Tennis Dominance [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Tennis Dominance

deliveryman
03-26-2005, 08:54 PM
I know what you are all thinking right now: Oh no, not another Federer thread. Don’t worry I feel the same way, so bear with me here.

I’ve been browsing these forums for a while now, never bothering to register, as I usually keep to myself and hear what other people have to say. However, a few days ago I read something on this forum that sparked an interest, and felt the need to reply, or better yet, start a new thread.

There was a mini-discussion about how Federer is too dominant and is ruining the sport of Tennis. How, people will lose interest in Tennis if one person wins all the time, if there are no rivalries, if there aren’t any close matches for the finals, etc.

I possibly could not disagree anymore. Dominance by any person or team is what EVERY sport needs to excel, to intrigue the “outside world.” Need proof? Look at what Tiger Woods did for golf. Never before has golf been shown on prime time prior to Woods. Because of Tiger Woods, golf has more fans and viewers than ever before. Or Muhammad Ali, he revived boxing, a dying sport in the 60’s single handedly by simply, being dominant. The Boston Celtics of the 60’s or even the New York Yankees of today. People wanted to watch – because they were the best.

People want to see records broken. Remember the hype about Mark McGuire when he broke the homerun record a few years back? More recently when Barry Bonds broke Mark McGuire’s record and is closing in on Hank Aaron’s all-time record. People tuned in, just to specifically see these feats accomplished.

Not only do people want to see records broken, but everyone seems to cheer for the underdog, the little guy that could. As dominant as the New York Yankees are, how many of us tune in just to see them lose? When the Boston Redsox beat the Yankee’s from 3 games down; it was great. It is what sports need.

If Federer can continue the pace his is at (winning 3 Grand Slams a year), imagine the publicity the sport of Tennis will receive in a few years. His matches would be televised on major networks (not just ESPN), and Tennis would grow dramatically as a sport. If Federer can continue his pace, it will be the best thing that happened to Tennis in a long time.

Thanks for taking the time to hear me out.

loveit
03-26-2005, 08:59 PM
I know what you are all thinking right now: Oh no, not another Federer thread. Don’t worry I feel the same way, so bear with me here.

I’ve been browsing these forums for a while now, never bothering to register, as I usually keep to myself and hear what other people have to say. However, a few days ago I read something on this forum that sparked an interest, and felt the need to reply, or better yet, start a new thread.

There was a mini-discussion about how Federer is too dominant and is ruining the sport of Tennis. How, people will lose interest in Tennis if one person wins all the time, if there are no rivalries, if there aren’t any close matches for the finals, etc.

I possibly could not disagree anymore. Dominance by any person or team is what EVERY sport needs to excel, to intrigue the “outside world.” Need proof? Look at what Tiger Woods did for golf. Never before has golf been shown on prime time prior to Woods. Because of Tiger Woods, golf has more fans and viewers than ever before. Or Muhammad Ali, he revived boxing, a dying sport in the 60’s single handedly by simply, being dominant. The Boston Celtics of the 60’s or even the New York Yankees of today. People wanted to watch – because they were the best.

People want to see records broken. Remember the hype about Mark McGuire when he broke the homerun record a few years back? More recently when Barry Bonds broke Mark McGuire’s record and is closing in on Hank Aaron’s all-time record. People tuned in, just to specifically see these feats accomplished.

Not only do people want to see records broken, but everyone seems to cheer for the underdog, the little guy that could. As dominant as the New York Yankees are, how many of us tune in just to see them lose? When the Boston Redsox beat the Yankee’s from 3 games down; it was great. It is what sports need.

If Federer can continue the pace his is at (winning 3 Grand Slams a year), imagine the publicity the sport of Tennis will receive in a few years. His matches would be televised on major networks (not just ESPN), and Tennis would grow dramatically as a sport. If Federer can continue his pace, it will be the best thing that happened to Tennis in a long time.

Thanks for taking the time to hear me out.


I couldn't agree more deliveryman. I am, however, an advid Federer fan and can't get enough of watching him play great tennis.

ClaycourtaZzZz.
03-26-2005, 09:07 PM
I couldn't agree more deliveryman. I am, however, an advid Federer fan and can't get enough of watching him play great tennis.
me too;)
great match against Olie

Chloe le Bopper
03-26-2005, 09:11 PM
A Federer thread where somebody actually has something to say is cool. A Federer thread where all somebody has to say is "Fed beat Ulirach!" is less cool.

In that case, welcome aboard :yeah:

I agree that Fed keeping a very high status in the game could be good for the sport. It would be better for the sport if there were some consistent rivals for him, however.

bad gambler
03-26-2005, 09:17 PM
nice write up deliveryman :)

but the beauty about sports dominance is that it always come to an end at some point - everyone thought tiger was going to dominate for 20 years when he burst into the scene, williams sisters would takeover the world, yankees took a fall last year and someone like schumacher has started shakily thus far in the F1 season

sure fed is dominating now but who know, in a year or so there could be someone new come into the scene to take his place

joske
03-26-2005, 09:20 PM
yup, all very true gambler... hope to see the situation change soon :devil: no hard feelings towards Roger tho (he's truly a great player)

great match against Olie

:sad: Oli had bad luck tho, to come up against Roger in the second round already :( he deserved to get further :rolleyes: oh well...

foul_dwimmerlaik
03-26-2005, 09:20 PM
deliveryman, all that you say might be true, but it applies mostly to one part of the word - United States of America, or maybe, the Northern American continent. I don't have numbers to back me up and frankly am too lazy to search for them, but my personal impression is (and I've been watching and following tennis for roughly 10 years) that at least in Europe tennis as a sporting industry was doing just fine without Federer and would continue to progress even if Federer'd drop from the face of the Earth tomorrow (not that I wish any such thing).

Personally I think that no, domination by any player is not good for the sport then again I'm not a particular fan of Federer. If it was any of my faves making such amazing results, I'd no doubt be over the moon and not yapping about the predictability and boredom.

Tennis Fool
03-26-2005, 09:38 PM
Hi Deliveryman:

Welcome to the board :wavey:

The only argument I would raise to your post (and this is as devil's advocate) is that the stars you mention are all American. Federer is not--and with his quiet demeanor, is not the marketing star Madison Avenue would like.

Andy Roddick is much more of the would-be star, but he is quite failing at this right now, and so IMG is trying to get everyone to look at Donald Johnson.

Pete Sampras was the dominator in the 1990s, and he was not a marketing star, but still very popular among casual fans (notice that people who don't watch tennis now still refer to the days of Sampras, Agassi, Graf, and even Hingis).

What the advertisers really want is a brash star recalling the days of McEnroe and Connors. On the women's side, they are lucky to have a new blonde in Sharapova (although she isn't dominating which may become a hindrance) and a star with personality, Serena Williams.

tennischick
03-26-2005, 09:41 PM
...Andy Roddick is much more of the would-be star, but he is quite failing at this right now, and so IMG is trying to get everyone to look at Donald Johnson.
who is Donald Johnson :shrug:

deliveryman -- nice opening serve. :worship:

Tennis Fool
03-26-2005, 09:44 PM
who is Donald Johnson :shrug:

deliveryman -- nice opening serve. :worship:

I meant Donald Young :o

deliveryman
03-26-2005, 09:47 PM
foul_dwimmerlaik,

You could be right, considering I know next to nothing about the tennis fanbase in Europe.

Though, what I said I was mostly referring to the Tennis fanbase in North America, seeing as how Tennis isn't one of the major sports overhere.

tennischick
03-26-2005, 09:51 PM
I meant Donald Young :o
i wonder how the Duck feels about the marketing machines implicitly giving up on him and going for the Williams Brother instead? :o (the Williams brand clearly having been shown to appeal to a broader range of demographcs).

Billy Moonshine
03-26-2005, 09:59 PM
For me, domination is boring. I watch sport to see competiton. I don´t get anymore excited at seeing Federer lose because he normally wins.I get excited at seeing a great tennis match. I don´t want Federer to keep winning for years so that I can enjoy the occasional Safin OZ Open SF2005 victory. I want to see matches of this quality every grand slam.
Yeah, loads of people like watching records broken, but do you think they actually love the sport or just show up when something is newsworthy?
And one of the problems with tennis today is the way the tours and players are handled by the organisers and marketing men to get more viewers and more money. More viewers does not mean better quality. Tennis doesn´t need to become the biggest sport in the world. There is enough money in it already, it has enough fans, it even has it´s own TV channel. And the only good thing about tennis becoming a bigger sport is the money it raises for charity and other initiatives where tennis is taken to developing countries that are deprived of the joy of sport.
However, sport shouldn´t be about money. It should be about healthy competition. And right now there´s no competetion on the tour. At least Sampras had Agassi to keep him in check now and then.
Granted, it´s a lovely demonstration by Federer of excellence, and the first few times it was wonderful to see this talent, but it´s getting a little dull now. If you´re a tennis fan in Europe and an objective one, with no real preference but to see great tennis, then are you going to sit up all night to watch Federer massacre the second best player in the world? Unlikely.You might see sublime tennis, but drama, excitement, competition? No. You would definitely stay up to watch if this was likely though, because that´s probably what drew you to tennis anyway.
Some may argue that Federer´s brilliance means his opponents can´t play their games. I don´t agree. I think that the current tour is not as balanced as the years of Becker, Edberg, Courier, Chang, Agassi, Lendl. Even Stich gave more resistance to Sampras than Roddick or Hewitt give Federer. Right now many of the top ten have a lack of self belief about them, see some of Hewitt´s recent comments for proof. I could see his dominance lasting for a few more years, but maybe the next generation, trained with an eye on usurping him, might make things a little more interesting.

Tennis Fool
03-26-2005, 10:03 PM
i wonder how the Duck feels about the marketing machines implicitly giving up on him and going for the Williams Brother instead? :o (the Williams brand clearly having been shown to appeal to a broader range of demographcs).
Roddick just doesn't have that "something" to get the average fan interested in watching more tennis, even after doing SNL, and even Jay Leno a week ago.

I think James Blake appeals more to the casual fan, even though he is in "injury prone" era of his career.

PaulieM
03-26-2005, 10:05 PM
I think James Blake appeals more to the casual fan, even though he is in "injury prone" era of his career.
he's hot and sweet, how could anyone not love him!

Tennis Fool
03-26-2005, 10:05 PM
For me, domination is boring. I watch sport to see competiton. I don´t get anymore excited at seeing Federer lose because he normally wins.I get excited at seeing a great tennis match. I don´t want Federer to keep winning for years so that I can enjoy the occasional Safin OZ Open SF2005 victory. I want to see matches of this quality every grand slam.
Yeah, loads of people like watching records broken, but do you think they actually love the sport or just show up when something is newsworthy?
And one of the problems with tennis today is the way the tours and players are handled by the organisers and marketing men to get more viewers and more money. More viewers does not mean better quality. Tennis doesn´t need to become the biggest sport in the world. There is enough money in it already, it has enough fans, it even has it´s own TV channel. And the only good thing about tennis becoming a bigger sport is the money it raises for charity and other initiatives where tennis is taken to developing countries that are deprived of the joy of sport.
However, sport shouldn´t be about money. It should be about healthy competition. And right now there´s no competetion on the tour. At least Sampras had Agassi to keep him in check now and then.
Granted, it´s a lovely demonstration by Federer of excellence, and the first few times it was wonderful to see this talent, but it´s getting a little dull now. If you´re a tennis fan in Europe and an objective one, with no real preference but to see great tennis, then are you going to sit up all night to watch Federer massacre the second best player in the world? Unlikely.You might see sublime tennis, but drama, excitement, competition? No. You would definitely stay up to watch if this was likely though, because that´s probably what drew you to tennis anyway.
Some may argue that Federer´s brilliance means his opponents can´t play their games. I don´t agree. I think that the current tour is not as balanced as the years of Becker, Edberg, Courier, Chang, Agassi, Lendl. Even Stich gave more resistance to Sampras than Roddick or Hewitt give Federer. Right now many of the top ten have a lack of self belief about them, see some of Hewitt´s recent comments for proof. I could see his dominance lasting for a few more years, but maybe the next generation, trained with an eye on usurping him, might make things a little more interesting.

I think it all comes down to whether you like the player dominating: I like Federer a lot, but couldn't stand Pete Sampras. In fact, he couldn't retire soon enough for me.

tennischick
03-26-2005, 10:08 PM
I think it all comes down to whether you like the player dominating: I like Federer a lot, but couldn't stand Pete Sampras. In fact, he couldn't retire soon enough for me.
nuff said. :worship: i've admitted before to having the same bias. ;)

foul_dwimmerlaik
03-26-2005, 10:14 PM
I think it all comes down to whether you like the player dominatingWord.

Billy Moonshine
03-26-2005, 10:20 PM
Tennis fool, I agree with you. But still, I like Fed but his dominance still irritates me.

tennischick
03-26-2005, 10:25 PM
Tennis fool, I agree with you. But still, I like Fed but his dominance still irritates me.
is that why his name appears with this smiley --> :rolleyes: in your signature? :rolleyes:

jacobhiggins
03-26-2005, 10:27 PM
If you don't like somebody and they keep winning then yeah, I can see where you would not like it. But Federer is making huge waves in the sports world around the world. He's like Michael Jordan in other countries. All this attention is good for the sport, I know some people don't like it, but he is bringing huge publicity AS WE SPEAK. He's making tennis history at the moment and building new fans and tennis players this very second. 10 years from now I bet everyother player is going to say Federer was there inspirtation. He got me into Tennis. A 21 year old American kid from the east coast.

euroka1
03-26-2005, 10:37 PM
Hi Deliveryman:

Pete Sampras was the dominator in the 1990s, and he was not a marketing star, but still very popular among casual fans (notice that people who don't watch tennis now still refer to the days of Sampras, Agassi, Graf, and even Hingis).

What the advertisers really want is a brash star recalling the days of McEnroe and Connors.

Whenever I am offended by the on-court behaviour of some of the present lot of players, I think back to how much worse things were when McEnroe and Connors were in full flight.

Sampras (like Federer today), was just good. Boring, no, just a pleasure to watch playing great tennis.


As far as people are concerned, the more things change, the more they stay the same. But now, perhaps, advertising, sponsorship, and money have really taken over.

PaulieM
03-26-2005, 10:58 PM
If you don't like somebody and they keep winning then yeah, I can see where you would not like it. But Federer is making huge waves in the sports world around the world. He's like Michael Jordan in other countries. All this attention is good for the sport, I know some people don't like it, but he is bringing huge publicity AS WE SPEAK. He's making tennis history at the moment and building new fans and tennis players this very second. 10 years from now I bet everyother player is going to say Federer was there inspirtation. He got me into Tennis. A 21 year old American kid from the east coast.
:yeah:

Billy Moonshine
03-26-2005, 11:07 PM
Tennis chick, :wavey: I said i like federer, does this :rolleyes: mean i don´t like him?
I just roll my eyes because I´m bored of him whipping everyone´s ass.
So, i´ve changed my sign to show my appreciation for him and to be consistent.
Sad i know, but then that´s one thing i can´t deny about myself.
Long live tennis, whatever happens it´s always bigger than the players and the tours. :worship:

uNIVERSE mAN
03-26-2005, 11:53 PM
Sampras relied much more heavily on his serve and didn't have the same strategic backcourt game as Federer.

Levo.
03-27-2005, 12:05 AM
It may be true...

But it's f**king boring him winning everybloodything.

bad gambler
03-27-2005, 12:30 AM
fed better get the laureus sportsman of the year for 2004 award otherwise the whole awards night is a complete farce - if schumi gets it well.......

Action Jackson
03-27-2005, 12:35 AM
If it was other people's favourites dominating they wouldn't be whining.

Nothing lasts forever, his time at the top will end and what foul said about tennis in Europe is very apt.

NATAS81
03-27-2005, 12:35 AM
Everybody hates the top dog. It's just the nature of sports competition. Like BG said, you never know if Monfils, Young, or whomever will blossom into a superstar and become Roger's longtime rival.

WyveN
03-27-2005, 01:22 AM
And the only good thing about tennis becoming a bigger sport is the money it raises for charity and other initiatives where tennis is taken to developing countries that are deprived of the joy of sport.


Given that most countries cant even get decent coverage of the 4 slams I think there would be plenty of good things if tennis became a bigger sport, however there would of course be drawbacks.

. At least Sampras had Agassi to keep him in check now and then.


Between 1993 and 1997 Pete won 9 slams. Federer needs 5 slams over the next 2 years to match that, I would say he has his work cut out for him.

If you´re a tennis fan in Europe and an objective one, with no real preference but to see great tennis, then are you going to sit up all night to watch Federer massacre the second best player in the world?


Just because Hewitt is second best player in the world doesn't mean he is the most likely player to beat Federer on tour. I would say a lot of players would stay up to watch Federer v Safin the next time they play.


Unlikely.You might see sublime tennis, but drama, excitement, competition?


First of all Roger increases all that by being on the tour (he has played 4 or 5 classic matches this year alone) and also not every match includes Federer. I watched Blake v Moya yesterday and saw all of the things you mentioned.


Even Stich gave more resistance to Sampras than Roddick or Hewitt give Federer.


Who said Federer wont have a Stich type of player?


but maybe the next generation, trained with an eye on usurping him, might make things a little more interesting.

It will be interesting to look on these comments if Roger ends up slamless in 2005. Look at Mcenroe's 1985, his follow up to his amazing 1984, John started 1985 in dominating fashion winning his first 4 tournaments while only dropping 2 sets in the lot of them, he quickly followed it up with a 5th.

I bet people were expecting him to breeze through the slams back then but strangely enough he ended up slamless in 1985.

federer_roar
03-27-2005, 01:50 AM
I don't how people categorize federer and samprass as boring just becoz they are quiet on court. Federer is more open and more willing to share off-court. He is, by the ways he's carrying himself, far more stylish.

Art&Soul
03-27-2005, 02:24 AM
Sampras relied much more heavily on his serve and didn't have the same strategic backcourt game as Federer.
Yup and he had not the variety that Federer has that's why i always enjoy Federer's game much more, still dominant but so beautiful to watch :) BTW Welcome to the board DeliveryMan :wavey:

NATAS81
03-27-2005, 02:46 AM
I don't how people categorize federer and samprass as boring just becoz they are quiet on court. Federer is more open and more willing to share off-court. He is, by the ways he's carrying himself, far more stylish.
Federer exhibits the utmost respect and grace on and off the court. His motions on court are far more elegant than Pete's. Pete was a more "by the books" player. Fed does things that look natural. Like he was born with a tennis racquet in the crib.

And the way he carries himself with the media is how any successful player should. Dignity and grace. The man doesn't lose his cool, like many players are apt to do, and this is one of his many keys to victory.

And for this you have to respect what the man does and watch his games with awe instead of criticising him for not having more character than you'd like.

federer_roar
03-27-2005, 03:11 AM
Federer exhibits the utmost respect and grace on and off the court. His motions on court are far more elegant than Pete's. Pete was a more "by the books" player. Fed does things that look natural. Like he was born with a tennis racquet in the crib.

And the way he carries himself with the media is how any successful player should. Dignity and grace. The man doesn't lose his cool, like many players are apt to do, and this is one of his many keys to victory.

And for this you have to respect what the man does and watch his games with awe instead of criticising him for not having more character than you'd like.

Yep Nata. :wavey: I just can't see resemblance betwen Sampras and federer on the their styles and temperament. But maybe I am a fan, I never find Roger dull.

Somebody mentioned that America only worships brash players as its marketing god. I don't know whether it's true you have to be lound and obnoxious sometimes to score on that area, but Agassi is quite sucessful and the image he projecting now is charming and stylish, a tennis star and a family man. So it's too early to say.

Roger-No.1
03-27-2005, 03:27 AM
Yep Nata. :wavey: I just can't see resemblance betwen Sampras and federer on the their styles and temperament.
You're right, federer_roar. Some of his fans liked Pete, others didn't.

The key to Roger Federer's success is that his fans are from all corners of the world and the one thing they have in common is Roger Federer.

In Roger's fanbase you can find Edberg fans, Bborg fans, Sampras fans, etc.

And A lot of fans from Asia and Europe.

American TV networks worship American players,

but the number of Americans supporting Roger is enormous and growing at RF.com

That's what being World No. 1 means!

federer_roar
03-27-2005, 03:32 AM
For me, domination is boring. I watch sport to see competiton. I don´t get anymore excited at seeing Federer lose because he normally wins.I get excited at seeing a great tennis match. I don´t want Federer to keep winning for years so that I can enjoy the occasional Safin OZ Open SF2005 victory. I want to see matches of this quality every grand slam.
.... More viewers does not mean better quality. Tennis doesn´t need to become the biggest sport in the world. ..... are you going to siit up all night to watch Federer massacre the second best player in the world? Unlikely.You might see sublime tennis, but drama, excitement, competition? ....

You almost convince me, but bear in mind dominance and quality matches are not opposite. Dominance is more of the end result , and it doesn't kill the factors of a great match. Back to Sampras's dominace time, great matches between him and Agassi are abound. I only blame lack of excitment to Roger's opponents, not to his dominace.

Lee
03-27-2005, 03:52 AM
Sampras relied much more heavily on his serve and didn't have the same strategic backcourt game as Federer.

Then Roddick would have more than 14 GS trophies by the end of his career. :p

federer_roar
03-27-2005, 04:16 AM
Then Roddick would have more than 14 GS trophies by the end of his career. :p

that depends on the asset Roddick relies on, his serve is huge but not as accurate as Sampras's I guess.

deliveryman
03-27-2005, 04:45 AM
Then Roddick would have more than 14 GS trophies by the end of his career.

Roddick only has two weapons, his serve, which he only gets to use half of the time, and his forehand.

Lee
03-27-2005, 04:50 AM
Roddick only has two weapons, his serve, which he only gets to use half of the time, and his forehand.

You shouldn't omit my :p smilie

NATAS81
03-27-2005, 04:51 AM
I'm still anxious to know what King Jeff Morrison did down 2-4 in the 3rd set to Keifer. Complete the bedtime story, mommy. :baby:

wimbledonfan
03-27-2005, 05:05 AM
Wyven , made some good points . Federer has yet to win a slam this year and needs to win almost every slam he enters to be on the same page as Pete . His domination is not anything different than what John Macenroe or Iven Lendle went through . Another interesting point i'd like to make , Lendle ,whose career is often overlooked had 7 years where he has won at least 20 grand slam matches !! . Something no other tennis player has been able to do . For people who think Federer has the most complete game of all time , I disagree . I think Lendle was the total package on all surfaces .

Roger-No.1
03-27-2005, 05:10 AM
I'm still anxious to know what King Jeff Morrison did down 2-4 in the 3rd set to Keifer. Complete the bedtime story, mommy. :baby:
The third set was 4-6, NATAS

typo

NATAS81
03-27-2005, 05:11 AM
The third set was 4-6, NATAS

typo
Thanks mommy. Don't forget to heat my milk for the morning after tucking me in :baby:

Roger-No.1
03-27-2005, 05:12 AM
Don't forget to heat my milk for the morning after tucking me in :baby:
:haha:

Tennis Fool
03-27-2005, 08:28 AM
He got me into Tennis. A 21 year old American kid from the east coast.
Just curious. How did you come about becoming a fan? Did you flip through the channels and catch him on NBC's Wimbledon coverage, or dare say, ESPN?

Tennis Fool
03-27-2005, 08:31 AM
Lendle ,whose career is often overlooked had 7 years where he has won at least 20 grand slam matches !! . Something no other tennis player has been able to do . For people who think Federer has the most complete game of all time , I disagree . I think Lendle was the total package on all surfaces .

What people forget (or didn't know) was that Lendl was for many years a Groomsman and underachiever.

Art&Soul
03-27-2005, 08:34 AM
Federer exhibits the utmost respect and grace on and off the court. His motions on court are far more elegant than Pete's. Pete was a more "by the books" player. Fed does things that look natural. Like he was born with a tennis racquet in the crib.



Exellent point :yeah:

uNIVERSE mAN
03-27-2005, 01:04 PM
Then Roddick would have more than 14 GS trophies by the end of his career. :p

Roddick is a terrible server when it comes to all-time greats, I would submit that even he doesn't know where his serve is going half the time. Sampras' serve is mutiple levels above Roddick, plus the way he backed it up with extremely aggressive S/V tactics. Just by his aggression other players would panic on returns knowing he would knock off a weak return immediately. Roddick has no such thing, his style is a baseline basher, and returners have a different mindset, that is, to get the ball back and work the baseline point instead of finding a way to have a very good return immediately as you would have to do against Sampras.

I haven't even discussed Sampras' variation, placement, speeds, spins. Roddick doesn't have any of these, I will say though that lately Roddick has taken 10-15 mph off his first serve to try and get a higher percentage, but I think this is possibly due to him having less confidence off the ground knowing that other players are catching on very quickly and even matching his power, so he's got a 50-50 shot in a rally, so the higher percentage of first serves gives him a better chance to control his service games. But his first serve is still very flat and hard and he doesn't have the ability to direct the ball very well, it seems like he aims to get it in the box towards the left or right, his second serve is the same, little speed changes, just a heavy kicker usually to the ad-court.

If you go back and see the kind of looks Sampras gave on the second serve and the percentage of points he won on them consistently, you'd see the difference.

The conclusion is there is no comparison whatsoever in Sampras and Roddick's serving, Roddick doesn't even come close.

onewoman74
03-27-2005, 01:22 PM
I hated Sampras dominating tennis...I couldn't wait for his retirement or for someone to knock his ass off his throne...I understand how certain people feel about Fed doing the same thing now...I feel your pain in a way... this time around I love the#1 player.. I'm enjoying what Sampras' fans felt back in the day. Fed will have his time in the sun and it won't be too long till someone replaces him...I'm just going to enjoy the ride in the mean time

euroka1
03-27-2005, 02:05 PM
The last two contributions to this post caused me to reflect that when watching pro tennis, I tend to admire the game rather than the person. Sampras never bothered me personally, but I loved to watch his playing out of a point. Personwise, I wouldn't want to have dinner with either Sampras or Roddick and they wouldn't want to have it with me.

Yasmine
03-27-2005, 02:19 PM
For me, domination is boring. I watch sport to see competiton. I don´t get anymore excited at seeing Federer lose because he normally wins.I get excited at seeing a great tennis match. I don´t want Federer to keep winning for years so that I can enjoy the occasional Safin OZ Open SF2005 victory. I want to see matches of this quality every grand slam.
That is the most important point I think. We're watching tennis, following players but most people watch matches because they like to see the sport and a good match. When people book tickets at a tourney they have no idea of who's gonna play at the time they book it. And sometimes (well most times I've gone to watch tennis anyway) you watch a lot of matches where your fave are not playing. And what do you hope for in that case? some good play. So tennis is gonna get more popular if it is entertaining and exciting... Whoever plays and whoever wins...

As much as I like Federer a lot I would rather have an exciting final everytime he plays another top player such as Hewitt or Roddick, and not a straight sets wins. I know some highly fanatics about him will disagree but watching a final that finishes quickly I won't remember it and certainly won't want to have it on tape to watch it again. :devil:

uNIVERSE mAN
03-27-2005, 02:35 PM
As much as I like Federer a lot I would rather have an exciting final everytime he plays another top player such as Hewitt or Roddick, and not a straight sets wins. :devil:

To you it's exciting, to the vbetter's it's life threatening :)

squirrel
03-27-2005, 02:44 PM
It is very strange, but can be explained: the best to me is watching Federer at his best, because I love tennis. But if Federer is at his best he will win straight sets. So yhe more exciting thing is fo have Federer and another player both at their best, that is wath lack these days, not for Federer fault!!!!!!

uNIVERSE mAN
03-27-2005, 02:45 PM
Personwise, I wouldn't want to have dinner with either Sampras or Roddick and they wouldn't want to have it with me.

depends who's paying.

Scotso
03-27-2005, 02:58 PM
Deliveryman, you're completely right that Federer's domination would probably increase the viewership of the sport.

However, many of us avid tennis fans care less about how popular the sport is (which is only a problem in North America, seemingly) and more about wanting our favorites to be able to win a few titles.

Blaze
03-27-2005, 04:23 PM
But if you don't care about more viewers than that means less sponsors which could be disastrous.

World Beater
03-27-2005, 05:01 PM
Roddick is a terrible server when it comes to all-time greats, I would submit that even he doesn't know where his serve is going half the time. Sampras' serve is mutiple levels above Roddick, plus the way he backed it up with extremely aggressive S/V tactics. Just by his aggression other players would panic on returns knowing he would knock off a weak return immediately. Roddick has no such thing, his style is a baseline basher, and returners have a different mindset, that is, to get the ball back and work the baseline point instead of finding a way to have a very good return immediately as you would have to do against Sampras.

I haven't even discussed Sampras' variation, placement, speeds, spins. Roddick doesn't have any of these, I will say though that lately Roddick has taken 10-15 mph off his first serve to try and get a higher percentage, but I think this is possibly due to him having less confidence off the ground knowing that other players are catching on very quickly and even matching his power, so he's got a 50-50 shot in a rally, so the higher percentage of first serves gives him a better chance to control his service games. But his first serve is still very flat and hard and he doesn't have the ability to direct the ball very well, it seems like he aims to get it in the box towards the left or right, his second serve is the same, little speed changes, just a heavy kicker usually to the ad-court.

If you go back and see the kind of looks Sampras gave on the second serve and the percentage of points he won on them consistently, you'd see the difference.

The conclusion is there is no comparison whatsoever in Sampras and Roddick's serving, Roddick doesn't even come close.


Wow, I have seen people criticize Andy's baseline game and seemingly one dimensional style. But I haven't seen anyone take apart his strength like you did here. One thing you seem to miss is that Roddick has power like no other person has had in the sport. There are really only two players who can consistently return Roddick's serve today. One of them is being considered as "best ever" and the other has been #1 two years in a row.

Roddick may not hit the lines like Sampras, but he compensates with his amazing power and his great kick serve. Roddick has also varied his serve quite well in recent times.

Sampras won more points because he could back his serve up better. If Roddick could add a few more dimensions to his game, he too could win more points. Keep in mind that Roddick plays the most tiebreaks of anyone(barring Ivo) and this is a consequence of his great serve.

You mention all time greats, but then you only use Sampras. That's an unfair comparison for any player in the game.

Cervantes
03-27-2005, 05:44 PM
Interesting thread, great opening post deliveryman :yeah:

However I don't agree dominance is good for a sport by fact. For instance Formula 1 is not as interesting anymore with the Schumacher/Ferrari team winning everything. I used to watch almost every race but nowadays I usually don't bother anymore. If there's no competition interest in a sport will fade, that's why the FIA is trying to bring the field closer together to make the sport more interesting.

On the other hand every sport needs some form of dominance by a player or a couple of players. Look at women's tennis, the same players in the quarters every tournament. I find it boring but on the other hand it draws crowds cause people want to see the big stars facing off against each other. And remember interest in women's tennis was also high during Serena's dominance even though she won everything and was nearly unbeatable. The strength of the women's game is the lack of depth on the tour.

The depth of the field has been the problem of the men's game for a couple of years now. Only recently with the rise of Federer, Roddick and Hewitt we have consistently had big matches at the latter stages of tournaments. Before, too many tournaments ended with a non-seed in the final (with the exception of grand slams). This resulted in decreasing interest in men's tennis and increasing interest in women's tennis. Like I said people want to see the top players against each other and this still doesn't happen enough in the men's game.

For now I think we're on the right track with men's tennis, however let's hope for the sport Federer doesn't turn into a second Michael Schumacher (although I personally wouldn't mind ;)).

AgassiFan
03-27-2005, 05:46 PM
I know what you are all thinking right now: Oh no, not another Federer thread. Don’t worry I feel the same way, so bear with me here.

I’ve been browsing these forums for a while now, never bothering to register, as I usually keep to myself and hear what other people have to say. However, a few days ago I read something on this forum that sparked an interest, and felt the need to reply, or better yet, start a new thread.

There was a mini-discussion about how Federer is too dominant and is ruining the sport of Tennis. How, people will lose interest in Tennis if one person wins all the time, if there are no rivalries, if there aren’t any close matches for the finals, etc.

I possibly could not disagree anymore. Dominance by any person or team is what EVERY sport needs to excel, to intrigue the “outside world.” Need proof? Look at what Tiger Woods did for golf. Never before has golf been shown on prime time prior to Woods. Because of Tiger Woods, golf has more fans and viewers than ever before. Or Muhammad Ali, he revived boxing, a dying sport in the 60’s single handedly by simply, being dominant. The Boston Celtics of the 60’s or even the New York Yankees of today. People wanted to watch – because they were the best.

People want to see records broken. Remember the hype about Mark McGuire when he broke the homerun record a few years back? More recently when Barry Bonds broke Mark McGuire’s record and is closing in on Hank Aaron’s all-time record. People tuned in, just to specifically see these feats accomplished.

Not only do people want to see records broken, but everyone seems to cheer for the underdog, the little guy that could. As dominant as the New York Yankees are, how many of us tune in just to see them lose? When the Boston Redsox beat the Yankee’s from 3 games down; it was great. It is what sports need.

If Federer can continue the pace his is at (winning 3 Grand Slams a year), imagine the publicity the sport of Tennis will receive in a few years. His matches would be televised on major networks (not just ESPN), and Tennis would grow dramatically as a sport. If Federer can continue his pace, it will be the best thing that happened to Tennis in a long time.

Thanks for taking the time to hear me out.


Plus, as I mentioned before, a herniated disc or a chonic foot problem can make Federer's dominance history....literally.

So enjoy while it lasts for many reasons.

euroka1
03-27-2005, 05:52 PM
Personwise, I wouldn't want to have dinner with either Sampras or Roddick and they wouldn't want to have it with me.


depends who's paying.

Even IF they were paying, I wouldn't. I'm fussy about dinner companions.

uNIVERSE mAN
03-27-2005, 06:42 PM
Wow, I have seen people criticize Andy's baseline game and seemingly one dimensional style. But I haven't seen anyone take apart his strength like you did here. One thing you seem to miss is that Roddick has power like no other person has had in the sport. There are really only two players who can consistently return Roddick's serve today. One of them is being considered as "best ever" and the other has been #1 two years in a row.

Roddick may not hit the lines like Sampras, but he compensates with his amazing power and his great kick serve. Roddick has also varied his serve quite well in recent times.

Sampras won more points because he could back his serve up better. If Roddick could add a few more dimensions to his game, he too could win more points. Keep in mind that Roddick plays the most tiebreaks of anyone(barring Ivo) and this is a consequence of his great serve.

You mention all time greats, but then you only use Sampras. That's an unfair comparison for any player in the game.

No, actually I think this is starting to go off on a tangent. I was mentioning that Sampras depended on his serving ability more than Federer does. Since off the ground he's not as varied. Then someone construed that I said Sampras won only because of his great serve and mentioned that by that argument that Roddick should win 14 GS. I interjected that Roddick's serve is nowhere near as good as Sampras', it wasn't simply a dissection of Roddick's service, perhaps I could have worded it better and improved the tone if I had gone back and revised my paragraph before submitting.

Aphex
03-27-2005, 08:17 PM
Samprazzzzzzzzzz, Ivanisevizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. That was ten years of good sleep. I'm feeling drowsy only by thinking about it...good night :zzz:

Lee
03-28-2005, 12:07 AM
No, actually I think this is starting to go off on a tangent. I was mentioning that Sampras depended on his serving ability more than Federer does. Since off the ground he's not as varied. Then someone construed that I said Sampras won only because of his great serve and mentioned that by that argument that Roddick should win 14 GS. I interjected that Roddick's serve is nowhere near as good as Sampras', it wasn't simply a dissection of Roddick's service, perhaps I could have worded it better and improved the tone if I had gone back and revised my paragraph before submitting.

Thanks for the clarification. I'm a Sampras fan so I know how good his serve was. And my comment is really tongue-in-cheek.

AgassiFan
03-28-2005, 02:22 AM
A die-hard Agassi fan here. Duh.

Admired Pete but wanted him to lose for obvious reasons.

"Discovered" Roger as he was entering the juniors. No longer root for him to win, especially against Agassi, but still can't help but enjoy his greatness even as I root against him. Anyone but Roddick and Hewitt.

jacobhiggins
03-28-2005, 04:09 AM
I saw first saw him on ESPN half way through the 2003 season, right after he Won Wimb. So I was on board before his breakout year. When you watch Federer, you realize, no one has every played tennis this good, not even Sampras. Can he match the achievements of Sampras, thats totally different, theres so many variables, but as far as talent and shot making, Federer is the best in my opinion. I don't see how you can be bored watching him, no one makes shots like him, they aren't just normal winners. But if he's beating your favorite guy, then yeah, I can see where it will bother people lol. I didn't want to like Roger, I wanted Roddick to be the best, but when I see the superior athelete and the superior talent, I want that person to succeed. That's why I want him to break Sampras's record. I feel if they were to play at there best, Federer would win, BUT, that's a what if and we will never know because Sampras is gone. So now Federer is going to have to beat Pete's achievments to be considered the best ever in most peoples eyes, even though he's probably Sampras evolved. Better conditioned, more control, better rackets, more versitility, better competetion, etc. But the only way to beat previous Greats is to beat there achievements, that's the ONLY way no matter how good they are.

wimbledonfan
03-28-2005, 11:33 AM
Jacob higgins give me a break , this happens in every sport . Every generation there are new players that come along , and Federer is no exception . Like Tiger Woods , or Serena williams , every players domination comes to an end at some point and right now , you may think he is invincible but he's human like everyone else . Don't start bringing up the Sampras and Federer comparison , as you probably never watched some of Petes matches when he was the number 1 player like I did . To this day , I still mantain the belief like many others do , that Pete had the best serve in the game , and when his serve was on , he could beat any player on any given day . There is no doubt about it , even Patrick Macenroe , at the aussie open , answered an email about who he thought would have won between the two , and said that Pete would win on faster courts like Wimbledon and the us open , but Federer would win in the slower courts . Lets just leave it at that , as we will never know the outcome of such a dream match , but I can assure you , no one would win easily . It would be a see- saw battle .

yanchr
03-28-2005, 11:51 AM
I like Federer which is as obvious as the fact that snow is white. I used to think I really like him as a whole person. His on-court coolness, his being nice to fans and being cooperative to reporters, his heart for the people in need of help, his loyalty to his girlfriend, his being down-to-earth, his being patrotic, his honesty, his...as well as his well-built figure, his cute smiles, his curly beautifully colored hair ( forgive me here :p ) I can still continue the list ...

But finally I came to realize that all the above is nothing relavant to my liking. It's simply his unique tennis that talks. I think I can still enjoy watching him play his game even if he has all the opposite characteristics to what I've listed above. If I've not had the chance to watch him for a while, I will simply miss him, not as a person but as a tennis player. What I miss is actually his tennis out of all, as simple as that.

A bit off topic here. I'm just saying, all the talk, his dominance good for the sport or not, blah blah blah, is simply irrelavant to some of his fans. Neither is all the achievements, records, comparisons with the old greats, etc. Take them all away, and I can still fully enjoy his game with sense of satisfaction.

That is his own dominance, different from other dominant forces, or other dominant players, methinks.

euroka1
03-28-2005, 12:36 PM
His on-court coolness, his being nice to fans and being cooperative to reporters, his heart for the people in need of help, his loyalty to his girlfriend, his being down-to-earth, his being patrotic, his honesty, his...as well as his well-built figure, his cute smiles, his curly beautifully colored hair ( forgive me here :p ) I can still continue the list ...

But finally I came to realize that all the above is nothing relavant to my liking. It's simply his unique tennis that talks.

That is his own dominance, different from other dominant forces, or other dominant players, methinks.

Well said, you've really got to the essential reason as to why he is great to watch!