The irrational obsession with Slam draws in the Era of the Big 3

skip1969

G.O.A.T.
Everything has become a contest since the arrival of the Big 3. Who is the most sportsmanlike? Who is the most arrogant? Who has the biggest fanbase? Who has the best fans? Who makes the most money? Who is the greatest of all time? These debates have raged for years since the domination of the tour by Messrs. Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic. And while some topics have true legitimacy (however subjective they may be), others are downright childish.

The obsession about draws every time a Slam rolls around has got to be one of the most ridiculous "debates", in my opinion. I'm almost certain that the players themselves don't obsess about their draws, or the draws of their rivals the way their fanboys/girls do on this board. The players simply play the guys drawn, hoping to advance on the day, and ultimately, to win a Grand Slam event. Certainly, they don't toss around words like "cakewalk" draws, or "toughest of all time." Their take on draws is, well, much more . . . professional.

Looking at a draw on paper can only tell you so much. It's a bunch of hypothesizing and guesswork, really, until the players get out there and start playing. A paper draw doesn't give you insight into weather conditions, court conditions, who's in-form, who's not, scheduling, health, knocks or injuries. It doesn't take into account a ton of variables that may affect a match on a given day. In reality, looking back at a draw once the event is over (or you're eliminated) can tell you more about your play and your opponents' play than looking ahead at a draw on paper. Losing early, or not making your seeding can make an "easy" draw on paper look pretty irrelevant. And holding up the trophy in the end can make a "tough" draw seem not so tough after all.

I never saw this draw obsession before the Big 3 came along. Ultimately, they lend very little to the conversation about the tourney, itself. They are merely partisan smear campaigns that the tribes take part in as they, before the first ball is ever struck, lay the groundwork for diminishing the title if their enemy wins, and/or insulating their hero if he doesn't.
 

Red Rick

Bionic Poster
Media has turned tennis into a Big 3 saltfest starting when Federer was clearly better than Sampras when he started his domination very early on to when Nadal came up as a challenger and everyone was desperate for some sort of narrative.
 

aldeayeah

Legend
Fanboys have always been fanboys, and trolls have always been trolls*, but the sheer stature of the big 3 has caused them to flock together in an unprecedented fashion.

(*I mean, just check out the former pro player section)
 

Ray Mercer

Hall of Fame
Nadal’s draws in his hard court slam wins have been absolute jokes. I believe he had Gasquet, Youzhny and Robredo in the semis in his wins. If you gave him the same fair draw that he received this year in Wimbledon I doubt he wins anything other than the French.
 
Last edited:

aldeayeah

Legend
Nadal’s draws in his hard court slam wins have been absolute jokes. I believe he had Gasquet, Youzhny and Robredo in his wins. If you gave him the same fair draw that he received this year in Wimbledon I doubt he wins anything other than the French.
Hey, that Robredo came from beating Fed in straights! (man that was a weird tournament)
 

tacou

G.O.A.T.
OP if this were reddit I'd gild you. So many pointless "debates" occur on this forum, but this definitely ranks near the top in pointlessness.

I'll never understand how a person who can devalue a major championship with "ehheasydraw" can even enjoy the sport at all. Like, if the sport's ultimate prizes are that easy to stumble upon, who cares?
 
Last edited:
Nadal’s draws in his hard court slam wins have been absolute jokes. I believe he had Gasquet, Youzhny and Robredo in the semi’s in his wins. If you gave him the same fair draw that he received this year in Wimbledon I doubt he wins anything other than the French.
Robredo was a quarter-final. Robredo has never made a Slam semi, despite seven or eight quarter-finals. It was the same event at which he played Gasquet in the semis. His full list of semi-final opponents in hard court Slams in which he won the event is:

Verdasco
Youzhny
Gasquet
Del Potro
 

Ray Mercer

Hall of Fame
Robredo was a quarter-final. Robredo has never made a Slam semi, despite seven or eight quarter-finals. It was the same event at which he played Gasquet in the semis. His full list of semi-final opponents in hard court Slams in which he won the event is:

Verdasco
Youzhny
Gasquet
Del Potro
I think most people would agree that is a pretty weak group of semi-final opponents especially considering Del Potro was dead on his feet. I look at the first 3 guys on that list and I think round of 16 opponents.
 
Last edited:

augustobt

Legend
I'm sure we are in the minority, but yes, yes, YES!

I'm gonna do a thread on that during the fortnight. Because I think it's one of the things that has really impacted (negatively) the interest of the Slams.
I can understand why they wanted 32 seeds in 2001 but now it’s clearly time to ditch that. At least in majors.
 
D

Deleted member 763999

Guest
I think most people would agree that is pretty weak group of semi-final opponents especially considering Del Potro was dead on his feet. I look at the first 3 guys on that list and I think round of 16 opponents.
Lol, please go look at the AO2009 semifinal match before even spouting this nonsense.
 

skip1969

G.O.A.T.
. . . I'll never understand how a person who can devalue a major championship with "ehheasydraw" can even enjoy the sport at all. Like, if the sport's ultimate prizes are that easy to stumble upon, who cares?
The real fanboy/girl brilliance is to devalue the Slam if the other guy wins it, but to inflate the Slam's worth if your guy wins it. So each Slam is, simultaneously, worthless and super important in terms of who is GOAT. And the final decision on the Slam's merit is decided (arbitrarily) once the winner is crowned, depending on who wins it.

Tribal trolli-ness at it's ironic best (or worst, actually).
 
Top