Federer News

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 688153
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lleytonstation said:
So with this crazy Olympic debate happening, not sure why, as it is a year away.

Would you guys trade a slam for a gold? Would you trade 2 slams for a gold?

I would be fine with Fed sitting at 19 slams (as long as you don't touch his 8 WC, FO, and AO17) if he had a Gold medal.
Click to expand...

Ultimately, I believe a Gold Medal is more comparable to a WTF tournament in terms of scale and prestige. I would trade a WTF for a Gold Medal but nothing much more than that. I'd say that winning a Gold Medal is better than winning the WTF, but missing out on the Olympics is nothing comparable to missing out on the WTF.
 
Lleytonstation said:
Gold is the only thing missing from Feds resume.
Click to expand...
It's not missing at all, he already has a gold medal as you know, from 2008.
r
 
Lleytonstation said:
And? So by this logic a challenger is higher than gold. Fed has 20 slams, I could live without one if he had a Gold.
Click to expand...

Quoting an old post of mine on the topic

The whole importance to Olympics now appears to be because players supposedly "want" to win it and not because of the difficulty levels of winning it.

Personally, I think Olympics is somewhat like Davis Cup. Players like to win it for emotional/patriotic reasons and it is not the ultimate measure of your skill on a particular surface or format.

What does Olympics bring purely by way of difficulty level or skill on a surface ? Nothing. Surface is not unique, nor is the format compared to the existing ATP/ITF tournaments held round the year. It's importance is mainly because of the 'artifical scarcity' created by holding the event once in 4 years.

Each of the slams and the WTF have unique surfaces and the WTF has a unique format as well making it arguably more difficult to win than even a slam. (You can win a slam without having to go through a top 20 player, but not so with a WTF).

If a great can't win a particular slam in his career, say FO, it is a hole in the resume because it means you are not good enough to win a best of 5 format on clay. What exactly does failure to win an Olympic singles gold show, if you have won slams and masters on the same surface , in the same format multiple times ? That you didn't peak/were not at your best that one time in 4 years when the tournament was held. Nothing more , nothing less.

On the other hand, you get an opportunity to win a WTF every year. If an all time great with multiple slams blows so many chances year after year, it clearly means he is not good enough on that surface , especially against top 8 players.​
Click to expand...
 
Lleytonstation said:
True, I guarantee even though it is doubles, it helps having that in his mind. It does soften the blow that he does not have a gold, but if Djoker were to grab it next year, it really would bother me.
Click to expand...
I can't imagine you wanting Roger to get a singles OGM over #21 (if I misunderstood, my apologies). Another slam would be enormous for his legacy, another OGM would be nothing in comparison.
 
BeatlesFan said:
I can't imagine you wanting Roger to get a singles OGM over #21 (if I misunderstood, my apologies). Another slam would be enormous for his legacy, another OGM would be nothing in comparison.
Click to expand...
No. That is not what I am saying. I want him to get to 21 more than anything after the WC. I just think a Gold would be awesome if he had won it, especially in 12 on grass. However, I would have traded a USO from the past for it.

I am essentially saying I would have traded 08 USO for 08 Olympic gold. Then again, I really don't know what I am saying, as I want my cake and eat it too. :p

But yeah, 21 is what I want most.
 
TheIntrovert said:
To be fair, that wasn’t a guaranteed point he would have won. Yes it was the wrong shot selection, but he was quite clearly in the back foot, and most likely still would have lost the point.
Click to expand...
I just re-watched it and I agree with you. It's sort of like the drop shot in the 2011 FO final when Fed held the first set SP, but hit it slightly wide. Even had it landed on the line, if you watch the point again, Rafa would have reached it and quite possibly hit a winner.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

BeatlesFan
João Fonseca News
2 3
Replies
141
Views
5K
FerVeneroni
F
top10
Rules are rules unless you're No. 1
Replies
12
Views
300
roysid
roysid
E
Becker tips Djokovic to take Nadal's crown
Replies
12
Views
3K
Rozroz
Rozroz
federerfanatic
Great news for Federer fans-Bud Collins pesstimistic on Fed's Wimbledon this year.
Replies
18
Views
2K
johnkidd
J
Mainad
Borg and Federer argue over which of them is "The King"?
Replies
1
Views
221
socallefty
socallefty
Back
Top