Before the start of every Grand Slam (French Open excluded), we all know who's going to win. I mean, men's tennis has lost all meaning for me now that:

1. Andre's gone.
2. Lleyton's form has dramatically dropped.
3. ITS A BATTLE FOR SECOND PLACE.

I am telling you now that the three remaining Slams will be identical to last year. nadal wil win The French, Federer Wimbledon and The U.S Open.

It's ironic to think how a couple of years people were saying there's no depth in women's tennis, what about mens'.

Since Wimbledon 2004, up uuntil now, there have been only three different Grand Slam Champions' in men's tennis, whereas there have been 7 different Grand Slam champions!

To you it might be boring but to me it is fun to watch him .
His style is absolutely beautiful and the way he carries himself about is quite admirable.
If Federer wasnt there it would have been alot more competitive......You can't fault the guy for being that good

Ah. But on the plus side, men's tennis is better to watch IMO. Maybe I'm just not a great fan of women's tennis but I always think that hitting the ball back and forth rather slowly and waiting for the inevitable fault that ends the point is very BORING indeed. Whether it's competitive or dominated.

And it's only Fed that breezes through - everybody else is fighting in every match to have a crack at the master. How was the AO boring with Gonzales destroying top players on his way to the final? Even the most die-hard Fed fans were nervous going into the Gonzales match, because you always wonder 'will this be the one that he loses?' Federer has set a new benchmark and I think it's great to see players like Gonzales lifting their games to try to match him.
By the way, I realise that this is another thinly veiled 'weak era' thread :yawn: , but I ain't arguing with Laver and Courier, who have both said in the last couple of days that the competitiveness and depth of the field in the men's game is stronger than ever before.

Nadal won't win the french - a lot of damage has been done to him I reckon, he won't even be no. 2 by the end of the year ;)

I'm not faulting him, I know how good he is, I just find it boring knowing who'll win each Slam except French before the tournaement even begins.

The women do not hard?! That is a load of crap. Did you watch the women's final? Did you see how hard those two players, just for example, hit the ball?

Yes, it was good watching Gonzalez beat all thise top players, but it was always going to be a battle for No. 2 on his side of the draw.

Don't be so sure. He's never been that good on hardcourt, he can lose to so many players on it. He is a totally different player, however, on clay.

Selesfan you are spot on. And after his voodoo on nadal its only going to get worst, shame really because the spaniard had his number even at wimby.

but lost in four sets... :whistle:

You don't sound like you've watched womens tennis since the 70's roflmao

He is right in a way, except they don't hit the ball THAT slowly... roflmao

I don't think he's right in anyway. They hit the ball fast for the most part, and in all the good matches there are just as many winners as UEs. Unless Kim and Martina are playing :rolleyes:

I didn't say they hit it slow - that was a crazy comment! roflmao

But a lot of women's matches are bosh-bosh-bosh-OUT!/NET!. The variety isn't as good as the men, and, although of course the men have a great advantage, movement isn't really that special either apart from a couple of exceptions.

I think it's because there are such a lot of younger girls at the top at the moment who have yet to find consistency; yet they can hit some fantastic winners though :bow:

Id still rather watch it than mens though; I sat to watch FO Final last year thinking I was going to witness the best tennis match in history and all I got was Nadal wearing Federer down until he dumped a forehand into the net :yawn:

I would agree though that by and large that the men have better variety. However there are many excellent athletes at the top of the women's game :D

I agree the youth in the women's game contributes quite a lot to the bosh-bosh nature, too many young girls are pushed through desperate for the big break, instead of also honing variety.

Men's tennis, in a lot of ways, is at a far more advanced evolutionary stage than women's. One day the women will realise that it isn't all bosh-bosh, that variety in their games will give them an edge, that better movement and especially FOOTWORK (A weakness for many of the women) will stop them breaking down so quickly. To me, Justine is the only 100% complete player on the tour, but she doesn't have the blistering power because of her physique.

Let's be brutally honest, Men's tennis is producing some fantastic matches at the moment and is putting the WTA in the shade for my money :)

Maybe a rule should be brought in where the women can't play on the full circuit until an older age, i.e. 16 or 18. That way they will have time to develop games instead of just power-blasting to make a quick buck

Yes I do agree to an extent. But I'll always prefer the WTA as I've always tended to follow it from the upper levels and the quality there is just as good. And so many of the players on the ATP are inconsistent, so that we can get some horror shows. Look as Gasquet and Monfils, ok I know they were outplayed but couldn't give their best from round to round.

Also the men's matches at slams are too long for me. I don't have that much times to sit down to match a three hour match roflmao

I'm not a fan of Monfils, he's hugely hit and miss, while Gasquet is a fine talent who, sadly, goes missing too often when it matters!

Most of the WTA women are inconsistent, including Maria!

I like the ATP just that bit more, mainly as we are blessed with the dreatest player ever in super Rog!

I think Federer is the reason the ATP does have edge at the moment - I'll admit that :lol:

The thing is, he's pushing the others on too!

Interesting debate here, both on whether Federer's domination is good or bad, and whether mens' or womens' tennis is better. Here are my thoughts...

1. Federer is a massive box-office draw - he is a player that fans will pay plenty of money to see, even if its just an exhibition match. Even if he is dominating an opponent, there are always plenty of moments of genius in his matches.

2. He hasn't been 'that' dominant at Aus Open before - Safin has beaten him there, and on his previous 2 triumphs there (particularly last year's) he's struggled a bit.

3. Whilst any sport needs a degree of unpredictability, we are v priviledged to be witnessing a player of Federer's talent making history all the time and breaking records. When he hangs up his racket people will really miss him. There's something of the showman in Federer's game which makes his dominance a little easier on the eye than that of Sampras'.

In terms of overall unpredictability, the mens' game still beats the womens' game - look at the predictions contest - how many 2-0s to the favourite were there in 1st week of Aus Open, and compare that to the number of shocks in the mens' section early on.

4. The French Open is no way a foregone conclusion. Nadal and Federer are ahead of the others, but there are others capable of playing v well on the clay, whether established players like Davydenko, Nalbandian and Robredo, or youngsters like Djokovic, Berdych or Gasquet.

5. With Nadal looking vulnerable to power-hitters, Roddick on the resurgence, and some of the younger players continuing to shine, there is a lot of strength in depth and interesting times ahead in the top 10.

Oh I just want to add a bit on my thoughts on the womens game. 1st week of a slam tends to be too predictable, but there is some excellent tennis out there in the 2nd week (even if finals can be a tad one-sided from time-to-time!).

I don't think that Serena's win is sign of the women's game in trouble - more simply a sign of Serena's class, and that she is mentally the toughest player.

As I said earlier somewhere, the women's game still has a lot of evolving to do for my money - movement, variety and footwork are factors on the womens tour which are neglected for my money at the moment, the men's tour puts them to shame. There are only a few players who have a quality 'defence' in the women's game - instead of trying to work their way back into a point like most of the men do when they are on the back foot in a rally, most of the women just blast and hope.

‘Lleyton's form has dramatically dropped.’

Interestingly, Hewitt thinks he is playing better than when he was at the top of the game, it’s just that the game has moved on and the strength in depth has improved.

Not saying he’s right in his assessment of his own game, but I’m a big believer in the idea that the game moves on at an incredible pace though changes in style, technology, coaching, diet etc etc.

It wouldn’t be possible for a top male player to take time off the Tour then come back after 6 months and win a GS after just one warm-up event. Not even Federer could do that.

I appreciate that the outcome of slams may be fiarly predictable BUT Fed's dominance is not bad but GOOD for the game. We are lucky to be able to see a player with unique talent and genius in our lifetime, and you can't deny (if you are a REAL tennis fan that is) that Fed is truly marvellous to watch, even if he is winning. He is a very special player and those dont; come along too often so enjoy him while you can. I personally would not watch so much the best we had on offer in finals was say Roddick v Nadal. Havign seem how one dimensional those two can be I woudl hardly relish watching them in the same way i do Federer.

The fact that Fed is so good is raising the bar and making other players work harder and smarter, which is a good thing. I think men's tennis lost variety over the years and we had far too many baseline big hitters (yawn) and touch, flair and class have been lost. The world No1 is such a brillaint all rounder. He's got variety, great tactics and ability to work out oponents out and anticipate their next shots. He has the forehand, backhand, touch, power and flair and realyl has no major weakness. He doesn't rely heavily on one huge weapon liek a serve or forehand, and he can attack as well as defend, and use all of the court from the baseline to the net. Because is is such a complete player, those in ascendancy must also try to be complete players to beat him, and this can only improve the vareity and quality of the game, and I think it will and is already. Look at Gonzo for example, he was a big forehand and lacked consitency and variety. Now he's a changed player and surely one reason he's doen that is becasue he's seen what is needed to beat Federer? Murray is another who is developing and all round game and I think we'll see more new players in the future doing the same, more able to mix it up and play the full range of pace and shots. And after Fed showed us how much better he's getting at volleying, I hope we'll see more players emerge who can volley well too as they are sadly a dying breed, and I do hope Henman isn't the last of them.

Anyway, we've almost total dominance form other players, most of whom have nto bene as exciting to see as Roger. Sampras was a genius at what he did , but I dont; think you could say he's as popular to watch as Federer is.

Probably right and I was aware that I was in fact stepping into a wasp's nest when I made that statement. The fact remains though, it's too slow for my taste.

spot on MrI, and SB in her post.

Cheers Pebs. :) Mr I made a very good post which I forgot to credit earlier.

Fair enough, I was only joking anyway :D

I howled when I saw your comment about the 1970s roflmao

It's true though - that statement describes women's tennis in the 70's perfectly roflmao

(Until Nav and Chrissie came along that is :D)

Guess so. I still liked some of it though. Imagine if I'd seen a quick futuristic glimpse of the Bolletieri lot striking balls, back in 1970 odd - I'd have dropped my cherry ade! roflmao

And I would have choked* on my spangles too.. ;)

*and had to have got a drink of SB's cherryade to clear my throat*

Ye you still got some great S and V at Wimbledon with the likes of Billie Jean, but from the little I know, outside of the top 5 it was pretty :yawn: back in the early 70's :D

Interesting couple of omissions there. No Gonzo? A South American player with a weapon and new-found consistency, who is fit as a flea has to feature as a potential threat to the field on clay. Commentators were saying on Sunday that Gonzo needs to wind his shots up and Federer takes that time away from him, but on clay, he'd have that fraction of a second longer. If he can beat Nadal on a slow(ish) hardcourt, it'd have to be a good match on clay.

Spangles! roflmao I used to liek Treats, then they ruined them and turned them into M&Ms. Remember those chews - Fruit Salads and Black Jacks? BJs were banned as they were nto politically correct.