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

Simple_Analyst wrote:Lol i thought you were mocking the clay cridentials of Murray, Djokovic, Tsonga and boldly stating two of them are quite poor on clay when Murray for example at the same age as Federer is a better clay court player at the FO.

Although at age 19 Fed had a FO 4th round and QF compared to Murray's 1st round - age comparisons are all a bit meaningless - a nice bit of trivia, but they don't mean much. I hope Murray ends up with more FO titles than Fed, but that is seriously unlikely.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Ok Julius so perhaps we could wrap this up. Federer has admitted this is a Golden Era for tennis and with his previous branding of the 2003-2007 era not strong and with detail analysis, it was weak era.

If it'll wrap it up I'll call tennis in 2003-2007 the weakest era of any professional sport ever!

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:Lol i thought you were mocking the clay cridentials of Murray, Djokovic, Tsonga and boldly stating two of them are quite poor on clay when Murray for example at the same age as Federer is a better clay court player at the FO.

Although at age 19 Fed had a FO 4th round and QF compared to Murray's 1st round - age comparisons are all a bit meaningless - a nice bit of trivia, but they don't mean much. I hope Murray ends up with more FO titles than Fed, but that is seriously unlikely.

You see facts are meaningless when it doesn't help your case. You should have confirmed Murray's performances to Federer first before coming up with laughable comments. Federer has 1 FO title, a lucky one. Murray could as well get lucky like him and win 2.

Aw gee, I thought we'd wrapped it up.

Well you coming up with even more laughable comments which needs addressing.

I've got two envelopes that need addressing. Do you have any stamps?

Julius at least i gave you some tennis lessons. Seems our other friends have fled the thread once again. Never heard from Laverfan again.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Julius at least i gave you some tennis lessons.

You're too, too kind.

lol

I can't believe I breathe the same oxygen as SA.

Please remind me of Nadal's score in the last 6 matches with Novak?

Thanks

Is Baghdatis getting free Tennis lessons from SA, too?

Sometimes i wonder how Baghdatis ever made a slam final. Ok player make no mistake, a fighter on court but certainly his only quality on court. Worst of all he made the weakest slam ever held, AO 06 final from what ranking again? 55?

I wonder the same thing about Chris Lewis.

And Johansson...and many other 1-hit wonders...

Weakest slam final ever?

Thought that was the one Pistol Pete wasn't able to make when his buddie Malivia Washington somehow gatecrashed proceedings. Now that must have been a weak era.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Sometimes i wonder how Baghdatis ever made a slam final. Ok player make no mistake, a fighter on court but certainly his only quality on court. Worst of all he made the weakest slam ever held, AO 06 final from what ranking again? 55?

Perhaps a bit of history is in order. From 1997...

Consider this: Since open tennis began in 1968, there have been 18 unseeded finalists in Grand Slam singles events, which averages to far less than one per year. This year alone there have been four unseeded finalists: Carlos Moya, who lost to Sampras at the Australian Open; Kuerten; Pioline, who lost to Sampras at Wimbledon; and Greg Rusedski, who lost to Rafter in four sets Sunday in the U.S. Open final.

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/09/10/sports/10iht-tennis.t_6.html

is this argument still kicking? even if we grant simple analyst orgiastic dream of labelling 2003-2007 a weak era, Federer still won four slams from 2008-2011. that is 1/4th of the slams on offer.

not bad going i would say, whatever the era.

Borg, Connors, McEnroe, et al, would gladly have that kind of win rate.

coolpixel wrote:

not bad going i would say, whatever the era.

From 2003-2010 winning at least one slam is a tremendous achievement, so is winning at least one slam from 2005-2011, eras notwithstanding.

Laverfan i should rather give you tennis history lessons? What are you suggesting first of all?

Let us start from the very basic historical fact. Do you know how many players were seeded in slams for the years you mentioned for the laughable comparison to Baghdatis?

Rudeski.
15 career titles.1 Masters won
Cedric Ploline. 5 career titles, 1 masters won, 2 slam finals.
Carlos Moya - Do you want to be educated on him?
Kuerten - Seriously?

All the players you mentioned have proved within their careers a particular feat of making slam finals seeded or not was certainly not due to weak competition.

Marco Baghdatis who by the way won 4 career titles 1 ATP 500 the highlight suddenly had the quality to make the finals of AO 2006. It's a miracle!

Chris Lewis anyone?

Simple_Analyst wrote:Laverfan i should rather give you tennis history lessons? What are you suggesting first of all?

I have much better, balanced history teachers on 606v2, and have no desire that a mediocrity pollute such excellent historians.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Cedric Ploline. 5 career titles, 1 masters won, 2 slam finals.

10 Career titles, Paris Masters, 2 slam finals. . Managed to beat the greatest clay courter till now at FO 2009 (that is a 'strong' era - by your own admission ).

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Robin-Soderling.aspx?t=tf

Simple_Analyst wrote:Marco Baghdatis who by the way won 4 career titles 1 ATP 500 the highlight suddenly had the quality to make the finals of AO 2006. It's a miracle!

Here is what the mighty Rod Laver said of Baghdatis....

"'Baghdatis certainly seems to have what it takes,' said Laver. 'He moves so well and obviously has a great temperament. No sign of panic.'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2006/jan/29/tennis.comment1

Edit: BTW, Baghdatis beat Gimelstob (R1), Stepanek (R2 - 5 sets), Gremelmayr (R3), Roddick (R4 - 4 sets), Ljubicic (QF - 5 sets), Nalbandian (SF - 5 sets) to get to the final. No mean feat.

SA has been caught in LF nets...or vice versa! ouch!

Tenez wrote:SA has been caught in LF nets...or vice versa! ouch!

Respect for a player, no matter how 'small' (in terms of achievements) that player is, who has become a professional on ATP, is all that is asked.

laverfan wrote:Respect for a player, no matter how 'small' (in terms of achievements) that player is, who has become a professional on ATP, is all that is asked.

Laverfan first of all you failed to answer the basic historical tennis seeding question i asked.

You then proceeded to give me a link of Rod Laver's comment on Baghdatis, somehow as a conclusive proof of his Tennis Hall of Fame talent. Suprising to be honest, considering the very basis of this article has been a quote by Federer of this being a Golden Era for tennis which you wasted no time in dismissing yet provided a Laver's quote to show how great a player Baghdatis is. I'm taking by Laver's comment, very kind of him. He has a great temperament, No sign of panic? All tennis talents i guess. Did he have anything else to say about his actual tennis game? He said he moves well or runs well? Which is which?

Do i need to give you more lessons? Well apparently you punlished the names of players Marco beat. That's not even the point. The fact is 2006 was particularly a very weak era for tennis. The AO was even a disaster to start with. A player of Baghdatis' non-quality at the time shouldn't be making the finals of his Sunday Tennis Club tournament let alone a slam.

No one is disrespecting any player here, just saying the facts of the case.

To make it more laughable, he attempted to besmirch the good name of Wimbledon as a great slam by making the Semi finals well where Rafael Nadal off course put some sense and quality back to the tour that year.

I vaguely recall a non-seed with only 3 career titles reaching a Slam final in 2005. At least Baghdatis wasn't that bad.

And has any mentioned Chris Lewis?

Simple_Analyst wrote:
first of all you failed to answer the basic historical tennis seeding question i asked.

Please read....
http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/event_guide/history/draws/2006_MS_1_3.html

Simple_Analyst wrote:That's not even the point.

So what was the point of this article, getting you to type characters on your PC?

Simple_Analyst wrote:The AO was even a disaster to start with.

Would you provide any historical evidence for such a statement?

Simple_Analyst wrote: A player of Baghdatis' non-quality at the time shouldn't be making the finals of his Sunday Tennis Club tournament let alone a slam.

Henman lost in R1 at AO 2006. Moya (seeded 32) lost in the first round at the same slam. You are talking about the quality of slams in 2006. What is the measure of quality in 2006 on the SA scale?

Anyone who was at the 2006 AO was there because that player had the ability to reach such a stage. A slam has 127 losers, so be respectful for the 127.

Simple_Analyst wrote:No one is disrespecting any player here, just saying the facts of the case.
shouldn't be making the finals of his Sunday Tennis Club tournament

Is this your concept of respect?

Simple_Analyst wrote:To make it more laughable, he attempted to besmirch the good name of Wimbledon as a great slam by making the Semi finals well where Rafael Nadal off course put some sense and quality back to the tour that year.

Is this, yet again, the concept of respect that you have for a tennis player?

Laverfan, have you abandoned the great Laver's comments? That wasn't going to go well for you was it?

Of course that wasn't the point. The point was a player of Baghdatis non-quality shouldn't be making slams finals. Do you know how old Henman and Moya were in 2006? The measure of quality of course was the likes of Ljubicic, Blake etc besmirching the top 5 and Dabydenko soiling the top 4.
The disaster at the AO? Surely Baghdatis making the finals? Nadal was even injured for that tournament.
Any one who was ranked 55 something is it? and making the finals was there because it was shockingly poor year for tennis, quality and competitveness wise.
Yes that's respect, what do you think it is? At least i'm respectful enough to tell the truth about that player.

"shouldn't be making the finals of his Sunday Tennis Club tournament" is the respectful truth? Can someone get S_A a dictionary please.

Oh dear, these threads SA is setting up are turning into gold mines of comedy gold! Masses of entertainment, all courtesy of SA. I hope you continue SA, just for the comic value of it all!

luciusmann wrote:Oh dear, these threads SA is setting up are turning into gold mines of comedy gold! Masses of entertainment, all courtesy of SA. I hope you continue SA, just for the comic value of it all!

How dare you lucius? They're tennis lessons, I tell you, tennis lessons!

Luciusmann is here. Have you come accuse me of insulting another poster? Probably the only useful thing you add to a thread.
I agree on the comedy part though. The mockery i'm making of Laverfan's posts in particular is hilarious. She has since fled since linking a quote from Laver here.

Simple_Analyst wrote:The mockery i'm making of Laverfan's posts in particular is hilarious.

S_A you're a master of self-amuse.

Did you really mean to say aMuse?

bogbrush wrote:Did you really mean to say aMuse?

It's one of my favourite word-plays - made it up myself and I'll fight anyone who says otherwise.

I, at one time was all for these era arguments but not any more as they are well nigh impossible to agree on so many fronts such as what is an era? How long does an era run for? How can one era be different from another era if virtually the same players are playing in it? How can you judge one era to another when variables change such as court speeds and equipment?

Simple_Analyst wrote:Luciusmann is here. Have you come accuse me of insulting another poster? Probably the only useful thing you add to a thread.
I agree on the comedy part though. The mockery i'm making of Laverfan's posts in particular is hilarious. She has since fled since linking a quote from Laver here.

Oh dear SA, I don't need to accuse, the threads where you have abused others in the past exist (I provided two threads alone the other day). Anyone who reads your posts would easily surmise you're the sort of poster who might resort to that sort of skulduggery. After all, let's be honest, most of your threads and posts are hardly posts of great intellect and are usually flawed. Much easier to abuse others or what you recently done, ignore posts which undermine your case.

I don't blame you, it's a sensible approach. An even better one might be not to post the useless drivel of non sense in the first place, but I think you might be trying to convince yourself, so if it makes you happy, please continue. You're most certainly not convincing anyone else. The rest of us will be thoroughly amused by you.

Which thread? The one which says the Pope is not catholic or the one which says erm... what is it again? You said i called you a liar?

Simple_Analyst wrote:The point was a player of Baghdatis non-quality shouldn't be making slams finals.

Quality is winning matches, no matter when. He won six matches at the slam. That is the ultimate measure of quality, not some mediocre historian viewpoint.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Do you know how old Henman and Moya were in 2006?

Do you know who played the finals of Tokyo 2006? Or Queens 2006 SF? Do you know the winner of Buenos Aires 2006?

Simple_Analyst wrote:The disaster at the AO? Surely Baghdatis making the finals?

Look at the definition I have given. Think about it.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Nadal was even injured for that tournament.

Why are you bringing Nadal into this?

Simple_Analyst wrote:Any one who was ranked 55 something is it? and making the finals was there because it was shockingly poor year for tennis, quality and competitveness wise.

Same year Nadal won FO 2006. Can you name the other finalist at FO 2006?

Simple_Analyst wrote:Yes that's respect, what do you think it is? At least i'm respectful enough to tell the truth about that player.

Rather tragic is what it is.

Jeee SA, I'm curious, how old are you? I only ask because I find it hard to believe your memory can really be that bad. It wouldn't surprise if it was though (it would explain a lot).

Simple_Analyst wrote:... Dabydenko soiling the top 4.

Is this the same "Dabydenko" that you use on this thread? Read your own comments.

https://www.606v2.com/t21934-davydenko-hits-out-at-federer

Of course it's him. What has his demands and interest got to do with this?

Simple_Analyst wrote:Of course it's him. What has his demands and interest got to do with this?

I do not think your lack of English language should prevent you from understanding the meaning of the word 'respect' for a player of his caliber. WTF 2009?

Of course i respect all players who wouldn't?

Simple_Analyst wrote:Of course i respect all players who wouldn't?

That should include Ljubicic, Blake, Safin, Hewitt, .... ?

Now can we wrap this 'Wee Keira' stuff, once and for all and refrain from player abuse?

So you think the fact that 2003-2007 was a weak era is disrespectful? Laverfan, how will you feel if i say you can enter AO this year and win? Don't you think i'll be mocking you and disrespecting too? Now if i said you won't win, am i not being respectful and honest of your chances?

By the way where is Luciusman? He said i was insulting the Real Madrid manager by stating the fact he is being dominated by the Barca manager. Does he know the result of tonights match?

Simple_Analyst wrote:So you think the fact that 2003-2007 was a weak era is disrespectful?

No 'era' (since there is no agreement on definitions) is 'weak'. Period.

Simple_Analyst wrote:how will you feel if i say you can enter AO this year and win? Don't you think i'll be mocking you and disrespecting too?

No, that is encouragement for me to work harder and try to win it. I can only dream, though.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Now if i said you won't win, am i not being respectful and honest of your chances?

That is an opinion, and others may disagree with you.

I can state unequivocally that Fish will not win AO 2012, which is neither disrespectful nor dishonest. That is a statement of fact. Deal with facts, not speculation.

Fact - Baghdatis played the 2006 AO Final. Speculation - Baghdatis is bad quality player.

Oh ok so i'm not being disrespectful as you accused me of then?

I'm here SA, I'm bored of replying to all of your posts though. I noted Barca won tonight.

Can you remind who's top of the La Liga? Last time I checked, it wasn't Barca although they did beat Real again. The cup Real won last year by beating Barca might now be won by them and the league trophy Barca won last year is going to be won by Real Madrid (from the looks of it). I know which one matters more and it isn't the one Barca looks like winning.

Domination is not a 'fact' just because you assert it is. You appear to have such a black and white outlook is perhaps a better explanation about why you're so obsessed with ramming your opinions down people's throat. It's revealing you use emotionally laden language to assert your 'facts' when facts most usually are not expressed in that way. Why is that? Dressing up your opinions as 'fact's isn't going to fool anyone either. All that posters ask is you don't pretend to dress up these opinions as facts. Your lucky most posters are more charitable than me, most of what I read from you is useless drivels of non sense.

Luciusman but this is how the record reads for the Real Madrid manager since coming to Spain and played against Barca manager.
Played 9, lost 6, drawn 3, won 1.
As a Federer fan i know dominations are concepts you don't like but they are facts.