El Dude said:
isabelle said:
Sundaymorningguy said:
Hahahaha, I think Novak wants a FO title and the Olympic gold more than he wants a Cincy title. Nobody remembers the Cincy winner.
Agree with you Cincy isn't an important thing, a N°1 must have a gold medal in his pocket
This doesn't make any sense. Of those playing from 1984, when tennis returned to the Olympics, here is who has gold and who doesn't:
Gold: Stefan Edberg, Miroslav Mecir, Marc Rosset, Andre Agassi, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Nicolas Massu, Rafael Nadal, Andy Murrya
No Gold: Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, Ivan Lendl, Boris Becker, Pete Sampras, Roger Federer, Novak Djokovic (so far)
But Olympic Gold has grown in stature over that time. Even in 2004 it didn't really mean too much, but since then it has become something that all the top players want really badly. If the Olympics had meant as much in 2004 as it does now, Roger would have won it in 2004 I'm sure. So whilst players in their prime before now are not expected to have an Olympic Gold in their resume, players in their prime now and going forward will see it as an important piece of their cv.
We can draw an almost identical analogy with the AO. For a long time it didn't really mean much cause not all the top players played it. But now all the top players do play it and really want to win it. Should it be considered any less of an achievement to win the AO now because it
used to be that not all the top players played it? I don't think so. Players such as McEnroe and Borg didn't win the AO cause in their day it wasn't a priority. But does that mean that Novak's success at the AO now, against all the best players in the world, is less of an achievement? No, it does not, as that is clearly illogical.
The same is true with the Olympics. For a long time it didn't really mean much cause not all the top players played it, and it wasn't a top priority for most of them. But now all the top players do play it, and want to win it badly. Should it be considered any less of an achievement to win the Olympics now because it used to be that not all the top players played it? I don't think so.
I think some people need to catch up - the Olympics is a big deal now. It didn't used to be, but it is now.
Murray still says he regards it as his proudest achievement, above his Grand Slams. Del Potro said his Olympic bronze meant more to him than his USO title, because he was playing for his country. And he got the
bronze! McEnroe, Lendl, Becker and others have all called the Olympics a 'major'. These are extreme views, but I regard the Olympics as the fifth biggest prize in tennis these days. I mean, if you asked any player: 'Would you rather win the WTFs or be Olympic champion?', I'm sure they'd all say Olympic Champion. I certainly would. In terms of gaining 'sporting immortality' and being remembered, it beats the WTFs. (But of course, as I say, this only applies to players who've been in their prime since it's become more prestigious, so it's no dent at all on Roger's record that he doesn't have it.)
