Roger and the huge matches

[Moxie]

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.

How is it you know that? As I said, I'm sure they'd all love to have an Olympic medal. Who wouldn't? But that's not the same as how it is used to assess a career, IMO. It's not like we're forever talking about that all-time great, 3-time Olympic medal winner Fernando Gonzalez. (Though in a lot of sports that would make him an all-time great.) Still, the notion of "huge" matches is subjective as we've said, so we may as well think "huge for Roger." He has talked in the past about wanting to win at the Olympics. And I guess Darth was going for the more anomalous events.

 

[DarthFed]

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

I refer you to one of my posts earlier today:

You are speaking with the benefit of hindsight whereas I'm talking about the perspective when the match is played. Again the best example is to consider this: You give a player two options: 1. You tell him he will win a slam semi but with no guarantee that he will win the final or 2. You tell him he will win an MS event. I would think every single player on tour would take the first scenario.

Now if you have the benefit of hindsight you can tell the player 1. You will win a slam semi but will lose in the final or 2. you will win the MS final. In that case you probably have many taking the 2nd option but even then you probably have some take the first (I'd imagine lesser players might take the first option).

So to clarify, a GS and Olympic semis are IMO huge matches at the time they are played.

 

[Moxie]

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

I refer you to one of my posts earlier today:

You are speaking with the benefit of hindsight whereas I'm talking about the perspective when the match is played. Again the best example is to consider this: You give a player two options: 1. You tell him he will win a slam semi but with no guarantee that he will win the final or 2. You tell him he will win an MS event. I would think every single player on tour would take the first scenario.

Now if you have the benefit of hindsight you can tell the player 1. You will win a slam semi but will lose in the final or 2. you will win the MS final. In that case you probably have many taking the 2nd option but even then you probably have some take the first (I'd imagine lesser players might take the first option).

So to clarify, a GS and Olympic semis are IMO huge matches at the time they are played.

I did read that earlier, and I do sort of get your point, though it is still an opinion, because you are deciding what players would prefer. I think when you say it depends on their ranking, there is something in that, as I think the lower ranked players would take the bird in the hand. As to top-ranked players, I'd be surprised in some ways if they wouldn't prefer the win. They are winners. And that has been your mantra.

On the other hand, I see your point that GS or Olympic SF are hugely important to the players, when they are playing them. In a GS you only get 4 chances a year, and in the Olympics, only once in 4 years. The MS, while important, are 9X/year.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The players and the ATP together decided that winner of Olympics gets 750 points, thus expressing their collective opinion that Olympics gold is of lesser significance than a Masters win but of more significance than an ATP 500 win.

 

[isabelle]

My opinion...
...Any match he loses at a Major is a huge match and any other match he loses to anyone outside the top ten (What is Folks ranked?) is a huge match.

Can you consider all those terrible RG's finals vs Manacors' bull as "huge " ?? Especially 2008 ? No huge matches there for me, just some awful GS's finals that I'm happy not to see again. All GS's matches aren't "huge", not in my standards

 

[Great Hands]

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.

How is it you know that? As I said, I'm sure they'd all love to have an Olympic medal. Who wouldn't? But that's not the same as how it is used to assess a career, IMO. It's not like we're forever talking about that all-time great, 3-time Olympic medal winner Fernando Gonzalez. (Though in a lot of sports that would make him an all-time great.) Still, the notion of "huge" matches is subjective as we've said, so we may as well think "huge for Roger." He has talked in the past about wanting to win at the Olympics. And I guess Darth was going for the more anomalous events.

The Olympics is growing in stature. 2008 it was getting there, by 2012 all teh top players played it, and wanted ti bd. i rememebr del potro saying his olyomcis bronze was at least as iomprtatn to him as his uso win, if not more, because he won it for his countrym, not himslef. and that was the bronze!. [rem,emebr how he cried after winning teh bronze. it was a much bigger reactin than when he won the uso!] i tihnk it's analogous to the ao. years ago it had little presitge becasue th top pplayers didn't all play it. same with olympics. but now the top players do all play it, and really want to win it.

the 750 pouints thing is out of date in relation to how muxh the players want to win it. ask any player if they'd rather be an olypmics champion or win a masters event - olympic champion surely.

[that is an out of dte number of points, given that all; the top players play the olmpycis and want to win.
it's not all about points. if tis was, wining 2 masters wld be the same as winning wd. but that's clearly not eh case.]

 

[brokenshoelace]

The players and the ATP together decided that winner of Olympics gets 750 points, thus expressing their collective opinion that Olympics gold is of lesser significance than a Masters win but of more significance than an ATP 500 win.

Collective is the key word. Ask Novak, Nadal, Murray, Federer or anyone of relevance which one they'd prefer winning and it's hardly a tough choice. Let's not even pretend otherwise.

Also, the ATP and the ITF reached that agreement, not "ATP players" alone, but good piece of misleading information.

 

[brokenshoelace]

^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.

Those were only huge matches because Roger was in trouble and found a way out (ditto for the RG Haas match). Before that, nobody, not even Fed himself, would have considered a 4th round match with Andreev to be a huge match. It turned out to be one though, for sure.

 

[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.

How is it you know that?

I've heard Federer talk about what it means to him, I saw Djokovic cry after losing to Nadal in the semis, I saw Del Potro cry after losing to Roger in the semis (don't remember Del Potro crying after a masters 1000 event semi final loss), I saw what it meant to Nadal when he won it, and Murray for that matter. And I'm also sensible enough to recognize that the Olympics hold huge prestige, whether you think tennis should be there or not, and I also know what a gold medal means to athletes. I'm also sensible enough to recognize that the fact that the Olympics happen once every 4 years gives thema added prestige.

I mean, come on.

 

[tented]

The players and the ATP together decided that winner of Olympics gets 750 points, thus expressing their collective opinion that Olympics gold is of lesser significance than a Masters win but of more significance than an ATP 500 win.

Of course they gave it fewer points than a Masters 1000 -- the ATP wasn't going to ascribe a quadrennial non-ATP event more importance.

(Their hands are tied with the GSs. There's no way they could get away with ranking them below the Masters.)