Djokovic possibly will attain to Open era Tier 2 in 2014

[helterskelter]

Read what I wrote in the brackets in every line - (in no particular order).

Yeah, sorry, I missed that first time round. Even so, I think it's bordering on a big enough difference to say that Connors and Lendl should be in a higher tier than McEnroe. I'd have difficulty saying which tier Agassi should be in, though, if you did divide the tier. Overall, his record wasn't all that wonderful, but he did win the career Slam and also won both the Olympics and the Year-Ending Championships.

 

[bjorn23]

What do you guys put the over and under at for majors won in the next two years for djoko and nadal? Ill say djoko 5, nadal 3.

 

[timnz]

Yeah, sorry, I missed that first time round. Even so, I think it's bordering on a big enough difference to say that Connors and Lendl should be in a higher tier than McEnroe. I'd have difficulty saying which tier Agassi should be in, though, if you did divide the tier. Overall, his record wasn't all that wonderful, but he did win the career Slam and also won both the Olympics and the Year-Ending Championships.

Lendl is definitely ahead of McEnroe and Connors, however I think the latter two are close - have a look at Open era rankings that I link to in the first posting in this thread.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=463381

I didn't put any of these in tier 1. Borg is confusing because of his truncated career. If you look at my rankings he is about the same as McEnroe - but he is regarded as superior due to the number of majors he won. Regarding McEnroe and Connors - McEnroe's WCT finals wins often get swept under the carpet - they were a very big title back in the day - and are now largely forgotten. I am a big advocate to giving players credit for winning events that were big AT THE TIME THEY PLAYED THEM regardless of how they are regarded now. People have short memories. I am sure that at the time McEnroe was much more focused on winning WCT finals than he was Australian Opens. His 5 wins there propel him ahead of Connors slightly.

On balance though open era tier 2 is probably in order like this : Lendl, McEnroe, Connors, Agassi

Djokovic I believe will join them by the end of 2014

 

[powerangle]

I think he also stated that Cincinnati was the holy grail. It was a joke thread from Sureshs who started that. In fact, Miami was widely recognised as the fifth slam - back when it was the Sony Ericsson Open and played a 5th set in the finals and had to win 7 matches.

Exactly my point. Clarky brought up Cinci as strawman argument when everyone knows that it all started because Sureshs made a joke/troll thread. Cinci was never the holy grail. But I believe through her frustration of the result today, she wanted to build up all these false accusations.

 

[Clarky21]

Exactly my point. Clarky brought up Cinci as strawman argument when everyone knows that it all started because Sureshs made a joke/troll thread. Cinci was never the holy grail. But I believe through her frustration of the result today, she wanted to build up all these false accusations.

Actually, that's not true. Fed fans/Nadal haters have been saying for years that Cinci was too fast for Nadal to win and that he would never be able to do well there. That's why I brought it up, not because of some ghost thread started by Sureshs that I don't even recall.

Wrong yet again, but you should be used to that by now.

 

[powerangle]

Actually, that's not true. Fed fans/Nadal haters have been saying for years that Cinci was too fast for Nadal to win and that he would never be able to do well there. That's why I brought it up, not because of some ghost thread started by Sureshs that I don't even recall.

Wrong yet again, but you should be used to that by now.

Yes, because all Fed fans are automatically Nadal haters and your usual general blanket statements pertain to everyone.

In any case, I am used to you building strawmen arguments. Apparently if a poster defends Djoker in any way, he must be a Nadal hater. I didn't forget that you called me a Nadal hater, when you have yet to prove with a post of mine that I have baselessly attacked Nadal.

 

[TheTruth]

I hope you're not ranking within the tiers. There is no way that McEnroe had a greater career than either Connors or Lendl.

McEnroe had a better career than Lendl?

I don't know. I couldn't bear to watch McEnroe.

 

[helterskelter]

I would rank Connors considerably ahead of McEnroe. Your weighted system is a good one insofar as it goes, but you only count major and near-major results. Minor tournaments and longevity count for something, and Connors is so far ahead of McEnroe in that regard that he's ahead overall. Connors is also well ahead in Slam semi-finals and quarter-finals and they count for something, too.

Basically, like Borg (and Wilander) McEnroe had a truncated career. That cost him, in my opinion.

Lendl is definitely ahead of McEnroe and Connors, however I think the latter two are close - have a look at Open era rankings that I link to in the first posting in this thread.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=463381

I didn't put any of these in tier 1. Borg is confusing because of his truncated career. If you look at my rankings he is about the same as McEnroe - but he is regarded as superior due to the number of majors he won. Regarding McEnroe and Connors - McEnroe's WCT finals wins often get swept under the carpet - they were a very big title back in the day - and are now largely forgotten. I am a big advocate to giving players credit for winning events that were big AT THE TIME THEY PLAYED THEM regardless of how they are regarded now. People have short memories. I am sure that at the time McEnroe was much more focused on winning WCT finals than he was Australian Opens. His 5 wins there propel him ahead of Connors slightly.

On balance though open era tier 2 is probably in order like this : Lendl, McEnroe, Connors, Agassi

Djokovic I believe will join them by the end of 2014

 

[helterskelter]

McEnroe had a better career than Lendl?

I don't know. I couldn't bear to watch McEnroe.

I said that Lendl had a better career than McEnroe.

 

[powerangle]

I said that Lendl had a better career than McEnroe.

I feel Lendl is a bit underrated on these boards. Same with Connors. Sure, they may have "only" won 8 slams a piece, but their achievements outside the slams are nothing short of amazing.

 

[TheTruth]

I said that Lendl had a better career than McEnroe.

That's right. That's what I meant to say.

I assumed Mac's career was the better since he seems to be more celebrated.

 

[ledwix]

Well, I disagree with you. No way would I put a tournament where you can lose 2 matches yet still win the title that high up on the list. You can't even get away with losing matches in a 250 event.

Ah so is it easier to win WTF than a 250? Benoit Paire goes into a 250 as the top seed. Most WTF winners are undefeated. The fantasy of someone going 3-2 doesn't make it an illegitimate title. The RR nature is obviously due to the fact that the competition is consistently tougher than in any other tournament.

 

[Clarky21]

Ah so is it easier to win WTF than a 250? Benoit Paire goes into a 250 as the top seed. Most WTF winners are undefeated. The fantasy of someone going 3-2 doesn't make it an illegitimate title. The RR nature is obviously due to the fact that the competition is consistently tougher than in any other tournament.

Where did I say that? What I said was factual that you can lose 2 matches at the WTF yet still win the title, when the same cannot be said for a 250 event. People equate the WTF with a slam, and that is simply a load of bull.

 

[powerangle]

Where did I say that? What I said was factual that you can lose 2 matches at the WTF yet still win the title, when the same cannot be said for a 250 event. People equate the WTF with a slam, and that is simply a load of bull.

It definitely is a load of bull. But then going the other extreme and calling WTF an exho is not exactly truthful either. Bias can go both ways.

To be honest, I hardly see anyone pointing out that WTF is equal to a slam (feel free to prove me wrong by providing evidence, but I'm guessing you won't be able to). I usually see people claiming that WTF are the most important after the slams, not that they are equal. Or are you trying to exaggerate and use hyperbole (strawman again)?

There is no right or wrong, after all...these values are all based on opinion, and not fact (as you like to state).

 

[10is]

However, since Nadal won the gold, Olympic tennis has gained more recognition and it now has become a coveted title.

I still don't think it's "that" coveted a title. The Olympics (as a tennis event) is simply too short on history and tradition to be considered a big title (unlike the YEC). Ever since it's inception, no number one player has ever won the Gold, or had even contested an Olympic final until Federer last year. Furthermore until 2012, 11 of the 12 gold and silver medalists were not even ranked in the top 5 - the lone exception being Nadal.

Even Federer, after having one a "gold" medal in '08 hardly seemed as devoted last year considering his long vacation in Sardinia after winning Wimbledon and showing up at the Olympics seemingly rusty and out of practice; and if the Olympics had any sembelance of importance for Djokovic, he certainly didn't show it in his relatively quick straight set losses in both the semifinal as well as his bronze medal matches - among his least competitive performances in 2011-2012.

Two well-attended Olympic tournaments are a weak reason to rush to make the Olympics a "coveted title", let alone historically significant to tennis.

 

[Clarky21]

It definitely is a load of bull. But then going the other extreme and calling WTF an exho is not exactly truthful either. Bias can go both ways.

To be honest, I hardly see anyone pointing out that WTF is equal to a slam (feel free to prove me wrong by providing evidence, but I'm guessing you won't be able to). I usually see people claiming that WTF are the most important after the slams, not that they are equal. Or are you trying to exaggerate and use hyperbole (strawman again)?

There is no right or wrong, after all...these values are all based on opinion, and not fact (as you like to state).

What a joke you are. You expect me to paw through multiple threads and posts to be able to prove to you what I said is factual? Well, sorry but I am not going to do that, and I highly doubt you would waste your time doing it either.

Wrong. tennnisaddict is just one troll who said that the WTF is equal to a slam, and actually said it is worth more than winning RG. There are others as well, and if you want to know who they are then look them up for yourself.

 

[tennisaddict]

If WTF is an exho to some, it can be slam material to others.

After all, only the best of the best play there and only all time greats have won it, unlike even some majors.

 

[powerangle]

What a joke you are. You expect me to paw through multiple threads and posts to be able to prove to you what I said is factual? Well, sorry but I am not going to do that, and I highly doubt you would waste your time doing it either.

Wrong. tennnisaddict is just one troll who said that the WTF is equal to a slam, and actually said it is worth more than winning RG. There are others as well, and if you want to know who they are then look them up for yourself.

Well did I say you had to paw through threads and posts? I'll take your word for it that tennisaddict said such a thing. I didn't read it myself. If he did, well then he is obviously a loony bin.

But then again the same can be applied to you and others who claim WTF is just an exho. You are on other end of the extreme spectrum and it is just silly. If tennisaddict and company thinking that WTF and slams are equal is so wrong...then what makes you and others who think that WTF and exhos are equal...so right?

 

[powerangle]

If WTF is an exho to some, it can be slam material to others.

After all, only the best of the best play there and only all time greats have won it, unlike even some majors.

ok evidence here. Don't agree with you. But I don't agree with Clarky either. To argue the extremes is just trollish.

 

[Amygdal]

Olympics are hugr not because of tennis alone, but because of what it means to all sports. It is the one major event in everything, the one most coveted medal for anyone anywhere. The nobel prize of sports. Yes, maybe to a certain degree but still. And that alone gives its tennis tournament a huge significance. Everybody wants an Olympic gold medal, tennis players included

 

[chjtennis]

I still don't think it's "that" coveted a title. The Olympics (as a tennis event) is simply too short on history and tradition to be considered a big title (unlike the YEC). Ever since it's inception, no number one player has ever won the Gold, or had even contested an Olympic final until Federer last year. Furthermore until 2012, 11 of the 12 gold and silver medalists were not even ranked in the top 5 - the lone exception being Nadal.

Even Federer, after having one a "gold" medal in '08 hardly seemed as devoted last year considering his long vacation in Sardinia after winning Wimbledon and showing up at the Olympics seemingly rusty and out of practice; and if the Olympics had any sembelance of importance for Djokovic, he certainly didn't show it in his relatively quick straight set losses in both the semifinal as well as his bronze medal matches - among his least competitive performances in 2011-2012.

Two well-attended Olympic tournaments are a weak reason to rush to make the Olympics a "coveted title", let alone historically significant to tennis.

Olympic tennis certainly lack that historical glamour of Grand Slams or WTF. However, it's quickly gaining respect and prestige thanks to the patriotism displayed by Big 4. Now it has become legitimately relevant event even though it doesn't have the historical significance. Everyone wants to win it now, including Federer and Djokovic. Federer was just tired physically and emotionally after Wimbledon, and Djokovic simply seemed to have lost motivation after failing to reach the final because he couldn't win gold. Must have been a unique experience for Djokovic because usually, you don't compete for 3rd and 4th place in regular ATP events and that playoff must felt like a dead-rubber. Anyway, what a turn around, considering about a decade ago, it wasn't so popular that ATP had to start giving out ranking points to attract top players. Players like Sampras didn't even take part in it. I hope it keeps being popular in the future. It is certainly a coveted title now. Historically? Not so. WTF has always been way bigger in that sense.