View Single Post
Old 11-14-2012, 11:36 AM   #128
Talk Tennis Guru
TMF's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 20,762

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet View Post
Huge impact? Does it really? The big 4 have won EVERY single grand slam title since the 2005 Australian Open, with Del Potro being the lone exception. That's 31 out of 32. You really think it would make a huge impact, when the top 4 have won pretty much every major for almost the last decade?

Again, the field wasn't really "split". Virtually all the legendary players were the pros.
Safin in 05 AO, Del Potro in 2009 USO, Nalbandian in 2005 Shanghai Master Cup, Davydenko/Del Potro were winner/finalist in 2009 WTF. THese are HUGE events that would be owned by Federer had these guys were playing in another field. Fed would have a SUPER year in 2005(better than his best 2006) had there wasn't for Safin/Nalbandian, because he would have won 3 slams/year and beat Mac 1984 win/loss record(82-3).

As dominant as FEderer was, he still had some upsets, so no question Laver and Rosewall would get plenty of upsets in a big stage had there wasn't a split fields. 1962 Laver won 4 slams as an amateur and many have said he wasn't even the best player in the world, lol. His 6 overall amateur slams could have been reduce had the pro was competing too. The 3 pro majors had only 8-14 players. Had the amateur were in the mix and have 128 draws, who knows how many times Laver/Rosewall get upset.

No matter how much to want to defend the pre-open era, players have better success with having a 2 fields .
TMF is offline   Reply With Quote