Gaudio had a good career. But he was a disaster at the slams, except for that RG.
True. But some people like to act as if he was only a good player during those two weeks to make his Slam a fluke. So what if he only put it together at a Slam once? It still beats never being able to do it. And he didn't exactly have an easy draw, well on the contrary; he didn't have to face Fed and Nadal like Delpo for his Slam, but still quite a tough draw.
Originally Posted by Wing Man Frank
Another stupid and pointless reply.
A grand slam win is a grand slam win. Why does it matter if it was in 2004 when they weren't around?
I'll try again:
Is Gaudio a better player than Berdych, Tsonga and Soderling?
Yes or no.
P.S. Federer won the Aus Open, Wimbledon and the US Open in the same year that Gaudio won the French.
You know who Roger Federer is, right?
I'll assume you're trolling out of good faith in your intelligence but I'll still bite and try to explain in the clearest way possible. A Grand Slam in 2004 didn't have the same field as a Grand Slam in 2013 or even close: the obstacles a player in 2004 had to overcome to reach Slam finals or winning Slams are entirely different than the ones now. The simple fact that Gaudio won a Slam and Tsonga didn't tells us nothing about the level of tennis they played/were capable of since the field they were up against was completely different.
The same does not apply to Ferrer, Berdych and Tsonga, who all had/have to overcome the same obstacles en route to deep Slams runs/big titles. Who did Ferrer lose to in his Slam semis? Nadal, Djokovic... Who did Tsonga and Berdych overcome to reach their finals? Those two. The rest of the top contenders are also the same, so if one players does better than the others in reaching final/winning events/beating the very top players since we're talking about second tier players here, we can accurately conclude that he is better.