Men's tennis is in great shape [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Men's tennis is in great shape

BlueSwan
01-31-2008, 02:53 PM
Honestly, I can't recall any period where men's tennis was as exciting as right at this moment, and I have been following the sport (on and off) for about 25 years.

We have no less than three players competing for the top spot. And they're not at the top because of a few "fluke" wins. They're at the top because of stellar results over a 52 week period. Infact, the lowest ranked of the three, Novak Djokovic, now has so many points that he would have been ranked #1 in most cases in the past.

Also, the three are not only stellar performers, they're also very different. We have the incredible artist, who can do things no other player in tennis history have been able to and who seems to be making history every time he steps on a court. We have the physical wonder, the ultimate grinder and probably the greatest clay-courter of all time. And finally and we have the up and coming fast court baseliner with no apparent weaknesses in his game.

Add to this a legion of players and young up-and-coming players who are determined to make life difficult for the top 3 and you have a dream scenario. If people don't want to watch men's tennis now, they're never going to want to watch men's tennis.

The only period that gets close to this is the sadly brief period where Sampras, Agassi and Muster competing for the top honors. Sadly Agassi and Muster faded fast. That won't happen this time.

This is an amazing period in men's tennis. Enjoy it while it lasts.

juninhOH
01-31-2008, 03:08 PM
Borg, Connors and McEnroe?

stebs
01-31-2008, 03:15 PM
There have been many great times in tennis in the last 25 years and this isn't better than most of them.

Action Jackson
01-31-2008, 03:23 PM
No, this is not an amazing period of the game.

Jaap
01-31-2008, 03:28 PM
I don't see how it can be in good shape when it has James Blake in the top 10.

Horatio Caine
01-31-2008, 03:29 PM
I don't see how it can be in good shape when it has James Blake in the top 10.

Well it has improved with the exit of Boredo (although I have nothing against him personally). :p

Actually, Boredo > Blake...so Blake being in top 10 over Boredo perhaps isn't such a great thing. :scratch: :help:


To reply to the thread itself...I'm not really familar with tennis pre-1996. I guess I enjoyed more the Sampras, Agassi, Kuerten etc era. :shrug:

Burrow
01-31-2008, 03:30 PM
I personally find it pretty awful, I am not really enjoying tennis at the moment. I loved it from 1995-2004, but for me it is going downhill.

Voo de Mar
01-31-2008, 03:34 PM
IMO, men's tennis is in crisis.

Burrow
01-31-2008, 03:35 PM
IMO, men's tennis is in crisis.

That's the word. :yeah:

Horatio Caine
01-31-2008, 03:36 PM
IMO, men's tennis is in crisis.

I'd be interested in an elaboration on this (especially as I don't really have an opinion to this effect)? You're one of the most knowledgable posters here, and I always enjoy reading your comments. Thanks.

Labamba
01-31-2008, 03:39 PM
Well it has improved with the exit of Boredo (although I have nothing against him personally). :p

Actually, Boredo > Blake...so Blake being in top 10 over Boredo perhaps isn't such a great thing. :scratch: :help:


On Monday neither Boredo or Blake will be in the Top 10 :p

Horatio Caine
01-31-2008, 03:43 PM
On Monday neither Boredo or Blake will be in the Top 10 :p

Well, I don't know what to say. :lol:

I don't dislike either of them, although I quite enjoy watching Blake play (yep, not the right thing to say on MTF :o), while Boredo...well, not really.

I'm not sure having Berdych replace Blake in the top 10 is particularly great, either. :p

Action Jackson
01-31-2008, 03:48 PM
The politics of the game and what is planned for the future doesn't make it look good no matter how good it is on the court.

Labamba
01-31-2008, 03:48 PM
I somewhat agree with the thread starter, the quality of competition is pretty high at the moment, especially on the hard courts.

However I don't see the future of men's tennis being too bright under the current leadership of Mr. Disney and co.

stebs
01-31-2008, 04:00 PM
The politics of the game and what is planned for the future doesn't make it look good no matter how good it is on the court.

I don't think that's true at all. I am not under the impression that this is an amazing time in tennis (though it's not the opposite either) but the way the game is run will not ruin tennis. It may make things worse, make things less exciting in some instances but at the end of the day the quality of tennis played by players on the court IS the thing that will overide it all.

Obviously you enjoy your specticism a lot and that's fine but for 99% of tennis fans (including those who understand the game well) what matters is watching tennis and enjoying the match rather than the layout of events, the politics of the game can only be more important than the tennis if you aren't enjoying the tennis anymore and if that's the case then it shouldn't matter anyway.

What I mean to say is this. Disney can chnage the name of events, change importance of events to favour one surface or to favour bigger names. At the end of the day the best players will always come through and sport is meant to be a tough road. At any rate, regardless of the extent that thse things matter to you if you really enjoy tennis you will forget all about it when you see Hewitt win over Baghdatis at 4.30am or when you watch Janko Tipsarevic push Roger Federer to 8-10 in the fifth.

ryan23
01-31-2008, 04:03 PM
I don't see how it can be in good shape when it has James Blake in the top 10.

LOL


Hey pal it could be worse Tommy Robredo could still be in top 10 lol

Voo de Mar
01-31-2008, 04:18 PM
I'd be interested in an elaboration on this (especially as I don't really have an opinion to this effect)? You're one of the most knowledgable posters here, and I always enjoy reading your comments. Thanks.

Thanks for appreciated my tennis knowledge :)
I've been watching men's tennis carefully for many years and I see that increasingly matches between Top 5 players and players rank. 50-100 are unattractive and one-sided. It reminds me of women Grand Slam events from the 90's when you knew in the 1st round who would play in the semifinals.
In years 2005-2006 men's tennis had been completely dominated by only two players, since last year by three (Djokovic's revelation). The progress of tournaments becomes very predictable what isn't a good thing. Look at this comparison of Grand Slam semifinalists from 4 events in a row (years: 1997 and 2007) ->

1997
RG: Dewulf, Kuerten, Bruguera, Rafter
WB: Sampras, Woodbridge, Stich, Pioline
UO: Bjorkman, Rusedski, Rafter, Chang
1998
AO: Kucera, Korda, Rios, Escude

15 players (only Rafter was in the SF twice)

2007
RG: Federer, Davydenko, Nadal, Djokovic
WB: Federer, Gasquet, Nadal, Djokovic
UO: Federer, Davydenko, Djokovic, Ferrer
2008
AO: Federer, Djokovic, Tsonga, Nadal

Only 7 players.

--------------------------

This one issue, the other is style of play. In the 90's we had many different styles and the matches were more intriguing. The best thing in tennis is diversity, when a player "A" is a serve-volleyer and a player "B" plays from the baseline.
Nowadays almost every player stays on the baseline, even Federer, who is a very good volleyer.

Look at the Top 20 at the end of 1998 & 2007.

1998:

1 Sampras, Pete
2 Rios, Marcelo
3 Corretja, Alex
4 Rafter, Patrick
5 Moya, Carlos
6 Agassi, Andre
7 Henman, Tim
8 Kucera, Karol
9 Rusedski, Greg
10 Krajicek, Richard
11 Kafelnikov, Yevgeny
12 Ivanisevic, Goran
13 Korda, Petr
14 Costa, Albert
15 Philippoussis, Mark
16 Martin, Todd
17 Johansson, Thomas
18 Pioline, Cedric
19 Siemerink, Jan
20 Mantilla, Felix

The types of Top 20 players (generally 3 categories):
A - 9 players with the tactics "serve & volley",
B - 6 playing offensive from the baseline (rather big serve) &
C - 5 with deffensive play

2007:

1 Federer, Roger
2 Nadal, Rafael
3 Djokovic, Novak
4 Davydenko, Nikolay
5 Ferrer, David
6 Roddick, Andy
7 Gonzalez, Fernando
8 Gasquet, Richard
9 Nalbandian, David
10 Robredo, Tommy
11 Murray, Andy
12 Haas, Tommy
13 Blake, James
14 Berdych, Tomas
15 Canas, Guillermo
16 Baghdatis, Marcos
17 Moya, Carlos
18 Ljubicic, Ivan
19 Youzhny, Mikhail
20 Chela, Juan Ignacio

A - 0 :help:
B - 10
C - 10

scoobs
01-31-2008, 04:31 PM
I don't think that's true at all. I am not under the impression that this is an amazing time in tennis (though it's not the opposite either) but the way the game is run will not ruin tennis. It may make things worse, make things less exciting in some instances but at the end of the day the quality of tennis played by players on the court IS the thing that will overide it all.

Obviously you enjoy your specticism a lot and that's fine but for 99% of tennis fans (including those who understand the game well) what matters is watching tennis and enjoying the match rather than the layout of events, the politics of the game can only be more important than the tennis if you aren't enjoying the tennis anymore and if that's the case then it shouldn't matter anyway.

What I mean to say is this. Disney can chnage the name of events, change importance of events to favour one surface or to favour bigger names. At the end of the day the best players will always come through and sport is meant to be a tough road. At any rate, regardless of the extent that thse things matter to you if you really enjoy tennis you will forget all about it when you see Hewitt win over Baghdatis at 4.30am or when you watch Janko Tipsarevic push Roger Federer to 8-10 in the fifth.
I agree with this to a large extent - I think the tennis will find a way to still be relevant and exciting , regardless of the largely cosmetic and fatuous changes made to it by the people who happen to be in charge at any given moment.

Obviously I'd rather see good management taking good decisions in consultation with all interested parties, including fans, but even without that, once you get two good players out on a court with something at stake, the trained monkeys in charge fade right out of the picture - they're mostly a force of distraction anyway even at the best of times.

My only real concern is if they do start to tamper with the Grand Slams.

BlueSwan
01-31-2008, 04:48 PM
Thanks for appreciated my tennis knowledge :)
I've been watching men's tennis carefully for many years and I see that increasingly matches between Top 5 players and players rank. 50-100 are unattractive and one-sided. It reminds me of women Grand Slam events from the 90's when you knew in the 1st round who would play in the semifinals.
In years 2005-2006 men's tennis had been completely dominated by only two players, since last year by three (Djokovic's revelation). The progress of tournaments becomes very predictable what isn't a good thing. Look at this comparison of Grand Slam semifinalists from 4 events in a row (years: 1997 and 2007) ->

1997
RG: Dewulf, Kuerten, Bruguera, Rafter
WB: Sampras, Woodbridge, Stich, Pioline
UO: Bjorkman, Rusedski, Rafter, Chang
1998
AO: Kucera, Korda, Rios, Escude
To me, that's exactly what made men's tennis dull during the late 90's. Back then, if you had a good run of a few tournaments you were basically in contention for the #1 slot. It all seemed very "flukey". Players hit a hot streak, then turned cold after a few weeks again. Basically it didn't matter if you lost in the first round 5 tournaments in a row, because NOONE was consistent. The stakes weren't high enough. While that era had lots of diversity, it had little in the way of following sublime athletes making history (with the exception of Sampras). I believe we now have three players fighting for #1, who will all make history. None of them can afford first round losses at major events. Every match matters in this battle. Personally I love that, but I respect that you and others in this thread feel otherwise.

This one issue, the other is style of play. In the 90's we had many different styles and the matches were more intriguing. The best thing in tennis is diversity, when a player "A" is a serve-volleyer and a player "B" plays from the baseline.
Nowadays almost every player stays on the baseline, even Federer, who is a very good volleyer.

True. But that diversity came at a cost. Basically the serve and volley game was possible due to fast playing conditions and the fact that noone knew how to return serve (or didn't have good enough rackets for it). I too miss having a few top notch serve and volleyers around, but I don't miss 1-2 stroke rallies dominating entire matches. Wimbledon was virtually unwatchable back then.

*bunny*
01-31-2008, 05:40 PM
To me, that's exactly what made men's tennis dull during the late 90's. Back then, if you had a good run of a few tournaments you were basically in contention for the #1 slot. It all seemed very "flukey". Players hit a hot streak, then turned cold after a few weeks again. Basically it didn't matter if you lost in the first round 5 tournaments in a row, because NOONE was consistent. The stakes weren't high enough. While that era had lots of diversity, it had little in the way of following sublime athletes making history (with the exception of Sampras). I believe we now have three players fighting for #1, who will all make history. None of them can afford first round losses at major events. Every match matters in this battle. Personally I love that, but I respect that you and others in this thread feel otherwise.


True. But that diversity came at a cost. Basically the serve and volley game was possible due to fast playing conditions and the fact that noone knew how to return serve (or didn't have good enough rackets for it). I too miss having a few top notch serve and volleyers around, but I don't miss 1-2 stroke rallies dominating entire matches. Wimbledon was virtually unwatchable back then.
Yes, that was the Wimbledon finals in 1994 that drew criticism as a boring serve feast (personally I found it thrilling except the result (lol) but I know I belong to minority!), and the following year Wimbledon started using a heavier ball. It didn't stop big servers from flourishing there, so they then changed the court surface in 2001 (Many people seem to think it was 2002 that the grass at All England Club were slowed down because Hewitt won that year, but it was actuallly 2001). So people got what they wanted.
But with the advanced technology of the rackets and players learning more and more how to pass, serve and volley tennis has become a surprise tactics employed by baseline players. Few players who serve and volley more often than not, like Feli, Mahut, Llodra, Navarro and Kendrick, occasionally do some damages but not much more, and versatile guys like Santoro, Kiefer and Grosjean are getting older (although I'm expecting one more good season from Seb)...

I also like watching a match between players with different styles of play, even better if they have different personalities, so to me 2003 was a very exciting year with the three guys at the top with different games and characters, and Agassi was still good enough to be in the mix.

Back to the topic and I hope this year will bring something as exciting as 2003. But Nole has still a lot to prove to make that happen IMHO. He's won a slam and his confidence is sky high, so I expect him to continue to improve his tennis and defend as many points as he can, but we'll have to wait and see.

vucina
01-31-2008, 05:56 PM
To me, that's exactly what made men's tennis dull during the late 90's. Back then, if you had a good run of a few tournaments you were basically in contention for the #1 slot. It all seemed very "flukey". Players hit a hot streak, then turned cold after a few weeks again. Basically it didn't matter if you lost in the first round 5 tournaments in a row, because NOONE was consistent. The stakes weren't high enough. While that era had lots of diversity, it had little in the way of following sublime athletes making history (with the exception of Sampras). I believe we now have three players fighting for #1, who will all make history. None of them can afford first round losses at major events. Every match matters in this battle. Personally I love that, but I respect that you and others in this thread feel otherwise.


True. But that diversity came at a cost. Basically the serve and volley game was possible due to fast playing conditions and the fact that noone knew how to return serve (or didn't have good enough rackets for it). I too miss having a few top notch serve and volleyers around, but I don't miss 1-2 stroke rallies dominating entire matches. Wimbledon was virtually unwatchable back then.

Agreed.

acharlesmobile
01-31-2008, 06:10 PM
do you think tennis would be more interesting without Federer, Djokovic, and Nadal? Cause without those 3, its pretty much back to everyone being pretty equal

World Beater
01-31-2008, 06:45 PM
To me, that's exactly what made men's tennis dull during the late 90's. Back then, if you had a good run of a few tournaments you were basically in contention for the #1 slot. It all seemed very "flukey". Players hit a hot streak, then turned cold after a few weeks again. Basically it didn't matter if you lost in the first round 5 tournaments in a row, because NOONE was consistent. The stakes weren't high enough. While that era had lots of diversity, it had little in the way of following sublime athletes making history (with the exception of Sampras). I believe we now have three players fighting for #1, who will all make history. None of them can afford first round losses at major events. Every match matters in this battle. Personally I love that, but I respect that you and others in this thread feel otherwise.


True. But that diversity came at a cost. Basically the serve and volley game was possible due to fast playing conditions and the fact that noone knew how to return serve (or didn't have good enough rackets for it). I too miss having a few top notch serve and volleyers around, but I don't miss 1-2 stroke rallies dominating entire matches. Wimbledon was virtually unwatchable back then.

:worship:

tennis in the 90's was like target practice. I dont need to watch more ivanisevic-sampras-becker matches indoors.

Sure it would be nice if we had a patrick rafter or a prime tim henman in this generation.

I'm not sure I would want to watch some flukey players reach latter rounds either. I mean who would want to watch a voltchkov-sampras semifinal or a washington-martin semi? Now at least the latter stages of tournaments are interesting because you have three guys who could potentially beat each other and two or three darkhorses that could beat anyone.

agassi was always had the deer-in headlights look against sampras on fast courts. Courier was hopeless against pete most of the time. At least we have nadal who is BP away from making history at wimbledon and another guy who will be challenging for the #1 ranking in djokovic.

pascal'rG
01-31-2008, 08:15 PM
Old n°1 with their maximum amounts of points :

Lleyton Hewitt (AUS) 8/26/2002 5205
Gustavo Kuerten (BRA) 9/24/2001 4750
Juan Carlos Ferrero (ESP) 10/20/2003 4570
Andy Roddick (USA) 1/19/2004 4535
Marat Safin (RUS) 4/16/2001 4270

Current :

1 Roger Federer 6630
2 Rafael Nadal 5980
3 Novak Djokovic 5165

That's means that today to be n°3 you need lots of points more than to be n°1....

I think that Federer and Nadal with their great consistence have put the men's tennis on another dimension.
And that's good for everyone because now you really have to be good all the year to be in the top 5.

henree
01-31-2008, 10:10 PM
Well it has improved with the exit of Boredo (although I have nothing against him personally). :p

Actually, Boredo > Blake...so Blake being in top 10 over Boredo perhaps isn't such a great thing. :scratch: :help:


To reply to the thread itself...I'm not really familar with tennis pre-1996. I guess I enjoyed more the Sampras, Agassi, Kuerten etc era. :shrug:


You must be out your mind if you think Boredo > Blake...

NinaNina19
01-31-2008, 10:19 PM
It will be good when Murray is top 5. It will be Fed, Rafa, Djoko, and Andy all competing for the top spot.

thrust
01-31-2008, 10:27 PM
IMO, men's tennis is in crisis.

Mens tennis is better now than it was a few years ago when Roger had little competition in Slams. Now there is Nadal AND Nole to contend with. If Tsonga, Gasquet and Roddick would improve things would be even more interesting. And then there is Marat?

JediFed
01-31-2008, 10:41 PM
I'd love to see a top ten of

Federer
Nadal
Djokovic
Gasquet
Murray
Nalbandian
Berdych
Baghdatis
Youzhny
Ferrer

And we aren't far from this at all. Davydenko, Roddick and Blake are still in while Murray, Berdych and Baghdatis are just outside.

RagingLamb
01-31-2008, 11:04 PM
Thanks for appreciated my tennis knowledge :)
I've been watching men's tennis carefully for many years and I see that increasingly matches between Top 5 players and players rank. 50-100 are unattractive and one-sided. It reminds me of women Grand Slam events from the 90's when you knew in the 1st round who would play in the semifinals.
In years 2005-2006 men's tennis had been completely dominated by only two players, since last year by three (Djokovic's revelation). The progress of tournaments becomes very predictable what isn't a good thing. Look at this comparison of Grand Slam semifinalists from 4 events in a row (years: 1997 and 2007) ->

1997
RG: Dewulf, Kuerten, Bruguera, Rafter
WB: Sampras, Woodbridge, Stich, Pioline
UO: Bjorkman, Rusedski, Rafter, Chang
1998
AO: Kucera, Korda, Rios, Escude

15 players (only Rafter was in the SF twice)

2007
RG: Federer, Davydenko, Nadal, Djokovic
WB: Federer, Gasquet, Nadal, Djokovic
UO: Federer, Davydenko, Djokovic, Ferrer
2008
AO: Federer, Djokovic, Tsonga, Nadal

Only 7 players.

--------------------------

This one issue, the other is style of play. In the 90's we had many different styles and the matches were more intriguing. The best thing in tennis is diversity, when a player "A" is a serve-volleyer and a player "B" plays from the baseline.
Nowadays almost every player stays on the baseline, even Federer, who is a very good volleyer.

Look at the Top 20 at the end of 1998 & 2007.

1998:

1 Sampras, Pete
2 Rios, Marcelo
3 Corretja, Alex
4 Rafter, Patrick
5 Moya, Carlos
6 Agassi, Andre
7 Henman, Tim
8 Kucera, Karol
9 Rusedski, Greg
10 Krajicek, Richard
11 Kafelnikov, Yevgeny
12 Ivanisevic, Goran
13 Korda, Petr
14 Costa, Albert
15 Philippoussis, Mark
16 Martin, Todd
17 Johansson, Thomas
18 Pioline, Cedric
19 Siemerink, Jan
20 Mantilla, Felix

The types of Top 20 players (generally 3 categories):
A - 9 players with the tactics "serve & volley",
B - 6 playing offensive from the baseline (rather big serve) &
C - 5 with deffensive play

2007:

1 Federer, Roger
2 Nadal, Rafael
3 Djokovic, Novak
4 Davydenko, Nikolay
5 Ferrer, David
6 Roddick, Andy
7 Gonzalez, Fernando
8 Gasquet, Richard
9 Nalbandian, David
10 Robredo, Tommy
11 Murray, Andy
12 Haas, Tommy
13 Blake, James
14 Berdych, Tomas
15 Canas, Guillermo
16 Baghdatis, Marcos
17 Moya, Carlos
18 Ljubicic, Ivan
19 Youzhny, Mikhail
20 Chela, Juan Ignacio

A - 0 :help:
B - 10
C - 10

:yeah: Couldn't agree more.

But of course, somehow the lack of diversity is more exciting. :rolleyes:

Andi-M
01-31-2008, 11:22 PM
I have to say I agree with the OP. I wish i was around for McEnroe, Connors, Borg era and when i see replays it seems amazing i think that was a very good time for mens tennis.

But I can only comment on what I've seen. which is 98 ish onwards and now is certainly better than then with all those boring big-servers dominating the tour. And all the players had no-personalities. Only Agassi had an exciting game and something interesting to say.

Federer's dominance is the best thing that could have happened to mens tennis at the zzzzzz state it was in late 90's early 00's.
Incidently then the WTA was at its very best time which is why I still watched tennis!

It shook up the tour gave players something to aim at sure 2006 was overdominance, but now we have 3 outstanding players with great diverse chracters competing for majors, and some pretty damn good players in the chasing pack.. I think mens tennis atm is very good :D

Bibberz
01-31-2008, 11:37 PM
Lendl once said that Agassi was just "a forehand and a haircut." I think Robredo just has the haircut, and Blake just has the forehand. I also give Blake the edge.


You must be out your mind if you think Boredo > Blake...

tennizen
01-31-2008, 11:43 PM
The current era is the only one I know and I love it. I agree with the OP completely.

Alex999
01-31-2008, 11:45 PM
I love every part of this era. Roger, Rafa and Novak. What is not to like?

Frank Winkler
01-31-2008, 11:47 PM
yes these three are great.
They have saved us from huge guys with huge serves alllways holding serve.
There is still that danger in men's tennis except on clay.

Henry Chinaski
01-31-2008, 11:50 PM
I love every part of this era. Roger, Rafa and Novak. What is not to like?

Roger, Rafa and Novak

Alex999
01-31-2008, 11:55 PM
Roger, Rafa and Novak

What's your point, lol?

jetblackheart
01-31-2008, 11:57 PM
This era is boring. I miss the unpredictability. :(

Federerhingis
02-01-2008, 12:06 AM
Borg, Connors and McEnroe?

I agree with both, I mean TENNIS was at it's peak in terms of popularity during the Connors McEnroe era. Nonetheless, tennis is at a very exciting state currently, with it's top three players clearly far and above the best athletes the sport has seen in the past decade.

This season definitely promises to be pretty exciting, and the fight for the top spot will be quite hard fought if the top three players play up to their potentianl and remain healthy and with good form. :yeah:

Young Boss
02-01-2008, 12:49 AM
Voo de Mar said:
2007
RG: Federer, Davydenko, Nadal, Djokovic
WB: Federer, Gasquet, Nadal, Djokovic
UO: Federer, Davydenko, Djokovic, Ferrer
2008
AO: Federer, Djokovic, Tsonga, Nadal


IMO, this shows how well roger,rafa,and novak have played the last 4 GS, not how weak the rest of the field is.

And on the topic of serve and volley players: that style of play is not conducive to consistenly winning matches anymore.
Serve and volley can work as a change in tactic to catch opponents off gaurd, and maybe get you a few easy points a set.

Action Jackson
02-01-2008, 02:26 AM
I don't think that's true at all. I am not under the impression that this is an amazing time in tennis (though it's not the opposite either) but the way the game is run will not ruin tennis. It may make things worse, make things less exciting in some instances but at the end of the day the quality of tennis played by players on the court IS the thing that will overide it all.

Obviously you enjoy your specticism a lot and that's fine but for 99% of tennis fans (including those who understand the game well) what matters is watching tennis and enjoying the match rather than the layout of events, the politics of the game can only be more important than the tennis if you aren't enjoying the tennis anymore and if that's the case then it shouldn't matter anyway.

What I mean to say is this. Disney can chnage the name of events, change importance of events to favour one surface or to favour bigger names. At the end of the day the best players will always come through and sport is meant to be a tough road. At any rate, regardless of the extent that thse things matter to you if you really enjoy tennis you will forget all about it when you see Hewitt win over Baghdatis at 4.30am or when you watch Janko Tipsarevic push Roger Federer to 8-10 in the fifth.

You are trying to make it out like I care more about the politics and the crass leadership than the tennis itself, which is not true. At the same time the idiots organising the ATP, don't help at all.

The game is too homogonised at the moment, but that's the way it goes. The other alternative isn't better and I have seen that.

This is far from a glory period for mens tennis, but it's not the abyss.

Merton
02-01-2008, 03:02 AM
The level is good, even though personally I would prefer a greater differentiation among the surfaces, without returning to the 90s. However, finding the balance is not easy.

Politics sadly are important in the long run, even though they do not affect play itself in the short run. Selling smoke and mirrors as revolutionary changes destroys the credibility of the professional administration of the sport towards sponsors in the long term. When the actual policies are bad, politics also distorts the future development of the sport. Yes, top talent will always emerge but under what circumstances? For example, downgrading challengers and futures does not exactly help.

MrChopin
02-01-2008, 03:15 AM
I think it's in good shape. From 2004-2006, Federer went almost unchallenged. The tour is catching up and a nice top 20 has emerged. There's some great diversity with great pure shotmakers, aggressive hard-courters, big servers, clay and all-court grinders. Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Ferrer, Roddick, Blake, Murray, Berdych, and Baghdatis all play at least slightly contrasting styles.

I think that the diversity in mens' tennis is pretty good, and rather, that "the problem," for me at least, is the lack of surface variation. I'd like to see Wimbledon sped up, more grass in general, and perhaps more variety in hard. I'd love to see some experimentation with hard, varying bounce and speed like we saw at AO, only more extreme. Right now, it seems as if there's a dominance of slow-medium hard, and Wimbledon has been reduced to laying somewhere around there, hence the emergence of the all-surface survivors like Djokovic (playing more aggressive as of late), Davydenko, Ferrer, Canas... I think the talent and variety in the mens' game is present to ensure that tennis remains exciting. I think that more surface variation would reveal the wealth of talents present in the modern game. Otherwise, I think it's pretty good.

Action Jackson
02-01-2008, 03:15 AM
The level is good, even though personally I would prefer a greater differentiation among the surfaces, without returning to the 90s. However, finding the balance is not easy.

Politics sadly are important in the long run, even though they do not affect play itself in the short run. Selling smoke and mirrors as revolutionary changes destroys the credibility of the professional administration of the sport towards sponsors in the long term. When the actual policies are bad, politics also distorts the future development of the sport. Yes, top talent will always emerge but under what circumstances? For example, downgrading challengers and futures does not exactly help.

This is a problem that too many people overlook, there needs to be strong and sensible administration of the game and that impacts on all levels and not just the top level. It's always about the moment and not the future, the game goes on.

Well about the policies, there have been enough evidence of what happens when they aren't in place or flawed, look at the RR fiasco, these clowns of trying to have more GS events, this is just getting attention for the sake of attention and has no tangible benefits.

Then look at the player development when the policies aren't in place. The Swedes thought it was going to be ongoing after the golden generation retired and Argentina apart from del Potro have no one coming up, but a lot of this is due to poor management.

Merton
02-01-2008, 03:30 AM
This is a problem that too many people overlook, there needs to be strong and sensible administration of the game and that impacts on all levels and not just the top level. It's always about the moment and not the future, the game goes on.

Well about the policies, there have been enough evidence of what happens when they aren't in place or flawed, look at the RR fiasco, these clowns of trying to have more GS events, this is just getting attention for the sake of attention and has no tangible benefits.

Then look at the player development when the policies aren't in place. The Swedes thought it was going to be ongoing after the golden generation retired and Argentina apart from del Potro have no one coming up, but a lot of this is due to poor management.

There is no doubt that policy is important, usually there is something that triggers massive interest in the sport, then it is up to policy to use this interest for long run development. Look at Spain and France, the Spaniards used the Barcelona Olympics big time, they developed infrastructure and generated top players since the 90s. France has more resources but did not enjoy similar success at the top.

The ATP should care about the long term interests of professional players globally, when they have agendas like promoting the interests of tournament directors, or local bias, it will not be optimal even when the administration is competent. These days obviously the administration is incompetent and prone to cronyism.

NinaNina19
02-01-2008, 03:38 AM
I hate people who put unpredictability over quality. Right now the quality of play we're seeing from a lot of the top players is amazing.

Billabong
02-01-2008, 04:38 AM
I love it:D

Benny_Maths
02-01-2008, 05:07 AM
I hate people who put unpredictability over quality. Right now the quality of play we're seeing from a lot of the top players is amazing.

Agreed. I'd rather see Federer dominate than Leander Paes (or whichever doubles player it was) beating Pete Sampras.

leng jai
02-01-2008, 05:28 AM
Yeah great era where we have an army of ballbashers who don't know how to volley or slice.

Halba
02-01-2008, 07:28 AM
apart from about 3 players the field is weak mentally and lacks variety...hence the dominance of about 3 players with a few "CAMEO" appearances from talent every now and again (who lack CONSISTENCY) e.g. tsonga, nalbandian, murray, baghdatis to name a few. Djoker is favourite for one of indian wells/miami. fed should get 1 of those masters as well. nadal will get all clay titles he competes in this season except hamburg.

Deejay
02-01-2008, 04:08 PM
I'm not sure that this period in tennis is a 'great era' but I have to say that this year in particular is going to be the most exciting we've had for ages. However great Federer is, there are now more threats to him than ever before with a number of excellent young players rising through the ranks. I expect Federer to hold onto his no.1 spot but I have a feeling that Djokovic will really put Nadal in the shade this year. Also looking forward to seeing how Murray gets on, if he can stay fit for atleast 75% of the season (unlikely i know!) i think we'll see him rise to around the no.4 spot. This year is also a massive year for the likes of Hewitt, Roddick, Ferrero...the game seems to be surpassing them at the moment so if they dont show they are still capable of competing at the top tournaments then it looks like it could be the end for them

freeandlonely
02-01-2008, 08:20 PM
If guys like Nalby/Gasquet play very consistently it's better for me.:)

stebs
02-02-2008, 06:41 PM
You are trying to make it out like I care more about the politics and the crass leadership than the tennis itself, which is not true. At the same time the idiots organising the ATP, don't help at all.

:confused:

The politics of the game and what is planned for the future doesn't make it look good no matter how good it is on the court.

It's not like I'm twisting your words. You said exactly that the politics will override the tennis, I think that's rubbish.

stebs
02-02-2008, 06:50 PM
I hate people who put unpredictability over quality. Right now the quality of play we're seeing from a lot of the top players is amazing.

I agree with this. What's best in tennis is the best player facing off to each other. This cannot happen with too much unpredictability. I mean, the top three of exactly ten years ago (Sampras, Korda, Rafter) in 1998 lost to the following:

Siemerink
Spadea
Black (Byron)
MacPhie
Stoltenberg
Gimelstob
Raoux
Vacek
Dosodel
Arazi
Zabaleta
Haarhuis
Ulihrach
Karbacher
Delgado
Woodforde
Paes

Some of these players aren't terrible but at the time of defeating the top players they were all outside top 20. Is there realistically ANY chance that we will be able to make a similar list concerning Federer, Nadal and Djokovic at the end of the year? I don't think so.

I don't love predictability but given the choice I would take the three reaching the latter stages rather than being replaced by players of the calibre of those in that list.

Action Jackson
02-03-2008, 04:22 PM
:confused:

The politics of the game and what is planned for the future doesn't make it look good no matter how good it is on the court.

It's not like I'm twisting your words. You said exactly that the politics will override the tennis, I think that's rubbish.

Did I say that? Actually when they have a bunch of clowns organising the sport, then how is that good for the game? This means the management ineptitude does have an impact on the product. If they are incompetent, then the quality of what goes on court doesn't get seen by as many people as it should, marketing, the future of the sport has an impact.

The theory that each generation paves the way for the next and it's supposed to better in terms of product, this is not always the case.

Have you read the rest of the points that Merton and myself made in this thread. If it is that healthy, then the product should be able to sell itself.

stebs
02-03-2008, 04:25 PM
Did I say that? Actually when they have a bunch of clowns organising the sport, then how is that good for the game? This means the management ineptitude does have an impact on the product. If they are incompetent, then the quality of what goes on court doesn't get seen by as many people as it should, marketing, the future of the sport has an impact.

The theory that each generation paves the way for the next and it's supposed to better in terms of product, this is not always the case.

Have you read the rest of the points that Merton and myself made in this thread. If it is that healthy, then the product should be able to sell itself.

They're all good points you (and Merton also) raise and yes, the way the sport is headed is not going to be anything good but at the end of the day the best players in the world will still reach the top and play great tennis in grand slam matches and that is the important thing.

Aphex
02-03-2008, 05:42 PM
I really enjoyed the transitional period between the Sampras and Federer eras. Especially clay tennis was exciting back then. I mean Nadal and Federer's dominance is fascinating and I respect their accomplishments, but I was bored with the predictability of the results already late 05. I prefer this era over the Sampras and Ivanisecic serve fest dark ages by a couple of miles. Mid 80s to early 90s were exciting too, but I think it has to do with me being Swedish more than anything else.

trixtah
02-04-2008, 03:04 AM
According to actual calculation on rankings, we are actually seeing one of the strongest standards of tennis

CyBorg
02-04-2008, 03:21 AM
I'm satisfied. We have a solid top three and each of the guys plays a relatively different style than the other. The lack of serving and volleying bothers me less than the fact that we have few legimitate clay court talents to challenge Nadal. I'm still waiting for some guys to emerge and there's no indication that it's happening. Hopefully something interesting materializes this spring and some guys begin to make waves.

The politics aspect is disconcerting, but we have had general incompetence for so many years now. I don't believe that the majors are in danger - there's nothing substantial to suggest that this is the case. A few pompous statements from Tiriac are not enough to unnerve anyone.

I'm pretty excited for the Monte Carlo/Rome/Madrid trifecta starting in 2009. As much as I hate Tiriac I do enjoy seeing Spain get their clay MC (errrr 1000... goddamit). Clay lives and that's what's important.

Burrow
02-04-2008, 04:08 AM
I agree with this. What's best in tennis is the best player facing off to each other. This cannot happen with too much unpredictability. I mean, the top three of exactly ten years ago (Sampras, Korda, Rafter) in 1998 lost to the following:

Siemerink
Spadea
Black (Byron)
MacPhie
Stoltenberg
Gimelstob
Raoux
Vacek
Dosodel
Arazi
Zabaleta
Haarhuis
Ulihrach
Karbacher
Delgado
Woodforde
Paes

Some of these players aren't terrible but at the time of defeating the top players they were all outside top 20. Is there realistically ANY chance that we will be able to make a similar list concerning Federer, Nadal and Djokovic at the end of the year? I don't think so.

I don't love predictability but given the choice I would take the three reaching the latter stages rather than being replaced by players of the calibre of those in that list.

Well to me that looks far more entertaining and exciting.

Farenhajt
02-04-2008, 12:07 PM
^ Just imagine the amount of bandwagoning in MTF, with the accompanying haters'/defenders' threads... Not healthy.

<Blue>
02-04-2008, 01:25 PM
Can't tell about the past.
But this year's Australia Open had a lot of great matches, and besides the big three there, there are more playing nice or consistestly, or worth to watch and some promises who need just a year or two to become realities.

stebs
02-04-2008, 04:11 PM
Well to me that looks far more entertaining and exciting.

Well it's different strokes for different folks but when the top 5 are consistently losing to players outside the top 40 it is a lower level of tennis than we have now.

Funny to think people laugh and say how hugely players like Blake and Gonzalez sucked because they only have a few big results in the year, that's how it was fir the very best players 10 years ago.

Deivid23
02-04-2008, 09:22 PM
Tennis is fun to watch these days bc there are quite a bunch of quality players around period. Those who think it´s in crisis and moan about lack of quality/depth go and switch to fucking curling, thanks.

*End of rant*

stebs
02-04-2008, 09:35 PM
Tennis is fun to watch these days bc there are quite a bunch of quality players around period. Those who think it´s in crisis and moan about lack of quality/depth go and switch to fucking curling, thanks.

*End of rant*

:yeah:

Unless you're a coach, journalist, trainer etc... you are watching these guys play for your own enjoyment. If you think it sucks why are you watching?

scoobs
02-04-2008, 09:49 PM
:yeah:

Unless you're a coach, journalist, trainer etc... you are watching these guys play for your own enjoyment. If you think it sucks why are you watching?
Well, quite :)

Sunset of Age
02-04-2008, 09:50 PM
Tennis is fun to watch these days bc there are quite a bunch of quality players around period. Those who think it´s in crisis and moan about lack of quality/depth go and switch to fucking curling, thanks.

*End of rant*

I know we don't always agree (:p) but this is pretty spot on. :yeah:

Federerhingis
02-04-2008, 10:37 PM
:yeah:

Unless you're a coach, journalist, trainer etc... you are watching these guys play for your own enjoyment. If you think it sucks why are you watching?

Ditto. :lol:

Action Jackson
02-05-2008, 01:22 AM
I really enjoyed the transitional period between the Sampras and Federer eras. Especially clay tennis was exciting back then. I mean Nadal and Federer's dominance is fascinating and I respect their accomplishments, but I was bored with the predictability of the results already late 05. I prefer this era over the Sampras and Ivanisecic serve fest dark ages by a couple of miles. Mid 80s to early 90s were exciting too, but I think it has to do with me being Swedish more than anything else.

Well this is a Chernoybl in clay tennis at the moment and this is not Nadal's fault that he is that much better than everyone else on the surface and could beat 97 percent of them right handed.

It goes back to the lack of surface of variation and the homogonised games, that the tennis apart from Nadal, that most of them play is the same on hardcourt as it is on clay.

As for Federer he has set the standard and the others have to better themselves, well like you say I remember the serve fests on ice rinks, that was not tennis, then as has been shown the balance is almost impossible to find.