Biggest 'gaping' hole in their career

[sunny_cali]

Here, you raise a good point. IMO the ATP are too stingy with the points awarded. Given its growing prestige, it should be at least worth the equivalent of a Masters if not a bit more.

This "growing" prestige is IMHO a temporary phenomenon -- and it is because Fed tom-tommed it a bit too much - I guess he expected to win one easily. Tennis is a professional sport and including it just takes attention away from the sports that depend on the Olympics to garner some much needed viewership, publicity or money. I suspect once Fed/Nadal are out of the picture the "prestige" will be exactly what it was during Massu's sterling double peat. And if "prestige" matters so much, perhaps Wimby should be awarded 2500 points ? :twisted:

The points are about correct - with restrictions about how many participants each country can send - they best 56 at the time don't even get to play (8 slots are filled in by the ITF). It should be around the same as an ATP500 or lower -- but then of course the top guys wouldn't take part, so a compromise figure of 750 was chosen.

 

[Gizo]

Regarding the Olympics, I've never understood this silly notion that a big name has to win a particular tournament for it to become important, and that its prestige somehow suffers if a lower ranked player wins it. Then again most of the players I root for are lower ranked and will never come close to reaching the top 10, regularly going deep in majors etc.

At the 2004 Olympics in Athens, the world no. 1 Federer and the world no. 2 Roddick were both in the draw, were both in excellent form, and were both highly motivated to try and win the gold medal. The tournament deliberately used a surface and balls as similar to those at the US Open, to help out the players. However Federer was upset in R2 by Berdych (who he beat in their next 8 matches before regularly losing to him again from 2010-2013) and Roddick lost in R3 to the eventual bronze medalist Gonzalez (who he beat in 7 out of their next 8 matches). Massu's heroic efforts to win both the singles and doubles gold medals didn't detract from the event at all, and it's not his fault that neither Federer or Roddick could even make the quarter-finals.

Marc Rosset's gold medal at Barcelona in 1992 is arguably the most impressive campaign of the lot (at least just in singles alone), with him winning 6 best of 5 set matches (demolishing the best player in the world and on clay Courier in R3), and with practically all of the top players present apart from Agassi. Again I don't see how Rosset winning gold instead of a Courier or Edberg for instance detracted from that event's importance or prestige.

 

[Goosehead]

how about "having a significantly negative H2H record against his main rival"?

no. because the goal of tennis is to win tennis tourney's not just beat one player.

 

[Goosehead]

deleate poast (again).

 

[Flash O'Groove]

Which of the following great players in the open era has the biggest hole in his resume?

Sampras - Never won the French Open, 0 final
Nadal - Never won the WTF, only one surface dominant
Borg - Never won the US Open, had chances on clay and hard court

I disagree with the premise that not winning a particular event can be a hole in a player resume, it's a gross oversimplification.

I do think that Sampras has a glaring hole in his resume, but it isn't failing to win the French Open. Many all time great have failed to win one of the majors. It's his overall clay resume which is too weak for an all time great, not him failing to win RG in particular. Had he won several clay M1000 and reached several finals or SF, I wouldn't say that.

So Borg "failure" to win the USO, or Nadal "failing" to win the WTF are not hole. A player isn't excepted to win everything left and right, on the contrary. Both of them performed quiet well at these events. Same for Lendl and grass. N

 

[Bender]

I disagree with the premise that not winning a particular event can be a hole in a player resume, it's a gross oversimplification.

I do think that Sampras has a glaring hole in his resume, but it isn't failing to win the French Open. Many all time great have failed to win one of the majors. It's his overall clay resume which is too weak for an all time great, not him failing to win RG in particular. Had he won several clay M1000 and reached several finals or SF, I wouldn't say that.

So Borg "failure" to win the USO, or Nadal "failing" to win the WTF are not hole. A player isn't excepted to win everything left and right, on the contrary. Both of them performed quiet well at these events. Same for Lendl and grass. N

You raise a good point - I never really thought of it that way.

 

[Gizo]

In the 90s Monte-Carlo and Hamburg were largely irrelevant events to the US players, with Sampras, Agassi, Courier and Chang all regularly not entering those events (masters series events weren't compulsory until 2000 and often shared weeks in the calendar with other tour events). Rome was the final clay court super 9 event ahead of RG until it switched calendar slots with Hamburg in 2000, and the US players wanted to come over to Europe as late as possible before spending a long time there during the RG-Wimbledon double header.

So Sampras not doing much at Monte-Carlo or Hamburg really isn't a big deal in the slightest. Still only reaching 1 final in a combined total of 23 appearances at RG and Rome is obviously not exactly stellar for an all-time great, and would certainly be a bigger blemish on his CV than Borg never winning the US Open or Nadal never winning the YEC.

 

[Djokovic2011]

I disagree with the premise that not winning a particular event can be a hole in a player resume, it's a gross oversimplification.

I do think that Sampras has a glaring hole in his resume, but it isn't failing to win the French Open. Many all time great have failed to win one of the majors. It's his overall clay resume which is too weak for an all time great, not him failing to win RG in particular. Had he won several clay M1000 and reached several finals or SF, I wouldn't say that.

So Borg "failure" to win the USO, or Nadal "failing" to win the WTF are not hole. A player isn't excepted to win everything left and right, on the contrary. Both of them performed quiet well at these events. Same for Lendl and grass. N

Good post. This is why I won't really consider it to be a hole in Djokovic's career if he never wins the French. After all, he's won 5 Masters 1000 on clay and reached 2 finals and 4 semi-finals at RG so it's not like he hasn't already proved that he can play on the surface.

 

[dlk]

Good post. This is why I won't really consider it to be a hole in Djokovic's career if he never wins the French. After all, he's won 5 Masters 1000 on clay and reached 2 finals and 4 semi-finals at RG so it's not like he hasn't already proved that he can play on the surface.

I disagree. Despite the 1000 titles on clay. He wants the French to round out his career. I believe in overall players. Crazy as it sounds I respect Agassi more than Pete because of the simple fact that Pete did not 'win' on all the surfaces ('win'=GS). Still not a bad or incomplete career, but the word complete player/champion for GOAT must garner all surface GS IMO.

Of course just my humble opinion. And have no fear, Novak will get a French, probably this year.

 

[JMR]

I disagree with the premise that not winning a particular event can be a hole in a player resume, it's a gross oversimplification.

I do think that Sampras has a glaring hole in his resume, but it isn't failing to win the French Open. Many all time great have failed to win one of the majors. It's his overall clay resume which is too weak for an all time great, not him failing to win RG in particular. Had he won several clay M1000 and reached several finals or SF, I wouldn't say that.

Not winning an event is indeed a major gap in one's legacy when the event is a slam. At the 11+ slam level, the Career Grand Slam is an important differentiator. Being a capable player on a slam's surface is no substitute for having won the slam itself.

However, I agree with you that being a relatively poor performer on a particular surface can also be a career "hole." Sampras thus has two deficits worthy of mention: no FO title, and weak clay results for a player of his stature. In contrast, Borg has no USO title, but was a great player on all the surfaces on which the USO was contested during his career. Lendl has no Wimbledon title, but was a surprisingly strong player on grass once he got used to it. These two players have only the slam title hole, not the surface hole.

Nadal has the WTF hole, which is worthy of note but obviously less significant than missing a slam title.

 

[SoBad]

Nadal. Not so much not winning the WTC, which is a big hole indeed, but the fact that he can claim dominance only on one single surface.

Please don't forget the Basel next time you post about Nadal's gaping hole.

I think you are confused - there are a number of gaping threads dominating the board today.

My apologies and you are absolutely right -- I have spent too much time conversing with various banned trolls in this thread lately and some confusion may have transpired as a result.

 

[TMF]

I disagree with the premise that not winning a particular event can be a hole in a player resume, it's a gross oversimplification.

I do think that Sampras has a glaring hole in his resume, but it isn't failing to win the French Open. Many all time great have failed to win one of the majors. It's his overall clay resume which is too weak for an all time great, not him failing to win RG in particular. Had he won several clay M1000 and reached several finals or SF, I wouldn't say that.

So Borg "failure" to win the USO, or Nadal "failing" to win the WTF are not hole. A player isn't excepted to win everything left and right, on the contrary. Both of them performed quiet well at these events. Same for Lendl and grass. N

Instead of focusing on missing just one prestige tournament as a 'hole', let's put this way. Sampras incredible achievement on grass season and USO hard court season, but hardly nothing during clay season. Nadal incredible acheivement on clay season, but not much during indoor season. If you remove Sampras clay season and Nadal indoor season, there's not much loss from their career achievement and the still be ranked where they are in all time great.

Borg's hole I think is smaller. He dominated the clay and grass season, but his 4 USO finals plus winning Toronto during north American hard court season is more impressive than Sampras on clay and Nadal on indoor season.

 

[tudwell]

Clearly Sampras. Nadal's holes are significantly smaller than the other two since he's actually one at all the slams, plus he's made the final of the biggest event he's missing - twice. Borg made four U.S. Open finals, compared to Sampras' one French semifinal.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

Good post. This is why I won't really consider it to be a hole in Djokovic's career if he never wins the French. After all, he's won 5 Masters 1000 on clay and reached 2 finals and 4 semi-finals at RG so it's not like he hasn't already proved that he can play on the surface.

I fully agree. Djokovic has been one of the 3 best competitor on clay since 2007, he has achieved a lot on the surface, and i believe he is lacking a RG titles only because he wasn't born at the right time.

I disagree. Despite the 1000 titles on clay. He wants the French to round out his career. I believe in overall players. Crazy as it sounds I respect Agassi more than Pete because of the simple fact that Pete did not 'win' on all the surfaces ('win'=GS). Still not a bad or incomplete career, but the word complete player/champion for GOAT must garner all surface GS IMO.

Of course just my humble opinion. And have no fear, Novak will get a French, probably this year.

Still disagree, because if you only focus on having or not having won RG, you: 1) Leave out all context and 2) equate very different achievements.

1) So Agassi won all four, Djokovic didn't. Thus Agassi is a better clay courter? Agassi had to play Filippini in QF, Hrbaty in SF and Medvedev in the final, while Djokovic face the greatest clay courter of all time.

2) Neither Sampras nor Djokovic have won RG, they are equally "bad" in this regard. Yet, when they were not winning RG, one was losing early while the other was winning clay M1000 and reaching SF or finals.

Instead of focusing on missing just one prestige tournament as a 'hole', let's put this way. Sampras incredible achievement on grass season and USO hard court season, but hardly nothing during clay season. Nadal incredible acheivement on clay season, but not much during indoor season. If you remove Sampras clay season and Nadal indoor season, there's not much loss from their career achievement and the still be ranked where they are in all time great.

Borg's hole I think is smaller. He dominated the clay and grass season, but his 4 USO finals plus winning Toronto during north American hard court season is more impressive than Sampras on clay and Nadal on indoor season.

You are right but the indoor season doesn't have the same place in the calendar that it once had, so the "hole" doesn't have the same importance. And Nadal indoor's achievements aren't that poor. He is a Madrid winner, lost two other indoor M1000 finals to quality indoors players, 2 WTF finals to quality indoors player. In addition, I strongly believe that Nadal could have won the Master Cup in 2006 and 2007 if not for Federer. He was playing really well in these events.

 

[Gary Duane]

Can people stop using this "gaping" hole metaphor?

"Gaping hole" is not so bad except when people start talking about "buthurt".

 

[TMF]

If only has Sampras made a few FO finals, the poll result would be more balance rather than being lopsided.

 

[*Sparkle*]

For me, from that list, it has to be Sampras.

Can people stop using this "gaping" hole metaphor?

Agreed. Not because I think it's pervy, but because it's a bit melodramatic to talk about any of those players having a 'gaping hole' in their CVs.

 

[TMF]

You are right but the indoor season doesn't have the same place in the calendar that it once had, so the "hole" doesn't have the same importance. And Nadal indoor's achievements aren't that poor. He is a Madrid winner, lost two other indoor M1000 finals to quality indoors players, 2 WTF finals to quality indoors player. In addition, I strongly believe that Nadal could have won the Master Cup in 2006 and 2007 if not for Federer. He was playing really well in these events.

I agree that Nadal would have won the WTF had Federer if not for Federer. But you can say the same for Borg winning at least the USO had not for Mac and Connors who got the huge crowd supports at home. All in all, both players were much closer to win than Sampras at the FO. The poll result is directly related to their career results and performance.

 

[Clayisbest]

WTF is a mickey mouse tournament which is worth 500 points less than a slam and has no importance. It is like Brisbane or Doha. Pistol Pete proved himself against Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Muster, Pioline, Moya on clay so that is no hole either.

Please dear Fedovic fans stop trying to undermine Pistol Pete and Rafa King Nadal. Federer and Djokovic may never be as good as Pistol or Rafa but they are also top 10 in the Open Era surely.

 

[kandamrgam]

Still disagree, because if you only focus on having or not having won RG, you: 1) Leave out all context and 2) equate very different achievements.

1) So Agassi won all four, Djokovic didn't. Thus Agassi is a better clay courter? Agassi had to play Filippini in QF, Hrbaty in SF and Medvedev in the final, while Djokovic face the greatest clay courter of all time.

2) Neither Sampras nor Djokovic have won RG, they are equally "bad" in this regard. Yet, when they were not winning RG, one was losing early while the other was winning clay M1000 and reaching SF or finals.




You are right but the indoor season doesn't have the same place in the calendar that it once had, so the "hole" doesn't have the same importance. And Nadal indoor's achievements aren't that poor. He is a Madrid winner, lost two other indoor M1000 finals to quality indoors players, 2 WTF finals to quality indoors player. In addition, I strongly believe that Nadal could have won the Master Cup in 2006 and 2007 if not for Federer. He was playing really well in these events.

1. Agassi did make it couple of more FO finals and semis. Had tough losses to Courier and Wilander. So I do think he deserves his cake finally. But still agree, cant compare to Djoker.

2. Nadal also has an indoor tournament on clay

 

[kandamrgam]

WTF is a mickey mouse tournament which is worth 500 points less than a slam and has no importance. It is like Brisbane or Doha. Pistol Pete proved himself against Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Muster, Pioline, Moya on clay so that is no hole either.

Please dear Fedovic fans stop trying to undermine Pistol Pete and Rafa King Nadal. Federer and Djokovic may never be as good as Pistol or Rafa but they are also top 10 in the Open Era surely.

Are you not 90's clay? :shock:

 

[TommyA8X]

Are you not 90's clay? :shock:

I guess Federer winning Davis cup was the final nail in the coffin of his sanity :shock:




:lol:

 

[blarvitread]

Borg not winning the U.S open was my pick since it was even on clay for several years and he still didn't win it. That makes it the worst.

Sampras at the French is 2nd worst.

Nadal is 3rd worst a country mile behind the other two. It is a joke to even compare the WTF to way more prestigious events like a slam. Furthmore his WTF performance is light years better than Sampras's French Open performances, and it is on his worst sub surface (indoor hard court, I say sub surface as technically indoors is not a surface) vs Borg who had the U.S Open on clay awhile like I said.