PDA

View Full Version : Do you find the current era of men's tennis boring?


mcenroefan
05-27-2012, 02:16 AM
Upside of the current era from my personal perspective: I enjoy watching Federer more than any other player and generally am appreciative to have seen him play.

Downside: This era has been so unbelieveably top heavy such that the Grand Slams and all tourneys have been reduced to a mind-numbing wait for the finals. The early rounds seem almost irrelevant and even the late rounds have been predictiable. I enjoyed the tension of the quarters and semis in previous eras whereas the tension from those rounds is almost completely gone in this era as the results are virtual foregone conclusions.

Put another way: would a little more parity be good for the men's game and the spectator's enjoyment of the game? I wish a few more players had risen up to provide sustained challenges to Fed and Nadal. Thank gosh for Nole over the last year...but I wish Murray or a few others had also asserted themselves. I havge been very fristrated that players like Murray, Verdasco, etc, etc. who clearly have great talent can not sustain any sort of challenge. I think alot of it is mental failing.

Thoughts?

MichaelNadal
05-27-2012, 02:22 AM
I find it intriguing and fascinating :) Not boring at all. The WTA is enough of a grab-bag, for me to like the contrast of the big 4 in the ATP.

mcenroefan
05-27-2012, 02:31 AM
I find it intriguing and fascinating :) Not boring at all. The WTA is enough of a grab-bag, for me to like the contrast of the big 4 in the ATP.

Well, men's tennis wasn't considered a "grab bag" in the 1970's-1990's. I think there was more mental strength and depth in those days. Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras, Agassi and a cadre of other players who could beat them on any random day. Reminds me a bit of the comparison of the Tiger era(2000-2008?) in golf to the earlier eras where it was Hogan, Nicklaus, Palmer, Watson, Player...many, many great players all of whom had the mental fortitude to win a major.

I guess what I'm saying is that there can be only so much intrigue from a two to three way competition....a four to eight way competition will generally have more depth and storylines.

joeri888
05-27-2012, 02:51 AM
Kinda yeah. The 00's haven't been very special. Especially the lack of specialists on different surfaces is annoying and the utter dominance of First Federer and then Djokovic on the non-clay, and Nadal on clay is boring too. I liked the years around 2003 better. The AO had a better surface, and the fast grass was even better. I think the tour could do with:

- more different surfaces (indoor carpet, AO back to old surface, grass faster, clay very slow with heavy balls)
- 2 more consistent mentally tough specialists for the faster surface who dare attack the net, like Tsonga for instance, and guys like Berdych and Delpo performing more consistent in the big points
- 2 or 3 claycourters that could threaten Nadal on the surface. The best Gaudio, Ferrero, Moya, Gaudio, that kind of players.

Sentinel
05-27-2012, 03:00 AM
Other than Federer, very boring. I don't know if a little more parity would be better if they are just baseliners like Ferrer.

firepanda
05-27-2012, 03:13 AM
Its fantastic, and that's ignoring Federer (I haven't seen him for a while). The surfaces are slower, meaning rallies are longer and there are fewer aces, something that was always a gripe for me. Its a much more physical game, which is great for watching sake.
I like the way Nadal plays in general, tons of topspin, taking every ball headfirst. Federer is the most elegant and skillful, though he makes me feel tense. Djokovic plays a very similar game to mine, so I look to him for examples. Otherwise he's a poor man's Nadal in terms of entertainment.

I just like the longer rallies in baseline play, and the greater variety (like spin doctors, counterpunchers...)

nadal_slam_king
05-27-2012, 03:24 AM
From 1995-2000, the tour was boring apart from Agassi, Rafter, Scud, Rios and Sampras. Today, the tour has more than 5 entertaining players.

Ocean Drive
05-27-2012, 04:04 AM
From 1995-2000, the tour was boring apart from Agassi, Rafter, Scud, Rios and Sampras. Today, the tour has more than 5 entertaining players.

Really? There were plenty of players who could either take big names out or win slams.

Players who were seen as players who could win slams during the time you stated:

Sampras
Agassi
Kafelnikov
Rafter
Ivanisevic
Moya
Rios
Pioline
Martin
Kuerten
Safin
Krajicek
Stich
Becker
Chang
Muster
Courier
Philippoussis
Rusedski
Enqvist
Bruguera
Corretja

Yes, not all of these players won slams during that period, but they were possible winners. Who do we have today? Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro?

Then we had players who could have caused the upset:

Larsson
Ferreira
Medvedev
Costa
Mantilla
Berasategui
Arazi
Hewitt
Ferrero
Kucera
Haas
El Aynaoui
Federer
Henman
Norman
Pavel
Bjorkman
Lapentti
Schalken
Portas
Hrbaty
Escude
Ilie
Canas
Santoro

Can you realistically name as many players who could be or become a dangerous player to either knock out a favourite at a slam or win a Masters Series?

Then there's the younger players coming through, some of which already in contention: Federer, Safin, Ferrero, Roddick, Haas, Ljubicic, Gambill, Grosjean, Coria, Nalbandian, Malisse, Blake, Gaudio, Gonzalez, Joachim Johansson and more.

Who's coming through right now? Raonic, Tomic... Who else? Harrison maybe? He's 20 and hasn't reached an ATP final. You can forget about Berankis and Dimitrov.

Also back then, surfaces were varied. We had rebound ace of Australia, Slow Roland Garros (which didn't play like a hardcourt), fast Wimbledon and fast US Open along with varied surfaces in Super Nine or Masters Series, including carpet.

Yes, I do find the current ATP tour boring.

Ocean Drive
05-27-2012, 04:05 AM
Its fantastic, and that's ignoring Federer (I haven't seen him for a while). The surfaces are slower, meaning rallies are longer and there are fewer aces, something that was always a gripe for me. Its a much more physical game, which is great for watching sake.
I like the way Nadal plays in general, tons of topspin, taking every ball headfirst. Federer is the most elegant and skillful, though he makes me feel tense. Djokovic plays a very similar game to mine, so I look to him for examples. Otherwise he's a poor man's Nadal in terms of entertainment.

I just like the longer rallies in baseline play, and the greater variety (like spin doctors, counterpunchers...)

This is what I don't understand. Back between 1995 to 2000, you'd have had long rallies, just not year round. Players were forced to adapt depending on the time of year. People such as yourself talk as if the whole ATP season back then was just an ace fest, which is untrue. Either you haven't watched tennis then or you haven't backdated and educated yourself.

El Diablo
05-27-2012, 04:14 AM
Tennis seems to be the only sport I watch that regularly features this debate about whether this or another era is boring. Probably reflects the metronome dullness of the game itself, requiring personality clashes to make it more interesting. Been watching my NJ Devils play a similarly defense oriented NY Rangers and it's been absolutely thrilling stuff, never a dull moment, nail biting. Tennis rarely reaches these levels, and so people are forced to debate whether they feel stuck in a tedious era of dull action. Love to play tennis, enjoy watching it less and less over time.

nadal_slam_king
05-27-2012, 04:30 AM
Really? There were plenty of players who could either take big names out or win slams.

Players who were seen as players who could win slams during the time you stated:

Sampras
Agassi
Kafelnikov
Rafter
Ivanisevic
Moya
Rios
Pioline
Martin
Kuerten
Safin
Krajicek
Stich
Becker
Chang
Muster
Courier
Philippoussis
Rusedski
Enqvist
Bruguera
Corretja



That's true, Becker and Courier still had something left in 95. I should have said 97-2002. Rusedksi I hated, pure boredom watching him ace his way through matches. It's nothing like watching Sampras, as Sampras had superb forehand and occasionally brilliant backhand and all-time great net-skills. Scud I included in my list of entertainment, because he had such powerful groundstrokes. And Rafter, obviously entertaining net-charger.

Rios I included in my entertainment list because he's a genius. Chang I found boring, Safin I found boring because regardless of his talent I couldn't rely on him to give 100% so not worth watching, Goran was boring because he was an ace-machine like Rusedski was.

A lot of the other guys were dirt-ballers which I don't like. Apart from Guga, they didn't play the attacking clay style that Nadal brought to the table. It was slower clay back then though. But Moya was an exception, as he possessed plenty of all-round skill. Yeah Kafelnkov was entertaining to an extent, especially at the Australian Open. Loved that AO final between him and Agassi.

westside
05-27-2012, 04:56 AM
I don't find it boring at all. However, what annoys me is the lack of variety on the tour, specifically that of the surface speeds.

abmk
05-27-2012, 05:31 AM
Rios I included in my entertainment list because he's a genius. Chang I found boring, Safin I found boring because regardless of his talent I couldn't rely on him to give 100% so not worth watching,

LOL @ the self-contradiction. You couldn't rely on Safin to give 100%, but you could rely on Rios to give 100% ? LOL !!

Again, you love pwning yourself don't you ? :)

Slice&Smash
05-27-2012, 05:36 AM
From 1995-2000, the tour was boring apart from Agassi, Rafter, Scud, Rios and Sampras. Today, the tour has more than 5 entertaining players.

Name them...

nadal_slam_king
05-27-2012, 05:55 AM
LOL @ the self-contradiction. You couldn't rely on Safin to give 100%, but you could rely on Rios to give 100% ? LOL !!

Again, you love pwning yourself don't you ? :)

Nah you just didn't read properly. I said Rios was a genius. I never said Safin was a genius, I just said Safin was talented. The genius of Rios made it all worthwhile, regardless of the effort he put forward or didn't put forward. Rios is one of a kind.

nadal_slam_king
05-27-2012, 06:01 AM
Name them...

Nadal, Djokovic, Federer, Murray, Tsonga, Del Potro, Simon, Monfils, Verdasco, Wawrinka, Mayer (Florian), Baghdatis, Soderling, Mahut, Tomic, Youzhny, Nishikori, Dolgopolov, Berdych, Muller.

nadal_GOAT_king
05-27-2012, 06:18 AM
That's true, Becker and Courier still had something left in 95. I should have said 97-2002. Rusedksi I hated, pure boredom watching him ace his way through matches. It's nothing like watching Sampras, as Sampras had superb forehand and occasionally brilliant backhand and all-time great net-skills. Scud I included in my list of entertainment, because he had such powerful groundstrokes. And Rafter, obviously entertaining net-charger.

Rios I included in my entertainment list because he's a genius. Chang I found boring, Safin I found boring because regardless of his talent I couldn't rely on him to give 100% so not worth watching, Goran was boring because he was an ace-machine like Rusedski was.

A lot of the other guys were dirt-ballers which I don't like. Apart from Guga, they didn't play the attacking clay style that Nadal brought to the table. It was slower clay back then though. But Moya was an exception, as he possessed plenty of all-round skill. Yeah Kafelnkov was entertaining to an extent, especially at the Australian Open. Loved that AO final between him and Agassi.

There goes my hero! Always right in what he writes

Mustard
05-27-2012, 06:18 AM
Boring? We're in one of the golden eras of tennis, and some people find it boring? :shock:

In decades from now, people will remember this era very well, like they do with Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Nastase and Vilas today.

Sentinel
05-27-2012, 06:19 AM
Slice asked you to name some entertaining players, not to just names some ATP pros!

Mustard
05-27-2012, 06:27 AM
Really? There were plenty of players who could either take big names out or win slams.

Certainly in the 1990s and early 2000s, the numbers of people who could win majors was big. In the 1980s, though, that wasn't as much the case, and was closer to today. In the 1980s, you had Lendl (a constant threat throughout the decade), the big trio of Borg, Connors and McEnroe, and the next trio of Wilander, Becker and Edberg. Outside of these 7 players, the only majors winners in the decade were Noah, Cash and Chang, and players in weakened fields like Teacher and Kriek. And there were some threats like Mecir as well.

In the 1990s, with the power at then unprecedented levels (and pre-poly strings) and a greater contrast between the different surfaces than in any other era, with lightning fast grass and carpet, fast/mediumish hardcourts and slow/very slow clay, specialists developed on different surfaces.

abmk
05-27-2012, 07:11 AM
Nah you just didn't read properly. I said Rios was a genius. I never said Safin was a genius, I just said Safin was talented. The genius of Rios made it all worthwhile, regardless of the effort he put forward or didn't put forward. Rios is one of a kind.

so being talented does not excuse not 100% effort, but being so called genius does , especially considering safin actually did have focus/effort in quite a few of the slams unlike rios who had focus in very less slams ?? LOL !! *** and his double standards ...

nadal_slam_king
05-27-2012, 07:17 AM
so being talented does not excuse not 100% effort, but being so called genius does , especially considering safin actually did have focus/effort in quite a few of the slams unlike rios who had focus in very less slams ?? LOL !! *** and his double standards ...

I would give anything to have Rios on the tour again, even at his current age. Safin.....was talented but I didn't find him anywhere near as entertaining as Rios. It's "double-standards" because Rios was a different standard of talent. Rios was top 5 most talented of all-time. Safin, not even a top 20 talent all-time.

Gorecki
05-27-2012, 07:22 AM
I would give anything to have Rios on the tour again, even at his current age. Safin.....was talented but I didn't find him anywhere near as entertaining as Rios. It's "double-standards" because Rios was a different standard of talent. Rios was top 5 most talented of all-time. Safin, not even a top 20 talent all-time.

reaching number one slamless! that is talent!!! :-?

Warmaster
05-27-2012, 07:24 AM
2009 was pretty awesome. Every major had something special. It's gone downhill ever since though in my opinion.

nadal_slam_king
05-27-2012, 07:26 AM
I wonder if Connors or Lendl would have been able to stay with Nadal and Djokovic.

Mustard
05-27-2012, 07:33 AM
reaching number one slamless! that is talent!!! :-?

Rios fully deserved that number 1 ranking, despite no major. He was the best player over the previous 52 weeks. And at the time, it seemed only a matter of time before he would win a major. I expected him to win the 1998 French Open.

TTMR
05-27-2012, 07:36 AM
I wouldn't say it is boring, as I still watch it and participate here. However, the trouble is the predictability of the sport and the dreaded "I knew it" that comes after an underdog makes a nice push but then the favourite inevitably finds a way to win. In 2010, I would have bet my house on Nadal coming back to beat Petzschner and Federer coming back to defeat Falla.

Even at the top, the lopsided nature of the matchups always made for an expected outcome (particularly Murray vs. Nadal and Federer vs. Nadal, to a lesser extent Nadal vs. Djokovic at least in 2011).

Quite honestly, nowadays I find myself looking forward to the majors in golf over tennis. Golf has a fair number of 'usual suspects' who have a shot at each title, with a number of guys who can make a once in a lifetime assertion. Meanwhile, each tennis major is incredibly similar to the next in both playing style and contenders, that one can just fast forward to the semis before there is any semblance of real competition.

The number one complaint I hear about tennis from dedicated North American sports fans (people that like football, baseball, basketball, hockey and golf) is that tennis is essentially only played by 3-4 players (and in the mid to late 2000s, only 2). I think there is a lot of merit in that argument.

fps
05-27-2012, 07:37 AM
Well, men's tennis wasn't considered a "grab bag" in the 1970's-1990's. I think there was more mental strength and depth in those days. Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras, Agassi and a cadre of other players who could beat them on any random day.
I guess what I'm saying is that there can be only so much intrigue from a two to three way competition....a four to eight way competition will generally have more depth and storylines.

We have 3 amazing, amazing players right at the top of the game, and you've just brought up 6 players over the course of two decades, so I think you're just grouping all the great players of the past together in your head then comparing them with the rankings on 27/5/2012.

Though I agree a 4 to 8 way competition would be more interesting in terms of the top events, in reality it's the surfaces that often give one player or another a jump or handicap, and they are now homogenised.

fps
05-27-2012, 07:39 AM
Tennis seems to be the only sport I watch that regularly features this debate about whether this or another era is boring. Probably reflects the metronome dullness of the game itself, requiring personality clashes to make it more interesting. Been watching my NJ Devils play a similarly defense oriented NY Rangers and it's been absolutely thrilling stuff, never a dull moment, nail biting. Tennis rarely reaches these levels, and so people are forced to debate whether they feel stuck in a tedious era of dull action. Love to play tennis, enjoy watching it less and less over time.

Lol a very good point, everyone is in a constant state of thinking the game isn't as good as it was in the old days.... That they didn't even see!!

Gorecki
05-27-2012, 07:41 AM
Rios fully deserved that number 1 ranking, despite no major. He was the best player over the previous 52 weeks.

yes. one of the reasons why he deserved the number one was losing to a roided talentless Korda. that alone should be worth a slam or two!!!

vive le beau jeu !
05-27-2012, 07:45 AM
I wonder if Connors or Lendl would have been able to stay with Nadal and Djokovic.
both connors and lendl playing in double (you can also add borg and mcenroe to their team) against the single nadal would have been instantly blasted into dust by the humble power of the devastating topspin of the rusty peak injured golden bull.

abmk
05-27-2012, 07:46 AM
^^

with all due respect, Korda was no talentless hack ..... with that backhand and returning in general ....

Gorecki
05-27-2012, 07:49 AM
both connors and lendl playing in double (you can also add borg and mcenroe to their team) against the single nadal would have been instantly blasted into dust by the humble power of the devastating topspin of the rusty peak injured golden bull.

agree. also, you need to change your avie to show your respect for such enticing surface that allows us to see 40 shot pushing rallies that end with a drop or a UE....

Viva la good ol' snoozefest!

abmk
05-27-2012, 07:49 AM
I would give anything to have Rios on the tour again, even at his current age. Safin.....was talented but I didn't find him anywhere near as entertaining as Rios. It's "double-standards" because Rios was a different standard of talent. Rios was top 5 most talented of all-time. Safin, not even a top 20 talent all-time.

@ bold part, I LOL'ed ......

rios was a different talent from safin, but to say he was top 5 most talented of all time whereas safin not even top 20 talent is just the sort of cr*p that only the likes of you can bring up ....

Gorecki
05-27-2012, 07:51 AM
^^

with all due respect, Korda was no talentless hack ..... with that backhand and returning in general ....

in all honesty i liked both Korda and Rios, but it takes a special kind of stupid persona to claim Nadal is more talented that Federer and Rios is more Talented than Safin!!!!

that is Nadal_smurf_king....

marpiw
05-27-2012, 07:58 AM
Upside of the current era from my personal perspective: I enjoy watching Federer more than any other player and generally am appreciative to have seen him play.

Downside: This era has been so unbelieveably top heavy such that the Grand Slams and all tourneys have been reduced to a mind-numbing wait for the finals. The early rounds seem almost irrelevant and even the late rounds have been predictiable. I enjoyed the tension of the quarters and semis in previous eras whereas the tension from those rounds is almost completely gone in this era as the results are virtual foregone conclusions.

Put another way: would a little more parity be good for the men's game and the spectator's enjoyment of the game? I wish a few more players had risen up to provide sustained challenges to Fedy and Nadal. Thank gosh for Nole over the last year...but I wish Murray or a few others had also asserted themselves. I havge been very fristrated that players like Murray, Verdasco, etc, etc. who clearly have great talent can not sustain any sort of challenge. I think alot of it is mental failing.

Thoughts?On the contrary I find this a completely enjoyable era with less trophy monopoly,because today every player has the possibility of winning a tournament,not only the ones in the top.Also rookies and wildcard players can win tournaments...a very refreshing new face at the podium.The level of the sport is not bad and you can watch good matches.So there is nothing to complain about it...we are in a variable and refreshing era of tennis...

abmk
05-27-2012, 07:59 AM
in all honesty i liked both Korda and Rios, but it takes a special kind of stupid persona to claim Nadal is more talented that Federer and Rios is more Talented than Safin!!!!

that is Nadal_smurf_king....

indeed ... :)

Evan77
05-27-2012, 08:07 AM
not boring at all. it depends how you look at it. the top 3 are too dominant. I would love to see someone else to breakthrough (I said this so many times) ... but not even Murray can get there ... however, it's not boring ... it's very interesting

Ocean Drive
05-27-2012, 08:08 AM
We have 3 amazing, amazing players right at the top of the game, and you've just brought up 6 players over the course of two decades, so I think you're just grouping all the great players of the past together in your head then comparing them with the rankings on 27/5/2012.

Though I agree a 4 to 8 way competition would be more interesting in terms of the top events, in reality it's the surfaces that often give one player or another a jump or handicap, and they are now homogenised.

Maybe that's the reason why we have 2 "amazing, amazing" players right at the top of the game.

Evan77
05-27-2012, 08:23 AM
reaching number one slamless! that is talent!!! :-?
man, why even bother? comparing Safin to Rios is just something that only our friend *** can come up with. just another gem. I really think that POOR *** just needs some attention. I don't actually believe that he ever watched Rios or Safin at all.

Mustard
05-27-2012, 09:32 AM
yes. one of the reasons why he deserved the number one was losing to a roided talentless Korda.

Korda did pass a drug test after the 1998 Australian Open final. His positive test was after losing to Henman at 1998 Wimbledon.

Gorecki
05-27-2012, 09:35 AM
Korda did pass a drug test after the 1998 Australian Open final. His positive test was after losing to Henman at 1998 Wimbledon.

right. that fact alone is proof beyond doubt that Korda was a clean player and Rios a bigger talent that Safin.

mcenroefan
05-27-2012, 10:13 AM
I wonder if Connors or Lendl would have been able to stay with Nadal and Djokovic.

I was thinking about this when we were discussing Borg earlier today.

I think they would do well. Connors for instance would set up well for an interesting match with Nadal. Lefty, takes the ball on the rise off both wings, flat hitter, a fierce competitor with alot of stamina. I think they would produce some interesting and potentially epic matches.

Mustard
05-27-2012, 10:16 AM
I wonder if Connors or Lendl would have been able to stay with Nadal and Djokovic.

I'm certain Connors would have. The more pace the better as far as he was concerned. Lendl is more tricky, because he was really into the cutting edge scientific stuff back in the 1980s that would give him an edge on-court. Could he have done the same in this era?

Nadal_Power
05-27-2012, 10:46 AM
On the contrary I find this a completely enjoyable era with less trophy monopoly,because today every player has the possibility of winning a tournament,not only the ones in the top.Also rookies and wildcard players can win tournaments...a very refreshing new face at the podium.The level of the sport is not bad and you can watch good matches.So there is nothing to complain about it...we are in a variable and refreshing era of tennis...

Bloody hell! Every player has the possibility of winning a tournament but Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray won 35 from last 41 Masters 1000 tournament. In Majors its even worse. And I really don't care about ATP 250 MM events, I'm talking about big stuff

Rookies and young players in general barely can play ATP matches today.. last teenager with ATP title was Marin Cilic in summer of 2008., and maybe we wan't see another one for next 10 years if Tomic don't make it

MichaelNadal
05-27-2012, 10:49 AM
Boring? We're in one of the golden eras of tennis, and some people find it boring? :shock:

In decades from now, people will remember this era very well, like they do with Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Nastase and Vilas today.

I certainly agree with this statement!

skip1969
05-27-2012, 11:08 AM
This is what I don't understand. Back between 1995 to 2000, you'd have had long rallies, just not year round. Players were forced to adapt depending on the time of year. People such as yourself talk as if the whole ATP season back then was just an ace fest, which is untrue. Either you haven't watched tennis then or you haven't backdated and educated yourself.
we can all agree that there is a lot less variety in the styles of play. this is never a good thing. there is less variety of surface. a huge variable, i think. like ocean points out, there were times of the year when i knew i would have to sit through grueling rallies, and there were times of the year when i'd have to sit through serve-fests. but it was never the same thing from january to december.

dynasties only captivate the imagination for so long before they get old. how can you expect to garner a larger fanbase if the outcome of the tournaments seems almost inevitable? how do you keep a fan's interest if they aren't a fanboy/girl of fed, nadal or djokovic??

sometimes, someone amazing comes along like borg, and he does something that seems unreal, like winning on the slowest surface one week and on the fastest surface the next. and it does capture the imagination. but most times, who wants to see the same person lift the trophy every year? i am tired of nadal winning rg the same way i got tired of sampras winning wimby. it's nothing personal, but it just doesn't excite me anymore. and if i ran a slam, it wouldn't excite me to have the same guy win every year, either.

but that's just my take on it.

Mustard
05-27-2012, 11:15 AM
Take away from the top 3/4, and it's a very open field. The majors would probably be won by different players almost every time. What we have in tennis at the moment are the handful of best players who are just well above their rivals.

The field should be striving to match and overtake them, not wait for the elite level to drop off.

Cesc Fabregas
05-27-2012, 11:23 AM
Take away from the top 3/4, and it's a very open field. The majors would probably be won by different players almost every time. What we have in tennis at the moment are the handful of best players who are just well above their rivals.

The field should be striving to match and overtake them, not wait for the elite level to drop off.

Whatever era people are going to complain. Everyone thought the 90's were too quick, then they claimed the lack of dominate player in the early 2000's, then Federer too dominant, now the courts are too slow.

t135
05-27-2012, 07:45 PM
No way, plenty of interesting characters and stories. Some of the best ever to play the game as well. How can that be boring.

rossi46
05-28-2012, 11:38 AM
No way, plenty of interesting characters and stories. Some of the best ever to play the game as well. How can that be boring.

Interesting characters ?? You mean interesting robots. Varied models I guess. Take out Andy Roddick's press conferences and you are left with nothing. Look at the top 4. Federer is an arrogant twat, Djokovic tries too hard, Nadal has zero personality, Murray no comment. And in terms of style of play, other than Federer pretty much all the same which equates to boring.