Festive or not it is a game that demands people to be at the peak of their physical fitness to really cut it. 24 year olds are considered veterans these days in Tennis.
Tennis used to be a sport that was worth watching, with personalities playing more for the love of the game, now it's mostly automatons devoid of personality, being paid more money than god just for turning up, and with the improvements in racquet technology, the men's game has become mostly devoid of ralies and is just a power contest. I accept that Federer is a class above the rest, and Nadal is another unique player, but most of the top 50 blokes play a brand of the game that's about as appetising as plaster of paris mixed with milk.
As for the women's game? The continual grunting and shrieking is a joke. Evert, Navratilova, Goolagong, King, Graf, et al never had to do it more than occasionally. It's even more run by the almighty dollar than the men's game. FFS, Kournikova was one of the top money earners for years and NEVER won a singles title.
Mind you, if any of the Zatellites wanted to have a go professionally, I'd love them to, because I have a gut feeling you only need to be slightly better than average to make a buck out of it.
Originally posted by The Supreme Emperor of Planet Zog: Tennis used to be a sport that was worth watching
... a long, long time ago.
Who'd have thunk it, in 1970-1, when Lawry and Illingworth and Boycott were boring us all shirtless, and tennis had players like Nastase, Rosewall, Fletcher, and Connors; that tennis would become the quintessentially boring game, and Test cricket the thrilling game?
I'm heading down to Melbourne for a week to watch the Australian Open.
There's still plenty of characters in tennis.
The biggest problem tennis is facing though is the death of serve-volley.
Baseline tennis makes for boring tennis. The best matches invariably pit a serve-volleyer against a baseliner. But with no serve-volleyers left this isn't even a possibility.
A combination of ball size, court speed and racquet technology has helped push them out of the game. Look at Federer. He came to prominence serving and volleying. These days it's easier for him to win from the back of the court.
Pat Rafter was the last out and out serve-volleyer to be truly successful - and I find that a bit sad.
Though, it's still darn enjoyable. Especially when you're there. You also get to see the 'character' within the players - unfiltered at the change of ends and on outside courts.
Firing down aces is what kills the game, not base-liners.
The nature of net rushers is a tactical serve approach the net and volley home a winner. Whilst very skillful and perhaps in your view exciting, the point is over in half a dozen shots.
I want value for money and prefer to watch a baseline rally which can have up to 30 shots. Much more exciting. Nothing beat a Courier and Muster rally
The best tennis is a base liner v a good serve and volleyer. Unfortunately the latter is an endangered species these days. But some of the best matches I've seen in the last decade were Rafter v Agassi.
As for modern tennis generally - without Fed it would not be worth watching. When he plays, it is as good as sport, aesthetically speaking, can get.
If there is another Safin-Fed match this year at the Oz Open and if Safin has his head sorted out(like he had in the semis a yr before),it would be wonderful...But,there are too many ifs there - biggest one being Safin's head being sorted out.
Up until the late 80s I used to love Tennis. Since then my interest has slowly waned. I will try but will find it difficult to stir up some enthusiasm for the Aus open.
I'm not sure why this is. Maybe the nature of the sport leaves a kind of 'been there, seen that' feeling after the first 30 years.
