One away from Golden Masters

D

Deleted member 756486

Guest
He won’t win Cincy but don’t worry Nole fans, Nole will get his retribution. :confused:
Djokovic in 3.

Will just get by Cilic I think. Will then go on to lose to Fedr in the final then get his revenge at the USO by saving 87 MPs against Fedr all of them being on Fed’s serve.
 

TimHenmanATG

Professional
If Djokovic wins tomorrow, it will be a pretty remarkable achievement when you look at it objectively.

He's won all four Grand Slams, potentially all 9 Masters events, the WTF, and the Davis Cup.

The only thing lacking is Olympic Gold, but with Tokyo 2020 now only less than 2 years away, watch this space...
 

RF-18

G.O.A.T.
If Djokovic wins tomorrow, it will be a pretty remarkable achievement when you look at it objectively.

He's won all four Grand Slams, potentially all 9 Masters events, the WTF, and the Davis Cup.

The only thing lacking is Olympic Gold, but with Tokyo 2020 now only less than 2 years away, watch this space...
It would be remarkable. Every title in the bag from maters 1000 and above.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
We can safely say that Sir Andy Murray once again will be in the form of his life in summer 2020 and will easily win gold in Tokyo 2020.
I don't mind that but he's already been and gone there on multiple occasions. If he really can get back to top form I will be much more interested in seeing him add a couple more Slams (preferably an AO and the French but I'll happily take any).
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
If he has only to face The Goff then it's already in the bag for him (only match he ever lost to him in 6 meetings was last year when his game had gone well and truly AWOL).
First off, Goffin won't beat Federer, not a chance.

Secondly, Goffin wouldn't stand a chance against Novak not because of the H2H but because Goffin is the kind of player who loses the big finales. He will never win anything significant. He is a typical 90s-born millennial, completely useless when it comes to collecting the big ones. Much like Raonic in that sense. And Nishikori.

Thirdly, Federer will beat Novak in the finale. RF won seven there, Novak is 0-5 in finales. That KIND OF speaks volumes.
 

itrium84

Semi-Pro
If Fed reaches reaches final, he'll most probably win the title. I would like Nole to win golden masters this year, but his chances against Fed are pretty slim, unfortunately.

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
If Djokovic wins tomorrow, it will be a pretty remarkable achievement when you look at it objectively.

He's won all four Grand Slams, potentially all 9 Masters events, the WTF, and the Davis Cup.

The only thing lacking is Olympic Gold, but with Tokyo 2020 now only less than 2 years away, watch this space...
I would just like to point out at this stage that, irrespective of what happens tomorrow, Murray will still be the only active player to win in every single category of big title ie. Slams, WTF, Masters, Davis Cup and Olympics (singles of course). :cool:
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
If Djokovic wins tomorrow, it will be a pretty remarkable achievement when you look at it objectively.

He's won all four Grand Slams, potentially all 9 Masters events, the WTF, and the Davis Cup.

The only thing lacking is Olympic Gold, but with Tokyo 2020 now only less than 2 years away, watch this space...
Olympic gold is so overrated. A best-of-3 format that is like a glorified M1000, with more players skipping most Olympics than they skip M1000s. The fact it's every four years only makes it weird, not valuable.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
Last time Murray beat Federer - AO 2013 - Lost every match since then
Last time Nadal beat Federer - AO 2014 - Lost every match since then
Last time Djokovic beat Federer - AO 2016 - ????????
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Olympic gold is so overrated. A best-of-3 format that is like a glorified M1000, with more players skipping most Olympics than they skip M1000s. The fact it's every four years only makes it weird, not valuable.
The final is played in best of 5 sets (the only tournament to do this outside of the Slams and Davis Cup).
 

Sport

Legend
I would just like to point out at this stage that, irrespective of what happens tomorrow, Murray will still be the only active player to win in every single category of big title ie. Slams, WTF, Masters, Davis Cup and Olympics. :cool:
Masters 1000 are also important (Tier C). Just not as relevant as Grand Slams (Tier A) or WTF/Olympics (Tier B).

But yeah, Mury GOAT.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
The final is played in best of 5 sets (the only tournament to do this outside of the Slams and Davis Cup).
One of SIX matches is played in 5 sets? That many?

So you're saying I'm wrong: it's not a glorified M1000, it's a glorified Big 9 from the 90s.

Big difference, right?

Big 9 = M1000 (give or take a set)
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
The final is played in best of 5 sets (the only tournament to do this outside of the Slams and Davis Cup).
I will be honest and say that I actually rank Murray's Davis Cup win over the big titles he has won. When I saw him burst onto the scene, I knew Masters were a given and felt he was too talented not to win a slam sometime in his career. However the one thing that I thought was going to be out of reach was Davis Cup, because GB just had a poor team compared other powerhouses...for him to single handily carry the team and play in all those conditions and deliver each time, for me, it was his greatest achievement, it might not carry the historical significance of a slam, but the chance he would one day hold that Davis Cup trophy was very slim and he did it.
 

Sport

Legend
One of SIX matches is played in 5 sets? That many?

So you're saying I'm wrong: it's not a glorified M1000, it's a glorified Big 9 from the 90s.

Big difference, right?

Big 9 = M1000
If you ask a Federer or Djokovic fan they will tell you the World Tour Finals are more relevant than the Olympic Gold in singles. But are they being objective?

It's not a secret that the World Tour Finals have been historically more relevant than the Olympic Gold in singles. But times changes, and right now it is a legitimate question.

Let's compare these two pretigious tournaments:

1) Difficulty: World Tour Finals are played among the best 8 ATP players in the ranking. It makes the draw extremelly though. Every calendar year, there is an edition of this tournament. On the other hand, Olympic Games are played every four years. To stablish an analogy wiwth football/soccer: what is more difficult to achieve the Champions League or the World Cup? Real Madrid has won 12 Champions League titles, but no national team has ever won the World Cup more than 5 times. So, even though World Tour Finals are very difficult to win, because of the quality of the opponents, the OG in singles are even more difficult to achieve, because of the limited number of editions.

2) Current prestige among players: Some players like Steffi Graf, Serena Williams, Agassi, Djokovic or Murray say the Olympic Gold Medal in singles is so prestigious or even more than a GS.
Source:
http://www.letsecondserve.com/2012/07/olympics-or-slams-whats-more-important.html
http://www.worldtennismagazine.com/archives/8213

An Olympic Gold Medal is not as relevant as a GS, but in the current era it is at least equally relevant as the World Tour Final, a tournament played every year, while the Olympics are disputed every four years. The Olympic Gold Medal doesn't give the players any ATP points. Murray, the last winner, won 0 new ATP points. Players play both for their individual resume and their country. The Olympic Gold Medal in singles is like the World Cup of Football in terms of difficulty. In fact, it is even more difficult to win a Gold Medal in singles than winning a Grand Slam. Grand Slams are more prestigious and more relevant but no more difficult to achieve. Players can try to win a particular Grand Slam every year, which means they can try it 15 or 16 times in their career. But players only can try to win an Olympic Gold Medal in singles only 3 or 4 times in their career. For example, Federer lost to Haas in 2000, Berdych in 2004, Blake in 2008 and Murray in 2012. Even Federer found it impossible to win one, it shows how difficult it is to achieve. Before anyone start with the argument that some unknown player has won the Gold Medal, I will reply than Gaston Gaudio won a Grand Slam in 2004 and only a few people remember him.

Sampras participated in the 1992 Olympics, and Agassi won the Gold Medal in 1996. In the 90s, the Olympic Gold Medal started to be more relevant, but in the XXI century the Olympic Gold in singles has acquired a new status as a relevant trophy in tennis. A great exaple of its importance can be appreciated in how Djokovic cried of emotion and pain when Del Potro beat him in the 2016 Summer Olympics.

In sum, both trophies are equally relevant. The World Tour Finals are historically very relevant. WTF are also disputed among the 8 players with higher ATP ranking. It makes pretty difficult draws. On the other hand, the Olympic Gold in singles is only played every four years, which make it an extremelly difficult trophy to achieve, even more than the WTF, because of the limited number of editions. And it is becoming more and more prestigious in the XXI century.

There is no objective reason to consider the WTF more relevant than the OG in singles, specially when the first one is played every year and the second one every four years, making it even more difficult to achieve.

Category of tournaments:

Grand Slams (Tier A)
WTF/Olympic Gold in singles (Tier B)
Masters 1000 (Tier C)
Masters 500 (Tier D)
Atp 250 (Tier E)
 
Last edited:

TimHenmanATG

Professional
I would just like to point out at this stage that, irrespective of what happens tomorrow, Murray will still be the only active player to win in every single category of big title ie. Slams, WTF, Masters, Davis Cup and Olympics (singles of course). :cool:
I'm reluctant to even mention Olympic titles here, because salty fanbois and fangurlz of certain players like to dismiss its importance due to their player failing to win the Gold Medal.

The truth is that the Olympic tennis tournament just grows and grows in importance.

I personally consider it above the WTF, and 5th in importance of all major tennis titles. I also strongly believe in no ranking points for the Olympic tournament. That helps to sort the wheat from the chaff, even before the start of the Olympics.
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
@Sport,

I think WTF is more relevant, the fact O gold is played once every 4 years doesnt mean that it's more valuable. I don't see the logic there. Using that logic the WTF is more valuable than the slams...

WTF is an actual tour event, whereas the Olympics seems different from the rest of the tour. It no longer even gives points. It has an exhibition/for pride feel to it. Olympic Gold is very meaningful in the moment from a nationalistic standpoint for the players, but there is a reason most consider WTF more crucial for one's career.

I don't deny the O gold has value though, obviously Novak would like it too.
 

Sport

Legend
@Sport,

I think WTF is more relevant, the fact O gold is played once every 4 years doesnt mean that it's more valuable. I don't see the logic there. WTF is an actual tour event, whereas the Olympics seems different from the rest of the tour. It no longer even gives points. It has an exhibition/for pride feel to it. Olympic Gold is very meaningful in the moment from a nationalistic standpoint for the players, but there is a reason most consider WTF more crucial for one's career.

I don't deny the O gold has value though, obviously Novak would like it too.
The Olympic Gold in singles is relevant for both the country and the individual resume. It has become a trophy equally relevant as the WTF in the XXI century.

Category of tournaments:

Grand Slams (Tier A)
WTF/Olympic Gold in singles (Tier B)
Masters 1000 (Tier C)
Masters 500 (Tier D)
Atp 250 (Tier E)
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
The Olympic Gold in singles is relevant fot both the country and the individual resume.
yes but less so for the individual resume, for 1 it has only been an event since 2008.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Still ONE more than is played at the WTF or any Masters tournament.
Whatever. Just sayin'.
I'm looking at your avatar, you're a big Murray fan.

I am not trying to diminish his two Olympic golds, they're a great achievement (even if Delpo deserved that gold much more having beaten Novak and Rafa - who probably would have beaten Murray), I'm pointing out that Olympic gold is way below a slam win. Players in the 90s had to play six matches in most big9 events and they played the finale in bestof5. It's the exact same format.
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
Sampras participated in 1992, Agassi won it in 1996, Federer participated in 2004.
ah yes, embarrassing oversight from me :eek:

Anyways I could agree its equal to WTF but I dont know about more
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
If you ask a Federer or Djokovic fan they will tell you the World Tour Finals are more relevant than the Olympic Gold in singles. But are they being objective?

It's not a secret that the World Tour Finals have been historically more relevant than the Olympic Gold in singles. But times changes, and right now it is a legitimate question.

Let's compare these two pretigious tournaments:

1) Difficulty: World Tour Finals are played among the best 8 ATP players in the ranking. It makes the draw extremelly though. Every calendar year, there is an edition of this tournament. On the other hand, Olympic Games are played every four years. To stablish an analogy wiwth football/soccer: what is more difficult to achieve the Champions League or the World Cup? Real Madrid has won 12 Champions League titles, but no national team has ever won the World Cup more than 5 times. So, even though World Tour Finals are very difficult to win, because of the quality of the opponents, the OG in singles are even more difficult to achieve, because of the limited number of editions.

2) Current prestige among players: Some players like Steffi Graf, Serena Williams, Agassi, Djokovic or Murray say the Olympic Gold Medal in singles is so prestigious or even more than a GS.
Source:
http://www.letsecondserve.com/2012/07/olympics-or-slams-whats-more-important.html
http://www.worldtennismagazine.com/archives/8213

An Olympic Gold Medal is not as relevant as a GS, but in the current era it is at least equally relevant as the World Tour Final, a tournament played every year, while the Olympics are disputed every four years. The Olympic Gold Medal doesn't give the players any ATP points. Murray, the last winner, won 0 new ATP points. Players play both for their individual resume and their country. The Olympic Gold Medal in singles is like the World Cup of Football in terms of difficulty. In fact, it is even more difficult to win a Gold Medal in singles than winning a Grand Slam. Grand Slams are more prestigious and more relevant but no more difficult to achieve. Players can try to win a particular Grand Slam every year, which means they can try it 15 or 16 times in their career. But players only can try to win an Olympic Gold Medal in singles only 3 or 4 times in their career. For example, Federer lost to Haas in 2000, Berdych in 2004, Blake in 2008 and Murray in 2012. Even Federer found it impossible to win one, it shows how difficult it is to achieve. Before anyone start with the argument that some unknown player has won the Gold Medal, I will reply than Gaston Gaudio won a Grand Slam in 2004 and only a few people remember him.

Sampras participated in the 1992 Olympics, and Agassi won the Gold Medal in 1996. In the 90s, the Olympic Gold Medal started to be more relevant, but in the XXI century the Olympic Gold in singles has acquired a new status as a relevant trophy in tennis. A great exaple of its importance can be appreciated in how Djokovic cried of emotion and pain when Del Potro beat him in the 2016 Summer Olympics.

In sum, both trophies are equally relevant. The World Tour Finals are historically very relevant. WTF are also disputed among the 8 players with higher ATP ranking. It makes pretty difficult draws. On the other hand, the Olympic Gold in singles is only played every four years, which make it an extremelly difficult trophy to achieve, even more than the WTF, because of the limited number of editions. And it is becoming more and more prestigious in the XXI century.

There is no objective reason to consider the WTF more relevant than the OG in singles, specially when the first one is played every year and the second one every four years, making it even more difficult to achieve.

Category of tournaments:

Grand Slams (Tier A)
WTF/Olympic Gold in singles (Tier B)
Masters 1000 (Tier C)
Masters 500 (Tier D)
Atp 250 (Tier E)
I never said WTC was more relevant than Gold. I consider WTC to be slightly higher than a M1000, or even at the same level, because WTC allows a champion to tank or lose a RR match, which you can't do at any other event yet still lift the trophy, plus every year at least one or two top players are missing due to injury. Nadal missed many WTCs, for example.

To me, it's relatively simple: there are the slams - the Olymp of the game - and then below them are M1000/B9, WTC and Olympics with a roughly similar status.

As for Agassi, when he won it the draw in 1996 was pitiful, so when people talk about the "Golden Slam" I cringe. Also, it was very important to Agassi for personal reasons to win gold (read his autobiography). As for Djokovic, he is hugely patriotic and wants badly to bring gold to Serbia, a country that averages one gold medal per Olympics. As for Graf and Serena, of course they'll overrate the gold because they won it.

Regarding Olympics being grand because they're every 4 years, how about we organize an event that takes place every 50 years? Then, using this logic, that would be the pinnacle of tennis - even if it was a 16-draw event played best-of-1 set.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
I'm looking at your avatar, you're a big Murray fan.

I am not trying to diminish his two Olympic golds, they're a great achievement (even if Delpo deserved that gold much more having beaten Novak and Rafa - who probably would have beaten Murray), I'm pointing out that Olympic gold is way below a slam win. Players in the 90s had to play six matches in most big9 events and they played the finale in bestof5. It's the exact same format.
ALL tournaments are way below a Slam win. I always get bemused when people criticise a tournament for not being a Slam. Same can be said for the WTF and Masters events. Does not being Slams devalue their own worth?
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
ALL tournaments are way below a Slam win. I always get bemused when people criticise a tournament for not being a Slam. Same can be said for the WTF and Masters events. Does not being Slams devalue their own worth?
I am with you on this one. Just because slams are the biggest events does NOT mean the M1000s aren't relevant as some people like to believe. They are. BUT... by inventing silly terms as "Golden Slam" we are elevating Olympics above M1000s and WTC which I find absurd.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
I am with you on this one. Just because slams are the biggest events does NOT mean the M1000s aren't relevant as some people like to believe. They are. BUT... by inventing silly terms as "Golden Slam" we are elevating Olympics above M1000s and WTC which I find absurd.
There is also the Super Slam that only Agassi has won, which is all four slams, SOG and WTF
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
I am with you on this one. Just because slams are the biggest events does NOT mean the M1000s aren't relevant as some people like to believe. They are. BUT... by inventing silly terms as "Golden Slam" we are elevating Olympics above M1000s and WTC which I find absurd.
Well, maybe 'Golden Slam' isn't the best word. How about something like 'Golden Sweep' instead? :cool:
 
Top