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.
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.
