Was Federer's loss bigger loss for Olympic tennis event? Please, be serious [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Was Federer's loss bigger loss for Olympic tennis event? Please, be serious

August
08-05-2012, 03:56 PM
Olympic gold isn't too important in tennis. That's because tennis was re-introduced in OG not before 1988. And you can see that also from the winner list, Rafa and Agassi are the only truly great players to have win singles gold, whereas e.g. Roger didn't manage to win it, Sampras didn't care, and Borg and Laver didn't have a chance. Had Roger win that gold medal, two 2000s best players, Roger and Rafa, would've been singles Olympic champions, and that would've increased the prestige of OG. But now, it may remain as an event nobody prepares especially for, USO some weeks later is more important.

And Roger can say this loss wasn't a big deal, it's not serious if you don't win once-in-four-years event.

IOFH
08-05-2012, 04:00 PM
No, everyone knows Olympics is the 6th most important tournament in tennis. :shrug:

tripwires
08-05-2012, 04:01 PM
I don't understand the question. I'm being serious here.

rinnegan
08-05-2012, 04:02 PM
I don't understand the question. I'm being serious here.

OP thinks that Gramps not winning gold degrades the tournament.

hadouken!
08-05-2012, 04:05 PM
Federer wanted this singles gold. It would have meant a lot to him.

"It's big," he said of the moment, while fighting off tears, "it's big."

http://lacrossetribune.com/sports/olympics/juan-martin-del-potro-broke-down-on-roger-federer-s/article_cff0fff7-86d9-5d46-8065-cbe01396219e.html

branimir_iliev
08-05-2012, 04:07 PM
Quite simply, no. This is not a slam. Doesn't play like a slam, doesn't feel like a slam. Apples and oranges.
I'm not saying Andy won't win a slam but Fed's focus, intensity and hunger weren't quite there today. And, if I were to go out on a limb, I do think Murray will win a slam. But with Fed, you could plainly see that his body language and facial expressions betrayed what I suspected all along, which was that he was too relieved after that semi and just okay with being there but not pushing as much for this as Murray.

branimir_iliev
08-05-2012, 04:07 PM
No, everyone knows Olympics is the 6th most important tournament in tennis. :shrug:

I think you're being sarcastic (I hope) but, no. :)

Johnny Groove
08-05-2012, 04:09 PM
I don't think so.

It is more about how the players feel about the event. Everyone know Fed was gunning for this since 08 basically, and just look at what it meant to Murray winning this, also Del Potro winning the bronze.

The Olympics will only gain in prestige in the coming years.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
08-05-2012, 04:09 PM
raise OG points to 1500
make every match 5 setter

750 points seems like a joke

Looner
08-05-2012, 04:09 PM
:confused:

nastoff
08-05-2012, 04:11 PM
Federer himself didn't seem to care that much about the loss so why would you.

Aloevera
08-05-2012, 04:17 PM
I'm not sure if I understand the question, but Federer's loss is NOT a loss for OG. In fact, it shows that not even Federer can win a gold medal in singles category.

Whether it's bigger loss for Federer himself, again I'm not sure if I understand what it means, but... he had a gold medal already in doubles event.

For someone with lofty standard and legendary status like him, anything less than gold is disappointment but still, any medal in any event counts in Olympic since you're not only playing for your own glory.

IOFH
08-05-2012, 04:29 PM
I think you're being sarcastic (I hope) but, no. :)

Slams, WTF and then this. :shrug:

tennis_analyst
08-05-2012, 04:35 PM
I personally rank Olympics very highly, right after the four slams. That is, if you have none of these titles (as Murray didn't), you would rather win a slam, then the Olympics, then everythig else.

But for Federer, this was one significant title missing for his collection. I would trade his Wimbledon for this one, so I am so disappointed with his loss today.

I hope Rio 2016 is on hardcourts and Federer can prepare specifically for that event and not play too much before the Olympics.

tripwires
08-05-2012, 05:05 PM
I'm not sure if I understand the question, but Federer's loss is NOT a loss for OG. In fact, it shows that not even Federer can win a gold medal in singles category.

"not even" Federer? Interesting how you implied that this tournament is so hard to win when players who have never won a slam have won it in the past, and a player who has never won a slam has just won it.

The Olympic medals are amazing achievements in and of themselves, but not so much in terms of a tennis player's resume.


Sent from my iPhone using VS Free

Aloevera
08-05-2012, 05:09 PM
I personally rank Olympics very highly, right after the four slams. That is, if you have none of these titles (as Murray didn't), you would rather win a slam, then the Olympics, then everythig else.

But for Federer, this was one significant title missing for his collection. I would trade his Wimbledon for this one, so I am so disappointed with his loss today.

I hope Rio 2016 is on hardcourts and Federer can prepare specifically for that event and not play too much before the Olympics.

No way. If I were him, I would never think about that. Not sure if I would even imagine to swap my gold medal in doubles for singles gold here.

Olympics is indeed special in its own way even without ranking points. There, any medal in any category counts just the same, because you're playing for national pride also. Federer is not known to be doubles specialist, but he took that gold medal in Beijing 2008 against Bryan Bros and Paes/Bhupathi, it's a great achievement and I would definitely treasure it.

I'm disappointed after such a big loss today, but it's crazy to swap a grand slam with Olympic Gold Medal. A very bad deal.

About Rio, I feel it's more possible to happen that he might reach Hingis again to consider playing mixed doubles there. :angel: But I'm not sure if this is realistic... I would like to see them playing together :) :lol: He might even skip singles to play mens doubles also.

Remember, any category counts and is equally important.

spencercarlos
08-05-2012, 09:06 PM
I personally rank Olympics very highly, right after the four slams. That is, if you have none of these titles (as Murray didn't), you would rather win a slam, then the Olympics, then everythig else.

But for Federer, this was one significant title missing for his collection. I would trade his Wimbledon for this one, so I am so disappointed with his loss today.

I hope Rio 2016 is on hardcourts and Federer can prepare specifically for that event and not play too much before the Olympics.
Not at all, imagine the inverse scenario. Federer would be standing at 16 slams still, not getting the number one ranking, still trailing Sampras in the # of Titles at Wimbledon trading Wimbledon with the Olimpics results.

Federer would be still slamless this year no less, sure the Olimpic gold is great, and they were great in 2008 doubles when he won, but it was winning an important event like the Usopen that really showed he was still there, the OG will never be up to the par to the Slams, and not even to the Masters Cup.

Federer got his medal in singles (already gold in doubles), but said that he was already exhausted mentally after the Del Potro match, it was just simply enough for him. I am sure he is pleased with the outcome.

Lleyton_
08-05-2012, 09:17 PM
I personally rank Olympics very highly, right after the four slams. That is, if you have none of these titles (as Murray didn't), you would rather win a slam, then the Olympics, then everythig else.

But for Federer, this was one significant title missing for his collection. I would trade his Wimbledon for this one, so I am so disappointed with his loss today.

I hope Rio 2016 is on hardcourts and Federer can prepare specifically for that event and not play too much before the Olympics.

Trading his Wimbledon (hence the no.1 record), are you fucking crazy?

SheepleBuster
08-05-2012, 09:18 PM
Olympics is shit! It is a masters event that no one cares about. These people have to pretend they care about it. They cry here or there because let's face it, if you don't support your country, you become a villain.

PiggyGotRoasted
08-05-2012, 09:39 PM
Olympics is a glorified masters level event to me, its important in the fact a gold medal really matters to you and your country but in tennis its just not important in the grant scheme of things. I dont think it should be worth any atp ranking points either.

swisht4u
08-05-2012, 09:47 PM
This olympics was much more dramatic than any before IMO.

I'm sure Fed wanted this one badly, but he's been playing so much and going deep for about a year.
It was just too much physically and mentally, the whole house came crashing down on him today.
There was just nothing left, and Murray played a very motivated match.

Mjau!
08-05-2012, 10:28 PM
Yes, Murray is an awful ambassador for the sport because he whines about out-of-competition drug testing and called Odesnik a 'snitch' for allegedly giving 'substantial assistance' to anti-doping authorities.

Bad manners too!

SheepleBuster
08-05-2012, 10:30 PM
Yes, Murray is an awful ambassador for the sport because he whines about out-of-competition drug testing and called Odesnik a 'snitch' for allegedly giving 'substantial assistance' to anti-doping authorities.

Bad manners too!

Don't worry. Olympics means nothing. Murray won the only thing he could possibly win. He is not going to win anything but masters. That's what he is. A masters specialist. If this event was 3 out of 5 from the get go, Murray would not win it.

xargon
08-05-2012, 11:26 PM
Don't worry. Olympics means nothing. Murray won the only thing he could possibly win. He is not going to win anything but masters. That's what he is. A masters specialist. If this event was 3 out of 5 from the get go, Murray would not win it.

Yes, my thoughts exactly. This was bo3 and Murray has shown he can win those against Fed but as we all saw at WIM, bo5 is a different animal, hence, Murray's 0-4.

It's a nice ornament to keep in your trophy case and to celebrate but just having that and no GS is a no-brainer for tennis players.
Mecir, Dementieva, Rosset, Massu all have that one OG.

I consider Olympics to be like Davis Cup, just nice to have.
YEC is much more important IMHO.

xargon
08-05-2012, 11:31 PM
Yes, Murray is an awful ambassador for the sport because he whines about out-of-competition drug testing and called Odesnik a 'snitch' for allegedly giving 'substantial assistance' to anti-doping authorities.

Bad manners too!

Here is the exact quote by Murray on PED's snitchers:
"You want to make sure that people who are fined and suspended aren't let off because they are telling on other players," the Times quoted Andy Murray, the No. 1-ranked player from Great Britain as saying. "That is snitching."

stewietennis
08-05-2012, 11:42 PM
But for Federer, this was one significant title missing for his collection. I would trade his Wimbledon for this one, so I am so disappointed with his loss today.

No, IMHO, Federer wouldn't trade his most recent Wimbledon for an Olympic singles gold. Firstly, Wimbledon is a more prestigious title in tennis. Secondly, it offers more points. Thirdly, his most recent Wimbledon tied him with most ever. Yes, the singles gold is the only significant title missing from his collection but Federer knows the importance of his most recent Wimbledon title; and it's most historic than that of an Olympic gold.

branimir_iliev
08-06-2012, 12:01 AM
They cry here or there because let's face it, if you don't support your country, you become a villain.

This part especially. We're social creatures by nature (evolutionary biology). If you don't profess to love your fellow primates, you must be some kind of abomination. The Olympics have become simply the peaceful expression of tribalism and nationalism. They vaguely resemble the classical Olympics in ancient Greece in that sports and athletics become the safer conduit for the more sordid urges of city-states, which are namely xenophobia, greed and aggression. There were artistic events too of course, not just javelins and wrestling (simulations of certain wartime skills) and so forth but it was all a rehearsal for their repressed wartime fantasies and hostile feelings toward one another. Which is fine, I guess better that than actual bloodshed. But let's not talk about the Olympics as if it's about the big, happy brotherhood of man. It is about tribal competition, sectarianism, the symbolic yet safer expression of more sinister, darker impulses in man.

Now do we expect these athletes to say something other than how much they love the Motherland and still keep their public image intact? It would be suicide to do otherwise. So of course they'll wax poetically about how much they love their nations, with what zeal they are pursuing these games on behalf of the Fatherland, etc, this is all expected from the rest of the herd. But let's not be naive about their words...

jrm
08-06-2012, 12:03 AM
i'm beginning to wonder how Federer achieved so much, in last two years he has become such a passive player (or maybe others are more aggressive) :shrug:

MuzzahLovah
08-06-2012, 12:05 AM
Fed tards are so bitter they are a joke. Fed himself has said many times how important the Olympics are to him.

Looner
08-06-2012, 12:07 AM
Fed tards are so bitter they are a joke. Fed himself has said many times how important the Olympics are to him.

You are so uniformed, it's sad. Fed also said he overhyped the event today. So, there.

star
08-06-2012, 01:01 AM
Olympics is a glorified masters level event to me, its important in the fact a gold medal really matters to you and your country but in tennis its just not important in the grant scheme of things. I dont think it should be worth any atp ranking points either.

In the “grand scheme of things” nothing in tennis is important.

Matt01
08-06-2012, 02:29 AM
Fed tards are so bitter they are a joke. Fed himself has said many times how important the Olympics are to him.


Please. He lost so he either must have been injured or didn't care. :rolleyes:

BigJohn
08-06-2012, 02:37 AM
Please. He lost so he either must have been injured or didn't care. :rolleyes:

Hum...

Rafa was injured: go to excuse #1 for Rafatards

Nole did not really care: go to excuse #1 for Noletards to explain losses from the now deceased Nole 2.0.

How do you spell projection again?

LinkMage
08-06-2012, 02:41 AM
The one who said he would trade Wimbledon for Olympic Gold :facepalm:

rocketassist
08-06-2012, 02:48 AM
Yes, Murray is an awful ambassador for the sport because he whines about out-of-competition drug testing and called Odesnik a 'snitch' for allegedly giving 'substantial assistance' to anti-doping authorities.

Bad manners too!

Odrugsnik is a fucking grass. Would you grass your mates up?

spencercarlos
08-06-2012, 03:23 AM
Please. He lost so he either must have been injured or didn't care. :rolleyes:
What a troll you have become Matt :sad:.. still love you :worship:

That being said you should be more worried about Djokovic, 2011 Wimbledon Champion losing twice and getting no medals to Murray and Del Potro.. :devil:

:wavey:

The Prince
08-06-2012, 03:29 AM
Roger's loss is not the Olympic's loss.

The fact that Roger fought so hard to get to the final, and was very emotional about only getting silver, is the Olympic's gain.

EDIT: Just to clarify, the Olympic event gains from Roger and everyone else taking it seriously.

Cousin Oliver
08-06-2012, 03:33 AM
Olympics are great but the truth is there is nothing they can do to make it more important than it is now. It will never be as big of a deal as the majors.

Also I think in some ways Murray winning was better for tennis in general and the Olympics than Federer winning. Federer didn't really need the gold metal to prove anything, Murray did. He needed this to perhaps help him get over the hump at the majors and it was in London at Wimbledon. If he goes on to finally win Wimbledon in the next two years we will look back on this as a huge step toward that.

ssj100
08-06-2012, 08:41 AM
I think there are a couple of facts that make Olympic tennis a bit of a joke:
1. Federer has won Gold in the Doubles, but has never won a Doubles Grand Slam.
2. Murray (sure, he still can win a Grand Slam), and many other Olympic Singles Gold medallists has won Gold in the Singles, but has never won a Singles Grand Slam.

Surely that sums up the lack of prestige of Olympic tennis Gold in pure tennis terms? Perhaps in another 50-100 years, when there is more history created in tennis, the lack of the Gold medal in a tennis player's resume will be more significant. However, in most of our lifetimes', I don't see the Olympic tennis Gold medal as a significant title for a specific player, in pure tennis terms. Sure, it is a significant achievement for the player AND their country. But it doesn't make them a standout tennis player. Not right now anyway.

DemiCrayanhan
08-06-2012, 08:48 AM
peeps 8m americans watched serena win gold - i'm guessing andy trippled that number in GB...this is all good for our sport.

read/watch what fed says after his loss - you can tell he cares and is so proud with his silver. look at both delpo and fed after that semi. damn.

none of that changes the fact that olympics will never be the pinnacle of achievement for tennis players. grass was fun while it lasted. let's just move on to USO, shall we?

paseo
08-06-2012, 08:49 AM
No.

ssj100
08-06-2012, 08:51 AM
Add to that - I don't think Federer has even made the quarter-finals of a Doubles Grand Slam. In fact, when was the last time he actually played doubles in a Grand Slam or in a non-Davis cup tournament? He managed to win the doubles Gold (which some seem to think is at least nearly as important as a Grand Slam), and yet rarely plays doubles?

TennisGrandSlam
08-06-2012, 09:08 AM
After Li Na had won Chinese first-ever Grand Slam Women's Singles title in French Open 2011, Li Yong Bo (Chinese badminton team head coach) said that French Open is JUST a ordinary tournament, it is NOT World Championship. Li Na MUST prove herself by winning Olympic Games. :devil: :devil:

TennisGrandSlam
08-06-2012, 09:10 AM
I think there are a couple of facts that make Olympic tennis a bit of a joke:
1. Federer has won Gold in the Doubles, but has never won a Doubles Grand Slam.
2. Murray (sure, he still can win a Grand Slam), and many other Olympic Singles Gold medallists has won Gold in the Singles, but has never won a Singles Grand Slam.

Surely that sums up the lack of prestige of Olympic tennis Gold in pure tennis terms? Perhaps in another 50-100 years, when there is more history created in tennis, the lack of the Gold medal in a tennis player's resume will be more significant. However, in most of our lifetimes', I don't see the Olympic tennis Gold medal as a significant title for a specific player, in pure tennis terms. Sure, it is a significant achievement for the player AND their country. But it doesn't make them a standout tennis player. Not right now anyway.

Federer is a Silver Grand Slam (Singles) and Olympic Gold (Doubles) player :devil:

TennisGrandSlam
08-06-2012, 09:12 AM
The one who said he would trade Wimbledon for Olympic Gold :facepalm:

Olympic Games happens once for four years.

Grand Slam happens four times for a year.

In some idoit fans claims, 1 Olympic Games = 16 Grand Slam :eek:

decrepitude
08-06-2012, 10:40 AM
Yes, Murray is an awful ambassador for the sport because he whines about out-of-competition drug testing and called Odesnik a 'snitch' for allegedly giving 'substantial assistance' to anti-doping authorities.

Bad manners too!

A downright lie. Murray should sue you for libel. He said players should not be let off for giving information, a quite different thing.

tennis_analyst
08-06-2012, 10:41 AM
Olympic Games happens once for four years.

Grand Slam happens four times for a year.

In some idoit fans claims, 1 Olympic Games = 16 Grand Slam :eek:

I didn't say that I wanted Olympic gold for Fed because Olympics is a rare event
I said that this was the only significant title missing from Roger's resume, whereas he had 6 Wimbledons already

AntiTennis
08-06-2012, 10:46 AM
I personally rank Olympics very highly, right after the four slams. That is, if you have none of these titles (as Murray didn't), you would rather win a slam, then the Olympics, then everythig else.

But for Federer, this was one significant title missing for his collection. I would trade his Wimbledon for this one, so I am so disappointed with his loss today.

I hope Rio 2016 is on hardcourts and Federer can prepare specifically for that event and not play too much before the Olympics.
wtf :stupid:?? I would never trade that epic Wimbledon! it was just so special and great, you are crazy! I think Murray would prefer had lost today and won that Wimby against Rog.

Aloevera
08-06-2012, 11:41 AM
After Li Na had won Chinese first-ever Grand Slam Women's Singles title in French Open 2011, Li Yong Bo (Chinese badminton team head coach) said that French Open is JUST a ordinary tournament, it is NOT World Championship. Li Na MUST prove herself by winning Olympic Games. :devil: :devil:

It's just thoughtless, baseless word to boast his authority and prestige of the sport he manages. I don't know why the head coach of badminton would feel insecure all of sudden? What's with the politics of sports officials there? The reality is, badminton is like unwanted child in the Olympic house which can be kicked out anytime.

I heard in 2008 that badminton was planned to be excluded in 2012 because it's one of the least popular sports in OG (though Bill Gates paid a visit to watch it). It's third from the bottom list, I forgot the other two.

Now with badminton match fixing scandal in London 2012, I think the issue might be discussed again. Those athletes did great to sweep all the gold medals, but it's just to save the face of that head coach in front of Chinese people. Not sure if it can bail the sport out of the punishment from IOC.

scoobs
08-06-2012, 12:22 PM
Yes, Murray is an awful ambassador for the sport because he whines about out-of-competition drug testing and called Odesnik a 'snitch' for allegedly giving 'substantial assistance' to anti-doping authorities.

Bad manners too!

Nicely twisting the import of what he said there. Congratulations.

He said that cooperating with authorities shouldn't lead to a lighter punishment, or being allowed back and given a brief to watch and report back on other players.

dencod16
08-06-2012, 12:24 PM
Olympics is shit! It is a masters event that no one cares about. These people have to pretend they care about it. They cry here or there because let's face it, if you don't support your country, you become a villain.

I don't think people viewed Fish unpatriotic. Players care about it as much as slams, the fact that people show their emotions by just reaching the final and by just winning bronze says a lot about the event.

dencod16
08-06-2012, 12:29 PM
I think there are a couple of facts that make Olympic tennis a bit of a joke:
1. Federer has won Gold in the Doubles, but has never won a Doubles Grand Slam.
2. Murray (sure, he still can win a Grand Slam), and many other Olympic Singles Gold medallists has won Gold in the Singles, but has never won a Singles Grand Slam.

Surely that sums up the lack of prestige of Olympic tennis Gold in pure tennis terms? Perhaps in another 50-100 years, when there is more history created in tennis, the lack of the Gold medal in a tennis player's resume will be more significant. However, in most of our lifetimes', I don't see the Olympic tennis Gold medal as a significant title for a specific player, in pure tennis terms. Sure, it is a significant achievement for the player AND their country. But it doesn't make them a standout tennis player. Not right now anyway.

How many times has he played slam doubles. the last he played was 2004, so the comparison is completely out of the question. And only Laver in men has won Grand Slam, know your terms.

scoobs
08-06-2012, 12:31 PM
I don't think Roger losing harms the Olympic tennis event at all. Had it been to someone totally off the radar in the final, then perhaps, but for Murray to avenge Wimbledon on the same court at his home games is a huge story, as big as Roger winning singles Gold.

dencod16
08-06-2012, 12:32 PM
Olympic Games happens once for four years.

Grand Slam happens four times for a year.

In some idoit fans claims, 1 Olympic Games = 16 Grand Slam :eek:

if anyone says that, or maybe it you that only thinks 1 Olympic Games = 16 Grand Slam. People know that Slam is the biggest event in tennis, but Olympics is close to it.

Matt01
08-06-2012, 12:37 PM
I think Rogie would have traded one of his Slam wins for an Olympic Gold Medal in Singles...


What a troll you have become Matt :sad:.. still love you :worship:

That being said you should be more worried about Djokovic, 2011 Wimbledon Champion losing twice and getting no medals to Murray and Del Potro.. :devil:

:wavey:


I wasn't worried about Djokovic after he got into his slump after his AO and WTF wins in 2008 (you can read my posts about this back then) and I'm not worried now, either. 2012 had begun great for him (AO win, Miami win, RG final) and he should be back for the remaining HC tournaments this year no problem, no? Grass is and was always his worst surface.

bjurra
08-06-2012, 01:06 PM
I think there are a couple of facts that make Olympic tennis a bit of a joke:
1. Federer has won Gold in the Doubles, but has never won a Doubles Grand Slam.
2. Murray (sure, he still can win a Grand Slam), and many other Olympic Singles Gold medallists has won Gold in the Singles, but has never won a Singles Grand Slam.

Surely that sums up the lack of prestige of Olympic tennis Gold in pure tennis terms? Perhaps in another 50-100 years, when there is more history created in tennis, the lack of the Gold medal in a tennis player's resume will be more significant. However, in most of our lifetimes', I don't see the Olympic tennis Gold medal as a significant title for a specific player, in pure tennis terms. Sure, it is a significant achievement for the player AND their country. But it doesn't make them a standout tennis player. Not right now anyway.

Those two arguments are just plain stupid. Especially the first one.

The reason Federer does not play doubles in Slams is that they are not important enough for him. An Olympic gold matters a lot to him, therefore he plays doubles and managed to win the gold. How could that possibly devalue the prestige of Olympic tennis?

I can't believe I even have to explain this.

Regenbogen
08-06-2012, 01:14 PM
I don't think people viewed Fish unpatriotic. Players care about it as much as slams, the fact that people show their emotions by just reaching the final and by just winning bronze says a lot about the event.

Yeah, just look at Del Potro after winning bronze, or Djokovic in 2008. This idea that it doesn't matter is utter nonsense. Maybe not to some fans, I guess, but the players obviously care.

thrust
08-06-2012, 01:29 PM
Olympic gold isn't too important in tennis. That's because tennis was re-introduced in OG not before 1988. And you can see that also from the winner list, Rafa and Agassi are the only truly great players to have win singles gold, whereas e.g. Roger didn't manage to win it, Sampras didn't care, and Borg and Laver didn't have a chance. Had Roger win that gold medal, two 2000s best players, Roger and Rafa, would've been singles Olympic champions, and that would've increased the prestige of OG. But now, it may remain as an event nobody prepares especially for, USO some weeks later is more important.

And Roger can say this loss wasn't a big deal, it's not serious if you don't win once-in-four-years event.

Totally incorrect post! Roger did not play in 3 Olympic Games and get estatic when he won the doubles, because he really didn't really care about Olympic Gold. Tennis or the OG does not depend on ANY ONE play for survival. All top players who could compete, planned thier whole season around the Olympics. Roger has been the top player since 04 and still failed to wint an OG in the 3 OLympics he was at or very near the top. Give the guys who did win some credit.

Mjau!
08-06-2012, 03:48 PM
A downright lie. Murray should sue you for libel. He said players should not be let off for giving information, a quite different thing.

No, :stupid:, it's completely factual.

"That is snitching."
- Andy Murray commenting on Odesnik "telling on other players".

Nicely twisting the import of what he said there. Congratulations.

He said that cooperating with authorities shouldn't lead to a lighter punishment, or being allowed back and given a brief to watch and report back on other players.

Because "that is snitching". :wavey:

What don't you :stupid: :stupid: :stupid: understand? Andy said it's "snitching" to "tell on other players". It's as clear as a blue sky, so quit :o yourselves.

xargon
08-06-2012, 11:30 PM
Yeah, just look at Del Potro after winning bronze, or Djokovic in 2008. This idea that it doesn't matter is utter nonsense. Maybe not to some fans, I guess, but the players obviously care.

I think these bronze medals are important to people from countries like Serbia and Argentine where medals are scarce. Now they can say, been there, done that. In the tennis career a GS or YEC is much more valuable IMHO.

Yolita
08-07-2012, 12:54 AM
I think these bronze medals are important to people from countries like Serbia and Argentine where medals are scarce. Now they can say, been there, done that. In the tennis career a GS or YEC is much more valuable IMHO.

Please... :rolleyes:

Roger almost cried when he defeated Falla, he cried when he defeated Delpo, after playing 70 games, no less, to make the finals. Of course Roger wanted the gold medal very badly, as did all the other athletes in the tournament.

Roger mentioned how much he wanted the gold medal in several interviews.

A singles olympic gold is a big deal.

Next chance to get one: 2016.

I hope Novak will bounce back from his huge disappointment, he looked so unhappy on Friday after losing to Murray, but on Sunday, he looked positively suicidal. And he already has an olympic bronze, so it's not a question of "been there, done that" . :tears:

MuzzahLovah
08-07-2012, 01:59 AM
No, :stupid:, it's completely factual.

"That is snitching."
- Andy Murray commenting on Odesnik "telling on other players".



Because "that is snitching". :wavey:

What don't you :stupid: :stupid: :stupid: understand? Andy said it's "snitching" to "tell on other players". It's as clear as a blue sky, so quit :o yourselves.

Tard being retarded. Surprise! Quote the paragraph to give context or fuck off. :wavey:

nastoff
08-07-2012, 02:04 AM
Forgetting one thing though...he did win silver...he also has the doubles gold. It's not the same as a slam finalist who is always gonna be remembered for not quite making it. Next to his accolades it will read "Olympics singles silver medalist" which has a nicer ring than "gland slam finalist". Second is not nobody in this case.

If he ended up without getting any medals it'd be a lot worse.

Mjau!
08-07-2012, 02:41 AM
Tard being retarded. Surprise! Quote the paragraph to give context or fuck off. :wavey:

He said players shouldn't have their suspensions reduced for telling on other players because that is snitching. Do you not understand what that means, :stupid:? He's saying the reason they should not have their suspensions reduced for giving assistance to ADA's is that it constitutes snitching. It means telling on other players (about doping) is snitching (and wrong). It means he's calling Odesnik a snitch for allegedly giving substantial assistance to anti-doping, or as Murray put it, "telling on other players". That's the context.

I have no problem with the opinion that cooperating with ADA's should not result in a shortened suspension. I have a problem with the opinion that cooperating with ADA's is wrong if it involves giving information on other athletes.

xargon
08-08-2012, 01:52 AM
Please... :rolleyes:

:tears:

Nole won't commit suicide. He'll be 29 at Rio.

rocketassist
08-08-2012, 01:57 AM
He said players shouldn't have their suspensions reduced for telling on other players because that is snitching. Do you not understand what that means, :stupid:? He's saying the reason they should not have their suspensions reduced for giving assistance to ADA's is that it constitutes snitching. It means telling on other players (about doping) is snitching (and wrong). It means he's calling Odesnik a snitch for allegedly giving substantial assistance to anti-doping, or as Murray put it, "telling on other players". That's the context.

I have no problem with the opinion that cooperating with ADA's should not result in a shortened suspension. I have a problem with the opinion that cooperating with ADA's is wrong if it involves giving information on other athletes.

Odesnik is a grass. This is a fact. Would you grass on your mates?