posted July 06 2008 09:05 AM                

Yesterday's women's final was great and all but today is really what I have been waiting for.  Who can beat Rafa Nadal v. Roger Federer?  No one.  If the weather would cooperate, I will be very happy.  I want to see Federer beat Sampras' record but it is awfully hard to not want Nadal to win.  I just hope it goes more than three sets.

posted July 06 2008 03:36 PM                

Wow.  This hasn't just been breakfast at Wimbledon, it has been breakfast, lunch and dinner there.

Five sets!  Go Rafa!

posted July 07 2008 06:29 PM                

Ok, I get it that maybe  there aren't a lot of tennis fans here but that match yesterday was the BEST I HAVE EVER SEEN.

Awesome!

posted July 07 2008 08:13 PM           

Typically, I don't find the men's game terribly exciting...I have a theory that the players and equipment have grown too big, strong, and fast for the game and something (like maybe the court size) needs to be adjusted to make the games more compelling (I've never actually said this out loud before, so I suspect the few tennis fans here should be brewin' to unload on me now). Maybe they could play on ice and skates.

posted July 08 2008 08:22 PM                

Federer is 26 and Nadal is 22 so I think this rivalry has a few more years left in it, which is awesome.

And I would love to see some changes made to today's tennis.  I think the approach to the gear should be similar to baseball, where there are limits to what you can use.  The bad news/good news is that while I really doubt that will happen but also think the game can keep up with the technology.  There may be an adjustment period.  I had the same worries and thoughts about the men's game but then Rafa and Roger proved me wrong.  I don't think changing the courts is ever going to fly.  More likely changes would be to the schedule, which is ridiculous.  The women's game needs some revamping in terms of how rankings are decided.  Generally for men is a percentage of wins but it is net wins and tourneys played so they have to play a lot more.  I also would support allowing women to play the best of five sets in the slams, men only play best of three in the non-slam tourneys.

posted July 18 2008 07:21 PM           

The mix of technology advances combined with stronger, faster athletes has been interesting to watch in the NHL.  Add in very aggressive defensive coaching strategies, ownership desires to respond to public opinion about the need for higher scoring, crazy schedules (despite of a nine-month season), and spending limits by the new salary cap, the league is constantly tampering with rules and GMs with players to try and make the game appealing.

There are some instances where it has worked; I disliked the shootout idea when I first heard of it, but it has admittedly made the regular season games more exciting.  But other implementations, such as extreme intrepretations of "obstruction" penalties, has left the game very inconsistent and fans very mixed (at least, if the nitwits who write on the TSN message boards are considered a fair representation of NHL fans). 

Goaltending has been attacked the most by new rules; smaller pads, inability to play the puck in the corners, and elimination of ties has created a differentiation in goal scoring potential and career win-loss records than during the heyday of folks like Roy.  Although, I suppose compared to the "let's put the dumbest guy in goal" days when they barely wore pads and didn't even wear masks, measures of career achievement are probably only valid on a generational level.

In contrast to my previous comment, when sports like tennis are compared side-by-side to hockey, one that doesn't adjust the game at the drop of a hat does seem to have more long-lasting tradition than a sport like hockey that attempts to rely on that tradition to maintain a certain nobility over other games (well, you know, if you are from Canada, it does).  Perhaps it is just best to let the athletes work it out.