PDA

View Full Version : Lendl says Olympics is a major


sureshs
09-09-2012, 07:20 PM
To BG on ESPN

Mustard
09-09-2012, 07:22 PM
Lendl is wrong, then.

mistik
09-09-2012, 07:23 PM
İt is important but it isnt a major.Murray and his camp shouldnt kid themselves.

AnotherTennisProdigy
09-09-2012, 07:29 PM
I'm sure he wouldn't say that if he wasn't Murray's coach.

Bjorn99
09-09-2012, 07:34 PM
I agree with him.

sureshs
09-09-2012, 07:35 PM
It is more important than a major, because majors are four a year, O is once in 4 years. The best of 3 format might diminish it a little, though.

DropShotArtist
09-09-2012, 07:38 PM
It is more important than a major, because majors are four a year, O is once in 4 years. The best of 3 format might diminish it a little, though.

Does that mean indoor carpet are the most important of all since they never happen anymore and hence are infinitely more important?

Hawkeye7
09-09-2012, 07:39 PM
You only get like 3 chances to win the Olympics. If you always reach the latter stages of a major however, it's far more likely that you will 'fluke' one at one point than it is 'fluking' a gold medal. Especially if you have to beat the top 2 to win it.

This Olympics was also held at Wimbledon, making it much more special.

It's not a major IMO, but it's definitely worth more than a Masters title. Besides, who are we to judge? The feeling counts. If Andy feels like he won a Major, then so be it.

Mustard
09-09-2012, 07:40 PM
The Murray camp should have just said, the Olympics is a big tournament and Andy played superbly and did very well to win the gold medal, but now he's one match away from winning his first major, and we believe he is ready.

Sid_Vicious
09-09-2012, 07:41 PM
Lendl says Olympics is a major.

http://savemisc.com/threads/images/2288b309475ca19d73d6eda57a6761ad.gif

mistik
09-09-2012, 07:45 PM
The Murray camp should have just said, the Olympics is a big tournament and Andy played superbly and did very well to win the gold medal, but now he's one match away from winning his first major, and we believe he is ready.

I begin to feel more and more that this guy Murray wont win a major.To try to show Olympics (which is important) as a major is a desperate attempt.

sureshs
09-09-2012, 07:46 PM
Lendl's words were: In his mind, Murray has already won a major.

JMac disagreed, due to the best of 3 issue, but said that from Rio, it probably should be started to consider it a major.

NikeWilson
09-09-2012, 07:48 PM
That's what guys who haven't won a major would say.

kishnabe
09-09-2012, 07:51 PM
http://savemisc.com/threads/images/2288b309475ca19d73d6eda57a6761ad.gif

That gif always kills me. Especially when Jordan holds the stare for a while then laughter spouts.

Mustard
09-09-2012, 07:52 PM
I begin to feel more and more that this guy Murray wont win a major.To try to show Olympics (which is important) as a major is a desperate attempt.

That's what guys who haven't won a major would say.

If I was Djokovic right now, I'd be delighted to hear Lendl saying that. It's like the Murray camp are in denial about the fact that he hasn't won a major yet, and it's a suspect mentality from them.

Bowtiesarecool
09-09-2012, 07:53 PM
I always thought the only reason they don't treat it as a major is because of how a once-in-4-year tournament would mess with points. At most I could see the olympics being worth a masters 1,000 for gold with 500 and 250 for silver and bronze, respectively.

Vcore89
09-09-2012, 08:01 PM
Lendl is not cool. He says that because Murray is under his tutelage.

NLBwell
09-09-2012, 10:17 PM
Olympic tennis had a lot more interest this time than previously because it was at Wimbledon. We'll see in 4 years if anyone still cares about Olympic tennis or if this was a one-off deal.

timnz
09-09-2012, 10:19 PM
It is more important than a major, because majors are four a year, O is once in 4 years. The best of 3 format might diminish it a little, though.

Not sure I understand the logic. How is the fact that it is only every 4 years make it more important than a major. Leap year only happens every 4 years - but that doesn't make it more important than any other year.

Russeljones
09-09-2012, 11:15 PM
Soon he will be saying 'losing a GS final is better than winning one'.

R_Federer
09-09-2012, 11:38 PM
Olympic tennis had a lot more interest this time than previously because it was at Wimbledon. We'll see in 4 years if anyone still cares about Olympic tennis or if this was a one-off deal.

I doubt most will care. Olympics are truly for Amateur athletes IMO.

jokinla
09-10-2012, 12:47 AM
Yep and so is Cincy.

Paul Murphy
09-10-2012, 02:46 AM
It's not on the level of a major and never should be.

BorisBeckerFan
09-10-2012, 02:58 AM
I honestly don't care to watch professional athletes compete in the Olympics unless the Olympics is the crown jewel of their respective sport. Tennis, soccer, basketball etc at the Olympics should be played by amateurs but it's great for professionals in all track & filed events, gymnastic events, swimming etc where the Olympics is the highlight of your sport.

Sreeram
09-10-2012, 04:52 AM
Lendl's words were: In his mind, Murray has already won a major.

JMac disagreed, due to the best of 3 issue, but said that from Rio, it probably should be started to consider it a major.

I agree with you. It does not matter what others think about your achievement. Confidence comes from how you take things. Murray might think that he won a GS in his mind and hence will play with less pressure. Why do people want to bring him down saying you did not do that?

2011 AO final loss brought down the condience of Murray so much that he lost a row of First round, but 2012 Semifinal loss increased his confidence causing him to push for Wim final and OG gold medal. It all depends on how one takes the outcome of a match.

Danny_G13
09-10-2012, 05:04 AM
I can see both sides of this argument. Because it's not 2 weeks and it's not best of 5 till the final it's not technically a major. That is true.

But Olympic tennis has been going since before the 20th century even started, even if it had a massive gap of 50 years in the interim, and only happens but once every 4 years. So for every 16 chances players get to win a slam, they get one to win a gold medal at the Olympics.

The simple fact that all of Djokovic, Murray, Del P and Federer badly wanted it showed how much it meant to them all, so while it's not technically classed as a slam, it clearly is of much higher importance than a masters.

Is it a technical slam? No. Does it feel like one to the winner? Yes.

No one questioned its clout when Nadal got his in Beijing, so why start now?

http://s9.postimage.org/ur9yedxov/Untitled.jpg

Not sure it was meaningless to Nadal!

Evan77
09-10-2012, 05:08 AM
yeah right, and Serbian Open is more important than RG, lol. The Olympic tennis tournament is just a glorifying exo btw. means nothing really on a big scale. you play for your country, great, you get 750 points (wow, just great) ... c'mon guys calm down.

I hope that Murray doesn't become another Rios. All people remember are majors. e.i. I know that Safin won 2 majors. How many masters did he win? can't remember at all. sure I can find out. Kafelnikov anybody? 2 majors ...

I guess Ivan had to give himself credit that Murray won something. Sure, I'm being a bit sarcastic here and I'm truly happy that Murry won the O, but where the heck was he at the final of Wimbledon.

I Murray loses tomorrow, God help us all with all of this hype.

DRII
09-10-2012, 05:19 AM
Not sure I understand the logic. How is the fact that it is only every 4 years make it more important than a major. Leap year only happens every 4 years - but that doesn't make it more important than any other year.

It by definition makes it more rare or special...

the less there is of something that there is a demand for, the more its worth...


so I guess that officially makes it 17 to 12 :)

Evan77
09-10-2012, 05:26 AM
Danny, they are all pretenders. they just say politically correct stuff my friend. I don't buy it at all. I don't think that Djoko, or Fed give a darn about the Olympics. sure they showed up because they were expected and they are big stars.

They won their matches because they are so good. When Fed played that final against Muzza, he seemed to be completely disinterested, same with Djokovic. no fire at all.

I'm saying this because of their almost non existent effort there. slackers. :)

all they care about are slams. too many naive people here.

Magnetite
09-10-2012, 05:35 AM
An olympic gold should be worth at least as much as a Master's 1000 event. Maybe not quite as much as a major, but a gold medal is worth a lot. There's no denying it.

Mainad
09-10-2012, 05:46 AM
Danny, they are all pretenders. they just say politically correct stuff my friend. I don't buy it at all. I don't think that Djoko, or Fed give a darn about the Olympics. sure they showed up because they were expected and they are big stars.

So why was Federer telling everybody he talked to over the last 4 years how much he was looking forward to the London 2012 Olympics especially as they were being played on his favourite surface at his favourite venue, Wimbledon? Just to keep the Swiss press and Olympic association happy? And, given that he 'obviously' didn't care, why did he flog his guts out to win his semi against Del Potro going 19-17 in the 3rd set? Wasn't that a bit mean considering Del Potro really wanted a chance at the gold while Roger already had one (from Beijing) and a pointless waste of his energy at that, if he just wasn't arsed?

And why did a Serbian news reporter find Djokovic looking tearful and apologetic, sawing in half his remaining racquets, after losing the bronze medal match to Del Potro? Just playacting for the benefit of the Serbian press and Olympic association?

Funny how whenever Murray beats these two its because:

a). They are injured.
b). They are tired.
c). They are injured AND tired.
d). They tanked the match because they just didn't care.

Why are we are never allowed option:

e). He beat them fair and square because he was the better player in the match.

It gets really tedious and boring!

The-Champ
09-10-2012, 06:05 AM
Danny, they are all pretenders. they just say politically correct stuff my friend. I don't buy it at all. I don't think that Djoko, or Fed give a darn about the Olympics. sure they showed up because they were expected and they are big stars.

They won their matches because they are so good. When Fed played that final against Muzza, he seemed to be completely disinterested, same with Djokovic. no fire at all.

I'm saying this because of their almost non existent effort there. slackers. :)

all they care about are slams. too many naive people here.

of course they don't. That's why Federer cried when he won his first round match, and that's why Djokovic destroyed all his rackets when he couldn't get a medal. Big freakin' lol :D

TennisLovaLova
09-10-2012, 06:08 AM
Lendl is wrong: Olympics are not a major.
The reason?
Murray won the olympics
but he never won a slam
So the olympics are no major
CQFD

sureshs
09-10-2012, 06:19 AM
Fed, Murray, Djoko and DP care about the Olympics very much.

Sartorius
09-10-2012, 06:24 AM
Car is a tree.

Irvin
09-10-2012, 06:25 AM
I doubt most will care. Olympics are truly for Amateur athletes IMO.

Amateur athletes? Are you serious? I guess you don't watch basketball either. Do you know how much money the medalists make? Sounds like you're living in the past. it's time to wake up and smell the money.

It's not on the level of a major and never should be.

Yes you are right about that I've never seen a player take a trophy to the next match like Mike Bryan did at the US Open and let a ball boy hold it for him.

TennisLovaLova
09-10-2012, 06:29 AM
Car is a tree.

This is not a violin http://a21.idata.over-blog.com/3/39/16/67/images-decors/musique-violon-070110.gif

Nostradamus
09-10-2012, 06:36 AM
To BG on ESPN

so he is saying he's already coached Andy to a major win. Good work

sureshs
09-10-2012, 06:41 AM
so he is saying he's already coached Andy to a major win. Good work

He took offense to BG's question about how ready Murray was to win a major (or something like that).

I hope Lendl is a very good coach, because he came across as obnoxious in the interview. But perhaps that is his image and he is forced to live to it.

absurdo
09-10-2012, 07:23 AM
olympics rare or special??

in other sports the olympics are the most important event. atletes get themselves ready for it, for years!

in tennis, olympics are a pain in the *** in the middle of the season. players have to skip their resting time. does it make any sense to play the clay court season + roland garros + queens/halle + wimbledon and then have no rest before toronto+cincy, and then us open... its just a silly schedulle.

sure olympics is 'fun'. and i think those who win are entitled to being happy with it.

but the same as a major?

AH AH

bluetrain4
09-10-2012, 07:28 AM
Where to place the Olympics on the tennis acheivement hierarcy is a fairly recent trend. Remember, it's only been a full medal sport since 1988. Olympic gold was always seen as a nice achievement and certainly added luster to a players' resume - but was not seen as the equivalent of a major.

I've argued in the past that there's no way it should be considered a major. My main reason is that the actual nuts-and-bolts tournament is absolutely nothing special - 64 draw, 2 of 3 for the men until the finals, and not even the best 64 players in the world (due to player-per-country limitations, and some voluntary absences). Plus, there's no long tradition of Olympic tennis. Why should it be considered a "major" when its never been the ultimate acheivement in the sport? And why now, in such a short time frame? If its going to be considered a major, shouldn't it earn that status with a lengthier history and further evolution of the actual tournament?

I think Olympic tennis rides the coattails of general Olympic prestige. It was almost inevitable that once it was added to the program, this debate would surface. So many people equate the Olympics with being the ultimate achievement in sports that they never even consider the history of any particular sport or whether there have traditionally been other competitions which define that sport. I'd say "Olympic gold winner" resonates immediately with many more people than "French Open champion" -- thus, Olympic gold in tennis has gained this sort of instant prestige, despite, as stated before, the narrow history of the sport in the Olympics and the total averageness of the Olympic tournament.

But, I think the trend of thinking of the Olympics as a major or quasi-major or at least as "no longer icing on the cake, but actually part of the cake" (and therefore Olympic achievements being an increasing part of HOF, all-time greats, and GOAT discussions) will only continue to intensify. I can already see it on TW, and hear it among tennis commentators and analysts.

My take on the Olympics is that it is truly unique. It can be an elite achievement without being a major. It can stand on its own. I hate the idea of 750 points or any points being awarded because, as we've seen on TW, it makes people attempt to define its importance/prestige through the traditional context of ATP/ITF events. To me, that's stupid. The value should derive from the intangibles that make the Olympics unique - the unique pressure of Olympic competition, representing one's country, being part of a broader athletic and cultural experience, the relative rarity of Olympic competition (and thus the relative elusiveness of Olympic gold). Would these things change if the Olympics were dropped to 500 level? No. Would they change if the Olympics were artifically inflated to most prestigious event by awarding the winner 3000 points?

I can't understand why people can't simply view the Olympics as simply "something else", why does it have to be a "major"? We view the YEC and Davis Cup as elite tennis achievements (and factor them into GOAT discussions), yet don't grant them "major" status. It seems that people think the Olympics must have "major" status to be important. I don't agree. It's can be important on its own merits.

skip1969
09-10-2012, 07:33 AM
i think that's what you'd call "fluffing your résumé."

DRII
09-10-2012, 07:34 AM
olympics rare or special??

in other sports the olympics are the most important event. atletes get themselves ready for it, for years!

in tennis, olympics are a pain in the *** in the middle of the season. players have to skip their resting time. does it make any sense to play the clay court season + roland garros + queens/halle + wimbledon and then have no rest before toronto+cincy, and then us open... its just a silly schedulle.

sure olympics is 'fun'. and i think those who win are entitled to being happy with it.

but the same as a major?

AH AH


Way to live up to your username...

Of course the Olympics (summer) are rare and special; happening only once every 4 years!

merlinpinpin
09-10-2012, 07:35 AM
Yet another proof that Lendl is the best thing that could happen to Murray, and by a country mile. Serious confindence-building, here. Good stuff from Ivan.

(And funny stuff from TTW posters eager to overdo each other in misunderstanding what is being said, as usual...) :D

RF20Lennon
09-10-2012, 07:37 AM
Is Lendl trying to comfort himself if Murray loses today by making that statement?

Danny_G13
09-10-2012, 07:48 AM
I have to admit I am a little weary of Murray being discredited when he beats any of the big 3 - it's always dismissed as their lack of interest.

The evidence to the contrary has been laid out many times but I feel those who just don't rate/like Murray refuse to ever give him credit when he achieves something.

I can't think of a living human being who, if they were a professional sportsman, would literally not care in a match of any magnitude and would effectively 'concede' while merely only making gestures of effort.

That is pure nonsense. Murray, Tsonga, Federer, Del Potro, Djokovic, Nadal, and every other tennis player will give everything they can in every match they play.

But, it seems to me, in the eyes of some, this excludes Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal if Murray beats them.

Agassifan
09-10-2012, 07:53 AM
It will eventually be equal to one. Right now, not at all.

Agassifan
09-10-2012, 07:54 AM
It has ABSOLUTELY ZERO history.

[Z]engin
09-10-2012, 07:56 AM
Of course he says that, his pupil won it.


But I'm rooting for Nole, I'm starting to dislike Murray more and more, don't really have a particular reason, Novak is mentally stronger and always gives his best and plays much more entertaining although there playing style do look kind of similar.

3fees
09-10-2012, 08:08 AM
Its a major without atp ranking points.

Bjorn99
09-10-2012, 08:23 AM
Being of Scottish descent, I am prejudiced in terms of evaluating Murray. But I think Lendl has done a remarkable job with the lad so far. His forehand is becoming more fluid and departing from the new age version of Stefan Edberg. It was so mechanical it was hard for me to support him. Thankfully, its evolving.

And since Serena Williams in her Golden Years showed us that she has finally learned how to totally flatten out her first serve, pro tennis players CAN improve later in their careers. Just have to open their minds and do it.

And the Olympics are NOT an official major, but I feel they are right up there with a Slam. Look at how infrequent they are. Once every four years, huge prestige etc.... And hey, they let you talk afterwards for a few minutes, as opposed to last nights CBS debauchle.

Mainad
09-10-2012, 08:24 AM
It will eventually be equal to one. Right now, not at all.

It isn't quite equal to one but why do you say eventually it will be? You mean when Federer finally wins it? :wink:

dudeski
09-10-2012, 08:25 AM
To BG on ESPN

So I guess Mardy Fish is a slam finalist then.

Biscuitmcgriddleson
09-10-2012, 08:50 AM
Nope it isn't a major just like the WTF isn't a major. It doesn't mean that it can't become a very important event, but it will take many years until it become as special as certain people present it as.

Djoker
09-10-2012, 09:15 AM
Nope it isn't a major just like the WTF isn't a major. It doesn't mean that it can't become a very important event, but it will take many years until it become as special as certain people present it as.

This is true. The passage of time has a way of making such things happen.
I'm reminded of "politicians, ugly buildings, and *****s all get respectable if they last long enough."

Vlad_C
09-10-2012, 09:34 AM
Don't parents usually say that their kid is the most talented, the most beautiful, the most whatever...
Everyone else knows it's not true, but the kid feels better about himself.

Probably Lendl figures that Andy is still so immature that he needs that kind of BS to build his self-esteem.

tennisMVP
09-10-2012, 09:37 AM
It is more important than a major, because majors are four a year, O is once in 4 years. The best of 3 format might diminish it a little, though.

At least the final is best-of-5. Olympics is definitely bigger than the World Tour Finals, that is for sure.

El Diablo
09-10-2012, 09:37 AM
Sam Querrey says the Farmers Classic is a major.

cknobman
09-10-2012, 10:40 AM
Murray says Cincinnati is a major.

Does that make it one?

absurdo
09-10-2012, 10:51 AM
Way to live up to your username...

Of course the Olympics (summer) are rare and special; happening only once every 4 years!

ahah, wow, you were the first one to make that joke. congrats.

being an event held every 4 years doesnt make it more important. it just means each player have fewer shots at the tittle than at a normal event.

but that also doesnt say to us how much the players want the title. some might want, others maybe not, since it is almost of no importance to the tennis world. and the rules of entrance are different from the other events and, plus, it is a nationalistic event. some players might not care about flags. etc etc

TheF1Bob
09-10-2012, 11:14 AM
Team Muzza desperate to get any kind recognition for their boy. :lol:

Beryl
09-10-2012, 11:16 AM
It has ABSOLUTELY ZERO history.The Olympics have zero history... now I've heard it all. :-?

Even if you are only referring to Tennis at the Olympics, you are still wrong. If you're really a fan of Agassi, that makes it even worse.

Moose Malloy
09-10-2012, 12:01 PM
I've argued in the past that there's no way it should be considered a major. My main reason is that the actual nuts-and-bolts tournament is absolutely nothing special - 64 draw, 2 of 3 for the men until the finals

It was best of 5 all rounds in '88 & '92. I think it should got back to that format.

BTW there are no tiebreaks in the deciding set, so I think that slight change in format makes it quite a bit different from a normal event.

And hey, they let you talk afterwards for a few minutes, as opposed to last nights CBS debauchle

uh, there are no 'acceptance' speeches at the Olympics. In any event. That would be pretty tacky.

Gizo
09-10-2012, 12:27 PM
I would put the Olympic event in the second tier of importance along with the YEC and the Davis Cup. The order within that tier is debatable, but I do think that those are clearly the 5th, 6th and 7th biggest events in tennis.

Of course the 4 slams are in the top tier, and the masters series events would be in the third tier below those events. I wouldn't be surprised if less than 10 years after he has retired, Nadal for instance will have forgotten how many masters series titles he won during his career.

ivan_the_terrible
09-10-2012, 12:41 PM
I think Lendl meant " A major win".

Tennis shouldn't be there anyway - Olympics are for amateurs, I don' recall anyone referring to Nadal as an amateur :twisted:

Lefty78
09-10-2012, 01:04 PM
That's what guys who haven't won a major would say.

That's actually what a guy who won 8 majors but no olympic gold DID say.

Russeljones
09-10-2012, 01:07 PM
I think Lendl meant " A major win".

Tennis shouldn't be there anyway - Olympics are for amateurs, I don' recall anyone referring to Nadal as an amateur :twisted:

A lot more amateurs practice tennis than they do pole vault. Get it now?

Gorecki
09-10-2012, 04:55 PM
pole vault is the bomb... or is it pole dancing???? i'm confused

defrule
09-10-2012, 05:17 PM
It's like the World Cup vs Champions League.

World Cup might be every four years and really big, but the Champions League has better competition and higher quality of play.

Mustard
09-10-2012, 05:59 PM
Ignore post.

sureshs
09-10-2012, 06:24 PM
Well, it is kind of moot now.