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

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
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.
LOL. The benefit of having actually lived and witnessed tennis in the 1960s and 1970s means I also witnessed tennis in the 1990s ... so possibly in a much better position to compare players and eras than you are because you weren't even a twinkle in your Mama's eye in the 1970s.

So if anyone can be objective it is me. But you see nothing is more objective than Statistics, even more so significant statistics.

Laver has two GRAND SLAMS. Objective Fact!
The grass courts of the different Majors in the 1960s played a lot more differently than the HCs of today do. Objective Fact.

You can glorify the 1990s all you like. No male player achieved the GRAND SLAM in the 1990s. Objective Fact.

Ooooh look .... a small headed wooden racquet with Natural Gut strings. Have you every played with one of those? Modern equipment makes young players look like absolute titans. Put a small headed wooden racquet strung with natty gut in their hands and see how the go.

The skill sets were so different in the 60s and 70s. An elite player had to actually know how to play tennis. These days the sport is mostly about athleticism and movement. Make it to the ball, and most players will hit a decent return shot. Certainly not so in the "Olden Days".

BTW, here is some subjective talk .. if Laver had not turned Pro when he did, he probably would have won at least another 12 Majors, and likely to have won at least one more GRAND SLAM possibly two more. If that had happened, he would be untouchable now, if he isn't already. Who is going to match his feat in the future? Many say no one will, Greatest of All Time afaic.
 
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:
While they are not and would never demand Fed to play the Olympics, I guarantee Uniqlo expects it and Fed understand that if healthy it is essentially required. They pay him millions, so unless he is hurt, it is technically part of his job.

But this is not an issue as Fed does want to play regardless. While he will be satisfied with a doubles gold, of course he wants a singles one.

Who do you think wants or needs their missing title more? Rafa the WTF or Fed and djoker the gold?

I would lean to Fed and Djoker wanting gold more than Rafa wants the WTF, but I do think the WTF is more important or equal to gold as far as tennis legacy.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
While they are not and would never demand Fed to play the Olympics, I guarantee Uniqlo expects it and Fed understand that if healthy it is essentially required. They pay him millions, so unless he is hurt, it is technically part of his job.

But this is not an issue as Fed does want to play regardless. While he will be satisfied with a doubles gold, of course he wants a singles one.

Who do you think wants or needs their missing title more? Rafa the WTF or Fed and djoker the gold?

I would lean to Fed and Djoker wanting gold more than Rafa wants the WTF, but I do think the WTF is more important or equal to gold as far as tennis legacy.
I suspect Rafa may have accepted that the ATPF (since 2017 the new name for what used to be called the WTF) is probably always going to elude him. I agree in thinking Fed and Djoker still fancy their chances at the OSG which will very likely be Fed's last chance whilst Djoker will be determined to better his solitary bronze (won back in 2008) before he's done.
 

JasonZ

Semi-Pro
Nadal also has only two wimbledons. That is another reason i dont value him as high as i would normally value a player with 19 slams
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
Nadal also has only two wimbledons. That is another reason i dont value him as high as i would normally value a player with 19 slams
Nadal has made four Wimbledon Finals. The two Wimbledon titles that he won were against Federer, who many claim is the GOAT, and holds the record for the most Wimbledon Singles Titles. And Natural Grass is a very unfamiliar surface for Nadal who grew up playing on Red Clay.

Contrast Federer, 8 Wimbledon Titles from Twelve Finals. But 1 Roland Garros Title from five Finals. And no victory against Nadal at Roland Garros.

So on that basis Federer is in a worse situation than Nadal is.

It could be argued that achieving 12 Roland Garros Titles is a much tougher task than 8 Wimbledon Titles

But I guess it depends on whether you value Grass Court Tennis over Clay Court Tennis. That probably depends where you come from, or what surface you grew up playing on, or who your favourite Pro Tennis player was / is!
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
Nadal has made four Wimbledon Finals. The two Wimbledon titles that he won were against Federer, who many claim is the GOAT, and holds the record for the most Wimbledon Singles Titles. And Natural Grass is a very unfamiliar surface for Nadal who grew up playing on Red Clay.

Contrast Federer, 8 Wimbledon Titles from Twelve Finals. But 1 Roland Garros Title from five Finals. And no victory against Nadal at Roland Garros.

So on that basis Federer is in a worse situation than Nadal is.

It could be argued that achieving 12 Roland Garros Titles is a much tougher task than 8 Wimbledon Titles

But I guess it depends on whether you value Grass Court Tennis over Clay Court Tennis. That probably depends where you come from, or what surface you grew up playing on, or who your favourite Pro Tennis player was / is!
:oops:
 

RaulRamirez

Hall of Fame
While they are not and would never demand Fed to play the Olympics, I guarantee Uniqlo expects it and Fed understand that if healthy it is essentially required. They pay him millions, so unless he is hurt, it is technically part of his job.

But this is not an issue as Fed does want to play regardless. While he will be satisfied with a doubles gold, of course he wants a singles one.

Who do you think wants or needs their missing title more? Rafa the WTF or Fed and djoker the gold?

I would lean to Fed and Djoker wanting gold more than Rafa wants the WTF, but I do think the WTF is more important or equal to gold as far as tennis legacy.
Agree with all you posted. I would add this: By the time each of The Big 3 retire, none of their "resume holes" will be very significant. Obviously, no player is perfect, or should be held up as such
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
LOL. The benefit of having actually lived and witnessed tennis in the 1960s and 1970s means I also witnessed tennis in the 1990s ... so possibly in a much better position to compare players and eras than you are because you weren't even a twinkle in your Mama's eye in the 1970s.

So if anyone can be objective it is me. But you see nothing is more objective than Statistics, even more so significant statistics.

Laver has two GRAND SLAMS. Objective Fact!
The grass courts of the different Majors in the 1960s played a lot more differently than the HCs of today do. Objective Fact.

You can glorify the 1990s all you like. No male player achieved the GRAND SLAM in the 1990s. Objective Fact.

Ooooh look .... a small headed wooden racquet with Natural Gut strings. Have you every played with one of those? Modern equipment makes young players look like absolute titans. Put a small headed wooden racquet strung with natty gut in their hands and see how the go.

The skill sets were so different in the 60s and 70s. An elite player had to actually know how to play tennis. These days the sport is mostly about athleticism and movement. Make it to the ball, and most players will hit a decent return shot. Certainly not so in the "Olden Days".

BTW, here is some subjective talk .. if Laver had not turned Pro when he did, he probably would have won at least another 12 Majors, and likely to have won at least one more GRAND SLAM possibly two more. If that had happened, he would be untouchable now, if he isn't already. Who is going to match his feat in the future? Many say no one will, Greatest of All Time afaic.
OK, so you have just admitted that you consider yourself top expert of TTW on account of your advanced age...

That is foolish enough as it is.

I already told you that nostalgia isn't a guiding light, it is a subjective delusion that leads to bizarre conclusions. A 25 year-old kid could potentially out-argue you at anything, including tennis history. If age worked the way you believe it does then people wouldn't retire at 60-70 but would be making the most money at that age and would be in demand much more than 30somethings for example...
 

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
Laughable nonsense. Slams were always a big deal -apart from the Australian Open. No one ever considered McEnroe and Connors superior to Borg because they spent more weeks at Number One. No one cared.
It seems to me that Americans care less for Olympics. For Europeans it do means a huge deal, more than anything. We like to compete against each other and we have maybe more of this national kind of feeling. Rafa Novak and Federer wouldn’t compete in Olympics if it didn’t mean anything. I don’t think many Americans know how Europeans feels about this. Can’t relate to it. Such a huge country you are more into your own sports and compete against each other in your own country.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
It seems to me that Americans care less for Olympics. For Europeans it do means a huge deal, more than anything. We like to compete against each other and we have maybe more of this national kind of feeling. Rafa Novak and Federer wouldn’t compete in Olympics if it didn’t mean anything. I don’t think many Americans know how Europeans feels about this. Can’t relate to it. Such a huge country you are more into your own sports and compete against each other in your own country.
I could care less for the Olympics. I am a European.

To suggest that Americans aren't patriotic... Wow.
 

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
I could care less for the Olympics. I am a European.

To suggest that Americans aren't patriotic... Wow.
I lived in USA and Americans care less about Olympics than Europeans. If you come from a family interested in sports in Europe, the Olympics is a big happening. It’s all in the media, on state TVs. It’s a big difference. I guess since the Olympics started in Europe and just a part of our culture. It is an honour to win for your country and you go down in the history books as a hero.
I watched so much Olympics w my family, even summer Olympics where my people doesn’t do that well.
Same with World Cup football!
Americans got a different kind of patriotism. And it’s not like all Americans are patriots, so many of them don’t care.
 

Spencer Gore

Hall of Fame
P
I lived in USA and Americans care less about Olympics than Europeans. If you come from a family interested in sports in Europe, the Olympics is a big happening. It’s all in the media, on state TVs. It’s a big difference. I guess since the Olympics started in Europe and just a part of our culture. It is an honour to win for your country and you go down in the history books as a hero.
I watched so much Olympics w my family, even summer Olympics where my people doesn’t do that well.
Same with World Cup football!
Americans got a different kind of patriotism. And it’s not like all Americans are patriots, so many of them don’t care.
People in Europe may care about the Olympics. They doesn't mean they give a monkeys about tennis in the Olympics.
 

JasonZ

Semi-Pro
It seems to me that Americans care less for Olympics. For Europeans it do means a huge deal, more than anything. We like to compete against each other and we have maybe more of this national kind of feeling. Rafa Novak and Federer wouldn’t compete in Olympics if it didn’t mean anything. I don’t think many Americans know how Europeans feels about this. Can’t relate to it. Such a huge country you are more into your own sports and compete against each other in your own country.
Here in germany 99% of dont care about the olympics at all, actually they dont care about anything other than football.
 

norcal

Hall of Fame
P

People in Europe may care about the Olympics. They doesn't mean they give a monkeys about tennis in the Olympics.
I don't care about tennis or any other sport played by professionals in the Olympics. I hate they allow NBA players in, it makes it a joke and a mockery of amateur athletics. In tennis (to me) it's just another tournament with the pros. Has nothing to do with the big 3 (whom I all like), I would just rather see amateurs competing for Olympic gold. What's next, letting pro boxers compete (and why don't they?)? I love watching skiiers and track and field guys and gals I haven't heard of (for the most part) battle it out for glory. Watching Lebron dunk on some hapless dude from a third world country is pointless, as is tennis pros playing in another tourney (they already have Davis Cup for the whole national pride thing). Same with golf etc.
I guess I'm in the minority on this one.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
That's right because he didn't exactly win it all by himself, did he? There were 11 other players who also had a share. :cool:
You didn't know I was being sarcastic?:unsure:

This is where you are wrong. Every athlete who participate at the the Olympic games deserve full credit and honor for winning a Gold Medal. An accomplishment in the Olympic games including tennis are valued differently, and has nothing to do with ATP/ITF on the pro tour, so it's a mistake to judge them in the same matter.

As for basketball in the Olympic, there's no different from any other event. Lebron James GM has equal value to Andy Murray GM, according to National Olympic Committee.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
You didn't know I was being sarcastic?:unsure:

This is where you are wrong. Every athlete who participate at the the Olympic games deserve full credit and honor for winning a Gold Medal. An accomplishment in the Olympic games including tennis are valued differently, and has nothing to do with ATP/ITF on the pro tour, so it's a mistake to judge them in the same matter.

As for basketball in the Olympic, there's no different from any other event. Lebron James GM has equal value to Andy Murray GM, according to National Olympic Committee.
Don't anything about Lebron James. Did he win a team medal? If so, he contributed towards winning a gold medal for his country along with the rest of the team. What Murray, Nadal and Agassi did was win one all by themselves. Nobody else helped them to win it.

Federer knows this very well which is why he aims to have one last stab at winning the OSG. You know this very well too.
 

Apun94

Hall of Fame
I would have Olympics on same level as masters so would compare it to Fed missing MC, Nadal missing Miami etc. It’s too random (4 years) and played on different surfaces for it to be a proper hole in the CV.
You have got to be kidding me. In what universe can you possibly put the OG to a Masters win??
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
OK, so you have just admitted that you consider yourself top expert of TTW on account of your advanced age...
What? I don't know wbere you get that idea? Unless you are being "Ageist" which seems to be becoming more prevalent these days.

I'm simply pointing out that "I was there" and you weren't. Also pointing out that Statistics back up what I have witnessed first hand. You might be surprised to know that watching 50 year old videos on youtube don't always convey what was really happening back then.

Oh and another thing. I wish you a long and healthy life so in your elderly years you get to experience what it feels like to hear a 25yo tell you with certainty that he knows a lot more about the early 2000s than you do.

Cheers :)
 
Last edited:

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
Don't anything about Lebron James. Did he win a team medal? If so, he contributed towards winning a gold medal for his country along with the rest of the team. What Murray, Nadal and Agassi did was win one all by themselves. Nobody else helped them to win it.

Federer knows this very well which is why he aims to have one last stab at winning the OSG. You know this very well too.
Team competitions have a completely different purpose and application compared to individual competitions, but your thoughts on who plays what role is misinformed. In a team the role a player plays is unique and contributes in such a way to the team effort and result. One can say that the individual parts of the effort are as crucial to the team success as those of a single athlete in a singles competition.

If we take Phelps, who, most people following sports would agree is one of the most successful individual olympians of all time, and look into some of his performances in team competitions, what will immediately become clear is that some of his performances for his team were not at the height of his individual performances. The reason is that in team competition the dynamic of cooperating with your teammates and the psychological struggle against the other team require different skillset. Yet, Phepls's tally is not praised (or distinguished) as singles and team tally, nor will you meet someone that will tell you that his team gold medals are less valuable. That is so because the application of his skillset in the team effort is considered unique and irreplaceable (there can be only one reality where a team applied itself in a final to win Olympic gold). This phenomena is even more apparent in team competitions, where different skillsets can hugely influence the outcomes like for example biathlon, where shooting after skiing of a single competitor sometimes determines the outcome for the entire team. Indeed, there are some legendary runs where the psychological strength of the single member of the team is pitched against a particular weakness of the opposite team/s allowing for making up for huge differences. The dynamic is completely different.

:cool:
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Team competitions have a completely different purpose and application compared to individual competitions, but your thoughts on who plays what role is misinformed. In a team the role a player plays is unique and contributes in such a way to the team effort and result. One can say that the individual parts of the effort are as crucial to the team success as those of a single athlete in a singles competition.

If we take Phelps, who, most people following sports would agree is one of the most successful individual olympians of all time, and look into some of his performances in team competitions, what will immediately become clear is that some of his performances for his team were not at the height of his individual performances. The reason is that in team competition the dynamic of cooperating with your teammates and the psychological struggle against the other team require different skillset. Yet, Phepls's tally is not praised (or distinguished) as singles and team tally, nor will you meet someone that will tell you that his team gold medals are less valuable. That is so because the application of his skillset in the team effort is considered unique and irreplaceable (there can be only one reality where a team applied itself in a final to win Olympic gold). This phenomena is even more apparent in team competitions, where different skillsets can hugely influence the outcomes like for example biathlon, where shooting after skiing of a single competitor sometimes determines the outcome for the entire team. Indeed, there are some legendary runs where the psychological strength of the single member of the team is pitched against a particular weakness of the opposite team/s allowing for making up for huge differences. The dynamic is completely different.

:cool:
Where a team is concerned, the International Olympic Committee counts their win as ONE despite handng out medals to each team member. That's because team members are only PART of a whole. Single champions are entirely the whole just by themselves. Federer's gold medal is not the equivalent of Nadal's or Murray's. Federer AND Wawrinka's gold medal is the equivalent.
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
Where a team is concerned, the International Olympic Committee counts their win as ONE despite handng out medals to each team member. That's because team members are only PART of a whole. Single champions are entirely the whole just by themselves. Federer's gold medal is not the equivalent of Nadal's or Murray's. Federer AND Wawrinka's gold medal is the equivalent.
I explained to you the difference between these two efforts the best I could, so, if you are hellbent on repeating the same thing there isn't much that can be done. It makes no difference to me.

:cool:
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
Where a team is concerned, the International Olympic Committee counts their win as ONE despite handng out medals to each team member. That's because team members are only PART of a whole. Single champions are entirely the whole just by themselves. Federer's gold medal is not the equivalent of Nadal's or Murray's. Federer AND Wawrinka's gold medal is the equivalent.
Regardless of that, Fed has 1 gold medal and 1 silver. His gold isn’t worth less than a singles win.

The argument is over how important the Olympics singles tournament is for tennis legacy.. I argue not very, since it’s so random.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Professional
I don't care about tennis or any other sport played by professionals in the Olympics. I hate they allow NBA players in, it makes it a joke and a mockery of amateur athletics. In tennis (to me) it's just another tournament with the pros. Has nothing to do with the big 3 (whom I all like), I would just rather see amateurs competing for Olympic gold. What's next, letting pro boxers compete (and why don't they?)? I love watching skiiers and track and field guys and gals I haven't heard of (for the most part) battle it out for glory. Watching Lebron dunk on some hapless dude from a third world country is pointless, as is tennis pros playing in another tourney (they already have Davis Cup for the whole national pride thing). Same with golf etc.
I guess I'm in the minority on this one.
You do understand that the track and field guys competing are not exactly amateurs either?
 

BorgTheGOAT

Professional
No it's not, because h2h doesn't count in titles, you just made that up. And even in MMA it doesn't count. We could argue Diaz won 2-0 vs Conor, but nobody will say Diaz is on Conor's level. I remember Chael Sonnen almost beating Silva and nobody is saying he is close to his level. So not even in your stupid MMA logic, this doesn't work. And Khabib is like Nadal, he dominates one "surface", but he is not considered the goat, because GSP defended multiple titles across different divisions.

So, if you want to use MMA logic, fine, but even under this logic GSP is still considered the goat even when Khabib is undefeated. Tell, me, if you want to use MMA h2h logic, then also use that you need to DEFEND TITLES!
MMA H2Hs typically do not have big enough sample sizes and upsets van happen way easier. One lucky punch, one careless second and all can be over. MMA fans/experts know this and it is factored in for GOAT debates. Take however boxing for an example. Imagine Ali would have lost the other two fights against Frazier as well being 0-3 in H2H. He would still be a three times World champion (he never won the title from Frazier) so his “success against the field” would be the same. I can however hardly imagine that anyone would call him GOAT if another ATG during his prime dominated him like this.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
I explained to you the difference between these two efforts the best I could, so, if you are hellbent on repeating the same thing there isn't much that can be done. It makes no difference to me.

:cool:
And I explained to you the difference between a singles winner and a team winner which is relevant even by Olympic standards. If you can't accept it there is nothing more I can say either.
 

Xemi666

Professional
I lived in USA and Americans care less about Olympics than Europeans.
Do you have tv ratings in major european countries like Germany, UK or France so we can compare with the USA?

World Cup is the biggest sporting event in Europe (and the world of course), the Olympics isn't even comparable.
 

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
Do you have tv ratings in major european countries like Germany, UK or France so we can compare with the USA?

World Cup is the biggest sporting event in Europe (and the world of course), the Olympics isn't even comparable.
It is differences in Europe too. Up here winter olympics last time was the most viewed ever. Then summer olympics, then WC. That i know. I have enough living experience from Europe andUSA to form a valuable opinion about this.
Of course fotball most popular, but Olympics has sometimes gotten more viewers overall too.
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
And I explained to you the difference between a singles winner and a team winner which is relevant even by Olympic standards. If you can't accept it there is nothing more I can say either.
You explained what the IOC does, and even then couldn't explain why they give two medals. You didn't explain why a player is deserving of as you put it "half a medal". The truth is that you don't even understand that OG is a nations competition, that is why in "counting" medals they award the achievement to the country, irrespective of who the athlete is/how many of them are. That is why they give medals for all who participate in the competition and won 1-3rd place, but count it as one.

:cool:
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Historically indoor tennis has been a major part of the sport, so IMO it absolutely matters that Nadal has been relatively poor (compared to other ATG's) in those conditions - especially in terms of being the Greatest of All-Time. I don't think it totally precludes him from one day being the GOAT but it matters especially in cross-era comparisons.
 

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
Historically indoor tennis has been a major part of the sport, so IMO it absolutely matters that Nadal has been relatively poor (compared to other ATG's) in those conditions - especially in terms of being the Greatest of All-Time. I don't think it totally precludes him from one day being the GOAT but it matters especially in cross-era comparisons.
Indoor tennis has never been a major part of the sport. Never a major indoors even.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Indoor tennis has never been a major part of the sport. Never a major indoors even.
It has done. The pre-open era pro's played mostly indoors and the for a while the precursor to the current ATP finals was basically the most well paid event in the sport and clearly more prestigious then the likes of the AO. So yes, indoor tennis has a long tradition in tennis.
 

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
It has done. The pre-open era pro's played mostly indoors and the for a while the precursor to the current ATP finals was basically the most well paid event in the sport and clearly more prestigious then the likes of the AO. So yes, indoor tennis has a long tradition in tennis.
You can’t say that! It’s been slams outdoor for ages now! Very few indoor tournaments. Pre open era got nothing to do w this. It was a different sport back then.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
You can’t say that! It’s been slams outdoor for ages now! Very few indoor tournaments. Pre open era got nothing to do w this. It was a different sport back then.
GOAT means the greatest of all-time. I'm not about to ignore half of the sports history, not to mention up until the mid 80's the YEC was still arguably the 4th biggest event in tennis - that was before I was born but it wasn't that long ago. I don't like this different sport shtick so many say these days, I prefer to give past champions their due. I've seen you talk about Borg in the past very positively, well a lot of his success came indoors - he barely played the AO (just once) but the YEC in his day was a huge event and it's to his credit that he won there. Stuff like this adds context to the major counts of many past players.

It's not like I'm saying Nadal needs to be a God indoors or anything to be GOAT, but if we're talking about the greatest out of everyone to ever play the game marginalising what was an important condition for some of the greatest ever players just comes across as ignorant. If in 50 years global warming has driven tennis mostly indoors I'll be defending Nadal, telling them younglings that in his day indoor tennis wasn't as prolific as now - it goes two ways.
 

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
GOAT means the greatest of all-time. I'm not about to ignore half of the sports history, not to mention up until the mid 80's the YEC was still arguably the 4th biggest event in tennis - that was before I was born but it wasn't that long ago. I don't like this different sport shtick so many say these days, I prefer to give past champions their due. I've seen you talk about Borg in the past very positively, well a lot of his success came indoors - he barely played the AO (just once) but the YEC in his day was a huge event and it's to his credit that he won there. Stuff like this adds context to the major counts of many past players.

It's not like I'm saying Nadal needs to be a God indoors or anything to be GOAT, but if we're talking about the greatest out of everyone to ever play the game marginalising what was an important condition for some of the greatest ever players just comes across as ignorant. If in 50 years global warming has driven tennis mostly indoors I'll be defending Nadal, telling them younglings that in his day indoor tennis wasn't as prolific as now - it goes two ways.
The tour for years have been played for the major part of the year outdoors, tennis is by far played outdoors. Indoors major part of the sport as you first said.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Who the f care for pre open era now? The traditions back then?
If you do it’s up to you and @NatF. ATP don’t.
Well if you care so much about what the ATP think they certainly care about their tour finals, they award the winner up to 1500 pts...

Its honestly ridiculous to me that anyone would say who cares about pre open tennis, without those guys who knows where we'd be today. I figured you'd have a bit more respect but I guess you don't give an f about anything that doesn't favour Rafa :unsure:
 

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
Well if you care so much about what the ATP think they certainly care about their tour finals, they award the winner up to 1500 pts...

Its honestly ridiculous to me that anyone would say who cares about pre open tennis, without those guys who knows where we'd be today. I figured you'd have a bit more respect but I guess you don't give an f about anything that doesn't favour Rafa :unsure:
It’s still not a major part of the sport, w one big tournament indoors. If you say major part of the sport it is 51% and up.

it has never been a slam indoors, not pre open era also.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
It’s still not a major part of the sport, w one big tournament indoors. If you say major part of the sport it is 51% and up.

it has never been a slam indoors, not pre open era also.
So clay isn't a major part of the sport?

There have been major events indoors, like I said the WCT Finals in the 70's were at least the 4th biggest events of the year.

Pre-open era on the pro tour the biggest event of the year was held at Wembley indoors.
 

Xemi666

Professional
There is no "indoors" surface. The surface is hardcourt. Nadal has already won 5 HC slams, he doesn't need to prove anything on a non-slam HC event. Does clay become a different surface if it is played indoors? Ridiculous.
 

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
So clay isn't a major part of the sport?

There have been major events indoors, like I said the WCT Finals in the 70's were at least the 4th biggest events of the year.

Pre-open era on the pro tour the biggest event of the year was held at Wembley indoors.
What has the 70s to do with how Rafa performs now?
Nothing.
 
Top