This. And Hewitt.
The Most Boring game of all time
- Thread starter Tennis_Monk
- Start date
This. And Hewitt.
Hahahaha. Only seen the YouTube of that bad boy. Never been able to get past the two minute mark.
Clay lover
Legend
As a clay lover I don't find Nadal on clay boring, there are so many things he can do with the ball on that surface it's unreal. However, Nadal on hard 2005-2008 was unbearable for me. He basically transfers his whole clay court game on to the surface, minus the his superior movement on clay and his aggression on grass. He can manage a handful of good passing shots, but his normal rallies were just a push fest. When I watch Nadal play on hardcourts now it amazes me how much he has improved on that surface.
Federer isn't boring-he never has been. The predictability of his matches when he was dominating the field made his matches boring.
Sometimes it's all about match-ups. Players play differently against different opponents and sometimes the chemistry between players is what makes matches exciting/boring, so to me a player is never always boring/exciting.
Federer isn't boring-he never has been. The predictability of his matches when he was dominating the field made his matches boring.
Sometimes it's all about match-ups. Players play differently against different opponents and sometimes the chemistry between players is what makes matches exciting/boring, so to me a player is never always boring/exciting.
Forehand Avenger
Banned
Boring is subjective. Sometimes people will consider a player boring not based on style or skill, but rather on predictability of outcome. From that point of view, Nadal can be boring on clay (as in "predictable"). Also, he has an incredible defensive game, which I suppose can be "boring" if you want him to lose.
I find Nadal much more engaging than most players however, as he has been able to adapt like no other. That's exactly the key to his success.
As for boring, I think Sampras was rather boring myself. Then again, S/V is not my cup of tea and I think is hugely overrated by those who pine for the "good old days".
I find Nadal much more engaging than most players however, as he has been able to adapt like no other. That's exactly the key to his success.
As for boring, I think Sampras was rather boring myself. Then again, S/V is not my cup of tea and I think is hugely overrated by those who pine for the "good old days".
Forehand Avenger
Banned
You mean that all along Federer was hiding behind that thing?
ucr_tennis90
Rookie
i appreciate everyone's style of play, but i just can't stand watching matches that involve two big servers going at it with the same thing every point: either ace or big serve, crap return, winner (Isner vs Mahut towards the end was too boring to watch). that being said, it's amazing that they can serve that fast, that accurately, all the time. i just can't personally watch it without falling asleep.
FedExpress 333
Professional
On the men's side: Nadal-stadegy against all ohbh rightys: hit CC forehand. Repeat 10000000x
Roddick-Ace. FH winner. Get passed by fed 4x to lose the game. Repeat 1000000x
Women: EVERYONE!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Roddick-Ace. FH winner. Get passed by fed 4x to lose the game. Repeat 1000000x
Women: EVERYONE!!!!!!!!!!!!1
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
I thought the end of the Isner-Mahut match was incredibly exciting and gripping. I was on the edge of my seat the whole time, it was so suspenseful. Can Mahut hold his serve again for the 65th consecutive time to stay in the match? Wow....just wow!!! The pressure was mentally exhausting for me watching, I can't imagine what it must have been like for Mahut. :shock:
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
ucr_tennis90
Rookie
that part was exciting, i did end up watching it on the last day of the match and it was intense when it came towards the very end of the match. the suspense was killing me honestly. but other than that, it was the same thing over and over. like i said, crazy impressive and everything about how long they played, etc. but will i ever watch it again? no way.
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
Haha!
Yes, ksbh, you are a Sham-****. And he is the reason I stopped watching tennis in the 90's -- well I can't remember who exactly it was, perhaps some East European player ... one day i am gonna have to go back in time and pin down the culprit. Anyway, you get back to fawning over Sunny Deolight and Pete Sham pras, let me not hold you up.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Well, of course not. I wouldn't either. There's really no reason to watch any match over again once you already know the result since all the suspense is gone. That's why there's really no reason to watch a Nadal match on clay.
LOL
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Well, of course not. I wouldn't either. There's really no reason to watch any match over again once you already know the result since all the suspense is gone. That's why there's really no reason to watch a Nadal match on clay.
How it his fault that he's so good on it? I can see if u were hating on someone with a boring game that was UNsuccessful, but if no one can step up and beat him that's a silly reason not to watch someone.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Um.....where did I say it was Nadal's fault?
There's no reason to watch his matches on clay because you already know what's going to happen. It's like watching the same movie over and over. Nothing changes, it's the same every time. Is a suspense movie as fun to watch if you've already seen it 50 times and know what's going to happen at the end? Doesn't mean it's the actor's fault.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
^Im failing to see how all the matches are "the same" just bc he wins them. That's like saying all Federer's grass court wins are exactly the same and there's no reason to watch them.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
There's ALWAYS a reason to watch Federer play...on ANY surface....for the sheer artistic beauty and creativity. In fact, it's been called - "A Religious Experience".
Whereas, watching Nadal on clay is just watching him grind from the baseline and hit the same shots over and over until his opponent cries "Uncle!" and surrenders. Yawn.......
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
There's ALWAYS a reason to watch Federer play...on ANY surface....for the sheer artistic beauty and creativity. In fact, it's been called - "A Religious Experience".
Whereas, watching Nadal on clay is just watching him grind from the baseline and hit the same shots over and over until his opponent cries "Uncle!" and surrenders. Yawn.......
Translation: Biased haters gonna hate.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Translation: There's a very good reason why the majority of people would rather watch paint dry than watch Nadal play on clay: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=377702
Tennis_Monk
Hall of Fame
There's ALWAYS a reason to watch Federer play...on ANY surface....for the sheer artistic beauty and creativity. In fact, it's been called - "A Religious Experience".
Whereas, watching Nadal on clay is just watching him grind from the baseline and hit the same shots over and over until his opponent cries "Uncle!" and surrenders. Yawn.......
I find watching Nadal play and win OR Federer play and win to be the same experience for me. Two different Artists performing.
Its hard for me to see why people find federer or nadal boring. But then, this is tw forum. where amazing happens
I agree. I also find Agassis game boring.. Btw OP, thomas Johanson is great to watch, great all round game..
kiki
Banned
Most boring era: 2000´s
Most boring player: Corrado Barazutti ( Carlsson and Luna very close)
Most boring match: most of today´s and Dibbs-Solomon in the 70´s and Nystrom-Carlsson in the 80´s.
Hood_Man
G.O.A.T.
Regarding the Isner - Mahut match, if it had ended at something like 6-3 or 7-5 in the fifth set it would have been tedious. In fact there would probably have been articles sprouting up all over the internet about the "Rebirth of the Servers" or something, and how dull that would have been.
It was the pure "What the hell?" factor that made it one of the most memorable matches of 2010 for me, and the little ceremony held on court when the match ended was lovely.
But it also makes me laugh that it's so hard to find a highlight reel for the match that's longer than 4 minutes :lol:
It was the pure "What the hell?" factor that made it one of the most memorable matches of 2010 for me, and the little ceremony held on court when the match ended was lovely.
But it also makes me laugh that it's so hard to find a highlight reel for the match that's longer than 4 minutes :lol:
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
Yeah, but for some of the vociferous posters here, Nadal is even better than a religious experience, he's an org***ic experience
:twisted:
Kobble
Hall of Fame
Everbody gets a bit boring at times in their career. Gaudio or Thomas Johansson might have been the most boring slam winners, but neither is truly boring all the time.
Not boring was:
Federer vs. Safin
Federer vs. Nadal (earlier)
Sampras vs. Agassi
Sampras vs. Kuerten
Sampras vs. Safin
Not boring was:
Federer vs. Safin
Federer vs. Nadal (earlier)
Sampras vs. Agassi
Sampras vs. Kuerten
Sampras vs. Safin
YodaKnowsBest
Banned
I don't watch any of the King's matches anymore. They have become so predictable.
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
ROFL !!!
You mean predictable as in retiring midway :twisted:
The King has a tough draw at Madrid. Hope he makes it to the final. Best of luck.
YodaKnowsBest
Banned
Forehand Avenger
Banned
I don't think God would cry in a trophy ceremony. On the other hand, Fed does have an omnipotent nose.There's ALWAYS a reason to watch Federer play...on ANY surface....for the sheer artistic beauty and creativity. In fact, it's been called - "A Religious Experience".
Whereas, watching Nadal on clay is just watching him grind from the baseline and hit the same shots over and over until his opponent cries "Uncle!" and surrenders. Yawn.......
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
So who is he supposed to walk like? Michael Jackson ? Fred Astaire ? Shrek ?
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Most boring 1995'+ :
Nadal (special thx to Bjorn Borg) - I mean come on, if only they were going for it in those 50+ stroke rallies...
Sampras - relied too much on his serve, love the motion, tho
Djokovic - his strokes are ugly and his game is bleeeh
Murray (before 2010) - he's worked on his game since and now it's ok, used to be a horrible pusher
Roddick 2010+ - see Andy Murray before 2010, the ATP needs at least 1 pusher, since Murray decided to play more aggresively, somebody had to take the reins
Most entertaining 1995'+
Federer - comes up with a shot that has never been seen before in just about every match, or at least he used to
Nalbandian - brilliant shotmaking, probably has (had) as much variety as Federer
Safin - my favorite player easily when he was on, good old 2000-2006...
Davydenko - I bet lots of fans out there find his game boring but he's freaking Flash Gordon of tennis, fast pace, left right left right, can be great at the net
Nadal (special thx to Bjorn Borg) - I mean come on, if only they were going for it in those 50+ stroke rallies...
Sampras - relied too much on his serve, love the motion, tho
Djokovic - his strokes are ugly and his game is bleeeh
Murray (before 2010) - he's worked on his game since and now it's ok, used to be a horrible pusher
Roddick 2010+ - see Andy Murray before 2010, the ATP needs at least 1 pusher, since Murray decided to play more aggresively, somebody had to take the reins
Most entertaining 1995'+
Federer - comes up with a shot that has never been seen before in just about every match, or at least he used to
Nalbandian - brilliant shotmaking, probably has (had) as much variety as Federer
Safin - my favorite player easily when he was on, good old 2000-2006...
Davydenko - I bet lots of fans out there find his game boring but he's freaking Flash Gordon of tennis, fast pace, left right left right, can be great at the net
+1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
nadalbestclass
Hall of Fame
Federer
10char
10char
marc45
G.O.A.T.
interestingly, sampras was never a pure s&v player until the last phase of his career....won lots of baseline points in his career most notably against agassi
Last edited:
Nextman916
Professional
I find most of the players consistently outside of the top 50, boring to watch.
marc45
G.O.A.T.
very smart player, hey?....and consistent...signs of a great athlete
marc45
G.O.A.T.
wallace is dead, and so is federerThere's ALWAYS a reason to watch Federer play...on ANY surface....for the sheer artistic beauty and creativity. In fact, it's been called - "A Religious Experience".
Whereas, watching Nadal on clay is just watching him grind from the baseline and hit the same shots over and over until his opponent cries "Uncle!" and surrenders. Yawn.......
marc45
G.O.A.T.
because they're fed fans going through an end of rooting life experienceTranslation: There's a very good reason why the majority of people would rather watch paint dry than watch Nadal play on clay: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=377702
marc45
G.O.A.T.
so pete would have won more majors if he relied less on his serve (which wasn't really true until the end) or would have been less boring?...tough on pete, he was a boring individual with a boring game
Glory Hunters Anonymous
Rookie
This thread is just a troll set up.
maxatp1990
New User
The most boring match would have been Monfils vs. Murray Rome 2006 i think it was.
Hood_Man
G.O.A.T.
According to the latest stats on the ATP website, they've both played a collective total of 1,552 matches between them on the ATP tour, but only 23 against each other. As electric as their matches are when they play each other (and that Wimbledon final nearly gave me multiple heart attacks), it's a drop in the ocean compared to what they've played against everyone else. Just sayin'
Rock Strongo
Legend
I just thought of another one I find boring and that is Verdasco. To watch him play Raonic, for me it was not a real tennis match. Just rallies, no serves. It even made Raonic leave in disgust. I'd like to see Raonic play Verdasco on a real grass court with serves.
Rock Strongo
Legend
Well it was a Wilander match and those had the tendencies to go on forever... and by the way it was 6-2 6-3 according to the ATP website. But still, over 3 hours for that one-sided scoreline...
kiki
Banned
In honour to Wilander, I must say Mats was a better player later on, and would have made a shorter match in 1986 or 1987, no doubt.
Similar threads
- Poll
