Things are so subjective.

[BorisBeckerFan]

Nadal pointed something in his press conference after the semifinal that I find very interesting and shows how subjective things are. He mentioned that winning some of the masters series tournaments was actualy harder than wining certain slams because you are facing top flight competition the whole tournament long where as in a slam there are several rounds of weaker competition. This brings to mind that if any of the top seeds are upset or have on of day in a slam the eventual winner could coast through playing very little stiff competition until the very end where in a masters you are pretty much facing a tough opponent come round 2 depending on the byes.

This point of view adds a lot of value to say the YEC where it's just the top 8 guys.

Which brings me to another thing which I find interesting. Why is being a complete player considered to be so important? I'd rather be an incomplete player who has won more slams than a complete player who has won less.

 

[TennisandMusic]

A "complete player" is generally better, and more likely to win I think. Roddick used to be a serve and a forehand. Now he's a serve. Look how far it's carried him. Meanwhile, Nadal has tried to round out all of his weaknesses...and look how that has carried him.

Nadal said the YEC would be the hardest for him to win because it's indoors. Frankly, no one really even talks about that outside of really nerdy tennis circles, like this one. I don't think it's a big deal. I mean Nalbandian and Davydenko have won it...what does that prove? You know?

 

[HiroProtagonist]

Nadal pointed something in his press conference after the semifinal that I find very interesting and shows how subjective things are. He mentioned that winning some of the masters series tournaments was actualy harder than wining certain slams because you are facing top flight competition the whole tournament long where as in a slam there are several rounds of weaker competition. This brings to mind that if any of the top seeds are upset or have on of day in a slam the eventual winner could coast through playing very little stiff competition until the very end where in a masters you are pretty much facing a tough opponent come round 2 depending on the byes.

This point of view adds a lot of value to say the YEC where it's just the top 8 guys.

Which brings me to another thing which I find interesting. Why is being a complete player considered to be so important? I'd rather be an incomplete player who has won more slams than a complete player who has won less.

Things are subjective?:shock::shock:

I thought all u guys felt just like me and were just debating for fun

Seriously there is not one thing in our existance that is not subjective, u will always be able to find someone who honestly doesnt believe in things that seem so obvious....if u bother to look hard and far enough.

But this isnt the place for talk like that...........Stahkovsky for calendar GS in 2011 mark my words

 

[BorisBeckerFan]

Nadal's own words. I believe the press conferences are still available at usopen.org. It proves they won a very tough tournament to win.

 

[Magix]

Nadal said the YEC would be the hardest for him to win because it's indoors. Frankly, no one really even talks about that outside of really nerdy tennis circles, like this one. I don't think it's a big deal. I mean Nalbandian and Davydenko have won it...what does that prove? You know?

Yep...the YEC really sucks. Never mind the fact that it's the most significant indoor event. But then again Rafa hasn't won it, so it can't be that good of a tournament, right?

No, hang on... If Rafa happens to win it someday, then it becomes important! Yeah, that's it!

:roll: