Federer admits to tennis Golden Era

First topic message reminder :

It must be hard for the very honest Roger Federer who doesn't like people having opinions to admit but the Swiss has called this current era a " Golden Era" for tennis. This further reafirms praises of the quality of the mens game and echoes the same sentiments shared by tennis luminaries like Borg, McEnroe etc who have compared this era of tennis to the Golden years of the 80s.

Sadly though, this just also confirms the era 2003-2007 as a weak era as Federer implied.
Now if only he could be this truthful about his interest as the president of the players council, all will be good again.




"I thought we’re going in a good
direction,” he said. “I thought the
game was healthy. We’re in a golden
era right now. Everybody is happy,
talking positive.”


www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/australianopen/9018227/Australian-Open-2012-Nikolay-Davydenko-blasts-perfect-Roger-Federer-as-row-rumbles-on.html

The context in which you're using 'domination' is not as a concept, you're simply using a word to describe a rivalry, what on earth is a concept needed for to describe that? Just more babble talk, which suggests you're clueless in your use of English.

You've constantly gone on about how you're free from bias, if that's the case, why the need to use emotionally laden language? Most media organisations would refer to a H2H which is heavily slanted to one side as lopsided or one sided, I've never read the word 'domination' used by any media outlet. I'm very attuned to the word domination, is that what you would call the Nadal vs Djokovic rivalry last year (as you are rather fond of that word)?

I'm a Barcelona fan in any case, so I'm pleased they are doing so well. As I also know though, doing well against one team is not enough to win trophies. Ask Nadal, he has a great H2H vs Fed (even if it's mostly achieved through clay court victories) but when it comes to slams, Fed leads by a mile. The overall picture matters more than some of the details (which will only be caveats in the footnotes). As they say in English (which describes you're approach very well), you can't see the forest for the trees. I've lost count of how many times this has happened with you.

I think everybody is entitled of his own opinion......

The fact that the era 2003 - 2007 was weak is debatable. I, personally, think it was, in average weaker than others 5 years periods, the reason being the overall profile of the top six players, outside Fedal, was lower than in others periods.

Where SA riducules himself, is when he wants to convince people the next five year period (2007-2012) is not only different, but radically different from the previous.

In fact it is obvious that more and less the same protagonists are running the show.

luciusmann wrote: Ask Nadal, he has a great H2H vs Fed (even if it's mostly achieved through clay court victories)

And outdoor hard.
Sorry lol couldn't resist adding to your point there. Now to the debate going on...

I don't think any era with Roger Federer playing is weak; but I would say that if Roger Federer randomly stopped playing, and nadal was banned from playing matches on clay, then yes the period between around 2003-2007 would be a weak era.
Apart from Nadal on clay, Federer was cruising. And btw SA, i believe Fed is more talented than Nalbandian.

can SA be banned? i am aware that banning is for extreme behaviour, but surely this is extreme behaviour? piling on the same garbage for nearly 10 years, which the majority of tennis followers dont accept?

Simple_Analyst wrote:As a Federer fan i know dominations are concepts you don't like but they are facts.

As I have stated previously, dominations seem to be the only note in your trumpet. Once you use that as a stick, it can be used to dominate you as well. Be careful of the hole you dig for yourself.

coolpixel wrote:can SA be banned? i am aware that banning is for extreme behaviour, but surely this is extreme behaviour? piling on the same garbage for nearly 10 years, which the majority of tennis followers dont accept?

CP. Having an opinion, contrary to the majority, is not grounds for a ban.

Edit:

coolpixel wrote:piling on the same garbage for nearly 10 years,

One can always ignore garbage, or clean it up.

coolpixel wrote:can SA be banned? i am aware that banning is for extreme behaviour, but surely this is extreme behaviour? piling on the same garbage for nearly 10 years, which the majority of tennis followers dont accept?

No, personally i think S_A just like the BNP should have the democratic right to hold his extreme views and express them openly for public ridicule whenever he wants.

I don't think Simple Analyst actually posts on here anymore. In fact I suspect he has been dead for a while.

I think he is a twisted genius and before his departure or demise he set up a simple computer program that would keep repeating the same arguments ad infinitum, but he only remembered to program about 5 possible types of article into it.

coolpixel wrote:can SA be banned? i am aware that banning is for extreme behaviour, but surely this is extreme behaviour? piling on the same garbage for nearly 10 years, which the majority of tennis followers dont accept?

Well the thing is I don't know how SA can call the 'era' weak, forgetting that Federer was playing.
As I said if Federer (+Nadal on clay) was banned in this period he would have a point.

As for him being banned, I don't think he gives as much grief to Fed fans as Tenez does to Nadal fans.

amritia3ee wrote:
As for him being banned, I don't think he gives as much grief to Fed fans as Tenez does to Nadal fans.

Is 'relative grief' measurement to be used for banning posters?

laverfan wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:
As for him being banned, I don't think he gives as much grief to Fed fans as Tenez does to Nadal fans.

Is 'relative grief' measurement to be used for banning posters?

Recovery was my younger brother who got onto my computer. :

Anyway as for this debate, I request if we are comparing the eras, can we use my thread from a few weeks ago.
Firstly it means there isn't more articles created discussing the same thing, and secondly I want my article to have more comments. https://www.606v2.com/t20972-the-truth-2006vs2011-and-special-analysis-of-roger-federer#808277

armrita not sure it's politically correct to so openly tout for business on someone else's thread.

If anyone watched last night's Game, Set and Mats though feel free to look for my thread on the subject and advise just what has happened to Mr. M. Wilander.

Can you provide the link to your article newballs?

Certainly. Only to happy to oblige:

https://www.606v2.com/t21987-mats-takes-a-sickie

newballs wrote:Certainly. Only to happy to oblige:

https://www.606v2.com/t21987-mats-takes-a-sickie

Disgraceful, you shouldn't be posting links to your article in other's people's threads.

amritia3ee wrote:
Recovery was my younger brother who got onto my computer. :

That saga is still being written...

amritia3ee wrote:Anyway as for this debate, I request if we are comparing the eras, can we use my thread from a few weeks ago.
Firstly it means there isn't more articles created discussing the same thing, and secondly I want my article to have more comments. https://www.606v2.com/t20972-the-truth-2006vs2011-and-special-analysis-of-roger-federer#808277

SA's computer is working on an algorithm to define 'eras'. 2006 and 2011 are very well defined though.

amritia shameful solicitation then you don't even let me in on what's up with Mats.

At least some of us try to inform on this site!

newballs wrote:At least some of us try to inform on this site!

and

amritia3ee wrote:

laverfan wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:
As for him being banned, I don't think he gives as much grief to Fed fans as Tenez does to Nadal fans.

Is 'relative grief' measurement to be used for banning posters?

Recovery was my younger brother who got onto my computer. :

Anyway as for this debate, I request if we are comparing the eras, can we use my thread from a few weeks ago.
Firstly it means there isn't more articles created discussing the same thing, and secondly I want my article to have more comments. https://www.606v2.com/t20972-the-truth-2006vs2011-and-special-analysis-of-roger-federer#808277

I heard a different story

Re Recovery that is

i have read just one post on recovery / amritia on MTL but i dont think we need to rehash the entire story here do we?

So i should be banned because some Fedworshippers don't like my analysis of facts?

Laverfan got educated well yesterday, she won't copy and paste links for some time i guess.

Luciusmann, so domination leads to winning trophies? So what exactly is Barca doing ? Good to know you are Basel... oh i mean Barca fan.

You're a tiresome bore SA. I'd ban you for that, which is why I'm not a mod. Sadly you're allowed to be a tedious blowhard on the forums, so there's nothing anyone can do about it.

Every comedian needs some new material every so often.

Simple_Analyst wrote:So i should be banned because some Fedworshippers don't like my analysis of facts?

Nice one - analysis of facts? Do you read your own posts? What you say tends to follow a distinct pattern which was highlighted by another poster (likened to how it is to talk to a child). You state your opinion, you then use some evidence (rarely explaining how it supports your view more than anyone else's) and occasionally it includes some analysis. You hardly ever analysis the facts, you simply assert the facts support your case and no else's. You call that analysis? Where's the analysis in that? Either you haven't grasped what analysis means in English or you been poorly educated, take your pick. It's a joke you even used 'analysis' in your user name, perhaps we should shorten it down to give the more accurate description of most of your posts?

Maybe banning you is a harsh sentence. In Athens they used to have something called an ostracism, which banned potentially dangerous and troublesome citizens from the city for 10 years by a vote of all citizens. Perhaps we could have something similar (perhaps 10 months instead)? After all, Athens was a democracy when it enacted it and it's actually very sensible.

Too bad djlovesyou, if you were of any use to the forum, you'll have been made a mod but you certainly are not. Besides your professional sport career will keep you too busy to do your job

Luciusmann, we are in a new century now. Studying Latin does funny things to people's mentality.

Tell that to the Pope.

They never spoke Latin in Athens, Greek (or Ancient Greek, predominantly), get your facts @ the very least correct.

More masses of irrelevance from you SA. As I stated very clearly before (ignoring what I've said again), most of my degree did not involve the study of Latin. It's the philosophy modules I studied which have shown me how weak you're opinions and positions are. Studying philosophy is by no means necessary to realise how weak they are though, common sense will do.

If you're so impartial and free of bias SA, why have you never been made a mod? Opps, only you think you're impartial and free of bias!

Lol are you going to lecture me about Latin?

I'll let the Pope do that, his Latin is flawless. You appear to have an obsession with Latin, why? I'd recommend you stick to tennis but your knowledge of that isn't much better either.

coolpixel wrote:i have read just one post on recovery / amritia on MTL but i dont think we need to rehash the entire story here do we?

I assure you I will do everything I can to make life uncomfortable for Na***ss/Bour**; they're absolute d*ckheads, especially about Nadal. Of course I will face the consequences for what I do, but this doesn't matter to me.
And don't worry Laver, I will be perfectly well-behaved on v2 , as long as those two idiots don't join. Which they won't.

Anyway Luciusmann, like you I also study Latin, perhaps we can talk in Latin from now on.

Will like to see that.

We probably would manage to get more agreement in Latin between us (a Nadal fan and a Federer fan) than SA manages to get in English any time.

luciusmann wrote:We probably would manage to get more agreement in Latin between us (a Nadal fan and a Federer fan) than SA manages to get in English any time.

I just wanted to say that I am a great lover of latin too and would fancy immensely to take part to a latin group within the tennis forum:

"Odi et amo. Quare id faciam, fortasse requiris. Nescio, sed fieri sentio et excrucior"

Beati pauperes spiritu!

To quoque ?

amritia3ee wrote:

coolpixel wrote:i have read just one post on recovery / amritia on MTL but i dont think we need to rehash the entire story here do we?

I assure you I will do everything I can to make life uncomfortable for Na***ss/Bour**; they're absolute d*ckheads, especially about Nadal.

You seem to have lost the ability to be even civil to fellow posters. Is that what this conversation is all about, Nadal's legacy? BTW, your following comment does not inspire confidence either.

amritia3ee wrote:Of course I will face the consequences for what I do, but this doesn't matter to me.

A very far-reaching conclusion.

amritia3ee wrote:And don't worry Laver, I will be perfectly well-behaved on v2 , as long as those two idiots don't join. Which they won't.

Such condescension does not bode well on v2 either.

amritia3ee wrote:Anyway Luciusmann, like you I also study Latin, perhaps we can talk in Latin from now on.

Perhaps a new Latin Tennis thread is on order. Let us leave MTL discussion on MTL.

laverfan wrote:

You seem to have lost the ability to be even civil to fellow posters.

Lost? lol Maybe I would be civil to Nameless if he didn't make pervy jokes about me.

On MTL I'm like a freedom fighter, fighting against the oppression like Nelson Mandela (even he had to go to jail); on 606v2 I'm the Director of Education appointer. Luciusmann is the freedom fighter, using his knowledge of ancient languages to fight for freedom.

amritia3ee wrote:

coolpixel wrote:i have read just one post on recovery / amritia on MTL but i dont think we need to rehash the entire story here do we?

I assure you I will do everything I can to make life uncomfortable for Na***ss/Bour**; they're absolute d*ckheads, especially about Nadal. Of course I will face the consequences for what I do, but this doesn't matter to me.
And don't worry Laver, I will be perfectly well-behaved on v2 , as long as those two idiots don't join. Which they won't.

Anyway Luciusmann, like you I also study Latin, perhaps we can talk in Latin from now on.

??

The only language you know is Gibberish, take no notice of this pent-up cheerleader is my answer.

Josiah Maiestas wrote: Take no notice of this cheerleader is my answer.

I'm not a cheerleader, stop calling me that.

amritia3ee wrote:

laverfan wrote:

You seem to have lost the ability to be even civil to fellow posters.

Lost? lol Maybe I would be civil to Nameless if he didn't make pervy jokes about me.

On MTL I'm like a freedom fighter, fighting against the oppression like Nelson Mandela (even he had to go to jail); on 606v2 I'm the Director of Education appointer. Luciusmann is the freedom fighter, using his knowledge of ancient languages to fight for freedom.

Comparing yourself to Nelson Mandela

Funny stuff

Peaches wrote:Funny stuff

..as well as pathetic!

Well what he did was on a larger scale, I'll admit that.
Anyway Peaches, do you want to be deputy freedom fighter (Luciusmann is freedom fighter) on 606v2? How many ancient languages do you know?

Tenez wrote:
..as well as pathetic!

Bit like Nadal's attempt of trying to play tennis, no

Peaches wrote:Funny stuff

Belated welcome to 606v2, Peaches.

laverfan wrote:

Peaches wrote:Funny stuff

Belated welcome to 606v2, Peaches.

Thank you Laverfan

I like Latin too! Much prefer it to ballroom.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I like Latin too! Much prefer it to ballroom.

Dancing with JHM.

Anyway as for this debate, I request if we are comparing the eras, can we use my thread from a few weeks ago.
Firstly it means there isn't more articles created discussing the same thing, and secondly I want my article to have more comments.
____________________________
Amritia, you yourself created several articles a few weeks back that should have been added to existing threads in my opinion since they were just continuing the debate. By the way, the articles that get the most comments are rarely the best.

I do agree with on one thing. Nameless and Bourne. I've already told them both not to bother debating with me any more.

I think you should at least consider leaving MTL to be honest. Not because you're worse than them or deserve to leave, but because you are simply outnumbered by their clique (is that the right word?) and not wanted there. They have taken sides, and they don't like you. If you're going stay at least don't do it just to antagonise, that is not helpful.

Henman Bill wrote:I think you should at least consider leaving MTL to be honest. Not because you're worse than them or deserve to leave, but because you are simply outnumbered by their clique (is that the right word?) and not wanted there. They have taken sides, and they don't like you. If you're going stay at least don't do it just to antagonise, that is not helpful.

We love him here!

Henman Bill wrote: If you're going stay at least don't do it just to antagonise, that is not helpful.

May I gently nudge you in discussing this via PM with Amritia3ee.

@Amritia3ee - Also, becoming a member of 606v2 to antagonise other posters on 606v2 is also not helpful. (hint hint...).