End Of The Golden Age Back To The 90's Zzzzz

by hawkeye Thu Sep 06, 2012 7:42 am

During one of the rain breaks yesterday got a glimpse of the 90's. A period in mens tennis I slept through. Sampras (wearing his old crumpled PE kit) was playing Aggassi (wearing an old man's brown and white striped top tucked into his shorts) Sampras was hitting service winners or missing and Aggassi was hitting return winners or missing. The commentator explained it was a tactic by both not to engage in rallies... Zzzzz

But I'm not sure things improved when it stopped raining. Roddick despite displaying glimpses of a game that brought him to the top. As I explained elsewhere with far more variety than he is given credit for eventually was overcome by emotion and Del Potro. Del Potro who's entire game consists of bludgeoning groundstokes straight up and down the court. In fact a graphic showed that he only bludgeons his backhand crosscourt...

Then this morning I see that Federer lost in what must have been a very similar match. Artistry bludgeoned. The other quarter final between Cilic Zzzzz and Murray (who lacks a controlling forehand and who's biggest weapon is his ability to irritate his opponent off the court) would have been equally underwhelming. The draw does still include Djokovic and Ferrer but they are the sort of players that need an opponent with variety to bring out their sparkle.

This years US Open looks far from Golden. Is tennis at a turning point? Maybe the turning point took place at this years FO. Djokovic beating an aging Federer convincingly in the semi's and then Nadal beating Djokovic in the final. This perhaps marked the end of Federer being a consistent threat at the very top and returned Djokovic to his pre unbeatable level. There seems little else to prove between these three players and no one to challenge or threaten their legacy. Maybe it wasn't so much of a turning point but more of a full stop that marked the end of the golden age.

I hope I am wrong and that this has just been a very poor US Open...

by Born Slippy Thu Sep 06, 2012 8:03 am

Another wondrous display from Murray after a slow start. Have to give Cilic great credit as well for the way he played in the opening hour. He is a superb player when on song. The way he moves for someone 6"6 is incredible. Shame his forehand isn't a bit more reliable otherwise he could definitely challenge the big 4.

A night of superb tennis. Federer was clearly unfortunately affected by the fact he hadn't had any tough preparation before facing Berdych. The number of shanks he produced early on was very noticeable. After that though, it was quality match. Berdy looking back to his best.

by time please Thu Sep 06, 2012 8:39 am

Actually H_E in those very short highlights of the Sampras/Agassi '95 match were several really good rallies with both players walloping the ball............and no sound at all apart from the twack of the ball off the racket!!!!

I don't think this has been a poor USO - apart from the weather. Only that it is again disappointing not to see a young player make a run of note.

by Guest Thu Sep 06, 2012 8:46 am

hawkeye wrote:...Then this morning I see that Federer lost in what must have been a very similar match. Artistry bludgeoned. ...

I hope I am wrong and that this has just been a very poor US Open...

So from a match you never watched you conclude that is has been a very poor US Open? I wouldn't be surprised to learn that you didn't watch the Cilic match, although for sure many people watch without seeing.

by User 774433 Thu Sep 06, 2012 2:36 pm

hawkeye wrote: Murray (who's biggest weapon is his ability to irritate his opponent off the court)

by bogbrush Thu Sep 06, 2012 2:59 pm

Born Slippy wrote:Another wondrous display from Murray after a slow start. Have to give Cilic great credit as well for the way he played in the opening hour. He is a superb player when on song. The way he moves for someone 6"6 is incredible. Shame his forehand isn't a bit more reliable otherwise he could definitely challenge the big 4.

A night of superb tennis. Federer was clearly unfortunately affected by the fact he hadn't had any tough preparation before facing Berdych. The number of shanks he produced early on was very noticeable. After that though, it was quality match. Berdy looking back to his best.

Disagree throughout.

Murray won as Cilic tired and faltered, nothing else.

Federer was fine and missing a round is no problem; he just does this kind of rubbish more often. Possibly degraded reaction time is a factor, that's my theory anyway.

by hawkeye Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:40 pm

This is a golden age in tennis because of Nadal, Federer and Djokovic. To only have one of the three remaining in the quarters, to have neither Federer nor Nadal in the semi's and have no chance of seeing two of the three in a match leaves the tournament with considerably less sparkle.

Of course this is just my opinion. Others may see gold in the play of Cilic, Del Potro, Murray, Berdych and Tipsarevic. To me I just see pro players (admittedly good pro players) hitting a ball. I have no desire to get up in the middle of the night to watch them or speculate about their play. Something I'm quite willing to do for Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. (Sorry Federer... Not last night it was very late, I had already watched one long match and I thought this would be a relatively easy win...)

It Must Be Love

Ha ha! That's what I do when I see Murray using his irritate weapons too.

by Tennisanorak Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:45 pm

The original post is quite amazing in the swipe it takes at almost every player.

... Sampras was hitting service winners or missing

... Aggassi was hitting return winners or missing

... Del Potro who's entire game consists of bludgeoning groundstokes

... Cilic Zzzzz and

.... Murray (who lacks a controlling forehand and who's biggest weapon is his ability to irritate his opponent off the court)

... Djokovic and Ferrer but they are the sort of players that need an opponent with variety to bring out their sparkle.

So the author doesn't like to watch a great server, a great returner, an aggressive counterpuncher, an aggressive baseline player or a defensive retriever. This leads me to conclude that the only tennis the author can appreciate come from Federer, the GOAT.

by Tennisanorak Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:49 pm

Btw, what golden age are you talking about? With a #1 player past his prime, another great player injured and the third best player struggling for last year's form, how on earth is this a golden age? Look at this possible line-up in the semis: Murray, Djoker, Berdych, Ferrer. Hardly a strong era line up. The strong era theory was always a concotion swallowed by people who couldn't be bothered to look deeper. There never has been a much stronger era or a much weaker era, really.

by lydian Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:28 pm

Era's, age's, golden, open, weak, transitional....arghhhh its too much!
Wink

by bogbrush Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:37 pm

I see Andy Roddick entered the debate at a press conference the other day, in his usual style;

(as I recall the words)

Q: Do you think you were fortunate to geta Slam between the dominant periods of Sampras and Federer?

AR: When did Pete win his last Slam?

Q: 2002

AR: When did Roger win his first?

Q: 2003

AR: When was that hole again? (walks off)

by CaledonianCraig Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:54 pm

Is it just me or does this strike me as a pre-emptive attack on this tournament in a bid to discredit the eventual winner. It seems far too coincidental that it appears hours after Murray wins through to the semis s BS Roger missed out. I can picture hawkeye now in a cold panicked sweat at the thought of Murray winning a slam and this is her reaction. Discredit the players and their quality in a desperate bid to ridicule the eventual winner most especially if it is Andy Murray.

by hawkeye Thu Sep 06, 2012 5:47 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:Is it just me or does this strike me as a pre-emptive attack on this tournament in a bid to discredit the eventual winner. It seems far too coincidental that it appears hours after Murray wins through to the semis s BS Roger missed out. I can picture hawkeye now in a cold panicked sweat at the thought of Murray winning a slam and this is her reaction. Discredit the players and their quality in a desperate bid to ridicule the eventual winner most especially if it is Andy Murray.

Na! I've been feeling like this for ages.

https://www.606v2.com/t33617-be-careful-what-you-wish-for

https://www.606v2.com/t33923-the-so-called-golden-age-of-tennis-is-boring-without-rafa

https://www.606v2.com/t34039-weak-era-or-golden-era

https://www.606v2.com/t34185-the-golden-age-is-just-gold-plate

Probably since the FO final. In hindsight was that the turning point or maybe even the end of the golden era? I would like to be persuaded otherwise. I even tried to find interest in Roddick's retirement run. I will be sad if tennis returns to the 90's snooze fest as I've had such fun watching in recent years.

by CaledonianCraig Thu Sep 06, 2012 5:52 pm

Record crowds at Flushing Meadows would seem to disagree with you. And sorry if I take what you say with a pinch of salt by the way. I do see it as pretty blatant really. Whoever wins this slam will have earned just as much as when Rafa or Roger have won theirs. Let's just leave it at that.

by Danny_1982 Thu Sep 06, 2012 6:25 pm

Why is everyone looking to define eras all the time? Federer loses, so it's the end of an era. Rafa's out injured, end of his era. Novak isn't winning everything, his era is over too. 2 of the top 4 out before the semis, let's change 'golden' to 'poor'.

Every week you hear the same thing. Good grief, just enjoy the tennis and stop worrying about what every dropped set or defeat means. Sometimes top players lose, sometimes they get injured. It doesn't always mean anything deeper, and it doesn't always need defining all the time.

by hawkeye Thu Sep 06, 2012 6:29 pm

CaledonianCraig. I don't think you can have fully appreciated the Golden Age if you think that it can be brushed aside by saying "any player who wins a slam has earned it". I am talking about artistry and beauty. These things are not so easily "earned" and there is no entitlement. You can't tell me something isn't golden if I can see the glitter. Let's leave it at that.

Danny1982

That's made me feel a little better. It could just be a blip.

by Guest Thu Sep 06, 2012 6:32 pm

Not another I miss Rafa and everyone is crap thread again

Jeeez

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

by CaledonianCraig Thu Sep 06, 2012 6:42 pm

No lk, more like ’Oh damnations Murray could win a slam I better get my excuses and reasons invented’ sort of threads.

by Danny_1982 Thu Sep 06, 2012 6:52 pm

Whoever wins this slam will 100% be a bonafied and deserving champion, as with every slam winner. There are those that like to put an asterisk next to some slam wins, usually just because they like to say the player they support would have won if the fates or luck hadn't been unfairly against them.

Whichever of the remaining players get it will deserve it.

by socal1976 Thu Sep 06, 2012 8:38 pm

Born Slippy wrote:Another wondrous display from Murray after a slow start. Have to give Cilic great credit as well for the way he played in the opening hour. He is a superb player when on song. The way he moves for someone 6"6 is incredible. Shame his forehand isn't a bit more reliable otherwise he could definitely challenge the big 4.

A night of superb tennis. Federer was clearly unfortunately affected by the fact he hadn't had any tough preparation before facing Berdych. The number of shanks he produced early on was very noticeable. After that though, it was quality match. Berdy looking back to his best.

Are you serious Born Slippy, that was the most ridiculous mental meltdown by Cilic. For me Cilic is maybe third on the list of massive underachievers along with Gulbis and monfils. This guy has so much game, but god I hate his forehand despite the fact that he can hit some great shots with it. And he doesn't do enough damage with his serve for a guy his size, hell he is freaking croatian as well. Not that it is weak but it should be so much better. Well the kid is still young and I don't want to be harsh but that was a worse monumental tank job than Tomic and Cilic is a much more experienced player than Tomic.

by socal1976 Thu Sep 06, 2012 8:43 pm

As to the OP's point of view I loved that first paragraph on Agassi and Pete Sampras not deigning to engage in rallies when playing each other during a match, of course you know my opinion of the late 90s and early 2000s in terms of tennis. But as your determination on today's tennis I think you are way off base. Players are maturing later and later and the guys that are dominating now outside of federer are all young if you look at the new time table for tennis peak. Berdych has the game to win a slam, Tsonga might, Del Po does, and murray will; so relax on the negativity. I thought everyone liked seeing upsets. After every upset we hear one group fans talking about the death of tennis and this or that. I just am not one to buy into the negativity in the Mens game it is real good right now and of course it is going to be hard to replace Fed and Rafa. But maybe that day is still some years away.

by bogbrush Thu Sep 06, 2012 8:49 pm

Yeah, Agassi was known for not rallying.

by socal1976 Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:11 pm

From the early part of his career to the late 90s he was an out and out attacker and took the ball flatter and earlier than anyone. Keeping adding up additional boneheaded remarks to your lengthy list. That was the period in question not the second version of Agassi.

by banbrotam Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:12 pm

Danny_1982 wrote:Why is everyone looking to define eras all the time? Federer loses, so it's the end of an era. Rafa's out injured, end of his era. Novak isn't winning everything, his era is over too. 2 of the top 4 out before the semis, let's change 'golden' to 'poor'.

Every week you hear the same thing. Good grief, just enjoy the tennis and stop worrying about what every dropped set or defeat means. Sometimes top players lose, sometimes they get injured. It doesn't always mean anything deeper, and it doesn't always need defining all the time.

Please everyone take note. There are far too many people, worrying over nothing. The current match on Ashe doesn't look second rate - when will people realise that there was Tennis before Roger and Rafa, who actually rarely played their best Tennis at the same time, anyway!!

by banbrotam Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:19 pm

Hawkeye Highlights!!

"Murray (who lacks a controlling forehand and who's biggest weapon is his ability to irritate his opponent off the court)"

"I am talking about artistry and beauty". Yep!! That sums up Rafa's game neatly Whistle

I'm always amazed that someone who follows a player who's main strength is brute force and a sheer will to win, is so disparaging about those players who bring a bit more subtlety to the game

I like Rafa and look forward to him coming back in 2013 - but please Hawkeye, the double standards are plain embarrassing

by break_in_the_fifth Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:36 pm

I'm sure there were some good matches in the 90s, how could there not be with that kind of surface variation. As for the match, Berdych was more of an artist than Fed so he won.

Rafa's biggest weapon was to get Murray to like him so much that he'd try to imitate his unnatural game thereby ruining his own awesome game. I guess Rafa owns him off court too.

by bogbrush Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:37 pm

socal1976 wrote:From the early part of his career to the late 90s he was an out and out attacker and took the ball flatter and earlier than anyone. Keeping adding up additional boneheaded remarks to your lengthy list. That was the period in question not the second version of Agassi.

Yeah, he never rallied. Please stick with that,

by Born Slippy Thu Sep 06, 2012 11:07 pm

bogbrush wrote:
Born Slippy wrote:Another wondrous display from Murray after a slow start. Have to give Cilic great credit as well for the way he played in the opening hour. He is a superb player when on song. The way he moves for someone 6"6 is incredible. Shame his forehand isn't a bit more reliable otherwise he could definitely challenge the big 4.

A night of superb tennis. Federer was clearly unfortunately affected by the fact he hadn't had any tough preparation before facing Berdych. The number of shanks he produced early on was very noticeable. After that though, it was quality match. Berdy looking back to his best.
Disagree throughout.

Murray won as Cilic tired and faltered, nothing else.

Federer was fine and missing a round is no problem; he just does this kind of rubbish more often. Possibly degraded reaction time is a factor, that's my theory anyway.

Cilic was tired after 15 games, none of which were particularly long? Sorry don't buy that. He is one of the fitter players on tour. His movement all match was unreal for a guy of that size. In the second set Murray stopped continually landing the ball mid-court, became noticeably more aggressive to the extent of showing us his volley skills and cranked up the pressure on return. Yes, Cilic then choked the 5-4 game but his second serve was starting to come under intense pressure. Every time Murray eased up slightly thereafter Cilic started booming big winners again. To suggest the only change which occurred was to Cilic simply isn't accurate.

In relation to Fed, i partially agree with you, although i actually think Berdy in that form would have caused problems even for peak Fed. My point wasn't that he had missed a match, it was that he had kissed a potentially challenging match which might have battle-hardened him for Berdy.

by CaledonianCraig Thu Sep 06, 2012 11:23 pm

To OP,

What a fantastic semi-final going on between David Ferrer and Janko Tipsarevic. A five set classic and kind of blows your whole post out of the water.

by bogbrush Thu Sep 06, 2012 11:28 pm

I love the quantity and the drama, but in the end this is a test of stamina and guts.

Admirable though. Very intense.

by lydian Thu Sep 06, 2012 11:31 pm

To be fair Tipsy is one heck of a player on song.

by CaledonianCraig Thu Sep 06, 2012 11:31 pm

bogbrush wrote:I love the quantity and the drama, but in the end this is a test of stamina and guts.

Admirable though. Very intense.

Yes a lot of stamina and guts and indeed very intense. However, there have been numerous fantastic winners, great rallies and great play as well that encapsulates a classic match for me.

by bogbrush Thu Sep 06, 2012 11:32 pm

I think he's slightly mental. In a kind of useful way.

by lydian Thu Sep 06, 2012 11:51 pm

Yep, he's a deep guy Tipsy...into philosophy, DJ'ing and is a real character.

by socal1976 Fri Sep 07, 2012 8:00 am

I think frankly Hawkeye you seem to be in some sort of depressed state since Nadal went down with an injury. You need to snap out of it and watch some of this amazing tennis. Tipsy v. Ferrer match was possibly the best or one of the best matches I have seen this year. I can not believe Ferrer pulled it out the way tipsarvic was hitting the ball. And if anyone tells you this was grinding affair devoid of shotmaking you know that he either didn't watch the match or doesn't know anything about tennis.

by hawkeye Fri Sep 07, 2012 3:43 pm

socal1976

I did enjoy parts of Roddick Del Potro. Would have liked to have seen Roddick against Djokovic as I think that could have been very hard fought. I like both Djokovic and Ferrer and both can play entertaining tennis. On paper their semi should be good but there is something about their match up that has caused most of their matches to be a little disappointing. It is still a match I want to see.

The best match of the tournament for me has been Sharapova v Bartoli. Am looking forward to Sharapova v Azarenka tonight. If Serena gets through the womens final has the potential to be good also.

But still of course I would be a lot happier if both Nadal and Federer were in the semi's. Just think we would have Federer v Nadal or Djokovic v Nadal to look forward to and then potentially another blockbuster final... sigh.

by socal1976 Fri Sep 07, 2012 4:41 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:Is it just me or does this strike me as a pre-emptive attack on this tournament in a bid to discredit the eventual winner. It seems far too coincidental that it appears hours after Murray wins through to the semis s BS Roger missed out. I can picture hawkeye now in a cold panicked sweat at the thought of Murray winning a slam and this is her reaction. Discredit the players and their quality in a desperate bid to ridicule the eventual winner most especially if it is Andy Murray.

Frankly Craig a lot of this talking down the modern tour and modern game does come from a desire to discredit and cheapen the accomplishments of today's players. Some of the criticism is well intentioned and people maybe are nostalgic for the S and V of the past. But this really is another way by some of disparaging preemptively the Open, the modern game, and some of the best players of the modern game.

by Tennisanorak Fri Sep 07, 2012 4:53 pm

There is no golden age, anyway. This era is at best as good as any other era, possibly worse. Djoker is the only great at the prime of his career right now.

by CaledonianCraig Fri Sep 07, 2012 5:14 pm

Keep telling yourself that if you so wish tennisanorak and rejoin a forum in twenty to thirty years time and open an era discussion and this era will be remembered as one of the best.

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri Sep 07, 2012 5:21 pm

socal1976 wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:Is it just me or does this strike me as a pre-emptive attack on this tournament in a bid to discredit the eventual winner. It seems far too coincidental that it appears hours after Murray wins through to the semis s BS Roger missed out. I can picture hawkeye now in a cold panicked sweat at the thought of Murray winning a slam and this is her reaction. Discredit the players and their quality in a desperate bid to ridicule the eventual winner most especially if it is Andy Murray.

Frankly Craig a lot of this talking down the modern tour and modern game does come from a desire to discredit and cheapen the accomplishments of today's players. Some of the criticism is well intentioned and people maybe are nostalgic for the S and V of the past. But this really is another way by some of disparaging preemptively the Open, the modern game, and some of the best players of the modern game.

And a lot of this talking down the 'previous' tour and 'previous' game does come from a desire to discredit and cheapen the accomplishments of yesterday's players.

by Sponsored content