Fedalovic Wars

[atttomole]

I don’t think I ‘tried’ to tell you that. The field was tougher then. It became easier for the best players to manage the field during the last two decades…

That is not true!! The top players that came later were better.

 

[Kieran]

That is not true!! The subsequent players were better too.

Better at what? They were more compliant. I never seen so many cheerful losers grinning at the net after a match as I’ve seen in the last 20 years. Hugs and kisses, and please let me carry your shopping home. It was clear by the mid-zeros that things had changed…

 

[Kieran]

Every Olympic athlete, in every sport, will say winning the gold medal is a “real goal for them.” It’s not hubris; it’s competitiveness.

While tennis has no rich history associated with the Olympics, unlike other sports, it’s still the Olympics, which many athletes consider to be the apex of sporting events. Winning gold is a big deal. Basketball isn’t a sport which immediately comes to mind when someone says “Olympics“ yet look how many famous players have gone in order to get gold medals.

It’s a collectors item. It’s a way to associate with great track and field heroes, like Jesse Owens, and Ed Moses. I don’t blame tennis players for wanting to get photographed wearing those trinkets. But is it a measure of tennis greatness? No, and often it gets in the way of that…

 

[tented]

It’s a collectors item. It’s a way to associate with great track and field heroes, like Jesse Owens, and Ed Moses. I don’t blame tennis players for wanting to get photographed wearing those trinkets. But is it a measure of tennis greatness? No, and often it gets in the way of that…

An Olympic Gold is hardly a trinket. Come on …

 

[Kieran]

An Olympic Gold is hardly a trinket. Come on …

For tennis it is. And to be honest, in a lot of the great Olympic events, they’re very discredited. Tour de Farce level stuff. It’s entertaining but I don’t count Olympic gold medals when I’m looking up who’s a goat in tennis…

 

[tented]

For tennis it is. And to be honest, in a lot of the great Olympic events, they’re very discredited. Tour de Farce level stuff. It’s entertaining but I don’t count Olympic gold medals when I’m looking up who’s a goat in tennis…

Who’s talking about it being a measure of GOATness? Not me. I’m just trying to explain why I think the Big Three have all wanted to win gold — because it’s the Olympics.

While some sports have taken a hit because of doping at the Olympics, certainly not all of them. I refuse to discredit an entire sport because some athletes are doping; that’s unfair to all of the other, clean athletes. And tennis is not one of those sports which has had a doping/Olympics problem …

 

[Kieran]

Who’s talking about it being a measure of GOATness? Not me. I’m just trying to explain why I think the Big Three have all wanted to win gold — because it’s the Olympics.

Yes but my argument is that it isn’t a big tennis title. Our currency isn’t gold medals, it’s the weekly grind - year in, year out - in historic tournaments, raising your ranking to the highest it can be while trying to peak for our main events, the slams.

The Olympics is great for other sports where they have only two big events every four years. I understand perfectly why tennis players want gold.

While some sports have taken a hit because of doping at the Olympics, certainly not all of them. I refuse to discredit an entire sport because some athletes are doping; that’s unfair to all of the other, clean athletes.

I would say that athletics - the main event - is largely discredited. It becomes difficult to take it seriously. And hard to know who’s clean.

But I actually enjoy the Olympics, I think it’s a great occasion. There’s sports I’d never watch even if I was imprisoned with only one channel and it only showed curling, or marbles. But the Olympics gives these sports some prestige…

 

[tented]

But I actually enjoy the Olympics, I think it’s a great occasion. There’s sports I’d never watch even if I was imprisoned with only one channel and it only showed curling, or marbles. But the Olympics gives these sports some prestige…

Don’t knock curling! It’s a fierce, dangerous sport.

 

[shawnbm]

CURLING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I LOVE IT!

 

[shawnbm]

I know this is the incorrect place to post this, but I re-watched the Sampras-Agassi quarterfinal of the 2001 US Open recently and I must say, wow! Those guys were really something and if they were around today they would dominate with possible exception of Nole and Carlitos. Big boy tennis, like when Safin came along. Great stuff and Pete really knew how to focus when it counted and that service! 119 mph second serve ace on Agassi, the Djokovic of that time. Great stuff.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Federer was a different type of player to Pete, not a ‘better version of him.’

They also played in different times, so comparisons are difficult. I get the Federer fans nostalgia for Roger, but two players who play better than him have popped up…

Good Point Kieran.. Can you imagine if Pete had someone who was at his level for the duration of his career e.g. Roger/ Rafa / Novak ( I know Agassi was around but he was on drugs probably for a fourth of his career), I think Pete's numbers would have been higher.

 

[the AntiPusher]

I know this is the incorrect place to post this, but I re-watched the Sampras-Agassi quarterfinal of the 2001 US Open recently and I must say, wow! Those guys were really something and if they were around today they would dominate with possible exception of Nole and Carlitos. Big boy tennis, like when Safin came along. Great stuff and Pete really knew how to focus when it counted and that service! 119 mph second serve ace on Agassi, the Djokovic of that time. Great stuff.

Good Points Shawn.. Safin and Hewitt both caught a very jaded Sampras in the finals.. I still dont know how Pete lost to Edberg.. but he did

 

[Moxie]

Every Olympic athlete, in every sport, will say winning the gold medal is a “real goal for them.” It’s not hubris; it’s competitiveness.

Sure, they go for the gold. I'm just saying that stating it as a goal, for a tennis player, way ahead of time, is rather laying down a marker. You did say that Novak and Roger had "Olympicitis." They did. They wanted it. They declared it as a goal. You obviously don't agree, but I do think saying it out loud demonstrated a certain amount of bravado, and a belief that they would get it. Which I call "hubris."

While tennis has no rich history associated with the Olympics, unlike other sports, it’s still the Olympics, which many athletes consider to be the apex of sporting events. Winning gold is a big deal. Basketball isn’t a sport which immediately comes to mind when someone says “Olympics“ yet look how many famous players have gone in order to get gold medals.

I agree with this. A lot of sports have nothing that compares to the Olympics, for the apex of their sport. Fortunes can be made. You could get on the Wheaties Box. For sports like tennis and basketball, they have big annual prizes. But it's still the Olympics. To medal in the Olympics is a different kind of accomplishment. It doesn't have the same bearing on one's legend as it does in, say, gymnastics or skiing, but it is certainly more than a "trinket." At least to the player who wins a medal.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Yes but my argument is that it isn’t a big tennis title. Our currency isn’t gold medals, it’s the weekly grind - year in, year out - in historic tournaments, raising your ranking to the highest it can be while trying to peak for our main events, the slams.

The Olympics is great for other sports where they have only two big events every four years. I understand perfectly why tennis players want gold.


I would say that athletics - the main event - is largely discredited. It becomes difficult to take it seriously. And hard to know who’s clean.

But I actually enjoy the Olympics, I think it’s a great occasion. There’s sports I’d never watch even if I was imprisoned with only one channel and it only showed curling, or marbles. But the Olympics gives these sports some prestige…

Even the ATP Tour added it in their "big tennis titles" list despite it not even being an ATP event. Move on!

 

[Kieran]

Good Points Shawn.. Safin and Hewitt both caught a very jaded Sampras in the finals.. I still dont know how Pete lost to Edberg.. but he did

I think he was in his early career shin splint phase then - and Edberg was definitely still an alpha on the tour whereas Pete was still processing his place in things. I remember watching it and thinking that he was never going to be as good as Stefan, he just seemed too weak, mentally, noncommittal, which goes to show how Pete fooled a lot of people with that hangdog act.

The Edberg defeat acted as a spur to him, making him face up to the fact that he was letting titles slip by. But Stefan was still strong then, and very wily.

Good call out by @shawnbm to remember that great quarter final. The best USO match I’ve seen, and that’s rarely said about a four set match. Such high quality throughout. Pete beat Rafter too, in a very good match in the round previous to this. It’s worth looking back at, if only to see so much net rushing and masterful serve volley at Flushing Meadows, by two of the last great exponents…

 

[atttomole]

Better at what? They were more compliant. I never seen so many cheerful losers grinning at the net after a match as I’ve seen in the last 20 years. Hugs and kisses, and please let me carry your shopping home. It was clear by the mid-zeros that things had changed…

Hugs and kisses don’t mean anything. It is the tennis that counts. It’s not like hating an opponent makes it easier to beat the opponent. Which beasts did Sampras play against?

 

[atttomole]

Good Point Kieran.. Can you imagine if Pete had someone who was at his level for the duration of his career e.g. Roger/ Rafa / Novak ( I know Agassi was around but he was on drugs probably for a fourth of his career), I think Pete's numbers would have been higher.

His numbers would be higher in what sense?

 

[Kieran]

Sure, they go for the gold. I'm just saying that stating it as a goal, for a tennis player, way ahead of time, is rather laying down a marker. You did say that Novak and Roger had "Olympicitis." They did. They wanted it. They declared it as a goal. You obviously don't agree, but I do think saying it out loud demonstrated a certain amount of bravado, and a belief that they would get it. Which I call "hubris."

I agree with this. A lot of sports have nothing that compares to the Olympics, for the apex of their sport. Fortunes can be made. You could get on the Wheaties Box. For sports like tennis and basketball, they have big annual prizes. But it's still the Olympics. To medal in the Olympics is a different kind of accomplishment. It doesn't have the same bearing on one's legend as it does in, say, gymnastics or skiing, but it is certainly more than a "trinket." At least to the player who wins a medal.

I think that the distinction that’s important here is between ‘what’s meaningful to tennis’ and ‘what’s meaningful to the players.’ They’re not necessarily the same thing. I get that players want that communal association with the Olympics and athletes of others sports. I remember in 2008 Rafa stayed in the Olympic village and loved being around the likes of Phelps and Bolt, hanging out with other great sports stars, and all in pursuit of the same gold medal.

I can understand the appeal of this, but I also think that players have let this get in the way of important tennis titles, which given the timing of the Olympics in the calendar, is always going to be unfortunate…

 

[Kieran]

Hugs and kisses don’t mean anything. It is the tennis that counts. It’s not like hating an opponent makes it easier to beat the opponent. Which beasts did Sampras play against?

A good loser is a good opponent to face. A sore loser is a dangerous opponent to face. I’ve gone through this same topic a lot with you and you keep coming back to it. I don’t know if you watched tennis in the eighties and nineties but I always recite the fact that every year that loudmouth Rusedski arrived at Wimbledon declaring that he was there to win.

Well he never got close to winning - but he was difficult to face. He was hard to shake off. He was like a lot of players back then who didn’t arrive just get their grinning photo taken while shaking hands after yet another predictable defeat. If players don’t have spite, they don’t have fight. I remember Phil Mickelson (I think) saying, back in the days Tiger was in full prowl, that everyone else was playing for second.

If that’s your attitude, you just might come second, but never first…

 

[Kieran]

His numbers would be higher in what sense?

I believe his numbers would have been higher too, and for the reasons @the AntiPusher gives, which is that the strong opposition would have been an existential threat to his dominance, and Pete only reacted one way to that. Remember, his stated goal was to retire with the record number of slams. If he’d had a rival who was only a couple slams behind him in 2002, I believe he’d have refreshed and re-entered the ring..