View Single Post
Old 03-28-2013, 09:00 AM   #1141
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
 
hoodjem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bierlandt
Posts: 11,142
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyOne View Post
If the standard tournaments (the non-majors) would be so important, Federer would be only a medium player as he has won much less events than a Laver or Tilden. In fact Roger is a great player because he has done so well at the majors (17 wins, 34 SFs).
Plus he has also done well in Masters 1000 events (Fed has 21 titles).

Of course the non-majors are important, and the majors have occasionally been not-so-important (e.g. Australian Open 1976-82).

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewD View Post
I don't know how many threads we've got to have before it starts getting through to people that the Australian Open was a second tier event ONLY from 1976 to 1982. Time and time again the winners and finalists from 83 to 87 are recounted and each time it is shown that the best players in the world, bar Connors, played the event. Hell, there's even a current thread with all that information in it - if you're even slightly interested in genuine tennis history. From 83 to 87, the only ones who considered it a second tier event are those people who haven't the vaguest idea what they're talking about.

1988-2007: Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon, U.S. Open
1983-1987: Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon, U.S Open
1976-1982: French Open (not if you count the women), Wimbledon, U.S. Open
1968-1975: Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon, U.S Open,
Pre 1968: Wimbledon, Davis Cup, Australian Open/ French Open/ U.S Open (locally important but don't rank with the first two)
__________________
Common Sense is what tell us that the world is flat, and the sun revolves around the earth.

Last edited by hoodjem : 03-28-2013 at 09:12 AM.
hoodjem is offline   Reply With Quote