The big 3 should probably not play the US open or RG

mxmx

Hall of Fame
Winning these tournaments in current virus situation will probably harm their legacy more than add to it. It's like asking if Graf would have preferred Seles not being stabbed on a tennis level (not a personal level). Graf's legacy is really "asterisked" even to this day (not her fault but it cannot be denied...only some will deny what could have been).

What's the point if no really great players enter these tournaments and the big 3 almost win it like a gift. Someone like Federer is probably just protecting his legacy more by not playing considering the circumstances. Even someone like Thiem will not really have the calibrated reputation if he wins the US open or RG this year.

A big asterisk if you ask me. Perhaps I'm too negative here.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Health and safety is the number one priority.

The big 3 have won more than enough and they are financially well off(unlike the lower ranked players).
 

daggerman

Hall of Fame
Frankly, I don't think either tournament should even be held (especially the US Open), but I don't think Novak or Rafa would be risking their legacies by playing. Their legacies are already secured 100x over. The only thing that could taint it would be something like a doping or match-fixing scandal. Winning a less competitive tournament wouldn't make a dent.
 

DSH

G.O.A.T.
There's never been a need to play RG this year. Novak's had it in the bag ever since they finished building the roof. Just hand him the trophy without anyone having to show up.

#NeverInDoubt
He will lose to Thiem again.
Book it!
:p
 

swizzy

Hall of Fame
fed should heal and sit out the next 2 slams... nadal is gonna play the clay and novak tries to win both.
 

NADALalot

Hall of Fame
We don't put asterisks on the slam titles in the 1970s, despite some of their matches being best-of-3-sets.
Anyone who thinks an asterisk will be put on titles won in this pandemic year, doesn't know tennis history.
In fact I don't believe there has ever been an asterisk in the history of tennis.....unless you consider pre-Open-era being an asterisk....
But when Agassi won the Career Grand Slam the media mentioned the pre-Open-era legends who'd won it.
 

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
The year of the player boycott of Wimbledon was hardly a red-letter year for the tournament.
I was going to say; they'll still be known and historically listed as a Grand Slam Champion like Wimbledon winner Jan Kodes when he took advantage of the Men's boycott in '73! :laughing:
 
We don't put asterisks on the slam titles in the 1970s, despite some of their matches being best-of-3-sets.
Anyone who thinks an asterisk will be put on titles won in this pandemic year, doesn't know tennis history.
In fact I don't believe there has ever been an asterisk in the history of tennis.....unless you consider pre-Open-era being an asterisk....
But when Agassi won the Career Grand Slam the media mentioned the pre-Open-era legends who'd won it.
If anything it will be more impressive they managed to withstand all this chaos. But yeah no ones gonna care when all is said and done, the winner of these slams will have another slam or 2 to their name by mid October.
 

1stVolley

Professional
If the final is between Rafa and Djokovic, or Rafa and Thiem, or Djokovic and Thiem, there will be 100% credit given to the winner.
There will be no downgrade of the victory.
I think whenever the draw is noticeably weakened the tournament with carry a permanent downgrade by the critics. You can see that type of judgment here on TT.
 

NADALalot

Hall of Fame
I think whenever the draw is noticeably weakened the tournament with carry a permanent downgrade by the critics. You can see that type of judgment here on TT.
If the draw is weak and Djokovic/Thiem or Rafa/Thiem meet in the Final, they'll be physically fresher than if the draw was strong.
And if they are physically fresh it means the slam final will have better credibility than usual, because usually one of the finalists is deemed to be at a disadvantage because of fatigue.
For example people make excuses for Thiem at last year's French Open Final, and people make excuses for Federer at Wimbledon because he had to play Rafa in the SF and nobody has ever beaten Djokovic and Rafa at a slam etc.
 

1stVolley

Professional
If the draw is weak and Djokovic/Thiem or Rafa/Thiem meet in the Final, they'll be physically fresher than if the draw was strong.
And if they are physically fresh it means the slam final will have better credibility than usual, because usually one of the finalists is deemed to be at a disadvantage because of fatigue.
For example people make excuses for Thiem at last year's French Open Final, and people make excuses for Federer at Wimbledon because he had to play Rafa in the SF and nobody has ever beaten Djokovic and Rafa at a slam etc.
I think the very fact that they are fresher will be a sign to many that it was a less challenging tournament. After all, they say, the tournament isn't about a single match. Personally, I don't care about rating tournaments and draws. I just like watching tennis.
 

mxmx

Hall of Fame
Nadal and Novak's legacies have long ago been secured. There's no asterisk in tennis anyway, whoever wins either event (if they're even played) will be the legitimate winner.
Perhaps I'm not wording myself correctly.

I don't care what people say...but if let's say mostly US players will enter and hardly any non-US players, how does that not make one feel that it took a virus for an American to win the men's final again? In recent years even before the virus, Djokovic has become an interesting player and there were times I supported him. But if he wins the U.S. open or RG this year, there is no way in hell it will seem as great as pre covid winners including his own achievements. Especially if Federer and other big players are not playing. Just my opinion. But yes, we should make the best of it...but no way that victories will not seem subdued. Much like Liverpool celebrating behind close doors. Post covid will be the real achievements and people will line up to prove something again.

As for no asterisks in tennis? Graf is very famous for her asterisk. It has been discussed many times. Not saying she wasn't an atg though.

Perhaps with time people will just look at the records and see that Liverpool won or that Djokovic won the US open, forgetting the circumstances that went along with it. But at least Liverpool almost won the league very early in the season.
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
Winning these tournaments in current virus situation will probably harm their legacy more than add to it. It's like asking if Graf would have preferred Seles not being stabbed on a tennis level (not a personal level). Graf's legacy is really "asterisked" even to this day (not her fault but it cannot be denied...only some will deny what could have been).

What's the point if no really great players enter these tournaments and the big 3 almost win it like a gift. Someone like Federer is probably just protecting his legacy more by not playing considering the circumstances. Even someone like Thiem will not really have the calibrated reputation if he wins the US open or RG this year.

A big asterisk if you ask me. Perhaps I'm too negative here.
Fed is not playing, and had no intention of playing any tournament since the AO due to injury and knee operation. IF Novak or Rafa play either, along with Thiem and the other top ten players play either slam it will be a well deserved slam win.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Nadal and Novak's legacies have long ago been secured. There's no asterisk in tennis anyway, whoever wins either event (if they're even played) will be the legitimate winner.
There are no official asterisks, ever. Unofficially there will be plenty bandied around if the US Open does not contain a Slam-worthy draw ie. enough of the top players competing as they would normally do in a Slam.
 

SonnyT

Hall of Fame
LBJ and Kawhi are playing in NBA restart; CR7 & Messi in soccer; Crosby & Ovechkin in NHL; Brady & Mahomes in NFL. The list goes on and on!

Why should Nadal and Djokovic be any different?
 

ollinger

G.O.A.T.
I think a slam with none of the 3 would be enjoyable, just the idea of a possible first-timer winning would be exciting, and the overall level of play might even be elevated if more players see it as an opportunity to grab a title.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
I think a slam with none of the 3 would be enjoyable, just the idea of a possible first-timer winning would be exciting, and the overall level of play might even be elevated if more players see it as an opportunity to grab a title.
But how 'legitimate' would it seem if none of the Big 3 are playing?
 

ollinger

G.O.A.T.
But how 'legitimate' would it seem if none of the Big 3 are playing?
Entirely legitimate, as it will in a few years when all three are retired or irrelevant. A player who beats all 7 contenders in 2 weeks is a slam champion. Federer is done after a second knee surgery and the other two deserve no particular consideration if they don't have the nerve and the will to be there.
 

topher

Hall of Fame
Federer is out, Nadal is highly doubtful. Guess it will depend on Djokovic (if the tournament will agree to his demands over quarantine etc.).
I don’t see Rafa as highly doubtful, unless you’ve heard something I haven’t. He’s expressed his concerns, but I’d wager those concerns won’t override a chance to win a slam.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
If the final is between Rafa and Djokovic, or Rafa and Thiem, or Djokovic and Thiem, there will be 100% credit given to the winner.
There will be no downgrade of the victory.
That's your opinion and many don't share the same view.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Entirely legitimate, as it will in a few years when all three are retired or irrelevant. A player who beats all 7 contenders in 2 weeks is a slam champion. Federer is done after a second knee surgery and the other two deserve no particular consideration if they don't have the nerve and the will to be there.
Point taken but, while the Big 3 (or at least 2 of them) are still active, their absence will probably raise a question mark.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
I don’t see Rafa as highly doubtful, unless you’ve heard something I haven’t. He’s expressed his concerns, but I’d wager those concerns won’t override a chance to win a slam.
He has already committed to play Madrid and then, of course, he will certainly play RG. Both come straight after the US Open so its problematic whether he will want to play all 3 within that short time period.
 

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
He has already committed to play Madrid and then, of course, he will certainly play RG. Both come straight after the US Open so its problematic whether he will want to play all 3 within that short time period.
I guess if he manage to win USO he has to do some changes in terms of how much he should give in Madrid.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Well Fed won't play because of his wobbly knees but Djokodal? If they can handle the tough schedule, why wouldn't they wanna play slams? It's the main reason they're still on the tour.
 

topher

Hall of Fame
He has already committed to play Madrid and then, of course, he will certainly play RG. Both come straight after the US Open so its problematic whether he will want to play all 3 within that short time period.
Top players commit to tournaments all the time that they know they may not play, like if Rafa made the 2nd week of the USO. If anything, the Madrid tournament director welcomes this, as people will be buying tickets to potentially see Rafa.
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
Health and safety is the number one priority.
What difference does it make if the Big 3 play or not, if the tournament actually happens?

If anything, it would probably be better for health and safety if they played because they are more likely to have the resources to get themselves tested regularly, as opposed to a Top 200 player barely making ends meet
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
What difference does it make if the Big 3 play or not, if the tournament actually happens?
I gave you the reason but you only quoted the first part of my post. lol

The big three have won a total of 56 slams and super wealthy. They have achieved more than enough and there's no need for them to expose to health risk during the height of the pandemic. I mean it's like saying Bill Gates needs another 1 billion dollars in his bank account because he doesn't have enough money.


If anything, it would probably be better for health and safety if they played because they are more likely to have the resources to get themselves tested regularly, as opposed to a Top 200 player barely making ends meet
The more athletes participate, the greater opportunity for the virus to spread and/or getting infected. The virus doesn't care if a player is either #1 or #1000 ranked player in the world.
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
The more athletes participate, the greater opportunity for the virus to spread and/or getting infected. The virus doesn't care if a player is either #1 or #1000 ranked player in the world.
The Slams are capped at a limited number of players. It will fill up regardless of whether or not the Big 3 choose to play

If Djokovic doesn't play that doesn't mean one fewer player. It just gets replaced by someone else ranked lower and with less money. So instead of Djokovic staying at his own apartment, you have Top 200 guy staying at a hotel where he can infect other people. If Djokovic gets sick in the middle of the tournament, he'll drop out because he doesn't need the money. A Top 200 guy might be tempted to play on to get the money.

Arguing against the Big 3 playing is arguing for COVID. The only reason you don't want the "Big 3" to play (Nadal/Djokovic because Fed is not playing regardless) is because of Fed's Slam record
 
Last edited:

NADALalot

Hall of Fame
I've been saying all along that whenever anyone mentions Djokovic's 18 slams (if he wins the US Open) they'll mention that US Open he won without Nadal/Wawrinka/Federer.
That is 3 US Open champions missing from the draw. It will tarnish his legacy, whereas if he doesn't win the 18th slam he'll be fine.
 

mxmx

Hall of Fame
I've been saying all along that whenever anyone mentions Djokovic's 18 slams (if he wins the US Open) they'll mention that US Open he won without Nadal/Wawrinka/Federer.
That is 3 US Open champions missing from the draw. It will tarnish his legacy, whereas if he doesn't win the 18th slam he'll be fine.
Yeah. His legacy will be better off than playing and even winning with it being tainted.
 

SonnyT

Hall of Fame
Yeah, if the NBA restarts w/o LBJ, Harden, and Greek Freak...
if soccer restarts w/o CR7 and Messi...
 
Top