Kinda puts things into perspective

[dangalak]

Tennis Week: So are you of the opinion that the players of today, the depth of the game, the quality of play is superior to any other era of tennis?

Cliff Drysdale: Yes, absolutely. There's no doubt that tennis, the men's game, is better than it's ever been. It's at its best right now. This is an exciting time for tennis and that's another reason I feel so privileged to be in this position watching these players and the game. It's really a very, very exciting time for tennis in my view.

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/showp...7&postcount=23

Full Interview.

[roberttennis54]

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.

[dangalak]

Originally Posted by roberttennis54

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.

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. They might look silly infront of history.

[roberttennis54]

Originally Posted by dangalak

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. They might look silly infront of history.

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.

[forzamilan90]

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.

[roberttennis54]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

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.

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.