All that glitters is not Golden

I heard yesterday about the so-called "Golden Era" we now live in. Now we know that hyperbole is the stock in trade of the media but I thought perhaps we could be a little more critical in our thinking about this.

Let's look at exactly who makes up this Golden Era:

1. Novak Djokovic: an excellent player, made for the "new" game but with attributes to grace any period.
2. Rafa Nadal: another super player, a clay supremo in any era who has expanded his range as the game has come to him.
3. Roger Federer: far below his best at almost 30, the first suggestion that this may not be so Golden since he can easily maintain a position of 3 and continually challenge at the latter stages of Slams despite being well past his sell by date.
4. Andy Murray: a near fixture at 4 yet well below Slam winning level. I cannot see the difference between Murray and Nalbandian, except Nalbandian won the year end Masters event and is arguably the more talented.
5. Robin Soderling: a limited player.
6. David Ferrer: another player well past his best and a man on whom criticism of the early 2000s era is heaped, yet he was much better then than he is now yet he sits at 6.
7&8 Monfils and Fish. Enough said.

So we have two excellent players, and the rest is made up of two veterens, a solid but not-quite-there #4 and a poor 5.

Exactly what is "Golden" about this? I think part of the answer comes from the patriotic fervour surrounding the #4 which elevates him in the eyes of UK media, and sentimental attachment to the fading #3. Oh, and let's not forget viewing figures, which are rarely helped by suggesting the tournaments are nothing special.

This isn't a weak era; the concept is stupid anyway and only used by fools, but neither is this any kind of special period of excellence. It's a normal era. That doesn't suit TV of course, but it's the balanced fact.

Bogbrush, you old cynic.
Actually, I agree with pretty much all of that.

I agree with this and it surprises me as what tv experts dish out as an expert opinion. Before the finals all the experts other than henman were predicting a rafa win despite of the fact that Nole has beaten him in last 4 finals.

Rafa has beaten quite a few ordinary players to get hands on the majors like puerta, berdych and Soderling.

Murray should have been the no 1 by now but he failed to get the mental issues resolved. Novak has started to do justice to his talent. IMO he has more variety than rafa as we saw in the whole tournament.

Not denying that Rafa's game has evolved a lot in past 2 years but it is still mainly baseline bashing. He did not opt to volley yesterday as probably he was facing a tougher opponent.

I will be really sad on the day when fed will hang his racket. Another day BBC played a video of his plays with the background score of " when I ruled the world". It was pretty emotional. He did not miss a single gs since 03, not sure but he adorned the courts with grace and enthralled the crowd with the amazing display of skill and variety.

Long live the King.

I do agree with much of this. I find the concept of the 'Big 4' a little embarassing as Murray cannot yet be grouped with the three above him. Three slam final losing appearances is not in the same class as 16 wins / 10 wins / 3 wins and current #1.
Interesting point on Federer and sentiment. His last six slam results are QF, QF, SF, SF, F, QF - good but unremarkable. Federer has a good claim to being the GOAT but it is clear that the Federer playing today in the so called "golden era" is not same player that raised tennis to new levels a few years ago.
And if there is a gap between Murray and present day Federer to the top two spots, there is an absolute chasm beween them and number 5. I find Soderling thoroughly unremarkable.
One way in which I think this era is very strong though is that we have two players in their prime competing across all surfaces. As famous as the Federer-Nadal rivalry is, I don't think Prime Federer and Prime Nadal overlapped for very long. In the early years Nadal was only truly top class on clay. By the time he developed his game to be a threat on all surfaces, Federer's peak years were drawing to a close. It would be fascinating to see Federer of 05-07 against Nadal of 08 - 10.
In Djokovic / Nadal though, we have two guys in what you would expect to be their prime. Each are capable of winning all four slams and are both young enough to around for a few years to come.

In terms of variety, it's a pretty poor era actually. 9 double handed BHs in the top 10!

The 3 physical players (Nadal, Djoko and Murray) get automatically to the semis of all slams nowdays cause they can retrieve all the shots of probably more talented players and force them into more mistakes. The only reason you won;t see those 3 in the semis of slam is cause they are injured. Then they eliminate each other for the final.

And Djoko is showing us how one dimensional is Nadal and real lack of creativity this "great" player has but yet was able to win 10 slms thanks his superior stamina and physique.

In 2 or 3 years time, I expect 10 or 20 players to be as fit as Djoko and Nadal and amongst them some may hopefully have more talent. They might make us realise how poor was that era (today) when being fit was good enough to win you slams.

I think that's a touch harse on the era, Tenez. Past eras always had clay monsters who could slog away for a day (Vilas, Muster) but were useless on fast surfaces. This era is no different, it's just that the game has been changed to bring it to them.

Therefore I don't see Thomas Muster, for example, in any better light than I do Rafa Nadal - in fact I see Nadal as more varied. Where I do agree with you is that the changes especially at Wimbledon have flattered todays retrievers.

bogbrush wrote:I think that's a touch harse on the era, Tenez. Past eras always had clay monsters who could slog away for a day (Vilas, Muster) but were useless on fast surfaces. This era is no different, it's just that the game has been changed to bring it to them.

I certainly don;t mind the clay monsters though Vilas was good enough to win the USO v Connors. Vilas was quite talented...a kind of Gaudio in a way. By physically so strong so that Muster woudl have won Wimbledon, the AO and the USO? That's what I find "weak" in our era. Look at 2010...Nadal won 3 slams that cause the top players all played too close to the physical line and got injured and that allowed Nadal, the fittest, to grab 3 slams relatively easily against not so good players.

TO me this era in a way is very comparable to the Hewitt era. He was the fittest and won 2 slams until more talented players managed to rally with him. Now Djoko is showing the way...but I am convinced some more talented players will catch up fitness wise pretty soon.

Lol so Ljubicic, Blake, Robredo, Roddick, Davydenko etc better than any of the top eras? For a start, Del Potro alone who is not even in the top 10 is better than all those I mentioned above combined. Can't see 2003-2007 being anything but a weak era.

Agree with much of what HM says above - currently we have an increasingly dominant #1 in Djokovic, a slightly off form all time great at #2, then a gap to an aging GOAT at #3 and a consistently very good but not quite great player in Murray at #4.

Del Potro and hopefully Tsonga (if he can remain fit and in form for any length of time) could round out a very strong top 6, and perhaps Dimitrov, Raonic and Tomic will fulfil the promise they have shown, but they are all probably 2 or 3 years from establishing themselves in the upper echelons.

It's pretty rare that there are more than 3 genuinely elite level players at any one time, and I'd say that's pretty much what we have. Perhaps you could argue about the late 80s with an overlap between the Lendl-Becker-Edberg era and the Courier-Sampras-Agassi era, but there was very little time when all of them were competetive.

Soderling is, and always has been a bit limited, but when his serve and forehand are going in he can be a tough match for anyone anywhere. Ferrer is the male version of Wozniacki, in that his ranking is based on decent consistency and him being difficult to beat, but he is not a huge threat to the top players - top 10 is good reward for what he can do on court.

Fish deserves his spot, he's played very well on several occasions over the last year - OK, he isn't a player to set the world alight, but how many players over the years who've had a career high ranking of 8 (reaching that at 29) have been great?

Monfils? Not quite sure how he's got to #7 - was a great junior (as a contemporary of Murray and Djokovic, he was the most successful) but has not moved his play on well enough to really challenge in the senior ranks.

bogbrush it's hard to disagree with your analysis.

Federer is still a more than capable no. 3 but his slam winning days may now finall be behind him. QF/SF may now be the norm and retirement can't be too far away if that's the case..

The big question then is who will become the next no.3. Murray, Del Potro and (who knows?) Tomic or even Tsonga may be in with as shout.

And surprisingly nadal has fallen to all above mentioned players by cp in a slam. Davy even have a psitive h2h against him. Youzhny had bagelled him at Chennai. Ljubicic and Blake have beaten rafa at us open.

Btw what slam finals all these guys have made ?

Can you please elaborate as 03-07 was a weaker era?

Tsonga has been too inconsistent and injury prone.

I think Murray will get to no. 3 and delpo might take over.

Interesting that simplistic-analysis (aka catalan_powerless) insists on twisting the thread into a 2003-7 "weak era" argument. As I said in the article, weak era arguments are the domain of fanboys, and simple-minded ones at that, so please cease and desist, it's silly.
Also, I did not cite 2003-7 as the strongest era, so no strawmen please. Indeed I never mentioned it so just settle down.

The point is that the current situation is not the "Golden Age" that the media, and those inclined to fawn over their opinion, say. And I've provided evidence. An old Ferrer at #6? This is insane. A way past it great solidly at #3 (and only just down that far!)?

Not evidence of anything Golden, I suggest. But it's not a weak era, such things don't really exist except in the imagination of some who want to affirm their prejudices.

dbl post

Looking at the ranking points (on Barrystar's thread), if there is going to be a change in the rankings of the top 4 between now and the wear end, it is most likely to be Murray overtaking Federer than any other.

It's possible for Del Potro to shoot up the rankings, but he will have to have an exceptional second half to the year to even get close to Murray and Federer - good chance of getting up to about 5 or 6 though (noting also that his current seeding could hinder him in the short term, by making his first meetings with top 4 players one or two rounds earlier in tournaments than it should be).

Wow
Agree about Tsonga, he is inconsistent and he has a history of injuries, but he does have streaks of form where he can take anyone down. I think though he has more to his game than the likes of Soderling (again, a big game but inconsistent). As such, his current ranking is not that good a representation of the threat he poses to the top players.

bogbrush wrote:Not evidence of anything Golden, I suggest. But it's not a weak era, such things don't really exist except in the imagination of some who want to affirm their prejudices.

There is no weak era as the latest brings something the previous hadn't. But there are periods where winning slams can get easier. Typically, imagine Djoko catching a virus putting him on the sideline for the rest of the season. 2008, 2009 and 2010 are pretty odd years in terms of top players being off form clearly advantaging some over others. That's essentially cause the game is become so physical that they are all playing to the limits of their possibilities. More than ever before, injuries are playing a big role in determining selecting the slam winner.

Didn't Federer himself said the competition is better now? Make no mistake, put this current Federer back in 2003-2007 and he will still be dominating because the rest of the player except a young Nadal are just not good enough. A point to fact, let us share a laugh at the Atp ranking this day 2006.
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Davydenko
4. James Blake
5. Ljubicic

That in itself is the weakest top 5 ever.

6. Roddick
7. Robredo
8. Nalbandian
9. Ancic
10. Gonzales.

Very amusing lack of quality in that top.

Very good article BB. I think the UK press would be happy with Murray just winning Wimbledon and nothing else. I would like to see him win more than just a Wimbledon title as would he no doubt.

By and large yes 2 players have dominated the game for well over 5 years and now we may have a partycrasher in Djokovic. Del Potro has the class to join the top ranks and even dislodge Murray at 4. Soderling is no world no.5 in my view. 1 Masters 1000 title is hardily groundbreaking to warrant such a ranking. The chasing pack (and I include Murray in this) what do they do to cement their status in this era?

S_A. does the ATP site give top 10 lists by date somewhere? Or is that from another site?

Simple_Analyst wrote:Didn't Federer himself said the competition is better now? Make no mistake, put this current Federer back in 2003-2007 and he will still be dominating because the rest of the player except a young Nadal are just not good enough. A point to fact, let us share a laugh at the Atp ranking this day 2006.
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Davydenko
4. James Blake
5. Ljubicic

That in itself is the weakest top 5 ever.

That looks a very strong top 5 to me! So how do you explain that Dvydenko has beaten peak Nadal the last 4 times they played? How do you explain that Ljubo at 32 was good enough to scare peak Murray on his own court and took him a set and got close to take 2 actually. And Blake on his day was unstoppable as Nadal experienced 0-3 H2H that time!!!

In fact the weak player was actually Nadal then who got all his points from clay and almost nothing outside.

It's a very good top 5 to me...with no oldies, just a clay specialist getting close to top spot like Muster did in his days!

That's good comment Tenez.

I can't recall the timing of any Ferrer injury issues, but I note that in 2006 when he would have been 24 he was not in the top 10. Curious to see him at #6 and riding high today!

Good article bogbrush.

Nadall has infact succeeded in a very lousy era, simply by not making errors and playing defensively. Brought much fun seeing Novak embarrass him.

8)

Great post BB,

People are very short-sighted.

Some people like to claim that Roger won most of his slams in a 'weak' era, yet a lot of those players that he played against are still top 10 or 15 players today, despite being older and slower.

Let's not forget Melzer and Roddick who have both been in the top 10 in the last 12 months.

JuliusHMarx wrote:S_A. does the ATP site give top 10 lists by date somewhere? Or is that from another site?

The Atp doesn't give it by days. Some sites do.

Tenez wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:Didn't Federer himself said the competition is better now? Make no mistake, put this current Federer back in 2003-2007 and he will still be dominating because the rest of the player except a young Nadal are just not good enough. A point to fact, let us share a laugh at the Atp ranking this day 2006.
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Davydenko
4. James Blake
5. Ljubicic

That in itself is the weakest top 5 ever.

That looks a very strong top 5 to me! So how do you explain that Dvydenko has beaten peak Nadal the last 4 times they played? How do you explain that Ljubo at 32 was good enough to scare peak Murray on his own court and took him a set and got close to take 2 actually. And Blake on his day was unstoppable as Nadal experienced 0-3 H2H that time!!!

In fact the weak player was actually Nadal then who got all his points from clay and almost nothing outside.

It's a very good top 5 to me...with no oldies, just a clay specialist getting close to top spot like Muster did in his days!

Funny comment considering Blake, Davydenko, Ljubicic the regulars in that top 5 had the consistency of choking in slams. It's like the morning after the finals when the rest of the Federer fans in pack agrees within themselves.
You actually back up my point by saying Nadal at that time could barely play on hard courts and within 2 attempts was making finals at Wimbledon.
As Federer himself experienced at AO, Nadal's developed hc game would have no problem beating him in the slams.

Are you actually going to address any of the objective problems with your position or just continue to shout, but louder?

Ferrer is #6 at 29 yet peaked at #4 when in his prime. Please explain how that makes this a Golden Era. Just tackle that one little thing would you?

After that you can move on to explaining why the younger Ljubicic is such a joke when he virtually got out of his wheelchair to press Nadal on clay this year.

bogbrush wrote:Are you actually going to address any of the objective problems with your position or just continue to shout, but louder?

Ferrer is #6 at 29 yet peaked at #4 when in his prime. Please explain how that makes this a Golden Era. Just tackle that one little thing would you?

After that you can move on to explaining why the younger Ljubicic is such a joke when he virtually got out of his wheelchair to press Nadal on clay this year.

Ferrer at No.6 is no objective problem at all. Remember a 35 year old Agassi this day 05 was No.7 in the World, yes you read right and even making slam semi and finals at 35/36. What could that be? A player peaking at late age could be a part. And to my amusement, the current David Ferrer's record against a No.3 like Ljubicic reads 6-1. Ferrer's consistency even in slams put those players to shame. Ex no.4 Blake and no.3 Ljubicic combined managed the impossible height of 1 slam semi finals in their careers.
Yet again you fail to understand the simplistic of concepts in tennis, pushing a player in a match is not a victory so.

The issue isn't just that Ferrer is #6 now, it's that he was no force through 2003-7 yet he was physically better (and this is a huge part of his game). Now Agassi at 35 was #7, yet I seem to recall he was even better than that when at his peak.

Do you see what you're missing here? Agassi had declined to #7, Ferrer is more or less at the same position as his younger self, indeed higher than he managed through most of the alleged "weak era".

I'll leave mastering simplistic concepts to you, you're good at that sort of thing. So much so you feel the need to say it twice.

Yes Agassi at no.7 35 only shows an average competition. Could you imagine a 35 year old Agassi in the top 7 today? No way. Ferrer has improved his game and his consistenty is paying off now. A simple question which should do you over. World No.19, Del Potro today 2011 but Davydenko No.3 Blake No.4, Ljubicic No.5 had this rankings in 2006. Disbelief isn't it? That's me being kind and not pointing out barring injury a hypothetical top 5 of
1. Djokovic
2. Nadal
3. Federer
4. Murray
5. Del Potro.

Only a person with a recent 'brain transplant' to one of low intelligent will compare it to the comedy below

1. Federer
2. Nadal (20 years)
3. Davydenko
4. Blake
5. Ljubicic
Lol.

LOL! Nadal still at number 2, 5 years later! Clearly a "transitional number one" as you like to call them!

You know how to shoot yourself in the foot, don't you?

BTW, SA - You are not Catalan Power are you? He knew his tennis. You are Unforced Errors, right?

"Could I imagine a 35 year old Agassi in the top 7 today".

You mean could I imagine him being better than Monfils, or Ferrer, or Soderling?

Er... yes. I can. Can't you? Seriously?

You recite names but overlook simple little things like the Davydenko you laugh at has beaten Nadal the last 4 times they've played despite now being 30. Do you actually watch any tennis?

On this day in 2006 James Blake was not no. 4, he was no. 6 according to ATP site. In the 'strong era', on 11/8/2008 he was no 7. in the world.
And on this day 2006, Davydenko was No. 6 in the world. In the 'strong era', on 14/12/2009 he was, er, no. 6 in the world.

JuliusHMarx wrote:On this day in 2006 James Blake was not no. 4, he was no. 6 according to ATP site. In the 'strong era', on 11/8/2008 he was no 7. in the world.
And on this day 2006, Davydenko was No. 6 in the world. In the 'strong era', on 14/12/2009 he was, er, no. 6 in the world.

Blake who has never won a Masters!

Lol are players supposed to be No.1s forever? Never realised that. At least now we have other great players all fighting for No.1. Nadal b

bogbrush wrote:"Could I imagine a 35 year old Agassi in the top 7 today".

You mean could I imagine him being better than Monfils, or Ferrer, or Soderling?

Er... yes. I can. Can't you? Seriously?

You recite names but overlook simple little things like the Davydenko you laugh at has beaten Nadal the last 4 times they've played despite now being 30. Do you actually watch any tennis?

Agassi at 35 No.7 today? Really, I feel sorry for you.

sportslover wrote:Blake who has never won a Masters!

Rather like David Ferrer, current world No. 6.

I always maintain the golden era was around 84-91

Simple_Analyst wrote:

bogbrush wrote:"Could I imagine a 35 year old Agassi in the top 7 today".

You mean could I imagine him being better than Monfils, or Ferrer, or Soderling?

Er... yes. I can. Can't you? Seriously?

You recite names but overlook simple little things like the Davydenko you laugh at has beaten Nadal the last 4 times they've played despite now being 30. Do you actually watch any tennis?

Agassi at 35 No.7 today? Really, I feel sorry for you.

I think you'll find many posters would consider him vastly superior to the comedy act that is Gael Monfils and the past-it workhorse that is David Ferrer.

bogbrush wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:

bogbrush wrote:"Could I imagine a 35 year old Agassi in the top 7 today".

You mean could I imagine him being better than Monfils, or Ferrer, or Soderling?

Er... yes. I can. Can't you? Seriously?

You recite names but overlook simple little things like the Davydenko you laugh at has beaten Nadal the last 4 times they've played despite now being 30. Do you actually watch any tennis?

Agassi at 35 No.7 today? Really, I feel sorry for you.

I think you'll find many posters would consider him vastly superior to the comedy act that is Gael Monfils and the past-it workhorse that is David Ferrer.

Of course he is. Maybe Laver should have returned to the tour 06, who knows, he would have made the top 5, lol. Monfils is a comedy act I agree, especially when he made as all laugh at the expense of Federer by saving 5 Match points against him. That was funny to see.

Simple_Analyst wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:S_A. does the ATP site give top 10 lists by date somewhere? Or is that from another site?

The Atp doesn't give it by days. Some sites do.

Julius... It does.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx There is a date drop down list that you can click on and pick the rankings by date.

Great stuff; you're positioning Monfils as a top player. You still can't quite explain why Ferrer is right up there close to his career high ranking while post-injury and past it though, but given time I'm sure you'll come up with something bizarre.

Gael Monfils, Golden Age top 7 player. Oh my sides!

Simple_Analyst wrote:Monfils is a comedy act I agree, especially when he made as all laugh at the expense of Federer by saving 5 Match points against him. That was funny to see.

Just shows you hate Federer more than you like Nadull, sorry for you.

Josiah, it will be a waste of time hating any top player in sport. What does it get you? Can't say that for Federer fans though can i? You'll be forgiven to think Federer beat Nadal yesterday.

You are more concerned about weak era's and Federer more than you're concerned about Nadull and his fading game, poor Nadull fans watching their hero going down like that

SA,

Your sole purpose of existence on this board seems to be to denigrate Federer and his achievements.

Sadly for you, Roger is the most successful GS champion of all time.

He is the most dominant champion of all time

He plays the most beautiful and asthetically pleasing tennis of any player in history.

He is the most complete, all surface player, in the history of the game.

He is the highest earner in the history of the sport by a long distance.

He is the consensus GOAT,

and he's a jolly nice chap to boot.

In conclusion, I can understand your feelings of frustration and inadequacy

It really must gall you,

but you know what? c'est la vie

Let him wallow in his self pity

By the way Bogbrush,

I'm pretty sure he's biased and uneducated,

although the former and powerless cat of the land could well be one and the same.

emancipator - exposing the myths

Possibly, although if it is he then his standard of posting has fallen through the floor. On another thread he's denying that match-ups can affect results.

emancipator wrote:By the way Bogbrush,

I'm pretty sure he's biased and uneducated,

although the former and powerless cat of the land could well be one and the same.

emancipator - exposing the myths

Is it that obvious?

Since I first posted was very obvious it is Catalan Flower/Uneducated Biased.