Federer has won. Azarenka is in. Jankovic is tired. New Haven is now women’s only. Forstmann is, among other things, a pretty hilarious interview. Now that we know the latest, it seems like a good time to look back and amplify a few discussions that took place in the commentary box here over the past week.
*
Steve. I hate to pile on...but a post like this is exactly why I can't stand Michael Silver--he picks the easiest, craziest, most moronic readers to respond to. Please, just don't start nit-picking at people's grammar. That's the worst.
Maybe you just needed to get this out of your system. You're too good a writer to bother with crazy fans. Just keep doing your thing.
Sigh...all hail the democracy of the internet message board!—Ryan
No, I won't be turning into Michael Silver or Howard Stern. But at the same time, it’s easier said than done to ignore nasty comments when they’re directed at you, no matter how random or irrelevant they are. The main thing is I that wanted the tone to improve here. My job at the magazine/website has changed a little, and I have more time to read and respond to comments, so I’d like it if I, as well as everyone else, got as much out of them as possible.
*
The problem now with Murray is that the UK media only have him as a tennis hope and it has been like that since about the beginning of his professional career, as, then, both Henman and Rusedski were too near retirement to be any serious prospect for a GS anymore. So they jumped on Murray, who, even then, showed he should have what it takes to go all the way (after all, he won the US Open Junior event just the fall before).—crazycaro21
Murray handles the pressure at the Slams pretty well. He does a good job of detaching himself from it, but it gets to him eventually. It did at Wimbledon each of the last two years, and it did in the Aussie final. He wouldn’t be human if it didn’t. As someone who has seen the kind of cartoonish scrutiny he’s under during Wimbledon in the U.K., I’m amazed he handles it as well as he does. Once he gets close enough to the title so that it begins to seem like a real possibility, that’s when it hits.
There was some talk after Murray’s title in Shanghai that winning there would only hurt his chances at the Aussie Open next year, because the expectations would grow. I’m not sure about that. There are reporters from the major British papers following Murray everywhere, like the President of the United States, no matter how well he does. There will be stories about him virtually every day whether he wins tournaments or loses in the early rounds. The hopes and expectations and recriminations are automatic for him Even losing can't save him.
*
What's wrong with saying fed has nothing to prove?
it's true. i think it's a statement that indicates that he has achieved so much, and stands as one of the best ever, that there is indeed nothing left to do to vindicate that position. it has already been established. no need for proof. it's not a rationalisation for losses, imo
this observation doesn't conflict with the continued desire to see him play and play well, and adjust to the new circumstances.—Susan
And I say that the fact that these "nothing left to prove" comments (just saw one from a Rafa fan about Rafa the other day) tend to come -- no, ALWAYS come -- right after a loss by Roger is very revealing. When this topic was discussed recently on another forum, someone described such comments (nothing to prove, gravy, icing on the cake etc) as "self-comforting" for fans after a loss by their fave. Totally unnecessary, I think.
Also, I repeat...Federer's words (see his first presser on returning to the Tour about how he can beat these guys) and his actions (see his hiring of Annacone and his trying new things) show that he thinks that he has a lot more to do and to prove, if not to SOME of his happy and satisfied fans, then to himself. I admire this attitude, the attitude of a real champion.—Ruth
This was a mini-dialogue earlier in the week between two smart posters, Susan and Ruth. The argument is over the appropriateness of fans downplaying their favorite player’s loss by saying that he’s done so much already that “he has nothing left to prove.”
Susan’s point is that it’s true that, say, Federer and Nadal have nothing more to prove, because each of them has won all four majors and established themselves as all-time greats. Ruth’s is that it’s a protective cushion, a way of inoculating player and fan from the ramifications of any defeat. “OK, Federer lost to Nadal again, but everything is gravy after the French 2009 anyway.” “OK, Nadal isn’t the master of hard courts, but he’s still won all the majors.”
I side with Ruth on this one. Federer and Nadal have proven themselves, that part is true. But if they had nothing left to prove, they would retire. Nadal wants to prove he can stay at No. 1, he wants to make a run up the major title ladder. Imagine what he would feel like if he could surpass Borg in French Open titles; I’m sure it has started to cross his mind, and I’m sure he knows it would be an incredible achievement. Federer wants to get back to No. 1, and I’m sure he wants to change the head to head trend against Nadal. Not that he’s thinking, “I have to get it to 11-15 before I retire," but the natural competitor in him still believes that he’s good enough to beat Nadal anytime they meet. You know deep down Federer still believes he's the man. He wouldn't bother playing if he didn't want to show that to the world.
I mentioned “pre-cuses” last week, where you downplay your favorite player’s chances before a tournament. “Nothing left to prove” sounds like a post-cuse—from now on, no loss matters. Michael Jordan, the Federer/Nadal of basketball, said that no matter many titles he won, he went into every game trying to prove himself—to the crowd, to his opponents, to the world, to himself—all over again. He didn’t even have to think about it. Once he started playing, the competitive juices came over him again just like the first time he’d played. That’s why these kinds of guys—the self-motivated guys—keep going. That's why they love to do it even when they’ve already won it all. Because they always have something to prove, and all of their wins and losses matter.
*
I've never thought of it this way before, but I wonder how much the spectator fatigue during the seemingly 2nd tier fall season is due to....too much tennis on television.
Amidst all the hoo-ing and hah-ing over how poorly tennis is served by the cool medium (see: Wertheim today), virtually all of which I agree with, it's worth noting that before Tennis Channel, ESPN and online streams tennis fans rarely got to watch tennis live and could barely keep up with players' wins and losses. For most of the tennis world, most of the time, getting tennis news was a matter of scouring the box scores in a newspaper. Even that wasn't consistent; there were times we'd be able to follow the first few rounds of a tourney and then not know anything until it was over!
I wonder if, as a consequence of that, tournaments like the Stockholm Open weren't better attended. After all, it was the only opportunity for Stockholmians to see live professional tennis. Today they might not only be able to watch their hometown tournament on Swedish television, but they've been able to watch tennis all year long to a degree that far outstrips what was available when Mac beat Borg.
Is too much of a good thing is killing the fall season?—Skip1515
Too much tennis on TV—I don’t know. I could see it working both ways. You see a lot of Federer on the tube, and that makes you want to see him in person. Or you see him so often already, you’re less likely to make a special trip to a city to see him one more time, even if it is live. There must be theories of publicity that address this—how much is too much exposure for a celebrity or athlete or politician? One thing that’s interesting to me is how the Internet will affect viewing. Being able to watch virtually every professional match anywhere on my computer almost makes waiting for the weekend to see the semis on the Tennis Channel feel ridiculously dated and limited, the equivalent of watching the Wimbledon men’s final chopped to pieces on tape delay at 4:00 in the afternoon (yes, that happened). Maybe we’ll reach a time when there will be no bleachers at all; we’ll all be watching at home or at work.
Fan interest grows in an area when there’s a local star to cheer, and then fades when the star fades. Borg, and the next generation, in Sweden; Becker and Graf in Germany; Connors and Mac in America. No accident that Ion Tiriac took his tournament in Stuttgart and hauled it to Madrid a few years ago.
*
The number of Tier II players (and Tier III players), on the other hand, has been very strong. These would include Ivanovic and Jankovic, Dementieva, Azarenka, Kuznetsova, Safina and more recently Stosur. Wozniacki must be included in this group given her record, or lack thereof, against top 10 and top Tier competition. These players are all fine, talented, even very interesting and exciting players who share a common trait of great athleticism. But they have proved themselves undependable, and have excelled only in the absence of more accomplished players. Dementieva, Ivanovic and Jankovic have at least shown themselves capable of knocking off the big name players with signature wins, but all have faltered when they had big chances to win.—Northern Boy
I’ve written about the lack of top tier women to debut this decade, but the flipside, as you say here NorthernBoy, is true as well. The second tier is pretty strong, with a lot of players theoretically capable of winning majors. I don’t know if anyone has an answer for why the tour has begun to develop this way. The opening of the Eastern bloc has changed the dynamic at training academies and led to a flood of new players and talent, but as this list shows, this generation has mostly landed in the second tier. Is there a difference in mentality or motivation among today’s young players that doesn’t allow them to dominate, or win with as much consistency as Navratilova, Seles (two Eastern European players gone west), Evert, or Graf? Or are they just not as good as the Williamses and the Belgians? Either way, the women’s sport has shifted east in the last 30 years, and the results of that shift seem to still be playing out. We may see another Navratilova someday, but this feels like a transition period to . . . ???