Etienne de Villers - genius or ...?

[sureshs]

In the latest Inside Tennis mag, the Bryans praise him a whole lot. They say he is a genius who is trying to turn around the game. They give him a 10 out of 10, and go on to say they met him in London, he is independently wealthy, and is not doing this for money. If he sold one of his paintings, he could buy their house, according to them.

Could it be they are just happy he partially agreed to their doubles demands? Or is he really a genius who we love to hate because he is powerful and visible?

[vive le beau jeu !]

Originally Posted by sureshs

In the latest Inside Tennis mag, the Bryans praise him a whole lot. They say he is a genius who is trying to turn around the game. They give him a 10 out of 10, and go on to say they met him in London, he is independently wealthy, and is not doing this for money. If he sold one of his paintings, he could buy their house, according to them.

Could it be they are just happy he partially agreed to their doubles demands? Or is he really a genius who we love to hate because he is powerful and visible?

praised by the bryans ? ok that's a confirmation.

not genius... the other answer.

[slice bh compliment]

I think the Bryans and their dad are smart. Etienne deVilliers is the right guy to brown-nose.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by slice bh compliment

I think the Bryans and their dad are smart. Etienne deVilliers is the right guy to brown-nose.

Correct. Mark Miles would have disposed of the money-losing doubles by now. Then, no more career for the Bryans.

[CyBorg]

Of course the Bryans are happy. They are like subsidized farmers. They exist because whoever's in charge pays them more than they're worth.

After everything he has said, specially about the flurry balls and the Blake incident... I don't know how ANYONE could think he's a GENIUS...

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by CyBorg

Of course the Bryans are happy. They are like subsidized farmers. They exist because whoever's in charge pays them more than they're worth.

That is too insulting to farmers. They feed us, you know. We can live without this Internet connection, but not food. Just because the nature of agriculture is different, as well as the life surrounding it, it is not fair to criticize the farmers, many of whom are not doing well at atll.

[Aykhan Mammadov]

Who is Etienne de Villers ?

[CyBorg]

Originally Posted by sureshs

That is too insulting to farmers. They feed us, you know. We can live without this Internet connection, but not food. Just because the nature of agriculture is different, as well as the life surrounding it, it is not fair to criticize the farmers, many of whom are not doing well at atll.

The doubles players feed us too (our interest in tennis in particular). But the singles players feed our interest more.

Hence the farmer analogy. Take Canada - our farmers feed us to an extent, but are oversubsidized by the government due to the fact that they would cease to exist otherwise. Canada would exist by essentially importing more.

This doesn't make them worthless. Just overpayed.

[slice bh compliment]

Originally Posted by Aykhan Mammadov

Who is Etienne de Villers ?

He is also fanatic of tennis. Vanilla-face South African executive who lives in England. Works with ATP. Very close friend with Azmat Bagatov. Well-paid, very niiice, great success! High Five!

[PrinceO3TourOS]

Definitely he isn't a genius

[ufgatorkid]

Originally Posted by sureshs

That is too insulting to farmers. They feed us, you know. We can live without this Internet connection, but not food. Just because the nature of agriculture is different, as well as the life surrounding it, it is not fair to criticize the farmers, many of whom are not doing well at atll.

Are you serious? Subsidies to farmers help no one (except the farmers who should have gone out of business years ago). Because of subsidies, food prices have been kept artificially higher, and have all but stagnated the growth of agriculture in developing nations. There's a reason there's so much animosity when it comes to the hypocrisy of the Western World. We believe in "democracy" and "free trade" because they will help these developing nations become prosperous and join us in modernity. BS. Those are nice things to say, but when we do **** like subsidize our own farmers so they can compete, we do nothing but hurt ourselves, our image, and more importantly, the farmer in asia/africa just trying to feed his family.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by ufgatorkid

Are you serious? Subsidies to farmers help no one (except the farmers who should have gone out of business years ago). Because of subsidies, food prices have been kept artificially higher, and have all but stagnated the growth of agriculture in developing nations. There's a reason there's so much animosity when it comes to the hypocrisy of the Western World. We believe in "democracy" and "free trade" because they will help these developing nations become prosperous and join us in modernity. BS. Those are nice things to say, but when we do **** like subsidize our own farmers so they can compete, we do nothing but hurt ourselves, our image, and more importantly, the farmer in asia/africa just trying to feed his family.

Farmers are subsidized worldwide by many methods - exemption from income taxes, free electricity and water, cheap fertilizers, etc. There are some extreme cases, like subsidizing wealthy sugar farmers in Florida. But, by and large, countries consider food self-sufficiency as extremely important. The other poster said Canada could import foodgrain instead of subsidizing farmers. What about if the country is at war? Hostile nations could cut off food supply. It is crucial not to depend on others for food and water as much as possible (and also oil).

Agriculture is also deeply connected to tradition and values. Unfortunately, it does not "scale" to employ large numbers of people. Only so many farmers and laborers are needed to sow, grow and harvest the crops, and there is only so much yield that a piece of land can produce. Unlike industries, they cannot employ thousands of people, and cannot do value-added services or produces millions of widgets. That is why millions have left their native rural areas and moved to cities for employment when agriculture cannot sustain them any more.

[Baghdatis72]

Originally Posted by slice bh compliment

He is also fanatic of tennis. Vanilla-face South African executive who lives in England. Works with ATP. Very close friend with Azmat Bagatov. Well-paid, very niiice, great success! High Five!

I am not sure if he is a fanatic of tennis because he would know who Blake is. Anyway he will have to go through a lot of lawsuits from tournaments that he is trying to downgrade before his plans become true.

Hi 5!!!

[CyBorg]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Farmers are subsidized worldwide by many methods - exemption from income taxes, free electricity and water, cheap fertilizers, etc. There are some extreme cases, like subsidizing wealthy sugar farmers in Florida. But, by and large, countries consider food self-sufficiency as extremely important. The other poster said Canada could import foodgrain instead of subsidizing farmers. What about if the country is at war? Hostile nations could cut off food supply. It is crucial not to depend on others for food and water as much as possible (and also oil).

Agriculture is also deeply connected to tradition and values. Unfortunately, it does not "scale" to employ large numbers of people. Only so many farmers and laborers are needed to sow, grow and harvest the crops, and there is only so much yield that a piece of land can produce. Unlike industries, they cannot employ thousands of people, and cannot do value-added services or produces millions of widgets. That is why millions have left their native rural areas and moved to cities for employment when agriculture cannot sustain them any more.

For the record, I'm not against farmer subsidies and I'm not against doubles players subsidies.

But just as the Canadian farmers exist because of the Canadian government the Bryans exist thanks to De Villiers. And they will kiss his *** many, many times in order to keep things status quo.

[ufgatorkid]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Farmers are subsidized worldwide by many methods - exemption from income taxes, free electricity and water, cheap fertilizers, etc. There are some extreme cases, like subsidizing wealthy sugar farmers in Florida. But, by and large, countries consider food self-sufficiency as extremely important. The other poster said Canada could import foodgrain instead of subsidizing farmers. What about if the country is at war? Hostile nations could cut off food supply. It is crucial not to depend on others for food and water as much as possible (and also oil).

Agriculture is also deeply connected to tradition and values. Unfortunately, it does not "scale" to employ large numbers of people. Only so many farmers and laborers are needed to sow, grow and harvest the crops, and there is only so much yield that a piece of land can produce. Unlike industries, they cannot employ thousands of people, and cannot do value-added services or produces millions of widgets. That is why millions have left their native rural areas and moved to cities for employment when agriculture cannot sustain them any more.

Sorry for my tone a bit earlier, it was inappropriate. I guess I'm a bit of an idealist. I think globalization and bringing down trade barriers is a good thing, but i do recognize the concerns you bring up. Self-sufficiency, especially in today's world, is an asset. At the same time though, i still can't stop thinking of how many people are actually hurt by subsidies. I know it sounds like I'm contradicting myself a bit here, and that I'm just rambling, but I think by trying to think of the big picture too idyllically, I'm ignoring the constraints of reality. Ha.

[mileslong]

does anyone really care if they even had doubles tournaments or not? i wouldn't i dont think i have ever watched an entire doubles match on TV ever. its like baseball, fun to play but like pulling teeth to watch...

[Aykhan Mammadov]

Originally Posted by slice bh compliment

He is also fanatic of tennis. Vanilla-face South African executive who lives in England. Works with ATP. Very close friend with Azmat Bagatov. Well-paid, very niiice, great success! High Five!

I don't believe he is also fanatic. How can a fanatic touch traditions, say Masters status of MC ? As I wrote in another thread it is probably better from business and from all other points of view to change 4-th slam from Australia ( having not such a big population) to say Germany or maybe to Russia or China. But it's bad idea to break traditions.

[Jonas]

Who does the new tennis mag have on the cover?
I haven't gotten mine yet.

[PrinceO3TourOS]

Originally Posted by PrinceO3TourOS

Definitely he isn't a genius

I'll quote myself he can be a genius only if he:

1.- Create a Grass Masters Series before Wimbledon
2.- Create a Masters Series in Latin America
3.- Fix the clay and grass seasons, Roland Garros and Wimbledon are too near each other

If he can do only one of this things I'll consider him a true genius of tennis