[Tennis Fool]

Doesn't it look like we are having a generation of N(obodies), N(on-greats) these days?

Overhyped new balls do not perform as expected. The only one of them who more or less met expectation is Hewitt, but it looks like he is heading into some crisis as well. Safin can't get back on track. Ferrero looked promising at some Slams , but always finds the right time for a meltdown. Federer's mind and game is elsewhere. Sampras and Agassi play much less impressive tennis than they played 2-3 years ago, yet they won last two Slams. It starts more and more looking like this generation simply doesn't want. Previously, at any given time there were at least 3-4 active players who could be considered one of greats. But with Courier and Boris retired, we are left with two remaining dynosaurs and pretty much nobody after them. It is not their great form that keeps Agassi and Sampras from retiring. It's just that the form of whole tour is degrading quicker than the game of Andre and Pete is degrading with age. After they retire we could easily be looking into one-slam-wonder-fest for few more years.

Who could stop that? I hate to say that, but the only one from contemporary youngs that seems to be able to combine a tennis talent, physical power and mental determination to become a great player could be Roddick.

Y S, I COMPLETE AGREE with you, but as you will soon realize, our opinions of the failure of NBs is a minority on this board.

It's also funny to me that posters who say, "What are you talking about? Johannsens and Costas of the world, the journeymen of the ATP, they ARE GREAT for tennis" are the same ones with pictures of FERRERO, Safin, Roger, Haas in their messages. Hmmmm....

 

[Chloe le Bopper]

Perhaps your views are in the minority, because they are both negative and premature.

 

[Tennis Fool]

Well, between the old balls (over 30) and the new balls, we do have active players like Kuerten (26), Moya (26), Johansson (27) and Costa (27) who did manage to win a Slam or 2.

Honestly, I don't think saying Federer, Ferrero and/or Safin consider at the same talent level as Agassi is exageration. They probably don't have the mental toughness and/or confidence that Agassi has right now but Agassi didn't have them too at 22.

Sorry, Johannsen and Costa were considered journeyman on the ATP and not potential stars. Thus ,the disappointment of the Aussie Open officials over last year's tourney.

I agree with your second point.

 

[Chloe le Bopper]

It's also funny to me that posters who say, "What are you talking about? Johannsens and Costas of the world, the journeymen of the ATP, they ARE GREAT for tennis" are the same ones with pictures of FERRERO, Safin, Roger, Haas in their messages. Hmmmm....

Aren't you a fan of Roddick, Mr Objectivity?

 

[Chloe le Bopper]

I have a question for YS and Tennisfool -

If todays generation is such apparent crap, what are you watching for, when you could dip over to the WTA where you will be blessed with all time greats and potential greats?

 

[Lee]

Sorry, Johannsen and Costa were considered journeyman on the ATP and not potential stars. Thus ,the disappointment of the Aussie Open officials over last year's tourney.

I agree with your second point.

I never consider Johansson or Costa a nobody or journeyman in tennis. They are good players although they will never be great players. Do you also consider Goran a journeyman since he only win one Wimbly?

 

[TennisHack]

Sorry, Johannsen and Costa were considered journeyman on the ATP and not potential stars. Thus ,the disappointment of the Aussie Open officials over last year's tourney.

Oh, please, who died and made you god of the tennis world?

 

[Tennis Fool]

So we should all be compared by the dotcom standard now (get rich fast and young or else you'll be considered a failure)? So by 22 or 23, if you didn't win a slam or multiple slams, you are pretty much doomed and what's the point of carrying on as we see no future in you . If you see it that way, sure, tennis this generation really sucks and why watch anymore?

Chang won his first slam at 17, ppl started expecting Pete and Andre to do the same and were they not all disappointed that they didn't win a slam at their teens? When they all turn 20, I wonder if ppl say, geez, what the hell happened to those 2 . And looked at the ladies, like Graf, Seles and Hingis had success at 16 and ppl were laughing at Richard Williams when his daughters didn't make much mark until they are about 19. Now, see who's laughting. I'm glad that I didn't come out to say stupid things and write them off the bet before the Williams made it big.

But I must ask, what's the logic about Roddick? So he did well in AO and have a brilliant match. Did we not see Federer overcame his own nerve and dethroned King Pete on his own backyard back in Wimby 01? Did we not see Safin whose the "nutcase" and almost quitted tennis but the same year beat the still-in-form Sampras in Toronto and USO in 2000? And I recalled that Ferrero was a set down and managed to win the next 2 sets in Rome to win his first ever TMS title against the then claycourt-King Guga in 2001. Besides his epic battle with El Aynaoui in AO, I can't think of any Roddick match which is so remarkable to make you think he is any different from the rest.

Whether Roddick is going to dominate is yet to see and I won't say that he will or won't. But my point is, anyone of these players have their moment when they were able to put things together and win a brilliant match. I don't see why you think Roddick is any better or worse than any of them. I also remembered his meltdown against Sampras in USO, against Rusedski in Wimby and against Arthurs in RG. I won't run to the front and declared that he is not meant to be then. Sure I criticized his past slam performances, but I know it didn't mean that he's no good ever. But just based on AO this year, I won't run to the front to declare he's gonna be the best ever either. So humor me by sharing with us your logic maybe?

I don't see how these New Balls are overhyped. Sure, at 2000, for the sake of the new ATP campaign, they were handpicked as the best among the new generation. And so they are as all of them are Top 10 now. But did someone promise you that one of them will dominate the tennis world? Should they?

Notice that all of the people mentioned in your answer were already tagged as potential stars before they began to win slams?

What's disconcerting is that journeymen are sneaking through as well as two people named Sampras and Agassi. No one else.

It's like if Tathiana Garbin, Barbara Rittner, and Herietta Nagyova won or reached the finals of the last 5 Slams on the women's side, along with Steffi Graf (if she was still playing) and Aranxta-Sanchez Vicario, while the young stars (Williams sisters, Lindsay, Amelie, Hingis, the Belgians) couldn't get it together.

 

[Tennis Fool]

I don't understand how lack of dominance on Tour is a bad thing. As others have rightly said before me, one or two players dominating (see: all Williams all the time via the WTA) makes for excruciatingly boring tennis.

Only if you're not a Williams fan

 

[Ma. Estefania]

(see: all Williams all the time via the WTA) makes for excruciatingly boring tennis.

I'd rather watch the ATP, with its "nobodies" fighting hard to win titles (3 maiden titlists in the first 5 weeks of play) and push to the top than watch the same player or two win over and over and over and get so far ahead it becomes a question of.

I agree with you. I prefer by far to watch almost every week a different player winning a tournament, than all that dominance that would makes us see winning the same player almost all the weeks(I know I'm exagerating, but it's just it drives me nuts that the Williams are taking all at the WTA)

That's why I don't care if the players that win a tournament one week, are nobodies, one of the top players, or a top 30. The reason for which I prefer by far men's tennis is that one, you know, to see variety of players, not the same ones winning every single week.

And also because I think it's easier to be recognized or to make a "breakthrough" in men's tennis than in women's one in which in these last 2 or 3 years(for not saying more time ago) are always the top 8 ranked players who reach the quarters at a Grand Slam, with very weird exceptions of course.

 

[Tennis Fool]

Those nobodies winning the majors starts to get annoying at one point, but it does show the depth in the men's game and that's a good thing.

Does it? Or does it just show NBs choking.

Federer's fall at the Aussie was just disgusting.

 

[Chloe le Bopper]

Federer's fall was disgusting?

He lost to a (now) top ten player, that he is yet to beat.

Granted his form was lower than in previous rounds, but it's not as if he lost to some qualifer who had never been in a main draw before.

 

[Tennis Fool]

Perhaps your views are in the minority, because they are both negative and premature.

Unlike your reply, huh?

 

[Layla]

Re: Re: Generation N?

Y S, I COMPLETE AGREE with you, but as you will soon realize, our opinions of the failure of NBs is a minority on this board.

It's also funny to me that posters who say, "What are you talking about? Johannsens and Costas of the world, the journeymen of the ATP, they ARE GREAT for tennis" are the same ones with pictures of FERRERO, Safin, Roger, Haas in their messages. Hmmmm....

Oh what a clever retort!

Let me correct you on several counts.

First, most of those who would state that probably wouldn't use the term journeymen, such a term of endearment as it is.

Second of all, are you aware that until recently, there were only 8 avatars? Hmmmm... But feel free to assume anything you like from them. My avatar doesn't even feature a tennis player anymore. Oh my. Of course I do realize this was a stab at Rebecca.

And most importantly, you have no idea who my faves are. Yes, Ferrero is my main fave, but I have a whole list of faves, players I care about, and it includes quite a few players you might call "journeymen", including Johansson as it were.

Which leaves me with the following question: What does someone who agrees with you in your role as a prophet of doom have as his or her avatar? Jaden?

 

[Tennis Fool]

Aren't you a fan of Roddick, Mr Objectivity?

Yes, you see that great big picture of him in my messages

 

[Tennis Fool]

Do you also consider Goran a journeyman since he only win one Wimbly?

No.

 

[Tennis Fool]

I have a question for YS and Tennisfool -

If todays generation is such apparent crap, what are you watching for, when you could dip over to the WTA where you will be blessed with all time greats and potential greats?

Is this a trick question?

 

[Chloe le Bopper]

How were my replies to this topic negative tennis fool? If you want to attack my opinion, at least make some sense.

 

[Tennis Fool]

Oh, please, who died and made you god of the tennis world?

HI THERE HACKIE

 

[Tennis Fool]

Re: Re: Re: Generation N?

Oh what a clever retort!


Which leaves me with the following question: What does someone who agrees with you in your role as a prophet of doom have as his or her avatar? Jaden?

Your retort was even more clever, my dear