Am I the only one who gets annoyed by this article? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Am I the only one who gets annoyed by this article?

soonha
09-15-2005, 12:13 AM
I don't intent to take any off from Agassi. Actually, I like him. At 35 yr-old, he had shown unbelievable performances and amazing spirits during USO this year. So I think he has every right to be given so many credits and full admiration from tennis fans and media all over the world. However....don't you think this is too much? Read the article I quoted below.

When I read this article today, I couldn't help finding it(esp, those parts that I put in bold) a little bit annoying by some reasons.

First, if it was any other GS(than USO) which takes place in non-US country, I mean, if not the 24,000 crowd chanting Agassi's name, clapping each and every winning point, encouraging him not to discourage everytime when he met a break point, doing the wave and standing ovation at every change-over(of course they didn't boo at Rogi or call him names, which, thanks God, I appreciate), could the match happen to be close to that extent? Can this journalist deny that Agassi might have taken a HUUUGE advantage from the partisan crowd and the 'US' Open?

Second, though this journalist claimed that he didn't, he disgraced current players who beat Rogi as well as who couldn't beat him last years. Safin or Nadal won against Rogi with "the singularity of their gifts"-even without an advantage of the crowd. Also, considering Hewitt showed a decent performance against Rogi in the SF match, what if the match took place at AO and the Australian crowd did the same to him as the American crowd to Agassi?

If this article came from one of the American media, it'd be understandable for me and in fact there're lots of American articles telling the same story about Agassi. But this is a British newspaper, which, I thought, was supposed to be more objective and neutral. It made me annoyed more.

Your thoughts?

PS. :scratch: I wonder if this is about I'm too immature to show some grace and composure as a winner('s fan)? If I would be told so, I'd rather be relieved by that.

Only undaunted Agassi can rally in the face of Federer
Las Vegan remains the No1 threat to the world No1

Les Roopanarine
Wednesday September 14, 2005
http://sport.guardian.co.uk/tennis/comment/0,10070,1570021,00.html

If Roger Federer is secretly a tad miffed that Andre Agassi's inspired performance partly overshadowed his achievement in becoming the first player since Donald Budge to win Wimbledon and the US Open in consecutive years, he shouldn't be; Agassi is a phenomenon.

At 35, Agassi is the oldest man to compete in the final of a Grand Slam event since Ken Rosewall squared up to Jimmy Connors in the 1974 final at Flushing Meadows. A Grand Slam champion on eight occasions, the Las Vegan is a happily married father of two whose hair - or what remains of it - is flecked with grey. Yet age cannot wither him.

Consequently, as Federer's rivals sift through the wreckage of their own Grand Slam aspirations for a second successive summer, they should resist the temptation to draw comfort from Agassi's ability to unsettle the Swiss. No other player in the world could have stood toe-to-toe with Federer and traded blows to such breathtaking effect.

That is not to discount the manifold skills of Marat Safin, Rafael Nadal and company. Rather it is to acknowledge the singularity of Agassi's gifts. Blessed with immaculate timing, lightning-fast hands and an ability to read the flight of the ball quicker than players half his age, Agassi is preternaturally comfortable taking his groundstrokes on the half-volley, a priceless asset when it comes to handling Federer's ferocious array of heavy artillery.

It is a measure of Federer's quality that even these attributes brought Agassi little success at first. The world No1 began the final in the imperious style that has become his trademark on the big occasions, sweeping the ball majestically into the corners. Lesser men than Agassi would have crumbled. Lleyton Hewitt endured a similar experience in the opening set of last year's final and never recovered.

But Agassi, whose tennis education was at the school of hard knocks known as the Sampras era, understands better than anyone what it takes to meet the game's greatest challenges. Upping his level from the superb to the sublime, the American quickly put the loss of the opening set behind him and went on to subject Federer to the sternest examination he has faced in a Grand Slam final.

In the process, Agassi staged a masterclass in how to disrupt the Swiss metronome's rhythm. From the latter stages of the first set to 6-6 in the third, the American dictated play from the baseline with strokes of almost inhuman power and precision, eliciting a series of errors from Federer. In particular, Agassi demonstrated that there is substance to the view - often articulated, rarely exemplified - that Federer is relatively vulnerable on the backhand side. Impressively, he did so by pursuing a strategy that few players have the courage or skills to emulate.

Conventional wisdom has it that the Federer forehand, one of the most potent weapons in the game, is to be avoided at all costs. Agassi, though, has rarely gone in for the conventional. Undaunted by the world No 1's formidable right side, the veteran boldly exchanged forehands, disturbing the champion's customary equilibrium and thereby establishing the perfect platform from which to launch a sustained assault on the backhand.

Had his body served him better, Agassi, who has been plagued by an inflamed sciatic nerve for most of this year, would have had a genuine chance of recording a third US Open win. Nonetheless, having survived three five-set matches on the punishing cement courts simply to reach the final, Agassi is hardly on his last legs.

Talk of retirement is premature, not least because Agassi, on his day, remains one of the few players capable of stopping Federer's relentless acquisition of the game's major prizes. Tennis needs him.

Since winning Wimbledon in 2003, Federer has collected six Slams. Unbeaten in his last 23 finals, he appears vulnerable only on clay, where he has twice stumbled to defeat this year, against Richard Gasquet and Nadal. On terra firma, only Safin, the prodigiously talented Muscovite who survived match points against Federer en route to winning this year's Australian Open, has shown himself capable of maintaining the level of tennis required to tame the Swiss over five sets.

Safin, though, is notoriously volatile, and - until his performances are governed by something more predictable than whether he has got out of bed on the right side - it is difficult to see him mounting a sustained challenge to Federer's dominance.

Of the other main pretenders, Andy Roddick will continue to stagnate until he addresses the need for greater tactical variety in his game, while it remains to be seen whether Nadal, who won a combined total of three matches at Wimbledon and the US Open, or Gasquet, a fourth-round loser in both tournaments, can bring their talents to bear on surfaces other than clay.

In the meantime, hopes of derailing the Federer Express in Grand Slam competition rest largely with a follicly-challenged father of two. Like Federer, Agassi can do things on a tennis court that no else can. This is no time to quit.

LCeh
09-15-2005, 12:26 AM
First, if it was any other GS(than USO) which takes place in non-US country, I mean, if not the 24,000 crowd chanting Agassi's name, clapping each and every winning point, encouraging him not to discourage everytime when he met a break point, doing the wave and standing ovation at every change-over(of course they didn't boo at Rogi or call him names, which, thanks God, I appreciate), could the match happen to be close to that extent? Can this journalist deny that Agassi might have taken a HUUUGE advantage from the partisan crowd and the 'US' Open?

Second, though this journalist claimed that he didn't, he disgraced current players who beat Rogi as well as who couldn't beat him last years. Safin or Nadal won against Rogi with "the singularity of their gifts"-even without an advantage of the crowd. Also, considering Hewitt showed a decent performance against Rogi in the SF match, what if the match took place at AO and the Australian crowd did the same to him as the American crowd to Agassi?

I understand your point Soonha. However, for Hewitt's case, it is very likely that he could have even put on a GREATER fight than he already did in the SF if he was in Australia, and made it to an even closer match, but that is just hypothetical. It never happened, so we can't really make anything concrete out of it.

Andre on the hand had the upper hand for most of the rallies in the second and third set, something that Hewitt can't claim to have done in the past 2 years. Yes Andre definitely got A LOT of help from the crowd, but he also displayed that under the right conditions, he can fight with Roger, something that not many can claim.

As for Nadal and Marat, I guess the author just prefered Agassi's style of play against Roger than Nadal's and Marat's. I am sure when Nadal and Marat beat Roger in their matches, they both had a lot of great rallies with him.

PS. :scratch: I wonder if this is about I'm too immature to show some grace and composure as a winner('s fan)? If I would be told so, I'd rather be relieved by that.

:hug:

Nah, you just had a different view from the author, that's all.

PaulieM
09-15-2005, 12:51 AM
some parts of it seem over the top, especially the first part you put in bold and that last little bold part at the end. the thing that i keep thinking, is that people act like agassi has continually challeged roger in the last few matches they've played which i don't think is true. aside from last year's uso match which i think people make slightly too much of simply because of the crazy conditions , all of andre matches against roger in the last 2 years or so have been fairly comfortable wins for roger. it seems that with this match everyone has conveniently forgotten about those results and makes it seem as though andre has consistently been able to challenge roger better than other players.

Dirk
09-15-2005, 01:33 AM
Hewitt didn't go away after the 1st set. Article is crap.

Jimena
09-15-2005, 02:22 AM
Well, the author conveniently forgot that Roger's beaten Agassi 8 straight times. And most of the matches in the past year have not been close.

And about this being the sternest examination that Roger's been submitted to in a GS final? Nope. The 2004 Wimby final against Roddick was closer.

I don't like this article.

darnyelb
09-15-2005, 02:37 AM
It annoys me too. Seems like the journalists the past few days are miffed that Federer fought back and won that final. While they will acknowledge that Federer is a great player, they'll go over the top with praise for Agassi as kind of a passive slight against Roger.

Reminds me of the '03 Masters cup final when Jim McIngvale couldn't stop extolling Agassi's virtues after he lost to Federer.

lunahielo
09-15-2005, 03:20 AM
I don't like it either, soonha.
But then, I am one of the (evidently) few Americans who never thought (and still doesn't think) Agassi hung the moon.

I think he knows how to work the media.
I think he loves all the attention and adulation and is going to milk it for all it's worth.
:rolleyes:

soonha
09-15-2005, 07:23 AM
Reminds me of the '03 Masters cup final when Jim McIngvale couldn't stop extolling Agassi's virtues after he lost to Federer.
You nailed it. Thank you!

Sjengster
09-17-2005, 11:09 PM
The last thing tennis needs is Agassi hanging around and sucking up adulation from fans and the media. Casual viewers of the sport will never be able to move on and embrace the new generation completely when they still have him around reminding them of the good old days, making runs in big tournaments that could have been achieved by younger, new talents. I mean, Malisse, Blake, Ginepri et al have only themselves to blame for not taking advantage of their chances at this US Open against Agassi, but it's about time we saw some of the young players stepping up and beating him. Nadal and Gasquet not only have better, more versatile games with which to challenge Federer, they have the potential to stick around at the top of the game with him for a long time.

RogiFan88
09-18-2005, 02:50 AM
The last thing tennis needs is Agassi hanging around and sucking up adulation from fans and the media. Casual viewers of the sport will never be able to move on and embrace the new generation completely when they still have him around reminding them of the good old days, making runs in big tournaments that could have been achieved by younger, new talents. I mean, Malisse, Blake, Ginepri et al have only themselves to blame for not taking advantage of their chances at this US Open against Agassi, but it's about time we saw some of the young players stepping up and beating him. Nadal and Gasquet not only have better, more versatile games with which to challenge Federer, they have the potential to stick around at the top of the game with him for a long time.

I for one can't wait for AA to retire but that won't happen any time soon as long as he can stand to take those cortisone shots to last him thru the slams [and now TMC as he will surely make the final 8]. It's not HIS fault tho that nobody but Rogi and Rafa can beat him [and Ferrero who stopped him despite the USO doing everything in their power to "help" him to the Final that year -- 2003]. I mean, how absurd was it that HE beat Hewitt in Cincy last year?? Duh... :rolleyes:

I'm BORED of all the OTHER players being unable to get their act together and stop being intimidated by the -- how did they call him during the football just before going to the USO F on CBS? -- oh yes, next up "Federer vs. the GREAT ANDRE AGASSI"... Truly these guys s be ashamed of themselves letting an old Baldy beat them regularly. It's ludicrous that HE goes deep in slams and TMSes and not top guys like Pandy, Lleyt and Marat [OK, so they DID make QF, SF or F of such tourneys and even win one].

Yes, AA is an experienced old hand at working the media, no doubt about it and he was always way more popular than Sampras could ever be, given their personalities. I was a little disappointed that the Montreal crowd were so pro-Agassi despite the Nadalmania that took hold of the tourney even before Rafa landed at the airport [where, btw, he was besieged by fans and media] -- AA is loved, no, adored, no, pedestalized, all over the world and he is always a HUGE draw and no doubt that fills his ego and keeps him going.

So I was even less than enamoured of the blatantly partisan AA crowd in the F -- Rogi never gets his due respect in US ever. What puzzles me is why Rogi making the F and/or winning tourneys SO boring and not a guy who has played and won and continues to win tourneys after what -- 20 years?? Hmmm...

The rest of the players are simply wusses and wimps... :rolleyes: SO boring and SO disappointing week after week... I see AA is playing Stockholm -- again -- to seal his place in Shanghai... mad at Gaston for crapping out in R1 of USO... I'd much rather see HIM at the TMC than AA any day. :(

MissMoJo
09-18-2005, 04:30 AM
The perfect example of the agassi hype gone overboard was the qrtr final against blake. After the match, all the commentators could talk about was agassi's greatness,his legend etc. :rolleyes: they all seemed to be in denial and wouldn't even address the fact that james choked and let him back into the match. Instead it was endless praise for agassi and his superior game...it was ridiculous. It's was especially bad during this year's USO because, i guess roddick wasn't left in the tourney to gloat over. Listening to the media, you would think agassi was the man to beat. Aside their from comments being annoying, they're downright deceptive

SUKTUEN
09-18-2005, 10:36 AM
so

Slice
09-18-2005, 04:34 PM
Well, I must say - as a moderate but faithful Roger's fan, that I don't share your objections :). Of course it's a matter of a different point of view, nevertheless I think the author of quoted article is right.

I had similar notice depending Agass-Federer matches and I "created" it within long long months, since last clash of them, that actually only Andre pushes Roger to put a top gear and play his best. There is always problem with Roger and his theoreticaly obstinate plays. Sometimes it depends on his own approach on match and sometimes not (I know it sounds stupid but it is so :)). Matches against Kiefer or Hewitt can't be really compared to Agassi final blockbuster, because Roger didn't really need to create some miracles on court during those 2 matches. That's obviously strange that someone doesn't really care about style, but Roger is the One definitely :). Against rivals that may potentially be threat to him, he's playing economicaly but it doesn't mean that economically means quick. He puts in it as much power as indispensable, but somtimes it effects with four sets or "though" match. I believe in his feeling of opponent's style and I believe he knows what he's doing. And I don't think that Andre plays his best aggainst Roger because of playing in US. I find it rather "accidental" :). I don't exclude that interchangeable but I assume that Andre has really patent on Rogi, however he can't catch him anyway :).

SUKTUEN
09-19-2005, 06:25 AM
may be when you read the Chinese article of other Fans , you will be more angry