Better For Tennis - Domination vs. Parity [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Better For Tennis - Domination vs. Parity

MacTheKnife
03-31-2010, 06:16 PM
What are your thoughts about what is better for tennis. We've been in an era dominated by Federer and Nadal. Now it seems we are entering a time where the top 5 players are all vulnerable in some way, either physically (due to injury) or mentally due to slumps.

How this is viewed may vary around the world, but which do you think is better for tennis as a whole. Having that domination by one or two players (it seems many fans love having someone to hate), or a wide open field with many different players winning top events.

At this point, this question seems to apply more to MS1000 events, since the top guys are still far more difficult to beat in the best of 5 scenarios. Or do you think that will change too ???

MrChopin
03-31-2010, 06:22 PM
No, for this reason:

...we are entering a time where the top 5 players are all vulnerable in some way, either physically (due to injury) or mentally due to slumps.

If it was a matter of players improving and catching them, of course parity would be good. Instead, Fed is now slower, Rafa is now perpetually injured/tired/fatigued/harassed by drug tests/suffering from the divorce/forced to play in home country tournaments, Djoke is now on a Martin-induced walkabout, Murray is cracking under pressure, and DelPo is getting re-patched by Dr. Frankenstein.

2008 might have been the best year of parity tennis in the last few with Djoko peaking early, Rafa mid, Murray late, and Fed producing brilliance at the USO. Had Fed been healthy throughout, it would have been a great year for tennis.

star
03-31-2010, 06:38 PM
What are your thoughts about what is better for tennis. We've been in an era dominated by Federer and Nadal. Now it seems we are entering a time where the top 5 players are all vulnerable in some way, either physically (due to injury) or mentally due to slumps.

How this is viewed may vary around the world, but which do you think is better for tennis as a whole. Having that domination by one or two players (it seems many fans love having someone to hate), or a wide open field with many different players winning top events.

At this point, this question seems to apply more to MS1000 events, since the top guys are still far more difficult to beat in the best of 5 scenarios. Or do you think that will change too ???


I think it's exciting to have a player get to the top and do a lot of winning (esp if it's a player I like) and then to have other players come up and challenge and do their share of winning too. For me that's the best senario -- short periods of domination followed by challenge and new competition. Years and years of domination is not something I generally like. Although I have to say that there has never been a player that I have liked who has dominated for a long period of time. I don't know if players who do this simply have a mentality I don't like or if it's something else.

So much of the answer to this question seems to be whose ox is being gored. :)

MacTheKnife
03-31-2010, 06:45 PM
But which is better for tennis. Does the general tennis fan base pay money to see the big dogs collide late in tourneys or will they continue to buy tickets to see two guys outside the top 10 reach the finals ?? I'm trying not to use names here because that's not the point.

The point is which will continue to grow the sport ??

I have mixed feelings about this. At times I think one or two dominating guys is better. Many U.S. fans seem to love someone to hate, and they really love clear underdogs.. That is until they are no longer underdogs.. But that's another thread.. :lol:

star
03-31-2010, 06:55 PM
But which is better for tennis. Does the general tennis fan base pay money to see the big dogs collide late in tourneys or will they continue to buy tickets to see two guys outside the top 10 reach the finals ?? I'm trying not to use names here because that's not the point.

The point is which will continue to grow the sport ??

I have mixed feelings about this. At times I think one or two dominating guys is better. Many U.S. fans seem to love someone to hate, and they really love clear underdogs.. That is until they are no longer underdogs.. But that's another thread.. :lol:

It always seems to me that people who attend tennis tournaments like the dominating player. All I ever hear about is people wanting to see a Nadal/Federer match. I mean, people who attend tennis tournaments are not necessarily rabid tennis fans. Most of them follow it only casually, and they just want to see the big names. When Sampras and Agassi were playing, they always wanted to see them play. I really don't see a lot of rooting for the underdog. Although sometimes during a particular match, a player can catch the eye of the crowd and they begin to root for them. I think Baghdatis and Tsonga have this quality of engaging the crowd. But, mostly what I've seen at tournaments is the crowd squarely behind the big name -- unless the underdog happens to be a U.S. citizen that is. :lol: Say Fish v. Federer. Blake v. Nadal.

I guess I have to say that it can be a thrill thinking you are seeing the two best players in the world square off. It's sort of like heavyweight boxing. You've seen it on TV, and you want to see it in real life. At least that's the feeling I have from attending tournaments and talking to people there.

tea
03-31-2010, 07:08 PM
Do you like the one who dominates? If yes then answer #1, if no then #2. I can't see it depends on somewhat else.

Personally, I'm with the answer #1 obviously as for now, but later, when Fed will retire, and when someone I don't like will dominate I will certainly say: no, the equable the field is the better.:)

star
03-31-2010, 07:18 PM
Do you like the one who dominates? If yes then answer #1, if no then #2. I can't see it depends on somewhat else.

Personally, I'm with the answer #1 obviously as for now, but later, when Fed will retire, and when someone I don't like will dominate I will certainly say: no, the equable the field is the better.:)

But, it may turn out that you always like the one dominating. :shrug:

It seems to me that tennis fans like to have a star at the top.

DJ Soup
03-31-2010, 07:21 PM
it's all good

r2473
03-31-2010, 07:25 PM
Better For Tennis - Domination vs. Parity

Depends on who you like to call "mugs" more. If you like to call "the field" a bunch of mugs that bow down to Federer / Nadal, etc, then Domination is better.

If you like to make fun of Feder / Nadal for losing to lower ranked players, then parity is better.

I think we have plenty of fans of both......often it is the exact same person :confused:

tea
03-31-2010, 07:25 PM
But, it may turn out that you always like the one dominating. :shrug:

It seems to me that tennis fans like to have a star at the top.
It may. It does happen to some of tennis fans. Literally, if a player like Del Potro would dominate the tour I wouldn't be a huge supporter of that.

Only when they like and/or respect that star.:shrug: Otherwise I see no fun with it at all. But you may know it better from your own experience of the current time, of course.:p

star
03-31-2010, 07:45 PM
It may. It does happen to some of tennis fans. Literally, if a player like Del Potro would dominate the tour I wouldn't be a huge supporter of that.

Only when they like and/or respect that star.:shrug: Otherwise I see no fun with it at all. But you may know it better from your own experience of the current time, of course.:p

I've never liked a dominant player, so I have no experience that way. I can admire the results and the effort though. But, for me, Lendl, Sampras, and Federer are chilly personalities with some disturbing overtones. Others see it differently, of course. But, for me there's a difference when discussing objective things about the game and the results. Obviously, I think everyone garners more pleasure from seeing someone they respect and admire as a person doing well. There's never going to be unanimity though.

star
03-31-2010, 07:46 PM
Depends on who you like to call "mugs" more. If you like to call "the field" a bunch of mugs that bow down to Federer / Nadal, etc, then Domination is better.

If you like to make fun of Feder / Nadal for losing to lower ranked players, then parity is better.

I think we have plenty of fans of both......often it is the exact same person :confused:

Are those really the only two options? :rolleyes:

r2473
03-31-2010, 07:48 PM
Are those really the only two options? :rolleyes:

You have 35K+ posts on MTF and you need to ask this question?

oranges
03-31-2010, 08:06 PM
Best of both worlds :p Domination is fine as long as there are competitors able to present a genuine challenge. They might not win often enough for true parity, but if it's competitive and not too predictable, it's still exciting. Parity is also fine as long as it doesn't mean numerous brief flashes followed by more or less a flop.

Everko
03-31-2010, 08:09 PM
Parity by a chosen few. about 5-8 serious contendors, not everyone under the Tuscan sun being able to win a slam.

Certinfy
03-31-2010, 09:00 PM
Parity by a chosen few. about 5-8 serious contendors, not everyone under the Tuscan sun being able to win a slam.
Yeah, I'll go with this as well :)

.-Federers_Mate-.
03-31-2010, 10:19 PM
Domination- when all the goodplayers were in form 07/08

duong
03-31-2010, 11:06 PM
When all of the 6 top-players (including Nadal) play like crap or are injured, it cannot be good for tennis :shrug:

Har-Tru
03-31-2010, 11:27 PM
Great question, hard to answer.

habibko
03-31-2010, 11:44 PM
I think domination is better for tennis, especially absolute domination by a GOAT in the making and eventually a GOAT, then the rivalry with the dominant force by a great challenger, Federer/Nadal has brought many casual fans into tennis and helped make it much more popular even in countries that don't care much for tennis like the Middle East, yes it might have been kind of the same with Sampras/Agassi but they were never as exciting as the Fedal (for non-Americans that is), people love superstars and pay to see them play.

I don't believe the year Federer retires and more people have shots at Slams will be a better day for tennis, therefore Domination > Parity.

16681
03-31-2010, 11:50 PM
I think parity. It was such a surprise for Lubo to win his first big Tournament at the age of 31 at IW. I think fans enjoy seeing someone different win a Tournament for a change IMHO.

Action Jackson
04-01-2010, 12:18 AM
As has been said before it depends on whether you are gloryhunter and only likes the players that are the dominant ones.

duong
04-01-2010, 10:27 AM
As has been said before it depends on whether you are gloryhunter and only likes the players that are the dominant ones.

it also depends if you like very good tennis or not :devil:

There are many kinds of matches or tournaments to enjoy all of the player's games, but if in the best tournaments you don't have the best players playing their best, you do miss something.

Of course it's pleasant to see Ljubicic finally win a MS1000 tournament, because you have pleasure for him ;)

But if you're interested in quality tennis, and not on who wins, something is missing when you don't have the best players playing their best tennis.

Anyway, we are still quite lucky because behind the top-6 players, the next players do play well, like Söderling, Roddick, Verdasco, Youzhny, Berdych : it could have been even worse :lol:

bokehlicious
04-01-2010, 10:31 AM
"domination is boring unless it is your favourite who dominates" :angel:

kengyin
04-01-2010, 10:56 AM
domination like the fedal raivalry! where both players together win pretty much everything and they dominate different surfaces and they both have tons of fans!

Jomp1
04-01-2010, 11:55 AM
Parity as in maybe 7-8 players. Basically standing in the quarters, anyone can win. Don't want parity as world top players getting beaten by ranked 20-30 players though.

Brazilianmug
04-01-2010, 12:15 PM
This is a nice question. I think it is better for the sport and makes for better press coverage parity for all, and for all I say that everybody in the top 60 has a chance of winning a 1000 tournament any given day. The people in this forum knows and follow tennis, but for the outsiders the top dogs domination is boring and counter-productive in the long term for the sport.
In a side note, parity is already being achieved in a twisted way: the slowing of the hard courts makes that easyer, making everybody play similar and make the outcome of the match being decided by execution, by baseline tennis. It pushes serve and volley away from the game to the point we don't see almost nobody doing that anymore. And because of that, a less known guy who executes nicely in a good day can beat a top five. Don't think it is a good thing, but is a fact. But this is only one aspect of a larger, larger issue.

bokehlicious
04-01-2010, 12:19 PM
The people in this forum knows and follow tennis, but for the outsiders the top dogs domination is boring and counter-productive in the long term for the sport.

I think the exact opposite is actually valid. Would golf be that big in the US if Tiger never dominated it and the majors were split amongst a hundred guys this past decade? No.

People also lost a lot of interest in the WTA when a you got a new #1 every week.

The casual fans like sportsmen that dominate the field, it draws interest.

rhinooooo
04-01-2010, 01:24 PM
I'm not saying I'd like to see a new number 1 every week like the WTA where a few of the best players only compete in Slams, while the others are basically mugging out. But, at least they are losing when they play shit.

It's probably alot to ask but whenever Fed, Rafa, Novak, Muzza play shit, they maybe only lose 10-15% of the time. Where's the fun in watching these guys play at a poor level yet still making it deep? Give me parity any day, and that means a solid base of players who will not shit their pants when faced with winning positions and the odds are in their favour. I'm not saying that everytime somebody plays bad, they lose, just that it happens more than 50% of the time.

A good example of good domination is arguably Rafa in mid 2008. He played great at Wimbledon, great at the Olympics and some of the US hardcourt season. He was tested, but he had to bring out some of his best tennis to win.

bokehlicious
04-01-2010, 01:29 PM
It's probably alot to ask but whenever Fed, Rafa, Novak, Muzza play shit, they maybe only lose 10-15% of the time. Where's the fun in watching these guys play at a poor level yet still making it deep? Give me parity any day, and that means a solid base of players who will not shit their pants when faced with winning positions and the odds are in their favour. I'm not saying that everytime somebody plays bad, they lose, just that it happens more than 50% of the time.

A good example of good domination is arguably Rafa in mid 2008. He played great at Wimbledon, great at the Olympics and some of the US hardcourt season. He was tested, but he had to bring out some of his best tennis to win.

Fed at 50% is still above the 100% of most players. Instead of complaining people should be grateful to be able to witness such brilliance in their life span. Not everyone was/will be that lucky.

Action Jackson
04-01-2010, 04:49 PM
"domination is boring unless it is your favourite who dominates" :angel:

You mean, hey my dad is tougher than your dad because my favourite player is better than your favourite player.

rhinooooo
04-01-2010, 04:53 PM
Fed at 50% is still above the 100% of most players. Instead of complaining people should be grateful to be able to witness such brilliance in their life span. Not everyone was/will be that lucky.

I hope Fed has a restraining order on you.

bokehlicious
04-01-2010, 04:54 PM
You mean, hey my dad is tougher than your dad because my favourite player is better than your favourite player.

We all know you can't support successful players/teams, you stop supporting them as soon as they start doing good and get fans... :o I guess you'd hate to be seen as some gloryhunter and mix up with the sheeps :shrug: :p

Action Jackson
04-01-2010, 04:58 PM
We all know you can't support successful players/teams, you stop supporting them as soon as they start doing good and get fans... :o I guess you'd hate to be seen as some gloryhunter and mix up with the sheeps :shrug: :p

Yes, I stopped supporting Wilander, Muster, Albert Costa and Gaudio when they won Slams. But your dad must be bigger than my dad.

peribsen
04-01-2010, 05:00 PM
The more the merrier.

DrJules
04-01-2010, 08:28 PM
A group of a few players dominating produces some of the best periods of tennis.

Connors, Vilas, Borg and McEnroe - late 70's and early 80's.

Lendl, Becker, Wilander and Edberg - mid 80's to early 90's.

The Sampras and Federer periods that follow have not been quite as exciting.

out_here_grindin
04-01-2010, 08:31 PM
There has to be someone on top, so that upsets mean something but I personally prefer parity even though domination may make the sport more popular.

-Valhalla-
04-01-2010, 08:42 PM
I think dynasties are good for the game when they showcase a compelling contrast in styles and personas. Legendary rivalries such as Palmer-Nicklaus, Ali-Frazier, Magic-Bird, Borg-McEnroe, Federer-Nadal, etc. have all captured the public’s imagination and heightened interest their sport.

Nothing wrong with seeing the VERY BEST go at it.

-Valhalla-
04-01-2010, 08:50 PM
it also depends if you like very good tennis or not :devil:

There are many kinds of matches or tournaments to enjoy all of the player's games, but if in the best tournaments you don't have the best players playing their best, you do miss something.

Of course it's pleasant to see Ljubicic finally win a MS1000 tournament, because you have pleasure for him ;)

But if you're interested in quality tennis, and not on who wins, something is missing when you don't have the best players playing their best tennis.

Agreed.

vn01
04-01-2010, 09:07 PM
I think parity. It was such a surprise for Lubo to win his first big Tournament at the age of 31 at IW. I think fans enjoy seeing someone different win a Tournament for a change IMHO.

I think parity,but not so much players to be in the battle.And I want for example Top 5 to be in a great form.Not Ljubo to win Masters and Youzhny to be in QFs at Masters.
My idea is:Federer,Nadal,Djokovic,Murray and Del Potro to play great in almost every big tournament and players like Roddick,Davydenko,Soderling and Verdasco to be close to them and to put somw pressure on them.But a 31-year old guy to win a Masters is not good at all for tennis

Brazilianmug
04-01-2010, 10:34 PM
Would golf be that big in the US if Tiger never dominated it and the majors were split amongst a hundred guys this past decade? No.

People also lost a lot of interest in the WTA when a you got a new #1 every week.

The casual fans like sportsmen that dominate the field, it draws interest.

The key words in the first paragraph are "in the US". If we're thinking worldwide, it is time to take our colletive heads off the sand and care for development in the world, in Africa, in South and Central America, Asia... How great would it be to have a turkish guy winning big? If we can have a chinese top 50 player, it would be great... and WTA, pffffffff. They are lost in the water 'cause of the quality of play, nothing else.

Brazilianmug
04-01-2010, 10:39 PM
I think parity,but not so much players to be in the battle.And I want for example Top 5 to be in a great form.Not Ljubo to win Masters and Youzhny to be in QFs at Masters.
My idea is:Federer,Nadal,Djokovic,Murray and Del Potro to play great in almost every big tournament and players like Roddick,Davydenko,Soderling and Verdasco to be close to them and to put somw pressure on them.But a 31-year old guy to win a Masters is not good at all for tennis

So you say you love parity and right after make a whole argument against it... :rolleyes:

marquez
04-01-2010, 10:46 PM
But a 31-year old guy to win a Masters is not good at all for tennis

are you joking?

old, injured, almost retired goran to finally win wimby was one of the best things ever to happen in tennis

brent-o
04-01-2010, 11:00 PM
I think the answer for me is competitive dominance. I've enjoyed seeing Federer and Nadal at the top of the rankings. It's entertainment you can rely on, unlike on the women's side...

vn01
04-02-2010, 06:55 AM
are you joking?

old, injured, almost retired goran to finally win wimby was one of the best things ever to happen in tennis

But Goran was soooo much better than Ljubicic:)