Tennis Thread 2013

As much as I like Nadal, a Wawrinka-Gasquet final would be cool.

It would be nice to see someone other than the "big 4" win a GS. The last time was JPMD in 2009. Before that you have to all the way to the 2004 French Open.
 
Ole's_toe_poke said:
As much as I like Nadal, a Wawrinka-Gasquet final would be cool.

It would be nice to see someone other than the "big 4" win a GS. The last time was JPMD in 2009. Before that you have to all the way to the 2004 French Open.
Click to expand...

Safin won the Aus open in 2005
 
Seveneric said:
Did men's tennis need anyone other than Federer to win between 2005-2007 when he dominated almost everything? People seemed to enjoy it then, so I don't see why it's different with Serena.
Click to expand...
Yes it did.
 
Wawrinka wins first set. Whether he can hold out for all 3 or not I'm unsure, but he's looking superb at the moment.
 
You have to feel Djokovic is going to come alive soon, otherwise he's going home in 3 like Murray did. We need to remember what happened at the Aussie Open though.
 
akash02 said:
Yes, it did. Federer needed competition and when Nadal emerged it helped Men's tennis as a whole.
Click to expand...
Well good that people are saying it does now because I definitely didn't see a lot of that sentiment then. All I saw was constant praise for a dominant force in tennis and how lucky everyone was to be witnessing a master at work. I rarely can remember any time where Federer was rooted against just because he was too dominant, but okay.

TheBest said:
Yes it did.
Click to expand...
See above
 
Seveneric said:
Well good that people are saying it does now because I definitely didn't see a lot of that sentiment then. All I saw was constant praise for a dominant force in tennis and how lucky everyone was to be witnessing a master at work. I rarely can remember any time where Federer was rooted against just because he was too dominant, but okay.
Click to expand...

Hardly, I found it quite boring watching him hammering Roddick and Hewitt in every other GS.

And besides the cases are different. The competition wasn't bad but it was Federer who was just way too good. In this case Williams is the best of an average bunch of female players
 
Seveneric said:
Well good that people are saying it does now because I definitely didn't see a lot of that sentiment then. All I saw was constant praise for a dominant force in tennis and how lucky everyone was to be witnessing a master at work. I rarely can remember any time where Federer was rooted against just because he was too dominant, but okay.
Click to expand...
Mens tennis became much better when guys like nadal and novak started challenging him. You disagree?
 
akash02 said:
Hardly, I found it quite boring watching him hammering Roddick and Hewitt in every other GS.
Click to expand...
Like I said, you must be one of the only few people. In fact I'm quite sure that if Federer was still dominant till now, what we'd be hearing is "oh he's so amazing to still be this dominant at 32, bla bla bla".

And besides the cases are different. The competition wasn't bad but it was Federer who was just way too good. In this case Williams is the best of an average bunch of female players
Click to expand...
And why would it then be good for the WTA that it's those bunch of average players that should be winning, so people would rather see the mediocre tennis player win over someone who's actually good, just because she's dominant? I don't see how that helps the case for women's tennis at all. Serena wins majors, she wins masters too and stays consistent for most of the season, I don't see how that's not better than the random person winning who will then go on to get knocked out in the first round of the next slam she competes in. Azarenka has been very average this year and very average in this tourney so far, I don't see how it's "good" that she should be the one to win tomorrow.
 
TheBest said:
Mens tennis became much better when guys like nadal and novak started challenging him. You disagree?
Click to expand...
No, I don't. But my point still remains, I never saw as much opposition to Federer's "over-dominance" like I do to Serena, and the latter is not even up to the kinda of dominance Federer exhibited in 2006/2007
 
Its a shame Federer and Nadal where never really tested.

Level in mens tennis dropped in quality big time in the last 15 years.

Thats why i will never accept Roger as the best of al times. Oh and because Rafa was/is better than him.


VAMOS RAFA!!! i mean Stanis!!
 
George Owen said:
Its a shame Federer and Nadal where never really tested.

Level in mens tennis dropped in quality big time in the last 15 years.

Thats why i will never accept Roger as the best of al times. Oh and because Rafa was/is better than him.


VAMOS RAFA!!! i mean Stanis!!
Click to expand...

You have got to be joking.
 
Seveneric said:
No, I don't. But my point still remains, I never saw as much opposition to Federer's "over-dominance" like I do to Serena, and the latter is not even up to the kinda of dominance Federer exhibited in 2006/2007
Click to expand...
Fair enough but I never like too much dominance from a particular player/team (unless I was supporting that team) in any sport. I have nothing against serena she is clearly among the best players of all time. I just want to see a player who'll finally rise up to challenge.
 
Seveneric said:
Like I said, you must be one of the only few people. In fact I'm quite sure that if Federer was still dominant till now, what we'd be hearing is "oh he's so amazing to still be this dominant at 32, bla bla bla".


And why would it then be good for the WTA that it's those bunch of average players that should be winning, so people would rather see the mediocre tennis player win over someone who's actually good, just because she's dominant? I don't see how that helps the case for women's tennis at all. Serena wins majors, she wins masters too and stays consistent for most of the season, I don't see how that's not better than the random person winning who will then go on to get knocked out in the first round of the next slam she competes in. Azarenka has been very average this year and very average in this tourney so far, I don't see how it's "good" that she should be the one to win tomorrow.
Click to expand...

I never said anything about Azarenka. Women's tennis needs a 'Nadal' to make it compelling again
 
George Owen said:
Its a shame Federer and Nadal where never really tested.

Level in mens tennis dropped in quality big time in the last 15 years.

Thats why i will never accept Roger as the best of al times. Oh and because Rafa was/is better than him.


VAMOS RAFA!!! i mean Stanis!!
Click to expand...

Do you really believe that? It may have dipped when Federer was emerging as the top player and was up against the Hewitt's and Roddick's but the standard of opponent that he and Nadal have encountered has been incredibly high. Men's tennis over the last few years has been phenomenally good, the slams may have been dominated by a small few but that's due to how good they are rather than a negative reflection on their opposition.
 
RORY65 said:
Do you really believe that? It may have dipped when Federer was emerging as the top player and was up against the Hewitt's and Roddick's but the standard of opponent that he and Nadal have encountered has been incredibly high. Men's tennis over the last few years has been phenomenally good, the slams may have been dominated by a small few but that's due to how good they are rather than a negative reflection on their opposition.
Click to expand...

like Ferrer who has been top 10 for long time now...

he is what, 4 now?

he is not top 10 level, at least not 10 years ago.
 
George Owen said:
like Ferrer who has been top 10 for long time now...

he is what, 4 now?

he is not top 10 level, at least not 10 years ago.
Click to expand...

The likes of Jiri Novak were much better? The level of tennis played by the likes of Nadal, Djokovic and Murray is much higher than by the top players Federer encountered when he first emerged as the worlds best (Coria, Roddick etc.).
 
Djokovic holds it together in the tie break. The greats generally do it when it matters in tie breaks.
 
That's probably it for Wawrinka, Djokovic should win straights now.

akash02 said:
I never said anything about Azarenka. Women's tennis needs a 'Nadal' to make it compelling again
Click to expand...
Thought you were since what started all this was the chances of Azarenka winning tomorrow. But I agree with you, it does. I doubt that'll happen, there's just no one as good as Serena. It'll probably be until she retires before we have a competitive situation.
 
It's all good Serena dominating women's tennis at 27 but she's almost 32 years old and she's absolutely destroying the field. Azarenka and Sharapova aside it's completely terrible. Penneta making a semi-final :wenger:
 
RORY65 said:
The likes of Jiri Novak were much better? The level of tennis played by the likes of Nadal, Djokovic and Murray is much higher than by the top players Federer encountered when he first emerged as the worlds best (Coria, Roddick etc.).
Click to expand...

take a look at the top 10 rankings from 1990 to 2000... full of good players, a lot specialists in different surfaces. You can extend that to the top 20...


when was the last time you watched a full tournament from the first rounds? Me, cant remember, but maybe 2006... its just so boring to have only 3 or 4 good players in tournaments now.
 
George Owen said:
take a look at the top 10 rankings from 1990 to 2000... full of good players, a lot specialists in different surfaces. You can extend that to the top 20...


when was the last time you watched a full tournament from the first rounds? Me, cant remember, but maybe 2006... its just so boring to have only 3 or 4 good players in tournaments now.
Click to expand...

My point is that I think it's more that Federer and Nadal, as well as Djokovic and Murray now, have been just outstandingly good rather than the people below them being particularly poor. I suspect that a lot of them would have been seeded similarly in the past, maybe a bit lower but with a greater chance of competing. I agree with the gist of your point that it was more unpredictable back then but that's the way it's changed in all sports.

Sports people are more professional than before, they're generally more relentless than previously which means the most talented ones win so frequently. I don't think it speaks of the quality of men's tennis, more that this era has seen possibly the 2 best of all time and another couple of great players.
 
Brilliant recovery from Stan after dropping that 2nd set although Djokovic is ridiculously good at coming back in these situations.
 
RORY65 said:
My point is that I think it's more that Federer and Nadal, as well as Djokovic and Murray now, have been just outstandingly good rather than the people below them being particularly poor. I suspect that a lot of them would have been seeded similarly in the past, maybe a bit lower but with a greater chance of competing. I agree with the gist of your point that it was more unpredictable back then but that's the way it's changed in all sports.

Sports people are more professional than before, they're generally more relentless than previously which means the most talented ones win so frequently. I don't think it speaks of the quality of men's tennis, more that this era has seen possibly the 2 best of all time and another couple of great players.
Click to expand...

i guess we will never know for sure... will be up for debate for ever.

C'mon Stanis!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Proved me wrong again, he took the 3rd set impressively, but his level seems to have dropped again and Djokovic seems to have upped his. Djokovic in 5 now I guess.
 
:lol: What a game by both players, massive for Wawrinka to hold on (unlike Murray in that epic game against Federer at Wimbledon). A couple of his backhands were stunning.
 
21 minute game. Stan won it. Unreal stuff. Djokovic looks the more likely to break and win this. Remember, there is a tie break in US Open final sets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.