2013 - Will Anyone Be Watching?

First topic message reminder :

90 miles.

That is the amount of miles Murray has clocked on court this year alone. That is a hell of a lot of miles. He has played 66 matches this year. On average he runs 1.3 miles per match. Now I have yearned for British success and when Andy delivered this year, I expected to feel more euphoric than I already have and tennis and me as a fan are in transition. For the larger part this year I feel like tennis has struggled with identity. It is strange. Take Roddick. His last match. Despite being the partisan favourite, I didn't feel the connection. He was almost thankful he was done with it. Take Agassi when he retired and that scene was amazing. The outpour of emotion and there was a genuine connection even though it would've been hard to guess that deep down Agassi detested tennis.

I feel as if the players are disconnected with the fans in such a large way it is quite alarming. Fognini is someone who for me plays to the crowd. Tsonga another who engages the crowd. Playing with a smile to provide smiles. Djokovic does to an extent. He will play a great point and immerse himself with the crowd and then go cold. Maybe if he rode the momentum with the crowd he might just be someone who excites the crowd. When you watch players, besides the brand and standard of tennis I think the players who are ones people pay to watch are those who can engage the crowd and indulge their emotions.

Take the current players. Federer plays with ease and quality and that alone is worth the admission fee. With Djokovic and Nadal, they have moments of engaging the crowd, but lack really the energy to carry that momentum of energy. Murray, well he provides the 'Kids put your fingers in your ears' moments. It is harder for him given the surly nature of his character.

When you watch players like Tsonga or Fognini, results will follow you and given the lack of success casts a shadow over them. You would say "Great personalities and good players. Could've done more if they had 'focused' more" now there's that key word. Focus. Djokovic epitomises that. Early days he wanted to share a laugh with the crowd and crack jokes. Not that it is a crime. When his focus sharpened he became more successful, with his personality on court slightly sacrificed for the good of his career.

As we near the end of 2012, I am somewhat meh. Is tennis providing a lure for me to comeback as a fan next year? I don't know.

Watching a 7-5 set take 1 hour and 10 minutes was really pushing it and it left me thinking could it get any slower than that?

I go back to the US Open and think I really hope that that standard of tennis to win a Slam is not replicated. I know that Andy won't play every match like that as the conditions made for a tricky match, though Shanghai was pretty close.

Is there enough in tennis right now to keep you going into 2013? For me I am just hanging on.

Personally I like tears from a player at the end of a big match, I like a bit of emotion.
I can understand totally Federer getting emotional at the end of AO2009, it was a big big match and he had been beaten. Nadal's response was simply outstanding, unbelievably classy and very respectful. He was type on put on the spot too, so he couldn't have pre-planned what to say

Anyone watch DP against Brands? No breaks of serve in 3+ hours and over 60 aces. I'm guessing the courts are quite quick in Vienna?

I don't think it was Fed's finest hour and I am sure he wouldn't have wanted to do that. He said that the only thought was that he was exhausted and he would have been fine but then he was asked to speak. Everyone watching knew this was a brutal defeat and I remember thinking he couldn't come back from this that from there on in Nadal had the complete beating of him.

No-one really wants to see these kind of tears, but I do hanker for the days when sports stars would not have the microphone shoved in their faces for a response while they are just trying to digest a loss and are spent - the worst case I ever saw was a journalist asking Colin Jackson how it felt to be pipped to fourth place when Jackson hadn't even had a chance to look up at the placings to see he had missed the bronze. 2009 was not just one loss.

I think the tears were regrettable but completely involuntary. Nadal did handle it well - he was very gracious and wonderful but then he could afford to be - it is a great shame he let himself down by 'bumping' Rosol and complaining about LR putting him off while waiting to receive at this year's Wimbledon. It's easy to be a gracious winner, harder to lose as elegantly sometimes. These guys are competitive animals and in the heat of the moment or when they are totally done they sometimes don't always live up to their own high standards.

Yes TP, all tennis 'superstars' will have their better and worse moments, they are all humans.

Is for Rosol's arm movements, if I was at the other side of the net and my opponent kept on rocking like he did I would have been very annoyed. I was at CC during his match against Nadal, and his arm movements got more and more exaggerated as the match went on.
I watched him play a few times after that (including against Istomin today), and he hasn't done that.

Thank you all to who contributed.

My position is that while changes were necessary because the game in terms of popularity was declining and it is easy to understand that tournament organisers had to think fast and logic prevailed in terms that they felt baseline rallies would generate better shotmaking. You have to to take into account that in the 70's/80's while there were long rallies, they mostly were finished off by a delightful volley. When the balls changed and became lighter and racquet material became stronger with graphite and metal it opened the floodgates to big servers who were literally reducing rallies from your normal 6-7 strokes to 2-3. From a technological stand point slowing down the courts was the only option to even the field out which was heavily dominated by the big servers.

The baseline game has gotten old fast and instead of encouraging courageous play with big flat strokes, we have more risk adverse tennis by where the players are playing the percentage and margins. What it means is that players with attacking flair are being bullied by the retrievers that send the eye catching shots back over the net.

How can the game get back to the 70's/80's type of play? Well it will take a miracle. Too much has advanced now that even if heavier balls and faster courts came back, it would be a long transition to see out the players who would struggle with such conditions and also for the lower ranked players who would thrive in such conditions.

I am kind of blah because I am wondering what tweeks could be made to encourage more riskier shots from the very defensive players.

I genuinely dont understand the complaint based on the Shanghai final. It was hardly pushing tennis. Both players were being very aggressive off return and any chance they got were stepping in and looking to dominate. Of course, there was extrordinary retrieving but it was the attacking shots which were drawing gasps from the crowd.

I thought Djokovic-Murray Shanghai final this year was a treat to watch, high drama and fantastic tennis from both men.
Legendkiller doesn't have to like it though, and certainly he is entitled to his own opinion, I don't want to force it down his throat.

And the semi's weren't bad either especially Federer v Murray.

I see it that a 7-5 set taking 1 hour 10 minutes is a hell of long time. Even the Nadal detractors couldn't deny that Nadal plays quicker than that!!

The thing is that the final for example both men tried to hit through on another and the pace of the match became slow when winning shots were being hit. As I said the US Open final yes I could understand given the nature of the conditions. Shanghai's court seemed slow and sluggish.

It's not just the brand of tennis as a whole. Many posters have desired change, but it comes at extreme costs if technology tampering is the only factor which could settle things. Maybe they could consider BO3 format across all events for the men and maybe a championship TB??

I don't know. It is hard to think of any changes that don't have a 'drastic' nature to them.

sportslover wrote:And the semi's weren't bad either especially Federer v Murray.

This illustrates the danger of assuming that Andy's matches are a turnoff. Basically it's all to do with the match up. Now the Fed / Murray matches are easily the best ones on the eye because they both reach into their vast well of variety talent, knowing that the normal 'rules' won't work. Hence, we've had arguably three good matches recently - particularly Wimbledon

Murray and Tsonga tends to be good

Basically, Andy adapts to whoever he's playing and does what is needed to get that win - sometimes that will be attritional

We can't all support one player or style of play - it really is "whatever floats your boat", however any of the top players who come up against a Korlovic,Isner or Raonic type of player must dread it likewise the fans!

I just love the smell of fresh Karlovic vs Isner serve-fests in the morning...

I've just watched the Murray Fed match (bare in mind I was sunning myself ) and fail to see why anyone would stop watching

It was arguably one of Andy's most positive / agressive matches he's ever played and if that didn't "engage the crowd" then goodness knows what they want

I repeat. I think we are getting too hooked up on the Nole / Murray rivalry and ignoring the other good match ups

Personally, I've never been that enthralled by Fed/Nadal matches - but think that the Fed combination with Nole or Andy gives excellent fare