Golden Era of Men's Tennis

[Sarc]

What would you guys say is the golden era of men's tennis?

[FedererDropShot]

It'd be a Golden era if Murray wins the US Open 2012.

4 Different Slam Winners in the Calender Year.

Aussie Open - Djokovic
French Open - Nadal
Wimbledon - Federer
US Open - Murray

A big 4 is more intense than a big 3.

[tudwell]

Originally Posted by FedererDropShot

It'd be a Golden era if Murray wins the US Open 2012.

4 Different Slam Winners in the Calender Year.

Aussie Open - Djokovic
French Open - Nadal
Wimbledon - Federer
US Open - Murray

A big 4 is more intense than a big 3.

I would love this. It would also make the race for year-end No. 1 very tight. Murray probably wouldn't be in the conversation even with a win at a major, but he would take points away from the other guys.

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by FedererDropShot

It'd be a Golden era if Murray wins the US Open 2012.

4 Different Slam Winners in the Calender Year.

Aussie Open - Djokovic
French Open - Nadal
Wimbledon - Federer
US Open - Murray

A big 4 is more intense than a big 3.

That would be great. It would make 2013 the most unpredictable season, with Nole and Fed being the favorite, Nadal working as hard as ever to reassert himself as an hardcourt winner, and Murray finally breaking the slam curse to become a new "Novak Lendl"...

Go Murray fot the US Open!

[spiderman123]

Originally Posted by FedererDropShot

It'd be a Golden era if Murray wins the US Open 2012.

4 Different Slam Winners in the Calender Year.

Aussie Open - Djokovic
French Open - Nadal
Wimbledon - Federer
US Open - Murray

A big 4 is more intense than a big 3.

That is exactly what Murray needs. More pressure.

[ibbi]

In 2010 this was threatening to really become one. Papa Roger rebounded from those two mega final losses in 09 with the 16th in Australia. Murray was back in another slam final, Djokovic finally broke past Roger at the US Open, Rafa joined Fed with a career slam, Soderling produced another huge Roland Garros performance, Berdych had what looked like his coming out summer with tremendous performances in Paris and London, Del Potro obviously was injured, but the US Open win from 09 had us all hopeful he could do something when he came back. Hasn't reeeeeeally panned out, but that top 4 is amazing, and seeing them all go at it is a treat.

80s, you've got Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Wilander, hell, Borg won 3 slams in the 80s, throw him in there too.

[Arafel]

Well, if you go by TV, it was the early 80s, no contest. For instance, from Tennis:

The Telegraph reports that Federer-Murray drew an average of 11.4 million viewers in the U.K., with a peak of 16.9 million. It’s the highest rating for a British tennis player in history, surpassing all of Tim Henman’s many marathons.

Still, even at its peak, Federer-Murray couldn’t match the average viewership—17.3 million—for the record-holder, the 1980 final between Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe.

so even with a British man vying for the title, the peak viewers for Federer-Murray was below the average for Borg-McEnroe.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Arafel

Well, if you go by TV, it was the early 80s, no contest. For instance, from Tennis:

The Telegraph reports that Federer-Murray drew an average of 11.4 million viewers in the U.K., with a peak of 16.9 million. It’s the highest rating for a British tennis player in history, surpassing all of Tim Henman’s many marathons.

Still, even at its peak, Federer-Murray couldn’t match the average viewership—17.3 million—for the record-holder, the 1980 final between Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe.

so even with a British man vying for the title, the peak viewers for Federer-Murray was below the average for Borg-McEnroe.

Back in 1980, there were 3 TV channels in Britain (BBC1, BBC2 and ITV). These days, there are hundreds of TV channels.

[The_Order]

We're in it right now.

Federer is playing better than ever yet he only has 1 major this year, 6 years ago he would've had 2 and made it to RG final and been a red hot favorite for the USO.

[FedererDropShot]

Originally Posted by The_Order

We're in it right now.

Federer is playing better than ever yet he only has 1 major this year, 6 years ago he would've had 2 and made it to RG final and been a red hot favorite for the USO.

Mainly because prime-Djokovic and prime-Nadal are better than old-him at the Aussie Open and the French Open.

[TopFH]

Originally Posted by The_Order

We're in it right now.

Federer is playing better than ever yet he only has 1 major this year, 6 years ago he would've had 2 and made it to RG final and been a red hot favorite for the USO.

Did you watch tennis prior to 2010?

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by TopFH

Did you watch tennis prior to 2010?

Yes I did, but sorry belting Hewitt in a USO final with 2 bagels, and getting cake walk draws in 06 & 07 AO as well as many other Wimbledons and USO Opens doesn't classify him as playing better back then. Fed has had trouble because Rafa and Novak are tougher competition than Hewitt, 10000 yr old Agassi, Roddick (his pidgeon) and one slam final wonders...

Fed could never dream of double bagelling Novak or Rafa in a major final, lol he actually got close to copping a double bagel off Rafa once...

[Paul Murphy]

The 80s for me.
Lots of guys with plenty of majors under their belt doing battle regularly.
Very nice QF line-ups in majors and lots of feeling between some pretty aggressive and interesting characters.

[TennisLovaLova]

Originally Posted by Sarc

What would you guys say is the golden era of men's tennis?

80's nostalgic are gonna go with the 80's
Sampras and Agassi fans are gonna go with the 90's
Objective tennis fans know that the golden era is the era of the Golden Eagle.
It started in 2003.

[santoro]

Originally Posted by TennisLovaLova

80's nostalgic are gonna go with the 80's
Sampras and Agassi fans are gonna go with the 90's
Objective tennis fans know that the golden era is the era of the Golden Eagle.
It started in 2003.

I found the 90's very interesting. With Agassi and Sampras playing really different styles than they play today.
I must admit the "Golden Eagel" era is also interesting.
However I don't know if I have seen any as many thrilling matches as Agassi against Sampras in the Golden Eage era. Of course (Nadal- Federer, Djokovic- Nadal) were great however the way Agassi was hitting the ball... Sampras serving/volleying... was soo amazing....

[giggc]

i wonder fed can defeat rafa if they meet in the final but i need to admit that if u just count the top 4, it is the golden era but overall speaking, it isn't as most finals are played by rafa and djoker only

[TennisLovaLova]

Originally Posted by The_Order

Yes I did, but sorry belting Hewitt in a USO final with 2 bagels, and getting cake walk draws in 06 & 07 AO as well as many other Wimbledons and USO Opens doesn't classify him as playing better back then. Fed has had trouble because Rafa and Novak are tougher competition than Hewitt, 10000 yr old Agassi, Roddick (his pidgeon) and one slam final wonders...

Fed could never dream of double bagelling Novak or Rafa in a major final, lol he actually got close to copping a double bagel off Rafa once...

Federer bageled rafa last year in london. Indoor, not a gs, but I'm sure that's what helped him come back the way he did this year.
Everyone was burrying him so maybe he thought:"ok that's enough, take me to M Anaconda and let's rebuild the ultimate tennis machine"
I want to see him vs rafa at uso

[mcenroefan]

1970's-mid 1980's with the caveat that I didn't personally watch Laver, Gonzales, etc.

[BigServer1]

Originally Posted by mcenroefan

1970's-mid 1980's with the caveat that I didn't personally watch Laver, Gonzales, etc.

This is it for me as well. The quality at the top, added to the quality and depth of the field made it the best overall for me.

The current era is very strong in the top 3. Murray might have something to say about making it a top 4 soon, but after the top few guys the field is pretty bad.

To me, this is one of the weakest groups #5-30 that we've seen in a long time. There aren't surface specialists anymore, there aren't any dangerous floaters...It's pretty much the top 4 and no one else.

[mcenroefan]

Originally Posted by BigServer1

This is it for me as well. The quality at the top, added to the quality and depth of the field made it the best overall for me.

The current era is very strong in the top 3. Murray might have something to say about making it a top 4 soon, but after the top few guys the field is pretty bad.

To me, this is one of the weakest groups #5-30 that we've seen in a long time. There aren't surface specialists anymore, there aren't any dangerous floaters...It's pretty much the top 4 and no one else.

Agreed....and no great young players are emerging which allows guys like Verdasco, et al to still have relevance. 1-4 of today's era are great no doubt.