So what's the point of the Washington Post's article? He said that there were more viewers watching Agassi/Sampras and the Williams at the US finals than this past year. Yet the tournament on the women side was more interesting, the tennis quality was higher. Now, imho, if there are 30 guys out there that can win a given tournament then it IS more exiting, you have more intense matches on the early rounds. The argument that the game is 'flat', and more or less equilibrated is dismantled by the fact of the incredibly boring women tennis, at least until you get to a SF of a GS. So, he wants to say: The americans need americans THAT CONSISTENTLY WIN to raise the audience levels, also THAT THERE IS A #1 tennis player out there. He wants some rivalry, but with the american winning more often those. He also wants those american players playing and winning against hostile crows in forein countries, bombing missile serves, to bring a more RAMBO-LIKE feeling to the game. You want finesse? You want variety? You want tight competition? NO, you just care for 'personalities'. You never stop to think that may be if the tournaments were presented in a different format (edited matches, see more variety), if you show a broader field of playes, their backgrouds and present the match ups with more insight (with more professional commentors, younger and speaking their minds) and incorporates better techology and more creativity to the way the game is presented, perhaps the game health will inprove? Perhaps the blame is somewhere else than in the David Nalbandians or Guillermo Corias? Perhaps he should inform better about how revolucionary is for Thai tennis someone like Paradorn? Perhaps he is just a moron that has the opportunity to write something for the half-sleep sports public between on a rainy weekend.