This is my first "official" thread (yippee!). Anyway, I don't really care about men's tennis, but the ladies will always be worth watching---for many reasons :eyebrow:

Anyway, Mario Sharapova is on......so....I gotta go.

I don't really care about men's tennis

Mario Sharapova is on......so....I gotta go.


Calling Freud. :)

Sharapova is always fun to watch. damn_fine tennis player too.

This is Agassi's 20th year at the Open. Amazing... and still has a great game. :up:

agassi advances in 1 hr 9 min. pretty quick for an old guy. :)

Agassi can still play with anyone, and beat anyone. The problem is he can't withstand the grind of a fortnight and recover from tough matches the way he used to. But in a game, he can play all day long with anyone.

Last years women's champion loses in the first round for the first time ever.

Calling Freud. :)


:lol: oh shit :eek:

I actually meant Mario Lopez! I don't know how Sharapova got in there. :D

Unless Safin can raise his game like he did in Australia, Fed is going to take the men's championship.
The women's field is more wide open but you can always count on Lindsey Davenport to choke away another important match in the second week.

I don't know how Sharapova got in there. :DIs that what you told your wife? :)

I watched Agassi kick the shit out of that poor Romanian guy. The announcers said Agassi will play his first five matches over 12 days, so up until the semis he should be OK, then he'll start to have serious fitness questions.

Safin ain't gonna raise anything because he withdrew prior to the tournament because of a knee injury. :) Federer should be the heavy favorite but who knows what Nadal will do. He won the Masters in Montreal (Federer wasn't playing) but lost in in the 1st round in Cincinnati and he almost beat Federer on hard court once before, so he can certainly play on that surface.

On the women's side who knows... Too many players just returning from injuries or with minor injuries: Kutnetsova lost but had been injured for weeks, then the Williams sisters, Sharapova, Davenport, Henin-Hardenne aren't in top form. This should favor Clisjters who has been on a roll but she has a tendency to choke in big finals (lost 4 grand slam finals). Tough one to call.

Agassi can still play with anyone, and beat anyone.

A bit of an overstatement. Let's say anyone but Nadal and Federer. :)

Is Safin still dating that hot piece of ass?

Is Safin still dating that hot piece of ass?Apparently:

http://sport.gazeta.ru/files/329798/sad.jpg

I really feel for the guy, missing the tournament because he's injured. I hope he's holding up, smiling through the tears and all... :lol:

Is Safin still dating that hot piece of ass?


That's the one constant thing about him. We'll miss it because as eX pointed out(which I didn't know) Safin has withdrawn prior to the start.

Agassi doesn't have any fitness issues. He just doesn't have the firepower to go against the top 4 players.

Is that what you told your wife? :)


married? :hscratch: me? I may be 26 by age but inside I'm just a 16-year-old who's mature for his age ;)

Apparently:

http://sport.gazeta.ru/files/329798/sad.jpg

I really feel for the guy, missing the tournament because he's injured. I hope he's holding up, smiling through the tears and all... :lol:


That knee ain't gonna get any better if she keeps pounding on it. :)

Here's the tv schedule


USA Network and CBS
Date Channel Time Schedule

Sunday, August 28 CBS 1:00 pm - 2:30 pm Arthur Ashe Kids' Day
Sunday, August 28 CBS 2:30 pm - 3:00 pm Preview Show
Monday, August 29 CBS 12:37 am - 1:07 am* Men’s & Women’s Opening
Monday, August 29 USA 11:00 am – 5:00 pm Men’s & Women’s Opening
Monday, August 29 USA 7:00 pm – 11:00 pm Men’s & Women’s Opening
Tuesday, August 30 CBS 12:37 am - 1:07 am* Men’s & Women’s Opening
Tuesday, August 30 USA 11:00 am – 5:00 pm Men’s & Women’s Opening
Tuesday, August 30 USA 7:00 pm – 11:00 pm+ Men’s & Women’s Opening
Wednesday, August 31 CBS 12:37 am - 1:07 am* Men’s Opening / Women’s 2nd
Wednesday, August 31 USA 11:00 am – 5:00 pm Men’s Opening / Women’s 2nd
Wednesday, August 31 USA 7:00 pm – 11:00 pm+ Men’s Opening / Women’s 2nd
Thursday, September 1 CBS 12:37 am - 1:07 am* Men’s & Women’s 2nd Rounds
Thursday, September 1 USA 11:00 am – 5:00 pm Men’s & Women’s 2nd Rounds
Thursday, September 1 USA 7:00 pm – 11:00 pm+ Men’s & Women’s 2nd Rounds
Friday, September 2 CBS 12:37 am - 1:07 am* Men’s 2nd Round/Women’s 3rd
Friday, September 2 USA 11:00 am – 5:00 pm Men’s 2nd Round/Women’s 3rd
Friday, September 2 USA 7:00 pm – 11:00 pm Men’s 2nd Round/Women’s 3rd
Saturday, September 3 CBS 11:00 am - 6:00 pm Men’s & Women’s 3rd
Saturday, September 3 USA 7:00 pm – 11:00 pm Men’s & Women’s 3rd
Sunday, September 4 CBS 11:00 am - 6:00 pm Men's 3rd / Women's 4th
Sunday, September 4 USA 7:00 pm – 11:00 pm Men's 3rd / Women's 4th
Monday, September 5 CBS 11:00 am - 6:00 pm Men’s & Women’s 4th
Monday, September 5 CBS 12:37 am - 1:07 am* Men’s & Women’s 4th
Monday, September 5 USA 7:00 pm – 11:00 pm Men’s & Women’s 4th
Tuesday, September 6 CBS 12:37 am - 1:07 am* Men’s 4th / Women’s QF
Tuesday, September 6 USA 11:00 am – 6:00 pm Men’s 4th / Women’s QF
Tuesday, September 6 USA 7:00 pm – 11:00 pm+ Men’s 4th / Women’s QF
Wednesday, September 7 CBS 12:37 am - 1:07 am* Men’s & Women’s QF
Wednesday, September 7 USA 11:00 am – 5:00 pm Men’s & Women’s QF
Wednesday, September 7 USA 7:00 pm – 11:00 pm+ Men’s & Women’s QF
Thursday, September 8 CBS 12:37 am - 1:07 am* Mixed Doubles Final / Men’s QF
Thursday, September 8 USA 11:00 am – 4:00 pm Mixed Doubles Final / Men’s QF
Thursday, September 8 USA 7:00 pm – 11:00 pm+ Men’s QF / Women’s Doubles SF
Friday, September 9 CBS 11:00 am - 6:00 pm Men's Doubles Final / Women's SF
Friday, September 9 CBS 12:37 am - 1:07 am* Men's Doubles Final / Women's SF
Saturday, September 10 CBS 12:00 pm - 6:00 pm Men’s Semifinals
Saturday, September 10 CBS 8:00 pm - 10:00 pm Women's Final
Sunday, September 11 CBS 4:00 pm - 7:00 pm Men’s Final
Sunday, September 11 USA 1:00 pm - 2:30 pm Women’s Doubles Final

* "US Open Late Night"
+ Feature matches are repeated from 2 am - 4 am
Times are subject to change

Agassi doesn't have any fitness issues. He just doesn't have the firepower to go against the top 4 players.

Strongly disagree there. Andre's firepower is as good as there has ever been in tennis. Agassi's backhand and forehand is as good, if not better than anyone else on a consistent basis. His serve is not huge, but it's very good because he mixes speed and location. It's far superior to what it used to be. He's also easily has the greatest return of serve tennis has ever witnessed. Agassi's game is good enough to play with anyone. His body can't recover as fast as it used to. 4-5 matches are fine, but recovering for an entire fortnight is the problem. His second problem is he doesn't move as well as he used to, which hampers his defense.

Wow. Andy Roddick is out. Muller just took him out in three straight tie breakers. Awesome match (especially on HD).

BTW, Roddick just lost in 3 straight tiebreak sets. It was on UHD network. Is there a schedule for them? I guess it was just simulcast from USA.

Pretty shocking that Andy couldn't even get a set. Muller couldn't do much wrong. He'll probably get his ass kicked next round :)

Thats awesome,cant stand Roddick :)

I thought it was hilarious when Roddick "accidently" hit Muller with a ball while hitting it back to the other side in disgust after losing a point. Was it really an accident? ;) (Kind of reminded me of a pitcher beaning a guy who just hit two homerruns against him earlier in the game) I'm j/k, it really looked harmless, esp. b/c he wasn't looking when he hit that ball back over.

Still, very shocking to see Roddick go down in straight sets like that. Johnny Mac was almost speechless, which is amazing in and of itself... :D

Any hope for James Blake to get anywhere deep into the draw this year? I really like the guy and I hope he gets far in this Open.

BTW, Roddick just lost in 3 straight tiebreak sets. It was on UHD network. Is there a schedule for them? I guess it was just simulcast from USA.
UHD U.S. Open Schedule:
http://www.universalhd.com/Schedule/search.bravo?month=2006-12&keyword=US%20Open&start=today

The broadcast was just amazing in HD. You could even see the pores on their faces ... um ... maybe it's not a good thing to see so much detail?

Anyways, Muller looked really good. Maybe he can make a little run here.

Have you seen Andy's Mojo?

http://www.andysmojo.com/scale.html

:nopics: of Sharapova. :D

...


A bit of an overstatement. Let's say anyone but Nadal and Federer. :)


Did you happen to catch their match a couple of weeks ago up your way? I thought Andre performed reasonably well in that contest.

Did you happen to catch their match a couple of weeks ago up your way? I thought Andre performed reasonably well in that contest.

Yup he sure did. Let me be more specific. The original statement was:

Agassi can still play with anyone, and beat anyone.

I agree with the 1st part.
I mostly agree with the 2nd part, with a few exceptions. :)

:nopics: of Sharapova. :D

Well alright, she's 18 now :)

http://www.grzeg326.piwko.pl/sharapova/shar006.jpg

Some Sharapova pics:

http://www.aol.com.br/client/galeriadefotos/esportes/fotos/00003264_sharapova_f5.jpg?

http://tennisreporters.net/tr_net_photos_art/SHARAPOVA_clw_iw_05_fist.jpg

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2004/07/11/200-sharapova.jpg

<img width = 400 src = "http://users.ameritech.net/jimbach/Sharapova019.jpg"></img>

<img width = 400 src = "http://users.ameritech.net/jimbach/Sharapova028.jpg"></img>

UHD U.S. Open Schedule:
http://www.universalhd.com/Schedule/search.bravo?month=2006-12&keyword=US%20Open&start=today

The broadcast was just amazing in HD. You could even see the pores on their faces ... um ... maybe it's not a good thing to see so much detail?

Anyways, Muller looked really good. Maybe he can make a little run here.
damn, i wish i had that on comcast. (and cbs better show this in hd for the women's tennis event)

Let's say anyone but Nadal and Federer.

Nadal hasn't convinced me fully.

Did anyone check out James Blake's girlfriend last night? Dang!

Did anyone check out James Blake's girlfriend last night? Dang!

yeah :up:

Did anyone check out James Blake's girlfriend last night? Dang!She looked familiar. Is she anyone famous?

wendersfan, if I ever said anything bad about you, I take it back. :D

wendersfan, if I ever said anything bad about you, I take it back. :D
:lol: To my knowledge you never have, but thanks anyway.

Blake's GF on the left...
http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/1166/barbies25xj.jpg

Her name is Jenny Schoelle

this might be her...

http://gobulls.usf.edu/Sports/womensvolleyball/2003/02%20roster/jenny_scholle.htm

her in the background

http://eur.news1.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/ng/sp/ap_photo/20050831/all/l1541378.jpg

http://www.usopen.org/images/pics/thumbs/t_0903_023BlakeGirlFriend.jpg

Even though Mirza lost to Sharapova, she's got a great forehand and could become competitive soon. Not too shabby for a girl from India.

http://www.tinthethao.com.vn/images/images512739_Mirza.jpg

I always wonder what Martina Hingis looks like grown up. I had such a mad crush on her and she's not just retired, she's fallen off the map.

They showed a clip of Monica Seles at a fundraiser and her hair was straight and she actually looked quite pretty and she was never much of a looker when she player, but she could grunt like nobody's business.

Also, where did Capriati go? Is she back on the drugs?

I liked her, because she had the weight of the world on her shoulders, totally screwed things up, put on about 75 pound she didn't need, and she actually came back and won a couple of slams. Now she's gone again.

I'm not sure of the draw, but I'd like to see a Davenport-Sharapova final.

I don't know why, but I still think Steffi could lace them up and grab a racket and beat anybody in the women's draw. She was fierce.

Also, where did Capriati go? Is she back on the drugs?She's been having shoulder problems. She had surgery back in January and hopefully she can return and be competitive soon.

I always wonder what Martina Hingis looks like grown up. I had such a mad crush on her and she's not just retired, she's fallen off the map. Talk about coincidence, but just as I was typing the above I was watching the Open and John McEnroe mentioned that Martina will be playing again shortly... so stay tuned!

Capriati is also had surgery on her wrist..she should be back by next season....

She's been having shoulder problems. She had surgery back in January and hopefully she can return and be competitive soon.

Talk about coincidence, but just as I was typing the above I was watching the Open and John McEnroe mentioned that Martina will be playing again shortly... so stay tuned!

The "swiss miss" all grown up... that I have to see.

Aside from the questions about her foot, I wonder if she's finally developed the kind of serve you need to really win tournaments these days.

She was the Greg Maddux of ladies tennis, in that she just painted the lines and was incredibly creative with her shotmaking. But she lacked the power to compete when the ladies got stronger, like Venus and Serena, but while she was making improvements on her ground strokes, she never did with her serve.

Her second serve was completely useless.

Pierce was tough tonight, but again if you don't serve well in the women's game, you are gonna have a tough time winning.

Henin-Hardenne sure does have a beautiful backhand, though. It's picture perfect, sort of reminds me of Will Clark's baseball swing. Something really pretty about both of them.

Serena Williams sporting $40K earrings during her match? :lol: And one happened to fall out? :lol:

""It's a lot of bling to play with," she admitted. "You got to have the bling.""

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16432277%255E23216,00.html

I don't know why, but I still think Steffi could lace them up and grab a racket and beat anybody in the women's draw. She was fierce.

I do know why, you live in the past. :)

The women's game, mostly because of the Williams sisters, is a far cry from what it was when Steffi was at her peak. With the game she had then, she'd have a hard time cracking the top 100 today.

With the game she had then, she'd have a hard time cracking the top 100 today.

Um, no. With her game, she could beat anyone today and would likely be #1 with her game and work ethcic. That's assuming we're talking about Graf in her prime. She didn't exactly play in the era of wooden rackets. The game hasn't changed that much since she's been gone. Her serve and groundstrokes were huge. Not to mention she was much faster and more agile than either Williams sisters. Heck, in her prime she'd probably beat the tar out of the Williams sisters. They've really done nothing lately other than Venus' Wimbledon title, and she was nonexistent before that. Serena's nonexistent now. I saw her play Venus the othr day and she's become fat and lazy. Neither work hard enough.

One things for sure, neither will come close to approaching Navratilova or Graff.

have steffi and andre reproduced yet?

their kids will all be insane tennis players.

Steffi ... would ... have a hard time cracking the top 100 today.I just spit my glass of Shiraz all over my keyboard.

The women's game, mostly because of the Williams sisters, is a far cry from what it was when Steffi was at her peak. With the game she had then, she'd have a hard time cracking the top 100 today.
:lol: Step away from the crack pipe, please.

You do realize we're not talking about Margaret Court here, we're talking about a player who dominated the game not much more than a decade ago. Furthermore, she was not dominating just because of artistry, she could generate power. Granted, not as much as the Williams sisters, but who is to say that she couldn't adapt. Many of today's players have done just that as the game has changed.

In her prime, put in today's game, AT WORST she is just a top 5 player. And with a little time to adapt, I have no doubt that she'd be #1.

:lol: Step away from the crack pipe, please.

You do realize we're not talking about Margaret Court here, we're talking about a player who dominated the game not much more than a decade ago. Furthermore, she was not dominating just because of artistry, she could generate power. Granted, not as much as the Williams sisters, but who is to say that she couldn't adapt. Many of today's players have done just that as the game has changed.

In her prime, put in today's game, AT WORST she is just a top 5 player. And with a little time to adapt, I have no doubt that she'd be #1.



I agree with eX that Graf could not now be the number one player in the world, or even a consistent top four. Her inside forehand would not be as successful against today's stronger faster players, and her extremely weak backhand would be a big liability.

With that having been said, I find it laughable to say she wouldn't crack the top 100. There is evidence to support this as well. Mary Pierce is currently ranked 12th in the world. Mary Pierce. She is old enough to have played Graf six times while both were at, or near, the top of their games. Steffi holds a 4-2 advantage over Mary, from a time when Pierce was a quicker player than she is currently. If she can be the 12th best female player in the world right now, I am fairly certain that Steffi Graf could easily crack the top ten.

I agree with eX that Graf could not now be the number one player in the world, or even a consistent top four. Her inside forehand would not be as successful against today's stronger faster players, and her extremely weak backhand would be a big liability.
She retired almost exactly six years ago, ranked #3 in the world. And that was at the tail end of her career, when she was not the player she was earlier. And while I can't find her record against current players, she has played against Davenport and the Williams sisters. So I'm not even sure I agree with you, I think Steffi at her prime, placed in today's game, could crack the top 5. Easily.

Anyone else looking forward to Agassi vs. Blake tonight? Should be great. I think the crowd will go back and forth with who they are cheering. Agassi is still the most popular American player, but Blake has a great story and seems like a helluva nice guy.

Hewitt and Federer may be headed for another showdown, but has Hewitt figured out how to beat Federer yet? More than likely only Federer can beat Federer.

Kim Clijsters has been kicking some ass this summer. I'd have to rate her as the favorite on the women's side right now.

I do know why, you live in the past. :)

The women's game, mostly because of the Williams sisters, is a far cry from what it was when Steffi was at her peak. With the game she had then, she'd have a hard time cracking the top 100 today.


Wow, you have said some outrageous things, but this takes the cake by far -eek-.

To show you how ridiculous this statement is, this is just the players ranked from 60-100. Yep, Steffi wouldn't be ranked higher than any of these dynamos -rolleyes-.

60 (59)
PEER, SHAHAR ISR
614.75 202.00 22
61 (62)
DOMACHOWSKA, MARTA POL
604.75 178.00 25
62 (63)
DANIILIDOU, ELENI GRE
589.25 268.00 20
63 (65)
DIAZ-OLIVA, MARIANA ARG
568.50 144.00 30
64 (47)
RAYMOND, LISA USA
557.00 199.00 19
65 (56)
WASHINGTON, MASHONA USA
526.75 180.00 22
66 (71)
SUCHA, MARTINA SVK
521.50 142.00 27
67 (70)
SERRA ZANETTI, ANTONELLA ITA
519.00 166.00 28
68 (68)
GARBIN, TATHIANA ITA
515.25 138.00 24
69 (69)
CASTANO, CATALINA COL
513.25 158.00 26
70 (67)
KOSTANIC, JELENA CRO
505.75 169.00 24
71 (72)
GRANVILLE, LAURA USA
487.75 145.00 24
72 (73)
VENTO-KABCHI, MARIA VEN
483.62 133.00 26
73 (74)
FRAZIER, AMY USA
483.00 142.00 17
74 (75)
JIDKOVA, ALINA RUS
482.00 163.00 28
75 (76)
CHO, YOON JEONG KOR
466.75 131.00 23
76 (77)
POUS TIO, LAURA ESP
460.50 101.00 24
77 (80)
BONDARENKO, ALONA UKR
448.00 139.00 29
78 (91)
JACKSON, JAMEA USA
447.50 159.00 21
79 (81)
SPEARS, ABIGAIL USA
441.50 154.00 22
80 (86)
ONDRASKOVA, ZUZANA CZE
440.00 110.00 22
81 (82)
CAMERIN, MARIA ELENA ITA
439.00 195.00 24
82 (79)
LOIT, EMILIE FRA
433.25 104.00 23
83 (78)
BRANDI, KRISTINA PUR
429.25 128.00 28
84 (83)
NAKAMURA, AIKO JPN
426.50 131.00 25
85 (84)
FUJIWARA, RIKA JPN
415.50 133.00 31
86 (85)
SPREM, KAROLINA CRO
414.00 133.00 24
87 (88)
SCHRUFF, JULIA GER
407.00 140.00 27
88 (87)
COHEN-ALORO, STEPHANIE FRA
402.00 126.00 25
89 (89)
MAMIC, SANDA CRO
400.50 127.00 19
90 (90)
KRAJICEK, MICHAELLA NED
397.50 101.00 13
91 (92)
TANASUGARN, TAMARINE THA
387.50 130.00 20
92 (94)
DOMINGUEZ LINO, LOURDES ESP
379.00 83.00 23
93 (93)
BAMMER, SYBILLE AUT
372.50 103.00 28
94 (100)
SANTANGELO, MARA ITA
366.00 102.00 21
95 (96)
BELTRAME, SEVERINE FRA
363.25 99.00 22
96 (97)
PASTIKOVA, MICHAELA CZE
362.75 125.00 27
97 (98)
BYCHKOVA, EKATERINA RUS
362.25 105.00 30
98 (95)
HAYNES, ANGELA USA
360.00 128.00 26
99 (101)
SANCHEZ LORENZO, MARIA ESP
358.50 156.00 24
100 (102)
PIRONKOVA, TSZVETANA BUL
356.75 102.00 11

Is it me or does Clijsters look like she is in the best shape of her career?

Is it me or does Clijsters look like she is in the best shape of her career?

She is indeed looking very :hump:able these days.

I agree with eX that Graf could not now be the number one player in the world, or even a consistent top four. Her inside forehand would not be as successful against today's stronger faster players, and her extremely weak backhand would be a big liability.

With that having been said, I find it laughable to say she wouldn't crack the top 100. There is evidence to support this as well. Mary Pierce is currently ranked 12th in the world. Mary Pierce. She is old enough to have played Graf six times while both were at, or near, the top of their games. Steffi holds a 4-2 advantage over Mary, from a time when Pierce was a quicker player than she is currently. If she can be the 12th best female player in the world right now, I am fairly certain that Steffi Graf could easily crack the top ten.


I will respond to this one coherent argument because the rest of you are delusional. :)

1. Name an established sport that has changed as dramatically in the past 10 years as women's tennis. Answer, there are none.

2. The top player in the world in 1999 was Martina Hingis. Were is she today? She retired because she coudn't keep up with today's players/game. She tried a come back, she failed miserably.

3. Davenport and Pierce are a lot better players today and hit the ball much harder than they did 5-6 years ago.

As you pointed out, Graf's weak sliced backhand would just get chewed up by today's players. Name another player today that only relies on a sliced backhand. There are none. Advances in training methods and equipment can help a player hit the ball harder, providing they can hit the ball flat or with topspin in the first place. This helped players like Davenport and Pierce. It would not help Graf's backhand. In today's game, I'd rank Seles much higher than I'd rank Graf.

This has nothing to do with how good Graf was in her prime. It has to do with how much the game has changed and what she'd be MISSING to be a top player in today's game. I know juniors with better backhands than Steffi Graf. That sliced backhand just woudn't cut it in today's game.

Did you guys watch these two brilliant women's matches last night? Now just imagine all those heavy groundstrokes being pounded into Graf's backhand. Do you think she'd have time to run around her backhand and hit forehands? :)

Talk about delusional. The biggest change in the game of tennis happened with the equipment, when they went from wooden rackets to these new composite, larger head rackets. That was a long time ago. The game has not changed as drastically as you claim since Graf retired, other than the racket technology.

Name an established sport that has changed as dramatically in the past 10 years as women's tennis. Answer, there are none.

The NFL has changed more in the last 10 years than tennis has.

Davenport and Pierce are a lot better players today and hit the ball much harder than they did 5-6 years ago.

Mary Pierce is hardly a blip on the radar of the top women's tennis players, and never much has been. As for Davenport, she doesn't strike the ball any harder because of training. She hits the ball harder because of the racket technology. To assume Graf in her prime wouldn't benefit from the technology, is silly. Everybody has huge shots in today's game. Little of it has anything to do with some new revolutionary training techniques or larger body types. It's all about the equipment. John McEnroe talked about it the other day. Even little 5'5" Rochus has a big forehand.

Graf can unleash a big backhand. I know, because I've seen it. Sure, she uses a slice backhand most of the time. It was also very effective because it set up her big forehand. A slice backhand has a lot of spin, and it keeps the ball low forcing a player to hit up on the ball. It's not so simple to chew up, as you put it.

Graf's athleticism and speed around the court, whichs far outshines the Williams sisters, more than makes up for any perceived weakness in her backhand. At this point, we'll never know. But to suggest Graf couldn't crack the top 100 is just laughable.

Do you think she'd have time to run around her backhand and hit forehands?

I have no doubt a Graf in her prime, using today's technology, would easily hold her own. Call me when those two women win 22 slams and dominate women's tennis at the level Graf did.

Talk about delusional. The biggest change in the game of tennis happened with the equipment, when they went from wooden rackets to these new composite, larger head rackets. That was a long time ago. The game has not changed as drastically as you claim since Graf retired, other than the racket technology.


Here we go with the "it's all about the equipment" silliness again. If this were true, the men's game would have evolved just as dramatically as the women's game in the past 10 years. It has not. Get a tape of women's matches played 10 years ago, and compare that with the matches you saw last night. It's night and day. The main reason the women's game changed so much is the Williams sisters, not the equipment. They FORCED women's tennis to change.


The NFL has changed more in the last 10 years than tennis has.


Not women's tennis but who cares...


Mary Pierce is hardly a blip on the radar of the top women's tennis players, and never much has been. As for Davenport, she doesn't strike the ball any harder because of training. She hits the ball harder because of the racket technology. To assume Graf in her prime wouldn't benefit from the technology, is silly. Everybody has huge shots in today's game. Little of it has anything to do with some new revolutionary training techniques or larger body types. It's all about the equipment. John McEnroe talked about it the other day. Even little 5'5" Rochus has a big forehand.


I'll repeat. The equipment will help you hit the ball harder if you already possess the flat/topsin stroke. It won't do much to improve the limitations of a sliced backhand.


Graf can unleash a big backhand. I know, because I've seen it. Sure, she uses a slice backhand most of the time. It was also very effective because it set up her big forehand. A slice backhand has a lot of spin, and it keeps the ball low forcing a player to hit up on the ball. It's not so simple to chew up, as you put it.


Graf tried to develop a flat/topspin backhand near the end of her career (she barely used it 4-5 times a match). Why do you think that is? Because she fully realized that her sliced backhand just didn't cut it anymore. Now imagine 6 years later when players are bigger, stronger, and hit the ball even harder.


Graf's athleticism and speed around the court, whichs far outshines the Williams sisters...


:lol: You must be kidding. There is no doubt that Graf was very athletic but there has never been athletes as gifted as the Williams sisters, regardless of how I hate them, in women's tennis.


I have no doubt a Graf in her prime, using today's technology, would easily hold her own. Call me when those two women win 22 slams and dominate women's tennis at the level Graf did.

A non-argument based entirely on nostalgia. This is even sillier than the "Sampras would beat Federer because he won soooo many grand slam titles" nonsense.

I'm not ready to say that Graf, in her prime, would dominate the game today, but to say she wouldn't even crack the top 100 after seeing the players I listed is just asinine. I'd go so far as to say that it is the worst sports related opinion I have ever read, anywhere, and I've had the misfortune of hearing and reading a lot of what Skip Bayless has to say.

I'd go so far as to say that it is the worst sports related opinion I have ever read, anywhere, and I've had the misfortune of hearing and reading a lot of what Skip Bayless has to say.
:up: rotfl

Sorry, eX, but it's true.

Excentris, even though you say 10 years, you are actually arguing 6 years, because you are arguing that the game has changed so dramatically that a player ranked #3 in the world in 1999 could not crack the top 100 today. That player, ranked #3 at the very tail end of her career when all would agree she was no longer the same player she was in her prime.

She had a 3-2 edge against Venus, 1-1 against Serena, 8-6 edge against Davenport, 4-2 edge against Pierce. And now she can't crack the top 100? In six years time these players have all gotten that much better?

Personally, I think she would adapt her game and Graf at her peak would easily become #1 today. But even if not, how you can argue she wouldn't be top 10, let alone top 100, in that short a time when some of her opponents back then are still successful today, is ludicrous.

I'd go so far as to say that it is the worst sports related opinion I have ever read, anywhere, and I've had the misfortune of hearing and reading a lot of what Skip Bayless has to say.
:up:

Pierce just destroyed Mr. Mauresmo in 65 minutes, 4 and 1.

I'm not ready to say that Graf, in her prime, would dominate the game today, but to say she wouldn't even crack the top 100 after seeing the players I listed is just asinine. I'd go so far as to say that it is the worst sports related opinion I have ever read, anywhere, and I've had the misfortune of hearing and reading a lot of what Skip Bayless has to say.

Your list does not constitute an argument anymore than the "Graf won 22 grand slams" does. And arguing that Graf could be #1 (or even in the top 10) today is even more asinine.

I'm still waiting for a coherent, well-informed argument on how Graf, with the game she had at her peak could survive in today's women's tennis with that weak sliced backhand when no other woman can. And no, you can't give her superpowers. :)

Your list does not constitute an argument anymore than the "Graf won 22 grand slams" does. And arguing that Graf could be #1 (or even in the top 10) today is even more asinine.

I'm still waiting for a coherent, well-informed argument on how Graf, with the game she had at her peak could survive in today's women's tennis with that weak sliced backhand when no other woman can. And no, you can't give her superpowers. :)
And I'm waiting for a coherent argument for how a player could be ranked #3 in the world only six years ago when she was nowhere near her peak, was beating top-ranked players then who are still top-ranked, yet couldn't crack the top-100 today even if she was at her peak.

And I'm waiting for a coherent argument for how a player could be ranked #3 in the world only six years ago when she was nowhere near her peak, was beating top-ranked players then who are still top-ranked, yet couldn't crack the top-100 today even if she was at her peak.

Simple, power. The women today, yes including Davenport and Pierce who played 6 years ago, hit the ball much harder than they did then. Why? Racket technology. Do you play tennis? Compare the rackets of today with those used 6 years ago. For starters, they are roughly twice as light. Lighter = more racket speed = more power. Again, this will help improve power on flat/topspin strokes, it won't do much to improve a sliced backhand which isn't a power shot. In Graf's case, more power from her opponents means less time to react, and no time to run around shots and hit forehands.

Simple, power. The women today, yes including Davenport and Pierce who played 6 years ago, hit the ball much harder than they did then. Why? Racket technology. Do you play tennis? Compare the rackets of today with those used 6 years ago. For starters, they are roughly twice as light. Lighter = more racket speed = more power. Again, this will help improve power on flat/topspin strokes, it won't do much to improve a sliced backhand which isn't a power shot. In Graf's case, more power from her opponents means less time to react, and no time to run around shots and hit forehands.
Well, you sure seem convinced. But most here in this thread think you're not only wrong, but more misguided than Skip Bayless, which is really saying something. :lol: Personally, I think someone slipped something in your coffee. And I can't imagine that there would be any respected tennis professional or commentator who would agree with you. You might find someone who would say that she would only be a top 10 player, but not able to crack the top 100 is still, I submit, the most ludicrous thing I have read here in a long time.

But thanks for playing. :wave:

Your list does not constitute an argument anymore than the "Graf won 22 grand slams" does. And arguing that Graf could be #1 (or even in the top 10) today is even more asinine.

I'm still waiting for a coherent, well-informed argument on how Graf, with the game she had at her peak could survive in today's women's tennis with that weak sliced backhand when no other woman can. And no, you can't give her superpowers. :)

There are some opinions and arguments that are so poor, so outside the realm of possibility, that they are not even worth taking the time to argue. This is one of them.

Well, you sure seem convinced. But most here in this thread think you're not only wrong, but more misguided than Skip Bayless, which is really saying something. :lol: Personally, I think someone slipped something in your coffee. And I can't imagine that there would be any respected tennis professional or commentator who would agree with you. You might find someone who would say that she would only be a top 10 player, but not able to crack the top 100 is still, I submit, the most ludicrous thing I have read here in a long time.

But thanks for playing. :wave:

I'm willing to compare my tennis credentials against the combined credentials of everybody else in this thread. :)

Tell you what, I have to drop by Tennis Canada's office this week and I'll ask people there. Who knows, I might even re-evaluate my position to top 50 instead of top 100. If I hear convincing enough arguments that is. :p

6 years could do a lot to someone. Look at Michael Chang, he was ranked #2 in the world but after he started losing his speed, he just kept falling more and more and finally losing his sponsorships with prince.

There is no doubt in my mind that Graf would be in the top 25 in the world today if she kept on playing.

When she played Likhovtseva in the WTT, she only lost 5-4 which was in a tiebreaker and Likhovtseva is ranked #21 in the world. Losing 5-4 when you haven't played the game competitvely in 6 years is quite an accomplishment.

There are some opinions and arguments that are so poor, so outside the realm of possibility, that they are not even worth taking the time to argue. This is one of them.

A typical forum non-argument from someone who can't come up with intelligent, coherent ones.

6 years could do a lot to someone. Look at Michael Chang, he was ranked #2 in the world but after he started losing his speed, he just kept falling more and more and finally losing his sponsorships with prince.

There is no doubt in my mind that Graf would be in the top 25 in the world today if she kept on playing.

When she played Likhovtseva in the WTT, she only lost 5-4 which was in a tiebreaker and Likhovtseva is ranked #21 in the world. Losing 5-4 when you haven't played the game competitvely in 6 years is quite an accomplishment.
And, you are actually misstating the question. It is not whether she would be in the top 100 now, it is whether in her prime, she could crack the 100 now. So, the 6 year thing, and Michael Chang, I am not saying that 6 years later she would still be top 10. The six years is just to show that back then, 6 years ago, she was #3. Transport that player six years forward (ie no aging), and they suddenly can't make the top 100?

I'm willing to compare my tennis credentials against the combined credentials of everybody else in this thread. :)

Tell you what, I have to drop by Tennis Canada's office this week and I'll ask people there. Who knows, I might even re-evaluate my position to top 50 instead of top 100. :p
I don't care if you're Marty Schottenheimer, if you tell me Drew Brees is a better QB than Joe Montana ever was I'm still going to tell you that you are out of your fucking mind! :lol:

So, fine, you have better tennis credentials, whatever that means, than the rest of us combined. And you're still so wrong it's funny.

And, you are actually misstating the question. It is not whether she would be in the top 100 now, it is whether in her prime, she could crack the 100 now. So, the 6 year thing, and Michael Chang, I am not saying that 6 years later she would still be top 10. The six years is just to show that back then, 6 years ago, she was #3. Transport that player six years forward (ie no aging), and they suddenly can't make the top 100?


Hell...I'm just trying to show how she is still competitive with top 25 players in the game after a 6 year vacation. If she is still able to hold her own against someone ranked #21 now.....most definately she would be in the top 20 if she was still playing.

So, if she kept playing from '99 to present, her game would have developed even further. Look at all of the women on the tour, sure the women's game has changed dramatically since the Williams sisters, they all hit with more power and to say that Graf wouldn't be able to adapt is outrageous.

So, if she kept playing from '99 to present, her game would have developed even further. Look at all of the women on the tour, sure the women's game has changed dramatically since the Williams sisters, they all hit with more power and to say that Graf wouldn't be able to adapt is outrageous.

Which, for the record, I never said.

Which, for the record, I never said.


yeah....I didn't read everything..

tennis credentials

Tennis Canada

:lol:

I could have sworn this thread was titled <B>Official 2005 US Open Tennis Thread</B>, but apparently it's a Steffi Graf thread. Seems to me it's time to get back on topic.

There's a great match coming up between Agassi and Blake, yet we're talking about Andre's wife instead. There's nothing wrong with the Graf discussion, but that's not the topic of this thread.

I could have sworn this thread was titled <B>Official 2005 US Open Tennis Thread</B>, but apparently it's a Steffi Graf thread. Seems to me it's time to get back on topic.

There's a great match coming up between Agassi and Blake, yet we're talking about Andre's wife instead. There's nothing wrong with the Graf discussion, but that's not the topic of this thread.

Do you have the tennis credentials to be telling us what we should or shouldn't be discussing? ;)

A typical forum non-argument from someone who can't come up with intelligent, coherent ones.

Sweet, resorting to personal attacks now :up:.

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=437150

Now, Dementieva and Davenport are having a helluva match!

Wow. What a great final set.

das

Dementieva pulls it out somehow, 6-1, 3-6, 7-6 (6). She might have the worst serve in tennis.

Dementieva pulls it out somehow, 6-1, 3-6, 7-6 (6). She might have the worst serve in tennis.

I think Pierce will eat her alive.

Clisters v. Sharapova should be a final, not a semi.

That's why Andre will lose tonight. He tends to give away service breaks at the wrong time. Although, I somehow think Blake is destined to win tonight no matter what.

Blake really came to play tonight.

das

Andre gives away another break on a double fault. Way to go Andre! Agassi doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell tonight.

Damn, Andre is getting smoked.

Andre looks like he's tanking the match. He's not even swinging at balls 3-4 feet from him. He's taking monstrous swings without any regard for whether it goes in or out. He has a huge number of unforced errors, something he usually doesn't do. To be honest, he looks like the 25 year old Andre who use to tank matches without caring.

Don't know if he's doing that, but it looks as though he has no interest in this match.

Blake made a major error in this match. By taking a huge lead early, he turned Andre into the definitive crowd favorite. :)

das

Blake made a major error in this match. By taking a huge lead early, he turned Andre into the definitive crowd favorite.

But at 35, Andre doesn't have a chance in hell of coming back and winning. It's only a formality now. Not a question of if, but when.

Then go to bed.

das

Bite me!

Andre was just using the first 2 sets to warm up :)

Mr Doesn't Have A Chance just took it to a 5th set.

Well, I did say win, not take it to a fifth set. But when you're wrong you're wrong. Right now, Blake looks like the one that's tired. Weird match. Fastest 5 set match I've seen in a long while.

Rope-a-dope, baby.

das

Regardless who wins, Agassi is amazing.

I'm pulling for Agassi, but I find it hard to pull against Blake. He's had such a brutal year. But I've always liked him most out of all the young American players.

McEnroe just said it... "Either ending would be great"

:lol: Just as I figured! Somehow I get the feeling Blake was playing possum!

Agassi will go down fighting.... great match!

OMG!! this match is f'in awesome!! :jawdrop:

What a night ...

das

what a night indeed. agassi up 6-5 in the 5th.

this is one of the best matches i've ever seen. hands down.

well played to whoever wins... but i'm pulling in my heart for Andre.

Damn it, USA switched to L&O:SVU or CI or whatever on the 5th set. WTF is wrong with them!

Damn it, USA switched to L&O:SVU or CI or whatever on the 5th set. WTF is wrong with them!They said it was a contractual thing. Try your local CBS station.

6-6 in the tiebreak

Wow.

das

One of the best fucking matches!!!

ho. lee. shit. i am utterly speechless right now.

Simply incredible.

my heart is pounding

Two amazing matches tonight, can't ask for anything more than that. Unless Agassi's body fails him, I don't see him losing to Ginepri. His game just suits Agassi.

DAMN! What a match.

Still, I hated to see either one lose.

Few sporting events can have me jumping up and down and running around the basement like that one did.

Few sporting events can have me jumping up and down and running around the basement like that one did.


I'm in a hotel room right now, and when Andre broke to even the 5th at 5-5, I screamed "COME ON!!!"... I can only imagine what the people in the next room must think....

DAMMIT!!! I was at school.....and couldn't watch the davenport match nor the agassi one.....

One of the best matches I've ever seen. Amazing effort by both players. I just hope one day Blake wins a Grand slam. He deserves it :(

What a pleasant surprise to wake up to and read about. :up: Andre.

Blake gained a lot of new fans last night. :up:

I was watching highlights this morning on Early Today and I got goosebumps again. The only way this game would've been better?....if it was the championship game.

I fell asleep since I had been up for about 19 hours straight. :( I knew that was going to happen and never pressed record on the Tivo. Ugh!

Any chance this will be replayed on maybe an ESPN Classic? Anyone know?

I turned the TV off in the middle of the second set thinking this was going to be a snooze fest.

Will CBS replay this anytime soon?

Probably not practical for those at work but I just turned my tv on and it's playing here on TSN. They are at the beginning of the 4th set. There's a 'USA' watermark so I assume it's playing in the US too? Or maybe it's just last night's feed from the USA network...

That was one of the sickest matches I've seen in a long time. Blake looked like he had it in the bag and Andre couldn't get anything by him! Andre would fire and overhead slam and Blake would get to it. Blake would return from the far right and run all the way to the left of the court to catch Andre's returns. That kid is going to be great! There was a great set of volleys by Andre in the 5th set that have to be seen to be believed. I think he hit 3 or 4 edge of the racket volleys that looked incredible. The old horse still has legs.

That kid is going to be great!
That "kid" is 25 and has playing on the tour for a long time.

I turned the TV off in the middle of the second set thinking this was going to be a snooze fest.

God damnit, so did I. :grunt:

One of the top 10 matches I have ever seen in my life. Andre truly showed why he is Andre Agassi tonight, and I could not be happier.

If there's a rain delay or extra time, you know they'll show as much of it as possible.

Edit: Well the match tonight went quick so they're gonna show a good chunck of "The Match". Hopefully, those that missed it can catch some of it.

Any chance this will be replayed on maybe an ESPN Classic? Anyone know?i was thinking during the 5th set that "i wouldn't be shocked if this was on ESN Instant Classic next week."

Andre is one of the few players professional enough not to have a letdown against Robby.

If he gets past that, sadly he will lose to Federer in 4 tough sets but it will be a hell of a fight with the crowd totally in his corner

Im just amazed at how long ago players like Courier and Chang , Agassi's contempories have retired (add in that Chang and Courier stopped being Grand Slam threats many years before that even).

Being an Agassi fan from the beginning has had it's ups and downs, who could forget him going to the challengers then racing back to No 1

I'm kinda hoping that Robby has sex with 5 models tonight to the extent that his leg strength gets totally sapped :D

One more Slam in my opinion will take Andre into mega legend status, because winning a slam at age 35 in these days of younger, faster, fitter, harder is the equivalent of winning a slam at age 50 in the good old days when the game was leisurely played mainly on grass.

Question - Who is the Oldest male Grand slam winner in the last decade ?

Is Maria gonna win today or what????

I've only watched Tennis a few times, but after my friend told me to flip on the Agassi/Blake match, I may watch some more.

There was another match like this at the Aus Open a few years ago. Andy Roddick won it in the 5th set against Younes El Anouyi 21 games to 19 (no tiebreak). ESPN classic showed it the next day as an instant classic.

Question - Who is the Oldest male Grand slam winner in the last decade ?

Was it Sampras winning the US Open a few years ago?

Was it Sampras winning the US Open a few years ago?

Agassi was older than Sampras when he lost in the 2002 final and then won the Aus Open in 2003.

Is Maria gonna win today or what????

I doubt it. She was injured and hasn't played much tennis prior to the US Open and she's obviously not in top form. Plus, she has also grown 2 inches this year and her movement isn't as good as it used to be. Clisjters is on a roll and while she has a tendency to choke in big matches, the way she beat Venus Williams has to be a huge confidence booster and makes be believe she's ready to go all the way. Clisjters in 3 sets.

By the way the Bryan's just won the doubles title.

Pierce moves on the final.

Pierce moves on the final.

After a 35 minute injury break :p.

Clijsters takes an ugly first set from Sharapova, 6-2.

By the way the Bryan's just won the doubles title.

Yep, they are now #1 in the World also :).

Pierce moves on the final.

Yes, the journeyman Pierce who has never really accomplished much, is ranked 12th in the world. Yet Graf, one of the greatest players ever, couldn't make the top 50 today even in her prime. ;)

Nevermind. Just making a joke. Don't want to start that argument here.

I do agree however that the 12 minute break is just ridiculous. Players have really abused the new time out rule.

Clijsters chokes away 3 match points, and Sharapova wins the second set in a tie-break.

Five, I think, not three.

...I heard both CBS and USA Network were barraged with a lot of complaints when CBS yanked the USA Network broadcast and took it over on its own as 12:37 AM EDT for Eastern time zone and Central time zone viewers (this fortunately did not happen on the Mountain and Pacific time zones). I wouldn't be surprised that CBS will announce an apology over this incident within the next few days and probably offer NBC/Universal (the parent company of USA Network) some sort of "make good" cash compensation over this fiasco.

Yes, the journeyman Pierce who has never really accomplished much, is ranked 12th in the world. Yet Graf, one of the greatest players ever, couldn't make the top 50 today even in her prime. ;)

Nevermind. Just making a joke. Don't want to start that argument here.

I do agree however that the 12 minute break is just ridiculous. Players have really abused the new time out rule.

I understand the point about Steffi, but Mary Pierce has 2 slams. That's hardly not accomplishing much.

No one wants to see her in their bracket and outside of the very top players, she's the scariest woman to have to worry about if she's in your draw.

Without injuries and personal problems, she's probably have about 5 slams. She's a hell of a player when she's on top of her game and healthy. I like her a lot, but I think Kim deserves to finally get one.

...I heard both CBS and USA Network were barraged with a lot of complaints when CBS yanked the USA Network broadcast and took it over on its own as 12:37 AM EDT for Eastern time zone and Central time zone viewers (this fortunately did not happen on the Mountain and Pacific time zones). I wouldn't be surprised that CBS will announce an apology over this incident within the next few days and probably offer NBC/Universal (the parent company of USA Network) some sort of "make good" cash compensation over this fiasco.

LB: At the start of the USA Network's daytime/primetime coverage Thursday, they had the announcers apologized for what happened especially with the them not staying on USA Network for the Mountain/West Coast viewers like they were supposed to. They wounded up replaying the part of the fourth set and the complete fifth set on both the daytime/primetime coverage.

I know about the contractual obligations (CBS Late Night Show is the only US Open Tennis that airs from 12:37 am to 1:07 am) but they should have just made an exception this time due to the significance of the match. (First round match goes long, ok make the switch. But a quarterfinal between two Americans? you stay!) Especially when most of the people in the East/Central time zones who couldn't stay up and let their VCR's/DVDR whatever run so they can catch the end of the match-which of course because of the switch of stations they didn't. They could have had "The Battle Of The Macs" with John on USA and Patrick on CBS. The only good news from the switch was there was an actual play by play man in there with Ian Eagle and we didn't have to listen to Rich Eisen for the final moments of the match.

Ugh! Why is Agassi-Ginepri on first at noon? same time as Notre Dame-Michigan! (Yeah I know if it was on second, there still should be a conflict but least I can watch the football alone for two-two and a half hours.) Looks like my "last channel" button on my clicker will be getting a work out.

Prediction: Agassi and Federer both win in four sets.

LB...

NOTE: If anyone wants to see the Agassi-Blake quarterfinal (complete without commercials), it will air on UniversalHD in high-definition next Friday night, September 16 at 8:00 pm ET/5:00 pm PT. (There was a re-air this morning at 8:00 am ET/5:00 am PT.)

Is Andre the only guy on the freakin' Tour who knows how to properly wear a ballcap?

Agassi goes up 2 sets to 1!

Agassi asked to be on first and won that battle

So he should, his quarter final match was before Hewitt and Federer so he should play before them in the Semis. It's ridiculous that a TV network should actually influence the outcome of a Grand Slam

I feel a bit bad for Robby, win or lose, he's an American playing in the US open on home soil, done his best by a mile to get to the semis yet he's getting the raw end of the crowd. Poor bloke.

Andre looks like he's trying to take it easy so he can come back tomorrow. The problem is he's now down a break in the fourth set and it may go five. Which means coming back tomorrow to try and beat Federer or Hewitt is a practical impossibility.

Andre has looked really good the last few minutes. One more to go!

And he serves up an ace for the match! :banana:

Agassi wins! But Hewitt or most likely Federer will beat him easily

Agassi wins! But Hewitt or most likely Federer will beat him easily

I have to disagree. Tough turnaround for Andre, but if Hewitt wins, I say Andre takes him to school. Hewitt just doesn't have enough firepower to take out Andre in a grand slam final. Now Federer, that's a different beast entirely.

the shots of Agassi with his little kids were so adorable

Can you imagine in a few years when they start school ?

Going round the class

"My dad is a parking inspector and my mum works at the bakery"

then it's Jayden's turn

" My dad won 8 Grand Slams and my mom won 22"

the shots of Agassi with his little kids were so adorable

Yeah, cute kids. I'd like to go ahead and put int a request to be their agent.;)

Those kids will have some incredible tennis genes. Though they'll probably never think twice about being a tennis player.

I'll be cheering for Agassi as loudly as anyone on Sunday, but if it's Federer, I wouldn't put money on Agassi regardless of how many five set matches he has or hasn't played. Still a damn fine accomplishment just to make it to the final. I just read that Agassi is the oldest male in a grand slam final in 31 years.

Federer just made minced meat of Leyton in that second-set tie-break.

Now the match is pretty even and gone up a notch

U gotta admit the standard in this match is quite a bit higher than the Agassi/Ginipri match

He's just too damn good.

das

I'd like to see Agassi win but realistically he doesn't have much of a chance unless Federer gets hit by lightning. :)

Something interesting about the Clisjters vs Pierce match. If Clisjters wins, she'll cash in the biggest amount of money ever given to a woman in the history of sports for a single event. The winner's purse is 1.1 million dollars but that amount is doubled because she also won the US series, i.e. the overall ranking of all tournaments played in the US. So she'd make 2.2 millions if she wins.

unless Federer gets hit by lightning. :)

It could happen.

As long as Hewitt lost, I dont' care who wins between Agassi & Federer.

damn, i missed the aggasi/blake match also, i sure hope cbs or espn classic gets a replay of it, and plays the entire match.

I'd like to see Agassi win but realistically he doesn't have much of a chance unless Federer gets hit by lightning. :)

It's going to take something close to a miracle for Andre Agassi to beat Roger Federer--about 1980 US Ice Hockey team level. -biggrin- Federer literally outplays every opponent on grass and hardcourt to the point of overpowering, and I wish Agassi lots of luck! ;)

And add to the fact that Andre played three 5-set matches in a row (they said that was a career first).

He definitely has an uphill battle against Mr. Perfect.

Clijsters looks like she could be an NHL goalie.

CBS probably groaned when Pierce made the final - she tanks and the ratings tank w/ her.

Congrats, Miss Clijsters. :beer:

Happy for Kim's well deserved first slam.

But Steffi would have beaten both Pierce and Clijsters at the same time and with one hand tied behind her back. ;)

Good job Kim, coudn't have happened to a better person. :up:


But Steffi would have beaten both Pierce and Clijsters at the same time and with one hand tied behind her back.


Ahhhh, comic relief from armchair analysts is always a hoot! ;)

U gotta admit the standard in this match is quite a bit higher than the Agassi/Ginipri match

True, but you could also argue the standard in the Blake/Agassi match was higher than in the Federer/Hewitt match. Either way, Agassi has a tough match. Federer is just so good. But I'd never count out Agassi when it comes to tennis, even at age 35. He's too good, and Federer seems due for a hiccup. If I'm not mistaken their last match went 5 sets, or their match last year at the Open went 5 sets.

• Terrell •

But I'd never count out Agassi when it comes to tennis, even at age 35. He's too good

• Terrell •

But at 35, Andre doesn't have a chance in hell of coming back and winning. It's only a formality now. Not a question of if, but when. (http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6364046&postcount=92)&nbsp;

Okay, you got me. But the circumstances are night and day. Agassi was down 2 sets to none and a break in the third against a guy who was killing him. On that night, I counted him out. But I'm not going to count him out a day before the match even starts.

Now, go play with your slide rule. I assume that's what you Tech nerds do in their free time. ;):p

To have any chance of winning, Agassi is going to have to go old school, meaning play more like he did in the early 90s, go for more winnings, rather than play high percentage tennis. If he tries that with Federer, he will be hit off the court

Hewitt did a lot better by going for his shots a lot more than previous times he played Federer. Andre has to do the same.

Only Steffi Graf, in her prime, would have a shot against Federer the way he is playing right now.

Who is gonna challenge Federer on grass and hard courts? Roddick and Hewitt sure as hell haven't. Nadal looks like he can take him on clay but he needs to up his game even more on other surfaces. Safin is tough but always injured.

Thumbs up to Clijsters. She got all that extra loot for winning the "summer series" and the U.S. Open, but I'm not sure any of that translated into more viewers(along with the blue courts), which is what the USTA was trying to do.

Only Steffi Graf, in her prime, would have a shot against Federer the way he is playing right now.

You're joking right, the 50th ranked male player in the world would thrash Graf in her prime.

As long as Hewitt lost, I dont' care who wins between Agassi & Federer.
I usually don't like Hewitt but I felt for him and admired him yesterday as he never gave up and kept coming when he could have easily faded away. He was a point from going up 2 sets to one(well if he converted on the set points he had in the second and won the 3rd like he did).

You're joking right, the 50th ranked male player in the world would thrash Graf in her prime.
Ummm, your humor meter needs some fine tune adjusting. :p

I usually don't like Hewitt but I felt for him and admired him yesterday as he never gave up and kept coming when he could have easily faded away. He was a point from going up 2 sets to one(well if he converted on the set points he had in the second and won the 3rd like he did).

That really was a good match.

Federer is SO damn good....but Hewitt really hung tough. Both of them pulled out some crazy good shots....Federer just had more, and got almost every serve when he really needed it.

I will definately be rooting for Agassi. He plays tennis right and has a great additude. He will have to play almost flawless to have a shot, be as agressive as he was in his last match.

Go Andre,gonna be a tough one but im rooting for him :)

Great match so far!

I'm flipping back and forth from the Giants game....but Agassi is looking strong in this 2nd set.

please don't get broken to start the 3rd.

Damn good match so far. I've never seen a tennis crowd with so much energy! He has the entire stadium cheering him on.

Damn good match until the third set tiebreak where Andre puckered up and got blitzkrieged. He really needed that third set.

*sigh* It was fun while it lasted.

das

I just checked back....not looking good. :(

When Andre blew up in the third set tiebreak, I had a sneaking feeling that he would probably go away in the third. That looks to be the case down 5-0. Not even a single game.

There's just not enough top quality players to challenge Federer, and Andre's to old to have to play 3 straight 5 set matches, then have to turn around and beat Federer.

In the late 80s and 90s, you had guys like Courier, Chang, Agassi, Sampras, and a few others. Winning grand slams back then was incredibly difficult. Federer just doesn't have to run a gauntlet like that. So it's easier for him to win so many slams. Trouble is, I see no one good enough to step up to the challenge now, much less four or five guys.

Still, incredibly impressive to say the least.

Good try Andre :)

There's just not enough top quality players to challenge Federer, and Andre's to old to have to play 3 straight 5 set matches, then have to turn around and beat Federer.

In the late 80s and 90s, you had guys like Courier, Chang, Agassi, Sampras, and a few others. Winning grand slams back then was incredibly difficult. Federer just doesn't have to run a gauntlet like that. So it's easier for him to win so many slams. Trouble is, I see no one good enough to step up to the challenge now, much less four or five guys.

Still, incredibly impressive to say the least.

Federer is not challenged simply because he's the best player to ever play the game of tennis. You need to get over your obsession with nostalgia.

Give me a break. Like I'm going to listen to some guy who claims Steffi Graf, one of the greatest players ever, if not of all time, couldn't crack the top 100 in a women's game where Mary Pierce is ranked 12.

Fact is, the 90s were loaded with the best collection of top players, ever. Got nothing to do with nostalgia. End of story.

But Federer is truly great. Greatest ever, not yet.

If Federer wins 2 slams a year for the next 5 years of which just one is the French Open, which is highly probable, then he will go down as the best in history

The problem with the arguments you guys put forth is that they are solely based on statistics like rankings and grand slams won. There are not based on what counts most: understanding of the game, how much it has evolved, evaluation of skill levels, and what it takes to win in today's tennis world. When I say that Federer is the best tennis player to have ever played the game, the counter argument is limited to "talk to me again when has won 12 grand slams". This is really a poor argument. Ask anyone who has played tennis at a high level or coached at a high level. Roger Federer is the most talented/skilled player they have ever seen. Even McEnroe said it and god knows how he's biased towards US players. Also ask players and coaches how Steffi Graf would do with that weak sliced backhand in today's game. The ranking they give might vary but she'd be nowehere near the top 20. How great she was or how many grand slams she won has little relevance.

If a young Steffi Graf showed up today at Bollettieri academy (like a lot of Russian players did) saying "have a look at me, I'm a great player!", his answer would be "come back when you've developed a flat/topspin backhand." Fundamentals. Being able to pound the ball from both sides is a pre-requisite in today's game.

Case in point, what was so great about Chang and Courrier? Try to give me an answer based on the criteria I mentionned above and not on the number of grand slams they won. Fact is, Hewitt, Nadal (on clay, give him a year or two on hardcourts), Roddick and Safin are better than Chang and Courrier ever where. Again, ask any player, coach or people who have been involved in player development programs.

Regardless of the sport, people will invariably try to argue that players in era X were much better than todays players. 99.9% of the time they are wrong. No offence, but this is due to poor understanding of the sport. Stats are only a small part of it.

Agassi and Federer match was better than almost everything else on NFL Sunday.

For a set or two there against Hewitt, I thought that maybe, just maybe the gap was closing a bit. I was wrong. Federer is the best ever. At barely 24. 4 years away from his prime. He's going to end up with 20+ Slams. I'm a believer now.

So The Iceman became the first guy since the '30s to win both Wimbledon AND the U.S. Open in back-to-back years.

Agassi has played a lot of really good players in all of his years on the tour. He said that Pete was great, but Roger was the best he's ever played.

Federer earns high praise from Agassi after repeating at Open

Sep. 11, 2005
CBS SportsLine.com wire reports

NEW YORK -- Andre Agassi has battled the champions of three eras -- Pete Sampras, Boris Becker, John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors, Ivan Lendl -- and now he puts Roger Federer above them all.

"He's the best I've ever played against," Agassi said after falling to Federer 6-3, 2-6, 7-6 (7-1), 6-1 Sunday in the U.S. Open final. "Pete was great. No question. But there was a place to get to with Pete. You knew what you had to do. If you do it, it could be on your terms. There's no such place like that with Roger.

"He plays the game in a very special way that I haven't seen before."

Federer, a player of panache and unparalleled perfection in finals, withstood Agassi's spirited upset bid to capture a second straight U.S. Open and sixth Grand Slam title.

Federer responded to his few moments of pressure by reeling off seven straight points in the tiebreak that turned the match around, then raced past Agassi in the fourth set to run his stunning record in finals over the past two years to 23-0. He has never lost in a major final.

"This is probably the most special Grand Slam final in my career," Federer said. "To play against Andre in New York, it's a dream."

Federer moved into a tie with Becker and Stefan Edberg for Grand Slam titles among Open era players, and one behind McEnroe and Mats Wilander. Sampras holds the record with 14 Grand Slam titles, but at 24 years old Federer could well have a shot at that.

"That's fantastic," Federer said of tying Edberg and Becker. "Tying your idols -- isn't that great? It's every boy's dream and I made it come true today in a memorable final."

Federer, flattered by Agassi's comments, shied away from pronouncing himself the best of all time.

"The best player of this generation, yes. Nowhere close to ever," Federer said. "Just look at the records that some guys have. I'm a little cookie."

Federer leapt in the air when Agassi's backhand return looped long on the championship point. The two men, who have the highest of respect for each other, shook hands warmly at the net.

"It's been a tough road, but it's been a great road," Agassi told the cheering crowd. "Roger played way too good today. Congratulations Roger, well done."

Though the 35-year-old Agassi was the oldest U.S. Open men's finalist in 31 years, age had less to do with the difference in this match. It was Federer's sheer strength, variety of serves, and superior balance of attacks from the baseline and the net that wore down Agassi.

The Swiss forced the action, going for winners more aggressively, dancing around the court with poise, unrattled even when Agassi had him down a break at 4-2 in the third set. For a while there, Agassi seemed to be on the verge of pulling one of the great upsets in sports history -- on the order of Muhammad Ali's shockers over Sonny Liston and George Foreman.

"At 2-4, in that third set," Federer said, "I actually could see myself losing, and there were a few points I played there where I felt, 'Uh-oh, it's gone.' And then I managed to get it back again, and the title swam back into view."

An 8-1 underdog, Agassi was just a few months removed from a career-threatening back injury that shot crippling pain down his right leg, led to his loss in the first round of the French Open and caused him to skip Wimbledon. He was playing a man who doesn't lose in finals, is at the peak of his game and health, and was coming off his third straight Wimbledon championship.

If this was Agassi's last U.S. Open after 20 straight -- he won't decide until the end of the year whether to retire -- it was remarkable even in defeat.

"This certainly isn't easy to do at any age, especially 35," Agassi said. "It's been a privilege to compete against so many great champions over the last couple of decades or so. Without exception, Roger has been one of most enjoyable to compete against. Thank you New York for the last 20 years. It's been a great ride."

Federer became the first man in the Open era, which started in 1968, to win Wimbledon and the U.S. Open back-to-back for in consecutive years.

Federer beat Agassi for the eighth straight time over the past two years after losing their first three meetings. Three of Federer's victory in that streak have come at Grand Slam events, including the quarterfinals of the U.S. Open last year and the Australian Open this year.

"I had to play my best match of the tournament," Federer said. "It happened I played my best in the finals, as usual. I don't know how I do it, but it definitely feels great every single time."

Federer drew first blood when he broke Agassi for a 4-2 lead in the first set, but putting that set away wasn't easy. Agassi fended off three set points in his next service at 5-2, and won it with an ace. Federer needed five more set points when he served before he nailed down the set with a 123 mph service winner.

"He's the only guy I've ever played against you hold serve to go 1-0 and you think all right, good," Agassi said. "There's a sense of urgency on every point, on every shot."

Rather than shrink away, Agassi briefly showed the stuff that helped him win eight major titles. He broke Federer for a 2-0 lead in the second set, hammering a forehand return crosscourt that came back to Federer faster than his 111 mph serve. Agassi held serve the whole set, and raised hopes of an upset when he broke Federer again in the last game.

This was a crafty, sharp Agassi, sometimes creeping five or 10 feet inside the baseline to surprise Federer with short-hop returns, sometimes serving and volleying. Agassi lobbed for some points, won others with drops.

The crowd had been on Agassi's side from the start, greeting him with chants of "Let's go Andre" and chanting his name. But Federer asserted himself again, and after one exchange of breaks midway through the third set, the Swiss bulled his way through the tiebreak.

That, and getting run over in the fourth set, was enough to demoralize Agassi and make him think back about his trip to get this far -- possibly ending his Grand Slam journey in New York, a city he hated when he first came as a young man with big hair, a big game and a different attitude.

"They can't ever take away from what I'm leaving here with, and that's the memory of thousands of people pulling for me and showing appreciation for something I care dearly about," he said.

Federer earned the $1.1 million top prize and distanced himself further from the rest of the men's tennis world in the ATP Tour rankings. Agassi picked up $775,000, including $225,000 as the runner-up in the U.S. Open Series.

Federer won his 10th tournament this year and 32nd title overall -- 20 on hard courts. He ran his 2005 record to 45-1 on hard courts and 71-3 overall, the most dominant year by a man since John McEnroe went 82-3 in 1984. Federer's 35th straight hard court victory also broke Sampras' mark, set twice, of 34 straight.

"I wonder why I always play so well, especially on the big occasions," Federer said. "It seems to click for me."
AP NEWS

That 23 - 0 record in finals is astounding. The previous record was... 12. As it stands, this will be one of the toughest records in sports to break, and who knows what number it will be at when he finally loses one.

The scary thing about Federer is that he's going to get better. Not necessarily in terms of shotmaking, but i