Nadal is missing the US Open, but Federer is missing the Olympics

S

samboy01

Banned
If Nadal wins the US Open, he will be even more complete than Federer because he would also have in addition to all 4 slams the gold medal. And even though it's not a grandslam, it's still huge. All players compete for it, it's a huge honor, even Federer has it as a goal, in fact when he won the DOUBLES gold medal, he reacted happier then when he won a singles grandslam. To many players, winning the gold tennis medal is the highest honor there is, it's special and a huge tournament... So I'm just saying, Federer IS missing something, and in a couple of months Nadal might all of a sudden be the more complete player... One thing is for sure, Nadal has a better shot than Federer to be COMPLETE...
 
Last edited:
Well Federer does a have a gold medal. I know doubles isn't the same, but he still managed to get an Olympic gold medal. If Nadal got the USO, he would definitely make a claim for himself as one of the top 5 GOAT.
 
Nadalfan89 said:
Well Federer does a have a gold medal. I know doubles isn't the same, but he still managed to get an Olympic gold medal. If Nadal got the USO, he would definitely make a claim for himself as one of the top 5 GOAT.
Click to expand...


Well if we start counting doubles, then there are players much greater than Federer or Sampras... I'm talking about singles...
 
samboy01 said:
If Nadal wins the US Open, he will be even more complete than Federer because he would also have in addition to all 4 slams the gold medal. And even though it's not a grandslam, it's still huge. All players compete for it, it's a huge honor, even Federer has it as a goal, in fact when he won the DOUBLES gold medal, he reacted happier then when he won a singles grandslam. To many players, winning the gold tennis medal is the highest honor there is, it's special and a huge tournament... So I'm just saying, Federer IS missing something, and in a couple of months Nadal might all of a sudden be the more complete player... One thing is for sure, Nadal has a better shot than Federer to be COMPLETE...
Click to expand...

But why stop at gold medal then? One can add "year ending championships" where all the top players compete as a requisite to being "complete" :)

But for sure Nadal has a better shot at US open than Fed at Olympics.
 
What I have never figured out, what makes the olympics different from any other tournament? Its basically the same as any other tourney except more emphasis on the country vs the individual. Its all the same guys playing each other.
 
powerangle said:
But why stop at gold medal then? One can add "year ending championships" where all the top players compete as a requisite to being "complete" :)

But for sure Nadal has a better shot at US open than Fed at Olympics.
Click to expand...

Agreed in terms of the fact that the year-end championships are far more relevant to tennis than the Olympics.

The year end's assemble the best of the year, and then play a RR format to make it about more than 1 win or loss.

Olympics - once in 4 year lucky draw....
 
Nobody cares about the Olympics. Sampras never won an Olympic gold medal but he was still considered the GOAT before Federer.

And Federer does indeed have a gold medal on his mantle. All the gold medals are the same. They don't say "singles" or "doubles" on them. They just say "2008 Beijing Olympics".
 
samboy01 said:
If Nadal wins the US Open, he will be even more complete than Federer because he would also have in addition to all 4 slams the gold medal. And even though it's not a grandslam, it's still huge. All players compete for it, it's a huge honor, even Federer has it as a goal, in fact when he won the DOUBLES gold medal, he reacted happier then when he won a singles grandslam. To many players, winning the gold tennis medal is the highest honor there is, it's special and a huge tournament... So I'm just saying, Federer IS missing something, and in a couple of months Nadal might all of a sudden be the more complete player... One thing is for sure, Nadal has a better shot than Federer to be COMPLETE...
Click to expand...
No, they don't. It's a small draw and each country is limited as to how many from each country can enter the draw.

Yeah, it's so important to a tennis career that Roddick skipped it altogether to focus on the US Open. :???:

It's basically a waste of time for pro tennis players.
 
olympic means nothing. You dont get many chances at it. Fed had 2 chances at the olympic and one was in 2004 before his real prime, and one in 2008 where he was in a slump.

Olympic matches don't tell much. Gonzalez as silver medal? ROFL. Anything can happen, not a good gauge.

Nadal on the other hand gets chances year after year at the USO yet still has not made a final.
 
Well it's certainly not a waste of time, since you would have to be foolish to think an Olympic gold medal is a waste of time, but the US Open is quite a bit more important, without question.
 
Dude, stop making so many frickin threads. We get it, you worhsip and stalk Nadal. Now can you please move on? You're everywhere on these goddamn forums, and it's starting to become extremely annoying.
 
An Olympic medal is an Olympic medal regardless of whether it's a team or an individual event. Gymnasts, swimmers, track and fielders etc. usually compete in both and are thrilled to come away with any medal.

I think more important for a complete resume is the Grand Slam plus a Davis Cup championship. Lots of national pride and a team event. That's a very small list as well. Agassi has all of that, including the Olympic medal. Nadal would only need the USO to get on that list.

I don't think Davis Cup has ever been a big deal to Federer and that's his choice. Perhaps since he's getting older he might be more inclined to play. In the past he's usually skipped the World Group ties to save himself for the big events.
 
slicefox said:
olympic means nothing. You dont get many chances at it. Fed had 2 chances at the olympic and one was in 2004 before his real prime, and one in 2008 where he was in a slump.

Olympic matches don't tell much. Gonzalez as silver medal? ROFL. Anything can happen, not a good gauge.

Nadal on the other hand gets chances year after year at the USO yet still has not made a final.
Click to expand...
Don't forget Nicholas Massu as Gold Medalist in singles. :shock: That's what a great tournament the Olympics is.

Gonzales also has a bronze medal in singles and the gold medal in doubles (with Massu).

How about Mardy Fish as a Silver Medalist in singles? Yet, Fish has never come anywhere close to making the final of a Slam. And neither has Massu, for that matter.
 
Last edited:
Rockitdog said:
What I have never figured out, what makes the olympics different from any other tournament? Its basically the same as any other tourney except more emphasis on the country vs the individual. Its all the same guys playing each other.
Click to expand...

Never figured it out?

It occurs once every 4 years and most players only get 1 or 2 shots at it in their entire career. Federer will be on his fourth in 2012... which is a pipe dream, at this point, IMO.

Nadal will get a shot at a second gold medal on Wimbledon grass in 2012 and stands an excellent chance of winning a second medal. Plus, he's got less pressure since he already won one.
 
Last edited:
Federer got the doubles gold:).

Rafa was such a force at the Olympics. The other athletes loved it that such a superstar stayed in the Olympic village.
 
samboy01 said:
You guys are funny, as if there have never been surprise winners in grandslams :roll:
Click to expand...
Because there hasn't. It's been basically the Federer/Nadal show at Slams for the past 7 years.

When have Massu, Fish, or Gonzalez won Slams? :oops:

Oh, and Taylor Dent played Gonzalez for the bronze medal in 2004.
 
Last edited:
BreakPoint said:
Nobody cares about the Olympics. Sampras never won an Olympic gold medal but he was still considered the GOAT before Federer.

And Federer does indeed have a gold medal on his mantle. All the gold medals are the same. They don't say "singles" or "doubles" on them. They just say "2008 Beijing Olympics".
Click to expand...

yes.. let us then check the list of players with greater than 16 slams across doubles as well then.. they will all be ranked greater than Federer according to your logic...
Olympics is one of the biggest prizes and only occurs once in 4 years too..
 
srinrajesh said:
yes.. let us then check the list of players with greater than 16 slams across doubles as well then.. they will all be ranked greater than Federer according to your logic...
Olympics is one of the biggest prizes and only occurs once in 4 years too..
Click to expand...
I don't know of any doubles players with more than 16 Slams but if there were, then yes, they are ranked greater than Federer in doubles. Isn't that obvious?

I didn't say that there's no difference between singles and doubles. I said the actual physical gold medal is the same, meaning that if you showed someone your gold medal, they wouldn't know what the heck you won. All they know is that you won a gold medal at the 2008 Beijing Olympics. It could have been in 100M butterfly swimming for all they know.
 
BreakPoint said:
So the Olympic Gold Medal proves that Nadal is as great of a tennis player as Nicholas Massu? LOL :oops:
Click to expand...

Mate, you can spin it as much as you want, but obtaining an olympic gold medal in its own right is something to treasure in your trophy cabinet.

Never said it was the GOAT of tennis achievements, but the way you carry on is just simply humorous. :)
 
Sangria said:
Mate, you can spin it as much as you want, but obtaining an olympic gold medal in its own right is something to treasure in your trophy cabinet.

Never said it was the GOAT of tennis achievements, but the way you carry on is just simply humorous. :)
Click to expand...
Yeah, if you're a swimmer or gymnast or shot-putter or fencer because there's no professional tour for those sports so your only glory is an Olympic medal. Professional tennis players have much bigger fish to fry and a lot more money to make elsewhere. Heck, tennis wasn't even an Olympic sport until 1988 (after 1924).
 
BreakPoint said:
Yeah, if you're a swimmer or gymnast or shot-putter or fencer because there's no professional tour for those sports so your only glory is an Olympic medal. Professional tennis players have much bigger fish to fry and a lot more money to make elsewhere. Heck, tennis wasn't even an Olympic sport until 1988 (after 1924).
Click to expand...

I can only try and understand what you're implying here, but did you recently have amnesia? 2008 Nadal was in GOD-MODE, having the best year of his career so far. he didn't "just win" an olympic medal. Your logic fails in Nadal's circumstances..

For all we know, Nadal would have considered this a good "bonus". Would that make you happy?
 
Bud said:
Never figured it out?

It occurs once every 4 years and most players only get 1 or 2 shots at it in their entire career. Federer will be on his fourth in 2012... which is a pipe dream, at this point, IMO.

Nadal will get a shot at a second gold medal on Wimbledon grass in 2012 and stands an excellent chance of winning a second medal. Plus, he's got less pressure since he already won one.
Click to expand...

Yes Olympic tennis is so prestigious that it was not even existent from 1924-1988.

The fact that it occurs once every 4 years devalues it. It's nowhere near the level of the slams from a historical standpoint, and IMO shouldn't even be in the discussion. I'd put it below the YEC as well, maybe even below some of the more prestigious MS events like Paris, Rome, and Monte Carlo.

Please don't try to spin this to make Nadal's achievement greater than it truly is.
 
Any major tournament > Olympics Gold

Fed missing Olympic gold not nearly as bad as Nadal missing US Open. Yea I'm sure Fed is all like I'll trade away having the slam record just to get one gold medal. I mean Nadal even still says wimbledon is most important to him. Only player who said they want a gold medal over a major was Dementieva...Olympics are important but are not at the level of majors. Their prestige is nice, but I still think it falls around master series and Queens Club. (BEST 250 EVER.)
 
Sangria said:
I can only try and understand what you're implying here, but did you recently have amnesia? 2008 Nadal was in GOD-MODE, having the best year of his career so far. he didn't "just win" an olympic medal. Your logic fails in Nadal's circumstances..

For all we know, Nadal would have considered this a good "bonus". Would that make you happy?
Click to expand...
Yet, the "prize" that Nadal won is the same prize that Massu won, thus, they are equal tennis players in the eyes of the Olympics. :shock:
 
egn said:
Any major tournament > Olympics Gold

Fed missing Olympic gold not nearly as bad as Nadal missing US Open. Yea I'm sure Fed is all like I'll trade away having the slam record just to get one gold medal. I mean Nadal even still says wimbledon is most important to him. Only player who said they want a gold medal over a major was Dementieva...Olympics are important but are not at the level of majors. Their prestige is nice, but I still think it falls around master series and Queens Club. (BEST 250 EVER.)
Click to expand...
And that's only because Dementieva has never won a Grand Slam so the only thing she has to hang her hat on is that Olympic gold medal.
 
Cesc Fabregas said:
If the Olympics is such a crappy tournament, then why did Federer cry like a baby after he lost to James Blake? :-?
Click to expand...
Um....because he didn't!

Do you seriously think Federer would give up all of his Wimbledon titles for an Olympic gold medal? Puleeeeeze......... :???:
 
Sangria said:
I can only try and understand what you're implying here, but did you recently have amnesia? 2008 Nadal was in GOD-MODE, having the best year of his career so far. he didn't "just win" an olympic medal. Your logic fails in Nadal's circumstances..

For all we know, Nadal would have considered this a good "bonus". Would that make you happy?
Click to expand...
And putting all that effort out to win the Olympic gold medal exhausted Nadal for the '08 US Open. Smart move? I think not.
 
Cesc Fabregas said:
If the Olympics is such a crappy tournament, then why did Federer cry like a baby after he lost to James Blake? :-?
Click to expand...

Lets just simply think of this. Why would Federer cry like a baby after he lost to James Blake, who he had never lost too before, in a season where nothing was going right, in a year where he couldn't win a major or master series tournaments and was in danger of falling to rank 3 if he didn't snap out of it? So tell me why Fed would not cry after losing to James Blake, one of his many whipping boys and see Nadal continue to cruise?

Also nobody said the Olympics was crappy, but just in terms of prestige and importance for tennis it is below the majors.

Following are a few reasons Olympics loses presitge in tennis.

1. Smaller Draws
2. Not a best of 5.
3. Limited entrants per country
4. Awkwardly placed in the year
5. Surface changes
6. Every four years.
 
BreakPoint said:
And putting all that effort out to win the Olympic gold medal exhausted Nadal for the '08 US Open. Smart move? I think not.
Click to expand...

Representing your country and winning gold is not a smart move? I'm sure whatever Nadal's priorities were at the time, he had the confidence to go for gold and try take the USO.
 
BreakPoint said:
No, they don't. It's a small draw and each country is limited as to how many from each country can enter the draw.

Yeah, it's so important to a tennis career that Roddick skipped it altogether to focus on the US Open. :???:

It's basically a waste of time for pro tennis players.
Click to expand...

yes..its true .Roddick sets the standard by which we measure importance of a tournament..If he skips a tournament it is not important at all..

BTW.. Roddick did play 2004 Olympics at Greece
 
Indian Wells and Miami have bigger draws than the Olympics. To me, size wise, its another Masters 1000 style event. Played over a week in only best of three sets.

Comparing Olympics to US Open....Apples and Oranges.

Is it a special event? Yes it. However, considering that it only started in 1988, shows that many greats of the past did not get the chance to play there. It's a nice addition...A Grand Slam it is not.
 
Doubles gold is a clown medal, Federer knows it, that's why he'll try to win the real one in 2012 Olympics.
 
Why are you randomly counting the Olympics? You just add in Federer's 4 YEC titles and say Fed is more complete than Nadal, even if Nadal wins the US Open...
 
Sangria said:
An olympic gold medal is a worthless achievement if Nadal wins it, according to some people *cough*
Click to expand...

On the contrary, an Olympic gold medal is really worth something only when a player as good as Nadal wins it.

Here is a list of the men's singles winners at the Olympics:

1896 John Boland (IRL)
1900 Laurie Doherty (GBR)
1904 Beals Wright (USA)
1906 Max Décugis (FRA) [exhibition event only]
1908 [Outdoor event] Major Ritchie (GBR)
1908 [Indoor event] Arthur W. Gore (GBR)
1912 [Outdoor event] Charles Winslow (RSA)
1912 [Indoor event] André Gobert (FRA)
1916 No Olympic Games (First World War)
1920 Louis Raymond (RSA)
1924 Vincent Richards (USA)

1928-1980 No tennis events at the Olympic Games

1984 Stefan Edberg (SWE) [demonstration event only]
1988 Miroslav Mecir (represented Czechoslovakia, but a Slovak)
1992 Marc Rosset (SUI)
1996 Andre Agassi (USA)
2000 Yevgeny Kafelnikov (RUS)
2004 Nicolas Massu (CHI)
2008 Rafael Nadal (ESP)
-----

The above list includes three great players - Laurie Doherty, Stefan Edberg and Andre Agassi and two other very good ones (Arthur W. Gore and Yevgeny Kafelnikov) plus Nadal, who is still active.

This list is not really comparable to a list of the winners of the US Championships, first held in 1881, and now the US Open. This list can be viewed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_Open_Men's_Singles_champions

It includes names such as Tilden, Lacoste, Cochet, Vines, Perry, Budge, Kramer, Gonzales, Sedgman, Rosewall, Laver, Emerson, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander and Federer. Rafael Nadal has yet to appear on it either as runner-up or winner.
-----
 
newmark401 said:
On the contrary, an Olympic gold medal is really worth something only when a player as good as Nadal wins it.

Here is a list of the men's singles winners at the Olympics:

1896 John Boland (IRL)
1900 Laurie Doherty (GBR)
1904 Beals Wright (USA)
1906 Max Décugis (FRA) [exhibition event only]
1908 [Outdoor event] Major Ritchie (GBR)
1908 [Indoor event] Arthur W. Gore (GBR)
1912 [Outdoor event] Charles Winslow (RSA)
1912 [Indoor event] André Gobert (FRA)
1916 No Olympic Games (First World War)
1920 Louis Raymond (RSA)
1924 Vincent Richards (USA)

1928-1980 No tennis events at the Olympic Games

1984 Stefan Edberg (SWE) [demonstration event only]
1988 Miroslav Mecir (represented Czechoslovakia, but a Slovak)
1992 Marc Rosset (SUI)
1996 Andre Agassi (USA)
2000 Yevgeny Kafelnikov (RUS)
2004 Nicolas Massu (CHI)
2008 Rafael Nadal (ESP)
-----

The above list includes three great players - Laurie Doherty, Stefan Edberg and Andre Agassi and two other very good ones (Arthur W. Gore and Yevgeny Kafelnikov) plus Nadal, who is still active.

This list is not really comparable to a list of the winners of the US Championships, first held in 1881, and now the US Open. This list can be viewed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_Open_Men's_Singles_champions

It includes names such as Tilden, Lacoste, Cochet, Vines, Perry, Budge, Kramer, Gonzales, Sedgman, Rosewall, Laver, Emerson, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander and Federer. Rafael Nadal has yet to appear on it either as runner-up or winner.
-----
Click to expand...

You left out also Sampras, Agassi and Becker from the US Open list but the point is made.
 
Rockitdog said:
What I have never figured out, what makes the olympics different from any other tournament? Its basically the same as any other tourney except more emphasis on the country vs the individual. Its all the same guys playing each other.
Click to expand...

How about it is once every 4 years and it is inbetween USO and Wimb. So it is extremely difficult to win FO-Wim-Olympics. That is a killer task at hand!
 
jackson vile said:
How about it is once every 4 years and it is inbetween USO and Wimb. So it is extremely difficult to win FO-Wim-Olympics. That is a killer task at hand!
Click to expand...

Cincy and Canada are EVERY year and between USO and Wimbledon, aren't they just as difficult? Seriously though, this whole thing about the Olympics being more prestigious because it's held every 4 years just bugs me, if anything that makes it less prestigious as it's more about right place than right time than anything.
 
Both Roger and Nadal has a gold medal. Winning the double was just as hard as winning the single. People should appreciate their win instead of discrediting one another.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Paullaconte1
Murray says that Nadal absence changes nothing at the 2012 US Open
2
Replies
68
Views
7K
zagor
zagor
nadalfan2013
The Doubles Careers of the Big Four
Replies
9
Views
1K
Sartorius
Sartorius
Hitman
Djokovic does his big 4 brothers, Nadal and Murray a little favor at the Olympics.
Replies
41
Views
2K
messiahrobins
messiahrobins
B
  • Locked
Federer out of Olympics
Replies
35
Views
5K
rhubarb
R
FedererDropShot
  • Poll Poll
Reaching the finals or winning the title at every significant/historic tournament...
Replies
20
Views
2K
Deleted member 688153
D
Back
Top