I’m probably a dope to start a thread about an event just after it’s ended, but I kept waiting throughout the weeks and I’ve been busy. So: who here watched the Open this year? How much did you see? What did you think? Did anyone else get to make the trip to Flushing and see it in person.
From my end, I can’t remember a better two weeks of tennis. The Sampras-Agassi final in 2002 was going to be historic before it even happened, but it felt like the same aura lasted for almost the entire tournament this year. It was a great two weeks for American tennis, with James Blake becoming a marvelous feel-good story and Robby Ginepri returning from oblivion - and both look like they should be major players for some time to come. We had the shock of Andy Roddick losing early and neither Williams looking very good, but Andre Agassi played some amazing tennis, giving Federer as much as anybody could have and playing a match against Blake that was probably as good as any tennis match I’ve ever seen. I lived and died for 3 hours with that one. And Federer, of course, continues to amaze. He played his best tennis for two or three matches, tops, and still outclassed the field. I had the pleasure of watching his quarterfinal match, not that it lasted very long, and watching him do his thing in person.
It always takes the women’s tournament longer to get going, but there were some top-notch matches there, too. Sania Mirza of India announced her presence, and I’ve heard she’s going to be huge in her country. Mary Pierce came out of nowhere again, Lindsay Davenport almost captured a Slam for the first time in years again, and it looks like Dementieva is learning how to serve! Kim Clijsters finally, finally won a major - I thought it was her time and was glad to be right - and was very tough. The Dementieva-Davenport quarterfinal and Clijsters-Sharapova in the semis were both excellent. The final was another washout, but I guess they can’t all be Wimbledon.
The Agassi-Blake semifinal was one for the ages. A great match. I was hoping against hope that Agassi would find some way to beat Federer today…but the guy is just too good. He’s a machine. But Agassi played a hell of a match and I hope he doesn’t retire just yet. He played three great sets against a guy that nobody could probably defeat.
I do too. I spent most of this year thinking this would be it for him, but after a performance like that, there’s no reason he couldn’t do it for another year if his back holds up. He played well enough to beat anybody else, and he hung with Federer - and even lead, briefly - when Federer was on, even after a bunch of hard matches. If his measuring stick is the ability to compete with the best, I think he shold be convinced that he can still do that.
Some of the earlier matches were very entertaining. Frabrice Santoro and Davide Sanguinetti (not playing against each other) were great. I loved the drama of Andre getting to the finals, it almost looked like Federer let him win one game during that last set so it wouldn’t be 6-0, in case it was the last time Andre plays in NY. I watched a lot of matches because I’m still recovering from hip surgery. We have a big tournament near here, Indian Wells, and we have gone a few times. It’s pretty exciting to be there in person. I love the NY crowd. My fav moment was during the Venus-Serena match, when someone yelled out “go Williams!”
I only caught the last 2 sets of the Agassi/Federer match (and I was channel hopping between the match and a football game). I’m not much of a tennis fan honestly. Not to say I don’t enjoy watching it, but that I rarely do.
It was the first time I got to see Federer play, and the guy is amazing. He deserved the win. Even though Agassi looked like he gave his best, it wasn’t enough. There was one point in the final set where he looked like he was getting ready to mount a comeback, but he just looked tired after he got that 1 game.
As a slight aside: Am I the only person who thinks commentators in tennis are silly? It always seems to me like they’re either just trying to fill for time and avoid dead air, or that they’re spending too much effort describing something that, despite their possible history as a player, they seem to know little about?
CBS’s three commentators seems like a lot in my opinion. I do like John McEnroe, who offers some real insight, but don’t care much for Mary Carillo or for Dick Enberg, who is well-spoken but seems to be there mostly to read promos for Survivor. They can be useful when they’re telling you what a player is doing right or wrong, and I remember thinking that Carillo came up with a great tidbit from Agassi’s history today - I forget what it was - but most of the time, like any sports commentator, they’re not telling you a whole lot that you aren’t already seeing. At least they don’t talk during points.
They actually had Agassi on the air for a few minutes during Federer’s semifinal against Hewitt, and he offered more insight into what the players were trying to do than I am accustomed to hearing. I liked that. On the flip side, CBS’s handling of the end of the Agassi-Blake match was bad, and CBS’s commentators were awful in a bad situation. I like Ian Eagle, but he just didn’t have anything to offer. He and Pat McEnroe were in the studio instead of at the stadium, and it seemed they could hardly see the thing. Which is bad, especially at the end of a very dramatic match!
Oh, one other positive: I felt like USA cut way down on the stupid celebrity courtside interviews this year. In years past, it’s felt like they have done at least one or two during every night match, and it’s an annoying waste of time. There were a couple this time, but it wasn’t as bad.
I didn’t see many of the earlier matches, and unforturnately I missed the Blake/Agassi one. I did watch today’s match and it was OK. Not a lot of great tennis as they weren’t too well matched. Federer is just the better player. You knew he was going to win that tie break because he rarely let Agassi rack up many points during the games. Tennis in HiDef is pretty cool, though!
I started watching last weekend during the round of 16, and it was awesome. The Blake/Agassi match was outstanding. BTW, tennis is just awesome to watch in HDTV.
I think Agassi still has some gas in the tank, which is surprising for any 35 year old tennis player. He managed to play three five-set matches in a row, and going into the fourth set of this one without a day’s rest from his five set match the day before, he still looked like he was hanging in with Federer, in terms of conditioning. Federer was just too good. He had one more gear he could switch into, and Agassi didn’t. I never expected Agassi to win this one - Federer may be the best player to ever play the game (we’ll know in another five years or so for sure), but right now he’s at the peak of his game. He’s almost invincible.
But Agassi was better than anyone else in the field. Who knows, if he had had a couple of easy matches before today he might have had a little more energy and could have beat Federer. As it was, he came within a whisker of going up two sets to one, and that might have changed the match. If his back doesn’t bother him this year (and he says he never felt a thing from it through the whole tournament), then he could play for another five years if he really wanted to. Ken Rosewall played until his mid-40’s, and the training and medical care they had back then is nowhere as good as it is now.
I agree that Federer is pretty much unbeatable against the current crowd, but best of all time? I have my doubts. My standard for awesome is Bjorn Borg. When he was at is best, it was like on one else was actually playing tennis. I don’t know that Federer has reached that level yet.
He was, absolutely. But Federer’s going to win the French one of these years; that may be goal #1 for him now. He plays with an ease and an artistry that I just haven’t seen before.
Federer has singlehandedly revived my interest in the men’s game. I just have a thing for checking out the best, and for a while it seemed the best was the old guys who’d lost a step but were still better than all comers. Roger is the new blood I’ve been waiting for, and he hasn’t disappointed. Having heard the talk that he might be the best ever, I read a NY Times article about him to see what their take on the question was. His numbers are truly impressive, but not yet in the GOAT category. (Greatest Of All Time)
His streak of 80+ weeks with the #1 ranking is in the top 5, but he’s got a ways to go yet. Connors holds the record of being #1 for around 170 weeks. Even more impressive, Connors also has the #6 streak with 70+ weeks. The thing that blew me away was the fact that the two Connors streaks are separated by a single week. The first one ended (roughly from memory) August 2, 1977, and the second streak started August 9th, 1977. Connors was number one from like 1974 - 1979 minus a single week. I want to know who the guy is that snuck in there for that one week. Talk about a great trivia question! (Anyone know the answer? I do want to know.)
Regarding the tournament, I was happy that Clijsters won…she’s got a cute ass, and I look forward to seeing more of her matches. Maria is getting a bit too tall for me.
Ginepri definitely got a new fan in me, as he seems like a genuinely nice guy. Anybody catch the match between him and that Argentine? They had some fantastic rallies, and at the end of some of them they’d both smile and high five each other. That’s exactly what I love to see…great tennis combined with good sportsmanship.
On the flipside, there’s Lleyton Hewitt, who I like as a tennis player but don’t particular care for as a person. (I find that “Come On!” crap about as annoying as the Argentines do.) I like his dogged determination in matches…returning damn near everything and never giving up on a point. His match against…Dent?..was great. I never see much volleying, and certainly no serve-and-volley, but Dent (was that his name?) rushed the net 140+ times. It was fascinating to me. The fact that he won fewer than 50% of the points when he rushed the net didn’t deter him. The funny part was that Hewitt was around 30 of 40 in his net points, which he doesn’t normally do, apparently. Good stuff in that match.
Right- I looked it up, I think that record is 160. Federer is at 84 or so, but I think he’s guaranteed the top spot through the end of the year - that’d put him almost at 100. Still a year behind the record (!), but almost at Sampras’s 102, which I think is second-best, and given the depth in the men’s game now, it’s just amazing.
It looks to me like it was Bjorn Borg.
Yeah. Glad you missed that Argentine [Guillermo Coria]'s previous match, then. He and his opponent [Nicolas Massu] jawed at each other constantly and had to be separated during one changeover. Never seen that before! I think Coria was complaining that Massu was calling for B.S. injury help.
He’s a pain. I’m finding Nadal is really annoying in his own right, which is too bad since he’s such an entertaining player.
Federer is already in the GOAT league, and he’s only 24. I’m pretty certain he will go on to be The GOAT eventually. Some records probably remain unbroken, but is that the benchmark for the GOAT? If so, Michael Schumacher would be the proclaimed GOAT of F1 already, but he is routinely regarded 2nd or 3rd best, usually behind Senna or Fangio.
Federer’s win loss record for this year is 71-3. That’s a 95% success rate, and for the moment, there doesn’t seem to be anyone on the men’s circuit who shows the potential to do damage to that stat. Roddick and Hewit have abysmal records against Federer, and Safin simply isn’t consistent enough (though I love his game). Nadal is impressive, but I’ll reserve comment until I see more of him on hard courts.
But it’s not just about how many people he defeats, but more of how he does it. There is an artistry in Federer’s game that defies belief - he makes it look plain and simple easy. He plays in his own level, way above the rest of best, not unlike Borg. Heck, Agassi himself acknowledges that Federer is the best he’s played against, even over Sampras.
Sania Mirza is already a minor celebrity here, which is quite an achievement, given that’s she only turned pro a year ago, and that her sport is not cricket :rolleyes: . Her single’s ranking is up to 34, making her the fastest climber in the WTA this year. Her celebrity status in India seems to be eclipsing Leander Paes and Mahesh Bhupathi’s too, both multiple Grand Slam winners and past world #1 doubles players.
I’m glad for Clijsters… she no longer needs to carry the best-player-to-have-never-won-a-Grand-Slam tag! Now I want to see her play an in-form Henin.