Read first 4-5 pages and couldn't have patient to continue with the remaining. There is nothing new about this article that we haven't been reading. Media hype trying to sell the news. Not surprising looking at the comments, almost everyone agreeing to the writer's view of a golden era. This word is so thrust upon people that they just can't see anything else. And of course I do expect most people not to have their own reasoning but blindly follow what they are all shown.

I agree with your reasons. This era is the most predictable and the last 3-4 years have been worst ever. Even Fed said after the Rosol win this wimbledon that one of the reason for this is that players able to make so many returns due to slow conditions. But this is what the people in the board rooms wanted. A star system where the top ranked famous players are always winning. But there are not many who can understand this "manufactured" golden era. The comments on the article suggest exactly that.

Rotla, very true. Past 5 finals became very montonous. There is hardly any variety. Everyone bash from the bashline Nadal, Djoko, Murray, Delpo, Ferrer, Berdych, Tipsy etc. Tsonga is the one with bit variety but the poor guy has hardly won anything.

I haven't read the piece.

As far as I'm concerned this is a great era of men's tennis.
It has several rivalries, several excellent players and it has been maturing nicely for a while.
There is a good variety among players both in their tennis as well as characters.
For a start, you have Federer featuring in this era as well as a few players who can seriously challenge him.
Playing conditions have been messed up a bit, but I can't complain.
This era has shown negative trends led by Nadal and that casts a shadow over it for me.
Tennis wise, there are lots of players I enjoy watching.

I think people tend to view the past with rose-tinted glasses a bit.

In an ideal world the conditions would be the same as in the late 80s early 90s, and players would have to wear those nice white short shorts

nitb, there were similar players in every era. imo there is nothing special today. Fed existed in 2003 as well. Nadal has been on the scene (prominently) since 2006 when he made his first Wimby final.

Could you please name those exciting players and how they do not compare with Marat, Ferrero, Rafter, Hewitt or Roddick?

Djokovic, Tsonga, Simon, DelPotro, Berdych,Dolgopolov to mention a few

Tsonga- I agree. Djoko is also a baseliner, Delpo, Berdych are one dimensional. Dolg is full of variety but lacks the endurance to make it big.

tmf, they are all all-court players (bar maybe Bird) it's just that the playing conditions are not allowing them to play all-court tennis.

I don't know how Roddick found himself on your list, if ever there was a one-dimensional players, he was one.

I mean each era sees a sort of progression from e previous either in terms of technique, or equipment, or court speed, or physicality. Some good, some bad. There is still always a tendency for players to become better athletes with time (in terms of era, not by getting older ) so people might think the era is golden when actually it is not. The depth issue makes it a weird one for sure as we know the top 100 players are all talented to an extent, but only a handful can win a slam...

On faster conditions Roddick was a big challenge and only goat could beat him on those conds. Thus on the list

Take Federer out and the era really drops in variety and shot quality at the top but it's certainly by far the most physical era ever.

Was Federer v Nadal or Djoko more intense than Mc v Borg or Edberg v Becker or Lendl v McEnroe, Pete v Agassi?

I am not sure. I wasn't quite the same person watching all those so can't compare my enthusiam when a child with now 35 years later but I must say the Fed v Nadal rivalry got me very interested...even if the outcome was not the one I wanted.

Some good points TMF,I think NITB's comment hit the nail on the head,a lot of it has to do with the conditions
The homogenisation of the surfaces is killing the sports variety which is allowing baseliners and defensive players to excel on every surface and at every major

This is why the top 4 players have been so dominant in majors and as a result its looking like a golden era because records are being broken which seemed virtually impossible to do 20 years ago
To add to that the biggest loud mouth in tennis is trumpeting it to the media and everyone is lapping it up
Truth is,every era that passes by ends up looking like a golden era,in the 90's the 80's was the golden era,in the 00's the 90's looked like the golden era
I think a lot of it also has to do with nationalities,I think a lot of Americans bought into the weak era theory cause there was no Pete or Andre this last decade,the future of American tennis hasnt looked very promising where as someone from Switzerland or even the U.K would think that we are currently in the golden era of Swiss or British tennis
At the end of the day its just an opinion,its impossible to prove it as fact

Pretty much agree with most of that especially the 'era passes' bit, except the surfaces bit vee jay.

Still very different surfaces which is why you have some players dominant on some surfaces, but more all round/all court games seem to be order of he day.

Veejay who is your favourite tennis player and who do you like out of Federer,Nadal,Djokovic and Murray?
Also who is your favourite tennis player of all time?

Now I am sure that Nadal will not be winning any medal at oly.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/mobile/olympics/2012/stories/18849517

Very good news tmf!
I just hope that the testing methods will be up to date with the lastest medical advances

@Jonty
Still very different surfaces which is why you have some players dominant on some surfaces, but more all round/all court games seem to be order of he day.
-------------------------------------------------------
Are you sure about it? Can you give examples of which players dominated which surface?

All round all court game? Which players currently have this all round all court game?

Which players currently have this all round all court game?

Federer, Djokovic and to some extent Murray. Nadull is a clay courter.

Nadal and ferret have dominated on clay.
Federer has dominated on grass.
Fed is an all court player.

Ferret

Tmf, it's the spell checker on my iPad that does it....honest!

Actuallu you can get rid of the spell check on your ipad. Just google how to do it.
But I call him Ferret anyway. Jerry Jancowiz had a god tournament again. Soon he will be Polish no. 1.

@jonty

Do you understand by the words dominance on a surface? You need to look beyond the end results.

You say Nadal is dominant on clay, and yet has won 2 Wimbledons, and played in 5 out of the last 7 wimbledon finals. Can this be not defined as a dominant performance on grass?

Nadal has played in finals of last 2 US opens, winning one, when its not the finals, he certainly reaches the semis easily and it has taken a mighty performance to deny him. He won AO 2009, played in finals this year, numerous Hard court masters wins and finals. Can't he be said to be a dominant hard court player. He sure is.

Only is "own" performance on clay is far better compared to his "own" performances elsewhere, that only means his "own" performance is dominated by clay results and NOT that he is a dominant clay courter only.


Understand the difference. He is not dominant on clay, he is one of the players who dominates every tournament irrespective of the surfaces

agreed with your explaination of homeginsed surfaces. Fine the difference is not that much but there is a difference and that's why Nadull has won more clay titles than USO or WTF.

Or lack of clay titles for Murray. If the surfaces were identical then Murray should had few clay titles to show against his name but somehow his best performance comes on hard courts whereas players like Ferret, Almugro, Moncao can only play on clay. Delpo failed miserably on this year's grass.

Rotla, I said nasdl was dominant on clay, do you disagree with that then?

Or maybe you are you just trying to find a way to throw some insults again.