Hi Pete: funny how different the perception of the average fan is, huh?

A couple of months ago, my boss who herself just started taking tennis lessons, was telling me that she quit watching after Agassi retired. She has heard though about that Swedish guy who is winning everything in sight..

I started as a casual fan but soon got reeled in by the beauty of the game. Now I am hooked.

he had not a word to say about Tsonga, but he wanted to know what happened to Roddick
----------------------------

well Tsonga is French, so that trumps big time any interest that could exist for an American spectator....

***She has heard though about that Swedish guy who is winning everything in sight..***
___

LOL! Now that is funny!

ToF: name recognition has a lot to do with it. American media focuses primarily on American players and American spectators, obviously become much more familiar with those players. They then express more interest in those players, so it becomes a catch22 situation.

Add to the above nationalistic sentiments (which exist everywhere) and you get the casual american fan who thinks the american players are at the top of the game.

I must say though, that once american fans get more interested in tennis, they very quickly become quite global. Witness this board, you do not see a disproportionate amount of roddick or blake supporters.

I have always believed that having a dominant player/team is very good for a sport. It gives the 'casual' fan something to take note of. No doubt that passionate fans of a sport want parity and want to see close games/matches, etc. But for a casual fan, someone like Tiger Woods, or the New England Patriots, or Roger Federer gives them someone to focus on. They may not know everything about the game or all the players...but they know that one team/player.

I don't know much about golf and never played for real. But I know who Tiger Woods is and I think what he's doing is totally cool. I love football and I like competitive games as much as the next guy. I'm not a passionate fan of the Patriots, but I think seeing them make history and go 19-0 would be pretty darn great. I would love to say that I saw that. Many non-football fans will probably tune into the SuperBowl just to see if the Pats can do it. I doubt they would if it was the Giants against the Chargers, right? I mean, who would care about that game?

If Roger gets into a position to surpass Pete...that would be great for the game because the casual fan will tune in to see if he can do it. Any team/player who gets in a position to make history is always great for any sport.

"It's the carbuerator."
"Just don't pay any attention to that horse. He doesn't know anything about cars."

The end of that old joke came to mind, in reading your jogging jag, Pete. Although it doesn't exactly apply, it does illuminate a part of the issue: American-based interest or otherwise?

To me, it's more, "You are what you eat." Tyrone's interest in tennis was sparked by you, but kindled by curiosity. To actively feed that flame requires focused immersion. Otherwise, passive absorption is the order: Media outlets install an IV in Tyrone's psyche, and steady-drip the topmost facts. He merely regurgitates it.

My "Tyrone" is my SO's best friend John. He had absolutely no knowledge of, or interest in, tennis, until she started playing.
Now, although he will probably never pick up a racquet himself, he keeps up with the sport, watching matches, reading stats. He even set his alarm clock for 3:30a, for the previous fortnight's festivities.

At first it was casual, but now, I'd rank him as avid, able to drop names like Santoro and Bammer, discuss slices and difficult backhand overheads, and even dissect trends.

The truly insidious thing is that, like a chronic infection acquired by stealth, he doesn't seem to remember ever not being interested in the game.

Tennis can do that, for the reasons you mentioned prior, namely the special mix of chemistry and physics.

ks

Pete I love reading about tennis on the internet and I devour everything you, Steve and L Jon write (I'm allowed to mention a rival site here, right?) but sometimes I get an odd nostalgia for the days when the appearance of the new magazines - I always read Tennis and Serve and Volley when it was there- were an event and the only real source of tennis news. It was like buying an actual record in actual packaging and bringing it home and looking at the artwork rather than simply downloading an album.
The motivations of the casual fan are always something of a mystery to me. I feel like a fundamentalist Christian trying to understand why church once a week is enough for some people.

"I have always believed that having a dominant player/team is very good for a sport. It gives the 'casual' fan something to take note of."

Really? I always thought that the greatest asset for any sport is a real rivalry (think Borg-Mac, Agassi, Sampras, or Navratilova-Everet). Also, average fans tend to get "bored" with one player's (or team's) dominance. I'm thinking, here, of the headline to an article that appeared in a British newspaper right after Sampras won Wimbledon for the umpteenth time: "Szzzzzzzampras wins Again."

--Liron

Instead you actually find a disproportianate amount of Roddick haters, because most guys here know how the game is played and hence despise the pure power only approach.

zonie: yes of course. I didn't mean it in a "jingoistic", negative way. I think it's natural to wonder about one's compatriots first but I also think that the day a French person will become a superstar in the US is perhaps a long way to go. (Tony Parker has the charisma of a radiator, so he doesn't count.)

What's interesting is whether Tsonga can achieve that, which is possible with his good looks and easy personality. He looks good and "big" (as in presence) on TV, better than the Fed or Novak. Can he create a crossover feeling? That's be great.

what would be great? that I stop my typos and spelling mistakes of course!

I agree with L.Rubin. While I think that Federer's quest to beat Sampras record may attract viewers to the sport, it is matches like the '07 Wimbledon final that are more likely to keep them watching.

" Is it that the television execs shaping interest and opinion (with their scheduling choices), or is Ty's interest driven by his American identity? "

Interesting question. A friend of mine, who is a casual tennis fan, and I were having a discussion regarding tennis last year. At one point, I mentioned that I was a huge Federer fan. She responded flatly, “I don’t like him. He’s not American”.

ToF: I wasn't offended by your comment at all, just have a different perspective. I am actually part American, but grew up in Europe so I often see both sides. In fact there is quite a bit of jingoism, but it is also fed by the media.

Whether a frenchman can become a star in America? Hard to tell. A frenchman can become a star among knowledgeable american tennis fans, for sure. A certain Swede..er Swiss, is quite popular with american fans right now. A certain spaniard is the favorite of others. So who knows..

I find that casual fans tend to be about ten years behind what's actually going on in tennis in their appraisals of it. I don't know how many times I've heard 'men's tennis is all about big serves and no rallies.' I think Henin could win the French 50 times and she wouldn't be as popular or recognised as Evert, Navratilova or even Graf.

oops that last piece of deathless wisdom was me. Name didn't appear for some reason.

Sometimes my roomate will sit down and watch a match with me,especially if Nadal is playing(he thinks he's cute) but I rather he not,because every couple of minutes he'll ask me a question,and no matter how many times i try to teach him about the score,he just does'nt get it.

Frenchie,

Don't be so pessimistic. The USO crowd was going crazy for Gasquet when he took on Hewitt in 2006: standing ovation, wild cheering after each of his winning points, etc. Freedom fries aside, it shouldn't be too difficult for a charming foreigner to get some lovin' from the American crowd (Becker was extremely popular in the US).

--Liron

I agree that a great rivalry is awesome for a sport as well. In the case of a great rivalry...the casual fan would know about 2 players or teams versus 1. As I said before, not to take anything away from Djoker and Tsonga...but alot more casual fans of tennis would have taken notice if the AO final had been between Federer and Nadal.

As great as Tiger Woods is for golf...if he had one guy that consistently was his rival at tourneys...it would be even better.

In my family there are three tennis players/fans and one who has professed for many years to hate tennis. It has been interesting to see her come around a bit. She will now watch TV matches for a few minutes, can pick well known players out of the crowd, says she may go to the DC tournament with us this summer, and didn't even call me crazy when I got up at 3:30 to watch Federer last week. I see a casual fan in the making....I hope.

Donal, no problem re. rival sites, and Jon and I are good friends. I know how you feel about the "reality" of magazines, not much different from shopping in brick-and-mortar outlets rather than on-line. I am surprised by my own shift to the electronic medium (after all, I am a word guy and a book guy), but now I find myself seriously contemplating buying a Kindle.

Then again, I was also one of the first writers I know to use the computer as a typwriter. In fact, my first machine was a Kaypro - a tiny computer housed in a metal case the size of carry-on overnight roller bag.

And I'm not even a techie!

CM you are right about the rivalry. In the early rounds of the Rome Masters, which match drew the most interest? It wasn't any of Federer's or Nadal's early individual matches. It was the Nadal/Moya vs. Fed/Allegro doubles match. Now neither Nadal nor Fed have an outstanding doubles career, but this match was a new wrinkle in their rivalry leading up to the FO. If you remember the stands were packed for a first round doubles!

Mr. Bodo,

I agree with Donal: I fell Jezebel-esque every time I read Jon W's analysis.

--Liron

I actually went to Wimbledon in 2006 with a good friend (an American living in London) who was a nominal tennis fan. She knew who Federer was, knew who Nadal was, and that was about it.

So while waiting to get into our seats, we hung out near the practice courts. And the conversation went something like this:

Friend: "Who's that?"
Me: "Ummm, that's Anna-Lena Gronefeld."
"Where's she from?"
"Germany."
"Who's that?"
"Svetlana Kuznetsova."
"Another Russian."
"Yes."
"Hey, isn't that the tiny Belgian you love?"
"Why, yes, it is! ALLEZ JUSTINE!!!"
"OK, we're leaving now. That was embarrassing," she said as she dragged me away from the fence.

Most of the rest of our day went like that.
"Who's Tommy Haas?"
"Lleyton Hewitt - that name sounds familiar."
"Why are the Mauresmo fans cheering every time Hingis loses a point?" (While we were watching Mauresmo/Kuzzy doubles and the Hingis scores were going up outside Centre Court)

We had a blast. And at least my friend wasn't asking about the Americans the whole time. But maybe that was because she'd been watching on the BBC up to that point... =)

In Boston, the dominant sports radio station talks football, baseball, basketball, and to a lesser extent hockey.

No tennis. No NASCAR (unless forced by overwhelming TV viewership numbers.)

That's part of the problem in a nutshell - coverage in the media.

This sounds a lot like the workshops we have at work to improve a certain process. They invite a bunch of experts on the topic but they also bring in an outsider to provide another perspective and ask those simple questions everyone else no longer sees.

That Ty got me thinking...

I had a conversation with a casual fan sometime ago, and he said ha hasn't watched men's tennis for about 10 years because it's boring because it's just ace, ace, ace...So he prefers women's tennis because it's more varied.

Hi Pete yeah I was kidding about SI, I know you and Jon are good mates. I can totally empathise with the technophobia, I'm what advertisers would call a 'late adopter.' (I still had a discman until last year) and my mobile phone is smirk-inducing. I guess it's pathetic to fetishise the form the words come in when it should really only be about the words themselves but the reason the magazines were so special (and have lost that to an extent) is because they were all there was. The Irish poet Patrick Kavanagh wrote 'through a chink too wide there comes in no wonder.'Growing I only had tantalising glimpes of tennis. Now the chink grows ever wider.

***and didn't even call me crazy when I got up at 3:30 to watch Federer last week. I see a casual fan in the making....I hope.***
______________

LOL! My best friend is not a tennis fan but she now knows who Roger is and she asks me about him all the time. She wants to know when he playing or how he is doing. It was funny, after the FO final, she even called me to rag on Nadal strictly because he beat Roger. She doesn't know anything about Rafa, ha! And then...she and I were on a flight from Nassau during the Wimbledon final. When we landed, she was frantically using her blackberry to find out how the final had gone. When we saw that Roger had won, I got all crazy and teary-eyed. The two other girls traveling with us thought I was the biggest geek to go nuts over "a tennis player". But my best friend, proceeded to explain to the girls why I was not crazy and why this meant so much to me. Is that a best friend or what??

My co-workers are casual tennis fans. They'd rather play than watch most of the time but they all know who Federer, Nadal, and Williams' are. They are the ones who will watch the slams, but can't be bothered to tune in to a Masters Series or high level WTA event.

I have a few coworkers that follow tennis, but just generally. They don't really have a favorite player. Everyone who knows me, knows I like Federer because he's on my desktop. I change the photo often, so they come 'round to see what the new photo looks like. When we presented Roger with the GENIUS banner last year in Miami, our photo with Roger was a big hit. My coworkers couldn't believe that I met a big athlete like that.

Nice story CM. We should all have friends like that.

CM and Liron, yes, I think you're both right. Dominance definitely brings attention to a sport and can be good to a point.

But as Liron pointed out with the Sampras example, it's a very fine line. Too much dominance, and casual fans go "ho, hum", another title for Tiger, Roger, Sampras, Jordan and the Bulls, etc.

Where I'm from we only get the Masters ones and the Slams. Oh, and we only get to see the ladies on the Slams. They don't show the WTA.

There are only a handful of women that I like to see playing but still, they don't show enough of them on tv.

Exactly right, Sherlock. There has to be a balance.

Sherlock,

Tiger? Isn't that the dude who sat in Fed's box at the USO? :)

CM,

You'll have a new wallpaper soon--of TMF hoisting the FO trophy! It's coming, CM!

--Liron

Pete

Mate - I can totally understand where you are coming from, I have the hardest time expounding to my mates why I like a bloke, who does not win much (now a days at least), who isnt the biggest, who hasnt got any conspicuous weapons at disposal on court

they always go like 'so, did he win or lose?'

because all they care about is whether someone won or lost

its like getting a date you know .... the process of courting is more fun than the actual date in itself

Frankly - I ve given up telling blokes about my likes and dislikes, saves time and energy both ways

During last years AO I went into work one day and one of the ladies I work came over wanting to talk tennis. I was the resident tennis nut at the office. Anywho, she had been channel surfing and stopped on ESPN due to a hugh bright green blob, it turned out to be a tennis match and the "green blob" was Marat Safin's shirt. She did not want to talk tennis, she wanted to grill me on Mr. Safin. Needless to say she spend the day telling ALL the females about the Hot tennis player she had discovered.

Thanks to me they ended up finding out when his next match was and planned a party to watch. So for the rest of the AO I had about 4-5 of these women coming over to ask me about the scoring, and why sos and so lost to so and so and what's a let. But once it was over I figured the lastest office fad had passed. Until Indian Wells. Two of my co-workers had really liked the AO and had kept up on what was happening with Tennis and the players the liked during Oz. By the time I left one was still just a casual fan, rooting for the Americans, because they were Americans, and only keeping up when it was on TV. The other was BIG time into tennis, and had gotten her SO into it, as he has the Tennis Channel and she doesn't.

L. Rubin,
Tiger sat in Fed box at 2006 USO when TMF played Roddick.

Fed Cup starts in 2.5 days

once upon a time i was a casual fan, too pete ;)
i knew the names of borg, Jmac, evert and navratilova but i barely saw them playing, they were the GOATS, but i had no clue why !!!
i never played, but i liked edberg volleys, or the sliding on clay to catch that ball going down, or just that big ace down the T, i knew little but i allready did appreciate greatness when i could see it.
during years i kept watching without getting in my recent madness about tennis, it was fun to follow those big battles on the french clay, or on the wimby grass...
tennis was an entertaiment... i did not need to know everything about it, the best guys, H2H, the rivalries, the behind the scene stories, i could not care less about strings and raquet technology...

why things changed ? first and foremost i had time and opportunity to attend a grand slam, something beyond my reach for years... and the addiction grew up progressively, every year i wanted to attend more and more matches, and i had to know more about the game, which players to see that were worth my money and time... and it took me some time to learn all that i missed when tennis was just entertainment ;)

now, i don't know where i stand between the genuine fanatic and the tennis freak, to tell you the truth... but internet, and TV wide satellite programs have changed many things in that regard, not to mention TW ;)

so when i chat with some casual fans who talks a bit of nonsense, or offensive... i just let it go, it's not allways worth teaching them some if they don't ask for it... still some of the remarks those persons can make are plain funny...

in the casual fans section, you have :
all the jingoistic ones...
the meat and potatos watcher : fed is great, but wait, almagro has a great fh too, did you see that shot ?
the stubborn that thinks it was so good in my old times...
the inocent ignorant allways providing the best lines to make us smile ;) my mum is priceless at times :D
guys making big statements about the game without having watched a match in years...
and the yooo hooo cool fanatics... who care more about the players looks and the final result than how the player did get there...
the bashing frustrated guy, nobody is good enough, i could play that ball way better at my club... unsufferable, no ?
i could go on, but some of us must have met some more specimens that are not on my list ;)

Abby Road: Safin: The green blob. That was funny. And I'm glad you helped someone convert into a fan.

Pete,
the reason this column is successful is because ou engage everyone in operations. It is not a solo operation. We have people, supporting different players ( or none!) , reporting from all over the world and you make sure that everybody is heard. I think that makes a huge difference.

The other factor is the typepad and the ease that people can post here. we don't wait a day for moderation of comments and you don't need to have an account ( ala ESPN!).

So, it is pretty much the way you are hosting this place, nice , pleasant and open.Thanks a lot!

I found a good one: "don't log! Blog!"

****

Regarding the casual fan, when I first found this page and started reading the comments, I thought:" these people are crazy. So much is hapenning around the world and as if these are living in another planet". Now, I am part of this "another world". This is my sanctuary from the real one!

ali C... priceless :)

"Tiger? Isn't that the dude who sat in Fed's box at the USO? :)"

Yes, I think I heard something about that. :)

"You'll have a new wallpaper soon--of TMF hoisting the FO trophy! It's coming, CM!"

Bite your tongue, Liron. Only if they sign a pact that says Nadal gets Wimbledon in return. :)

zola, i'm posting on a french website that needs registration, and it feels just the same because loging is remembered...
and to tell you the truth, fed fans and rafa fans and djoko fans are just the same !!! it's a lot of fun comparing both people reactions to the same facts ;)

Aw, Ms. Rubin. That was a sweet way to put it. Let's not let Mrs. Santa see it, hokay?

Funny, I started watching around RG of 2006, mostly because of Shahar Peer. I knew about Agassi, the Williams sisters, Hingis, Graff and Davenport - nothing of Roger, nothing about Pete Sampras. Never watched even one tennis match before that Shahar vs. Hingis match.

My first ATP match I really watched, begining to end was Baggy vs Agassi in the USO, and three months later I found myself lurking here, so I evolved from "Never watched a tennis match in her life" to "Paying money for ATP TV and spending precious work hours on TW" VERY fast.

Scary stuff.

marieJ,
that French site is exceptional. Try posting on ESPN! or even sportingo! I gave up on ESPN. Sportingo is OK, but you have to wait a day or so for your comment to appear. I think this is a good one.

Fans are all the same. yes. They all are passionate about someone and get offended by criticism. I think everyone finds a piece of herself in a player. Many attributes of the fans and the players they like, are the same. It makes things interesting!

and the level of fan participation here just can't be matched. I think that's a great skill that Pete has. He is able to welcome everyone and engage everyone in some sort of activity . The site is never one-sided and never boring and everyone feels to be a part of it! I have not seen that anywhere else. That's how he can sit down and drink coffee with the other Pete ( sampras), while we are pulling each other's hair during AO!

Or... that was fast !!

first i had eurosport and Sport+ for MS events, since this year i booked canal+ because rafa at wimby... plus they have the uso and MC... so finally quite worthy, and everytime i look for more, sopcast and channel surfing are out there...

zola, it's a nice kind of blog made by the posters themselves writing the articles... the tennis section is actually very friendly, curiously not many girls out there... but the flow of posters is much lower than here... i know some of them do lurk around here

MarieJ -

The thing was, that once I watched a tennis match and found out I liked it, I wanted to know more of the sport. So I logged into Menstennisfourms and started reading, and there were pictures, and matches reviews, and ongoing conversations, and youtube links, and then I started following Roger....

The road here and to eventually become a tennis nut turned out to be pretty short.

Or, glad to hear your transformation story. A great place to be, no? :)

zolarafa: 'Fans are all the same. yes. They all are passionate about someone and get offended by criticism. I think everyone finds a piece of herself in a player.'

I think that is a very important aspect for many tennis fans. The personal and emotional connection that one feels with certain players can be a strong driving force. Unfortunately, it can also drive some people away from the sport when that player retires. It is sad, and some may say that they were not true tennis fans to begin with, but who is to say who is a true tennis fan. It is not all about strings and surfaces. It is also about the different personalities dueling it out and how their personalities are expressed in their game.

The full emergence of Djoker has made things more interesting and intriguing than ever. Federer for the first time now has a truly formidable off-clay challenger (excepting Nadal at Wimbledon and Nalbandian very occasionally). The fact that Djoker is somewhat obnoxious, egomaniacal, and boorish is actally a big plus. Tennis now has a "villain" to oppose its greatest current hero. What could be better theater? I and many others will be doubly riveted to the coming Fed-Djoker matches not only because we love Fed's game and want to see him deservedly succeed, but also because we want to see an unsavory though talented personage put in his place. This "good vs. evil" motif (plus a genuine battle for Grand Slams and #1) will probably send tennis interest soaring for the next few years. And for beautiful inspired tennis to triumph over an excellent but "robotic" brand of tennis.

And another plus: Djokovic will force Fed to play his greatest tennis or close to it, since Fed's B+ game clearly will not suffice. Hopefully we'll get to see Full Flight TMF again in big match finals and semifinals (when they're on the same side of the Draw). Delicious!

"Only if they sign a pact that says Nadal gets Wimbledon in return. :) "

Sherlock: Done. :-)

*Why are the Mauresmo fans cheering every time Hingis loses a point?" (While we were watching Mauresmo/Kuzzy doubles and the Hingis scores were going up outside Centre Court)*

pfffft. morons, the mauresmo fans. nothing but morons.

i only know casual tennis fans, and most people i know don´t care for tennis enough to be even a cuasual fan.
the casual tennis fans judge women´s tennis almost exclusively by the degree of hottness (kournikova, dementieva, sharapova et al found approval, serena/mauresmo/j-cap get normally the strongest "anti-eye-candy" reactions).
the only male players who are known by all the casual fans i met are federer and nadal.
most casual fans complain that tennis today is boring and that in the good old days of becker et al everything was better.

Pete,
The size of the Tennis mag's blog community was a topic that Andrew and I discussed when we met back in Nov. The amazing thing about the internet is how a very small group of geographically disbursed people can connect and engage in their favorite past times. The internet, and sites like this, allow them to find kindred spirits.

Since you mentioned growth, Andrew and I both had been wondering about the size of this community (by community I mean visitors - lurkers - and comment contributors). I estimate it to be in the low thousands (2 to 3). Am I in the ballpark?

Some random thoughts:

1. Why do we have to identify players by country? I know a lot of people who only watch when Americans are involved. Why? Most of the players live in Florida, Spain, Monte Carlo and several other locations but we continue to identify them by country. Dimitry Tursunov and Maria Sharapova are Russians? I see Maria in Manhattan Beach and Dimitry also lives in California. Why aren't people simply interested in seeing the best "tennis" players.

2. Doubles is a totally different sport and, in my opinion, is about as interesting as ping-pong. TV is not the only one that discriminates, fans do as well. I go to the Countrywide and Indian Wells tournaments each year. There are more people at the LA Tennis Center watching the practice court than watching the grandstand court where most doubles are played. When the singles finish and doubles come in on the Stadium Court, the place clears out. I understand that most recreational players play doubles but it is my opinion that it is because they are not fit enough to play singles or they play for the social aspects only.

3. TV and radio broadcasts and discusses the sports that sell and generate viewer and listenership. I once asked Dan Patrick why there was so little tennis on the radio and he said because everyone would turn the channel. Patrick MacEnroe filled in for Dan last summer just before Wimbledon. He acknowledged right at the beginning of the show that he wasn't going to talk tennis because he knew few were interested.

4. Most Americans could not name an active US tennis player. A few may get the Williams sisters but that's about it.

5. Who cares what other people enjoy or watch? I like watching tennis. It's the only sport I watch. However, I could care less if I'm the only one watching. The only downside is limited viewership could lead to fewer televised events.

Tom: Interesting questions. Personally, unless it’s Davis Cup or Fed Cup, I don’t care at all about where a player is from. If I like a particular player's game, that is more that enough for me.

Some commentators, at least in the U.S., have a habit of referring to players as “The American”, “The Russian”. JMac, who I like otherwise, does this quite a bit.

"the process of courting is more fun than the actual date in itself"

Well, that depends on what you do on the date ... ;-)

Zola: Well said about what makes this blog great.

***The personal and emotional connection that one feels with certain players can be a strong driving force. Unfortunately, it can also drive some people away from the sport when that player retires.***
____________
I discovered tennis as a young girl when I accidentally turned on the TV to see this long-haired blonde teenager called Bjorn Borg playing a Wimbledon final. I was in love. And I admit that I fell off from tennis when he retired. But since I was obssessed before, 'falling off' didn't mean too much. I still followed it and watched all the GS. I've been following it for 30 years now. But my passion was reignited with Fed. Part of me wishes I weren't so passionate about one player because it does make you crazy with the inevitable highs-and-lows. But damn! Those incredible highs are sooooo worth it!! :)

Here is Blake's problem. Remember after Andre beat him at the USO and it was Andre's last tourney, Blakes response was he was glad to be beaten by such a great champion and everytime he faces Roger he says, too good. This isn't the attitude of a great champion. Could someone please explain the difference between courting and dating because I thought they were the same thing.

They are.

ks

We have a very good local talk show guy. It’s mostly about politics, but he’s also a pretty knowledgeable major sports fan and does a 5 minute segment each day with the sports guy. I wish I could better remember his comment, but after one of Roger’s USO wins, it was something like, “Well, he certainly dominates with that serve!”

***Here is Blake's problem. Remember after Andre beat him at the USO and it was Andre's last tourney, Blakes response was he was glad to be beaten by such a great champion and everytime he faces Roger he says, too good. This isn't the attitude of a great champion.***
____________

Well, Blake was being very diplomatic in his loss to Andre. I'm sure he would have preferred to win, but since he did lose, why not be a good guy about it and give Andre his due? Why not be a gracious person in defeat? Just like had Blake won, I'm sure he would have been just as gracious. Nothing wrong with that in my book. And as I said...Blake often says "too good" when it comes to great shots by anyone, not just Roger. And what is wrong with saying the other guy was just too good that day? Didn't Rafa say that about Tsonga? Didn't Roger say that about Djoker?

Two more things...

Inside Tennis magazine recently had a great quote from sportscaster Jim Rome. "Tennis might just be my favorite sport right now. You may have thought it was worthless. You may have thought it was a dead sport. You may not have even known it existed. But it's back - with a vengeance. Tennis is cool again. What's not cool about match-fixing, players doing blow and players getting posioned. That's a good sport!.

Is Novak Djokovic the only who who steps on the court expecting to beat Federer?

Pete, I love love love this post. People like Tyrone are the people tennis ought to cater to--not the lover of American athletes, or lovers of a POWER game, but just lovers of sports, who can also appreciate tennis.

I don't have any specific stories, but basically I've been on a campaign to convert all my friends to tennis fans. The one thing I've discovered with every single person that appreciates it now--and I'd count about 7 or 8 different people in this assessment--is that an understanding of the scoring mechanisms and basic rules of the game has been ALL that's required to make people enjoy the game. Once my friends understood what was going on, the athletic, strategic, and even emotional nature of the game reveals itself in ways that a Chris Fowler-narrated montage of Serbian swimming pools or Compton streets will never do.

I can't describe the joy I got watching, say, the Agassi-Blake '05 USO quarters, when I had two friends with me on the edges of their seats. Even a couple months previous to the match, they didn't know the difference between a volley and a backhand or whatever. For them to leap with me in exuberance as Agassi won the final point--not only was I happy that the old guy won, but that my friends appreciated it as much as I did.

Is tennis the only sport where its fans grouse that players are both too boorish (McEnroe, Connors, Roddick to an extent these days) AND too gentlemanly (Blake, Federer, Sampras) at once?

A Kaypro!!! The first, uh, portable computer, even though it was heavier than dudi sela! And had no games, and no colors, and no nothing, oh man that thing was big, and made of metal, I mean all metal, with sharp corners upon which you could permanently scar your walls, floors, and shins if you were ever stupid enough to actually try to "port" it, with a little flipdown keyboard and a 3" X 3" monitor....

pffft James Blake's problem is that MORE THAN ONE PERSON has asked me if I think he really killed his wife.

Along the lines of the casual fan, this past weekend we had a brief repast from the prevailing 10 - 25 degree (F) weather. It got up to 60 degrees (F)on Sunday. My hitting partner and I decided to take advantage of it, and went in search of a snow cleared outdoor court.

All of them were taken (out of 10 we looked at). Almost all of the people using them were...um...how to say it....novices. How could I tell? I have never seen so many wood and aluminum racquets in my life.

LOL Snoo!

That Serbian swimming pool story seems to grow with each retelling. If the Serb's do well in the French Open, bombs will be falling around the pool. If they do well at Wimbledon, they will face gunfire walking from their homes to the pool. By the US Open, the deck of that pool will have a minefield. It reminds me of the Olympics where there is a moving personal tragedy story before every event on TV.

la snoo : james the serial killer ? noooo ?

btw i have some bad news about coria...
he's lost for tennis if you listen to his dad, very sad...
http://www.lanacion.com.ar/deportiva/nota.asp?nota_id=983072

Adding on to OK-k's thoughts...a couple of years ago, when I decided to play tennis again, I could find an empty outdoor public court anywhere. This last summer, many times I had to drive from park to park to find one. Very nice to see. :) Lots of kids, too!

mariej, thanks for the coria article. Hopefully his father is overly pessimistic. I never really liked coria but still thought having him come back would make interesting tennis.

Sam, that didn't take you long. :)

Great story, Ryan. That's cool that you've brought several more into the fold. :)

"pffft James Blake's problem is that MORE THAN ONE PERSON has asked me if I think he really killed his wife."

LOL, Snoo. :)

Does Jim Rome actually like tennis? Can't say that I have ever heard him talk about it in a serious fashion. Seems like Dan Patrick used to bring on PMac once in a while. That was cool.

I would like to see Coria come back. I would especially like to see what he could do during the claycourt season.

pffft James Blake's problem is that MORE THAN ONE PERSON has asked me if I think he really killed his wife.
Amazing! They confused James Blake with Blake Edwards?

Samantha: Courting sometimes refers to the process of getting someone's attention so that they will date you. It it also used interchangeably with dating.

Sherlock--I doubt Jim Rome likes tennis. He just likes to say things that are a) typically baseless and b) inflammatory. He (and Stephen A. Smith--how the hell did THIS guy get a job in television?!) are like the Ann Coulters and Rush Limbaughs of sports analysis.

I miss Coria :(

French Open 2004 = Career Killer Invitational.

Ryan: One of the Philly radio stations refers to him as A. Stephen Smith. :-)

LOL Sam!

If you search on YouTube, there's a CNN clip of Stephen A. Smith, two women who do something or other, and a CNN host, and they're discussing...Christianity in America.

So lookit, we all know punditry is stupid and all that. But is the CNN Pundit Rolodex so skimpy that they had to call on some hack who couldn't even make it on ESPN2??

Isn't Jim Rome the guy who got beat up because he called Jim Everrett, Chris?

Rightly or wrongly, for a long time I've thought that Coria was probably an unusually unpleasant human being. And yet, every time I've seen him play I've rooted for him, and I really hoped he make a wildly successful comeback. I'm not a logical tennis fan.

And does that article say that Papa Coria wishes his son would retire?

ptenisnet: Yes.

On a positive note, I was listening to some overnight sports talk show recently (Sporting News Radio or Fox Sports Radio), and the host and one of the callers discussed Federer for a while. Shocked me.

Ptenis, that's right! I forgot all about that. Yes, that's our classy Jim Rome. Although I will give him credit, he seems to have grown up a bit. That Everrett thing was so embarrassing. He just kept baiting, and baiting, and baiting.

I do believe so, ptenis.

Now that's what I call hard-hitting journalism!

Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.

ptenisnet: The "Yes" was in reference to the Jim Rome question.

"I'm not a logical tennis fan."

JR: And the rest of are? :-)

The casual tennis fans I have met, know the greats, Bjorg , Becker, JMac, Evert,Martina's
, but recently the novelty has kinda worn off. The Kournikova movement did a lot to screw up tennis in the eyes of the casual or possible fan. being touted as such a talent and all the hype about her looks, only led to the reinforcement of and old stereotype
pretty but not capable or worthy of sharing the stage with other great sportspeople(men)....This, i think reinforced some attitudes about women and their equal status , not only in sports but in society. And the beat goes on with the constant hype surrounding Sharapova, instead of just comments about her looks there's all this talk about how she is bringing more fans to the game, Journallist the world over want her to be the biggest thing in the sport.
i just wish the sports journalist would report the facts or describe the reactions and actions on court and stop talking about how hot the players are and /or speculation about how popular or unpopular certain players are. I also thinks it's just plain rude to pick one or two girls out of so many and say , you're the prettiest and the rest of you aren't. This head game is not played with the men and and rarely is someone who is not blue-eyed and blond or white considered apart of the prettiest group.
the game is why we love tennis, the game is why people love all sports, it unnecessary and detrimental to the sport to advertise the superficial aspects of those that play the game instead of reporting what is really fascinating about tennis: the players and their indivdual flare that they bring to the game.
who's more handsome, Pete or Roger...no journalist is asking this question, not even the female writers, and rightly so, this has nothing to do with anything other than the writers personal fetish . so topics like the 'Hottie Bowl ' is not only inappropriate but kinda sleazy, these are young women, sometimes younger than 18, Journalist should stick to what is pertinent, and leave the fantasies at home.

Funny
That's pretty much all I remember of Jim Rome. Like dude! what are you on that you would think that's even remotely funny.

Courting is looking for a mate. Dating is looking TO mate. ;)

Sam--I guess I'm no worse than most-- I liked the way the guy played, and I have this short guy affinity.

Coria has a case of the yips, the yaps and the YIKES.

*smh*

Coria is an odd one, and I still remember my expression of open-mouthed astonishment while watching the latter parts of the 2004 FO final. Not to mention his numerous, eh, outrages during the Davis Cup match against Hewitt. Did the SOB really grab his . . .

Still, I hope he recovers from the wild tailspin that followed his loss to Gaudio and resurrects his crafty game.

--Liron

Jim Rome has had Patrick McEnroe on several times, but he by no means covers tennis in any meaningful way.

This past week I was reminded of the difference between people like The Tribe, and even other people who consider themselves fans of tennis. I have a close friend who plays a lot of tennis and can definitely discuss the nuances of the game. He watches tennis and can name many players other than the obvious ones. He believes he is the first one to declare that Djokovic was the next big thing. But this week when I called to make sure he was staying up to watch the Djokovic/Fed match, and then also the men's final, I got a "uhhhhhhh" response. Basically, his response was "Hey, I would watch the match, but I'm not staying up in the middle of the night." There are not that many of us out there who will disrupt our sleeping patterns for even a night, let alone two weeks, so as not to miss a beat of the tournament. Spending too much time on this site, I forget how weird that seems to most people, even people who like the sport!

'Coria has a case of the yips, the yaps and the YIKES.'

Sigh.

It took nearly three hours, but Piquito finally closed out his match and moves on to the next round. If anyone cares.

JR: Well, I didn't care for the way either JMac or Connors acted, but loved Mac's game so much that he was my favorite player for years. I didn't like Connors' game, so I wasn't a fan of his.