The Mens game,Mind Numbingly predictable

Belluci gets a short ball/smash/unmissable volley

Into the net: 1.001
Anything else: 5m/1

i read djok, nadal and fed have won the last 28 slams between them bar 1

Since 2004, the GS winners have been;

Federer, Gaudio, Federer, Federer, Safin, Nadal, Federer, Federer, Federer, Nadal, Federer, Federer, Federer, Nadal, Federer, Federer, Djokovic, Nadal, Nadal, Federer, Nadal, Federer, Federer, del Potro, Federer, Nadal, Nadal, Nadal, Djokovic, Nadal, Djokovic, Djokovic, Djokovic, Nadal.

So yes Federer, Nadal or Djokovic have won the last 10 slams, 28 of the last 29 and 31 of the last 34. Djokovic or Nadal have won the last nine.

yeah best of 5 makes it even more boring....imagine having to watch a 5 setter match

I don't see why predictability is automatically boring, if you want a random circus act then watch WTA

I agree predictable isn't boring. It's up to the also rans to lift their game, and not the fault of Djoko, Fed and Rafa.

DonNo1
26 Jun 12 16:50 Joined: 11 Nov 10 | Topic/replies: 2,841 | Blogger: DonNo1's blog
I don't see why predictability is automatically boring, if you want a random circus act then watch WTA

Well, a surprise from an outsider making it to the final from time to time would be nice, WTA and ATP are just 2 opposite extreme situations at the moment.

^Exactly.

This is why it is predictable - too many wildcards given to players who are outside the top 100, often from the country the tournament is in - they lose convincingly to players who would otherwise lose in the first round of matches, meaning that when the top players come into the tournament in the next round of matches, they have easy pickings. I think there should be no such thing as a wildcard and every player should get there on merit. If they have to qualify, they have to qualify. That way, the really talented players come through the rankings much more quickly and some of the older players don't get the easy route through to the later stages of competitions to protect their rankings.

Woefully weak era, no matter what the so-called 'experts' want everyone to believe.

This Wildcard rule in tennis is nothing short of pathetic,i cant think of any other major sport where there is such a thing!
and as you say,The players that are given them are either from the country where the tournament is and older players who are in rapid decline.if your gonna have this ridiculous rule why not give the wildcards to some promising youngsters.

i think its great era of tennis finnals are always same cast but still exciting,i personally prefer to see the bests in finnals than some lucky mug

but apart of the finals and some great semis as well played on the top, you have plenty of matches like djokovic tsonga or delpo fedex with big drama good tennis etc i don know what to complain for? remember birdbrain 2010 he beat 2 of them and failed in final.

in my view all the different exciting matchups i get during earlier rounds(i dont even watch top mugs apart of mugray occasionally as he is flip flop man) with all the mugs,all the young baby face federers etc

and then start form qaters we have real top top tennis where you see challengers and then semis with all those epic top 3-5 matchups, which arent boring at all just because they playing tennis from another planet and its great to watch time and time and time again

no mug in finnal will give you that

for variety, unpredictability i have wta with i like same or bit more but only because is more specific

going back to the original post have to go back to roland garros 2010 for a slam where at least 3 of the top 4 didn't make the semis

suppose depends what takes your fancy. the quality and drama of the 2 semis and final in oz this year will take some beating but would be nice to see some new names occasionally

Jun 26, 2012 -- 11:17PM, TimeformSquiggle wrote:

This Wildcard rule in tennis is nothing short of pathetic,i cant think of any other major sport where there is such a thing!and as you say,The players that are given them are either from the country where the tournament is and older players who are in rapid decline.if your gonna have this ridiculous rule why not give the wildcards to some promising youngsters.

Golf? Darts? Often comes down to expenses. Yes, playing at Wimbledon would be a dream but if you're ranked 95th in the world from Australia are you going to spend thouands of pounds if you don't make the prize money back. I understand Wimbledon will get you more prize money, but the two darts world championships for example are always going to be dominated by British and European players.

if joe bloggs and freddy mathews make the final nobody will want to watch


advertisers have never had it so good, fancy getting tickets for mens finals day and not seeing 2 of the big 3 , or murray .

Casual fans' dream, real fans' irritation.

I can't stand those horrid presenters with their "Roger" this, "Rafa" that and Novak "other".  Every other player is called by his surname.  Cringeworthy.

I see no reason whatsoever if Berdych got through to a grandslam final and played Giles Simon for the viewing public not to want to watch it?

90% of them wouldn't know of this simon chap you speak of.

I doubt we'll ever see Gilles vs Tomas in a GS final.

some truly tragic comments on this thread

I'm ok with the top 3/4 dominating the mens game ...fascinating era with many questions to be answered
will federer win another slam in his career ??
will murray ever win a slam ??
can Djoko win the french during his career ??
how long can djoko stay at number one ??
how many career french opens can rafa win ???

etc... etc... etc...
the mens singles tennis during this era is of the highest quality imho, the likes of which we have not seen before

these mugs would rather the top 4 went away so we could see rubbish tennis

reduce the seeds to 16 imo. catching a dangerous floater early provides more of a chance of an upset plus there are so many boring early round matches in the mens draw.

i wouldn't really want a centre court ticket for the first couple of rounds these days just to watch the top seeds thrash the worlds 106th ranked player.

indeed.Both Fed's opening matches have been embarrassingly easy.

the mens singles tennis during this era is of the highest quality imho, the likes of which we have not seen before

the semis and finals easily

that's what happens when you have 4 great players leading the game

Magnificent to watch the top 3/4 from the semi stage.  But it makes their early matches very dull, with the odd exception.  I prefer it that way around though.

without doubt the greatest era of men's tennis

The trouble is the surfaces are so uniform. If the courts were like they used to be it would be more competitive even if one of the top 3 still consistently prevailed.  As it is all they do is make slight adjustments to their game and after a couple of days are ready to go on the new surface

Indeed.

you just had a feeling when this fred was started .......

1.01 jink thread landed.
BOOM

northanlite
Date Joined:     07 Jun 04
Add contact
27 Jun 12 18:41
[i]reduce the seeds to 16 imo. catching a dangerous floater early provides more of a chance of an upset plus there are so many boring early round matches in the mens draw.

i wouldn't really want a centre court ticket for the first couple of rounds these days just to watch the top seeds thrash the worlds 106th ranked player.

ever wish you hadn't posted something

TBF he is the 100th ranked player not 106th

LOL. Though I tend to agree. I won't normally watch Fed, Djoko or Rafa until later in the tournament. Last night I chose to watch Rafa over the football.

what's with the surfaces being so uniform?

why do some players still do great on grass or clay compared to the others?