Mens Tennis Forums banner

Do you want to see dominating players win Slams or different players?

  • Yes, I want to see dominating players win Slams, like in the past, Agassi, Sampras, Connors, McEnroe

    Votes: 40 51.3%
  • No, I like to see different players win Slams, like Johannsen and Costa, and no one dominating

    Votes: 38 48.7%

  • Total voters
    78
1 - 20 of 71 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,752 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
I based my question on this AP article:


Men's game missing a dominating player

WIMBLEDON, England (AP) — The Williams sisters are so accustomed to being in Grand Slam finals that they had a camera at the ready for the trophy ceremony when Serena beat Venus at Wimbledon.
Winning a major title was all so new to Roger Federer that he broke down in tears a few times in the minutes after defeating Mark Philippoussis.
And therein lies the big difference between men's and women's tennis at the moment: The women have a pair of dominant players — who happen to be from the same family — while the men keep spreading the wealth.
A case could be made that both are good for the game's popularity.
Rivalries and dynasties tend to help sports attract fans, and you get two for the price of one with Team Williams. Some might argue, however, that there is something to be said for new matchups and changing champions, which keep the sport fresh.
The truth is, though, that individual sports need someone at the fore, a Tiger Woods or a Martina Navratilova, for example.
Someone whose majesty attracts even casual fans.
"Tennis needs a clear hierarchy," three-time Wimbledon champion Boris Becker wrote in yesterday's Times of London. "It needs players of talent who are seen to dominate."
Serena and Venus have played each other in five of the past six major finals, with Serena winning each time. Going back to Wimbledon in 2000, the sisters have claimed nine of the past 13 Grand Slams. Only two other players won a major in that span: Jennifer Capriati and Justine Henin-Hardenne.
When Henin-Hardenne beat fellow Belgian Kim Clijsters in the French Open final, the TV ratings were 39 percent lower than for last year's all-Williams matchup there.
Now take a look at the men's game, where everyone seems to get a turn. Federer is the seventh player to win in the past seven Grand Slams, one shy of the Open era record set in the 1970s and equaled last year.
Not too many people in the United States have heard of Federer — and that number didn't get much larger Sunday. His 7-6 (5), 6-2, 7-6 (3) victory over Mark Philippoussis drew the lowest overnight rating on record for a Wimbledon men's final.
The question now is whether Federer can take the next step and become a consistent champion, a la Pete Sampras (record 14 majors) or Andre Agassi (eight majors, including a career Grand Slam). Or will he be a one-hit wonder like Marat Safin [:eek: Marat is only 23, isn't it too early to write him off?], who seemed destined to collect a slew of majors when he broke through for his first at the 2000 U.S. Open but hasn't followed up?
As for Federer, John McEnroe said, "This could open the door for him for many, many more, other majors — not just Wimbledon."
Becker gushed, too.
"The leader of the pack is Roger Federer, the man who always knew he would be the best in the world and is ready to take over for a long time," Becker wrote.
What's remarkable about Federer's game is that he does everything well. He might not have one particular overwhelming skill — a 140 mph serve, say, or the game's most dangerous forehand — but there is nothing he can't do if needed to win a match.
In his victory over Philippoussis and a straight-set semifinal win over Andy Roddick, Federer serve-and-volleyed, won rallies from the baseline and smacked volleys from the backcourt. He even outaced those two big servers by a combined 38-18 and showcased returning skills on a par with Agassi or Lleyton Hewitt.
Most important for his future success, Federer pushed aside all those questions about whether he could perform on the biggest stages and fulfill the promise he showed by stopping Sampras' 31-match winning streak at Wimbledon two years ago.
"He always has had the great game, and he had the burden of so much talent to carry. Any time you have somebody that's talented and doesn't win, when you do win, it's like: 'It's about time. How come you haven't won before?' It's that monkey off the back," Navratilova said. "When you win here, you think you can win anywhere."
Serena Williams, like Federer just 21, already owns six Grand Slam titles (her first came at the 1999 U.S. Open). Only Steffi Graf (nine) and Monica Seles (eight) won more majors by a similar age, and Navratilova had just one by that time.
"If Serena keeps training hard and really gets some technical glitches out of her game, which is pretty scary," Navratilova said, "then she'll be the greatest of all time."
And that would only help tennis.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,225 Posts
We already have domination on the WTA with four players - Serena, Justine, Venus, and Kim - winning everything. I like the variety and depth of the ATP Tour.

Btw, these recent articles on Federer and the New Balls have totally sucked. Bad writers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,319 Posts
definately non dominating players...i reckon tennis is great as it is from a tennis mad fan's point of view...obviously not ideal for casual fans or ratings and money and all that but personally i dont care so i think its a lot better to have the depth in the ATP that it has at the moment
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,411 Posts
no on dominating! in WTA, it's ENOUGH!!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,699 Posts
I'm not really interested in a single player's domination. I would like to see a group of about six of the best develop all court, all surface games and duke it out year 'round. I also like the occasional dark horse and the "who-is-that-guy-playing-the-tournament-of-his-life?" winner.

I've got to agree with Leo about the quality of the New Balls articles. They seem to be fluffy PR pieces. I'm not looking for an in depth dissertation on every player's strokes. But, I would like to read real updates and analysis from tennis journalists.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
73 Posts
It would be great to see the DOMINATOR dominate... but that's just my opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
258 Posts
I'd like to see some players dominating, with occasional upsets.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
258 Posts
200th post! :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,359 Posts
Interesting to see how Tennis Fool has emphasised the "nobodies" Johansson and Costa on the question, to try and alienate people from voting for different Slam winners.

I agree that the top players need to step up to the plate a little more, but we've seen that in Ferrero and Federer winning the last two Slams - now these two New Balls will be challenging Agassi for the no. 1 ranking for the rest of the year. And I would like to see a player manage to win several Slams over the course of the next few years, maybe even two in one year, but please not a return to the no. 1 v no. 2 of the Sampras-Agassi era. I don't think I could stand it if I looked at the draw at the start of every Slam and could instantly pick out the two finalists right at the start.

I've really enjoyed seeing the surprise runs of people like Schuettler and Verkerk this year in the Slams, rooting for them to go one further as they went deeper and deeper into the tournament. Just like Philippoussis at Wimbledon, however, they have all eventually been put firmly in their place in the final by a Top 5 player at the top of their game, so I can see the argument for dominating Slam winners if it produces better, more competitive finals. There's no guarantee that match-ups between the top players would produce that, of course...

BTW, I know he's only just won his first Grand Slam title, but isn't it a little worrying that most people in the U.S. haven't even heard of Federer? He's a Top 5 player, and as of now he has one more Slam to his name than a certain Andy Roddick, so why shouldn't he be every bit as well known? There's no reason why Agassi and Roddick have to be the only people the American public has heard of just because they're American. I'm sure they have the capacity to appreciate top foreign players, if ESPN gives them the opportunity to do so of course.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,699 Posts
Originally posted by Sjengster
BTW, I know he's only just won his first Grand Slam title, but isn't it a little worrying that most people in the U.S. haven't even heard of Federer? He's a Top 5 player, and as of now he has one more Slam to his name than a certain Andy Roddick, so why shouldn't he be every bit as well known? There's no reason why Agassi and Roddick have to be the only people the American public has heard of just because they're American. I'm sure they have the capacity to appreciate top foreign players, if ESPN gives them the opportunity to do so of course.
More than worrying, I find it extremely annoying. I keep hearing statistics that tennis is one of the least popular fan sports in the U.S. I think it's because the U.S. media plays up U.S. players to the detriment of the international angle. Of course I'm interested in how my countrymen are doing. But, I think it was a huge disservice to the viewing public to harp Andy as the front runner to win Wimbledon citing some bookie's odds. Tennis commentators kept whispering Federer like it was some dirty secret. Eventhough I like Andre and Andy, I also believe that the heavy attention they receive shorts other Americans.

I'm going to be miffed if I start hearing Federer too much as well. I don't want the pressure to hinder his beautiful game. I also know that there are still other contenders in the field. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that the media let the drama unfold without handicap.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,460 Posts
i dont mind dominating tennis, but not like it is in WTA. that's taking it toooo far. i would like to see 2 or 3 different Slam winner every year, meaning not the same Slam winner in one year. but i dont like it when big time losers win and are literally one hit wonders who cant even win anything else, let alone another Slam. but it seems like it's shaping out pretty good this year
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
I like dominating. I like the idea of someone who has just mastered their game, and then the rest of the field all taking a shot at him or her. Like a good karate movie, when all the bad guys try to beat the hero one at a time, and he just flicks them all away like gnats.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,276 Posts
You know what I found irritating (re: the media)? When asked who would contend for RG, Mary Carillo (among others) said something like "the Spaniards and Argentines". Another former player who was commenting for a country in Europe said that she thought "A Spaniard" would win RG. Well gee, thanks. There are what, 25 Spanish and Argentine players in the top 100? Would it kill you to give them their own identities?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,771 Posts
i'd like to see a cluster of players dominating, not a single player as in the Android era, but not a completely different and unexpected winner for each Slam either.

and TF i didn't participate before bec i also disagree with your highlighting Costa and Johannson. it read like a loaded question as a result.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,591 Posts
Naldo said:
i dont mind dominating tennis, but not like it is in WTA. that's taking it toooo far. i would like to see 2 or 3 different Slam winner every year, meaning not the same Slam winner in one year. but i dont like it when big time losers win and are literally one hit wonders who cant even win anything else, let alone another Slam. but it seems like it's shaping out pretty good this year
Naldo :hearts: :hearts: I agree :hearts: :hearts:

Also, I wouldn't mind if Roger won every other Slam from here on
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
i want to see players fulfilling their potential (well done for waking up Roger!) and if they dominate, then brilliant

as for the WTA tour, well i love it :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
258 Posts
SerenaJBlake said:
i want to see players fulfilling their potential (well done for waking up Roger!) and if they dominate, then brilliant

as for the WTA tour, well i love it :p
:lol:
Hi Sarah! :wavey:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
258 Posts
BTW, you got Srichaphan spelled all wrong.
And I didn't know you were a fan of Nadal's! :D
Nadal! :drool:
 
1 - 20 of 71 Posts
Top