Is the Golden age back?

Is the Golden Age back? Which is better ?

  • The Federer Nadal Djokovic Rivalary is better than the Borg Mcenroe Connors rivalry

    Votes: 14 29.2%

  • The Federer Nadal Djokovic Rivalary is no where near the Brog Mcenroe Connors rivalry

    Votes: 15 31.3%

  • The Federer Nadal Djokovic Rivalary is about the same as the Borg Mcenroe Connors rivalry

    Votes: 2 4.2%

  • Its too early to tell

    Votes: 17 35.4%
  • Total voters
    48
G

Gut Reaction

Banned
The Golden age lasted only a few years with the Borg Mcenroe Connors rivalry.

Now we have the Federer Nadal Djokovic rivalry . Which rivalry is better?
 
novak is ascending while federer is on a plateau and possibly declining. there's 6 years difference in age between them, but those 6 years are like 20 years to average people. I don't think there's much of a rivalry there.
 
I'm not old enough to comment about Borg, Mcenroe, Connors rivalry, but I can say with pretty much confidence that Nole, Rafa and Fed is a rivalry to remember for many years!

I wish we had a Fed/Tsonga rivalry. =(
Click to expand...

I would have nothing wrong if Tsonga puts himself into this group... More great players, more interesting the tour is... But I find it hard...
 
the 70's was a golden era however, the borg connors mcenroe rivalrys weren't really that great. the three had some good matches, however the borg mcenroe rivalry was cut short because of borgs early retirement. the connors-borg rivalry was one-sided in favor of connors in their earlier meetings and one-sided for borg in their later meetings. the connors mcenroe rivalry followed pretty much the same suit as connors borg.
 
It is nowhere near because as we look back we see Borg as an icon of the times where Fed is an icon of the present.

Also, we see Fed & them more as youth but we see Borg as our senior for some of us anyway.
 
I think the answer depends on how close the three players are to each other. If it is three players who share the #1 position, off and on, then its a rivalry for the #1 position. But a consistent #1 player vs. #2 and #3 doesn't sound like a rivalry. Its a rout. Then if #1 fades and there is a new #1, its just the history of tennis. So, its too early to tell. Depends on what happens to Federer. If he drops out of #1, then comes back, and Nadal/Djokovic share holding #1, it becomes a rivalry, but it has to last for a few years to be considered serious.
 
Leublu tennis said:
I think the answer depends on how close the three players are to each other. If it is three players who share the #1 position, off and on, then its a rivalry for the #1 position. But a consistent #1 player vs. #2 and #3 doesn't sound like a rivalry. Its a rout. Then if #1 fades and there is a new #1, its just the history of tennis. So, its too early to tell. Depends on what happens to Federer. If he drops out of #1, then comes back, and Nadal/Djokovic share holding #1, it becomes a rivalry, but it has to last for a few years to be considered serious.
Click to expand...

Well, facts that are present right now tells us this: Roger will still be present for a couple of years, and he will not easily give up on #1, Rafa is still very young, and we are all aware that there are not many players who can beat him on clay. Novak is a rising star, he shows some dominance on hard courts, just have won his first grand slam, and he can beat any of these two... Both Rafa and Novak will be chasing #1, and no one is safe on any position any more... So I think, that the next few years are going to be a tough few years for all of them... Finally, we have three almost equal players fighting for ATP #1 position... It's going to be very interesting...
 
breakfast_of_champions said:
the 70's was a golden era however, the borg connors mcenroe rivalrys weren't really that great. the three had some good matches, however the borg mcenroe rivalry was cut short because of borgs early retirement. the connors-borg rivalry was one-sided in favor of connors in their earlier meetings and one-sided for borg in their later meetings. the connors mcenroe rivalry followed pretty much the same suit as connors borg.
Click to expand...

I agree. it really wasn't all that much of a rivalry except for 2 years. What made it interesting was the personalities.

Borg showed no emotion while Mcenroe was off the charts and Connors was full of fire. Also with two Americans it made it really fun.

Today Djokovic is pretty wild and takes on the role of the young upstart Mcenroe while Federer takes on the role of Borg. Finally Nadal takes on the role of Connors ' fist pumping fire.

However I must say that Todays rivalary is better because the competiton is close on every surface. Djokovic maybe would have beaten Nadal at the FO except for an injury.....while Federer gave Nadal stiff competition. At the USO Djokovic should have won but choked. Wimbledon will also be up for grabs by any of these three guys and we also already know what happened at the AO.

To add to the fire, you also have some great competition in Tsonga who may add to the rivalry if he can stay healthy.

We are all very lucky to be witnessing an age with the greatest grass court player ever, the greatest clay court player ever, and maybe the greatest who knows what with the Joker. Then of course we have the fastest serve evenr with Roddick and Tsonga may add more fuel.

Clearly we are witnessing the greatest rivalry tennis has ever seen,
 
Last edited:
It's no fun if Federer just held the number 1, Rafa and the number and Nole the number 3.

I wouldn't mind if Rafa and Nole swapped, and maybe if Roddick could taste number 3 again, (highly unlikely): but I don't really want to see Federer lose the number 1 position, I don't why, it feels weird, like how Woodsy lost the number 1.
 
These things are only recognized as "golden ages" when looking back with the perspective of a few years. Too early to tell.
 
I don't think Djokovic can beat Nadal on clay court. Nadal is too good on clay court, guess the only person who can beat Nadal on clay is Federer.
 
begbie86 said:
Well, facts that are present right now tells us this: Roger will still be present for a couple of years, and he will not easily give up on #1, Rafa is still very young, and we are all aware that there are not many players who can beat him on clay. Novak is a rising star, he shows some dominance on hard courts, just have won his first grand slam, and he can beat any of these two... Both Rafa and Novak will be chasing #1, and no one is safe on any position any more... So I think, that the next few years are going to be a tough few years for all of them... Finally, we have three almost equal players fighting for ATP #1 position... It's going to be very interesting...
Click to expand...

Like I said, its too early to tell and depends, to a large extent, on whether Federer can be bumped off by Nadal/Djakovic.
 
I personally preferred the 80's. Call it the Lendl-Edberg-Wilander-Becker era. Add to the mix an aging McEnroe and a young Agassi and you have the best era of tennis in my view.

Not sure how this one will play out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

5555
Similarity between Fed-Rafa-Djoko and Jimbo-Borg-Mac
Replies
11
Views
2K
veroniquem
veroniquem
Spencer Gore
Who will be the next big rivalry?
Replies
16
Views
1K
Rovesciarete
Rovesciarete
King of Aces
This is the second golden age of tennis
2
Replies
86
Views
8K
Tenez101
Tenez101
T
  • Poll Poll
If you had to choose:
Replies
17
Views
2K
Rabbit
Rabbit
Maximagq
Parallels between Borg-McEnroe, McEnroe-Lendl rivalries and Fed-Nadal, Nadal-Djoker
Replies
14
Views
2K
5555
5555
Back
Top