Federer admits to tennis Golden Era

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

I love the recycling on 606v2. We are the most eco-friendly community discussing Tennis.

laverfan wrote:I love the recycling on 606v2. We are the most eco-friendly community discussing Tennis.

Thanks to Go green by SA, the amount Carbon released is so less for suffocation.

Simple_Analyst wrote: ... the very honest Roger Federer who ... has called this current era a " Golden Era" for tennis. ...

The full translation was ... has called this current era a "Golden Retriever Era" for tennis. ...

Laverfan, are you accusing Federer of not being honest? Remember you spent the day yesterday trying to prove he was honest about his interest as president of the players council.

Clearly Fed is mistaken - he said "everybody is talking happy". Presumably 'everybody' includes Rafa and Davy!
He also mixes up his tenses 'I thought...', 'we are in...'
Obviously the Swiss is a bit discombobulated at the moment.

So Julius you think his interest as president of players council is also mistaken? So possible he was untruthful?

No, we all know Federer is never mistaken, lies or loses a single point and his f*rts smell of roses. Davydenko said he was 'perfect' and I'm confident Davydenko never lies or is mistaken.

Good so Federer is being honest about this era is a Golden Era, a fact everyone knows and 2003-2007 a week era.

Sigh - if it makes you happy S_A, go for it. I'd rather you were happy, than argue with you.
The only question I would have is - was January 1st 2008 a weak or strong era?

The weak era ended with the emergences of the likes of Murray, Djokovic, Tsonga etc. Especially, it started fading away when a teenage Djokovic was mauling Federer at the USO
07 final before inexperience kicked in.

Hmmm , OK but in my spreadsheet I only have two categories - weak and strong - and I need to classify 1st Jan 2008.

So Julius which is which? Is Federer honest or not?

I've never met, or known of, a human being who's never lied. So I'm sure every tennis player has lied at some point, and Fed is no exception.
Feel free to jump up and down with joy at my admission.

Now please answer on Jan 1st 2008 - weak or strong?

Expect evasive side stepping JHMarx, it's the least we can expect from him!

Simple_Analyst wrote:Remember you spent the day yesterday trying to prove he was honest about his interest as president of the players council.

Your ability to comprehend English in the context of the article is rather lacking, IMVHO. Perhaps the following will serve as an example...

Asked for his response to the criticism from Nadal, who is the vice-president of the same body, he replied: “We can’t always agree on everything. But for me, obviously nothing changes in terms of our relationship. I’m completely cool and relaxed about it, and [when we talked about it] he seemed the same way.”

Tennis politics are notoriously hard to get a grip on, because no two players have exactly the same priorities. But the key issues being debated are twofold: prize-money for lower-ranked players at grand slams and the number of tournaments the leading players have to appear in.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I've never met, or known of, a human being who's never lied.

Is SA also included in this list, or is SA a machine and hence excluded from the 'human' list?

Let's campaign for SA to get Simon Reed's job! lol

I bet you, SA knows what Federer was doing at Sunday 15th of Jan at 11:16 am.

Laverfan so according to you Federer is honest about his intentions on the players council. So are you saying he is dishonest when he says tennis is in a Golden Era?

S_A are you planning to answer my 1st Jan 2008 question or not?

Simple_Analyst wrote:Laverfan so according to you Federer is honest about his intentions on the players council. So are you saying he is dishonest when he tennis is in a Golden Era?

Could somebody create a new smiley for :yawn: ?

Federer also said Nadal had no opinions of his own a few years ago on players council, was he scared of the old master still?

"We can't always agree on everything," Federer said. "So far it's always been no problem really. Back in the day he (Nadal) used to say, 'Whatever Roger decides, I'm fine with.'

"Today he's much more grown up. He has a strong opinion himself, which I think is great."

rofl

prostaff85 wrote:
Could somebody create a new smiley for :yawn: ?

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSl0SFsSixvFfW66fewDmrOW0wSPQVnktAAr7Yz-_039rvKoM43

lol

Simple_Analyst wrote:Laverfan so according to you Federer is honest about his intentions on the players council. So are you saying he is dishonest when he says tennis is in a Golden Era?

No, Federer is honest in both cases ( JHM ).

Every era a player is a part of, is a 'Golden' era for them, and is a 'strong' era. No player in their right mind will call it any other way. If you choose to believe otherwise, it is a very clear comprehension issue.

Do you understand the difference between 'stronger' and 'strong'? No one calls an era 'stronger', but 'strong', which prevents the conundrum that you so love.

There is no such thing as a non-Golden era.

But Federer himself said again competition was weak in the previous era, 2003-2007 so perhaps it was a weak era Laver?
The notion itself an era cannot be called "weak" is laughable. It's hardly disrespecting the achievements of flag barrers like Federer during the weak era, but a fair analysis of what the era really was.

Simple_Analyst wrote:But Federer himself said again competition was weak in the previous era, 2003-2007 so perhaps it was a weak era Laver?

Sorry, is that 2003-2007, or 30th Dec 2002 - 2nd Jan 2008?

SA please answer JuliusHmarx's question goshhh darrnnn ittttt! I'm putting off my coursework as it is and this may or may not help me start it but i am on tenterhooks to hear your response. JUST DO IT!! nike

Simple_Analyst wrote:But Federer himself said again competition was weak in the previous era, 2003-2007 so perhaps it was a weak era Laver?

Please provide a link and we will break it down for you.

Simple_Analyst wrote:The notion itself an era cannot be called "weak" is laughable. It's hardly disrespecting the achievements of flag barrers like Federer during the weak era, but a fair analysis of what the era really was.

You are already in a trap with JHM, LuvSports, and others for a calendar date for such 'eras', which you are unwilling/unable to provide. Dig a hole, that you have some chance of filling, otherwise you may end up in China, with the China Syndrome.

Are you also suggesting that an 'era' (starting @midnight, 31 dec 2007/1 Jan 2008) undergoes a 'miracle' to become either a 'golden' or a 'weak' era, and nothing else?

Are these the only adjectives in your vocabulary for describing the 'eras' as you want to define them?

Tru dat.

Off course the weak era to strong era and then Golden Era is a transition. The transition started from late 2007 so no Julius.

was it the moment novak reached his first slam final at the US? He then apparently as you said 'mauled' federer in that match before succumbing to nerves.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Off course the weak era to strong era and then Golden Era is a transition. The transition started from late 2007 so no Julius.

I see. Would that be for all surfaces? I noticed that the strong era players you mention - Murray, Djoko, Tsonga - have failed to reach a French Open final - indeed 2 of them are quite poor on clay. Is there a particular reason why, say, the clay season of 2008, well into the strong era, was much stronger than the clay season of 2007, which is well within the weak era?

LuvSport, I think you'll find the transition started 10th Sept 2007. It was an entirely weak era up to that point. S_A will correct me if I'm wrong.

There seems to be some confusion here.

A "period" would be a shortish period of time e.g. 2003-2007 which is what S_A seems to be getting at

An "era" implies by definition a timescale that could stretch in the order of hundreds of years so it appears Federer is wrong is his terminology and needs to find the right word for a length of time spanning the last decade.

Golden Decade I suppose then.

newballs wrote:Golden Decade I suppose then.

Better than Golden Period!!

I am not sure about how strong or poor eras were but please be nice with Wyse, he has had a terrible era of tennis. Since 2003, nearly a decade, he had to face up to the greatest domination of tennis by a tennis player he cannot stand to the point that his posts are no longer coherent and no-one here can quite follow the logic.

I woudl have hated to see nadal dominate tennis for 10 years and beat all records with most ease. Worse woudl have been to watch the fans and crowd cheering him while knowing how limited his game is. I guess that's where I differ with Wyse, I picked the right and noble horse and as a return was given the best 10 years of tennis as a spectator!

So please be kind with him.

What a loss it is to anyone denying themselves the enjoyment of the unique talent of Federer.

It must be like being unable to enjoy a Messi solo goal, a Tendulkar off-drive or a few years ago the artistry of Ali.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:Off course the weak era to strong era and then Golden Era is a transition. The transition started from late 2007 so no Julius.

I see. Would that be for all surfaces? I noticed that the strong era players you mention - Murray, Djoko, Tsonga - have failed to reach a French Open final - indeed 2 of them are quite poor on clay. Is there a particular reason why, say, the clay season of 2008, well into the strong era, was much stronger than the clay season of 2007, which is well within the weak era?

LuvSport, I think you'll find the transition started 10th Sept 2007. It was an entirely weak era up to that point. S_A will correct me if I'm wrong.

Julius, i have given enough education on the weak era in the past which as Federer fan, i understand doesn't sound too good to you so it's natural you fail to see them. The facts were established a long time ago about the weak era when hall of famers like Ljubicic and Blake were regular top 4 players. Now let me not dwell on that. Amritia post even had the time to say alot which unfortunately i don't any more due to a particular laziness to debate with long points.

Anyway, 2008 clay season was quite strong but unfortunately the mockery Federer made himself in that French Open 2008 finals makes it hard to analyse further just not to open old wounds of Federer fans. Nadal was again better than in 2007 during the clay season. However, your point about Tsonga, Djokovic, Murray not making a FO final is valid but know at that age, Murray and Djokovic for example were barely 20 years old yet Djokovic made the semi finals. At the same age Federer was getting mauled by Hicham Arazi in Round 1 of the FO. Infact Murray and Djokovic at this age, compared directly to Federer have far better FO records than him. They can only get better. So they are both better on clay than Federer was at this age.

I truly believe this is a brilliant period of tennis! We are so lucky and fortunate to have 4 tennis stars playing brilliant tennis all at the same time! Each rivalry brings intrigue and each match has its own story!

For Federer, of course the emergence of Nadal on all surfaces, and now Djokovic, sure has made life tough for the Swiss superstar. That's not to say Federer is a bad player in any way, i'm not criticising him, i'm just saying that the emergence of djokovic and nadal, combined with the demise of roddick, blake and co. has made life tougher rather than easier for the Swiss. No shame in this, Fed is still a great player.

amritia3ee wrote:I truly believe this is a brilliant period of tennis! We are so lucky and fortunate to have 4 tennis stars playing brilliant tennis all at the same time! Each rivalry brings intrigue and each match has its own story!

As you know, I'd agree with that if you said 3 stars instead of 4. I love watching Murray play, I love the variety of his play, but I can't put him anywhere near the other three.
It's a pity because I'm more of a Murray fan than any of the others. It's ironic when S_A refers to me as a Fed fan, when I'd much rather Murray win and I used to be rooting for Henman and Agassi to trounce Fed whenever they played.
But the players I've really been a fan of have long since retired, so I'm more of a Murray-leaning neutral these days.

Julius i guess you are a Murray fan then

To say 2003-2007 would have been a strong era for tennis had injuries not occured to Nalbandian, Hewitt and safin. I thought those players were good enough to make a competitive era had they played to their potential but unfortunately injuries did not help them. See 2003 for a example when David Nalbandian, a more talented player than Federer beat the Swiss at the AO and then at the USO with ease. Injuries kicked in. Hewitt, who was thrashing Federer at an uncomfortable rate was battling injuries too.
To call 2003-2007 as a Weak Era is not an attempt to bash any player but rather analysis certain periods of tennis. There is no shame in admitting it was a weak era.

Didn't Federer crush Nalbandian, Hewitt and Safin several times at slams during 2004 and 2005 at times when they were injury free? When they were injured they didn't play him. Actually they needed Federer to be injured to be able to beat him, like at MC 05.

Btw Nalbandian was certainly not more talented than Federer. Worse serve, worse forehand, other things being on par with Federer. Maybe his backhand was a bit better, but that's all. But it's a frequent error to overrate one's talent, when he doesn't have the results to rate. If you had to believe some people Safin and Nalbandian were magicians who just had to wave their magic wands, unfortunately they couldn't concentrate on the job.

No. Off and on injuries were their main downfalls. When playing to peak we saw what Hewitt and Nalbandian especially could so to Federer.

Chydremion wrote:Didn't Federer crush Nalbandian, Hewitt and Safin several times at slams during 2004 and 2005 at times when they were injury free? When they were injured they didn't play him. Actually they needed Federer to be injured to be able to beat him, like at MC 05.

Btw Nalbandian was certainly not more talented than Federer. Worse serve, worse forehand, other things being on par with Federer. Maybe his backhand was a bit better, but that's all. But it's a frequent error to overrate one's talent, when he doesn't have the results to rate. If you had to believe some people Safin and Nalbandian were magicians who just had to wave their magic wands, unfortunately they couldn't concentrate on the job.

Nalbandian was certainly more talented than Federer. Even until injuries played a heavy role is his career he almost alway had the better of the Swiss. Have a look at their days as Juniors for starters. He was talented than Federer however, fitness and injury issues just did not help him. Federer however blossomed in this field especially by hiring the services of fitness guru Paganini to make him fitter than all those players and it worked miracles in his game. Were those players lucky with injuries, 2003-2007 wouldn't have been a weak era.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Julius i guess you are a Murray fan then

Not a huge fan the way I was of Henman, but I really want him to win a slam or two, and he's got to start ASAP or it ain't going to happen.
Ideally I'd like Rafa (AO & USO) and Fed (FO) to both complete career double slams this year, but that would only leave Wimby for Murray and since I doubt he can ever win that, it's got to be the AO. C'mon Andy!

Simple_Analyst wrote:To call 2003-2007 as a Weak Era is not an attempt to bash any player but rather analysis certain periods of tennis.

No, it's not like you would ever bash Fed. You hate the guy! Or maybe you just hate his fans, or some of his fans, but you do love to bash Fed!
Otherwise, why just put 2003-2007 = weak era, but when pushed you eventually, reluctantly admit some vague transition period, which may start sometime in 2007. It's the same way Blake's 5 months in the top 5 get used to encompass several years of an 'era'
Is this top 9 'weak'?
1. Federer, Roger
2 Roddick, Andy
3 Hewitt, Lleyton
4 Safin, Marat
5 Moya, Carlos
6 Henman, Tim
7 Coria, Guillermo
8 Agassi, Andre
9 Nalbandian, David

Julius good to know my FO educations on Murray, Djokovic and Federer has drawn a muted response from you. I decided to log on here with my laptop and explain a few things to you. Otherwise, using the phone makes me lazy to type alot.

Well the list you provided shows an impressive line up but then again i admitted Hewitt, Nalby, Safin etc were good players who wouldn't
have made it a weak era but they were all battling injuries and never played to their potential. That ranking should be 2004 i guess?

Simple_Analyst wrote:Julius good to know my FO educations on Murray, Djokovic and Federer has drawn a muted response from you.

I should probably have read that bit, but it all seemed a bit waffly, something to do with how getting to a quarter-final when you're 21 is better than winning it when you're older?

P.S. I'm sorry I dragged you to your laptop. I'd no idea you'd take it that seriously. Please don't spend too much time typing on my account.

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.

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.