PDA

View Full Version : Yeah, the men's field has so much depth!!!


Fingon
Jan 25th, 2004, 01:26 AM
Andy Roddick
1st round beat Fernando Gonzalez 6-2 7-5 7-6
2nd round beat Bohdan Ulihrach 6-2 6-2 6-3
3rd round beat Taylod Dent 6-2 6-0 6-2

hasn't lost a set and has lost only 24 games in 3 matches

Andre Agassi

1st round beat Todd Larkham 6-1 6-3 6-4
2nd round beat Thomas Berdych 6-0 6-2 6-4
3rd round beat Thomas Endquist 6-0 6-3 6-3

hasn't lost a set and has lost 20 games in 3 matches

Roger Federer :worship: :worship:

1st round beat Alex Bogomolov Jr 6-3 6-4 6-0
2nd round beat Jeff Morrison 6-2 6-3 6-4
third round beat Todd Ried 6-3 6-0 6-1

hasn't lost a set ande has lot 20 games in 3 matches.

These are 3 players, there are others, it's not an isolated case, the top players are just killing their opponents.

so much depth

for-sure
Jan 25th, 2004, 01:27 AM
They are eating their words...it is very funny :)

Havok
Jan 25th, 2004, 01:39 AM
well just look at who Agassi and Federer played. a bunch of CRAP players. but the funny thing is, is that Andy only lost 4 more games than both Andre and Roger, but his opponents were of a much higher quality than the players Agassi and Federer faced:lol:

Fingon
Jan 25th, 2004, 02:16 AM
Why are some people so desesperate to jump on any occasion they have to talk about depth in the mens game?

The men have more depth, period.

Does it mean that in EVERY tournement in the world, every top seed will win each of their match 7-5 in the last set or lose it? Get real...
I can't be bother to look for results, but this isn't the first time it happens, the US Open had pretty lopsided matches too.

And normally, when a top seed in the men loses it's not because a newcomer played wonderful but because the top seed tanked the match or was just crap.

I call it mediocrity, not depth

Crazy Canuck
Jan 25th, 2004, 02:18 AM
They are eating their words...it is very funny :)
Actually dipshit, most of "them" didn't have any words to eat. That is something that few of you around here seem to understand.

Rios and Henman do not speak for the entire ATP, children.

Crazy Canuck
Jan 25th, 2004, 02:19 AM
well just look at who Agassi and Federer played. a bunch of CRAP players. but the funny thing is, is that Andy only lost 4 more games than both Andre and Roger, but his opponents were of a much higher quality than the players Agassi and Federer faced:lol:
Enqvist is not a crap player. He's not what he once was, but he's not crap. He did play like crap, though.

azza
Jan 25th, 2004, 02:20 AM
:rolleyes: @ this thread Soderling Def Schutler Canas Def Henman Sargisan Def Bjorkman there are heaps of players coming back from 2 sets to love

Crazy Canuck
Jan 25th, 2004, 02:21 AM
I can't be bother to look for results, but this isn't the first time it happens, the US Open had pretty lopsided matches too.

And normally, when a top seed in the men loses it's not because a newcomer played wonderful but because the top seed tanked the match or was just crap.

I call it mediocrity, not depth
You see, you people aren't pleased either way.

If top players lose, you call them "mediocre". If top players win easily you mock them for the apparent lack of depth.

It's lose and lose, and it's getting kind of boring. The horse died. Let it go. We get it. Some of you are obsessed with "proving" the WTA is "better" than the ATP. Swell. Dead horse. Get it?

Keith17
Jan 25th, 2004, 02:22 AM
There isn't 3 players dominating the men's tour, it's 1 player.

Andre is passing the torch to our new American Hero.

GoDominique
Jan 25th, 2004, 02:22 AM
I have seen parts of all these matches.

Gonzales is good but a headcase.
Ulihrach was pathetic, never believed in his chance.
Dent was injured (?).

Larkham is a pathetic Aussie WC.
Berdych is a young qualifier, overwhelmed.
Enqvist got thrashed by fantastic Andre.

And Roger: he's just too good.

Crazy Canuck
Jan 25th, 2004, 02:22 AM
:rolleyes: @ this thread Soderling Def Schutler Canas Def Henman Sargisan Def Bjorkman there are heaps of players coming back from 2 sets to love
Indeed.

God forbid they mention some examples that contrast with those in the initial post.

Overall, it's a great tournament for the top men. This is a good thing. I'm not quite sure why people are rolling their eyes and being bitchy about it. Afraid that they might outshine the womens tournament, just like they did at the USO? Is everybody here 10? :confused:

vogus
Jan 25th, 2004, 02:23 AM
only 2 of those 9 players noted are in the Top 100.

of the 2 that are, Gonzalez played well and lost in three tight sets, while Dent just happened to play terrible that day. Agassi and Federer got unusually easy draws.

The other 7 guys are challenger players, except for Enquist, who's career is all but over, and Uligrach, who just got off a year long steroid ban.

Fingon
Jan 25th, 2004, 02:24 AM
You see, you people aren't pleased either way.

If top players lose, you call them "mediocre". If top players win easily you mock them for the apparent lack of depth.

It's lose and lose, and it's getting kind of boring. The horse died. Let it go. We get it. Some of you are obsessed with "proving" the WTA is "better" than the ATP. Swell. Dead horse. Get it?
nope, you got it wrong.

I am not saying it's bad that the top players win their matches easily, I actually think the opposite.

All I am saying is that the argument that they show men's matches in the first week because they are more competitive while the women's are lopsided is bullshit.

And don't come with Henman, Canas whatever because they don't show those matches, they show Agassi, Roddick, Federer (not that I mind watching Federer). They should not lie to people,that's all.

Crazy Canuck
Jan 25th, 2004, 02:24 AM
There isn't 3 players dominating the men's tour, it's 1 player.

Andre is passing the torch to our new American Hero.
If there is one player dominating the ATP tour, I clearly haven't been paying attention to the same tour as you.

There are 6 men who have a very realistic chance of winning this tournament, and a couple outside shots.

Crazy Canuck
Jan 25th, 2004, 02:26 AM
nope, you got it wrong.

I am not saying it's bad that the top players win their matches easily, I actually think the opposite.

All I am saying is that the argument that they show men's matches in the first week because they are more competitive while the women's are lopsided is bullshit.

And don't come with Henman, Canas whatever because they don't show those matches, they show Agassi, Roddick, Federer (not that I mind watching Federer). They should not lie to people,that's all.
RIght. Had you mentioned ANY of this in your initial post, I might have known what you were talking about.

Point taken.

I agree that the coverage is bullshit.

Crazy Canuck
Jan 25th, 2004, 02:27 AM
only 2 of those 9 players noted are in the Top 100.

of the 2 that are, Gonzalez played well and lost in three tight sets, while Dent just happened to play terrible that day. Agassi and Federer got unusually easy draws.

The other 7 guys are challenger players, except for Enquist, who's career is all but over, and Uligrach, who just got off a year long steroid ban.
Gonzo didn't play well :confused:

tennischick
Jan 25th, 2004, 02:29 AM
yes, the ATP has more depth. get over it.

things are definitely improving for the women however when 30 y.o. Lisa Raymond can take out Venus in straights.

the future of the WTA is so bright, i'm gonna need shades...;)

TennisHack
Jan 25th, 2004, 03:25 AM
All I am saying is that the argument that they show men's matches in the first week because they are more competitive while the women's are lopsided is bullshit.

And don't come with Henman, Canas whatever because they don't show those matches, they show Agassi, Roddick, Federer (not that I mind watching Federer). They should not lie to people,that's all.
Your argument is therein flawed, because what ESPN decides to show (and TSN, by extension) is not based on the apparent depth or lack thereof. There were loads of interesting men's matches going on but because none of them involved Roddick or Agassi, they were not shown on TV. They'd rather give the picture that the Americans are dominating, even though the players they are facing are hardly of Top 100 calibre. It's the same as showing JHH playing the sacrifical Aussie wildcard in the first round when there's an amazing five-setter going on on another show court that doesn't involve Americans or the #1 in the world (which they must begrudgingly show to explain why the Americans are not dominating in the rankings).

tennisvideos
Jan 25th, 2004, 11:44 AM
Of course the men's tour has far more depth.... and I am a bigger fan of Womens tennis generally and always have been. But IMO the men's tour is more exciting these days and there is no comparison on the depth of the two tours. I can't be bothered arguing about it though as I enjoy both tours anyway.

Experimentee
Jan 25th, 2004, 11:58 AM
There have been more upsets in the womens tournament so far, Raymond, Golovin, Zuluaga, Kapros are still in it, and a top womens favourtie is out, while all mens favourties are still in. So thats why i think the mens tournament has been better, I prefer the top players getting through for rivalries than upsets.

ghosts
Jan 25th, 2004, 12:12 PM
It depends :rolleyes: :)

Monique
Jan 25th, 2004, 12:58 PM
it always strikes me as odd why every so often this kind of thread pops up in WTAWorld and never in Menstennis forums.. I guess some fans over here really have issues and resentments towards the ATP Tour.. to resort to pick out a few extraordinary matches to try to prove a tired theory that no professional and knowledgeable tennis expert could even think of taking upon, is just selective thinking... due to the rather poor popularity of tennis in North America nowadays, the last thing the sport needs is this kind of bickering rivalry between both tours... as the Slams and few other tournaments can attest to it, both tours should complement each other not compete against each other...

azza
Jan 26th, 2004, 06:05 AM
Arazi Def Philippoussis 6-2 6-2 6-4 :rolleyes:

faboozadoo15
Jan 26th, 2004, 06:14 AM
well just look at who Agassi and Federer played. a bunch of CRAP players. but the funny thing is, is that Andy only lost 4 more games than both Andre and Roger, but his opponents were of a much higher quality than the players Agassi and Federer faced:lol:

was that a joke??? morrison played much better than any of andy's opponents so far! dent and ulihrach were a joke. gonzo haded the match to andy with unforced errors. go check your stats...
and it's hard to win matches any easier than andre and roger are... do u want triple bagels or something?

franny
Jan 26th, 2004, 06:18 AM
I think when they say depth, they are referring to the number of players who can actually win the tournament. On the women's side, who do you have? Henin-Hardenne, Clijsters, Davenport, and Mueresmo, and maybe Myskina. On the mens side? You have Agassi, Roddick, Safin, Nalbandian, Federrer, Hewitt, Ferrero. Hate to say it but when you can have a round of 16 match featuring Hewitt and Federrer, you've got depth.

Crazy Canuck
Jan 26th, 2004, 07:43 AM
Arazi Def Philippoussis 6-2 6-2 6-4 :rolleyes:
He won easily! Where is the DEPTH? ;) ;) ;)