When is this match? Will there be live scores available? I found it interesting what Mac had to say . . .

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/6219424.stm

It does sound a bit like sour grapes, but I agree with him that 30-year-olds on the "Senior" tour is too young.

The Tournament website indicates it should have started an hour and a half ago, but there don't seem to be live scores.

So, I guess nobody knows of any source of live scores . . . It's probably over by now, anyway.

It was being shown on BBC 2 :D

Alas, my local Baton Rouge cable service doesn't carry BBC2.

And there appears to be a live webcast via the BBC Sport Tennis page, but I can't access that from work . . .

I think the match is over....nut i cant find the result anywhere :blink:

3 and 2 for Rios. They played well actually but Rios can make it look very easy as you would expect from someone 17 years younger. But both are geniuses.

Some have argued than at 30 Rios should not be playing....but just to see rios again and before he becomes too slow was really great.

You do wonder if they let him in to get another big name on the tour and therefore more sponsorship etc.

But Rios isn't exaclty a "big" name is he? He is more than likely to ruin the tour in my opinion. Who will bother staying on it if they know that 30 year olds can join and whack them week in week out.

Agree with everyone here regarding Rios, he should definitely be playing on the main tour. His results against the lions on the Seniors proves this. If he can beat John McEnroe 6-3, 6-2, imagine what he'd do to someone like Ivan Ljubicic?

I know he's 'ruled out' a full-time return to the main tour, but after winning the Vina Del Mar tournament without dropping a set, I'm sure he'll reconsider. He doesn't have to play a full season if he doesn't want to anyway, just hand pick the events to suit him. I'm convinced that if Rios made a comeback, he'd be top 5 in no time, and possibly have won a Slam.

He is a big name for me. He is one of the very few that reached the number 1 spot. No slam certainly but his tennis is pure genius. Federer says that the player he enjoyed watching most was Rios, that says it all for me.

There are more players who have won slams than players who have reached the number one spot. To give a few names...

Nadal,
Ivanisevic,
Korda,
Gaudio,
Rafter?
Costa
Chang?
Kafelnikov
Stich
Krajicek
etc...
etc

I think it's probably fair to say that Ljubicic would turn over Rios more often than not.

Rios has only had an average career at best, and he sees this as some easy money. If we were in his situation wouldn't we do the same? At $100k for this tournament alone, I know I would if I were him.

But yes, they should decide on an age limit and then stick to it. No exceptions.

By the way, has a womens equivalent of a seniors tour ever taken place/been considered?

Bizarre we hear some questioning about Rios, an extremely talented former number one (i repeat), but no questions about what Paul Haaruis and worse, Carl Uve Steeb do in these tournies.

I don't happen to think he is a very big name, but he is a bigger name than Haahuis and Steeb you are right, but that's not why I am questioning his participation. I am only questioning him because of his age. He is too young to be player on the seniors tour in my opinion. Please correct me if the others you mention are of similar age.

And just to be a pedant, Pat Rafter was a world number 1 as you quite rightly questioned with the question mark. Chang wasn't.

These are the criteria for getting into the Seniors:

Thanks for the info. I wasn't sure about Rafter.

I know what you mean about Rios age but I think it is more important to have players we like to watch rather than having guys we never cared then (I cared about Haaruis but Steeb???) so imagine now.

I think guys like Goran (34) or even Korda are great to watch and so is Rios and the tournment can only benefit from having them. I don't think winning the tournment really matters for those guys except maybe for the still imature McEnroe and the winner who will grab the $100k.

The problem is not the age of some players but the $100k given to the winner. They shoudl make it a smaller amount and spread the rest.

I never cared that much about the senior tour except that it gives us the chance to see some players again...30, 35, 75 who gives a damn? Not me.

I think the criteria was also about having some achievement (slams, finalist, Number one, etc...)

Could you please remind me what did Carl Uve Steeb achieve?

roflmao Are you still convinced of all that, even after his loss to a 40-year-old former doubles specialist?

Rios did seem to dominate the senior tour for a while there, but he seems to be having the same trouble maintaining his fitness that he did on the ATP tour. Somehow, I doubt that Ivan Ljubicic would have much trouble defeating someone like Haarhuis.

He qualifies as a member of a winning Davis Cup team.

This is what i figured out but if Haaruis rightly acknowledges that he does not fill in the seats, can you imagine about Steeb? Certainly an aching Rios is more likely too. Though personally I would enjoy watching anybody....Well maybe not Steeb though :yikes: .

I guess this means our Tim will have to rely on Wild Cards.....I am guessing Jeremy Bates has to currently?

Greg would qualify though.

I'd never heard of Steeb before to be honest, and I didn't think my tennis knowledge was all that bad.

Still, you shouldn't underestimate Haarhuis. Reaching world number one in doubles and top 20 in singles is nothing to be ashamed of. The reason he's performing so well in the senior's tour is the fact that he has an amazing physique. He never had and probably never will have any unnecessary fat and he has a very energy-efficient style of playing. His problem on the ATP Tour was that he lacked the strength to blow someone off the court, but now that his opponents are slowing down the disadvantage is almost gone.

I would certainly not underestimate Haarhius. He did beat McEnroe already then.

1989
US Open
NY, U.S.A.
Hard R64 Haarhuis beat J McEnroe 6-4 4-6 6-3 7-5

I know. I didn't mean to underestimate Haarhuis, but . . . He IS 40 years old. So I was just having a bit of a jab at Wise, who seemed to take Rios' win over a 47 year-old McEnroe as evidence that he could beat current Top 10ers like Ljubicic. Sorry, I don't see it happening.

Haarhuis, btw, was also a "True No. 1" in the same sense that Nadal is, based on his 3-1 head-to-head record against Sampras, during Pete's prime.

I say that last bit tongue-in-cheek, of course, but it does demonstrate how head-to-head records have to be taken with a grain of salt. Haarhuis was dominated by players like Lendl, Chang, Edberg and Courier, and yet he has a winning record against Sampras.

This tour should be for those who are 35+ - 35 is an age when virtually every player has retired from the main tour!

McEnroe, at 47, is incredible just for still being there!
Remember him routing Murray in the superset a couple of years back?