for you what is best, to reach 20 GS finals and win 10 or make 10 GS finals and win a
- Thread starter juanparty
- Start date
Winning 10 out of 20 finals is obviously a better performance record. Winning 10 out of 1000 would be even better. Winning a GS is a 7-streak win over two week period of time in terms of performance + hype. Reaching a final is a 6-streak win in two weeks performance wise + no hype.
C
celoft
Guest
10 wins and 10 finals is better.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
10 wins and 10 RU = more money, so better.
Exactly. More money, more ranking points and more hardware. Easy choice.
I have no idea why people use Lendl's record in grand slam finals against him. Being good enough to get through 6 rounds at a grand slam 19 times is incredible. Winning 8 grand slam titles and finishing as the runner-up 11 is clearly much better and more impressive than winning 8 slams and say finishing as the runner-up twice.
Last edited:
Sid_Vicious
G.O.A.T.
Win all 10.
There is no glory in racking up runner-up plates. Winning is what matters most. By winning all 10 slam finals, you can retire knowing that you were unconquerable every time you played for a major trophy.
There is no glory in racking up runner-up plates. Winning is what matters most. By winning all 10 slam finals, you can retire knowing that you were unconquerable every time you played for a major trophy.
Last edited:
10 in a row as dominance is more important and impressive than longevity in my opinion. Also by winning 10 in a row, you achieve the calendar grand slam either once (if you win 3 slams in Year 1, 4 in Year 2 and 3 in Year 3) or twice (if you win 1 or 2 slams in Year 1, and then 4 in Years 2 and 3).
juanparty
Hall of Fame
im agree with Vicious.
Sid_Vicious
G.O.A.T.
plus your resume would sound extra-badass in GOAT discussions. :twisted:
For example: "Sampras was 7-0 in Wimbledon finals.7-0>6-1. Grass GOAT. "
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
Well lets say a guy makes 10 finals and wins them all. He probably plays other majors that he loses in. So losing in the final is better than losing before the final, yeah?
If someone only played 10 majors in their life and won them all then that might have a claim to the better achievement, but 20 finals is insane. So that still wins I think.
I mean what's better, 10 finals, 10 wins, 10 losing semis, or 10 wins, 10 losing finals? I find it hard to prefer losing in the semis or before to keep up a 100% record in finals. That would just suggest that the player is unbeatable at best but when below their A game, they weren't good enough to make finals.
If someone only played 10 majors in their life and won them all then that might have a claim to the better achievement, but 20 finals is insane. So that still wins I think.
I mean what's better, 10 finals, 10 wins, 10 losing semis, or 10 wins, 10 losing finals? I find it hard to prefer losing in the semis or before to keep up a 100% record in finals. That would just suggest that the player is unbeatable at best but when below their A game, they weren't good enough to make finals.
Last edited:
Hood_Man
G.O.A.T.
I'm torn. Winning 10 out of 10 for a 100% record in finals is awesome, but it still doesn't seem as dominant as someone who reaches 20 finals, even if they do "only" win half of them.
Personally if it was me playing I'd rather have 10/10, but as a fan I'd rather my favourite player had 10/20. Strange but that's how I think :s
Personally if it was me playing I'd rather have 10/10, but as a fan I'd rather my favourite player had 10/20. Strange but that's how I think :s
heftylefty
Hall of Fame
To reach 20 slam finals and come away with 10 wins is very impressive and looks great on the balance sheet.
That's a lot of Sundays.
That's a lot of Sundays.
Sid_Vicious
G.O.A.T.
But I am sure losing a grand slam final hurts more than losing in a SF or QF.
Look at Andy Roddick for example. He has had a ton of disappointing results at Wimbledon (06, 07, 08, 10, 11), but he never looked as hurt and broken in taking those losses as he did in the final against Federer in 2009.
Winning percentage in major finals is an entirely conditional statistic. It just tells you how well you do in big matches when you're already playing well. Playing in 20 finals means you play well more often than if you only played in 10. Playing in 10 but winning 10 means that you played well less often, but when you did play well, you played REALLY well.
It's all about conditional probabilities here. I would rather make more finals and have the same number of major titles than not make all of those extra finals.
It's all about conditional probabilities here. I would rather make more finals and have the same number of major titles than not make all of those extra finals.
egn
Hall of Fame
So what you only play for major trophies in finals? You have to win all the other matches to get there. Every match is 1/7th playing for a trophy. I'm sorry give me 10 wins and 10 runner ups any day.
egn
Hall of Fame
You're so close in the final that's why it hurts.
20 finals and 10 wins is of course more impressive, and along the way you will probably accomplish something that nobody else has and probably ever will(lendl case).
Now if you said, would you rather get to 3 finals and lose them all or not make any finals, as much as you'd probably take the runner-up spot 3 times, you'll be remembered as the guy who choked in the big moments and couldn't close the deal(?????? case)
Now if you said, would you rather get to 3 finals and lose them all or not make any finals, as much as you'd probably take the runner-up spot 3 times, you'll be remembered as the guy who choked in the big moments and couldn't close the deal(?????? case)
On this forum I've read comments from people who have said that it would have been better for Federer's legacy, had he regularly lost early at Roland Garros and other big clay court tournaments, so that he would have played less finals against Nadal and his head to head against him would have been better.
That's incredibly stupid logic to me. In which bizarre world would Federer losing in the early stages of the French Open to relative nobodies like Sampras did, be better than him consistently reaching the finals there and losing to the greatest (or at worst second greatest) clay court player that has ever lived.
That's incredibly stupid logic to me. In which bizarre world would Federer losing in the early stages of the French Open to relative nobodies like Sampras did, be better than him consistently reaching the finals there and losing to the greatest (or at worst second greatest) clay court player that has ever lived.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Yes, I'd like to win 20 GS.
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
Depends on who you ask. A lot of guys wouldn't mind those 10 extra slam finals if they as it is have 10 slams anyway. I mean they'd be disappointed losing all those finals, obviously but in hindsight, it means more money, like some said, more silverware and most importantly, you atleast gave yourself a chance and put yourself in the position to win more times.
Of course some guys would prefer reaching 10 and winning them all because that to them would mean a sign of invincibility in major finals.
Neither of them is a wrong view per se but if you ask me, a total of 20 finals is HUGE. People don't realise what it takes to make even one.
Of course some guys would prefer reaching 10 and winning them all because that to them would mean a sign of invincibility in major finals.
Neither of them is a wrong view per se but if you ask me, a total of 20 finals is HUGE. People don't realise what it takes to make even one.
10 of 20 is way. Better than 10 of 10
It's obvious. Getting to a grand slam final is an achievement in itself.
Can't understand the logic of someone who would argue otherwise. What? 10 slam finals and 10 runners up is worse than 10 finals plus 10 first round losses? After all in the latter example they would have 10 of 10 record in finals. Sorry, getting to a grand slam final is better than a first round loss.
It's obvious. Getting to a grand slam final is an achievement in itself.
Can't understand the logic of someone who would argue otherwise. What? 10 slam finals and 10 runners up is worse than 10 finals plus 10 first round losses? After all in the latter example they would have 10 of 10 record in finals. Sorry, getting to a grand slam final is better than a first round loss.
