Better For Tennis - Domination vs. Parity - MensTennisForums.com

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 45 (permalink) Old 03-31-2010, 05:16 PM Thread Starter
10S NE1
 
MacTheKnife's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 10,575
                     
Better For Tennis - Domination vs. Parity

What are your thoughts about what is better for tennis. We've been in an era dominated by Federer and Nadal. Now it seems we are entering a time where the top 5 players are all vulnerable in some way, either physically (due to injury) or mentally due to slumps.

How this is viewed may vary around the world, but which do you think is better for tennis as a whole. Having that domination by one or two players (it seems many fans love having someone to hate), or a wide open field with many different players winning top events.

At this point, this question seems to apply more to MS1000 events, since the top guys are still far more difficult to beat in the best of 5 scenarios. Or do you think that will change too ???

YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS
MacTheKnife is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 45 (permalink) Old 03-31-2010, 05:22 PM
Registered User
 
MrChopin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Age: 32
Posts: 2,356
                     
Re: Better For Tennis - Domination vs. Parity

No, for this reason:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTheKnife View Post
...we are entering a time where the top 5 players are all vulnerable in some way, either physically (due to injury) or mentally due to slumps.
If it was a matter of players improving and catching them, of course parity would be good. Instead, Fed is now slower, Rafa is now perpetually injured/tired/fatigued/harassed by drug tests/suffering from the divorce/forced to play in home country tournaments, Djoke is now on a Martin-induced walkabout, Murray is cracking under pressure, and DelPo is getting re-patched by Dr. Frankenstein.

2008 might have been the best year of parity tennis in the last few with Djoko peaking early, Rafa mid, Murray late, and Fed producing brilliance at the USO. Had Fed been healthy throughout, it would have been a great year for tennis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by viruzzz View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Start da Game View Post
Nadal will be fine by australian open......
You're like a living unforced error.
MrChopin is offline  
post #3 of 45 (permalink) Old 03-31-2010, 05:38 PM
Blown Out On the Trail
 
star's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 62,739
                     
Re: Better For Tennis - Domination vs. Parity

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTheKnife View Post
What are your thoughts about what is better for tennis. We've been in an era dominated by Federer and Nadal. Now it seems we are entering a time where the top 5 players are all vulnerable in some way, either physically (due to injury) or mentally due to slumps.

How this is viewed may vary around the world, but which do you think is better for tennis as a whole. Having that domination by one or two players (it seems many fans love having someone to hate), or a wide open field with many different players winning top events.

At this point, this question seems to apply more to MS1000 events, since the top guys are still far more difficult to beat in the best of 5 scenarios. Or do you think that will change too ???

I think it's exciting to have a player get to the top and do a lot of winning (esp if it's a player I like) and then to have other players come up and challenge and do their share of winning too. For me that's the best senario -- short periods of domination followed by challenge and new competition. Years and years of domination is not something I generally like. Although I have to say that there has never been a player that I have liked who has dominated for a long period of time. I don't know if players who do this simply have a mentality I don't like or if it's something else.

So much of the answer to this question seems to be whose ox is being gored.
star is offline  
post #4 of 45 (permalink) Old 03-31-2010, 05:45 PM Thread Starter
10S NE1
 
MacTheKnife's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 10,575
                     
Re: Better For Tennis - Domination vs. Parity

But which is better for tennis. Does the general tennis fan base pay money to see the big dogs collide late in tourneys or will they continue to buy tickets to see two guys outside the top 10 reach the finals ?? I'm trying not to use names here because that's not the point.

The point is which will continue to grow the sport ??

I have mixed feelings about this. At times I think one or two dominating guys is better. Many U.S. fans seem to love someone to hate, and they really love clear underdogs.. That is until they are no longer underdogs.. But that's another thread..

YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS
MacTheKnife is offline  
post #5 of 45 (permalink) Old 03-31-2010, 05:55 PM
Blown Out On the Trail
 
star's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 62,739
                     
Re: Better For Tennis - Domination vs. Parity

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTheKnife View Post
But which is better for tennis. Does the general tennis fan base pay money to see the big dogs collide late in tourneys or will they continue to buy tickets to see two guys outside the top 10 reach the finals ?? I'm trying not to use names here because that's not the point.

The point is which will continue to grow the sport ??

I have mixed feelings about this. At times I think one or two dominating guys is better. Many U.S. fans seem to love someone to hate, and they really love clear underdogs.. That is until they are no longer underdogs.. But that's another thread..
It always seems to me that people who attend tennis tournaments like the dominating player. All I ever hear about is people wanting to see a Nadal/Federer match. I mean, people who attend tennis tournaments are not necessarily rabid tennis fans. Most of them follow it only casually, and they just want to see the big names. When Sampras and Agassi were playing, they always wanted to see them play. I really don't see a lot of rooting for the underdog. Although sometimes during a particular match, a player can catch the eye of the crowd and they begin to root for them. I think Baghdatis and Tsonga have this quality of engaging the crowd. But, mostly what I've seen at tournaments is the crowd squarely behind the big name -- unless the underdog happens to be a U.S. citizen that is. Say Fish v. Federer. Blake v. Nadal.

I guess I have to say that it can be a thrill thinking you are seeing the two best players in the world square off. It's sort of like heavyweight boxing. You've seen it on TV, and you want to see it in real life. At least that's the feeling I have from attending tournaments and talking to people there.

Last edited by star; 03-31-2010 at 06:18 PM.
star is offline  
post #6 of 45 (permalink) Old 03-31-2010, 06:08 PM
country flag tea
Banned!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Age: 31
Posts: 443
                     
Re: Better For Tennis - Domination vs. Parity

Do you like the one who dominates? If yes then answer #1, if no then #2. I can't see it depends on somewhat else.

Personally, I'm with the answer #1 obviously as for now, but later, when Fed will retire, and when someone I don't like will dominate I will certainly say: no, the equable the field is the better.
tea is offline  
post #7 of 45 (permalink) Old 03-31-2010, 06:18 PM
Blown Out On the Trail
 
star's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 62,739
                     
Re: Better For Tennis - Domination vs. Parity

Quote:
Originally Posted by tea View Post
Do you like the one who dominates? If yes then answer #1, if no then #2. I can't see it depends on somewhat else.

Personally, I'm with the answer #1 obviously as for now, but later, when Fed will retire, and when someone I don't like will dominate I will certainly say: no, the equable the field is the better.
But, it may turn out that you always like the one dominating.

It seems to me that tennis fans like to have a star at the top.
star is offline  
post #8 of 45 (permalink) Old 03-31-2010, 06:21 PM
Registered User
 
DJ Soup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,049
                     
Re: Better For Tennis - Domination vs. Parity

it's all good
DJ Soup is offline  
post #9 of 45 (permalink) Old 03-31-2010, 06:25 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Age: 43
Posts: 2,443
                     
Re: Better For Tennis - Domination vs. Parity

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTheKnife View Post
Better For Tennis - Domination vs. Parity
Depends on who you like to call "mugs" more. If you like to call "the field" a bunch of mugs that bow down to Federer / Nadal, etc, then Domination is better.

If you like to make fun of Feder / Nadal for losing to lower ranked players, then parity is better.

I think we have plenty of fans of both......often it is the exact same person
r2473 is offline  
post #10 of 45 (permalink) Old 03-31-2010, 06:25 PM
country flag tea
Banned!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Age: 31
Posts: 443
                     
Re: Better For Tennis - Domination vs. Parity

Quote:
Originally Posted by star View Post
But, it may turn out that you always like the one dominating.

It seems to me that tennis fans like to have a star at the top.
It may. It does happen to some of tennis fans. Literally, if a player like Del Potro would dominate the tour I wouldn't be a huge supporter of that.

Only when they like and/or respect that star. Otherwise I see no fun with it at all. But you may know it better from your own experience of the current time, of course.
tea is offline  
post #11 of 45 (permalink) Old 03-31-2010, 06:45 PM
Blown Out On the Trail
 
star's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 62,739
                     
Re: Better For Tennis - Domination vs. Parity

Quote:
Originally Posted by tea View Post
It may. It does happen to some of tennis fans. Literally, if a player like Del Potro would dominate the tour I wouldn't be a huge supporter of that.

Only when they like and/or respect that star. Otherwise I see no fun with it at all. But you may know it better from your own experience of the current time, of course.
I've never liked a dominant player, so I have no experience that way. I can admire the results and the effort though. But, for me, Lendl, Sampras, and Federer are chilly personalities with some disturbing overtones. Others see it differently, of course. But, for me there's a difference when discussing objective things about the game and the results. Obviously, I think everyone garners more pleasure from seeing someone they respect and admire as a person doing well. There's never going to be unanimity though.
star is offline  
post #12 of 45 (permalink) Old 03-31-2010, 06:46 PM
Blown Out On the Trail
 
star's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 62,739
                     
Re: Better For Tennis - Domination vs. Parity

Quote:
Originally Posted by r2473 View Post
Depends on who you like to call "mugs" more. If you like to call "the field" a bunch of mugs that bow down to Federer / Nadal, etc, then Domination is better.

If you like to make fun of Feder / Nadal for losing to lower ranked players, then parity is better.

I think we have plenty of fans of both......often it is the exact same person
Are those really the only two options?
star is offline  
post #13 of 45 (permalink) Old 03-31-2010, 06:48 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Age: 43
Posts: 2,443
                     
Re: Better For Tennis - Domination vs. Parity

Quote:
Originally Posted by star View Post
Are those really the only two options?
You have 35K+ posts on MTF and you need to ask this question?
r2473 is offline  
post #14 of 45 (permalink) Old 03-31-2010, 07:06 PM
Registered User
 
oranges's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 13,564
                     
Re: Better For Tennis - Domination vs. Parity

Best of both worlds Domination is fine as long as there are competitors able to present a genuine challenge. They might not win often enough for true parity, but if it's competitive and not too predictable, it's still exciting. Parity is also fine as long as it doesn't mean numerous brief flashes followed by more or less a flop.
oranges is offline  
post #15 of 45 (permalink) Old 03-31-2010, 07:09 PM
Registered User
 
Everko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Age: 32
Posts: 4,137
                     
Re: Better For Tennis - Domination vs. Parity

Parity by a chosen few. about 5-8 serious contendors, not everyone under the Tuscan sun being able to win a slam.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalfusion
In fact, he may be the one poster here who fails more than you do. Maybe we should all keep that in mind: there is bigger fail than Word Life/Danger Ehren...and its name is Glenn
.

about the Federer Will Fall thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raferminator
Best damn thread I've ever read on MTF. You should be awarded for being a visionary. Some of us out here noticed it and appreciated it.
Federer will fall
Murray will never win a slam
Federer will never beat Nadal again in a slam
Golubev will rise
Go Ouahab
Everko is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the MensTennisForums.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome