Do you watch REAL TENNIS In TV?

by **Elargento** » Sun, 02 Jul 2006 17:58

that's not the hopman cup website

by **mcfed** » Sun, 02 Jul 2006 19:34

Elargento wrote:that's not the hopman cup website

Really?
And what is the homepage?

by **mcfed** » Sun, 02 Jul 2006 19:37

I found. I forgot the .au after the .com
:lol:

by **Rob ITST** » Sun, 02 Jul 2006 20:04

Rich Lewis wrote:I can't vote in this as in England we only get to see the Stella Artois Cup and Wimbledon. We sometimes get to see a bit of the other grandslams but if a Brittish player isn't playing then they cut the matches up and you don't allways get to watch the whole thing. This really makes me mad as i'd love to follow real tennis in more depth. The only way to do this is to get sky TV and this costs alot of money in England.

However we do get very excited about Wimledon in England. Its much touted as the best and most prestigeous tennis tourney in England and I was wondering if people in other countries think it is too?

I'm surprised there is such limited coverage in England. I thought tennis was much more popular there than in the U.S. It's not uncommon here to have 10-12 hours of coverage each day during the first week of a slam. And we also have a 24 hour a day Tennis Channel.

As far as the prestige of Wimbledon, I think it's regarded as the premier event in tennis worldwide. It certainly is around here.

by **Elargento** » Sun, 02 Jul 2006 20:19

i think they don't have espn in europe.

by **mcfed** » Sun, 02 Jul 2006 21:15

RobPdawg wrote:I'm surprised there is such limited coverage in England. I thought tennis was much more popular there than in the U.S. It's not uncommon here to have 10-12 hours of coverage each day during the first week of a slam. And we also have a 24 hour a day Tennis Channel.

A 24 hours a day Tennis Channel.WOW. Sad that we haven't.

by **Elargento** » Sun, 02 Jul 2006 21:26

americans have a channel for everything they even have a channel for weather, i don't find that suprinsing having a tennis channel

by **Legends 2004** » Sun, 02 Jul 2006 21:34

I want to pose you all a question on tennis.

Who do you think is better Pete Sampras or Roger Federer, as me being

a pure Sampras fan i naturally favor him, because of his stellar forehand,

truly remarkable serve, crisp volleys, and a mental game of pure steel.

People think Federer is better but i just dont see it, i think hes got a better

backhand but thats about it, so tell me people of ITST who is better,

Pete Sampras vs Roger Federer!

Cheers

Legends 04

by **Rich Lewis** » Sun, 02 Jul 2006 22:18

sampras was better i think but it is impossible to know for sure.

by **Elargento** » Sun, 02 Jul 2006 22:21

federer is the best undoubtly, he has acomplish great things not only in grass or hard courts but also on clay(if it weren't for nadal he would have won 2 masters and roland).

by **Legends 2004** » Sun, 02 Jul 2006 23:23

Elargento said:

federer is the best undoubtly, he has acomplish great things not only in grass or hard courts but also on clay(if it weren't for nadal he would have won 2 masters and roland).

Federer being the best undoubtly? I dunno Sampras has achieved some things Federer still cant dream of. And then again Federers got almost no competition other than Nadal, however Pete in the 90s era had so much competition that made Sampras that much more impressive keeping up the number 1 ranking for 286 weeks. Courier, Chang, Ivansievic, Muster, Brugera, Agassi, Correjta, Rafter, Safin, Stich, Becker. Who does Federer have other than Nadal?

by **Romain-FER** » Sun, 02 Jul 2006 23:25

I'd say that it's the men's game that has more depth than the women's. Look at Wimbledon now. Lots of easy wins for the high ranked females, but a good number of upsets in the male tournament.

I would say the same thing, I think man tennis is more "strong" and less predictable (upsets etc...) than woman tennis.

i don't watch ATP tennis because usually there is a favourite (Federer )
and a bad player. The winner is..... Federer.
There is no tension

Of course, unfortunately, since a couple of years, there is Federer who supresses any little suspens but, atp tennis isn't only Federer! You still have great players, great matches with tension! Maybe not in the final, maybe not about the winner of the tournament but, on other matches as for example a great Roddick-Hewitt or Safin-Nadal!

by **Romain-FER** » Sun, 02 Jul 2006 23:29

Who does Federer have other than Nadal?

Maybe take the problem in the other direction!
Of course Federer only has Nadal as big oponnent even if I believe that some other players are able to beat him... but, maybe, if there is only Nadal, it's because Federer is too good for oposition?

by **Squilari** » Mon, 03 Jul 2006 01:05

Federer has hard opposition in Nalbandian , Ljubicic and Rodick besides Nadal.
And he will find others on route to 286 weeks as number one.

by **mecir72** » Mon, 03 Jul 2006 14:09

Certainly Pete had a better running forehand but overall I would still say Roger has the better forehand. I mean how good was Pete's forehand on clay?
Roger is also a bit more fluent in his movement and much much more solid from the back of the court. Sampras had the better serve and a superior netgame and I agree mentally he was second to none.
To compare who is the better player is always a bit unfair as Rogers game has the technology advantage. I mean who doubts that Sampras would have beaten Borg on grass or that Nadal would have beaten Borg on clay. Still that doesnt make Borg a bad player. Roger plays the best tennis ever but Sampras achievements are so far better than Rogers.

Do you watch REAL TENNIS In TV?

Do you watch real tennis?

g

d

Who is online