agree, probably because Agassi was awful for the rest of 96, and also because in any other sport a double olympic champion is the GOAT, but that's obvs not the case for Murray, and there's never been a decent Olympic final between two ATGs, there's always that feeling that winner is somewhat random, much like the Davis cup. Watch Federer's interview after losing the 12 final, he really didnt care at all because it was meaningless compared to Wimbledon. + Djokokic cried in 16 not because it was the Olympics because his of sudden unexplicable loss of form generallyTo the athletes themselves, it's close to a 10. For legacy purposes, a 2, if that.
If an OGM is so important in tennis, why does nobody mention Agassi has one? How about Mecir or Kafelnikov? If an OGM is "huge" for a tennis player, then I wonder why every single article about Agassi in the past 10 years never mentions it, just that he's an "eight-time major champion?"
Fed has an OGM which is never mentioned for his legacy. Stan has one too-- never mentioned, just his three slams.
Federer has an OG in doubles, not in singles. It follows that Federer's OG ads to his legacy in doubles, not in singles.Fed has an OGM which is never mentioned for his legacy. Stan has one too-- never mentioned, just his three slams.
A tournament that is played only once every four years and awards no ranking points or money, is nothing more than a glorified exhibition. Also, in the Masters players are required to play, in the Olympics they are not. Therefore: Slams, WTF and Masters are the MOST important tournaments, in that orderVoted 8... IMO an Olympic gold is comparable to WTF title. Way less important than a slam title, but more than a M1000...
Even just a quick google search of articles from the past few months and you can see it still constantly brought up.Agassi's gets mentioned quite a bit actually.