Weak Era Or Golden Era?

Is this a weak era or a golden one for men's tennis?

My view is that it is both. It is golden because of Federer, Nadal and more recently Djokovic. Their gold goes a long way and sometimes gets reflected off other players. By contrast the rest of the players look weak... increasingly so. I would say the threat to these top players has diminished over the past few years. This makes the tour appear more golden because of them and at the same time less golden because of the relative lack of strength in the chasing pack.

We get to watch great or "golden" matches when the golden three are involved and especially when two of the golden three play each other but the number of "golden" matches involving other players even other top players has perhaps diminished. Also because these three and particularly Nadal and Federer have achieved so much quite understandably they focus on the slams. Not because they don't always want to win but because as champions they have learnt if it's not possible to win everything it's better to win the important things. Lose a few battles if you must but try not to lose the wars. All the interest in tennis has become polarized at the top. The top three players, the top 4 tournaments and the semi's and finals of the top 4 tournaments. The only exception being if one of the top three goes out before the semi's in one of the slams (or maybe only if Federer or Nadal go out before the semi's as I'm not sure that even Djokovic going out would generate as much interest). When one of the golden three is missing at a slam (this years US Open) it leaves a huge gap and leaves everything looking a lot less "golden"...

To be quite frank, the interest in tennis has always been 'polarized at the top' for the majority of spectators, whatever the era.

For you as a Rafa fan, his beating in the second round of W made the tournament a little less exciting. What you have to realise is that the 'surprise' was actually a huge story in itself and the tournament certainly didn't suffer from lack of interest. In fact quite the opposite because for the first time in 70 odd years a Brit faced a 6 time winner over the net - both had a great deal to prove to a critical press. Royalty, celebrities from both sides of the pond, and politicians joined Centre Court in droves and a country held its breath in anticipation.....

It may not have been the story you wanted, but this Wimbledon was far more exciting than the last few Wimbledons in terms of story, drama etc for most people in this country.

time please

I would say I am a fan Rafa, Roger and Novak...

Of course the "surprise" was exciting when Rafa went out unexpectedly at Wimbledon and a lot of the talk leading up to the US Open has been about Rafa not being there. That doesn't for me make up for not seeing one of the three "golden" players involved in slam matches. The problem with having interest polarized around Federer, Nadal and Djokovic is that if they go out or do not play they expose the weakness of the rest of the field.

Maybe for you and other people in this country Wimbledon was more exciting. But was the excitement caused by the quality of tennis or the emotion of having someone you see as representing you do well?

I think the general consensus was that the quality of tennis in the final this year was better than the two previous years

But of course, watching Fed attempt to win his 7th title after a slam drought and much speculation that he couldn't scale such heights again, and seeing Murray compete so well, with so much hope resting on his shoulders, added to the drama and excitment.

is it only the actual physical ball striking that makes a match exciting for you?

hawkeye, perhaps the results of this poll will convince you that this "era" hasn't got any less "golden":

https://www.606v2.com/t33965-tennis-much-more-interesting-without-rafa

hawkeye wrote:Nadal and Federer have achieved so much quite understandably they focus on the slams.

Maybe that's why they are joint record holders of Masters titles at 21 each and have scooped up 5 of the 7 so far this year as well as 3 ATP 500's and why Federer has been in two other finals and won the WTF the last two years running?

Makes you wonder what the stats would look like if they bothered to try outside the slams eh?

I echo TP's point that many fans who casually follow the sport are drawn to mainstream players who achieve the most success. Any debates on era's always centralise of the distribution of Slam successes.

For every Borg, Vilas, Ashe and Connors there was a Panatta, Okker and Nastase who helped make that era much more interesting whislt not achieving the success or attention the very top players had. For every McEnroe, Lendl, Edberg, Wilander, Becker you had Mecir, Nystrom, Cash, Forget, Gomez. For every Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Rafter you had Ivanisevic, Krajcek, Moya, Rios. For every Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Hewitt, Safin you have Murray, Del Potro, Nalbandian, Roddick.

You can go beyond those players and still find a strong field of players who were talented but not talented enough to have the same successes as the very best of those era's. It shouldn't always be judged by Slam winners entirely, but the collective field that make up the early rounds of tournaments who are exceptional players.

What we are seeing these days is down to the homogenisation of conditions. In previous years the best all-round players on their weaker surfaces would be relatively at a greater disadvantage when facing a surface specialist who was a worse all-round player.

Nowadays the best players have that advantage over the tier below them on all surfaces.

The ATP likes it because it means that they have 'stars' recognisable outside the sport to an audience that they can sell the sport to.

reckoner

Ha ha! That poll just convinces me of how much people like to talk about Rafa if they can't watch him play.

time please

Of course its not simply ball striking that makes for exciting tennis! Are you trying to say that Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are boring personalities? And yes it was fun to see Federer win at Wimbledon but it would have been more fun for me as a spectator if he hadn't had it so easy. I felt a bit the same when Nadal won in 2010.

I can understand that as a fan of Murray you may have enjoyed him getting to the final. But weren't you a little disappointed that he didn't have to play Rafa in the semi? Or do you just hope the draw will "open up" for him? Because to me draws opening up are not a sign of a golden era they are a little disappointing.

barrystar

Those masters records just show that Federer and Nadal have nothing left to prove as far as masters titles go. Not that they don't care about them. Federer looked very happy in Cinncinati but I bet some of that happyness was because of who he beat. It's also interesting that Federer and Nadal have been roughly equal on Masters titles. Unlike slams where there is still a lot to compete for against each other. I would like nothing better than for both to end their careers with equal masters and equal slams.

legendkillarV2

But if the "collective field that make up the early rounds of tournaments who are exceptional players" have repeatedly shown that they have no chance of winning the tournament it does make thinks less interesting. The early rounds are little more than a sideshow to the spectacle of Roger, Rafa and Nole fighting for the big trophies.

hawkeye wrote:
barrystar

Those masters records just show that Federer and Nadal have nothing left to prove as far as masters titles go. Not that they don't care about them. Federer looked very happy in Cinncinati but I bet some of that happyness was because of who he beat. It's also interesting that Federer and Nadal have been roughly equal on Masters titles. Unlike slams where there is still a lot to compete for against each other. I would like nothing better than for both to end their careers with equal masters and equal slams.

The masters records prove a number of things, what they disprove entirely is your suggestion that Fed and Nadal focus on slams - they focus on winning almost every match they play in every competition. Annacone has said that is what stands Fed out from Sampras - he still loves tennis and gets excited as a child if he wins an ATP 250 whereas Sampras was more jaded and could only build up interest for the really big ones at the same age.

Fed and Nadal are likely to end their careers with Nadal having more Masters titles than Fed and Fed having more slams than Nadal - I really can't see Nadal bridging the 6-slam gap. Unlike the Masters where Nadal can bank on 2 clay wins a year (especially MC, which is in reality a 500 these days), in the slams he's only got one banker a year.

It's not weak, and it's not Golden.

All that rubbish is the creation of fanboys and media. There's a problem with condition homogenisation and Lydian has recommended equipment changes I wholeheartedly support.

hawkeye wrote:

I would like nothing better than for both to end their careers with equal masters and equal slams.

I understand Hawk would like to see say a couple more slam wins on Fed's side and 9+(!) on Nadal's??

Rafateer in disguise

Daily dose awaits

The top 3 are obviously outstanding players but top 3s usually are!:

1979: Borg/Connors/McEnroe
1987: Lendl/Edberg/Wilander
1994: Sampras/Agassi/Becker

Leaving aside all the racquet technology caveats, if we could somehow bring these "teams" together to compete in a Davis Cup type event against the 2012 team of Federer/Djokovic/Nadal, I'd find it tough to predict a winner!

bogbrush wrote:It's not weak, and it's not Golden.

All that rubbish is the creation of fanboys and media. There's a problem with condition homogenisation and Lydian has recommended equipment changes I wholeheartedly support.

Well I'll put it another way. Is there good tennis to watch? Is it of a high standard? Is there depth in the field? My answer was yes to the first two questions (with the qualification that it has become increasingly confined to the top three players) and no to the third question.

I agree that the media do try and talk up the "product" but that is their job. But I was under the impression that you were a big fan of one particular player (I wouldn't use the term "fanboy" as it's usually used as an insult) so why do you describe such descriptions or discussions as being rubbish and the creation of fans such as yourself?

Because they're obviously ramped by some for that reason. a few Murray fans have resorted o this to underpin the "Andy would have loads any other time" theory.

Your answers in the first paragraph point to a pretty normal situation, overall. Not weak and not especially Golden.

Andy would've won some matches in any other era

Different era's or conds wouldn't mask up some of Andy's weaknesses.

'Average' era in my opinion...but the conditions are killing competition....no-one outside top4 is penetrating with much depth...players don't have to change their games much now, much easier to dominate than ever before.

Neither weak nor golden. Not weak because of Federer and Nadal and not golden because hey, 3 players have won all but one of the slams post 2005 AO.

Lack of depth can be == Total Domination

or

Lack of depth can be == No competition

Is the glass half full or half empty?

You play against the player who is across the net.

Too much surface variation can also cause the famous Wimbledon-Roland Garros schism. Anyone remember Thomas Muster?

laverfan

Whether it be total domination or lack of competition lack of depth means less competitive matches for us the spectator to watch. I understand that some here like to watch style for styles sake but I find it far more fun to watch it in the context of close competition. So lack of depth is bad from my point of view. But as I have tried to explain what the tour lacks in depth it (at the moment) makes up for in the closeness in the competition between the top three and even more so the top two. (By top two I mean Nadal and Federer). When one of the three is missing the tours weakness is exposed.

I'm not sure about the benefits of having different surface specialists. I would rather watch clashes of the best than different players dominating on different surfaces without being threatened. Even Nadal on clay has been threatened by Federer and Djokovic. Imagine how boring it would be if say Nadal stole everything on clay, Federer everything on grass and Djokovic everything on hard... Zzzzz. Although we would have lots of stamping of feet about there being TWO hard court slams for Djokovic. Ha ha!

nadal does win everything on clay so that is already kinda boring

You notice the comment that TA made, HE?

Tennisanorak wrote:Neither weak nor golden. Not weak because of Federer and Nadal and not golden because hey, 3 players have won all but one of the slams post 2005 AO.

This one?

I sort of agree with it. But I would say rather than "Not weak because of Federer and Nadal" that their rivalry has in itself been golden. Well it has for me anyway.