There’s an argument that this generation of men's tennis is boring and I think it’s a valid one.
It’s not boring to see two great players like Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic compete in a final.
What is getting mundane is watching the same tactic in every single match of every single grand slam for the last five or six years.
Nowadays they all settle down and say "OK, this is going to be two hours of baseline rallies." The guy who outlasts the other one wins. It’s taken a lot of the skill out of tennis.
They are not better all-round players than the likes of Boris Becker or Pete Sampras. Boris and Pete were baseline players, they were attacking players and they could do it against baseliners like Mats Wilander or Andre Agassi.
Now that was entertainment. You never knew which way it was going to go.
Nadal and Djokovic are exceptional athletes, there’s no doubt about it, but to say they are better athletes than past greats like Bjorn Borg and Stefan Edberg is just nonsense.
This is some crap drummed up by somebody and I think it’s an insult to past players. Modern players don’t dive around the net, they don’t deliver backhand smashes, they don’t have to twist and turn like past generations.
Could modern players do that? We don’t know. What we do know is that they are incredibly good at retrieving shots from the back of the court.
Are they better, quicker, more agile around the net? The answer to that would be no.
What today’s players do around the baseline is undeniably phenomenal. They have become specialists in that, but to say they are better athletes is disrespectful. I don’t buy it at all, not for one second.
The ITF and the ATP are doing a great job of marketing the game, but they need to look at what is actually happening on the court.
Is this entertainment? Is this good enough?
What is beyond question is that Nadal is the top man in tennis right now.
The new U.S. Open champion’s run of 22 straight hard-court victories will surely see him become the world No. 1 by the end of the year. It’s been an impressive comeback from a serious knee injury.
Nadal could even go on to eclipse Roger Federer’s record total of 17 grand slams – Rafa currently has 13 – but I think a lot of emphasis is put on records.
Players don’t go on court thinking of breaking somebodies record, the record books don’t tell the whole story.
History will show that Nadal won two grand slams in 2013. It won’t show that he was out for seven months before that, which really puts his achievement into perspective.
I’m not a huge reader of the stats, I never have been. But the Spaniard has won the Olympic title, he’s won the Davis Cup and he’s won all of the grand slams. That’s a pretty solid argument to say he is a better player than Federer.
He must be a better player than Federer, he keeps beating him all of the time. He’s got a huge winning record over Roger, winning 21 of their 31 matches. Looking at the head-to-head, Rafa is the better player.
But who is the better player to watch? Who is the better all-round player? You can argue that until the cows come home.
Federer is my favorite player to watch, but there is no denying the battles between Rafa and Novak Djokovic have been incredible. This is a rivalry that could run and run.
The problem is they both have very similar styles of play, the two of them play almost identical tennis.
In terms of pure baseline quality it’s hard to better these guys, but I like to see a contrast.
Human beings love variety. We don’t want to watch the same style of play, we don’t want to watch the same shots all of the time. Players have got to mix it up.
Almost every modern player has the same tactics, which some use better than others. We rightly celebrate these great matches between Nadal and Djokovic, but we need to look at the bigger picture.
For more from CNN Open Court's Pat Cash, visit his official website.