Sports reports seem to be less concerned about the major players who loose at tournaments leading up to a grand slam. Is this because they are only viewed as warm-ups by the major players? This week many of the big names and top players lost to the wannabees and not one sports reporter made a big stink about it.
2007-05-25 05:33:37 · 5 answers · asked by Budda of OnThaMove Radio 2 in Sports ➔ Tennis
Wow, finally an intelligent question (Yahoo Answers is filled with really inane questions).
Basically, you're right. Players see the tournaments leading up to the Grand Slam as tune ups. Last year, when Agassi wanted to retire, he knew he wasn't in the best of shape. He'd enter tournaments, and then lose in the first or second round. He put all his marbles in playing a few good matches at the US Open, but faced a really tough match in the second round, which he won, only to lose in the third round.
Sometimes surfaces matter too. For example, Sampras generally played poorly on clay. It's a slow surface that nullifies big serves and favors bludgeoning ground play. Plus, it's very tiring to play well on clay. All things that hurt Sampras, who wanted to save his energy to win Wimbledon. Historically, Sampras played poorly at the French Open, only to turn it around three weeks later and win Wimbledon.
Usually, a lesser player playing well leading into a Grand Slam event can sometimes do well. Thomas Muster, who won the French Open around 15 years ago, had a great season on clay leading up to the French, and he did quite well.
Finally, there's laziness on the part of sports reporters. Until Mary Carillo and John McEnroe came around, you'd find reporters who didn't even know how the players did the last few tournaments. They didn't know who was injured. They just used the same talking points about a particular player they had always used. Chris Evert used to suffer from this big time. I'm sure if you quizzed her, early in her broadcast career, and asked the results of various players in the past few tournaments leading up to this one, she'd have no idea.
This kind of ignorance is not seen in other sports, such as football or basketball, where announcers knowledge can border on encyclopedic.
Sometimes, as has happened in the French Open, a player can come from nowhere and win it. Perhaps the biggest example of this was in 1982 when Mats Wilander won the French Open, when no one had really heard of him before. Boris Becker and Michael Chang similarly won from nowhere.
Most players try to peak at the Grand Slams. Some, like Ivan Lendl, found playing a lot helped them peak (though he always preferred to practice leading up to Wimbledon). Others take a break before a big event. Many players even tank (deliberately lose) early in a tournament leading up to the Grand Slam so they can have just enough practice, but not so much that they are fatigued.
2007-05-28 16:29:37 · answer #1 · answered by cafebreve 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well for both the ATP and the WTA, I absolutely love the Sony Ericsson Open in Miami, it's just a fantastic setting for a hard court tournament in Miami and you can pretty much count on all the top 10 players to be there. As for the ATP I have always enjoyed the masters series especially the Monte Carlo Masters. Monte Carlo is one of my favorite cities and one the most beautiful cities in the world and it's just fun to imagine playing a tournament in such a glamorous city where all the rich and famous and allot of players call home. For the WTA it's a tie between Moscow, Saint Petersburg and Zurich there all great tournaments in really nice cities. Of course me being from Moscow, that tournament is very special,LOL. But none of the regular tournaments can compare to the grandslams or the Olympics especially. I don't care where the Olympics are held it's always going to be one the grandest tournament stages for any player to grace and to be chosen to represent your country at the biggest sporting event in the world is a feeling I'm sure unlike any other. It really angers me when stupid announcers and nay-sayers groan about tennis not belonging at the Olympics, that is complete garbage to me. It's not like they have a problem getting all the best players on the teams so what's to complain about? Okay yeah maybe the playing schedule could be hectic, but it is the Olympics, it's not a grandslam tournament that occurs every year. It is the Olympics that only comes every four years, and it would be worth it whether you win or lose.
2016-05-17 12:09:05 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
this is a fact of life in tennis and is rarely ever talked about.
the top players figure that if a 5th set is required to win a warmup tournament prior to a grand slam then it would a good time to try out that new shot and take risks.
it's one of about a million problems with the sport of tennis and also one of the reasons why very few in the world who are not tennis enthusiasts care very little about tournaments that are not slams.
2007-05-25 05:47:25 · answer #3 · answered by nostradamus02012 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Compared to other sports - you do have a point. Tennis players are not evaluated as much as professionals in other sports. I have read a lot of autobiographies from former professional players and it seems that they are contractually obligated to venues that they sometimes are not interested in attending so they don't have the best attitude going into those tournament. Tennis is such a mental sport.
2007-05-25 05:42:11 · answer #4 · answered by dekkerman2002 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Tennis doesn't make a lot of news, so they only mention the big names, when they win cuse those r the ones that non tennis fans may be interest in.
2007-05-26 16:09:27 · answer #5 · answered by P 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋