Ha! My friend's opinion was, "You don't see ballboys at baseball games wearing huge pictures of people playing basketball, do you?"

See, I wish Roger would do more endorsements. It would improve his visibility to the general public and help tennis in general. Roddick might get criticized for doing too much and being everywhere, but the attention he brings to himself ultimately brings attention to the sport. The only tv ad I've seen Roger do is that cheesy Wilson N-Code Racquet ad with the W's and HH.



Agassi dropped Nike after they refused to donate money to his charities or something. Don't know about Mary, but her plunge in the ranking probably didn't help, of course as someone said earlier she doesn't really want to deal with sponsors anyway. The Polo logos were obnoxious weren't they? Those boxes they had on the court were a hazard to the players. I'm suprised more players didn't outright trip over them.

Hee. Pierce doesn't want to bother with sponsors. As Carillo explained, she wants the freedom and "does not want to answer to anyone."

In response to TonyBoy123's post I think they are working on raising the profile of tennis in the US with these promotional tours. It seems to have worked, as attendance and the ratings for the US Open are way, way up this year. I think tennis is only experiencing a slump in popularity in the USA, as everywhere else in the world the sport is well-received.

IMO part of what's hurting the popularity of tennis in the USA is, paradoxically, the tendency of networks to focus on US players all the time. The problem with that strategy is that I'd be bored out of my mind too if all I ever got to see was Ginepri, Blake, Roddick, Dent and Agassi. Good players, yes, but in terms of charisma, skill, flair and passion for the game these guys don't hold a candle to the likes of Safin, Nadal, Feds, Nalby, Coria, Moya et al. For instance I read an article recently that said that Federer's dominance was the worst thing that could ever happen to tennis. I was completely baffled why someone would say something so inane, until I realized that the reporter was bemoaning the lack of public interest in dominant players from other shores. Maybe people in the media shouldn't automatically assume that Americans are automatically resistant to foreign faces: a lot of us are in it for the game and just want to see it played beautifully.

ETA: Anyway I kind of strayed for a bit there, but I think someone like Marat Safin should definitely do more endorsements and get more TV adverts to promote tennis, rather than Feds. I know that if Safin was trying to sell me shoes, a ticket to the Open, a soda or a racket I'd buy it. A-Rod's a bit of a joke at this point, and his ubiquity might not be doing tennis any favors.

ETA2: Well blackwing I don't think it's Federer's fault that he basically has no competition at this point, save for Safin, Gasquet and Nadal. It's really the fault of the other players who let themselves be "steam rollered."

Count me among those who think that Federer's dominance is the worst thing that could ever happen to tennis. It has nothing to do with him being foreign. The men's game is so uninteresting to me right now, because inevitably Federer makes it to the finals, and ya know, he's won 23 straight finals, so he's going to win again. I know some people think his game is beautiful and a joy to watch. I'm not one of them. I prefer to see competition. It's not fun to me to watch Federer steam roll over others.

The women's game to me is so much more interesting right now. It's so much more competitive. More or less, there's a lot of parity and on a good day, any of the top 10 could beat any of the others.

And here is the where the division lies amongst tennis fans - are they fans along the lines of preferring

a) Tennis itself as a sport.

or

b) Head-to-Head Competition ?

because you don't like Roger, of course you're going to say that. What if your favourite player X was steamrolling? Would you be saying the same thing?

I'm definitely in boat a) - good tennis is good tennis - I don't care who's playing.

I'm sure it comes to no one's surprise that I think the complete opposite. Men's tennis is so much more competitive and I think the Open just proved that. There were great matches from the very beginning. As much as I like the women, the vast majority of the matches were completely uninteresting until the quarterfinals. The final round of the men's side may be a given, but the women's side has at least four rounds where there isn't much competition at all. Which one of those finals was actually competitive?

blackwing, you didn't enjoy seeing Hewitt and Agassi raise their game to compete with Federer? I'm not a huge fan of Safin (although I like him), but I really appreciate the match he played in Australia to beat Roger. He is going to lose a final at some point. At least you have that. And the fact that he doesn't play every tournament. Nadal has 9 titles and Gaudio has 5.

I think this is exactly way the top player in the world needs to marketed better. If you were not an avid tennis viewer in the US the players you are most familiar with are Agassi and Roddick. The top player, Federer, however, is not on first and foremost on their minds and that is an essential problem in tennis. While Jordan and Woods are both great athletes, you wonder if their notoriety in the their perspective sports would be as high if not for the endless ads proclaiming their greatness. Now, I don't think Federer could get nearly as high a profile as those athletes, he would get more attention to himself and subsequently the sport if he were to avail himself to a few more sponsorships.



Blake, Roddick, and Agassi seem pretty charismatic to me. Agassi and Roddick seem to have an appeal not only in the US, but internationally as well. I agree that there needs to be more of an emphasis players of all nationalities, but I don't see them ever being as hyped as Americans are. I would think that would be true in most countries where there is a highly ranked or high profile player. Do the Australians hype Hewitt more than other players? What about Nadal or Ferrero in Spain? I think it is just natural, but I do think that there needs to be a balance.

Invariably, when one person or one team wins time after time, it is a bit natural to want somebody else to win, unless you have a personal interest in the dominant individual or team. Being from Chicago, I loved the Michael Jordan dynasty Bulls. I know a lot of the country did not. I like Lance Armstrong's domination because he is American and I don't know any of the other cyclists. But it did make for boring Tours. I hate the Yankees because they always win, amongst other reasons. I hate the Patriots because nobody can beat them - and because I don't like Tom Brady. And I hate Federer - not only for reasons I've already said - but for the fact that nobody can beat him.

It's not his fault he's a step above everyone else and that nobody can catch up to him. But it's not my fault either for hating the guy. I don't like him and I never will. And I look forward to the day when he loses and has a reason to have that permanent bitter face.

Awesome smackdown. And, I totally agree.

I personally feel priviledged to be able to watch someone of Federer's skill in my lifetime. I missed Lendl, I missed McEnroe, so for me to be able to watch Feds play (and dominate) is a great thrill. I guess I enjoy the tennis more than I enjoy just watching a bunch of boring, over-exposed fellow Americans. I'll root for the guy who plays like he was born to, not the popular guys who'll take whatever endorsement deals that come their way.

Was that a Nike symbol that I saw on Roger's shirts? He wore one every match. Does he have a deal with them? And no way am I going to fault him for turning down other deals -- not everyone is a total fame/money whore. I'm sure that Roger enjoys looking at all of his tournament trophies than he would enjoy watching himself in stupid-ass mojo commercials after his first-round loss in the USO.

Yes, Roger has a Nike deal.

Fortunately (or not, depending on how you look at it), ratings were up 100% from last year's final.

Not suprisingly, I disagree. As Distant Sun said, the men's event was much better than the women's at this year's US Open. Many more competitive and high quality matches from the get go. Even in the later rounds, you couldn't say that the matches were high quality in the women's event. It was a downer. And I say this as someone who likes Kim Clijsters and was thoroughly happy that she won. It's not because my fave didn't win.

No kidding. I find the women's tour really tough to get behind these days, though I am hoping that the steady dominance of Clijsters this summer bodes well. Just as I feel that Federer's dominance is great for tennis - it helps elevate the level of play throughout the field and speaks to the specialness of finessing both the mental and physical aspects of the game. I don't see it as the arbiter of doom, as some are wont to say.

Roger has deals with Nike, Wilson, and Maurice LaCroix watches (not Rolex, or Timex, and let them have Sharapova if they want....).

Two hours until Letterman. It'll be interesting to see how it pans out!

I didn't save to my TiVo harddrive the Federer-McEnroe interview, and I'm really sad. There has to be a place to find those, but I'll be damned if I know where to start.

And, finally, word to your entire post, Helter Skelter.

No. Agassi switched to Adidas because he requires that his sponsors support his foundation, and Nike wouldn't. Pierce has foregone endorsements and buys her own clothes and shoes (I don't know if she has other advertisements or not) because she doesn't want to put up with the corporate BS.

And I'm really weird on the whole mens vs. womens game thing. I thought the men provided the most exciting matches early on in the USO. But starting with the Williams round of 16, I was much more interested in the women's part of the tournament. The women's final was meh, but I blame that on the prime time element. However, the quarters and semis were riveting.

From the men's quarters on, I was pretty bored. The Agassi/Ginepri match should've been spellbinding, but I was so uninterested, I ran to the grocery store in the middle. I stopped watching the final to catch a rerun of "Charmed". Men's tennis is boring nowadays.

Does anyone know where to find the commercial for the Canon Rebel camera, with Agassi and Graf teaching different tennis 'styles'? I really liked this one.

Wow! I thought Blake/Agassi and Ginepri/Coria were both outstanding matches filled with drama and great tennis. Do you mean from the semis on?

I love men's tennis right now. Roger may be alone right now at the top but the depth of talent is so deep that you can find some really great matches, regardless of the ranking differentials between the two players. And I do think that Federer will start to have more rivals. Nadal does get under his skin, some of other younger players could really be a force in the upcoming years, Safin does have the ability for sure, and Hewitt is maybe beginning to figure out a method (could Roddick learn from this?). In addition, I have watched some pretty freakin' fantastic men's matches this year -

* Safin/Federer at the Aussie Open
* Nadal/ Hewitt at the Aussie Open
* Hewitt/Nalbandian at the Aussie Open
* Federer/Nadal at Miami
* Federer/Gasquet at Monte Carlo
* Coria/Nadal at Rome
* JCF/Safin at Roland Garros
* Nadal/Puerta at Roland Garros
* Murray/Nalbandian at Wimbledon
* Santoro/Federer at USO
* Murray/Pavel at the USO (upchuck included!)
* Sanguinetti/Schrichipan at USO
* Djokovic/Monfils at USO
* Agassi/Blake at USO

I also liked the Ginepri/Agassi match. Robby may not dazzle me (don't think he ever will) but he had some great play and it was a well fought match. Also liked Ginepri's match with Coria (darn double faults!). Unpopular opinion for sure- but as I have stated, I love watching Coria when he is on- he really is one of the smartest players out there in terms of point construction.

I just find men's tennis far from boring - I think there is a great level of skill out there with a variance of personalites. The women did take a while to gear up at the USO - but they had some great semis and that was fun.

Roger looked really nice on Letterman. Seemed a little nervous, but I thought he did well.

Whew! I thought Roger did well on Letterman. After the recent stumbles with American idioms I was worried that he might have a rough go on Letterman too, but I thought it went well, that he looked hot (no surprise there), and was charming. I had a bad feeling about this appearance, because I actually didn't think Dave was a tennis fan (I'd be happy to be corrected on this point, however), and I think you kind of have to "get" the Letterman vibe or be completely obliviouis in general to do well. And I don't think Roger would fufill either of those conditions.

But good on him for doing it.

Richard Sandomir in the Times has an odd take on the commenting (I'm sorry, but I just can't bear "commentate" as a word, much less a verb) on the men's final. It sounds as if he thinks the guys were consciously trying to make it seem as though Agassi was the likely victor. But the article isn't all that clear.

NY Times on Men's Final Broadcast

Agassii is now with Adidas for 3 years because he is getting more money and they are donating money to his school/fiundation in Las Vegas. Not to mentioin that Steffi wore Adidas for her entire career and still wears the brand, etc. So him going with Adidas is also a family decision.



Ditto. The men out did the women this year hands down. The women have gotten dull. Steffi is my fave women's player of all time. And I actually found women's tennis more exciting and quality when she plalyed along with Evert, Martina N., Sabatini, Seles, Capriati, Novotna, Sanchez-Vicario, etc. I like the girls today but something is missing. But the men did better and were more exciting with the best stories.

Here's more on ratings from Tennis Week:

I didn't watch the Federer on Dave last night, fell a sleep! I know dumbass. But how was the interview? Did Dave say Roger was the best ever or was it a funny and entertaining interview? Details please!

Interesting article Harry24, I agree, it was hysterical when JMac said Federer was choking (wishful thinking much), what an Ass.

And the only thing good about Agassi is his wife, although I do question her judgement.

Always seems to me like Agassi is playing to the cameras and trying to act cute- which I hate.

Distant Sun said:


ITA! The women's matches are nearly all blowouts until the quarters whereas the men's can be 5-set marathons where both men play their top level and are ready to drop from exhaustion in their efforts to win.

Now, I know for some people the idea that any of a whole group could win the whole thing is important. But in the slams especially, I don't care until perhaps the quarters about who is going to be the champion. I just like to see great tennis.

I wasn't shocked by the ratings for the men's final, b/c it was after the football games and Agassi is a sentimental favorite. I am shocked by the ratings going up for the women's final since they aren't household names.

Coria/Ginepri was good, but other than that, I enjoyed the early round men's matches a lot more. The early round women's matches weren't good, but once they hit the quarters, they were exciting. The final wasn't good, but you'd have to go back a few years to find an exciting women's final. I blame the USO scheduling.

Two words for you: Kuznetsova and Dementieva. Overall, I think we have to applaud the US Open Series for at least some of the increased audience.


I'd agree that the early rounds were better on the men's side. Still, I think it's a case of quality and quantity for the men versus a small handful of quality matches for the women. IMO, Sanguinetti/Srichaphan was the match of the tournament, but Blake/Agassi, Muller/Roddick, Federer/Santoro, Hewitt/Dent, Monfils/Djokovic, Agassi/Karlovic, Blake/Nadal, Nadal/Jenkins, Ginepri/Coria, and Ginepri/Gasquet all had some magical moments. Come to think of it, this might just be the best slam in a while for the men.

Thanks for that article, Harry24. The funny thing is I currently reside in Asia right now and I'm quite grateful for it because I don't have to put up with assworthy, lopsided commentating during tennis matches. Both players played extremely well during the first three sets, I thought. If anyone choked it was Agassi after that third set tiebreak that didn't go his way.

I find this occurring quite often with televised sporting events, i.e., the announcers jumping on the frontrunner's bandwagon, particularly if it's a crowd favorite. I happened to be at the men's final so I missed that broadcast, but for the entire USO up until Super Saturday I watched the matches on both USA and CBS without sound, so I wasn't influenced by crowd noise or announcers (although I did miss McEnroe and Carillo for their wit and personalities).

Does anyone know how the tennis rankings work?

I'm sort of baffled how certain players still drop down in the rankings even if winning a decent amount of matches.

You get a certain amount of points the further you advance in a tournament. The Grand Slams award the most points, followed by the Masters Series events. Your best X (I'm not sure how many) tournaments are counted, but the slams and MS are mandatory. The points are counted for a rolling 52-week period. Essentially, you are always playing to "defend" the points you received at that same point last year. Here's an example: Coming into the Open, Roddick was #3, Hewitt was #4, and Safin was #5 (but they were all very close). Even though Safin pulled out of the Open (zero points), he was only defending a first-round loss from 2004. He lost very little. OTOH, Roddick's first-round defeat was 4 rounds worse than his QF loss last year, so he fell behind Safin. Hewitt lost fewer points than Roddick (semis versus final), but not enough to move ahead of him.

Robby Ginepri's semifinal appearance allowed him to jump 25 places to #21. Tim Henman's first-round loss (after reaching the semis in '04) caused him to tumble 16 spots to #28.

Thanks for the link to Richard Sandomir's NY Times article. I had read that this morning before seeing the post and I felt he was being a bit "tough" on Enberg, McEnroe and Carillo. That said, there is no question the match took an abrupt turn in Federer's favor at 4-2 in the third set. Perhaps Agassi would have had a decent chance to win the match if he could have finished out the third set at 6-3 or so, but once it went into the tiebreaker it was as though a switch was turned on for Federer's (or for that matter, "off" for Agassi) and it was all downhill for Agassi from there.

It is good to see the ratings up for both the women and men. Of course, the women's final was more compelling than last year's, and the presence of Agassi assured a substantial increase in viewership for the men's final. CBS couldn't have asked for a better men's final for ratings purposes given the nature of the draw and the fact that Roddick went out in the first round. But having Agassi face Federer was an ideal matchup.

I saw Fed on Letterman. I can see how he can come off as arrogant, but he mentions his dominance in such an off-hand, casual way that I don't mind. Plus, he has the cutest acccent, and lovely hands. On a less superficial note, I read in my newspaper that Roger was one of the first to txt message Kim a note of congratulations after her victory. Given a lot of male tennis players' attitudes toward the WTA, I love him even more....I'm talking about Mary Carillo love.

What about his charity work?

I agree that Agassi used to be a punk, but I cant help it. I love him. And I think hes grown up a lot.

Oh, I love him too. I think he is just pretty matter of fact...which does strike some people as arrogant. But I don't think he means to be. I think he just does not really have artifice and does not hide his confidence. I think that lack of artifice ties into why he has no agent, no real entourage, etc. I also believe that the lack of artifice is what makes him so nice to the other players and is why he is so well liked. And he still has great quotes- I loved how when he was the best ever he said



Hee!

I thought he did a good job on Letterman. Had a hard time at one point understanding one of Letterman's jokes but was sweet. And he looked really, really good. Roger has really gotten a good fashion sense this past year- he looks so much better this year during the talk shows than last year with the hair wings and jeans. Here is a picture from Letterman. Not the best angle for him but like seneca- I love his hands. They are lovely.

I can't recall- but during the final did they show Gavin Rosedale sitting in Roger's friend's box right next to Mirka? I know he is a tennis nut and I guess they are pretty friendly.

I missed him on Letterman, but I love this picture of Roger Federer.

He certainly has grown up a lot. According to this article, it appears Agassi is the most generous athlete out there.



You also gotta admire an athlete who is still plugging away while all of his peers have long since retired.

Okay, I give him props for charity work but I still haven't forgiven him for Barbara Streisand.

Does anyone know where I can get the transcript for the David Letterman interview, free of course? I now regret not staying up. I had considered it but I knew that guy whose son of Dr. Phil was coming on so I figure Roger's interview to be really short and since I had to get up really early the next day for work, I didn't stay up. Now I wish I did!

taylor3698, the transcript of Fed's interview is up in Menstennisforums.com, in the Roger Federer thread.

ETA: I don't think so jimena. I haven't seen it in Fed's news, articles and appearances threads. Maybe it's in one of the older ones in the general discussion forums?

Is there a transcript on MTF of Roger's interview with JMac?

Thanks so much print_whore!! Do you know if there is an transcript of John Macenroe on the David Letterman show? I just want to see if he what he said and see how right or wrong his predictions came to.

Wasn't there some rumor about Agassi dating Streisand's son back then, and Babs was the cover? I can't imagine I created a story like that in my own head.

As for Letterman, if you go to the CBS site, it links to The Late Show's. Click on Wahoo Gazette and select the right date of his appearance and although it's not an exact transcript, the info you're looking for is probably there.

I think that was just a rumor. I think Babs is too....Babs to be anyones cover. And I figure he was young, and dumb, and figured "hey! A little Brooke Shields will cleanse the pallete? Huh? Come on."

I still haven't forgiven him for wearing a weave after he was bald.

Agassi wore an weave?! Yikes I didn't know that! I do think he and Babs were an item for a short while.

taylor3698 I tried looking for a transcript of McEnroe on Letterman at Men's Tennis Forums but I couldn't find it. Did the Wahoo Gazette link work for you?

I was never a big Brooke Shields fan, but considering she was probably the one who got Andre to shave his head, props to her. He used to be an incredibly hairy guy. It must be a lot of maintenance to wax such a large % of his surface area. Do you think that's one of Gil's responsibilities?

print_whore, the only link I went to was Menstennisforums.com (I went to the Players section then I click on Roger Federer). What is the Wahoo Gazette link? I tried to google it and then I click on it but I don't see J McEnroe interview in it. Thanks again for helping me out!

taylor3698, I think iMissEthan suggested it a couple of posts above, that it's on the CBS site. From what I understand the gist of it was that JMac went on the Letterman show talking up a storm about Roger Federer and tennis whilst Dave was generally oblivious to what he was saying. (I didn't see this particular appearance so this is just what I gleaned from the comments of other posters who'd seen it.) Hope this helps a little bit!

Because I'm nice, although the info you're looking for isn't quite there.