CAMELOT FANTASIES

Quote from: thetruth on September 28, 2014, 02:24:11 am

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. 

From a player's perspective, it's a great shame to lose to Federer again and again and again. From a fanatic's perspective, there's no shame in losing to Federer. That's how I see it.

Me, too.

Of course it was a weak period in tennis history. There are lots of fans who always claim there's no such thing as 'weak era' but there is and there will always be.

Of course it is. When Pete and Andre retired there was a huge chasm in the sport. It was like how when the Chief is felled the Indians stop fighting. No one knew what to do until Federer stepped up. Then the "legend" began.


Let me put it this way and ask these very fans again, if Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Murray, Hewitt, Safin were all to pick up at the same time and if they were of same age, would that have been considered a weak era or very strong era? Or what if we take Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro, Wawrinka etc. away and leave only Federer and Nadal in the mix since 2008? Would that make it a strong era or weak? Clearly this makes the era weak since Nadal has total domination over Federer by 2008 and he would have no else to deal with. Who other than Nadal would have won all these Slams?

Wouldn't have been fun at all for me. It would've been boring.


I really and honestly think JMac does a lot of it because he was told as he's the most recognized commentator out there and he's a legend in his own right and people especially casual fans will believe every word he says. This very JMac is now fully behind Nadal and once someone else comes and becomes popular he'd suddenly become his biggest fan. I really it's all a set up to lure casual fans in and also an attempt to increase the TV rating. They see it as a win/win since it increases tennis popularity. I highly doubt it. Yeah, the bring fans but they are unlikely to stick to the sport. Just wait until both Federer and Nadal retire. I am not a fan of any of these strategies. If anything, they damage the sport. A lot of the fans who became Sampras fans back in the  90s are still watching the sport even after their idol's departure, because they fell in love with the game too. That's highly unlikely to happen in Federer's case. I'd like to bet all my money on it in fact.

Without a doubt.


Beatdowns are horrible. It's very unattractive. Shame on those fans who prefer beatdowns. They don't understand that tennis is a game not a show.

I agree. Beatdowns are unattractive and hardly worth my time. I have other things to do than watch a one-sided affair.