31 year old Weak Era Sham #1 beats 25 year old Golden #7

In a further blow to fantasist believers in the illusion of a 2011 Golden Era, a 31 year old who never achieved anything outside of the fabled weak era beat the 25 year old 7th best player in the Golden Era today.

Says it all, really.

The sad thing is, I knew as soon as Ferrero won the match that an article like this would pop up. Ferrero's a good player; Monfils ran out of steam. Upsets happen. If everything went according to seeding then things would get rather boring...

Yes, he is isn't he? And he used to be brilliant.

he only shows up in the masters

bogbrush wrote:In a further blow to fantasist believers in the illusion of a 2011 Golden Era, a 31 year old who never achieved anything outside of the fabled weak era beat the 25 year old 7th best player in the Golden Era today.

Says it all, really.

You're a big tease bogbrush!!!

Aaaaahhhhh Monfils, so talented and so exasperating, but so often one of the best entertainers. Fantastic effort by JCF though to roll back the years - Match of the day!

It is a bit of a laugh though, this Golden era thing, isn't it?

The funny part of this is the strength of this Golden Era which is obvious for all to see has been question by an internet forum critic because the World No.7 lost a match to a 31 year old. Comedy; is this the first time in any era of tennis a 31 year old has beaten a top younger player?
Weren't the likes of Aggasi who could barely walk yet alone hold a racquet carve his way leisurely through the entire field to make the USO finals in 2005? Let us not forgot at 35 he was even confortably the world no.7. Even at 36 years of age in the sadly poor weak era in 2006, the American was still beating top 10 players in slams with ease while nursing injuries in between.

Weren't the likes of Aggasi who could barely walk yet alone hold a racquet carve his way leisurely through the entire field to make the USO finals in 2005? Let us not forgot at 35 he was even confortably the world no.7. Even at 36 years of age in the sadly poor weak era in 2006, the American was still beating top 10 players in slams with ease while nursing injuries in between.

Valid and good point. But is it a fair reflection on any era to judge it by the achievements of 1 player?

legendkillar wrote:Weren't the likes of Aggasi who could barely walk yet alone hold a racquet carve his way leisurely through the entire field to make the USO finals in 2005? Let us not forgot at 35 he was even confortably the world no.7. Even at 36 years of age in the sadly poor weak era in 2006, the American was still beating top 10 players in slams with ease while nursing injuries in between.

Valid and good point. But is it a fair reflection on any era to judge it by the achievements of 1 player?

Not really but i think there are different elements here. A 35 year old should not be anywhere in the top 10 in modern tennis and i don't mean the periods in the 80's with Connors. Almost unheard of no matter how great the player. It just shows an obvious lack of depth in the game which was largerly the case during that period. Shocks will always happen in tennis and we see that in every era where an old player or a far younger one makes impressive runs but to be 35 years old and have a permanent top 10 position and beating others 10 years younger etc sounds more like not enough quality. Lets he honest, you put Federer of now back in the field 2003-2007 he will likely see him win most of the slams again. Remember when Sampras and even Agassi has the oportunity of lack of strength in the game at old age, they won slams in their old days. I can bet my house unless Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro, Berdych, Tsonga are out of any slam tournament from now by whatever means, Federer will not win any slams.

if you say so son

Almost unheard of no matter how great the player. It just shows an obvious lack of depth in the game which was largerly the case during that period.

No It doesn't. Being a top 10 player can be the result of a player being typically ranked in the 20s or 30 but suddenly have a good run at a slam. That was actually the case for both Connors and Agassi....and again on their home soil, helped by a huge crowd and often the draw. For instance, Blake had MPs v Agassi but clearly was overwhelmed by the occasion. You don;t get used to playing versus a 25k crowd...unless you are a vets. Same with Connors v Kristein....for those who remember.

SA,

I don't think using Agassi as a point in case is a fair assessment.

Agassi was an exceptional talent - a GOAT candidate no less.

His game did not require exceptional movement or stamina - the two aspects which deteriorate the most with age.

He also had long breaks throughout his career, so his actual age may not have reflected his tennis age ie, he was a lot fresher than most 35 yr olds.

I expect that Roger Federer is he so chooses could also remain a top 10 player for the next 3-4 years. That is not necessarily a reflection of the weakness of this era, just the exceptional abilities of one player.

Simplistic Analysist living up to his name again.

The observation isn't that a 31 year old beat the #7, BUT THAT THIS 31 YEAR OLD IS DERIDED AS BEING A SHAM #1 FROM THE WEAK ERA.

AA was no sham, everyone knows he was a great player and with his style and physical development we can understand why he could have threatened so long.
What is impossible to understand is how a player derided as rubbish by, amongst others S_A, ravaged by injury since the "Weak Era", can turn up and defeat the #7 from the "Golden Era".

Sorry, but it destroys the myth of the GE even if anyone is still foolish enough to swallow the nonsense, seeing how Ferrer stands so tall near the end of his caeer when he hardly improved on this level earlier, not to mention how easily Federer holds the #3 at 30 or Fish has accelerated up the rankings at this time.

The top four have been more or less the same for the past 4 years with only really Del Potro before his injury and to a lesser extent Soderling threatening to break that up. Most of that time Federer and Nadal have been a clear top two but now Djokovic has upped his game and moved into a top three. Murray has stayed more or less static. Outside of these until the new young guys get more experience and move up the rankings I don't see anyone else (apart again from a fit Del Potro) challenging these guys on a regular basis in the slams. Therefore I think that the top of the game is very strong (Djokovic, Nadal, Federer) but to be seen as golden era more players need to consistently challenge them by winning slams..

Oh yes bogbrush's idea of evidence one match that he analyzes as proving that this era is weak or that the weak era is strong or whatever. Ferrero was a former world #1, Monfils is enjoying his highest ranking ever and it was one match. Just like when nearly 40 year old sampras beat federer in china did that make federer weak or his era weak of course it didn't. BB has yet to produce a single analysis that makes much sense to anyone but a few rabid Fed apologists.

Haven't been able to participate last couple of days due to travel and work schedule and won't be around too often till the end of the open, but I am glad that nothing has changed BB is still not making any sense. What has monfils ever won in this era, has even won a masters title. Agassi made minced meat in his mid 30s against the weaker era players but that doesn't prove anything. Or the fact that none of those players made a lasting impact doesn't prove anything. But one match by a guy not even in the top 5 currently proves BB's stupid argument, supposedly in his mind at least.

Monfils doesn't determine the strength of any era, if Ferrero beats murray, Nadal, and Djokovic a few times then you might be onto something. Or if he gets to the finals of the USO at 35 then you might be on to something. The top 3-5 guys determine the strength of an era and the early fed years and early 2000s guys were weak by any objective measure. Unless you ignore their lack of longevity, grandslam titles, or masters titles like bb would like.

Calder106 wrote:The top four have been more or less the same for the past 4 years with only really Del Potro before his injury and to a lesser extent Soderling threatening to break that up. Most of that time Federer and Nadal have been a clear top two but now Djokovic has upped his game and moved into a top three. Murray has stayed more or less static. Outside of these until the new young guys get more experience and move up the rankings I don't see anyone else (apart again from a fit Del Potro) challenging these guys on a regular basis in the slams. Therefore I think that the top of the game is very strong (Djokovic, Nadal, Federer) but to be seen as golden era more players need to consistently challenge them by winning slams..

I disagree Calder the top 3-5 guys determine the strength of the era, they determine who wins the grandslams and the big titles. Whether player number 6-100 is very strong only moderately impacts the results at the big tournaments. It is much harder by definition to win in a top heavy tour as opposed to a tour with more even distribution in talent across the top 10, 20 or 100. This is because of the nature of tournament tennis. In a top heavy era with 2-5 great top players as a lower ranked player you are going to have to probably beat two great players in the semi or the final. But you never have to beat the entire top 20 to win a title.

socal1976 wrote:Oh yes bogbrush's idea of evidence one match that he analyzes as proving that this era is weak or that the weak era is strong or whatever. Ferrero was a former world #1, Monfils is enjoying his highest ranking ever and it was one match. Just like when nearly 40 year old sampras beat federer in china did that make federer weak or his era weak of course it didn't. BB has yet to produce a single analysis that makes much sense to anyone but a few rabid Fed apologists.

No, it's you who try to prove Eras strong and weak, I'm the one who laughs at the idea. And now and then I pop on to show you the proof.

socal1976 wrote:Haven't been able to participate last couple of days due to travel and work schedule and won't be around too often till the end of the open, but I am glad that nothing has changed BB is still not making any sense. What has monfils ever won in this era, has even won a masters title. Agassi made minced meat in his mid 30s against the weaker era players but that doesn't prove anything. Or the fact that none of those players made a lasting impact doesn't prove anything. But one match by a guy not even in the top 5 currently proves BB's stupid argument, supposedly in his mind at least.

We'll try to get through the event without you.

What Monfils is doing is being better than all but 6 of the other players in the Golden Era. That's what a ranking means, ok?

Oh and I see you mention a weaker era - so you've reversed your position from the 1st paragraph?

socal1976 wrote:Monfils doesn't determine the strength of any era, if Ferrero beats murray, Nadal, and Djokovic a few times then you might be onto something. Or if he gets to the finals of the USO at 35 then you might be on to something. The top 3-5 guys determine the strength of an era and the early fed years and early 2000s guys were weak by any objective measure. Unless you ignore their lack of longevity, grandslam titles, or masters titles like bb would like.

Oh so now we have a new measure of an eras strength!

As for lack of longevity, I thought this was about 31 year old injury ravaged sham weak era doing the 7th best Golden Era player up at 25?

Why don't you just come clean and admit your criteria is that a Golden Era is defined by having a #1 with the word "Djokovic" in his name?

It has little or nothing do with Djokovic. You haven't provided proof of anything because Monfils' racquet has never determined a single grandslam. Unlike thomas johansson and petr korda who were able to win slams in the true weak era. Monfils is an also ran, period end of story. The strength of any era is measure by the top handful of players at most not by a guy who has never ever, ever won even a single masters title. If Monfils is such a flagship of this era why hasn't he won anything?

BB, if this is your woeful excuse for evidence, one match by an also ran then well I am glad that at least you are impressed by it. Frankly, I find that you provided little to no evidence.

Your argument makes perfect sense if we ignore the lack of slams, and tournaments won by the Hewiit, Safin, Ferrero, Rios and Roddick group of weak number ones when compared to every other #1 of any other era. Unfortunately, that is the 900 pound gorilla in the room. If those guys were so great why didn't they win more. Even before the conditions were slowed or the rise of big bad roger?

The only golden era we are encountering Socal, is the almighty era of retirements. The fact that Federer and Murray can stay numbers 3 and 4 despite having hardly any weapons these days just says how poor the trailing players are, and then bambi on ice ball bashers like Del Potro and Soderling former number 4's in the world! Don't even get me started on Monfilho + Tsongaga

Josiah Maiestas wrote:The only golden era we are encountering Socal, is the almighty era of retirements. The fact that Federer and Murray can stay numbers 3 and 4 despite having hardly any weapons these days just says how poor the trailing players are, and then bambi on ice ball bashers like Del Potro and Soderling former number 4's in the world! Don't even get me started on Monfilho + Tsongaga

JM, the one slam wonder period was the true weak era, I have provided overwhelming evidence. Every single transitional and weak #1 we have ever had came about between 1996-2004. Would Tomas johansson, peter korda, have a snowball's chance in hades of winning a slam in the last 7 years? Murray is a lot better than former world #4's James Blake and Ivan ljubicic.

Would Tomas johansson, peter korda, have a snowball's chance in hades of winning a slam in the last 7 years?

Murray is around the same level as Korda and a bit better than Johansson consistency wise, the only difference is Murray's mentality is not as good as either those players, and that is why they have won the big one. A mentally weak number 4 (former number 2) does not making good reading for the so called "Golden Era", debatable whether Murray would even make a GS final in 1996-2004

socal1976 wrote:Murray is a lot better than former world #4's James Blake and Ivan ljubicic.

So why was Andy struggling against a 32 yo Ljubo on his garden a few months ago?

As mentioned so many times, you don't know what is tennis techinique and therefore can't differentiate a good player from a bad one. i guess you only base your views on Ws and Ls.

One think for sure is that Ljubo had to face Federer at his best and in many cases did better than Murray.

In your "weak era" top players had a better technique in general. They had to. In today's era, you can be number 4 without a proper FH as long as you can last the distance.

Tenez wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Murray is a lot better than former world #4's James Blake and Ivan ljubicic.

So why was Andy struggling against a 32 yo Ljubo on his garden a few months ago?

As mentioned so many times, you don't know what is tennis techinique and therefore can't differentiate a good player from a bad one. i guess you only base your views on Ws and Ls.

One think for sure is that Ljubo had to face Federer at his best and in many cases did better than Murray.

In your "weak era" top players had a better technique in general. They had to. In today's era, you can be number 4 without a proper FH as long as you can last the distance.

Lol i like this logic. See it a few times and good comic value. Murray loses a set against Ljubicic so means he was struggling but guess who won the match? Murray! Struggling only? It could be worse, Ljubicic at 32 could actually make a Wimbledon finals like Aggassi at 35 making a USO finals and even worse, take a set off a 24 year Old Djokovic in the finals like Agassi did taking a set off 24 year old Federer

And for James Blake being World No.4, don't get me started on that. Sounds stupid to me with no offence Socal for even saying Murray is a far better No.4 than Blake and Ljubicic. An argument like that should not even be made. Infact Andy Murray is better than the other jokes like Davydenko, Roddick all regular features in the top 5 of the weak era. And don't tell me about how Roddick beat Murray at Wimbledon. Don't forgot the barely 19 year Old Murray had no problem beating Roddick at the same Wimbledon in straight sets 2006. Lets us not laugh at the fact Roddick was the then World No.3.

And did i hear being No.4 without a proper Forehand. Ljubicic was the same No.4 but this time with no forehand at all.

Simple_Analyst wrote:

Tenez wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Murray is a lot better than former world #4's James Blake and Ivan ljubicic.

So why was Andy struggling against a 32 yo Ljubo on his garden a few months ago?

As mentioned so many times, you don't know what is tennis techinique and therefore can't differentiate a good player from a bad one. i guess you only base your views on Ws and Ls.

One think for sure is that Ljubo had to face Federer at his best and in many cases did better than Murray.

In your "weak era" top players had a better technique in general. They had to. In today's era, you can be number 4 without a proper FH as long as you can last the distance.

Lol i like this logic. See it a few times and good comic value. Murray loses a set against Ljubicic so means he was struggling but guess who won the match? Murray! Struggling only? It could be worse, Ljubicic at 32 could actually make a Wimbledon finals like Aggassi at 35 making a USO finals and even worse, take a set off a 24 year Old Djokovic in the finals like Agassi did taking a set off 24 year old Federer

And for James Blake being World No.4, don't get me started on that. Sounds stupid to me with no offence Socal for even saying Murray is a far better No.4 than Blake and Ljubicic. An argument like that should not even be made. Infact Andy Murray is better than the other jokes like Davydenko, Roddick all regular features in the top 5 of the weak era. And don't tell me about how Roddick beat Murray at Wimbledon. Don't forgot the barely 19 year Old Murray had no problem beating Roddick at the same Wimbledon in straight sets 2006. Lets us not laugh at the fact Roddick was the then World No.3.

And did i hear being No.4 without a proper Forehand. Ljubicic was the same No.4 but this time with no forehand at all.

I disapprove of poster bashing, but I am going to abandon my qualms on this occasion and say 'seek help SA' - Quickly!

Simple_Analyst wrote: And don't tell me about how Roddick beat Murray at Wimbledon. Don't forgot the barely 19 year Old Murray had no problem beating Roddick at the same Wimbledon in straight sets 2006. Lets us not laugh at the fact Roddick was the then World No.3.

Well first of all you have to face facts, not tell people not to provide them.

And secondly, you've raised another good point about this so-called "Golden Era": there are no good young players around to challenge the established order, which was not the case, as you indicate yourself, in 2006. I doubt any previous period in tennis history has had weakness.

Well i just provided the facts up there. Whether there are no young players to challeneg the establish young stars is irrelevant. A case in point to 2006 was to show the useful but highly incompetent Roddick as a World No.3 getting beaten by 19 year old Murray. It was not the case of young players challenging, simply a case of the "top' players not being good enough. Roddick , Davydenko, Ljubicic, Blake all switcing places in the top 5. Though Roddick lets be honest should not be top 3 in any era of tennis, he is useful player who for me making the top 10 in any era wouldn't be that bad.

cometh the hour, cometh the man......and when the biggest prize at stake was a Wimbledon final, it was the American wot cometh!

It is hugely relevant that the top stars are not being challenged by young, hungry players to determine how easy it is for them to maintain their dominance

BTW, I don't think this era is weak, but I don't think the last one was either. And you make yourself look imbecilic by calling Davydenko 'a joke' or saying that Roddick should not have been a top 3 player. I am surprised you watch the sport if so many players fail to live up to your expectations - it must be simply torture for you most of the time!

Of course Davydenko must be a joke.

Despite this, he keeps The Nadull in his back pocket and beats up on him every so often.

Blake also had a 3-0 H2H against The Nadull; only in recent years (post 2008), when Blake became and old and injured player, did The Nadull manage to turn that around.

Nalbandian is level on H2H with The Nadull.

Even Roddick has a respectable 3-6 H2H with The Nadull. Roddick finished 2-1 against Sampras. Not bad, eh?

As for Murray being better than Roddick, no chance. Roddick is admittedly a little 1-D, but in his heyday he had two huge weapons: serve and FH. In modern tennis you need weapons to win slams and whilst Roddick may have been less varied than Murray he had effective weapons - which is why he is a slam champion and Murray to date, is not.

As for comparing their resume's, then it's a no-brainer; Roddick is the more accomplished player by a distance.

So which is which? In your rant Enancipator I failed to see any valid point. Every thing I read is 'almost'. Davydenko is a joke can't see any way around. Is strange he actually still has a head to head lead over Nadal. A little blemish i'll say. I'm bored of talking about Blake. Good guy, incopetent player who shouldn't be any where near the top 5 in any era of tennis unless it's weak. As for Roddick's resume been better than Murray's i'm laughing. 1 slam won which could have been won by anyone that period and the No1 that came with it, he comes 2nd to Murray in every measurable way.

Simple_Analyst wrote:So which is which? In your rant Enancipator I failed to see any valid point. Every thing I read is 'almost'. Davydenko is a joke can't see any way around. Is strange he actually still has a head to head lead over Nadal. A little blemish i'll say. I'm bored of talking about Blake. Good guy, incopetent player who shouldn't be any where near the top 5 in any era of tennis unless it's weak. As for Roddick's resume been better than Murray's i'm laughing. 1 slam won which could have been won by anyone that period and the No1 that came with it, he comes 2nd to Murray in every measurable way.

if you say so btw enjoy being on my "foe" muted list

Eish, you do bother yourself alot huh? Don't force a laugh, there is non there.

The weak era of the late 90s early to mid 2000s is practically proved, when you have guys like Johansson, Korda, Moya, Ferrero, Rios, and Roddick reaching world #1 or winning grandslams something that none of these players would have any chance whatsoever of doing if they came up in the last 7 or 8 years, it is inarguable. That is why Agassi at AGE 33 WAS ABLE TO GET TO #1 IN 2003 THE HEYDAY OF THE WEAK ERA. Have to agree with the thrust of SA's arguments here. People are bashing him but his points are valid and maybe they are so upset that on this particular front they lack ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER FOR THEIR ARGUMENT THAT the weak era #1s matchup with the players that came up before or after them.

Here is a proof

Federer, Nadal, Djoko, Pete, and Andre> Ferrero, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Moya, Rios, and Kuerten

Any tennis fan who is not in a vegetative state could argue with it, unless they are one of the minions of BB and Tenez's army of extremist fed apologists who must argue that any era Roger dominated is stronger than the current era dominated by Novak and Nadal.

BB now states that he never made a weak era argument but both him and tenez have made the exact argument about the weakness of the post roger period. Tenez claimed 2010 was a weak era, bogbrush did a thread on the very topic before I ever posted on the subject.

Socal - I think you will find that threads and posts about this era were begun. tongue in cheek, to refute your claims about a previous era which you labelled weak.

This is a time in tennis with some extremely strong players - the only worrying thing for the future imo is the lack of young players that are beginning to challenge the established guys which means these very strong players at the top may continue to dominate in a few years when we would naturally be expecting the status quo to shift.

That's my take on it anyway

If someone like Karlovic can beat Gasquet, surely makes this a weak era

Timeplease, we don't know how the youngsters will develop but if anything the fact that they haven't been able to make a big impact proves my golden generation theory, it doesn't cut against what I am arguing. It just shows that it is tougher to win slams and big tournaments right now, maybe more so then it ever has been. Did Roddick winning the USO at 19 show the strength of his era? I don't think so. Everything moves in cycles we are in a very strong 5 year period right now. Murray, Djoko and Nadal all were born in a 13 month period. Maybe part of the reason the young guys aren't developing is that the current crop of guys 22-26 is too strong for them right now and too physically fit as well.

This is hilarious; the guy obsessed with era classification tries to throw the mud at others?

Here's my "official" position:

* There was no weak era, it's a fantasy for which no empirical proof can be found. That players didn't dominate can just as easily mean there's a spread of talent than anything else.
* This era is not Golden. This is the easiest thing to prove, because there are a number of obvious and unarguable aspects to this; numerous veterans in the higher reaches, no good young challenge (see below for dissection of socals absurd theory for that). socal is a fanatical Djokovic fan who desperately needs to believe this idea to boost up Noles standing in the game (at the peak of his career and just 3 Slams is getting in the way of his hopes for a "great Djokovic").
* A Golden era based on one past-it GOAT, Nadal, and a guy who's cashing in on their slippage is a weak argument. After that there's Murray, who showed the other day how far away from Golden standard he is. Of course a number of the other Golden Era members just make the argument laughable - Ferrer & Fish at 29, Monfils (lol!).


Regarding socals belief that Djokovic, Nadal and Murray are preventing development of young talent, nothing I've read on here before has ever been so patently ridiculous; it's up there with the craziest stuff on the old 606. The idea that 3 players could prevent the development of other young players is absurd - all they could do is stop them getting into the top 3, not stop them developing or occupying the other parts of the top 10, In fact they'd be more likely to inspire them.
The reality is that it's as much the past-it players from the "weak era" who remain ranked well above any young player today!! Now what does THAT fact do to the Golden Era myth?!

More sunday morning comedy. Fish has been the most talented American player after the end of their Golden generation who had to battle with injuries. He has since lost 30 pounds, got into shape, getting injuries out of the way and is ripping the benefits by been a consistent player. Should we laugh at the fact that the half fit Fish beat believe it or not the No.4 seed Ljubicic at Wimbledon?
There was a weak era in tennis and it ended from early 2000s to 2007. The lack of young guys failing to break the top players today is as a result of stronger competition. How hard was it to beat top 5 materials like Robredo, Ljubicic, Blake, Davydenko etc in slams during the weak era? No one in their right sense can compare the quality of the top guys today to the period up to 2007. Federer just turned 30 a few days ago and just enough consistency alone is helping him but as we have seen, it never took much for the likes of Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Del potro, Berdych etc to all beat him at any point in his career.

Another clown who thinks the top 4 can prevent young players from developing.

If there was a crowd of them from #5 to #20 I'd see the point, but there aren't. Any.

And if it never took much for the current crop to keep his hands off Slams I need another ATP record because this one tells me he's won loads of them with those guys as competiton.

Federer would be great in any era, probably the greatest of the modern age. But the facts are the facts the early 2000 guys were not particularly tough competition. Especially when compared to the 80s players, the early to mid 90s guys, and the current crop of top players. A sure sign of a weaker era is when guys like Roddick reach world #1. Roddick in 2009 and 2010 was a better player than in 2003 when he won a grandslam and reached #1. Yet, in 2009 and 2010 he couldn't even get in the top 4. In 2009 Roddick gave Federer the most competitive match in the history of their rivalry at a grandslam. Roddick in 03 had no backhand, no volleys, and was a terrible returner of serve. But still good enough to win a slam and get to year end #1. His backhand and volleys were much better by 09 as his final against federer proved, albeit he did shank a couple of crucial volleys in that final as well.

socal1976 wrote:Roddick in 03 had no backhand, no volleys, and was a terrible returner of serve. But still good enough to win a slam and get to year end #1.

Clearly you have no clue! What's worse?winning a slam thanks to a great serve or 10 essentially based on lungs and muscles?