Originally Posted by merlinpinpin
This is becoming really confusing, so let's just try and make it clearer, right?
Now, your new rule is that, to be a contender in a slam, you have to reach the semis (at least) and have won at least another slam previously.
Then, you 'll agree with me that Federer wasn't a contender at Wimbledon 2003, Nadal wasn't a contender at RG 2005, Djokovic wasn't a contender at AO 2008, Sampras wasn't a contender at USO 1990, etc., etc.
Yet they all won. Amazing, isn't it? So, can we reasonably say that a player who won a tournament wasn't a contender?
Now you're just being stupid...
and you know it.
Don't fall to the level of TMF, mandy, ambk etc...
There is no new rule. I said that IMO to be an open era great a player has to be a multiple slam winner and contender to win or have won slams on every slam surface...
Its pretty simple, i don't understand the confusion...