Author Topic: Want proof? 45 pages > 44 pages (Want More Proof? see FB)  (Read 4438 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Alex

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 12130
  • Gender: Male
Re: Want proof? 45 pages > 44 pages (Want More Proof? see FB)
« Reply #100 on: February 04, 2013, 09:44:17 PM »
You are always a waste of time, Alex. And you now you are going to turn even more bitter because you are not getting what you want. And when you don't get what you want, you very quickly show your true color. Mind you, this had nothing to do with you in the first place but that didn't stop you.

Your response to Gawdbelssya shows how ignorant and stupid you are.
oh thank you hun... very classy calling me ignorant and stupid but what else to expect from you ... how the hell do you know what I want?  :rofl_2:. and please tell me what my true color is (it's spelled 'colour' in Canada btw). enlighten me please? Give me more of your 'wisdom'.  :)~ . me bitter? nah, the only bitter person here is you my darhling. I'm just planning to teach you some lessons. we need to work on you being too defensive/insecure when people do not agree with you plus the fact that you are trying too hard to be smart  :gleam:

Offline Emma

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 8094
  • Gender: Female
Re: Want proof? 45 pages > 44 pages (Want More Proof? see FB)
« Reply #101 on: February 04, 2013, 09:49:40 PM »
As I said, you are waste of time so I am not going to waste anymore time here with you. End of this nonsese.
You are everything I am not.

Offline Alex

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 12130
  • Gender: Male
Re: Want proof? 45 pages > 44 pages (Want More Proof? see FB)
« Reply #102 on: February 04, 2013, 10:32:48 PM »
As I said, you are waste of time so I am not going to waste anymore time here with you. End of this nonsese.
yes, hun. when you have nothing to say than you shouldn't say anything. run away, go to your friendly Murray board where everyone loves you and Andy. I thought you were braver  :innocent:

Offline Emma

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 8094
  • Gender: Female
Re: Want proof? 45 pages > 44 pages (Want More Proof? see FB)
« Reply #103 on: February 05, 2013, 07:57:23 PM »
Emma, this AO final was not an entertaining match.   Murray in particular played a disappointing match. I suspect his easy draw & lack of good match practice until the semi might be something to do with it, as might the 5 setter against Federer, but it wasn't a good finals match from him. And Djokovic too played better in some of his earlier rounds. 

As for the rest, Henman's match is relevant as it relates to the discussion on national interests & viewing figures.  I was surprised to read that even though Hemnan was not playing a final, his match has the second highest Wimbledon viewing figures after the Murray / Federer final last year.  Both matches have high viewing figures because of British interest. 

As for Federer/Nadal, I'm not sure why this is relevant to what I've said about the AO finals match. Unless of course that for you, beating this particular dead horse seems to be a hobby, given that you have said what you say about Federer / Nadal matches ad nauseam.   I haven't compared Murray / Djokovic to other players in other finals matches. There is no need to do so. Their less than compelling AO finals match stands on its own. Just as any excellent matches they have played, whether individually with others, or together, stand on their own.

As for Murray/ Federer matches, many of these have been excellent ones, not least because Murray has often outplayed Federer, and shown what a fine player he is.  but And he is getting better - his serve was a revelation against Federer in the AO semi final, a match that I enjoyed more than the final.

You raise a good point about the Djokovic / Murray rivalry being in its infancy. Given that these two are likely to be crossing swords more often than not in the finals of tournaments they play, looking forward,  I'm hoping that Murray will give Djokovic a better contest than he did at the AO final next time. He has done it before - the Olympics & the USO for example.   
 
Regardless of anything, entertaining tennis would be welcome from all those who play, and I don't hold your Murraytardism against you for a moment. In fact, I think it is rather sweet.

I believe you yourself said it quite a few times that AO final wasn't particularly interesting or entertaining or less than compelling etc. How about beating that dead horse there for a change? How about I turn the table on you? Yes, not all Federer/Nadal finals or any other GS matches were boring but a lot of them were, given the predictable outcome in the end. But more importantly, given that typically Djokovic/Murray almost always play very competitive matches, how about we cut some slack and lower our expectations and understand that not every single of their match is going to be more than compelling? Nole's semi final match against Ferrer was pretty flat and that's because Ferrer was half done by then so Nole had it easy. If you say Andy had an easy draw then Nole's was no different. Granted, Wawrinka gave him a very tough time but that wasn't supposed to happen in the first place. I guess when you beat someone so often, you get a bit comfortable and you start taking things for granted. I mean who could forget Rosol at Wimbledon? I saw Sampras under the same circumstances quite a few times but he managed to escape most times. It happens. Not every tournament is going to unfold the way we like them to unfold. AO isn't the last GS we will ever see. Still, it generated some great matches. Despite the loss in the final, I am not complaining.

As to Henman, the Brits very rarely see a player in top ten or top twenty in men's tennis and given that Wimbledon is a very prestigious tournament for them, it's not so surprising that he'd generate a lot of interest. Our ESPN/TSN never showed any of Andy's matches until the qtr, but because Serena, an American was lost on the same day, we were interrupted several times during Andy's match against Chardy. In fact, for the  most part I had to rely on the live stream. If this wasn't American TV, I am sure this wouldn't have happened. After all, it's only fair we get to see some Andy after the first week but that wasn't' the case. The Americans and Federer dominated our TV and it's mostly because they are more familiar with those faces, the general mass.

I don't agree with your first paragraph. I am pretty sure Andy's win over Federer was pretty huge for him and he wasn't mentally up for the final. He was also sore from his previous match and had a big blister on his foot but it was his mental part that let him down in the end.
You are everything I am not.

Offline Gawdblessya

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 1129
  • In the blink of an eye, the universe.
Re: Want proof? 45 pages > 44 pages (Want More Proof? see FB)
« Reply #104 on: February 06, 2013, 06:01:48 AM »
..............................I believe you yourself said it quite a few times that AO final wasn't particularly interesting or entertaining or less than compelling etc. How about beating that dead horse there for a change? How about I turn the table on you? Yes, not all Federer/Nadal finals or any other GS matches were boring but a lot of them were, given the predictable outcome in the end. But more importantly, given that typically Djokovic/Murray almost always play very competitive matches, how about we cut some slack and lower our expectations and understand that not every single of their match is going to be more than compelling? Nole's semi final match against Ferrer was pretty flat and that's because Ferrer was half done by then so Nole had it easy. If you say Andy had an easy draw then Nole's was no different. Granted, Wawrinka gave him a very tough time but that wasn't supposed to happen in the first place. I guess when you beat someone so often, you get a bit comfortable and you start taking things for granted. I mean who could forget Rosol at Wimbledon? I saw Sampras under the same circumstances quite a few times but he managed to escape most times. It happens. Not every tournament is going to unfold the way we like them to unfold. AO isn't the last GS we will ever see. Still, it generated some great matches. Despite the loss in the final, I am not complaining.

As to Henman, the Brits very rarely see a player in top ten or top twenty in men's tennis and given that Wimbledon is a very prestigious tournament for them, it's not so surprising that he'd generate a lot of interest. Our ESPN/TSN never showed any of Andy's matches until the qtr, but because Serena, an American was lost on the same day, we were interrupted several times during Andy's match against Chardy. In fact, for the  most part I had to rely on the live stream. If this wasn't American TV, I am sure this wouldn't have happened. After all, it's only fair we get to see some Andy after the first week but that wasn't' the case. The Americans and Federer dominated our TV and it's mostly because they are more familiar with those faces, the general mass.

I don't agree with your first paragraph. I am pretty sure Andy's win over Federer was pretty huge for him and he wasn't mentally up for the final. He was also sore from his previous match and had a big blister on his foot but it was his mental part that let him down in the end.

My repetition of how I saw the AO final 2013 is in relation to various discussions relating to this particular final. I have not sought to generalise  the Djokovic / Murray rivalry, nor am I interested in doing so.  Much depends on any given day and I disagree with others who say that other rivalries have always produced great matches.  So your raising Federer / Nadal in relation to my comments is  precisely that you flog a dead horse, particularly as I am a Federer fan. I'm not sure why you feel compelled to take a defensive stance, particularly as what I find interesting is bound to be a subjective issue, as is what you find interesting.  My point about the AO final arises from the match, and not because I dislike Murray or Djokovic.  Or their fans.   

Murray's win over Federer was huge, I agree. He hasn't done it before in a slam, and it is yet another milestone for him.   But he beat an exhausted Federer.  At this age, the main difficulty for Federer is not lack of ability, but lack of adequate recovery time between matches, and he was exhausted after the Tsonga match. You mention that Murray was emotionally spent because of the psychological effort required to beat Federer.  That is an excellent point, not just for Murray, but for any player who comes through a challenge that they were concerned about.  In Federer's case, Tsonga has beaten him in a GS and can give Federer problems at times.  I think he was concerned about this QF. The 5 setter against Tsonga had a significant emotional toll on Federer too.  Any robust challenge, especially in a 5 set contest, is bound to be both physically & emotionally draining for all players.  Even then, Federer took it to five sets.

In the finals match, Murray took the first set from Djokovic, he battled in the second set too, but was dismantled by Djokovic in the TB, thereafter, giving up the ghost. The point I am making & have made about Murray playing poorly is meant against his standard of play and ability. And it is not  accusatory.  The finals of any tournament is demanding, at many different levels, but in a GS, particularly so. What I have said & am saying is that Murray was disappointing in the final.  If he wants to win majors, paying 5 setters back to back might be required.  I don't take this performance by him to mean he won't or can't play better next time he gets to a final, but am simply saying this one was a poor performance.

Blisters, pain, etc is par for the course & most players carry niggles / injuries. It is the nature of the beast.  The most compelling argument to explain why Murray played this way is that he was tired after the Federer match. I have said from the outset that Djokovic faced a tired Murray, because I don't accept that Djokovic played a brilliant finals match. He did however go up a gear to take the momentum from Murray & once he did it, he didn't take his foot off the throttle.  This separates Djokovic from Murray in that match.  Murray couldn't lift himself up. He lost focus, arguing with the umpire, swearing, hitting his head with his racquet, touching his thigh as if he had problems there etc. His body language & behaviour spoke of defeat long before it came.  Lendl has helped improve Murray's emotional outbursts, but there is work yet to do.     

The point about the draw is that whilst Djokovic's draw was easiest on paper, it panned out to be more testing than Murray's was until the SF stage. Murray had to do little until the SF. I don't think he was tested enough, otherwise I think he could have beaten Federer in straight sets. I have read that Federer played well in the SF. I disagree, and think he was firefighting all the way and should have been beaten in straight sets. What was noteworthy about his performance was that he battled, not that he played well.

Djokovic was expecting a free passage no doubt, but Wawrinka gave him a shock. That match remained well contested until the end & it would have been exhausting for Djokovic to have come through it. He played a potential tough player in Berdych, who took a set off him, so this too was a less than a straight forward win. Compared to Murray therefore, he had tougher obstacles to overcome to get to the SF.  The SF was simply match practice for him & he was fortunate to be fresher than Murray in the final. There is no doubt about this, and he was able to capitalise on Murray's implosion, to win the title.  In the end, these finals will be about the slimmest of chances. The reason I am disappointed with this final is that Murray showed how he can both create & take chances against Djokovic in the Olympics  & in the USO.  I was expecting him to do so here too.

It's interesting that you mention the mental part, Emma.  As someone who would like Murray to fly free and reach his highest potential, this is one thing that I think needs attention now. This and stamina.  Lendl has done an excellent job in helping Murray to date, but I think these elements are still a work in progress. 

Anyway, that's it from me on this subject, as any more, and it will indeed be repetitious.

I accept that you differ from me about the AO final, and about how Murray played it.  That's as it should be, and chatting about it is interesting. Thanks for the chat.
Carpe Diem

Offline Emma

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 8094
  • Gender: Female
Re: Want proof? 45 pages > 44 pages (Want More Proof? see FB)
« Reply #105 on: February 06, 2013, 02:16:03 PM »
I am just going to make a general statement. Feel free to respond or not. I am cool either way as long as I can make my points. lol
 
I guess I am failing to understand some points here. For example, you say, blisters, pain, etc. are part for the course & most players carry niggles / injuries etc. but then you go on to say, Federer was exhausted from the Tsonga match, which should also be part of the same deal, no? Why should this be a single out event for Federer?  Isnít aging part of the process as well?
 
Also, Murray beating Federer affected Murray far more than Federer beating Tsonga. Because Federer and Tsonga have beaten each other at a Slam level before, whereas Andy had never beaten Federer in a GS and in fact, lost all three finals which should be even a bigger deal on all accounts. I mean Federer and his fans, of all people, should know what it likes to lose yet another final to the same player, right? The Wimbledon final, where Andy was cruising with ease at first and then collapsed towards the end of 2nd set because of roof or not, was especially disheartening. That was the 3rd final he had lost to the same guy. Even as a fan, I was absolutely mentally spent after the AO semi this year and I had told my fellow Murray fans that there was nothing more I would want for Murray right now but a win over Federer. I was willing to sacrifice AO because of it so it was a HUGE deal for all of us including Murray. Murray would have closed it in 3 sets but because this was a very emotional match for him, he got tentative at the 2nd TB smash point at 5-5 all and also, mentally got tight a bit when he was serving for the 4th set. And I donít think Federerís outburst at Andy at that specific moment had helped Andy in any ways. But I am fairly sure Andy would have beaten a very fresh Federer regardless.
 
As to Djokovic vs Wawrinka, itís not so much what Wawrinak did but what Nole had allowed him to do. Murray had a couple of hiccups at the US Open (Cilic in particular) but he had only himself to blame for his abysmal performance for almost two sets. So it wasnít a test per se but a mere lack of concentration on Noleís part. In other words, there was nobody in his half the draw to really test him. Berdych gives Djokovic too many free points but more importantly, as the writer pointed out in that article Sid posted recently, ďAttacking players need to give a bit more thought to their aggressive approachĒ. See, this is the real problem for these attacking players against players like Murray, Djokovic and Nadal. You canít simply go on ball bashing and expect to win. These players (Nadal, Murray and Djokovic) are a level above when it comes to thoughtful tennis. I have talked about this before. This is the reason why Nadal vs Djokovic or Djokovic vs Murray or Murray vs Nadal are so competitive, if of course, they are all 100%. Because not only they can play world class defensive style but they can also turn things around by going from defensive to offensive in a matter of moment. Thatís the reason why the likes of Berdych, Del Potro, Federer struggle so much against these players.
 
Whether you hate or like this style or not is very subjective and a matter of personal opinion and preference. But then again we have seen two attacking players going forever as well. Case in point, Isner vs Mahut at Wimbledon and also, Federer vs Del Potro at the Olympics. Both matches were exhausting despite their attacking style. So itís a two way street as I see it.
 
BTW Andyís problems arenít mental anymore. The match vs Federer was just an isolated incident and it was long due. It had a long history behind it so it took its toll once it happened. Djokovic is the lucky bastard here not only with his draw but also, not having to meet with Murray or Nadal caliber player in the semi.
You are everything I am not.

Offline Clay Death

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 16589
  • Gender: Male
  • Camelot Elite Tennis Society
    • Camelot Elite Tennis Society
Re: Want proof? 45 pages > 44 pages (Want More Proof? see FB)
« Reply #106 on: February 06, 2013, 06:11:26 PM »
emma darling you better your ass over to the castle so i can make you a super cool, ultra hip marilyn monroe sig. :)) :))

Offline Rafa816

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 702
Re: Want proof? 45 pages > 44 pages (Want More Proof? see FB)
« Reply #107 on: February 06, 2013, 08:59:36 PM »
But as you showed, score/time doesn't show all. In the fourth set, it was 7-6 and took 64 minutes. That might say to someone that it was a good set. Yet, on the contrary, it was a pretty embarrassing set with both of them choking hard and not being able to even begin to protect their serves. Then, finally, in the fifth, Almagro broke down completely and Ferrer finished him.

But, see, now you bring up a valid complaint. That's fine. You have a right to complain about them elongating breaks and about their habits that you might find annoying. I'm just saying that the matches produce great tennis that is a ton of fun to watch.


I don't deny you or ME that. I just claim there are diminishing returns to 5-6 hour matches being the measure of EPIC. Anything less is considered a letdown. In the long run, that's simply not sustainable and will be detrimental to tennis fandom.

In any event, you're a class act, Rafa816, and a good addition to the forum. :good:  Too bad you caught me at the AO, a major I'm most critical of due to the length of the matches. Somewhat ironically and then not at all, you'll be surprised to learn that my favorite majors are RG and the USO. In fact, I'll be going to Paris in May for my 4th RG in the past 9. Saw Rafa play on Chartrier in 2005.




Why thank you. I'm glad we can both be civilized after a large debate. Quite a rarity, I've found, on other forums. Which is a bummer, cause I love a good debate  :))

And  :scared: so unfair! I want to see Nadal play so badly! I just hope his knees don't give out in the next year or two so I can graduate and get a job to fund a trip up to New York so I can watch him play at the USO. The French is a little too far away from me, unfortunately. I would've killed to have been there in '08 when Nadal dismantled Federer.

Rafa is the FIRST to qualify for WTF this year! :D

Offline huntingyou

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 2601
  • Gender: Male
  • #18
Re: Want proof? 45 pages > 44 pages (Want More Proof? see FB)
« Reply #108 on: February 06, 2013, 09:08:48 PM »
what a thread!!!


6 pages and counting................


I'm surprise to see the level of personal attacks in the age no more Nadal-Federer at the top.

Offline williamchung7

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 2530
  • Gender: Male
Re: Want proof? 45 pages > 44 pages (Want More Proof? see FB)
« Reply #109 on: February 07, 2013, 03:29:28 AM »
The comparisons of playing styles generate termendous market value for  tennis world, because tennis is individual versus individual on the court and different playing styles make tennis interest. Many tennis fans do not play tennis or even understand tennis, but when they talk about playing style, you can see many people can give a shot in this kind of discussion. It happen, especially for rilvalry.

If Sampras versus Agassi is serve & volley versus baseline & return, Federer versus Nadal is aggressive versus defensive, what will be the comparsion for Djokovic versus Nadal and Djokovic versus Murray?

« Last Edit: February 07, 2013, 10:06:06 AM by williamchung7 »

Offline monstertruck

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 12282
Re: Want proof? 45 pages > 44 pages (Want More Proof? see FB)
« Reply #110 on: February 07, 2013, 05:21:37 AM »
An interesting question William.
Certainly not as much contrast in styles once the ball is in play.
Perhaps the greatest difference will be in the first 2 shots of every point-
the serve & return of serve.
CONK da ball!!!

Online Babblelot

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 32686
  • Gender: Male
  • Chicago, IL
Re: Want proof? 45 pages > 44 pages (Want More Proof? see FB)
« Reply #111 on: February 07, 2013, 08:44:13 AM »
Good to see you weigh in on this subject, William :good:

1995 USO, 1997 USO, 2004 USO, 2005 RG, 2005 USO, 2006 RG, 2006 USO, 2007 USO, 2008 RG, 2008 USO, 2009 USO, 2010 USO, 2011 USO, 2012 USOhttp://www.gifsoup.com/view4/1856936/2005safin-o.gif
http://www.gifsoup.com/view1/1857331/2004gaudio-o.gif

Offline Emma

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 8094
  • Gender: Female
Re: Want proof? 45 pages > 44 pages (Want More Proof? see FB)
« Reply #112 on: February 07, 2013, 10:21:07 AM »

The comparisons of playing styles generate termendous market value for  tennis world, because tennis is individual versus individual on the court and different playing styles make tennis interest. Many tennis fans do not play tennis or even understand tennis, but when they talk about playing style, you can see many people can give a shot in this kind of discussion.

If Sampras versus Agassi is serve & volley versus baseline & return, Federer versus Nadal is aggressive versus defensive, what will be the comparsion for Djokovic versus Nadal and Djokovic versus Murray?

Sampras vs Agassi almost always generated far more interest than Federer vs Nadal. That's a fact. S&V vs pure baseline and itís a very interesting contrast, but Sampras always had far more to offer than Agassi as he could stay behind just as good and hang on with rallies. But I can tell you right off the bat that it was never about their contrast of styles but rather their personality that generated more interest.

Also, while Federer is definitely very popular (don't think he's more popular than Agassi in any case), Sampras was on another level in terms of a player. People would be very intimidated by his presence because his serves were such a big weapon. Samprasí opponents and his fans would never be in a comfortable position during the whole match. In fact, some people from CNN forum went to see Sampras vs Agassi Wimbledon final in 1999 and they came back and said they didnít remember a thing because it was such a surreal experience. They got goosebumps and chills as soon as these two walked into the court. Thatís how big this match-up was. Federer and Nadal will never get this kind of attention because, while Federer is on the same level as Sampras, heíd never dominated Nadal as his main rival as Sampras dominated Agassi. 

Moving on to Nadal vs Murray, Murray vs Djokovic and Djokovic vs Nadal. The trouble with these three is that, the general mass arenít familiar with this kind of tennis (but the individual player doesnít lack fan support) especially with Nadal and Djokovic (Murray has more to offer and can swing either way Ė both aggressive and passive/defensive, more comfortable at the net etc.) kind of tennis. Because they are either familiar with S&V (have seen a lot already) or baseline attacking kind of tennis; again, very common and popular in tennis. So if the general masses arenít, letís say, interested in these match-ups then itís their lack of understanding of the game and nothing more. The reason why the likes of Sharapova etc. (of course sheís also good looking and men always dig that first) are so popular is because, they are simply ball bashers. Thereís no brain needed to watch their kind of tennis. People, after all, want to be entertained first.  Anything that requires some sort of brain work they will safely stay away.

Anyway, the contrasts of styles are hardly ever the selling point in tennis. It has far too many elements than that.
You are everything I am not.

Offline Emma

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 8094
  • Gender: Female
Re: Want proof? 45 pages > 44 pages (Want More Proof? see FB)
« Reply #113 on: February 07, 2013, 10:24:41 AM »
what a thread!!!


6 pages and counting................


I'm surprise to see the level of personal attacks in the age no more Nadal-Federer at the top.

Is that you, Don Juan?

But anyway, Federer is still No. 2 and was No. 1 for the most part in 2012, no? That makes him at the top, yes, no? Or have you been sleeping all this time since Nadal wasn't around?
You are everything I am not.

Offline Emma

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 8094
  • Gender: Female
Re: Want proof? 45 pages > 44 pages (Want More Proof? see FB)
« Reply #114 on: February 07, 2013, 10:26:03 AM »
emma darling you better your ass over to the castle so i can make you a super cool, ultra hip marilyn monroe sig. :)) :))

herc darling, I'll take my lovely arse over there very, very soon!
You are everything I am not.

Online Babblelot

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 32686
  • Gender: Male
  • Chicago, IL
Re: Want proof? 45 pages > 44 pages (Want More Proof? see FB)
« Reply #115 on: February 07, 2013, 11:08:57 AM »
Interesting, Emma, that you've tied the success of tennis to Americans pretty much dismissing the rivalry of today's generation, Federer - Nadal.

The biggest rivalries in the history of the game:

McEnroe - Borg
McEnroe - Connors
McEnroe - Lendl
Navratilova - Evert
Sampras - Agassi

All clashes of personalities as well as styles, and all with Americans as central players. Your claim is that Federer - Nadal don't measure up. Earlier you said Americans only care about Americans. So, *you alone* are saying that Federer - Nadal are 2nd tier and imply that it's due to your American-bias point of view. I don't accept that. I can't imagine anyone accepts that, either. You have to have your head in the sand not to recognize the magnitude of their popularity worldwide and the impact they've had on the popularity of the sport.

Meanwhile, Djokovic - Murray certainly have contrasting personalities, but that's where it ends. Neither are American, but, per Federer - Nadal, that's not a prerequisite for a rivalry to be elevated to upper echelon status.

I don't care that Djokovic - Murray is a young rivalry. It's not going to get there. But perhaps that will be due to Murray's failures and not their redundant style of play.

1995 USO, 1997 USO, 2004 USO, 2005 RG, 2005 USO, 2006 RG, 2006 USO, 2007 USO, 2008 RG, 2008 USO, 2009 USO, 2010 USO, 2011 USO, 2012 USOhttp://www.gifsoup.com/view4/1856936/2005safin-o.gif
http://www.gifsoup.com/view1/1857331/2004gaudio-o.gif

Offline Emma

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 8094
  • Gender: Female
Re: Want proof? 45 pages > 44 pages (Want More Proof? see FB)
« Reply #116 on: February 07, 2013, 11:34:08 AM »
No, what I am doing is I am comparing last eraís rivalry (Sampras vs Agassi) vs this eraís rivalry (Nadal vs Federer); mainly because, they are both fully blown rivalries and also not too many years apart unlike the 80s. In fact, they are back to back. Pay attention. I am taking Wimbledon, a neutral ground, to compare these two rivalries. Whether one is American or not is irrelevant here. Also because, Nadal and Federer have yet to meet in the final or in any round at the USO; therefore again, irrelevant. 

Hereís a look at their rivalry: Sampras vs Agassi & Nadal vs Federer.
 
Sampras vs Agassi:
Grand Slam clash: 9 meetings
Sampras leads Agassi: 6-3
 
Nadal vs Federer:
Grand Slam clash: 10 meetings
Nadal leads Federer: 8-2
 
Which one is more interesting/compelling and more aligned with the concept of an actual 'rivalry'?

And as to whether Murray vs Djokovic will actually get as popular or not remains to be seen. For all I know, it may not even go to that phase. Nole can end up dominating Murray; therefore, ruling out any possible rivalry and Murray can do the same. Or it can take a new dimension that we have yet to imagine. Future is never as predictable as you like to predict it.
 
« Last Edit: February 07, 2013, 11:35:04 AM by Emma »
You are everything I am not.

Offline Alex

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 12130
  • Gender: Male
Re: Want proof? 45 pages > 44 pages (Want More Proof? see FB)
« Reply #117 on: February 07, 2013, 11:46:25 AM »
Interesting, Emma, that you've tied the success of tennis to Americans pretty much dismissing the rivalry of today's generation, Federer - Nadal.

The biggest rivalries in the history of the game:

McEnroe - Borg
McEnroe - Connors
McEnroe - Lendl
Navratilova - Evert
Sampras - Agassi

All clashes of personalities as well as styles, and all with Americans as central players. Your claim is that Federer - Nadal don't measure up. Earlier you said Americans only care about Americans. So, *you alone* are saying that Federer - Nadal are 2nd tier and imply that it's due to your American-bias point of view. I don't accept that. I can't imagine anyone accepts that, either. You have to have your head in the sand not to recognize the magnitude of their popularity worldwide and the impact they've had on the popularity of the sport.

Meanwhile, Djokovic - Murray certainly have contrasting personalities, but that's where it ends. Neither are American, but, per Federer - Nadal, that's not a prerequisite for a rivalry to be elevated to upper echelon status.

I don't care that Djokovic - Murray is a young rivalry. It's not going to get there. But perhaps that will be due to Murray's failures and not their redundant style of play.
spot on Babs. agree 100%. the problem is that some people have a selective memory and they try so hard to make something out of nothing. Nole/Murray rivalry is what it is, it's not that big. It might turned out to be big but only if Murray wins more slams, achieve and hold #2 firmly for a while, achieve #1 eventually. If we see Nole and Murray one day to keep switching #1/2, beating each other in slam finals on a regular basis  we might be able to talk about the big rivalry, but that's a big IF. we can call it a 'young rivalry', fine with me ...

I like both Nole and Andy but I have to be honest here. I do not enjoy their matches at all for all kinda different reasons. I'd much rather watch Nole/Fed or Nole/Rafa. I also prefer Fed/Murray and Rafa/Murray match ups. Of course, this is just my personal opinion/preference if you wish.



Offline williamchung7

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 2530
  • Gender: Male
Re: Want proof? 45 pages > 44 pages (Want More Proof? see FB)
« Reply #118 on: February 07, 2013, 12:14:36 PM »
Tennis is generation pass generation, it is same for tennis fans all around the world. However, it has to be considered how tennis is developed in different countries.  My last post is closer to many Taiwanese and Chinese tennis fans' perspective for tennis at the moment, based on the trend of tennis in both Taiwan and China. When more and more people in China and Taiwan started watching tennis, it is time when Federer and Nadal battle each other.

Chinese economy pick up and grow up rapidly during Federer and Nadal rivalry. More families get a chance to buy TV, and watch different channels they never experience in the past. In the past, only rich have the chance to watch tennis because they have TV. They also can go to oversea. As economy continues growing in China, more people can watch TV. In the same time, Chinese government gets money to put resource on some very popular sports in worldwide as they see sport as part of nation power, like tennis, soccer, basketball...etc.  A lot of people watched in their first time. And the players they were mostly watching is Federer and Nadal. People may not know McEnroe,  Borg, Connors, Lendl, Navratilova, Evert, Sampras, Agassi, but nowdays when Taiwanese and Chinese tennis fan talk about men tennis, almost everyone knows Federer and Nadal. Poeple in my country like to watch them, not just because they are the biggest names in tennis world in that time. At the same, it is also because they have very unique and distinctive playing style. It is what I saw in last decade.

I should say it before. We don't have long history of playing tennis. I agree some of Emma's points, but it cannot be used in this case.

Without Federer and Nadal, what is going to be happened to men tennis in China and Taiwan? We are in the path of passing another generation, from Federer & Nadal to Djokovic & Murray or Djokovic & Nadal. As far as I know, a lot of people in Taiwan and China are confused. It is still tennis, but it is not entertainment it used to be.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2013, 12:22:57 PM by williamchung7 »

Online Babblelot

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 32686
  • Gender: Male
  • Chicago, IL
Re: Re: Want proof? 45 pages > 44 pages (Want More Proof? see FB)
« Reply #119 on: February 07, 2013, 12:34:59 PM »
No, what I am doing is I am comparing last era’s rivalry (Sampras vs Agassi) vs this era’s rivalry (Nadal vs Federer); mainly because, they are both fully blown rivalries and also not too many years apart unlike the 80s. In fact, they are back to back. Pay attention. I am taking Wimbledon, a neutral ground, to compare these two rivalries. Whether one is American or not is irrelevant here. Also because, Nadal and Federer have yet to meet in the final or in any round at the USO; therefore again, irrelevant. 

Here’s a look at their rivalry: Sampras vs Agassi & Nadal vs Federer.
 
Sampras vs Agassi:
Grand Slam clash: 9 meetings
Sampras leads Agassi: 6-3
 
Nadal vs Federer:
Grand Slam clash: 10 meetings
Nadal leads Federer: 8-2
 
Which one is more interesting/compelling and more aligned with the concept of an actual 'rivalry'?

And as to whether Murray vs Djokovic will actually get as popular or not remains to be seen. For all I know, it may not even go to that phase. Nole can end up dominating Murray; therefore, ruling out any possible rivalry and Murray can do the same. Or it can take a new dimension that we have yet to imagine. Future is never as predictable as you like to predict it.

Since the main point of your argument is that these 2 rivalries are "full blown" vis-a-vis the others, why don't you tell us what "full blown" means?

Again, aside from you, both are equally compelling to tennis fans. In fact, the only surface that the latter is a foregone conclusion on is clay. By contrast, Sampras had a huge advantage on faster surfaces and Agassi on slower. Neither beat the other on their best surface. Moreover, Sampras and Agassi met in 5 slam finals. By contrast, and what does make Federer -Nadal more interesting, is that Nadal was able to beat Federer on Roger's best surfaces. Further, they've met in an all-time record 8 grand slam finals.

On it's face, your argument simply doesn't float.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2013, 12:45:34 PM by Babblelot »
1995 USO, 1997 USO, 2004 USO, 2005 RG, 2005 USO, 2006 RG, 2006 USO, 2007 USO, 2008 RG, 2008 USO, 2009 USO, 2010 USO, 2011 USO, 2012 USOhttp://www.gifsoup.com/view4/1856936/2005safin-o.gif
http://www.gifsoup.com/view1/1857331/2004gaudio-o.gif