View Single Post
Old 11-08-2012, 01:54 AM   #47
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Inside the service box - the business end
Posts: 3,620

Originally Posted by Nathaniel_Near View Post
That isn't the point. It was just to demonstrate that there is more to a player's resume than the 'number of Slams'. It doesn't matter if the extra options I stated were specifically in relation to the exact question as they were there merely to demonstrate a point which by extension further consolidates my reasoning also behind choosing option 2 (with ease).
You chose the wrong options to make your point. No biggie.

Originally Posted by Nathaniel_Near View Post
To answer the question more concretely and specifically, option 2 gives Federer more positive elements in his overall resume, as he'd have won almost every title going, have 2 career Grand Slams, and rectified a negative head to head against another all time great (regardless of how big or small people find this point, it does exist and is still a part of the resume that will be judged, and his career is even better with yet another 'hole filled' in)..
I have excplicitly stated what the one and the other option give.

You may perceive 2 Career Grand Slams and a positive H2H with Nadal as more "positive", than Federer further distancing himself from the rest of the field in the Open era Majors count and holding the number of titles record at two of the four Majors. I don't. Especially, if one of those two Majors is Wimbledon (or, for that matter, if both 2 Major titles are at SW19, giving him 9 overall)

There are all sorts of weaknesses in everybody's resume. Noone has a perfect resume and never will have one.

So it really is a choice between playing on your strengths or rectifying your weaknesses. I know what I would choose.

Originally Posted by Nathaniel_Near View Post
Option 1 gives him an extra Slam, big whoop about 18 vs 19.
Yet, you talk about 2 Career Grand Slams, when we know perfectly well, that it is a term, used (in general) to just show the versatility of certain player and is even less meaningful, in the grand scheme of things.

Why engage in counting meaningless "achievements", if the number of Majors won is so overinflated, according to you?

Originally Posted by Nathaniel_Near View Post
It's time for the current perception regarding the grotesquely lopsided magnitude of Slams to change. Other achievements are being too slighted as a result.
The Majors are and will forever (as far as the Game is the same) be the most important thing in Tennis. There is some confusion about their importance, because of the separation before the Open era, but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter.

As every Major title is a monumental achievement in itself (and more so now with the unified field and tournament scheme than before) I do not understand how people are disregarding the difference between 18 and 19. How come that it doesn't matter so much?

I hear you say, that for Federer to get the #1 position at the age of 32 would be massive. Sure, you will agree, that to get Wimbledon (or even two of those) at 32 or later would be massive too (it would be general conisistency against superhigh tennis level).

I think, that a lot of historians are slanted towards the old romantic perception of Tennis, being a sport within rivalries. A perception, that is wrong in itself, since the rivalries happen along the way and, in general, no two playerrs of the same generation are modified around their main rival's style. Even Nadal's style, which can be described as the worst possible matchup issue related to Federer's game, doesn't fit the bill exactly (although being the closest to modelling his game around someone elses's weaknesses).

H2Hs can be and are largely a product of circumstances. No need to overinflate that.
Crisstti:It's not cheating (arguable at best), it's merely breaking the rules./ Vero:Armstrong lacks the arrogance.
Tennis_Hands is offline   Reply With Quote