TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
They are doing charity work like rich and famous do
I bet serena is more of an inspiration to young girls, her history, than all the atp together. Maybe even more
What have the Big 3 done for the sport of tennis?
- Thread starter YellowFedBetter
- Start date
I bet serena is more of an inspiration to young girls, her history, than all the atp together. Maybe even more
YellowFedBetter
Hall of Fame
I’m not just talking about tennis. But how about doing like what Rafa did but actually making it affordable to working class people and their kids. Do things in general that benefit others besides just the upper echelon and people who have the money to attend tennis events and play lots.
I don’t have extensive knowledge of what players of the past did but I know Agassi has made genuine attempts for inner city kids and others who are less than privileged to get education.
YellowFedBetter
Hall of Fame
It’s funny I actually can’t stand Serena but I must admit she’s done more for the popularity of tennis among the non rich than all the male players today combined lol.They are doing charity work like rich and famous do
I bet serena is more of an inspiration to young girls, her history, than all the atp together. Maybe even more
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
They are doing charity work like rich and famous do
I bet serena is more of an inspiration to young girls, her history, than all the atp together. Maybe even more
Do you have any hard facts to pass a statement that Serena inspires more people than all of ATP put together or just making up total nonsense ?
Understand that a Bill Gates doing charity is completely different than what a Fed or Rafa does .
BIll Gates has people working for him that make the money . Fed has to work himself to earn what he does. If Fed is taking time for a visit to a poverty location in Africa it is at the cost of practice time . Not such a thing for Gates of Branson.
D
Deleted member 743561
Guest
What's the argument? Could say I guess that players cleaning up on the top prizes for the last decade-plus has made for a top heavy field. This is true but ask yourself what we'd have if a new major champ were crowned at every turn. A lot of anonymity, I'd say. The global reach would be diminished. I'd make that claim even if each and every new winner were from a different country. So, from that perspective, they've increased visibility enormously.
TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
But fedal is an idol!! Very different from gates.
Having a meaningful opinion, could affect so many positively.
Rafa in india, fed in africa. Yeah, would be strange if they didnt
But they could do more in terms of being open about issues, thats how people get a connection and strenght
TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
How about female tennis... doing better than men, no?
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
why does a for-profit venture bother you ? There are rich who can afford that and there is a market. It is not that Rafa is putting his personal time there . He is leveraging his brand name .
Rafa does have his foundation to help the needy. Don't you think helping the society is better than helping the sport alone ?
RF foundation's education outlook has probably 10x reach that of Agassi
YellowFedBetter
Hall of Fame
This is a valid point. But to bring up NASCAR for the thousandth time, in racing and other sports fans like me crave parity and unpredictability and don’t like to see the same people win ad nauseum. I can say it’s the main reason I don’t watch the NBA everyone goes gaga over the Warriors and whatever team is dominating but I find it super boring. There is a different attitude in tennis. It’s the only sport I’ve see where people don’t seem to like underdogs winning.
D
Deleted member 743561
Guest
.
Last edited by a moderator:
fedtennisphan
Hall of Fame
The OP is fake. The OP is trying to downplay both Federer and Nadal contributions to game off court especially Federer because of the continued success on the court. Everything they do off the court is being told it’s fake, their too professional and PC. Everything they do is for the rich.
TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
I hope so. So far they seem to have lost touch of things. Cowards ill say
Murray is different
MasterZeb
Hall of Fame
D
Deleted member 743561
Guest
.
Last edited by a moderator:
YellowFedBetter
Hall of Fame
Yes society is more important of course. But that doesn’t mean he and others can’t take an initiative to improve the situation in tennis. Especially after they retire.
I know they have their charities like many and I don’t doubt their efforts to an extent but as bartelby has said there’s also such a thing as taxes too.
I would like to see them have an event in an inner city of America even just for publicity and do fundraisers to try to help public tennis for the working class. I don’t think that’s unreasonable. If not now while they are busy with their careers then how about after they retire. I’d rather them do that than waste time running their mouths on TV.
YellowFedBetter
Hall of Fame
Says the guy who earlier today suggested I develop a drinking problem over Fed winning.
MasterZeb
Hall of Fame
You might want unpredictably, but at the end of the race, you want your favourite driver to win. Or your favourite team to win. As in tennis. Feds win in Australia was far more pleasing than his win in Wimbledon as it was a better match. Humans wanting excitement is natural.
TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
Honestly im not worried for us tennis, i dont live there.
But serena has been an inspiration for black girls.
How about federer? The guy that hardly practices so to say, everything perfect around him, perfect facade. Same w rafa. They donr really have opinions that mean something more.
D
Deleted member 743561
Guest
.
Last edited by a moderator:
YellowFedBetter
Hall of Fame
The part about excitement is absolutely true. At the same time though I’ll suffer trough Kevin Harvick winning a race if I can see a classic with 50 lead changes among 20 drivers though.
TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
MasterZeb
Hall of Fame
But you can't blame them for them not being born black, or as females. Fact is Serena being American is her advantage, is where she gets all her publicity. Outside of America, she is no where near as much talked about or liked.
TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
Everybody has a story
No one is perfect
MasterZeb
Hall of Fame
As you could say for any sport, including tennis. At the end of the day, some people are fans of the sport, and some are fans of the athlete(s)
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
Roger Federer to win the 2024 humanitarian of the year award,
Aussie Darcy
Bionic Poster
Federer and Nadal along with the Williams sisters are responsible for tennis' popularity in the 21st century.
Viewers were dwindling during the early 2000's on the men's tour with the merry go round of slam champions and number ones and then Fed and Nadal brought stability, consistency and a great rivalry to the sport. The Williams sisters kept the American audience when the American men faded away (Agassi, Sampras and Roddick) and no new American male slam champs came around. The Williams sisters are still to this day the most stable product the WTA has and attract massive audiences worldwide and are responsible for boosting both women's and American tennis.
Murray has done a lot for tennis in Great Britain and raising interest in the sport after they lacked a decent Brit for a long time. Winning Gold in London and Wimbledon were huge for a nation that has a slam but lacked a slam champion. Agree? @Mainad
Djokovic, I don't really know what he's brought? A lot of stability when Federer and Nadal were either injured or off their game but in the scheme of things he's nowhere near as important for tennis as Federer, Nadal and the Williams sisters. His consistency and dominance was amazing but he lacks the fanbase of the others and his decline has been very disappointing and could be a mark on his legacy if he can't turn it around when he comes back.
That's just my take. I welcome other opinions!
Viewers were dwindling during the early 2000's on the men's tour with the merry go round of slam champions and number ones and then Fed and Nadal brought stability, consistency and a great rivalry to the sport. The Williams sisters kept the American audience when the American men faded away (Agassi, Sampras and Roddick) and no new American male slam champs came around. The Williams sisters are still to this day the most stable product the WTA has and attract massive audiences worldwide and are responsible for boosting both women's and American tennis.
Murray has done a lot for tennis in Great Britain and raising interest in the sport after they lacked a decent Brit for a long time. Winning Gold in London and Wimbledon were huge for a nation that has a slam but lacked a slam champion. Agree? @Mainad
Djokovic, I don't really know what he's brought? A lot of stability when Federer and Nadal were either injured or off their game but in the scheme of things he's nowhere near as important for tennis as Federer, Nadal and the Williams sisters. His consistency and dominance was amazing but he lacks the fanbase of the others and his decline has been very disappointing and could be a mark on his legacy if he can't turn it around when he comes back.
That's just my take. I welcome other opinions!
YellowFedBetter
Hall of Fame
Very true.
MasterZeb
Hall of Fame
Feds had outbursts many times. And has been very outspoken on his early career antics.
Aussie Darcy
Bionic Poster
I disagree with this. Tennis is very popular here in Australia. It seems Brisbane is one of the few tournaments that always has sell outs and an abundance of crowds. Our crop of players has certainly dropped but in terms of love for the sport it's still definitely here. Players like Tomic and Kyrgios have gotten massive negative attention but that's for their personality and antics and not for tennis itself. Aussie Players like Kokkinakis and Ash Barty are widely loved here.Tennis in Australia had declined in a similar way to the states, people down under don't care for it much either. I don't know why this is, from what i can see the American system produces one serve/forehand bot after another. Maybe the American system is flawed, or maybe your best athletes are doing other sports? The British tennis system has always sucked, maybe you're copying us too much?
As for the American system, they are sorely lacking top male players (the way they've had to hype Querrey up is hilarious) but they have an abundance of female American tennis players to make up for it (I believe the women's USO final of Sloane v Keys was watched more than Nadal v Anderson which isn't surprising given their American). But players like Harrison, Sock or Isner who don't do enough are damaging to tennis in America. For a nation with over 330 million people it's weird they lack a top 10 player..
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
Novak Djokovic to solve world hunger in 2025
TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
Well that changed quick didnt it?
Too bad his slogan is perfect. Even that is kinda arrogant. Like he is a god given player that doesnt need much practice (which i dont believe). He found his niche.
While we have rafa being super lucky having that uncle.
They have had some injuries,but cmon 19 and 15 slams beyond 30. Cant really empathise w the injuries. Other players have to quit because of injuries long before that.
Why cant they just once in a while have a meaningful opinion of something.
I understand you see things differently.
I have to say im not impressed in how they use their rolemodel position. Really cowards.
fedtennisphan
Hall of Fame
LOL! Federer has contributed plenty to the salty taste on his detractor’s mouth this season.
YellowFedBetter
Hall of Fame
Gotta go guys but thanks for the intelligent discussions! I appreciate it.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
I agree with most of what you said but I think as far as men's tennis goes, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray are all responsible for keeping the interest in men's tennis over the last decade. You can't downplay any of them over the other as far as interest as a whole when the 2007 USO final between Federer and Djokovic is the most watched non-American men's final in the US in the last 15 years. Or that the 2013 Wimbledon final between Murray and Djokovic is the most watched in the UK since 1980 Borg vs. McEnroe, and the 2012 final between Federer and Murray wasn't far behind. The 2008, 2014 and 2015 Wimbledon finals were all ratings winners. Also, the 2016 AO final was the most watched men's final on Eurosport until Federer and Nadal broke that record this year. All four have contributed to interest in the sport in some way and even this year with two of the four struggling and out of the game, the ratings suffered. It's just that as I said in my earlier point, none of them really have done much to significantly advance interest in the US especially when you compare them to the Williams Sisters. So Djokovic may not have the fanbase of Federer, Nadal, or the Williams Sisters, but he still generates a lot of interest in tennis as well as generated a lot of interest in his own country.
Last edited:
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
Rafa Nadal will legalise betting on your own matches. As long as you don't bet against yourself it is ok, no? Ok.
True Fanerer
G.O.A.T.
Not a damn thing
Sudacafan
Bionic Poster
Please don’t be afraid of culture change. It’s been years we don’t have foreigners for breakfast anymore!
Tshooter
G.O.A.T.
Last edited:
Tshooter
G.O.A.T.
Show me the money.
aman92
Legend
They have definitely helped grow Tennis in Asia and especially here in India. Before Fedal people hardly used to talk about Tennis but their popularity has made Tennis extremely popular in general. I think apart from US, tennis has gained in popularity all over the world and that's largely due to Federer, Nadal and DjokovicFirst off this is not just another Fed hate post. These statements apply to Nadal and Djokovic too.
So many talking heads on TV and in the media like to give lip service to what Roger and Rafa (and to a lesser extent Djokovic) have “done for the game”. My question is what exactly is that? Do they mean they’ve helped grow the game?
Because I can sure as hell say that tennis here I’m the US AIN’T a bigger deal than it was 15 years ago. I can’t speak for Europe (please enlighten me those of you across the pond if you can) and other places but Tennis has certainly gone DOWN in popularity here.
When Sampras (and later Agassi) retired tennis could still be considered a semi-mainstream sport. While it’s never quite been chic like it was for a time in the 70’s it had a solid following that was probably equal with hockey, NASCAR and pre Tiger era golf.
But since these guys dominated tennis has declined in interest. It is pretty much strictly a niche sport here now and it has lost all crossover appeal. It’s been at least 6 years since I’ve even heard anything about tennis in a non sports channel context.
Even worse there has been more of a return of unfortunate country club snobbish attitudes. While these things have ALWAYS been present and always will to some extent it has gotten better after Sampras and Agassi managed to transcend some of the stereotypes (following in the footsteps of guys like Connors Lendl etc.)
Many times the public courts around my area are a ghost town and not many working class people can afford exorbitant membership rates at tennis clubs. And the people who do play tennis are (not always but often) very snooty people who look down on those who work menial jobs and such. It’s a big reason why I’m only able to play tennis 20-25 times a year even though I’d LIKE to play a LOT more. For example my “coach” went to university and had a good paying job and was able to retire at an early age. Which is great! But he and his son very subtly look down their noses at me and my parents and seem to take pleasure in the fact that their son (who I’m about equal in ability with) beats me because he gets to play 5x more than I do. And it’s that way with many people. We’re just outsiders I’m not trying to just be whiny here I’m just giving personal evidence to support my case here. It’s hard to really do much when people will have nothing to do with your family.
For this I blame the tanking economy first. That is obviously a big reason why. When the playing field was more even money wise there was less room for classism to breathe. But then I blame the media and the players. I think Fed and Nadal are guilty of helping make tennis a more PC game with less colorful personalities. And regardless of whether you agree with that or not It’s clear outside of novelties like this years AO that Fed/Rafa/Novak don’t drive the public’s imagination enough to generate any kind of consistent real interest outside of die hards.
While no doubt I dislike Fed and his unapologetic white collar rich boy image I actually think Rafa is the worst offender here. I still like and respect him but I really don’t like how in the later part of his career he’s embraced more of the PC highly image concious staid attitude himself following Fed’s footsteps (hello wearing a multi thousand dollar wrist watch on court!) Its a marked change from his early pirate style. To be quite frank I think he’s a bit of a turncoat. I still respect him but I do shake my head at things like this as well as his well documented moments of fake humility.
I don’t have anything against Novak personally but it’s clear the public was never going to get behind him but regardless even he has lost some of the “edge” he had pre 2011.
Regardless of anything ratings have often been down the last decade and you’d be hard pressed to find many people in my city that know or care a thing about tennis anymore.
Don’t get me wrong tennis isn’t “dead” and isn’t going to be but take it from someone’s who’s first love is NASCAR. I know EXACTLY what it’s like to have a sport you love go down the tubes because of a shift in attitudes and other factors. 20 years ago NASCAR was an awesome sport with colorful personalities that was the fastest rising sport in the world. Now it is a PC boring horribly managed fustercluck that struggles to get 2 million viewers a race (after knocking on the door of the NFL and NBA 15 years ago).
Not gonna mention Murray since no one outside the UK cares about him
I realize I kinda rambled here and not all of this might make sense but while I’m still sick and have nothing to do I figured I’d chime in on this.
Jackuar
Hall of Fame
Just my three cents.
When someone is playing almost 8-9 months in a year, and the 3 month timeoff is in bits and pieces here and there except year end, when that itself is seen as "not enough" time and "tight scheduled", I'm not sure how much more can they afford to spend time physically promoting the sport, like being there and travelling around raising awareness or motivation or whatever that means. In terms of them being expected to (even if not obligated to) give back to the game in terms of supporting radical changes, giving up some benefits, etc. - again, I don't see what else could they do - its not like they should give away free cash or ask for lesser prize money voluntarily - its not human tendency, or agree to play more exhos or fan interaction or ... I'm lost for ideas actually. Monetary stuff should actually be controlled by the ATP. If ATP / tournaments say, "We'll pay only a million for the champion and we're gonna pay a few thousand more for journeymen", what can the top pros do beyond protesting really? If we want the players to give back, then allow them to give back. You can't ask them to play for 8 months and expect to do something more. Reduce the calendar to 6 months and then ask them to contribute for the game?
The few things I think they can genuinely do as of today's calendar, and without much to lose for themselves really in terms of both money and time, is raising the next gen players via free training sessions. As part of every tournament, as they travel to different cities, they can conduct a 3-5 day special training sessions for under-16 players of that city / country. Spending 2-3 hours per day, sitting in a chair and speaking on tennis is not gonna be that difficult, I hope? It could be a mass program where players get to learn something different, new, strategically (and even technically if someone's good enough to pick up things at a quick glance). This is something I've thought about in the past. Not gonna cost money or additional time and also gives back to the game, especially upcoming players who struggle to find coaches.
Second, the ATP / tournament organisers should look to sync both calendars of challengers and ATP level tournaments as much as possible. That way it brings the players together in the same city at same time which will in turn enable easy access to top pros by the junior players.
Third, I think as a top pro, they should agree to a deal where they mentor a sub-200 rank player through a season, with the target to help them achieve 50-75 ranking places. So, someone ranked less than 200, is aiming to reach the 128 seedings of a GS. After that, the deal is done and its left to the players to improve from there on. The challengers-ATP events calendar sync up is going to help here again.
When someone is playing almost 8-9 months in a year, and the 3 month timeoff is in bits and pieces here and there except year end, when that itself is seen as "not enough" time and "tight scheduled", I'm not sure how much more can they afford to spend time physically promoting the sport, like being there and travelling around raising awareness or motivation or whatever that means. In terms of them being expected to (even if not obligated to) give back to the game in terms of supporting radical changes, giving up some benefits, etc. - again, I don't see what else could they do - its not like they should give away free cash or ask for lesser prize money voluntarily - its not human tendency, or agree to play more exhos or fan interaction or ... I'm lost for ideas actually. Monetary stuff should actually be controlled by the ATP. If ATP / tournaments say, "We'll pay only a million for the champion and we're gonna pay a few thousand more for journeymen", what can the top pros do beyond protesting really? If we want the players to give back, then allow them to give back. You can't ask them to play for 8 months and expect to do something more. Reduce the calendar to 6 months and then ask them to contribute for the game?
The few things I think they can genuinely do as of today's calendar, and without much to lose for themselves really in terms of both money and time, is raising the next gen players via free training sessions. As part of every tournament, as they travel to different cities, they can conduct a 3-5 day special training sessions for under-16 players of that city / country. Spending 2-3 hours per day, sitting in a chair and speaking on tennis is not gonna be that difficult, I hope? It could be a mass program where players get to learn something different, new, strategically (and even technically if someone's good enough to pick up things at a quick glance). This is something I've thought about in the past. Not gonna cost money or additional time and also gives back to the game, especially upcoming players who struggle to find coaches.
Second, the ATP / tournament organisers should look to sync both calendars of challengers and ATP level tournaments as much as possible. That way it brings the players together in the same city at same time which will in turn enable easy access to top pros by the junior players.
Third, I think as a top pro, they should agree to a deal where they mentor a sub-200 rank player through a season, with the target to help them achieve 50-75 ranking places. So, someone ranked less than 200, is aiming to reach the 128 seedings of a GS. After that, the deal is done and its left to the players to improve from there on. The challengers-ATP events calendar sync up is going to help here again.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
You probably need to get an understanding of life in Africa.
Inner city America is like a heaven on earth compared to that
fedtennisphan
Hall of Fame
Everybody knows that Roger Federer started the Roger Foundation because his mother is South African. His foundation helps parts of Africa that are without access to an education. Some people’s problems go beyond tennis.
BlueClayGOAT
Semi-Pro
I find it slightly strange that we expect these guys to play tennis better than anyone has ever played it and then also to have 'entertaining, characterful' personalities off court.
I mean, they're tennis players. They have their own private lives and their own personalities and inclinations outside tennis. It's unfair to expect them to be better than anyone else at tennis and then also to be secular rockstar-saints off court.
They've raised the profile of tennis higher than it ever went in many parts of the world. I know that for my generation- born in the late 1980s to the late 1990s and later, these guys have been the guys to watch- absolutely monolithic titans who played great tennis- in their different ways- and gave us tons of fantastic matches to enjoy.
They're all also very nice, well-balanced guys off court- sure, they keep it civil and relatively PC in public, but why is that a bad thing? You cannot expect everyone to be an activist and social icon like Ali was, that's not possible. Ali was a product of his times as the Big 3 are of theirs. How is a black man born in 1940s USA to be compared to a white upper middle class Swiss kid born in the 1980s in terms of social activism?
I'd rather have a bunch of champions who care about tennis and winning, answer questions articulately and politely, are nice and well-behaved and scandal-free, than someone like Tomic or (to a lesser extent) Kyrgios or (strictly in terms of personality) McEnroe or Connors whose default mode is arrogant/bratty/entitled/couldn't give a fcuk.
The Big 3 also do plenty of things for charity, they just keep relatively quiet about it.
I mean, they're tennis players. They have their own private lives and their own personalities and inclinations outside tennis. It's unfair to expect them to be better than anyone else at tennis and then also to be secular rockstar-saints off court.
They've raised the profile of tennis higher than it ever went in many parts of the world. I know that for my generation- born in the late 1980s to the late 1990s and later, these guys have been the guys to watch- absolutely monolithic titans who played great tennis- in their different ways- and gave us tons of fantastic matches to enjoy.
They're all also very nice, well-balanced guys off court- sure, they keep it civil and relatively PC in public, but why is that a bad thing? You cannot expect everyone to be an activist and social icon like Ali was, that's not possible. Ali was a product of his times as the Big 3 are of theirs. How is a black man born in 1940s USA to be compared to a white upper middle class Swiss kid born in the 1980s in terms of social activism?
I'd rather have a bunch of champions who care about tennis and winning, answer questions articulately and politely, are nice and well-behaved and scandal-free, than someone like Tomic or (to a lesser extent) Kyrgios or (strictly in terms of personality) McEnroe or Connors whose default mode is arrogant/bratty/entitled/couldn't give a fcuk.
The Big 3 also do plenty of things for charity, they just keep relatively quiet about it.
BlueClayGOAT
Semi-Pro
Also, not to put too fine a point on it, many Americans seem to not realize that America is not the world. Just because the Big 3 aren't American doesn't mean they didn't make the sport more popular elsewhere in the world.
fedtennisphan
Hall of Fame
So that’s what the OP is going on about. The Big 3 have plenty of fans in the US and tennis is popular in the US. The OP is just sore that the top tennis players are no longer American, but European. The OP’s opinion of tennis not being accessible only to rich and their personalities are boring to Americans is off-base because that’s pure speculation with no proof.
SpinToWin
Talk Tennis Guru
Ok real talk:
Can we just be honest?
Tennis essentially is a sport where two - sometimes four people - hit a ball back and forth over a net and into a court until one person can’t return a ball before the second bounce.
What the hell does the phrase “doing something for the sport of tennis” even mean? Tennis is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.
Can we just be honest?
Tennis essentially is a sport where two - sometimes four people - hit a ball back and forth over a net and into a court until one person can’t return a ball before the second bounce.
What the hell does the phrase “doing something for the sport of tennis” even mean? Tennis is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.
Similar threads
