ATP - informacje ogólne

[Shinoda]

DIL, rządzisz

Brawa za mecz, za piękny sukces, klasyczny Wielkie Szlem jest chyba bardziej prawdopodobny niż kiedykolwiek to miało miejsce w przypadku Federera.

Akurat bezpośrednio po finale AO09 takie przemyślenia nie były dziwne.

Moje spostrzeżenia były w 100% takie same jak u DIL'a . Tak grający Nadal, to kozak jakich mało w całej dyscyplinie było, jest i będzie. Śmiem twierdzić nawet, że grał lepiej niż na USO10.

[robpal]

Nie wiem, dla mnie wróżenie po miesiącu sezonu, że ktoś wygra pozostałe 3 szlemy w roku jest jak zabawa z kryształową kulą

Też nie do końca chodziło o to w moich postach, żeby pokazywać, kto miał rację, a kto nie, tylko żeby zobaczyć, co się wypisuje zaraz po meczu i jak to wygląda po prawie 3 latach "uleżenia"

[Wujek Toni]

Widać mam specyficzne poczucie humoru, bo doprawdy nie wiem co jest zabawnego w postach, które zacytowałeś, określając je jako przednie.

[robpal]

Widać federerowskie dąsy

Przednie jest to, że piszesz, że jak stylu nie zmieni, to 10 będzie mega osiągnięciem. Nie zmienił, a dyszka już jest (wtedy miał 6). Tak wygląda "wróżenie".

Tak samo już po AO królowały teksty o "zwijaniu żagielka", "końcu Federera" i takie tam. Pokazuje to tylko, jak bardzo tenis jest nieprzewidywany.

Jeśli takie spojrzenie z perspektywy na to, co się pisało 3 lata temu Cię nie bawi, to rzeczywiście masz specyficzne poczucie humoru

[Wujek Toni]

Jeżeli według Ciebie Nadal gra taki sam tenis na kortach twardych, jak czynił to w roku 2009 to...okej.
Po drugie, nikt nie stwierdził, ze Hiszpan jeszcze jakiegoś szlema dołoży, no chyba, że posiadasz informacje na temat przyszłości, a nie chcesz się z nami tą wiedzą podzielić.

Póki co Rafa nie przekroczył osiągnięć z moich prognoz, także nie widzę powodu, dla któremu miałbym czuć się zażenowany swoją wypowiedzią.

[robpal]

Ale mi nie chodziło o wzbudzanie zażenowania, bo w ten sposób to można wziąć dowolny post dowolnego autora sprzed 2 lat dotyczący "przyszłości" i na 99% się nie sprawdziło. Opacznie chyba to zrozumiałeś

BTW. Jakie są Twoje prognozy?

[Wujek Toni]

Nie mam bladego pojęcia. Trzymam się tego, że Nadal wszedł w taki etap swojej kariery, iż w jego tenisowym życiu może wydarzyć się absolutnie wszystko.
Jakby nie patrzeć, na jego drodze staje do tej pory niemal wyłącznie Djoković, oczywiście, w podobny sposób można obronić 2008 rok Federera, gdzie Szwajcar zgarnąłby 3 szlemy oraz 2 turnieje Masters na cegle, "gdyby nie Rafa".

Jak słabo Hiszpan by się nie prezentował we wstępnych fazach turnieju, dla przeciętnego zawodnika jest absolutnie nie do ogrania, a jednocześnie udało mu się znakomicie wypracować zdolność do prezentowania aktualnie najlepszego tenisa w decydujących fazach turnieju.
Wiadomym jest, że z punktu widzenia jego fanów gra ciągle nie tak jak tego oczekują, stać go na więcej ( znam to doskonale z autopsji).
Według mnie Nadal gra w dalszym ciągu bardzo dobrze( dla mnie-niestety) i jest niesamowicie groźny w każdym turnieju wielkoszlemowym, niezależnie od formy. Szczególnie, iż wskutek homogenizacji nawierzchni, żaden turniej WS nie posiada warunków niesprzyjających dla tenisa Rafaela. A raczej nie spodziewamy się pojawienia się Szlema rozgrywanego w szybkiej hali , o niskim koźle.

Wiele zależy w 2012 roku od innych zawodników, czy w końcu jakiś równolatek, bądź też młodszy od Hiszpana gracz znajdzie na niego patent.
Jeśli nie, a Nole swojej nieludzkiej dyspozycji nie utrzyma, oczywistym wydaje się triumf Nadala na kortach RG( obecnie tylko doskonale przygotowany Serb może go tam ograć), z braku ludzi potrafiących poruszać się dobrze na trawie jego szanse w Wimbledonie są również bardzo duże.

Realnie patrząc, Rafa ze 2-3 szlemy jeszcze do swojego dorobku dorzuci, czy mi się to podoba, czy też nie.

[DUN I LOVE]

Bez jaj, lepsi próbowali

Nie ma znaczenia kto próbował. Ja to widziałem tak:
1) Federer rozbity po finale w Melbourne
2) Murray zawodzący na całej linii
3) Djoković grający przeciętnie, do tego kreczujący przy solidniejszym słońcu
4) brak innych przeciwników (wtedy jeszcze nikt nie przypuszczał, że DelPo wystrzeli na taką skalę)
5) Nadal z AO, niepokonany na RG, broniący tytułu w Wimbledonie, USO - patrz pkt 1-4 (brak rywali)).

To, że rzeczywistość dość brutalnie zweryfikowała moje przewidywania to inna bajka. Każdy, kto pisze coś 'od siebie' ma niejedno za uszami.

Zresztą dzień później jednak zweryfikowałeś jednak (i słusznie) jego szanse

To, że słusznie, to okazało się dopiero 31 maja tamtego roku.

[Art]

Pojawiły się nowe zdjęcia w profilach graczy na stronie ATP:



Mary próbuje się uśmiechać.

[robpal]

To, że słusznie, to okazało się dopiero 31 maja tamtego roku.

Trochę tak i trochę nie. Już na cegle Rafa wyglądał momentami ospale (w porównaniu do poprzednich sezonów), a w przegranym meczu z Sodą to wręcz jak śnięta ryba. Nawet, gdyby tego Rolanda wygrał, to moooooże na oparach by pociągnął Wimbledon, ale na USO już nic by w baku nie zostało. Tak się na to zapatruję

Aczkolwiek prawda, nie można było przewidzieć w styczniu, że Rafa przeholuje ze startami jak nieopierzony młokos...

[sheva]

Serbian player banned for life for match-fixing




Low-ranked Serbian David Savic has been banned for life for match-fixing offences, the Tennis Integrity Unit has confirmed.

Savic, ranked 659 in the ATP standings, was also fined $100,000 after being found guilty of three violations under the Uniform Tennis Anti-Corruption Program including "contriving or attempting to contrive the outcome of an event".

In a statement the TIU said the Savic, 26, had committed the offences in October last year and had been found guilty at an independent anti-corruption disciplinary hearing in London this month.

"The life ban applies with immediate effect and means that Mr Savic is not eligible to participate in any tournament or competition organised or sanctioned by the governing bodies of professional tennis from the date of this statement," the TIU said.

Savic is the second player to be banned for life after Austrian player Daniel Koellerer was found guilty of a similar violation in May.

The TIU was set up in 2008 and is supported by the Grand Slam Committee, the International Tennis Federation, the ATP World Tour and the WTA.

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/01102011/ ... ixing.html

Następny co chciał dorobić na lewo.

[sheva]

Tenisiści na straconej pozycji w walce z ATP



Andy Murray, Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer - to oni najgłośniej protestują przeciwko zbyt długiemu sezonowi, nakreślonemu przez ATP. Ostatnio głos zabrał amerykański tenisista, Andy Roddick. Stwierdził on, że jest "sfrustrowany" brakiem zmian w kalendarzu rozgrywek.

Amerykanin, który w poniedziałek odpadł już w pierwszej rundzie China Open, wspiera głównego inicjatora całej akcji, Andy'ego Murraya. Szkot domaga się wznowienia rozmów między zawodnikami i organizatorami ATP tour, w celu zmniejszenia ilości wymaganych startów.

Czwarty tenisista światowego rankingu wyznał w ubiegłym miesiącu, że kilka razy rozmawiał z zawodnikami podczas US Open, a na turnieju Masters w Szanghaju, który rozpocznie 9 października, chcą oni kontynuować dyskusję, tyle tylko, że z udziałem ATP.

Jednak wszystko wskazuje na to, że za wiele nie uda się wskórać. W turnieju zabraknie Federera, który postanowił odpocząć, a Djoković może nie wystąpić z powodu urazu pleców.

Ich problemy rozpoczęły się podczas US Open, gdzie z kolei z powodu opadów deszczu aż trzy dni z rzędu musiał grać Rafael Nadal. Hiszpan miał tylko dzień odpoczynku, a następnie wrócił do Europy, na mecze Pucharu Davisa.

Jednak zdaniem 29-letniego Roddicka do zmian nie dojdzie. - Oni (organizatorzy) są marudni. Jak pamiętam w 2001 i 2002 r. kończyliśmy sezon w okolicach Halloween (koniec października) turniejami w paryskiej hali Bercy. Rozmawialiśmy wówczas nad skróceniem sezonu. Teraz ten turniej kończy się dwa tygodnie później - stwierdził Amerykanin.

- Mówiłem o tym już od dawna i nic nie zostało zrobione. Niestety nikt nas nie słucha. To wadliwy system. Związek zawodników może głosować i być zgodnym nawet w stosunku 6-0 lub 7-0, ale co z tego? Na spotkaniu z zarządem możemy zostać przegłosowani. Bierze się pod uwagę cyferki, ale nie nasze potrzeby, nie nasze kariery, które w ten sposób są zagrożone - podkreślił.

- Dziś gra jest bardziej fizyczna, a sezon jest dłuższy niż kiedykolwiek. To nie ma sensu - zakończył.

Szef Międzynarodowej Federacji Tenisowej (ITF) Francesco Ricci Bitti, powiedział w ubiegłym miesiącu, że zarzuty są "nielogiczne", dodając, że jeszcze w 2009 r. to zawodnicy optowali za obecnym układem turniejów, w przeciwieństwie do próśb ITF.

ATP również odpowiedziała, dając do zrozumienia, że wzięła pod uwagę uwagi tenisistów, redukując większość spotkań finałowych do trzech setów i pozwalając czołowej ósemce rankingu, na starty od drugiej rundy w turniejach

http://www.eurosport.pl/tenis/atp-tour/ ... tory.shtml

[DUN I LOVE]

Za mało czasu na pokazówki, co?

[sheva]

Nadal and Djokovic: Does Their Dominance Make Modern Men's Game Better or Worse?




It's no secret that Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal have been the two hottest tennis players in 2011.

Last year was all Nadal. Winning three out of four Grand Slams, he gave himself a shot at the "Rafa Slam." And though he didn't end up winning it, he propelled himself past Andre Agassi, John McEnroe, Ivan Lendl, Mats Wilander and Jimmy Connors on the all-time Grand Slam list.

Suddenly in 2011, Djokovic came out on fire, winning his first forty-something matches, including the Australian Open and several other Masters tournaments. In addition, he conquered Wimbledon and the US Open, beating Nadal in both of those finals.

But the question is this: For the average fan, does this dominance make the men's game more or less interesting? (I'm going to leave Roger Federer out of this, as he hasn't won a Slam since the 2010 Australian Open, and let's be real—it doesn't look like he's going to win another.)

Well, let's take everything into consideration as we explore this question.

Everyone loves rivalries, and that is what this "double dominance" is all about. Who didn't love the Nadal-Federer rivalry? Or the Borg-McEnroe rivalry? Or even the Navratilova-Evert rivalry, for that matter?

Well, the dominance simply makes the rivalry better and better; since not many people can beat either one of them, their meeting in tournament finals is almost inevitable.

All of the rivalries listed above became so epic on account of the fact that there was a similar sort of dominance in those eras. The dominance highlighted the rivalries by making tournaments such that the last two people standing had to have been the rivals.

And if dominance leaves the two of them meeting in Grand Slam finals left, right and center, that should be great.



But, wait.

Wouldn't having more equality make the game so that there is more unpredictability, rendering today's game more fun to watch?

Let's take the women's game for example.

At this year's US Open, Angelique Kerber, a German who was ranked 92nd in the world, reached the semifinals. In addition, ninth-seeded Aussie Samantha Stosur ended up taking home the trophy at Flushing Meadows.

For argument's sake, let's compare this to the men's game.

Slovakian Martin Klizan, a 30-year-old veteran from Bratislava, is No. 92 right now. Could any men's tennis fan even fathom his getting to the semifinals of a Grand Slam? Or even someone outside the Top 30 for that matter?

Try to imagine Martin Klizan, a name most people haven't heard, getting to a stage in a tournament where Andy Murray, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal or Novak Djokovic don't. Can you picture it?

Me neither.

In the current men's game, it's hard to see Andy Murray beat Novak Djokovic in a final, let alone No. 9 in the world, Gael Monfils.

Of course, this literal relationship between seeds cannot really be made, but it's the idea that matters.

Is this fun or not?

Let's rewind to the late '80s and early '90s, where titles were being shared (maybe not completely equally) between a few people: Andre Agassi, Pete Sampras, Ivan Lendl, Stefan Edberg, Jim Courier, Boris Becker, Mats Wilander, Sergi Bruguera and a few others.

That diversity made tennis more interesting as an impartial spectator. Any given Grand Slam was up for grabs, within the reach of at least five or six people.

In Open, Andre Agassi's autobiography, Agassi praises several players, discussing how each and every one of them was a major threat to his advancing in a tournament.



Right now, who can knock off Novak Djokovic? Roger Federer probably has the best chance.

But anyone outside the top four or five? No.

Now travel a little further in time, between the 2003 Wimbledon and the 2007 Australian Open. If one looked at a list of Grand Slam champions between that time, it would have mostly Federer's name; throw in a Roddick, a Safin, a Gaudio and a couple Nadals—and that's it, for the most part.

But tennis was fun in that era. Why?

Because Roger Federer was so dominant and put on such great shows, despite the fact that unpredictability and diversity at that time were very low. That time was popular due to Roger Federer's game, often called "poetry in motion," "ballet" or even "eye-candy."

Current men's tennis is in a place where the top two or three are untouched. One thing, however, that makes the game interesting is the following.

Though Nadal and Djokovic have met in the last two Grand Slam finals, the top three have an interesting dynamic: a triangle. It is the case of A, B and C, where, just because A beats B, and B beats C, A doesn't automatically beat C.



Let's make Djokovic A, Nadal B and Federer C.

Djokovic has had no real problems with Rafa in recent matches, as he is 6-0 in all of their meetings in 2011. Nadal seems to have no problems with the Swiss Maestro, leading their head-to-head 17-8. But, Djokovic's matches with Federer are no stroll in the park.

This US Open, Federer was up two sets to love and cruising, seeming to have his hand on Djokovic's throat. In the fifth set, he even held two match points, but somehow, Novak came up with the goods toward the end of the match.

Last year's US Open semifinal with the two was close to the same. Federer held two match points, and still managed to lose the match.

This year, it was Federer who, at the French Open, broke the Serb's magical run of forty-something wins in a row.

This at least gives some variety to the competition between the alpha males of the tennis world.

Now, why is it that the men's game is currently less fun to watch than when it was Federer and Nadal?

It's simple. That was one of the greatest rivalries of all time, despite the fact that Nadal was so dominant in the head-to-head.

That Federer and Nadal were going to put on a show at their next meeting was a given, and the view that their 2008 Wimbledon final is the greatest match of all time is wildly popular.

The current Nadal-Djokovic rivalry is completely lopsided, and it was even before this year. Except that earlier, it was Nadal who dominated the rivalry 16-7. Now, Djokovic has been crushing Nadal so much that their matches don't even compare to those of Federer and Nadal in terms of aesthetic pleasure.

You might even say that it's one man dominating the tennis world, given the fact that Djokovic has won three of the four Grand Slams in 2011.

If it's singular dominance in the current game, then why isn't it as appealing as that of Federer?

Same story: Federer was so fun to watch, and he dominated with style.

Of course, Djokovic is a classy person, as are most people who are at the peak of men's tennis, but there's something inexplicably beautiful about Roger Federer's game.

Djokovic's style of play isn't as fun to watch as that of Nadal or Federer—while it is a very subjective thing, this is a popular view among tennis fans.

Nadal's spartan work ethic and his attitude of relentlessness makes him fun to watch, but Federer's whole game, especially his ballerina-like movement, propels him to Bjorn Borg levels of grace on the court.

Djokovic's game is arguably less fun to watch than that of the other two. While his technique is sound and his talent level is high, some people don't find watching him as fulfilling as watching the Spaniard or the Swiss.

Whatever you call it, single-handed dominance by Djokovic or double dominance by him and Nadal, it's definitely a change from having Nadal and Federer grappling for the tennis crown.

But this change, is it good or bad for tennis fans?

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/8617 ... r-or-worse

[DUN I LOVE]

Sheva, przerzuciłem Twojego posta tutaj, ewentualna dyskusja pójdzie raczej w jednym kierunku.

Jako naczelny maruda i krytyk obecnych rozgrywek zajmę stanowisko. Cóż, słabe to jest według mnie. Być może poziom tenisa jest niebotyczny, intensywność gry szokuje, a przygotowanie fizyczne zawodników zdumiewa, być może oglądamy w akcji trio najlepszych graczy w dziejach (na upartego nawet i to mogę przyznać, bo są podstawy) ale...

Okres po WTF2009 do dziś będę wspominał jako czas niebywałej nudy w tenisie. Schematyczne pojedynki (od meczowej taktyki po końcowy wynik), wielkie oczekiwania przed każdym meczem i jeszcze większe rozczarowania, potęgujące tęsknotę za tym, co oglądałem będąc tenisowym laikiem. Johnathan otwarcie mi zarzucił pisanie głupot, ja staram się trochę wyjaśnić swoje stanowisko. Nie neguję talentu i umiejętności dzisiejszej czołówki, ale odnoszę nieodparte wrażenie, że ci gracze zdecydowanie lepiej funkcjonują w tym biznesie każdy pojedynczo niż, gdy grają między sobą najważniejsze mecze. Przykładowo, jak mam sobie wyobrazić 16krotnego Mistrza WS w meczu z 10krotnego zwycięzcą takich imprez, to oczekuję dużo więcej niż otrzymuję oglądając ich na ekranie. Boli tym bardziej, że przecież Nadal i Federer na korcie są jak ogień i woda. Kiedy już grają kolejne akty swojej legendarnej rywalizacji to ja jednak aż tak tego kontrastu nie widzę. Pewnie to mocno wypacza moją opinię na temat dzisiejszego ATP, jednak wbrew sobie tego nie zmienię.

[sheva]

Murray plays down talk of players' strike



Andy Murray rowed back on suggestions that players could strike over the crowded tennis calendar, saying he and his rivals had been unfairly portrayed as spoilt.

"Me, and not any of the players I know, want to strike," the world number four told his pre-tournament news conference at the Shanghai Masters.

Murray, who is defending his title in Shanghai, said his suggestion last month that players would consider striking had been blown out of proportion.

"When I said it was a possibility, I didn't expect that to be such a massive (media issue)," the Scot said. "It's so far away from being at that level. The players haven't even sat down and talked."

In his remarks to the BBC last month, Murray had said the players, unhappy at being required to play so many tournaments, might discuss strike action when they met up in Shanghai.

However, on Tuesday, the Scot adopted a more measured tone.

"I don't really want to go into much detail. I have nothing really to say... The last time I did, it was turned into a massive hoopla," he said.

"The players, I think, are maybe coming across as being spoilt when I don't think that is the case."

He said the Players' Council would try to organise a meeting "before the end of the year".

"Whether it happens or not... It's quite a tough thing to do because there's a lot of players to coordinate."

Earlier, world number two Rafael Nadal was equally vague when asked if players would discuss the calendar this week.

"I don't think it is the right time to talk about this. Any information you need to know, you will know. There is something there, but I don't want to talk about it, especially when nothing is clear. (So) not talking is better than talking," he said.

The Spaniard dismissed suggestions that talks could not go ahead without the presence of the Players Council's president, world number three Roger Federer, who pulled out of the Shanghai tournament citing fatigue.

"I am the vice president and I am here. That is not the problem in my opinion. I said maybe some things are happening, but I am not a hundred percent sure about what's going on.

"I don't want to say anything because if I say something right now, it might not happen later."

Nadal said he was in touch with "a lot of players" and that they had discussed changing the calendar.

"The important thing is that, yes, I can say most of us, almost everyone, is in the same way of thinking. So we have power. Now we'll have to find what we really want for the future and make that happen if possible."

Top players are required to compete in all four Grand Slams, eight Masters 1000 events, the season-ending World Tour Finals and a handful of lower-tier tournaments. Many also opt to play in the Davis Cup team competition.

Last year, the Shanghai event featured the world's top 16 players but this year four of the top 10 are absent through injury, fatigue or illness, including Federer and world number one Novak Djokovic.

"I think if there were a few extra weeks off, a few less tournaments, then that would help," said Murray, who is seeded second behind Nadal this week.

Murray, who will begin his Shanghai defence against Russian Dmitry Tursunov, was also unhappy that balls were not standardised at tournaments.

"The balls that we have played with over the last three weeks - every one of them is just completely different. I think that's something that I would like to see changed, to have more consistency in the balls.

"It's almost like playing a different game," said Murray, who beat Nadal to win the Japan Open on Sunday, a week after winning in Bangkok.

"If you asked a golfer to change balls every single week, they'd be hitting balls 20 yards too far and hitting shots all over the place."

A spokesman for the men's Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) said the body was unsure if a players' meeting would happen this week.

"We have had talks at the US Open and have such player discussions on a regular basis. We believe the players should have a big voice in the scheduling," he added.
Reuters

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/11102011/ ... trike.html

[sheva]

Rafael Nadal, Andy Murray: Players meeting likely to postpone



The World No. 3 ranked Andy Murray said earlier meeting was held at the Shanghai Masters tournaments, but it’s postponement is likely to 2011 Barclays ATP World Tour Finals event in London.

The 24-year-old Murray said it’s not easy to co-coordinating players’ schedules, where the withdrawals of World No. 1 Novak Djokovic and 16-time Grand Slam champion Roger Federer from the Shanghai masters made the meeting hang. Murray, Nadal and Andy Roddick have been among the players, who were urged for tough tennis schedule. Nadal said ATP has extended the tennis offseason from five to seven weeks, which the players with their bodies and he had played three matches in three days at US Open.

The 2003 US Open winner Roddick said Federer and Djokovic required to be involved in the players meeting for the discussion, which will takes place. He added he will be glad to happen before this year ends. Murray said ATP needs to change little bit the in the tennis calendar, as players might play every tournament without injuries’.

The 2011 US Open champion Djokovic, who was suffering from back pain, sustained in the US Open tournament. Serbian said he had played continues tennis this season with tricky schedule, where he will play Basel Open tournament in Switzerland, which will begin on 31st October.

http://www.livetennisguide.com/2011/10/ ... -postpone/

[sheva]

Ire remains, but players still not united


An irate Andy Roddick complained to officials at the
U.S. Open about wet spots on the playing surface.

SHANGHAI -- There are no political parties in professional tennis, but at certain times in the game there surely is enough politicking and grievances to keep things interesting.

It just so happens that the sport is right now going through one of those times.

Recent player dissatisfaction surfaced at last month's rain-beleaguered U.S. Open. Top players were angered by being asked to play on courts which were still wet or when dry spells were too brief. They were also initially told that in an effort to finish the tournament on time, the players who made it to the finals would have to play every day after the rain -- caused by the passing of Hurricane Irene -- stopped.

The players were incensed and pushed back. Rafael Nadal and Andy Roddick, two of the game's marquee names, marched themselves into tournament referee Brian Earley's office to air their complaints. And they were loud and clear when in news conferences they blasted USTA organizers for not handling the situation in an optimal fashion.

In the end, the players won out and the semifinals took place on Saturday with the finals on Monday, allowing for a day off on Sunday.

That successful mini-revolt in New York also set the stage for the players to again argue that the current tour schedule doesn't allow for a long enough offseason. Some players also took the opportunity to lobby for a bigger share of the financial pie, offering as evidence that the U.S. Open brings in millions of dollars but only distributes about 12 to 13 percent of that pot in player prize money.

It was also at the U.S. Open that the players started hinting at the possibility of unionizing to become a more formidable force to take on the ATP and ITF. Old-timers around the game thought this was kind of humorous as the ATP started as a player's union in the '70s before it took over control of the tour in the '90s.

When they left New York, the players appeared energized. They had settled on plans to meet weeks later at the Shanghai Rolex Masters.

So, halfway through the Shanghai tournament this week, where does the latest player revolt stand?

Not any further along than they were at the U.S. Open.

Original plans for a formal player huddle to discuss issues and a course of action has been shelved due to the absence of world No. 1 Novak Djokovic and No. 3 Roger Federer.

Roddick, who clearly has set himself up as the ringleader, is happy to talk about the situation. He's hoping his colleagues have remained "passionate" about the cause.

"I think it would be dumb of us to rush anything," Roddick says. "If something like this does happen, we need to be smart about it and take our time and make sure that it's well thought out and not be kind of reactionary."

Nadal, the vice president of the Player Council, subscribes to the theory that there's no point in talking about it at all when no solid decisions have been made.

"Maybe some things are happening but if I am not 100 percent sure about what's going on, I don't want to say something," Nadal said. "The important thing is I'm sure we are, most of us, almost everyone, in the same way. So like this, we have power."

And Andy Murray believes his recent comment that a strike could be a possibility was taken out of context, so he now prefers that discussions remain private among the players.

"The players haven't met," Murray said. "When we do, then I think it's really between the ATP and the ITF to try and come to an agreement. And until something is kind of done in writing or there has been any discussion, there is not really any point in saying anything because it just starts speculation."

It should be noted that it's not only the top 10 players who are lobbying for change. Juan Carlos Ferrero, a former French Open champion currently ranked No. 68, would have reason to support both sides of the argument. But he's picked a side to support.

"I say we should play a little bit less, for sure, after the long career I've been through," said the 31-year-old Spaniard. "It's very difficult to be ready every week and we start the first of January and finish the second week of November. The calendar is very long and we have to travel, so it's difficult.

"But I know the owners of the tournaments want to play every week. I am a co-owner of the Valencia tournament and I don't want to have it off [the schedule]. I am on both sides, but I am more with the players for the moment."

From what did come through this week, Murray isn't as hot on the topic of more prize money as Roddick seems to be. On Wednesday, Murray said he's thankful for the sizable paychecks he receives. He is also worrying that all of the talk -- sometimes inaccurate -- will end up with the players getting a bad rap.

"There's no truth behind a lot of the things that are being said," Murray said. "The players, I think are, maybe, coming across as being spoiled when I don't think that is the case."

Concessions are already in the cards for 2012.

Complaints about the length of the season have been ongoing the past few years and the ATP will end next season two weeks earlier than this year. No tournaments were axed from the schedule, but a number of events had their dates shifted to allow for the earlier finish. And there will no longer be a week off in between Paris-Bercy and the year-end tournament.

Roddick, however, says that isn't sufficient. He also says that since he joined the tour full-time in 2001, the men's calendar's actually gotten longer.

"When I started in '01, I remember Bercy being the last event of the year and I would celebrate Halloween there," Roddick said. "Now it's [Bercy] mid-November. It's November 14th that Bercy finishes."

Brad Drewett, the ATP CEO, International Group, wasn't around the U.S. Open for this latest player uprising. But he said the tour considers player concerns a priority.

"We are constantly talking with the players about tournaments and the best balance for the calendar," he said. "I just know that we, the ATP, have a great relationship with the Player's Council and we're constantly working with them on whatever the issues might be, week in and week out. It's an ongoing process."

One thing is for certain. It's going to take a lot of patience, dedication and desire from the players to turn themselves from disgruntled independent contractors into a cohesive group with common-interest goals.

Roddick believes that tennis authorities are banking on the players being unable to come to a consensus.

"At this point, I think the main thing is a voice," Roddick said. "At a certain point, it needs to be more than conversation and more than talk. We'll see if the time is now. It does take unity. When you're dealing with a hundred separate entities as opposed to a certain amount of teams, I think that's harder and that's probably been why it's been divided. The powers that be in tennis have successfully bet on us being divided so far, and they're smart for it."

For his part, Roddick is banking on the players being able to eventually prove the authorities wrong.

http://espn.go.com/tennis/story/_/id/70 ... bor-issues

[Robertinho]

Murray's three steps toward Grand Slam greatness





Novak Djokovic and Roger Federer being out, Rafael Nadal being tired and full of self-doubt... all of these have made for a very happy Andy Murray right now.

The Scotsman was able to take his chance during the Asian Swing and so claimed three titles: the ATP 250 in Bangkok, the ATP 500 in Tokyo and ATP Masters 1000 in Shanghai.

But for Murray those victories are about more than just winning a lot of points, and becoming world number three by leapfrogging Roger Federer (who is slowly but surely going on in his fall in the rankings). The wins have filled Murray with confidence.

I've always banged on about how there's no substitute for winning. After all, it's how Novak Djokovic became the player he is right now: his amazing streak was born out of consistent victories, and was reinforced by continuing wins. It's a virtuous circle that has given him outstanding strength.

So Andy fully deserves the congratulations after his hat-trick of wins, despite the circumstances that have led others to question their worth. Winning three tournaments in a row requires a huge amount of focus and will, no matter who is on the other side of the net.



That fact is vitally important for the new world number three. Murray is a player who has often fallen victim to losing his concentration for spells during a match, but he has shown in the clearest possible manner that he is overcoming that weakness.

He will, without any doubt, find new strength and belief after this spell of success. The effect of the 2011 Asian Swing will be a defining moment for his level of play, his consistency, and his entire career.

His technical and tactical abilities have always been a match for those of Djokovic, Nadal and Federer. Not so his consistency, confidence and ability to deal with frustration.

And that's exactly what these three titles will help him address. He will move forward from here with more confidence, greater serenity and enhanced mental toughness. It's a real step towards his first Grand Slam title.

http://eurosport.yahoo.com/tennis/patri ... icle/2611/

[jonathan]

Jako naczelny maruda i krytyk obecnych rozgrywek zajmę stanowisko. Cóż, słabe to jest według mnie. Być może poziom tenisa jest niebotyczny, intensywność gry szokuje, a przygotowanie fizyczne zawodników zdumiewa, być może oglądamy w akcji trio najlepszych graczy w dziejach (na upartego nawet i to mogę przyznać, bo są podstawy) ale...

Okres po WTF2009 do dziś będę wspominał jako czas niebywałej nudy w tenisie. Schematyczne pojedynki (od meczowej taktyki po końcowy wynik), wielkie oczekiwania przed każdym meczem i jeszcze większe rozczarowania, potęgujące tęsknotę za tym, co oglądałem będąc tenisowym laikiem. Johnathan otwarcie mi zarzucił pisanie głupot, ja staram się trochę wyjaśnić swoje stanowisko. Nie neguję talentu i umiejętności dzisiejszej czołówki, ale odnoszę nieodparte wrażenie, że ci gracze zdecydowanie lepiej funkcjonują w tym biznesie każdy pojedynczo niż, gdy grają między sobą najważniejsze mecze. Przykładowo, jak mam sobie wyobrazić 16krotnego Mistrza WS w meczu z 10krotnego zwycięzcą takich imprez, to oczekuję dużo więcej niż otrzymuję oglądając ich na ekranie. Boli tym bardziej, że przecież Nadal i Federer na korcie są jak ogień i woda. Kiedy już grają kolejne akty swojej legendarnej rywalizacji to ja jednak aż tak tego kontrastu nie widzę. Pewnie to mocno wypacza moją opinię na temat dzisiejszego ATP, jednak wbrew sobie tego nie zmienię.

Ja jako fan tenisa cieszę się, że mogę obserwować rywalizację trzech genialnych zawodników, którzy trafili na siebie w ostatnich latach. Dla mnie oglądanie ich meczów to uczta dla oka. To taka ucieczka przed szarością i codziennością życia. Chociaż na chwilę mogę się wyłączyć i całkowicie zaangażować w ich prostą sportową rywalizację. I pozwól, ze dalej będę podziwiał takie epickie spotkania jak te z udziałem Djokovicia, Nadala, Federera, czasem nawet Murray'a, a Ty patrząc choćby na trzeci set finału US Open możesz rzucić w kierunku telewizora "słabe to, oczekiwałem czegoś więcej, co za zubożenie wrażeń" i przełączyć kanał na zakłamanych polityków, którzy biadolą w stopniu podobnym do Ciebie, z tą różnicą, że oni akurat o nieuchronnym kryzysie.

[...]Nie neguję talentu i umiejętności dzisiejszej czołówki, ale odnoszę nieodparte wrażenie, że ci gracze zdecydowanie lepiej funkcjonują w tym biznesie każdy pojedynczo niż, gdy grają między sobą najważniejsze mecze[...]

Ja myślę zupełnie inaczej. Uważam, że ci tenisiści wpłynęli na swój rozwój i to właśnie głównie dzięki temu, że każdy chciał na korcie każdego dogonić, tenis jest teraz na takim, według mnie, bardzo wysokim poziomie. Widzę też przepaść między Top 4 a całą resztą stawki w tworzeniu porywających batalii.