Kinda puts things into perspective

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by dangalak, Oct 4, 2012.

  1. dangalak

    dangalak Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    Messages:
    608
    That was in 2004 when Federer had only 2 majors to his name. Lo and behold, they were spouting the same drivel about "the current era being the strongest it's ever been" when today, many people consider that era to be a transition era of sorts. An era where the likes of Gaudio could win majors.

    http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=6936267&postcount=23

    Full Interview.
     
    #1
  2. roberttennis54

    roberttennis54 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    695
    Commentators and ex pros are going to try and sell the sport by promoting the current era.

    Ironically tennis did not seem to get this around 94/95 etc. They kept pining for the old golden age. The serve was thought to be too dominant.

    Nor in my lifetime has any player been called the best ever at such a young age in both achievement and success.

    Again think about how crazy it is for a player, who has never been no 1, has only 1 slam final to be called the best ever.
     
    #2
  3. dangalak

    dangalak Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    Messages:
    608
    Pretty sure he had 2 by then.

    What I'm trying to say is,people should calm down about the "modern era" being oh so superior. :lol: They might look silly infront of history.
     
    #3
  4. roberttennis54

    roberttennis54 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    695
    When Federer had two it increased, but people like Mcenroe and Rafter were calling him the best ever after he had one.

    Depends on what you mean by the modern era. Tennis now is definitely superior to the 20s, 30s etc just due to numbers that play the game. Players now are also much fitter. That apart in terms of pure tennis skill not much has changed in the last 22 years. Racquets and strings allow more to be done, hence you need to watch an era to fully understand how special a player is.
     
    #4
  5. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,516
    In that interview he doesn't say though that Federer is the best ever (it's only 2004 it'd be premature since Fed didn't have the records he has now) but rather that he's got the most complete game (best playing level), hence being the greatest player Drysdale has seen.
     
    #5
  6. roberttennis54

    roberttennis54 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    695
    Well a guy with 2 slams cannot be called the greatest ever, but he maybe the best ever. That's the point though. Federer with 1 slam was being called the Best Ever player. This is a unique case, which I have not seen before a since.
     
    #6

Share This Page