For the most part they just stand around the baseline groaning and boring everybody. Or maybe I’m thinking of the Russian women.
They tend to hang out in no-man’s land.
I’ll be here all week, folks. Don’t forget to tip your waitress!
How’s the veal? 
As opposed to amateur tennis?
Also…Braaaaains!
They’re useful in Davis Cup for playing the dead rubbers.
More Zombies: who knew that the Aussie Open would have a dead spot on one of the courts. Umpires bounced a ball on the court and it literally did not bounce.
Pro tennis is pretty damn exciting now that Federer isn’t totally invincible. The one major thing the game lacks is a male American hero. No, not Roddick; I root for him every time and as much as I love the guy he tends to choke in finals (and before) a lot.
Love me a zombie thread.
But I’ll answer it anyway. The biggest problem is the equipment. It’s just too damn good.
If anyone is old enough to remember that POS Wilson 3000 that Connors played with, or the AMF Head Arthur Ashe used to win tournaments, you know what I mean. Men’s tennis was much more interesting when there were rallies of more than one ace serve hit 150 mph, or a serve and volley of two or three shots.
When rackets were wooden or the early metal ones were not the easiest to hit hard accurate shots and as a result, the rallies could be longer, more exciting and less predictable. Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Ashe, Nastase, Becker, et al were all fantastic players, but they didn’t rely on complete brute strength (well, maybe Becker). Now, it’s a power serve/grunt, followed by an ace or defensive return. If the server is coming in for a volley, the point can be over quickly.
The other big reason is the lack of personalities. Many of the new stars are like robots, and as much as I can appreciate the amazing skill of a Sampras or Federer, they aren’t the most exciting or controversial guys in the world. Nadal is the best thing to happen to mens tennis in years, and I hope he stays healthy long enough to develop a few long standing rivalries. But he’s kind of boring compared to any of those crazymen of the 70s and 80s.
Women’s tennis used to be compelling because of long rallies, but the can hit almost as hard as the men with the new equipment, which reduce the rally potential. Plus, the stars aren’t all that appealing. Other than the beautiful Russians and some eastern Europeans, there isn’t much to be excited about. Evert, Navratalova, Sabatini, for example, were not only attractive in their own way, but they had healthy rivalries and were fun to watch. Now, except for Maria Sharapova, I don’t know many names. I root for Sharapova, but I don’t follow it as much as I used to, so I have no idea how well she is doing at any time.
The William sisters are the only americans I can think of. I like Venice, but she isn’t all that exciting, and Serina is a bit of a bully (the tirade at that linesperson was disturbing). I will root for Venice, but not for Serina. Plus, they hit the ball about as hard as a guy, making the equipment a bigger part of the game than it should be.
:smack: Today’s game is known for long baseline rallies, not serving and volleying. The serve and volley style was associated with older equipment. People long for its return today. They say that was more exciting.
WHAT? How does less accurate = longer, more exciting rallies? Less accurate = more errors.
There’s some truth here. The problem is that being weird and crazy generally hurts your game for the most part and doesn’t help you win. That’s more true than ever in a game that is played almost year-round and that requires constant training. It’s hard to be consistently good if your focus wanders. Marat Safin was pretty crazy, and it overshadowed his talent.
What’s wrong with Clijsters?
[quote]
The William sisters are the only americans I can think of.
[/quote[
You’re not forgetting anybody.
No, they don’t. They hit harder than most of the women (and overhitting is prevalent on the WTA), but a guy would blow them off the court.
? or to put it more strongly…???
We live in a time when possibly the two greatest ever players have been at the height of their powers. They have provided tennis of a quality rarely seen and have done so with a consistency never seen. Their grand slam clashes have thrown up astonishing spectacles.
And what role models, If my children ever ask me to define athleticism and sportsmanship I will point them in the direction of Federer and Nadal.
You couldn’t ask for better figureheads. We are lucky indeed to witness it and will miss it when it is gone.
True, neither Williams sister would stand a chance against any competent male professional.
I’ve personally found that pro tennis puts a much higher emphasis on power shots than say, badminton or squash, and I think much to its detriment. However, it’s always going to be the most popular racquet sport because it’s played outdoors. No one wants to stare at people in a gymnasium or watch two guys inside a concrete box…
…well, except for MMA. But that’s different, lol.
:smack: You are right. I got it backward in my mind when I typed it out, and I’m glad you caught it. I remember when Borg and McEnroe played, it was the classic serve and volley game, something that is not as popular these days. The guys can sit on the baseline forever, waiting for the other player to make a mistake. I remember reading how loose McEnroe used to get his strings tied, so he could control the ball more. The longer the ball stayed in contact with the strings, the thinking went, the more spin could be put on the ball.
In re-reading my answer, I don’t know what I was thinking. You are exactly right with your assessment. I wasn’t drinking last night… what time did I post? :dubious: I did take NyQuil last night. Perhaps it was NyQuil induced. Whatever, it is embarrassing.
I wonder how the Williams Sisters (and others) would do with todays equipment would do in the mid 70’s against Connors, Ashe, Nastase, in their prime and wooden rackets.
I suspect the guys would still win, but it would be very competitive.
I didn’t become a tennis fan until recenent years (watching Nadal grow from the player that could only win on clay, to completing the career grand slam has been great fun)
Nadal v Federar in the finals of a grand slam is just great television. With Federer’s ability to always hit what seems like the perfect shot, and Nadal’s ability to track down pretty much anything on the court, its some of the best sports watching currently on TV imho.
I don’t know a single serious tennis fan. I haven’t in at least 15 yrs. I would say it’s dead.
Well, I don’t know a major rugby fan, but I wouldn’t say it is dead. Same for cricket.
Our own experiences don’t define the whole. Tennis is quite popular, still.
Even if you just take a US perspective, attendance at the US Open has risen from 506,000 to about 720,000 in the 15 years that you haven’t been watching.
The OP (from nearly 3 years ago) apparently does not know anyone that plays tennis, yet shortly after his post, the USTA announced record participation levels.
So I think we have people extrapolating personal experience to come to incorrect conclusions of what is happening in general.
The one thing I will agree with is that fewer casual fans follow tennis in the US compared with the days of Connors and McEnroe.
Very well done, amarone, and quite right.
When you get down to it, all pro sports are irrelevant. Popular, yes. Relevant, no.
I haven’t gone to a baseball game since the first player’s strike. Baseball is dying.