Has men's tennis ever been in a worse state? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Has men's tennis ever been in a worse state?

adee-gee
09-09-2005, 06:08 PM
Discuss.

These are not necessarily my opinions, but points that have been raised recently.

1. Roger Federer is playing well below his best at the moment. Yet still no-one is getting close to beating him. The World numbers 3+4 haven't got a clue what do against him. Very few have the belief that they can beat him, and Federer is looking close to unbeatable on any surface excluding clay. Many ATP fans (including myself) enjoyed slagging off women's tennis when the Williams sisters were winning everything as there was no competition. Is there any in the men's game at the moment?

2. The world number 2, Rafael Nadal can only play on clay. He has never gone past the 4th Round at any Slam outside of RG.

3. The world number 3, Andy Roddick is playing very poor tennis and has done for the last couple of years. Yet he is still number 3.

4. The world number 5, Marat Safin is one of the most talented players the game has ever seen, but is having injury problems as well as doubts whether he has the motivation to dedicate his life to tennis.

5. "Journeymen" such as Robby Ginepri are reaching Grand Slam Semi Finals. We're also likely to see a 35 year old in the Final, should this be happening in the modern game? On a seperate note, David Sanguinetti has just reach the 4th Round of a Grand Slam!

6. There's not too many rallies in a lot of matches. The serve is becoming too dominant.

7. There isn't a lot of variety in the modern game. There are a huge number of baseliners and there is a dying breed of serve-volleyers and genuine attacking players.

jenanun
09-09-2005, 06:14 PM
but we still have andre!!!!

Sjengster
09-09-2005, 06:16 PM
1. I don't think so, Federer was below-par in the Kiefer match but I didn't really see any of this "poor form" that people were talking about in his early rounds with Santoro and Rochus. If it's below his best, it's still ten times better than anything he produced in Cincy.

2. You and everyone with sense knows that's not true, although admittedly you're just stating someone else's opinion.

3. He's playing good enough tennis to be ranked no. 3, he's still beating the players ranked below him most of the time on fast surfaces and recently got a win over Hewitt.

4. Yes, the Safin soap opera continues, but we just have to wait and see how he manages to recover from this knee problem. It seems obvious from interviews that he wants to achieve the goals he sets himself rather than the ones set for him by the media, so expecting him to be a dominant no. 1 in the future is a little unrealistic.

5. Again, rubbish, this US Open has had some of the best matches I've seen in a long time. Nothing wrong with any of the things mentioned there.

6. This is the opinion of a WTA fan whose only experience of men's tennis is an endless, repeating loop of the Sampras-Ivanisevic Wimbledon final from 1998. Maybe when they get round to watching a single ATP match from the last five years or so, they will realise their mistake.

7. Agree, serve-volleyers are a dying breed and something needs to be done to get the balance right again, but there's still plenty of variety in the modern game. As Lurker has said on here in the past, commentators of the old school seem unable to distinguish between different styles of baseline play. Shock horror, there is such a thing as an attacking player who stays on the baseline!

Lee
09-09-2005, 06:22 PM
How about forget the names and rankings of players.

I watched many very entertaining matches on TV for this week and a half. Like Monfils vs Djokovic, Blake vs Nadal, Muller vs Roddick, Nieminen vs Hewitt, Scrichaphan vs Sanguinetti, Ginepri vs Gasquet, Ginepri vs Coria, Blake vs Agassi and many more. Some of them not the whole match but still very entertaining.

edit: I didn't mention Santoro vs Federer because I only watched the final set TB but I was told it's very entertaining.

El Legenda
09-09-2005, 06:30 PM
Anyone in top 100 can beat anyone is top 10, so the game is still good.

vincayou
09-09-2005, 06:31 PM
I think it's the start of a great era in tennis.

1. A very worthy number 1, a joy to watch for many people. Have I missed something or didn't he lose 2/3 of the slams this year so far?
2. A charismatic number 2 on the rise.
3. He's still a threat, he just can't get past Federer.
4. Safin will never change and he's the X factor in every competition, that's why many people like him.
5. it has always been like that. But in the Australian open, there were the numbers 1,2,3 and 4 in semi final. A long time as well, that a number 1 had not been that far in RG. I think that the top 5 are consistently going deep in GS (except RG as usual).
6. It was much worse 5 years ago.
7. Serve vollyer have dissapeared from the top 10, that's true. But there are enough difference of style between Nadal, Federer and Roddick by instance to keep things interesting.

And there is a whole bunch of talented teens coming through. That's exciting.

adee-gee
09-09-2005, 06:33 PM
1. I don't think so, Federer was below-par in the Kiefer match but I didn't really see any of this "poor form" that people were talking about in his early rounds with Santoro and Rochus. If it's below his best, it's still ten times better than anything he produced in Cincy.

6. This is the opinion of a WTA fan whose only experience of men's tennis is an endless, repeating loop of the Sampras-Ivanisevic Wimbledon final from 1998. Maybe when they get round to watching a single ATP match from the last five years or so, they will realise their mistake.

7. Agree, serve-volleyers are a dying breed and something needs to be done to get the balance right again, but there's still plenty of variety in the modern game. As Lurker has said on here in the past, commentators of the old school seem unable to distinguish between different styles of baseline play. Shock horror, there is such a thing as an attacking player who stays on the baseline!

1. I didn't necessarily mean the US Open, I don't think Federer has been close to his best at any point this year.

6. I actually kind of agree with the argument. It's kind of sad when you see a player like Nalbandian, with the amount of talent to match the amount of sweat that drips off his forehead that is simply unable to compete for major titles simply because he can't get a lot of cheap points on his serve.

7. I do recognise the different styles of baseliners, obviously the likes of Gonzo are aggressive and Hewitt less so etc, but the game could still do with a few more players that come to the net (and are genuinely good up there and don't just come because they have a big serve, eh Taylor and Ivo ;) )

Phunkadelicious
09-09-2005, 06:34 PM
I hope that this years U.S.O. is an omen of things to come next year (excluding Andy's first round exit.)
I would agree that its unfortunate that the serve and volley play has followed the way of the women's game and become near extinct. However I think that with more and more baseliners the serve and volley game will inevitably come back. A serve and volleyer against say, a Nadal, or a Roddick, is very effective and I think it will come back (wishful thinking?)
I don't know why anyone would not want journeymen (at 22?) and veterans to still be able to make a splash in todays game. I doubt that many people would always want to see the top 4 guys in every single GS semi. Variety is the spice of life after all.

adee-gee
09-09-2005, 06:34 PM
Anyone in top 100 can beat anyone is top 10, so the game is still good.

You're always going to get the odd shock result, but I actually disagree with this. I'd say the top 5 players in the rankings are a different level to anyone else.

alfonsojose
09-09-2005, 06:35 PM
Nothing is the same since sex trheads were relegated to non-tennis :tears:

ExpectedWinner
09-09-2005, 06:36 PM
5. "Journeymen" such as Robby Ginepri are reaching Grand Slam Semi Finals.

It reminds me of 1997. Reporters asked Agassi who was beaten by Rafter "Can he (Rafter) win this USO? He said " No. Journeymen don't win USO".

gillian
09-09-2005, 06:41 PM
It reminds me of 1997. Reporters asked Agassi who was beaten by Rafter "Can he (Rafter) win this USO? He said " No. Journeymen don't win USO".

Rafter? A journeyman? Didn't he go on to be #1 (albeit briefly). Didn't he also make defend his USO title and make 2 Wimbledon finals? Since when do such accomplishments constitute journeyman status?

yanchr
09-09-2005, 06:44 PM
Discuss.
So if I'm not wrong, your answer tend to be yes, right?

So why are you still around to have to bear the worst state of men's tennis...

ExpectedWinner
09-09-2005, 06:48 PM
Rafter? A journeyman? Didn't he go on to be #1 (albeit briefly). Didn't he also make defend his USO title and make 2 Wimbledon finals? Since when do such accomplishments constitute journeyman status?

Ask Agassi. He called him a journeyman in 1997. Rafter started the year (1997) ranked 62 or 69. He reached the semis at RG that year. Obviously, it wasn't enough for Agassi to promote him beyond the "journeymen" category.

daze11
09-09-2005, 06:48 PM
It reminds me of 1997. Reporters asked Agassi who was beaten by Rafter "Can he (Rafter) win this USO? He said " No. Journeymen don't win USO".
thats funny, and true! the new king on the block is much more likely to do so: becker at wimbledon, wilander & kuerten at their first french! but then it hasnt happened on a hard court that way...i guess since jimmy connors took out 39-year-old ken rosewall 1 0 & 1 of course, in 1974 us open final. but then it was played on grass. :rolleyes:

gaudio is fairly old by player standards nowadays, so i suppose his win at last years french was a journeyman slam win. ...though it was sickening. ;)

its great that there is so much variety that seeds cant hold predictably, and the matches are often extremely exciting. mens tennis has been so much worse before. womens tennis was more enjoyable for a number of years but they are way way behind the men now. you can barely watch a ladies match today and rank it with the best of the mens. whereas when evert & navratilova were playing with so many colorful ladies around them with variety of styles and personalities, it was easily better than the mens game and TV viewership proved it.

theres no doubt the advancement of the serve as so centrally focused in victory has ruined a greater element of tennis, when touch, craft, and the mind comprised a much bigger percentage of the "champion's pie" --they should do what was discussed about limiting the size and weight of the frame for pros--they are the world's best players and should be able to succeed without enhanced skill coming just from their racquet.

adee-gee
09-09-2005, 06:48 PM
So if I'm not wrong, your answer tend to be yes, right?

So why are you still around to have to bear the worst state of men's tennis...

Most of the points suggested weren't made by me.

And I'm a tennis fan, I still love it despite it being in a bad state :shrug:

gillian
09-09-2005, 06:49 PM
Ask Agassi. He called him a journeyman in 1997. Rafter started the year (1997) ranked 62 or 69. He reached the semis at RG that year. Obviously, it wasn't enough for Agassi to promote him beyond the "journeymen" cathegory.

I guess I should ask Agassi, since he lost twice in the Wimbledon semis to Rafter.

Journeyman, indeed.

ClaycourtaZzZz.
09-09-2005, 06:49 PM
It's a win for the tennis if there are young guys like Murray, Djokovic, Monfils, Berdych.....

adee-gee
09-09-2005, 06:50 PM
It reminds me of 1997. Reporters asked Agassi who was beaten by Rafter "Can he (Rafter) win this USO? He said " No. Journeymen don't win USO".

Andre also pissed the hell out of Vinnie Spadea when he called him a journeyman. I believe they genuinely don't like each other now :lol:

Angle Queen
09-09-2005, 06:54 PM
I hope that this years U.S.O. is an omen of things to come next year (excluding Andy's first round exit.) Agreed...even if it includes an early exit by one of the top four seeds.

I would agree that its unfortunate that the serve and volley play has followed the way of the women's game and become near extinct. However I think that with more and more baseliners the serve and volley game will inevitably come back. A serve and volleyer against say, a Nadal, or a Roddick, is very effective and I think it will come back (wishful thinking?)I'm a s/v fan too, and like to whine of its loss...but watching the USO this year, I think there's a chance...even if not for a full comeback, at least to see more attacks to/at the net. A very recent example was Hewitt late in the fourth set yesterday (against Jarkko). He attacked....and even threw in a few true s/v points. If I'm recalling the statistics correctly, he came in ~45-50 times and won 75% of the points. Those are very nice numbers for a "baseliner." The change from defense to offense distrupted the flow of the game and ultimately pulled Lleyton through to a victory.

And for what it's worth, I think there's a lot to be excited about in the mens game today...even if Roger is the clear #1. There's lots more going on behind him.

madmanfool
09-09-2005, 06:55 PM
mens tennis has been so much worse before. womens tennis was more enjoyable for a number of years but they are way way behind the men now. you can barely watch a ladies match today and rank it with the best of the mens.

Could you tell that to Eurosport and ask them if that's true why they're like showing 20 times more women matches (not only talking about grand slams)

btw Rafter is not a journeyman, he's a legend

1sun
09-09-2005, 06:57 PM
1. I didn't necessarily mean the US Open, I don't think Federer has been close to his best at any point this year.
lol. have you actualy seen federer play this year? what do you want from the man?

yanchr
09-09-2005, 06:57 PM
Most of the points suggested weren't made by me.

And I'm a tennis fan, I still love it despite it being in a bad state :shrug:
So if I'm not wrong again, you came out with that question mainly because Roger's dominance in tour esp when you can almost tell USO won't slip away from his hand right? So typical...

If you are a tennis fan, why not just sit back and watch tennis, pay attention just to watch who you find interested, then you won't seem to be in desperate spirit and come out with that kind of shit again...

Angle Queen
09-09-2005, 06:58 PM
How about forget the names and rankings of players.

I watched many very entertaining matches on TV for this week and a half. Like Monfils vs Djokovic, Blake vs Nadal, Muller vs Roddick, Nieminen vs Hewitt, Scrichaphan vs Sanguinetti, Ginepri vs Gasquet, Ginepri vs Coria, Blake vs Agassi and many more. Some of them not the whole match but still very entertaining.

edit: I didn't mention Santoro vs Federer because I only watched the final set TB but I was told it's very entertaining.Nice list, Lee. And I'm glad you added the Santoro/Fed match. What an interesting, entertaining match from the very first serve to the final shot...even if the outcome was never in doubt.

1sun
09-09-2005, 06:59 PM
for the answer? definately, its not even in a bad state, the depth in mens tennis is crazy these days

Lee
09-09-2005, 07:02 PM
How about instead of attacking the thread starter, just stick to the discussion of tennis state here?

madmanfool
09-09-2005, 07:09 PM
Mens tennis is doing just fine
Rafael Nadal is great for the sport, especially for the young kids
and the fact that Agassi is still playing so great leaves me speecheless

Dirk
09-09-2005, 07:26 PM
Ade, have you seen ever Roger match this year? How can you possibly say he hasn't played his best this year or near his best. Roger was great yesterday. Sjeng was right when he said his only iffy match was with Kiefer. He just had one bad set vs. Rochus.

Galaxystorm
09-09-2005, 07:33 PM
.2. The world number 2, Rafael Nadal can only play on clay. He has never gone past the 4th Round at any Slam outside of RG.

The person who says Nadal is only a claycourter has no idea about tennis.

gillian
09-09-2005, 07:34 PM
Discuss.

These are not necessarily my opinions, but points that have been raised recently.

1. Roger Federer is playing well below his best at the moment. Yet still no-one is getting close to beating him. The World numbers 3+4 haven't got a clue what do against him. Very few have the belief that they can beat him, and Federer is looking close to unbeatable on any surface excluding clay. Many ATP fans (including myself) enjoyed slagging off women's tennis when the Williams sisters were winning everything as there was no competition. Is there any in the men's game at the moment?

Just as when everyone decried the state of women's tennis when the Williams sisters made every GS final, this too shall pass. Roger has raised the bar for everyone just as Venus and Serena did on the women's side. And just as Henin-Hardenne, Clijsters, Sharapova, etc. stepped up to challenge the Williamses dominance, so too, will the other players step up to challenge Federer. It's already starting w/the likes of Nadal.


2. The world number 2, Rafael Nadal can only play on clay. He has never gone past the 4th Round at any Slam outside of RG.

No doubt, most of Nadal's accomplishments have come on clay, but unlike, say Guga (who I adore), he doesn't seem content to stop there. One of the things I find most intriguing about Nadal is his ambition. He really wants to win titles on surfaces besides clay. More importantly, he believes he can and will compete hard in his efforts. He proved that in Montreal, where he beat one of the best hardcourt players of all time in the final.

3. The world number 3, Andy Roddick is playing very poor tennis and has done for the last couple of years. Yet he is still number 3.

Roddick has been erratic all year. That said: he has

-Won 4 titles
-Made the semis of one major and the final of another
-Beat long-time nemesis Lleyton Hewitt en route to the final in Cincinnati.

The first-round loss in Flushing Meadows was a shocker, but I think it'll serve as a wake-up call. Andy's a smart guy, so I have no doubt that he'll make the necessary changes to keep himself at the elite level.

4. The world number 5, Marat Safin is one of the most talented players the game has ever seen, but is having injury problems as well as doubts whether he has the motivation to dedicate his life to tennis.

The great irony is that now that Marat is fully committed, the injuries are getting in the way. Reminds me a bit of Agassi circa 96/97. Everyone wrote him off, and look what's happened to his career since.

5. "Journeymen" such as Robby Ginepri are reaching Grand Slam Semi Finals. We're also likely to see a 35 year old in the Final, should this be happening in the modern game? On a seperate note, David Sanguinetti has just reach the 4th Round of a Grand Slam!.

I have a hard time holding Ginepri's recommitment to his game against him. Kudos to him for rededicating himself. It's definitely paid off for him.

Similarly, I'm not going to fault Sanguinetti for coming through a hard-fought match that could have gone either way. There were still plenty of top seeds left in the QFs at this Grand Slam, so the only message I take from Sanguinetti's win is that the average guy on the men's tour competes hard when it matters most. I think that's a good thing.

6. There's not too many rallies in a lot of matches. The serve is becoming too dominant.

I agree that the serve has become too dominant, but I disagree that matches lack rallies. I think the # of rallies depends on two things:

-the surface
-the players on either side of the net

7. There isn't a lot of variety in the modern game. There are a huge number of baseliners and there is a dying breed of serve-volleyers and genuine attacking players.

I, too, lament the dearth of s/v players, but disagree that there's no variety. Few players in the top 10 or top 20 have the exact same style.

Merton
09-09-2005, 07:35 PM
In this Open we see the tectonic plates moving, through the emergence of the new generation of players. The real earthquake will come when these players mature. Roger's dominance will not continue for ever.

Phunkadelicious
09-09-2005, 07:37 PM
In this Open we see the tectonic plates moving, through the emergence of the new generation of players. The real earthquake will come when these players mature. Roger's dominance will not continue for ever.

Agreed

adee-gee
09-09-2005, 07:38 PM
lol. have you actualy seen federer play this year? what do you want from the man?

Ade, have you seen ever Roger match this year? How can you possibly say he hasn't played his best this year or near his best. Roger was great yesterday. Sjeng was right when he said his only iffy match was with Kiefer. He just had one bad set vs. Rochus.

Er yes, probably about 75% of the matches he's played. He was playing a lot better last year. As I said, I'm not talking just about the US Open. At Cincinnati he won the title without playing well. Even Wimbledon I don't think he played that great other than the final. I thought he played a lot better last year, at the US Open for example he was unstoppable. And the Masters Cup.

Corey Feldman
09-09-2005, 07:43 PM
through the emergence of the new generation of players. The real earthquake will come when these players mature. Roger's dominance will not continue for ever.roger will still beat them

i think tennis is great right now, 3 slams this year have produced 3 different champs and 6 different finalists..
nadal should improve more on HC and Indoors, safin will be back to 100% probably next year and off course Henman will be back to win all 4 slams next year.

Dirk
09-09-2005, 07:43 PM
He was great in the Gonzo match at wimbledon and played well in his early matches including his kiefer match (kiefer was just playing very well) and his JC match was very good stuff apart from half of the 3rd set but JC was amping up his game at that time. Roger has won one more title now than he did last year so he is doing very well. Roger did play well in Cincy otherwise he wouldn't have won it.

1sun
09-09-2005, 08:13 PM
Er yes, probably about 75% of the matches he's played. He was playing a lot better last year. As I said, I'm not talking just about the US Open. At Cincinnati he won the title without playing well. Even Wimbledon I don't think he played that great other than the final. I thought he played a lot better last year, at the US Open for example he was unstoppable. And the Masters Cup.
lol, ok that just proved you didnt wath those tournies last year, he didnt play his best at mc, slack against gaudio,moya, ok against hewit and safin, and the us, he only played 2 good matchs, henman and obviously the final. you just want to believe he is playing worse this year.
did you see any of his matchs in 2004 apart from the obvious ones? because i really dont think you did.

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-09-2005, 08:26 PM
I think mens tennis is getting more exciting lately.

Sampras used to just have a big serve and then volley which I found a lot more boring than Federer, Nadal, or Hewitt's game.

Also I think rallies are getting longer. (Coria vs Nadal)

Even though Fed is dominant there are some good young players on the rise including the world #2 who will improve on other surfaces in future years.
Its not like Fed won all 4 slams. Hasn't even won 2 yet.

Phunkadelicious
09-09-2005, 08:29 PM
Even though Fed is dominant there are some good young players on the rise including the world #2 who will improve on other surfaces in future years. Its not like Fed won all 4 slams. Hasn't even won 2 yet.

No he hasn't won all four slams but he is the only player in the open era to win 3 slams in one year and follow that up by winning a slam the next year. Even though he hasn't won 2 slams (yet) this year, thats still pretty damn impressive.

ClaycourtaZzZz.
09-09-2005, 08:30 PM
Roger plays awfully the whole season. He could easily won all majors when he played only 90% of his best in 2004! But not many players can roll on from such an amazing season!!! credit to him:yeah: But he still wins so you can't say anything.

Mechlan
09-09-2005, 08:56 PM
Actually, I think men's tennis is about as good as its ever been. It seems like the main theme of the complaints against the state of the game today is Federer's dominance. That's unfortunate, and I can see that being boring from a competitive viewpoint, but I have no problems watching it simply because the standard is so damn high. There is a decline in the number of S/V players, but from the baseline, the rallies are just fantastic. There's this balance of consistency, speed and power which is lacking in the WTA, and makes these matches so much more enjoyable. And with Safin, Nadal, Roddick, and Hewitt still in their prime, youngsters like Monfils, Djokovic, Gasquet and others just emerging, and the fact that it will be ridiculously difficult for Federer to continue dominating the way he has, and I think things look awfully promising.

Jimnik
09-09-2005, 09:33 PM
Has men's tennis ever been in a worse state?
Yes, when Sampras and Ivanisevic were world no.1 and 2. If you think the game now-a-days is dominated by the serve, watch one of their matches in the mid-90s.

1. Yes - there's no competition at the moment. Fed always wins on the fast surfaces and Nadal always on clay. Except maybe Marat has a reasonable chance against Fed when playing indoors or on rebound ace.

2. No. Rafa won the Montreal Masters on hard courts and I'm sure he can get a good run at the Aus Open next year. He can already compete with Federer and Hewitt on all hard courts and if he improves his serve he'll be able to win the Aus and US Opens.

3. Yes but Andy didn't have such a bad start to the year. He reached the semis at the Aus Open and Indian Wells and won 3 tournaments. He also reached the Wimbledon final. Besides, after his 1st round exit, he'll drop to no. 4 in the rankings.

4. Marat is no.3 now. I'm not sure about this one because God knows what's going on in Marat's head, as we speak. He's the most unpredictable player the game has ever seen.

5. I agree. I was shocked to see Sanguinetti beat Srichaphan and I don't think we should be seeing random players like him make it far into a slam. Andre, on the other hand, may be old but he's a legend so I'll be happy to see him progress to the final. Besides, he works extremely hard on his physical condition and has the best fitness coach in the world, in my opinion.

6. No - totally disagree. As I've alreay said, the Ivanisevic, Sampras, Becker and Krajicek era was dominated by the serve. But now, we're getting great rallies between all the top players.

7. No, there are still serve-and-volleyers but they're just not ranked as high as they use to be. Ancic, Arthurs, Dent, Henman, Karlovic, Mirnyi, Rusedski, J Johansson, Bjorkman and I've also seen Stepanek, Ljubicic and Roddick serve and volley occasionally. I think too many players in the modern era like a target and can return much better than before. Nadal, Nalbandian and Hewitt are all exceptional at passing players at the net.

adee-gee
09-09-2005, 10:57 PM
lol, ok that just proved you didnt wath those tournies last year, he didnt play his best at mc, slack against gaudio,moya, ok against hewit and safin, and the us, he only played 2 good matchs, henman and obviously the final. you just want to believe he is playing worse this year.
did you see any of his matchs in 2004 apart from the obvious ones? because i really dont think you did.

Are you gonna argue with me in every thread :rolleyes: some of us are proper tennis fans, we don't just think there is 1 player playing on the ATP

Sjengster
09-09-2005, 11:06 PM
I don't see that much difference in quality of play between Federer last year and this year. A few times he seems to have felt the pressure more in terms of defending titles than he did last year, when he was racking them up for the first time and it was largely new to him; but the way he's come through a lot of tight encounters emphasises his much improved mental toughness, which is probably better than it was even in 2004.

Anyway adee, you can't use Nalbandian as an example of how the serve unfairly dominates men's tennis. Hewitt, Agassi and Nadal don't serve 130mph bombs with regularity, and their serves aren't the most important aspects of their games, but they all know how to get cheap points now and then at crucial times and have the right mentality to keep on holding their serve. I mean, Nadal's delivery has improved a lot over the last few months, but dropping serve only twice in Montreal? Contrast that with Federer dumping serve no fewer than 8 times in Cincy the following week. Nalbandian not only has a poor serve technically, he has a very weak attitude to holding his serve, and that also lets him down.

1sun
09-09-2005, 11:13 PM
Are you gonna argue with me in every thread :rolleyes: some of us are proper tennis fans, we don't just think there is 1 player playing on the ATP
lol. define a 'proper' tennis fan? you seem to assume alot of things that you want to be true.
im just fucking with you man, but you keep giving bullshit so im gonna give right back :yeah:

adee-gee
09-09-2005, 11:20 PM
lol. define a 'proper' tennis fan? you seem to assume alot of things that you want to be true.
im just fucking with you man, but you keep giving bullshit so im gonna give right back :yeah:

I love you really :hug:

adee-gee
09-09-2005, 11:23 PM
I don't see that much difference in quality of play between Federer last year and this year. A few times he seems to have felt the pressure more in terms of defending titles than he did last year, when he was racking them up for the first time and it was largely new to him; but the way he's come through a lot of tight encounters emphasises his much improved mental toughness, which is probably better than it was even in 2004.

Anyway adee, you can't use Nalbandian as an example of how the serve unfairly dominates men's tennis. Hewitt, Agassi and Nadal don't serve 130mph bombs with regularity, and their serves aren't the most important aspects of their games, but they all know how to get cheap points now and then at crucial times and have the right mentality to keep on holding their serve. I mean, Nadal's delivery has improved a lot over the last few months, but dropping serve only twice in Montreal? Contrast that with Federer dumping serve no fewer than 8 times in Cincy the following week. Nalbandian not only has a poor serve technically, he has a very weak attitude to holding his serve, and that also lets him down.

I cant believe no one agrees that the standard of Federer's tennis was a lot higher last year than it is this year. :shrug:

As for your point about Nalbandian, its very valid. It just seems to me that there's not a great deal he can do to improve his game other than his serve, and that seems to be holding him back totally. I'm not really sure why I think he seems to suffer from it more than the likes of Nadal and Hewitt but I do :shrug:

Sjengster
09-09-2005, 11:30 PM
Try to believe it. He played much better tennis at this year's AO before the semi against Safin than he did at last year's event, but this time he ended up losing. That's the way it goes sometimes. He played much better in the latter rounds of IW than he did against Agassi at the same tournament a year ago in the semis, where he was fortunate to come away with a victory in the end. He dropped sets in Hamburg and played a couple of shaky matches against Gaudio and then against Coria to begin with in the final; this year he didn't drop a set, and he still had some quality claycourt opponents to deal with. Just compare last year's Wimbledon final to this one, furthermore. And yes, Cincy this year was probably a worse performance than it was when he won in Toronto without playing his best, but to me he's looked better at the US Open so far than he did last year. Again, compare the two QF performances against two dangerous opponents who have troubled him in the past.

1sun
09-09-2005, 11:31 PM
I love you really :hug:
i love your avatar :drool:

Sjengster
09-09-2005, 11:33 PM
Hewitt and Nadal don't have the most stylish actions, but they get good pace on their serve and are fairly reliable with it (although Hewitt still gets attacks of doublefaultitis now and then, reminiscent of his 2002/03 serving woes). Nalbandian is tentative on his delivery, the racket-head speed is pretty slow and George has pointed out that he doesn't hit it with much spin, therefore less control and he's more prone to double faults or very short serves.

adee-gee
09-09-2005, 11:44 PM
I hate Hewitt's serve. I think his action doesn't look right. He doesn't make enough 1st serves either, and his 2nd serve is distinctly average. Federer will break it to pieces again tomorrow :rolleyes:

adee-gee
09-09-2005, 11:44 PM
i love your avatar :drool:

Me too :hearts:

1sun
09-09-2005, 11:51 PM
Me too :hearts:
now all you need to do is say you love mine! :tape: :lol:

adee-gee
09-09-2005, 11:53 PM
now all you need to do is say you love mine! :tape: :lol:

:ras: I knew there was a catch :bolt:

bad gambler
09-09-2005, 11:55 PM
I hate Hewitt's serve. I think his action doesn't look right. He doesn't make enough 1st serves either, and his 2nd serve is distinctly average. Federer will break it to pieces again tomorrow :rolleyes:


well the thing is, hewitt's serve had actually improved at the beginning of the year - at AO he was serving really well.

it seems only after his long layoff where he is getting the yips on the first serve, but i agree if he doesn't improve that first serve % he is going to get slaughtered


btw is this supposed to be a serious thread? :confused:

1sun
09-10-2005, 12:01 AM
well the thing is, hewitt's serve had actually improved at the beginning of the year - at AO he was serving really well.

it seems only after his long layoff where he is getting the yips on the first serve, but i agree if he doesn't improve that first serve % he is going to get slaughtered


btw is this supposed to be a serious thread? :confused:
well hewit worked so hard in the gym and on the practise court before the aussie, and he got great results, but somehow i dont think hes done that recently.

adee-gee
09-10-2005, 12:01 AM
well the thing is, hewitt's serve had actually improved at the beginning of the year - at AO he was serving really well.

it seems only after his long layoff where he is getting the yips on the first serve, but i agree if he doesn't improve that first serve % he is going to get slaughtered

btw is this supposed to be a serious thread? :confused:

Are you implying that I often post sarcastic threads :o

It was kind of going to be a Federer rant, but I noticed someone already posted one along the lines I was going to go. So I thought I'd point out that men's tennis is in serious decline, without heaping the blame on Roger :p

PamV
09-10-2005, 12:02 AM
For me tennis is way way better than it's been in recent history.

I don't know how people could think that there is no competition for Federer because Nadal is so close in points that he could over take the #1 spot, if Roger doesn't do well the rest of the year. Furthermore, look at how Blake and Ginepri have challenged Federer in their close matches in Cincy. Now we have more than just Roddick in American tennis.

You are complaining and assuming who is going to be in the final already.

bad gambler
09-10-2005, 12:03 AM
well hewit worked so hard in the gym and on the practise court before the aussie, and he got great results, but somehow i dont think hes done that recently.


well one can hardly blame him given he is coming off a wedding and all

he was hitting the 200km/h mark consistently at AO, now he is struggling to hit 190km/h

he is going to have to do a shitload of work in the off season if he wants to challenge the top players next year

gooner88
09-10-2005, 12:03 AM
Hewitt and Nadal don't have the most stylish actions, but they get good pace on their serve and are fairly reliable with it (although Hewitt still gets attacks of doublefaultitis now and then, reminiscent of his 2002/03 serving woes). Nalbandian is tentative on his delivery, the racket-head speed is pretty slow and George has pointed out that he doesn't hit it with much spin, therefore less control and he's more prone to double faults or very short serves.

Sjengster do you think Nalbo can ever improve his serve like an Agassi, Hewitt or a Nadal?
I agree with you and adeegee, the serve is holding him back from making that next big step.

1sun
09-10-2005, 12:04 AM
:ras: I knew there was a catch :bolt:
:lol:

bad gambler
09-10-2005, 12:04 AM
Are you implying that I often post sarcastic threads :o

It was kind of going to be a Federer rant, but I noticed someone already posted one along the lines I was going to go. So I thought I'd point out that men's tennis is in serious decline, without heaping the blame on Roger :p


not at all ;)

it was just your reference to rafa being only capable on clay which threw me, but then i read the whole thread :p

adee-gee
09-10-2005, 12:05 AM
Rafa can only play on clay, I've been convinced by the brilliance of some of the posts on here.

federer express
09-10-2005, 12:05 AM
mens tennis is not in a great state because:
there are not enough genuine rivalries at the top yet.
there are not enough different styles of play.
people like berdych and soderling and johansson are the new generation of tennis player.

1sun
09-10-2005, 12:07 AM
well one can hardly blame him given he is coming off a wedding and all

he was hitting the 200km/h mark consistently at AO, now he is struggling to hit 190km/h

he is going to have to do a shitload of work in the off season if he wants to challenge the top players next year
yeah i totaly dont blame him,priorities change in life, but i thinks the reason hes been a bit off lately(not enough gym, practise court).
i really hope he does but with the baby an all i dunno.....

1sun
09-10-2005, 12:10 AM
For me tennis is way way better than it's been in recent history.

I don't know how people could think that there is no competition for Federer because Nadal is so close in points that he could over take the #1 spot, if Roger doesn't do well the rest of the year. Furthermore, look at how Blake and Ginepri have challenged Federer in their close matches in Cincy. Now we have more than just Roddick in American tennis.

You are complaining and assuming who is going to be in the final already.
pam, if roger wins the us, then he has the year end no1 locked up, in both race and entry.
he pretty much has locked up already.

adee-gee
09-10-2005, 12:10 AM
I guess being constantly bagelled by someone who is only supposed to be slightly better than you can take away the motivation a little bit. Plus a lovely wife.

PamV
09-10-2005, 12:11 AM
mens tennis is not in a great state because:
there are not enough genuine rivalries at the top yet.
there are not enough different styles of play.
people like berdych and soderling and johansson are the new generation of tennis player.

Are you saying you don't think Federer and Nadal are rivals?

The new generation of tennis also includes: Nadal, Gasquet, Mathieu, Murray, Muller, Monfils, Jenkins, Djokovic, etc. (Not a boring bunch!)

I always though that in Sampras time it was boring because it was so hard for him to ever be broken. Sampras was the one who didn't have rivals to speak of.

adee-gee
09-10-2005, 12:11 AM
pam, if roger wins the us, then he has the year end no1 locked up, in both race and entry.
he pretty much has locked up already.

Unfortunately I'll have to agree with you for probably the 1st ever time :o

adee-gee
09-10-2005, 12:12 AM
The new generation of tennis also includes: Nadal, Gasquet, Mathieu, Murray, Muller, Monfils, Jenkins, Djokovic, etc. (Not a boring bunch!)

As much as I love PHM, I don't think he should be in the same category as those guys, seeing as he's about 5 years older ;)

1sun
09-10-2005, 12:12 AM
Sjengster do you think Nalbo can ever improve his serve like an Agassi, Hewitt or a Nadal?
I agree with you and adeegee, the serve is holding him back from making that next big step.
the serve is probably one of the hardest part of a game to improve, he will improve it but probably not much.

1sun
09-10-2005, 12:15 AM
Unfortunately I'll have to agree with you for probably the 1st ever time :o
:eek: ;)

federer express
09-10-2005, 12:17 AM
I always though that in Sampras time it was boring because it was so hard for him to ever be broken. Sampras was the one who didn't have rivals to speak of.

how is nadal-federer a great rivalry yet? it may become one, like...

sampras-agassi
lendl-becker
becker-edberg
mcenroe-connors
mcenroe-borg
lendl-edberg
lendl-wilander
leconte-chesnokov :devil:

federer express
09-10-2005, 12:19 AM
The new generation of tennis also includes: Nadal, Gasquet, Mathieu, Murray, Muller, Monfils, Jenkins, Djokovic, etc. (Not a boring bunch!)



nadal, gasquet, djokovic and murray will all be interesting to say the least...

muller is a sack of **** thatwill never do anything of substance

PamV
09-10-2005, 12:19 AM
pam, if roger wins the us, then he has the year end no1 locked up, in both race and entry.
he pretty much has locked up already.

I hope so, but I never say things are locked up. Remember how tough Ginepri played Federer? People seem to assume Agassi will make it to the final, but we don't know that.

Regardless.....I still maintain that Nadal is certainly Federer's rival. Nadal has made it that Federer feels he HAS to win the USOpen. He basically HAS to try to win the TMC also. Furthermore....it's not as if Federer has an easy time playing Nadal. So that certainly means they are rivals.

kundalini
09-10-2005, 12:21 AM
I think this is a transitional period.

Federer's dominance would appear to have destroyed the confidence of Roddick and Hewitt. Both realise they need more in order to compete but have yet to figure out or put in place the weapons required to match him.

The next generation of players is not ready yet, with the obvious exception of Nadal, who is ready on a claycourt but still not quite there on other surfaces. Gasquet is coming but may be a year or two away. Monfils, Berdych, Djokovic and Murray are perhaps 2 or 3 years away (assuming they are as good as is hoped)

So Roger cleans up and Andre can beat players on reputation.

It's not the worst period and it's not the best.

Personally I can't wait for the end of Roger's dominance. But that may be a long wait.

liptea
09-10-2005, 12:22 AM
In answer to the question, yes. Back in 1998, they let this random guy named Carlos Moya win a Slam and it was the worst thing ever, because people thought he might end up being good and win a few more and he didn't.

adee-gee
09-10-2005, 12:23 AM
In answer to the question, yes. Back in 1998, they let this random guy named Carlos Moya win a Slam and it was the worst thing ever, because people thought he might end up being good and win a few more and he didn't.

:lol:

1sun
09-10-2005, 12:23 AM
I hope so, but I never say things are locked up. Remember how tough Ginepri played Federer? People seem to assume Agassi will make it to the final, but we don't know that.

Regardless.....I still maintain that Nadal is certainly Federer's rival. Nadal has made it that Federer feels he HAS to win the USOpen. He basically HAS to try to win the TMC also. Furthermore....it's not as if Federer has an easy time playing Nadal. So that certainly means they are rivals.
but if roger wins the us,its a fact that roger will end year no1. he could not play again till next year and still be no1.
but its all ifs, so lets just hope he wins the us :)

PamV
09-10-2005, 12:25 AM
how is nadal-federer a great rivalry yet? it may become one, like...

sampras-agassi
lendl-becker
becker-edberg
mcenroe-connors
mcenroe-borg
lendl-edberg
lendl-wilander
leconte-chesnokov :devil:

I wasn't watching tennis before the Sampras era, so I can't say about the older generations. It seems to me that for the majority of Pete's career Agassi didn't pose much of a threat. Pete could usually win easily over Agassi on the fast surfaces. There was also the time period when Agassi fell off in the rankings and was not as active. Agassi's best years came when Pete was getting older.

Maybe it's not fair to make snap judgements about who Federer's rivals are since whe haven't seen the full length of his career yet. Rivalries change every couple of years it seems.

adee-gee
09-10-2005, 12:26 AM
The next generation of players is not ready yet, with the obvious exception of Nadal, who is ready on a claycourt but still not quite there on other surfaces.

Young Sir I will have you know that not only did Nadal beat Federer 6-3 6-3 on the hard courts of Miami in 2004, he was 2 points from wiping Federer off the court in 3 straight sets at the same venue in 2005, and would've done but for a shocker of a line call.

federer express
09-10-2005, 12:26 AM
I wasn't watching tennis before the Sampras era, so I can't say about the older generations. It seems to me that for the majority of Pete's career Agassi didn't pose much of a threat. Pete could usually win easily over Agassi on the fast surfaces. There was also the time period when Agassi fell off in the rankings and was not as active. Agassi's best years came when Pete was getting older.

Maybe it's not fair to make snap judgements about who Federer's rivals are since whe haven't seen the full length of his career yet. Rivalries change every couple of years it seems.

i merelysaid there isn't a great one yet...and sampras-agassi was a more even contest than i think federer-nadal will end up being.

PamV
09-10-2005, 12:27 AM
but if roger wins the us,its a fact that roger will end year no1. he could not play again till next year and still be no1.
but its all ifs, so lets just hope he wins the us :)

Of course, it's all IFS right now. The first thing is to hope Federer makes it into the final. I was thinking that he may feel more motivated now to try to extend his lead over Nadal. Last year the #2 player was not that close in points. Even aside from that though, I think Roger will want to win the TMC if he can. That will likely bring about a rematch with Nadal and he would want to win that.

adee-gee
09-10-2005, 12:28 AM
i merelysaid there isn't a great one yet...and sampras-agassi was a more even contest than i think federer-nadal will end up being.

Don't get too hasty, I'm sure Roger will win a couple ;)

federer express
09-10-2005, 12:29 AM
Young Sir I will have you know that not only did Nadal beat Federer 6-3 6-3 on the hard courts of Miami in 2004, he was 2 points from wiping Federer off the court in 3 straight sets at the same venue in 2005, and would've done but for a shocker of a line call.

two matches...one of which he lost.

nadal also has second and third round losses in slams this year to muller and blake.
he has plenty of improving to do on every surface but clay...but of course he will!

adee-gee
09-10-2005, 12:31 AM
two matches...one of which he lost.

nadal also has second and third round losses in slams this year to muller and blake. he has plenty of improving to do on every surface but clay...but of course he will!

Blake was undisputedly on fire on the day, Rafa is still one of the best hardcourters in the world. As I say, but for a shocker of a line call the head to head would be 3-0. The Muller match, the less said the better, horrible match.

PamV
09-10-2005, 12:31 AM
i merelysaid there isn't a great one yet...and sampras-agassi was a more even contest than i think federer-nadal will end up being.

That's very hard to say yet. Federer-Nadal is a different dynamic since Nadal has the clay field all to himself. He can earn a lot of points and not worry about Federer there. With Sampras-Agassi they mainly competed at the same events.

federer express
09-10-2005, 12:33 AM
That's very hard to say yet. Federer-Nadal is a different dynamic since Nadal has the clay field all to himself. He can earn a lot of points and not worry about Federer there. With Sampras-Agassi they mainly competed at the same events.

thanks for supporting my argument

adee-gee
09-10-2005, 12:33 AM
Don't get too hasty, I'm sure Roger will win a couple ;)

:lol:

sorry I had to laugh at my own joke, I thought it was funny :p

PamV
09-10-2005, 12:34 AM
Young Sir I will have you know that not only did Nadal beat Federer 6-3 6-3 on the hard courts of Miami in 2004, he was 2 points from wiping Federer off the court in 3 straight sets at the same venue in 2005, and would've done but for a shocker of a line call.

I think you have to look at Fed's loss to Nadal in Miami 2004, the same way you look at Nadal's lose to Berdych in Cincy 2005. When a player just wins a MS the week before he is fatigued going into the next event.

NYCtennisfan
09-10-2005, 12:34 AM
Wow. A whole slate of great matches at this USO and men's tennis is in a bad state. Go figure.

adee-gee
09-10-2005, 12:35 AM
I think you have to look at Fed's loss to Nadal in Miami 2004, the same way you look at Nadal's lose to Berdych in Cincy 2005. When a player just wins a MS the week before he is fatigued going into the next event.

:rolleyes:

federer express
09-10-2005, 12:35 AM
Blake was undisputedly on fire on the day, Rafa is still one of the best hardcourters in the world. As I say, but for a shocker of a line call the head to head would be 3-0. The Muller match, the less said the better, horrible match.

bad line calls are a fact of life. like every other head to head, federer will turn it around soon enough if nadal makes it deep into tournaments on surfaces besides clay.

federer is beyond any doubt the leading mens player in the world and i expect him to remain that for the next 5 years. his talent means he can still improve more than the rest.

NYCtennisfan
09-10-2005, 12:36 AM
Hmmm...I only read the title of the thread and saw who the poster was and I knew that this would be a Fed vs. Nadal battle.

liptea
09-10-2005, 12:36 AM
Wow. A whole slate of great matches at this USO and men's tennis is in a bad state. Go figure.

Well....when Robby Ginepri is a US Open semifinalist, it just kinda makes people wonder.

adee-gee
09-10-2005, 12:36 AM
Hmmm...I only read the title of the thread and saw who the poster was and I knew that this would be a Fed vs. Nadal battle.

:eek: :eek: :eek: I'm truly disturbed by this personal attack! Highly uncalled for!

adee-gee
09-10-2005, 12:37 AM
bad line calls are a fact of life. like every other head to head, federer will turn it around soon enough if nadal makes it deep into tournaments on surfaces besides clay.

federer is beyond any doubt the leading mens player in the world and i expect him to remain that for the next 5 years. his talent means he can still improve more than the rest.

Fernando Verdasco is more talented.

Lee
09-10-2005, 12:38 AM
Fernando Verdasco is more talented.

Are you being sarcastic here?

federer express
09-10-2005, 12:38 AM
ginepri has quite a complete game. he moves very well, serves very well and has great groundstrokes. he has always had talent but never applied himself. if he continues to work he can perform well at all tournaments on a regular basis. ginepri in the semis does not reflect badly on mens tennis in any way!

PamV
09-10-2005, 12:39 AM
thanks for supporting my argument

I agree that we don't know how great their rivalry will be yet, since you usually can't judge that after just one year. Although they compete on different surfaces most of the year they will both show up at the MS events and Majors.

In any case, to discuss how interesting or not Men's tennis is right now doesn't depend just on Federer v. Nadal. I enjoy Federer as #1 a lot more than I ever did with Sampras. Sampras held serve like a machine. Federer's game is more interesting to me, and I don't feel he wins everything easily.

federer express
09-10-2005, 12:39 AM
Fernando Verdasco is more talented.

not in the same league. federer is like madrid or barcelona and verdasco is newcastle.

adee-gee
09-10-2005, 12:40 AM
Are you being sarcastic here?

:lol: why does everyone thinks I'm so sarcastic!

I genuinely believe Fernando Verdasco is the most talented tennis player on the planet (serious, I'm not being sarcastic!)

adee-gee
09-10-2005, 12:41 AM
not in the same league. federer is like madrid or barcelona and verdasco is newcastle.

Verdasco is the tennis equivalent of the Brazilian footy team, flair all the way. Federer is like Norway, boring to watch and very predictable :p

federer express
09-10-2005, 12:42 AM
federer is brando and verdasco brad pitt :lol:

PamV
09-10-2005, 12:43 AM
Well....when Robby Ginepri is a US Open semifinalist, it just kinda makes people wonder.

He's there because he's living up to his potential. He put the work in and he's playing great.

Lee
09-10-2005, 12:43 AM
:lol: why does everyone thinks I'm so sarcastic!

I genuinely believe Fernando Verdasco is the most talented tennis player on the planet (serious, I'm not being sarcastic!)

I'm disappointed in you, Adam :( :p

May be Verdasco will prove me wrong one day!






NO!!

federer express
09-10-2005, 12:45 AM
He's there because he's living up to his potential. He put the work in and he's playing great.

a lot like post #98 :p

adee-gee
09-10-2005, 12:45 AM
I'm disappointed in you, Adam :( :p

May be Verdasco will prove me wrong one day!






NO!!

Why :sad:

If he had his head screwed on he'd be challenging for Grand Slams. Unfortunately he's prone to performances like Mayer at Wimby, Niemenen at the US etc. Its sad to see such a talent not fulfilling his potential.

Lee
09-10-2005, 12:46 AM
The major improvement in Ginepri is instead of muscling all his points, he starts using his brain and be more patient.

Lee
09-10-2005, 12:46 AM
Why :sad:

If he had his head screwed on he'd be challenging for Grand Slams. Unfortunately he's prone to performances like Mayer at Wimby, Niemenen at the US etc. Its sad to see such a talent not fulfilling his potential.

I put Malisse ahead of him in this category.

adee-gee
09-10-2005, 12:47 AM
I put Malisse ahead of him in this category.

Xavier is a similar type. Nando is more talented though in my humble opinion :)

Merton
09-10-2005, 12:47 AM
I think you have to look at Fed's loss to Nadal in Miami 2004, the same way you look at Nadal's lose to Berdych in Cincy 2005. When a player just wins a MS the week before he is fatigued going into the next event.

I agree with your first sentence, but i disagree with your interpretation of fatigue. Matches like Federer-Nadal (2004), Federer-Berdych (2004), Federer-Gasquet (2005) and both Nadal-Berdych (2005) point to dynamics that are likely to unfold in the future as the youngsters mature.

Lee
09-10-2005, 12:49 AM
Xavier is a similar type. Nando is more talented though in my humble opinion :)

We all have our different humble opinion. ;)

I will pay more attention to Verdasco.

adee-gee
09-10-2005, 12:50 AM
We all have our different humble opinion. ;)

I will pay more attention to Verdasco.

Good idea. I need Lady Carlita in here to help me big up Verdasco :D

Lee
09-10-2005, 12:52 AM
Good idea. I need Lady Carlita in here to help me big up Verdasco :D

I already have my fat Spaniard, so I will only watch Verdasco's tennis. :lol:

adee-gee
09-10-2005, 12:57 AM
I already have my fat Spaniard, so I will only watch Verdasco's tennis. :lol:

Almagro is good, but not a patch on Verdasco.

In fact, Verdasco could be the man to save men's tennis.

federer express
09-10-2005, 12:59 AM
Almagro is good, but not a patch on Verdasco.

In fact, Verdasco could be the man to save men's tennis.

verdasco is another sack of **** :lol:

he will be no different from feli

adee-gee
09-10-2005, 01:03 AM
verdasco is another sack of **** :lol:

he will be no different from feli

I might close this thread.

First a personal attack, now an attack on Nando :crying2:

Lee
09-10-2005, 01:04 AM
I might close this thread.

First a personal attack, now an attack on Nando :crying2:

I don't think you have the authority to close the thread ;)

NYCtennisfan
09-10-2005, 01:06 AM
I'm truly disturbed by this personal attack! Highly uncalled for!

I wasn't attacking you. I was just stating that when you post something, the thread always winds up a Fed vs. Nadal thing.

federer express
09-10-2005, 01:06 AM
I might close this thread.

First a personal attack, now an attack on Nando :crying2:

where was the personal attack?

adee-gee
09-10-2005, 01:06 AM
I don't think you have the authority to close the thread ;)

:lol: I'll find a way

rofe
09-10-2005, 01:06 AM
Almagro is good, but not a patch on Verdasco.

In fact, Verdasco could be the man to save men's tennis.

Unless you are a hardcore Verdasco fan - you should have seen his terrible performance this year. He is all flash and no substance. If we compare him to the other spainards, JCF, Nadal and even Ferrer are much better than him. Talent is nothing unless you can display it. His recent 4th round US Open display was pathetic.

He is better off screwing his sexy girlfriend. Hopefully, he won't screw that up (pun intended).

adee-gee
09-10-2005, 01:07 AM
I wasn't attacking you. I was just stating that when you post something, the thread always winds up a Fed vs. Nadal thing.

I never intend to head in that direction, I always get some Fed "fan" getting on my tits so it happens. If you control the likes of 1sun then we'll be ok :D

adee-gee
09-10-2005, 01:08 AM
Unless you are a hardcore Verdasco fan - you should have seen his terrible performance this year. He is all flash and no substance. If we compare him to the other spainards, JCF, Nadal and even Ferrer are much better than him. Talent is nothing unless you can display it. His recent 4th round US Open display was pathetic.

He is better off screwing his sexy girlfriend. Hopefully, he won't screw that up (pun intended).

As I said he doesn't have his head fully screwed on, and he's prone to some shockers. It doesn't take away the fact that he's the most talented player out there.

federer express
09-10-2005, 01:11 AM
As I said he doesn't have his head fully screwed on, and he's prone to some shockers. It doesn't take away the fact that he's the most talented player out there.

dont disagree with you too often but have to here...

there are 20 guys out there with equal or more talent

Lee
09-10-2005, 01:12 AM
:lol: I'll find a way

Don't go to the extreme :lol:

adee-gee
09-10-2005, 01:13 AM
The fact that no-one on here rates Nando means he's being pushed up my signature into my very favourite players :p

KoOlMaNsEaN
09-10-2005, 01:47 AM
Mens is better than womens tennis. No real great womens matches unlike the mens with andre-james davide-paradorn

PamV
09-10-2005, 02:37 AM
The major improvement in Ginepri is instead of muscling all his points, he starts using his brain and be more patient.

Maybe he's been influenced by watching Federer.

Lee
09-10-2005, 02:43 AM
Maybe he's been influenced by watching Federer.

Yes, we can credit all the good things happen in the world of tennis to Roger Federer. The savior of tennis.

PamV
09-10-2005, 02:43 AM
I agree with your first sentence, but i disagree with your interpretation of fatigue. Matches like Federer-Nadal (2004), Federer-Berdych (2004), Federer-Gasquet (2005) and both Nadal-Berdych (2005) point to dynamics that are likely to unfold in the future as the youngsters mature.

The fatigue I am speaking of is what comes from having played through to the final of the prior MS. That always makes the next MS more difficult. I am not sure what you mean about dynamics? Are you saying that those are the upcoming rivalries of the future? Yes, that could be, but the fatigue factor plays a part with back to back tournaments. In the Federer-Gasquet 2005 MC match Federer had just won the two previous MS events which does add up to a fatigue factor.

PamV
09-10-2005, 02:44 AM
Yes, we can credit all the good things happen in the world of tennis to Roger Federer. The savior of tennis.

Maybe not all.....but the tennis world would be bleak without him.

PamV
09-10-2005, 02:47 AM
Mens is better than womens tennis. No real great womens matches unlike the mens with andre-james davide-paradorn

In women's tennis the majority play a one demensional game of just trying to hit as hard as possible every time. They are often falling off balance when they hit their shots because they try to hit so hard.

I do think Kim, and Justine are entertaining when they are playing well. I don't care for Sharapova or Davenport as they are the type to just stand there at the baseline hitting hard with games that are mainly dependant on their serves.

wcr
09-10-2005, 02:58 AM
I agree with your first sentence, but i disagree with your interpretation of fatigue. Matches like Federer-Nadal (2004), Federer-Berdych (2004), Federer-Gasquet (2005) and both Nadal-Berdych (2005) point to dynamics that are likely to unfold in the future as the youngsters mature.

I don't know about back-to-back MS fatigue. What I do know is that during Federer/Nadal 2004 Miami, Roger was suffering sunstroke and during the Federer/Gasquet 2005 Monte Carlo was Roger suffering from this foot problem that started pre-AO 2005 and reoccured post-Wimbledon. So I think those MS Fed losses were related to his health.

What dynamics do you mean regarding the unfolding development of Berdych and Nadal?

wcr
09-10-2005, 03:01 AM
In women's tennis the majority play a one demensional game of just trying to hit as hard as possible every time. They are often falling off balance when they hit their shots because they try to hit so hard.

I do think Kim, and Justine are entertaining when they are playing well. I don't care for Sharapova or Davenport as they are the type to just stand there at the baseline hitting hard with games that are mainly dependant on their serves.

The Kim/Venus match was pretty exciting the other night.

Maybe hitting the ball as hard as possible is what's causing a lot of the injuries they experience. Is it possible that professional players in the WTA spend as much time recuperating from injuries as they do playing matches? Sheesh!

Lee
09-10-2005, 03:04 AM
Maybe not all.....but the tennis world would be bleak without him.

Yes, for all obsessive Federer fans.

If I remember correctly, there were many tennis fans in this world before Federer becomes #1 and before he wins all these GS titles.

Sorry to disappoint you that there will still be tons of tennis fans watching tennis and there will still be many exciting tennis matches even Federer may quit tennis tomorrow or ;) after USO.

In my earlier post, I said I watched many exciting and entertaining matches this past 10 days even non of them involving Federer. There are many tournaments on ATP tours that Federer was not there and his absence didn't make the tournaments 'bleak'. It's nice to have a great player like Federer. His tennis is enjoyable. He's the best player I ever have the opportunity to watch but he's not GOD. He's not the reason for everything that happen in ATP or tennis world.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

And before any of the Federer fans jump to the conclusion that I'm a Fed hater, check with RogiFan, Doris and Mrs. B, those Federer fans long before Roger won any GS or titles.

oneandonlyhsn
09-10-2005, 03:05 AM
As I said he doesn't have his head fully screwed on, and he's prone to some shockers. It doesn't take away the fact that he's the most talented player out there.

:rolls: this has to be the craziest and dumbest thing I've heard. I like Nando but no way is he the most talented player. Gasquet is way more talented than Nando

Lee
09-10-2005, 03:09 AM
I do think Kim, and Justine are entertaining when they are playing well. I don't care for Sharapova or Davenport as they are the type to just stand there at the baseline hitting hard with games that are mainly dependant on their serves.

Davenport is one of the best doubles players (when she still plays doubles) and you said she just stand there at the baseline hitting hard. :worship: :worship:

R.Federer
09-10-2005, 03:13 AM
Yes, for all obsessive Federer fans.

If I remember correctly, there were many tennis fans in this world before Federer becomes #1 and before he wins all these GS titles.

Sorry to disappoint you that there will still be tons of tennis fans watching tennis and there will still be many exciting tennis matches even Federer may quit tennis tomorrow or ;) after USO.

In my earlier post, I said I watched many exciting and entertaining matches this past 10 days even non of them involving Federer. There are many tournaments on ATP tours that Federer was not there and his absence didn't make the tournaments 'bleak'. It's nice to have a great player like Federer. His tennis is enjoyable. He's the best player I ever have the opportunity to watch but he's not GOD. He's not the reason for everything that happen in ATP or tennis world.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

And before any of the Federer fans jump to the conclusion that I'm a Fed hater, check with RogiFan, Doris and Mrs. B, those Federer fans long before Roger won any GS or titles.

I think you are completely correct. It is crazy to think that Roge is singlehandedly changing the face and nature of tennis. I was a fan of tennis from many years before Roge started even playing. And yes, he is a great player and a greater human being, but tennis is evolving from everyone involved in the sport. Every great player that comes in the future will not necessarily have tried to copy Roge or his style --jsut as people said there would never be a dominant player like Pete and were wrong, there will be another dominant player after Roge (may his reign be long however!), and tennis will continue to evolve

wcr
09-10-2005, 03:20 AM
And before any of the Federer fans jump to the conclusion that I'm a Fed hater, check with RogiFan, Doris and Mrs. B, those Federer fans long before Roger won any GS or titles.

I've been a fan of Roger's since I saw him play an indoor event when he was 19. For years I listened to the nasty remarks about him being a headcase, blah blah blah. Never phased me one bit. Roger's winning any GS never changed the way I always enjoy watching him play. Not since Graf have I seen a player who, when on the court, looks like there's nothing in the world they love more than playing tennis. Tennis was on the bleak side after Graf's retirement for me until Fed started playing better and more often. Fed's not for everyone but for some of us who are completely enamored with his game can and do find it bleak out there when he's not playing. Sure the sport is fun and always enjoyable. Just not quite as enjoyable without him.

oneandonlyhsn
09-10-2005, 04:37 AM
I've been a fan of Roger's since I saw him play an indoor event when he was 19. For years I listened to the nasty remarks about him being a headcase, blah blah blah. Never phased me one bit. Roger's winning any GS never changed the way I always enjoy watching him play. Not since Graf have I seen a player who, when on the court, looks like there's nothing in the world they love more than playing tennis. Tennis was on the bleak side after Graf's retirement for me until Fed started playing better and more often. Fed's not for everyone but for some of us who are completely enamored with his game can and do find it bleak out there when he's not playing. Sure the sport is fun and always enjoyable. Just not quite as enjoyable without him.

:worship: :worship: The best thing I've read on this board in a long time

Action Jackson
09-10-2005, 09:34 AM
The answer to the thread question is no.

adee-gee
09-10-2005, 09:45 AM
The answer to the thread question is no.

Cheers George :worship:

Action Jackson
09-10-2005, 09:51 AM
Cheers George :worship:

No probs I have my own reasons for that, then again when you get esteemed people like tangerinus, ys, Tennis Fool, G O and a few deusional Fed fans who think tennis didn't exist before him and will die when he retires, if they became the majority then it would be a problem.

Rex
09-10-2005, 11:28 AM
no not really, ginepri reaching the semis is a surprise, and so is blake. C'mon mate, look outside the box.

Puschkin
09-10-2005, 11:50 AM
I've been a fan of Roger's since I saw him play an indoor event when he was 19.

I am the opposite, I am probably the latest latecomer .Due to personal circumstances and other priorities I had lost touch with the world of professional tennis between 2000 and 2003. In addition, somehow I could not warm up to the new breed and I missed their development. When Roger won Wimbledon, which I did not see, I was still suspicious, another one to be hyped up by the media.


Not since Graf have I seen a player who, when on the court, looks like there's nothing in the world they love more than playing tennis.

Whan I saw Roger play in 2003 Vienna, I became an immediate convert. There was something in his game which outright appealed to me. There was finally again someone who played tennis and did not work tennis. And I will always like that, even more so, when it is successful. Who does not like it if one's views prevails;), in this case my view about the way tennis should be played. Having said all this, it is obvious that tennis is not at all in a bad state for me. I don't belong to those who like a tennis match just because it lasts long, brings about a close result or because one of the contenders happens to be born in the same country as I was :p .

And the future seems even brighter, as a lot of tennis "talent" is knocking on the door already....

andre the great
09-10-2005, 12:07 PM
Well it wasn't that healthy when Pete Sampras won Wimby every year. Amazing athlete he undoubtedly he was but didn't to too much for the games broad popularity

Action Jackson
09-10-2005, 12:10 PM
I am the opposite, I am probably the latest latecomer .Due to personal circumstances and other priorities I had lost touch with the world of professional tennis between 2000 and 2003. In addition, somehow I could not warm up to the new breed and I missed their development. When Roger won Wimbledon, which I did not see, I was still suspicious, another one to be hyped up by the media.

Will you not watch tennis when Federer starts losing his dominant streak or retires?

sigmagirl91
09-10-2005, 12:11 PM
I've been a fan of Roger's since I saw him play an indoor event when he was 19. For years I listened to the nasty remarks about him being a headcase, blah blah blah. Never phased me one bit. Roger's winning any GS never changed the way I always enjoy watching him play. Not since Graf have I seen a player who, when on the court, looks like there's nothing in the world they love more than playing tennis. Tennis was on the bleak side after Graf's retirement for me until Fed started playing better and more often. Fed's not for everyone but for some of us who are completely enamored with his game can and do find it bleak out there when he's not playing. Sure the sport is fun and always enjoyable. Just not quite as enjoyable without him.

I started liking Roger when he beat Pete at Wimby. I knew he was the next champ; it was just a matter of time when his real talent would emerge. Now...we are witnessing perhaps the most important personality for the game today. And I like how he's tailored his whole image around his place in the game.

Puschkin
09-10-2005, 12:21 PM
Will you not watch tennis when Federer starts losing his dominant streak or retires?

I have been watching tennis since the mid 80ies more or less regularly, coverage in my part of the world was much better then than it is now. And I will continue to do so. I just wanted to point out that my return to watching in 2003 coincided with Roger's break troughwhich probably gave it an additional boost.

madmanfool
09-10-2005, 01:41 PM
No, there are still serve-and-volleyers but they're just not ranked as high as they use to be. Ancic, Arthurs, Dent, Henman, Karlovic, Mirnyi, Rusedski, J Johansson, Bjorkman and I've also seen Stepanek, Ljubicic and Roddick serve and volley occasionally. I think too many players in the modern era like a target and can return much better than before. Nadal, Nalbandian and Hewitt are all exceptional at passing players at the net.

Apart from Henman and Bjorkman all of those are mainly great servers.
Maybe it's better to call them SERVE-and-volleyers

Suzuki, now there is one of the last true serve-and-volleyers

avocadoe
09-10-2005, 01:46 PM
I've been a fan of Roger's since the first time Cliff Drysdale drooled, lol, can't remember the match but it was on TV. He pointed out what an incredible game and style he had. It was back in '99, I think. The forum I posted at took notice of him, too, and there was an early band wagon formed. What distinguished me as a fan there, lol, was I was the only one who thought he was handsome right off the bat. In 3003 when he "almost" stopped on his way to a practice session to let me take a picture and receive my good wishes, I was the happiest person on earth :) I loved the day he beat Pete at Wimby, and all his struggles leading into the dominant period. I have never had such a good time being a fan, or not since I was a child and loved Rosewall and Laver, Vic Siexes, however you spell it, and Trabert. Well, I had a great run of fandom with Martina GHngis. How could I forget? But Roger's the very best, can't imagine the likes of him, again.

Sjengster
09-10-2005, 02:33 PM
Davenport is one of the best doubles players (when she still plays doubles) and you said she just stand there at the baseline hitting hard. :worship: :worship:

Yes, but in fairness to PamV here we don't see any of that doubles skill when she's playing singles. It is just baseline bashing, very clean baseline bashing mind you, but interminably dull for me to watch.

tennisinparis
09-10-2005, 02:34 PM
Okay, I am going to try and not repeat too many thoughts of others, but sorry if I do.

1. Although it may seem as if Roger Federer is playing below his best, you have to understand, he is the top and everyone has studied and adapted to him, so now people can kind of guess what he is going to do, which is making him have to adjust his game some (not completely). So basically others are stepping up to him, yet few have still beat him--which show the true nature of a champion.

2. This statement should read, the World Number 2 can only win a Clay grand slam. In the last 4 months, he has adapted his game to hardcourts and it learning still, so give him some time, and he will adjust even more. It isn't like he is getting annihilated in his hardcourt matches.

3. I agree on this point, he seems to do fine in "not so important" tournaments but when it comes to the bigger tournaments something goes wrong. I think he has some mental issues, seriously.

4. And this always has been and always will be, and Marat Safin does not make or break the game of tennis.

5. These men that you feel should not be going as far as they are have stepped their play up and are giving it their all, and are being rewarded for it. In this sense, maybe wisdom and maturity win out over age?

6. You have missed a good many matches or a good many points at least. I mean some of the mens matches this year had me jumping because i was so nervous as to whom would win the point becuase there were so many rallies.

7. Do I need to restate what everyone else has said. There is obviously a difference between a green apple and a red apple, but they are both apples. There is my sad attempt at an analogy.

--after that, i can see how it is a little bit frustrating because no one is stepping up to challenge Federer more, but think about it, in any sport, the number one player is supposed to be untouchable (except for rare occasions--which HAVE happened this year). and even in tennis, the top five players should be reasonably untouchable(this i could see an arguement saying this isn't true in tennis right now).


Discuss.

These are not necessarily my opinions, but points that have been raised recently.

1. Roger Federer is playing well below his best at the moment. Yet still no-one is getting close to beating him. The World numbers 3+4 haven't got a clue what do against him. Very few have the belief that they can beat him, and Federer is looking close to unbeatable on any surface excluding clay. Many ATP fans (including myself) enjoyed slagging off women's tennis when the Williams sisters were winning everything as there was no competition. Is there any in the men's game at the moment?

2. The world number 2, Rafael Nadal can only play on clay. He has never gone past the 4th Round at any Slam outside of RG.

3. The world number 3, Andy Roddick is playing very poor tennis and has done for the last couple of years. Yet he is still number 3.

4. The world number 5, Marat Safin is one of the most talented players the game has ever seen, but is having injury problems as well as doubts whether he has the motivation to dedicate his life to tennis.

5. "Journeymen" such as Robby Ginepri are reaching Grand Slam Semi Finals. We're also likely to see a 35 year old in the Final, should this be happening in the modern game? On a seperate note, David Sanguinetti has just reach the 4th Round of a Grand Slam!

6. There's not too many rallies in a lot of matches. The serve is becoming too dominant.

7. There isn't a lot of variety in the modern game. There are a huge number of baseliners and there is a dying breed of serve-volleyers and genuine attacking players.

tennisinparis
09-10-2005, 02:52 PM
Davenport is one of the best doubles players (when she still plays doubles) and you said she just stand there at the baseline hitting hard. :worship: :worship:


I am one of the biggest Davenport fans out there, but I do have to admit, sometimes she just stands there, and I wanna scream, go for it you never know what will happen (mainly the dementiava(sp?) match). Then sometimes she will be moving pretty well around the court. She is a tall and lanky player who is kind of awkward trying to run like Kim. I guess we can (or should) be able to accept the fact that Kim and Lindsay have different body types and use them differently to win at tennis. The arguement could be made that Venus is tall and lanky but runs very well, but you have to take into consideration that she has been trained that way from day one, and you can still even argue that Venus is not a mobile on the court as Serena. So basically each person takes his/her body and ability and uses it the way they can best win matches. Who is to say that a extreme well placed ball that is hit with rocket speed is not as beautiful a point as one where the player is playing defense and somehow gets the offensive winner? I love to watch Lindsay and Kim both, and I think they both bring a great deal to the womens game, at the same time, I would choose Venus over Serena (and I cannot explain this one though), and I do not like Justine Hen--- at all. But who is to say who is better or who is more right in the game they play? This same arguement holds true for the mens side, so it is not a complete wasted rant, I like Rafael Nadal, Andre Agassi for their scrappy play, but at the same time it is fun to watch Blake's dominating play(maybe if just to see if someone can answer his big shots), and finally the grace and intellegence of Federer (i would not call Federer overpowering nor would I call him scrappy, but I would call him someone who is smart, uses his mind and his ability to win most of the points). Sorry for ranting so long.

tennisinparis
09-10-2005, 02:56 PM
Apart from Henman and Bjorkman all of those are mainly great servers.
Maybe it's better to call them SERVE-and-volleyers

Suzuki, now there is one of the last true serve-and-volleyers

Yes you are right, but the SERVE is the main part of a serve and volley game, so who is really suprised by that assumption or great knowledge. The whole point of a serve and volley game is to have a great serve so that you can come in behind it with a volley. it doesn't work too succesfully to have a mediocre serve and try to come in on it. The return will have too much of a chance to place the ball and hit it with speed. The serve is the most crucial part of the serve-and-volley game.

Lee
09-10-2005, 06:59 PM
I am one of the biggest Davenport fans out there, ....

I'm a fan of Davenport too and for a long time. That's why I know her ability to volley. She's not a serve and volley type of player and as Sjengster said, she seldom use doubles skill in singles as dictating points from baseline and painting the lines is good enough to win her points but she hit very good overhead and volley well around the net when necessary.

Anyway this board is not about WTA and this thread is not about Davenport, I will stop here.

PamV
09-11-2005, 12:08 AM
The Kim/Venus match was pretty exciting the other night.

Maybe hitting the ball as hard as possible is what's causing a lot of the injuries they experience. Is it possible that professional players in the WTA spend as much time recuperating from injuries as they do playing matches? Sheesh!

True, but much of the women's tennis is about ball bashing with no interesting point construction. That match was interesting because they said Kim had never beaten Venus. I think Kim's hitting style is good and she doesn't just hit with power and nothing else. Those splits.....are quite miraculous also.

PamV
09-11-2005, 12:11 AM
Davenport is one of the best doubles players (when she still plays doubles) and you said she just stand there at the baseline hitting hard. :worship: :worship:

Doubles have a different dynamic which would allow Davenport to either stay at the net or the baseline. I don't watch doubles and I was only commenting on the Women's singles game. For the most part Davenport hardly moves from the baseline.

PamV
09-11-2005, 12:15 AM
I think you are completely correct. It is crazy to think that Roge is singlehandedly changing the face and nature of tennis. I was a fan of tennis from many years before Roge started even playing. And yes, he is a great player and a greater human being, but tennis is evolving from everyone involved in the sport. Every great player that comes in the future will not necessarily have tried to copy Roge or his style --jsut as people said there would never be a dominant player like Pete and were wrong, there will be another dominant player after Roge (may his reign be long however!), and tennis will continue to evolve

Who said Roger single handedly changed the face of tennis? I said he has had an influence of bringing back the all court "modern/old school" game. I first heard McEnroe talking about that.....so don't blame me for that idea. Before Federer, tennis was heading toward a Roddick-like servathon style.

I think you are a rather odd Federer fan to constantly put Roger down and not want to see that without him tennis wouldn't be as interesting or as varied as it is today.

PamV
09-11-2005, 12:19 AM
I've been a fan of Roger's since I saw him play an indoor event when he was 19. For years I listened to the nasty remarks about him being a headcase, blah blah blah. Never phased me one bit. Roger's winning any GS never changed the way I always enjoy watching him play. Not since Graf have I seen a player who, when on the court, looks like there's nothing in the world they love more than playing tennis. Tennis was on the bleak side after Graf's retirement for me until Fed started playing better and more often. Fed's not for everyone but for some of us who are completely enamored with his game can and do find it bleak out there when he's not playing. Sure the sport is fun and always enjoyable. Just not quite as enjoyable without him.

I totally agree. Well said.

DDrago2
09-11-2005, 12:38 AM
1) Tennis was in worse state some years ago, in the times of Hewitt dominance
2) Without Federer, it would realy be in the worst state ever
3) Womens tennis is less interesting than mens

Sam L (WTAW)
09-11-2005, 03:07 AM
1) Tennis was in worse state some years ago, in the times of Hewitt dominance


BRAVO!!

R.Federer
09-11-2005, 03:16 AM
Who said Roger single handedly changed the face of tennis? I said he has had an influence of bringing back the all court "modern/old school" game. I first heard McEnroe talking about that.....so don't blame me for that idea. Before Federer, tennis was heading toward a Roddick-like servathon style.

I think you are a rather odd Federer fan to constantly put Roger down and not want to see that without him tennis wouldn't be as interesting or as varied as it is today.

You are mistaken -- I dont know how long you follow tennis, but tennis was never heading towards roddick style games. there were always hard servers before roddick and can you point to the people who tried to follow roddick's style? who are these? For one thing, everyone does not have the body type and power to hit like andy. In fact, the game was shifting towards baseliners, which has a long and very deep tradition --including, but far from limited to hewitt, and many great clay courters. the S/V was the one that was disappearing but to say that the tennis was heading towards roddick style is very wrong. Back it up -- who are these people who tried to copy roddick's style?

I think you are a rather odd Federer fan to constantly put Roger down and not want to see that without him tennis wouldn't be as interesting or as varied as it is today
It is better you not make up things like this. If you can find such a quote that I said, it would be worthwhile to post my quote and back up yourself.

And I am not a crazy obsessed fan (like most on this thread are saying about you) and I can see things from both sides --you are crediting even ginepri's wins to influence from Roge. ginepri is playing more his game like agassi, not Roge. Not every single player who improves his game has to give his credit to Roge, this is just crazy.

Ask anyone on this thread who the odd fan is --the obsessed one or the balanced one who can see things from both sides.

wimbledonfan
09-11-2005, 03:18 AM
I think the players in the 90's were much better than the current players . When a 35 year old guy can make the finals and only loses to the worlds best player , i think it's saying something about the state of mens tennis . There is just no diversity anymore , the game is more about power these days and less finesse ,very few serve and volleyers. I think it's also pathetic that some of the young americans in their prime cannot beat Agassi who is definitely past his prime .

what does everyone else think ?

Sam L (WTAW)
09-11-2005, 03:20 AM
I think the players in the 90's were much better than the current players . When a 35 year old guy can make the finals and only loses to the worlds best player , i think it's saying something about the state of mens tennis . There is just no diversity anymore , the game is more about power these days and less finesse ,very few serve and volleyers. I think it's also pathetic that some of the young americans in their prime cannot beat Agassi who is definitely past his prime .

what does everyone else think ?
What do you expect when you have idiots like Hewitt at #2?

R.Federer
09-11-2005, 03:23 AM
I think the players in the 90's were much better than the current players . When a 35 year old guy can make the finals and only loses to the worlds best player , i think it's saying something about the state of mens tennis . There is just no diversity anymore , the game is more about power these days and less finesse ,very few serve and volleyers. I think it's also pathetic that some of the young americans in their prime cannot beat Agassi who is definitely past his prime .

what does everyone else think ?

No... I think they are both good, but quite different. It sounds contradictory, but I will say that the field today is DEEPER but there is also bigger DOMINANCE. I know that sounds at odds with each other, but that is something special that Roge has pulled off. Still, by deeper it means that the talent pool is so large that it is no longer a shock that NUmber 72 or whatever gasquet was, can win on a day against Number 1.

Don't forget that just as a 35 year old guy is making the finals, so is a 19 year old winning a major, and beating the number 1 player in the process. So there is diversity as well

You are right there is more power, players are stronger, and technology too is better. There is probably less finesse because players can win points easy with less creativity, but rather hard shots. On the other hand, there are players like Roge and Gasquet, also nadal and Santoro, who have beautiful games.

silverwhite
09-11-2005, 03:33 AM
As much as I love PHM, I don't think he should be in the same category as those guys, seeing as he's about 5 years older ;)

Yup. He's Roddick's age and should belong to that generation. Muller isn't that young either. He's 21 or 22, if I'm not wrong.

silverwhite
09-11-2005, 03:44 PM
No... I think they are both good, but quite different. It sounds contradictory, but I will say that the field today is DEEPER but there is also bigger DOMINANCE. I know that sounds at odds with each other, but that is something special that Roge has pulled off. Still, by deeper it means that the talent pool is so large that it is no longer a shock that NUmber 72 or whatever gasquet was, can win on a day against Number 1.

Don't forget that just as a 35 year old guy is making the finals, so is a 19 year old winning a major, and beating the number 1 player in the process. So there is diversity as well

You are right there is more power, players are stronger, and technology too is better. There is probably less finesse because players can win points easy with less creativity, but rather hard shots. On the other hand, there are players like Roge and Gasquet, also nadal and Santoro, who have beautiful games.

#99 :p

ExpectedWinner
09-11-2005, 04:31 PM
When a 35 year old guy can make the finals and only loses to the worlds best player , i think it's saying something about the state of mens tennis?

A tennis player is only that old as his game indicates. Is Agassi playing like a 35 yo at this tournament(except for a couple of sets with Blake)? No. Then what's the point to mention his age in this particular context? To me 24 yo Safin at the last year AO looked almost as weary as 35 yo Agassi after a few 5 setters he played.

boliviana
09-11-2005, 06:33 PM
Yup. He's Roddick's age and should belong to that generation. Muller isn't that young either. He's 21 or 22, if I'm not wrong.
Since when 21 or 22 considered old??? That's crap . . .

federer express
09-11-2005, 06:34 PM
Yup. He's Roddick's age and should belong to that generation. Muller isn't that young either. He's 21 or 22, if I'm not wrong.

muller isn't that good either more importantly

silverwhite
09-11-2005, 07:31 PM
Since when 21 or 22 considered old??? That's crap . . .

If you've been reading this thread, you would know that players who are 18 - 19 and those who are 20 - 23 have been differentiated. People generally see Roddick and Federer's generation as a separate one from Nadal and Gasquet's.

R.Federer
09-11-2005, 07:41 PM
If you've been reading this thread, you would know that players who are 18 - 19 and those who are 20 - 23 have been differentiated. People generally see Roddick and Federer's generation as a separate one from Nadal and Gasquet's.
This is correct.
A 18-19 year old has usually not been on tour as long as the 22-23 year old, and experienced is big factor in matches. Also, physically (nadal is exception) players have not reached peak physical condition till 23 or more. This is why 4-5 years makes big difference at this age.
But 4-5 years is not a big difference when you compare 23-24 yr old with 27-29 year old, because the additional experience is not that muchc for a 27-29 year old

Just Cause
10-22-2006, 02:42 AM
I have to voice this concern. His match against Nalbandian is a good indication of this.

cmurray
10-22-2006, 03:15 AM
Nalbandian is playing crappy right now. If Safin had even been at 50% yesterday, he would have beaten him no problem. And Safin CAN beat roger, it's just that he is inconsistent.

NadalMachine
10-22-2006, 03:52 AM
I absolutely don't think men's tennis in a worst state. People often compare this era with Sampras's. It's not fair. Let me put it this way. If Roger Federer don't play tennis any more, we will have an era very similar to Sampras's, period.