Lendl says Olympics is a major

To BG on ESPN

Lendl is wrong, then.

İt is important but it isnt a major.Murray and his camp shouldnt kid themselves.

I'm sure he wouldn't say that if he wasn't Murray's coach.

I agree with him.

It is more important than a major, because majors are four a year, O is once in 4 years. The best of 3 format might diminish it a little, though.

sureshs said:

It is more important than a major, because majors are four a year, O is once in 4 years. The best of 3 format might diminish it a little, though.

Click to expand...

Does that mean indoor carpet are the most important of all since they never happen anymore and hence are infinitely more important?

You only get like 3 chances to win the Olympics. If you always reach the latter stages of a major however, it's far more likely that you will 'fluke' one at one point than it is 'fluking' a gold medal. Especially if you have to beat the top 2 to win it.

This Olympics was also held at Wimbledon, making it much more special.

It's not a major IMO, but it's definitely worth more than a Masters title. Besides, who are we to judge? The feeling counts. If Andy feels like he won a Major, then so be it.

The Murray camp should have just said, the Olympics is a big tournament and Andy played superbly and did very well to win the gold medal, but now he's one match away from winning his first major, and we believe he is ready.

sureshs said:

Lendl says Olympics is a major.

Click to expand...

Mustard said:

The Murray camp should have just said, the Olympics is a big tournament and Andy played superbly and did very well to win the gold medal, but now he's one match away from winning his first major, and we believe he is ready.

Click to expand...

I begin to feel more and more that this guy Murray wont win a major.To try to show Olympics (which is important) as a major is a desperate attempt.

Lendl's words were: In his mind, Murray has already won a major.

JMac disagreed, due to the best of 3 issue, but said that from Rio, it probably should be started to consider it a major.

That's what guys who haven't won a major would say.

Sid_Vicious said:

Click to expand...

That gif always kills me. Especially when Jordan holds the stare for a while then laughter spouts.

mistik said:

I begin to feel more and more that this guy Murray wont win a major.To try to show Olympics (which is important) as a major is a desperate attempt.

Click to expand...

NikeWilson said:

That's what guys who haven't won a major would say.

Click to expand...

If I was Djokovic right now, I'd be delighted to hear Lendl saying that. It's like the Murray camp are in denial about the fact that he hasn't won a major yet, and it's a suspect mentality from them.

I always thought the only reason they don't treat it as a major is because of how a once-in-4-year tournament would mess with points. At most I could see the olympics being worth a masters 1,000 for gold with 500 and 250 for silver and bronze, respectively.

Lendl is not cool. He says that because Murray is under his tutelage.

Olympic tennis had a lot more interest this time than previously because it was at Wimbledon. We'll see in 4 years if anyone still cares about Olympic tennis or if this was a one-off deal.

Why?

sureshs said:

It is more important than a major, because majors are four a year, O is once in 4 years. The best of 3 format might diminish it a little, though.

Click to expand...

Not sure I understand the logic. How is the fact that it is only every 4 years make it more important than a major. Leap year only happens every 4 years - but that doesn't make it more important than any other year.

Soon he will be saying 'losing a GS final is better than winning one'.

NLBwell said:

Olympic tennis had a lot more interest this time than previously because it was at Wimbledon. We'll see in 4 years if anyone still cares about Olympic tennis or if this was a one-off deal.

Click to expand...

I doubt most will care. Olympics are truly for Amateur athletes IMO.

Yep and so is Cincy.

It's not on the level of a major and never should be.

I honestly don't care to watch professional athletes compete in the Olympics unless the Olympics is the crown jewel of their respective sport. Tennis, soccer, basketball etc at the Olympics should be played by amateurs but it's great for professionals in all track & filed events, gymnastic events, swimming etc where the Olympics is the highlight of your sport.

sureshs said:

Lendl's words were: In his mind, Murray has already won a major.

JMac disagreed, due to the best of 3 issue, but said that from Rio, it probably should be started to consider it a major.

Click to expand...

I agree with you. It does not matter what others think about your achievement. Confidence comes from how you take things. Murray might think that he won a GS in his mind and hence will play with less pressure. Why do people want to bring him down saying you did not do that?

2011 AO final loss brought down the condience of Murray so much that he lost a row of First round, but 2012 Semifinal loss increased his confidence causing him to push for Wim final and OG gold medal. It all depends on how one takes the outcome of a match.

I can see both sides of this argument. Because it's not 2 weeks and it's not best of 5 till the final it's not technically a major. That is true.

But Olympic tennis has been going since before the 20th century even started, even if it had a massive gap of 50 years in the interim, and only happens but once every 4 years. So for every 16 chances players get to win a slam, they get one to win a gold medal at the Olympics.

The simple fact that all of Djokovic, Murray, Del P and Federer badly wanted it showed how much it meant to them all, so while it's not technically classed as a slam, it clearly is of much higher importance than a masters.

Is it a technical slam? No. Does it feel like one to the winner? Yes.

No one questioned its clout when Nadal got his in Beijing, so why start now?



Not sure it was meaningless to Nadal!

yeah right, and Serbian Open is more important than RG, lol. The Olympic tennis tournament is just a glorifying exo btw. means nothing really on a big scale. you play for your country, great, you get 750 points (wow, just great) ... c'mon guys calm down.

I hope that Murray doesn't become another Rios. All people remember are majors. e.i. I know that Safin won 2 majors. How many masters did he win? can't remember at all. sure I can find out. Kafelnikov anybody? 2 majors ...

I guess Ivan had to give himself credit that Murray won something. Sure, I'm being a bit sarcastic here and I'm truly happy that Murry won the O, but where the heck was he at the final of Wimbledon.

I Murray loses tomorrow, God help us all with all of this hype.

timnz said:

Not sure I understand the logic. How is the fact that it is only every 4 years make it more important than a major. Leap year only happens every 4 years - but that doesn't make it more important than any other year.

Click to expand...

It by definition makes it more rare or special...

the less there is of something that there is a demand for, the more its worth...


so I guess that officially makes it 17 to 12

Danny, they are all pretenders. they just say politically correct stuff my friend. I don't buy it at all. I don't think that Djoko, or Fed give a darn about the Olympics. sure they showed up because they were expected and they are big stars.

They won their matches because they are so good. When Fed played that final against Muzza, he seemed to be completely disinterested, same with Djokovic. no fire at all.

I'm saying this because of their almost non existent effort there. slackers.

all they care about are slams. too many naive people here.

An olympic gold should be worth at least as much as a Master's 1000 event. Maybe not quite as much as a major, but a gold medal is worth a lot. There's no denying it.

Evan77 said:

Danny, they are all pretenders. they just say politically correct stuff my friend. I don't buy it at all. I don't think that Djoko, or Fed give a darn about the Olympics. sure they showed up because they were expected and they are big stars.

Click to expand...

So why was Federer telling everybody he talked to over the last 4 years how much he was looking forward to the London 2012 Olympics especially as they were being played on his favourite surface at his favourite venue, Wimbledon? Just to keep the Swiss press and Olympic association happy? And, given that he 'obviously' didn't care, why did he flog his guts out to win his semi against Del Potro going 19-17 in the 3rd set? Wasn't that a bit mean considering Del Potro really wanted a chance at the gold while Roger already had one (from Beijing) and a pointless waste of his energy at that, if he just wasn't arsed?

And why did a Serbian news reporter find Djokovic looking tearful and apologetic, sawing in half his remaining racquets, after losing the bronze medal match to Del Potro? Just playacting for the benefit of the Serbian press and Olympic association?

Funny how whenever Murray beats these two its because:

a). They are injured.
b). They are tired.
c). They are injured AND tired.
d). They tanked the match because they just didn't care.

Why are we are never allowed option:

e). He beat them fair and square because he was the better player in the match.

It gets really tedious and boring!

Evan77 said:

Danny, they are all pretenders. they just say politically correct stuff my friend. I don't buy it at all. I don't think that Djoko, or Fed give a darn about the Olympics. sure they showed up because they were expected and they are big stars.

They won their matches because they are so good. When Fed played that final against Muzza, he seemed to be completely disinterested, same with Djokovic. no fire at all.

I'm saying this because of their almost non existent effort there. slackers.

all they care about are slams. too many naive people here.

Click to expand...

of course they don't. That's why Federer cried when he won his first round match, and that's why Djokovic destroyed all his rackets when he couldn't get a medal. Big freakin' lol

Lendl is wrong: Olympics are not a major.
The reason?
Murray won the olympics
but he never won a slam
So the olympics are no major
CQFD

Fed, Murray, Djoko and DP care about the Olympics very much.

Car is a tree.

R_Federer said:

I doubt most will care. Olympics are truly for Amateur athletes IMO.

Click to expand...

Amateur athletes? Are you serious? I guess you don't watch basketball either. Do you know how much money the medalists make? Sounds like you're living in the past. it's time to wake up and smell the money.

Paul Murphy said:

It's not on the level of a major and never should be.

Click to expand...

Yes you are right about that I've never seen a player take a trophy to the next match like Mike Bryan did at the US Open and let a ball boy hold it for him.

Sartorius said:

Car is a tree.

Click to expand...

This is not a violin

sureshs said:

To BG on ESPN

Click to expand...

so he is saying he's already coached Andy to a major win. Good work

Nostradamus said:

so he is saying he's already coached Andy to a major win. Good work

Click to expand...

He took offense to BG's question about how ready Murray was to win a major (or something like that).

I hope Lendl is a very good coach, because he came across as obnoxious in the interview. But perhaps that is his image and he is forced to live to it.

olympics rare or special??

in other sports the olympics are the most important event. atletes get themselves ready for it, for years!

in tennis, olympics are a pain in the ass in the middle of the season. players have to skip their resting time. does it make any sense to play the clay court season + roland garros + queens/halle + wimbledon and then have no rest before toronto+cincy, and then us open... its just a silly schedulle.

sure olympics is 'fun'. and i think those who win are entitled to being happy with it.

but the same as a major?

AH AH

Where to place the Olympics on the tennis acheivement hierarcy is a fairly recent trend. Remember, it's only been a full medal sport since 1988. Olympic gold was always seen as a nice achievement and certainly added luster to a players' resume - but was not seen as the equivalent of a major.

I've argued in the past that there's no way it should be considered a major. My main reason is that the actual nuts-and-bolts tournament is absolutely nothing special - 64 draw, 2 of 3 for the men until the finals, and not even the best 64 players in the world (due to player-per-country limitations, and some voluntary absences). Plus, there's no long tradition of Olympic tennis. Why should it be considered a "major" when its never been the ultimate acheivement in the sport? And why now, in such a short time frame? If its going to be considered a major, shouldn't it earn that status with a lengthier history and further evolution of the actual tournament?

I think Olympic tennis rides the coattails of general Olympic prestige. It was almost inevitable that once it was added to the program, this debate would surface. So many people equate the Olympics with being the ultimate achievement in sports that they never even consider the history of any particular sport or whether there have traditionally been other competitions which define that sport. I'd say "Olympic gold winner" resonates immediately with many more people than "French Open champion" -- thus, Olympic gold in tennis has gained this sort of instant prestige, despite, as stated before, the narrow history of the sport in the Olympics and the total averageness of the Olympic tournament.

But, I think the trend of thinking of the Olympics as a major or quasi-major or at least as "no longer icing on the cake, but actually part of the cake" (and therefore Olympic achievements being an increasing part of HOF, all-time greats, and GOAT discussions) will only continue to intensify. I can already see it on TW, and hear it among tennis commentators and analysts.

My take on the Olympics is that it is truly unique. It can be an elite achievement without being a major. It can stand on its own. I hate the idea of 750 points or any points being awarded because, as we've seen on TW, it makes people attempt to define its importance/prestige through the traditional context of ATP/ITF events. To me, that's stupid. The value should derive from the intangibles that make the Olympics unique - the unique pressure of Olympic competition, representing one's country, being part of a broader athletic and cultural experience, the relative rarity of Olympic competition (and thus the relative elusiveness of Olympic gold). Would these things change if the Olympics were dropped to 500 level? No. Would they change if the Olympics were artifically inflated to most prestigious event by awarding the winner 3000 points?

I can't understand why people can't simply view the Olympics as simply "something else", why does it have to be a "major"? We view the YEC and Davis Cup as elite tennis achievements (and factor them into GOAT discussions), yet don't grant them "major" status. It seems that people think the Olympics must have "major" status to be important. I don't agree. It's can be important on its own merits.

i think that's what you'd call "fluffing your résumé."

absurdo said:

olympics rare or special??

in other sports the olympics are the most important event. atletes get themselves ready for it, for years!

in tennis, olympics are a pain in the ass in the middle of the season. players have to skip their resting time. does it make any sense to play the clay court season + roland garros + queens/halle + wimbledon and then have no rest before toronto+cincy, and then us open... its just a silly schedulle.

sure olympics is 'fun'. and i think those who win are entitled to being happy with it.

but the same as a major?

AH AH

Click to expand...

Way to live up to your username...

Of course the Olympics (summer) are rare and special; happening only once every 4 years!

Yet another proof that Lendl is the best thing that could happen to Murray, and by a country mile. Serious confindence-building, here. Good stuff from Ivan.

(And funny stuff from TTW posters eager to overdo each other in misunderstanding what is being said, as usual...)

Is Lendl trying to comfort himself if Murray loses today by making that statement?

I have to admit I am a little weary of Murray being discredited when he beats any of the big 3 - it's always dismissed as their lack of interest.

The evidence to the contrary has been laid out many times but I feel those who just don't rate/like Murray refuse to ever give him credit when he achieves something.

I can't think of a living human being who, if they were a professional sportsman, would literally not care in a match of any magnitude and would effectively 'concede' while merely only making gestures of effort.

That is pure nonsense. Murray, Tsonga, Federer, Del Potro, Djokovic, Nadal, and every other tennis player will give everything they can in every match they play.

But, it seems to me, in the eyes of some, this excludes Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal if Murray beats them.

It will eventually be equal to one. Right now, not at all.

It has ABSOLUTELY ZERO history.

Of course he says that, his pupil won it.


But I'm rooting for Nole, I'm starting to dislike Murray more and more, don't really have a particular reason, Novak is mentally stronger and always gives his best and plays much more entertaining although there playing style do look kind of similar.

Its a major without atp ranking points.