Tennis talk

Most other tournaments, men play a best of three sets throughout the tourney and then play best of 5 in the final. Does anyone here think that the mens' slams should do the same: best of three throughout and best of five in the final?. Could this rejuvenate the mens game for old and new fans? Or does the men's game not need rejuvenation? ( I only mention the slams cuz many casual fans only watch the slams Imho)
 
I've never heard that kyledroid ? I thought only the Slams and the Masters was best of 5 for the men.

As far as women playing best of 5 ? I don' think they wan't to. That's a lot of tennis.
 
John_Hudson said:
I've never heard that kyledroid ? I thought only the Slams and the Masters was best of 5 for the men.

As far as women playing best of 5 ? I don' think they wan't to. That's a lot of tennis.
Click to expand...

Usually in tournaments outside slams, men play best of three like the women, but in the finals of sed tournaments, men do play a best of five as far as I know. I Know for sure Indian Wells does this. The year end championships does this as well. I believe for women best of five would be out of the question.
 
I think playing best of 5 is a great idea in the Finals; in fact they should do it from the QF on IMO. I never realized it was done this way
 
That commercial is hilarious, John. I don't watch TV so I wouldn't have seen it otherwise. Thanks for the link. To get back to this thread after a few days of hanging out with my girlfriend sans internet, I'll say this:

Yes, Roger Federer is indeed my brother and I am deeply offended by all derogatory comments about my bro. He changed his name from Boelter to Federer assuming I would become a famous filmmaker long before he became a famous tennis player. We didn't want to confuse the professions. Yes, it's true my bro Roger is a knee injury or burnout away from becoming a footnote a la Bjorg. I referred to Roger as the "most amazing player ever" because I believe he is. That's not quite the same as calling him the "best ever" (as Rod Laver has). It's a minor quibble, but I majored in English.

Here's the thing about Roger. I don't claim he's the best ever; but I do think he has that potential. And I think he has a more diversified game than Sampras. What first turned me n to Federer was when I went to the Cincinnati Masters Series a few years ago before Federer had ever won a major. It was eight o'clock in the morning and a bunch of pros such as Grosjean, Clement, Chang, Niemenan, etc. were practicing. Agassi walked on a court and started hitting. No big deal. Federer got on a practice court and all these pros stopped and watched Roger hit. I was next to Grosjean's court, and although I don't speak French, it was obvious he and his coach were more in awe of Federer than Sampras, who appeared on the adjacent court moments later. Yeah, knees can twist and players can burn out. My original point wasn't about all that. All I was saying was that it's sad that no one in America knows who Roger Federer is, given his talent. Tennis just isn't that important to most Americans.

Battle of the sexes: Yeah, men are stronger than women at the pro level. At the club level, a 4.0 woman can kick my 3.5 ass any day. In fact a 3.0 guy can most often kick my ass. This is why I compare myself to Marat Safin, losing to people who don't have my strokes or athleticism. I'm prone to self destruct. It's kind of funny when I go to these sort of pickup tennis gatherings and guys pick me as a partner over a friend of mind who's a girl; she can hit way harder than me, with more accuracy, and she's way more ruthless mentally.

All that said, I think all tennis, including USTA matches, should be best of five sets. Endurance is part of the game.

Cheers,

Josh
 
Yeah, but Federer was "the next big thing" back then. Everybody goes to check out the next big thing practice. You've seen Agassi and Sampras a million times over. So when a buzz starts building about someone you've only heard of, you want to see how he "swings the bat." But when it was time to play the matches, where were all the people then? Bet they were watching Agassi.
 
Josh_Boelter said:
That commercial is hilarious, John.
Click to expand...

LOL I love Johnny Mac !

Yes, Roger Federer is indeed my brother and I am deeply offended by all derogatory comments about my bro. He changed his name from Boelter to Federer assuming I would become a famous filmmaker long before he became a famous tennis player. We didn't want to confuse the professions. Yes, it's true my bro Roger is a knee injury or burnout away from becoming a footnote a la Bjorg. I referred to Roger as the "most amazing player ever" because I believe he is. That's not quite the same as calling him the "best ever" (as Rod Laver has). It's a minor quibble, but I majored in English.
Click to expand...

LOL Nicely put.

Here's the thing about Roger. I don't claim he's the best ever; but I do think he has that potential. And I think he has a more diversified game than Sampras. What first turned me n to Federer was when I went to the Cincinnati Masters Series a few years ago before Federer had ever won a major. It was eight o'clock in the morning and a bunch of pros such as Grosjean, Clement, Chang, Niemenan, etc. were practicing. Agassi walked on a court and started hitting. No big deal. Federer got on a practice court and all these pros stopped and watched Roger hit. I was next to Grosjean's court, and although I don't speak French, it was obvious he and his coach were more in awe of Federer than Sampras, who appeared on the adjacent court moments later. Yeah, knees can twist and players can burn out. My original point wasn't about all that. All I was saying was that it's sad that no one in America knows who Roger Federer is, given his talent. Tennis just isn't that important to most Americans.
Click to expand...

What a great story. I would love to see those guys hit (Only the Acura / La Costa is in San Diego for the womens. I did see Sabatini, Viccario, Seles and Graff one year; wow! They are good)

Anyways; great take !
 
All I can say is, look at the third set.

Federer is inhuman. If he decides to be the best ever, I don't doubt he could accomplish it. But he's only halfway there. And he has no competition (but then again, neither did Sampras for a long time).
 
Barry_Green said:
Federer is inhuman. And he has no competition (but then again, neither did Sampras for a long time).
Click to expand...
And that hurt Pete because he had no one to really push him and his game to another level.
 
I actually became a huge Grosjean fan at that tournament. Man, no one practices harder than that guy. He was on the practice courts for hours, always running at full speed. I guess that's why he's able to be so competitive even though he's so much smaller than most guys on the tour.
 
(but then again, neither did Sampras for a long time).
Click to expand...

And that hurt Pete because he had no one to really push him and his game to another level.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't exactly say that; Pete Sampras owns a Record 14 Majors and a Record 6 consecutive years finishing Ranked Number 1 right ? I think he achieved a higher level.

Here is a list of the following persons he either had to beat in a Major:

Andre Agassi - Former Number 1, Andre owns 8 Grand Slams. He was beaten by Pete 3 Times inthe U.S. Open and and once at Wimbledon.
Jim Courier - owns 4 Slams and was beaten by Pete at Wimbledon
Goran Ivanisevic - Only has 1 slam (All England) but this guy was a monster. Pete beat him twice in a Major
Boris Becker - 6 Grand Slams.
Michael Chang - 1 Slam. But we all know he was no slouch with 4 singles titles.
Carlos Moya - 1 Slam.
Patrick Rafter - 2 U.S. Open's

================ Pete was Runner-up to these:

Stefan Edberg - 6 Grand Slams
Andre Agassi - 8 Slams
Marat Safin - 2 Grand Slams
Lleyton Hewitt - 2 Grand Slams

Now let's look at who Roger Federer has had to compete against:

2003 Mark Philippoussis has ZERO SLAMS
2004 Marat Safin 2 SLAMS
2004 Andy Roddick - 1 SLAM
2004 Lleyton Hewitt - 2 Slams
2005 Andy Roddick - 1 Slam
2005 Andre Agassi - 8 Slams
2006 Marcos Baghdatis - ZERO Slams

I'd definatley say Roger has no one really competing with him.

Here's an insult to the sport and Pete Sampras:

ESPN TOP 50 Atheletes of the Century Ranked Pete 48th. Behind Bobby Jones, Ben Hogan, Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus and the horse Secrtetariat. The Horse.
 
Pete knew the moment to retire. He gave us one of the best matches of the US Open against his good friend and longtime rival, and went out a champion.
 
John_Hudson said:
I wouldn't exactly say that; Pete Sampras owns a Record 14 Majors and a Record 6 consecutive years finishing Ranked Number 1 right ? I think he achieved a higher level.
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting that he wasn't great, didn't achieve great things or didn't play at a high level. I'm just suggesting that he was lacking that great nemesis that would have really pushed him. For the most part, he had look internally for motivation.
 
I agree David. Pete went out gracefully and at an unusually right time.

I'm not suggesting that he wasn't great, didn't achieve great things or didn't play at a high level. I'm just suggesting that he was lacking that great nemesis that would have really pushed him. For the most part, he had look internally for motivation.
Click to expand...

I know what you are suggesting Blaine. I still want to emphasize;

I was saying that he did have rivals:

The guys he beat or were beaten by had a combined 33 Grand Slams. In contrast to Federer who so far has had to beat guys with a combined 14 *

Give Andre 8 of those. *

However, I think Agassi was his main rival.

---

When I think of great tennis rivalries I think of:

Borg - Connors, Lendl - McEnroe, Navratilova - Evert, Edberg - Becker and ..................... Agassi - Sampras who had it at 14 - 20 (Sampras).
 
I think Mac and Borg had more of a rivalry than Borg had with Connors, and likewise, that Lendl had with Mac.

The rest, though, agreed.
 
Agreed David

Connors, Mac, Borg, Lendl.....

Good times. They don't make the rivalires like that anymore. Nadal is showing an aptitude to compete but the sad fact is that there just isn't any American Tennis players worth a damn right now.

Sad.
 
Sad but true. Roddick ain't it. 10-15 years ago, even the supporting players like Todd Martin and Tim Mayotte had some personality.
 
I agree.

Roddick getting rid of Gilbert as Coach was a bad move.

Agassi is done.

Ginepri will never do anything.

Blake will never do anything.

Dent will never do anything.

And that about sums up the American's in the Top 50. What's next? Spadea at 78 ? Gimmelstob at 110 ?

Sad sad sad times. My son Jared is our only hope.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top