points to defend from after the USO till the end of the indoor season. He plays like this in the indoor season and even Soderling might be passing him. Like I said, the hypocrisy of the Federettes (extreme fed fans not the nice people most fed fans are) is on display in all it shining glory, like the whore of Babylon at 4am on a saturday night. Why does Fed being ranked #3 in this period at 30 years old and 1 week make this current era weak, while Agassi reaching a grandslam final at age 35, and reaching #1 in the rankings at age 33 does not make that era weak? Ill tell you the answer ladies and gentleman, it has nothing to do with logic, the only thing that this post and thread reveal is the hypocrisy of the extremist federer fan.

You're just so used to waffling on about weak eras that you can't believe anyone else isn't doing the same.

This isn't a weak era; the GOAT is hanging on way after his prime because he's the GOAT, but if this was Golden (hint: read the title of the thread, that's what it's about) he wouldn't be able to.

There are no weak eras. It's all in your mind. And this isn't a Golden Era. That's the point conclusively proven in this article.

Yes if you think your unsupported conclusions based on sheer speculation is proof of anything, then consider it proved for all I care.

"Clearly the competition has slipped just as Djokovic has made improvement, making him the stand out player by a distance, and good for him - he spent enough time waiting for the top boys to come back to him and he's worked on his game otherwise he'd be scrapping with, rather than lording it over, them.

I wonder when the game will pick up? There doesn't seem much around in the younger set, although one or two may make it interesting. However, my fear is that we stay in a situation where we have two oldies in the top 6 and a Federer unfit to lace the boots of his prime self a credible candidate for Slams."

excellent observations BB...
I selfishly admit I'm not too worried about the "picking up" bit (he,he), for me, Novak's game looks so captivating at the moment, plus there are a lot of attractive but less consistent players going at the moment, it's still far from anything to complain about.
OK Fed's not 25, but hhey, Nole willbe next year

socal1976 wrote:Yes if you think your unsupported conclusions based on sheer speculation is proof of anything, then consider it proved for all I care.

Great, the Golden Era is a dead concept.

I know you're such an opponent of unsupported conclusions, as shown by your many posts about weak eras so it's great to have you on board at last.

hawkeye wrote:I was thinking the same thing! "We've never had it so good?". I must have been adding up whilst you posted this...

Indeed. Over the next few years expect to see a descent to Woman's standard of tennis. I have already noticed an increase in grunting in the Mens game and all we need to follow are kilts and leather in their clothing department.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Agassi played the best tennis of his career from the age of 29-32. Federer clearly isn't. So I don''t think that's a valid comparison.

Actually, he played his best tennis in 1995 when he achieved a career best 89% W:L ratio. He was astounding that year, beating Mark Woodforde 6-0 6-0 indoors! I'll always say it but had Agassi been as committed to his career pre-95 as he was after it (although he lost '97 to injury - and won no slams between 96-98 due to pre- and post-injury issues where he had to come back from 141 ranking) he would have truly been up there in GOAT contention. He should have won 4-5 slams before 92 alone.
People forget just how good he was...taking Nadal and Federer so close, so late in his career when they were in prime - when for example Federer is now struggling at 29/30 to win titles. I mean Agassi arguably gave Federer his toughest match at USO in his prime in the 2005 final after 3 consequestive 5-setters. Can anyone really imagine a 35 year old Federer playing a prime 24 year old Djokovic and pushing him the same?

Fair point Lydian, I guess I was trying to indicate a more prolonged period of playing at/near his best.
Was it the '95 or '96 AO final where he was 1-2 and 15-40 down against Sampras in the 2nd set and then reeled off 21 consecutive points to win the set 6-2. I remember watching it live on TV. Awesome!

Agassi was a very special player one of my top 3 or 4 favorites of all time. Lydian, makes some valid points. The reason Fed still relatively young when compared to the twilight of many great champions isn't having better results is because the era is strong, not the opposite. Just like why agassi in semi-retirement at age 35 was still a powerful force on tour, because frankly in that period outside of Fed and a teenage Nadal there were no other great players. It was easier for agassi to stay dominant in his thirties when the competition against him was basically Roger and no one else or a teenage Nadal nowhere near his prime. Andre was great but I think he would have a much tougher time playing at 35 in this era when compared to when he did it in 05.

socal1976 wrote:Like I said BB, if Fed can reach a grandslam final at 35 and still be ranked in the top 6, like Agassi did in the true weak era, then I will happily accept your thesis that this era is soft.

Connors reached 2 GS semis in 1987 and was ranked in the top 4 in 1988 - at the age of 35 and a half. Was the late '80s a true weak era I wonder?

Julius, Connors was a warrior no question. He didn't reach #1 in the world at age 33 though, he was nowhere near as competive in his mid-30s as agassi was. Part of the reason the connors run was seen as so special was because a lot of people had been writing him off due to his poor last couple of seasons. My main point is really to disagree with the OP who suggest that Federer's loss reflects poor on this generation of players. In fact, the opposite is true, Federer while not the same fed would be having a much easier time of it if the competition wasn't this strong.

I don't think the OP is saying that. Just saying that 2011 isn't perhaps the 'Golden Era' that some people were suggesting it was. That's my take on it anyway.

Luckily for everyone here I recently invented a time machine and have been searching back and through time to find this mythical golden era for men's tennis. Turns out that the golden era will begin at 10.35 BST on 24 August in the year 2765, and will last for a period of approximately 5 months. The top 3 will be made up of the following:

- Frederico 'Fingers' Denilson (Brazil)
- Alexis Bogdanovic (UK)
- Kandar Katherion (Titan)

All legendary players, I'm sure you will agree.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I don't think the OP is saying that. Just saying that 2011 isn't perhaps the 'Golden Era' that some people were suggesting it was. That's my take on it anyway.

Of course that's right. All this weak era stuff is utter nonsense, and by the same standard so is this Golden Era cr@p. JWT can say what he likes, fact is that he's no better than he ever was, he's just hung around long enough for Federers standard to come back. A standard that's still good enough to be easy #3 today.

Of course, Bogbrush how silly the man is much more accomplished than either Connors and Agassi, why wouldn't we assume that fed would still be relevant at barely 30 years old? Tsonga strikes me as being very honest and saying what probably a lot of pros know or can feel that the standard is going up. Ergo, getting better means that it is better than it has been in the recent past. See Bogbrush contrary to your constant unsupported allegations some of us actually look for facts to back up our arguments.

How can anyone take JWT seriously..? That melon has very little game other than his serve and occasional flashy forehand

May I remind you guys what a 60% Federer can do against a player like Tsonga...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0jdu8KYPrE&feature=related

Yeah, I guess Reeshard Gashquet is getting better and better too.

And David Ferrer, don't forget the #6.

I guess socal never heard about Occams Razor. Is it easier to imagine that everyone else has suddenly got better, irrespective of the stage of career and external factors, or that one player has declined at the tail end of his career. Ooh, let me think....

Bogbrush you state yourself that Djokovic has quote improved his game. Nadal hasn't come down in strength the man would be having one of the historically dominant years in tennis if not for the rise of Djokovic. And as the history of tennis clearly shows it is much more difficult to win grandslams and big honors when you have 2 or 3 superlative players as opposed to bunch of mediocre talents capable of no more than a slam a few weeks at #1. By definition, top down dominance is a harder period to succeed than a period where the top players each share a slam or two.

There is so little logic in that post that it is difficult to find firm ground to base a response on.

Let's start with; why is it harder when there are only two or three top players rather than many?

Lets take two scenarios one where you have a reasonably strong top ten with an even distribution of talent. Then in the alternate you have the top down tour where you have 2-3 truely superlative talents and a gap between the rest of the players. It is always the top players who decide the slams usually, and therefore when the top players are stronger it makes it hard to win slams. It is much harder to win a slam with Nadal and Federer greedily splitting them up than lets say a period where the talent is more evenly spread out. As a lower ranked player you may have to beat both Fed and Nadal to have a chance of victory. But you never have to play the entire top 20 en masse, therefore it is harder to win slams in eras with a few superlative players than in an era of parity.

socal1976 wrote:Agassi was a very special player one of my top 3 or 4 favorites of all time. Lydian, makes some valid points. The reason Fed still relatively young when compared to the twilight of many great champions isn't having better results is because the era is strong, not the opposite. Just like why agassi in semi-retirement at age 35 was still a powerful force on tour, because frankly in that period outside of Fed and a teenage Nadal there were no other great players. It was easier for agassi to stay dominant in his thirties when the competition against him was basically Roger and no one else or a teenage Nadal nowhere near his prime. Andre was great but I think he would have a much tougher time playing at 35 in this era when compared to when he did it in 05.

Federer has an awful lot of miles on the clock, when you think how deep he has gone in so many tournaments and how consistently he has done so. Nadal is the same, and I think that is why you cannot expect either of them to go on so successfully for so long as Agassi - neither will leave tennis with 'what might have been'

Agassi, as Lydian points out, was such a special talented player who under achieved in his early career and had such a love-hate relationship with tennis at that time - if his career trajectory had been similar to Federer/Nadal, he would have probably won more earlier and gone sooner. He still needed to prove something to himself and to reconcile himself to the game. Having said all that, how wonderful Agassi was, not just as a competitor but also he was a showman and character on court, and so good for the popularity of the game.

Timeplease, my point with last post, was to argue that a top heavy tour is by definition harder to win slams in. It is due to the nature of tournament tennis. For the last few years we have had Roger and Rafa jealously protecting the slams, now we have Nadal and Djoko. Between the two they have taken all the slams just like in years past when Fed and Nadal would split up the slams. That is why in the last 7 years we have seen the near complete dissappearance of the one slam wonders on tour. By definition and because of the nature of tournament tennis a top heavy tour is a harder period to win slams than a period of parity.

Timeplease, my point with last post, was to argue that a top heavy tour is by definition harder to win slams in. It is due to the nature of tournament tennis. For the last few years we have had Roger and Rafa jealously protecting the slams, now we have Nadal and Djoko. Between the two they have taken all the slams just like in years past when Fed and Nadal would split up the slams. That is why in the last 7 years we have seen the near complete dissappearance of the one slam wonders on tour. By definition and because of the nature of tournament tennis a top heavy tour is a harder period to win slams than a period of parity.

One could argue that Djokovic, marvellous and incredible and awesome etc as he has been this year, has triumphed when:

a) Roger is as fit as he ever was, but is a yard or two slower across the court and in reactions and is not the imperious tennis machine he was
b) Rafa has not been at his awesome best - fantastic yes, but not the imperious tennis machine he was last year. In 2009 Rafa was a pale imitation of the 2008 Rafa, and the 2011 model is a pale imitation of 2010 one - perhaps it goes in cycles like this for him, in which case watch out in 2012.
c) Murray appears to have stagnated. He has had a very good year, but seems unable to threaten the top three as he was able to a couple of years ago. Does not have the confidence or the consistency in aggressive play that he did then.

I would be just a tad careful because the little of Djokovic I saw yesterday looked like he was beginning to both tire and hurt, and unless Rafa is burned out mentally and is looking for a way out, he will seize his moment too. Although Djoker won, the manner of winning means that he is no longer my favourite for the US Open - I think he has peaked and will struggle to make it to finals in US Open - though will be very happy to be proved wrong.

He has been phenomenal this year, way out above the rest of the field, but I'm sorry you just can't compare Roger or Rafa in a negative way to Novak, and quite frankly I am bewildered as to why you want to do so. Let's see if Novak can defend the majority of his points next year and the No 1 ranking before trying to forecast any more of his future!

Timeplease you miss the jist of my post. It isn't an attempt to compare Djoko to Fed and Nadal. My point, is that when you have tour and you play tournaments it is harder to win as a top player in an era with 2-3 superlative stars than in an era that has a more even distribution of talent and more parity. The guy who wins a tournament doesn't have to play the entire tour or the top 20, but most likely a lower ranked player in an era with a top heavy tour will have to play two great players in the semi and final to win a slam.

I disagree also on Nadal, if not for Djokovic Nadal would be having a historic season. He would most likely have two slams and a handful of masters heading into the US open every bit as dominant as what he accomplished in 2010 and 2008. So far this season he lost one match to ferrer when injured, once to Tsonga and Dodig in a real close match. If not for Djoko he could be going into the US hardcourt season with 3 losses. In fact, the numbers show that Nadal isn't having a bad year, just losing to one guy. Nadal is winnning a higher percentage of matches against the top 10 than his career average this year, even when throwing in the 5 losses to Djoko.

socal1976 wrote:Timeplease you miss the jist of my post. It isn't an attempt to compare Djoko to Fed and Nadal. My point, is that when you have tour and you play tournaments it is harder to win as a top player in an era with 2-3 superlative stars than in an era that has a more even distribution of talent and more parity. The guy who wins a tournament doesn't have to play the entire tour or the top 20, but most likely a lower ranked player in an era with a top heavy tour will have to play two great players in the semi and final to win a slam.

I disagree also on Nadal, if not for Djokovic Nadal would be having a historic season. He would most likely have two slams and a handful of masters heading into the US open every bit as dominant as what he accomplished in 2010 and 2008. So far this season he lost one match to ferrer when injured, once to Tsonga and Dodig in a real close match. If not for Djoko he could be going into the US hardcourt season with 3 losses. In fact, the numbers show that Nadal isn't having a bad year, just losing to one guy. Nadal is winnning a higher percentage of matches against the top 10 than his career average this year, even when throwing in the 5 losses to Djoko.

I don't think I do miss the gist at all, I think you don't fully have the courage to stand behind your implications which are continually questionning the strength of opposition in Federer's early years, while wilfully disregarding examining the competition behind the top 5 today. You talk of Novak having the key to Tsonga, disregarding the number of occasions when Fed has dismissed the same player in the past. In fact you take the mileage of Federer and Nadal (not too dissimilar from each other) totally out of your argument when talking about the strength of the field this year, not to mention seeming to be oblivious to Murray's struggle with his demons during your 'era' arguments. Though you are happy to discuss these elsewhere when comparing the naturally superior mental strength of Novak over Andy.

Nadal has had a good season, just as Federer had a good season in 2008, but there are signs that he is struggling as Fed did in 2008. Yes he still masters the field apart from Novak, just as Fed mastered the field in the biggest events apart from Nadal (excepting AO) in 2008 but again there were signs that the great man was on the very beginning of a decline and I think we have all observed the same in Rafa, whether it is temporary or that he himself is beginning to lose an inch or two of speed. You have argued this yourself, but now it is convenient for you to paint Rafa as ironman to foreground the invincibility of Novak.

I think you are unwise to do so, because while I am hoping that Novak will win this year's US as I am not that much of an optimist to believe Fed can, I think he has shot his bolt for this season - he looked jaded yesterday, and the other players will have noticed that as well.

Timeplease, I would still take Andy Murray in 2011 over the competition level that ljubici, Roddick, ferrero, blake, Nalbandian, and Safin provided to Roger in the period of 2004-7. Murray by 2007 when he was but a teenager was more dangerous than any of those players.

As for Nadal he probably isn't a player that will play for many more years that is obvious. But he isn't in decline yet. Look at his numbers they are still very strong except that he is losing to one guy consistently.

Of course Novak is going to look jaded. Everyone looks a little less fresh at a master's final especially coming off a one month break. In fact, I think the top guys missed an opportunity because it was clear in the first two rounds that Novak was rusty and ripe for the picking. He played 2 great matches this tourney and good enough the rest of the time and still won. I don't think the players on tour are looking at their chances being better after watching the final. Novak wasn't at his best an won against the second hottest guy on tour right now, a top ten player who quite frankly would have beaten some of the top 4 tonight with the game he brought and the fight he brought.

You seriously believe your first paragraph? I am sorry but most people think Nalbandian is one of the most talented players never to win a slam - let's see if people say that about Andy in four years time. Actually I think the Guardian was comparing Murray to Safin recently, saying that he might have the talent of the Russian but also sadly the fragility too. Despite the fragility, Safin still bagged two slams.

Your first paragraph is at least honest about your subtext for once.

Your last paragraph about Fish - sorry isn't he one of the weak era lot, yet actually, like Ferrer, doing rather better than he did in 2004-7?

Federer is a great of the game, as is Nadal. Djokovic is the player of the year - no less and no more for the moment.

time please wrote:You seriously believe your first paragraph? I am sorry but most people think Nalbandian is one of the most talented players never to win a slam - let's see if people say that about Andy in four years time. Actually I think the Guardian was comparing Murray to Safin recently, saying that he might have the talent of the Russian but also sadly the fragility too. Despite the fragility, Safin still bagged two slams.

Your first paragraph is at least honest about your subtext for once.

Your last paragraph about Fish - sorry isn't he one of the weak era lot, yet actually, like Ferrer, doing rather better than he did in 2004-7?

Federer is a great of the game, as is Nadal. Djokovic is the player of the year - no less and no more for the moment.

That is your opinion you are entitled to it, However it is clear that Djokovic is on historic run. The level he is playing at is spectacular and I am not the only one calling him an all time great or pointing out the historic nature of his play. Just google the articles on the final and you will see that journalists in the trade to have taken notice. YOu want to be cynical that is your choice.

socal1976 wrote:

time please wrote:You seriously believe your first paragraph? I am sorry but most people think Nalbandian is one of the most talented players never to win a slam - let's see if people say that about Andy in four years time. Actually I think the Guardian was comparing Murray to Safin recently, saying that he might have the talent of the Russian but also sadly the fragility too. Despite the fragility, Safin still bagged two slams.

Your first paragraph is at least honest about your subtext for once.

Your last paragraph about Fish - sorry isn't he one of the weak era lot, yet actually, like Ferrer, doing rather better than he did in 2004-7?

Federer is a great of the game, as is Nadal. Djokovic is the player of the year - no less and no more for the moment.

That is your opinion you are entitled to it, However it is clear that Djokovic is on historic run. The level he is playing at is spectacular and I am not the only one calling him an all time great or pointing out the historic nature of his play. Just google the articles on the final and you will see that journalists in the trade to have taken notice. YOu want to be cynical that is your choice.

Of course Djokovic is on a historic run. The press are using superlatives, all of which he deserves for his play at the moment, and some are trying to put it in a larger context - because, guess what they like to have the 'hook' to sell their story.

I am not cynical at all, just pragmatic.- You sound as if you have had a 'pauline' conversion, your tone is messianic 'what we are witnessing' 'unearthly' - and you don't have the sense of humour to feel even a little abashed when it is pointed out to you that 'unearthly' is hyperbole, in fact you ask me what is hyperbolic about using such a word. Now if you said that Djokovic had been imperious this year, or even majestic, I wouldn't pull you up on it. Even calling me 'cynical' when I have made it clear that Djokovic has long been my second favourite player is weird, like I am some kind of 'doubting Thomas' who refuses to stare glassy eyed in wonder at the 'unearthly' being before me on my television set and declare mine eyes have seen the second coming.

Get a grip socal - Djokovic is having a stellar season, and I hope that it is the first of many, but if you are beginning to make fans like yummy and I a little just think what you are doing to the rest of we mere homo sapiens out there

socal1976 wrote:Timeplease, I would still take Andy Murray in 2011 over the competition level that ljubici, Roddick, ferrero, blake, Nalbandian, and Safin provided to Roger in the period of 2004-7. Murray by 2007 when he was but a teenager was more dangerous than any of those players.

Murray in 2011 till date has only a AO final to show for the year where he lost without any sniff to the title. He was greatly helped by losses of Tsonga, Soderling and Nadal. He was fortunate to even be in FO semis ( should have lost to Troiki in the 4th round). He lost to players like Alex Bogomolov Jr, Donald Young and Kevin Anderson, Thomaz Bellucci. 0 titles to show till now. What do you think about that? He has never even played a clay final in his whole career. ljubici, Roddick, ferrero, blake, Nalbandian, and Safin were good players and some of those no less than in Andy Murray in any sense, in fact much much better. Roddick has a Slam, and 3 Slam finals. Safin has 2 slams, 1 slam final, and his 2005 AO came defeating a prime Roger in semis. Nalbandian till long time held a winning % over Federer, in fact defeated in him in the classic 2005 TMC final. Murray has 6 masters, good record but it has also helped the fact that all of them have come in 3-setter finals unlike most of ljubici, Roddick, ferrero, blake, Nalbandian, and Safin 's careers. Its always easier to win a 3 setter. These guys were not able to match Federer because a prime Federer was too far ahead that any player has ever got in the history of the game. Even though Nadal mainly on clay was able to get wins against him, those matches were very close. Murray scrapped a few wins but most they were in which Federer lost rather than Murray won. 2007 Murray as a teenager had a few good phases( but even that didn't win him a SLAM or a TMC) but wasn't good enough to maintain it for long time.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Timeplease, I would still take Andy Murray in 2011 over the competition level that ljubici, Roddick, ferrero, blake, Nalbandian, and Safin provided to Roger in the period of 2004-7. Murray by 2007 when he was but a teenager was more dangerous than any of those players.

Murray in 2011 till date has only a AO final to show for the year where he lost without any sniff to the title. He was greatly helped by losses of Tsonga, Soderling and Nadal. He was fortunate to even be in FO semis ( should have lost to Troiki in the 4th round). He lost to players like Alex Bogomolov Jr, Donald Young and Kevin Anderson, Thomaz Bellucci. 0 titles to show till now. What do you think about that? He has never even played a clay final in his whole career. ljubici, Roddick, ferrero, blake, Nalbandian, and Safin were good players and some of those no less than in Andy Murray in any sense, in fact much much better. Roddick has a Slam, and 3 Slam finals. Safin has 2 slams, 1 slam final, and his 2005 AO came defeating a prime Roger in semis. Nalbandian till long time held a winning % over Federer, in fact defeated in him in the classic 2005 TMC final. Murray has 6 masters, good record but it has also helped the fact that all of them have come in 3-setter finals unlike most of ljubici, Roddick, ferrero, blake, Nalbandian, and Safin 's careers. Its always easier to win a 3 setter. These guys were not able to match Federer because a prime Federer was too far ahead that any player has ever got in the history of the game. Even though Nadal mainly on clay was able to get wins against him, those matches were very close. Murray scrapped a few wins but most they were in which Federer lost rather than Murray won. 2007 Murray as a teenager had a few good phases( but even that didn't win him a SLAM or a TMC) but wasn't good enough to maintain it for long time.

I am a big Murray fan but I agree Raiders with much of what you say. It doesn't suit socal's narrative to acknowledge players like Roddick, but it does to wilfully ignore that although he would 'take Murray over players like Roddick any day' that when it really mattered, playing for the big one a place in a Wimbledon final, it was 'weak era' Roddick who triumphed over Murray. Painful though that truth may be, those are the facts.

time please wrote:Get a grip socal - Djokovic is having a stellar season, and I hope that it is the first of many, but if you are beginning to make fans like yummy and I a little just think what you are doing to the rest of we mere homo sapiens out there

TP... very succinct and to the point. .

Socal.... take a hint from NoleIsTheBest.

NitB is enjoying Djoker's current success and wishing him well for future endeavours. There is no looking back at years past and making other players look better or worse.

Every player in the pro-circuit is committed to Tennis, even Roddick who lost to Kohli last night.

laverfan wrote:

time please wrote:Get a grip socal - Djokovic is having a stellar season, and I hope that it is the first of many, but if you are beginning to make fans like yummy and I a little just think what you are doing to the rest of we mere homo sapiens out there

TP... very succinct and to the point. .

Socal.... take a hint from NoleIsTheBest.

NitB is enjoying Djoker's current success and wishing him well for future endeavours. There is no looking back at years past and making other players look better or worse.

Every player in the pro-circuit is committed to Tennis, even Roddick who lost to Kohli last night.

Well put by TP and LF. I feel as though I'm having Djokovic's success rammed down my throat because socal seems to want every poster to feel as he does about it. Why it can't be enjoyed for what it is is beyond me.

I'm sorry to jump on the bandwagon but I agree, Nole is clearly a great player. We can all see that, but we dont need to analyse all the players between 2000-2011 to say how good he is. Until he wins 8+ slams he's not in the same league as Nadal and Federer in terms of achievement. And it could be argued that Nole has come along at the perfect time to amass slams with Nadal not a shadow of the player from 2010, Fed on the slide and Murray seemingly going backwards. The rest of the field, besides DP who is struggling to hit the same form again, are not really in contention for slams. Every era has its issues. But we need to stop FAWNING over players. Its a little sycophantic.

I do take issue with some points though. To say Murray is better than Safin or Nalby is short sighted. Murray hasnt even won a slam yet either and doesnt look near to doing so...so why is he put up onto a high perch other than to try to make Nole look good? Come on...lets enjoy Cincy and USO and see if Nadal and Fed can get some semblance of winning form back (although Cincy is always a tough event for Nadal).