- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Is tennis the most unforgiving sport if you're 3rd or 4th best?
Posted on 6/12/23 at 8:55 pm to Boss
Posted on 6/12/23 at 8:55 pm to Boss
The problems of financials for the non-top tier guys is something that I think the power brokers in the sport are somewhat aware of — although idk what they plan to do about it if anything. Novak recently brought up the fact tennis is watched by probably billions worldwide each year, yet only around 500 people can make a decent living playing as pros — and that’s men and women combined. Obviously that is a bit of a problem for the sport and for growing the sport. Maybe that estimate was a tad low but it’s not far off. I think life is tough for any of the guys (and gals) outside the top 200-250. The wealth tends to accumulate to the top guys, and this increases their advantage as they can pay for whole staffs of coaches/trainers/physios etc. So if you are a guy just around the top 100, you maybe have money for a coach, but that’s about it.
Hell there was a pro player in the US Open a few years back who was late to one of his matches b/c he had to take public transportation (MTA) to his damn match lol. I can’t remember who it was but but he was not just some guy who was ranked 500 in the world — I think he was around a top 100 player and was taking the subway to get to his match to save money.
Hell there was a pro player in the US Open a few years back who was late to one of his matches b/c he had to take public transportation (MTA) to his damn match lol. I can’t remember who it was but but he was not just some guy who was ranked 500 in the world — I think he was around a top 100 player and was taking the subway to get to his match to save money.
This post was edited on 6/12/23 at 9:00 pm
0
Posted on 6/12/23 at 11:28 pm to usc6158
quote:
It only really feels this way because of the shear dominance of Federer, Nadal, and Djok. Before them, this wasn't how it was and once Nole is gone, it will likely go back to there being far more parity, especially with Alcaraz already having some injuries.
Before Fed, Sampras was dominant with 14 Grand Slams, Agassi had 8, Becker had six, Edberg had 6, Courier had 4. Era before them Borg had 11, Lendl had 8, Conners had 8, McEnroe had 7.
It always seemed like the torch was passed from Borg to Lendl, to Edberg, to Sampras, to Federer and then to Djokovic. There always seemed to be a really strong second like Agassi or Nadal in the wing.
It was very much the same way with a few players being massively dominant in their time and not much parity. The guys like Michael Chang who broke through with a single slam are very much a rarity.
This post was edited on 6/12/23 at 11:30 pm
Posted on 6/13/23 at 10:03 am to usc6158
quote:
It only really feels this way because of the shear dominance of Federer, Nadal, and Djok. Before them, this wasn't how it was and once Nole is gone, it will likely go back to there being far more parity, especially with Alcaraz already having some injuries.
There have been periods where there this wasn't how it was, but mostly it is how it is.
The first half of the 70s there wasn't as much clear dominance, but the second half of the 70s was basically Connors, Borg, and Vilas.
In the 80s it was basically Mcenroe, Connors, Lendl, Becker, and Edberg.
In the 90s, it was basically Sampras, Agassi, and then the best clay court player would win the french (Muster, Bruguera, Kuerten).
Early aughts was a bit of a power void with Hewitt, Roddick, late-stage-Agassi, and Safin all being in the mix.
Then Fedsmug filled that void and vultured the tf out of those stragglers, including now-geriatric-Agassi, until Nadal finally fully completed puberty and started kicking Fed's arse, with them winning basically everything until Novak really REALLY broke through in late 2010 and 2011.
Fromthen basically until just recently it was Novak, Rafa, Murray, Fed, and Stanimal, with the only real exceptions being Del Potro (who, to be fair, was briefly the best hardcourt player in the world and whose career would have played out very differently absent his signifcant wrist issues) and Cilic, who I would say was the only real outlier (even though he was obviously a top-level player).
Posted on 6/13/23 at 10:05 am to Boss
quote:
If you go back to '03, it is naturally stacked with Fed, Nadal, and Djokovic.
2003 was stacked with Nadal and Djokovic? You sure?
Posted on 6/13/23 at 10:08 am to Boss
quote:
Perfect example: Yosuke Watanuki.
He is playing in Stuttgart right now.
25 years old
Current ranking 121
Lifetime earnings 595k
Averages about 80k a year.
His brother is his coach. No trainer. Most likely has to pay for all of his travel.
Does has sponsorships with Babolat and Asics.
But he doesn't make enough to afford a real coach, a trainer, and all of things that could get him an advantage.
And he was world number 2 as a junior. Just a brutal sport.
If you aren't in the top 150, you're basically losing money to play tennis. Between 100-150 can maybe stay afloat living ridiculously cheaply. Top 100 guys are all earning a living. Top ten guys are loaded.
It's a brutal meritocracy. Which I dig.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News