I hate to bash players, but he gets on my nerves so much. What bothers me most is his weak mind. He is, IMO, every bit as talented as Federer, so why is he worshiping him? Anyway, I'll let up on him as it only wreaks havoc on my own high blood pressure.
Agree here too. Before Nadal, Federer was sleepwalking through the tour. Partly because of his incredible skills, but partly because of the reverence being thrust upon him. The media deified this guy to the point where many felt it was OK to lose against him.
In the early years Federer never even had to get out of first gear. Thanks goodness for Nadal, Nole, and Andy, who showed that Federer the player, was also human.
Had those pathetic displays continued I surely would have given up tennis, as I am not into non-competitiveness in sports. That's how I let my own aggression out, so they need to give me something to root about.
I must say to Federer's credit, that he did rise to the challenge and find another gear. Nadal was good for him because it showed him that he wasn't infallible, and they have given us some great battles over the years, so good on him for still fighting.
Tennis is not that huge in America. You'd be hard pressed to find many who watch it, know it, and follow it like forumites do. Practically no one in my circle watches it, or knows what's going on. Plus, much depends on which TV station you watch and whether or not the USO is advertised. Most of my comrades who do watch it, say they happen to catch it when it's on.
In America the focus is on MLB, Football, Golf, Nascar, and the NBA. Tennis, on media outlets is listed as Other. So, I'm not surprised by the ratings since it's viewed more as a niche sport.
I like Woz too and think she is headed in the right direction. For the first time I think she may win a major title. If she does it will be great for tennis.
Monfils just lacks the belief. He's not arrogant enough to believe he's as good as Federer. I wish he had done so then he would have had a much better career. It's not only Monfils - there are lots of other players and people in general who lack self-esteem and a good dose of arrogance. Even Sampras was seen as slightly aloof but he had to be that way. He didn't want to show any emotion since he saw it as a weakness of character, especially against his opponents on court, so he let his racquet do all the talking. Monfils, on the other hand, is known as a clown and for a valid reason as well as he likes to put out shows which tend to cause him loads of distractions during matches. Not everyone is your Djokovic, you know. Besides, Djokovic is only funny after a match - when he's playing a match, he's deadly serious. You and I both know that and we know how mentally strong he is and it's mainly because he has a firm believe about himself and what he is capable of doing.
As to Federer, two things happened in his favour; one, he peaked at a time when tennis was lacking a healthy competition (2003-2007); second, he was much better than the remaining field. This combination of things had made him win 12 Slams in that time period. Though Nadal won his first Slam in 2005, he wouldn't see success anywhere until 2008 and by that time, not only he had played quite a few times against Federer, but also, he was so good on clay that it allowed him to beat Federer at RG a few times and that gave him enormous amount of strength to take it further down - to all the way to Wimbledon and rest is history. That was also the very first time we see in history of tennis a pure grass courter getting beaten by a pure clay courter on grass - at least by that time's standard anyway.
Anyway, I've got nothing against Federer but it's very dull to see this kind of domination in any era especially when you see a certain lack of competition. Thankfully there wasn't any era like this one at least in the Open era. The competition has always felt very strong and it has again picked up since 2008 - though the only player who has truly made this possible is Nole as Nadal has always been there alongside with Federer (since 2011 when competition took a new turn) and it felt like a two men show. I would have really liked Andy to win more since 2008. He had no business losing to Federer in 3 Slam finals and another series of losses to Nadal since then at GS level. But mentally Andy was so weak in those days and the Brits didn't make it any easier on him.
As to Serena again, I know tennis is not as popular especially in NA but the rating of the women's final was lower than the previous years, so that's a bit of a mystery. I am not even comparing it to other sports. Anyway, doesn't matter really. Perhaps a fresh face would helped.
I agree with all of this. 2003-2007 was a dismal period in tennis, not just because of the one man domination, but the pure lack of competitiveness and belief. I remember opponents talking about how it wasn't a shame to lose to Federer. What kind of crock is that? It's your job to try to beat your opponent. That's the nature of sport. Or, saying they couldn't concentrate on their own game for watching his beautiful shots.
Of course, a lot of this was influenced by the McEnroes, who both giveth and taketh away. It's not a surprise to see JMac backing off the claim since his "job" is to hold people's interests.
Yes, big props to Nole for having belief and finding a way. Another round of one man domination wouldn't be good for the sport either, so I take the wins and the losses with equal grace. Beatdowns are boring. I watch sports for competition, not to see players walking onto the court without belief.