PDA

View Full Version : This is the second golden age of tennis


King of Aces
05-18-2009, 12:07 PM
tennis has the highest anmount of fans in 15 years!

we have the greatest grass courter vs the greatest claycourter battling it out on every surface.

We have witness the greatest match of all time and the second greatst match of all time (2008 & 2007 wimbledons).

we also have a tough #3 and #4 seed.

This golden age is even more exciting than the Borg Mcenroe connors golden age.

vtmike
05-18-2009, 12:09 PM
tennis has the highest anmount of fans in 15 years!

we have the greatest grass courter vs the greatest claycourter battling it out on every surface.

We have witness the greatest match of all time and the second greatst match of all time (2008 & 2007 wimbledons).

we also have a tough #3 and #4 seed.

This golden age is even more exciting than the Borg Mcenroe connors golden age.

I thought you said you were 17 years old...

Blade0324
05-18-2009, 12:11 PM
I'd say this is the first golden age. Yes there was some popularity in the past but the quality of tennis was no where near as good as today. It really started with Agassi and Samprass and has increased since then.

King of Aces
05-18-2009, 12:12 PM
I thought you said you were 17 years old...

No....78 years old....you guys said I was 17, I never did.


,.

bizarre_opinion
05-18-2009, 12:13 PM
I thought you said you were 17 years old...

i would question that too. He's got the sense of an 8 year old.

gj011
05-18-2009, 12:24 PM
You can see, what happens all the time here.

The OP posted a nice thread for a change, complementing all players.
Still, vtmike and similar trolls jumped immediately with personal attacks to ruin it.

betovanbuuren
05-18-2009, 12:25 PM
yes it is.

veroniquem
05-18-2009, 12:28 PM
I agree. Very exciting times for tennis now.

All-rounder
05-18-2009, 12:28 PM
You can see, what happens all the time here.

The OP posted a nice thread for a change, complementing all players.
Still, vtmike and similar trolls jumped immediately with personal attacks to ruin it.
Coming from the guy who does the same in federer threads

ronalditop
05-18-2009, 12:30 PM
You can see, what happens all the time here.

The OP posted a nice thread for a change, complementing all players.
Still, vtmike and similar trolls jumped immediately with personal attacks to ruin it.

what an hypocrite.

Blinkism
05-18-2009, 12:33 PM
So this is a Nadal thread all of a sudden because the OP gives credit to how interesting and high-quality tennis is these days?

gj011
05-18-2009, 12:33 PM
Coming from the guy who does the same in federer threads

No I don't do the same. I express my opinion on Federer threads not insult and personally attack other posters. It is not my problem that you don't like my opinion.

If you are not biased you could at least admit that what vtmike did on this thread is not nice.

All-rounder
05-18-2009, 12:36 PM
No I don't do the same. I express my opinion on Federer threads not insult and personally attack other posters. It is not my problem that you don't like my opinion.

If you are not biased you could at least admit that what vtmike did on this thread is not nice.
what asking the OP if he was 17 years old?? its jus a simple question it could just be sarcasm you don't know, I think your looking to deep into this

vtmike
05-18-2009, 12:38 PM
I thought you said you were 17 years old...

You can see, what happens all the time here.

The OP posted a nice thread for a change, complementing all players.
Still, vtmike and similar trolls jumped immediately with personal attacks to ruin it.

Getting very desperate are we? All I did is ask him how old he was since he claimed that the following is highest in the last 15 years...even the OP did not think it was a "personal attack" :roll:

I know it must have been frustrating to have been called out so many times but you have to learn to deal with the reality and get over it... :lol:

Jchurch
05-18-2009, 12:41 PM
We have witness the greatest match of all time and the second greatst match of all time (2008 & 2007 wimbledons).


2008 yes. 2007 while good was no where near as good and is not the second best match of all time.

Blinkism
05-18-2009, 12:46 PM
We've got a lot of great matches, just this year.

AO Semi-final Verdasco vs. Nadal
AO Final Nadal vs. Federer
Monte Carlo Nadal vs. Djokovic
Madrid Nadal vs. Djokovic

What are your favourites, guys? Wimby 2008 final was classic, ofcourse.

gj011
05-18-2009, 12:50 PM
Getting very desperate are we? All I did is ask him how old he was since he claimed that the following is highest in the last 15 years...even the OP did not think it was a "personal attack" :roll:

I know it must have been frustrating to have been called out so many times but you have to learn to deal with the reality and get over it... :lol:

Your question was not so innocent. You came here to ruin the thread because you don't like the OP. There was no need for such reaction on the thread like this one.

I am just taking notice of patterns in your behavior since you ruin every thread you post on, and I couldn't care less about being "called out" by you or your troll friends.

gj011
05-18-2009, 12:53 PM
what asking the OP if he was 17 years old?? its jus a simple question it could just be sarcasm you don't know, I think your looking to deep into this

LOL simple question. Whatever. I guess it is too much to ask for an honest opinion from a Fed fanboy.

vtmike
05-18-2009, 12:54 PM
^^^ Whatever helps you go to sleep at night... :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

thalivest
05-18-2009, 01:07 PM
I thought you said you were 17 years old...

Grow up you pathetic troll. The OP started a nice thread which was fair to all players and you still look to cause trouble.

Gorecki
05-18-2009, 01:11 PM
You can see, what happens all the time here.

The OP posted a nice thread for a change, complementing all players.
Still, vtmike and similar trolls jumped immediately with personal attacks to ruin it.

??? im confused but isnt a 17 year old passing judgement on how good (bad) was the generation of Bjorn Borg, Jimmy Connors and Jmac...

how is that "complementing all players"?

how does one 17 year old kid have an opinion on what he knows not?

with that said,

OP: this is not more exciting than The late 70's (Borg etal.), the mid 80's (Lendl et al) or the early 90's... IMO.

gj011
05-18-2009, 01:29 PM
^^^ Whatever helps you go to sleep at night... :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Trying to change a subject, when you are exposed?

This is not about me sleeping at night, but about you intentionally destroying a nice thread only because you didn't like OP.

vtmike
05-18-2009, 01:41 PM
Trying to change a subject, when you are exposed?

This is not about me sleeping at night, but about you intentionally destroying a nice thread only because you didn't like OP.

BTW you started trolling in this thread you pathetic troll :lol:

All I did is ask the OP a simple question and you made personal attacks on me and insulted me along with your other green troll friends... :twisted: :lol:

bruce38
05-18-2009, 01:43 PM
Not as exciting as the early 80s IMO. But still it is a great time for tennis now.

gj011
05-18-2009, 01:45 PM
BTW you started trolling in this thread you pathetic troll :lol:

All I did is ask the OP a simple question and you made personal attacks on me and insulted me along with your other green troll friends... :twisted: :lol:

No you started with trolling and personal attacks here and that is clear to anyone impartial.
Continued trolling will not help you to get away this time.

gj011
05-18-2009, 01:47 PM
tennis has the highest anmount of fans in 15 years!

we have the greatest grass courter vs the greatest claycourter battling it out on every surface.

We have witness the greatest match of all time and the second greatst match of all time (2008 & 2007 wimbledons).

we also have a tough #3 and #4 seed.

This golden age is even more exciting than the Borg Mcenroe connors golden age.

This is very exciting time indeed and we could call it the second or third or ... golden age, but I still don't think it is better than 70s and 80s.

vtmike
05-18-2009, 01:57 PM
No you started with trolling and personal attacks here and that is clear to anyone impartial.
Continued trolling will not help you to get away this time.

How old are you? .......... Oops did I just troll again? :roll: :lol:

Cesc Fabregas
05-18-2009, 02:03 PM
My personal favourite era was early to the early to mid 90's Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Goran, Edberg, Courier, Chang, Bruguera, Muster etc so many different styles and great players.

GameSampras
05-18-2009, 02:04 PM
Not quite. We need to see some new slam winners IMO. The field is getting deeper but many have yet to prove themselves when it matters most

GameSampras
05-18-2009, 02:05 PM
My personal favourite era was early to the early to mid 90's Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Goran, Edberg, Courier, Chang, Bruguera, Muster etc so many different styles and great players.

The early-mid 90s was just unreal. So stacked and so many grand slam threats it was ridiculous. From 91-95 thereabouts. The late 90s it dropped quite a bit.

Cesc Fabregas
05-18-2009, 02:09 PM
The early-mid 90s was just unreal. So stacked and so many grand slam threats it was ridiculous. From 91-95 thereabouts. The late 90s it dropped quite a bit.

Yeah great players on all surfaces

Clay- Courier, Muster, Bruguera, Agassi etc
Grass- Sampras, Edberg, Becker, Stich and Goran
Hardcourts- Sampras, Agassi, Edberg, Courier and Chang

Incredible depth.

GameSampras
05-18-2009, 02:12 PM
Yeah great players on all surfaces

Clay- Courier, Muster, Bruguera, Agassi etc
Grass- Sampras, Edberg, Becker, Stich and Goran
Hardcourts- Sampras, Agassi, Edberg, Courier and Chang

Incredible depth.

Absolutely.. And the truth is when we havent seen anything like that since. Its been over a decade and the field has yet to achieve that type of talented depth.

Though I guess we may be headed in that direction. But still a long ways off. Its still a 2 man show I think as far as slams are concerned anyways. Djoker and Murray are close but not quite there yet to be considered legit champions. Both are still young and have a ways to go. Nadal has peak earlier. Whereas we may still have yet to see the best of Murray and DJoker

Cesc Fabregas
05-18-2009, 02:18 PM
Absolutely.. And the truth is when we havent seen anything like that since. Its been over a decade and the field has yet to achieve that type of talented depth.

Though I guess we may be headed in that direction. But still a long ways off. Its still a 2 man show I think as far as slams are concerned anyways. Djoker and Murray are close but not quite there yet to be considered legit champions. Both are still young and have a ways to go. Nadal has peak earlier. Whereas we may still have yet to see the best of Murray and DJoker

We should thank god were not in the 04-07 era anymore you knew Federer was going to win worst era in tennis history.

jelle v
05-18-2009, 02:19 PM
tennis has the highest anmount of fans in 15 years!

we have the greatest grass courter vs the greatest claycourter battling it out on every surface.

We have witness the greatest match of all time and the second greatst match of all time (2008 & 2007 wimbledons).

we also have a tough #3 and #4 seed.

This golden age is even more exciting than the Borg Mcenroe connors golden age.

I agree.. the allround level of play of today is just bizarre.. the only thing I regret is that Nadal is playing a slightly weaker clay era. As I said before, there is no doubt in my mind that he would still dominate in the clay court field of 10 - 15 years ago, but it would be nice to see him have a few more tough matches on clay. Imagine matches between Nadal and Bruguera/Muster/Kuerten/Corretja/Strong Ferrero/Healthy Coria/Berasategui/Carlos Costa and all the other strong clay courters from 10 - 15 years ago and add to that Federer and Djokkovic. I would think I had died and gone to tennis heaven..

GameSampras
05-18-2009, 02:20 PM
We should thank god were not in the 04-07 era anymore you knew Federer was going to win worst era in tennis history.

Oh god what a joke that 04-07 era was. Dont even get me started. LOL. I could write a thesis on what kind of a joke that era was

Roddick?
Hewitt who was done after 05?
Safin who showed up once a decade?
Nalbandian who never showed up with his A game at the slams
Ljubecheech
Flake?
Brokeback 50 year old Agassi?
Pre Puberty Nadal


Ohhhh... what a joke

helloworld
05-18-2009, 02:21 PM
we have the greatest grass courter vs the greatest claycourter battling it out on every surface.

You mean Sampras and Borg right?? :confused:

Cesc Fabregas
05-18-2009, 02:22 PM
Oh god what a joke that 04-07 era was. Dont even get me started. LOL

Roddick?
Hewitt who was done after 05?
Safin who showed up once a decade?
Nalbandian who never showed up with his A game at the slams
Ljubecheech
Flake?
Brokeback 50 year old Agassi?
Pre Puberty Nadal


Ohhhh... what a joke


Yep it was just the Fed show it go so boring tennis popularity went down hill.

Cesc Fabregas
05-18-2009, 02:23 PM
You mean Sampras and Borg right?? :confused:

Lol he means the 4th greatest grass courter ever vs the 2nd greatest clay courter.

danb
05-18-2009, 02:36 PM
"Golden age" is relative for each.
Personally I like(d):
Borg Mcenroe connors
Pete-Aggasii-Lendl-Becker-etc
and for sure I am in for the Fed-Rafa-Nole-Murray fireworks.


The biggest difference is that nowadays the surfaces are not very polarized as they used to. Plus new technology makes it harder to S&V. Both S&V and baseline bashing have their good and bad aspects. I just wish I'd see more S&V besides the baseline stuff these days. But then it would be perfect...

mtommer
05-18-2009, 02:58 PM
I personally think if we could get just three or four more consistently good players, I define consistently good as a match between say number one and number six is a nail biter, we would have a great decade of tennis. As it is, I still think Murray and Djokovic still need to prove themselves just a little more (but this is iffy admittedly), Djokovic mentally at least. I really would have loved to see Tsonga and Gasquet at Murray's or Djokovic's level right now.

GameSampras
05-18-2009, 03:00 PM
Well a "golden age" is a relative I suppose. Im just dont know how you can classify this era as a "golden age" when there are only essentially 2 players (excluding Djokers AO win over a year ago when Fed had mono) who can actually win a slam. What have the rest of the field actually proved outside of Fed-Nadal ? That they can win slams? No they havent.

King of Aces
05-18-2009, 03:23 PM
Well a "golden age" is a relative I suppose. .

Really ??? You have a cousin named "Golde age"?? ;)

King of Aces
05-18-2009, 03:27 PM
2008 yes. 2007 while good was no where near as good and is not the second best match of all time.

I agree. I thought the first Borg & mcenroe Wimbledon was the second greatest match of all time.

2007 Wimbledon Nadal and federer was the third greatest match of all time in my opinion.

People tend to forget how great that match was because 2008 overshadowed it. But make no mistake the 2007 Wimbledon was absolutely awesome and it made Time magazine as well!!

egn
05-18-2009, 03:37 PM
Umm 1980s?

Borg
McEnroe
Connors
Lendl
Wilander
Becker
Edberg

One decade my dude of guys all battling. Slams where people were never of sure of who could be in the finals because along with those guys was a deep top 20 that consisted of guys like

Mecir
Cash
Noah
Young Agassi
Kriek
Tanner
Leconte
Villas

Don't forget the epic Davis Cup battles..the 80s produced some of the best tennis ever.

King of Aces
05-18-2009, 03:45 PM
Umm 1980s?

Borg
McEnroe
Connors
Lendl
Wilander
Becker
Edberg

One decade my dude of guys all battling. Slams where people were never of sure of who could be in the finals because along with those guys was a deep top 20 that consisted of guys like

mixing eras. For example Borg and Wilander played at different times. In fact Lendl and Borg barely played each other. And by the time od Edberg Connors was an old fart or completely retired ...mcenroe was a shadow of his former self.

Edberg was way after connors or Borg.

tons of confusion



Mecir
Cash
Noah
Young Agassi
Kriek
Tanner
Leconte
Villas

Don't forget the epic Davis Cup battles..the 80s produced some of the best tennis ever.

mecir, Kriek, Leconte---- losers

Noah...one slam wonder

Young Agassi......a bit lost.

Tanner.....loser (won the AO when no one played it)

Cash & Vilas....ok they were great.

Serve_Ace
05-18-2009, 03:45 PM
How old is everyone?
I'm the best troll there is, no doubt

jimbo333
05-18-2009, 04:02 PM
This is very exciting time indeed and we could call it the second or third or ... golden age, but I still don't think it is better than 70s and 80s.

I would agree:)

And there really needs to be a great US player to improve profile in the World as a whole. Now if Nadal became a US citizen......

King of Aces
05-18-2009, 04:03 PM
I would agree:)

And there really needs to be a great US player to improve profile in the World as a whole. Now if Nadal became a US citizen......

like Lendl. ;)

egn
05-18-2009, 04:37 PM
mixing eras. For example Borg and Wilander played at different times. In fact Lendl and Borg barely played each other. And by the time od Edberg Connors was an old fart or completely retired ...mcenroe was a shadow of his former self.

Edberg was way after connors or Borg.

tons of confusion



mecir, Kriek, Leconte---- losers

Noah...one slam wonder

Young Agassi......a bit lost.

Tanner.....loser (won the AO when no one played it)

Cash & Vilas....ok they were great.

I was not talking one era I was talking the 80s as a whole it was a transition that was amazing

you started with Borg, Connors McEnroe then went to McEnroe, Connors, Lendl then Wilander joined in, and then out of nowhere suddenly Borg and Edberg showed up to do damage. It was a constant transition of great players. With tons of great outside threats. Mecir is not a loser he was a strong force same goes for Leconte, Agassi at his youth added flair, you had Cash and Vilas the 80s was full of thriving tennis players and transitions from one field to the next, there was never a void there was always top players on the tour. Who made you confining golden age to a single era..an age is longer than an era? Besides Lendl and Borg met 10 times at least so to say they did not play much is a lie they played a good amount of times over a condensed period of times in atp play and exhibition play.

grafrules
05-18-2009, 04:52 PM
The 80s was the best. McEnroe, Borg, Connors, Vilas to start the decade then McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, Wilander then Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Wilander.

King of Aces
05-19-2009, 03:53 AM
The 80s was the best. McEnroe, Borg, Connors, Vilas to start the decade then McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, Wilander then Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Wilander.

Mcenroe, Borg connors was really only like 79 & 80 or maybe 81....Im not sure......nobut I dont think you can classify that as the 80's per se. The Mcenroe Borg rivalry really only lasted a mere 2 years....then Borg quit.

Also the Borg mcenroe era was really the last of the wood racquet era. Mcenroe was the last erson to ever win Wimbledon with a wood racquet.

Wilander and Lendl may actually the most boring players that have ever played the sport. In fact I believe it was time magazine or sports illustrated that came out with the cover that Lendl is the most boring champion in the history of tennis. Those were dark years by spectator standards.

Becker and Edberg were exciting but only for two grandslams per year: Wimbledon & the US open. They were not a force at the FO and they did not really bother with the AO.

LurkingGod
05-19-2009, 04:43 AM
Wilander and Lendl may actually the most boring players that have ever played the sport. In fact I believe it was time magazine or sports illustrated that came out with the cover that Lendl is the most boring champion in the history of tennis. Those were dark years by spectator standards.


I started watching tennis at the end of Lendl era so I never watched him played during his dominant years. Can you or anyone care to explain why is he considered 'boring'? Is it his style of play or his personality? :neutral:

King of Aces
05-19-2009, 05:58 AM
I started watching tennis at the end of Lendl era so I never watched him played during his dominant years. Can you or anyone care to explain why is he considered 'boring'? Is it his style of play or his personality? :neutral:

I'm not really sure.....but to make the cover of time magazine as the most boring player of all time is really a statement.

In my opinion it was probably his personality. he came from a communist country and he was a very cold person with a mean evil sort of accent. He just sort of seemed like Darth Vader on the court.

Gorecki
05-19-2009, 06:39 AM
I'm not really sure.....but to make the cover of time magazine as the most boring player of all time is really a statement.

In my opinion it was probably his personality. he came from a communist country and he was a very cold person with a mean evil sort of accent. He just sort of seemed like Darth Vader on the court.

what would you say if i said Nadal looks like a MANOLO with blig blig outfit like the mac daddies from Compton and the afirmative personality of a pea?

goes both way no?

Gorecki
05-19-2009, 06:40 AM
Thats illegal and a policy violation . I never said anything like that!! I am reportimng you.

like you were not childish enough... go ahead... be my guest!

King of Aces
05-19-2009, 06:41 AM
You have an agenda against me and thats fine....but changing things I said is against the rules of this board and a very dangerous thing to do as it ruins the inegrity of the entire message board.

You deserve to be banned for life for such actions .

King of Aces
05-19-2009, 06:42 AM
like you were not childish enough... go ahead... be my guest!

i ALREADY REPORTED YOU. That was a terrible thing to do ....but at least you have erased what you did. so no worries.

Gorecki
05-19-2009, 06:42 AM
You have an agenda against me and thats fine....but changing things I said is against the rules of this board and a very dangerous thing to do as it ruins the inegrity of the entire message board.

You deserve to be banned for life for such actions .

well you have been there. you tell me!

King of Aces
05-19-2009, 06:43 AM
well you have been there. you tell me!

I have never changed anyones words....what you did threatens the integrity of the entire message board.

Thats a really serious violation and the fact that you defend it just makes it worse.

Gorecki
05-19-2009, 06:46 AM
I have never changed anyones words....what you did threatens the integrity of the entire message board.

Thats a really serious violation and the fact that you defend it just makes it worse.

i would not know that you have or not done it. but what i did was a joke and if you have a stiff brain to understand a joke that is very sad ad pittyfull from you! but then again your avatar says a lot!

btw.. how was the weather in ban town?

pennc94
05-19-2009, 06:50 AM
That would be great if a new golden age for tennis emerged.

In the US, I doubt that it could ever get back to the level of popularity seen during the 1970s. Tennis was everywhere. People had tennis parties and the players were superstars. It helped that the top players were from the US.

Today, the stars are not from the US, and there are so many other sports that have boomed since the 1970's that capture more of the sporting interest in the US.

Rabbit
05-19-2009, 06:59 AM
tennis has the highest anmount of fans in 15 years!

Hmmm 2009 - 15 = 1994? That's hardly a ringing endorsement of tennis being better now than in the late 70's or even mid 80's if my math is correct.


we have the greatest grass courter vs the greatest claycourter battling it out on every surface.

Yeah, this has happened before. The same two players playing every major final. It was when Navratilova played Evert in every major final. The pundits called it boring. I wonder what the difference is now? I hate to think that the ATP has become the WTA of the 1970s and 1980s.


This golden age is even more exciting than the Borg Mcenroe connors golden age.

I couldn't disagree more. If for no other reason than these two. The diversity of game was greater then as well as the diversity of personality. There were champions who loathed each other, Connors hated McEnroe, Connors hated Lendl, McEnroe hated Connors, McEnroe hated Lendl, Lendl hated McEnroe and Lendl hated Connors. There was genuine blood lust between the three of them. It made for great theater.

mixing eras. For example Borg and Wilander played at different times. In fact Lendl and Borg barely played each other.

Not exactly factual. Wilander and Borg practiced together in 1982 and by Wilander's own admission, he was unable to win a set off Borg. This was also the year Wilander won the French Open for the first time. Lendl and Borg played each other 8 times which is more than barely. I would say Sampras and Federer barely played each other.


And by the time od Edberg Connors was an old fart or completely retired ...mcenroe was a shadow of his former self.

If I deciphered this correctly, it is not exactly true either. Connors and Edberg were 6 - 6 with Edberg only winning the last 3, from 1989 - 1991. Connors' last victory over Edberg was also in 1989. Connors would have been 37 that year and based on his results, while potentially an old fart, still a pretty good old fart. In fact, Connors would go on two years later, in 1991 to reach the semi-finals of the US Open losing to Jim Courier who would go on to the finals only to be decimated by the same Stefan Edberg who was 6 - 6 with Connors.


Edberg was way after connors or Borg.

Please see above as this is inaccurate.


tons of confusion

We agree here, but probably not where the confusion actually lies.



Mcenroe, Borg connors was really only like 79 & 80 or maybe 81....Im not sure......nobut I dont think you can classify that as the 80's per se. The Mcenroe Borg rivalry really only lasted a mere 2 years....then Borg quit.

Sorry, but 80 and 81 qualify as the 80s. And going forward, the 80s were dominated by Lendl/McEnroe and then Becker/Edberg. Classic rivalries with classic encounters.


Those were dark years by spectator standards.

Sorry, but wrong again. For those of us who actually watched tennis then, they were far from dark years. Lendl's matches against Connors and McEnroe through the 80s were classics. The WCT matches he played against John McEnroe alone were enough to warrant both places in tennis' top performers.

Wilander boring? Far from it. His first encounter with John McEnroe in Davis Cup was one of the most memorable encounters ever and lives on to this day as Davis Cup lore.

Wilander and Lendl? Sorry, but their 1988 US Open final was one of the geatest and longest in history. They put on a show that those of us who saw it will always remember. Wilander capped off an unbelievable 1988 with a 5 hour epic battle against Lendl in which he used every inch of the court to prevail.


Becker and Edberg were exciting but only for two grandslams per year: Wimbledon & the US open. They were not a force at the FO and they did not really bother with the AO.

Edberg not a force at Roland Garros? You must define force differently. 3 QFs, one of which he lost to the eventual champion, and one final? IMO, not a force means you lose in the first two rounds.

Becker and Edberg were both 2-time Australian Open champions, so I would probably say collectively they did bother with the Australian Open. And I might even say they were exciting at the very least in 3/4 of the majors they played in.

Arafel
05-19-2009, 07:16 AM
Hmmm 2009 - 15 = 1994? That's hardly a ringing endorsement of tennis being better now than in the late 70's or even mid 80's if my math is correct.



Yeah, this has happened before. The same two players playing every major final. It was when Navratilova played Evert in every major final. The pundits called it boring. I wonder what the difference is now? I hate to think that the ATP has become the WTA of the 1970s and 1980s.



I couldn't disagree more. If for no other reason than these two. The diversity of game was greater then as well as the diversity of personality. There were champions who loathed each other, Connors hated McEnroe, Connors hated Lendl, McEnroe hated Connors, McEnroe hated Lendl, Lendl hated McEnroe and Lendl hated Connors. There was genuine blood lust between the three of them. It made for great theater.



Not exactly factual. Wilander and Borg practiced together in 1982 and by Wilander's own admission, he was unable to win a set off Borg. This was also the year Wilander won the French Open for the first time. Lendl and Borg played each other 8 times which is more than barely. I would say Sampras and Federer barely played each other.



If I deciphered this correctly, it is not exactly true either. Connors and Edberg were 6 - 6 with Edberg only winning the last 3, from 1989 - 1991. Connors' last victory over Edberg was also in 1989. Connors would have been 37 that year and based on his results, while potentially an old fart, still a pretty good old fart. In fact, Connors would go on two years later, in 1991 to reach the semi-finals of the US Open losing to Jim Courier who would go on to the finals only to be decimated by the same Stefan Edberg who was 6 - 6 with Connors.



Please see above as this is inaccurate.



We agree here, but probably not where the confusion actually lies.





Sorry, but 80 and 81 qualify as the 80s. And going forward, the 80s were dominated by Lendl/McEnroe and then Becker/Edberg. Classic rivalries with classic encounters.



Sorry, but wrong again. For those of us who actually watched tennis then, they were far from dark years. Lendl's matches against Connors and McEnroe through the 80s were classics. The WCT matches he played against John McEnroe alone were enough to warrant both places in tennis' top performers.

Wilander boring? Far from it. His first encounter with John McEnroe in Davis Cup was one of the most memorable encounters ever and lives on to this day as Davis Cup lore.

Wilander and Lendl? Sorry, but their 1988 US Open final was one of the geatest and longest in history. They put on a show that those of us who saw it will always remember. Wilander capped off an unbelievable 1988 with a 5 hour epic battle against Lendl in which he used every inch of the court to prevail.



Edberg not a force at Roland Garros? You must define force differently. 3 QFs, one of which he lost to the eventual champion, and one final? IMO, not a force means you lose in the first two rounds.

Becker and Edberg were both 2-time Australian Open champions, so I would probably say collectively they did bother with the Australian Open. And I might even say they were exciting at the very least in 3/4 of the majors they played in.

Agreed with pretty much all of it, except maybe Lendl and Connors hating each other. They went through periods of it for sure. Early in their rivalry, Connors called out Lendl for throwing a match in the Masters round robin because the winner had to play Borg in the semis. I think Connors called Lendl "gutless."

But I also think Connors came to respect Lendl somewhat for his work ethic from 84 on.

Check out this exchange during their 84 Wimbledon semifinal, won by Connors in four sets:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8V32aAOnVKs

Both Lendl and Connors however, hated McEnroe, and the feeling was mutual. Actually, I think everybody on tour hated McEnroe. Read "Bad News for McEnroe" for more on that. It was partly because a lot of players felt McEnroe staged his tantrums.

Anyway, back to the original point, I can't ever remember Lendl trying to bean Connors, but he sure went after McEnroe on more than one occasion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xAPwx3z950

King of Aces
05-19-2009, 07:17 AM
IN THE FAMOUS WORDS OF ANDRE AGASSI: IMAGE IS EVERYTHING:

http://i.a.cnn.net/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/2005/08/23/gallery.usopenhistory/gallery20.jpg

Gorecki
05-19-2009, 07:53 AM
in the famous words of Homer Simpson: "d'oh"
http://distractionware.com/blog/images/nov07/homer_doh.gif

BorisBeckerFan
05-19-2009, 08:40 AM
I'd say this is the first golden age. Yes there was some popularity in the past but the quality of tennis was no where near as good as today. It really started with Agassi and Samprass and has increased since then.

If by quality you mean tension, drama, etc, I agree that the Nadal vs Fed matches were of more quality. However if you by quality you mean winners to errors ratios, serving percentage, both players playing well at the same time vs one being up while the other is down then no. In that sense the Agassi vs Sampras matches were of much higher quality. A lot of the Fed vs Nadal matches despite having produced some great moments/winners, have been riddled with bad serving percentages, unforced errors etc. So in that sense they were not really quality matches.

This was my response in another thread in regards to the quality of tennis between Nadal vs Roger and Pete vs Andre.

Rabbit
05-19-2009, 08:49 AM
IN THE FAMOUS WORDS OF ANDRE AGASSI: IMAGE IS EVERYTHING:

http://i.a.cnn.net/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/2005/08/23/gallery.usopenhistory/gallery20.jpg

Great cover, however, some context may be in order.

After a procession of #1s which included Jimmy Connors, Guillermo Vilas, Bjorn Borg, and John McEnroe the dour and reclusive Lendl was quite a change. Each champion before him was charismatic and displayed fire and personality on court. Lendl, by contrast, was almost repressed in his on court demeanor. To add to that, Lendl's reputation prior to becoming #1 was of a bridesmaid and never a bride, a choker, and a tanker.

This story was written after Lendl turned a career corner at the French Open in 1984. After that, Lendl went on to a remarkable career. However prior to that, Lendl had lost all 4 major finals he had been in. Lendl never did turn a corner with the tennis fans though.

Add to this, Lendl's statement that he "was allergic to grass" when asked why he didn't play Wimbledon and he was not what the tennis public had been accustomed to. Everyone played every tournament. Borg's decision to skip the French to cocentrate on Wimbledon was seen as dedication and desire. Lendl's response, while an attempt at humor, was seen as ducking his responsibility to the game.

Lendl treated tennis more as a business where his participation and level of effort were only as great as his perception of his own best self-interest. In other words, Lendl's only thought was "what's in it for me?". Lendl did turn a corner, probably too late in his career and missed out on what he prized most, a Wimbledon championship. IMO, Tony Roche was probably responsible for Lendl's desire later in his career. Early on, Lendl sought $s and too late he worried about his place in the game.

To complete the story, Lendl so resented this cover and the implications of the story that he refused to be interviewed by Sports Illustrated. While some claim it as fact, Lendl viewed it as a hack job. I remember reading the story. I was not a Lendl fan and thought it was funny. It wasn't until later that I actually knew it p!ssed Lendl off.

I also find it humorous that you attribute "image is everything" to Agassi as in reality those aren't his words. They were the words of a Canon advertisement. There is a close parallel between Agassi and Lendl as both came to regret decisions made in their youth. Agassi thought his best chance of winning a Major outside of the Open was the French and his worst chance was Wimbledon. He skipped Wimbledon because as NB said "he needed to get stronger before playing on grass". Agassi went major-less until 1992 when he won his first major....Wimbledon.

Image isn't everything, context is...

King of Aces
05-19-2009, 09:16 AM
I also find it humorous that you attribute "image is everything" to Agassi as in reality those aren't his words. They were the words of a Canon advertisement. .

Those words came from Andres mouth. And his image at the time was sorta everything as he didnt win all that much. I actually love his rebel attitude from the 80's.....much like nadal.

http://verbicide.ca/drivel/media/1/20050814-agassi_hair.jpg

CCNM
05-19-2009, 09:33 AM
^^I've found myself comparing Rafa & Andre too. But I have a lot more respect for rebel Rafa than I did for rebel Andre

Cenc
05-19-2009, 09:38 AM
not true
if just 4 players make the best era of tennis its sad
also
we have the best grasscourter? no we dont
this sentence shows you havent been watching tennis at all prior to feds era which obviously means... u havent seen some other grasscourters
and fed is by no criteria the best grasscourter ever
i mean guy lost to nadal in wimbledon finals!!!
no offense for nadalfans, he is probably the best claycourter today but in serious wimbledon he wouldnt be able to get to the 2nd week regularly year after year...

Antonio Puente
05-19-2009, 10:15 AM
I actually love his rebel attitude from the 80's.....much like nadal.

http://verbicide.ca/drivel/media/1/20050814-agassi_hair.jpg

Like Nadal? That is the worst hairdo I've ever seen in my life. If Nadal cut his hair like that, I would stop being a fan.... instantly. I would be embarrassed to be a Nadal fan. Agassi's hairdo was a crime against nature. In fact, Mother Nature found it so offensive she simply took care of it herself.

Rabbit
05-19-2009, 10:18 AM
Those words came from Andres mouth. And his image at the time was sorta everything as he didnt win all that much. I actually love his rebel attitude from the 80's.....much like nadal.

http://verbicide.ca/drivel/media/1/20050814-agassi_hair.jpg

Yeah, OK...the ad execs running Canon's campaign had nothing to do with it, or did you see him "say it" on a commercial?

Nuke
05-19-2009, 10:27 AM
The science fiction crowd has a saying: "The golden age of science fiction is . . . 13." Meaning that the stuff a person reads at the age of 13 will probably be remembered as the "golden age" by that person. That's probably true for music, movies, TV, and tennis, too. The tennis you watch as a teen will be your golden age, no matter who's playing.

King of Aces
05-19-2009, 11:24 AM
^^I've found myself comparing Rafa & Andre too. But I have a lot more respect for rebel Rafa than I did for rebel Andre


I am merely a messenger.

Its not my fault lendl made the cover of sports illustrated as the champion that no one cares about......

just like its not my fault Agassi said "Image is everything"....its fun to watch though:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpuFEpbE0d0