Roger Federer - Do you think he's the death of tennis? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Roger Federer - Do you think he's the death of tennis?

JCF
11-26-2004, 06:56 PM
In the past few years the tennis viewing has decreased in many countries, its not as good as it used to be. Part of the reason is a lack of rilvaries, such as Agassi-Sampras, or Nav-Evert, Hingis-Davenport, something to get you really hooked on it.

Federer is too good for everyone its true, but this is not going to attract fans to tennis at all. If someone wins all the time and makes it so predictable, it's gonna turn everyone off, possibly including myself. At least in the end i would not bother to watch a Federer match because i would know the outcome.

Unless someone manages to challenge him, i feel we will have a long 5 or so years in tennis.

federer express
11-26-2004, 07:04 PM
someone needs to challenge him but he's hardly the death of tennis. not sure u can call someone who might be the greates ever that!! up 2 others to raise their games...and the death of tennis is the huge number of people who cant even hit a ball on anything but clay!! shorten the clay court season and make the grass one longer!

RPH
11-26-2004, 07:05 PM
No :)

Rogiman
11-26-2004, 07:13 PM
I think it's the other way around: Federer is the revival of tennis!

I base my opinion on other sports, where a totally dominant player increased significantly the public's interest: Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Michael Schumacher to name a few.

I found it rather boring a couple years ago, when men's tennis was in an absolute anarchy, and 8 different guys would win 8 different slams.

Granted, Sampras was dominant and the sport might have suffered a little consequently, but he was never as media-accessible as Roger, and his tennis was nothing most of the regular tennis fans could relate to either.

Just take a look around you and see how many new tennis fans there are thanks to Federer!

The_Lion_Nl
11-26-2004, 07:14 PM
Another fool who has nothing to do but make idiotic threads.
I donīt even know why I am actually replying these fools. :fiery:

Rogiman
11-26-2004, 07:17 PM
Another fool who has nothing to do but make idiotic threads.
I donīt even know why I am actually replying these fools. :fiery:

Nah, I'm not looking at it this way at all, he/she made a controversial title, perhaps in order to arouse interest, should be interesting to see what people say actually.

ae wowww
11-26-2004, 07:20 PM
I think I agree with Rogiman. If anything, he has prompted further improvment, by setting yet another higher level. To excel, players must now play even better, and have an example by which to follow.

Horatio Caine
11-26-2004, 07:22 PM
An interesting thread! ;)

Erm...he is the best in the world by far and you could say that if he loses no more than 5 matches per year for the next 3 or 4 years then I suppose fans could lose interest in the game because there is no variety in the tournament winners.

HOWEVER, I don't stand by that point of view. He is clearly a breath of fresh air and has raised the standard of the game to a level which the other top players will match within a few years.

Besides, he isn't unbeatable - he is most vulnerable on clay and so there will always be times when there are surprise winners.

Also, he has dominated for the last 12 months, maybe fatigue will still be there by the middle of January - a loss at the Aussie Open isn't unquestionable.

Teemuh
11-26-2004, 07:27 PM
If Federer is the death of tennis, then tennis doesn't deserve to exist. For what it's worth, I wasn't following the game before he came along.

The_Lion_Nl
11-26-2004, 07:30 PM
Nah, I'm not looking at it this way at all, he/she made a controversial title, perhaps in order to arouse interest, should be interesting to see what people say actually.

Maybe you are wright Rogiman. I am sure he will get blasted badly for starting a thread like this. :armed:

onewoman74
11-26-2004, 07:31 PM
Just because someone dominates a sport it doesn't mean the sport is dead. The Chicago Bulls was a dominating force, but no one called it the death of basketball. Someone has to be at the top of the sport, it just happens to be Federer and we're all better for it.

That's my two cents!!

roisin
11-26-2004, 07:33 PM
no i wouldn't say feds is the death of tennis! he's dominating the game at the moment purely because he's in a class of his own and he's defintiely raised the standard by a good few notches. he's up there now and its down to the chasing pack - the roddicks,hewitts & safins - to get up to the standard feds has set.

federer express
11-26-2004, 07:33 PM
Just because someone dominates a sport it doesn't mean the sport is dead. The Chicago Bulls was a dominating force, but no one called it the death of basketball. Someone has to be a the top of the sport, it just happens to be Federer and we're all better for it.

That's my two cents!!

well said!! :)

onewoman74
11-26-2004, 07:36 PM
Thanks, Federer Express ;)

darnyelb
11-26-2004, 07:50 PM
If tennis is dead, it's the fault of the players who haven't stepped up to Roger's level on a consistent basis. As for now and hopefully many years to come, he's a blessing to the sport.

mitalidas
11-26-2004, 08:12 PM
Federer is too good for everyone its true, but this is not going to attract fans to tennis at all. If someone wins all the time and makes it so predictable,

You are so mistaken
Rivalry or not, people were getting fed up of watching inane ball bashing, and uninventive baseline rallies(including someone else with name JCF) ad nauseum. There are so many people who have returned to the fold because beautiful classical tennis is back

RonE
11-26-2004, 08:20 PM
You are so mistaken
Rivalry or not, people were getting fed up of watching inane ball bashing, and uninventive baseline rallies(including someone else with name JCF) ad nauseum. There are so many people who have returned to the fold because beautiful classical tennis is back

Well said! And I am one of them- I don't think my interest in tennis would have remained as great as it had been if it were not for Roger.

mitalidas
11-26-2004, 08:24 PM
yeah, RonE, and we're not the only ones among those who suffered after the Final of USO 2002 for months.... until that magical day on that Final day of Wimbledon 2003, when a new era dawned on us! Yeah

JCF
11-26-2004, 08:25 PM
So sport is interesting then if its so one sided, and predictable you know who will win. Explain to me how that is interesting, because i sure as hell can't think of a reason.

superpinkone37
11-26-2004, 08:27 PM
im not a federer fan but i definitely appreciate his tennis and what he brings to the sport. i dont mind watching him because of his classic game. yeah some people might get tired of the same person winning all the time, but many more are drawn to the game because of federer. and because federer is obviously a step ahead of everyone else, he is forcing the other top players to raise their game as well.

mitalidas
11-26-2004, 08:30 PM
So sport is interesting then if its so one sided, and predictable you know who will win. Explain to me how that is interesting, because i sure as hell can't think of a reason.

I think the point both RonE and I are tying to make is that PREDICTABILITY is NOT the reason that people tune out ---- boring baseline uninventive "tennis" is the reason

further, it is incorrect to say that its predictable
ask Hrbaty, Nadal, Berdych, Henman, Costa

RonE
11-26-2004, 08:30 PM
So sport is interesting then if its so one sided, and predictable you know who will win. Explain to me how that is interesting, because i sure as hell can't think of a reason.

First of all, it is no where near as predicatble as many think. Federer has been pushed on quite a few occassions this year but found a way to win.

Secondly, the whole joy of wathcing a tennis match is to look at what the players do with the ball- and with Roger it is so exciting because you just don't know what amazing shot he will come up with.

mitalidas
11-26-2004, 08:30 PM
im not a federer fan but i definitely appreciate his tennis and what he brings to the sport. i dont mind watching him because of his classic game. yeah some people might get tired of the same person winning all the time, but many more are drawn to the game because of federer. and because federer is obviously a step ahead of everyone else, he is forcing the other top players to raise their game as well.

touche, well said
i will reciprocate by saying that im not a roddick fan, but i appreciate his sportsmanlike behavior (for the most part)

RonE
11-26-2004, 08:31 PM
I think the point both RonE and I are tying to make is that PREDICTABILITY is NOT the reason that people tune out ---- boring baseline uninventive "tennis" is the reason

further, it is incorrect to say that its predictable
ask Hrbaty, Nadal, Berdych, Henman, Costa

You beat me to it again :p

mitalidas
11-26-2004, 08:31 PM
First of all, it is no where near as predicatble as many think. Federer has been pushed on quite a few occassions this year but found a way to win.

Secondly, the whole joy of wathcing a tennis match is to look at what the players do with the ball- and with Roger it is so exciting because you just don't know what amazing shot he will come up with.
WHAT is the matter with us?!!! (see above, again) Are you sure you aren't my longlost twin?

Rogiman
11-26-2004, 08:32 PM
So sport is interesting then if its so one sided, and predictable you know who will win. Explain to me how that is interesting, because i sure as hell can't think of a reason.

First, it really helps if the one who dominates is a nice, modest guy, who's truly gifted and easy on the eye, then, if you truly love the game, you can just watch and admire instead of getting depressed.

And second, the whole record-breaking stuff: will he break the successive Wimbledon titles record...? will he break Sampras' GS record..? can he win a calender year GS...? (no, no and no is my bet...) It causes a lot of interest for those who were not into tennis initially.

Deboogle!.
11-26-2004, 08:34 PM
I think other players will keep working hard to rise to the challenge. Many of the players that the press talks about as being able to challenge him have huge areas in their games to improve, some of the young talented teenagers will keep improving, etc. Fed will win many more slams, to be sure, but I don't know how many more years like 2004 he will have.

RogiFan88
11-26-2004, 08:36 PM
here's my question: what do the other players have to do in order to seriously challenge Rogi? I'm sure this Q was discussed before...

and No, I don't think Rogi is the death of tennis, ESPN is...

Ginger
11-26-2004, 08:36 PM
further, it is incorrect to say that its predictable
ask Hrbaty, Nadal, Berdych, Henman, Costa
.... and Guga! Almost everybody predicted then an easy victory for Roger...

JCF
11-26-2004, 08:38 PM
The question to you is what do you enjoy seeing more - a classic 5 set match, where you don't know what is going to happen next or tennis played by Roger Federer over quite soon because he is so dominant.

I'm not interested in records btw, they're just a statistic, it really doesn't mean that much in life. I just would like to sit down and really be able to get into a match, not some boring, one sided tennis however good people might think it is.

RogiFan88
11-26-2004, 08:40 PM
at least Rogi isn't a plain old boring baseliner... he brings an element of creativity and inventiveness to the game... sth to revive tennis...

RonE
11-26-2004, 08:41 PM
The question to you is what do you enjoy seeing more - a classic 5 set match, where you don't know what is going to happen next or tennis played by Roger Federer over quite soon because he is so dominant.


A nail biting match in the fifth set with Roger in it. (USO v Agassi)

RonE
11-26-2004, 08:43 PM
and No, I don't think Rogi is the death of tennis, ESPN is...

Switch the word 'ESPN' with 'Eurosport' and you have a great case.

JCF
11-26-2004, 08:43 PM
A nail biting match in the fifth set with Roger in it. (USO v Agassi)
Rare, and seeing as he wins 90% of the tournaments he plays in, it does get boring, for fans of tennis rather than Federer.

RogiFan88
11-26-2004, 08:44 PM
then perhaps you s come back after Rogi retires for some "exciting" tennis...

lina_seta
11-26-2004, 08:44 PM
of course federer is not the death of tennis!
all the contrary! he brings new fans.. like myself :D
and for all those he drives away (if theres any)... screw them.. im happy :)

every match has big expectations.. to c what kind of amazing shots he will pull out =D... its not the end (result) that matters... its the way u get there...

JCF
11-26-2004, 08:47 PM
then perhaps you s come back after Rogi retires for some "exciting" tennis...
I will but it may be along time :sad:

Leena
11-26-2004, 08:51 PM
I base my opinion on other sports, where a totally dominant player increased significantly the public's interest: Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Michael Schumacher to name a few.

There's a difference in these situations though...

With Jordan, the NBA was already gaining popularity with the Magic/Bird era. Jordan basically kept it going.

Tiger was a black man in a rich sport, much like Venus and Serena. I can live without those "fans"... most are idiots. I don't mean that in a racist way, even though it highly sounds like it. But, just read WTAWorld when they're playing.

Just worry about the hardcore fans. That's all I enjoy talking with.

Rogiman
11-26-2004, 08:54 PM
Russian chick :hearts:

RonE
11-26-2004, 08:56 PM
Russian chick :hearts:

Now now, you'll piss TC off again. Wouldn't want that happening now would we?

onewoman74
11-26-2004, 09:01 PM
and No, I don't think Rogi is the death of tennis, ESPN is...

I agree

intikab
11-26-2004, 09:02 PM
Just think back to a year and half ago. Everybody was bemoaning the death of men's tennis, and women's tennis was flying high. Roger, and to a lesser extent Roddick (let's face - bulk of the money in tennis still comes from US) have been responsible for its revival.

I, for one, have started to following tennis full-time after Federer's magical performance in Wim 2003, whereas before I would only watch finals of Grand Slams. Reading articles, and listening to experts and old-timers, one could argue no player in recent times has created the excitement (and brought back all the purists in addition to newbies) like Federer.

RonE
11-26-2004, 09:06 PM
Just think back to a year and half ago. Everybody was bemoaning the death of men's tennis, and women's tennis was flying high. Roger, and to a lesser extent Roddick (let's face - bulk of the money in tennis still comes from US) have been responsible for its revival.

I, for one, have started to following tennis full-time after Federer's magical performance in Wim 2003, whereas before I would only watch finals of Grand Slams. Reading articles, and listening to experts and old-timers, one could argue no player in recent times has created the excitement (and brought back all the purists in addition to newbies) like Federer.

Very true.

And hindsight is working overtime- let's not forget that one and a half years ago people were still suffering from Pete and Andre withdrawal, and tennis seemed to be lost in a hodge-podge of anarchy. 2002 was maddening in that sense (for me at least) because I had the feeling that the grand slam winners- as deserved as they were for their victories by not being consistent throughout the year and winning more titles it felt as if tennis had become one big duck-shooting game (no Roddick pun intended).

Space Cowgirl
11-26-2004, 09:07 PM
How could anyone think Fed is the "death of tennis"? :confused: Sure, if he was a boring player with zero charisma and a poor manner with the media I would see your point, but he's negative on all those counts. You can't seriously tell me that you were not entertained by in his match last week against Safin (if you saw it, that is). Even people with little interest in tennis are tuning in when he plays. My younger brother for example: he's a footballer (soccer player :) ) and would not bother too much with tennis, but he thinks Fed is great.
It's not Fed's fault that he's so dominant, and I don't think he will be for too long, there is some great competition behind him. I think this year was a bit of a freak occurrence and he will not have it so easy next year. But I for one will not be complaining if he does continue his winning ways :D

Blaze
11-26-2004, 09:11 PM
When did tennis die :confused: :bigcry: :bigcry:

mitalidas
11-26-2004, 09:12 PM
.... and Guga! Almost everybody predicted then an easy victory for Roger...
oops forgot him.... probably blanked it out of my mind, because it hurt me the most amongst all the defeats in 04

JCF
11-26-2004, 09:13 PM
oops forgot him.... probably blanked it out of my mind, because it hurt me the most amongst all the defeats in 04
I would have thought the olympics would hurt more...after all that was 2 a low ranked player, he was playing crap and just gave the game away.

Against Guga he was just outplayed, plain and simple.

Canuck_Chick
11-26-2004, 09:15 PM
Roger is a great player. Although he is winning everything right now, in a few years other player will catch up to him. Roger will improve also and at that point there will be some real exciting tennis to watch.

Same thing happened with the women. When Venus and Serena first came no one had an answer for them, now there are a lot more contenders and the Williams sisters aren't winning as easily.

It's just a cycle. In a few years Fed will have more contenders. But I don't mind having him dominate so much since he's so entertaining to watch and he's a good ambassador for the sport.

jmp
11-26-2004, 09:17 PM
No, Roger is not the death of tennis. I don't mean to fawn or gush. But, Roger honestly takes my breath away with his movement and his shot making ability. The man is awesomely sublime. :worship: I feel that way about a lot of individuals who excel, though, be it sports, art, academia, business. I appreciate great performances and great minds.

I am committed to tennis. I like all different styles and I watch all that is available to me with my cable package. I gasp when any player makes a spectacular shot. I also appreciate the mental aspect of the sport. I fully expect other men to do everything they can to topple Roger. I'm anxiously awaiting their attempts.

If Roger continues to best all comers and they continue to give him a fight, I'm fine with that. If players start rolling over for him, I'll be disappointed in them and quite surprised. But, that won't stop me from enjoying Roger.

Now....Go Marat! :D :D ;)

mitalidas
11-26-2004, 09:17 PM
I would have thought the olympics would hurt more...after all that was 2 a low ranked player, he was playing crap and just gave the game away.

Against Guga he was just outplayed, plain and simple.

A) I don't believe he played crap at the Olympics (it was 7-5 in the third if you remember)
and
B) I think he had a real shot at the FO title, if he got through Guga. And yes, he got outplayed --but not by a nobody, it took Guga to take him out.
For tennis fans worldwide (and Federer fans especially), to watch a Grand Slam won in their lifetime .... it would be unforgettable for ever

vene
11-26-2004, 09:18 PM
Just think back to a year and half ago. Everybody was bemoaning the death of men's tennis, and women's tennis was flying high. Roger, and to a lesser extent Roddick (let's face - bulk of the money in tennis still comes from US) have been responsible for its revival.

I, for one, have started to following tennis full-time after Federer's magical performance in Wim 2003, whereas before I would only watch finals of Grand Slams. Reading articles, and listening to experts and old-timers, one could argue no player in recent times has created the excitement (and brought back all the purists in addition to newbies) like Federer.
I agree with you completely. Roger revived my interest to a higher level than ever before - he turned me into a tennis fanatic! Instead of hoping his level drops, the other players need to raise their games. He is not the death of tennis, I think he has reinvented tennis

Adam Thirnis
11-26-2004, 09:19 PM
None of Federer's own generation (Roddick, Hewitt, Safin) will be able to challenge his dominance. It will take a younger, as yet unidentified, player to dethrone the Champ.

Space Cowgirl
11-26-2004, 09:19 PM
Hey Canuck_Chick, I misread the caption on you avatar and thought it said "Birdbrain" :o :lol:

RonE
11-26-2004, 09:20 PM
B) I think he had a real shot at the FO title, if he got through Guga. And yes, he got outplayed --but not by a nobody, it took Guga to take him out.
For tennis fans worldwide (and Federer fans especially), to watch a Grand Slam won in their lifetime .... it would be unforgettable for ever

Yes it would! Particularly as the French Open is always the tournament that spoils all the fun for the players I support ( :( ) so it would be nice to see Federer snap that streak for me some day

JCF
11-26-2004, 09:24 PM
None of Federer's own generation (Roddick, Hewitt, Safin) will be able to challenge his dominance. It will take a younger, as yet unidentified, player to dethrone the Champ.
None of these players can do anything about him. Well, how interesting that will make tennis next year :rolleyes:

I think someone winning a grand slam is so boring, i mean the serena slam was such a boring thing in tennis.

Canuck_Chick
11-26-2004, 09:28 PM
Hey Canuck_Chick, I misread the caption on you avatar and thought it said "Birdbrain" :o :lol:

:lol: i never even noticed that...good eye ;) :p

jmp
11-26-2004, 09:30 PM
Blaze ;)

Adam Thirnis
11-26-2004, 09:36 PM
None of these players can do anything about him. Well, how interesting that will make tennis next year :rolleyes:

I think someone winning a grand slam is so boring, i mean the serena slam was such a boring thing in tennis.

I forgot to mention Ferrero too. :)

JeNn
11-26-2004, 09:45 PM
JCF, although I don't necessarily agree with you, I can definitely see where you are coming from.

There was an air of invincibility about Roger this year wasn't there? Certainly he was more dominant than Sampras ever was in a single season. People talk about Sampras being a boring champion, but the fact was that Pete's dominance was never so complete. Sure he was clearly the best player on the tour for six years and won his fair share of slams in that period. However aside from his long running duels with Agassi, he also had several others taking the challenge up to him at different times. Even at the peak of his powers there were players who could stick it to him in a five set match - Courier, Ivanisevic, Rafter etc.

Roger looked invulnerable when playing his best this year, in a way that Sampras never really did. Apart from possibly the Wimbledon final, there were no challenges to Roger at peak form. The only times he lost was when he played bad tennis. There was a sense of inevitability even when he plays the second and third players - it's a suprise if they get even a set. That means either of two things (1) the opposition is weak or (2) He is just that good that he makes fools out of them. Either way, as great as Roger is to watch at any one time, the inevitability can get tiresome for non-Federer fans.

Hopefully people will take the challenge up to Federer in the near future so that some of these matches truly hang in the balance. If Roger keeps this level of dominance up, he is clearly going to be the greatest player we have seen, but it could be a long haul for those who aren't necessarily fans of his.

User id 7816
11-26-2004, 10:14 PM
like most people here ,i also wonder how you could think someone like Fed can be the death of the sport. what bugs me JCF is that you sound as if against Fed, which is weird,I mean if you dont get enuf excitement coz he wins everything, he's hardly the one to blame, he just is there with all the talent in the world and u rather gotta blame all the rest for not being close to him, so far. inafct its gonna be more interesting to see the rest in their attempts to beat Fed in the future,incl. JCF if he has the goodwill to come back to smth like the '03 JCF kind.
awating to see that rather than getting bored ;)

WyveN
11-26-2004, 10:51 PM
Sampras was boring mainly due to a fairly predictable yet very effective game. Sampras was extremely fun to watch against his rivals such as Agassi but I think most people would struggle to watch Sampras playing the #100 player in the world where the latter would struggle to get the racket on his serve.

In my opinion the same can not be said about Federer. I think Federer will significantly raise the popularity of tennis with his game style, although he probably does need a serious rival. Tennis dropped in popularity when big servers and the power game began to take over and someone with Federer's style became obsolete, many felt it would be impossible for someone with Federer's game to reach the top in the modern game.

I certainly know many people who having virtually skipped tennis in the 1990s are now far more interested in tennis only because of one player. I don't think anyone could come up with any sensible argument as to why tennis would be better off without Federer.

radics
11-26-2004, 10:56 PM
like most people here ,i also wonder how you could think someone like Fed can be the death of the sport. what bugs me JCF is that you sound as if against Fed, which is weird,I mean if you dont get enuf excitement coz he wins everything, he's hardly the one to blame, he just is there with all the talent in the world and u rather gotta blame all the rest for not being close to him, so far. inafct its gonna be more interesting to see the rest in their attempts to beat Fed in the future,incl. JCF if he has the goodwill to come back to smth like the '03 JCF kind.
awating to see that rather than getting bored ;)

Thats exaclty my problem too. It sounds like as if its Federers fault, that hes so dominant. Dear JCF, not Federer is the death of tennis, the players who can't chanlange him are (i don't think anway, tennis is "dead" or will "die" because this was said every time, when a player was dominant).

federer express
11-26-2004, 11:05 PM
happily it seems most people are saying the same thing....
this thread is like asking were pele and maradonna the death of football...or is schumacher the death of formula 1.
this doesn't open up a debate cos there can be no debate on it sorry!

Blaze
11-26-2004, 11:16 PM
On the contrary, I don't even think tennis is dead.

Sjengster
11-26-2004, 11:16 PM
This is an interesting question, and some Federer fans would do better than to lazily criticise "boring baseline tennis" and have a dig at Ferrero - attacking a poster's favourite player as a response to their argument is always pathetic. I think JCF's point was a valid one, although I don't think he/she is right at the moment. Were Federer to have another year like 2004 (which I doubt he will), then questions would certainly be raised about excessive dominance. The game is greater than any single player, it always has been and always will be, and ultimately I value competition and drama more than beautiful tennis, which is not to say that I'm unhappy about Federer's tennis dominating right now rather than the one-dimensional styles of Roddick and Hewitt.

I see a lot of posters saying that Federer revived their interest in tennis after watching the transient Slam winners of a couple of years ago and the preponderance of "baseline bashers" at the top of the game. Well, 2001/02 was the time when I got into tennis, and the variety and unpredictability was what made it so entertaining. I was a fan of Federer after the Wimbledon win against Sampras and was desperately hoping for him to make the breakthrough and get a share of the glory, to stop crashing out in the Slams, but I wasn't watching other players at the time and thinking "How boring, we need someone to teach these baseline pretenders a lesson." Maybe because I was new to following tennis I didn't see Johansson and Costa as journeymen who had dared to transgress their allotted level in the sport by winning Slams - of course I was surprised, but I'd have taken them as Slam champions over Hewitt, Agassi and Roddick any time.

We all know what the most entertaining Slam final this year was, and while much of the drama was created by the physical problems Coria suffered, which I certainly hope aren't experienced by any other player on such a big stage, it was the kind of captivating theatre that tennis needs more of. The fact that Federer only played one five-setter this year shows how hard it has been to come close to beating him (it was also his first five-set victory in over three years, suggesting that he is fallible when forced to go the distance). I expect him to have a tougher time of it next year, when hopefully Ferrero and Nalbandian will recover some semblance of health and the young players consolidate their breakthrough years on tour. Then the ATP will find the elusive Holy Grail of rivalries that they've been searching for for so long.

As a Federer fan I certainly hope he can break a few more records, add RG to the collection and stay no. 1 for as long as possible, but at the same time I don't want to see the likes of Safin and Ferrero fail to achieve what they are capable of just because they are around in the same era. A mixture of top players winning Slams, plus the occasional surprise winner such as Gaudio this year, would be perfect. Of course, if the competition becomes more open then people like Hewitt and Roddick will win more Slams, but hey - tennis has always provided winners you like and winners you don't.

Tennis Fool
11-26-2004, 11:18 PM
No. Sampras was the death of tennis.
Roger is the rivival :yeah:

Sjengster
11-26-2004, 11:29 PM
Re: the Sampras/Federer comparison, it's true that their games differ heavily even though the temperament is very similar. In retrospect it was Sampras' style of play rather than his personality that made him dull for me, although bearing in mind Wimbledon was the only tennis I watched as a kid then it's hardly surprising that he became boring after a while. I've heard it said that Federer could get club players back into following tennis because they could identify more with his game rather than with the 140mph serving of Roddick (in the same way people liked Agassi more than Sampras because they could relate to his baseline style more easily), but it's not like people could look at Federer and say, "Geez, I could never serve like Andy, but that low forehand half-volley/flicked backhand pass onto the sideline/chipped return winner that Roger just hit, I'll try that on the practice court some time!"

I also think it's quite funny when people describe Federer as all-finesse in comparison to Roddick's all-power, because his main weapons are still the serve and the forehand and nice though the technique is, it wouldn't be effective unless he could give them a fair old thumping. Fish actually made a good point this year or last year about this description of Federer's game, saying something like "Not about power? He has one of the biggest forehands I've ever seen, I try to stay away from it at all cost." Of course Federer has all sorts of other nuances that separate him from a lot of serve-forehand players like Roddick and Moya.

Blaze
11-26-2004, 11:38 PM
Re: the Sampras/Federer comparison, it's true that their games differ heavily even though the temperament is very similar. In retrospect it was Sampras' style of play rather than his personality that made him dull for me, although bearing in mind Wimbledon was the only tennis I watched as a kid then it's hardly surprising that he became boring after a while. I've heard it said that Federer could get club players back into following tennis because they could identify more with his game rather than with the 140mph serving of Roddick (in the same way people liked Agassi more than Sampras because they could relate to his baseline style more easily), but it's not like people could look at Federer and say, "Geez, I could never serve like Andy, but that low forehand half-volley/flicked backhand pass onto the sideline/chipped return winner that Roger just hit, I'll try that on the practice court some time!"

I also think it's quite funny when people describe Federer as all-finesse in comparison to Roddick's all-power, because his main weapons are still the serve and the forehand and nice though the technique is, it wouldn't be effective unless he could give them a fair old thumping. Fish actually made a good point this year or last year about this description of Federer's game, saying something like "Not about power? He has one of the biggest forehands I've ever seen, I try to stay away from it at all cost." Of course Federer has all sorts of other nuances that separate him from a lot of serve-forehand players like Roddick and Moya.

man, do you like to write alot. :eek: :eek: I should get you to do my Literature research paper for me

WyveN
11-26-2004, 11:44 PM
As a Federer fan I certainly hope he can break a few more records, add RG to the collection and stay no. 1 for as long as possible, but at the same time I don't want to see the likes of Safin and Ferrero fail to achieve what they are capable of just because they are around in the same era.

That has always happened. Plenty of players underachieved at FO and Wimbledon due to Sampras and Borg dominance.

Safin and Ferrero can hardly blame lack of greater achievements on Federer either, so far probably only Roddick and Hewitt can.

mitalidas
11-26-2004, 11:47 PM
yeah, how different things could have been -- example: Goran might have been as a 4-time Wimbledon champion

Sjengster
11-26-2004, 11:48 PM
man, do you like to write alot. :eek: :eek: I should get you to do my Literature research paper for me

I only do it because TF loves my posting style so much. :hearts:

Thanks but no thanks, my 8000 word History dissertation is already occupying my time sufficiently. ;)

Seriously though, I've said in the past on here that my slow internet connection means I have to make every post count. Taking three minutes simply to post "no I don't think so tennis is great with fed, hope other players step up in 2005" would be a colossal waste of time.

Blaze
11-26-2004, 11:49 PM
I only do it because TF loves my posting style so much. :hearts:

Thanks but no thanks, my 8000 word History dissertation is already occupying my time sufficiently. ;)

Seriously though, I've said in the past on here that my slow internet connection means I have to make every post count. Taking three minutes simply to post "no I don't think so tennis is great with fed, hope other players step up in 2005" would be a colossal waste of time.

Ok :)

mitalidas
11-26-2004, 11:51 PM
where in the states, Blaze, is the internet connection so slow (honestly, just curious --esp. because you seem to be at Univ)

Blaze
11-26-2004, 11:53 PM
where in the states, Blaze, is the internet connection so slow (honestly, just curious --esp. because you seem to be at Univ)

my internet connection is not slow but rather Sjengster's. ;)

I do live in Maryland and go to school in DC ( I'm not staying on campus though)

federer express
11-26-2004, 11:53 PM
where in the states, Blaze, is the internet connection so slow (honestly, just curious --esp. because you seem to be at Univ)

sjengster was saying that! but i agree with ur sentiment

alfonsojose
11-26-2004, 11:54 PM
JesusFed is our saviour. How posters dare to defy his power and greatness .... amanda, ban them all now. :o ;)

I'd prefer some rivalries

Sjengster
11-26-2004, 11:55 PM
That has always happened. Plenty of players underachieved at FO and Wimbledon due to Sampras and Borg dominance.

Safin and Ferrero can hardly blame lack of greater achievements on Federer either, so far probably only Roddick and Hewitt can.

True, true, and I suppose the argument would be that Safin and Ferrero should have taken their 2002 Slam finals more seriously if they'd known someone like Federer would begin to dominate (although I find it very telling that while Ferrero was hampered by his ankle injury, Safin went out partying the night before the final, which was also his birthday - that sums up the two men's respective problems, really).

I know it's a bit unambitious of me, but when there are so many good players out there I usually hope that they can all get an equal, small slice of the cake rather than be excluded by a handful of top players. Of course, you always make an exception for your favourite, which is quite handy for me in this case ( ;) ).

mitalidas
11-26-2004, 11:56 PM
so many of us here at a Univ.... do we not have enough studying to keep us busy that we post so much on MTF? And Sjengster, you're flagless --- Dutch? (who else supports Sjeng....?)

Blaze
11-26-2004, 11:59 PM
so many of us here at a Univ.... do we not have enough studying to keep us busy that we post so much on MTF? And Sjengster, you're flagless --- Dutch? (who else supports Sjeng....?)
true, true, but we in the US do have two extract days apart from the weekend to fool around. Next week is my last until my exams so I am resting my brain a bit before I start to study

mitalidas
11-27-2004, 12:03 AM
its so nice that the Grand Slam schedule generally follows our Final exam schedule (Aus Open after winter exams, Wimb/FO after spring semester exams and USO before the Fall semester opens). woohoo!

Blaze
11-27-2004, 12:09 AM
its so nice that the Grand Slam schedule generally follows our Final exam schedule (Aus Open after winter exams, Wimb/FO after spring semester exams and USO before the Fall semester opens). woohoo!


Everything is perfect except that the USOpen does coincide with the first two weeks of fall semester. but those two weeks of classes are not so important, so I do manage to boycott some of them to watch some matches but the rest of the grandslams are just perfectly scheduled ;)

mitalidas
11-27-2004, 12:12 AM
Everything is perfect except that the USOpen does coincide with the first two weeks of fall semester. but those two weeks of classes are not so important, so I do manage to boycott some of them to watch some matches but the rest of the grandslams are just perfectly scheduled ;)
yeah, i skipped class this year (and bankrupted myself) with tickets for the semis this year (USO). it was the worst investment in the sense, that both were straight-setters . but at least i did not have to bear watching roger lose

(i also acquired a swiss tee shirt, swiss hat, and had assorted handmade posters thnking that roger might notice me....but some 5000 other people had the same bloody idea, AND they were not sitting in the bleachers). :(

Sjengster
11-27-2004, 12:16 AM
so many of us here at a Univ.... do we not have enough studying to keep us busy that we post so much on MTF? And Sjengster, you're flagless --- Dutch? (who else supports Sjeng....?)

Well, I am "at" university in the sense that I'm studying there, but I'm not there at the moment - no, I'm stuck with my ancient connection at home, although this week we are finally resolving the problem with our phone line that means we can't get a broadband connection installed properly.

Not Dutch, but let's just say I come from one of Holland's closest historical allies... and in my position as president of the Schalken Youth Club, I should tell you that support for him is quite widespread.

Blaze
11-27-2004, 12:17 AM
yeah, i skipped class this year (and bankrupted myself) with tickets for the semis this year (USO). it was the worst investment in the sense, that both were straight-setters . but at least i did not have to bear watching roger lose

(i also acquired a swiss tee shirt, swiss hat, and had assorted handmade posters thnking that roger might notice me....but some 5000 other people had the same bloody idea, AND they were not sitting in the bleachers). :(

I had some crazy idea about going to the R16 matches on the first saturday but what with GOP convention, the crazy weather and subsequent crazy scheduling, I call it quits. I might try to go next year.

Blaze
11-27-2004, 12:19 AM
Well, I am "at" university in the sense that I'm studying there, but I'm not there at the moment - no, I'm stuck with my ancient connection at home, although this week we are finally resolving the problem with our phone line that means we can't get a broadband connection installed properly.

Not Dutch, but let's just say I come from one of Holland's closest historical allies... and in my position as president of the Schalken Youth Club, I should tell you that support for him is quite widespread.


I think I have to agree with TF and say I do love your style of writing. Reminds me of a politically ambitious boy I knew in highschool. :)

Rogiman
11-27-2004, 12:26 AM
I think I have to agree with TF and say I do love your style of writing. Reminds me of a politically ambitious boy I knew in highschool. :)

I hate politicians! :mad:

They say the same thing in 100 different versions and in the end they say nothing at all, it's all blowing smoke!

Why can't everyone deliver their messages in the shortest and clearest way possible...?
That's another reason for me to look down on social science students!

Anyway ,I've always been a bad politician - I'd rather tell you all to kiss my ass than pretend to be something I'm not! :mad:

Sjengster
11-27-2004, 12:28 AM
I think I have to agree with TF and say I do love your style of writing. Reminds me of a politically ambitious boy I knew in highschool. :)

Um, that was a joke earlier - TF HATES my style of writing, he said sometime last year that he didn't like reading essays on the internet, which explains his snappy quickfire style. He should probably try to get a job on Saturday Night Live.

As for the comment in this thread about studying and MTF, well, I am trying to combine the two - OK, so it's hard to read a book on the Massacre of St. Bartholomew while arguing about Federer's domination of tennis, but I'm giving it my best shot. :o

Blaze
11-27-2004, 12:31 AM
I hate politicians! :mad:

They say the same thing in 100 different versions and in the end they say nothing at all, it's all blowing smoke!

Why can't everyone deliver their messages in the shortest and clearest way possible...?
That's another reason for me to look down on social science students!

Anyway ,I've always been a bad politician - I'd rather tell you all to kiss my ass than pretend to be something I'm not! :mad:

It is kind of hard to deliver what you have to say in the shortest way possible when you are used to doing assignments that require 25 pages when you have only 2 pages worth of thoughts on the subject.

You get use to talking alot about nothing

Tennis Fool
11-27-2004, 12:31 AM
man, do you like to write alot. :eek: :eek:
That's because he took his Geritol today. You rarely even see Sjeng on this board these days.

mitalidas
11-27-2004, 12:35 AM
I hate politicians! Anyway ,I've always been a bad politician - I'd rather tell you all to kiss my ass than pretend to be something I'm not! :mad:

sounds like howard dean to me

Rogiman
11-27-2004, 12:38 AM
It is kind of hard to deliver what you have to say in the shortest way possible when you are used to doing assignments that require 25 pages when you have only 2 pages worth of thoughts on the subject.

You get use to talking alot about nothing


Why do they still insist on handing academic degrees in all those bizarre faculties then...? :mad:

Sjengster
11-27-2004, 12:52 AM
That's because he took his Geritol today. You rarely even see Sjeng on this board these days.

:lol:

Well, you know what they say about familiarity... one day I will become a more regular poster, when it's more convenient to me and there are fewer "Roger/Andy" threads clogging up the board. Actually, look out for what I hope will be a definitive ranking list of the Top 50 players of the Open Era in the next few days.

Tennis Fool
11-27-2004, 12:59 AM
Yes, I kinda miss the precrash days when it took a month for threads to go to the 2nd page.

Sjengster
11-27-2004, 01:10 AM
In this case, quality is better than quantity (this sounds like hypocrisy from someone whose posts are so long, but since my appearances on MTF are rather fleeting they compensate for the length). Yes, I appreciate a good long discussion in a thread that actually raises some decent tennis-related points and opens up further debate, but wading through 10 pages of "Rodduck sucks"/"Dahveed is a loser" (delete as applicable) becomes somewhat wearing.

tennischick
11-27-2004, 01:19 AM
I hate politicians! :mad:

They say the same thing in 100 different versions and in the end they say nothing at all, it's all blowing smoke!

Why can't everyone deliver their messages in the shortest and clearest way possible...?
That's another reason for me to look down on social science students!

Anyway ,I've always been a bad politician - I'd rather tell you all to kiss my ass than pretend to be something I'm not! :mad:
:hearts: :hearts: i so totally agree. but i get in trouble all the time for my honesty and directness. most people seem to prefer bullshit which is what los politicos understand.

as for the topic of this thread -- as far as i believe, Federer breathed new life into tennis after the Android killed it off.

RogiFan88
11-27-2004, 01:57 AM
nice and succinct, tennischick!

and mitalidas, perhaps Rafter could have had his one Wimbledon title if it were not for the dominance of Pete... timing... sometimes your progress is impeded by another's...

and Sjengst, Juanqui has never taken his chance at a slam more seriously... I believe he was overwhelmed by the occasion once he finally reached it [vs. Costa, who, let's face it, played better than any other player that slam]... as for Marat, well, that's a different story... in fact, it was Corretja who squandered his chance at a slam vs. Moya... he didn't take it seriously enough... and he lost his chance [there was nobody to stop Guga when he played him later]

MissMoJo
11-27-2004, 05:15 AM
were the williams sisters the death of womens tennis? either one won every major for at least two years straight and as i remember tennis was at the height of its popularity anytime since then. i think having a dominant player puts the sport back on the map. even people who had no interest in golf would watch, just to see what all the hype around tiger woods was. Rog is asset to the game

Action Jackson
11-27-2004, 05:16 AM
No.

Billabong
11-27-2004, 05:54 AM
Definitely not:)

Chloe le Bopper
11-27-2004, 05:58 AM
I hate politicians! :mad:

They say the same thing in 100 different versions and in the end they say nothing at all, it's all blowing smoke!

Why can't everyone deliver their messages in the shortest and clearest way possible...?
That's another reason for me to look down on social science students!

Anyway ,I've always been a bad politician - I'd rather tell you all to kiss my ass than pretend to be something I'm not! :mad:

While I agree with you about politicians, I must give you a slap for the comments on social science students :fiery:

I am a student of the social sciences :angel: That, and I'm anything but concise :devil: Give me a 1500 word assignment and I consider it cruel punishment as I struggle to work my way back from 2500 words of nothing :sad:

Then there is the end of semester hilarity as I attempt to summarize my 20 pages of lecture notes and end up with 8 pages :lol:

The prof that I'm getting a research credit with told me that I need to learn to "net talk"... that is, summarize large volumes of work into a few bullets so that people who don't have time to read all the BS will get the point :p

BlackSilver
11-27-2004, 08:45 AM
No

But also don't think that he's tennis savior or whatever people like to say

Ferrero Forever
11-27-2004, 08:51 AM
Death of tennis? What death of tennis? Tennis rules, it doesn't need a saviour, more fans would be nice, i would love it if tennis was as popular as soccer/football. Roger Federer is an exceptional player of which i have a lot of respect for, but he's definetly not the death of tennis

Lynne
11-27-2004, 10:39 AM
No.
Roger is a very good tennis player.. The other players will have to improve various aspects of their game... Roger isn't invincible as well, so there might be a few surprises here and there... He has definitely raised the standards of tennis, so to call him the death of tennis isn't fair.. ;)

amethyst
11-27-2004, 10:48 AM
For me personally tennis is more interesting when thereīs more competition. I started watching tennis in 2000 and enjoyed the times which are labelled "chaotic" by some people a lot. This year I followed womensīs tennis more often because it was less predictable than before (although the quality was often not very high).
And I was not unhappy I couldnīt watch this yearīs TMC final because of the rain delay - just another trashing by Roger. As much as i admire his game - I canīt help to notice that this is starting to get boring for me.
But thatīs just my personal point of view. Generally I think Roger is good for tennis because he can draw attention of the people who donīt follow tennis regulary - and of course his game is very attractive.

Space Cowgirl
11-27-2004, 07:29 PM
I appreciate a good long discussion in a thread that actually raises some decent tennis-related points and opens up further debate, but wading through 10 pages of "Rodduck sucks"/"Dahveed is a loser" (delete as applicable) becomes somewhat wearing.
Don't forget those intelligence-filled "Coria is a whiner" threads either ;)

Fedex
11-27-2004, 08:13 PM
No.