Whats your top 10 of all time now (men)

Finally a tournament director admitted something that the whole world sees for a time - Federer schedules his matches. Finally !!!
And Federer was chosen the Sportsman for many years !?!?!?

Now here come the regular (maybe rhetorical) questions:
1. Is Federer the real contender for the Sportsman?
2. Is Federer the model for the players, for the kids?
3. How many wins (titles) in his career came from the privileged attitude?
4. How many were/are the tournaments which supported/support Federer?
5. Does Federer deserve to be included in any GOAT list due to his unfair behavior and unprofessionalism?

Big shame for Tiley! Big shame for Federer! Big shame for all other directors who gave/give such a support!
 
Finally a tournament director admitted something that the whole world sees for a time - Federer schedules his matches. Finally !!!
And Federer was chosen the Sportsman for many years !?!?!?

Now here come the regular (maybe rhetorical) questions:
1. Is Federer the real contender for the Sportsman?
2. Is Federer the model for the players, for the kids?
3. How many wins (titles) in his career came from the privileged attitude?
4. How many were/are the tournaments which supported/support Federer?
5. Does Federer deserve to be included in any GOAT list due to his unfair behavior and unprofessionalism?

Big shame for Tiley! Big shame for Federer! Big shame for all other directors who gave/give such a support!
IF Roger did get special treatment, it would only be in the last 2 or 3 years where it may have helped him win tournaments, especially slams. I always thought it was absurd for Roger or Any player to win so many Edberg Awards, especially consecutively. Don't be surprised if they rename the Edberg Award to the Federer Award-LOL!
 
IF Roger did get special treatment, it would only be in the last 2 or 3 years where it may have helped him win tournaments, especially slams. I always thought it was absurd for Roger or Any player to win so many Edberg Awards, especially consecutively. Don't be surprised if they rename the Edberg Award to the Federer Award-LOL!
Do you really know it was only in the last 2-3 years? I don't. And I don't want to guess or find conspiracies. I don't really care if it was 2-3 years or more.

The image of Federer was totally vitiated. 300%. Such unprofessionalism shows that he had/has no scruples to win with unfair methods. This is something which doesn't fit to a champion. The aureole of one great player was broken to pieces.

Edberg award? Ha-ha. Fake stuff - money and advertising.
 
Do you really know it was only in the last 2-3 years? I don't. And I don't want to guess or find conspiracies. I don't really care if it was 2-3 years or more.

The image of Federer was totally vitiated. 300%. Such unprofessionalism shows that he had/has no scruples to win with unfair methods. This is something which doesn't fit to a champion. The aureole of one great player was broken to pieces.

Edberg award? Ha-ha. Fake stuff - money and advertising.
I love Roger's game, but never cared for him as a person. His personality seems too contrived and the gushing of admiration by the TV commentators is rather annoying. I don't necessarily disagree with you, overall, but am trying to give Roger the benefit of the doubt.
 
I love Roger's game, but never cared for him as a person. His personality seems too contrived and the gushing of admiration by the TV commentators is rather annoying. I don't necessarily disagree with you, overall, but am trying to give Roger the benefit of the doubt.
The great players were/are great on the court and OFF the court. Even more they are a model and an inspiration for other players and for the kids. Do you care about this?
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Finally a tournament director admitted something that the whole world sees for a time - Federer schedules his matches. Finally !!!
And Federer was chosen the Sportsman for many years !?!?!?

Now here come the regular (maybe rhetorical) questions:
1. Is Federer the real contender for the Sportsman?
2. Is Federer the model for the players, for the kids?
3. How many wins (titles) in his career came from the privileged attitude?
4. How many were/are the tournaments which supported/support Federer?
5. Does Federer deserve to be included in any GOAT list due to his unfair behavior and unprofessionalism?

Big shame for Tiley! Big shame for Federer! Big shame for all other directors who gave/give such a support!

they try to schedule the top box players for prime time, not just Federer. Just that Federer happens to be the top draw for most events (if not all)
This includes both +ves and -ves for federer.
there have been times when he's had to play quite late at night one day and then in the early afternoon the next day.

This is what Tiley said :

"Australian Open tournament director Craig Tiley also released a statement saying the scheduling of Federer's matches for the evening was a response to fan demand to watch a "once-in-a-generation athlete", rather than any desire to cater to tennis's biggest star."

If federer had so much influence over the game, the courts wouldn't have been slowed down even further on an average in the 2010s than they were in the 2000s. the slow down hurt Federer's chances significantly.

Basically, its just you being an absolute butthurt hater and spewing a bile of hate.
After having been totally humilated with Federer playing the 4th round match at the AO this year in day conditions contrary to your BS predictions/rantings, you still go about such stuff without shame.
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
This is Federer's statement :

Asked about the controversy, former world number one Federer said that while he does speak to tournament chiefs about scheduling, he doesn't believe he gets special favours.

"I get asked 'would you like to play Monday or Tuesday' sometimes. Sometimes I get asked, 'Do you want to play day or night?' Sometimes they go ask my agent," Federer told reporters after his win over Dominic Thiem at the ATP Finals on Tuesday.

"Sometimes they ask me, you know, Asia wants you to play at night. Yes, sometimes we have our say. But I asked to play Monday at the US Open and I played Tuesday night.

"It's all good, you know. I've had that problem for 20 years in the good way. Sometimes I get help, sometimes I don't. I think there you have it.

"Yeah, sometimes they come ask, sometimes they don't. But a lot of the facts are not right, just to be clear there, from what I heard."
 
they try to schedule the top box players for prime time, not just Federer. Just that since Federer is the biggest draw of them all.
This includes both +ves and -ves for federer.
there have been times when he's had to play quite late at night one day and then in the early afternoon the next day.

This is what Tiley said :

"Australian Open tournament director Craig Tiley also released a statement saying the scheduling of Federer's matches for the evening was a response to fan demand to watch a "once-in-a-generation athlete", rather than any desire to cater to tennis's biggest star."

If federer had so much influence over the game, the courts wouldn't have been slowed down even further on an average in the 2010s than they were in the 2000s.

Basically, its just you being an absolute butthurt hater and spewing a bile of hate.
After having been totally humilated with Federer playing the 4th round match at the AO this year in day conditions contrary to your BS predictions/rantings, you still go about such stuff without shame.
Yes, yes. You should be angry about the story. Once when posters incl. me said this you didn't believed.
Well, the truth comes out sooner of later ... officially.
 
This is Federer's statement :

Asked about the controversy, former world number one Federer said that while he does speak to tournament chiefs about scheduling, he doesn't believe he gets special favours.

"I get asked 'would you like to play Monday or Tuesday' sometimes. Sometimes I get asked, 'Do you want to play day or night?' Sometimes they go ask my agent," Federer told reporters after his win over Dominic Thiem at the ATP Finals on Tuesday.

"Sometimes they ask me, you know, Asia wants you to play at night. Yes, sometimes we have our say. But I asked to play Monday at the US Open and I played Tuesday night.

"It's all good, you know. I've had that problem for 20 years in the good way. Sometimes I get help, sometimes I don't. I think there you have it.

"Yeah, sometimes they come ask, sometimes they don't. But a lot of the facts are not right, just to be clear there, from what I heard."
Hey, don't loose your time in thousands of explanations! Everything is crystal clear.
Big congratulations to Mr. Tiley saying the story already known by the whole world.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Yes, yes. You should be angry about the story. Once when posters incl. me said this you didn't believed.
Well, the truth comes out sooner of later ... officially.
Why should I be angry ?

its just one player's insinuation with no proof. Which Tiley has denied.

You do realise your BS has been demolished time and again ?

Just to remind how your BS got demolished :D :D

again, can you f**** read ? question was why only in 2018 ?
and why not in the years before that ?

as far as 2017 is concerned, 3rd round was vs Berdych and 4th round was vs Nishikori, both blockbuster matches.
(Federer had already played one match in the day anyways)

Murray was eliminated in 4R. So no point in putting fed in day session for QF.

in 2016, he faced dolgo, dimitrov, berdych -- all in the day. Yeah, all "safe" opponents.
Your posts are essentially full of bullsh*t.

.
as you were whining about federer not playing in the day in 2018, his 4th round match was scheduled for the day.


Like I said, bullsh*tting again.

From Krish's post.

"I don't want to compare against Djokovic or any other player, but I actually have Federer's full list of day matches played in his career at the AO. It's 45 in total (9 since 2014). Of course no-one plays SF or Final during the day.
Hence, the maximum possible number of day matches one can play in a given tournament is 5 (R1 - QF). One 1 occasion (2011), Federer played 4 day matches out of a possible 5. On 9 occasions, he played 3 day matches out of a possible 5.
In 16 of these 45 match days, the temperature went above 40C (as per the Aus Government Bureau of Meteorology data). From these 16, 9 of those reported max temperatures above 43C, resulting in on court afternoon temperatures higher than 50C."

Federer has training blocks in Dubai, where it can get really hot . He's capable of playing well in the heat and has done so in the past.

But then you being an absolute ignoramus wouldn't know.
Being an absolute BSer, you'll pretend like you don't care --- while you are crying relentlessly about being owned and then going to BS more.


But maybe you have no shame to even be humiliated.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Hey, don't loose your time in thousands of explanations! Everything is crystal clear.
Big congratulations to Mr. Tiley saying the story already known by the whole world.
yeah, its clear.

"Australian Open tournament director Craig Tiley also released a statement saying the scheduling of Federer's matches for the evening was a response to fan demand to watch a "once-in-a-generation athlete", rather than any desire to cater to tennis's biggest star.""


Tiley didn't say he did it as a special favour to Federer

Are you reading some stuff from bullsh*t land ? :D
you are one butthurt delusional ignoramus. :D:D
 
Why should I be angry ?

its just one player's insinuation with no proof. Which Tiley has denied.

You do realise your BS has been demolished time and again ?

Just to remind how your BS got demolished :D:D



as you were whining about federer not playing in the day in 2018, his 4th round match was scheduled for the day.






But maybe you have no shame to even be humiliated.
Tiley denied ??????????? Ha-ha. Good.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Tiley denied ??????????? Ha-ha. Good.
Learn to read.

"Australian Open tournament director Craig Tiley also released a statement saying the scheduling of Federer's matches for the evening was a response to fan demand to watch a "once-in-a-generation athlete", rather than any desire to cater to tennis's biggest star.""
 
yeah, its clear.

"Australian Open tournament director Craig Tiley also released a statement saying the scheduling of Federer's matches for the evening was a response to fan demand to watch a "once-in-a-generation athlete", rather than any desire to cater to tennis's biggest star.""


Tiley didn't say he did it as a special favour to Federer

Are you reading some stuff from bullsh*t land ? :D
you are one butthurt delusional ignoramus. :D:D
Definitely if I meet Mr. Tiley I will buy him a beer or a bottle of whiskey.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Here's more from Tiley :

It spiked a response from Tiley, too. “Tennis Australia is justly proud of the success of the Laver Cup, in which we certainly have a share, along with the USTA and other partners,” he said in answer to queries from the British media. “It’s been one of the most successful new tennis events in recent times, showing the sport in a new light and attracting new fans. I’d say the success of the Laver Cup has been seen as somewhat of a ‘disruptor’ to the men’s game.”

He added: “We run our events to the highest standards and reject as well as challenge any claims to the contrary.”
 
Learn to read.

"Australian Open tournament director Craig Tiley also released a statement saying the scheduling of Federer's matches for the evening was a response to fan demand to watch a "once-in-a-generation athlete", rather than any desire to cater to tennis's biggest star.""
Would you buy a beer to Mr. Tiley too?
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
The great players were/are great on the court and OFF the court. Even more they are a model and an inspiration for other players and for the kids. Do you care about this?
ha ha.
The ignorance and delusion of it is just laughable.

Do you even care about how much of a joke you are making out of yourself ?

So Pancho Gonzalez was great on and off court ?
Was John Mcenroe great on court ?
Was Connors great on and off court ?
Was Ivan Lendl ?
Borg off court with his drug issues ?
Becker off court ?

Agassi's behavior in the early&mid part of his career ?
 
and he'd slap you because of the ginormous a** you are and throw it down the gutter. :D

Like I said, you are crazy, can't even read properly and manage to delude yourself to believe stuff that ain't even there.

You need some serious help.
The tennis world was crazy believing in the sportsmanship and fair play of Federer. Now the world knows the truth OFFICIALLY.
And believe me, I am not involved in this. I haven't said to Craig saying this.
Cheers !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
The tennis world was crazy believing in the sportsmanship and fair play of Federer. Now the world knows the truth OFFICIALLY.
And believe me, I am not involved in this. I haven't said to Craig saying this.
Cheers !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I just posted Craig Tiley's text. Nowhere does Craig Tiley blame federer for anything.
He is very clear there has been no wrongdoing on his or Federer's part.

Like I said, you are crazy, can't even read properly and manage to delude yourself to believe stuff that ain't even there.

You need some serious help.

do this before it gets even worse than it is now. :)
 
I just posted Craig Tiley's text. Nowhere does Craig Tiley blame federer for anything.
He is very clear there has been no wrongdoing on his or Federer's part.

Like I said, you are crazy, can't even read properly and manage to delude yourself to believe stuff that ain't even there.

You need some serious help.

do this before it gets even worse than it is now. :)
But of course Tiley didn't blamed Federer. He is a smart guy. Otherwise he would be fired.
Yep, for Tiley this is nothing wrong. Will he say it's wrong??? Think, think more before writing.

It's wrong for the world. It's wrong for the sport. It's unprofessional and unfair to the other players.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
But of course Tiley didn't blamed Federer. He is a smart guy. Otherwise he would be fired.
Yep, for Tiley this is nothing wrong. Will he say it's wrong??? Think, think more before writing.

It's wrong for the world. It's wrong for the sport. It's unprofessional and unfair to the other players.
I thought about it before writing, unlike you who goes on spewing bile based on hatred and delusions.

they try to schedule the top box players for prime time, not just Federer. Just that Federer happens to be the top draw for most events (if not all)
This includes both +ves and -ves for federer.
there have been times when he's had to play quite late at night one day and then in the early afternoon the next day.

you managed to delude yourself into thinking Tiley's statement means this :

"Finally a tournament director admitted something that the whole world sees for a time - Federer schedules his matches. Finally !!! "

when it means nothing of that sort.

Like I said in one of my previous posts

"in 2016, he faced dolgo, dimitrov, berdych -- all in the day. Yeah, all "safe" opponents.
Your posts are essentially full of bullsh*t."


No one sane or non-hater got any new "revelation" from Tiley's statement or did they delude themselves to something like you did above.

Get some help, seriously.
 
I thought about it before writing, unlike you who goes on spewing bile based on hatred and delusions.

they try to schedule the top box players for prime time, not just Federer. Just that Federer happens to be the top draw for most events (if not all)
This includes both +ves and -ves for federer.
there have been times when he's had to play quite late at night one day and then in the early afternoon the next day.

you managed to delude yourself into thinking Tiley's statement means this :

"Finally a tournament director admitted something that the whole world sees for a time - Federer schedules his matches. Finally !!! "

when it means nothing of that sort.

Like I said in one of my previous posts

"in 2016, he faced dolgo, dimitrov, berdych -- all in the day. Yeah, all "safe" opponents.
Your posts are essentially full of bullsh*t."


No one sane or non-hater got any new "revelation" from Tiley's statement or did they delude themselves to something like you did above.

Get some help, seriously.
I know the truth hurts. The OFFICIAL truth hurts a lot more.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
I know the truth hurts. The OFFICIAL truth hurts a lot more.
so you've experienced both --- unoffocially people calling you out for your craziness/delusions and then officially a psychiatrist doing the same...never went back since the truth hurt you too much , is it ? :sneaky:

the truth is you are far too gone ATM with your delusions to even recognise what the truth is and this Tiley example is just another instance.
 
Whatever, but the night and day matches at AO and at USO are a problem. The intense heat under the sun at AO, when you can cook an egg on the court, is a factor, all players should experience equally, or at least amost equally. That a player gets 12 out of 14 matches at night, makes a complete different tournament. Also the roof policy at AO and also this year at Wimbledon is questionable. And to the last: Its not good, when a tournament official is finacially involved with a players management.
 
Whatever, but the night and day matches at AO and at USO are a problem. The intense heat under the sun at AO, when you can cook an egg on the court, is a factor, all players should experience equally, or at least amost equally. That a player gets 12 out of 14 matches at night, makes a complete different tournament. Also the roof policy at AO and also this year at Wimbledon is questionable. And to the last: Its not good, when a tournament official is finacially involved with a players management.
It gets to the point in hot weather at the Australian (and the US sometimes also) where Federer is playing in different conditions to many of his rivals. And I have noticed that if Federer does play in the daytime for one Australian Open match out of 7, it is usually on the coolest day (is this a coincidence?!) There is a problem when you have a big four scenario, and Federer always avoids the heat, whilst the other big four player on his side of the draw always does not, as there is only 1 mens match scheduled on RLA at night. The tournament organisers should look at the fairness aspect as well as the box-office aspect. Of course Fed will play sometimes at night, but does he have a permanent reservation in the night slot? And if Fed's potential semi final opponent has battled away in sweltering conditions to reach the last 4 and Federer has played mainly at night, that doesn't seem fair. I don't see how Federer is to blame though. It is down to the tournament organisers.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
It gets to the point in hot weather at the Australian (and the US sometimes also) where Federer is playing in different conditions to many of his rivals. And I have noticed that if Federer does play in the daytime for one Australian Open match out of 7, it is usually on the coolest day (is this a coincidence?!) There is a problem when you have a big four scenario, and Federer always avoids the heat, whilst the other big four player on his side of the draw always does not, as there is only 1 mens match scheduled on RLA at night. The tournament organisers should look at the fairness aspect as well as the box-office aspect. Of course Fed will play sometimes at night, but does he have a permanent reservation in the night slot? And if Fed's potential semi final opponent has battled away in sweltering conditions to reach the last 4 and Federer has played mainly at night, that doesn't seem fair. I don't see how Federer is to blame though. It is down to the tournament organisers.
From previous posts in the General Section :
1.

Federer has had 15 night sessions and 9 day sessions from 2014 onwards.
Djokovic has had 14 night sessions and 9 day sessions also from 2014 onwards.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...-as-rivals-roast-in-heat.608309/post-11936912

2.
I don't want to compare against Djokovic or any other player, but I actually have Federer's full list of day matches played in his career at the AO. It's 45 in total (9 since 2014). Of course no-one plays SF or Final during the day.
Hence, the maximum possible number of day matches one can play in a given tournament is 5 (R1 - QF). One 1 occasion (2011), Federer played 4 day matches out of a possible 5. On 9 occasions, he played 3 day matches out of a possible 5.
In 16 of these 45 match days, the temperature went above 40C (as per the Aus Government Bureau of Meteorology data). From these 16, 9 of those reported max temperatures above 43C, resulting in on court afternoon temperatures higher than 50C.

2017 R2 vs Rubin
2016 QF vs Berdych
2016 R3 vs Dimitrov
2016 R2 vs Dolgopolov
2015 R3 vs Seppi
2015 R2 vs Bolelli
2014 R3 vs Gabashvili
2014 R2 vs Kavcic
2014 R1 vs Duckworth
2013 R1 vs Paire
2012 QF vs Del Potro
2012 R3 vs Karlovic
2011 QF vs Wawrinka
2011 R4 vs Robredo
2011 R3 vs Malisse
2011 R1 vs Lacko
2010 QF vs Davydenko
2010 R3 vs Montanes
2010 R1 vs Andreev
2009 R4 vs Berdych
2009 R2 vs Korolev
2008 R4 vs Berdych
2008 R3 vs Tipsarevic
2008 R2 vs Santoro
2007 R2 vs Bjorkman
2007 R1 vs Phau
2006 R2 vs Mayer
2006 R1 vs Istomin
2005 R4 vs Baghdatis
2005 R3 vs Nieminen
2005 R1 vs Santoro
2004 R3 vs Reid
2004 R2 vs Morrison
2004 R1 vs Bogomolov Jr
2003 R3 vs Vinciguerra
2003 R2 vs Burgsmuller
2003 R1 vs Saretta
2002 R3 vs Schuttler
2002 R1 vs Chang
2001 R3 vs Clement
2001 R2 vs Escude
2001 R1 vs di Pasquale
2000 R3 vs Clement
2000 R2 vs Kroslak
2000 R1 vs Chang

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...-as-rivals-roast-in-heat.608309/post-11936946

Basically, its just bitter whining from haters or people who don't know sh*t.
 
From previous posts in the General Section :
1.

Federer has had 15 night sessions and 9 day sessions from 2014 onwards.
Djokovic has had 14 night sessions and 9 day sessions also from 2014 onwards.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/australian-open-2018-roger-federer’s-night-match-request-as-rivals-roast-in-heat.608309/post-11936912

2.
I don't want to compare against Djokovic or any other player, but I actually have Federer's full list of day matches played in his career at the AO. It's 45 in total (9 since 2014). Of course no-one plays SF or Final during the day.
Hence, the maximum possible number of day matches one can play in a given tournament is 5 (R1 - QF). One 1 occasion (2011), Federer played 4 day matches out of a possible 5. On 9 occasions, he played 3 day matches out of a possible 5.
In 16 of these 45 match days, the temperature went above 40C (as per the Aus Government Bureau of Meteorology data). From these 16, 9 of those reported max temperatures above 43C, resulting in on court afternoon temperatures higher than 50C.

2017 R2 vs Rubin
2016 QF vs Berdych
2016 R3 vs Dimitrov
2016 R2 vs Dolgopolov
2015 R3 vs Seppi
2015 R2 vs Bolelli
2014 R3 vs Gabashvili
2014 R2 vs Kavcic
2014 R1 vs Duckworth
2013 R1 vs Paire
2012 QF vs Del Potro
2012 R3 vs Karlovic
2011 QF vs Wawrinka
2011 R4 vs Robredo
2011 R3 vs Malisse
2011 R1 vs Lacko
2010 QF vs Davydenko
2010 R3 vs Montanes
2010 R1 vs Andreev
2009 R4 vs Berdych
2009 R2 vs Korolev
2008 R4 vs Berdych
2008 R3 vs Tipsarevic
2008 R2 vs Santoro
2007 R2 vs Bjorkman
2007 R1 vs Phau
2006 R2 vs Mayer
2006 R1 vs Istomin
2005 R4 vs Baghdatis
2005 R3 vs Nieminen
2005 R1 vs Santoro
2004 R3 vs Reid
2004 R2 vs Morrison
2004 R1 vs Bogomolov Jr
2003 R3 vs Vinciguerra
2003 R2 vs Burgsmuller
2003 R1 vs Saretta
2002 R3 vs Schuttler
2002 R1 vs Chang
2001 R3 vs Clement
2001 R2 vs Escude
2001 R1 vs di Pasquale
2000 R3 vs Clement
2000 R2 vs Kroslak
2000 R1 vs Chang

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/australian-open-2018-roger-federer’s-night-match-request-as-rivals-roast-in-heat.608309/post-11936946

Basically, its just bitter whining from haters or people who don't know sh*t.
Firstly, I am not a fed hater (from your biased perspective I can see how you may think I am). This debate is about how tournament organisers schedule matches.

Secondly, I am particularly referring to the past two years and mainly the Australian Open (and the US to some extent too). Federer in his latter years has acquired this legendary status and it feels as if the tournament organisers (particularly at the Australian, where day and night conditions can be vastly different) are prepared to schedule Federer favourably every time. He is older, naturally more prone to factors such as fatigue. It is the image that it gives out that concerns me. I particularly felt that this year, with all these players suffering in the heat and there was Federer playing in the cooler night conditions. I am usually a big supporter of how tennis is run generally, but this gives out a bad image of the sport. It has not gone unnoticed (it obviously concerns Julien Benneteau). As I said, it is no reflection on Federer himself and I don't like how some have used it to criticise Federer's character. Of course every player wants to play in favourable conditions. Hopefully the Australian Open organisers will look to change this in the future.

I have said my view. It is a fair and logical view, backed up by facts. You are welcome to disagree with it, but I haven't come on here to get into a pointless mudslinging row, which seems to be so common on these boards. I saw the thread and it is something I feel strongly about, so I felt the point of view should be stated (and so far only urban has mentioned some of these points).
 
Some newbies here have no idea of past scheduling practice. Up until the 1990s, ther were not many privileges for the top stars. At Wimbledon for instance, it was absolutely common, that the favorites had to play at least one match or two on an outside court, not Nr. 1, but Nr. 2 to 14, where the public flocked in, passed by and had standing grounds. This was a great equalizer, the favorites had to struggle much harder than on Centre Court, where the outsiders often lost on nerves, before the match even started. I remember, that Laver or Borg had to tough out hard matches vs. Lall or Edmondson on Nr. 2 or Nr. 10 court. There was Court Nr. 2, which was called the graveyard of champions, where Mac lost once to Gullikson, Nastase to Sandy Mayer, and many favorites struggled. At RG, the bullring court was famous for tough matches. The first who got special treatment at Wim was imo Sampras, who very seldom played on outside courts. Only when he declined, the organizers put him down to the wilderness, and promptly he lost to Bastl. Today there are critical comments, even when Federer has to play on Nr. 1 Court, a big showcourt.
Last Wim semi schedule was a mess. Given that Djoker and Nadal played the most signifcant match of the year, organizers had to put the start forward at 1700 pm on Court Nr. 1, or had to postpone the whole match to the next day. They were exactly aware, when Anderson and Isner played for eternity, that the later semi match would be suspended to darkness. It was a scandal to play the most important match under different roof conditions, when the players played all other matches under sunlight, and it wasn't raining in any case. Not that i have something aginst Djoker, he got the stick by the Wim organizers last year, when his injury was intensified by bad scheduling.

I find Tileys comments, when they are so as posted here, most problematic. The scheduling of night matches is imo most of all a matter of fairness to all competitors, and not a matter of public image. If a organizer makes such a poor, populistic statement, the ATP as Players Union or the ITF as governing body should sack him immediately.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Firstly, I am not a fed hater (from your biased perspective I can see how you may think I am). This debate is about how tournament organisers schedule matches.

Secondly, I am particularly referring to the past two years and mainly the Australian Open (and the US to some extent too).
No, I don't think you are fed hater, just biased against fed. If you were a fed hater, you'd be blaming fed and not the organisers.
But that still means you are prone to readily believing stuff against Fed without proper verification.

You didn't specify you were talking about the last 2 years in your first post.

As I've shown above, federer played 3/5 day matches in 2016 at the AO and 2/3 day matches (was eliminated in 3R) in 2015 at the AO.
 
No, I don't think you are fed hater, just biased against fed. If you were a fed hater, you'd be blaming fed and not the organisers.
But that still means you are prone to readily believing stuff against Fed without proper verification.

You didn't specify you were talking about the last 2 years in your first post.

As I've shown above, federer played 3/5 day matches in 2016 at the AO and 2/3 day matches (was eliminated in 3R) in 2015 at the AO.
In response to your abnoxious reply, I will say this. I was talking about the last two years. I was replying to urban talking about 12 out of 14 matches, which is Federer's number of night matches at the Australian Open in 2017-18. This was what Benneteau talked about. Your list (apart from being irrelevant, as we were talking about the last 2 years) is also incorrect, as Federer played Fucsovics in the day in 2018 and this was not on your list.

There isn't any bias against Federer on my part, it is only because you are so pro-Federer you are unable to see this. This year at the Australian, Federer's scheduling became a big talking point. I saw the impressionist Josh Berry (who does excellent impressions of all the top players) doing his Federer impression with Federer saying he didn't know they played in the day! I would have laughed, only I don't find it funny.

I too find Tiley's statement problematic, as urban does. Tiley says Federer is a big box-office draw and tries to justify Federer's scheduling. There have been players in the past that have been big box office draws, but never in 30 years of following tennis have I seen such favouritism being shown towards a player (who isn't even of the home nation). Not only does Federer seem to have a permanent reservation on the centre courts of the world, but he plays in the cool of night, whilst others struggle through the heat of the day.
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
Your list (apart from being irrelevant, as we were talking about the last 2 years) is also incorrect, as Federer played Fucsovics in the day in 2018 and this was not on your list.
That wasn't my list (I linked the post where another guy had given it) and that list was written after R2 of AO 2018. I'm very well aware that Federer played Fucsovics in day session in 2018.

In response to your abnoxious reply, I will say this. I was talking about the last two years. I was replying to urban talking about 12 out of 14 matches, which is Federer's number of night matches at the Australian Open in 2017-18. This was what Benneteau talked about.
yes, urban mentioned only the last 2 years at the AO, which is why I didn't quote his post.

Your post on the other hand is nowhere indicative that you are referring to only the last 2 years.
Just go through your own post. Anyone going through it would think it was written as a general pattern over several years.


It gets to the point in hot weather at the Australian (and the US sometimes also) where Federer is playing in different conditions to many of his rivals. And I have noticed that if Federer does play in the daytime for one Australian Open match out of 7, it is usually on the coolest day (is this a coincidence?!) There is a problem when you have a big four scenario, and Federer always avoids the heat, whilst the other big four player on his side of the draw always does not, as there is only 1 mens match scheduled on RLA at night. The tournament organisers should look at the fairness aspect as well as the box-office aspect. Of course Fed will play sometimes at night, but does he have a permanent reservation in the night slot? And if Fed's potential semi final opponent has battled away in sweltering conditions to reach the last 4 and Federer has played mainly at night, that doesn't seem fair. I don't see how Federer is to blame though. It is down to the tournament organisers.
-------

Now lets get to what happened in 2017 and 2018 at the AO.

2017 AO -- Federer is coming back from injury after 6 months. Is seeded #17.
Yeah, still the most popular tennis player, but not highly ranked/seeded. That cuts down on the reason to favour him over say #1 or #2 player.

Federer plays R1 vs Melzer in 2017 AO at night, R2 in the day vs Ruben.

3rd match is vs Berdych and 4th round vs Nishikori. Both marquee matches. Its just common sense to put those in the night session. none of the other matchups were close to these.

QF vs M.Zverev.
the competing matchup was Tsonga-Wawrinka.

Wawrinka is not at the big 4 level of popularity and neither is Tsonga. But this is a still a good matchup and the call could go either way.

Now, lets get to 2018 and the hullabaloo about the 2nd round scheduling :




Does there need to be more explanation ?

--------
Now lets get to R3 : Federer-Gasquet vs Zverev-Chung. Obvious choice to pick former over the latter.
Federer played R4 vs Fucsovics in the day.
As far as QF goes, they'd have to be nuts to put Chung-Sandgren over Federer-Berdych.
If it was Djokovic-Thiem, there was a chance that would be the night match

So these are the circumstances which lead to 12/14 matches.
To sum it up, Federer's tough draw in 17 with top 10/marquee matchups with a QF call that could be argued either way.
AO 18, for R2, Djokovic requested for a day match, Federer for a night match. Organisers obliged. that messed it up in R2 and Djoko/Thiem getting upset in R4 messed it up for QF.
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
In response to your abnoxious reply, I will say this.
My 2nd post to you was not obnoxious at all , just plain stating it as I saw it.

IThere isn't any bias against Federer on my part, it is only because you are so pro-Federer you are unable to see this. This year at the Australian, Federer's scheduling became a big talking point. I saw the impressionist Josh Berry (who does excellent impressions of all the top players) doing his Federer impression with Federer saying he didn't know they played in the day! I would have laughed, only I don't find it funny.
Anyone who says Federer's only competition from 2004-07 was Nadal and 2007 djokovic is of course biased against Federer.
That just skips Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Agassi (& the likes of Nalbandian, Davydenko).

I am a fan of Federer and I have no problem admitting some bias, but I don't go to that extreme in a proper discussion.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Some newbies here have no idea of past scheduling practice. Up until the 1990s, ther were not many privileges for the top stars. At Wimbledon for instance, it was absolutely common, that the favorites had to play at least one match or two on an outside court, not Nr. 1, but Nr. 2 to 14, where the public flocked in, passed by and had standing grounds. This was a great equalizer, the favorites had to struggle much harder than on Centre Court, where the outsiders often lost on nerves, before the match even started. I remember, that Laver or Borg had to tough out hard matches vs. Lall or Edmondson on Nr. 2 or Nr. 10 court. There was Court Nr. 2, which was called the graveyard of champions, where Mac lost once to Gullikson, Nastase to Sandy Mayer, and many favorites struggled. At RG, the bullring court was famous for tough matches. The first who got special treatment at Wim was imo Sampras, who very seldom played on outside courts. Only when he declined, the organizers put him down to the wilderness, and promptly he lost to Bastl. Today there are critical comments, even when Federer has to play on Nr. 1 Court, a big showcourt.
You do realise it's common decency to quote/refer the person/persons whom you are referring to ?
Do you want see a mirror response to that ? "Some oldies don't have have the decency/courtesy/guts to even quote/refer whom they are referring to".

If I am one of the "newbies" you are referring to, here's my reply :
I am aware that top players of the past century used to play on outside courts more than in the recent past.
I was only talking about the current/recent past and the "singling" out of Federer like he's the only top guy who requests and gets his requests granted.

If you want a condensed version of my view, here it goes :

Business interests vs fairness has to be balanced properly. It cannot be "equal" or "near equal" for all players (that'd be dumb from both fan interest PoV and business interests PoV) , but it shouldn't be grossly unjust/players should not get screwed over deliberately.

Last Wim semi schedule was a mess. Given that Djoker and Nadal played the most signifcant match of the year, organizers had to put the start forward at 1700 pm on Court Nr. 1, or had to postpone the whole match to the next day. They were exactly aware, when Anderson and Isner played for eternity, that the later semi match would be suspended to darkness. It was a scandal to play the most important match under different roof conditions, when the players played all other matches under sunlight, and it wasn't raining in any case. Not that i have something aginst Djoker, he got the stick by the Wim organizers last year, when his injury was intensified by bad scheduling.
Yeah, pushing it completely to the next day, leading to even less rest for the 2nd SFist - Djokovic/Nadal , really makes sense.
Lets not use the roof when it is available. :rolleyes:

Starting the match on court 1 would be an actual "feasible" option. But I'd think that'd require both Nadal-Djokovic to agree.
We don't know what happened there.
 
Last edited:
That wasn't my list (I linked the post where another guy had given it) and that list was written after R2 of AO 2018. I'm very well aware that Federer played Fucsovics in day session in 2018.



yes, urban mentioned only the last 2 years at the AO, which is why I didn't quote his post.

Your post on the other hand is nowhere indicative that you are referring to only the last 2 years.
Just go through your own post. Anyone going through it would think it was written as a general pattern over several years.




-------

Now lets get to what happened in 2017 and 2018 at the AO.

2017 AO -- Federer is coming back from injury after 6 months. Is seeded #17.
Yeah, still the most popular tennis player, but not highly ranked/seeded. That cuts down on the reason to favour him over say #1 or #2 player.

Federer plays R1 vs Melzer in 2017 AO at night, R2 in the day vs Ruben.

3rd match is vs Berdych and 4th round vs Nishikori. Both marquee matches. Its just common sense to put those in the night session. none of the other matchups were close to these.

QF vs M.Zverev.
the competing matchup was Tsonga-Wawrinka.

Wawrinka is not at the big 4 level of popularity and neither is Tsonga. But this is a still a good matchup and the call could go either way.

Now, lets get to 2018 and the hullabaloo about the 2nd round scheduling :




Does there need to be more explanation ?

--------
Now lets get to R3 : Federer-Gasquet vs Zverev-Chung. Obvious choice to pick former over the latter.
Federer played R4 vs Fucsovics in the day.
As far as QF goes, they'd have to be nuts to put Chung-Sandgren over Federer-Berdych.
If it was Djokovic-Thiem, there was a chance that would be the night match

So these are the circumstances which lead to 12/14 matches.
To sum it up, Federer's tough draw in 17 with top 10/marquee matchups with a QF call that could be argued either way.
AO 18, for R2, Djokovic requested for a day match, Federer for a night match. Organisers obliged. that messed it up in R2 and Djoko/Thiem getting upset in R4 messed it up for QF.
If you are very well aware that Fucsovics played Federer in the day, you should have added it to the list you posted (whether you copied it from elsewhere is irrelevant).

I replied to urban talking about 12 out of 14 matches, which is what Benneteau mentioned. It is the last 2 years that are the years in question, which is why the last two years have been discussed.

As you say, in 2017, Federer was seeded 17. It is only with hindsight that we see Federer win his first slam since 2012 and eventually climb back to number one. It looked at the time as if he was a 35 year old past his prime coming back from injury. Pete Sampras (a 7 time Wimbledon champion) was seeded 6 at Wimbledon 2002 and lost to Georg Bastl on court 2, which is the third court at Wimbledon. There simply is no justification for putting the 17th seed so many times in the night match on centre court.

What relevance does that conversation you posted have? I couldn't care who requests what. It is down to the tournament organisers to schedule matches. And Mr. Andy Roddick can talk about box office all he likes. Other players have been box office in the past. They did not receive such preferential treatment when it came to scheduling. Always the biggest matches of the event, the semis and final, are played in prime time anyway, so I find this argument weak and a justification for unfair decisions. Are the Australian Open struggling to make a profit, so they have to put Federer on RLA in the night session each time in order to balance the books?! Just take a look at the profits the event makes! I don't like the image this gives out of the sport.

In your second post you refer to my past comments on Federer's opposition from 2004-2007 and claim that because I don't rate a lot of those players Federer played compared to the players Laver played, I must be biased against Federer. If anything, this is a criticism of Federer's opponents, not Federer himself. It was a weak era, that is my view. You disagreed and claimed Laver's era was weaker and I pointed out neither can prove the other right, it is a matter of opinion (you arrogantly stuck to the belief that you were proveably right, because that is the sort of person you are). Federer still won 20 majors. But if we are talking about the relative strengths of the different eras, in my view, Laver's 1969 era was stronger. That was a thread with the title Laver was lucky, which was utterly cretinous, along with the arguments contained within it it justifying Laver being lucky. In my argument, I mentioned how Laver was 4-1 down against Newcombe (Wimbledon 1969) in the third set and then Laver played brilliantly to win game after game. This was the decisive factor that won Laver that match. Your response was to say that Laver hadn't played well to go 4-1 down!!!

I respect all the great players, whether some played in tougher eras or not, and Federer is a great player. In my all time ranking I had a 5 way tie for number one and Federer was one of those five (I always take into account the pre-open era pro tour). I would not have done that if I was biased against Federer, I would have used the weak era argument to completely discredit his results (whilst the weak era is a factor, 20 slams is a much stronger factor). I don't tend to have strong bias for or against players. If I have any bias it is towards the pre-open era pro game verses the amateur game. The pro game has been my focus of interest and research, so naturally the amateur game does not focus prominently in my mind (also I rate the pro game higher anyway).
 
The argument of Tiley, if we can call it argument at all, is poor and misleading, and he is fully conceding that top players get extra treatment at his tournament. If public demand is the main reason for scheduling (which is imo wrong), then the top attraction should play at day, when more people, who buy tickets for day matches, can follow him. Maybe it has more to do with the demands of sponsors like Rolex or Quantas, to get more tv exposure of their business partners. But then Tiley is wandering on slippy grounds, if he has financial connections with some management agencies. In any case, this whole reasoning with public demands cannot be legitimate. The corrective must always be the fairness to all competitors, that they can play a major tournament on equal terms.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
If you are very well aware that Fucsovics played Federer in the day, you should have added it to the list you posted (whether you copied it from elsewhere is irrelevant).

care to read ?
my post to Ivan69 before I posted the list.

After having been totally humilated with Federer playing the 4th round match at the AO this year in day conditions contrary to your BS predictions/rantings, you still go about such stuff without shame.
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...p-10-of-all-time-now-men.474196/post-12887360

I didn't bother with updating that list because a) urban had posted 12/14. b) my focus was on showing what happened before 2017 with that post.

I replied to urban talking about 12 out of 14 matches, which is what Benneteau mentioned. It is the last 2 years that are the years in question, which is why the last two years have been discussed.
not what the tone of your post suggested as I've already pointed out.

As you say, in 2017, Federer was seeded 17. It is only with hindsight that we see Federer win his first slam since 2012 and eventually climb back to number one. It looked at the time as if he was a 35 year old past his prime coming back from injury. Pete Sampras (a 7 time Wimbledon champion) was seeded 6 at Wimbledon 2002 and lost to Georg Bastl on court 2, which is the third court at Wimbledon. There simply is no justification for putting the 17th seed so many times in the night match on centre court.
there is if he's still clearly the most popular player and he's up vs top 10 guys - berdych and nishikori respectively.
Sampras was not as big for the box office as Federer and he wasn't playing a top 10 player or a later round.

What relevance does that conversation you posted have? I couldn't care who requests what. It is down to the tournament organisers to schedule matches. And Mr. Andy Roddick can talk about box office all he likes. Other players have been box office in the past. They did not receive such preferential treatment when it came to scheduling. Always the biggest matches of the event, the semis and final, are played in prime time anyway, so I find this argument weak and a justification for unfair decisions. Are the Australian Open struggling to make a profit, so they have to put Federer on RLA in the night session each time in order to balance the books?! Just take a look at the profits the event makes! I don't like the image this gives out of the sport..
its absolutely relevant. Its a factor for why Federer didn't play in the day in 2R.

@ the bold part : you may not care. But the tournament organisers do and it matters in the eyes of many people. They shouldn't always oblige the top players' requests, but in this case with 2 top players requesting the way they did (Djokovic day and Federer night), it made the decision easier for the tournament organisers.

I'd have absolutely criticised the scheduling if Djokovic had not requested the day match.
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
In your second post you refer to my past comments on Federer's opposition from 2004-2007 and claim that because I don't rate a lot of those players Federer played compared to the players Laver played, I must be biased against Federer. If anything, this is a criticism of Federer's opponents, not Federer himself. It was a weak era, that is my view. You disagreed and claimed Laver's era was weaker and I pointed out neither can prove the other right, it is a matter of opinion (you arrogantly stuck to the belief that you were proveably right, because that is the sort of person you are). Federer still won 20 majors. But if we are talking about the relative strengths of the different eras, in my view, Laver's 1969 era was stronger. That was a thread with the title Laver was lucky, which was utterly cretinous, along with the arguments contained within it it justifying Laver being lucky.
I didn't state that Laver's era was weaker in that thread at all.
All I said was you were over-rating Laver's competition considerably and putting down Federer's competition considerably .

you were talking like Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Agassi etc. - these guys were near irrelevant in that 2004-07 period.
they clearly were not. They were playing considerably better than what you think and were absolutely relevant. And I mentioned several matches/points to show that.

Its not that you didn't rate them as compared to players in Laver's era, its that you considered them near irrelevant.

The thread title was "Laver was lucky" , but the actual content was a comparision of why Laver could achieve the GS as opposed to Fed, who had a clearly bigger roadblock in Nadal than anyone Laver faced in 69.

You cannot conclusively "prove" the strength/weakness of eras, but if you've watched many of the matches AND done analysis of the match stats&other stats with context as much as I have, you'd have a solid idea/strong indicators of what's going on.

In my argument, I mentioned how Laver was 4-1 down against Newcombe (Wimbledon 1969) in the third set and then Laver played brilliantly to win game after game. This was the decisive factor that won Laver that match. Your response was to say that Laver hadn't played well to go 4-1 down!!!
and as I stated in that thread, my point was that Newk wasn't as strong as you think he was in that final. Laver broke himself with below par in that 3rd set game. I was referring to you making out Laver's competition to be tougher than it was.


I respect all the great players, whether some played in tougher eras or not, and Federer is a great player. In my all time ranking I had a 5 way tie for number one and Federer was one of those five (I always take into account the pre-open era pro tour). I would not have done that if I was biased against Federer, I would have used the weak era argument to completely discredit his results (whilst the weak era is a factor, 20 slams is a much stronger factor). I don't tend to have strong bias for or against players. If I have any bias it is towards the pre-open era pro game verses the amateur game. The pro game has been my focus of interest and research, so naturally the amateur game does not focus prominently in my mind (also I rate the pro game higher anyway).
Somone can have bias against a player and still have respect, even enormous amount of respect.
 
Last edited:
now you want proof that I knew it ?

care to read ?
my post to Ivan69 before I posted the list.



https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...p-10-of-all-time-now-men.474196/post-12887360

I didn't bother with updating that list because a) urban had posted 12/14. b) my focus was on showing what happened before 2017 with that post.



not what the tone of your post suggested as I've already pointed out.



there is if he's still clearly the most popular player and he's up vs top 10 guys - berdych and nishikori respectively.
Sampras was not as big for the box office as Federer and he wasn't playing a top 10 player or a later round.



its absolutely relevant. Its a factor for why Federer didn't play in the day in 2R.




I didn't state that Laver's era was weaker.
All I said was you were pumping up Laver's competition excessively and putting down Federer's competition execssively.

you were talking like Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Agassi etc. - these guys were near irrelevant in that 2004-07 period.
they clearly were not. They were playing considerably better than what you think and were absolutely relevant. And I mentioned several matches/points to show that.

Its not that you didn't rate them as compared to players in Laver's era, its that you considered them near irrelevant.

The thread title was "Laver was lucky" , but the actual content was a comparision of why Laver could achieve the GS as opposed to Fed, who had a clearly bigger roadblock in Nadal than anyone Laver faced in 69.





Like I said, that's why bias and not hater.
Somone can have bias against a player and still have respect, even enormous amount of respect.
I am not doubting you knew Federer and Fucsovics played in the day. I am saying you should have added it to the list you posted (by not doing so, it was an incorrect list).

I do not dispute Federer's popularity. But he was the 17th seed at the Australian Open 2017 and the only top 8 seed he faced before the semis was Nishikori (this was the only marquee match he played before the semis). The comparison between Sampras v Bastl at Wimbledon 2002 and Federer v Melzer Australian Open 2017 is stark. Both were great past players, one seeded 6 (Sampras), the other 17 (Federer). They both played players ranked way down, outside the top 100. But whereas Sampras played his match on court 2 at Wimbledon, Federer played his on Rod Laver Arena in Melbourne in the night session. Even allowing for a degree of bias due to Federer's popularilty verses Sampras, the difference in scheduling was huge. I tolerate a degree of Federer bias, but it gets to a point where it becomes unacceptable and it is sending out a bad image of the sport, as at the Ausy Open the past 2 years.

How you can deny you said Laver's era was weaker is beyond ridiculous. So desperate were you to argue with me, when I spoke of Laver's brilliant form from 4-1 down in the third set (the key factor in him winning the match), you said he didn't play well to go 4-1 down. You were just as passionate making your case as I was mine (though with less good arguments, such as Laver's form to go 4-1 down). You wouldn't accept when I said neither you or I could prove the other wrong because it was a matter of opinion. Because your inflated ego (which is far larger than your knowledge) was determined to continually argue, in an utterly futile way, just as you are doing now. I have wasted more than enough time talking to you this past 24 hours, so I am done with this now.
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
I am not doubting you knew Federer and Fucsovics played in the day. I am saying you should have added it to the list you posted (by not doing so, it was an incorrect list).
fair enough.

I do not dispute Federer's popularity. But he was the 17th seed at the Australian Open 2017 and the only top 8 seed he faced before the semis was Nishikori (this was the only marquee match he played before the semis).
nope. match vs #10 seed Berdych in 3rd round was also a marquee match.
why are you restricting it to top 8 seeds ? Berdych was a top player at that time.

IThe comparison between Sampras v Bastl at Wimbledon 2002 and Federer v Melzer Australian Open 2017 is stark. Both were great past players, one seeded 6 (Sampras), the other 17 (Federer). They both played players ranked way down, outside the top 100. But whereas Sampras played his match on court 2 at Wimbledon, Federer played his on Rod Laver Arena in Melbourne in the night session. Even allowing for a degree of bias due to Federer's popularilty verses Sampras, the difference in scheduling was huge. I tolerate a degree of Federer bias, but it gets to a point where it becomes unacceptable and it is sending out a bad image of the sport, as at the Ausy Open the past 2 years.
That's not a fair comparison.
Federer played the day session in R2 vs a low ranked guy in Rubin at Rod Laver arena.
Use that as comparision.

I don't know what court Sampras played his first round match in Wim 02.

They don't have top/most popular players outside of main courts in the recent years. That's not Federer specific. (Edit) If you say they could/should have had Fed play a match on Margaret Court Arena in R1/R2 , then yeah, I'll agree.

IHow you can deny you didn't say Laver's era was weaker is beyond ridiculous. So desperate were you to argue with me, when I spoke of Laver's brilliant form from 4-1 down in the third set (the key factor in him winning the match), you said he didn't play well to go 4-1 down. You were just as passionate making your case as I was mine (though with less good arguments, such as Laver's form to go 4-1 down). You wouldn't accept when I said neither you or I could prove the other wrong because it was a matter of opinion. Because your inflated ego (which is far larger than your knowledge) was determined to continually argue, in an utterly futile way, just as you are doing now. I have wasted more than enough time talking to you this past 24 hours, so I am done with this now.
How can I "deny" saying Laver's era was weaker in that thread ?
Because I didn't say it in that thread. :rolleyes:

As I stated in that thread, my point was that Newk wasn't as strong as you think he was in that final. Laver broke himself with below par in that 3rd set game. I was referring to you making out Laver's competition to be tougher than it was.

As far the "proving" goes, You cannot conclusively "prove" the strength/weakness of eras, but if you've watched many of the matches AND done analysis of the match stats&other stats with context as much as I have, you'd have a solid idea/strong indicators of what's going on.

It has to do with your bias and your stubborness in not even properly considering the points I raised about the players/competition in 2004-07.
 
Last edited:
If you are very well aware that Fucsovics played Federer in the day, you should have added it to the list you posted (whether you copied it from elsewhere is irrelevant).

I replied to urban talking about 12 out of 14 matches, which is what Benneteau mentioned. It is the last 2 years that are the years in question, which is why the last two years have been discussed.

As you say, in 2017, Federer was seeded 17. It is only with hindsight that we see Federer win his first slam since 2012 and eventually climb back to number one. It looked at the time as if he was a 35 year old past his prime coming back from injury. Pete Sampras (a 7 time Wimbledon champion) was seeded 6 at Wimbledon 2002 and lost to Georg Bastl on court 2, which is the third court at Wimbledon. There simply is no justification for putting the 17th seed so many times in the night match on centre court.

What relevance does that conversation you posted have? I couldn't care who requests what. It is down to the tournament organisers to schedule matches. And Mr. Andy Roddick can talk about box office all he likes. Other players have been box office in the past. They did not receive such preferential treatment when it came to scheduling. Always the biggest matches of the event, the semis and final, are played in prime time anyway, so I find this argument weak and a justification for unfair decisions. Are the Australian Open struggling to make a profit, so they have to put Federer on RLA in the night session each time in order to balance the books?! Just take a look at the profits the event makes! I don't like the image this gives out of the sport.

In your second post you refer to my past comments on Federer's opposition from 2004-2007 and claim that because I don't rate a lot of those players Federer played compared to the players Laver played, I must be biased against Federer. If anything, this is a criticism of Federer's opponents, not Federer himself. It was a weak era, that is my view. You disagreed and claimed Laver's era was weaker and I pointed out neither can prove the other right, it is a matter of opinion (you arrogantly stuck to the belief that you were proveably right, because that is the sort of person you are). Federer still won 20 majors. But if we are talking about the relative strengths of the different eras, in my view, Laver's 1969 era was stronger. That was a thread with the title Laver was lucky, which was utterly cretinous, along with the arguments contained within it it justifying Laver being lucky. In my argument, I mentioned how Laver was 4-1 down against Newcombe (Wimbledon 1969) in the third set and then Laver played brilliantly to win game after game. This was the decisive factor that won Laver that match. Your response was to say that Laver hadn't played well to go 4-1 down!!!

I respect all the great players, whether some played in tougher eras or not, and Federer is a great player. In my all time ranking I had a 5 way tie for number one and Federer was one of those five (I always take into account the pre-open era pro tour). I would not have done that if I was biased against Federer, I would have used the weak era argument to completely discredit his results (whilst the weak era is a factor, 20 slams is a much stronger factor). I don't tend to have strong bias for or against players. If I have any bias it is towards the pre-open era pro game verses the amateur game. The pro game has been my focus of interest and research, so naturally the amateur game does not focus prominently in my mind (also I rate the pro game higher anyway).
Scheduling in tennis has always been done to maximize the probable appeal of the expected final matchup.

That is nothing new.

That is why seeding exists, to give the most likely No. 1 vs. No. 2 matchup in the final, that is the wish and hope of every tournament and every fan.

In the late fifties on the pro tour, the most important tournament in pro tennis, Forest Hills Tournament of Champions, ARRANGED a Hoad/Gonzales final for all three years, 1957, 1958, 1959, the first two arranged in advance on a round robin basis, the last year by seeding.

That is how it is done.
 
Scheduling in tennis has always been done to maximize the probable appeal of the expected final matchup.

That is nothing new.

That is why seeding exists, to give the most likely No. 1 vs. No. 2 matchup in the final, that is the wish and hope of every tournament and every fan.

In the late fifties on the pro tour, the most important tournament in pro tennis, Forest Hills Tournament of Champions, ARRANGED a Hoad/Gonzales final for all three years, 1957, 1958, 1959, the first two arranged in advance on a round robin basis, the last year by seeding.

That is how it is done.
We were talking about Grand Slam scheduling, and then you start talking about the old pro tour! You can't arrange a final in a knock-out tournament (TOC 1959), unless it is an event containing 2 players. I have seen many slam matches over many years. I used the comparison between Sampras v Bastl and Federer v Melzer (it is a good one to use to highlight the vastly different scheduling between the two matches). However, I could have used countless other examples. I am getting very bored with this discussion now and have made the case and backed it up with facts. If you want to start a row with someone, Dan, I am sure abmk will oblige. You two will probably enjoy it. I have a splitting headache and need a lie down.
 
Have a good rest.

But let's look at the alternative case, when a tournament tries to get the top two players into the final and fails. What happens then?

It is bad news for everyone.... look at the U.S. Pro at Forest Hills in 1951, everyone wanted a Kramer/Gonzales final, and when it did not happen, they stayed away in droves, as the saying goes.

Financial failure.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
We were talking about Grand Slam scheduling, and then you start talking about the old pro tour! You can't arrange a final in a knock-out tournament (TOC 1959), unless it is an event containing 2 players. I have seen many slam matches over many years. I used the comparison between Sampras v Bastl and Federer v Melzer (it is a good one to use to highlight the vastly different scheduling between the two matches). However, I could have used countless other examples. I am getting very bored with this discussion now and have made the case and backed it up with facts. If you want to start a row with someone, Dan, I am sure abmk will oblige. You two will probably enjoy it. I have a splitting headache and need a lie down.
yeah, keep persisting with an unfair comparision even after it has been pointed out to you why it was unfair and a fair comparision has been presented to you.
:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
yeah, keep persisting with an unfair comparision even after it has been pointed out to you why it was unfair and a fair comparision has been presented to you.
:rolleyes:
Sampras v Bastl and Federer v Melzer is a good comparison. If you had justified Federer's scheduling by using an argument a bit similar to Roddick saying Federer was the box office attraction and the Grand Slams needed to put the box office attraction on centre court in prime time all the time, that would have at least been a case. I disagree with it profoundly, but it would have been a case. The arguments you make are pathetic. Rather than just accepting the bias, as highlighted in my comparison, you look to continue to pretend there isn't bias. This makes you look a complete fool.

Dan is looking to make a comparison between the old pro tour and a modern Grand Slam, but the two are vastly different. A modern Grand Slam makes vast profits anyway, so it doesn't need to resort to this 100% box office approach. It should balance the box office appeal with fairness (something you seem to care little about). I fully accept Federer is the most popular player, but showing this blatant bias is a bad advertisement for the sport. Take those rose tinted Federer-loving glasses off and try and see things as they really are.
 
Have a good rest.

But let's look at the alternative case, when a tournament tries to get the top two players into the final and fails. What happens then?

It is bad news for everyone.... look at the U.S. Pro at Forest Hills in 1951, everyone wanted a Kramer/Gonzales final, and when it did not happen, they stayed away in droves, as the saying goes.

Financial failure.
So are you saying if Federer wasn't scheduled in the night session on Rod Laver, the event would be a financial failure? That is why your comparison between the old pro tour and a modern Grand Slam is so absurd. The Grand Slams don't need to show this blatant bias in order to make a profit. They can make excellent profits without scheduling Federer on Rod Laver Arena in prime time all the time.
 
Really you mean this !!! Maybe it's a joke.
Please check how many are the active years of Kramer as a pro.
Please check the strength of his opponents in the first 2 series (out of 4 total).
Please answer yourselves why Kramer didn't played vs Gonzalez in World series after 1950.
I have not forgotten this post of yours and I have to admit that, as you mentioned, the placement and exploitation of Kramer is controversial.

Until some time ago it was unknown to me, now it is controversial.
A few steps forward.

The impression is that my sentence "Nobody gave the impression after having an invincibility aura for a long time". it is not very far from the reality of that period.

In retrospect, there is some facilitation towards Jack and an insufficient calendar.

This allows me to review the judgment on his career a bit. In fact it was probably the best player for a few years, but I imagined much more dominant.
 
Top