[samanosuke]

Just 4 players in history of game have been #1 for more than 200 weeks. Almost that much is difference in time spent at #1 between Fed and Nadal . So much about debate

[Lopez]

Originally Posted by Ash86

The WTF is an important title but there's no such thing as a "career WTF slam" - whether people at MTF like it or not all the tennis media have been tweeting and writing about the following achievements - "Serena Williams joins Graff, Agassi and Nadal" as the only winners of the career golden slam. Roger can enjoy his doubles medal but he won't ever have that. He has more than enough other things in his career for it not to matter all that much, BUT to pretend that a doubles gold and a silver single is worth more or is equal to a singles gold is utter nonsense. Would a swimmer want a relay gold and a silver or that one gold medal telling them they, and they alone, are the Olympic champion at that distance? No question - gold in an individual event is different - no one remembers who was in every 100m relay team - you remember the single runner.

And now it's clear that no matter what it might have been in the past, the players care about the WTF way more. Delpo said it was one of the best things that had ever happened to him (winning bronze!) and maybe better than winning a slam (maybe going a bit far but he's patriotic and it was Argentina's first medal!), Djokovic said those defeats have been some of the toughest of his career - no way does a WTF matter that much - mainly because they'll just try again next year. This is a once every 4 year opportunity -rare and thus more special.

Fed's tried to win it 4 times and has fallen short - in some ways it's ridiculous given how dominant he's been over that period - but it's just one of those things. Borg kept missing out on the US Open, Lendl on Wimbledon and for Fed it's the gold medal.

Going to quote myself here from another thread just to make a point:

Originally Posted by Lopez

It's pretty clear that Olympics is a special event in tennis and it's difficult to use it as a measuring stick of greatness in this sport.

One of the main reasons is that it's played so seldom, every four years. There are a LOT of variables that need to go right for a player to win. Imagine the Olympics were played in 2009, we'd have Roger as a likely Olympic champion and Nadal not. Nadal was fortunate to have the olympics played in one of his two peak years. Federer was of course nr.1 at the olympics in 2004, however he was unfortunate enough to run into Berdych, a player who would become a solid top tenner in the coming years. Of course that's no excuse, Roger lost fair and square. My point is that you really can't hold not winning the OG in singles against someone in tennis, because there is a lot of luck involved.

Grand Slams and the WTF are played every year, you actually can compare these and look at who has or hasn't won them.

What I mean is that having OG can be seen as a great additional achievement, however it's not a proper measuring stick for greatness in tennis like the other big events are because there are so many circumstantial factors.

[Lleyton_]

Originally Posted by Ash86

The WTF is an important title but there's no such thing as a "career WTF slam" - whether people at MTF like it or not all the tennis media have been tweeting and writing about the following achievements - "Serena Williams joins Graff, Agassi and Nadal" as the only winners of the career golden slam. Roger can enjoy his doubles medal but he won't ever have that. He has more than enough other things in his career for it not to matter all that much, BUT to pretend that a doubles gold and a silver single is worth more or is equal to a singles gold is utter nonsense. Would a swimmer want a relay gold and a silver or that one gold medal telling them they, and they alone, are the Olympic champion at that distance? No question - gold in an individual event is different - no one remembers who was in every 100m relay team - you remember the single runner.

And now it's clear that no matter what it might have been in the past, the players care about the WTF way more. Delpo said it was one of the best things that had ever happened to him (winning bronze!) and maybe better than winning a slam (maybe going a bit far but he's patriotic and it was Argentina's first medal!), Djokovic said those defeats have been some of the toughest of his career - no way does a WTF matter that much - mainly because they'll just try again next year. This is a once every 4 year opportunity -rare and thus more special.

Fed's tried to win it 4 times and has fallen short - in some ways it's ridiculous given how dominant he's been over that period - but it's just one of those things. Borg kept missing out on the US Open, Lendl on Wimbledon and for Fed it's the gold medal.

Olympics is not a regular tennis tournament. A gold is a gold and Olderer >>> Nadal even at the Olympics. Hope this helps.

[IOFH]

Originally Posted by Ash86

BUT to pretend that a doubles gold and a silver single is worth more or is equal to a singles gold is utter nonsense. Would a swimmer want a relay gold and a silver or that one gold medal telling them they, and they alone, are the Olympic champion at that distance? No question - gold in an individual event is different - no one remembers who was in every 100m relay team - you remember the single runner.

Of course it's equal, do you see people taking Phelps' relay-golds away when counting his golds and discussing his greatness? Your last sentence doesn't have anything to do with this matter since Federer won't be in trouble of being forgotten and his doubles medal is just as memorable as his, or Nadal's singles.

Fed's tried to win it 4 times and has fallen short - in some ways it's ridiculous given how dominant he's been over that period - but it's just one of those things. Borg kept missing out on the US Open, Lendl on Wimbledon and for Fed it's the gold medal.

Not ridiculous at all considering the only time he was dominant and should've won was in 2004. And to repeat Federer has a gold medal.

To summarize:
Federer > Nadal at Olympics
Murray > Nadal at Olympics
WTF > Olympics

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Fumus

Of course it is....are you joking me? Those wins are tainted. It's like the 1987 NFL season...with scab players.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_NFL_season

It is impossible to fault Federer because Nadal could not keep up with him in reaching those finals, an argument not only retarded, it shows extremely bad faith from the one putting it forward. No wonder you support Nadal.

[Ash86]

Originally Posted by IOFH

Of course it's equal, do you see people taking Phelps' relay-golds away when counting his golds and discussing his greatness? Your last sentence doesn't have anything to do with this matter since Federer won't be in trouble of being forgotten and his doubles medal is just as memorable as his, or Nadal's singles.

Not ridiculous at all considering the only time he was dominant and should've won was in 2004. And to repeat Federer has a gold medal.

To summarize:
Federer > Nadal at Olympics
Murray > Nadal at Olympics
WTF > Olympics

Complete nonsense. If Phelps ONLY had relay medals no one would know who he was or care - can you name the rest of the members of the relay teams that won the swimming gold medals? No. He's great because of his single, individual success. Fed only has a Silver in the individual discipline - a "golden career slam" means achievements in singles events - otherwise why don't we just combine total doubles and singles success - in tennis it doesn't work that way.

As for Fed only "should've won" in 2004 - he was not awful in 2000 but let's give him a pass there - all other 3 times he was the no.1 seed and had a very good shot. It was also always on surfaces that favoured him - outdoor fast HCs in Beijing, grass in 2012, HC in Athens - Nadal was not the favourite in 2008 - he had to get past Djokovic who'd owned him on fast HCs up til then. Fed somehow lost to Berdych and Blake - he had his chances and didn't take them.

Nadals singles record at Olympics = unbeaten.
Federer's record = 4 defeats.
Murray' record = 1 defeat.

I don't even need to say that the Olympics matters more - every single player and their reactions has made it clear and so have the pronouncements of past greats like McEnroe etc. - the tennis media, the players and the past champions all think it's an important event and put it just below a slam. Fed's got a silver at a very important event - his fans should be celebrating that rather than pretending anyone will be caring about the WTF vs the Olympics in a decade's time.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Ash86

Complete nonsense....

Nadals singles record at Olympics = unbeaten.
Federer's record = 4 defeats.
Murray' record = 1 defeat.

This statistic is pretty much useless. Sorry.

[Snowwy]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

This statistic is pretty much useless. Sorry.

I agree, some of the stats you see on here are so ridiculous its hard to know if the poster even thinks about their meaning before posting them.

[Chair Umpire]

Originally Posted by ServeVolley

Sorry, but Championship (YEM) Slam > Golden (OG) Slam

I've typed "tennis Golden slam" and "tennis Championship slam" in Google... and this is what I get:

https://www.google.es/search?q=golde...w=1280&bih=892

http://www.google.es/search?hl=es&so...w=1280&bih=892

Sorry, it looks like there's no such thing as "Championship (YEM) slam". But keep repeating it to yourself if that comforts you.

[Corey Feldman]

Originally Posted by Chair Umpire

I've typed "tennis Golden slam" and "tennis Championship slam" in Google... and this is what I get:

https://www.google.es/search?q=golde...w=1280&bih=892

http://www.google.es/search?hl=es&so...w=1280&bih=892

Sorry, it looks like there's no such thing as "Championship (YEM) slam". But keep repeating it to yourself if that comforts you.

Have Spain won Olympic medal yet since your last paragraph of puke?

[Lleyton_]

Irrelevant argument. Phelps is a swimmer and more than 2 swimmers compete in relays. Olderer, Goldray, Massu, Gonzalez are all more successful Olympians than Nadal.

[Chair Umpire]

@Corey.

Truth hurts I know, but stay on topic please.

[Ash86]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

This statistic is pretty much useless. Sorry.

I agree. It is useless. But all I'm saying is if one's trying to argue that Fed's doubles gold and singles silver somehow elevates him above Nadal at the Olympics or that Murray's mixed dubs silver is relevant, at all, then let's just have any old argument - Nadal won it at his first attempt - Fed's had 4 and still not won it.

The fact is there is a LOT of luck involved with the Olympics - once every 4 years, best of 3 till the final - but over 4 outings you'd think it would be enough for Fed. He didn't win it. Why not just accept that this is something that Nadal has that is better than Federer rather than clinging to that doubles gold for dear life?

[Ash86]

Originally Posted by Lleyton_

Irrelevant argument. Phelps is a swimmer and more than 2 swimmers compete in relays. Olderer, Goldray, Massu, Gonzalez are all more successful Olympians than Nadal.

The question is NOT who is a more successful Olympian - the question is as SINGLES tennis players what do their Olympic medals mean to their career? Nadal has a golden career slam. Fed has a silver medal. Simple.

Nadal texted Murray to congratulate him after the win and said "Congrats, you won the hardest one." and he's right - things need to fall in place for you and Murray's lucky that it did.

[Matt01]

Originally Posted by ServeVolley

Sorry, but Championship (YEM) Slam > Golden (OG) Slam

This is simply not true