Sorry if I wasn’t clear; I didn’t mean to say that there were no speed-fitness types, but that there would be MORE in the women’s game, and it would be more of a factor.
Yeah, the interviewer guy really tossed one over the plate there, and Novak knocked it out of the park. It’s also nice for everyone to see that Novak can take some ribbing as well, with McEnroe doing a somewhat frazzled impression of Djoko’s 10-20 OCD bouncing.
These things always go in cycles. There was not much power in the women’s game years ago. Then Seles and Graf came along and things moved up. The Williamses broke in and it went nuclear - although Hingis was pretty successful for a while, and like I said, players who had more than just power to offer did win. (I admit even some of the best players, like Capriati and Davenport, were not that exciting.) The power’s never going away but things won’t always be like this either. Earlier this decade, people were bemoaning the overpowering of the men’s game. Then along came Federer, and there are still plenty of guys who hit very hard, but nobody worries about them dominating the game. Nobody needed to make any major changes to the sport for that to happen. It’s true that racquet technology evolved, but mostly, players picked up on each other’s weaknesses and talent won out.
Djokovic was definitely set up well, but I think the comments to Todd Martin and McEnroe were unprompted - and he also made sure to set McEnroe up for a putaway volley at net. Good move on Djokovic’s part.
You as in general you? Yeah, I suppose that’s true. But if the players found it offensive, it would all of a sudden become objectively offensive, much like how not letting women run races longer than 200 meters or not letting women have 5 minute rounds was objectively offensive. I just don’t get why I’m the only one that sees 3 set matches in the same light as the other disparities.
I suppose it could be that men play 3 set matches in non-majors, so 3 set matches aren’t exclusively a women’s thing. As I said in my first post on the topic, scaling the men back to 3 sets would be just as good in my book as upping the women to 5. I just want them to be the same, because the message I always get is a loud and clear: “oh the poor widdle women can’t handle a real match.”
Erm, I knew all this already. In my first post (#131) I mentioned Title IX and even alluded to my understanding that Title IX had only an indirect effect on tournament tennis. (“And I don’t find it surprising that other non-fed organizations would also begin to make the same transition.”). And I bet you jumped to the end of this thread and didn’t read my previous post where I specifically mentioned Title IX? I was just using it as a jumping off point to bring up the idea that for decades some of us have been immersed in the forward-thinking notion that women’s sports are just as relevant and worthy as men’s, (despite the very obvious inequalities of physical strength between the genders).
I will only say this… that was my reply to DSYoungEsq, not you. Otherwise I’ll just pass on any further discussions with you.
BTW, for anyone who’s interested PBS recently broadcast a fascinating documentary about Patsy Mink and her work with Title IX.
I mean you or any non-tennis playing non-woman. I understand that you disagree with it, I’m just not sure where it gets to be offensive.
It might be offensive if they were forbidden to play five sets when they wanted to, but that’s not the case. They choose not to play five. They have the means at their disposal if they want to make it happen, but I have never heard a single player agitate for it. I’ve heard a few men make the argument you are making about “equal pay for equal work,” but I have never heard a single female tennis player say things need to be changed. The final of the year-end championship was best-of-five for a while (1994 to 1998; I saw the '96 final), but there’s been no hue and cry to change things.
Only the slams and the final of the year-end championship are best of five. The rest of the time, everybody plays best of three. There are some people who do think the men’s matches should be shortened to three; for one, L. Jon Werheim says the first week at the majors should be best of three and the later rounds should be full length. That makes the least sense possible in my opinion. I think there’s no need to change things, and while not every five set match is a classic, I’ve seen enough to feel I would have missed out on some great ones if it were not done that way. I started listing some of the great five-setters I’ve watched, but I think I can just say “Wimbledon 2008” and leave it at that.
Or Wimbledon 2009 for that matter… There’s something incredibly epic about a 5-setter that is fought hard the whole way and goes the distance, and it makes a lot of men’s matches stand out more to me. I think women should have the chance to give us such matches, though if they don’t wanna, they don’t wanna.
But think what kind of awesome tantrums the Russian women will throw with 5 sets of play vs. 3! We’re really missing out. 
Well, in the men’s game, all of the men still hanging around the top spots hit very hard. It just becomes relative, I guess, but what I do like is that you need power + accuracy + something else to truly succeed. Nadal and Murray have power + accuracy + insane returns and defensive ability, Tsonga has power + accuracy + great net play, and Federer has power + accuracy + the divine inspiration of the gods.
The women are turning in that direction, but for the moment, it still seems to be in the stage where it’s power + accuracy vs. power + inaccuracy, which turns a lot of matches into a “who can manage to not hit an embarrassing number of unforced errors today?” There are some exceptions, to be sure, but far too few. Serena pretty much has the complete package, and many have great defensive ability, but too many games are decided by screaming power being accurate or not for the given day. I wish more Martina Hingises would come out of the woodwork, because even though she was a bit of a spoiled twat, she had a fun game to watch.
Yeah Djoko’s playing his cards right and may very well end up being the honorary American for the final 8 (well I guess Federer’s already one by virtue of his utter dominance here for half a decade and his still-clean image).
Who are generally the most well-liked players, anyway?
Out of my ass:
Federer
Nadal
Tsonga
Monfils
Serena
Oudin
Wozniacki (?)
??
Yes, you do. The power is never going to go away and there’s no particular reason it should. (I don’t count ‘it offends Bud Collins’ as a reason.) It will remain part of the women’s game too. But if things are one-dimensional now - and it may be a little better now than it was a couple of years ago - it will change.
Federer is a huge fan favorite. It’s New York - nothing succeeds like success. Djokovic is still rehabbing his reputation and people definitely like Nadal, but Federer’s pretty popular everywhere (well, maybe not Spain) and he’s definitely the guy in New York. Maybe an American crowd would have pulled for Roddick against Federer but I don’t think they would do it for any non-American.
On the women’s side there are still two Americans left and we know how the audience feels about them.
The Kimback continues! Clijsters is into the semis, and will get the winner of tonight’s Serena-Pannetta match. No complete matches on the men’s side, but Del Potro is up a set and a break on Ferrero, and Murray and Cilic are tied late in the first set.
Just checked in on the doubles draw, and I’m happy to see Max Mirnyi is still going. He’s with Andy Ram, and they are going to play Nestor and Zimonjic next. If they win, Mirnyi might have to play his ex-partner, Bhupathi.
Wow - Cilic stole the first set 7-5, and he’s now leading 4-0 in the second! I’m off to watch this on my break.
Go Cilic!!!
Murray looks really listless out there. I don’t know why that is, but he’s got almost nothing going right now. Meanwhile Del Potro won easily and he gets the winner of this one, and it sure looks like it’s going to be Marin (Joe?) Cilic.
Tsonga vs. Gonzalez is starting a little later. That one should be interesting. Tsonga’s all-court game makes him the favorite and Gonzalez has been inconsistent, but with Fernando Gonzalez on hard courts, you just never know. Winner of that one gets Nadal or Monfils, who are playing tonight.
Not that it matters, but seeing Monfils always reminds me of my old tennis instructor. He wasn’t great with the names of foreign players, but Monfils was the worst - he pronounced it “Mumphries.” Ah, memories. 
Wow, I did not see Murray going out at this point.
Weird.
A lot of expert commentators were picking Murray. He reached the finals last year, had beaten Federer four times in a row until the Cincinnati tournament, and is tough and improving and healthy. Federer owns this tournament but I suspect many of them think he’s due for a letdown. Ask Tommy Robredo about that.
Murray’s going to win majors, but he needs more offense, and a bigger second serve. He really couldn’t push Cilic today. Of course it hurt that his return game was unusually poor.
I didn’t have a chance to see the match, but this is surprising, considering he looked so good in his last match.
I wonder if Murray will continue suffering the British curse that seemed to plague Henman’s career. He’s a better player, obviously, and SHOULD be winning majors, but you never know…
Then you lose the bet - I read both posts fully. My comment was only supposed to be that I didn’t think references to/parallels with Title IX had much relevance because the situations are so different. If you disagree, so be it - no big deal.
Murray is OUT! O-U-T OUT! He is gone. He has been sent packing! His tail is between his legs and he is trying to get his plane ticket changed! HA!
Kim is in and Murray is OUT. What a good day!
Now if Tsonga can win today too, it will be perfect.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I think Pennetta is really easy on the eyes.
It will be sad to see her go. As much as I may hate her, Serena I have to give credit will probably beat Flavia and probably will beat everyone else.
Still, I’ll enjoy the Pennetta’s TV time while it lasts. 
Monfils gave Nadal a very good test, and there was a hell of a lot of running and retrieving in that match. But Nadal stepped up and took the last three sets without too much trouble. Nadal’s going to get back to #2 in the world due to his result here and Murray’s loss.
So the men’s quarters are set. Tomorrow it’s Federer vs. Soderling and Djokovic vs. Verdasco, and on Thursday it’ll be Gonzalez-Nadal and Del Potro-Cilic. A Del Potro-Nadal semi would be very interesting indeed.
It’s much too soon to compare Murray to Henman. Murray just turned 22 this spring, he’s improved steadily and he is a top player for sure. He made his first slam final in New York last year, and he’s done well in the big events this year. It’s definitely a disappointing loss and a confusing one, but Cilic is not a scrub.
Sigh, I’m really sad that Tsonga didn’t make it. I love the guy, but he just doesn’t seem to have the discipline to choose his shots and not always go for the line or big bangs when he doesn’t need to. I was annoyed that I set the DVR to record ESPN2 just for this match, but they cut away to the Serena v. Penneta 20 minute introduction instead of showing us the third set! Grrrrr…
Penneta really acquited herself well, I think. She played better than she did against Svonereva, much more consistent, much more poised, but with much worse results. Only losing one break in each set to Serena, and giving Williams a hard time on several service games was quite impressive from the Italian. Unfortunately, Penneta’s great match can’t even beat an average Serena match.
Monfils vs. Nadal was the most fun match I’ve watched of the tournament. Breathtaking rallies, and even though Monfils started to fade towards the end, he still put up some great points the whole way. If the Frenchman ever builds up his fitness to at least Roddick-level, he’s gonna be a great contender.