A Best of 3 Sets Tournament held once in 4 years is a fluke/irrelevant for a Tennis Player, agree or disagree ?

[Razer]

How serious is a tournament held once in 4 years ???


If Aus open was held once in 4 years (2007, 2011, 2015, 2019, 2023) then Rafael Nadal would have 0 Aus Open title ...
If Wimbledon was held once in 4 years (2005, 2009, 2013, 2017, 2021) then Rafael Nadal would have 0 Wimbledon title ....
If US open was held once in 4 years (2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020, 2024) then Rafael Nadal would again have 0 US Open Title ....

By this sequence, if French Open was held once in 4 years (2006, 2010, 2014, 2018, 2022) then Federer and Djokovic would win 0 French Open titles.....

If you follow this 4 year sequence then slam counts today would be

Federer - 1 + 0 + 3 + 2 = 6 Slams
Djokovic - 4 + 0 + 1 + 0 = 5 Slams
Nadal - 0 + 5 + 0 + 0 = 5 Slams
Murray - 2 Slams
Wawrinka - 1 Slam

Should Nadal fans or Tennis fans in general take this exhibition seriously ???

 

[3loudboys]

It’s serious representing your country and claiming gold for it. You could argue that it’s harder to win Olympic gold because of the infrequency.

 

[Purestriker]

How serious is a tournament held once in 4 years ???


If Aus open was held once in 4 years (2007, 2011, 2015, 2019, 2023) then Rafael Nadal would have 0 Aus Open title ...
If Wimbledon was held once in 4 years (2005, 2009, 2013, 2017, 2021) then Rafael Nadal would have 0 Wimbledon title ....
If US open was held once in 4 years (2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020, 2024) then Rafael Nadal would again have 0 US Open Title ....

By this sequence, if French Open was held once in 4 years (2006, 2010, 2014, 2018, 2022) then Federer and Djokovic would with 0 French Open titles.....

If you follow this 4 year sequence then slam counts today would be

Federer - 1 + 0 + 3 + 2 = 6 Slams
Djokovic - 4 + 0 + 1 + 0 = 5 Slams
Nadal - 0 + 5 + 0 + 0 = 5 Slams
Murray - 2 Slams
Wawrinka - 1 Slam

Should Nadal fans or Tennis fans in general take this exhibition seriously ???

This analogy is flawed. You don't know that they would have won one OG those years or that the would have won those slams randomly if they were every. 4 years. Why do you care so much or try too hard to show your favorite player X won this or should be GOAT. Would have, should have could have. You play the people in front of you and one cat one more than them. Big deal. Enjoy tennis, there are some really good matches and will be other great players to cheer for.

 

[Razer]

This analogy is flawed. Y

Why is it flawed ?

I reduced frequency of slams to 1/4th and this is what you get.

If it is more prestigious now then you should like this sequence.

 

[Phenomenal]

Final was BO5 in 2008, 2012 and 2016. I don't understand this view at all. This is beyond Nadal and Djokovic. It's not a joke tournament as funnily many of you claim.
Other than being big it also played on different surfaces unlike WTF.

It's not only Novak check what Alcaraz, Nadal all the top players said. Everyone cares hence very important.

 

[Purestriker]

Why is it flawed ?

I reduced frequency of slams to 1/4th and this is what you get.

If it is more prestigious now then you should like this sequence.

That is simpleton math. Not based on factual data.

 

[Phenomenal]

Olympics since the last 15-20 years are the biggest tennis event after the slams. Olympics are bigger than WTF not the same. Winning olympic is huge. For me not winning is not so bad since it happens rarely.

Just read the comments of top players lol to some of you who think as unimportant event.
Not only Djokovic just read from all players. Look what Nadal said when he missed London in 2012. It's a big event whether some people accept or not.

I already said my view here.

 

[The Blond Blur]

Always makes me roll my eyes when the Bot Brigade says the Olympics don’t matter when Joker has been trying to win it since 2008

This is not the face of a man who thinks they’re irrelevant:

 

[Razer]

That is simpleton math. Not based on factual data.

So factual data means winners of these years could change ??? Like for example in 2009 if there are no slams except wimbledon then Nadal does not get injured and wins wimbledon ? Such changes could happen, but there is no way to know what for sure.

What we do know is that if a tournament is held once in 4 years then it does not accurately portray the skills of a player in certain conditions.

 

[Sport]

The fact is played every 4 years adds to its relevance, as it makes it far more difficult to achieve and thus more prestigious.

The World Cup in football is played every 4 years and it's the pinnacle of the sport.

 

[GabeT]

It’s a prestige tournament. In that sense it’s important. Players want to win it for their country.

It’s just not relevant to judge a tennis career.

 

[Purestriker]

So factual data means winners of these years could change ??? Like for example in 2009 if there are no slams except wimbledon then Nadal does not get injured and wins wimbledon ? Such changes could happen, but there is no way to know what for sure.

What we do know is that if a tournament is held once in 4 years then it does not accurately portray the skills of a player in certain conditions.

No, it means you can't take all wins they won at the only the majors and expect that win to equal what they would have won at the olympics when dived by 4. You miss the fact that there are other variables and outcomes that are possible. So you need to take all this outcomes (surfaces, one of the other three could win, injuries, wind, etc.) to understand what the probability is that they would have won. Your approach just had the favorable outcomes.

 

[Sport]

It’s a prestige tournament. In that sense it’s important. Players want to win it for their country.

It’s just not relevant to judge a tennis career.

In your dreams, maybe. Of course it's relevant to judge a tennis career. It's officially acknowledged by the ATP as a Big Title.

Winning an Olympic Gold in singles is equally relevant as winning the ATP Finals.

Look at this ATP-made graphic, they place the Olympics at the same tier than the ATP Finals.

Source: https://www.atptour.com/en/news/djokovic-australian-open-2023-big-titles-kings

 

[GabeT]

In your dreams, maybe. Of course it's relevant to judge a tennis career. It's officially acknowledged by the ATP as a Big Title.

Winning an Olympic Gold in singles is equally relevant as winning the ATP Finals.

Look at this ATP-made graphic, they place the Olympics at the same tier than the ATP Finals.

Source: https://www.atptour.com/en/news/djokovic-australian-open-2023-big-titles-kings

I don’t disagree that it’s roughly the equivalent of winning an ATP Big title. That doesn’t make it the pinnacle of tennis. that’s the only debate here

 

[GabeT]

I don’t disagree that it’s roughly the equivalent of winning an ATP Big title. That doesn’t make it the pinnacle of tennis. that’s the only debate here

and when I say “roughly“ I mean that. When you look at the reactions of posters here at TTW the importance given to a OG is probably around that given to a M1000. There are plenty of threads and comments remarking on how Zverev is slam less and I’ve never seen anyone argue that it doesn’t matter because he has OG. Similarly I haven’t seen anyone argue that Murray really has like 5 slams because of his Olympic wins.

 

[_phantom]

OG's position in tennis is not hierarchical, it's distinct. Zverev was awarded the title of the best sportsperson of Germany that year because of his OG win. I don't believe winning the YEC or masters would have earned him the same recognition, a slam win might have.

Look at Busta after securing bronze. He appeared less emotional after winning the Canada title.

 

[ibbi]

Your argument makes literally no sense, so no. It is laughable that people continue to try pedaling this argument knowing full well that the result of the tennis at this years Olympics would certainly see some peoples opinions on the matter immediately shift.

It's the Olympic games, as long as all the top players in the sport take it seriously, and they have done at every single edition since 2008, it matters. The fact that it is best of 3, every 4 years, and can be played on any surface makes it literally the hardest tournament in tennis to win, not irrelevant. You get a window of 1 week in 4 years you have to peak for. That's crazy. Hell, in this day and age, when you get top men's players playing doubles? Definitely not irrelevant. Literally could not be more meaningful.

Tennis fans have let their stupid tribalism blind them to the immensity of the Olympics. Madness. Roger, Rafa, Novak, and Andy made it mean something again. Hope the next lot keep carrying the torch.

 

[Enceladus]

Tennis is a sport structured in an annual format, so the Olympics, with its four-year cycle, don't really fit into the system. The Olympics in tennis don't tell the whole story. It can be seen beautifully in Djokovic, who would probably have a gold medal if the Olympics were held in the 2011 or 2015 seasons.

 

[duaneeo]

It's special to those who compete, but is mostly irrelevant. It falls more in line with Davis Cup in that the player is competing for his country. But unlike Davis Cup, the Olympics don't have a long tennis history.

 

[fedfan24]

It’s a special tournament to the individual but it’s not a part of the regular tour and there’s a lot of luck involved in winning it.

 

[Indeedy71]

Even in sports where it’s the pinnacle it’s less relevant than some would like to think. Simone Biles isn’t the GOAT of gymnastics because of the Olympics. Every sport has luck and injuries and issues with geopolitics when representing your nation, add surface and the eligibility requirements and the format for tennis and that’s even more the case. It might be harder to get because it’s every four years, but that also amplifies these issues. It matters, but not nearly as much as Slams.

Football is actually an interesting comparison here because the equivalent is the World Cup, not the Olympics, and there’s a reason for that. It’s not all that relevant for Golf either. Tennis is somewhere in between, not a glorified exhibition but absolutely not the pinnacle of the sport. It’s its own thing, but I’d put it somewhere between Finals (where you’re definitely competing against the best of the best) and Masters

 

[TheGoldenEra1990’s]

For tennis it’s pretty irrelevant IMO. Other sports it’s a big deal. Prior to 2008 no one ever talked about it. These guys play the same guys all of over the world all year every year . It’s nothing rare

 

[MeatTornado]

My take on the Olympics has always been the same. I think it's more prestigious than any non-slam.

But the rotating surfaces and fluky every 4 year aspect of it means that we shouldn't take it into account in the GOAT debate. An Olympic medal is something that can only enhance a career, it can't detract from it. We shouldn't hold it against someone for not winning it.

 

[insideguy]

Its odd the same people who claim the olympics dont mean something and claim slam counts are all that matter never want to talk about no one use to go to the Aussie open. So I could argue the Aussie open holds no meaning as it didnt matter to players back in the 70s and into the 80s. And the Davis cup which no one cares about now, should matter much more because players use to take it very seriously.

Its not up to us fans to determine what these players consider important.

 

[Rosstour]

The fact is played every 4 years adds to its relevance, as it makes it far more difficult to achieve and thus more prestigious.

The World Cup in football is played every 4 years and it's the pinnacle of the sport.

Totally different scenarios

The Olympics are cool and of course it's a nice feather in the cap of certain players.

But others don't care much about it. Federer obviously didn't, and it really hasn't affected his legacy to not have a singles gold medal

I think most tennis players would say that if they could only win one, a Grand Slam or an Olympic gold, they would choose the Slam.

The analogy to the WC is flawed because the WC is soccer-only, whereas the Olympics are tons of different events and tennis hasn't always been one of them. There isn't as much history there--tennis supplies her own history.

 

[insideguy]

Totally different scenarios

The Olympics are cool and of course it's a nice feather in the cap of certain players.

But others don't care much about it. Federer obviously didn't, and it really hasn't affected his legacy to not have a singles gold medal

I think most tennis players would say that if they could only win one, a Grand Slam or an Olympic gold, they would choose the Slam.

The analogy to the WC is flawed because the WC is soccer-only, whereas the Olympics are tons of different events and tennis hasn't always been one of them. There isn't as much history there--tennis supplies her own history.

Fed literally cried when he didnt win the olympic gold man.

 

[insideguy]

I mean you guys can say this doesn't mean anything. You better tell these athletes that.

 

[McGradey]

Certainly not irrelevant but its own thing with a different kind of cachet. Probably growing in stature within tennis achievements as the tennis Olympic tradition and history grow. But Michael Johnson, Cathy Freeman, Phelps etc, these people always dreamed of winning Olympic gold. Tennis players dream of winning grand slams. Maybe that dynamic is evolving to some extent.

 

[insideguy]

Certainly not irrelevant but its own thing with a different kind of cachet. Probably growing in stature within tennis achievements as the tennis Olympic tradition and history grow. But Michael Johnson, Cathy Freeman, Phelps etc, these people always dreamed of winning Olympic gold. Tennis players dream of winning grand slams. Maybe that is changing to some extent.

I tell you what man if Serbia would win the gold medal in basketball this year it would be bigger than any NBA championship Nikola Jokic could ever win. It would mean more to him and those Serbian basketball stars than if Jokic won ten NBA titles. And you can say nonsense but I would bet a ton of money on that.

 

[McGradey]

I tell you what man if Serbia would win the gold medal in basketball this year it would be bigger than any NBA championship Nikola Jokic could ever win. It would mean more to him and those Serbian basketball stars than if Jokic won ten NBA titles. And you can say nonsense but I would bet a ton of money on that.

Basketball has a stronger Olympic tradition than tennis though, the Dream Team was massive news
I think it can be pretty monumental for a guy to win his home Olympics, as Murray did, but also feel that tennis isn't near the top of Olympic events and the Olympics aren't the pinnacle of tennis.

 

[gold325]

OPTION #3
_X_ Its relavent and really nice to win but not more than any Major. Its not an exhibition either.

 

[insideguy]

Basketball has a stronger Olympic tradition than tennis though, the Dream Team was massive news
I think it can be pretty monumental for a guy to win his home Olympics, as Murray did, but also feel that tennis isn't near the top of Olympic events and the Olympics aren't the pinnacle of tennis.

It doesn't have to be the pinnacle. In theory winning an Olympic gold medal isnt a pinnacle in basketball. It just depends on what country you are from. For ladies soccer for example. The World Cup is technically the pinnacle. But winning the Olympics is also a very big deal.

 

[McGradey]

It doesn't have to be the pinnacle. In theory winning an Olympic gold medal isnt a pinnacle in basketball. It just depends on what country you are from. For ladies soccer for example. The World Cup is technically the pinnacle. But winning the Olympics is also a very big deal.

Yes, hence why I said the Olympics is its own thing within tennis.

 

[MeatTornado]

But others don't care much about it. Federer obviously didn't, and it really hasn't affected his legacy to not have a singles gold medal

What was obvious about him not caring? He was clear about the majors being a bigger priority for him, but he always talked glowingly about the Olympics. He attended every year he was healthy.

Even in his last year he was still considering attending even when he could barely stay on court.

 

[DSH]

How serious is a tournament held once in 4 years ???


If Aus open was held once in 4 years (2007, 2011, 2015, 2019, 2023) then Rafael Nadal would have 0 Aus Open title ...
If Wimbledon was held once in 4 years (2005, 2009, 2013, 2017, 2021) then Rafael Nadal would have 0 Wimbledon title ....
If US open was held once in 4 years (2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020, 2024) then Rafael Nadal would again have 0 US Open Title ....

By this sequence, if French Open was held once in 4 years (2006, 2010, 2014, 2018, 2022) then Federer and Djokovic would win 0 French Open titles.....

If you follow this 4 year sequence then slam counts today would be

Federer - 1 + 0 + 3 + 2 = 6 Slams
Djokovic - 4 + 0 + 1 + 0 = 5 Slams
Nadal - 0 + 5 + 0 + 0 = 5 Slams
Murray - 2 Slams
Wawrinka - 1 Slam

Should Nadal fans or Tennis fans in general take this exhibition seriously ???

And you say that your idol is not Joker?
You're faker than a $30 bill.

 

[Razer]

And you say that your idol is not Joker?
You're faker than a $30 bill.

What connection does tennis at olympics not relevant have with Djokovic as a idol ? Are you stupid ? I mean this is such a silly deduction man...

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

How serious is a tournament held once in 4 years ???


If Aus open was held once in 4 years (2007, 2011, 2015, 2019, 2023) then Rafael Nadal would have 0 Aus Open title ...
If Wimbledon was held once in 4 years (2005, 2009, 2013, 2017, 2021) then Rafael Nadal would have 0 Wimbledon title ....
If US open was held once in 4 years (2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020, 2024) then Rafael Nadal would again have 0 US Open Title ....

By this sequence, if French Open was held once in 4 years (2006, 2010, 2014, 2018, 2022) then Federer and Djokovic would win 0 French Open titles.....

If you follow this 4 year sequence then slam counts today would be

Federer - 1 + 0 + 3 + 2 = 6 Slams
Djokovic - 4 + 0 + 1 + 0 = 5 Slams
Nadal - 0 + 5 + 0 + 0 = 5 Slams
Murray - 2 Slams
Wawrinka - 1 Slam

Should Nadal fans or Tennis fans in general take this exhibition seriously ???

Davis Cup is also hugely important and is an annual event. The Olympics is a quadrennial event.
Tennis was not even an Olympics event until 1988. The Davis Cup made Olympic Tennis unnecessary.
Not convinced that winning the Olympics is any more difficult than winning Davis Cup.

That said, the Olympics is arguably more prestigious. Each individual player will have to make that determination.

At this stage, our Djoker might prefer an Olympics Gold Medal to breaking Margaret Court's record with #25.
It is a very close call

 

[Razer]

At this stage, our Djoker might prefer an Olympics Gold Medal to breaking Margaret Court's record with #25.
It is a very close call

our joker ? lol, he is not my joker. He is playing for himself, not for us.

Yes he prefers the Medal instead of breaking ties with Court with number 25, that is a sad development and there is a big risk of him having neither the olympics medal nor a slam by the time of the US Open thanks to his decision of skipping wimbledon. I guess we can all ridicule him when that happens.

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

Yes he prefers the Medal instead of breaking ties with Court with number 25, that is a sad development and there is a big risk of him having neither the olympics medal nor a slam by the time of the US Open thanks to his decision of skipping wimbledon. I guess we can all ridicule him when that happens.

That is the rumour. He prefers the Medal. He wishes to skip Wimbledon?!? to train for Olympics.
After shocking early exit from Indian Wells instead of redeeming himself he then skipped his favourite Miami.
He then traveled to Miami and partied on the beach while tournament was played a mile away.
This is all very bizarre behaviour.

 

[Razer]

That is the rumour. He prefers the Medal. He wishes to skip Wimbledon?!? to train for Olympics.
After shocking early exit from Indian Wells instead of redeeming himself he then skipped his favourite Miami.
He then traveled to Miami and partied on the beach while tournament was played a mile away.
This is all very bizarre behaviour.

I have a suspicion that he had a disagreement over this with Ivanisevic and Goran walked out because of this ???

Goran might not be in affirmative with this idea of skipping wimbledon while Novak is harbouring such weird plans, he is in a weird state of mind now. I think he is on a path of self destruction and this will be his end.... he won't win any more slams or olympics and probably will struggle in 2025 as well to win and then he will retire on 24 by making joke of himself.... same as Serena retired after making it a big deal about chasing court's record and then failing..... at least Novak is in a much better state than Serena but the ending seems to be heading towards that ?

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

I have a suspicion that he had a disagreement over this with Ivanisevic and Goran walked out because of this ???

Goran might not be in affirmative with this idea of skipping wimbledon while Novak is harbouring such weird plans, he is in a weird state of mind now. I think he is on a path of self destruction and this will be his end.... he won't win any more slams or olympics and probably will struggle in 2025 as well to win and then he will retire on 24 by making joke of himself.... same as Serena retired after making it a big deal about chasing court's record and then failing..... at least Novak is in a much better state than Serena but the ending seems to be heading towards that ?

IF he wins Roland Garros for #25 that might change the calculus and there might be a case for skipping London for Olympic training.
A;though it is concerning that he is contemplating skipping anything. Suggesting that he is not physically capable them all.
Or does he have Alcaraz/Sinner on his mind. Is he dodging them?

 

[Razer]

IF he wins Roland Garros for #25 that might change the calculus and there might be a case for skipping London for Olympic training.
A;though it is concerning that he is contemplating skipping anything. Suggesting that he is not physically capable them all.
Or does he have Alcaraz/Sinner on his mind. Is he dodging them?

If he wins Rg for his 25th then he will never skip wimbledon, because then he would be aiming for Golden CYGS or whatever you call that....

 

[metsman]

Federer played the worst match of his entire peak by several country miles when he wasn't clearly tanking/injured at the Olympics. Another stinker in 08. Played fine in 12 before the final, but clearly worse than late rounds of Wimbledon or Cincy before and after. So clear where his priorities are. Pete, forget it, he didn't even bother to pretend like he cared.

The players can say whatever they want, and they will out of patriotism or whatever it may be, but I imagine most players treat it as a fun event and a great social occasion rather than something they are hyperfocused for peaking at. I don't think anyone goes to the Olympics and shuts themselves in their room at 7 PM like they would at a slam (unless you're Safin). So if you look at how much the players actually focus on it, not what they say, but what they do, it's clearly far less important to them than WTF and Indian Wells, not to mention the actual slams - Cincy, Dubai, Halle and Basel.

For third rate players like Murray, yeah it's obviously the highlight of their career and they will leave it all out there. But compare 04 Fed's performance at the Olympics vs TMC or IW and tell me where his priorities were. Not to mention him showing up to 05 TMC gravely injured and fighting tooth and nail for it, way harder than a perfectly healthy Fed fought for the 04 Olympics. Unless of course the pressure was just too much for Federer to beat a 16 year old Berdych. Even in 2008, Fed fought way harder while injured to stay in the TMC than he ever did in the Olympics. In 2012 he was tired sure, but late round Wimbledon or Cincy Federer summarily dismisses Delpo instead of needing 5OT, and you can bet your bottom dollar Federer would have tried much harder than he did if that were a Wimbledon final, regardless of how tired he was. Case in point, Federer was tired with a bad back in 2013 AO and still made a match of it with sheer effort despite having no business doing so.

Maybe it matters more for Nadal and Djokovic than Federer, but they have a history of prioritizing and peaking at mickey mouse events such as Roland Garros and the Miami Masters so I wouldn't trust them about this too much compared to the tennis alpha males.

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

If he wins Rg for his 25th then he will never skip wimbledon, because then he would be aiming for Golden CYGS or whatever you call that....

There is nothing to aim for.
Must win all 4 Majors and Olympic Gold.
Once he lost to Sinner at AO, he had no chance of a Golden Calendar Year Grand Slam.

 

[Razer]

Must win all 4 Majors and Gold.
There is nothing to aim for. Once he lost to Sinner at AO, he had no chance of a Golden Calendar Year Grand Slam.

Ohh yeah, my bad... lol I forgot he is not the AO champ now... lol... Indeed, he has nothing to aim for. He is treading on dangerous waters if he is sacrificing what might be his only chance to win #25. If he wins FO then logically it would make sense to skip wimbledont but even then I donno how logical is it to skip the chance to add Slams because in the end you are only known by the number of slams you won. So the wider the lead he has over Federer and Nadal the better.

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

Ohh yeah, my bad... lol I forgot he is not the AO champ now... lol.

You are still in shock that he lost to Sinner at AO. It was very very ugly.

 

[Razer]

You are still in shock that he lost to Sinner at AO. It was very very ugly.

Shocking? No, it is just that I have a short memory of all this. Lot fo things on my mind outside Tennis too, maybe thats why...

 

[metsman]

Its odd the same people who claim the olympics dont mean something and claim slam counts are all that matter never want to talk about no one use to go to the Aussie open. So I could argue the Aussie open holds no meaning as it didnt matter to players back in the 70s and into the 80s. And the Davis cup which no one cares about now, should matter much more because players use to take it very seriously.

Its not up to us fans to determine what these players consider important.

The Olympics have never meant anything. Yes at one point, the Australian Open meant next to nothing, so in those times we should evaluate accordingly and prioritize several other events over it when we look at tournaments people won. Today it means something, so we evaluate accordingly. At one point, the Davis Cup was clearly a huge deal, at the very least in between any Masters event and the YEC, and maybe even on par or above the YEC in some cases, so we can evaluate matches played there accordingly. Today it means nothing, I don't even know if it still exists.

It's almost like we have more than 1 bit in these things we call brains and can figure stuff like this out.

 

[Better_Call_Raul]

He is treading on dangerous waters if he is sacrificing what might be his only chance to win #25

Think these rumours are false... Unless he is really bent on winning Olympics.
But the problem is that there will be huge pressure at Olympics and it will be embarrassing if he skips W to train for Olympics and fails.
It may even damage his legacy. OTOH, if he wins #25 at Wimbledon there will be relatively very little pressure at Olympics.

 

[insideguy]

The Olympics have never meant anything. Yes at one point, the Australian Open meant next to nothing, so in those times we should evaluate accordingly and prioritize several other events over it when we look at tournaments people won. Today it means something, so we evaluate accordingly. At one point, the Davis Cup was clearly a huge deal, at the very least in between any Masters event and the YEC, and maybe even on par or above the YEC in some cases, so we can evaluate matches played there accordingly. Today it means nothing, I don't even know if it still exists.

It's almost like we have more than 1 bit in these things we call brains and can figure stuff like this out.

I just think fans are being arrogant telling players that the olympics mean nothing. I have never seen a modern day player ever ever say that. If they mean nothing why are the best players in the world going to play it? You in your mind have determined they mean nothing. For whatever reason. I have seen interviews with guys and actions, basically saying the Davis cup means little. I have seen interviews with guys from the old days saying the Aussie open meant nothing.

I have not seen a modern day player in the last 20 years say the olympics mean nothing.