Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 74 Posts

·
External factor expert
Joined
·
4,173 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Wimbledon may be prestigious, but how hard is it actualy to win the title? I'm sick and tired of you people degrading AO in any possible way. In todays era AO and FO are the most valueble slams, because you have to beat Djokovic who is no doubt the best ever on the surface. Rafa doesnt need any explaining.
These slams are what people should be looking forward to, not the ones that can be won by any mug Cilic for example, only to get bageled by the real champion later on.

Take a look at Wawrinka, has anyone called Stan the man a one-slam wonder? Ofcourse not, defeating Serbinator in a 5-setter, later Rafa in the finals counts for 2 Cilic's USO titles.

Not many understood the core of my thread so here is a post that should clarify everything.

First of all I want to clarify that I believe all slams are equal. I made a ridiculous statement how winning AO is worth 2 titles of USO, basically degrading Cilic achievements. I'm merely looking from fans perspective as excitement and apreciation.

Random slam winners like Cilic are bad for tennis because there is no story behind it. Look I have learned to apreciate Ivanisevic now, after 3 finals he enters dead-line finaly manages to win a slam to close out a glorious career.

Cilic comes out of nowhere and wins a slam, cant get more random than that furthermore lacking charisma seems like a very boring guy in general. Wawrinka on the otherhand proved to be a force to be reckoned with pushing Djokovic to the limit in the last couple of years. Not many were suprised Wawrinka managed to win after such a consistent performance year after year, only one player was standing in the way, in 2014 he finaly manages to put Djokovic away. Thats a beautiful story right there, it even continued the year after in another 5-setter.

What does Cilic bring to the table? Absolutely nothing. It's a disgrace Cilic has the same amount of USO titles as Djokovic with a H2H 12-0. Nadal and Djokovic are the story writers now and thats why AO and FO are more special at the moment than any other slam.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,038 Posts
1 Wimbledon = 3 AO titles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,669 Posts
17
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,242 Posts
Wimbledon is clearly the most valued title on tour. Many players have said it is/was their lifetime goal to win it.

"I think most of the tennis players rate [Wimbledon] as the most important tournament in our sport. So I think that sentence gives you an idea of how much this means for a player to win [it]." - Djokovic

"It is a dream to play on this court, my favourite tournament." "I don't want to compare Grand Slams but Wimbledon is special, the tradition. For me, it's more surprising to win here than the French." - Nadal
 

·
External factor expert
Joined
·
4,173 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Wimbledon is clearly the most valued title on tour. Many players have said it is/was their lifetime goal to win it.

"I think most of the tennis players rate [Wimbledon] as the most important tournament in our sport. So I think that sentence gives you an idea of how much this means for a player to win [it]." - Djokovic

"It is a dream to play on this court, my favourite tournament." "I don't want to compare Grand Slams but Wimbledon is special, the tradition. For me, it's more surprising to win here than the French." - Nadal
I understand you feel obligated to support your home ground, not to mention your name gives it away, but the tradition of slams are hardly a value factor nowadays, youngsters will be looking forward to dethrone Djokovic or Nadal on their surface.
 

·
Rankings Master
Joined
·
16,063 Posts
Oh wow. Here's a thread that can last.:rolleyes:

First of all, you are showcasing two players. The Slams were there before Djokovic and Nadal. So what today you have to beat Djokovic to win AO? In the past it was not so. At Wimbledon you had to beat Federer, before that there was Sampras, before that Becker, before that McEnroe, before that Borg, etc, etc. Australian Open aligned in prestige with the other Slams only in the 90s.

So, you're saying that we should give value to history. Wimbledon has prestige because of history. You are contradicting yourself.
 

·
External factor expert
Joined
·
4,173 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Oh wow. Here's a thread that can last.:rolleyes:

First of all, you are showcasing two players. The Slams were there before Djokovic and Nadal. So what today you have to beat Djokovic to win AO? In the past it was not so. At Wimbledon you had to beat Federer, before that there was Sampras, before that Becker, before that McEnroe, before that Borg, etc, etc. Australian Open aligned in prestige with the other Slams only in the 90s.

So, you're saying that we should give value to history. Wimbledon has prestige because of history. You are contradicting yourself.
I'm trying my best nowadays not to offend anyone, accusations are also scrapped from my dictionary. Give me a break, this is new for me.

Back on topic: You have actualy proven my point because the players dictate the value of slams. The importance of slams should also be ranked through era's. In this era for example AO and FO are the ones that should be apreciated the most, because you have to go through Djokovic and Nadal in order to lift the trophy.
When slams are not dictated by more than one player only then can we speak of weak era.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,242 Posts
I understand you feel obligated to support your home ground, not to mention your name gives it away, but the tradition of slams are hardly a value factor nowadays, youngsters will be looking forward to dethrone Djokovic or Nadal on their surface.
More than getting their name on this board? No, I don't buy it.

 

·
External factor expert
Joined
·
4,173 Posts
Discussion Starter #10 (Edited)
More than getting their name on this board? No, I don't buy it.

You seriously believe a youngster would prefer to leave a name on a board I have never seen before or defeat Nadal in FO final? :superlol: Soderling never won a slam, heck he was never ranked in the top 4 , but he will always be remembered. Now imagine how much impact Soderking would have made if he actualy won the FO?

Wimbledon doesnt mean much in the current era, same goes for USO.
 

·
Rankings Master
Joined
·
16,063 Posts
Soderling will always be remembered? Haha, such a bad thing to tell yourself. My wife has no idea whatsoever who Soderling is. But she heard of Borg, she heard of Edberg, she even heard of Krajicek, Stich and Ivanisevic. Wonder why?

I mean, you can always tell you're famous when someone who doesn't care about tennis has heard about you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,531 Posts
I understand you feel obligated to support your home ground, not to mention your name gives it away, but the tradition of slams are hardly a value factor nowadays, youngsters will be looking forward to dethrone Djokovic or Nadal on their surface.
I'm pretty sure Ivan Lendl would disagree with you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
721 Posts
Wimbledon is clearly the most valued title on tour. Many players have said it is/was their lifetime goal to win it.

"I think most of the tennis players rate [Wimbledon] as the most important tournament in our sport. So I think that sentence gives you an idea of how much this means for a player to win [it]." - Djokovic

"It is a dream to play on this court, my favourite tournament." "I don't want to compare Grand Slams but Wimbledon is special, the tradition. For me, it's more surprising to win here than the French." - Nadal
They say this about every GS they are interviewed for! Wimbledon - tradition, Australia - special atmosphere, RG - too, US Open - the crazy crowd. They are just polite. For some players Wimbledon and the grass are awful for others not. But when asked everybody just say "My dream is to win a GS, any GS" :)
 

·
External factor expert
Joined
·
4,173 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Soderling will always be remembered? Haha, such a bad thing to tell yourself. My wife has no idea whatsoever who Soderling is. But she heard of Borg, she heard of Edberg, she even heard of Krajicek, Stich and Ivanisevic. Wonder why?

I mean, you can always tell you're famous when someone who doesn't care about tennis has heard about you.
I can bet my house on it that Soderling will be better known than Krajicek, Ivanisevic and Cilic heading more in the future. I have personaly never heard of Stich. You have to realise that people give zero cents about one slam wonders, on contrary they love historical moments like the match between Nadal-Soderling. The shock that we exprienced will echo through tennis generations.

I'm pretty sure Ivan Lendl would disagree with you.
Ofcourse thats the whole point of this thread. Lendle lived in a era where Wimbledon had the most value.

History includes players, the current ones as well. This is pretty much a false dilemma.
Nonsense, History doesnt include active players in this case. I would recommend to read the thread again.
 

·
Rankings Master
Joined
·
16,063 Posts
I can bet my house on it that Soderling will be better known than Krajicek, Ivanisevic and Cilic heading more in the future. I have personaly never heard of Stich. You have to realise that people give zero cents about one slam wonders, on contrary they love historical moments like the match between Nadal-Soderling. The shock that we exprienced will echo through tennis generations.
I don't know what shock you're talking about. I told you that my wife never heard of Soderling, and never will. If I tell her about his historic match against Nadal, she'll forget about it, and if I am allowed to talk about tennis after that (if she'll keep listen), I'll have to use common ground, it will have to be about McEnroe or Sampras or Federer or Nadal or Djokovic.

So, you didn't hear about Stich. She doesn't know Gaudio, or Korda. There are one-slam wonders indeed, who she doesn't know about, but Soderling, that's even more remote.

But she's a reliable source to understand the concept of "famous".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,425 Posts
I can bet my house on it that Soderling will be better known than Krajicek, Ivanisevic and Cilic heading more in the future. I have personaly never heard of Stich. You have to realise that people give zero cents about one slam wonders, on contrary they love historical moments like the match between Nadal-Soderling. The shock that we exprienced will echo through tennis generations.
Maybe more memorable than Krajicek and Cilic gs titles, but the final between Ivanisevic and Rafter is often mentioned as one of the greatest sports moments in history, certainly more memorable then Soderling win over Nadal.
 
1 - 20 of 74 Posts
Top