Roland Garros is on, and it looks like they might get the top 4 men's seeds into the semis, provided Ljubicic can get past the last best french hope, Benneteau, this evening.
Everyone seems to love Rafael Nadal, but I reckon he's boring. To me, he's pure claycourt, Sergi Bruguera with speed and endurance. I respect that he's effective, but until he starts playing some attacking tennis rather than just waiting for the other guy to hit an errant shot or come to net, I don't see myself enjoying watching him play.
Its just a style thing. So many people say that grasscourt tennis is boring, but I have a suspicion that there is about an equivalent amount of attacking tennis between grass and clay. Its just that in grass, the non-attack time is spent serving and walking between points, whereas on clay its banging the ball back up and down the court without trying to create or force anything. I'd rather watch Ivanisevic than Muster, any day of the week. Perhaps that's because I've served a few balls in my time and reckon I'm pretty good at it, and realise that it has much more to do with technique and placement than with being tall and strong, as grasscourt critics often claim.
Its also partly a preference for serve-volley tennis (dying or perhaps dead with the fall from grace of Henman), although i'm also a big fan of players like Agassi and Hewitt, baseliners who truly play and attack from the baseline rather than defending a few meters behind it, like your classic clay-courters.
Above all, I need to get out and hit some balls.