Men's tennis 2004-2007 [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Men's tennis 2004-2007

bokehlicious
07-24-2008, 01:09 PM
Was it good or bad years for men's tennis according to you?

Please discuss...

Clay Death
07-24-2008, 01:14 PM
Was it good or bad years for men's tennis according to you?

Please discuss...

one of the 100 million threads on the blind worship of Fed. no discussion needed.

finishingmove
07-24-2008, 01:14 PM
stopped watching then ...

PiggyGotRoasted
07-24-2008, 01:16 PM
Yeah.. it was okay.

Kolya
07-24-2008, 01:27 PM
Could have been better...

Clay Death
07-24-2008, 01:30 PM
Could have been better...

boring for me. thank god for a little competition at the top.

Matchu
07-24-2008, 01:31 PM
So what your basically asking is was Roger Federer dominating every tournament he entered good for mens tennis. IMO no it was boring knowing the winner of the event even before it started. Couple of highlights (none of them containing Roger) Hewitt v Safin 2005 Aus Open Final, Coria v Gaudio 2004 Roland Garros Final.

Basically we saw the decline of most of the top players in 2003 on these years ie. Roddick, Hewitt, Agassi, Ferrero, Philippoussis, Kuerten, Srichaphan, Moya, Coria, Grosjean, Safin, Mirnyi, Henman... this list goes on and on.
Some of my favorite players are in that list so no I didnt enjoy these years so much, I want the unpredictablity to come back to mens tennis where we have a new world number one every month that would be awesome keep me interested.

Beforehand
07-24-2008, 01:33 PM
I think having a new #1 every month would make it seem horribly transitional.

Who knows? I've never seen #1 change quickly, but I think it would make me feel like I do about the WTA #1, and that's that it never really matters at a given time, because it changes so constantly.

bokehlicious
07-24-2008, 01:33 PM
a new world number one every month that would be awesome keep me interested.

A new mug every month at the top would indeed be awesome :rocker2: the casual fan would drool at it, no doubt...

rocketassist
07-24-2008, 01:34 PM
Bad- GB Davis Cup side was at its lowest ebb in my years following tennis, no British success really, plus the slams were generally mediocre, you knew Fed would win the same 3 slams, and Nadal the same 1 slam, but then again this is better than Faker winning any of them.

bokehlicious
07-24-2008, 01:35 PM
boring for me. thank god for a little competition at the top.

If either Nadal or Djokovic were to dominate the game the way Fed did, will you find it boring too? :confused: serious question here ;)

JolánGagó
07-24-2008, 01:35 PM
Boring years, almost stopped following ATP in the first half of that period.

Retarded poll of the week, by the way.

Matchu
07-24-2008, 01:36 PM
I think having a new #1 every month would make it seem horribly transitional.

Who knows? I've never seen #1 change quickly, but I think it would make me feel like I do about the WTA #1, and that's that it never really matters at a given time, because it changes so constantly.

Well maybe not every month but I like the idea of playing for your ranking like in 2001 when Hewitt won the world number one ranking in the last tournament of the year. Federer will be playing for his ranking very soon and should be interesting to see if he really is as "cool, calm and collected" as every says he is. After today with Simon I think it is only a matter of time...

bokehlicious
07-24-2008, 01:36 PM
Boring years, almost stopped following ATP in the first half of that period.

Retarded poll of the week, by the way.

Too bad you can't add a red dot, it would have deserved it I guess... :hug:

Jimnik
07-24-2008, 01:38 PM
The 2005 AO wasn't bad. :p

TMJordan
07-24-2008, 01:38 PM
Better than this year thats forsure.

Clay Death
07-24-2008, 01:50 PM
If either Nadal or Djokovic were to dominate the game the way Fed did, will you find it boring too? :confused: serious question here ;)


not a good question. the increasing improvement of the field will limit the total domination. in addition, the 2 obvious dominant forces (Nadal and Djokovic) may have some limitations.

Nadal`s game is too taxing for him to completely dominate on all surfaces. had he not skipped Stuttgart, he would not have had a day off from tennis in 6 months. it was his very first break from tennis in that long.

Djokovic can be efficient but i am not sure he has the lasting power and lasting focus to stay at the top for too long.

bottom line is that these players have intense competition while Fed did not. Fed was never pushed until Nadal and Djokovic came along.

Burrow
07-24-2008, 01:56 PM
So what your basically asking is was Roger Federer dominating every tournament he entered good for mens tennis. IMO no it was boring knowing the winner of the event even before it started. Couple of highlights (none of them containing Roger) Hewitt v Safin 2005 Aus Open Final, Coria v Gaudio 2004 Roland Garros Final.

Basically we saw the decline of most of the top players in 2003 on these years ie. Roddick, Hewitt, Agassi, Ferrero, Philippoussis, Kuerten, Srichaphan, Moya, Coria, Grosjean, Safin, Mirnyi, Henman... this list goes on and on.
Some of my favorite players are in that list so no I didnt enjoy these years so much, I want the unpredictablity to come back to mens tennis where we have a new world number one every month that would be awesome keep me interested.

Some of those players did not go into decline eg. Safin who was injured throughout the year and Coria who made the French Open final the next year...

Matchu
07-24-2008, 02:00 PM
Some of those players did not go into decline eg. Safin who was injured throughout the year and Coria who made the French Open final the next year...

Umm you obviously missed what I was saying, What was Coria and Safins rankings in 2007 again?

bokehlicious
07-24-2008, 02:02 PM
not a good question. the increasing improvement of the field will limit the total domination. in addition, the 2 obvious dominant forces (Nadal and Djokovic) may have some limitations.

Nadal`s game is too taxing for him to completely dominate on all surfaces. had he not skipped Stuttgart, he would not have had a day off from tennis in 6 months. it was his very first break from tennis in that long.

Djokovic can be efficient but i am not sure he has the lasting power and lasting focus to stay at the top for too long.

bottom line is that these players have intense competition while Fed did not. Fed was never pushed until Nadal and Djokovic came along.

Thanks, but you failed to answer the actual question. Would you find it boring if either Nadal or Djokovic were to dominate the men's game for years? Don't answer that it won't happen... "if" is the key word here... ;)

tennizen
07-24-2008, 02:03 PM
I voted yes but I would edit the period to 2005-2007 when the real #1 came along:D

bokehlicious
07-24-2008, 02:05 PM
I voted yes but I would edit the period to 2005-2007 when the real #1 came along:D

Novak was still a boy back in 2005 :shrug:

federernadalfan
07-24-2008, 02:11 PM
Yes. Tennis needs supertalented individuals who dominate the sport like federer. Golf has tiger woods, basketball had michael jordan... Players that we would gasp in awe because their skills surpasses our greatest imagination.

Quadruple Tree
07-24-2008, 02:11 PM
not a good question. the increasing improvement of the field will limit the total domination. in addition, the 2 obvious dominant forces (Nadal and Djokovic) may have some limitations.

Nadal`s game is too taxing for him to completely dominate on all surfaces. had he not skipped Stuttgart, he would not have had a day off from tennis in 6 months. it was his very first break from tennis in that long.

Djokovic can be efficient but i am not sure he has the lasting power and lasting focus to stay at the top for too long.

bottom line is that these players have intense competition while Fed did not. Fed was never pushed until Nadal and Djokovic came along.

Intense competition? They are playing the same competition that Federer faced the previous two years when he won 6 majors.

calin
07-24-2008, 02:13 PM
Well I think federrer has slowed down so that has given way for other people to step up.

Calin

Tutu
07-24-2008, 02:15 PM
It was definatly good.. We first saw the gradual rise of Federer, and then the gradual rise of the competition..A la the Williams sisters.. It also seemed to take a back seat to the women a lot before then considering it's most marketable players from 1998-2002 were Pete and Andre, and the WTA had a massive cast of stars to choose from.. WS, Hingis, Davenport. etc...

The rise of Roger and Andy gave the ATP newer younger stars and although the likes of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic still don't compete with the likes of Maria S and the WS, the gap is closing and it seems that while the ATP was going from strengh to strengh, the WTA isn't doing so well. It will be interesting to see whether Rafael winning Wimbledon will strengthen Men's tennis or, as many people here seem to believe, weaken it. I think the latter.

rocketassist
07-24-2008, 02:18 PM
It was definatly good.. We first saw the gradual rise of Federer, and then the gradual rise of the competition..A la the Williams sisters.. It also seemed to take a back seat to the women a lot before then considering it's most marketable players from 1998-2002 were Pete and Andre, and the WTA had a massive cast of stars to choose from.. WS, Hingis, Davenport. etc...

The rise of Roger and Andy gave the ATP newer younger stars and although the likes of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic still don't compete with the likes of Maria S and the WS, the gap is closing and it seems that while the ATP was going from strengh to strengh, the WTA isn't doing so well. It will be interesting to see whether Rafael winning Wimbledon will strengthen Men's tennis or, as many people here seem to believe, weaken it. I think the latter.

The ATP has never taken a back seat to the WTA. Get a clue.

JolánGagó
07-24-2008, 02:20 PM
It will be interesting to see whether Rafael winning Wimbledon will strengthen Men's tennis or, as many people here seem to believe, weaken it. I think the latter

Would you care to elaborate on that?

Branimir
07-24-2008, 02:22 PM
Good for tennis cause Federer was so good. Loved watching Federer, never was fan of him. Bad there wasn't no one even close to him (and Rafa who was emerging). Now it's more fan with Djokovic trying to break in, but I think the tennis will be fun when Djokovic and Nadal form big rivalry!

tennizen
07-24-2008, 02:24 PM
Novak was still a boy back in 2005 :shrug:
:lol:

But seriously speaking, when I first saw Federer I didn't like him at all. I went through the whole he's dominating the game so its boring routine in 2006. Then I realized I didn't mind Nadal dominating clay season and wouldn't mind it if he dominated for the entire year as well. Eventually when Fed started doing badly in 2007 I realized that he was eventually going to decline. That's when I felt that it was actually great to have him at the top. Of course it would be boring without Nadal being around and Djokovic coming made it better. But if Fed is not at the top levels anymore, tennis won't be as exciting until the next new genius comes along:lol:

Quadruple Tree
07-24-2008, 02:25 PM
Good for tennis cause Federer was so good. Loved watching Federer, never was fan of him. Bad there wasn't no one even close to him (and Rafa who was emerging). Now it's more fan with Djokovic trying to break in, but I think the tennis will be fun when Djokovic and Nadal form big rivalry!

It won't be much of a rivalry. Djokeovic dominates during the hard court season and Nadal dominates during the clay court and grass season. I don't see either one challenging the other on his favorite surface.

Black Adam
07-24-2008, 03:47 PM
A poll to make the fedtards/nadal-djokovic haters feel themselves feel better :lol:

bokehlicious
07-24-2008, 03:52 PM
A poll to make the fedtards/nadal-djokovic haters feel themselves feel better :lol:

Yep, somehow the poll should show if Federer actually has more haters or fans... not sure what it's worth though... :o

Deivid23
07-24-2008, 03:59 PM
:haha: u r nuts, burro

MacTheKnife
07-24-2008, 04:02 PM
Yes. Tennis needs supertalented individuals who dominate the sport like federer. Golf has tiger woods, basketball had michael jordan... Players that we would gasp in awe because their skills surpasses our greatest imagination.

I agree with this. It's also good for the sport to have someone with a shot at making history, always gets good press. Most fans like the love-hate aspect of a dominate player or team. The next couple of years should be interesting to see if Nadal can dominate clay-grass, and Djok on HCs as an earlier poster stated, and if so, will they trade the #1 spot, or will one win enough on the other's surface(s) to maintain some degree of dominance. Or will some young guy emerge to challenge them. Can't wait to see this unfold.

Nidhogg
07-24-2008, 04:39 PM
I very much enjoyed watching Federer play the fantastic tennis he did then, day in and day out. The mere fact that almost none other could keep up didn't bother me at all. Having an obvious cryptonite made it pretty fun as well, though I've never enjoyed Nadal's game.

Tutu
07-24-2008, 11:35 PM
The ATP has never taken a back seat to the WTA. Get a clue.
I've already got a clue. Read my sig. Some people here are in serious denial. I didn't even say that the WTA is/was better, but back then, the ATP had Sampras and Agassi who were both in their 30s compared with the WS, Hingis, Davenport, Kournikova, Capriati, Seles, Pierce, Henin and Clijsters were coming into existence too. I remember it clearly.. Women's tennis was where it was at...You couldn't go anywhere without seeing a billboard of a women's tennis player.. Then of course Larry Scott went and fucked over the WTA.. But the ratings, especially in 00 (I think) speak for themselves. Would you care to elaborate on that?

Well I saw that match and though almost every pundit went on about GrEaTeSssTTt MaaTTcH EvErrRRR!!!111, I wasn't impressed.. They might as well had just gone back to paris and played on the clay over there. Grasscourt tennis is meant to be explosive tennis, short points, great volleys.. Yet they were playing as if on the slowest claycourt in the world and that was really disappointing to see. Even the people who hate womens tennis should agree that the way Venus and Serena went about their tennis the day before was the right way.... Long moonball rallies just aren't entertaining for me on a grasscourt, and I see that many people here feel the same.. Anf so a player who is a claycourt specialist who doesn't approach grasscourt tennis the way it should be approached isn't necissarily a great thing. I mean, not taking anything away from his win and it obviously has a lot to do with the slowing of the grasscourts but i dno.. It just makes you think...

RagingLamb
07-24-2008, 11:36 PM
i think in the long run it will be good for tennis

dkw
07-24-2008, 11:40 PM
Oh look - a Fedtard is feeling insecure.

Need a hug? :hug:

Shirogane
07-24-2008, 11:43 PM
good for tennis, though not so good for my fave (Agassi)..

habibko
07-24-2008, 11:48 PM
best years of tennis :worship: seriously though they sure are very good to tennis, tennis world gained many many new fans attracted to the new legend at work and then the epic rivalry that is still going on between Fed and Nadal, why would it be bad to tennis? unless you hate Fed of course, sucks to be you :o