He's had his fair share! If he wants to be greedy, stick to the tourney more associated with his winning; Wimbledon! Five USO's in a row shows he made his mark; allow someone else some glory and exposure beyond "The GOAT!" :whistle:
:cuckoo: Honest Question: I've never understood what makes one major harder to win than another? All the same players play them and only 1 out of 128 can win?The USO traditionally has been the 2nd hardest to win with the heat, humidity, planes flying overhead, the disgusting smell of the concessions wafting onto the court, scheduling, and the inconsistency of the courts! In '78 freshly laid down, it played like a pane of glass and too fast for Borg to catch up to big serving! In the early 90's it was slowed down where Edberg played record length matches at the time going 5 sets and over 5 hours a few times in one of his winning of the tournament! Federer had his run when the competition was rather weak over 10 years ago! He's barely gotten a sniff since, even though most would say he had his chances in '15 against Nole! I hardly think so after Roger snake-bit in the past; esp. against Nole in those cons. SF's allowed to rise from the dead to win and made finals! I'm not greedy, but if Nole takes it, I'll be thrilled! I just want them to keep Nadal's record intact; a true inability to defend a title off the clay surface! How he's anywhere near being a GOAT, I'm lost! As I've said, if most of his titles are on clay, it's just not as impressive as someone like Borg who elevated his resume with those 5 straight Wimbledons and 2 YEC's! Rafa will always be looking up to Borg IMO for that reason even though he has only 6 FO titles! He didn't play as many (8 times) and probably would have won again in '82 if not run off the tour! :whistle:
:cuckoo: I understand that for a particular player one is more difficult. But in general, on average for all players why is one more difficult?Obviously "way back when" before the courts were so homogenized across all the major events, each was more difficult for a player depending on their style of play! It was no accident Connors never played a FO final, Lendl's without a Wimbledon though 2 finals, and Borg's futility is well chronicled by me and others at the USO! I could go on, but you know this already! :whistle:
He is believe it or not! He's at the top of the list with Fedal following him at higher odds! Sorry! :whistle:
Or perhaps, "thanks for getting older and lesser when I decided to find my game." That one kinda cuts both ways.
It's widely understood that both Roger and Rafa benefitted from Nole and Andy's absence in terms of winning slams. That said, I'm a firm believer in "you can only play the opponent before you"....
I won't even pretend they didn't benefit. And yes, all you got is the opponent on offer. Same as Djokovic benefitted when Rafa and Roger were not top drawer. But look who walks through the window of opportunity: hardly ever anyone else but each of them. They are still the elite in the game, and not for nothing.
