If Federer reaches the French Open Final...

To me, measuring a great tennis player by the number of slams is fine. But it seems that sometimes that's the only hype and measurement EVER to gauge a player's greatness. To me, what makes players so great and amazing is not necessarily the titles that they win, but the way they play tennis.

Unfortunately I did not have the privilege to watch old-time great players play like Laver, Ashe, or King, but the later greats i.e. Borg, Mac, Lendl, Agassi, Sampras, Connors, up till today really need more variable measurements to measure their talent on the court.

Borg, Mac - one of the greatest tennis players and shot makers, did not have 14++ slams to give them a name for themselves, sure they won slams... but should it be fair to gauge talent by the number of slams only? Not really isn't it?

To me, Sampras was GREAT because he consistently won the Wimbledon, US Open, and Aussie titles. Earning him a rightful spot as one of the many great players of tennis.

Does that trump Agassi who has fought and ripped through Sampras many a times as well?

Definitely nOT!
 
Dark_Angel85 said:
To me, Sampras was GREAT because he consistently won the Wimbledon, US Open, and Aussie titles. Earning him a rightful spot as one of the many great players of tennis.

Does that trump Agassi who has fought and ripped through Sampras many a times as well?

Definitely nOT!
Click to expand...

um, yes it does, unless you are a stupid person.
 
McEnroeisanartist said:
...I believe he would be the only male player in the open era to reach at least three finals of all four grand slams.

I think it could be argued that this is almost as impressive as if he had actually won all grand slams.

What do you think?
Click to expand...

Sorry, but Gonzalez is going to take him down in three sets (the second being a tie break).
 
Dark_Angel85 said:
To me, measuring a great tennis player by the number of slams is fine. But it seems that sometimes that's the only hype and measurement EVER to gauge a player's greatness. To me, what makes players so great and amazing is not necessarily the titles that they win, but the way they play tennis.

Unfortunately I did not have the privilege to watch old-time great players play like Laver, Ashe, or King, but the later greats i.e. Borg, Mac, Lendl, Agassi, Sampras, Connors, up till today really need more variable measurements to measure their talent on the court.

Borg, Mac - one of the greatest tennis players and shot makers, did not have 14++ slams to give them a name for themselves, sure they won slams... but should it be fair to gauge talent by the number of slams only? Not really isn't it?

To me, Sampras was GREAT because he consistently won the Wimbledon, US Open, and Aussie titles. Earning him a rightful spot as one of the many great players of tennis.

Does that trump Agassi who has fought and ripped through Sampras many a times as well?

Definitely nOT!
Click to expand...

are u saying Agassi was a better player(career) or better all-around cuz he won all 4 majors.
 
CyBorg said:
Again, the day Rafa wins seven French Opens with his brand new metallic hip is the day we can start talking about him being the finest clay courter of all time.
Click to expand...

Well considering Nadal just seems to be geting stronger every year on clay, contrary to what many of us were predicting would happen with his playing style, his winning his 7th straight French Open at 24 going on 25 seems very imaginable, and I am far from a Nadal fan.
 
McEnroeisanartist said:
...I believe he would be the only male player in the open era to reach at least three finals of all four grand slams.

I think it could be argued that this is almost as impressive as if he had actually won all grand slams.

What do you think?
Click to expand...


Hmmmmm....I think Lendl did that. Wilander definitely did that and he actually won three of them in one year.
 
bigmatt said:
If I recall correctly, Agassi also made the finals of all 4 Slams at least 3 times: Wimbledon 3 times; French 3 times; US Open 4 times; Australian at least 3, because he won 3 times. Not that I'm saying Andre is on a par w/ Roger, but just that it has been done in the Open Era.
Click to expand...

Agassi should get way more credit as he is the only guy to win all four slams on the different surfaces and the gold medal as well!
Not to mention all the other big events that can be called the 5th slams.
 
bigmatt said:
If I recall correctly, Agassi also made the finals of all 4 Slams at least 3 times: Wimbledon 3 times; French 3 times; US Open 4 times; Australian at least 3, because he won 3 times. Not that I'm saying Andre is on a par w/ Roger, but just that it has been done in the Open Era.
Click to expand...

Agassi played in 2 Wimbledon finals, not three.

AO= 4 times.
French= 3 times.
Wimbledon= 2 times
US Open= 6 times.
 
drakulie said:
Agassi played in 2 Wimbledon finals, not three.

AO= 4 times.
French= 3 times.
Wimbledon= 2 times
US Open= 6 times.
Click to expand...

So every final that Andre made at Aussie he won? That's amazing IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
2015 French Open - If Federer reaches semifinals
Replies
3
Views
716
Pagoo
P
M
If Federer reaches the final...
Replies
48
Views
5K
zagor
zagor
M
If Federer reaches the French Open semifinals...
Replies
17
Views
2K
Fiji
Fiji
M
If Novak Reaches the U.S. Open finals
Replies
0
Views
457
McEnroeisanartist
M
M
Federer and Records/Career Achievements at 2010 French Open
Replies
13
Views
1K
Speranza
Speranza
Back
Top