WTF title: One Glaring Big Hole in Nadal's career

The WTF is not as prestigious as a Masters 1000. This is proven by the players themselves all stating Masters 1000 are more important. Indian wells is considered the 5th Slam. It used to be key Biscane.

Nadal intimated he used the WTF this season as preparation for the Davis Cup. That says it all really. Murray has said the Olympics are far more important as has Djokovic. Not sure why non pro players think they know better than the players
Oh look, another "new user". What are the mods doing, smh.
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
Indian wells is considered the 5th Slam. It used to be key Biscane.
Only by Americans.

It doesn't make sense for a single country to garnish two Major Tournaments. If there was a Fifth Major - and there isn't until one is ratified by the ITF - it is likely to be played in Asia. So most probably a promoted Shanghai Masters !!!
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
The only glaring holes are the holes in the heads of people who actually believe that the Big 3 HAVE any glaring holes in their resumes...
GRAND SLAM?

That's a pretty big glaring hole afaic. (Laver has two of them!)

(Also, any top player can win all four Major Titles one time. However, not too many of them seem to be able to achieve the feat twice. None of the current Big 3 have done it. That's another pretty big glaring hole too! Rest assured, if either Novak or Rafa pull that feat off next year, we will be entering a new realm of GOAT Debate.)
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
Except, that is a kind of statement someone would make on a tennis board trying to sound smart without saying anything. If the author of that statement truly believed in that he would't be arguing endlessly here. He would see that basically such players are beyond any debate, because of their completeness.

:cool:
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
GRAND SLAM?

That's a pretty big glaring hole afaic. (Laver has two of them!)

(Also, any top player can win all four Major Titles one time. However, not too many of them seem to be able to achieve the feat twice. None of the current Big 3 have done it. That's another pretty big glaring hole too! Rest assured, if either Novak or Rafa pull that feat off next year, we will be entering a new realm of GOAT Debate.)
Comparing Laver's $5-per-win amateur era with the multi-billion industry it is now...

Makes sense.

They all won all 4 slams. Djokovic won all 4 in a row. The calendar is an arbitrary thing, how Laver won 4 in a row is the same as Djokovic.

In fact, less so. Laver won on two different surfaces, and without playing 28 bestof5 matches.

Read up tennis history. It is educational.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Except, that is a kind of statement someone would make on a tennis board trying to sound smart without saying anything. If the author of that statement truly believed in that he would't be arguing endlessly here. He would see that basically such players are beyond any debate, because of their completeness.

:cool:
And if you didn't fear that poster's reply - who invariably owns you every single time - then you'd have replied directly to him instead of evading his reaction...

... or at least badly failing at evading it.

As for "trying to sound smart", that's the sort of thing bad pupils often say about the brightest kids in class.

"You think you're soooooo smart, don't ya!!!"
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
And if you didn't fear that poster's reply - who invariably owns you every single time - then you'd have replied directly to him instead of evading his reaction...

... or at least badly failing at evading it.

As for "trying to sound smart", that's the sort of thing bad pupils often say about the brightest kids in class.

"You think you're soooooo smart, don't ya!!!"
I don't have a problem responding to something interesting.

----->

:cool:
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
I sure wasn't going to wait for you to do that...

I'd be waiting a century... Or get stabbed instead.
You exhibit a curious tendency to exaggerate (and I mean "you" as a group). You also exhibit a not so curious tendency to not understand a simple point. I will translate it to you: you are blowing hot air by continuing to get personal instead of addressing the point.

:cool:
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
You exhibit a curious tendency to exaggerate (and I mean "you" as a group). You also exhibit a not so curious tendency to not understand a simple point. I will translate it to you: you are blowing hot air by continuing to get personal instead of addressing the point.

:cool:
On every single thread that you "picked a fight" with me you started off "personal" then after I ridiculed you, pinned the blame for your own vice on me, and you do it with most other posters who aren't devout Fedfans too...

Talk about projection. Hypocrisy.

You behave like a troll, you get troll replies. Is that so illogical?
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
On every single thread that you "picked a fight" with me you started off "personal" then after I ridiculed you, pinned the blame for your own vice on me, and you do it with most other posters who aren't devout Fedfans too...

Talk about projection. Hypocrisy.

You behave like a troll, you get troll replies. Is that so illogical?
Still nothing.

:cool:
 

flanker2000fr

Professional
Nadal has not played WTF for 14 years in a row either. He's missed it at least 6 times.
He had the opportunity to play it 14 times in a row - he had qualified for it. Then, there's obviously injuries and exhaustion from overloading his calendar in the early part of the season.

Still, it left him with 8 occasions to win the ATP Finals, while the Olympics were played 4 times by Federer and 3 times by Djokovic.
 
Last edited:

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
Comparing Laver's $5-per-win amateur era with the multi-billion industry it is now...

Makes sense.

They all won all 4 slams. Djokovic won all 4 in a row. The calendar is an arbitrary thing, how Laver won 4 in a row is the same as Djokovic.

In fact, less so. Laver won on two different surfaces, and without playing 28 bestof5 matches.

Read up tennis history. It is educational.
Silly Person!

If the REAL GRAND SLAM is such an arbitrary thing ... then how come no Male player has been able to achieve it since Laver did?

As for the History comment, I don't need to read up on anything. I was alive during that era.

Laver did not win on two different surfaces ... He won on 4 different surfaces.

If you were alive in the 1960's, especially if you lived in Australia, you would understand that the Natural Grass Surfaces of Wimbledon, Westside Tennis Club - Forest Hills and Milton Queensland (and then later on Kooyong TC Melbourne) played completely differently.

The three sanitised dumbed down surfaces of the modern era basically play the same. Only Roland Garros is the stand out now. (One of the main reasons why Federer has been unable to conquer than venue!)

So perhaps, you stick to your HISTORY BOOKS which were written some time after some of us actually witnessed the events that you can only dream about.

Meanwhile the current Greats revere Laver. Federer even promoted a new tournament in Laver's name. I wonder why that is?
 

Bender

G.O.A.T.
All true but, then again, you won't hear Murray fans putting down Indian Wells just because Murray hasn't won it.
TBF if Murray fans had to put down every tournament because he hasn't won it, you'd have a laundry list of tournaments to denigrate, no?
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
TBF if Murray fans had to put down every tournament because he hasn't won it, you'd have a laundry list of tournaments to denigrate, no?
Any more of that and you'll be on the naughty step. There are only 4 biggies missing from the collection: AO (don't make me cry), RG, IW and MC. But you won't hear any of us trying to put any of them down.

Along with Agassi, Murray is the only other player to win every single type of main tour tennis tournament: Slams, ATP Finals, Olympics, Masters, Davis Cup, 500s, 250s. You name it.
 

Bender

G.O.A.T.
Any more of that and you'll be on the naughty step. There are only 4 biggies missing from the collection: AO (don't make me cry), RG, IW and MC. But you won't hear any of us trying to put any of them down.

Along with Agassi, Murray is the only other player to win every single type of main tour tennis tournament: Slams, ATP Finals, Olympics, Masters, Davis Cup, 500s, 250s. You name it.
 

timnz

Legend
No one cares about the WTF -or whatever it's called this year.

If Nadal equals Federer's slam total he goes ahead based on H2H.

Every unbiased observer knows it.
When you are saying that nobody cares about the wtf you are excluding the players who all think it is important, including Nadal who has said so.
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
Del.potro and Djokovic have both said Indian Wells is 5th biggest tournament. The pros consider the size of draw a determining factor.
del Potro is South American, prefers the fast Hard courts, and has won the US Open. It is only natural that he would favour Indian Wells.

Djokovic is a populist. He will say anything to increase the number of fans he has. Djokovic has been quoted as saying that the AO is his favourite Major but that as a child he dreamt of winning Wimbledon.

And IW is not the sole 5th biggest in terms of Prize money or prestige imo. You have tournaments like Monte Carlo and Rome which have been around much longer and have much richer traditions. Would be very interested to know whether del Portro, Djokovic or any other non American player would prefer to win IW instead of Monte Carlo for example.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
If the REAL GRAND SLAM is such an arbitrary thing ... then how come no Male player has been able to achieve it since Laver did?

As for the History comment, I don't need to read up on anything. I was alive during that era. Laver did not win on two different surfaces ... He won on 4 different surfaces.

If you were alive in the 1960's, especially if you lived in Australia, you would understand that the Natural Grass Surfaces of Wimbledon, Westside Tennis Club - Forest Hills and Milton Queensland (and then later on Kooyong TC Melbourne) played completely differently.
The three sanitised dumbed down surfaces of the modern era basically play the same. Only Roland Garros is the stand out now. (One of the main reasons why Federer has been unable to conquer than venue!)

So perhaps, you stick to your HISTORY BOOKS which were written some time after some of us actually witnessed the events that you can only dream about.

Meanwhile the current Greats revere Laver. Federer even promoted a new tournament in Laver's name. I wonder why that is?


:cool:
 

Xemi666

Professional
Tsitsipas> > Nadal, after all he won the most important tourney in tennis unlike that moonballing scrub, right guys? 8-B 8-B
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Silly Person!

If the REAL GRAND SLAM is such an arbitrary thing ... then how come no Male player has been able to achieve it since Laver did?

As for the History comment, I don't need to read up on anything. I was alive during that era.

Laver did not win on two different surfaces ... He won on 4 different surfaces.

If you were alive in the 1960's, especially if you lived in Australia, you would understand that the Natural Grass Surfaces of Wimbledon, Westside Tennis Club - Forest Hills and Milton Queensland (and then later on Kooyong TC Melbourne) played completely differently.

The three sanitised dumbed down surfaces of the modern era basically play the same. Only Roland Garros is the stand out now. (One of the main reasons why Federer has been unable to conquer than venue!)

So perhaps, you stick to your HISTORY BOOKS which were written some time after some of us actually witnessed the events that you can only dream about.

Meanwhile the current Greats revere Laver. Federer even promoted a new tournament in Laver's name. I wonder why that is?
I always hoped there would be TTWers twice my age.

It's a great feeling. I feel so young suddenly.

And even smarter...

None of what you said refutes anything I said. You are clearly going down the nostalgia road. I have nostalgia for the 90s, yet do you read any posts from me where I glorify the 90s? No.

Be objective.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
His trophy room says otherwise...no such thing as 1/2 a medal...
Well, the International Olympic Committee doesn't own a pair of shears sharp enough to cut them in half but the inscription will state that it was for doubles and doubles, as we know, means 2 people are in the picture . :cool:
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
Well, the International Olympic Committee doesn't own a pair of shears sharp enough to cut them in half but the inscription will state that it was for doubles and doubles, as we know, means 2 people are in the picture . :cool:
So, say a member of a 400 meter relay in sprint has 1/4th the value of his golden medal compared to a the winner in the 400 m sprint?

:(
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
So, say a member of a 400 meter relay in sprint has 1/4th the value of his golden medal compared to a the winner in the 400 m sprint?

:(
Yep, that's about it. His medal contributes only a quarter of the whole. He himself woudn't compare winning as part of a team of 4 with winning all by yourself.
 

BHud

Hall of Fame
Well, the International Olympic Committee doesn't own a pair of shears sharp enough to cut them in half but the inscription will state that it was for doubles and doubles, as we know, means 2 people are in the picture . :cool:
So none of the relay swimmers, or track and field stars should be considered a gold medalist unless they won an individual event? WTF? :-D I see where you're going here...I agree that a singles medal is more distinguished...just busting your chops...I'll bet you also feel that the YE tour final event is an exhibition? Vamos!
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
So none of the relay swimmers, or track and field stars should be considered a gold medalist unless they won an individual event? WTF? :-D I see where you're going here...I agree that a singles medal is more distinguished...just busting your chops...I'll bet you also feel that the YE tour final event is an exhibition? Vamos!
Certainly do not. I've always liked and respected Rafa but I'm no crazed VB Fanatic. ;)
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
A gold medal is a gold medal. It doesn't matter if it's any of an Olympic event is an individual or a team sport.

Deal with it.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
A gold medal is a gold medal. It doesn't matter if it's any of an Olympic event is an individual or a team sport.

Deal with it.
Don't think Roger has dealt with it yet (or why would he be bothering to enter 2020 for 1 last attempt at the OSG?).
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
Don't think Roger has dealt with it yet (or why would he be bothering to enter 2020 for 1 last attempt at the OSG?).
He is handsomely payed by a Japanese company to represent them. I think that it is a very reasonable expectation to assume that he will be there to represent his main sponsor. Did you forget about that?

:cool:
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
He is handsomely payed by a Japanese company to represent them. I think that it is a very reasonable expectation to assume that he will be there to represent his main sponsor. Did you forget about that?

:cool:
Seriously doubt at this stage of his career he'd allow himself to be bullied by his sponsor into playing events he is not interested in. Nishikori is perfectly capable of representing them. :cool:
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
Seriously doubt at this stage of his career he'd allow himself to be bullied by his sponsor into playing events he is not interested in. Nishikori is perfectly capable of representing them. :cool:
"Bullied"? You seem to have a pretty exotic idea of how these things work. They would have nicely asked him what he would like to wear as an Olympic outfit, and he would have been more than happy to choose his items. Probably already booked a house for him and his entire family along with some meetings with the Uniqlo CEO.

:cool:
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
"Bullied"? You seem to have a pretty exotic idea of how these things work. They would have nicely asked him what he would like to wear as an Olympic outfit, and he would have been more than happy to choose his items. Probably already booked a house for him and his entire family along with some meetings with the Uniqlo CEO.

:cool:
You're missing the point. If Roger did not want to play the Olympics or didn't feel it would be good for him he wouldn't be playing it no matter what his sponsor would like him to do. :cool:
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
You're missing the point. If Roger did not want to play the Olympics or didn't feel it would be good for him he wouldn't be playing it no matter what his sponsor would like him to do. :cool:
Why would he actively not want to play the Olympics? So that he can "prove" that he doesn't put much stock in the OSG as some would have it? That is far fetched even for those that detest him. Most people realise that Federer is a very astute businessman and also a person that understands how the game of representing himself most successfully is played. For him it would be just another stop in the long list of obligations that he has.

Will he play to win it? Absolutely, but that is no different than any other tournament that he enters.

:cool:
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Don't think Roger has dealt with it yet (or why would he be bothering to enter 2020 for 1 last attempt at the OSG?).
Just like other Olympic Gold Medalists like the big 3(except Nole without a gold) will play the next Olympic games.
 
Top