How important is defending a tournament

[McEnroeisanartist]

How important is defending a tournament (winning it the year after you won it)?

We all know that Nadal has somehow never defended a title off clay.

Nadal has defended 4 tournaments: Monte Carlo, Barcelona, Roland Garros, and Rome.

In summary, Nadal has defended at one Grand Slam and two Masters Series tournaments.

Federer has defended 14 tournaments: Wimbledon, U.S. Open, Halle, Dubai, Indian Wells, Basel, Vienna, ATP World Tour Finals, Hamburg, Bangkok, Doha, Key Biscayne, Australian Open, and Cincinnati.

In summary, Federer has defended at 3 Grand Slams, the Year End Tournament, and 4 Masters Series tournaments.

 

[tennisenthusiast]

How important is defending a tournament (winning it the year after you won it)?

We all know that Nadal has somehow never defended a title off clay.

Nadal has defended 4 tournaments: Monte Carlo, Barcelona, Roland Garros, and Rome.

In summary, Nadal has defended at one Grand Slam and two Masters Series tournaments.

Federer has defended 14 tournaments: Wimbledon, U.S. Open, Halle, Dubai, Indian Wells, Basel, Vienna, ATP World Tour Finals, Hamburg, Bangkok, Doha, Key Biscayne, Australian Open, and Cincinnati.

In summary, Federer has defended at 3 Grand Slams, the Year End Tournament, and 4 Masters Series tournaments.

Hence, Federer is the indisputable, irrefutable, invincible and definitive GOAT.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Actually, probably rather important indeed, as then a player can build up an aura of invincibility at an event, and that might just take one through to some extra wins and titles because of the positive and negative effects it would have on the player and his rivals respectively.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

You're asking more from an angle pertaining to legacy, but I'm treating the question more practically.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Defending a significant title is a vastly underrated and under-appreciated detail of someone's career. In factorial terms each successive defence adds more and more kudos to the achievement imo.

The fact that Federer defended Wimbledon title 4 times after winning it and did the same at the US Open open, and both at the same time, is one of the greatest displays of dominance during the open era since Borg was doing the same at Wimbledon and the French Open (it's once title better than Borg's actually overall). No-one else since has come remotely close other than Federer.

You could almost say that defending multiple majors is a pre-requisite for being the GOAT in the open era. If you view it like that you start to see the gap between Federer and Sampras especially when you look at how many times they could defend multiple majors.

If Becker hadn't defended his 1995 Wimbledon title in 1996 he could easily have been viewed as another wannabe but he did, nailing home the notion that the first win wasn't one bit a fluke. That is a big component of greatness imo and why Nadal's French Open runs, while truly amazing, he needs to succeed 5 times in a row to match either of Federer's US Open or Wimbledon runs.

Similarly, Borg is famous particularly for how many times he won Wimbledon and the French Open in succession. Most tennis enthusiasts could tell you he did that but far fewer could tell you how many majors he won all-up. His successive titles, not the total imo, is the reason for his legend.

And his hair.

 

[sureshs]

Defending a title is a lot of cr*p IMO. Tennis is about winning matches. Whether you won or lost the same a year ago is not relevant. It is not like a player's game changes because he won or lost it last year. So much water has flowed under the bridge since then.

 

[TMF]

Borg is remembered for his 5 CONSECUTIVE Wimbledon.
When Roger won 5 consecutive Wimbledon, Borg's name was mentioned.

Funny how Nadal fans gloat on Nadal 8 consecutive Monte Carlo, but now consecutive wins means nothing. Lol

 

[librarysteg]

I think of it as very important but only in the year-to-year sense of wanting to defend your points so you don't lose ground in the rankings. Beyond that, I'm not overly impressed by it as a special achievement in its own right.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

It is vital when it comes to maintaining a certain rank.

 

[Backspin1183]

Borg is remembered for his 5 CONSECUTIVE Wimbledon.
When Roger won 5 consecutive Wimbledon, Borg's name was mentioned.

Funny how Nadal fans gloat on Nadal 8 consecutive Monte Carlo, but now consecutive wins means nothing. Lol

Nadal's 8 consecutive Monte Carlo is a world record, matey. Winning the same tournament 5 consecutive times is also highly impressive.

However, I'd rather win IW this year and Rome the next year than winning either of them for 2 straight years.

 

[NatF]

Defending a major is the sign of a really great player. Defending 2 or even 3(?!) that's insane.

 

[DMP]

Borg is remembered for his 5 CONSECUTIVE Wimbledon.
When Roger won 5 consecutive Wimbledon, Borg's name was mentioned.

I think you'll find that Borg is remembered as being immensely impressive for having won 5 consecutive Wimbledons, but is remembered with awe for having won the Channel double three times in a row.

There is subtle, but very, very, important difference between the two reactions.

[As an aside I find it hard to think of any other tennis feats, other than Connolly's slam run, that are treated with the same awe. Maybe Evert's consistency, Rosewall's longevity, Federer's sequence of semis - but I don't think they reach the heights of awe of Borg's sequence].

 

[tennisaddict]

Defending titles is a statistic, not a record.

I dont place too much consideration if someone wins 5 consecutive wimbledon or gets 3 before age 20 and 2 after age 30.

It is hard enough winning non clay for Nadal, why make it more harder ?

 

[Backspin1183]

Defending titles is a statistic, not a record.

I dont place too much consideration if someone wins 5 consecutive wimbledon or gets 3 before age 20 and 2 after age 30.

It is hard enough winning non clay for Nadal, why make it more harder ?

this. Nadal fluked 5 non clay slams and several Masters. Only FIVE which is just one more than Djokovic's career six slams.

 

[eldanger25]

To be fair, Nadal did technically win two straight Wimbledons, depending on what kind of asterisk you put next to him missing the event in 2009.

But I agree, defending a tournament is an important element of greatness, and is something that Federer easily has over Nadal given the latter's difficulty repeating successes off of clay.

 

[NatF]

To be fair, Nadal did technically win two straight Wimbledons, depending on what kind of asterisk you put next to him missing the event in 2009.

But I agree, defending a tournament is an important element of greatness, and is something that Federer easily has over Nadal given the latter's difficulty repeating successes off of clay.

He didn't win two straight - he won in 2008 and then 2010. You skip an event and it breaks the streak.

 

[jhhachamp]

How important is defending a tournament (winning it the year after you won it)?

The concept of defending a tournament is not very important. It is good because you have won the tournament twice, not because you have defended it.

 

[triforce defender]

Consecutive titles sounds nice. But is Patrick Rafter's 2 USO titles better than Nadal's 2 USO titles simply b/c Rafter won his in a row? If Nadal wins a third USO in 2015 then does that mean he's still a worse USO player than Rafter?

 

[monfed]

How many has Nadal defended off clay? Just curious.

 

[monfed]

Consecutive titles sounds nice. But is Patrick Rafter's 2 USO titles better than Nadal's 2 USO titles simply b/c Rafter won his in a row? If Nadal wins a third USO in 2015 then does that mean he's still a worse USO player than Rafter?

Point is 2 consecutive > than 2 non-consecutive. Ofcourse 3>2 titles.

 

[reversef]

Special measure for Rafael Nadal: the need to defend off clay titles. Clay doesn't count. :roll:

The ability to defend titles shows that a player is mentally strong. Does Nadal have something to prove in that department?
The fact that Nadal defends title after title on clay and not grass or HC shows one thing : he's more dominant on clay. Woaw, what a discovery!

On the other hand, if I could choose some hard court wins for Nadal next year, what would they be?
- US Open or Australian Open? AO
- Indian Wells or Miami? Miami
- Canadian Open and Cinci or Bercy and WTF? Bercy and WTF (or even WTF alone)

Still no title defense on hard court for Rafa and I couldn't care less.

 

[eldanger25]

He didn't win two straight - he won in 2008 and then 2010. You skip an event and it breaks the streak.

I pretty much agree - just noting the quirk of him winning two Wimbledons in a row that he entered. Nadal's a man of extremes in this category - almost always defending titles on clay, never defending titles off of it.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Special measure for Rafael Nadal: the need to defend off clay titles. Clay doesn't count. :roll:

The ability to defend titles shows that a player is mentally strong. Does Nadal have something to prove in that department?
The fact that Nadal defends title after title on clay and not grass or HC shows one thing : he's more dominant on clay. Woaw, what a discovery!

On the other hand, if I could choose some hard court wins for Nadal next year, what would they be?
- US Open or Australian Open? AO
- Indian Wells or Miami? Miami
- Canadian Open and Cinci or Bercy and WTF? Bercy and WTF (or even WTF alone)

Still no title defense on hard court for Rafa and I couldn't care less.

Absolutely agree. Those are way more important.

 

[jelle v]

Consecutive titles sounds nice. But is Patrick Rafter's 2 USO titles better than Nadal's 2 USO titles simply b/c Rafter won his in a row? If Nadal wins a third USO in 2015 then does that mean he's still a worse USO player than Rafter?

No of course not.. winning consecutive titles instead of 2 in three or four years, doesn't make someone a better tennis player in itself.

I did not have a particular opinion coming into to this thread, but now that I think of it, for a tennis player to win consecutive tournaments instead of 2 in three years, is a more impressive achievement.

Think of it.. Tennis players have a great concern for ranking, they won the tournament the previous year, they have points to defend, people are wondering "can he do it again?".. To win a tournament under those circumstances is a very impressive achievement and in my opinion more impressive than winning a tournament 2 times in three years, since in that case the pressure is gone.