Is Emma's win a bigger story than a potential Novak's CYGS?

R. Schweikart

Professional
It’s certainly a massive thing. Ridiculous to contemplate:1st tournament win is a slam, came through qualies to do it, didn’t drop a set. Insane.

Whereas when I look at the gap between Djokovic’s level of assuredness vs any potential opponent on the men’s tour today, it becomes more a case of “why wouldn’t you achieve the CYGS?”

Honestly, I still don’t understand how he screwed up the Olympics to be honest.
As a good German boy Zverev wouldn't have it that someone replicated Steffi's unique Golden Slam.
The Grand Slam Djokovic can have, it has been achieved several times already.
 

TimHenmanATG

Hall of Fame
Sure are now. But what about when Novak was kicking their arses? People tend to forget Novak is less than a year younger than Nadal.
That doesn't really matter now.

He's winning the CYGS because of the dearth of meaningful opposition.

Don't get me wrong, Novak is an extraordinary player, and thoroughly deserves all the accolades which he receives - but let's not ignore the context of 2021.
 
D

Deleted member 771911

Guest
Sure are now. But what about when Novak was kicking their arses? People tend to forget Novak is less than a year younger than Nadal.
A year younger than Nadal but nowhere to be seen for most of 2005-2007. Then did not deliver after AO through to end of 2010.
Only a year younger than Nadal, though.
 

Marfrilau

Rookie
Meaning, of course, that what is most rare or difficult is quite often not the most valuable or prestigious thing in a game/sport.
No amount of demagoguery can change that.
But that doesn't mean that it's the correct way of judging what is the most valuable or prestigious. Again, I was expressing a personal opinion. In fact not judging it by what is the most difficult to achieve would be demagoguery because why would something that's easier to do be more valuable or prestigious?
 
That doesn't really matter now.

He's winning the CYGS because of the dearth of meaningful opposition.

Don't get me wrong, Novak is an extraordinary player, and thoroughly deserves all the accolades which he receives - but let's not ignore the context of 2021.
Yeah it is unfortunate Fed could not capitalize on meaningless competition.
 

ScentOfDefeat

G.O.A.T.
Right, but the thread is about which is the bigger story. It says it right there in the title. There shouldn’t be any confusion about that either. Nobody with a brain would argue it’s the greater achievement.
The title does say that, which is in itself questionable and partial (bigger story for whom, and where?).
But there is a clear attempt by a number of posters to suggest that perhaps the "bigger story" should in fact be considered the most salient historically.
Case in point, post #107 above, where it is clearly stated:

"But that doesn't mean that it's the correct way of judging what is the most valuable or prestigious. [...] In fact not judging it by what is the most difficult to achieve would be demagoguery because why would something that's easier to do be more valuable or prestigious?"

In order to diminish the achievements of the player they dislike, some posters go as far as to wish the reality of the sport away and imagine an alternate reality (their "opinion" in such matters), a safe space if you will, where they can feel secure that Djokovic possibly achieving the CYGS is no big deal. There is no genuine interest in the WTA other than the psychological need to overshadow and diminish what could happen this evening (which I'm doubtful will happen, but that's a different matter).
 

Marfrilau

Rookie
The title does say that, which is in itself questionable and partial (bigger story for whom, and where?).
But there is a clear attempt by a number of posters to suggest that perhaps the "bigger story" should in fact be considered the most salient historically.
Case in point, post #107 above, where it is clearly stated:

"But that doesn't mean that it's the correct way of judging what is the most valuable or prestigious. [...] In fact not judging it by what is the most difficult to achieve would be demagoguery because why would something that's easier to do be more valuable or prestigious?"

In order to diminish the achievements of the player they dislike, some posters go as far as to wish the reality of the sport away and imagine an alternate reality (their "opinion" in such matters), a safe space if you will, where they can feel secure that Djokovic possibly achieving the CYGS is no big deal. There is no genuine interest in the WTA other than the psychological need to overshadow and diminish what could happen this evening (which I'm doubtful will happen, but that's a different matter).
No, this is you misunderstanding things. I never claimed that my opinion matters more. I also never ever said that achieving the CYGS is no big deal. Just that what I consider the greatest achievement is based on what is the most difficult. I also consider Nadal's 13 slams at RG a bigger achievement than the CYGS. Or Federer's 5x3 slams. And probably many others. I have posts stating that before Djokovic was in contention for the CYGS this year. And my argument for that is based on a consistent methodology. Yours is based on popular opinion.
 

ScentOfDefeat

G.O.A.T.
No, this is you misunderstanding things. I never claimed that my opinion matters more. I also never ever said that achieving the CYGS is no big deal. Just that what I consider the greatest achievement is based on what is the most difficult. I also consider Nadal's 13 slams at RG a bigger achievement than the CYGS. Or Federer's 5x3 slams. And probably many others. I have posts stating that before Djokovic was in contention for the CYGS this year. And my argument for that is based on a consistent methodology. Yours is based on popular opinion.
My argument is not based on popular opinion but on the traditions of the sport until this day, forged in its long history of change (in some aspects) but also continuity: what constitutes a "culture", so to speak.

An argument from popular opinion would be to say that because Raducanu is the "bigger story" (which, again, is doubtful), the difficulty (and rarity) of what she achieved should be raised above something that is deemed to be one of the pinnacles of the sport.
You can choose "difficulty" and how it relates to "rarity" all you like, but it it very quickly becomes a silly criterion if you analyse it carefully.

There have never been any triple bagels in Grand Slam finals, which would make it a very difficult and rare thing to do, but does that have any more value than beating Federer in the 5th set of a Wimbledon final in 2008? And then are things "difficult" because they're rare, because more effort is required (and how do you determine this?) or because the challenge is bigger (again, how do you determine this?)? What makes something important and valuable in a specific sport is a product of that sport's (or culture's) history and it can't just be traced with a ruler and a compass, or through a single concept (like "difficulty").

But of course, you're free to believe whatever you like in private. Ivanisevic winning Wimbledon in 2001 makes me more emotional, and therefore more prone to hyperbole, than Sampras winning his 10th or 11th Slam, and in private I can still believe it's the greatest story ever told in tennis and deem it unsurpassable, but history and the record books will always be on Pete's side.

I'm not saying you would put forth this argument, but based on this thread, and if the Serb wins today, I can already imagine people saying "oh yeah? but could Djokovic win a Slam as a qualifier?"
 
Last edited:

Adman

Rookie
If it was Federer 3 sets away from a CYGS, you would never see threads like this one. Desperation is so vast in the Djokovic's haters camp that they will cling even to a teenage girl
 

Raul_SJ

G.O.A.T.
If I remember correctly no qualifier, woman or man, has ever reached the final of a GS let alone won it. The CYGS has been accomplished a few times. Clearly one is harder than the other...
No. One is not clearly harder than the other. Both are equally difficult.

The CYGS has been accomplished by only one man in the Open Era. Once. 1962 Laver CYGS was against a non-professional field. Even Laver will tell you that it should not be considered a true CYGS.

That leaves the 1969 Laver CYGS which was completed on just two surfaces. Djoker has already won on THREE surfaces.

Historically unprecedented!
 

ScentOfDefeat

G.O.A.T.
No. One is not clearly harder than the other. Both are equally difficult.

The CYGS has been accomplished by only one man in the Open Era. Once. 1962 Laver CYGS was against a non-professional field. Even Laver will tell you that it should not be considered a true CYGS.

That leaves the 1969 Laver CYGS which was completed on just two surfaces. Djoker has already won on THREE surfaces.

Historically unprecedented!
Not only that, there is much more pressure on winning a CYGS (especially one where you're going for the Slam record at the same time) than on winning a Slam as a qualifier.
It's almost the opposite, actually: the qualifier has no pressure on his/her shoulders at all and can play, for the most part, without having anything to lose.
 

Marfrilau

Rookie
My argument is not based on popular opinion but on the traditions of the sport until this day, forged in its long history of change (in some aspects) but also continuity: what constitutes a "culture", so to speak.
And that is the popular opinion. It doesn't matter whether it has been shaped through traditions or history. Your argument is that it's the greatest because that is what is publicly perceived as the greatest. This is the exact definition of an argument from popular opinion.
An argument from popular opinion would be to say that because Raducanu is the "bigger story" (which, again, is doubtful), the difficulty (and rarity) of what she achieved should be raised above something that is deemed to be one of the pinnacles of the sport.
You can choose "difficulty" and how it relates to "rarity" all you like, but it it very quickly becomes a silly criterion if you analyse it carefully.
But that was not what I argued. It was the other way around. Because it's more difficult it should be considered a greater achievement.
There have never been any triple bagels in Grand Slam finals, which would make it a very difficult and rare thing to do, but does that have any more value than beating Federer in the 5th set of a Wimbledon final in 2008? And then are things "difficult" because they're rare, because more effort is required (and how do you determine this?) or because the challenge is bigger (again, how do you determine this?)? What makes something important and valuable in a specific sport is a product of that sport's (or culture's) history and it can't just be traced with a ruler and a compass, or through a single concept (like "difficulty").
I never stated that determining what is most difficult is easy. And it's certainly harder to determine when you can't determine from history which is more difficult. But it's quite clear that simply relying on traditions and history to determine which achievement is greatest is also ridiculous as those kinds of achievements are highly dependent on whether it's marketable. The CYGS is very marketable because there's a possibility for it every year. Winning 13 slams at a single event isn't. But using that as a criterion to determine that it's greater to win the CYGS compared to 13 slams at a single event is silly because it would disqualify most achievements even if they are immensely more difficult to achieve.
But of course, you're free to believe whatever you like in private. Ivanisevic winning Wimbledon in 2001 makes me more emotional, and therefore more prone to hyperbole, than Sampras winning his 10th or 11th Slam, and in private I can still believe it's the greatest story ever told in tennis and deem it unsurpassable, but history and the record books will always be on Pete's side.

I'm not saying you would put forth this argument, but based on this thread, and if the Serb wins today, I can already imagine people saying "oh yeah? but could Djokovic win a Slam as a qualifier?"
This has nothing to do with Djokovic. I probably consider Nadal's 13 wins at a single slam the greatest achievement by any of the big 3. And I'm far from a Nadal fan.
 

CHillTennis

Semi-Pro
British Lioness, at 18 winning her first Grand Slam without dropping a set, the story of a lifetime.
Not even in the same ball park.

Djokovic is attempting to do something that was last achieved 52 years ago.

There are plenty of 18 year old grand slam winners.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Hall of Fame
What is it lately with all these stupid threads comparing Raducanu to Djokovic? Both are of course great stories but obviously Djokovic’s CYGS is bigger. In 10 years time or at the very latest when Raducanu retires nobody outside hardcore WTA fans will talk about this achievement whereas a CYGS will always be talked about, see Laver.
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
CYGS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 slam by a 18 year old

A CYGS will NOT be done in the next 100 years. 18 yr old girls can and win slams.

How is this even comparable. Novak's achievement is FAR FAR bigger. It's bought tennis into main spotlight.
And Emma's story hasn't?? Take a look at the news coverage of this open. While I don't necessarily think Emma's story is bigger, a massive chunk of the media seems to believe it is and I don't think the answer is clear cut either way. Tennis has an OLD audience, Emma's story could bring in a lot of young people, who didn't care before.

As for your post, it's plain wrong
1) this is not about an 18 year old girl winning a slam. This is about the FIRST EVER, man or woman, QUALIFIER winning a slam. That's never been done before in the Open Era (not sure as to before the Open era) - in contrast to the CYGS, which has been done

2) While there's a chance you could be right that the CYGS will not be done in the next 100 years, odds are you won't be. The CYGS has been done before both before and after the Open Era. Laver did in in 1969, Graf did the Golden CYGS in 88. Laver did in in the pre Open era in 62 and Budge did it in 38.
Not even in the same ball park.

Djokovic is attempting to do something that was last achieved 52 years ago.

There are plenty of 18 year old grand slam winners.
As per above, Emma's story is not about an 18 year old winning a slam. That would be a 'we've seen that A LOT before story'
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
It’s certainly a massive thing. Ridiculous to contemplate:1st tournament win is a slam, came through qualies to do it, didn’t drop a set. Insane.

Whereas when I look at the gap between Djokovic’s level of assuredness vs any potential opponent on the men’s tour today, it becomes more a case of “why wouldn’t you achieve the CYGS?”

Honestly, I still don’t understand how he screwed up the Olympics to be honest.
In terms of likelyhood of it happening, the bookies have had the option for Djoko for several years. Iirc, odds that he would win a CYGS in 2021 was about 11, i.e. a 10 % chance.
Odds on Raducanu going through qualifying and the main draw without dropping a set? Through the f...... roof. I don't think it was possible to make a bet on her on most of the standard betting agencies.

Judging their stories in terms of likelyhood, Raducanus is the far, far, far bigger surprise.
Let me say that Emmas win is a tremendous achievement. But come on ... WTA has even fewer ATG playing ... The field is empty right now so any good player could make good run. Imagine this when Serena Sharapova Henin and etc played in the event and some qualifier take a slam . Thats big... but not today... And Novak makes history , ok he is playing against weak field but CGSM and the first to win a 21 slams . Its not even comparable.

You could say that qualifier is the first time ever to win a slam , but 21 slam is also the first time in history and win 21 slam and cgsm is 21 times harder i think
In the men's field, there were 2 previous slam winners in the draw. Novak - and Cilic who lost in the first round.
 
Last edited:

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
If Emma's win is a bigger story, it's largely because she's attractive and charming. People like looking at her and listening to her. But this is not to downplay her incredible achievement. What she did is truly amazing; a first that may never be repeated.

But there is no doubt that Djokovic CYGS would be the bigger achievement. The fact that CYGS has been done before is irrelevant. This is more about 21, overtaking Fed and Nadal, and obtaining undeniable GOAT status. I say this as someone who is strongly rooting against Djokovic.
You're right, but as Ibbi correctly notes:

Right, but the thread is about which is the bigger story. It says it right there in the title. There shouldn’t be any confusion about that either. Nobody with a brain would argue it’s the greater achievement.
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
Wasnt Ivanisevic a qualifier when he won Wimbledon? I know he was a wildcard but I dont recall if that meant he also had to play qualifying matches.
Being a wildcard means you don't have to go through qualifying
Sure are now. But what about when Novak was kicking their arses? People tend to forget Novak is less than a year younger than Nadal.
But this is about whether they were competition for him this year. Fed wasn't and Rafa's decline was shown very clearly in the 4th at the FO, where Rafa, formerly known as the energizer bunny, didn't have the energy for more than 3 sets of tennis on his favorite court.
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
In order to diminish the achievements of the player they dislike, some posters go as far as to wish the reality of the sport away and imagine an alternate reality (their "opinion" in such matters), a safe space if you will, where they can feel secure that Djokovic possibly achieving the CYGS is no big deal. There is no genuine interest in the WTA other than the psychological need to overshadow and diminish what could happen this evening (which I'm doubtful will happen, but that's a different matter).
I watch the ATP a lot more than I watch the WTA. I hardly ever watch a WTA match outside the slams. I prefer Fed among the Big 3, but prefer Novak over Rafa. And I've long expected he would end of with the most majors at the end, which he will - regardless of what happens tonight.

Despite of the above, I was honestly much more hyped about yesterday's match than I will be about tonight's final. Why? Partly because it was unpredictable for me (though I favored Radu to win) but moreso because both of them had had such a fairytale fortnight. Tonight's match feels like yet another NID match for me. At times, it might seem as if Medvedev has a chance (or we may get another blowout), but we all know who will win eventually. And that's been the case all year. He's playing people who can't close a match (yes, Federer has troubles with that as well)) and who, for the most part, have lost before they step on court.
At Wimbledon, he won without showing anything close to his best tennis, cause he didn't need to. I'm sorry, but that doesn't get me wildly excited as a guy, who's very impressed by Novak, but not a fan.

Btw: Medvedev's record in the 5th is 2-7. Novak's 23-5 since the start of 2011. In other words, Medvedev needs to win in 3 or 4. 3 is extremely unlikely, so if the upset should somehow happen, it'll be in 4. The 5th is a foregone conclusion as it was vs. Zverev.

And yes, I do realize the historical significance, what it means for the GOAT debate and all that.
 

Harry_Wild

G.O.A.T.
Absolutely since Djokovc lost big time in the mens finals. Raducanu along with Fernandez is a bigger story for tennis talk concerns. Draws interest in tennis again!
 

a10best

Hall of Fame
definitely bigger , she will win many majors. novak will lose to medvedev
Good prediction Nostradamus. Does any quatrain give more details which slams she will win?
She was a qualifier who didn't drop a set. That is exciting. Novak winning a calendar GS is not big news since he won a GS already.
 
Top