Weeks 27 & 28 - Wimbledon (grass) - men's singles

the addict · Tennis legend

RE: Weeks 27 & 28 - Wimbledon (grass) - men's singles

Vandenburg · Futures level

How he can be the greatest when he has a losing records against his two biggest rivals (Nadal and Novak)

Take away the very weak era that Fed launched himself in, and he is a 10 grandslam player at best.

The 2000 to 2003 era was terrible. Safin and Hewitt, leading players, which at their peak would struggle to be top 10 in this era,

Clement, Schuttler, Baghdatitis, reach slam finals, Thomas Johanson, wins a slam!.

steven · Tennis legend

Coup Droit wrote:
OK, so it's only me then ?

I love Roger, mainly because his tennis is so gorgeous, but also as a man.
He seems a very decent family man, very well liked by most of the other players, great mates with Rafa, when they could have been rivals and enemies, and so on.
He is maybe a tad 'Swiss' but I can't really hold that against him.

Well done, Rog !
(Add: although I do agree with Jaggy that this year's men's tournament has been pretty lacklustre - Nadal v Gilles Muller was my favourite match. And there weren't many contenders. But, again, can't really hold that against Roger).

I've always thought he's just a bit too Swiss (Swiss-German, more to the point, with a bit of South African thrown in!) for some British tastes. If he were more humble, the people in his own country would probably have a go at him for false modesty. Equally, I've always found Rafa's humility a bit cloying and false, so goodness knows what the Swiss make of that! Andy gets it about right, I think - but being a Brit, I would think that, wouldn't I!

Roger's tennis is indeed gorgeous, though (again, being British perhaps!), I'd say that's more a reason to watch him than a reason to want him to win.

Interesting that women's tennis without its two biggest stars (assuming them to be Serena and Maria, for differing reasons) seems to be far more interesting at the moment than men's tennis without a fully fit Andy and Novak.

steven · Tennis legend

the addict wrote:
indiana wrote:
Thanks for that, what took so long
I was reading Stevens tweet on the subject at the same time

Good to know that someone reads them

That tweet about ATP rule 1.08 was part of a reply to Kyle's dad Steve (who'd made the very valid point that the ATP don't allow most players to take time off without hitting them with monetary penalties that go well beyond mandatory zero-pointers) after I'd said that Fed's win proves that rest can be important, particularly as players get older.

I also think being no. 1 should be valued as a different but equally valid achievement, even if the no. 1 is slamless, because it usually involves putting yourself on the line week after week - something I also used to think when people carped about slamless WTA no. 1s in the days when Serena deliberately took time off. Having said that, obviously if Fed gets to no. 1 again with just 8 counters later this summer, that would be a pretty special achievement in itself!

I completely understand that the ATP and the WTA (who, if anything, are even more control-freakish with their top players' schedules - the WTA rules about this go on for page after page) have to provide stars for their main tour events but surely Fed's success this year proves that it would be worth moving a bit further towards letting players listen to their bodies and set sensible schedules, if it makes for better play, greater longevity and, presumably, fewer retirements during matches. They could also do a better job of giving players below the very top more of a profile (and I don't mean the WTA's current obsession for trying to turn A-list players into Z-list celebs!)

Then again, while active players continue to play pointless exhibition events, especially in the off-season, they tend to shoot this kind of argument in the foot.