Views from the international media on the Golden age

First topic message reminder :

I always thought I witnessed the “Golden Age” of men’s tennis growing up in the 1980s. I watched Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe and Ivan Lendl rack up tournament wins and volley the number one ranking back-and-forth. These tennis legends won more tournaments than any other three men on the planet in the Open era. Connors led the way with 109 titles. But I was wrong. The Golden Age of tennis is right now.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2012/06/08/federer-nadal-and-djokovic-represent-golden-age-of-mens-tennis/

This article is some months old but it covers the themes I have been discussing online now for a great many years. It seems that your truely was one of the first and most vocal proponents of this concept and even this terminology which journalists from across the globe are using to describe our current crop of tennis champions. And interesting read and recap from Forbes. The media reviews are in and they are incredibly positive on the modern game this is another of many facts that cut against the narrative of a dying game waiting only for federer to leave before it collapses. I believe that we will witness more and more special matches and more great accomplishments from this generation to the point where it leaves any questioning of my long championed thesis to rest, except by those multitude who can never accept defeat. It is a shame that so many have talked themselves out of actually enjoying the wonderful tennis and champions that we have been gifted with.

Nore Staat wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:... When did somebody care about WTA ? ....

Good impression of a misogynist.

This is called short-minded thinking . , specifically using a selective quote and writing gibberish.

Why not address the point I raised with respect to Steffi and Federer, may be you didn't have one as usual

Actually socal I don't agree with the basis of that analysis. A tour is only as strong as all it's players in say top 100 IMO - as most ATP 250-2000 events include top 100 players who fill up the bulk of places....that's where true competition lies. Yet guys outside top 20 rarely make deep runs anymore unless they're older guys who are ex-top 10ers.

My feeling is guys like Monaco or Tipsy would not be top 10 players in other eras. Tipsarevic has won 3 titles by age 28 and is top 10. I just don't think it's a strong tour as a whole right now. Uniformity of conditions are killing competition and variety of play. Never has the top 15 been so stable...never has the game become so predictable.

I am with Craig the early 90s and 80s was for me the best period of tennis competition at the top I have seen. Maybe I am bit biased since a great deal of the best players were American and I always loved Agassi's game modeled my own backhand on his. But I think you had becker, edberg in the mix, with an ageing but still great lendl; then courier, Sampras, and Agassi all come up real quick. Early 90s was top, top notch.

lydian wrote:Actually socal I don't agree with the basis of that analysis. A tour is only as strong as all it's players in say top 100 IMO - as most ATP 250-2000 events include top 100 players who fill up the bulk of places....that's where true competition lies. Yet guys outside top 20 rarely make deep runs anymore unless they're older guys who are ex-top 10ers.

My feeling is guys like Monaco or Tipsy would not be top 10 players in other eras. Tipsarevic has won 3 titles by age 28 and is top 10. I just don't think it's a strong tour as a whole right now. Uniformity of conditions are killing competition and variety of play. Never has the top 15 been so stable...never has the game become so predictable.

I think you are selling Tipsy short he is a very talented tennis player. Has a great deal of power, speed, and skill. But either way these guys are not consistent top tenners like the others that I mentioned. Monaco is also a pretty good clay courter he isn't much off of that surface but he is one of the surface specialists that many seem to miss. Still these guys are periphery to even the second tier they are really more like the third or 4th tier.

And I completely disagree with you, whether world 94, 49, or even 38 in the world is marginally better or worse really doesn't define the strength of an era. Those players rarely, rarely ever decide a major trophy on their racquet. But having to play a federer, Nadal, or Djoko in the semis and finals now that makes lifting a big trophy really tough.

socal1976 wrote:
And I completely disagree with you, whether world 94, 49, or even 38 in the world is marginally better or worse really doesn't define the strength of an era. Those players rarely, rarely ever decide a major trophy on their racquet. But having to play a federer, Nadal, or Djoko in the semis and finals now that makes lifting a big trophy really tough.

I would have to agree with Socal's judgement here

invisiblecoolers wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:... When did somebody care about WTA ? ....

Good impression of a misogynist.

This is called short-minded thinking . , specifically using a selective quote and writing gibberish.

Why not address the point I raised with respect to Steffi and Federer, may be you didn't have one as usual

I find it amusing you employ ad hominems as a response to comments you clearly don't understand. You are the second to employ such tactics.

Yes but you fail to see that usually in the top 100 you have future top 8 players making their way up causing upsets as they climb. Today we have no such thing implying the game is not in rude health right now. Every era has its future multislammers you can see early on. We don't see anyone of the future like that right now. This makes the current top 100 weaker. Why should the game revolve around the same top 4-8 guys making quarters and semis all the time? I can tell you if it does the game is in trouble. Back in the 80s and 90s you had different guys doing well at different slams or Masters/500s so you had a much fuller top 100 in terms of different guys going deep more often. Now it's just a procession where you might as well forget the first 3-4 rounds. If this makes for a strong/golden era then I must be missing something.

It Must Be Love wrote:

socal1976 wrote:
And I completely disagree with you, whether world 94, 49, or even 38 in the world is marginally better or worse really doesn't define the strength of an era. Those players rarely, rarely ever decide a major trophy on their racquet. But having to play a federer, Nadal, or Djoko in the semis and finals now that makes lifting a big trophy really tough.

I would have to agree with Socal's judgement here

Thanks IMBL, and thanks for showing that it is possible to have a civil discussion on this subject, for some reason at the start of this thread a certain segment attempted to kill participation in my thread. There is a lot of rich areas for debate here that frankly should not be brushed off and censored.

So by implication you're thanking IMBL only for civil discussion because they agree with you...others make civil comments but because they don't agree with you are not included in your civil assessment.

lydian wrote:Yes but you fail to see that usually in the top 100 you have future top 8 players making their way up causing upsets as they climb. Today we have no such thing implying the game is not in rude health right now. Every era has its future multislammers you can see early on. We don't see anyone of the future like that right now. This makes the current top 100 weaker. Why should the game revolve around the same top 4-8 guys making quarters and semis all the time? I can tell you if it does the game is in trouble. Back in the 80s and 90s you had different guys doing well at different slams or Masters/500s so you had a much fuller top 100 in terms of different guys going deep more often. Now it's just a procession where you might as well forget the first 3-4 rounds. If this makes for a strong era then I must be missing something.

Lydian I am the first to say that by past standards the current crop of 18-22 years has been underwhelming. Now there are different ways to look at this problem. And these explanations are not exclusive many things explain this. Are the youngsters not as good or maybe is the modern game not as kind to a big hitting youngster requiring many more facets that take years to add to your game. I think the fact that the modern game favors durability, consistency, fitness, point construction, more and more as opposed to raw power diminishes the possibility of a young becker type supernova. The one thing of course that does cut in favor of younger players is the speed quotient but a man really doesn't lose his wheels and even then oh so gradually till his late, late 20s for some not till their early 30s. Could it be that the window for tennis success is just being pushed back that the prime now is not 22-26 but lets say being moved to 24-28 or 29?

But I do agree the young guys have been underwhelming at this point but I think a great deal of that has to do with the different requirements of the modern game favoring players with a bit more seasoning.

Lydian, I don't think anyone is questioning your comments as not civil

Socal, I think, was implying people earlier on who made certain comments, rather than you...

Anyway I think there is truth in both your and Socal's arguments.

lydian wrote:So by implication you're thanking IMBL only for civil discussion because they agree with you...others make civil comments but because they don't agree with you are not included in your civil assessment.

No you have been quite civil as well but a later arrival to the conversation. Don't read intention where there is none. I just didn't like how a couple of posters tried to snuff out the debate by criticizing the topic of thread and quote saying that people shouldn't start threads like this.

i don't like to read certain threads and I don't participate if you come on thread to just trash the topic and tell people to stop posting on it I think that is unfair. It is my right to talk to people who wish to discuss this topic.

Modern conditions didn't stop youngsters like Nadal, Djokovic breaking through in the current game.

There just seems to be a basic lack of talent...so I don't see how this can make it a golden era. To be a golden era surely you want a range of talented players of different ages across the upper echelons of the game. A strong top 4-8 with a weaker tail doesn't hail golden status for me.

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion but I look at the quality of the players actually determining the major trophies. The young kids are worrying for the future but I think the factors I pointed to favors a more seasoned player and we are seeing players be able to be effective with the emphasis in fitness and the money in the sport till later and later.

Lydian could this be argued:
-Each era and generation is defined by its top players.
-If a generation has some fantastic players at the top of the game, this reflects well on that specific era.
-If there are a lack of youngsters in the top 100, but the quality of play is still at a high quality, than it could be argued that the next generation will suffer and could be seen as 'poor' rather than this one.

lol Snap!

But I'm not sure whether my statements are correct or not, I remember BB made a valid point last month where he argued the emergence of fresh faces challenging not only creates excitement for the future, but also enhances the buzz about the current era; i.e. we can have matches where we can see if a current champion can stave of danger coming from a new younger prospect.

Socal, so fitness at the expense of talent makes for a golden era?

IMBL, I dont agree that the overall strength of an era is defined by its top 4 players so I don't buy into your bulleted points.

It Must Be Love wrote:Lydian could this be argued:
-Each era and generation is defined by its top players.
-If a generation has some fantastic players at the top of the game, this reflects well on that specific era.
-If there are a lack of youngsters in the top 100, but the quality of play is still at a high quality, than it could be argued that the next generation will suffer and could be seen as 'poor' rather than this one.

I can agree with these points myself. This seems a fair reading of the current situation.

Except of course having fantastic players at the top is never going to be bad for an era is it. However, its what's behind the top guys thats important and what I worry about.

If Formula only had 4 cars that won all the time what a boring processional spectacle it would be. Oh hang on, it is a boring processional spectacle. Must be a golden motor racing era then because the same teams keep winning.

lydian wrote:Socal, so fitness at the expense of talent makes for a golden era?

IMBL, I dont agree that the overall strength of an era is defined by its top 4 players so I don't buy into your bulleted points.

You of all people making a fitness argument vis a vis talent argument against me, I love it Lydian we have come full circle, Tenez is laughing it up some where at both of us. LOL!

No like I said a different skill set is being favored. For example the modern game favors the returner a bit more than in the past. Young players take a long time to learn how to return the elite servers of the ATP tour, some of them never do. But returning is very much an adjustment in the big leagues that favors a bit more seasoning. That is a talent but a talent that needs to be honed. Even for great returners like murray and djoko they are much better now than they were in 06 and 07.

However now we can look at the other side of the coin.
Lydian, you say that you do not see strong challenge or competition beyond the Top 4. Interesting, and I think I agree with you there. However we have to be careful:

-Essentially the top 4 have dominated the slams in recent years. Apart from Del Potro in 2009 it really has been the same players reaching the finals of each Grand Slam.
-However if we took out 2 out of the top 4, any random 2, in the last few years we would see many more 'challengers' reaching the latter stages. Would this make them any better? No.
This then, begs the valid question:
Are the Top 4 that good, or is the challenge from below just incompetent?

Now we have a Top 4, but I believe there was a period in the mid 00's where Djokovic and Murray were kids who were just breaking through, Nadal was only reaching the latter stages of clay tournaments, while Federer was crusing.
This begs the same valid question, if we are being fair:
Was he that good, or was the challenge from below just incompetent?

No socal. I'm extrapolating the statements of your argument because you said there's now emphasis on fitness. Tenez constantly sought to dumb down the talent of leading Nadal and Djokovic type players. There's a difference of argument.

We all agree players need to be fit to win in current conditions. However, we're not talking about young guys winning slams...just breaking through into the top 75 or so. That isn't happening. Even if we had some great talent right now but not yet fully fitness conditioned it should still be able to break top 75 - like Nadal, Murray and Djokovic did. But that isn't happening at all. So it means there are no players even remotely like those 3 coming along. So we're stuck with a Formula 1 procession for years.

Those points don't matter IMBL, it's all about rankings - they reflect performance.

Nadal and Djokovic broke top 75 by 18.5 years. No player of that age is anywhere above 400 ranking now. Are we to believe the game is now suddenly very different from when they broke through? Are we to believe that some great Nadal or Djokovic type player is currently 18-19 but just needs to get a bit fitter before they can even get into top 75? I don't buy that. For me it speaks to a fundamental lack of talent. The question is why.

And if this era is now grossly lacking young talent we're still to believe its a golden era because the Top 4 are doing very well thank you very much?
I don't buy that either.

lydian wrote:Those points don't matter IMBL, it's all about rankings - they reflect performance.

Nadal and Djokovic broke top 75 by 18.5 years. No player of that age is anywhere above 400 ranking now. Are we to believe the game is now suddenly very different from when they broke through? Are we to believe that some great Nadal or Djokovic type player is currently 18-19 but just needs to get a bit fitter before they can even get into top 75? I don't buy that. For me it speaks to a fundamental lack of talent. The question is why.

And if this era is now grossly lacking young talent we're still to believe its a golden era because the Top 4 are doing very well thank you very much?
I don't buy that either.

Lydian I realise ideally for the future it would be great if we had talent coming through. And who knows it still may do, we could see a sharp increase in younger players in the next few years.
But in terms of challenge at the top- I believe this is more relevant to judging an 'era' if it is even possible.

Two excellent but very controversial questions.

1. Are the top 4 that good or is everyone else that incompetent? Clearly the top 4 are that good and if they were less consistent more of the lesser ranked guys could win and garner attention but they are dominant and consistent at the same time.

2. Was he that good, or is the challenge below just incompetent? Roger is that good, at most the weaker period he came up in at best inflated his numbers early on by a bit. But Roger in my mind would be the best of any generation of players.

But there is such a thing I like to call Wilt Chamberlain syndrome. No one who knows the NBA would include a list of the greatest centers without Chamberlain being at or near the top. Yet his numbers are mindboggling. Just statistical aberrations that could never be challenged. For example, he scored 100 points in an NBA game, he averaged 50 points for a season multiple years. The last guy who lead the Nba in scoring scored like 28 points a game. Now here is the kicker early in his career he was 7 inches taller than everyone else and then when other 7 foot centers came around and as he aged he was still a star and among the absolute elite but he wasn't putting up statistical aberrations. Fed is not anywhere near as extreme a case as wilt.

As I said, I don't believe current Formula 1 is strongest because the same 4 cars keep winning. The current ATP tour is full of ageing players...very few younger players in top 100. This for me reflects a clear issue with the present game, so for me the current tour isn't golden. Would we be holding up an education system as great if the top 4 universities were pumping out record numbers of graduates but O level/GCSE results were the lowest they had been for years? Is only the top important in judging a system/tour?

Yes, the top 4 are doing great...and no doubt include legends of the game. But they're not being challenged. Federer was being challenged by Nadal, Murray and Djokovic when they were 18-20. Which 18-20 year olds are even remotely challenging Nadal, Murray and Djokovic when conditions haven't changed much?

We're having to rely on guys being 27 and older in the top 10 (besides JMDP) to challenge top 4...the same guys we've been relying on since around 2008. No-one else had come through, and no one else appears to be coming through anytime soon.

Lydian the Top 4 are challenging each other to a greater extent than Djokovic and Murray troubled Federer when they were younger.
I agree with your point that below the Top 4 these is a lack in depth, but I don't think the education system is the best comparison for this.

So if you agree there is lack of depth below top 4 how can this era be said to be amongst the best, i.e. golden? For me the yawning gap of young talent is a real issue...the fact that practically no-one under 27 is challenging top 4 is a huge concern.

But we won't agree on the golden era stuff, i.e. you/socal judging it by strength of top 4, so I'll rest my case at this point.

Well personally I'm not a fan of labelling eras anything- certainly I think phrases such as 'golden' cant tell the whole story, but it is a fantastic cliche for the media.
I think this era is top heavy, we have fantastic stars at the top, but below that we have a lack of depth.
I recognise that when looking at an era, while the top players perhaps are the most important, a look at the young emerging talent coming through is also crucial and gives the whole story.

I think the jury is still out Lydian on the younger guys but I do concede they haven't done much to make us enthusiastic that doesn't mean that one or two of them won't separate themselves from the pack. But I disagree with both of you that we don't have competition or depth below the top tiered guys. As I said I think if you look at the second tier of guys in the top ten you will find that their games and accomplishments to date are well within the norm of what would expect for player's holding their position. The second tier top ten guys aren't expected to regularly beat the first tier guys or win slams regularly that is why they are second tier. And I think Del Po, Berdy, Tsonga, Ferrer are actually pretty good when compared to other 5-10 ranked players from the past.

Nore Staat wrote:

lydian wrote:Yes but we don't know just how good the top 4 are vs other era....they may be fantastic and nobody can challenge them, or the opposition may be poor and they go unchallenged. How do you prove which is which?

Don't think that would be a factor IMBL...talent finds a way through. It isn't doing now.

You can go back and look at court coverage and court speed in the fifth sets towards the end of tournaments - as a means to assess relative fitness and stamina levels. Todays elite tennis players are better athletes.

I agree Nore Staat the size, speed, and fitness of the modern champion really is pretty much a step ahead of what we have seen before. It isn't like the shots are being hit with less power these guys are just that fast and fit, and yes the conditions a bit slower. The game is progressing no question on the physical front. On the shots front I have seen more and more mind blowing shots and radar guns going crazy in the last few years. Frankly I never thought I would see a 120 mile an hour forehand. When I first started watching tennis there were only a few guys on tour that could break 120 on their serve regularly. Now of course technology plays a big role but the players are taller, faster, fitter, and stronger as well.

socal1976 wrote: I agree Nore Staat the size, speed, and fitness of the modern champion really is pretty much a step ahead of what we have seen before.

What do you mean by "before"? Before when? The "modern" champion as you put it has been around a while. But lets look at somevtimeframes driving the breed of modern champion more closely rather than generalise.

Courts
We know courts were radically slowed down across ATP between 2001-2004...for example, Wimbledon slowed markedly in 2001, over next couple of years compaction of the ground settled down. We know USO changed their courts between 2001-2003 by putting grit into the paint. Other surfaces followed suit.

Roger Federer on Wimbledon court speed in 2008 said
"Well, I don’t think it’s that much of a difference since I played Pete here in 2001 really. So, I mean, it’s not that extreme, you know, to the point where I need to thank anybody, I think, you know. I think it’s just also the way how players are playing today: more from the baseline, not as much serve and volley, chip and charge. That sort of gives you the feeling that it’s slowed down, as well, you know".
So in other words its a similar speed now since slowed down around 2001.

Rafael Nadal on the court speed at Wimbledon in 2007:
"I saw, I don’t know where, that the court was so much slower than last years. The true is not. For me the court is the same. I was here the last maybe four years. I lost one time for injury. But for the last four, five years I was here. Every day I feel the same feeling. Every time I feel the same feeling in the court. The court is not coming slower than last years".
So in other words the court felt similar since 2003 when he first played on it, again after it had been slowed.


Strings and racquets
We know Luxilon (poly) strings became mainstream from 2003 onwards. Indeed, by 2003 50% of ATP top 250 used Luxilon strings. String tech hasn't changed much since then...most guys still use all poly or poly-gut hybrid strings.
We also know modern racquets hark back to around 2000-2003 too, for example Nadal plays with same paint-job APD racquet without cortex since early 2000s. Federer uses same racquet since 2002 when he changed from PS85 to PS90. Djokovic has gone back to his old Head racquets with new paint jobs.


So when people say things have radically changed recently...I ask from when?
It seems to me the game changed for the most part up to around 2004...since then we see the "modern" game style and the emergence of the uber-fit players...including Federer BTW.

My argument is that despite all the talk of slowing down actual conditions today are not much different from those Nadal, Murray and Djokovic had to emerge in around 2004-2006 as most of the changes had occurred by then. So given they broke through by 18-19yo into top 50 we see no example of this happening today in largely similar conditions.
That's a worry.

If we have an era where the top 100 is largely made up of over 24 year olds then it points to an overall weaker era because there's little talent coming through to carry the baton forwards. The top guys are only being challenged by guys of similar age or older...ie. players from their or previous era...not by players of a future era. In the past we have always seen the emerging 19-22 yr olds start to challenge the top guys in various events...we're just not seeing this despite conditions not being that different from say at least 2006.
This again is a concern.

This is why I dont believe that in 2012 we're amidst some great era outside of 4 guys who emerged from a few years back, after conditions had already slowed and tech moved forwards, dominating.

Perhaps we should call it the gold-plated era?
The top 4 are gold, but everything underneath is base metal.

Although considering Rafa is out, Fed is exhausted and Djoko is not up to his 2011 level, we are looking at a bronze autumn.

Good analogy.
The question for me is where is the future supply of gold, even for plating, coming from?
Or will the tour become solid base metal once the lustre of the current top 4 wears off...

socal1976 wrote:

lydian wrote:So by implication you're thanking IMBL only for civil discussion because they agree with you...others make civil comments but because they don't agree with you are not included in your civil assessment.

No you have been quite civil as well but a later arrival to the conversation. Don't read intention where there is none. I just didn't like how a couple of posters tried to snuff out the debate by criticizing the topic of thread and quote saying that people shouldn't start threads like this.

Well since the one who proposed that was a moderator you should think about it.

My observation was that this thread looked identical to the previous ones. Perhaps bumping an old thread would have helped.

Ill make you a deal when people stop talking down today's game, calling for radical changes with no evidence of a crisis, then I will stop. How typical of BB to try to basically censor the opinion. So I don't agree with the sentiment if you don't like the thread you have no right to hijack it that includes you LK.

I will make a counter offer.

Cease with this repetative nonsense and I will cease with what you deem as hijacking and cease with the profanities.

As far as I was concerned the subject was covered ages ago which was debated and resolved by the agree to disagree mantra.

It is getting to jersey type levels!

lol...oh yes I remember the jersey posts, particularly the ones about his sister, lol

JuliusHMarx wrote:Perhaps we should call it the gold-plated era?
The top 4 are gold, but everything underneath is base metal.

Although considering Rafa is out, Fed is exhausted and Djoko is not up to his 2011 level, we are looking at a bronze autumn.

Ha ha! I agree about the gold plate. Just think you are getting your precious and base metals a little mixed up. If Rafa doesn't come back soon (last time I looked he was shopping for yacht or maybe even yachts!) and Federer doesn't stop talking about joining him on holiday then I may just get bored enough to write another article defining what gold is...

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Ill make you a deal when people stop talking down today's game, calling for radical changes with no evidence of a crisis, then I will stop. How typical of BB to try to basically censor the opinion. So I don't agree with the sentiment if you don't like the thread you have no right to hijack it that includes you LK.

I will make a counter offer.

Cease with this repetative nonsense and I will cease with what you deem as hijacking and cease with the profanities.

As far as I was concerned the subject was covered ages ago which was debated and resolved by the agree to disagree mantra.

It is getting to jersey type levels!

Yes, yes very funny like Jersey. Ok whatever, you remind me of ROFTLA, little substance and lots of hostility. I'll talk about whatever subject I like and don't need your permission to post on a tennis related subject in the tennis section. If this was the 10000th BJ thread on federer I am sure no one would have a problem with it. Or if this was the 10000th thread on how the game stinks and the conditions are slow no one would have a fit. Bottom line I don't need your permission, and I don't need to deal with you to gain the common courtesy that should be afforded to all posters. I read a lot of crap threads that I don't want to participate in, I just don't post there I don't come on and try to censor people and impose my will on others. Lydian, IMBL, and I where having a good conversation that others were reading and maybe enjoying. But you and BB want to fight with me, I'm done, I need a break from some of you people. See you when my tolerance for stupidity, hostility, and hypocrisy has returned. Right now I have better things to do.