Tennis Forever

[JamesDap]

I think the Ferrer case has more to do with Fed's own wild swings of rhythm because otherwise he is flat out the better player and has never lost to Ferrer ever. But on the larger point it's true that organisers do try to align draws and schedules in such a way that unduly favours the crowd favourites. Even yesterday morning, they put Azarenka-McHale on Ashe because McHale can pull local crowds. Whereas Nishikori and Andujar were put on the Grandstand and they were playing a much more entertaining match. As it happened, Andujar withdrew 2 sets down but this kind of thing has been happening for a long time and as their TV revenues increase, is getting worse. As I said in my last comment on this topic, the viewers also have to take some of the blame for this. They are lazy, they want to see stars all the time, they are not necessarily interested in just good tennis. I wonder how RG would have been marketed in the 90s if such had been the mentality at that time because it was completely unpredictable. I thought the unpredictability adds charm to events like the Slams or the Football World Cup but I wonder if a lot of people don't think like that anymore.

[raagadevan]

Sure! We will ignore the allegations of ATP fixing the outcomes of Grand Slam tournaments and the Olympics (tennis) finals in favor of a player (not "you know who!), and we sure will believe that a certain old player's sudden resurrection into winning Masters 1000 and possibly more Grand Slam events is just the result of that player being the GOAT!

[omega]

Sure! We will ignore the allegations of ATP fixing the outcomes of Grand Slam tournaments and the Olympics (tennis) finals in favor of a player (not "you know who!), and we sure will believe that a certain old player's sudden resurrection into winning Masters 1000 and possibly more Grand Slam events is just the result of that player being the GOAT!

Looks like you've not been paying attention to anyone other than Bull....
Olderer has been playing great throughout this year. He is 50-9 so far for the season. Has reached 4 Masters 1000 final (2 of them when the chronically injured Bull was around). Has reached 1 GS Final (again when the stem cell fixed Kneedal was kicked by a 19 year old 144th ranked first strike tennis player). He has done pretty well in all the tournaments which had played faster than normal. This was not the first season he had won Cincinnati (it was his 6th). We know who had won it for the first time last year & promptly didn't show up to defend his title (because it was not clay).

So cut your crap about old player's sudden resurrection.

But like I said you don't have to worry much, Olderer could lose to anyone at this stage of his career. So the target will still be 17 & I don't see it becoming 18 inspite of an easy draw at the Open.

[JamesDap]

I am not ignoring them. I only said in this particular case I am not very much convinced and you will have to live with that. Please, he just beat Ferrer, Raonic and the likes, not Djokovic or Nadal (THAT would have merited some serious attention). It is not comparable to his 2012 Cincy when he bageled Djoko in the first set in the final.

I do find the cries of Federer the favourite for US Open suspicious because while he has found a second wind, it is not so overwhelming as to conclude that a player who lost to effing Robredo last time would suddenly become the hot favourite. My favourite for the tournament is still Djokovic, it's only a matter of whether he gets to the final or not. Either the commentators are being very fanboy-ish or this is an attempt to build up hype. It is well known that the US audience cares more about Fed and not so much the rest (in his absence), except maybe Nadal (who is also not playing). So claims of a Fed revival would get crowds back to the tournament. Overall, it is not a good prognosis for tennis. I think people should be more excited about the rise of Kyrgios than an 18th slam for a player who already has the record.

[omega]

I am not ignoring them. I only said in this particular case I am not very much convinced and you will have to live with that. Please, he just beat Ferrer, Raonic and the likes, not Djokovic or Nadal (THAT would have merited some serious attention). It is not comparable to his 2012 Cincy when he bageled Djoko in the first set in the final.

I do find the cries of Federer the favourite for US Open suspicious because while he has found a second wind, it is not so overwhelming as to conclude that a player who lost to effing Robredo last time would suddenly become the hot favourite. My favourite for the tournament is still Djokovic, it's only a matter of whether he gets to the final or not. Either the commentators are being very fanboy-ish or this is an attempt to build up hype. It is well known that the US audience cares more about Fed and not so much the rest (in his absence), except maybe Nadal (who is also not playing). So claims of a Fed revival would get crowds back to the tournament. Overall, it is not a good prognosis for tennis. I think people should be more excited about the rise of Kyrgios than an 18th slam for a player who already has the record.

If Olderer's revival is not a good prognosis for tennis, then its even worse for a chronically injured guy to have won 14 slams right?
Pardon my ignorance..

[JamesDap]

If Olderer's revival is not a good prognosis for tennis, then its even worse for a chronically injured guy to have won 14 slams right?
Pardon my ignorance..

You got me completely wrong. Pl relax a bit and read what I said properly. I am saying what is not a good prognosis for tennis is the fact that people are more excited about yet another slam for Fed (or Djoko or Nadal for that matter) than the rise of an exciting young player like Kyrgios. I love Fed too, I like Djoko as well but tennis has to move on ultimately. And it needs new stars for that to happen. I wonder if Kyrgios will really win a lot of popularity even if he wins a few slams. People seem to be terribly obsessed with the Big Four. Not that everyone is like that but generally speaking that is the case. Most people don't even tune in before the QFs or semis of slams. We could see a sharp decline in interest in tennis once the big four are done or simply cannot play well enough to win slams anymore. Something similar is likely to happen in WTA too once Serena is done. I guess that's why WTA is already trying desperately to push young stars though picking Bouchard for said purpose is probably not going to help their cause.

None of it was ever intended to be a knock on Federer. He has played well this year...exclusively fast court tennis. He seems to have given up on finding a winning strategy on slow courts (refer his comment after losing in RG, was almost like a good riddance to clay). But that's where he has the best chance to do well anyway and he has focused on that.

[JamesDap]

And out of curiosity, what evidence exactly do you have which you claim is more than enough to PROVE that Cincy was fixed? Pl share it if there are any links, would like to read. You are talking about it as if it's all out there and it isn't.

[JamesDap]

Whatever I have said about Nadal is in the papers. I don't have to reach too far to back it up. It was he who said he hated Sampras's brand of tennis and called it boring. So much for respect for a past champion and all time great. Seeing as it was 2012, probably his pastings at the hands of power hitters at Wimby since then might be Karmic retribution for his hubris. It is he who has often painted hard courts as enemy no. 1 of tennis just because it possibly hurts his knees, arguing for fewer tournaments when faster courts and shorter matches would suffice to reduce the extent of physicality in tennis. It was his uncle Toni who decried the reports of Aus Open playing faster (even before the tournament was even a few days old, maybe even before it started, I don't remember the exact timing) as it would deny the spectacle of long rallies. It is not too much to conclude that for a time ATP may have slowed down the courts to give Nadal a leg up on the traditionally faster surfaces because they like match ups and rivalries. We HAVE seen the courts slow down and we have seen some of them play faster again. It's not made up stuff. Basically he and his uncle can't seem to be able to keep their big mouths sewed lately (used to be that they were more subtle and less forthright about it for a long time).

On the other hand, if you want to say a sudden dip in form and a rebound is due to fixing and not something that just happens in tennis matches, you have to substantiate it. I am all ears if you can show some indications for it. Did you see Ferrer miss absolutely routine shots for no reason at all in the third set? Anything that or more blatant? I have seen that kind of stuff in cricket, that I can say for sure. It has to be a bit deeper than only circumstantial indications. I know that Fed winning Cincinnati is what the ATP wants to see and I wouldn't rule out rigging even if I am not personally convinced based on what I saw. But if you are going to argue that it was rigging beyond all doubt, then I need more than that to agree with you.

[Arvind Srinivasan]

I for one will not rule out the possibility of the draws being rigged to get favorable matches for the who's who of tennis. But just that and not any further. After that its left entirely to the players to get the win IMHO. Going by your logic RR, am sure the organisers would have wanted a Federer win at Toronto. Wonder why that didnt happen. Was Federer's play that day so horrible he couldnt even force a rigged win ?

[JamesDap]

^^^ Indeed. And Fed has won Montreal in the past by the way. Maybe, even though he doesn't admit to it, raga gets upset with the Nadal-bashing on this thread. So let me clarify here that none of this is to say that Nadal necessarily needed slower courts to win, especially against Federer! :P He beat him in Miami back in 2004 itself. He nearly beat Fed in Wimb 2007 as well. Last year, he produced a brilliant hard court season in North America. Winning Cincy was truly awesome. It has more to do with the organisers' desperation to see a match up that would thrill viewers (esp since it was Fed-daylight-competition in 2004-07). And it saddens me to see Nadal play up to that and try to pretend that this is how tennis should be played all the time, long, grinding and punishing rallies with no attack. I used to like him, but not after I heard him baselessly bash tennis tradition like that. There is a reason we have four slams and not all on clay and Nadal should respect that.