What a generation of dwarfs! - I want my money back

[danb]

What a generation of dwarfs! The US Open final says it all. Choke-ovich obliged to Federer. Boring! I am sorry I even watched that match! I am done watching tennis. Let's do an inventory of what we have today in tennis:

#2 Nadal = the only real fighter in the game - still his game is too small
#3 Choke-ovich - read the name, the rest is on display. I cannot believe commentators saying he has a big serve - anybody remembers Sampras?
#4 Davidenko - another runner with small game (poor man's version of Nadal)
#5 Roddick = one trick pony. When the serve comes back he is in panic mode
etc.

I had enough of this "poor man's tennis"
Let's hear others...

 

[BreakPoint]

These "poor" men you have named also happen to be very rich.

 

[Kobble]

I was just having this conversation with a friend.

I have never seen anyone impose the correct strategy on Federer with the exception of Nadal and Canas. Who I would add to the list of laggers is:

Hewitt- He is starting to get it. Not hitting as short in the court as he used to against Federer. Problem is, still no power.

Baghdatis- Gets nervous.

Murray- Injured.

Safin- Crazy.

Tursunov- Crazy.

Ancic- Injured, but still has the wrong strategy.

Very little mental toughness on tour. If you can't impose a strategy under pressure, junk it.

 

[WildVolley]

That triple-break point during the first set was pretty gripping television. I really thought that Joker was going to take it, but he couldn't hold it together.

Overall, it wasn't the greatest match, but the tie-breakers at least presented some drama. Joker is legitimate, but he didn't hold it together well on the big points today. I expect more from him in the future. If he can keep improving, Federer might be in some serious trouble.

 

[Clintspin]

Anticlimatic would describe both the men's and women's finals. Two weeks of tennis and it comes down to this. I never like the antics of Mac or Natase or Connors but at least they looked like they wanted to win instead of settling for second place. I would love to see some fight back in the game. The women put on a slightly better show leading up to the final.

 

[RoddickistheMan]

#4 Davidenko - another runner with small game (poor man's version of Nadal)

Haaa. I think the end of serve and volley really ****ed everything over in regards to close competition. Federer definitely would have problems against a good serve and volley player like sampras. His baseline game right now is unbeatable. As the new younger players get better like young we will see a close competition between federer and the rest of the field. All court tennis is a must now in order to succeed consistently on the pro tour. Power baseline tennis doesnt really cut it anymore on a consistent basis. Players like roddick safin and blake have their ups and downs which isnt good enough to beat federer. Serve and volley mixed with aggresive baseline tennis would be the best style to teach players in todays game.
________
F9

 

[Marius_Hancu]

Federer has put on in this match an amazing display of brinkmanship or Russian roulette: he slowballed Djokovic, kept the energy of the exchanges relatively low, taking the power from the game, betting that in the crucial moments he would suddenly have the resources to lift up his game over a shocked Djoko, which truly happened.

He made the assumption that a dumbed-down/anesthetized Djokovic would be easier to beat than one kept at a high evergy level all the time.

Not a pretty show, and risky to boot, but he prevailed in straights.

He's not playing for the show/spectators, or he would be S-Ving all the time. He's playing to win and he's using his mental edge, which is huge.

A very cerebral performance.

 

[BigboyDan]

Today's players are pathetic.

 

[callitout]

I agree the athletes are slower, stupider, weaker, and less well trained than in they were in biblical times.

 

[The tennis guy]

Federer has put on in this match an amazing display of brinkmanship or Russian roulette: he slowballed Djokovic, kept the energy of the exchanges relatively low, taking the power from the game, betting that in the crucial moments he would suddenly have the resources to lift up his game over a shocked Djoko, which truly happened.

He made the assumption that a dumbed-down/anesthetized Djokovic would be easier to beat than one kept at a high evergy level all the time.

Not a pretty show, and risky to boot, but he prevailed in straights.

He's not playing for the show/spectators, or he would be S-Ving all the time. He's playing to win and he's using his mental edge, which is huge.

A very cerebral performance.

I generally agree with your assessment except I thought it was high percentage for Federer. Federer was content to let Djokovic play high risk offensive game, especially dare him to go to the flat down the line shot. Djokovic succeeded many times, but not in crucial moments. Federer didn't take chances at all. He played agressive only when he got the chance he was in good position.

 

[justineheninhoogenbandfan]

What a generation of dwarfs! The US Open final says it all. Choke-ovich obliged to Federer. Boring! I am sorry I even watched that match! I am done watching tennis. Boring. Even WWE (steroids wrestling) is more interesting these days. Let's do an inventory of what we have today in tennis:

#2 Nadal = the only real fighter in the game - still his game is too small
#3 Choke-ovich - read the name, the rest is on display. I cannot believe commentators saying he has a big serve - anybody remembers Sampras?
#4 Davidenko - another runner with small game (poor man's version of Nadal)
#5 Roddick = one trick pony. When the serve comes back he is in panic mode
etc.

I had enough of this "poor man's tennis"
Let's hear others...

If you find this field so pathetic then dont want. Watch Saturday Night Poker or Sunday Night Billiards. Maybe the Senior Bowling Tour is your Cup of Tea. You could also watch reruns of a cheesy reality show like Big Brother House or Average Joe. If you find todays field of players so miserable and worthless just dont watch and stop complaining.

 

[chess9]

Djok is 20 years old and was playing against possibly the greatest tennis player of all time, yet he extended him to tie breakers in two sets. Somehow I'm to believe that this was a failed performance? Please, go watch wrestling.

Huge props to Djok for doing his best, doing it with pretty good humor (a racquet throw and bottle toss excepted), and being gracious in his loss.

Djok is a great player, and deserves much more respect than some of you guys are giving him.

-Robert

 

[2 Cent]

Choke-avich. Novak should've won this match. that's how sad it was.
Federer played like crap, and looked the most invincible he's ever looked. Roger didn't win it. Novak lost it.

 

[2 Cent]

^UN-invincible, i meant.

 

[Rybo]

Roger didn't win it. Novak lost it.

Ah, there it is. I knew it wouldn't be long before someone posted one of the most ridiculous cliches ever created by humanity.

 

[stinkpaw]

Choke-avich. Novak should've won this match. that's how sad it was.
Federer played like crap, and looked the most invincible he's ever looked. Roger didn't win it. Novak lost it.

Sure he might have blown it, but the guy isn't even old enough to buy beer yet, so cut him some slack.

Then again my new gf can't either...

 

[dysonlu]

Federer has put on in this match an amazing display of brinkmanship or Russian roulette: he slowballed Djokovic, kept the energy of the exchanges relatively low, taking the power from the game, betting that in the crucial moments he would suddenly have the resources to lift up his game over a shocked Djoko, which truly happened.

He made the assumption that a dumbed-down/anesthetized Djokovic would be easier to beat than one kept at a high evergy level all the time.

Not a pretty show, and risky to boot, but he prevailed in straights.

He's not playing for the show/spectators, or he would be S-Ving all the time. He's playing to win and he's using his mental edge, which is huge.

A very cerebral performance.

If indeed that was Federer's game plan, then imagine if Novak actually converted the set points and won the first two sets. We would have all called this a suicidal tactic and that Roger was out of his mind. But reality is that he won and, assuming that it was indeed his strategy, he is now considered a tactical tennis genius.

 

[Dilettante]

What a generation of dwarfs! - I want my money back

What a generation of dwarfs! The US Open final says it all. Choke-ovich obliged to Federer. Boring! I am sorry I even watched that match! I am done watching tennis. Boring. Even WWE (steroids wrestling) is more interesting these days. Let's do an inventory of what we have today in tennis:

#2 Nadal = the only real fighter in the game - still his game is too small
#3 Choke-ovich - read the name, the rest is on display. I cannot believe commentators saying he has a big serve - anybody remembers Sampras?
#4 Davidenko - another runner with small game (poor man's version of Nadal)
#5 Roddick = one trick pony. When the serve comes back he is in panic mode
etc.

I had enough of this "poor man's tennis"
Let's hear others...

You meant you want your brain back, right?

 

[tenniskid3119]

you do know that dwarfs are little people, right?!?!

 

[Grigollif1]

I don't watch WWE - that was just for comparison... Today's tennis is just boring - Federer wins 3 out of 4 tournaments for a few years now... What do you find interesting about it? Where is the competition?

Damn..How boring mus have been Basketball When Michael Jordan Was dominating..How boring must have been Baseball When Baby Ruth was Dominating...How Boring must have been Soccer When Pele Was Dominating.. How boring Musta hve been Golf when Tiger Would Was domnating... Well, Wait a second those were the legends of their sports, the ones everybody mentions when talking about them.

When your kid comes to you in awe asking how was to experience the Roger Federer greatness, you will know the answer to your question.

 

[tennispro11]

I agree 100%. This is by far the weakest decade in tennis without any depth and to make things even more annoying Federer somehow always gets the easiest draws. Of six opponents that Federer played to get to the US Open final only one of them have won a title this year (Andy Roddick) and all the others have almost not accomplished anything this year with the exception of John Isner who is very inexperienced anyways. If Sampras would have been born 10 years later instead of Federer he would have accomplished exactly what Federer is doing this decade if not more.

That's laughable. Sampras accomplishing what Fed has. LOL! How would Sampras have handled the conditions at Wimbledon now that it is slower than the USO? He wouldn't have stood a chance on today's surfaces, especially Wimbledon.

 

[Kobble]

Give me a few good reasons - I do like entertainment but I am VERY disapointed that one guy wins this much. Where are the big fights? That's what I am looking for!

Roland Garros. It is a wait, but Federer puts up a good fight there.

 

[simi]

Where is the appreciation, man?

You are witnessing history with Federer, do you not have any appreciation for it?

Amen, brother! We are witnessing something special. Enjoy it while it lasts. In five, six, seven years, it will be all over.

 

[boobik2371]

His name is Davydenko and Djokovic. If you don't want to watch tennis, watch a speed-walking competition or something.

 

[Lee James]

I too thought that Djoko choked this one away. From what I could see, Federer's gameplan was to keep the ball in play and allow Djoko to self destruct. At least if he could have pulled off the first couple of sets, Federer would have had to step it up and pull off some shots to make the match at least semi-interesting. I just got the overall sense that Djokovic was just happy to be there and not intensely interested in taking it to Fed and winning his first grand slam.

 

[simi]

I am just disapointed - OK? Tell me what you like in today's tennis - I respect that.

I guess you missed the Djokovic/Stepanek match. Tennis as it should be played. It was such a high caliber match, that afterward, the two combatants didn't just shake hands...they hugged each other...in appreciation for each other's efforts.

 

[The tennis guy]

Sampras won his slams while beating very talented champions and had to overcome very difficult matches against a variety of playing styles. You truly can respect what Sampras has accomplished. It is impossible to respect what Federer is doing because his competition just sits back and does nothing. Terrible decade of tennis.

Don't just shout, put some facts out there.

Sampras won 5 US Open titles by beating 3 players: Agassi, Chang, Pioline.

Federer won 4 US Open titles by beating 4 players: Hewitt, Agassi, Roddick, Djokovic.

You don't know what's ahead of Djokovic yet. I can gurantee he is going to be better than Pioline.

 

[jeffreyfranz]

roller skate tennis, anyone?

#4 Davidenko - another runner with small game (poor man's version of Nadal)

Haaa. I think the end of serve and volley really ****ed everything over in regards to close competition. Federer definitely would have problems against a good serve and volley player like sampras. His baseline game right now is unbeatable. As the new younger players get better like young we will see a close competition between federer and the rest of the field. All court tennis is a must now in order to succeed consistently on the pro tour. Power baseline tennis doesnt really cut it anymore on a consistent basis. Players like roddick safin and blake have their ups and downs which isnt good enough to beat federer. Serve and volley mixed with aggresive baseline tennis would be the best style to teach players in todays game.

I'm glad you brought this up. I had gotten used to thinking of Fed as a (at least semi-) all-court player over the past few years. Did I trick myself into seeing what I wanted to see? It seems like, when Federer comes into the net, very few can stay with him. So what has he been doing lately (possibly excepting Montreal)? Joining the legions of players with their feet glued to a rail that moves horizontally along the baseline. Now that is boring. :roll:

 

[emerckx53]

What a generation of dwarfs! The US Open final says it all. Choke-ovich obliged to Federer. Boring! I am sorry I even watched that match! I am done watching tennis. Boring. Even WWE (steroids wrestling) is more interesting these days. Let's do an inventory of what we have today in tennis:

#2 Nadal = the only real fighter in the game - still his game is too small
#3 Choke-ovich - read the name, the rest is on display. I cannot believe commentators saying he has a big serve - anybody remembers Sampras?
#4 Davidenko - another runner with small game (poor man's version of Nadal)
#5 Roddick = one trick pony. When the serve comes back he is in panic mode
etc.

I had enough of this "poor man's tennis"
Let's hear others...

ridiculous post. stop watching then.....

 

[FEDEXP]

Really Danb why start a thread if you're done with tennis. Also this was Djokovich's first Slam Final; I think it premature to just label him a "choker". It's alot easier here online than on the court.

 

[akv89]

Someone give me solid proof that this era is weaker than any previous one. People choked long before Federer played. Slam finals finished in 3 sets a lot of times before. Stop simplifying things and suddenly saying that an entire generation of tennis players have suddenly become worse.

 

[iamke55]

Dwarf compared to who? A guy who cannot win in the fifth set against a vomiting opponent who has a blood disease? Another guy who had the greatest serve ever and lost to a BASELINER on fast Wimbledon grass and then took another 9 years to win Wimbledon in a year when Sampras got a hard draw? Another guy who got aced 50 something times in 4 sets? Or compared a serve-only player best known for being down 15-40 on serve who had a losing record against both Roddick and Hewitt, two players who are pretty much auto-wins for Federer?

 

[drgnpride]

guess you must have missed the blake/santoro match.

 

[FEDEXP]

Danb,
I think in another thread you said you were finished with tennis. See you.....

 

[ubel]

Jeez, you guys are harsh.. I thought it was a pretty good match. The kid is only 20 years old and in his first grand slam final.. sure it was disheartening for both the spectators, and ESPECIALLY Djokovic himself, to let that opening set slip which meant soooo much...

But it happens all the time when you're playing Fed, especially those times when you're playing him in a grand slam final.. just see the 2007 Australian Open final with Gonzalez earlier this year. How many set points did he have in a row, 2 or 3? I think the former, but he let it slip because it was his first slam final. The thing is, even though that match was in straight sets as well, it was still a great match imo because Federer kept his cool and let his opponent get caught up in the moment. He showcased what he is best at: his heady play and ability to stay cool and play some stellar, or at least better than his opponent's, tennis in a position most players on tour would be sweating their balls off in.

Anyway, I think you guys expect too much from these finals, and when the score line isn't 20-18/7-6 in the fifth with a billion winners to 2 UEs you don't think it was a good match. There's still plenty of great, quality things about this match to enjoy. And in any case, if Federer HAD lost in the 5th 20-18 in a tiebreaker this thread would probably be an "End to the Sith Lord's/Devil Incarnate's Reign" thread, so

 

[dh003i]

Gugafan,

Sure, Haas has a chance. But Haas basically does everything Federer does, just not as good.

 

[AlexP]

I enjoyed watching todays match, lots of things to learn.

 

[tennispro11]

I really believe a player like Tommy Haas, with an all court game has a good chance to upset Fed. I recall him taking Fed to 5 sets at the AUS last yr, and he also won at kooyang. The problem with Haas, he usually expends too much energy in 5 setters and is burnt out in the latter rounds. Although this yr he made the semis in Aus and Q-final at the US.....hence he may just prove his worth as a solid top 10 player and have a chance to test Federer in the latter rounds if healthy.

Haas won't ever beat Fed in a major. Ever.

 

[Rodditha]

I watched NFL tonight (even though Giants lost) instead of that chocking match, now i only watch when American plays (Blake, Roddick, Isner, Young, Delic and more). My interest in tennis has gone down whereas there is only one guy winning evrything, tennis is boring to watch when you already know the outcome of the matches. Know i'll be checking out Eli Manning and the Giants, it's playoff time this year.

 

[nkpatv]

I watched the game.

It was brilliant. It was a nail bitter. I am still perplexed with the thought that

how in the world did Roger pull through winning first two sets. It was beyong

a tennis match. It was all mental. And the thought of winning against Roger

got the best of Jokovich.

To say today players are weak is an underestimated statement.

They are all within a few inches or one point away from becoming the great player - if you know what I meant

Maybe, the sign at wimbledon was correct and I will add " God made Roger and he is helping him to be the GOAT."

 

[whistleway]

betting that in the crucial moments he would suddenly have the resources to lift up his game over a shocked Djoko, which truly happened.

A great insight probably, but, wasted on a silly thread

 

[Mick]

when I saw Federer coming out wearing the Darth Federer outfit, I knew it was all over for Djokovic.

 

[Kaptain Karl]

We saw this much differently...

Federer has put on in this match an amazing display of brinkmanship or Russian roulette: he slowballed Djokovic, kept the energy of the exchanges relatively low, taking the power from the game, betting that in the crucial moments he would suddenly have the resources to lift up his game over a shocked Djoko, which truly happened.

He made the assumption that a dumbed-down/anesthetized Djokovic would be easier to beat than one kept at a high evergy level all the time.

Not a pretty show, and risky to boot, but he prevailed in straights.

He's not playing for the show/spectators, or he would be S-Ving all the time. He's playing to win and he's using his mental edge, which is huge.

A very cerebral performance.

Wow. I saw a Federer who had trouble maintaining his focus. A few moments of brilliance surrounded by many more moments of "not quite right-ness."

- KK

 

[superman1]

I think the level at the very top has dipped a bit compared to years past. I just don't see a guy like Rafter giving up 7 set points to a guy that is playing terribly. Overall the depth of tennis is always increasing, but the very top has it's highs and lows.

Doesn't take anything away from Federer, though. This guy is the greatest.

 

[prosealster]

I think the level at the very top has dipped a bit compared to years past. I just don't see a guy like Rafter giving up 7 set points to a guy that is playing terribly. Overall the depth of tennis is always increasing, but the very top has it's highs and lows.

Doesn't take anything away from Federer, though. This guy is the greatest.

I dont think guys like rafter would get 7 set points on fed in the first place (yeah i know...fed never beat rafter....but then again, he wasnt anyway near what he is today... even if he was playing badly for his standards..)

 

[Hardball]

What a generation of dwarfs! The US Open final says it all. Choke-ovich obliged to Federer. Boring! I am sorry I even watched that match! I am done watching tennis. Let's do an inventory of what we have today in tennis:

#2 Nadal = the only real fighter in the game - still his game is too small
#3 Choke-ovich - read the name, the rest is on display. I cannot believe commentators saying he has a big serve - anybody remembers Sampras?
#4 Davidenko - another runner with small game (poor man's version of Nadal)
#5 Roddick = one trick pony. When the serve comes back he is in panic mode
etc.

I had enough of this "poor man's tennis"
Let's hear others...

I love how Amateurs judging professionals when they themselves may not even qualified to be a ballboy @ a grandslam. sheeh..Have you even played on one of the biggest court in the world and a Grandslam title on the line? Please stop talking.

 

[zorman]

Federer is a master of tactics and of the mental game. As usually he raised his game at crucial points, he never lost concentration and managed to lure his opponent in tactical errors. That's why he won.
It is unfair to harshly criticize Djokovic as a choker. His first Slam final against a living legend. He could do better but the severity of the occasion got the better of him. It would be fairer to say imo that he was excessively nervous and emotional rather than a choker.
He has to work on his mental and tactical game esp. against Federer. He is very young and hopefully he will learn a lot from this match.
Modern tennis at the top level has become more of a mental battle than ever. Because in order for a player to perform efficiently at this stellar level he needs to fully develop his mental faculties. The awesome precision of Federer's shots in crucial stages of his Slam matches does not come only with flawless technique. Those who cannot appreciate the mental struggle that's going on in the background during those matches have no right to criticize tennis as boring.

 

[Kaptain Karl]

Even the commentators were saying Fed played his best tennis against Roddick. Those of you who believe Roger was luring Djoker into some sort of trap ... well, I think you are over-estimating even Roger's abilities.

He was having a slightly OFF evening; he managed to raise his level of play for some key periods. That's what champions do better than Quarter Finalists, Semi-Finalists and Runners Up.

- KK

 

[Kaptain Karl]

<Mod Mode> I just moved several posts from the OP's other (duplicate) thread. If the "flow" is somewhat choppy, now you know why. </Mod Mode>

- KK

 

[fps]

At the moment Fed plays like the ultimate winner. He finds a way to win each time while keeping something in reserve for the next match, the next tournament, no unnecessary expenditure of effort. When it gets tough, when a set hits the business end, he raises his level dramatically, then withdraws again, keeping himself in it until the next important point. Without playing "great" tennis or overextending himself he's gotten through 3 tough tough games in straight sets to win this title, and there aren't many better than the three he beat.

Could he play more exhilerating tennis> Of course, we've all seen him do it, but he's clearly a man in a hurry to beat Pete's grand slam record, aesthetically pleasing tennis be damned