[adee-gee]

Discuss.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[jenanun]

but we still have andre!!!!

 

[Sjengster]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Lee]

How about forget the names and rankings of players.

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

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

 

[El Legenda]

Anyone in top 100 can beat anyone is top 10, so the game is still good.

 

[vincayou]

I think it's the start of a great era in tennis.

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

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

 

[adee-gee]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Phunkadelicious]

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

 

[adee-gee]

Anyone in top 100 can beat anyone is top 10, so the game is still good.

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

 

[alfonsojose]

Nothing is the same since sex trheads were relegated to non-tennis :tears:

 

[ExpectedWinner]

5. "Journeymen" such as Robby Ginepri are reaching Grand Slam Semi Finals.

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

 

[gillian]

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

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

 

[yanchr]

Discuss.

So if I'm not wrong, your answer tend to be yes, right?

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

 

[ExpectedWinner]

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

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

 

[daze11]

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

thats funny, and true! the new king on the block is much more likely to do so: becker at wimbledon, wilander & kuerten at their first french! but then it hasnt happened on a hard court that way...i guess since jimmy connors took out 39-year-old ken rosewall 1 0 & 1 of course, in 1974 us open final. but then it was played on grass.

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

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

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

 

[adee-gee]

So if I'm not wrong, your answer tend to be yes, right?

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

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

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

 

[gillian]

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

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

Journeyman, indeed.

 

[ClaycourtaZzZz.]

It's a win for the tennis if there are young guys like Murray, Djokovic, Monfils, Berdych.....

 

[adee-gee]

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

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

 

[Angle Queen]

I hope that this years U.S.O. is an omen of things to come next year (excluding Andy's first round exit.)

Agreed...even if it includes an early exit by one of the top four seeds.

I would agree that its unfortunate that the serve and volley play has followed the way of the women's game and become near extinct. However I think that with more and more baseliners the serve and volley game will inevitably come back. A serve and volleyer against say, a Nadal, or a Roddick, is very effective and I think it will come back (wishful thinking?)

I'm a s/v fan too, and like to whine of its loss...but watching the USO this year, I think there's a chance...even if not for a full comeback, at least to see more attacks to/at the net. A very recent example was Hewitt late in the fourth set yesterday (against Jarkko). He attacked....and even threw in a few true s/v points. If I'm recalling the statistics correctly, he came in ~45-50 times and won 75% of the points. Those are very nice numbers for a "baseliner." The change from defense to offense distrupted the flow of the game and ultimately pulled Lleyton through to a victory.

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