The legend of the current amazingly strong era

I came across to the link attached completely by chance, I confess never saw this final live (RG 1991).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39MR-RgCzm8

The level of the play is amazing by both side, and what matters more, these two guys weren't even at the top of the ranking when the match took place: Agassi being n. 5 and Courier at n. 7, with Edberg, Becker and Lendl at the top.

Can anybody who considers this era as one of the strongest in history ( I am personally convinced of the the contrary) explain why he believes so, in the light of this piece of evidence?

I agree with the OP, it's a myth.

Can't wait for actual tennis tomorrow. Anything to escape strength of era debates

2003-2007 was a weak era.

Simple_Analyst wrote:2003-2007 was a weak era.

And if it was so, why should it be a strong one now?

I don't know. I just know 2003-2007 was weak era.

1) Edberg and Becker weren't top clay-courters though, Agassi and Courier were both better players on clay.

2) it's easy to make a match look good in a highlights reel.

3) Nothing strikes me as exceptional in this match anyway, high level tennis for sure.

4) These debates are tiring anyway.

Simple_Analyst wrote:I don't know. I just know 2003-2007 was weak era.

aaaaaaaaaa ok

I don't think 2003 - 2007 was one of the most amazing period regarding the depth of the top 5 - 7 players either but there is no real reason to think things have improved these years; Just look at the RG: the level of clay specialists who shoould challenge Nadal is simply dreadful!.

Yes but still hasn't changed the fact 2003-2007 was a weak era.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:1) Edberg and Becker weren't top clay-courters though, Agassi and Courier were both better players on clay.

2) it's easy to make a match look good in a highlights reel.

3) Nothing strikes me as exceptional in this match anyway, high level tennis for sure.

4) These debates are tiring anyway.

just to set things stright, after all the rubbish has been written which is disrespectful for the past champions.......

It's a myth of the media, jumped upon by fans to boost up primarily three players.

Let's just be honest for a moment.

December 2007 was very weak. January 2008 was exceptionally strong. I don't why.

JuliusHMarx wrote:December 2007 was very weak. January 2008 was exceptionally strong.

No I wouldn't agree with you there.
But I do feel that as players like Nadal started playing well on all surfaces, and Djokovic+Murray started maturing the level of competition did get tougher.
But I don't believe there was a sudden moment where it suddenly turned stronger.

amritia3ee wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:December 2007 was very weak. January 2008 was exceptionally strong.

No I wouldn't agree with you there.
But I do feel that as players like Nadal started playing well on all surfaces, and Djokovic+Murray started maturing the level of competition did get tougher.
But I don't believe there was a sudden moment where it suddenly turned stronger.

I'm glad you don't agree - it was a joke!

Good to hear.

It was gutsy tennis then. Low over the net, close to the lines. Players were not injured at the end of match nor were completely kackered like now. They gave it all trying to force the error by rushing the opponent.

But already 3 years later on clay..moonballing was teh successful tennis. Very similar to today's game, isn't it?

Watch at 4mn48s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozw6ZLh-uMA

Yes watch that youtube clip from 4min48sec.
Nothing like Nadal.

2) it's easy to make a match look good in a highlights reel. AGREE

3) Nothing strikes me as exceptional in this match anyway, high level tennis for sure. AGREE

This era is strong compared to say 1990 to 2003 in my opinion and stronger than average for the history of tennis in my opinion. I don't think it should be stated to be the absolute best era though. Connors/MCenroe/Borg period was just as tasty it seems, about on a par maybe?

Henman Bill wrote:2) it's easy to make a match look good in a highlights reel. AGREE

3) Nothing strikes me as exceptional in this match anyway, high level tennis for sure. AGREE

This era is strong compared to say 1990 to 2003 in my opinion and stronger than average for the history of tennis in my opinion. I don't think it should be stated to be the absolute best era though. Connors/MCenroe/Borg period was just as tasty it seems, about on a par maybe?

HB: I wouldn't really call that highlights, it's more a summary of the match, 10 min long which includes in excess of 40 winners, probably the majority of them, not considering the first serve winners.

I find it very surprising that you don't see anything exceptional in the way these two guys played: the incredible depth, accuracy and power of the shots, the skills at the net and the amazing passing shots played by Courier, I honestly don't see many players around now who are able to hit the ball so well, especially on the the clay courts.

It was a long highlights reel, but it was still a highlights reel. Even then there was a horrible volley and a horrible missed smash in there. Good standard, about what I would expect for a grand slam final, maybe a notch or two above, no more than that, not as good as say Nadal at Australian Open 2009.

But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.