Great Article.

Can't stand this golden generation claptrap we hear nowadays.

I reckon even "Good Goran" in the 90s would've destroyed a peak Nadal on a fast 90s grass court probably in straight sets. Bad Goran would've probably won in 5 sets.

I can only imagine what Sampras would do to a Nadal or Murray second serve in the 90s on a fast court.

Thanks! Glad you liked it.

Who is Good Goran?
All this fantasising about Nadal being easily being beaten by players from the past is rubbish.Players nowadays are more fitter and stronger.

Sergi Bruguera, Michael Chang and Thomas Muster were fitter than most players back then and all of them won the French Open, but did absolutely nothing on the fast grass courts against the likes of Becker, Edberg and later Goran Ivanisevic and Pete Sampras.

Grass and hardcourts have slowed down and balls are more fluffy which has allowed players like Murray, Nadal and Djokovic to compete on all surfaces, whereas in the 90s, these 3 players would be fighting for the French Open every year.

They may have won the odd hardcourt title like Courier and Kafelnikov did, but on a fast grass court, their incredibly slow serves and tactics of standing miles behind the baseline just would not have worked.

Only Agassi won Wimbledon from the back of the court in the 90s and he always took the ball extremely early, even then look what Sampras did to him in the 1999 final.

The Richard Mills article is a joke. There is no real argument there really, it is just a rant. Tennis has never been more popular than now, there has never been more money in it than now, tennis players have never been more revered and had never been greater ambassadors for sport in general, than now.
But Mr Mills chooses to call all those who can clearly see that 'the un-tennis masses', just because he thinks tennis should be played in some other way that he thinks is more exciting. Well, we can talk all day about what is more exciting but that is an argument we can never settle.

Today's top players are brilliant and this era should be rightly called golden era. That is not to say that other eras wern't golden as well, but why not allow for the possibility that there can be more than one such era?

I am sure in 10-20 years time, we will much better appreciate the greatness of players like Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray, not just individually but as a group of guys who moved tennis to another level. They needed each other to do that and that is why we are currently witnessing a golden era of tennis.

So Just true your hatred of Murray knows no bounds. SO if as you say it favours the best players at present, WHO would've outplayed and beat them on the old surfaces

Don't just go throwing in names, explain why anyone would have an advantage against the big 3 AND how they would exploit it?

Don't expect a rational response since it was just a usual anti -Murray rant

As suspected total crap with no rationale to back it up

Contrary to what you may believe Polly, not everyone tennis conversation begins and ends with Murray.

My point is the way Djokovic, Nadal and Murray play very similar to Chang, Muster and Bruguera (super-fit players that make you play one more shot than you'd like, standing miles behind the baseline, relying on other players tiring themselves out and making a mistake), were very successful on the slower clay courts, but did very little on the fast grass at Wimbledon (check their records if you don't believe me).

That's why winning all slams in the 90s was much harder than it is now, because of the contrast between grass and clay compared to now, even the most ardent fan of these players will have to admit that grass courts are much slower than they were in the 90s, unless they never watched tennis in the 90s (which is what I suspect, one poster asked "who is Goran?".

BTW Polly, Murray hasn't even won all 4 slams, so my opinions are not directed towards him alone, much more towards Nadal if you were to read and stop being a Murray-guard.

Now, Djokovic, Murray and Nadal do have some tools that could've won the odd hardcourt slam in the 90s and without doubt Nadal would've collected the French Open (though not as frequently), but as for Wimbledon, I don't think they would've stood a chance. None of these 3 players have shown they're capable to adapt their game to conquer the fast grass or hard courts, luckily for them the surfaces have changed to suit they're style, because a few armchair fans got upset that there weren't enough ralleys at Wimbledon in the 90s due to fast servers who always serve and volleyed.

Ironically, one of the most popular and memobrable Wimbledon Champions (Goran Ivanisevic in 2001) was a fast server and his matches were known not to have many ralleys at all, yet he won Overseas Sports Personality of the Year as he had character, he was flawed, unpredictable, the crowd loved him, but he never really lived up to his potential.

The truth was there was never a problem with the surfaces, just that the dominant player of the 90s (Pete Sampras) was not very charismatic and didn't spend too much time trying to play up to the crowd (why should he? He was getting the job done), but as a result, they've fluffed up the balls, slowed down the surfaces, stopped playing on carpet and hence have effectively destroyed serve and volley tennis.

I apologise, you make a very compelling, coherent andn intelligent arguement.

I do though think that These players we refer to have adjusted to the surfaces and are good enough to have played on the faster surfaces

The old grass courts would have made them play a more aggressive game and I think they all have that in them. They've become counter punchers cos the courts have allowed them to become so but nobody perhaps Delpo apart can play on the front foot better than the big 3

The system has allowed them to take a back step and feel their opponents out and wear them down through fitness and better ground strokes

Nadal's forehand would keep him in a match with any of the old greats on their surfaces, Djokovic's movement and dexterity could become very frustrating for anyone to play against and Andy's speed around the court with possibly the best 2 hander the game has ever seen would in my opinion keep them at least on a par with Goran et al

Goran struggled and without the heavens above would have lost to Henman

With all due respect to Tim, he himself would admit, He wasn't even close to the same level as the current big 3

Thanks Polly

I agree that Del Potro would've been much more successful had the surfaces been faster and that the trio of Murray, Djoko and Nadal would've been a handful in any era.

Goran was lucky against Henman and yes on any other surface, Henman was not close to the current big 3, but he was a real handful on the fast grass as he had such a great volleying game.

He beat the likes of Krajicek, young Federer, Todd Martin, Pat Rafter, Korda, Kafelnikov etc. on the fast grass and in 1998 and 1999, really took it to Sampras in the semis.

What is the difference between the article and just true's well put point Polbethian JFT96?

Comment deleted by Article Creator

Slight ott reaction. Nice welcoming attitude you have to new posters on this forum I see....

Comment deleted by Article Creator

Comment deleted by Article Creator

Comment deleted by Article Creator

SEEEEEEEEEEEEEXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX