The Big Interview: Andy Roddick - London Sunday Times [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

The Big Interview: Andy Roddick - London Sunday Times

Deboogle!.
01-11-2004, 07:11 PM
here it issssssssssssssssssss
----

The Big Interview: Andy Roddick
11 Jan 2004
The Sunday Times, London

On superficial observation, Andy Roddick can excite anti-American prejudice. He dresses as a skateboarder; he pumps his fist in irritating self-inflation; he exudes his country’s certainty; and he enjoys the power that comes from the barrel of the biggest weapon in the game. And like America, around the globe he’s No 1.

But it pays to talk to somebody to find out what they’re about, and it doesn’t take more than a few minutes of quiet conversation with Roddick to prove, once again, that stereotypes and their attendant assumptions are usually worse than worthless. Roddick’s tennis may be wham-bam ugly and destructively effective, but his off-court character is honest, straightforward, generous, highly intelligent and, well, gracious. Whatever you think about George W Bush and Ronald McDonald, Roddick is the good guy.

HE IS No 1. But is that merely a statistic or the truth? Is he the best? “I’m not going to sit here and say I’m the best player in the world,” Roddick says. “To be honest, I feel rather fortunate to be No 1. And I’m just so thankful for what I was able to accomplish last year. For the rest of my life I will be able to say that I’ve won the US Open and I’ve been No 1 in the world. That’s pretty cool. It’s still surreal for me. It just doesn’t sound right, the two together with my name next to them. I don’t know if I’ll ever get used to it.”

Such status brings many privileges, including the offer of the sumptuous office of the tournament director at the Qatar Open for the interview.

It is early in the week and Roddick is playing his first event of the season, en route to Australia and the opening Grand Slam event of the new campaign. Fresh from the practice court, he attentively sits forward in a large leather armchair, speaking quickly, almost nervously, to keep up with his tumbling thoughts.

It is not so much the main man in tennis granting an audience; rather, a clever, serious young person who has submitted to an interview and is anxious to make the right impression.

Roddick recounts the day of his signal achievement, defeating Juan Carlos Ferrero in straight sets last September to win the US Open, signing off with four unstoppable serves. “I was surprisingly calm that morning, especially since it was such a huge occasion and something I’d been dreaming about for most of my life,” he says.

“Brad (Gilbert), my coach, and I treated it as a normal day. I woke up, did the breakfast thing, went to the courts, hit balls, played baseball a bit with my racket after practice and felt pretty relaxed. The closer it came to the time to play, the more jittery I became, but once I got out there into the stadium, I had a feeling I hadn’t had for a long time. It was almost like I was in a different state of mind. I was so calm. I didn’t even pump my fist once until the second-set tie-breaker, and I’d been on court for an hour and 15 minutes at that point.

“I was in a weird state, just playing the next point, then the next point, so focused on the task in hand that my mind didn’t wander at all. I wasn’t trying to do it; it just clicked in. When it came to the third set, I didn’t let up, I just worked on getting the break of serve.

“It was only when it came to the last game that I started thinking about the occasion. I was up 5-3 and serving. My serve had only been broken once in two days, over eight sets, and against good returners. So I knew it was in my hands. After what happened (the victory), people said I wasn’t nervous. Actually, I was crapping my pants.

“But it’s all about being able to handle it and not letting it consume you. I just tried to play that final game as fast as I could, so my thoughts didn’t get the better of me. I literally stepped out, hit one serve and was ready to go again. Then I hit another as soon as I could. And another. Four straight aces, and I had won. As far as dreams go, that, the US Open, was the biggest dream I could ever have.”

At the winner’s press conference, Roddick grabbed the microphone and opened proceedings. “No more ‘What’s it feel like to be the future of American tennis?’ crap. No more,” he said.

It was spoken mostly in jest, as the question that Roddick had fielded at almost every press conference since turning professional 3 years previously had become a running joke. But his impromptu declaration also betrayed relief. His burden of expectation had been heavy indeed. With Pete Sampras in retirement and Andre Agassi almost at the end of his career, American tennis needed a champion successor.

It was not a difficult search. In 2000, Roddick was ranked the top junior in the world after winning the junior singles title at the US Open and becoming the first American since 1959 to win the juniors event at the Australian Open. Soon after turning professional that year, he was invited to assist the US Davis Cup team as a hitting partner.

With his all-American demeanour, slash-and-burn game, “24/7” passion for music, scruff-cool wardrobe and popstar girlfriend, Mandy Moore, Roddick was the chosen one, the one with a following beyond the hardcore of tennis fans, the one to market.

When he was asked that irritating question about being the future of American tennis, Roddick used to trot out a programmed response. “I play for myself, my close friends and my family, and that’s it,” he would say. But he knew that much more was at stake. He was playing as America’s Great Hope, and since the treasure-laden edifice of the world professional game is built on American sponsorship, it wasn’t just American tennis but the worldwide game that was waiting and praying for Roddick to deliver.

Having delivered, he can now admit it. “Before I won the US title, there had been a lot of hype rather than substance,” he says. “I got a lot of it before it was deserved, so the win was almost like validation for me, proving that maybe I was there.”

THE triumph had been assumed in advance and heralded by all, with the curious exception of Roddick himself, who still finds it hard to believe. The reason for this lies in his boyhood, in the story of his early development as a tennis player and young man. It is this story that proves he is right to be amazed by his rise to the top, for it is a kind of miracle.

He was born in Omaha, Nebraska. The family moved to Austin, Texas, when Roddick, the youngest of three brothers, was four. “My mom played tennis at a local club, but my dad had given it up,” he says. “He played for about a year and then decided it wasn’t for him. But they both believed in what individual sports taught: self-reliance, responsibility and so on.

“My eldest brother, Lawrence, was a springboard diver, and a very good one. John, my other brother, went for tennis, and he was also very good. In fact, he was national junior champion. In those days, bumming around junior tennis in Austin, when I was eight, which is about the time I played my very first tournament, I was known as ‘Little Roddick’, because the real Roddick was my brother John.”

And he was small. In fact, Roddick, who now stands at 6ft 2in, did not exceed 5ft 2in until he was 14. Since he was so small, he had no choice but to play the small guy’s game, popping the ball into court on service and scrapping away from the baseline, with speed and tenacity his only weapons.

In the garage at home, he used to hit balls against a rebound net, springs making the ball bounce back. He imagined he was Ivan Lendl or Michael Chang, Boris Becker or Stefan Edberg, and when his mother asked him what he had been doing, he would say he had been beating the best players in the world.

The first full match he watched on television was in 1989, when Chang lost the first two sets against Lendl in the fourth round of the French Open and overcame cramp to win in more than 4 hours. That was the kind of player Little Roddick was — small and indomitable. After watching Chang and Lendl, Roddick went out to the courts himself and played for three hours.

The next year, at Christmas, Roddick’s dreams were becoming grander. He presented each member of his family with the same present: a box containing a tennis ball that he had signed with a felt-tip pen. “Hang on to it,” he told them. “It might be valuable one day.”

That hardly seemed likely. When he was 10, his family moved to Florida. For several years he remained a gutsy, short and limited player, scratching away from the baseline. But from 1997 he began to grow, and once he had grown, he accidentally found what every player covets — a brilliant, cannonball service.

“One day, I was practising and I got pissed off,” he recalls. “I just stepped up to the line and took a wicked swing at it without really going through the proper motions, and it went in, and I did it again and it went in again, and it was pretty hot, and the rest is history.

“I started doing it that day, then I used it in a tournament and it worked well, felt good. It’s completely natural. There’s not a lot of thought put into it.

“I get asked all the time how I get so much power in my serve, and I feel like a dumb-ass because I never have an answer. It just happens. I’ve no idea where it comes from.

“But since that day, it’s just always there for me, the one thing I can rely on.”

From that day to this, his service action remains the same. And with that action he can serve flat, or kick the ball high and wide, or into the body, or slice it out of reach. “I just do whatever pops into my mind. I go with my gut. And I don’t imagine it or think about it technically; I just do it.”

It goes like this: tossing the ball skywards with a jerk, he stands on his tiptoes and bends at the knees in a semi-crouch, his lower body becoming a loaded spring.

To release the spring, he leaps upwards and forwards and flails with his racket arm and wrist. All this energy of body weight, hand speed and anger is forced by percussion to the ball, which screams its departure like a shell from a field-gun. As with a gunner, if he misses the target, Roddick reloads, makes his adjustment and fires again. He rarely serves a double-fault.

His service is not pretty, but it is without doubt the greatest weapon in the modern game. “I’m just thankful for my serve, because it has saved me so often,” he says. “It allowed me to win matches right away when I first went out on the tour, even if I wasn’t ready to do so, because I had that one weapon I could go to.

“Since then, I’ve been learning on the trot, improving the other areas of my game. It also wears on the other guy. If I’m having a really good serving day and they’re thinking there’s no way in hell they’re going to break serve, and suddenly it’s 30-all on their serve, they know if they lose their serve, the set’s over.

“So it’s an advantage even when I’m returning. I can take more chances in return games.”

It is the serve that has enabled Roddick to dispose of so many players with a minimum of fuss; when he has been embroiled in epic five-set matches it is the serve that has come to his rescue. Twelve years after watching Chang beat Lendl in Paris, Roddick found himself playing Chang on the red clay of Roland Garros. This time, however, he was the one who suffered cramp in the fifth set, so severely that he dared not sit down in his chair when they changed ends, for fear that he would not be able to get up again.

Instead, he paced around the baseline, to the cheers of the Paris crowd, who took him to their hearts that day. Unable to rally, he tried to win every point with one shot, and managed enough aces to prevail. He served 37 in the match, a record for the French Open.

NOW, more than ever, and even though he is No 1, Roddick knows he must get better. “I’m not consumed with numbers, with being No 1 at all times through the year,” he says. “My main goal for 2004 is to keep improving on every aspect of my game. That is what keeps me optimistic. And I know that it is absolutely possible for me to improve yet still go down to four or five in the rankings.”

The reason is that there is so little to choose between the best players in the men’s game. Roddick is numerically superior at present, but Roger Federer, the Wimbledon champion, has a much wider range of skills; Ferrero, the French champion, is the current king on clay; and Agassi and Lleyton Hewitt are both determined to return to the top spot and are both capable of doing so.

Roddick, who often applauds opponents’ shots, is especially generous in his admiration for Federer, who beat him easily in the Wimbledon semi-finals, and again in the Tennis Masters Cup in Houston in November.

“Roger’s game is so complete,” says Roddick. “It comes so easy to him. He can make really good players look bad. He’s the most talented player in the world for sure, and he knows he can do almost whatever he wants. But his one problem is that he has the luxury of being bored sometimes, and that’s why he loses, while the rest of us lose because we’re struggling.”

Last June, after he had been beaten in the first round of the French Open, Roddick dispensed with Tarik Benhabiles, his French-Algerian coach, and replaced him with Gilbert, who had once been Agassi’s coach. The change was immediately beneficial: Roddick won at Queen’s Club, reached the semi-finals at Wimbledon, won his first Grand Slam title in New York and became No 1.

It was unfortunate that such a transformation was bound to reflect badly on Benhabiles. Roddick realised as much when he won the US Open, and did the right thing: “I called him on the phone that night. When I got to my hotel, I put my bags down, took a shower and called him straight away. He was in Florida. We live four blocks away from each other. He said he always knew I would accomplish it.

“People have to realise, and I told him he has to realise as well, that my winning the US Open reflects on him as much as anybody. He took me from an amateur who was 10 minutes away from signing to go to college, persuaded me to turn professional straight away and took me to six in the world in professional tennis. Tarik has been such a huge part of my life. I just needed somebody to take me over the last hump, and that was Brad. He was just the guy I needed at that time.”

If Roddick and Gilbert getting to No 1 was notable, their task in staying ahead of a pack that includes Federer is Herculean. “Andy has to get better in everything he does,” says Gilbert, who accompanied Roddick to Qatar. “He has to work on getting to the net more and he has to be more aggressive. He has to be quicker and, yes, he has to improve on his serve. He has to think about his serve, and he has to develop his options with it. At the moment he serves at 140mph, but in five years’ time I think he can serve at 160mph. He thinks that is physically impossible, but I don’t. Why not? All the time, the bar goes up.

“Andy is physically tremendous at 21, but mentally he really is 21. He can get way better tactically, and he has to. I learnt that from Agassi. He’s 33, but he believes he can get better. That’s why he’s still in the thick of things. You know, Agassi was a great player in 1989, but the Agassi of 2003 would have crushed the Agassi of 1989.

“That means that if Andy is not much better in 2010 than he is today, he will have been left behind. One thing is for sure, and that is that the other guys are working hard and they’re going to get better.”

Gilbert talks sense, but he’s pushing at an open door. Roddick knows what he has to do. “People laugh when I say I can improve my serve, but I honestly think I can,” he says. “I can volley a lot better and I can serve and volley more.

“But then I’ve led the Tour statistics for the past two years in service games held, so I’m not exactly weak in that area. What I would really like is to be in the top 10 for return games won. Returning serve is the most obvious area I have to improve.”

Essentially, Roddick trains for the days when his service isn’t working at its best, when his first-service percentage drops below 50%, as it did against Federer in the Wimbledon semi-final. That day, he was made to look clumsy and limited by comparison.

“The biggest part of my off-season work was on fitness,” says Roddick. “I thought I could do a lot better physically; get quicker and lighter on my feet. Brad lives on the west coast, so I had to motivate myself for the first time, which was good for me. I had a fitness trainer living with me for two months and I worked very hard. I feel better for it, but I won’t really know how much fitter I am until I’m deep in the trenches in a fifth set under a hot sun.”

After Christmas, Gilbert arrived in Florida and worked with Roddick for 10 days. “He suggests technical adjustments here and there, but it’s also about being positive,” Roddick says. “Brad encourages me to take what I have and attack the other guy with it, rather than trying to protect my own deficiencies.”

Gilbert’s forte is the mental game, the cool use of the brain to find a way to win. For Roddick, the secret is to play with passion but calculation. “It’s about passion and emotion,” he says. “Passion is a huge part for me. It allows me to play well in big matches, so it’s something I don’t want to lose. But I can’t let it take over at the wrong time. There’s a difference between passion and emotion on court. I need passion, but I know that it’s not good to be too emotional.

“That’s not easy, because I’m insanely competitive. I’m a completely different person on and off the court. On court, something gets inside of me. I’ve made friends who have never seen me play tennis before, and then they come to a tournament and they can’t believe that it’s me out there. My brother John was the same — the most playful, nicest guy you could meet, but on court he could break six rackets.

“I hate to lose, but I know that there’s more to life than tennis. When I’ve been beaten, I’m the kind of guy who needs 15 minutes to myself. I could break a racket or scream at myself, I could do anything, but then you’ll never see me really angry later that night. I can leave it behind.”

THE battle for supremacy in men’s tennis during 2004 promises to be tremendous. Gilbert, who has been involved as player and coach for more than 20 years, insists that the standard of the men’s game has never been higher. “The quality of the top men is unbelievable,” he says.

“They talk about men’s tennis being down. In fact it has never been better or deeper. There is an unbelievable core of young guys, all with different styles and all great players. They should be given the credit.”

Roddick is ready. “It should be fun,” he says. “It’s going to be great over the next few years for me, to see if I can take the Wimbledon title away from Federer, for us all to see whether someone can play better than Ferrero on clay.”

And indeed whether anybody can knock Roddick, the king of the castle, from the heights he occupies with some bewilderment. “I’m still trying to get used to it,” he says. “I can’t help thinking of myself as this little runt kid from Nebraska and Texas, so it’s very weird for me to be No 1. But it means I’m doing something right.”

MisterQ
01-11-2004, 07:28 PM
wow.

BIG!

seriously, that's a great interview. I love the first few paragraphs regarding the anti-American issue. so true.

Deboogle!.
01-11-2004, 07:32 PM
lol yes long.. it took me a while to read and also go through and fix some formatting so it looked nice lol!

but yeah I thought it was wonderful. I wish the haters would read it with an open mind lol

but the part about him crapping his pants had me :rolls:

and what Brad said about the serve :eek: 160mph?!?!

MisterQ
01-11-2004, 07:39 PM
OK, I just read it more in depth. It's a REALLY good article! Doesn't just regurgitate all the same old stuff we've been hearing. And eloquently written!.

star
01-11-2004, 08:24 PM
Yeah. That was a really fresh article. Very nice.

We ought to advertise it to others. :)

And Deb! You are a wonder woman. How did you get it?

tangerine_dream
01-11-2004, 08:26 PM
Bunk!! You got it!! All hail Queen Bunky! :bowdown:

Can't wait to read it, thank you!

Deboogle!.
01-11-2004, 08:26 PM
Well that's one of the top papers in London, Q, if they don't write well then I'd be seriously worried for humanity lol

and star, it was sent through a mailing list! so I don't know who actually accessed it :devil:

I'd love to post it on GM, but it's not worth it.

lol tangy stop that lol I just copy and paste well ;)

star
01-11-2004, 08:39 PM
I'd love to post it on GM, but it's not worth it.



Oh yeah! Talk about casting pearls...........

Mr. Man
01-11-2004, 08:44 PM
Like I am gonna read all of that...too lazy! But, Just by scanning it over...I already know it's a great interview! Thanks Bunk!

Deboogle!.
01-11-2004, 09:13 PM
awwww Mr. Man it is worth the read.

MisterQ
01-11-2004, 09:21 PM
Like I am gonna read all of that...too lazy! But, Just by scanning it over...I already know it's a great interview! Thanks Bunk!

We'll get you the Cliffs Notes. ;)

J. Corwin
01-11-2004, 10:05 PM
I read it on RO actually. Very nicely written.

Havok
01-12-2004, 12:31 AM
poor Andy, he still doesnt know Tarik got him to #5 not #6 :hug:

Deboogle!.
01-12-2004, 12:35 AM
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sjengster
01-12-2004, 12:39 AM
Mind you, it was only for a week - I only spotted it once on the teletext listings during the week of Milan last year (due to Federer not defending finalist points) and then it was gone.

J. Corwin
01-12-2004, 12:43 AM
Even if it was only for one week...it still means he has reached #5.

Deboogle!.
01-12-2004, 12:44 AM
Hi Sjengster :wavey:

I didn't know that, thanks for informing!

Sjengster
01-12-2004, 01:04 AM
Interesting that the article suggested that Roddick's typical Americanism turned people off - that may be the case on MTF, but in some cases that was exactly what people liked over here (and presumably did during Wimbledon). There was one particularly nauseating article in ACE tennis magazine saying something along the lines of "he has the cheeky demeanour, overt and brash confidence and all-American personality that we publicly dislike but secretly admire and envy." (Don't quote me on that, but that was the gist of it.)

Of course, "nauseating" was my personal reaction to it, but I'm sure there are others who agree with it... hence the huge support for him at Wimbledon, with the obvious exception of the Rusedski match when he suddenly became public enemy no. 2 (after Henman's second-round opponent, naturally). Part of it was a bandwagon effect I suppose, with him being labelled favourite for the title so early, but it was still present. The Agassi win at Queens must have impressed many people, I saw that match and the support was definitely for the older American throughout but I think they were quelled into silence by Roddick's serving.

Deboogle!.
01-12-2004, 01:16 AM
Interesting.... I mean, Andy is the quintessential mid-western American jock boy with a big heart, competitive spirit, and two different personalities (one for on the field and one for off). That's what I liked best about this article was that it highlighted that he's not always the way he acts on court.

I'm beyond trying to figure out why people don't like Andy and I don't care. I just think it's too bad a lot of people here wouldn't even be able to read a great article like this with an open mind.

Sjengster
01-12-2004, 01:18 AM
Interesting.... I mean, Andy is the quintessential mid-western American jock boy with a big heart, competitive spirit, and two different personalities (one for on the field and one for off). That's what I liked best about this article was that it highlighted that he's not always the way he acts on court.

I'm beyond trying to figure out why people don't like Andy and I don't care. I just think it's too bad a lot of people here wouldn't even be able to read a great article like this with an open mind.

Well I could give you some reasons why I dislike him without resorting to "because he's so arrogant" and "typically American", but I suspect that isn't what you want to hear in a Roddick fan forum. ;)

The bottom line is, there are always going to be reasons for people to dislike a player no matter how successful or talented they are - look at Dirk's complete incomprehension in another thread on here that somebody could not like Federer, to which Naldo responded that he just didn't feel much enthusiasm for him. Perfectly understandable, and vice versa in Roddick's case. I could try a similar tack to Dirk's and ask GM at large why people could possibly dislike Schalken, but I might not get the answer I was hoping for. :p

J. Corwin
01-12-2004, 01:20 AM
I personally would like to read about your thoughts, Sjengster. I don't care if it's a Roddick fan forum or not. ;)

Deboogle!.
01-12-2004, 01:22 AM
haha no not really. I meant that sort of rhetorically anyway. I know why people don't like him but I guess since I'm quite "typically American" and quite proud to be, I like those things about him. Arrogance is a different matter as it's more subjective. I actually see him as pretty insecure, though his confidence is growing lately, and I guess arrogance isn't why I'd like or dislike a player anyway. We all have different tastes and that's what makes it interesting but there's a difference between liking things that are to your taste and being closed to anything that might be outside of that.

:shrug: whatever.... this was too good an interview/article to turn into a thread about people disliking Andy! It highlights many of the reasons why I DO like him, so....yeah... :)

star
01-12-2004, 01:28 AM
Well I could give you some reasons why I dislike him without resorting to "because he's so arrogant" and "typically American", but I suspect that isn't what you want to hear in a Roddick fan forum. ;)

The bottom line is, there are always going to be reasons for people to dislike a player no matter how successful or talented they are - look at Dirk's complete incomprehension in another thread on here that somebody could not like Federer, to which Naldo responded that he just didn't feel much enthusiasm for him. Perfectly understandable, and vice versa in Roddick's case. I could try a similar tack to Dirk's and ask GM at large why people could possibly dislike Schalken, but I might not get the answer I was hoping for. :p

Please!! There can't be anyone who dislikes Schalken! I'm shocked at the thought.

Sjengster
01-12-2004, 01:32 AM
Well... no. 1, I always get irritated by huge domination of the tour by one player when it's not my favourite player doing it (and it never has been so far...). The hard-court season became somewhat repetitive and tedious for me, watching Roddick triumph at virtually every tournament, although he did have the decency to lose to one of my favourites en route even though he returned the compliment quickly at the US Open. It just felt like a return to the Sampras days of old, but with a little more persona this time (not something that has ever attracted me to a player, to be honest - the top few in my signature aren't exactly known for their sparkling characters).

Then there is the big-serving style, which is alternatively boring (as in the US Open final, when during the first and second set Roddick was reeling off ace after ace and Ferrero looked as though he was tanking his return games because he couldn't get a racket to the ball) or else frustrating, because you see an opponent often come up with a great point or superior rally to get to an important breakpoint only for it to be erased in a matter of seconds. This is, of course, one of the reasons why Roddick is now such a great player and a large part of his success, but it doesn't mean I have to enjoy it...

And then of course there is this winning ugly thing he has inherited from Gilbert, as witnessed in a number of matches last year where he was matchpoint down (Agassi, Fish, Nalbandian) and despite in some cases being the inferior player pulling out the victory. This is something that always irritated me about Hewitt in his dominating days, largely because he always did it against guys I wanted to see win, and in many ways Roddick is similar since he wins a lot of big matches through the force of his personality and his determination rather than through playing the better tennis. It is of course an admirable quality, and one that a lot of other top players could do well to follow, but it still infuriates me when you see someone like Coria outplaying him at the Masters Cup and then completely collapsing in the last set from a winning position just because he was overawed and intimidated (I don't mean overtly) by Roddick and the situation).

Phew! You've probably heard that lot before, but at least I didn't say "Hopefully Rodduck drops down to 10 000 next year" or some similarly enlightening criticism of his game...

star
01-12-2004, 01:32 AM
I can see lots of reasons why people might not like Andy. That's not a mystery to me. I have friends who don't like him. What I don't understand is the vitriol and namecalling and calling his fans stupid for liking him. That's kind of crazy.

Sjengster
01-12-2004, 01:33 AM
haha no not really. I meant that sort of rhetorically anyway. I know why people don't like him but I guess since I'm quite "typically American" and quite proud to be, I like those things about him. Arrogance is a different matter as it's more subjective. I actually see him as pretty insecure, though his confidence is growing lately, and I guess arrogance isn't why I'd like or dislike a player anyway. We all have different tastes and that's what makes it interesting but there's a difference between liking things that are to your taste and being closed to anything that might be outside of that.

:shrug: whatever.... this was too good an interview/article to turn into a thread about people disliking Andy! It highlights many of the reasons why I DO like him, so....yeah... :)

Ah. Unfortunately you were posting this while I was in the middle of spewing out my reasons for disliking Roddick further down the thread. Just ignore 'em if you're so inclined. :)

star
01-12-2004, 01:35 AM
I think the reasons for really liking or disliking someone are usually emotional rather than logical so it doesn't really matter as long as people aren't mean about it.

I'm sure Spadea has devoted fans. :)

star
01-12-2004, 01:36 AM
Also people saying that he doesn't have any talent. That's a little nutty.

Sjengster
01-12-2004, 01:39 AM
I think the reasons for really liking or disliking someone are usually emotional rather than logical so it doesn't really matter as long as people aren't mean about it.

I'm sure Spadea has devoted fans. :)

Oh, certainly. I mean, the whining at umpires? The yelling full tilt to pump crowds and himself up? That infuriatingly ugly, wristy forehand? Don't get me started... Now that is my suppressed emotional reaction. ;) Not something I would try and use to make a serious case against Roddick, though.

Spadea is a privilege to watch on the court, to quote Becker he plays tennis like they used to play... down the local asphalt court at the park with wooden rackets about thirty years ago.

Deboogle!.
01-12-2004, 01:42 AM
I can see lots of reasons why people might not like Andy. That's not a mystery to me. I have friends who don't like him. What I don't understand is the vitriol and namecalling and calling his fans stupid for liking him. That's kind of crazy.

EXACTLY. Amen. :worship:

sjengster, I understand all of those reasons and none of them bother me in the least. I don't like it when one player dominates either, which is why I haven't watched the WTA much since the Williams sisters came onto the scene. I guess I didn't feel that Andy's one summer would result in him being completely dominant like that, and clearly that hasn't been the case lol. Andy's always played with a lot of heart and will-to-win since he was a kid and was too small to win any other way lol. As for the winning ugly stuff, well I don't know. I guess that either just doesn't bother me or I haven't really noticed it. Aside from a little bit better volleying and a bit better of a backhand, the only place Andy's really changed is between the ears. And I think Brad's had more of a calming influence on him than anything else in that department. The Coria match in particular, there are probably several reasons why Andy one... but one of them certainly was that Andy played 4 incredible games of tennis.

There are plenty of players I don't like for various reasons. I just don't make it a daily cause of mine to insult them, especially becuase I know they have fans here, and if there were an article about one of them similar to this one, I would certainly read it and think about it with an open mind, but I really do think that's beyond many of the people here at MTF who dislike Andy so intensely. It's pretty much what star said, there's disliking and then there's it turning into a visceral hatred rife with namecalling and perhaps the worst, personal insults towards his fans. and that I've just given up trying to comprehend.

star
01-12-2004, 01:45 AM
Yes, but usually the people who complain about Andy's antics have favorites who are equally guilty.

For instance, I don't care for Marat's racket smashing and generaly foul mood on the tennis court. But I do like his interviews.

Spadea, excuse me, is not a privilege to watch. I've watched him far too much. His whole manner draws one in to a huge negative void where the tennis will never end. There is no sparkle, no life. And don't get me started on his service motion.

Deboogle!.
01-12-2004, 01:46 AM
I agree about the forehand, but it bothers me more in a sense of I hope Andy doesn't get hurt because of it lol

whining at umpires? He doesn't whine, he screams his head of and is a smartass LOL. and I love what he says lol...I suppose it's frustrating because he's actually right a fantastic majority of the time. But I suppose I can see why the way he does it would be irritating whereas I just think it's funny. I wish it wouldn't get him to the point of distraction but his emotion is one thing I love. Plus, he's nowhere near as bad as people like Jimmy, Mac, and early Agassi..... and if you want whining (sorry to their fans), Coria (even though I like him) and Nalbandian are pretty good at that lol.

star
01-12-2004, 01:48 AM
Now when has Coria ever yelled at a linesman or an umpire?

:armed:

Deboogle!.
01-12-2004, 01:49 AM
yelled? no... but he can be a little whiny at times lol. but he's still cute as a button :)

star
01-12-2004, 01:50 AM
I wish Andy wouldn't yell at the umpire or the linespeople. They are only doing their jobs as best they can. I can see getting angry sometimes, but I don't think that anyone should be personally insulted. That crosses the line, imo. Course, Andy isn't the only player that crosses that line. I don't think it's funny. It embarasses me.

Deboogle!.
01-12-2004, 01:53 AM
I've read several places he apologizes afterwards. And I guess I'm someone who can't really hide it when I have something to say, so I understand that he can't really help it. I wish he wouldn't do it too, because it affects his play. But he hasn't matured enough to know any better way to deal with it yet, I don't think.

MisterQ
01-12-2004, 01:54 AM
Plus, he's nowhere near as bad as people like Jimmy, Mac, and early Agassi.....

True, but they were pretty bad. They were out of line at the time too. But their greatness as players, and in some cases a maturing of their personality, has overshadowed that.

Deboogle!.
01-12-2004, 01:58 AM
True, but they were pretty bad. They were out of line at the time too. But their greatness as players, and in some cases a maturing of their personality, has overshadowed that.

yep... and Andy is only 21 so I should hope he will continue to mature. He's already better than he was a couple of years ago, so it seems likely that he'll continue to do so, just as they did. And they haven't all gotten past it... Johnny Mac is still pretty good at speaking his mind without a whole lot of thought first.

star
01-12-2004, 01:59 AM
McEnroe and Connors never did get over it, did they?

I've seen both of them do outrageous things that players now would never even think of doing. Horrible awful things. Connors was just more mean. Sometimes McEnroe seemed to be mentally unbalanced.

Nastase too.

star
01-12-2004, 01:59 AM
Speaking one's mind is a lot different than yelling at people.

MisterQ
01-12-2004, 02:00 AM
That's why I said "in some cases". ;)

star
01-12-2004, 02:01 AM
lol

Deboogle!.
01-12-2004, 02:01 AM
Speaking one's mind is a lot different than yelling at people.

well not when what's on your mind is being really angry at someone who made a mistake that cost you a game or a set lol. And anyway I'm not saying what he does it "right," just that I understand that he might have trouble preventing himself.

Dirk
01-12-2004, 02:09 AM
I still stand by my Federer comments. If you don't like his tennis than your not tennis fans. As for Schalken, something needs to be said about a man who is a master of no pace and yet does very well on fast surfaces (grass, hardcourt). I enjoy his game and don't find it boring. He is one of those awkward cool players like Santoro. Andy no doubt will get better as many others will but I disagree with him on JC being so dominate on clay. JC has never had a "Guga" or "Muster" like year yet so I think JC is more vulnerable on clay than some tennis fans think (just don't rat me out on the JC forum) Andy's serve % went down in the semi at wimbly because of Roger's returning. Andy's serving % was his highest in the whole match during the 3 set when Roger broke him twice. I do think the key will be making his serve smarter like Brad said and giving himself more options with it.

Deboogle!.
01-12-2004, 02:11 AM
who said they didn't like Roger's tennis? I just don't like watching him because it snoooooozes me. As star said it's much more an emotional reaction than anything else. As for everything else you said, I agree.

star
01-12-2004, 02:12 AM
Yes, Dirk. We know. Federer is great and Andy isn't able to do anything against him when he is playing well, and there is no reason for Andy even to step on the court with him. We all agree that the only time when Andy has a sniff at beating Federer is if he had some bad plankton for dinner. OK?

And one can admire someone's tennis without ever liking that person. God knows, I managed to do it for years with Sampras. So please don't bother to say that I'm not a tennis fan, because I've probably been a tennis fan longer than you've been alive.

J. Corwin
01-12-2004, 02:13 AM
I still stand by my Federer comments. If you don't like his tennis than your not tennis fans. As for Schalken, something needs to be said about a man who is a master of no pace and yet does very well on fast surfaces (grass, hardcourt). I enjoy his game and don't find it boring. He is one of those awkward cool players like Santoro. Andy no doubt will get better as many others will but I disagree with him on JC being so dominate on clay. JC has never had a "Guga" or "Muster" like year yet so I think JC is more vulnerable on clay than some tennis fans think (just don't rat me out on the JC forum) Andy's serve % went down in the semi at wimbly because of Roger's returning. Andy's serving % was his highest in the whole match during the 3 set when Roger broke him twice. I do think the key will be making his serve smarter like Brad said and giving himself more options with it.

I disagree. I can be a fan of tennis and still not like his particular style of play. I respect his tennis abilities and I usually like to watch him when he doesn't make a slew of unforced errors (applies to every player). I personally am more attracted to baseline tennis. So does that make me any less of a tennis fan? I don't think so.

star
01-12-2004, 02:13 AM
Sorry! Sort of lost my temper there a little bit. :)

But I stand by what I said. :lol:

J. Corwin
01-12-2004, 02:15 AM
Yes, some like his tennis but not his personality. I, however, probably don't like either. But I like his game over his personality anyday.

Dirk
01-12-2004, 02:15 AM
As for agreeing. I agree with everything Andy said about Roger. Roger needs to stop being a softy european and learn to "WIN WIN WIN" That is the main reason Aussie and USA owns men's tennis. Losing matches because you get too bore (along with other things especially when your up) is inexcusable when your one of the most gifted players to ever come out of the sport.

Deboogle!.
01-12-2004, 02:16 AM
aww star it's ok :hug: lol

and for me it's not even that I don't like Roger as a person, I think he's a fine human being (however odd it might be that he has a fragrance line lmfao)...he just doesn't pull me in in any way, and I need that to stay interested.

star
01-12-2004, 02:19 AM
I like him fine. I'm just not a fan.

I like him better than some people and less than others. :)

J. Corwin
01-12-2004, 02:19 AM
Different strokes (pun intended) for different folks.

Deboogle!.
01-12-2004, 02:20 AM
LOL Jace!! and yes star, that's exactly the way I feel. I'm rather indifferent towards Roger actually.

Dirk
01-12-2004, 02:24 AM
I only wrote that part about Roger's returning Andy's serve at Wimbly cause in the interview it was written in a way to suggest that Andy's service dropped because of Andy alone. I never said that Andy couldn't beat Roger is Roger was playing well. In the future he may be able to do that. Andy as of now competes better than Andy and that goes a very long way (just ask Hewitt). If you love baseline tennis Jackson just watch every Roger point when he missed his 1st serve, he rarely serves and volleys on 2nd serve. Hell in Houston he rarely served and volleyed on his 1st serve. As for his personally, you don't like him why cause he doesn't pander to the people during the match, not enough antics for you? Roger has to provide lite entertainment to keep your eyes open? I suggest you hire a fucking clown in that case or just watch Andy. :rolls: Sorry I couldn't resist. Please don't throw the "hater" tomatoes at me. ;)

Deboogle!.
01-12-2004, 02:29 AM
oh come on... that really was not necessary.

I can watch almost any tennis match and like it, but for me to get involved to the point where I sit on the edge of my seat dying to know what's happening, I have to be pulled in emotionally. And Roger just doesn't do it for me.

J. Corwin
01-12-2004, 02:35 AM
I only wrote that part about Roger's returning Andy's serve at Wimbly cause in the interview it was written in a way to suggest that Andy's service dropped because of Andy alone. I never said that Andy couldn't beat Roger is Roger was playing well. In the future he may be able to do that. Andy as of now competes better than Andy and that goes a very long way (just ask Hewitt). If you love baseline tennis Jackson just watch every Roger point when he missed his 1st serve, he rarely serves and volleys on 2nd serve. Hell in Houston he rarely served and volleyed on his 1st serve. As for his personally, you don't like him why cause he doesn't pander to the people during the match, not enough antics for you? Roger has to provide lite entertainment to keep your eyes open? I suggest you hire a fucking clown in that case or just watch Andy. :rolls: Sorry I couldn't resist. Please don't throw the "hater" tomatoes at me. ;)

You see, I'm totally fine with your post until that last part. Hire a clown or just watch Andy? I take that as direct attack on me personally (and Andy as well), but it's more of the attack on me that I don't like.

Do realize that everyone has different tastes and not everyone must like Roger and dislike Andy because of their personalities. And did I say I liked Andy because of his antics? No. So stop putting words in my mouth. Sorry, but not everyone lives in your world.

Deboogle!.
01-12-2004, 02:35 AM
Jace... :worship:

Dirk
01-12-2004, 02:36 AM
I just have a problem with people who can't enjoy tennis itself and need to be simulated it other ways to follow the action. If I mislabel anyone here with that then sorry, :sad: but I get irked by those kinds of fans. I think that is why the sport is not bigger because a lot of fans are too causal and causal fans are never reliable when it comes to buying or supporting a product.

star
01-12-2004, 02:36 AM
I only wrote that part about Roger's returning Andy's serve at Wimbly cause in the interview it was written in a way to suggest that Andy's service dropped because of Andy alone. I never said that Andy couldn't beat Roger is Roger was playing well. In the future he may be able to do that. Andy as of now competes better than Andy and that goes a very long way (just ask Hewitt). If you love baseline tennis Jackson just watch every Roger point when he missed his 1st serve, he rarely serves and volleys on 2nd serve. Hell in Houston he rarely served and volleyed on his 1st serve. As for his personally, you don't like him why cause he doesn't pander to the people during the match, not enough antics for you? Roger has to provide lite entertainment to keep your eyes open? I suggest you hire a fucking clown in that case or just watch Andy. :rolls: Sorry I couldn't resist. Please don't throw the "hater" tomatoes at me. ;)


You know what? You have blinders on if you think there are reasons that people might not like Federer other than thinking that they want some sort of entertainment dressed up in a clown suit as you so sweetly put it. There is no reason to come in here and insult Andy. No one here has ever insulted Federer. You keep asking for reasons that I or others might not like him, and I prefer not to say, because I don't want to make it a personality thing.

For your information as as you already know, I have had many quiet and unassuming players as my favorites. Borg and Edberg many times were accused of being boring. I never found them boring, but if others did, so be it. So you know, if you don't want tomatoes thrown at you, don't throw them at others.

J. Corwin
01-12-2004, 02:37 AM
I must have made a mistake when I said Dirk posts maturely. ;)

Dirk
01-12-2004, 02:42 AM
Why is everyone so upset? You don't like Roger's personality cause he doesn't show much during the match, but you like Andy cause he does show a lot during the match? Now what form does that take? Arguing with the umpire and playing to the crowd? Am I missing something here? Maybe I need some clarity on exactly what he does personality wise that turns you all on.

Deboogle!.
01-12-2004, 02:43 AM
Dirk, I'd consider myself a relatively casual fan of tennis, at least up until this past summer. But I still have always liked all types of players from all nationalities who play with all different styles. Just because I wasn't a big enough fan til recently to want to spend my hard-earned money on a tournament didn't make me any less of a fan. I can't help it if I'm bored unless I'm emotionally involved. It's not just the case for tennis, I have to be drawn into movies and books and music and tv shows all the same way.

and yea, Amen to what star said about tomatoes. Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

and please Dirk don't include us all in the same. I don't have issue with Roger's personality. I just don't really get into watching him play. and yes, players who pump up the crowd succeed with me. Oh well, crucify me, I buy into it, it gets me into it and gets me pumped up and I can't help that lol

star
01-12-2004, 02:43 AM
I just have a problem with people who can't enjoy tennis itself and need to be simulated it other ways to follow the action. If I mislabel anyone here with that then sorry, :sad: but I get irked by those kinds of fans. I think that is why the sport is not bigger because a lot of fans are too causal and causal fans are never reliable when it comes to buying or supporting a product.

If a sport doesn't have casual fans and fans that want entertainment, the sport will die. Sports are entertainment.

We're not talking world peace here or anything that is serious in the least. Sports are just a passtime and they are meant for enjoyment. No one said that they needed to be stimulated in someother way to follow the action. If I'm watching Federer play, I'm happy to watch him play. If I'm going to become his fan, I need more. I need to feel some sparkle and life. I became a Coria fan the first time I saw him play, not because he was acting up on the court, because he was very quiet, but because his tennis was entertaining.

J. Corwin
01-12-2004, 02:45 AM
I just have a problem with people who can't enjoy tennis itself and need to be simulated it other ways to follow the action. If I mislabel anyone here with that then sorry, :sad: but I get irked by those kinds of fans. I think that is why the sport is not bigger because a lot of fans are too causal and causal fans are never reliable when it comes to buying or supporting a product.

Did I say I didn't enjoy the tennis itself? No. Again, you assume things. And you assumed wrong.

WyverN
01-12-2004, 02:45 AM
Personally I prefer the Federer/Sampras personality type players compred to the Hewitt/Roddick type.

But I become a players fan 90% due to their tennis, not their personal life, personality, looks or whatever else.

To say someone is not a tennis fan because they dislike Federer's tennis game is totally wrong.

It would be more fair to say someone is not a tennis fan if they don't appreciate some of the amazing shots Federer sometimes does (2nd set Wimbledon v Andy, at set point) but in the same way it can be said someone is not a tennis fan if they don't appreciate Andy's amazing serving and forehand.

Dirk
01-12-2004, 02:47 AM
Causal fans are just short term jolts for any industry. You need to create a loyal fan base. A big part of that is influencing the the fans to be fans and not support something for shallow reasons. I am not accusing anyone here of doing that but I know it exists far more than it should.

Deboogle!.
01-12-2004, 02:48 AM
So I loved Pete and I also love both Andy and Hewitt... so where does that leave me? lol just kidding.

Pete 'did it' for me. I loved how he played with his heart on his sleeve even if he wasn't vocal about it, you still knew what he was feeling and I loved that subtle honesty. Why can't I get into Roger's matches, I don't know?! But sure, I appreciate his abilities.

star
01-12-2004, 02:49 AM
Why is everyone so upset? You don't like Roger's personality cause he doesn't show much during the match, but you like Andy cause he does show a lot during the match? Now what form does that take? Arguing with the umpire and playing to the crowd? Am I missing something here? Maybe I need some clarity on exactly what he does personality wise that turns you all on.

What you don't get, and apparently never will get is that people don't have to justify why they do or don't like somebody. They just do. I have reasons that I like Andy other than just his tennis, but if you had read anything on this thread you would know that I don't like him because he argues with umpires etc. Everybody, I am sure has different reasons for liking or disliking Andy.

You can't argue someone into being someone's fan. And please understand for once and for all that NO ONE said that they didn't like Federer. I think almost everyone here likes him to a greater or lesser extent. I like Federer fine. I'm just not a fan. You know, maybe it's because he wears black shoes.

Dirk
01-12-2004, 02:52 AM
Clearly I hit a nerve here and maybe the anger over it is because to an extent it is true. I just won't understand most of you and you won't understand me, but at least I respect your player so I can't be all that bad.

Deboogle!.
01-12-2004, 02:53 AM
Causal fans are just short term jolts for any industry. You need to create a loyal fan base. A big part of that is influencing the the fans to be fans and not support something for shallow reasons. I am not accusing anyone here of doing that but I know it exists far more than it should.

So I was a casual fan for about 21 years and I became a loyal tennis fan. And it was because of Andy's summer run, pretty much, that made me want to learn about the rankings and the different tournaments and how it all works.

I understand what you mean Dirk, but I don't really agree. If Andy can gain popularity in the US in mainstream, whether it's from being mentioned on Access Hollywood for going out with Mandy to a movie premiere or appearing in Rolling Stone or Vanity Fair or chatting it up with Reeeeeeeeeg, if even one person turns on tennis because of that selling to the entertainment aspect and keeps turning it on over and over, then I think it's worthwhile. And it's because of the combination of his personality/charisma and looks that put him in that position. Just be glad he's willing to accept it and work WITH tennis to expand the exposure...if he didn't, I think that'd be a tragedy. Tennis needs help in the US for the reasons you've laid out, but Andy is someone who can help and I think that's fantastic. I hope the other cute young guys like James, Mardy, Robby, etc. keep having good results, too, so that they can help tennis in this country as a group. I think nothing better could be for the sport. But if they were a bunch of ugly boring dudes, it wouldn't even be possible. That's terribly sad, but I perceive it to be the unfortunate truth.

WyverN
01-12-2004, 02:53 AM
Bunk, this is about you disliking federer
Perhaps it is Roger's mentality. With Pete and Andy, even though they have very different personalities, you could never question either players will to win, their effort was always 110%.

With Federer it really does seem like he isn't really giving it his all and if he only raised his concentration a little bit he would win on a far more regular basis.

Federer could easily win another 10 slams in his career but I can easily see him wasting his talent as well and winning no more slams, with Roddick you just know his going to win around 5-6.

star
01-12-2004, 02:54 AM
Causal fans are just short term jolts for any industry. You need to create a loyal fan base. A big part of that is influencing the the fans to be fans and not support something for shallow reasons. I am not accusing anyone here of doing that but I know it exists far more than it should.

There isn't any "should" to it at all. If someone wants to support someone because of shallow reasons, who cares? It's TENNIS. It's not a presidential election.

Loyal fan bases are built out of casual fans looking in because of something that catches the eye perhaps in a shallow way, they become interested and keep on watching. And if the interest is shallow, but the fan keeps on watching and keeps on buying tickets, it doesn't matter that the reasons for the support is shallow.

I mean it's sports. It's shallow to begin with. There's no depth to sports except to those who play for a living. What about it isn't shallow?

It's not literature or art or music.

J. Corwin
01-12-2004, 02:55 AM
Causal fans are just short term jolts for any industry. You need to create a loyal fan base. A big part of that is influencing the the fans to be fans and not support something for shallow reasons. I am not accusing anyone here of doing that but I know it exists far more than it should.

Good that you're not accusing anyone here of being a casual fan or a fan that supports "something for shallow reasons".

I am far from the casual fan, FYI. I can watch a college match on TV and won't even think of turning to a different channel. I tape just about every single match I see on TV, regardless of who's playing.

star
01-12-2004, 02:56 AM
Clearly I hit a nerve here and maybe the anger over it is because to an extent it is true. I just won't understand most of you and you won't understand me, but at least I respect your player so I can't be all that bad.

Well, that is something to the good. You respect Andy, you just don't respect his fans. :lol:

I understand you perfectly. You think that everything should be based on logic and reason, but it just isn't and you kid yourself if you think that even you reach decisions soley on that basis.

star
01-12-2004, 02:57 AM
Bunk, this is about you disliking federer


I could just scream!

Bunk never said she disliked Federer.

Deboogle!.
01-12-2004, 02:57 AM
Bunk, this is about you disliking federer
Perhaps it is Roger's mentality. With Pete and Andy, even though they have very different personalities, you could never question either players will to win, their effort was always 110%.

With Federer it really does seem like he isn't really giving it his all and if he only raised his concentration a little bit he would win on a far more regular basis.

Federer could easily win another 10 slams in his career but I can easily see him wasting his talent as well and winning no more slams, with Roddick you just know his going to win around 5-6.

you know, Wyver, we don't always agree but I think you hit the nail on the head with this one. And again, I don't dislike Federer, I just really don't care. And perhaps that's why.

star
01-12-2004, 02:58 AM
Good that you're not accusing anyone here of being a casual fan or a fan that supports "something for shallow reasons".

I am far from the casual fan, FYI. I can watch a college match on TV and won't even think of turning to a different channel. I tape just about every single match I see on TV, regardless of who's playing.

Yeah. you even watch tapes of matches that you've already seen. :)

Deboogle!.
01-12-2004, 02:59 AM
I could just scream!

Bunk never said she disliked Federer.


LOL Star :hug: :kiss: we posted at almost the same time lol

It's ok though b/c I actually quite agreed with what he said this time lol.

WyverN
01-12-2004, 02:59 AM
Good that you're not accusing anyone here of being a casual fan or a fan that supports "something for shallow reasons".


What do you think of tennis fans who become a fan of a player based 100% on their looks, there are quite a few on MTF and I am not talking about Roddick fans specifically

star
01-12-2004, 03:01 AM
Wyver, you actually had a reaonable post. I could quibble about a few things in it, but it doesn't detract from the fact that it was reasonable.

star
01-12-2004, 03:02 AM
LOL Star :hug: :kiss: we posted at almost the same time lol

It's ok though b/c I actually quite agreed with what he said this time lol.
Yeah me too, except for the number of slams thing. :)

WyverN
01-12-2004, 03:02 AM
I could just scream!

Bunk never said she disliked Federer.

I meant dislike in comparison to Sampras/Roddick.

What the hell is the big deal on MTF about using words such as "like"/"dislike" :rolleyes:

I thought it was perfectly clear what I meant if you read the rest of my post.

star
01-12-2004, 03:05 AM
So I was a casual fan for about 21 years and I became a loyal tennis fan. And it was because of Andy's summer run, pretty much, that made me want to learn about the rankings and the different tournaments and how it all works.

I understand what you mean Dirk, but I don't really agree. If Andy can gain popularity in the US in mainstream, whether it's from being mentioned on Access Hollywood for going out with Mandy to a movie premiere or appearing in Rolling Stone or Vanity Fair or chatting it up with Reeeeeeeeeg, if even one person turns on tennis because of that selling to the entertainment aspect and keeps turning it on over and over, then I think it's worthwhile. And it's because of the combination of his personality/charisma and looks that put him in that position. Just be glad he's willing to accept it and work WITH tennis to expand the exposure...if he didn't, I think that'd be a tragedy. Tennis needs help in the US for the reasons you've laid out, but Andy is someone who can help and I think that's fantastic. I hope the other cute young guys like James, Mardy, Robby, etc. keep having good results, too, so that they can help tennis in this country as a group. I think nothing better could be for the sport. But if they were a bunch of ugly boring dudes, it wouldn't even be possible. That's terribly sad, but I perceive it to be the unfortunate truth.

Tennis players better reach out to the public if they want to continue to have a healthy sport.

The ATP exists today because a group of players went out and barnstormed and promoted and entertained the public. They built a fan base from the ground up.

J. Corwin
01-12-2004, 03:06 AM
What do you think of tennis fans who become a fan of a player based 100% on their looks, there are quite a few on MTF and I am not talking about Roddick fans specifically

I don't have anything against people who become tennis fans because of someone's looks. In fact, I agree with Deb that if it brings more fans to the game, then so be it. It's a good thing, IMO, for the sport.

I just said what I said because I don't become fans of players because of their looks. And Dirk by and large rants about me being a casual "shallow fan" (perhaps)...and then AGAIN he would be putting words in my mouth.

Deboogle!.
01-12-2004, 03:06 AM
What do you think of tennis fans who become a fan of a player based 100% on their looks, there are quite a few on MTF and I am not talking about Roddick fans specifically

I think it's too bad but I think it's better than if they didn't watch at all.

and yes wyver, I understood what you meant about disliking Federer.

star, what did you disagree about with the # of slams? just curious :)

star
01-12-2004, 03:07 AM
I meant dislike in comparison to Sampras/Roddick.

What the hell is the big deal on MTF about using words such as "like"/"dislike" :rolleyes:

I thought it was perfectly clear what I meant if you read the rest of my post.


If I might suggest: In order to make yourself clear, you might have said the reason you are not a fan......... rather than the reason you dislike.

I like most players, but I'm a fan of only a few.

J. Corwin
01-12-2004, 03:07 AM
Tennis is a sport. And sports, afterall, is entertainment to the general public.

tangerine_dream
01-12-2004, 03:07 AM
Yes, Dirk. We know. Federer is great and Andy isn't able to do anything against him when he is playing well, and there is no reason for Andy even to step on the court with him. We all agree that the only time when Andy has a sniff at beating Federer is if he had some bad plankton for dinner. OK?

And one can admire someone's tennis without ever liking that person. God knows, I managed to do it for years with Sampras. So please don't bother to say that I'm not a tennis fan, because I've probably been a tennis fan longer than you've been alive.

Star! :bowdown: You should lose your temper more often. ;) :lol:

WyverN
01-12-2004, 03:07 AM
Yeah me too, except for the number of slams thing. :)

number of slams in relation to Roddick or Federer or both?

star
01-12-2004, 03:07 AM
star, what did you disagree about with the # of slams? just curious :)


Please. It's not even worth discussing.

Deboogle!.
01-12-2004, 03:09 AM
lol ok... I was just curious for your opinion :)

and TANGY there you are!!!!!!!!!

star
01-12-2004, 03:10 AM
Star! :bowdown: You should lose your temper more often. ;) :lol:

Yeah, except now I've got a headache and feel like I've been screaming. :)

WyverN
01-12-2004, 03:11 AM
If I might suggest: In order to make yourself clear, you might have said the reason you are not a fan......... rather than the reason you dislike.

I like most players, but I'm a fan of only a few.

fair enough, point taken

J. Corwin
01-12-2004, 03:12 AM
Dirk, you do NOT know what and why I like or dislike certain things.

End rant.

star
01-12-2004, 03:12 AM
I was trying to think if I had ever become a fan based 100% on looks. Nope. Don't think so.

I become a fan based soley on nationality though. ;)

WyverN
01-12-2004, 03:14 AM
cant keep up here, 10 posts every minute lol

Deboogle!.
01-12-2004, 03:14 AM
yea star, you and your Beloved Swedes ;)

and I understand... I'd still like Andy, Mardy, and James no matter where they were from, but I don't think I'd care for Robby all that much if he weren't American lol

star
01-12-2004, 03:14 AM
and TANGY there you are!!!!!!!!!

Yeah. Tangy is probably laughing her head off reading this whole thing.

J. Corwin
01-12-2004, 03:15 AM
There isn't a right or wrong way to like a player. :)

star
01-12-2004, 03:15 AM
cant keep up here, 10 posts every minute lol

Ya gotta be quick to hang with the Andy fans.

star
01-12-2004, 03:17 AM
There isn't a right or wrong way to like a player. :)

:worship:

So true. The heart can not be divined.

But ultimately, it's the tennis that draws us all and if it weren't for the enchantment of the game, none of us no matter how violently we disagree, would be here.

star
01-12-2004, 03:19 AM
yea star, you and your Beloved Swedes ;)

and I understand... I'd still like Andy, Mardy, and James no matter where they were from, but I don't think I'd care for Robby all that much if he weren't American lol

What about Dent?

tangerine_dream
01-12-2004, 03:20 AM
*tsk, tsk* What a shame that a great article about Andy and his tennis is once again hijacked by some of the more unstable Fed fans and has turned a thread about ANDY into being all about ROGER. :confused:

What's very interesting (and telling) to me is that some Fed fans are absolutely incensed over Andy. And why is that? Because Andy "stole" the No. 1 ranking from the MOST NATURALLY TALENTED AND BRILLIANT PLAYER OF THE 21ST CENTURY !!!!

Answer this: if the Fed Freaks are so confident that Roger is "better" than Andy and so much more "superior" to Andy, then why do they feel the need to trash Andy and/or his fans? Why aren't they just complacent in the knowledge that Roger is great and will have his day in the No. 1 sun, too? Explain THAT one to me, because I've never seen any of the Andy fans trash Fed or his fans. So what makes the Fed fans so insecure and defensive, hmm?

Personally, I love watching both Fed and Roddick's games. They are both so different that I find their dynamic fascinating and they are both immensely talented in different ways. I love that Roger and Andy also have a lot of respect for each other. Too bad the fans can't follow suit. ;)

MisterQ
01-12-2004, 03:21 AM
I don't really want to jump into the fray too much because I like both players, and frankly I'm indifferent to the whole thing. But I did want to say each player possesses a distinct "energy," which is somehow palpable to the spectators, even through a TV screen. That's a great mystery of human behavior imo --- how we automotically intuit the intensity and type of energy that another person has. They don't even need to "do" anything --- even if Roddick was completely silent, he would have a very different energy from Federer. And fans will respond differently to the two, even if their behavior is identical.

To create an analogy in my own field, two of the greatest pianists of the 20th century were Vladimir Horowitz and Arthur Rubinstein. They were a last gasp of Romanticism in a very Modern time. Both attracted huge crowds, and both were absolute masters. But their performances could not have been more different. Rubinstein created a warm and comfortable atmosphere. His performances were intimate, relaxed and warm. He was known as a tremendously sensitive player. But Horowitz was another matter. His playing was absolutely electric, almost neurotic. The audience sat there in total suspense waiting for what virtuosic flourish he might pull out next. But it's not like he actually DID anything physically to create this effect -- in fact he sat more still and concentrated than most other pianists. It was just this terrifying energy he had.

Sorry for the spiel, but it's a similar case of contrasting temperments.

Btw, I always preferred Horowitz.

Deboogle!.
01-12-2004, 03:21 AM
What about Dent?

hmmmm dunno. I love how much he serve-volleys but other than that I'm not really familiar enough with him. I don't know that I find him terribly exciting though lol. I like his style of play though, just because it's so different from what's out right now, so I probably would like him no matter what. bur Robby's just... blah.

Deboogle!.
01-12-2004, 03:23 AM
Q, I LOVE your analysis!

and Tangy.... I'm just sitting here shaking my head laughing lol

J. Corwin
01-12-2004, 03:26 AM
I love the analogy you brought up, Q.

tangerine_dream
01-12-2004, 03:28 AM
and TANGY there you are!!!!!!!!!

Yah, here I am! :hug: I just signed on for a quick peek and what do I step in? More Roger vs. Andy shit! :lol:

Deboogle!.
01-12-2004, 03:30 AM
well you like them both, why don't you weigh in ;)

tangerine_dream
01-12-2004, 03:32 AM
Great analogy, Q! :yeah:

star
01-12-2004, 03:33 AM
I don't really want to jump into the fray too much because I like both players, and frankly I'm indifferent to the whole thing. But I did want to say each player possesses a distinct "energy," which is somehow palpable to the spectators, even through a TV screen. That's a great mystery of human behavior imo --- how we automotically intuit the intensity and type of energy that another person has. They don't even need to "do" anything --- even if Roddick was completely silent, he would have a very different energy from Federer. And fans will respond differently to the two, even if their behavior is identical.

To create an analogy in my own field, two of the greatest pianists of the 20th century were Vladimir Horowitz and Arthur Rubinstein. They were a last gasp of Romanticism in a very Modern time. Both attracted huge crowds, and both were absolute masters. But their performances could not have been more different. Rubinstein created a warm and comfortable atmosphere. His performances were intimate, relaxed and warm. He was known as a tremendously sensitive player. But Horowitz was another matter. His playing was absolutely electric, almost neurotic. The audience sat there in total suspense waiting for what virtuosic flourish he might pull out next. But it's not like he actually DID anything physically to create this effect -- in fact he sat more still and concentrated than most other pianists. It was just this terrifying energy he had.

Sorry for the spiel, but it's a similar case of contrasting temperments.

Btw, I always preferred Horowitz.


I like them both..... but even as old as I am, I never actually saw them play in person. Horowitz is very nice in recordings. :) But maybe Rubenstein is nicer for Chopin.

Loved the spiel by the way. What's the saying don't hate the spieler; hate the spiel? no, maybe not.

MisterQ
01-12-2004, 03:38 AM
Rubinstein is a better Chopin player --- he's Polish! He gets the rubato just right. And he's more relaxed about it. Horowitz's Chopin is somewhat "affected" --- but also tremendously interesting and exciting, I think.

Horowitz is most amazing at Scarlatti, Liszt, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, and miniatures of Romanticists like Schumann, imo.

star
01-12-2004, 03:43 AM
Well, I've always heard that Chopin must be played with heart. Perhaps it was Rubinstein who said that.

I also liked some wonderful Russian piano player... of a more recent vintage said that The Russian composers were perhaps not the best composers, but that if you did not like them you had no heart.

So who is your current favorite pianist?

MisterQ
01-12-2004, 03:47 AM
I love the playing of Glenn Gould and Sviatoslav Richter, but they are not with us anymore. :sad:

Of current pianists there are many I do not know of course, but I love Martha Argerich, Richard Goode, and Yevgeny Kissin.

And I don't know who said your great quote --- could it be Richter? --- but it's so true!

star
01-12-2004, 03:47 AM
I like Beethoven for Piano.

And these Brahms intermezzos....... I love those. I can listen to them over and over and over. One time I played them as I was driving for 6 or 7 hours. nothing else. Just that over and over again.

And Listz. He was my first piano favorite as I struggled to play a dummed down version of a piece.

You need to give me a list of music that I must buy. Piano music that is.

star
01-12-2004, 03:49 AM
I like Glenn Gould.

I'm sure you've seen that documentary done about him.

Richter. I always think of booming chords.

I don't know the ones you listed, but I will look for them.

star
01-12-2004, 03:51 AM
And I don't know who said your great quote --- could it be Richter? --- but it's so true!

I want to say that it was someone starting with a V. He was living in Switzerland. I saw him during an interview on television. That comment stuck with me.

MisterQ
01-12-2004, 03:54 AM
Richter is famous for his "Pictures at an Exhibition" recording, which of course features countless booming chords, lol!

Martha Argerich is Argentinian. She has been around for a while. Tremendously passionate, but plays a very select repertoire of pieces which she gets to know very well.

Richard Goode is one of the great interpreters of Beethoven in particular. Have seen him live playing an all-Beethoven program, which was great.

Yevgeny Kissin was the astonishing Wunderkind who made all the papers and news shows when he gave a debut in Moscow at the age of like 11, playing all the hardest Romantic repertoire. Unlike most prodigies, he has matured into a real artist, a throwback to the Romantic tradition. Saw him play in Vienna, it was great. He's in his late twenties now.

My, we have gotten :topic: !

Deboogle!.
01-12-2004, 03:54 AM
lol yes you have... but, better this than arguing.

MisterQ
01-12-2004, 03:54 AM
I want to say that it was someone starting with a V. He was living in Switzerland. I saw him during an interview on television. That comment stuck with me.

Could it be Vladimir Ashkenazy?

Deboogle!.
01-12-2004, 03:59 AM
lol all these Jewish names... it's cracking me up something fierce!!!!!!

star
01-12-2004, 04:00 AM
I think it could. I was thinking about him.... not that I could spell his name...... but I had this idea of a V in my mind.

Did he live in Switzerland?

star
01-12-2004, 04:01 AM
lol all these Jewish names... it's cracking me up something fierce!!!!!!


See, I grew up in an area where there were no jews and no one thought or talked of jews. So, I formed my own stereotypes, and my stereotype was that jews were all fabulous musicians and music lovers.

Imagine my disappointment when that one was shattered. :)

MisterQ
01-12-2004, 04:02 AM
lol all these Jewish names... it's cracking me up something fierce!!!!!!

LOL!

It's true though.

An awful lot of great virtuoso pianists and violinists have been Jewish, and many are also Russian.

star
01-12-2004, 04:03 AM
Is Gould a "jewish" name.

People have tried to teach me these things, but I don't seem to learn.

MisterQ
01-12-2004, 04:04 AM
I think it could. I was thinking about him.... not that I could spell his name...... but I had this idea of a V in my mind.

Did he live in Switzerland?

Gotta be him! Looked it up, and he has lived in Switzerland since 1982. And he's very famous. :cool:

Deboogle!.
01-12-2004, 04:05 AM
I'd say it is, star. Not one of the "definite" ones, but yeah. most likely.

but certainly ending in Stein is, and Horowitz or anything similar is, and Ashkenazi is a type of Jew so anything spelled similar to that would have to be Jewish.. lol

actually... most Jews I know DO love music. My dad LOVES classical music and has quite a record (yes, record) collection. But yea, every Jewish friend of mine that comes to mind is a huge fan of some sort of music. I don't know if that's a coincidence or not lol

J. Corwin
01-12-2004, 04:07 AM
Hmmm. Very interesting. I have a good friend that's Jewish. But he absolutely dislikes music. He'd never listen to a cd or the radio for leisure.

star
01-12-2004, 04:10 AM
Well, let me tell you I have met jews who have no interest in music whatsoever.

For instance, I can't imagine raising a child without the child learning a musical instrument... preferably the piano and another one. But, I have a very good jewish friend who thinks that is stupid and there is no reason for music education whatsoever. Her daughter was drawn to the piano, and took piano lessons. They never bought her a proper piano, and she had to practice on a player piano!! Judy couldn't understand that there was any difference or why she might want to spend some money buying a proper piano for her daughter who took piano lessons for 10 years without any parental encouragement at all.

And there are other stories, but that's the most egregious one.

MisterQ
01-12-2004, 04:10 AM
Hmmm. Very interesting. I have a good friend that's Jewish. But he absolutely dislikes music. He'd never listen to a cd or the radio for leisure.

He must be a closet gentile!

Deboogle!.
01-12-2004, 04:11 AM
there, just pop the balloon of the theory why don't you? LOL

star
01-12-2004, 04:11 AM
Gotta be him! Looked it up, and he has lived in Switzerland since 1982. And he's very famous. :cool:

Then it WAS him!!

He was so sweetly apologetic about Russian composers even as he defended them. :)

MisterQ
01-12-2004, 04:12 AM
I'm proud of us for figuring that out, star.


*pat on back*

Deboogle!.
01-12-2004, 04:13 AM
Wow that is very interesting, I definitely don't know any Jews like that.... however I don't really think there's a correlation between religion and propensity to like music lol

star
01-12-2004, 04:15 AM
I'm not very musical, but I grew up in a musical family. One of my great uncles made violins. My aunts were both music majors. It was assumed that I would be able to play the piano, but....... I was never any good. A sad disapointment. Violin was also a dismal failure.

star
01-12-2004, 04:15 AM
I'm proud of us for figuring that out, star.


*pat on back*

Well, you were really the one who figured it out. :)

MisterQ
01-12-2004, 04:18 AM
Wow that is very interesting, I definitely don't know any Jews like that.... however I don't really think there's a correlation between religion and propensity to like music lol

I agree, bunk, that there is not a connection due to religion. But historically speaking, I think there has been a tendency for Jews to populate Urban areas, and also a stess within the family on education, which has led to a very large number of great Jewish musicians. There are too many historically, at least within the classical music field, for it to be total coincidence.

On a related note, the Broadway musical would be almost inconceivable without the contributions of Jewish composers. One of the early great musical theater composers, Jerome Kern, when asked what kind of music he would write for his musical "Showboat" (set in the deep rural south and featuring African-Americans), he said "good Jewish music!" LOL

star
01-12-2004, 04:18 AM
There is a study about the effects on the brain of a young child who plays the piano, and it is different than anyother sort of keyboarding. It enhances the child's understanding of mathematics and lots of things. This is exposure abut age 3 or 4... younger than most children start on the piano.

J. Corwin
01-12-2004, 04:19 AM
Well, let me tell you I have met jews who have no interest in music whatsoever.

For instance, I can't imagine raising a child without the child learning a musical instrument... preferably the piano and another one. But, I have a very good jewish friend who thinks that is stupid and there is no reason for music education whatsoever. Her daughter was drawn to the piano, and took piano lessons. They never bought her a proper piano, and she had to practice on a player piano!! Judy couldn't understand that there was any difference or why she might want to spend some money buying a proper piano for her daughter who took piano lessons for 10 years without any parental encouragement at all.

And there are other stories, but that's the most egregious one.

Such a sad story. I highly admire those who actively persevere in learning to play an instrument even when their situation is against such. The will, the love, the passion, the determination...

star
01-12-2004, 04:19 AM
I agree, bunk, that there is not a connection due to religion. But historically speaking, I think there has been a tendency for Jews to populate Urban areas, and also a stess within the family on education, which has led to a very large number of great Jewish musicians. There are too many historically, at least within the classical music field, for it to be total coincidence.

On a related note, the Broadway musical would be almost inconceivable without the contributions of Jewish composers. One of the early great musical theater composers, Jerome Kern, when asked what kind of music he would write for his musical "Showboat" (set in the deep rural south and featuring African-Americans), he said "good Jewish music!" LOL

Yes. I don't think it is a coincidence.

Not gentic, but probably cultural.

star
01-12-2004, 04:19 AM
Gershwin!

J. Corwin
01-12-2004, 04:22 AM
I agree, bunk, that there is not a connection due to religion. But historically speaking, I think there has been a tendency for Jews to populate Urban areas, and also a stess within the family on education, which has led to a very large number of great Jewish musicians. There are too many historically, at least within the classical music field, for it to be total coincidence.

On a related note, the Broadway musical would be almost inconceivable without the contributions of Jewish composers. One of the early great musical theater composers, Jerome Kern, when asked what kind of music he would write for his musical "Showboat" (set in the deep rural south and featuring African-Americans), he said "good Jewish music!" LOL

There definitely is an association, and therefore correlation. But association is not causation of course.

star
01-12-2004, 04:22 AM
Such a sad story. I highly admire those who actively persevere in learning to play an instrument even when their situation is against such. The will, the love, the passion, the determination...

Yes, I spoke once with Michelle's piano teacher who was a lovely older woman. She was greatly saddened that Michelle didn't have a piano. It wasn't that the family couldn't afford one. They could have easily gotten her a fabulous piano....... they sent her to Stanford for 4 years and medical school after that, and didn't blink an eye.

star
01-12-2004, 04:24 AM
Hasn't this thread had a lovely tangent?

I credit Mister Q. :)

Deboogle!.
01-12-2004, 04:24 AM
that's true Q, there definitely IS a religious/cultural relationship between Jews and education. This may explain why so few Jews go into the armed forces anymore. We're expected to go to college, period.

I didn't play an instrument (well I shouldn't say that, I tried to play both Keyboard/piano and clarinet but just totally sucked), but I did sing a lot and also was just introduced to music of all kinds.... I remember my dad playing Madonna and the Nutcracker CDs when I was little!

I dunno... it's interesting though. Someone should do a real study lol

Deboogle!.
01-12-2004, 04:27 AM
hahahaha tangent is right.... so, how about Andy crapping his pants after winning USO!!? ;)

star
01-12-2004, 04:28 AM
I think that the origins were probably because at one time jews were banned from a number of common ways of making a living, hence the flowing into professions that were not so well thought of at the time..... medicine, law, theater, music.

Of course there were musicians who hid their ethnic origins as well. wasn't Mahler one of these?

J. Corwin
01-12-2004, 04:28 AM
That friend of mine who doesn't like music one bit is ushered and expected to do well at school...very well. So the relationship between Jews and education is very evident for me.

Dirk
01-12-2004, 04:30 AM
Time to come back into this. I've never doubt Andy's career or was even upset with him being number one. Roger had his chances and blew it. As for Roger's head, yeah he still has issues, his game is still too big for his mind at times and he doesn't have the heart on his sleeve that others have, but he has risen in the rankings year per year and has gotten much better. To say he will never win another slam is a bit stupid and ignorant to his career thus far. Still your entitled to your opinion. The fans here are mad cause I said one little thing in jest and suddenly everyone is offended. Its not my fault Andy's antics have created him a dislikable reputation just like its not your fault Roger isn't as driven as he should be. I will try to make this my last post on the topic. I do respect most of the fans here bythe way.

Deboogle!.
01-12-2004, 04:31 AM
that's true star, we spent a whole unit in my Jewish identity class last year on why Jews are associated with money. Other groups weren't allowed to trade money or borrow or lend so Jews were forced into banker positions. It was all quite interesting! (read: Merchant of Venice).

MisterQ
01-12-2004, 04:31 AM
Gershwin!

Yes! (I love Gershwin)

And Jerome Berlin, Irving Berlin, Richard Rogers, Oscar Hammerstein II, Lorenz Hart, Kurt Weill, Stephen Sondheim, Stephen Schwartz, etc......! all Jewish

MisterQ
01-12-2004, 04:33 AM
wasn't Mahler one of these?

yes, he was!

J. Corwin
01-12-2004, 04:35 AM
that's true star, we spent a whole unit in my Jewish identity class last year on why Jews are associated with money. Other groups weren't allowed to trade money or borrow or lend so Jews were forced into banker positions. It was all quite interesting! (read: Merchant of Venice).

I think I're read that one. Shakespeare? (I can come out of this one sounding completely ignorant and idiotic)

My Jewish friend, btw, is highly frugal. I won't say stingy, miserly, or parismonious, as they do carry a negative connotation.

Deboogle!.
01-12-2004, 04:37 AM
yes Shakespeare :)

and my dad is outright cheap. Yes, I have seen him calculate 15% on a tip to the penny :o The absolute stereotypical epitomy of the Jewish miser. and I HATE it lol.... as my mom says "if you don't spend your money, it all goes to HER (and she points at me)" LOL!!!!!!!!

But I know plenty of Jews who spend money like it's nobody's business. One of my best friends from home is Jewish and he works two jobs whenever he's home just to keep up with his spending habits lol

star
01-12-2004, 04:45 AM
Oh yes. I think that is a very hurtful stereotype.

I knew a fellow who was stung by that idea. He couldn't understand where it came from. He said that in his dealings, he noticed that it was always the jewish guys who were reaching for the check.

But I think it comes from this money lender history.

The money lenders were also in a precarious position because they didn't have full legal rights either and if the borrower was an aristocrat, it was difficult to get the money back unless the money lender had already taken posession of the collarteral prior to making the loan.

star
01-12-2004, 04:55 AM
And as for tipping, I know a woman... last name Levin... who insists on tipping a waitress more if the bill is small. For instance, you might spend $120 on a meal and leave 24/25 dollars for a tip, but when you go to a small cafe and the bill is only $20, she likes to leave a $10 tip or more because she thinks the waitress there needs just as much money to live and anyway because the bill was small, that just leaves more left over to tip. :)

I kind of like that.

MisterQ
01-12-2004, 04:56 AM
I would like to thank you all for a delightful conversation this evening. I have had a disappointing, completely unproductive day, but this is in part because we were discussing something which is at least somewhat intellectually stimulating.

Good night, when we meet again it will be 11 weeks!

Deboogle!.
01-12-2004, 04:59 AM
that's an interesting story, star!!

and nightnight Q, sleep well :) sooooooooo close to 11 weeks right now, though, only 2 minutes!!!

Havok
01-12-2004, 04:59 AM
:yawn: Dirk:yawn:
sheesh not everyone on the entire planet has to like Roger. do i like watching him, no he bored the utter crap out of me. why you ask? well i just don't like that olden day style of tennis. i like power and bashing from the baseline, doesn't make me a lesser fan of tennis one bit. just like music, i can be a fan of music, but detest certain types of music. same thing applies here. i don't have to like everyone because i like certain ways of playing tennis. quite frankly thank god for this new version of tennis because this olden day boring crap tennis was just that boring. and must you always be enraveled with this Andy/Roger fiasco??? we don't have to like you favorite player, as you don't have to like ours. BUT do you see us creating threads, posting in threads, going into his own players section and bash him? NO! why? because we respect people, just don't like their games thats all. a little respect goes a long way buddy:wavey:

star
01-12-2004, 05:01 AM
Good night everyone.

2hours yet for me.

ELF WEEKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :woohoo:

Deboogle!.
01-12-2004, 05:10 AM
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

I learned that I don't have class til 3pm tomorrow.... so I can stay up all night!!!!! Well not really, but for a while longer anyway ;)

Havok
01-12-2004, 05:14 AM
i still have another 10 days off :p

Deboogle!.
01-12-2004, 05:20 AM
yea but when will you be done in May? ;)

Dirk
01-12-2004, 05:22 AM
Naldo there is a thread here called Andy vs. Roger. That is why I came here to begin with and to reply to this interview. If you don't like golden olden tennis than you have no respect for the sport. Roger's style is a refreshing throwback. He is a modern player mixed with a classic player. You don't have to like anyone, but your ignorance is exactly why the sport is suffering. Too much superficialness. I don't like Andy's tennis but he is good for the sport especially in the American because he is very marketable. He deserves to be where he is. I rather have him as number one than Hewitt, because Andy's game even though I don't like it reeks of number one much more so than Hewitt's game. I've always been fair with Andy. But be honest Naldo, don't you admire the fact that a player can with their olden golden style of the game compete and be very successful in the modern age and more than handle all of that power bashing from the baseline?

WyverN
01-12-2004, 05:35 AM
quite frankly thank god for this new version of tennis because this olden day boring crap tennis was just that boring.

Tennis was far more popular in the 80s when "olden day boring crap tennis" was the norm.

btw fascinating piano discussion

Prophetic
01-12-2004, 07:10 AM
um....

Great article, lmfao
DAYUM this thing got pulled off topic but it was an amusing read to say the least.

I'm staying out of it.

star
01-12-2004, 01:20 PM
I was going to write a whole reply, but Dirk has been told time and time again that his dogmatic statements are disrespectful and generally false, so I guess I should save my breath.

Anyway, I liked talking about the piano much more. But, what can one expect from a shallow person with no respect for tennis. ;)

Havok
01-12-2004, 03:58 PM
Naldo there is a thread here called Andy vs. Roger. That is why I came here to begin with and to reply to this interview. If you don't like golden olden tennis than you have no respect for the sport. Roger's style is a refreshing throwback. He is a modern player mixed with a classic player. You don't have to like anyone, but your ignorance is exactly why the sport is suffering. Too much superficialness. I don't like Andy's tennis but he is good for the sport especially in the American because he is very marketable. He deserves to be where he is. I rather have him as number one than Hewitt, because Andy's game even though I don't like it reeks of number one much more so than Hewitt's game. I've always been fair with Andy. But be honest Naldo, don't you admire the fact that a player can with their olden golden style of the game compete and be very successful in the modern age and more than handle all of that power bashing from the baseline?
ok Dirk once again, how do i not have respect for the game? just because i didn't like the olden day style of it doesn't mean i'm disrespectful towards it. case in point, i can't stand britney spear/christina aguilera, pink, just to name a few singers, does that mean i have no respect for the music indusrty? no, on the contrary, i like music. just because i don't like one form/style of it doesn't mean i don't tlike it as a whole. and again why am i ignorant. if i WAS ignoratn i would be saying Roger sucks, he isn't a good player, etc. to my knowledge i have never said that, and also if i were ignoratn i would say that Roddick is the most talented player out there, that he doesn't have weaknesses, etc. have i said that either? no. so don't tag me as ignorant. and also it IS pretty cool that Roger is up there with the best of them with his more so than others olden day style tennis, but he can still bash from the baseline and does it quite often;) you can't survive in today's tennis without power from the baseline. Roger just has a shitload of other things he can pull off, which helps him:)

tangerine_dream
01-12-2004, 04:31 PM
Wow, thanks for the music/piano/Jewish money history lesson guys! That was quite fascinating. :worship:

Deboogle!.
01-12-2004, 04:56 PM
lol tangy we are glad to oblige your intellectual curiousity ;)

tangerine_dream
01-12-2004, 08:49 PM
Hey, I think I just kinda answered my own question as to why the Fed fans are so nasty when it comes to other players. ;) Check this article out. (btw, in my opinion, the Match of the Year to beat will always be the Roddick vs. Al Anayoui match at AO. Why? Because it wasn't one-sided the way Fed's two brilliant matches were.) Anyways, here's the article:

It Doesn't Hurt So Much
Dilip D'Souza - January 12, 2004 - 10:14 IST

One-sided matches in tennis, or any sport, are rarely interesting to watch. So why the widespread delight among tennis watchers over Roger Federer's demolition jobs on Andy Roddick and Mark Phillippousis to win Wimbledon last year? Or his stellar play as he crushed Andre Agassi to win the Grand Slam Cup in November, capping a week of sensational play?

Simple: because Federer played incandescent tennis, in some ways tennis reminiscent of years gone by. And when you're watching incandescence, the steamrolling doesn't matter. Ask a tennis junkie to pick ten favourite matches from the last couple of decades, and I will bet at least one, maybe two, matches like that -- one-way all the way -- will make her list.

Well, one certainly makes my list. (None of Federer's, though they are close).

That's because of what went into that match. Tot it up. Two players who are, at the time, clearly the best in the world and playing that way, playing their best against each other. Two players with completely contrasting styles of play. Not just in the way they approach the game, but also in how they look while playing. One is all brutal power; solid, heavy shots hit with great strength from anywhere on the court; an admirably efficient, muscular game, but with not a thing elegant or attractive in it. The other has power too, but also grace and finesse; gazelle to his opponent's bull, he seems not so much to run about the court as to glide swiftly.

And when the gazelle wins -- not just wins, but pounds the bull into submission -- and you've seen it happen, you know you've watched something special indeed. Tennis at its sublime and athletic best; tennis of a quality, style and elan that players reach only once or twice in a lifetime. And because one of the two has reached it this day, you don't mind, don't even notice, that their match turns into a one-sided rout.

So it was when Stefan Edberg faced off against Jim Courier in the final of the 1991 US Open. Courier made a name for himself with his dedication, work ethic and consistency -- these were things in him that any player should admire and emulate. But admirable as those qualities were, he had possibly the world's ugliest strokes: in particular, a forehand that looked like a baseball batter's wild swing at a pitch. Yet you knew he could stand there all day and belt that ugly thing out, time after numbing time, a metronome with a Head Pro. Truly, Courier was a clubber. World-class, but a clubber.

Edberg, on entirely the other hand, defined tennis elegance. It began with his serve, a thing of beauty. Not a lot of speed in it, but the man could kick it, angle it, swing it, and all with the same smooth, handsome action. Just as smooth, he would follow it in to the net, moving effortlessly into place to put away the volley. He had a silken quality to his game that, when he was on, made him not just the best player in the world to watch, but the best player, period. The extraordinary thing was, his elegance had everything to do with the levels he could reach. When he played like that, you would back Edberg to beat anyone among his contemporaries, and many either side of him as well.

That day in New York, Courier came up against that Edberg. Courier had had a splendid tournament, and must have known he was playing close to his best tennis. Only, that day it was not good enough by several miles. Edberg touched perfection right away, and, astonishingly, got better as the match went on. The sign of that -- though of course by then Courier was probably demoralized too -- was the score in the third set: 6-0.

Yes, three quick sets, 6-2, 6-4, and an exclamation point 6-0. Edberg*dominated from the opening shots. He served magnificently, returned better, prowled the court, camped at the net and let not one pounded Courier special get past that sweetly angled racket. In fact I almost like to think Courier wasn't actually demoralized at the end. When you're losing to such artistry, maybe it doesn't hurt so much.

Courier had his revenge -- he beat Edberg in the next two Australian Open finals -- but that did not lessen the lustre of this Edberg performance, this Edberg masterclass. And though Edberg stayed at the top of the game for a few more years -- he defended that US Open title in 1992, playing several stirring matches on the way -- he never reached this height again.

The 1991 mangling of Courier saw a great player at his peak. Edberg himself considers it his best match. Nobody in tennis could have stayed with him that day; certainly nobody in tennis could have beaten him. Hell, nobody in tennis could play this gorgeous, scintillant tennis.

Every now and then, tennis sees a performance like that. In 2003, Federer turned in a few. He may not yet be in Edberg's class, but Federer's game is so attractive because it is a throwback to times when elegance, finesse and grace had a place in tennis.

One of those times, of course, came when the most exquisite artist of them all roamed the courts. The 1984 Wimbledon final saw John McEnroe at the sort of peak Edberg climbed in 1991. In that match, he was similarly destructive -- elegant and breathtakingly creative, therefore destructive*-- of Jimmy Connors. Two years earlier, Connors had ground out a fizzing, contentious, blood-and-glory five-set title victory over McEnroe. But this time, there would be no repeat. Three quick sets, all sweet timing and velvet wrists, and Connors was left to wonder what whispering beast had trampled him into the lush grass.

Connors, oddly enough, figures in another of the kind of matches I'm writing about, again at the Wimbledon final. This was 1975. Across the net was Arthur Ashe, and again, this was a Connors loss.

Using strokes struck so hard you feared for the ball, yet struck with demonic accuracy, Connors had dominated Wimbledon, and tennis, for two years. So in 1975, only a fool would have bet against Connors defending his 1974 Wimbledon title. In 1975, Ashe was that fool.

Ashe had decided a few things that year: he was the best player without a Wimbledon title and it was time to win, he had figured out the way to beat Connors, and he was going to do both. With fierce, single-minded concentration, he played a game foreign to his own feared power, a game that had Connors befuddled. All caress, placement and touch, Ashe ran
through the first two sets, 6-1, 6-1.

Still, this was Wimbledon, this was Connors. Pumping his fists in fury, flinging everything into his shots, Connors willed himself back into the match, taking the third set 7-5 and charging to a 3-0 lead in the fourth. But this day, Ashe could not, would not, be denied. He kept knocking, stuck firmly to his game plan, then suddenly swept past his man, closing out the fourth, and the match, 6-4.

As the writer Richard Evans observed, Ashe managed to 'dismantle the powerfully welded structure of Connors' game as a skilled engineer might defuse a bomb.' What's left to say?

And curiously, Ashe-Connors '75 brings us full circle to Edberg-Courier '91. For one thing, it was Ashe who identified the moment of the '91 match, the point that summed it all up: one more fine Courier shot that got him just nowhere. With Edberg serving at 4-4, 15-30 in the second set, Courier had a small opening. In The New York Times, Ashe wrote:

Edberg spun in a second serve to Courier's two-handed backhand, which he nailed crosscourt. From knee-high level, Edberg deftly side-spun a backhand volley just inside Courier's forehand sideline for a clean winner. Courier just smiled the smile of resignation. ... It was [his] last stand. He didn't win another game.

For another thing, that 1991 US Open will forever be remembered not for Edberg's lights-out display in the final, but for Connors. At 39, an age when other stars begin fading from the veteran's circuit, Jimbo made a run to the semifinals. On the way, he pulled out two five-set, old-time,*come-from-behind, four-and-a-half hour, rip-roaring wins, over Patrick ('the other') McEnroe and Aaron Krickstein, both well over a decade younger. In the semis, Connors ran into Courier, whose blistering firepower proved too much to handle. Still, it was indisputably Connors' tournament. Edberg only laid on the icing.

And yet, perhaps that's the way to best remember that match. Icing.

URL for this article:
http://www.rediff.com//news/2004/jan/12dilip.htm

Dirk
01-12-2004, 10:53 PM
Thanks for the edberg article. Boiled Egg would piss himself if he saw it. :lol:

Chloe le Bopper
01-12-2004, 11:14 PM
Hey, I think I just kinda answered my own question as to why the Fed fans are so nasty when it comes to other players.

Pot? Is that you? If you have a moment, I'd like for you to meet a buddy of mine, Kettle! He's the dude in black. You see him? Over there? Yeah, that's him!

J. Corwin
01-12-2004, 11:34 PM
Thanks for the article OJ.

star
01-13-2004, 12:24 AM
Nice article about one of my all time faves. :)

p.s. send it by pm to Eggy, pretty please. :)

MisterQ
01-13-2004, 12:36 AM
Pot?

You'll find plenty of this in the "Pass The Bong" thread. ;)

J. Corwin
01-13-2004, 01:20 AM
Well I'm not the only one with the constant use of "pot". ;)

tangerine_dream
01-13-2004, 01:23 AM
You'll find plenty of this in the "Pass The Bong" thread. ;)

:haha: Q strikes again!

heya
01-13-2004, 01:31 AM
:rocker2:

star
01-13-2004, 02:04 AM
Pot?

Have we succesfully tangented again? :)

*takes a hit

Jag
01-14-2004, 11:36 AM
Ugh, y'know, I CANNOT be bothered to read all the pages but UGH! You got it before I got it and I LIVE in the UK!! I READ the Times and you got it before me!! *pouts* lol kidding All hail Bunk :P

Deboogle!.
01-14-2004, 04:30 PM
LOL girl!!!!!!!!!

J. Corwin
01-15-2004, 03:04 AM
Deb is just that good!

Deboogle!.
01-15-2004, 03:04 AM
*bows* I do what I can :p

J. Corwin
01-15-2004, 03:15 AM
RO is privileged to have you as part of the staff. :)

Deboogle!.
01-15-2004, 03:17 AM
awwwwwww *blushing*

J. Corwin
01-15-2004, 03:23 AM
Just so you know, I do check up on the news too. lol But you post every Andy news article there is to post before I get to it. You're a few hours ahead of me and you get up way earlier than me...so by the time I post anything (if anything) it will be 5-7 hours later, lol.

I got your back though. I'll post anything that you miss. ;)

Deboogle!.
01-15-2004, 03:35 AM
LMGDFAO thanks Jace :) I know tangy checks the news wires too

Jag
01-15-2004, 12:10 PM
I'm hours ahead of ALL of you WHEREVER you live in the US and I STILL miss it all! It's because I don't go online in the evenings though, that's why :P

J. Corwin
01-15-2004, 12:13 PM
Well you should go online more then, Ice....I mean, Jag.

J. Corwin
01-15-2004, 12:13 PM
Do you still have that alias thing going?

Prophetic
01-15-2004, 12:26 PM
Maybe she's fateless today, lol

Jag
01-15-2004, 01:50 PM
Firstly, I can't go online in the evenings because the folks won't let me - this year is mad ass important if I'm going to do anything with my life after high school so they're kinda strict about this year's net access.

Secondly, lmfao, to quote Em and Proph, I am whatever you say I am.

J. Corwin
01-15-2004, 10:46 PM
It's all good...Fateless.

star
01-16-2004, 04:41 AM
Feckless

Jag
01-16-2004, 10:44 AM
Confused much.

star
01-16-2004, 01:27 PM
Faultless

Jag
01-16-2004, 01:39 PM
I take it we're no longer talking about me lmao - I'm not faultless