Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 83 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,617 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Grand Slams are obviously very important but I feel like lately people have used them too much when it comes to talking about how good or elite a certain player was. I'm not even talking about the GOAT debate. I am talking about near elite players who have multiple titles yet people use their grand slam results above all. Is it because the slams are what get the most press and therefore what people remember the most.

I just don't think it's right to use the grand slam results as the be all and end all when it comes to evaluating a players' career. It's the lazy way to determine how good a player was or is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,617 Posts
Basically Wawrinka/Murray "debate" :secret:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
They aren't the only events that matter but Slam winners generally do well at the Masters too. There are exceptional players who haven't won Slams like David Nalbandian
 

·
Your visions will happen
Joined
·
48,534 Posts
Slams are a starting point. I think we can all agree that winning the biggest events in the game should weigh heavily in judging greatness, yes?

Then you have YE#1, weeks at #1, Olympics is almost a slam these days, Year End Masters, Davis Cup, Masters 1000, 500, 250 and so on

Head to head really only comes into it when all else is pretty close
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,982 Posts
I disagree. I think most players would rather have an extra slam than a whole bunh of other titles combined.

But if you talk historically and about the GOAT debate, then I agree. Back then, so many players skipped slams for different reasons because they were not judged mainly on those. Today they are penalized because in the last few years a lot of focuse has been on slams. It's unfair to some of the players from the older eras.
 

·
~♥ Magnus Norman ♥~
Joined
·
3,328 Posts
The Wawrinka vs Ferrer argument?

Stan - 10 titles (9 additional finals), 2 Grand Slams.
Ferru - 24 titles (25 additional finals), 0 Grand Slams.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,097 Posts
They are not overrated when it comes to judging greatness/who had the better career.

But they're overrated when it comes to deciding who the better player is (which is different from who had the better career), since the difference between winning and not winning can often be due to circumstance
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,015 Posts
Slams are the largest and most important tournaments, everyone wanted it, everyone trains for it, it is like World Strongest Fighter, only happens 4 times a year, you maybe not consistent, but if you are focused and beat everyone in the 7 matches, you can claim you are the best for that period of time. Follow by YE#1 and weeks of #1 for obvious reasons.
Olympics is different, smaller draw, one country only can send 3 players, and countryman can not be on the same half of the draw, 2 out of 3 sets until final. I think WTF win with the top 8 players of the year has a better claim of greatness.
Other tournaments titles are nice, but just not as important in the ranking for greatness, more of value of consistency.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,202 Posts
I couldn't agree more. It is certainly very lazy. Any time I see someone use some form of the X>Y argument while disregarding everything else always annoys me. Slams are the most important factor, but are not the only important factor, and I do think they are weighed a bit too heavily, especially here at MTF. I've literally heard several posters say that a single slam is worth more than any number of masters titles, which I find ridiculous. I'm not really sure where I would place the cutoff myself, but clearly 20 masters titles is more impressive than winning a single slam.

What's more is that this grand slam obsession seems quite arbitrary to me. It's as if a small minority of people started this myth that slams are the only thing that matters, and everyone else just sort of slowly started to accept it until it became the mainstream opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,202 Posts
They aren't the only events that matter but Slam winners generally do well at the Masters too. There are exceptional players who haven't won Slams like David Nalbandian
Most, but not all. What about a guy like Wawrinka? He has 2 slams but only a single Masters title. He has the same number of slams as Murray and yet I would consider Andy a far greater player overall on account of his 10 (I think?) masters titles, Olympic Gold, and greater number of GS final appearances.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,097 Posts
Most, but not all. What about a guy like Wawrinka? He has 2 slams but only a single Masters title. He has the same number of slams as Murray and yet I would consider Andy a far greater player overall on account of his 10 (I think?) masters titles, Olympic Gold, and greater number of GS final appearances.
I don't think anyone is questioning that. The question is more could a player with 1 Slam or even 0 Slams be considered greater? Say Roddick who's probably the best 1 Slam player achievement-wise. I don't think so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,946 Posts
Depends on which case. Slams are the most important thing, but weeks at #1 and Year End Championship are very important as well. The other things not so much.
 

·
Your visions will happen
Joined
·
48,534 Posts
I couldn't agree more. It is certainly very lazy. Any time I see someone use some form of the X>Y argument while disregarding everything else always annoys me. Slams are the most important factor, but are not the only important factor, and I do think they are weighed a bit too heavily, especially here at MTF. I've literally heard several posters say that a single slam is worth more than any number of masters titles, which I find ridiculous. I'm not really sure where I would place the cutoff myself, but clearly 20 masters titles is more impressive than winning a single slam.

What's more is that this grand slam obsession seems quite arbitrary to me. It's as if a small minority of people started this myth that slams are the only thing that matters, and everyone else just sort of slowly started to accept it until it became the mainstream opinion.
Que?

You think it is better for example to win 10 Master 1000 than 1 slam?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,805 Posts
A few stats about Murray-
2008-2011: 8 masters 0 slams
2012-2013: 1 masters 2 slams

Gold medal notwithstanding (the value of that varies between people) which period do you think he and his fans value most?

Although Murray > Stan in terms of careers. Obviously they're not the only thing measuring greatness but they have the greatest historical value considering they show not only that you have the shots but that you're strong from the neck up when it matters most.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,202 Posts
I don't think anyone is questioning that. The question is more could a player with 1 Slam or even 0 Slams be considered greater? Say Roddick who's probably the best 1 Slam player achievement-wise. I don't think so.
That's a good question. I was actually just thinking about Roddick and Wawrinka a few days ago. Personally, at this point I think I would rate Roddick above Wawrinka, although not by much. If Stan wins another slam then he's clearly ahead. But honestly, if you compare the statistics:

GS: Wawrinka - 2, Roddick - 1
GS Finals: Roddick - 5, Wawrinka - 2
Masters: Roddick - 5, Wawrinka - 1
Total Career Titles: Roddick - 32, Wawrinka - 10
Weeks at No. 1: Roddick - 13, Wawrinka - 0

Wawrinka only leads in one category, and only by 1 slam. I'm casting my vote for Roddick. And as far as "greatness/legacy" is concerned, my gut instinct is that Roddick is the greater player (again, not by a huge margin, and Wawrinka could certainly add to his records in the near future)
 

·
Onwards and Upwards!
Joined
·
46,427 Posts
Obviously they're not the only titles that matter in tennis...what would be the point of masters titles and the WTF otherwise?

That said: grand slams are grand slams. They have the most rounds and are played best of 5. They are the greatest achievements in tennis, so of course they're the most important. Smaller titles are important...but grand slams are legendary. Simple as that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,202 Posts
Que?

You think it is better for example to win 10 Master 1000 than 1 slam?
Like I said I'm not exactly sure what specific number of masters would equal a slam (maybe haven't thought about it enough yet), but I do think there has to be a limit at some point. Maybe 5 masters = 1 slam, maybe 10, maybe 20, maybe 100. My point is that it has to exist somewhere.

Though now that I think about it, 10 might be a reasonable number.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,015 Posts
Slams and being #1 are the universal goals throughout different eras.
Masters and other tournaments difference are really blur historically, winning more tournaments are always good, it also show up in rankings.
Winning 10 masters have greater prize money and points than 1 slam, maybe also more impressive, but it doesn't show this guy can win on the largest stage.
 
1 - 20 of 83 Posts
Top