Talk About Tennis 2.0

But he's still really the only villain we have in tennis today. And it's a role he has created and accepted voluntarily.
I see what you're saying, but who are we to tell him exactly how he should behave, or exactly what kind of villain he should be?
We should just be happy ( ) that he has emerged as a villain, because tennis today, with it's monotonous playing style, would be less interesting without him.

One of the things that surprised me with frequency at TAT1.0 (and now here) was when somebody would say "who are we to tell Player X how to behave? Who are we to say that Player Y is doing something wrong".
It always cracked me up in the sense that it sort of implies that these players are actually reading us. "Oh, new member, THE_Nkyrgios wants activation" (and TOG goes and approves it).
Who are we to tell players how they should behave? We are the entities that eventually buy a ticket for a stadium, turn on the TV to watch their match (and then leave it on and go do something else) and get the ratings going up, meaning their endorsements go up.
We are the small people that turn up to watch Coriolanus slaughter somebody else, even though Coriolanus despises us.

And then, coming back to our Coriolanus of today, Nick pulls over and assists two elderly people change their flat. And we are left puzzled, wondering how he can be this cool on a trivial thing, and then claim he does not miss this sport that we love.
I am so ready to change the name of this forum to RAMBLE About Tennis. For the sake of accuracy.
(And, not surprisingly, rat.com is taken, but for sale. For a cool $240,000. Sure, makes sense).

Of course fans have every right to complain about a player, and to criticize, as well as praise.
But, in the context of a villain, I'm just saying that we should be happy to have someone who accepts the role of villain today. And, as such, we should allow him to dictate what his villainous behaviour will be.

Deuce you make some great points about Nick the villain and your comparisons to Nastase Connors McEnroe. Yes, all four are villains, super talented and they add value to tennis. But where Nick loses out is he doesn't commit to tennis like the other 3. He doesn't win like the other 3. He certainly isn't a former world number 1 grand slam winning champion like the other 3. And never will be. And that's the problem. He has to offer more than being a villain. He doesn't want practice let alone actually play a real match. Is he even really a tennis player at this point??

Story about Connors, to show some differences:
Borg had won RG and W, and was going for the USO. Had he won it, that would have left him only the Aussie to get a Grand Slam. Borg had by then stopped going to Australia (it was that dreadful December slot in those days) and so had Connors. Asked about whether he would also go to Australia if Borg would go, Connors deadpanned: "I will chase him to the end of the world".
His meaning was not that he would go to Australia to PLAY the tournament, he would go to Australia to STOP Borg.
There's a villain. He simply could not swallow Borg having a Slam, while he had been denied his chance (in '74) to get his.

Do you guys want no content on Sascha? I have no idea. So, here's a brother Zverev moment.

JazzNU wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 7:17 am

She is THE BEST!!! Thanks for the post.

Kevin

Konta



Siniakova

Is that the best Konta has looked in almost ever?

ti-amie wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 7:23 pm Is that the best Konta has looked in almost ever?

Wearing jeans and a black top in a back alley? Yes, it is.

But it was a low bar to begin with.
Her jeans are too high on her hips. And remember, I am the guy that dies for a girl in jeans and a T-shirt.

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 7:25 pm But it was a low bar to begin with.
Her jeans are too high on her hips. And remember, I am the guy that dies for a girl in jeans and a T-shirt.

"Mom jeans" are back in style. Ya gotta keep up my friend.