[Action Jackson]

Kids today.

[Litotes]

Originally Posted by August

What's the value of WTF title compared to a slam title?

I'd say player with 3 WTFs and 0 slams is as great as a player with 1 slam and 0 WTFs. But once you have slam titles, then a slam is equivalent to two WTFs.

It's really rare to win the WTF and not win a slam. Only three players have done this once each - Corretja in 1998, Nalbandian in 2005, and Davydenko in 2009.

[Murray Mint]

Someone needs to let the professionals know that the guys on MTF have decided that Olympic medals aren't worth anything and they shouldn't bother playing. Seriously.... did you not see Del Potro's reaction to winning a BRONZE?! Murray was obviously overjoyed at winning gold, Djokovic devastated by his two losses, and Fed was desperate to complete the set with a gold (perhaps this is why people slate the gold, because RF will never win it - and the last two winners were Nadal and Murray). But what do the players know compared to people on here that can claim a 1000 is bigger, and one clown even suggested it's akin to a 250 Do you take yourselves seriously? Would Fed or anyone else not swap a 1000 title for the Olympic gold ffs!

It's such a shame that fans of Federer can't show the same class as the great man himself. I think he'd be very disappointed in you.

Originally Posted by Litotes

Has anyone told the organisers? Djokovic won two RR matches in 2009 and was eliminated anyway. Same thing happened to Murray.

I think this devalues it, it's ridiculous. Without thinking too deeply on it, my initial reaction was that the WTF is worth 50% of a grand slam at the very most, probably a bit less.

[Litotes]

Originally Posted by Murray Mint

Someone needs to let the professionals know that the guys on MTF have decided that Olympic medals aren't worth anything and they shouldn't bother playing. Seriously.... did you not see Del Potro's reaction to winning a BRONZE?! Murray was obviously overjoyed at winning gold, Djokovic devastated by his two losses, and Fed was desperate to complete the set with a gold (perhaps this is why people slate the gold, because RF will never win it - and the last two winners were Nadal and Murray). But what do the players know compared to people on here that can claim a 1000 is bigger, and one clown even suggested it's akin to a 250 Do you take yourselves seriously? Would Fed or anyone else not swap a 1000 title for the Olympic gold ffs!

It's such a shame that fans of Federer can't show the same class as the great man himself. I think he'd be very disappointed in you.

Not really the reason. Some of us are a little older and have followed tennis for a long time, long before Federer started winning anything. Why didn't Borg win the Olympics? Easy answer. It wasn't held when he was active. Why didn't Lendl? He never entered. Why didn't Sampras? He didn't try. Sure, he entered in 1992 - on clay. But he did not enter in 2000 or - most significantly - in 1996 on HC in his home country, where he would have been overwhelming favourite. Many of the other top players likewise gave the tournament a miss. Why didn't they play? Easy. Not worth their while. We oldtimers remember this all too well. While one concedes that its value have risen over time, it is a stretch to place a tournament that used to be no more than a paranthesis suddenly among the very top. Back in the 90s, the title of Olympic champion in tennis was about as meaningful as Olympic champion in football was and still is today.

[finishingmove]

Originally Posted by Litotes

Has anyone told the organisers? Djokovic won two RR matches in 2009 and was eliminated anyway. Same thing happened to Murray.

theoretically you need as few as one

but what's more important is that it allows you to lose, not one, but TWO matches and still win the tournament.

exhibition tournament, basically.

[Litotes]

Originally Posted by finishingmove

theoretically you need as few as one

but what's more important is that it allows you to lose, not one, but TWO matches and still win the tournament.

exhibition tournament, basically.

In theory you're right, but it has never happened. Federer has lost just one match winning his six titles.

"Exhibition tournament" is not what you said back in 2008....

[finishingmove]

Originally Posted by Litotes

In theory you're right, but it has never happened. Federer has lost just one match winning his six titles.

"Exhibition tournament" is not what you said back in 2008....

The way someone perceives it doesn't change what it is

We know that Federer takes that tournament seriously.

It can provide a certain satisfaction -- beating your rivals. From a purist point of view, though, it's nowhere close to GS...

[Looner]

Originally Posted by finishingmove

theoretically you need as few as one

but what's more important is that it allows you to lose, not one, but TWO matches and still win the tournament.

exhibition tournament, basically.

Now I've seen some clownish statements from the Serbtard army but this takes the cake. I need a stupidity detergent for these parts of MTF.

[GSMnadal]

Originally Posted by Looner

Now I've seen some clownish statements from the Serbtard army but this takes the cake. I need a stupidity detergent for these parts of MTF.

I suggest you stay far away from your own posts then

[Hans Anders]

Originally Posted by Topspindoctor

Probably because Noserer complained after choking Rome final in 2006. Ballerinas tend to be fragile and need their rest

Interesting statement about a player who has NEVER retired in 1000+ matches. I wonder, are you as obnoxious in real life as you are in these forums?

[Featherer]

@Finishingmove:
I added the following section to post #1:

Originally Posted by Featherer

RoundRobin:
Although not being it's only purpose the RoundRobin format makes the WTF somewhat like an exhibition for the Top 8 players of the Tennis sport. That's a good thing this far,
on the other hand it often makes the qualifying process for the semifinals quite obscure and not totally fair for the players. F.i. the player who plays the very last match of a group often has an advantage in information, knows exactly how many sets and games he has to win in order to advance and/or their direct opponent is already out or qualified, and so on.
(Moreover, in case one player in a group wins all 3 matches a scenario can occur, when another player can advance to the semifinals by winning only 1 of 3 matches.)

[Murray Mint]

Originally Posted by Litotes

Not really the reason. Some of us are a little older and have followed tennis for a long time, long before Federer started winning anything. Why didn't Borg win the Olympics? Easy answer. It wasn't held when he was active. Why didn't Lendl? He never entered. Why didn't Sampras? He didn't try. Sure, he entered in 1992 - on clay. But he did not enter in 2000 or - most significantly - in 1996 on HC in his home country, where he would have been overwhelming favourite. Many of the other top players likewise gave the tournament a miss. Why didn't they play? Easy. Not worth their while. We oldtimers remember this all too well. While one concedes that its value have risen over time, it is a stretch to place a tournament that used to be no more than a paranthesis suddenly among the very top. Back in the 90s, the title of Olympic champion in tennis was about as meaningful as Olympic champion in football was and still is today.

Appreciate the response, but that explanation is quite telling isn't it? Times have changed big-time, nowadays all the top players enter, to not do so would be inconceivable now. And the most recent tournament being held at the hallowed grounds of Wimbledon made it that much more special, and it felt a lot more prestigious than in the past - granted it doesn't have the rich history of some of the other tournaments. There's absolutely no reason why it shouldn't be an enormous win, especially since it's only held every 4 years, I think only the attitude of the players has prevented that in the past, but it clearly isn't the case anymore. Just find it frivolous that know-it-alls on here suggest it's worth nothing, when luminaries of the game are clearly desperate to win it. That's far more telling as to the true worth of the Olympics.

Australian Open used to be regarded as pretty weak didn't it? But not anymore, because the pros all take it very seriously, a fit player choosing not to compete would be unthinkable. I think there's a comparison to be made there.

[Roy Emerson]

WTF is BO3 including the final nowadays. No comparison with slams.

[atennisfan]

Well, at least there is no such thing as a mug draw in WTF, and there is no such thing as fluke winner in WTF.

[saviopr]

Grand Slams > Olympics > WTF > M1000