I Agree w/ Boris! - TennisForum.com
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 53 (permalink) Old Jul 30th, 2003, 05:17 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,100
                     
I Agree w/ Boris!

Becker blasts new generation
Jamie Jackson hears the three-time winner lament the attitude to major championships

Sunday June 22, 2003
The Observer

Boris Becker believes the wide-open nature of the men's singles at Wimbledon is a sure sign the ATP need to restructure the tour as players no longer seem to take the major championships as seriously as they should be doing.

Becker, who won three of his seven Wimbledon finals, believes the current generation merely shrug after a poor showing in a grand slam tournament before heading off to the next event, knowing more cash and ranking points are just round the corner.

'Every week a player has a chance to make a mark,' Becker said. 'You only have one Wimbledon and you have another four or five big tournaments that should make or break a year. But the current system is not like this. If everybody knows this is Wimbledon and then there's a month's break afterwards, we would see much more drama and heartache.


'We don't see enough of the top players playing each other at major championships because there's too much tennis and they can't focus. With the greatest respect, this is why we see a [David] Nalbandian in the Wimbledon final.'

He went on: 'You shouldn't even be ranked in the top five without winning a slam. Through the years, respect comes from whether you've won a major, not reaching the semi-finals of some other tournament. These young players have to get used to the fact that they are only judged by the number of [major] championships they have won.'

Becker believes there are four candidates this year - the defending champion Lleyton Hewitt, Andre Agassi, who beat Goran Ivanisevic to win the title in 1992, Andy Roddick, winner at Queen's last Sunday, and Roger Federer of Switzerland, whose best performance in a grand slam event was his defeat of the champion Pete Sampras at Wimbledon two years ago, en route to the quarter-finals.

'Federer's performance in slams is disappointing, and I don't think Roddick is really that much of a professional because with his game he should have won much more. Both he and Federer have the potential and talent but they have to prove it,' he added.

'Hewitt and Agassi are in their own league because they are the only ones out of the potential winners who have done it. Nowadays there are too many matches and players where you don't see emotions, where you don't see the ultimate battle, man against man.'

Becker is also unhappy at the apparent lack of on-court psychology. 'Most guys start at two o'clock, think about their serve, maybe the return and that's it. There's no mental warfare out there.

'Pete Sampras was my hardest opponent because of his poker face. You could never know if he was happy or unhappy. That was his strategy and it worked well. Andre has learnt a lot over the past 10 years. He is much more of a poker player. And Hewitt is pretty good. It is a question of learning and of realising that this is a weapon.

'The last couple of years the flavour has been almost too friendly. Everybody is friends and good guys and blah, blah, bull * . This is not what sport is about. There's one winner and one loser and that's it. I would like to see Roddick-Agassi more often, I thought it [their semi-final at Queen's] was a great match.'

Becker, who won six grand slam tournaments in total, one US and two Australian Opens making up his portfolio, does feel that the women's tour has got the balance right, however. 'A good year for the Williams sisters or Kim Clijsters is not whether they have won in Key Biscayne but if they've won a slam, and that's where we should go. The Belgian girls in the Paris final was great.'

All is not doom and gloom, however, and it seems that Becker's views are being taken on board. 'For the first time in a long time the ATP tour and the ITF are having talks about changing the schedule because they realise this is a product that is going downhill and instead of taking away from it, we have to give a bit back,' he said. 'I'm sure by 2005 we will have a different schedule and different priorities.'

Becker also believes that a board of three or four people should be made responsible for overall control of the sport, and its regulations. 'There are too many rules, the players can't do anything,' he added. 'Ilie Nastase went overboard, so it is important that we have boundaries, but now it is too proper, too politically correct. People pay a lot for their tickets and we have to remember this is entertainment.

'Tennis is unique. It is man against man, very raw, and this is what we need to get back . Hewitt is so important because he puts his will on the court and in the opponent's mind. I wish there were more players like that.'

http://sport.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,...696406,00.html



I have to totally agree with Becker with everything he is saying. Even the points about the tour's getting to "friendly". Everything he is saying is the truth. And when I think about it, Over the past couple of years, all these commentators, even fans etc have been chaning their opinions on many issues, and the changes they are makin in their judegements are for the worse. Players are not crediting the slams like they should be. Andre Agassi, Pete Sampras and Williams Sisters and Lindsay Davenport in my opinion are really the only ones in the past years that have shown real dedication to the slams. They have shown they know what they mean. Only 4 come in a year. When you see this, you just have to think how pitiful it must be. Right now we have people having fits over Serena and Venus for w/drawling from tournies. But look at the big picture people, they won't be out of the slams. Now that is a postive thing for some, and more-so a negative thing for the majority of this board.

But I totally agree w/ what Boris had to say about you shouldn't even be in the top 5 w/out having atleast won 1 slam. I try and say this over and over again. As great as people are talking about kim, when her carrer is brought up in the future. Kim Cljsters the 2003 Bank of the West Classic champion probably won't even come out of anyones mouth in say 20 years. People refer to people as like Pete Samprass the 14 time Grand Slam Champion. Even when watching Venus and Serena play, a lot of times the commentators annouce like, and serving first is 4 time Slam Champion Venus Williams etc. People do you see the point that is trying to get across. 1 we need a new ranking system for the men and the women. 2 they need new schedules. 3 these youngsters on the tour need to realize the true "meaning" of number 1, and the "true meaning" of the slams. They aren't just big tournies w/ a lot of points. Personally I think Kim, Justine, Amelie, etc feel this way. As much as they play, they don't show the dissapointments of losses you see from so many of the greats that have already won slams and know what it takes.

As high a level the sport is at. The players on the tour are really bringing it down. They now more than ever are concered about points and money more than they've ever been. I can honeslty say I think the majority of the wta tour are addicted to "points system" Knowing right now, that if you are a decent player with a couple of weapons, you don't have to even focus on winning slams in your career. you can just focus on a consistent semi/finals basis of year long tennis.

You can tell what players are going to be greats, who really wants the slams, who really wants number 1 for the right reasons. You have greats that have won slams, and been number 1, that have tell stories about how when they were young, they always wanted to win this slam, they always really wanted to be number 1. Even if some players thought this way, you can tell its almost left them. The desire of winning Slams is completely even out of the top 10 w/ the exception of Lindsay D, and the Williams Sisters (this is my opinion people), oh add Monica in there I know that desire will never leave her.

But people honestly it is really sad. Not only do you have players out there trying to collect ranking points and money, more than trying to collect slams and tournie wins, but you all as fans, have changed up and are trying to agree w/ what these people are doing. Calling a player having a great year, consistenly loosing in semis and finals? not winning slams? since when was that "great" Players and the Fans have/and are still stooping to new lows in this sport. Yeah getting to semis and finals all the time is a great feet no matter what. But are you winning them consistently as you are getting there. We have 2 players that have made it to the semis and finals of all their tournies played this year. And only 1 of them is winning more than they are loosing and only 1 is winning the slams, and only 1 is beating the other. And yet when you look at the big picture and its clear this 1 as in Serena is having a much better year, we have people really trying to put up an agrugment of stupidty (again my opinion) how this other gurl (kim) is having the best year out of the wta tour.

We need to get the spirits of the WTA and ATP back to what is was like 3 years ago. Although you do have 2 sisters really dominating the sport, that doesn't mean you have to back off w/ your plans and ideas of becoming number 1 by winning slams and beating the top players. So many people have reverted to this option, when they really didn't have to. It shows very much so that they are doing this. You even have Kim not thinking getting to number 1 is "that big a deal", and I think its mainly b/c she knows who is the real number 1.

Listen to how silly this really is. You have people say if Kim reaches number 1, she is deseriving of it, but we know who the "real" number 1 is. People there can only be 1. Every time I hear this, its like people are saying there are two number 1's in the world. Only 1 person can be deserving. You can't say Kim is deserving, but Serena really is it. You're making both of them number 1. It doesn't work like that. The WTA especialy I feel really need to have a sit down, take a look at the ranking system, and the schedule. I honestly think if they don't change it, the greats you already have, will be there to stay. Its rare you come across players that can actually chase record books. And when you have a sytem like this, that shows clear flaws, it needs to be fixed.

I also think there is a different attidue now, compared to back in the day. I think the ranking system would have been done been fixed back in the day if Say Martina Navratilova or Steffi Graf, had someone like Kim doing what Kim is doing.

Things need a fixing, and until they get fixed, again as high a level the tour is at right now, they are on the downfall.

Follow Me! @CedricEarl
SerenaSlam is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 53 (permalink) Old Jul 30th, 2003, 05:22 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 45,123
                     
The point Boris is making is a good one! The slams are the things that matter! Kim has won 5 titles, but what has she done at the slams?! Only two players are having great years: Serena and Justine. The rest doesnīt matter.... you will be remembered by how many slams you have won and not because you have won BWC!
bandabou is offline  
post #3 of 53 (permalink) Old Jul 30th, 2003, 05:27 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,100
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by bandabou
The point Boris is making is a good one! The slams are the things that matter! Kim has won 5 titles, but what has she done at the slams?! Only two players are having great years: Serena and Justine. The rest doesnīt matter.... you will be remembered by how many slams you have won and not because you have won BWC!
but how many people are going to remembe this?

Like I said in that other post, i don't know why people have changed their opinions on even number 1 players. It used to be people would only consider a player of being number 1, if they had beaten the former number 1 on a consistent basis, or had won a slam and beating number 1. Now we have people really trying to aruge us down, on how a player can be considered number 1 w/out winning a slam, or w/out even beating number 1

Follow Me! @CedricEarl
SerenaSlam is offline  
post #4 of 53 (permalink) Old Jul 30th, 2003, 05:33 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Oberburg
Posts: 3,989
                     
hmmmm....

...guess you haven't heard how Becker was praising Roger when he won Wimby.... (and yes that was just shortly after this coment was made.... and Roger was top 5 back then)

Well it's pretty simple to find out who's the true Nr. 1....

... you let the top players play the same events only. So they have the same amount of tournaments - on the same surface - at the same time - to the same conditions and the one who earns most points out of them is the deserved nr. 1.






oh wait a min....




... that could mean we're only getting to see about 13 tournaments where the top players are involved.........
Doris Loeffel is offline  
post #5 of 53 (permalink) Old Jul 30th, 2003, 05:39 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,100
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doris Loeffel
hmmmm....

...guess you haven't heard how Becker was praising Roger when he won Wimby.... (and yes that was just shortly after this coment was made.... and Roger was top 5 back then)

Well it's pretty simple to find out who's the true Nr. 1....

... you let the top players play the same events only. So they have the same amount of tournaments - on the same surface - at the same time - to the same conditions and the one who earns most points out of them is the deserved nr. 1.






oh wait a min....




... that could mean we're only getting to see about 13 tournaments where the top players are involved.........
oh and wait a minute, you have all the greats from back then the played an aveage 13-15 tournies, and now the majority of them are commentators, and are saying the same thing, how both tours need a reduced schedule.

"were" only getting to "see" 13 tournies. These players to a certain extent are out there for us the fans. But mainly are out there for them. kim isn't played over 22 tournies for the fans. come on, if you all really believe that, im just gonna keep laughin!

Follow Me! @CedricEarl
SerenaSlam is offline  
post #6 of 53 (permalink) Old Jul 30th, 2003, 05:43 PM
Senior Member
 
alexusjonesfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: inside
Posts: 7,837
                     
lol, Becker thinks you should have at most, four players ranked in the top five?

btw, SerenaSlam, do you have to make your topics in the format of a post-doc thesis? and yeah, WE HEARD YOU THE FIRST TIME: You don't think Kim deserves to be number 1.
alexusjonesfan is offline  
post #7 of 53 (permalink) Old Jul 30th, 2003, 05:45 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Oberburg
Posts: 3,989
                     
all right cut the tournies down so everybody can rest their bodies work on their week strokes and be fully prepared for the slams.

(I know it would be hard for the fans to overcome tennis - free time - but hey we manage it at the end of the year we just may as well manage it during the year.)
Doris Loeffel is offline  
post #8 of 53 (permalink) Old Jul 30th, 2003, 05:47 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 45,123
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by caelestia
lol, Becker thinks you should have at most, four players ranked in the top five?

btw, SerenaSlam, do you have to make your topics in the format of a post-doc thesis? and yeah, WE HEARD YOU THE FIRST TIME: You don't think Kim deserves to be number 1.
She obviously deserves it, but canīt be considered the BEST player. I think thatīs what people donīt understand. Not always is the best player ranked no.1
bandabou is offline  
post #9 of 53 (permalink) Old Jul 30th, 2003, 06:21 PM
Senior Member
 
Leo_DFP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 6,947
                     
You shouldn't be ranked in the top 5 unless you have a Major win, huh? So there can now be 5 Major champions in a year? Boris, you have no idea what you are talking about.

And is he seriously upset with the men's game now, when the 3 top-ranked men are the 3 Slam winners of 2003? What does he think about the situation on the WTA, where Kim Clijsters is on the verge of reaching #1 without a Major?
Leo_DFP is offline  
post #10 of 53 (permalink) Old Jul 30th, 2003, 06:30 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,406
                     
Another article from a former great struggling to cope with the way the game has changed. I like Becker, but his comments in this article are the standard tripe we're getting used to from journalists who whine about the state of modern tennis. I don't know what gives him the right to say that he knows players' psychology inside-out and can tell that they don't care about the Slams, because I think that's completely wrong. Of course they care about the Slams, but it's a tough field out there and surprise surprise, we don't always see the same players coming through at every Slam. To suggest that they simply follow the money is insulting and ignorant to say the least.

And maybe, just maybe, modern players have realised that there's an entire tour out there with a whole year's worth of tennis, and that the Grand Slams are only a part of that - the most important part, for sure, but they're not the be-all and end-all. As well as the customary swipe at a "nobody", in this case Nalbandian, we also get Becker bemoaning the lack of mind games on court. I don't watch tennis to see players getting angry at each other, I watch it to see them play tennis. This is just another ex-player pining for the nostalgic days when he was on tour.

Tennis can do without Becker's "mental warfare", thank you very much - the very idea of players having to use gamesmanship as a regular tactic to try and win is pathetic. I do agree that the schedule needs to be changed and the Grand Slams more reasonably spaced, but there's nothing wrong with the attitude of the players. It's an idiotic fallacy that gets trumpeted out far too often by people who should know better.

Say it Quietly, I'm White but I'm Really Rather Contrite
Hendouble is offline  
post #11 of 53 (permalink) Old Jul 30th, 2003, 06:33 PM
Senior Member
 
alexusjonesfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: inside
Posts: 7,837
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by bandabou
She obviously deserves it, but canīt be considered the BEST player. I think thatīs what people donīt understand. Not always is the best player ranked no.1
actually pretty much everyone is in agreement that Serena is a better player than Kim right now. The arguments start because people feel Kim is undeserving of the no.1 position without a slam win. No one is saying that Kim would be the favourite in a match against Serena.

SerenaSlam has posted (in a most long winded fashion), the same point about 3 million times which has already bean discussed to death in about 3 million other threads. That's what I was trying to get at. Why you or SerenaSlam feel that people aren't getting the point is beyond me.
alexusjonesfan is offline  
post #12 of 53 (permalink) Old Jul 30th, 2003, 06:36 PM
Senior Member
 
alexusjonesfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: inside
Posts: 7,837
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hendouble
Another article from a former great struggling to cope with the way the game has changed. I like Becker, but his comments in this article are the standard tripe we're getting used to from journalists who whine about the state of modern tennis. I don't know what gives him the right to say that he knows players' psychology inside-out and can tell that they don't care about the Slams, because I think that's completely wrong. Of course they care about the Slams, but it's a tough field out there and surprise surprise, we don't always see the same players coming through at every Slam. To suggest that they simply follow the money is insulting and ignorant to say the least.

And maybe, just maybe, modern players have realised that there's an entire tour out there with a whole year's worth of tennis, and that the Grand Slams are only a part of that - the most important part, for sure, but they're not the be-all and end-all. As well as the customary swipe at a "nobody", in this case Nalbandian, we also get Becker bemoaning the lack of mind games on court. I don't watch tennis to see players getting angry at each other, I watch it to see them play tennis. This is just another ex-player pining for the nostalgic days when he was on tour.

Tennis can do without Becker's "mental warfare", thank you very much - the very idea of players having to use gamesmanship as a regular tactic to try and win is pathetic. I do agree that the schedule needs to be changed and the Grand Slams more reasonably spaced, but there's nothing wrong with the attitude of the players. It's an idiotic fallacy that gets trumpeted out far too often by people who should know better.
well said Hendouble. It seems to be another case of 'tennis was best in my time' syndrome. First McEnroe, now Becker...which BBC commentator/ex-player is next?
alexusjonesfan is offline  
post #13 of 53 (permalink) Old Jul 30th, 2003, 06:41 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,100
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by caelestia
well said Hendouble. It seems to be another case of 'tennis was best in my time' syndrome. First McEnroe, now Becker...which BBC commentator/ex-player is next?
they make better points than anyone else. and have been able to back them up more than anyone else.

who comes next will probably make more sense than anyone else in this board. I think the whole point is, why changes now in everyone's opinions? why all of a sudden can someone be considered number 1 w/out beating number 1 and w/out winning slams? how ignorant does this sound? every female player that has ever become number 1, has beaten the number 1's along the way, and has won the slams. in any sport to get any recognition of being number 1, they have to 1 not only win the big tournies, but they have had to beat the best players. they've had to beat number 1. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THIS WAY IT TENNIS, why all of a sudden are we trying to twist things, and come up with this type of bull shit? please someone explain to me why now all of a sudden, when you have a black person at the top, we are trying to take her down? just had to though some racsim topic in there

Follow Me! @CedricEarl
SerenaSlam is offline  
post #14 of 53 (permalink) Old Jul 30th, 2003, 06:51 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,406
                     
Yes, you did, didn't you? Some people are blinded by the reputation or the cache of a particular ex-player without considering their opinions. I respect McEnroe and Becker's achievements and enjoy their commentary, but some of their views on tennis itself are complete, nonsensical crap. Not surprisingly, many current players - in other words, the ones who would have to put up with the consequences of Mac and Becker's impractical changes to tennis technology - are against their ideas.

Say it Quietly, I'm White but I'm Really Rather Contrite
Hendouble is offline  
post #15 of 53 (permalink) Old Jul 30th, 2003, 07:04 PM
Senior Member
 
DA FOREHAND's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington D.C.
Posts: 8,945
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by SerenaSlam
they make better points than anyone else. and have been able to back them up more than anyone else.

who comes next will probably make more sense than anyone else in this board. I think the whole point is, why changes now in everyone's opinions? why all of a sudden can someone be considered number 1 w/out beating number 1 and w/out winning slams? how ignorant does this sound? every female player that has ever become number 1, has beaten the number 1's along the way, and has won the slams. in any sport to get any recognition of being number 1, they have to 1 not only win the big tournies, but they have had to beat the best players. they've had to beat number 1. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THIS WAY IT TENNIS, why all of a sudden are we trying to twist things, and come up with this type of bull shit? please someone explain to me why now all of a sudden, when you have a black person at the top, we are trying to take her down? just had to though some racsim topic in there

You had me till the end! ;-) LOL

"Hatred is the coward's revenge for being intimidated" - George Bernard Shaw




"And for the best of the teen-agers who followed her, and who occasionally referred to her as over the hill, Graf had a ready answer: against top-ranked Martina Hingis, Graf wound up 7-2. Graf's stirring 4-6, 7-5, 6-2 throttling of Hingis at the French Open final this June was perhaps the most emphatic parting shot the game has ever seen. "


DA FOREHAND is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TennisForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome