Originally Posted by serveandvolley80
Why is Johsnddon's accomplishment diminished just because he did not become a big name or consistent top player? The fact is he still has a slam.
So by contrast, would you rather pick a consistent player like Henman? Over a guy that got the big trophy.
His accomplishment isn't diminished. It's just a fact that the slams are not the be all, end all. Some very ordinary players have won slams. Far too much emphasis is put on them. I made light of that fact when I pointed out that Del Potro had yet to win one of the 9 real
majors (The MS events). It was a joke, but the reality is that majors are only different in terms of their scope. It's the same sport with a bigger draw and longer matches. Does it mean anything that Del Potro found it easier to win a major than he did to win a Masters Series title? We attach far too much importance to the majors. I'm surprised anyone on MTF watches the other tournaments, since the majority seem to think they are insignificant.
As for your question, I do feel Tim had a better career than Johansson. Slam or no slam, Henman is generally thought of as the better player.