Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 85 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,847 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
After seeing Rafa run his clay court record against Roger to 7-1, I started thinking. Roger will likely only win RG if Rafa loses to someone else. If this does happen, and Roger wins the title, does the title mean less because it was gained without defeating the King of Clay?

Opinions?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,159 Posts
It wouldn't mean any less. Even Roger can't choose his opponents. It's always the two best players that play in the final.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,042 Posts
The answer is simple: In the short term, people will pounce on it and say things like this isn't real, he has to defeat Nadal. But ten years down the track, no one would seriously care who Roger defeated, perhaps not even remember.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,231 Posts
It would mean less, but it's not like there would be an asterisk next to that major in the record books...

I really don't see why people care so much about specific majors won. When you're talking about who's the GOAT, sure, surface matters. But the question is were you great on the surface, not whether you won Roland Garros. The fact is, Roger ISN'T great on the surface (he's very good). If he becomes great, it doesn't matter who he beats. Borg was an excellend hardcourter...it doesn't really matter that he didn't win the USO. He proved it in other places. Winning a specific major vs. not winning a specific major can come down to what you ate for breakfast, or the weather. It doesn't make or break a career.
 

·
Motherhater
Joined
·
5,571 Posts
If Nadal misses the tournament for some reason, people will say Roger won it, but will add a BUT to it.

If Nadal loses to someone else, and Roger beats this person, that's perfectly fair in my opinion, and he deserves no criticism for it.

He will be raised to a status higher than god if he wins RG fair and square.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
220 Posts
It would mean less, but it's not like there would be an asterisk next to that major in the record books...

I really don't see why people care so much about specific majors won. When you're talking about who's the GOAT, sure, surface matters. But the question is were you great on the surface, not whether you won Roland Garros. The fact is, Roger ISN'T great on the surface (he's very good). If he becomes great, it doesn't matter who he beats. Borg was an excellend hardcourter...it doesn't really matter that he didn't win the USO. He proved it in other places. Winning a specific major vs. not winning a specific major can come down to what you ate for breakfast, or the weather. It doesn't make or break a career.

[\Quote]

its kinda relative to sit there and say federer is very good on the red dirt, yet borg is somehow great on the hardcourt. Roger has managed to claw into many many master series clay court final and take many shields, losing to the "barometer" over the past 5 years. Borg had some solid wins over mcenroe, ashe, connors, vitas on the hardcourt, but again never converted in teh USO. I would say both are relative to each other when it comes to each's second surface
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
12,385 Posts
Yes. He HAS to beat Nadal in the RG final or it won't count in our minds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86,336 Posts
For Roger it wouldn't matter at all. For him a it is a dream come true when he achieved it. He wouldn't mind if he won against someone else than Rafa that (for him) fucking tournament.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,585 Posts
The answer is simple: In the short term, people will pounce on it and say things like this isn't real, he has to defeat Nadal. But ten years down the track, no one would seriously care who Roger defeated, perhaps not even remember.
Agreed.

Besides, he'll be the first player since Agassi
and only the 6th in history to complete the career slam.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,530 Posts
It probably would be talked about after the win for a while but nobody would be saying anything 9 or 10 years down the line.
 
1 - 20 of 85 Posts
Top