World Tour Finals vs Olympics Gold

Omega_7000

Omega_7000

Legend
Majority posters would agree that WTF is somewhere between a major and a MS1000 i.e. lower than a major and higher than a MS1000.

It seems people are undecided when it comes to comparing it with Olympics gold.

Let's take a look at the list of Olympic Gold winners,
1896 Athens  John Pius Boland (GBR)
1900 Paris   Laurence Doherty (GBR)
1904 St. Louis  Beals Wright (USA)
1908 London  Josiah Ritchie (GBR)
1912 Stockholm  Charles Winslow (RSA)
1920 Antwerp  Louis Raymond (RSA)
1924 Paris   Vincent Richards (USA)
1928–1984 not included in the Olympic program
1988 Seoul   Miloslav Mečíř (TCH)
1992 Barcelona  Marc Rosset (SUI)
1996 Atlanta  Andre Agassi (USA)
2000 Sydney  Yevgeny Kafelnikov (RUS)
2004 Athens  Nicolás Massú (CHI)
2008 Beijing   Rafael Nadal (ESP)
2012 London  Andy Murray (GBR)


Now let's take a look at the list of WTF winners,
2013  Novak Djokovic (3/3)
2012  Novak Djokovic (2/3)
2011  Roger Federer (6/6)
2010  Roger Federer (5/6)
2009  Nikolay Davydenko
2008  Novak Djokovic (1/3)
2007  Roger Federer (4/6)
2006  Roger Federer (3/6)
2005  David Nalbandian
2004  Roger Federer (2/6)
2003  Roger Federer (1/6)
2002  Lleyton Hewitt (2/2)
2001  Lleyton Hewitt (1/2)
2000  Gustavo Kuerten
1999  Pete Sampras (5/5)
1998  Àlex Corretja
1997  Pete Sampras (4/5)
1996  Pete Sampras (3/5)
1995  Boris Becker (3/3)
1994  Pete Sampras (2/5)
1993  Michael Stich
1992  Boris Becker (2/3)
1991  Pete Sampras (1/5)
1990  Andre Agassi
1989  Stefan Edberg
1988  Boris Becker (1/3)
1987  Ivan Lendl (5/5)
1986  Ivan Lendl (4/5)
1985  Ivan Lendl (3/5)
1984  John McEnroe (3/3)
1983  John McEnroe (2/3)
1982  Ivan Lendl (2/5)
1981  Ivan Lendl (1/5)
1980  Björn Borg (2/2)
1979  Björn Borg (1/2)
1978  John McEnroe (1/3)
1977  Jimmy Connors
1976  Manuel Orantes
1975  Ilie Năstase (4/4)
1974  Guillermo Vilas
1973  Ilie Năstase (3/4)
1972  Ilie Năstase (2/4)
1971  Ilie Năstase (1/4)
1970  Stan Smith

- Although Olympics has a very rich history, tennis in Olympics does not. It wasn't even a part of the Olympics for 56 years from 1928 to 1984.
- Only two all time greats have won Olympics gold...(Nadal & Agassi)
- A slew of all time greats have won WTF not just once, but multiple times (Federer, Sampras, Borg, Becker, Djokovic, Agassi, Edberg, lendl, McEnroe, Nastase, Vilas)

This tells me that the great players from their respective eras cared more about the WTF than the Olympics Gold. Only in recent times has the Olympics gold medal in tennis become important.

*** So if you believe Olympics gold is bigger than a WTF. Is it also bigger than multiple WTF's? Are you saying that no matter how many WTF's you win, an Olympic gold medal will trump all WTF's?

*** If you believe the WTF is more prestigious than Olympic gold medal, please provide your reasons.
 
Last edited:
Omega_7000

Omega_7000

Legend
My take on this: If you're comparing 1 WTF title to 1 Olympics Gold, you can make an argument for the gold medal to be more prestigious than a WTF...BUT if you're comparing multiple WTF's to 1 Olympic Gold medal, then I have to go in favor of the WTF. Not to mention ATP rewards twice the number of points for a WTF compared to Olympics.
 
S

sam_p

Professional
The points argument is hard to know what to do with honestly. WTF is run by the ATP while the Olympics are independent. Hardly surprising in light of this that they'd inflate the importance of the WTF in order to get good participation of the top players even at a difficult time of year.

I'm not clear which is more important, just not satisfied that the point valuation is a truly valid argument.
 
Omega_7000

Omega_7000

Legend
sam_p said:
The points argument is hard to know what to do with honestly. WTF is run by the ATP while the Olympics are independent. Hardly surprising in light of this that they'd inflate the importance of the WTF in order to get good participation of the top players even at a difficult time of year.

I'm not clear which is more important, just not satisfied that the point valuation is a truly valid argument.
Click to expand...

Points aside, you can go by the winners of each tournament. Olympics has only been won by two all time greats...That tells me that it just wasn't important to them.
 
G

gabybackhand

Banned
Hmmm good question. I think these days they are about the same level in importance since WTF seems to have declined gradually the last 15-20 years, and Olympics risen greatly the last 5 years. Looking at the whole of history, not just now, the WTF would be much more though.
 
S

sam_p

Professional
Omega_7000 said:
Points aside, you can go by the winners of each tournament. Olympics has only been won by two all time greats...That tells me that it just wasn't important to them.
Click to expand...

Um, there have only been 7 times it could have been won since it went back into contention. That only Agassi, Murray and Nadal have won it as "all time greats" could easily be used to indicate how exclusive a club it is. Sampras, Federer and Djokovic are the only other "all time greats" who have had a chance given the timeframe.
 
M

mattennis

Hall of Fame
When Agassi won it in 1996, sixteen out of the top-20 players skipped it (and eight top-10 players skipped it). That makes you know how much top-players cared about Olympics back then (i.e. they didn't care at all).
 
G

gabybackhand

Banned
The point about the Olympics only being won by two all time greats, well I don't think it has been viewed as important by the players until 2008. 2008 is what saw it began to be viewed as a huge event.

WTF wasn't the year Nalbandian won a year only 1 of the top 6 at the time- Federer (played), Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Agassi, even played. That doesn't indicate huge value to the players in this era to me. I know technically some of those were supposed to be injured, but you would still never see 5 of the top 6 miss a slam. The Olympics was like that sort of in 2004 too though, but has gotten better since.

I think looking at Olympic winners there were many great players to win it:

1984- Graf
1988- Graf
1992- Capriati
1996- Agassi
2000- Kafelnikov, Venus
2004- Henin
2008- Dementieva, Nadal
2012- Murray, Serena

So mostly won by greats.
 
Omega_7000

Omega_7000

Legend
sam_p said:
Um, there have only been 7 times it could have been won since it went back into contention. That only Agassi, Murray and Nadal have won it as "all time greats" could easily be used to indicate how exclusive a club it is. Sampras, Federer and Djokovic are the only other "all time greats" who have had a chance given the timeframe.
Click to expand...

Really? Sampras, Federer and Djokovic are the only "all time greats" since 1984? You're joking right?

and since when is Murray an "all time great"?
 
S

sam_p

Professional
mattennis said:
When Agassi won it in 1996, sixteen out of the top-20 players skipped it (and eight top-10 players skipped it). That makes you know how much top-players cared about Olympics back then (i.e. they didn't care at all).
Click to expand...

And now? As I recall they all go if healthy and are all desperate to win it.

What is clear from these threads is that Fed fans are desperate to downgrade the Olympics, just as Nadal fans are desperate to downgrade the WTF....these are the ONLY reasons these threads are created.

They are obviously both desirable tournaments to win, they have their different strengths and weaknesses. Neither is a GS.
 
Omega_7000

Omega_7000

Legend
gabybackhand said:
The point about the Olympics only being won by two all time greats, well I don't think it has been viewed as important by the players until 2008. 2008 is what saw it began to be viewed as a huge event.

WTF wasn't the year Nalbandian won a year only 1 of the top 6 at the time- Federer (played), Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Agassi, even played. That doesn't indicate huge value to the players in this era to me. I know technically some of those were supposed to be injured, but you would still never see 5 of the top 6 miss a slam. The Olympics was like that sort of in 2004 too though, but has gotten better since.

I think looking at Olympic winners there were many great players to win it:

1984- Graf
1988- Graf
1992- Capriati
1996- Agassi
2000- Kafelnikov, Venus
2004- Henin
2008- Dementieva, Nadal
2012- Murray, Serena

So mostly won by greats.
Click to expand...

Lets focus on just ATP for now...Since we cannot compare WTA winners to winners of WTF.

If you look at men's winners --- Agassi and Nadal are the only ones that stand out and like another poster mention, 16 out of 20 top pros skipped it the year Agassi won his medal.

It seems Federer's public desire to win Olympic gold made it a big deal in the news and Nadal winning it made it somehow mandatory to have it part of an "all time great' resume. The great champions of the past didn't even care about Olympics gold.
 
Omega_7000

Omega_7000

Legend
sam_p said:
And now? As I recall they all go if healthy and are all desperate to win it.

What is clear from these threads is that Fed fans are desperate to downgrade the Olympics, just as Nadal fans are desperate to downgrade the WTF....these are the ONLY reasons these threads are created.

They are obviously both desirable tournaments to win, they have their different strengths and weaknesses. Neither is a GS.
Click to expand...

Well nobody is saying WTF is a GS or Olympic gold is a GS.

We're comparing Olympics gold with WTF...and this is not a Nadal vs Federer argument. Please don't make it one.
 
Last edited:
G

gabybackhand

Banned
Omega_7000 said:
Lets focus on just ATP for now...Since we cannot compare WTA winners to winners of WTF.

If you look at men's winners --- Agassi and Nadal are the only ones that stand out and like another poster mention, 16 out of 20 top pros skipped it the year Agassi won his medal.

It seems Federer's public desire to win Olympic gold made it a big deal in the news and Nadal winning it made it somehow mandatory to have it part of an "all time great' resume. The great champions of the past didn't even care about Olympics gold.
Click to expand...

Well it is not like every slam is won by an all time great. Murray, Kafelnikov, are great players and worthy of a major title easily, even if they aren't all time greats. I would say the only weak winners are Rosset in 92 (back when people didn't care about he Olympics), and Massu in 2004. Out of 6 Olympics, and 4 won by a great player and multi slam winner, I think isn't bad. Especialy considering that people only started caring about the Olympics strongly just recently.
 
S

sam_p

Professional
Omega_7000 said:
Really? Sampras, Federer and Djokovic are the only "all time greats" since 1984? You're joking right?

and since when is Murray an "all time great"?
Click to expand...

Um, it started playing again in 1988, not 1984 - name the "all time great" who were active since who didn't win?

McEnroe's career fizzled in 1985, I should have probably included Lendl but he was on the downside in 1988, Edberg played in 1988 and lost, Wilander definitely should have been included as he probably would have won in 1988, Courier played and lost. Are you going to tell us that Safin, Roddick and Nalbandian are "all time greats" now?

Who else do you have in mind?

Edit - I included Murray because he has potential of greatness at least, too soon to write that off.
 
Last edited:
S

sam_p

Professional
Omega_7000 said:
Well nobody is saying WTF is a GS or Olympic gold is a GS.

We're comparing Olympics gold with WTF...and this is not a Nadal vs Federer argument. Please don't make it one.
Click to expand...

It quite obviously is a Nadal vs Federer argument as a subtext, don't be obtuse.

There is no other reason for you to care for instance....
 
Omega_7000

Omega_7000

Legend
sam_p said:
It quite obviously is a Nadal vs Federer argument as a subtext, don't be obtuse.

There is no other reason for you to care for instance....
Click to expand...

No it's not. The idea came into my mind from a argument between fans of Nadal and Federer but this thread is not meant to be one.
 
G

gabybackhand

Banned
How were Mecir and Richards as players? I know both were top players in their era but I don't remember if they got a slam or not. That would make a big difference to whether I consider them ok winners or just slightly weak ones.
 
S

sam_p

Professional
Omega_7000 said:
No it's not. The idea came into my mind from a argument between fans of Nadal and Federer but this thread is not meant to be one.
Click to expand...

Haha, you're funny. So why two threads on exactly the same topic with all sorts of clear favoritism toward the WTF from one of the biggest Fed fanboys around?
 
Omega_7000

Omega_7000

Legend
sam_p said:
Um, there have only been 7 times it could have been won since it went back into contention. That only Agassi, Murray and Nadal have won it as "all time greats" could easily be used to indicate how exclusive a club it is. Sampras, Federer and Djokovic are the only other "all time greats" who have had a chance given the timeframe.
Click to expand...

You're comparing Murray to people like Federer, Sampras, Borg, Becker, Djokovic, Agassi, Edberg, lendl, McEnroe, Nastase, Vilas?

The fact that tennis wasn't even considered to be a part of Olympics shows you how important it was to the Olympics committee.

The lack of effort by top pros and desire to win it pre-2008 also shows how unimportant it has been...Agassi is an all time great, but 16 out of 20 top pros skipped the olympics that year. So that effectively leaves 2008 as the starting point from when it was taken seriously by top pros.
 
F

Firing Forehand

Rookie
Why did you need to create a new thread? We were already speaking about this here: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=482986

Well, lets repeat again the same.

Maybe decades ago Olympic gold wasnt that important, BUT TODAY IS. And since today all the player want it badly, today we need to rank it higher than WTF.

Points argument is weak. Points doesnt equal prestige or greatness. Bercy + Montecarlo = Wimbledon? I think we can agree that's not true.
Also previous poster gave another argument against it: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7900988&postcount=3

Some players opinions here: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7764622&postcount=195
 
Omega_7000

Omega_7000

Legend
Firing Forehand said:
Points argument is weak. Points doesnt equal prestige or greatness. Bercy + Montecarlo = Wimbledon? I think we can agree that's not true.
Also previous poster gave another argument against it: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7900988&postcount=3

Some players opinions here: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7764622&postcount=195
Click to expand...

So Pete Sampras' resume is incomplete because he doesn't have an Olympic medal? How many majors is an Olympic medal worth?
 
T

timnz

Legend
WTF - the players that win it

In the 44 years of the WTF, all of the 21 distinct winners have all been slam winners in their career bar three. And of those three - two of them were slam finalists. So only 1 player not been a slam finalist (Davydenko). Also worth noting is that no player who has won the WTF has had had a career high ranking of less than 3rd in the world.

How does the Olympics compare on these criteria ie Any non-slam winners amongst gold medalists? What is the lowest career high ranked gold medalist?
 
Last edited:
RF20Lennon

RF20Lennon

Legend
Firing Forehand said:
Why did you need to create a new thread? We were already speaking about this here: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=482986

Well, lets repeat again the same.

Maybe decades ago Olympic gold wasnt that important, BUT TODAY IS. And since today all the player want it badly, today we need to rank it higher than WTF.

Points argument is weak. Points doesnt equal prestige or greatness. Bercy + Montecarlo = Wimbledon? I think we can agree that's not true.
Also previous poster gave another argument against it: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7900988&postcount=3

Some players opinions here: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7764622&postcount=195
Click to expand...

Novak and Federer both said WTF was like the fifth slam. But why are you comparing "Bercy + MonteCarlo"? You weight one against one. WTF has more points. Actually A LOT more points and also you have to QUALIFY for it. Also what you have to keep in mind is that not everyone is that patriotic. Tennis isn't a nationalistic sport. WTF also gets more coverage and more viewership and just more attention in general in terms of spectators. Here is Independent calling it the unofficial fifth slam. http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...-the-unofficial-fifth-grand-slam-8933143.html
 
R

Raz11

Professional
Wtf is harder to win than Olympic singles.

It comes down to preference whether players value it more. If Olympic was valued by all players than there wouldn't be Washington on during the same time. Only 15 out of the top 20 played at the Olympics so it isn't as valued as some suggest.

Wtf has more tennis history.

Even if more people value the Olympics more, Wtf is still harder to win and that is what matters. Else Wimbledon would be valued higher than the rest of the slams but everyone knows that in terms of difficulty, they are pretty much the same.
 
Omega_7000

Omega_7000

Legend
RF20Lennon said:
Novak and Federer both said WTF was like the fifth slam. But why are you comparing "Bercy + MonteCarlo"? You weight one against one. WTF has more points. Actually A LOT more points and also you have to QUALIFY for it. Also what you have to keep in mind is that not everyone is that patriotic. Tennis isn't a nationalistic sport. WTF also gets more coverage and more viewership and just more attention in general in terms of spectators. Here is Independent calling it the unofficial fifth slam. http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...-the-unofficial-fifth-grand-slam-8933143.html
Click to expand...

Qualifying for the WTF means you're a player who has performed consistently well over a period of one year. There's no arguments over which tournament has stiffer competition...Well one would think at least. :)
 
Omega_7000

Omega_7000

Legend
Firing Forehand said:
Pete Sampras' resume is incomplete mainly because he was crap on clay. But if you look further, yes, he lacks SOG as well
Click to expand...

I have seen arguments on why people think WTF is better (difficult to qualify, no easy matches, mostly won by great champions in the past).

Have yet to see arguments for why Olympics gold medal is better?
 
Omega_7000

Omega_7000

Legend
Firing Forehand said:
It doesnt matter what you or me can think about it. It matter what players think. And you can watch in the link I posted before how much a SOG matters to them.
Click to expand...

Here's what Novak thinks about WTF,

"The best eight players playing here says everything about the quality of the event and I would definitely put it on a level with the Grand Slams."

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-11/16/content_10366898.htm

Here's what Federer thinks about WTF,

"It was the goal at the beginning of the season to qualify for [London]. I consider it the absolute best of the best tournament out there, so I want to be part of that," said Federer, who has won the year-end championships a record six times. "It's extra motivation for me to play well and be part of that great tournament."

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2013/10/41/Shanghai-Monday-Federer-Preview.aspx
 
tennisaddict

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Roddick , Mardy Fish, Kohly have all given recent olympics a pass stating, 'no sorry, we prefer Atlanta open' instead. LOL.
 
M

Morj

Semi-Pro
Why is this still a debate...Olympics > WTF. I understand that a lot of Fed fans want WTF > Olympics, so they are biased. But come on, I'm a Djokovic fan and its obvious that Olympics > WTF no matter what I may want to think.

I'm talking in terms of importance, not in terms of difficulty. WTF is more difficult sure, but everyone knows Olympic gold is more significant.

Fact: Having won all Grand Slams and the Olympics is called the Golden Slam. This means a player has won all the most significant tennis titles. There is no special title for winning all Grand Slams and WTF.

Fact: last year, many former pros and tennis experts were calling the Olympics the "5th slam". Very few seriously call the WTF the 5th slam.

Fact: Last year, all of the Big 4 placed more importance on the Olympics than WTF. If you want me to go into detail I will, but you know that's true.

The counter-argument: "Olympics doesnt have the same historical importance as WTF" argument.
Sure, before the 90's players didnt care about Olympics but the point is now they do so now it is weighted higher than WTF. After all, there was a time when Aussie Open was considered less than the WTF but that doesnt matter; today Aussie Open is equal to the other slams. Olympics today is greater in importance to WTF.
 
F

Firing Forehand

Rookie
Raz11 said:
If Olympic was valued by all players than there wouldn't be Washington on during the same time. Only 15 out of the top 20 played at the Olympics so it isn't as valued as some suggest.
.
Click to expand...

That's rubbish.

It's not like 5 players skipped the Olympics. The only one that skipped it was Mardy Fish. All the available top-players played there bar Mardy Fish (which strange decission probably had to do with his cardiac illness).

Monfills: He did not play on tour after Nice from May to September due to a knee injury

Nadal: out for 7 months after Wimbledon

Granollers: Spanish team chose Feliciano Lopez when Nadal pulled out of Olympics because the surface suited him better. Granollers would have loved playing but just wasnt chosen. http://espn.go.com/olympics/summer/...2-feliciano-lopez-replaces-rafael-nadal-spain

Dolgopolov hadn't competed in Davis Cup in five years and failed to fulfill the eligibility requirements for this Olympics. He lamented the decision: http://espn.go.com/olympics/summer/...-alexandr-dolgopolov-laments-olympic-decision
 
Last edited:
R

Raz11

Professional
Firing Forehand said:
That's rubbish.

It's not like 5 players skipped the Olympics. The only one that skipped it was Mardy Fish. All the available top-players played there bar Mardy Fish (which strange decission probably had to do with his cardiac illness).

Monfills: He did not play on tour after Nice from May to September due to a knee injury

Nadal: out for 7 months after Wimbledon

Granollers: Spanish team chose Feliciano Lopez when Nadal pulled out of Olympics because the surface suited him better. Granollers would have loved playing but just wasnt chosen. http://espn.go.com/olympics/summer/...2-feliciano-lopez-replaces-rafael-nadal-spain

Dolgopolov hadn't competed in Davis Cup in five years and failed to fulfill the eligibility requirements for this Olympics. He lamented the decision: http://espn.go.com/olympics/summer/...-alexandr-dolgopolov-laments-olympic-decision
Click to expand...
Doesn't really change the fact that players do skip the Olympics and aren't as desperate as you think.
 
F

Firing Forehand

Rookie
Raz11 said:
Doesn't really change the fact that players do skip the Olympics and aren't as desperate as you think.
Click to expand...

Wrong. One player skipped it. And not a top one. Top players are top10

Top players skip Slams. Nadal skipped AO2013 (could have played), Murray skipped RG2013 (could have played)

So Olympics are better than Slams then?
 
R

Raz11

Professional
Firing Forehand said:
Wrog. One player skipped it. And not a top one. Top players are top10

Top players skip Slams. Nadal skipped AO2013 (could have played), Murray skipped RG2013 (could have played)

So Olympics are better than Slams then?
Click to expand...

But they skipped due to injures.

If Djokovic hadn't won Wimbledon, he would rather win Wimbledon over RG. Most players would rather win Wimbledon so by your logic, Wimbledon is ranked higher than the others.
 
R

Raz11

Professional
Firing Forehand said:
You can lose two matches and still win WTF. Are you serious?
Click to expand...

Has that ever happened before. You could win Davis cup without winning a single match ut no one ever brings that up. Some of the biggest tournaments in the world use round robin as well.

Round robin is used to reduce the chances of fluke wins as the overall best player of the tournament wins.
 
Omega_7000

Omega_7000

Legend
Morj said:
I'm talking in terms of importance, not in terms of difficulty. WTF is more difficult sure, but everyone knows Olympic gold is more significant.

The counter-argument: "Olympics doesnt have the same historical importance as WTF" argument.
Sure, before the 90's players didnt care about Olympics but the point is now they do so now it is weighted higher than WTF. After all, there was a time when Aussie Open was considered less than the WTF but that doesnt matter; today Aussie Open is equal to the other slams. Olympics today is greater in importance to WTF.
Click to expand...

Still don't get it. If WTF is more difficult to win, has more historical significance, awards more points by ATP then why is it less significant?

Morj said:
Fact: Having won all Grand Slams and the Olympics is called the Golden Slam. This means a player has won all the most significant tennis titles. There is no special title for winning all Grand Slams and WTF.
Click to expand...

Having won all Grand Slams and Olympics in the SAME YEAR is called the Golden Slam. Steffi Graf is the only one to achieve this.

So winning a SOG not part of the golden slam is insignificant? The only time it's significant if it's part of the golden slam which nobody other than Graf has done?

Morj said:
Fact: last year, many former pros and tennis experts were calling the Olympics the "5th slam". Very few seriously call the WTF the 5th slam.
Click to expand...

Pros also called WTF the 5th slam. They hype tournaments to sell tennis. let's not go there.

Morj said:
The counter-argument: "Olympics doesnt have the same historical importance as WTF" argument.
Sure, before the 90's players didnt care about Olympics but the point is now they do so now it is weighted higher than WTF. After all, there was a time when Aussie Open was considered less than the WTF but that doesnt matter; today Aussie Open is equal to the other slams. Olympics today is greater in importance to WTF.
Click to expand...

Why would a pro want to win a SOG over a WTF title?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Omega_7000
  • Poll
Where does WTF stand?
2 3 4
Replies
165
Views
9K
robert.s
R
tennisaddict
WTF Records - A Snapshot
Replies
2
Views
588
eldanger25
E
T
YE #1 players without winning the prestigious WTF
Replies
19
Views
1K
TMF
T
RF-18
What does this list say?
Replies
32
Views
2K
Mustard
Mustard
T
Nadal ties Sampras with 762 career match wins
Replies
16
Views
635
Tennis_Hands
T
Top