EPTOlympic Tennis - Page 27
| Forum Index > London Olympics |
|
TranceStorm
1616 Posts
| ||
|
Lillpapps
Sweden99 Posts
| ||
|
Tunkeg
Norway1235 Posts
I think Andy Murray would rather have won the last final against Roger but winning the Olympic gold medal "at home" is almost as huge a win for Andy Murray. It would also have counted as a huge win for Roger as he would have completed a career golden slam. But for anyone else I'd rank an olympic win about as high as Massu's win in 2004 or Kafelnikov's win in 2000 win (not very notable really). But for both Murray and Federer it would have been huge to win it this year. Even though I am sad that Federer won't complete his golden slam I hope this win for Murray will get the british media off his back and that he can finally step up and beat Nadal and Djokovic in grand slam finals in the years to come. | ||
|
Arceus
Vietnam8333 Posts
On August 06 2012 00:33 Lillpapps wrote: Murray wouldnt even be close to considering trading this for a slam. A slam you can win 4 times a year. The top players arent even guaranteed to get to play the olympics on home court so winning it by beating the nr 1 and 2 ranked players in world is a lot bigger. you know what, It may take Murray 25 tries to finally win a Slam. And it's not like hes a regular finalist by any mean (Fed,Djo & Nad are). Kid just doesnt have the gut to show up strong in the final. Im not taking away anything from this well-deserved victory btw  | ||
|
Aerisky
United States12129 Posts
On August 06 2012 00:33 Lillpapps wrote: Murray wouldnt even be close to considering trading this for a slam. A slam you can win 4 times a year. The top players arent even guaranteed to get to play the olympics on home court so winning it by beating the nr 1 and 2 ranked players in world is a lot bigger. Just because it happens less often doesn't mean it's more prestigious -_- For the record, you have to win 7 best-of-5 matches to win a major. Olympics is 6 best-of-3 matches and one best-of-5. Going through the world number 1 and 2 is always going to be great. But here's another 4 statistic for you: he's 0 for 4 in grand slam finals. It's incredibly difficult to win a grand slam, and there was some crazy statistic that in the past however many years (since 2004 French Open I believe, so past 8 years?), the only winners have been Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Del Potro. Winning a slam is a fantastic accomplishment and claiming any other tournament is more prestigious is actually a slight to tennis history. Murray's victory was really deserved and it goes without saying that it was incredible. But there is no way it's better than a grand slam win. | ||
|
Scaramanga
Australia8090 Posts
On August 06 2012 00:33 Lillpapps wrote: Murray wouldnt even be close to considering trading this for a slam. A slam you can win 4 times a year. The top players arent even guaranteed to get to play the olympics on home court so winning it by beating the nr 1 and 2 ranked players in world is a lot bigger. He would trade in an instant, this holds a fraction of the prestige that comes with winning a slam. When you grow up watching you hero's playing in the major tournaments, dreaming you'll get there one day, you aren't hoping to win a gold medal, you're hoping to win the Wimbledon, US, French or Australian title, regardless of how frequent they are. | ||
|
Barburas
United Kingdom247 Posts
| ||
|
jeeeeohn
United States1343 Posts
"Not as good as a grand slam"? A gold medal in the Olympics? Jesus. People have killed for less. | ||
|
lightsentry
413 Posts
| ||
|
revel8
United Kingdom3022 Posts
| ||
|
Aerisky
United States12129 Posts
However, no offense (and I really don't mean any), but people who think winning a gold medal > major in general likely do not follow tennis. Winning a grand slam is every player's dream. The Olympics may seem like something great to win overall for those who don't really follow tennis, but the truth is that overall a gold medal in the Olympics is not that big of an accomplishment in men's tennis. We can put it in a historical context. While some events, such as Wimbledon with over 120 years of history, have existed for a long, long time, tennis has only been a medal event in the Olympics since 1988. It's a good decade younger than Microsoft (I dunno, just random comparison). Last time before that was in 1924, long before the open era. And only since 2004 has it even counted towards rankings at all. The winners since 1988 are: Miloslav Mečíř, Marc Rosset, Andre Agassi, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Nicolás Massú, and Rafael Nadal, none of whom are in contention for greatest of all time. It remains to be seen how Nadal's career turns out of course. However, you will not see a single one of those names in the contest for greatest of all time. Agassi in particular I really like as well, but he is nowhere near the greatest of all time despite a fantastic career and really saddening back issues because of said long career. And all that being said, of course this is a massive achievement for Murray. But in general, an Olympic gold is nowhere near to a grand slam title. It's actually somewhat disrespectful to some of the greatest champions of our time to claim otherwise. Some players play their entire lives to try to win a single grand slam title. Coria, a famously amazing clay-courter, lost in the final of the French Open to Gaudio in five sets, after winning the first set 6-0 and having 2 match points, and he never recovered for the rest of his career. Some of the most amazing victories and defeats in men's tennis have occurred in grand slams, and the unparalleled quality of the level of play makes up the foundation of tennis, in a sense. | ||
|
Cenja
Sweden498 Posts
Great for Murray and well deserved considering his play. | ||
|
tuho12345
4482 Posts
| ||
|
Tunkeg
Norway1235 Posts
On August 06 2012 01:25 Aerisky wrote: Alright, for Murray it might be a different matter since he won it at his home and whatnot. So that might be an exceptional case (but I'm still inclined to think that a grand slam even for Murray is way, way up there...debatable whether it would be better than a gold but I'm personally inclined think it's less than a grand slam by a significant margin). However, no offense (and I really don't mean any), but people who think winning a gold medal > major in general likely do not follow tennis. Winning a grand slam is every player's dream. The Olympics may seem like something great to win overall for those who don't really follow tennis, but the truth is that overall a gold medal in the Olympics is not that big of an accomplishment in men's tennis. We can put it in a historical context. While some events, such as Wimbledon with over 120 years of history, have existed for a long, long time, tennis has only been a medal event in the Olympics since 1988. It's a good decade younger than Microsoft (I dunno, just random comparison). Last time before that was in 1924, long before the open era. And only since 2004 has it even counted towards rankings at all. The winners since 1988 are: Miloslav Mečíř, Marc Rosset, Andre Agassi, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Nicolás Massú, and Rafael Nadal, none of whom are in contention for greatest of all time. It remains to be seen how Nadal's career turns out of course. However, you will not see a single one of those names in the contest for greatest of all time. Agassi in particular I really like as well, but he is nowhere near the greatest of all time despite a fantastic career and really saddening back issues because of said long career. And all that being said, of course this is a massive achievement for Murray. But in general, an Olympic gold is nowhere near to a grand slam title. It's actually somewhat disrespectful to some of the greatest champions of our time to claim otherwise. Some players play their entire lives to try to win a single grand slam title. Coria, a famously amazing clay-courter, lost in the final of the French Open to Gaudio in five sets, after winning the first set 6-0 and having 2 match points, and he never recovered for the rest of his career. Some of the most amazing victories and defeats in men's tennis have occurred in grand slams, and the unparalleled quality of the level of play makes up the foundation of tennis, in a sense. While I agree with you that a GS > Gold medal, I still think winning the gold medal in the olympic is a great accomplishment. Let us not kid ourself we would have been pretty happy had Federer won this. I also think the prestige have risen the last few olympics with true world class players winning. But still Federer winning Wimbledon was for me more important than him winning today. Also, what an interesting year of tennis this have been. The four greats all have taken one important title each. US Open will in my book crown the best tennisplayer of 2012. | ||
|
AgentChaos
United Kingdom4569 Posts
On August 06 2012 00:28 Jockmcplop wrote: BBC sport making it out as if this was the most important tennis tournament of the year lololol Lol so true I was shitting my self at the commentators, and the bias toward Murray was unreal | ||
|
Aerisky
United States12129 Posts
| ||
|
qrs
United States3637 Posts
| ||
|
BeaTeR
Kazakhstan4130 Posts
On August 06 2012 02:08 qrs wrote: Mixed doubles going on now: Murray-Robson with a 1 set to love lead over the Bulgarians. you mean belorussians? xD | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44327 Posts
| ||
|
qrs
United States3637 Posts
| ||
| ||
