TimHenmanATG
Hall of Fame
They are in their 40-year-old and 35-year-old versions...
Is Emma's win a bigger story than a potential Novak's CYGS?
- Thread starter steenkash
- Start date
They are in their 40-year-old and 35-year-old versions...
GameSetDjokovic
Semi-Pro
Sure are now. But what about when Novak was kicking their arses? People tend to forget Novak is less than a year younger than Nadal.
R. Schweikart
Professional
As a good German boy Zverev wouldn't have it that someone replicated Steffi's unique Golden Slam.
The Grand Slam Djokovic can have, it has been achieved several times already.
TimHenmanATG
Hall of Fame
That doesn't really matter now.
He's winning the CYGS because of the dearth of meaningful opposition.
Don't get me wrong, Novak is an extraordinary player, and thoroughly deserves all the accolades which he receives - but let's not ignore the context of 2021.
D
Deleted member 771911
Guest
A year younger than Nadal but nowhere to be seen for most of 2005-2007. Then did not deliver after AO through to end of 2010.
Only a year younger than Nadal, though.
A wildcard gains direct entrance to the main draw, right?
But that doesn't mean that it's the correct way of judging what is the most valuable or prestigious. Again, I was expressing a personal opinion. In fact not judging it by what is the most difficult to achieve would be demagoguery because why would something that's easier to do be more valuable or prestigious?
GameSetDjokovic
Semi-Pro
Yeah it is unfortunate Fed could not capitalize on meaningless competition.
Rattler
Hall of Fame
Is it this easy to get into your head when you play?
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
The title does say that, which is in itself questionable and partial (bigger story for whom, and where?).
But there is a clear attempt by a number of posters to suggest that perhaps the "bigger story" should in fact be considered the most salient historically.
Case in point, post #107 above, where it is clearly stated:
"But that doesn't mean that it's the correct way of judging what is the most valuable or prestigious. [...] In fact not judging it by what is the most difficult to achieve would be demagoguery because why would something that's easier to do be more valuable or prestigious?"
In order to diminish the achievements of the player they dislike, some posters go as far as to wish the reality of the sport away and imagine an alternate reality (their "opinion" in such matters), a safe space if you will, where they can feel secure that Djokovic possibly achieving the CYGS is no big deal. There is no genuine interest in the WTA other than the psychological need to overshadow and diminish what could happen this evening (which I'm doubtful will happen, but that's a different matter).
No, this is you misunderstanding things. I never claimed that my opinion matters more. I also never ever said that achieving the CYGS is no big deal. Just that what I consider the greatest achievement is based on what is the most difficult. I also consider Nadal's 13 slams at RG a bigger achievement than the CYGS. Or Federer's 5x3 slams. And probably many others. I have posts stating that before Djokovic was in contention for the CYGS this year. And my argument for that is based on a consistent methodology. Yours is based on popular opinion.
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
My argument is not based on popular opinion but on the traditions of the sport until this day, forged in its long history of change (in some aspects) but also continuity: what constitutes a "culture", so to speak.
An argument from popular opinion would be to say that because Raducanu is the "bigger story" (which, again, is doubtful), the difficulty (and rarity) of what she achieved should be raised above something that is deemed to be one of the pinnacles of the sport.
You can choose "difficulty" and how it relates to "rarity" all you like, but it it very quickly becomes a silly criterion if you analyse it carefully.
There have never been any triple bagels in Grand Slam finals, which would make it a very difficult and rare thing to do, but does that have any more value than beating Federer in the 5th set of a Wimbledon final in 2008? And then are things "difficult" because they're rare, because more effort is required (and how do you determine this?) or because the challenge is bigger (again, how do you determine this?)? What makes something important and valuable in a specific sport is a product of that sport's (or culture's) history and it can't just be traced with a ruler and a compass, or through a single concept (like "difficulty").
But of course, you're free to believe whatever you like in private. Ivanisevic winning Wimbledon in 2001 makes me more emotional, and therefore more prone to hyperbole, than Sampras winning his 10th or 11th Slam, and in private I can still believe it's the greatest story ever told in tennis and deem it unsurpassable, but history and the record books will always be on Pete's side.
I'm not saying you would put forth this argument, but based on this thread, and if the Serb wins today, I can already imagine people saying "oh yeah? but could Djokovic win a Slam as a qualifier?"
Last edited:
Raul_SJ
G.O.A.T.
No. One is not clearly harder than the other. Both are equally difficult.
The CYGS has been accomplished by only one man in the Open Era. Once. 1962 Laver CYGS was against a non-professional field. Even Laver will tell you that it should not be considered a true CYGS.
That leaves the 1969 Laver CYGS which was completed on just two surfaces. Djoker has already won on THREE surfaces.
Historically unprecedented!
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
Not only that, there is much more pressure on winning a CYGS (especially one where you're going for the Slam record at the same time) than on winning a Slam as a qualifier.
It's almost the opposite, actually: the qualifier has no pressure on his/her shoulders at all and can play, for the most part, without having anything to lose.
And that is the popular opinion. It doesn't matter whether it has been shaped through traditions or history. Your argument is that it's the greatest because that is what is publicly perceived as the greatest. This is the exact definition of an argument from popular opinion.
But that was not what I argued. It was the other way around. Because it's more difficult it should be considered a greater achievement.
I never stated that determining what is most difficult is easy. And it's certainly harder to determine when you can't determine from history which is more difficult. But it's quite clear that simply relying on traditions and history to determine which achievement is greatest is also ridiculous as those kinds of achievements are highly dependent on whether it's marketable. The CYGS is very marketable because there's a possibility for it every year. Winning 13 slams at a single event isn't. But using that as a criterion to determine that it's greater to win the CYGS compared to 13 slams at a single event is silly because it would disqualify most achievements even if they are immensely more difficult to achieve.
This has nothing to do with Djokovic. I probably consider Nadal's 13 wins at a single slam the greatest achievement by any of the big 3. And I'm far from a Nadal fan.
CHillTennis
Hall of Fame
Not even in the same ball park.
Djokovic is attempting to do something that was last achieved 52 years ago.
There are plenty of 18 year old grand slam winners.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
What is it lately with all these stupid threads comparing Raducanu to Djokovic? Both are of course great stories but obviously Djokovic’s CYGS is bigger. In 10 years time or at the very latest when Raducanu retires nobody outside hardcore WTA fans will talk about this achievement whereas a CYGS will always be talked about, see Laver.
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
And Emma's story hasn't?? Take a look at the news coverage of this open. While I don't necessarily think Emma's story is bigger, a massive chunk of the media seems to believe it is and I don't think the answer is clear cut either way. Tennis has an OLD audience, Emma's story could bring in a lot of young people, who didn't care before.
As for your post, it's plain wrong
1) this is not about an 18 year old girl winning a slam. This is about the FIRST EVER, man or woman, QUALIFIER winning a slam. That's never been done before in the Open Era (not sure as to before the Open era) - in contrast to the CYGS, which has been done
2) While there's a chance you could be right that the CYGS will not be done in the next 100 years, odds are you won't be. The CYGS has been done before both before and after the Open Era. Laver did in in 1969, Graf did the Golden CYGS in 88. Laver did in in the pre Open era in 62 and Budge did it in 38.
As per above, Emma's story is not about an 18 year old winning a slam. That would be a 'we've seen that A LOT before story'
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
In terms of likelyhood of it happening, the bookies have had the option for Djoko for several years. Iirc, odds that he would win a CYGS in 2021 was about 11, i.e. a 10 % chance.
Odds on Raducanu going through qualifying and the main draw without dropping a set? Through the f...... roof. I don't think it was possible to make a bet on her on most of the standard betting agencies.
Judging their stories in terms of likelyhood, Raducanus is the far, far, far bigger surprise.
In the men's field, there were 2 previous slam winners in the draw. Novak - and Cilic who lost in the first round.
Last edited:
Lleytonstation
Talk Tennis Guru
But to be fair, it was just harder for her to win it. Not everybody.
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
Being a wildcard means you don't have to go through qualifying
But this is about whether they were competition for him this year. Fed wasn't and Rafa's decline was shown very clearly in the 4th at the FO, where Rafa, formerly known as the energizer bunny, didn't have the energy for more than 3 sets of tennis on his favorite court.
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
I watch the ATP a lot more than I watch the WTA. I hardly ever watch a WTA match outside the slams. I prefer Fed among the Big 3, but prefer Novak over Rafa. And I've long expected he would end of with the most majors at the end, which he will - regardless of what happens tonight.
Despite of the above, I was honestly much more hyped about yesterday's match than I will be about tonight's final. Why? Partly because it was unpredictable for me (though I favored Radu to win) but moreso because both of them had had such a fairytale fortnight. Tonight's match feels like yet another NID match for me. At times, it might seem as if Medvedev has a chance (or we may get another blowout), but we all know who will win eventually. And that's been the case all year. He's playing people who can't close a match (yes, Federer has troubles with that as well)) and who, for the most part, have lost before they step on court.
At Wimbledon, he won without showing anything close to his best tennis, cause he didn't need to. I'm sorry, but that doesn't get me wildly excited as a guy, who's very impressed by Novak, but not a fan.
Btw: Medvedev's record in the 5th is 2-7. Novak's 23-5 since the start of 2011. In other words, Medvedev needs to win in 3 or 4. 3 is extremely unlikely, so if the upset should somehow happen, it'll be in 4. The 5th is a foregone conclusion as it was vs. Zverev.
And yes, I do realize the historical significance, what it means for the GOAT debate and all that.
Cortana
Legend
Federer would be at 30 slams too if someone stabbed Djokovic in 2010.
What an idiotic post.
ScentOfDefeat
G.O.A.T.
You can almost count the seconds until someone brings that up every time the letters G-R-A-F are arranged in sequence.
It's Pavlovian.
Isn’t it puzzling? I promise never to mention “her” again.
Strale
Semi-Pro
British papers only,blood and genetics are Romanian...
Good thing Novak ditched their offer for citizenship
Are you sure? She looks very Chinese to meBritish papers only,blood and genetics are Romanian...
Good thing Novak ditched their offer for citizenship
Strale
Semi-Pro
To me she looks like non British ahahahhAre you sure? She looks very Chinese to me
Rattler
Hall of Fame
how are you coping?
Rattler
Hall of Fame
So it’s over…and it looks like the Women’s final eclipsed Novak.
ElChivoEspañol
Hall of Fame
PM me the power all numbers when you get a chance.
Harry_Wild
G.O.A.T.
Absolutely since Djokovc lost big time in the mens finals. Raducanu along with Fernandez is a bigger story for tennis talk concerns. Draws interest in tennis again!
The biggest story is the very first all-Canadian major tennis singles final.
Harry_Wild
G.O.A.T.
Bianco Andresscu won the U.S. Open! She is Canadian!
a10best
Hall of Fame
Good prediction Nostradamus. Does any quatrain give more details which slams she will win?
She was a qualifier who didn't drop a set. That is exciting. Novak winning a calendar GS is not big news since he won a GS already.
Sorry, I meant the biggest story in this year's U.S. Open, although DJ losing the final is also a big story.
Booster Gold
Rookie
It is yeah, especially in Britain
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Well, now that Emma won and Nole folded in straight sets in his CYGS bid, obviously Emma is the bigger story.
