Roger and the huge matches

[Moxie]

Actually, I wouldn't even be surprised much if more casual sports fans knew that Murray won an Olympic gold than that he won the USO. Not that that makes it the bigger achievement of course. I rate an Olympic gold about as highly as a YEC title - a step below the slams, a step above the masters 1000's.

I've always rated the titles as:
Wimbledon
USO
French/AO
WTF
Olympics
Masters
Davis Cup

These are the titles that have meaning and make a players career. I'm a big fan of the Davis Cup so I might even put it above the Masters, even though it is a team event. But getting the No. 1 ranking and the Year-End No. 1 would have to be above the Olympics as well.

But I don't agree with the casual fan knowing more about the Olympics than the USO. I'm going to need more data, interviews, surveys, petitions, blood test results and urine samples before I change my mind.

Yes, but I'm not talking about tennis fans but about the the casual sports fan. The type of folks who watch the Olympics and remember Bolt breaking records, Mark Spitz winning seven and Nadia Comaneci's 10's. Those people aren't necessarily big fans of those sports, but they remember moments in history when the whole world was watching, so to speak. On a more modest scale, Murray finally getting into the big time, and before an adoring home crowd at that was one of those moments.

But if you use that criterion, the Olympic semi's aren't *huge* matches. It's the gold medal round that captures the attention. I'm somewhere between you and Kieran (who thinks it's a bauble and a waste of time.) But the overall quality of competition is reduced, due to the limitations of entrants per country. The very fact that it took Federer 4 tries to win one silver medal in singles has to speak to something about the quirks of the Olympics v. the general tennis game, whereas Fernando Gonzalez has a gold, silver and bronze, all in the same Olympics that Roger was playing. Nothing against Gonzalez (now retired,) but what does that tell you?

 

[DarthFed]

I think Masters finals are equal to Olympics semis, not far from Slam semis. Roger's record isn't so hot in that regard: 23-18.

MS finals are equal to Olympic semis? By what measure? I thought a lot of folks around here didn't put much stock in the Olympics for tennis. And it is often discussed that Masters have a deep field, and there is no day off. In any case, I'm surprised that Darth chose to leave off the MS1000s completely. I'm also surprised that he put in SFs, since he's one who prizes a win over everything, and the rest a dog's dinner, by his usual estimation.

These numbers for finals only, but including MS:

Federer: GS 17-9, MS 23-18, YEC 6-2, OG 0-1 (if you want to include the Olympics) = 46-30
Nadal: GS 14-6, MS 27-17, YEC 0-2, OG 1-0 = 32-25

An alternate comparison for your consideration.

Note that when I'm talking about huge matches I'm saying huge at the time they are played. I'm sure if you gave the players the option of winning a GS semi (despite not telling them if they won the final) and winning an MS final they would all choose the former. Now if you told them they could win the semi but would lose the final or win the MS event you might still have those who would pick losing in a slam final (more ranking points and probably more money) but you know where I stand on that. Winning an MS or even a 500 level is an accomplishment, holding a dinner plate on the final Sunday is going home empty handed outside of the $$.

 

[Federberg]

I think Masters finals are equal to Olympics semis, not far from Slam semis. Roger's record isn't so hot in that regard: 23-18.

MS finals are equal to Olympic semis? By what measure? I thought a lot of folks around here didn't put much stock in the Olympics for tennis. And it is often discussed that Masters have a deep field, and there is no day off. In any case, I'm surprised that Darth chose to leave off the MS1000s completely. I'm also surprised that he put in SFs, since he's one who prizes a win over everything, and the rest a dog's dinner, by his usual estimation.

These numbers for finals only, but including MS:

Federer: GS 17-9, MS 23-18, YEC 6-2, OG 0-1 (if you want to include the Olympics) = 46-30
Nadal: GS 14-6, MS 27-17, YEC 0-2, OG 1-0 = 32-25

An alternate comparison for your consideration.

I'm with you Moxie. Frankly I would ditch the Olympics altogether. Jeepers even golf is going to get in on the act :cover Call me old fashioned but they should stick with track and field and wrestling. Everything else is just... blah...

 

[jhar26]

I've always rated the titles as:
Wimbledon
USO
French/AO
WTF
Olympics
Masters
Davis Cup

These are the titles that have meaning and make a players career. I'm a big fan of the Davis Cup so I might even put it above the Masters, even though it is a team event. But getting the No. 1 ranking and the Year-End No. 1 would have to be above the Olympics as well.

But I don't agree with the casual fan knowing more about the Olympics than the USO. I'm going to need more data, interviews, surveys, petitions, blood test results and urine samples before I change my mind.

Yes, but I'm not talking about tennis fans but about the the casual sports fan. The type of folks who watch the Olympics and remember Bolt breaking records, Mark Spitz winning seven and Nadia Comaneci's 10's. Those people aren't necessarily big fans of those sports, but they remember moments in history when the whole world was watching, so to speak. On a more modest scale, Murray finally getting into the big time, and before an adoring home crowd at that was one of those moments.

But if you use that criterion, the Olympic semi's aren't *huge* matches. It's the gold medal round that captures the attention. I'm somewhere between you and Kieran (who thinks it's a bauble and a waste of time.) But the overall quality of competition is reduced, due to the limitations of entrants per country. The very fact that it took Federer 4 tries to win one silver medal in singles has to speak to something about the quirks of the Olympics v. the general tennis game, whereas Fernando Gonzalez has a gold, silver and bronze, all in the same Olympics that Roger was playing. Nothing against Gonzalez (now retired,) but what does that tell you?

I agree. But you have the same situation in other sports. You have track & field athletes from the US claiming that it's harder to get through their trials than to win a medal at the Olympics. Lindsey Vonn can dominate the downhill for years, gets injured before the Olympics and it's someone else who ends up with precious metal around her neck. That's also the insanity involved in some of the more minor Olympic sports imo. You work your ass off for something that only comes along every four years and if you're a bit unlucky you won't even be able to compete when it's finally there because of injury, or you may be out of form, or the suits from your country may decide on a boycott, or whatever. It kinda makes it the equivalent of a lottery. Sorta like if tennis would have one slam every four years. It doesn't provide much of a basis to come to a conclusion about who's best imo.

 

[DarthFed]

Yeah, I'd co-sign this. There's absolutely no measure in the sport to say a Masters final is like an Olympic semi. But if you're in the business of being a great tennis player, the masters finals are all big matches, especially when they involve facing your historic rivals...

Again I should clarify that I was basing my criteria on what I figure most players value the most. I know that tennis is relatively new in the Olympics but I'm pretty sure the vast majority of the players would prefer a gold medal to an MS title. And the winner of the Olympic semis assures that he/she wins at least silver with a chance for gold.

 

[Moxie]

I think Masters finals are equal to Olympics semis, not far from Slam semis. Roger's record isn't so hot in that regard: 23-18.

MS finals are equal to Olympic semis? By what measure? I thought a lot of folks around here didn't put much stock in the Olympics for tennis. And it is often discussed that Masters have a deep field, and there is no day off. In any case, I'm surprised that Darth chose to leave off the MS1000s completely. I'm also surprised that he put in SFs, since he's one who prizes a win over everything, and the rest a dog's dinner, by his usual estimation.

These numbers for finals only, but including MS:

Federer: GS 17-9, MS 23-18, YEC 6-2, OG 0-1 (if you want to include the Olympics) = 46-30
Nadal: GS 14-6, MS 27-17, YEC 0-2, OG 1-0 = 32-25

An alternate comparison for your consideration.

Note that when I'm talking about huge matches I'm saying huge at the time they are played. I'm sure if you gave the players the option of winning a GS semi (despite not telling them if they won the final) and winning an MS final they would all choose the former. Now if you told them they could win the semi and lose the final or win the MS event you might still have those who would pick losing in a slam final (more ranking points and probably more money) but you know where I stand on that. Winning an MS or even a 500 level is an accomplishment, holding a dinner plate on the final Sunday is going home empty handed outside of the $$.

This is where I don't get your criteria, though, for 3 reasons: You don't like an also-ran (so I find the emphasis on semis surprising,) why you would exclude the Masters, and the basic notion of what you consider "huge." Doesn't "huge" really go match-by-match? The two semis in the 2012 Olympics were pretty huge, but does anyone consider Gonzalez d. Blake in Beijing 2008 "huge?" Although the other semi, Nadal d. Djokovic perhaps was. I don't think semis are as easily quantifiable as "huge" matches. And although some finals might be less-than-satisfying (Cilic d. Nishikori, USO 2014, for example,) at least that's a final of a Major.

 

[DarthFed]

MS finals are equal to Olympic semis? By what measure? I thought a lot of folks around here didn't put much stock in the Olympics for tennis. And it is often discussed that Masters have a deep field, and there is no day off. In any case, I'm surprised that Darth chose to leave off the MS1000s completely. I'm also surprised that he put in SFs, since he's one who prizes a win over everything, and the rest a dog's dinner, by his usual estimation.

These numbers for finals only, but including MS:

Federer: GS 17-9, MS 23-18, YEC 6-2, OG 0-1 (if you want to include the Olympics) = 46-30
Nadal: GS 14-6, MS 27-17, YEC 0-2, OG 1-0 = 32-25

An alternate comparison for your consideration.

Note that when I'm talking about huge matches I'm saying huge at the time they are played. I'm sure if you gave the players the option of winning a GS semi (despite not telling them if they won the final) and winning an MS final they would all choose the former. Now if you told them they could win the semi and lose the final or win the MS event you might still have those who would pick losing in a slam final (more ranking points and probably more money) but you know where I stand on that. Winning an MS or even a 500 level is an accomplishment, holding a dinner plate on the final Sunday is going home empty handed outside of the $$.

This is where I don't get your criteria, though, for 3 reasons: You don't like an also-ran (so I find the emphasis on semis surprising,) why you would exclude the Masters, and the basic notion of what you consider "huge." Doesn't "huge" really go match-by-match? The two semis in the 2012 Olympics were pretty huge, but does anyone consider Gonzalez d. Blake in Beijing 2008 "huge?" Although the other semi, Nadal d. Djokovic perhaps was. I don't think semis are as easily quantifiable as "huge" matches. And although some finals might be less-than-satisfying (Cilic d. Nishikori, USO 2014, for example,) at least that's a final of a Major.

The Blake-Gonzalez match was certainly huge to both players. I don't think it has anything to do with the level of the players involved.

 

[Federberg]

^Moxie makes a lot of sense. One could argue that by definition all finals are huge. But there are matches that aren't even semis of awesome significance. I bet Roger considers his wins against Del Potro and Haas in the 2009 RG as huge

 

[Moxie]

Yeah, I'd co-sign this. There's absolutely no measure in the sport to say a Masters final is like an Olympic semi. But if you're in the business of being a great tennis player, the masters finals are all big matches, especially when they involve facing your historic rivals...

Again I should clarify that I was basing my criteria on what I figure most players value the most. I know that tennis is relatively new in the Olympics but I'm pretty sure the vast majority of the players would prefer a gold medal to an MS title. And the winner of the Olympic semis assures that he/she wins at least silver with a chance for gold.

That is an assumption on your part. And this is also where I do agree with Kieran. While winning an Olympic medal has a kid's dream feel to it, and any player would covet it, I don't think it has the locker room cred of a Masters, even. I'll give you Olympic final, at a stretch. But Olympic semis is a bit of a joke, if you're prizing it over Masters wins or finals, and you didn't even bring MS up for semis. (Personally, I think you should leave off SFs completely, unless you want to talk about specific matches.)

 

[DarthFed]

Well it is all a matter of opinion And yes the nature of this thread is to make assumptions on which titles most players covet over others. I think most players for sure would rather win a gold medal than an MS title but that's just me.

But I do strongly disagree with an MS final being anywhere near the level of importance of a Slam semi. The latter puts you one match away from history (yes even Cilic, Gaudio and others will be remembered for having a slam to their names). MS victories are a nice achievement for sure and whether it's Nole or Rafa who ends up with the record it is a nice resume boost. But the true building blocks of greatness are the slams. After that I do think YEC and Olympics in some order and then MS events.

 

[Moxie]

^Moxie makes a lot of sense. One could argue that by definition all finals are huge. But there are matches that aren't even semis of awesome significance. I bet Roger considers his wins against Del Potro and Haas in the 2009 RG as huge

This. For a career as stellar as Roger's, if I were going to talk about how he's done in "huge" matches, I wouldn't reduce it to a few stats, I'd cherry-pick them. You mentioned two clutch wins. He hasn't won them all, but he's far more interesting than reducing him to "semi finals won" and "finals reached." For the record, I do think that SF he played against Del Potro in the OG 2012 was incredibly clutch. Del Potro was mostly the better man on that day, and Roger refused to lose it.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Guys, hugeness is all subjective and this is Darth's criteria. See, to me, Roger's win over Pete was one of the hugest wins of his career. What was it, a forth round?

 

[Federberg]

Guys, hugeness is all subjective and this is Darth's criteria. See, to me, Roger's win over Pete was one of the hugest wins of his career. What was it, a forth round?

I totally agree

 

[Moxie]

Well it is all a matter of opinion And yes the nature of this thread is to make assumptions on which titles most players covet over others. I think most players for sure would rather win a gold medal than an MS title but that's just me.

But I do strongly disagree with an MS final being anywhere near the level of importance of a Slam semi. The latter puts you one match away from history (yes even Cilic, Gaudio and others will be remembered for having a slam to their names). MS victories are a nice achievement for sure and whether it's Nole or Rafa who ends up with the record it is a nice resume boost. But the true building blocks of greatness are the slams. After that I do think YEC and Olympics in some order and then MS events.

Yes, the Olympics will always be debated. I didn't equated a MS final with a Slam semi. In any case, I'd give MS wins some credence, which you didn't in your OP. And calling them a "nice achievement" smacks of sour grapes. I think everyone agrees that there is nowhere to hide in the MS draw. It's all top competition, no days off. If GSs are marathons, MS are hard sprints.

 

[Moxie]

Guys, hugeness is all subjective and this is Darth's criteria. See, to me, Roger's win over Pete was one of the hugest wins of his career. What was it, a forth round?

If not the "hugest," surely the most poetic or prophetic. I agree that "huge" is subjective, and should be treated that way. It would be fun to do Nadal's and Djokovic's. (I think Murray's are mostly obvious, though that could be interesting, too.)

 

[DarthFed]

Well it is all a matter of opinion And yes the nature of this thread is to make assumptions on which titles most players covet over others. I think most players for sure would rather win a gold medal than an MS title but that's just me.

But I do strongly disagree with an MS final being anywhere near the level of importance of a Slam semi. The latter puts you one match away from history (yes even Cilic, Gaudio and others will be remembered for having a slam to their names). MS victories are a nice achievement for sure and whether it's Nole or Rafa who ends up with the record it is a nice resume boost. But the true building blocks of greatness are the slams. After that I do think YEC and Olympics in some order and then MS events.

Yes, the Olympics will always be debated. I didn't equated a MS final with a Slam semi. In any case, I'd give MS wins some credence, which you didn't in your OP. And calling them a "nice achievement" smacks of sour grapes. I think everyone agrees that there is nowhere to hide in the MS draw. It's all top competition, no days off. If GSs are marathons, MS are hard sprints.

Nothing sour about it Moxie. I would've said the same when Roger was holding the MS record before Rafa passed him for it. Sometimes you give me too little credit :snicker If this was really agenda-based do you think I'd have the Olympics as a huge achievement when Rafa has a singles gold medal and Roger doesn't?

 

[DarthFed]

^Moxie makes a lot of sense. One could argue that by definition all finals are huge. But there are matches that aren't even semis of awesome significance. I bet Roger considers his wins against Del Potro and Haas in the 2009 RG as huge

This is a good point and shows how some GS matches are certainly bigger than others. All things considered those are probably the most important 4th round and semifinal matches of Roger's career.

 

[Federberg]

^There are so many of those though DF. I can remember wins against Andreev in 2008 for Roger's only slam that year at Flushing. I can remember his win against Falla at Wimbledon the year he beat Murray. Every player has their share of huge matches. Obviously Roger having played far far more matches than anyone else on tour, and almost more than anyone else in the Open era, he's had more than most.

 

[Moxie]

Well it is all a matter of opinion And yes the nature of this thread is to make assumptions on which titles most players covet over others. I think most players for sure would rather win a gold medal than an MS title but that's just me.

But I do strongly disagree with an MS final being anywhere near the level of importance of a Slam semi. The latter puts you one match away from history (yes even Cilic, Gaudio and others will be remembered for having a slam to their names). MS victories are a nice achievement for sure and whether it's Nole or Rafa who ends up with the record it is a nice resume boost. But the true building blocks of greatness are the slams. After that I do think YEC and Olympics in some order and then MS events.

Yes, the Olympics will always be debated. I didn't equated a MS final with a Slam semi. In any case, I'd give MS wins some credence, which you didn't in your OP. And calling them a "nice achievement" smacks of sour grapes. I think everyone agrees that there is nowhere to hide in the MS draw. It's all top competition, no days off. If GSs are marathons, MS are hard sprints.

Nothing sour about it Moxie. I would've said the same when Roger was holding the MS record before Rafa passed him for it. Sometimes you give me too little credit :snicker If this was really agenda-based do you think I'd have the Olympics as a huge achievement when Rafa has a singles gold medal and Roger doesn't?

Just that I can't figure you out, old friend. For a man who's always about the W, I can't understand how you'd rate an Olympics SF, and have no interest in the MS. :hug

 

[brokenshoelace]

I find it pretty odd that some are like "nah, Olympics aren't that big of a deal, tennis shouldn't be there" when the players themselves consider them huge and second only to slams. Like, there's no way to claim Roger's final with Murray wasn't a huge match when it meant so much to both of them, just because you don't think tennis should be in the Olympics.