Fed defeat kills talk of Golden Era

First topic message reminder :

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.

Achievements are everything and there is no escaping that. Players, whatever era they played in, were playing players who all had to play in the same conditions of court and equipment etc and those that achieve greatness are able to dominate the era they are in - that is what legends do - dominate. No one managed that in the early years of 2000's. Borg did it in the mid to late 70's, Sampras in the 90's and Federer and then Nadal from around 2003/4. There was a window of opportunity at the beginning of the new millennium but nobody had the greatness to grasp it.

Exactly, Craig in a period with an ageing Pete and Andre and at their best none of these players records or accomplishments managed to capture the imagination. And it wasn't changing conditions that did them in, even in their own eras they were very good but never quite the dominant number #1 we had grown used to. There was no great player in that period, so by definition that period wasn't great.

That is the key here. No one is saying they weren't great players ie Safin as they proved in winning a slam - but legends? None made that category in my eyes and I suspect in a lot of other people's eyes either.

"Never quite the dominant number (sic) #1 we had grown used to"

And that makes an era weak? Because there are enough players of similar standard to make it hugely competitive?



Anyway, I keep having to bring this thread back to its purpose: the confirmation that this is no Golden Era. Indeed, with Fish now showing more success than ever before it is clearly the Golden Oldie Era.

bogbrush wrote:"Never quite the dominant number (sic) #1 we had grown used to"

And that makes an era weak? Because there are enough players of similar standard to make it hugely competitive?



Anyway, I keep having to bring this thread back to its purpose: the confirmation that this is no Golden Era. Indeed, with Fish now showing more success than ever before it is clearly the Golden Oldie Era.

Wait until Mardy Fish hooks (pardon the pun) a slam win before hailing him as a huge success. It remains to be seen what this era post-Federer/Nadal domination will be. If Novak Djokovic continues his run of domination then it will become the Djokovic era and he could thrust himself into the bracket of legend in two or three years time but we shall see.

He's #7 at almost 30. Fed is #3 at 30, Ferrer #6 at 29. There's nobody under 24 anywhere near the top.

That's why it's the GOE.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

At the moment Djokovic is not a legend but a few more slams and he will be knocking on the door.

He's a legend for making a mockery of Nadull the paper champion in 2011, cmon now?

When was the paper championship? Is it the 5th slam? Impressive anyway - clay, grass, hard and now paper. Is there any surface Nadal has yet to master? I also read he can play on the moon, and is so good that he earned the moniker moonballer, though this may be a myth. Along with weak eras and GOATS...

bogbrush wrote:He's #7 at almost 30. Fed is #3 at 30, Ferrer #6 at 29. There's nobody under 24 anywhere near the top.

That's why it's the GOE.

As you well know bogbrush people peak at different ages of their career and that has been the same throughout the history of tennis and other sports. Besides what has age got to do with anything here? Does an era have to be littered with spring chicks for it to be great - of course not. I would say though we do now seem to be in a transitional period now and time will tell how strong this era is.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:He's #7 at almost 30. Fed is #3 at 30, Ferrer #6 at 29. There's nobody under 24 anywhere near the top.

That's why it's the GOE.

As you well know bogbrush people peak at different ages of their career and that has been the same throughout the history of tennis and other sports. Besides what has age got to do with anything here? Does an era have to be littered with spring chicks for it to be great - of course not. I would say though we do now seem to be in a transitional period now and time will tell how strong this era is.

Craig, I certainly don't think this period/era is weak, and I don't think bogbrush does either.(please correct me if I am wrong bb ) What we have both been trying to do is to counter yours and socal's argument that the early part of the 2000s was weak, by showing you that you can take a different set of statistics and make a case that actually the tour is stagnating now. Neither you or socal were at all receptive to a simple 'no the early 2000s had a good field of players', so we are simply trying to point out that you could take another point of view and show that actually the early 2000s featured some wonderful established players, and a great group of young challengers.
tend
You say that guys peak at different times - that is absolutely true. It is also an tennis truth that players tend to lose a yard or two after the age of 25, it happens slowly for some, and faster for others. But your speed and reaction times are quite a bit slower than the younger guys when you are in your late twenties. In the top ten, we have 2 late twenties players who weren't there in their physical prime, (which was, guess what, the early and middle part of this decade) and unlike the earlier 2000s, the top ten does not contain any talented young guns under 24 ready to step up and challenge the top guys.

Please just consider those facts before you continue to argue that the early 2000s were 'weak'. I know that from your point, you would like to make the case for Murray being able to win a slam or two in that period - the truth is that Murray has the talent to do it in either period, it is on his raquet and no-one else's. He has to sort out his head a little and decide how really hungry he is for that slam and go get it, imo. Faint heart never won fair trophy and unfortunately that is how Murray has played in some of the biggest moments in his career - he is desperately playing not to lose, and he needs to play to win - when he does play like that, he is the match of anyone I believe.

Craig, I certainly don't think this period/era is weak, and I don't think bogbrush does either.(please correct me if I am wrong bb What we have both been trying to do (please correct me if I am wrong bb) is to counter yours and socal's argument that the early part of the 2000s was weak, by showing you that you can take a different set of statistics and make a case that actually the tour is stagnating now.

What different set of statistics have you guys provided. I am sure there is a different set of stats to prove that the early 2000 guys were great; as long as you don't count slams, master's titles, or total titles. If you ignore these factors the dominant players did wonderful, maybe we should measure their greatness by the number of empanadas David Nalbandian could eat in a sitting? Mardy fish isn't doing great because this era is weak he was an injury proned and talented player who was too heavy. He lost 30 pounds bogbrush's ridiculously idiotic argument to cover for the complete collapse of the late 90s and early 2000 champions is to bring up a player who is in the greatest shape of his life and in his best health. IT PROVES NOTHING, ONE GUY WHO LOST 30 POUNDS ISN'T PLAYING BETTER BECAUSE OF HOW MUCH STRONGER HIS GENERATION OF PLAYERS WERE AND HOW WEAK THIS GENERATION IS.

As for David Ferrer his ranking is actually not at its highest he reached his highest ranking either in 07 or 06, he never won anything then and he hasn't won anything now. None of you have brought any statistical evidence or evidence of anything to prove your point. At least it has been about a week and i haven't seen anything.

Please just consider those facts before you continue to argue that the early 2000s were 'weak'. I know that from your point, you would like to make the case for Murray being able to win a slam or two in that period - the truth is that Murray has the talent to do it in either period, it is on his raquet and no-one else's. timeplease[b]

Yes, I know timeplease because Thomas Johannson and Petr Korda are so much more talented than Murray or maybe just more fortunate to play in a softer era of top notch talent?

socal - you are almost wilfully misunderstanding mon ami. I don't think either period is weak - I have really enjoyed watching players in both.

I am countering your argument and showing you that statistics tell part of the story, and there are other statistics that tell another side.

Mardy Fish has sorted out his problems, but he should still be too slow (particularly as he wasn't a top tenner) to be at No 7 unless we are suffering from a lack of good young players and you should consider that fact before rambling on and on and on about lack of depth in the early 2000s, that's all.

socal1976 wrote:Please just consider those facts before you continue to argue that the early 2000s were 'weak'. I know that from your point, you would like to make the case for Murray being able to win a slam or two in that period - the truth is that Murray has the talent to do it in either period, it is on his raquet and no-one else's. timeplease[b]

Yes, I know timeplease because Thomas Johannson and Petr Korda are so much more talented than Murray or maybe just more fortunate to play in a softer era of top notch talent?

For the last time, it is not talent preventing Murray - it is other issues. I don't know that he would have beaten the guys above when push came to shove in a slam final and neither do you, you can only conjecture. what we do know is he has the shot making ability to beat anyone on his day, but he has not put up a good enough battle when caught in the spotlight of a slam final - he didn't just lose the three, he was well beaten by guys he has himself beaten. The question over Murray is whether he has the champion's mind. The guys you cite had the courage to make the most of their opportunities - it is that kind of bravery that will turn things around for Murray.

Part of the reason there are fewer youngsters making it up the rankings faster is because of the increase physical nature of the tour, for that reasons it takes them longer. Look at Verdasco he had a great 2008 when he got in shape, Roddick made it back to the finals of wimby and won a nearly pulled off the IW and miami double when he lost about 15-20 pounds. I agree we can't be convinced of the results of the group of players from 18-22 right now. But the group of players from 23-26 are incredibly strong, light years ahead of the players of who dominated the early 2000s. And it is without question the fact Mardy lost 30 pounds as to why he is succeeding as a junior he was bigger talent than Roddick who suffered a great deal of injuries that hampered his career. One guy losing weight and having a run of good health as a result does not rebut the weaker level of accomplishment of the early 2000s guys.

Actually for the record, I would say Korda was MORE talented than Murray but he was mentally brittle.

BB and TP make good points here about players doing well in 2010/2011 who are up around 29-31 years old. If these players are so good why didnt they achieve much of anything in the preceding 5-6 years?

Because of Federer and Nadal basically. Federer and Nadal are the standout of the last decade, they have mopped almost everything up before Nole was breaking through this year and thats arguably due to the slump of both players at the same time as him reaching peak.

If you took Federer and Nadal out of the equation from the mid-00s I suspect the standard across 2000 to 2011 would be fairly similar - maybe even arguably stronger in the early 2000s as I think Hewitt/Nalby/Safin/ Roddick and even Henman were better (IMO) than Berdych, Soderling, Monfils, Tsonga and Fish. I think Nalby was at least as good as Murray...and lets see how far Djokovic goes in the future before he's thought of as being hugely better than Hewitt. After all Djokovic has not had emerging all-time great players like Federer and Nadal type players to deal with - he's playing in a field of 29-31 yo's and a Nadal in slump. You have to say Nole's peaking at just the right time!

lydian wrote:If you took Federer and Nadal out of the equation from the mid-00s I suspect the standard across 2000 to 2011 would be fairly similar - maybe even arguably stronger in the early 2000s as I think Hewitt/Nalby/Safin/ Roddick and even Henman were better (IMO) than Berdych, Soderling, Monfils, Tsonga and Fish. I think Nalby was at least as good as Murray...and lets see how far Djokovic goes in the future before he's thought of as being hugely better than Hewitt. After all Djokovic has not had emerging all-time great players like Federer and Nadal type players to deal with - he's playing in a field of 29-31 yo's and a Nadal in slump

That's a much more concise and elegant way of saying what I was trying to express

time please wrote:

lydian wrote:If you took Federer and Nadal out of the equation from the mid-00s I suspect the standard across 2000 to 2011 would be fairly similar - maybe even arguably stronger in the early 2000s as I think Hewitt/Nalby/Safin/ Roddick and even Henman were better (IMO) than Berdych, Soderling, Monfils, Tsonga and Fish. I think Nalby was at least as good as Murray...and lets see how far Djokovic goes in the future before he's thought of as being hugely better than Hewitt. After all Djokovic has not had emerging all-time great players like Federer and Nadal type players to deal with - he's playing in a field of 29-31 yo's and a Nadal in slump

That's a much more concise and elegant way of saying what I was trying to express

Agree, well put Lydian

For what its worth time please, I agree with you entirely on your views of Andy Murray. My point purely on tennis talk and eras is that legends of the sport create their own era. such as Borg in the 70's, Sampras in the 90's and Federer in the mid to late 2000's. All legends. Legends dominate and find a way to do so even in alien/difficult conditions they find a way. That beggars the question of what happened in the first three or four years of this millennium. No player had that element of genius that legends possess to dominate - my memory tells me that and the stats tell me that as well. As I said though I thoroughly agree on your comments about Andy Murray.

Well of course Craig, some players will 'define an era' to we punters, but what I was protesting about was the claim that there was 'no depth' in men's tennis in the early part of the decade.

We are just going to have to disagree on this one, because I don't think either of us is going to convince the other

PS Let's hope Murray does get his head on before its too late - would love to see him crowned USO champion 2011. I just feel he has to find himself - if that doesn't sound too 'Eat, Pray, Love'ish - He seems to be all at sea about what he needs to do sometimes and looks to the guys he admires for a sort of foolproof formula; first he cited needing to get as fit as Rafa, then he changes his diet to eat like Nole - I think he needs to find his own unique way of doing things and trust in that.

No doubting Andy has mental issues to overcome. If he can take that final mental step and get that first slam I do believe it will break the shackles he often seems to play under.

As for no depth in early 2000's I wouldn't say that I'd just say it lacked legends in action. Sure there were great players such as Safin, Agassi and Hewitt but none I'd class as legends.

CaledonianCraig wrote:As for no depth in early 2000's I wouldn't say that I'd just say it lacked legends in action. Sure there were great players such as Safin, Agassi and Hewitt but none I'd class as legends.

You wonder if Murray doesnt win a slam in the next 2 seasons (which means he has 5 slams to go at - and probably 4 realistically if you exc. FO) then he's not going to win one due to the mental burnout of having not got one by say 26 years old. If you look at the Open Era there arent as many people as you'd think who won their 1st slam at 26/27/28....

emancipator wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:As for no depth in early 2000's I wouldn't say that I'd just say it lacked legends in action. Sure there were great players such as Safin, Agassi and Hewitt but none I'd class as legends.

Well Agassi did win three slams in the early 2000's.

You might not class Agassi as a legend Craig - but I think you would be in the minority there, and because so many will remember him still in another decade from now, it sort of gives him legend status whether you rate him this way or not

Yes emancipator....I think most people would think Agassi a legend.

Lets look further...won all 4 slams on different surfaces as well as Olympic Gold, played at such a high level for so long across the modern era - in the top 10 for 16 years! (and missed 2 more years where he should have been), finished his last full season in 2005 at the incredible age of 35 in this modern era STILLl in the top 10 at #7, 17 Masters titles, came back from #141 to #1 in a short period and holds many records alone, e.g. won the "5th" slam Miami Masters 6 times, oldest guy to get #1 ranking (33yo), most HC titles, most Masters series HC titles,

If nothing else his retirement speech made him a legend! Agassi arguably got more people to pick up a racquet than any other too...and his impact on the sport as a whole is actually quite legendary.

And he's not a legend BECAUSE of??????

lydian wrote:You wonder if Murray doesnt win a slam in the next 2 seasons (which means he has 5 slams to go at - and probably 4 realistically if you exc. FO) then he's not going to win one due to the mental burnout of having not got one by say 26 years old. If you look at the Open Era there arent as many people as you'd think who won their 1st slam at 26/27/28....

Sadly I agree Lydian - furthermore, with Murray being such a great retriever, you do wonder whether his legs will allow him to play his game as effectively and quickly after the age of 26 - but I guess we will have to see who is going to step up from the young guys.

Of course mines is just an opinion and sure I said on another thread that Agassi did come very close to legend status (in my eyes). As for why not Lydian, I can't really answer it. He just wasn't a player who enthralled and enraptured me personally. Sure he had a heck of a lot of impressive stats but I suppose it depends on how everyone judges who is or isn't a legend.

I think the fact that Agassi's name is one that is cited, at one time or another, by every poster here means that he is, in the most literal sense, a legend!

Besides which, he was brill!

Perhaps the reason I don't appreciate him so much was that he played in an era that bored me to tears so I never watched so much then owing to the serve dominated game that was prevailent then so he passed me by so to speak.

Agassi is not a legend of the sport.

Now I've heard it all.

Craig I guess by your reckoning there are probably only 4 or 5 legends in the entire history of tennis.

Yes but that is only by my reckoning emancipator. We all have our own favourite players, legends etc etc which we would agree/disagree on I think.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Perhaps the reason I don't appreciate him so much was that he played in an era that bored me to tears so I never watched so much then owing to the serve dominated game that was prevailent then so he passed me by so to speak.

Shame, you missed one of the very greatest baseliners of all time

Yes it was and apologies if I have offended any Agassi fans out there.

you haven't offended me in the slightest Craig - a forum is all about people having differing opinions and the freedom to express them

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes but that is only by my reckoning emancipator. We all have our own favourite players, legends etc etc which we would agree/disagree on I think.

Sorry Craig.. can't agree with that.

Some things in sport are disputable, others are indisputable.

Agassi, with 60+ career titles, career slam, 8 slams as well as all the other credentials that Lydian alluded to, is indisputably a legend of the game.

Whether or not you like his game, personality or any other subjective emotive criteria you want to add is neither here nor there.

Careers are ultimately measured according to accomplishments. His resume alone makes him a legend of the sport.

I don't find Nadal particularly enthralling but I would never deny that he is one of the legends of the sport.

No you misunderstand emancipator. I freely admit I never kept so closely in touch with the game in the Sampras era (serve dominated too much) and so never really saw a lot of the tennis so Agassi passed me by really. His style from what I saw was more appealing to me than Sampras though but because I never saw enough of him I reckon that is why my mind doesn't see him as a legend.

CaledonianCraig wrote:No you misunderstand emancipator. I freely admit I never kept so closely in touch with the game in the Sampras era (serve dominated too much) and so never really saw a lot of the tennis so Agassi passed me by really. His style from what I saw was more appealing to me than Sampras though but because I never saw enough of him I reckon that is why my mind doesn't see him as a legend.

No probs.. I get your point now.

And in some respects because Agassi achieved what he did in the fastcourt era of Sampras is all the more remarkable.
Can you imagine the damage a young and prime Agassi would have done in this baseline era - which was his game. The fact he pushed Nadal and Federer at 35 yo is absolutely amazing. One of the true talents of the game...I;ve never seen a more talented player in terms of hand/eye co-ordination. The way he returned serve in fast grass was nothing short of miraculous at times...I remember when he first played there in '92 and the gasps you could hear from the crowds on some of his shots...the timing, and also the power. People forget how hard he hit the ball in the early 90s because he softened the shots later after his wrist injury, but it was ferocious. I've not seen harder shots hit since. And for me he still has the best DHBH ever. Anyone who saw him beat Woodforde 60 60 in Vienna 95 Indoors will remember they saw something truly remarkable that night. That and Sampras playing the 99 SW19 final (vs Agassi) are two of the most amazing pieces of high tennis quality I've seen played since 1976 when I first started watching tennis.
At 8 slams it sounds weird but he was an underachiever...to me he'll always be right up there with Federer and Sampras in terms of true ability.

Agreed. I said elsewhere that part of AAs lengevity might have been that the came changed towards him, rather than what it did to Pete.

Its funny how Mardy Fish reaching the top 8 and a couple of master's finals proves how this era is not that strong. Completely, ignoring the fact that the man lost 30 pounds. Or that David Ferrer who never won anything now and whose highest ranking was in 06 or 07 being in the top 10 shows how strong the past era was. But Agassi reaching #1 in the world at the age 33 doesn't show a bit of weakness in the early 2000s period.

If we ignore all the statistics about lack of slam performance, longevity, a paucity of masters titles, by the top players of the weaker era then I guess your guys argument makes sense.


Ask Rafa Nadal if this is the same fish he has beaten 6 times in a row.

As for Lydian's point about Djokovic benefitting from the slide of Nadal and Fed, this ignores the fact that before this season when Nadal and Fed bestrode the tennis world like goliaths Novak had won 5 masters and the masters cup and a grandslam. His 5 masters titles are more masters than hewitt or Safin won in their careers combined. ALL IN THE ABSOLUTE PEAK ERA OF ROGER AND RAFA. Safin and Hewitt after the rise of Roger and Rafa, won a combined zero masters crowns.

I know we can't look at statistics that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt how weak the late 90s early 2000s was, instead we have to just pretend that accomplishments, titles, and grandslams don't mean anything and that those players are just as good as the clearly better players that came up before and after them.

What I find amusing is that lydian compares nalby, safin, hewitt, and roddick to Berdych and Tsonga, while ignoring the comparison of these players to Nadal and Djokovic who are the real flagships of the era. Berdych and Tsonga represent the depth of this era, they are not the dominant figures of this era. Why don't you measure hewitt, safin, and Roddick against Nole and Nadal? Because it is quite clear that they fail in every certifiable and objective measure.

Fish looks much better on his feet, slender, almost like he's gone from a heavyweight to a light middleweight. Encouraging that he's playing this well considering his poor performance in the Davis Cup where he couldn't rally to save his life...

socal1976 wrote:Why don't you measure hewitt, safin, and Roddick against Nole and Nadal? Because it is quite clear that they fail in every certifiable and objective measure.

I think you will find it is YOU that has the obsession with measuring players against players, not anyone else.

Anyway, don't argue with me atm a) because I'm off to bed b) because I am very p***sed off with Fed, or maybe it's Berdych I'm p***sed off with - but I am not a very happy bunny either way!

time please wrote:

lydian wrote:You wonder if Murray doesnt win a slam in the next 2 seasons (which means he has 5 slams to go at - and probably 4 realistically if you exc. FO) then he's not going to win one due to the mental burnout of having not got one by say 26 years old. If you look at the Open Era there arent as many people as you'd think who won their 1st slam at 26/27/28....

Sadly I agree Lydian - furthermore, with Murray being such a great retriever, you do wonder whether his legs will allow him to play his game as effectively and quickly after the age of 26 - but I guess we will have to see who is going to step up from the young guys.

I was thinking about this recently too, and agree. The pressure will only increase along with the mental scarring, I hope Murray realises this and seizes the moment. He almost seems like he has to make himself suffer and plumb the depths before rising again at times. Perhaps it's emotional maturity, but, at the risk of sounding like a cod philosopher, he needs to find his own path.

Enjoyed reading the Agassi stuff, loved watching him play. When on song, he was tremendous. Watching him beat Sampras at the Aussie Open was one of my favourite matches. He probably did underachieve to an extent, lost some agonising matches to Rafter at Wimbledon, and that bizarre one at the French when Clinton showed up.

Yeah i can't believe that one final he lost to Gomes at the French, I think in his frist grandslam final. Agassi was one of my favorites of all time. I loved his attacking baseline game and how he would go after the return of serve.

Hey socal, after watching Federer today surely you're not going to hang on to the idea that this is any kind of Golden Era, not with the #3 so far over the hill.

The #2 didn't look too sprightly either.

By your assessment this is starting to look like a weak era. Lucky I don't believe in them.

Fed won't be number #3 for very much longer if he plays this way. If he manages to recapture the #1 ranking like Agassi did in the true weak era at age 33 then you might be on to something. Right now I think to a certain extent Djoko's level has made Nadal, Murray, and Fed look a litte worse by comparison and without any bragging rights from failing to have won enough big trophies. Roger is certainly not Roger of 05 or even Roger of 09 but that is to be expected. I would still take him at 30 over many of the top five players in other eras.

What a load of b*llocks. As usual, you can't resist trying to reflect credit onto Djokovic but it's irrelevent; Federer looks bad IN COMPARISON TO THE PLAYERS HE IS PLAYING, nothing else. I didn't see Nole on the court yesterday, all I saw was Fed unable to move to the pace of the game, something he used to do with ease.

Federer is #3, by quite a long distance actually. And unless you're arguing that the Golden Era is coming up then let's talk about the state of play now (after all, we've been hearing that absurd description for a while now).

Anyway, without Federer who would be making this your Golden Era? David Ferrer? Robin Soderling? Oh dear.

I got to say, it was painful to watch Fed play yesterday, he is simply too slow and he makes so many errors, I don't remember seeing him make so many errors when he was @ his peak. However, it has been said by other posters, his main problem is speed/movement and that can only be put down to age. He is capable of raising his game but even on those occasions he still shows signs of slowness and that can cost, certainly in the latter stage of tournaments when he is facing tough opponents. Watch how Berdych loses to Djokovic today and to be quite frank, it's no surprise, he's hardly a touch on the top 5, except on an aging and slowing Fed.

Judging by the standard of the matches I've seen, this is some golden era? Er, well I'm afraid you're mostly on your own socal, I've seen very few people agree with you at all, even lydian! I was sad to see Fed lose but frankly he was making zero inroads into Berdych's serve and that has a lot to do with speed and when he had chances, he made errors. I still think Fed will get far in the USO but I'm sceptical of him winning it. I'd rate Djokovic as favourite, I suspect Nadal or Fed or both will go out before the semis, which wouldnt be good for the USO, since a Djokovic vs Fed match or a Nadal vs Fed match would really pull in the viewers, but there you go!

Yes, I can see the final nail in the Fedal era coming when both fail to make the semis. A lot depends on the draw; Both need to avoid a power player (Berdych, Tsonga).

Ironically I give Federer a better chance against Nadal or Djokovic than I do against one of the big flat hitters.