Lendl touches on the very reason that top heavy eras are the best, hmmm who said that first?

"Other than when he lost to Novak here in 2011, he has always played the No1 player in the world in the finals and those are difficult to win. "[Andre] Agassi beat Rainer Schüttler, I beat [Miroslav] Mecir. I'm not trying to say they were bad players, however they were not No1 at the time they were in the finals.

"This is the era the way it is, the top four are clearly better than everyone else. You don't get No7 in the finals. Andy didn't have any of those yet.

"Of course, when you get them, you have to take advantage of that as well, but it's just a tough era, as we keep saying all the time.

This is what I keep saying about the nature of tournament tennis, parity is really not that important. Whether the number 50 player is two percent better or worse doesn't really impact a player like murray or Djokovic or federer in winning a slam. Having to beat two legends in the semi and the final is what makes an era tough. Look at the physical and emotional toll it took on murray. The top 4 or 5 guys at most, at most determine who wins the major honors, they define the era.

Even lendl touched on it, I beat Mecir in a final, Andy doesn't have that luxury, neither does Novak and neither does roger and when Rafa comes back either. It is the top dogs that determine an eras strength and funny that Ivan Lendl agrees with socal, and seems to dispute this idea that all eras are the same and equally tough.

Wait I know what your response is going to be because I am Nostrafreakingdamus....wait for it...David ferrer!!!!!!!!!

Check that Roger didn't have that luxury after about 07, before that he had a very luxurious time of it.

socal1976 wrote:Check that Roger didn't have that luxury after about 07, before that he had a very luxurious time of it.

Exactly thats the final say of yours or the indirect motive of the thread.

This is one single era, era is for a long period its not like 2-3 years stuff, 2000-2010 is one single era of decade , unless and until player specific I don't see any other way to brand an era.

Del Potro beat two legends to win the title, nothing stopped him when he was on full flow in 2009, Murray played pathetic in the finals, Roger was not even at his best when Muray beat him at the semi's, so I am not sure Murray would have physically exhausted by the end of the match, but for some reason he gave up the fight from the mid of 3rd set, none of the champions give up in the finals of a GS [barring FO 2008, where Fed gave up in the 3rd set considering he had nothing left to fight] atleast to what I have seen.

Murray will be a future no.1 , he will get that tag the day he stop giving up fight in the mid game.

Rather than the excuses Murray team have to understand and work hard to achieve the goal.

Well invisible eras in a sport as fickle as tennis depend again on the group at the time. For example the early 80s with borg and connors at the top was different period than the mid to late 80s with lendl, becker, wilander, and edberg at the top and young Agassi. Of course if you are talking about geology then we are talking about eras of millions of years.

Del PO did it and he did it thumping forehands and playing an attack style therefore it is more than possible, why was he not hampered by the blue clay?

As for my indirect motive, oh I am not that subtle as to be indirect. I think I am very direct. I just find it interesting that I have been saying this stuff for years and low and behold most of the legends of the game who have seen these new boys also agree with my assessments. Now I will concede the next generation isn't looking that promising, we will have to see if they develop later, but the fact that the Nadal, Murray, Novak generation is far superior in objective accomplishment to those coming right before and immdediately after them strengthens my theory and doesn't weaken it.

Good post Invisible, Kobe doing his best magic johnson impersonation finally a 3 game win streak ey?

if you watched the 100metres with Usain Bolt and didn't look at time, and you watched this guy annihilate everyone in the race over and over again. After about the 20th time you could question are these guys he's racing really slow?

10 years time, Bolt is being beaten by some new kid on the block, maybe he wasn't that quick its just that he had no competition.

However, look at the times Bolt was running 9.4 a level above anyone else that ever lived, 10 years later he's running 9.9 and being caught by several other sprinters.

Unfortunately or fortunately depending on how you look at it we will never know in tennis, but what would we have to talk about?

Where does he say they're the best?

What is Lendl saying about Andy - that Andy can't win many slams because there are other players out there who are better? That he can only win with a favourable draw? Should he, as a coach, be admitting that publicly?

Well in tennis it is different because it isn't about times it is about trophies and objective accomplishments CAS. I have no doubt that some of the greats from the past would struggle against modern athletes and modern training. What we are really looking at is the level of accomplishment of a player not some hypothetical match between Rod Laver and Roger federer, afterall none of us have a time machine. And there is no question that in a few years there will be even better athletes and players than Federer or Djokovic, but I doubt any will be able to match Roger's accomplishment.

But here is a bit of different proposition, we are measuring players against those that came immediately before them. We aren't comparing Djokovic to bill tillden, we are comparing him to lleyton hewitt. Objective measures become more telling when comparing similarily situated players. When you don't have this remoteness in time and conditions to factor into the equation.

Well the quote is right there if you want to read it Julius I think it is pretty self explanatory. I have been telling people that it is the top guys that determine the strength of the era, Lendl seems to be agreeing with the kid. As opposed to all those detractors who talk about how the top 20 o top 100 are weak, which frankly I don't think they are but in terms of defining a period of grandslam tennis those guys don't really matter that much anyway.

Having no serious contenders below #4 does indeed make the semi more predictable. Nobody would question that.

Clearly in previous times, with greater strength in depth, players could ironically get an 'easier' semi final because the higher seeds could be beaten.

It is, however, perverse to celebrate the current lack of depth - signified by the absurd sight of David Ferrer in his 30's at #4 - as evidence of a tough period. Indeed, with Nadal out of the game and Federer obviously well beyond his best, it is hard to recall a period of less predictability and shallower depth. Very tough to bring anything less interesting to mind. It's not so much prescient as avoiding to signal advance warning of Daveed; after all, a way has to be found to defuse him, because he's the indisputable proof of unprecedented shallowness of the game right now!

Is Ferrer anyworse than Michael Chang or brad gilbert, if anything I think Ferrer is a better player than Chang and if Chang played today he wouldn't have that slam or all those masters titles.

David Ferrer, in his 30's, at easy #4 is simply mental. It's head shakingly weird.

I mean, the guy is nothing more than a hitting partner with guts. The man has NO weapons whatsoever.

you also have players like Andreas Seppi who is rising up the rankings at a career high 18 who is 29 next month and a near 35 year old Tommy Haas at 22 in the World, not sure if that makes this era seem weaker or shows that when Haas was number 2 it wasn't as weak as perceived.

This is the best top 4 ever I do agree with that though, at least the most consistent anyway, but Federer said himself my achievement isn't quite as great reaching all these QFs in a row as it would have been back in the 80s or 90s when the courts were very different to each other

Oh the homogenisation is another problem entirely; some great things have been completely devalued. Not least the RG / Wimbledon double, and the career slam.

CAS, if you agree that this is the best top 4 ever than you basically are saying in my opinion it is the best era ever, these are the guys who have always decided the championship during any period of time. The top 4 or 5 guys because of the nature of tournament tennis decide the big trophies. YOu don't have to beat the top 20 en masse. CA

BB, David Ferrer is a guy who will probably end up winning 20 or more tournaments. What weapons did chang have that ferrer didn't? Or gilbert for that matter? By the way Nadal will be back in a month, and federer is 6 months removed from his last grandslam. So the injury to Nadal is a blip hopefully, if he can't play when he gets back then I will concede the level of competition takes a big knock. But my gut instinct is that he will come back and be a top contender.

I must leave now fellas, have a hurting to put on some poor individual who is unfortunate enough to have a tennis match arrainge against me, I shall respond in full when I get back.

"I think we're living in what history will say is the golden age of tennis," said the American former world No 1. "I mean, you're not guaranteed a rivalry in sports, no matter how good you are."

Final thoughts before I go to digest from one Andre Agassi. This is what he said just a couple of weeks ago.

socal1976 wrote:

"I think we're living in what history will say is the golden age of tennis," said the American former world No 1. "I mean, you're not guaranteed a rivalry in sports, no matter how good you are."

Final thoughts before I go to digest from one Andre Agassi. This is what he said just a couple of weeks ago.

But they always do that; they are sort of expected to, and some of them paid to, sell the current offering.

summerblues wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

"I think we're living in what history will say is the golden age of tennis," said the American former world No 1. "I mean, you're not guaranteed a rivalry in sports, no matter how good you are."

Final thoughts before I go to digest from one Andre Agassi. This is what he said just a couple of weeks ago.

But they always do that; they are sort of expected to, and some of them paid to, sell the current offering.

No they didn't, I don't remember reporters in mass call 2004, 2003, and 2002 a golden age of tennis. We had an ageing Andre and virtually shot Pete Sampras and a bunch of players that many felt failed to capture the imagination. You also had Kuerten in this period the best clay courter go down and with injury. I mean even this golden age stuff has really only been talked about as much as it has in the last 2 years. I have been calling since 08, but you didn't see this mentioned in almost every single article really until we saw the rise of Djokovic in 2011. In the last two and half years everyone has been saying it with a huge frequency. Online others have been mentioning but it hasn't ever been this widespread. In fact in the early 2000s there was a great deal of hand ringing in the tennis world as the two biggest stars in he game were both well over thirty and on borrowed time and not many were convinced that hewitt and Roddick were the answer.

@SoCal... you are forgetting that Lendl's ward, Murray, won his first slam in 2012. Lendl must call the period when his ward starts winning as strong, because he has no choice, or does he?

In 2012, there were four separate winners of slams, as was the case from 1998-2003 (except 1999).

Does that imply a 'strong' or a 'wee keira' in 2012 or were 1998-2003 weak, or is it 1998-2008 that is weak?

What do we do with Nadal who won RG in 2005, but took till 2010 to win USO? He was mature in 2005 on Clay, but immature on HC from 2005-2010, oh but wait AO 2009, was it a blip?

If Agassi/Sampras were on borrowed time in 2002-2004, so are Federer/Nadal in 2011-2013, correct?

IMVHO, the strong/weak era debates can be always had ad infinitum ad nauseam? I though Overend said something about Federer's cushy draws, did he not, so what happens to Nadal's draws in the same time period?

Can we just remember that when we use the phrase 'top4' we mean David Ferrer. Rafael Nadal hasn't been part of the game for over 6 months.

That Federer won Wimbledon, and was recently #1 over a year, does not change that he is far past his best. There are other conclusions to be drawn from that event.

I guess what Lendl is implying is that if Andy had had the likes of Tsonga, Soderling and Berdych in GS finals, he would have won more. Only in a weak era could such players reach a GS final. If only Andy had been playing in the weak 2008-2010 era he'd have had more slams.
Unfortunately he ended up in the golden 2011-July 2012 era when there were 4 top players. Luckily for Andy, as of Aug 2012 he's now in an era where only 1 rival (Djokovic) is at his peak, so he should mop a few more up now.

bogbrush wrote:Oh the homogenisation is another problem entirely; some great things have been completely devalued. Not least the RG / Wimbledon double, and the career slam.

This really in a nutshell very much explains why young talent trying to breakthrough simply hits the wall. I think what we can identify is that conditions have changed so much that variety is rarely an issue unless you go to Queens or Doha where the court offers a little something differently. Changes have occurred which has caused things in the rankings to literally stay the same. Especially at the top.

@LK.. since you mention Queens, the list of winners is very interesting.

http://www.lta.org.uk/fans-major-events/LTA-summer-grass-court-events/Aegon-Championships/About/Past-Champions/

Notice Roddick/Hewitt have split it from 2000-2007. Nadal won both Queens and W in 2008.

Dubai is very interesting as well... (I assume you meant Dubai not Doha).

http://www.dubaidutyfreetennischampionships.com/Players/Past-Champions.aspx

Qatar is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_Open_(tennis)

Getting me D's confused!!

Aye indeed the variety in the finalists and the way the courts play at both Queens and Dubai. Least there is some form of variety.

I believe that there has been a (as opposed to the) 'Golden Era' but it was short and is already over. 'Golden Period' might be a better way of putting it.

That period began in the latter half of 2010 and ended at Wimbledon 2012.

Prior to that, it was pretty much a duopoly at the top of the game. Andy and Novak were thereabouts but were clearly yet to peak. Not enough there to call it 'golden'.

After that 2010-2012 period, I really don't think we can count Fed as part of the era. I'm sure the media will still get excited if Andy or Novak beat him but the man is nearly 32! The measure of the achievement comes not in beating a guy named Roger Federer but in beating the guy who could play like Roger Federer a few years ago. It does Fed a disservice to view his current level as still near his best and it is does Andy and Novak a disservice to measure their achievements by the yardstick of player in the latter stages of his career. As far Rafa, well he has been absent for 6 months and who really knows if will even last another 6 months?

But for that late 2010 to Wimbledon 2012 period, we had 4 players who were genuine contenders at the slams. Three of them won slams and three of them held the #1 spot. As a group of 4, they had virtual lock down on the slam semi finals and you could never be totally sure which way those matches would go.

Some of the best narratives of recent years emerged in this period: 43 matches, #17, 7 RG, 300 weeks. Some of the matches it produced are rightly regarded as classics.

Granted, this period did not feature peak Federer either. But by any conventional measure his tennis was still at a very high standard and some of his most significant milestones were achieved in this period.

I know some of you Fed fans may be annoyed at my seeming to write off Roger for the future but the argument can't go both ways. We can't argue that Novak or Andy beating him is not that big a deal because he is past his prime but also argue that his tennis will help define these coming months as golden.

Likewise for you Andy and us Novak fans. The least we should expect from 25 year olds in their prime at the top of the game is to be favourites against the Fed of 2013. If we continue to use beating him as a measure of our guy's greatness, well, maybe we are still short on justifications for our view.

Of course, it is not impossible that Rafa might come roaring back and Fed extends his Indian Summer even further. The chances of both happening however, strike me as slim. And if that's the case, the chances of these coming months being viewed in the future as 'golden' are also slim.

Sermon over!

@HM... thanks for the Sermon. The Enlightenment Era begins after this.

PS: It is a thrill like no other to be watching history being made. Wherever Murray and Djokovic take it, we should enjoy it!

laverfan wrote:@HM... thanks for the Sermon. The Enlightenment Era begins after this.

PS: It is a thrill like no other to be watching history being made. Wherever Murray and Djokovic take it, we should enjoy it!

Oh, I'm defininitely going to enjoy watching it happen! But I think this is a new phase rather than an extension of the previous 'era'.

So it's a Golden Blip really?


You're quite right about Federer / Nadal futures, I suspect fed may have at most 1 left in him and as for Nadal I really don't know. If he were a year older I'd be starting to think the odds were against much more.

I can't believe it, is this another Golden era debate attempt? Y/N

Of course you Socal and Lendl are right, but you may be stating the obvious and going down one of the excessively well worn routes.

I am sure we all remember Nadal beating Puerta in his first slam final (semi:Federer), Federer downing Philipoussis (semi:Roddick) and Djokovic downing Tsonga (semi:Federer) in his first win (and second final). No such luck for Murray.

'Golden Period' ..... began in the latter half of 2010 and ended at Wimbledon 2012.

_______________________

Well with Rafa's inury there could yet be a good case for W'12 ending the period, especially if Federer never wins another slam. You make a good argument. I am not sure why latter half of 2010 and not the whole 2010, is that because Soderling and Berdych spoiled things by beating Federer and ensuring relatively boring finals, ?..Since then we have had 10 straight "big four" finals.

I personally think that the strong period started in 2008 when Djokovic won a slam and Nadal was able to win Wimbledon and become more than a clay player. The W8 and AO9 finals were perhaps the two best of the whole decade in my opinion.

For me 2000 to 2003 was a weaker than average period.
2004 to 2007 was about average.
2008 onwards strong.
W'12 could yet mark the end of the better than average period, or it could be still going. I can't judge yet.

Henman Bill wrote:I personally think that the strong period started in 2008 when Djokovic won a slam

It's hard to say, although Lendl would probably think Djoko was lucky to face Tsonga in the final (given his references to Schuttler and Mecir). Wouldn't that make a Djoko/Tsonga final more indicative of a strong era than the Djoko/Fed final in the previous USO, just months earlier? In 4 or 5 months, it went from average to strong, at which point Tsonga reached the AO final.

Lenld's main argument is that Murray is unlucky to have played the No 1 in so many finals. The best way to avoid that would be to become No 1 himself. Is Lendl basically admitting Murray isn't as good as the others? That would be an odd thing for a coach to say publicly.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:I personally think that the strong period started in 2008 when Djokovic won a slam

It's hard to say, although Lendl would probably think Djoko was lucky to face Tsonga in the final (given his references to Schuttler and Mecir). Wouldn't that make a Djoko/Tsonga final more indicative of a strong era than the Djoko/Fed final in the previous USO, just months earlier? In 4 or 5 months, it went from average to strong, at which point Tsonga reached the AO final.

Lenld's main argument is that Murray is unlucky to have played the No 1 in so many finals. The best way to avoid that would be to become No 1 himself. Is Lendl basically admitting Murray isn't as good as the others? That would be an odd thing for a coach to say publicly.

I read it as more of a psychological barrier. It is mentally difficult to be across the net from someone who has won so many times especially when the pressure is on. No doubt it is easier to believe in your ability to win when you are facing someone with a less overwhelming history. I didn't read any more into it than that.

If Murray had faced in Grand Slam finals:
-Philippousis x1
-Safin x1
-Roddick x4
-Hewitt x1
-Agassi x1
-Nadal x8
-Gonzalez x1
-Baghdatis x1
-Djokovic x1
-Soderling x1
-Del Potro x1

as his grand slam final opponents throughout his career, he'd probably have won around 12 of those matches.
Grand Slam finals are normally the hardest matches in the draw (albeit the odd time where the semi is harder than the final).

Considering he's only got to 6 finals, he'd have done very well to win 12 of them.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Considering he's only got to 6 finals, he'd have done very well to win 12 of them.

Well as I said normally the slam final tends to me the hardest match in a Grand Slam.
Of course he's reached only 6 finals, he's played in a time period where he had to go neck and neck with 3 other cutting edge world class opponents even if he wanted to reach a final.

Would he have beaten Phillipousis, on faster courts, with old rackets, gut strings and without modern training techniques, or even the modern incentive for extreme fitness?

Would I have won 12 Slams?

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Considering he's only got to 6 finals, he'd have done very well to win 12 of them.

Well as I said normally the slam final tends to me the hardest match in a Grand Slam.
Of course he's reached only 6 finals, he's played in a time period where he had to go neck and neck with 3 other cutting edge world class opponents even if he wanted to reach a final.

Yeah, and it's not been helped by having to get past some other great players to get to the finals, such as Roddick (Wimbledon 2009), Ferrer (FO 2012), Tsonga (AO 2008), Verdasco (AO 2009), Gonzales (FO 2009) & Stan Wawrinka (US 2010).
If only he'd played players in the finals who aren't in the top 3 it'd have been easy!

Henman Bill wrote:Well with Rafa's inury there could yet be a good case for W'12 ending the period, especially if Federer never wins another slam. You make a good argument. I am not sure why latter half of 2010 and not the whole 2010, is that because Soderling and Berdych spoiled things by beating Federer and ensuring relatively boring finals, ?..Since then we have had 10 straight "big four" finals.

I personally think that the strong period started in 2008 when Djokovic won a slam and Nadal was able to win Wimbledon and become more than a clay player.

HB, yes, a case can me made for 2008 as the starting point. I'm inclined to make it later though as, for Djokovic especially, 2008 was a bit of a false dawn.

2009 for Novak saw the failed experiments with the serve and coaching set up. He didn't really get back on track until the latter half of 2010.

Andy of course made his first slam final in 2008 but I don't think he became a real threat at the very top of the game until a couple of years later.

So mid-2010 is a rather abritrary starting point but its one that feels apt (at least to me!).

JuliusHMarx wrote:Would he have beaten Phillipousis, on faster courts, with old rackets, gut strings and without modern training techniques, or even the modern incentive for extreme fitness?

At age 21 too.

HM Murdoch wrote:So mid-2010 is a rather abritrary starting point but its one that feels apt (at least to me!).

But not to Rafa fans I suspect

HM Murdoch wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Would he have beaten Phillipousis, on faster courts, with old rackets, gut strings and without modern training techniques, or even the modern incentive for extreme fitness?

At age 21 too.

Exactly. there's no doubt the Murray of now would beat the Phillipousis of then, but both of them would beat the Laver of '69. Doesn't make them better players than Laver.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:So mid-2010 is a rather abritrary starting point but its one that feels apt (at least to me!).

But not to Rafa fans I suspect

I think his 3 slams and spell at #1 in that period are rather commendable!

Commendable, but hardly all-time great stuff - not in Djoko's league

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Exactly. there's no doubt the Murray of now would beat the Phillipousis of then

What?
How could you be so sure.
I think it would be really close.

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Exactly. there's no doubt the Murray of now would beat the Phillipousis of then

What?
How could you be so sure.
I think it would be really close.

I'm assuming today's court, today's equipment, today's fitness - none of which Phillipoussis had.

Nadal has had some 'easier' (relative) finals: Puerta and Berdych (but even in those tournaments he had Federer and Murray in the semis).

Djokovic has had only 1 'easier' (relative) final, vs Tsonga.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Commendable, but hardly all-time great stuff - not in Djoko's league

It is a remarkable coincidence that my favourite player has had the most sucess in the area I have defined as golden, isn't it?

But, as Shakira sang, the stats don't lie!

(or was that hips?)

HM Murdoch wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Commendable, but hardly all-time great stuff - not in Djoko's league

It is a remarkable coincidence that my favourite player has had the most sucess in the area I have defined as golden, isn't it?

But, as Shakira sang, the stats don't lie!

(or was that hips?)

This forum is well-known for such coincidences

Henman Bill wrote:'Golden Period' ..... began in the latter half of 2010 and ended at Wimbledon 2012.

_______________________

Well with Rafa's inury there could yet be a good case for W'12 ending the period, especially if Federer never wins another slam. You make a good argument. I am not sure why latter half of 2010 and not the whole 2010, is that because Soderling and Berdych spoiled things by beating Federer and ensuring relatively boring finals, ?..Since then we have had 10 straight "big four" finals.

I personally think that the strong period started in 2008 when Djokovic won a slam and Nadal was able to win Wimbledon and become more than a clay player. The W8 and AO9 finals were perhaps the two best of the whole decade in my opinion.

For me 2000 to 2003 was a weaker than average period.
2004 to 2007 was about average.
2008 onwards strong.
W'12 could yet mark the end of the better than average period, or it could be still going. I can't judge yet.

I agree fully Henman Bill excellent post, I think Novak and Andy both became serious contenders who separated themselves from the field by 2008 and at least at the masters events were able to score regular wins over the fedal duopoly. I see your timeline as to the periods of 2000-03 as weak and 04-07 as being average to be very fair because Nadal and federer showed themselves in the 04- period and then in 07/08 Andy and Djokovic made their rise. Lets remember that Djoko won 2 masters and reached a grandslam final by the end of 07. And as you have properly noted it is a gradual progression. People talking about a spent federer, but he is 6 months removed from his last slam and in 2003 Andre (supposedly a lesser player to federer) won a grandslam at 33 and reached #1 in the world, he reached the US Open final and really pushed an absolute peak federer at age 35.

Nadal will eventually be back and I think Federer despite all the naysayers has another year or two in him.

I have a question of the old time tennis fans, does anyone remember golden era pronoucements of this frequency for the early 2000s? I know I don't, yes they always talk about the current guys to an extent but I don't think people were regularly talking up that period as a golden period, in fact I remember there was a lot of consternation in the tennis world as how we are going to replace the two giants Pete and Andre.