Every open era great has won the YEC

BackhandDTL

Hall of Fame
The ranking point thing wasn't even my argument in the first place.
That's obviously something that undermines its credibility. In combination with all the other factors its hard to see it as a legitimate tournament.

Miami and Paris are holes for Nadal's resume but not WTF.

Just like Davis Cup doesn't bolster Nadal's resume. Its just not traditional tennis.
 

BackhandDTL

Hall of Fame
Good lord, this is one clusterphuck of excuses. I'm not sure where to begin with this, except that it doesn't look like you're basing any of these arguments on the actual matches played and the actual levels of the players.
If we are looking at "level" then why aren't Queens/Dubai up next to slams? They certainly attract the best fields and generate some of the highest "level."

Level isin't an excuse if the structure and ulterior motives behind a tournament diminish its credibility. That argument just doesn't make sense.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
That's obviously something that undermines its credibility. In combination with all the other factors its hard to see it as a legitimate tournament.

Miami and Paris are holes for Nadal's resume but not WTF.
-ve tennis IQ/knowledge Nadal fanboy @BackhandDTL is talking nonsense again, as usual.

WTF > any masters tournament.

Fact.

Just like Davis Cup doesn't bolster Nadal's resume. Its just not traditional tennis.
LMAO. Davis Cup has a MUCH MUCH longer tradition than even open era slams, let alone new master level tournaments which began to be standardized in the 80s and 90s.
Even in the late 1910s and 1920s, they travelled across seas by ship for Davis Cup - which was the most prestigious tourney at that time.
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
Considering he was getting tossed around by peak Nadal and Murray in slams those years, not surprised he was trying hard to atleast collect the consolation prize.
Djokovic-Nadal 1 all in slams in 12, Djokovic-Murray 1 all in slams in 12.
Won YEC that year which made him best player of the year. else would've been Fed

15 - when he was tossing around nadal left right, he played his best tennis at the YEC and won it.
Flashback, Nadal won 0 sets in 7 matches vs Djokovic in 15-16.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Yes, for the most part guys that are incapable of winning slams, show up to reap the benefits of an overly generous points system against fatigued players.

04 and 06 aren't very surprising. Fatigue doesn't play as much of a factor here when you don't have other ATG's in their primes matching up against you for the course of the season. Fed was so far ahead of his mediocre competition in extremely favorable conditions, that obviously its not a major factor come the year end.

Whereas for the last 10 years you have guys that aren't winning majors that year/guys that can't touch the best in majors reap the generous benefits against the best players that year, who have already peaked for the slams and clawed their way to wins against other ATG-level competition.

Winning a tournament with arbitrary rules and poor format that doesn't apply to them in some cases doesn't necessarily make it legitimate.
your whole post is a load of malarkey.
Fed peaked in the YEC 2007 SF+F as well (Nadal+ferrer)

He also peaked in YEC 2010 as did your boy Nadal who got beat once again indoors.

04 was pretty good competition, but then you wouldn't know that, would you, -ve tennis IQ/knowledge fellow?

Murray had a pretty long season in 16, yet peaked at the YEC.

All ATGs except Nadal, Wilander have won the YEC.
Fed - 6 times (4 more finals)
Lendl - 5 times (4 more finals)
Djokovic - 5 times (2 more finals)
Sampras - 5 times (1 more final)
Becker - 3 times (5 more finals)

etc.

But ok -ve tennis IQ/knowledge fellow, its only players incapable of winning slams that show up at the YEC. ATGs don't peak there etc. etc.
Sure, Jan.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
The YEC is not bigger than the Olympic Gold.
Depends on which sport you're comparing to. If it's a gold in track-and-field, then it's debatable.

However, tennis is the Olympic is miniature and therefore less valuable than the 5th most prestigious tennis event of the year.
 

BackhandDTL

Hall of Fame
Depends on which sport you're comparing to. If it's a gold in track-and-field, then it's debatable.

However, tennis is the Olympic is miniature and therefore less valuable than the 5th most prestigious tennis event of the year.
Something so artificial can’t be considered prestigious. Excessive prize money, ranking, for such a gimmicky round robin format that is used to manufacture interest after all 4 slams have already been completed can’t be prestigious in any sense of the word.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Something so artificial can’t be considered prestigious. Excessive prize money, ranking, for such a gimmicky round robin format that is used to manufacture interest after all 4 slams have already been completed can’t be prestigious in any sense of the word.
A+ bias,

Please don't reply to my post.
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
This thread eerily reminds of the golden era of the VB, when every few days a thread about how ridiculously unimportant the WTF is was made, and how ridiculously important the OG (singles, of course) is.

As one VB member said, a WTF/YE Masters is worth nothing, and one needs 6 of those to equal one OG (singles, of course).

8-B
 

JasonZ

Semi-Pro
the ONLY people who say wtf doesnt matter ans is a joke tournament are nadal fans.

it is huge hole in his resume that he didnt win it. he knows it and everyone else knows it. it will be mentioned over and over again that he failed to win it, while federer and djokovic won it 5 and more times. he even said it before the tournament that he wants to win it badly.

the wtf had some of the best and drametic matches of the whole season, this last year. this final the final and the semifinals were amazing matches, quality and drama.

you think if players wouldnt care about wtf, they would produce such level of tennis?
 

hypercube

New User
Roger Federer – ’03, ’04, ’06, ’07, ’10, ‘11
Pete Sampras – ’91, ’94, ’96, ’97, ‘99
Ivan Lendl – ’81, ’82, ’85, ’86, ‘87
Bjorn Borg – ’79, ‘80
John McEnroe – ’78, ’83, ‘84
Jimmy Connors – ‘77
Andre Agassi – ‘90
Novak Djokovic – ’08, ‘12, '13
Stefan Edberg – ‘89


How can Rafael “I wish the WTF was played on clay” Nadal be considered an all-time great when he cannot accomplish something that every great player of the open era has?
You might as well have written "every all time-great had at most two syllables in his name, how can Rafael be an ATG?".
Rafa is already a counterexample to your ridiculous claim.
 
Depends on which sport you're comparing to. If it's a gold in track-and-field, then it's debatable.

However, tennis is the Olympic is miniature and therefore less valuable than the 5th most prestigious tennis event of the year.
Not really, an Olympic Gold I think is valued by players more than a WTF. This obviously ignores the fact that what makes the WTF special is that it is an indoor tournament, and that should have been your reply plan.
 
Yes and no. One can say all sorts of emotional/patriotic crap about the Olympics but one can point out that YEC actually awards prize money (many countries give dick all money for even winning the gold) and ranking points, which also leads to more prize money/entry fees and you can claim you beat the best, which might not be necessarily true for the Olympics.
Like you said, yes and no.
 

JasonZ

Semi-Pro
Not really, an Olympic Gold I think is valued by players more than a WTF. This obviously ignores the fact that what makes the WTF special is that it is an indoor tournament, and that should have been your reply plan.
thats why dominic thiem decided to skip olympia in 2020 and play kitzbühel instead!!! because he values olympics more than the wtf!
 
  • Like
Reactions: TMF

Mainad

Bionic Poster
thats why dominic thiem decided to skip olympia in 2020 and play kitzbühel instead!!! because he values olympics more than the wtf!
He probably came to the realisation that he had far more chance of winning Kitzbühel again than he did of ever winning the Olympics.
 

BackhandDTL

Hall of Fame
If we are using one player’s responses/reactions as the crux of the argument then why was Djokovic crying a river after getting booted out by Del Potro at the Olympics?

Im not saying this is a valid argument, because I don’t think it is. But this is your own logic.
 

JasonZ

Semi-Pro
ü
He probably came to the realisation that he had far more chance of winning Kitzbühel again than he did of ever winning the Olympics.
yep, that must be it. and nadal doesnt take wtf seriously because to go all out there reduces his chances to win french open next year.
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
The Olympic Gold -vs- WTF Title is an interesting debate.

If you could own either of the trophies and decided to sell it ... which one would you prefer to own and sell?

If you could purchase one and only one, which would you prefer to purchase?

I'm reminded of that famous story told by Rod Laver. One of his children wanted to take one of his trophies to school one time for "Show and Tell". Laver asked her which one she wanted to take. She answered, "The Wimbledon one!". He laughed and then said "OK, which one of those? The '62 or the '69?" LOL.

Some of you might miss the point here. Laver won his GRAND SLAMS in 1962 and 1969. But he won four Wimbledon Singles Titles in all.

The WTF Title is meaningless in the overall scheme of things. Even more so when you have 20 Major Titles !!!
 

paolo2143

Rookie
The vast majority of people that seem to think the WTF titles are meaningless are the more extreme Rafa fans. They are kidding themselves, as the lack of a WTF title is a big black mark against his career and potentially GOAT credibility.

Now if Rafa ends up with another few majors then it will not become such a big issue, but if say at end of their careers either Federer/Nadal or Nadal/Djockovic were to end up tied on GS titles or even only one part, then it takes on much more relevance.

Roger has 6 titles , Novak 5 and Rafa 0. Also both Novak & Roger have ended as year end No1 more often.

Now as some people on here point out, and with some merit, many of Roger's WTF's titles were won when fields were easier. Also the same might be argued about year's he ended as No1.

However in 70 years time when tennis fans look at the cold hard stats in record books, the above won't matter, what they will see is that Roger and Novak are noticeably ahead of Rafa in these areas. The fact that Rafa doesn't have a single year end WTF Championship to his name, will be striking.

Now as I said if Rafa goes on to end with a few more majors than either of his main rivals, it won't be as significant. However, if he doesn't then the lack of a single WTF title becomes increasingly more significant in grand scheme of things.

For those who disagree I would point them to discussions/arguments on the former player Board. It is clear from them that many tennis fans who weren't around watching tennis in 70's, 60's or indeed even further back, are not aware of all the circumstances that existed at those times.

Most people who weren't around are basing their arguments on the cold hard stats/facts they can see in record books, and not taking into account the relevance of other factors that may have existed.

The same will happen in 60 odd years from now, when the current generation of fans are no longer around. Then as always people will look at the record books and cold hard stats that are listed.
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
Now as I said if Rafa goes on to end with a few more majors than either of his main rivals, it won't be as significant. However, if he doesn't then the lack of a single WTF title becomes increasingly more significant in grand scheme of things.
Your paragraph above appears to contract the ones below.

For those who disagree I would point them to discussions/arguments on the former player Board. It is clear from them that many tennis fans who weren't around watching tennis in 70's, 60's or indeed even further back, are not aware of all the circumstances that existed at those times.

Most people who weren't around are basing their arguments on the cold hard stats/facts they can see in record books, and not taking into account the relevance of other factors that may have existed.

The same will happen in 60 odd years from now, when the current generation of fans are no longer around. Then as always people will look at the record books and cold hard stats that are listed.
The Greatest Players are the ones who dominate.

If we just stick with the Men's Singles category ...

Sears, Larned, Renshaw, Tilden, Cochet, LaCoste, Crawford, Perry, Budge, Riggs, Kramer, Rosewall, Laver, Emerson all were clearly dominant in the sport during their peak years.

Remember, you can only play (and beat) who you play, regardless of every other factor.

You quickly forget, Roger has 8 Wimbledons, Rafa has 13 RGs and Novak has 8 AOs. It is these wonderful achievements the Big 3 will be remembered for as far as tennis is concerned.

No one cares about the WTF count because the WTF Tournament has always had a level of "Artificiality". In recent times it has only been "Best of 3". In a sport where the greatest contests are "Best of 5", the Majors are the True Test of Greatness. Every tennis player will tell you that, including the Big 3 of today and the Greats of the Past.

In 100 years time, the Big 3 will be fondly remembered as a Group. Which one of the three is viewed as the Greatest of the Big 3 will be debated forever. Most will have their personal favourite regardless of the Statistics because the knowledge of their Careers will be handed down in the form of Word of Mouth, Match videos, and historical Media records.

But unless one of them wins the GRAND SLAM ... the ongoing passage of time will make Laver's two GRAND SLAMS more and more valuable and revered. Laver retired in the mid 1970s - nearly 50 years ago. Yet we continue to mention his name in the same sentences as Borg and the Big 3. Laver didn't win a YEC. Borg won one WCT YEC and two ATP YEC. That should tell you a lot, in itself.
 

JasonZ

Semi-Pro
Your paragraph above appears to contract the ones below.



The Greatest Players are the ones who dominate.

If we just stick with the Men's Singles category ...

Sears, Larned, Renshaw, Tilden, Cochet, LaCoste, Crawford, Perry, Budge, Riggs, Kramer, Rosewall, Laver, Emerson all were clearly dominant in the sport during their peak years.

Remember, you can only play (and beat) who you play, regardless of every other factor.

You quickly forget, Roger has 8 Wimbledons, Rafa has 13 RGs and Novak has 8 AOs. It is these wonderful achievements the Big 3 will be remembered for as far as tennis is concerned.

No one cares about the WTF count because the WTF Tournament has always had a level of "Artificiality". In recent times it has only been "Best of 3". In a sport where the greatest contests are "Best of 5", the Majors are the True Test of Greatness. Every tennis player will tell you that, including the Big 3 of today and the Greats of the Past.

In 100 years time, the Big 3 will be fondly remembered as a Group. Which one of the three is viewed as the Greatest of the Big 3 will be debated forever. Most will have their personal favourite regardless of the Statistics because the knowledge of their Careers will be handed down in the form of Word of Mouth, Match videos, and historical Media records.

But unless one of them wins the GRAND SLAM ... the ongoing passage of time will make Laver's two GRAND SLAMS more and more valuable and revered. Laver retired in the mid 1970s - nearly 50 years ago. Yet we continue to mention his name in the same sentences as Borg and the Big 3. Laver didn't win a YEC. Borg won one WCT YEC and two ATP YEC. That should tell you a lot, in itself.
when you are the supposed goat or goat candidate, you have to have at least 1 wtf title. it must be part of the resume of a goat level player.

people care about it. else these thread would not be that long and there would be no other threads about nadal not winning it.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
The bolded is demonstrably false if we're talking about the top players. YEC 2003, 2004, and 2006 were some of Fed's best tournaments ever. I already mentioned Djokovic's 2012-2014 titles as well. And this doesn't even go into the 90's where we had so many classic matches. And then you have guys like Kuerten, Nalbandian, Davydenko, and Murray who brought their best forms into the YEC.

It only really applies to today's Career Inflation Era where the top players are all old, causing the entire season to collapse after the US Open and allowing different, younger top players to snatch the rest of the titles. But don't pretend that such anomalies pertain to the entire 50 years of the tournament (or even the last 15-20, lol).

The italicized is a possibility and it could potentially make such achievements less meaningful, but, as I said before, it doesn't apply to any player that I know of so we can't devalue their accomplishments based on hypotheticals that haven't happened to them. Like waving off Fed's YEC titles because you can potentially lose a match and still win... when he has five of them that he won without dropping a match. Djoker also has three.
I like how they rave about losing but still winning. If it were that easy, why hasn't Nadal won it? :unsure:
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Not really, an Olympic Gold I think is valued by players more than a WTF. This obviously ignores the fact that what makes the WTF special is that it is an indoor tournament, and that should have been your reply plan.
I disagree. Like I said, tennis in the Olympic is minuscule when comparing to other major sport like track-and-field. There were years that tennis was not part of the Olympic, and even when it was, some players(i.e. Sampras) skipped the tournament and chose to play small event in the interstate.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
I disagree. Like I said, tennis in the Olympic is minuscule when comparing to other major sport like track-and-field. There were years that tennis was not part of the Olympic, and even when it was, some players(i.e. Sampras) skipped the tournament and chose to play small event in the interstate.
I think that said more about Sampras than it did the Olympics. He has since said he regrets not playing it more. An Olympic medal would have been another feather in his cap. Who remembers that small event he chose to play? Probably not even him.
 

Olli Jokinen

Semi-Pro
Roger Federer – ’03, ’04, ’06, ’07, ’10, ‘11
Pete Sampras – ’91, ’94, ’96, ’97, ‘99
Ivan Lendl – ’81, ’82, ’85, ’86, ‘87
Bjorn Borg – ’79, ‘80
John McEnroe – ’78, ’83, ‘84
Jimmy Connors – ‘77
Andre Agassi – ‘90
Novak Djokovic – ’08, ‘12, '13
Stefan Edberg – ‘89


How can Rafael “I wish the WTF was played on clay” Nadal be considered an all-time great when he cannot accomplish something that every great player of the open era has?
You forgot Becker. One great who never one it is Wilander, though.
 

California

Semi-Pro
They love h2hs but hate THE h2h tournament
I love the WTF. Why? Because it takes out all the "filler" and it is just the best 8 players. Can't really complain about the draw, maybe slightly depending on which group you are put into, but nevertheless the round robin aspect makes up for that. It is the best against the best, end of the year, who deserve it and wants it more. The only reason some people don't like it because it hurts their idol/favorite, plain and simple.

This is coming from an Edberg fan, I was bummed he only won once, but he did lose in the final once too. It was always a tournament to watch!
 

Europa1

New User
It’s a Christmas exhibition.

The fact that you can tank a match and still win the title, that isin’t tennis.

Guys like Davydenko and Tsitsipas will peak for the WTF, Nadal and Djokovic will peak for the slams.

Miami and Paris are holes for Nadal. Not WTF.
And guys like Federer peaked at all four majors plus YEC...
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
when you are the supposed goat or goat candidate, you have to have at least 1 wtf title. it must be part of the resume of a goat level player.
No it isn't.

GOAT achievements are primarily based on Major Titles (and combinations thereof) and Number of Weeks with Number 1 Ranking.

These are the only two statistics which can be objectively used for the Sport of (Lawn) Tennis since it's inception in the 1800s.

All the other Tournaments come and go over time. The Majors remain static. And it is pretty easy to determine Rankings whether there was on Official System or not.

That's why Rod Laver with his two GRAND SLAMS is the GOAT. No other male player in the history of the sport has achieved that. Laver is also in a rare group of players that also has at least two of each Major Singles Title. None of the Big 3 has achieved that.

WTF Titles are nice an' all, But pretty meaningless. Maybe the WTF Finals will be looked upon differently in another 100 years time .. if they still exist.
 
Really? Because Sampras skipped it all the time and even Thiem skipped it to play Kitzbuhel.
People used to skip the AO also. Does it mean it's crap? An Olympic Gold is a feat very few achieve. Fed has played it several times and hasn't won the OG Singles Gold. Tsitsipas and Zverev have the WTF. That is basically all you need to know.
 
I disagree. Like I said, tennis in the Olympic is minuscule when comparing to other major sport like track-and-field. There were years that tennis was not part of the Olympic, and even when it was, some players(i.e. Sampras) skipped the tournament and chose to play small event in the interstate.
There were years that the WTF didn't exist, and there were years where players skipped the AO. I have never seen Djokovic cry as much as when he lost his 2008 Olympic match against Nadal.
 

JasonZ

Semi-Pro
No it isn't.

GOAT achievements are primarily based on Major Titles (and combinations thereof) and Number of Weeks with Number 1 Ranking.

These are the only two statistics which can be objectively used for the Sport of (Lawn) Tennis since it's inception in the 1800s.

All the other Tournaments come and go over time. The Majors remain static. And it is pretty easy to determine Rankings whether there was on Official System or not.

That's why Rod Laver with his two GRAND SLAMS is the GOAT. No other male player in the history of the sport has achieved that. Laver is also in a rare group of players that also has at least two of each Major Singles Title. None of the Big 3 has achieved that.

WTF Titles are nice an' all, But pretty meaningless. Maybe the WTF Finals will be looked upon differently in another 100 years time .. if they still exist.
uncle toni thinks different.
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
uncle toni thinks different.
I've never seen Toni Nadal competiting in the Four Majors, only his nephew Rafael.

And while I admire Toni Nadal, it is Rafa that deserves all of the credit for his achievements. He is the one who did all the work. He is the one who played all the matches. And he is the one who has won all the Titles. It is his name on the Trophies.

Most people remember Bjorn Borg. How many remember the name of his Coach? It could be argued that Bergelin had much more influence over Borg than Toni Nadal did over Rafa.

Remember ... "You can lead a horse to water ....."
 
Last edited:

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
There were years that the WTF didn't exist, and there were years where players skipped the AO. I have never seen Djokovic cry as much as when he lost his 2008 Olympic match against Nadal.
WTF has rich history in the past 50 years. Djokovic(and Berdych) have said the YEC is up there with the grand slam.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
I've never seen Toni Nadal competiting in the Four Majors, only his nephew Rafael.

And while I admire Toni Nadal, it is Rafa that deserves all of the credit for his achievements. He is the one who did all the work. He is the one who played all the matches. And he is the one who has won all the Titles. It is his name on the Trophies.

Most people remember Bjorn Borg. How many remember the name of his Coach? It could be argued that Bergelin had much more influence over Borg than Toni Nadal did over Rafa.

Remember ... "You can lead a horse to water ....."
I place Lennart Bergelin in the same category as Toni Nadal and Marian Vajda. All 3 acted as father figures and close mentors to their respective clients, more so than just being a mere coach.
 

NADALalot

Hall of Fame
The fact that Dimitrov has won it, and other slamless dudes like Zverev, Tsitsipas, Medvedev, proves how irrelevant the ATP Finals are when compared to slams.
That is why I said a few weeks ago that the credibility of the ATP Finals will continue to suffer if a slamless player wins the 2020 ATP Finals, and that therefore I don't want Nadal to win the ATP Finals.
If Nadal wins the ATP Finals then Federer/Djokovic benefit, because their great records at the ATP Finals become more valuable as the credibility of the ATP Finals is restored by Nadal's victory.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
The fact that Dimitrov has won it, and other slamless dudes like Zverev, Tsitsipas, Medvedev, proves how irrelevant the ATP Finals are when compared to slams.
That is why I said a few weeks ago that the credibility of the ATP Finals will continue to suffer if a slamless player wins the 2020 ATP Finals, and that therefore I don't want Nadal to win the ATP Finals.
If Nadal wins the ATP Finals then Federer/Djokovic benefit, because their great records at the ATP Finals become more valuable as the credibility of the ATP Finals is restored by Nadal's victory.
So you think Nadal's failure to win it detracts from the credibility of the tournament??? ;)
 
Top