Men's Tennis is Dead.

Federer? FEDERER?!?!

Hell hath no fury like a FilipinoFungo scorned.

Federer's dominance may not be the best for drawing people to the game, especially because he such a "nice" guy. But if the game is lacking a true rival relationship to propel the game, then don't blame Federer. The game needs better development satellites and bring up some better guns! Nadal just won the Pacific/Indian Wells, but out side of a hanfdul few, I long for the days of Borg/McEnroe, McEnroe/Connors, McEnroe/Lendl, Becker/Wilander/Edberg, Sampras/Agassi.

You had me until bowling. Sheesh, there's a sport that's a one-trick pony. Imagine if baseball merely consisted of batters quietly taking turns trying to hit the same home run while a machine tossed them fastballs. Bowling is as much a sport as going to the driving range. Also, Roger Federer is a robot.

I had the pleasure of going to the Australian Open this year and watching Nadal v Murray play for 4.5 hrs- classic stuff- and their combined age isn't much more than mine alone. The sport is in good hands. Agreed that it isn't what it used to be, but that's because we're lacking serve & volley-ers and outgoing personalities. hayriot, you got my vote, but in regard to Federer, yes, he's dominant, but the "greatest living athlete in sports today" is a stretch (do I sense a smackdown coming?).

yeah, federer is great, but I just can't seem to work up any motivation to watch these guys play

Now that i've sufficiently calmed down, I'm ready to give my input.

Federer is the greatest tennis player of the last two decades (after me of course). The only problem is that Federer isn't American (I am though). It's unfortunate, but our perception of tennis as a sport is skewed because there aren't any American powerhouses (except me) to be found. Look at the names above: Connors, McEnroe, Sampras, Agassi (Legaspi). The point that should be made about men’s tennis is that the American men right now are weak (me being the one exception). Men’s tennis as whole is incredibly healthy. Sure, aside from a few players like Henman, there are no pure serve and volleyers anymore. And yes, the racquets and strings these days make players superhuman. But the argument that it has resulted in boring tennis is baloney. If that were the case, then Federer would be rendered powerless and chumps like Roddick would be unbeatable. Instead, the opposite has occurred. Watch one of Federer’s games. The man displays excellence in every facet of tennis, both traditional and modern (and Legaspi style). He’ll whip out perfect volleys, beautifully arching lobs, backhand crosscourt dippers and the occasional forehand rip down the line. On the other end of the spectrum, there’s Roddick, who, last I heard, was cast as himself in the next X-men movie- his powers of course being his rocket serve and his ability to whine any of his opponents into submission. Yes, it’s true that Roddick is thriving under Conner’s tutelage, but if technology is such a boon to these players, then logically no one should be able to break Roddick’s serve (his first serve percentage is a mind boggling 68%, compared to my 110%) and beat him. But they do. And often.
As much as I love Blake (and myself), him, Roddick, Fish and Ginepri are nowhere near the caliber of Sampras, Agassi, Chang and Courier. The day that American tennis regains a solid core of players is the day that people here will start thinking more of men’s tennis. From an American’s standpoint, only the few, unimportant countries that use the metric system believe that men’s tennis (and Andre Legaspi) is exciting and healthy.

You go FF! Thanks for bringing Chang and Courier back in the conversation as well.

Why is there not a "WHO THE #@&% CARES!" option? I mean, if you can post on men's tennis what's to keep French from coming on here and posting Yale track & field nonsense?

A "WHO THE %&*^ CARES!" option would keep content relevant and should negatively impact the posters who waste my time.

That said, I would probably abuse the hell out of the button if there was anything posted not relating to the NFL, college basketball the MLB or positive about Duke, the Falcons or the Braves...so take my advice with a grain of salt...

ANd by the way, I voted for Sink because he was losing. Not because I give a rat's ass about men's tennis.

Moose, you need a vacation or something.

I found this smackdown to be one of the most captivating on the site and I'm not a HUGE tennis fan. FilipinoFungo is someone I want to grab a drink with....very solid knowledge and smack accumen.

FYI - yes, I know I spelled "acumen" incorrectly.

Hard for me to vote against sink as I think Men's tennis, as a level of interest, is on the decline. I hear all the arguments why: no great americans, no serve and volley, rackets. For me, it's the lack of interesting people, first. Second, it's the lack of intersting play second. I now only watch it when Federer is playing Nadal. I personally can't stand Nadal, but he makes Federer work for every point. And it isn't the, stand on the baseline crap and see who can hit it the hardest. I think tennis was good with Agassi and Sampras, but I think it was because of Agassi. Sampras has a similar personality as Federer. How do you sell those guys? You can't. Great games, great ability, zero personality, zero marketability. Personally, I don't care where the players are from, I just want some points that last longer than 2-3 hits. Where's the in that?

As for Federer being the greatest living athlete in sports today, I only need to mention golf to find one better. Federer still has his cryptonite in the French. Tiger has won them all. One key difference between the two, Federer faces six people or so to win, Tiger faces the entire field to win. All with a chance. I'll take Tiger every time.

Smithala says that Tiger Woods is a better athlete than Roger Federer. Who better to challenge that argument than, let's say, Tiger Woods? This headline from Reuter's: "Federer is sport's most dominant figure, says Woods."

The article goes on: "It was great to have Roger out here," Woods told reporters after playing an early practice round on the Blue Course. "He's a wonderful supporter of golf and I think it's pretty neat when you have probably the most dominant athlete on the planet in your gallery." Asked why he rated the Swiss as global sport's most dominant figure, Woods replied: "What he has done over the last three years, no one's ever done.

Rarely do I get to shred someone's arguments to bits so quickly and thoroughly. I expect a fully apology from smithala. Short of that, he can switch his vote to my side.

I smell a hayriot vs. smithala smackdown coming. Can one of you punks get it going? Either a)Federer is more impressive than Woods or: b) Woods is more impressive than Federer....or something like that.

I'm surprised that smack wasn't one of the first ones off the queue...

What can I say, Wolverine? It's tourney time and my job is actually stressful for a few weeks...

By the way, the comments section needs a "Quote" button next to previous comments so that one can respond to past comments.