Tennis at the Olympics - yay or nay?

Tennis at the Olympics seems to be growing in importance each time it comes around. 12 or 8 years ago, it wasn't a top event, probably not even up there with a Masters such as Miami. Even 4 years ago Roddick gave it a miss to concentrate on the US Open and Fish also passed saying "I've already done the whole thing". Gasquet also passed and Murray lost in the first round citing an 'unprofessional' attitude i.e. I wasn't really that bothered.

Agassi winning in 1996 gave it some credibility as did Rafa 4 years ago and Fed, Nadal, and Djoko have always seemed up for it, more than many other players.

Personally I've never thought tennis should be at the Olympics, which should be for sports where winning a gold medal is the absolute pinnacle of the sport.

Discus (or is that a field event?)

I say yay.

Deny it or not, if you and a fellow pro had the exact number of Slam and ATP titles, you would look for something to divide the argument and a Gold Medal is something looked on the tennis CV quite favourably.

As you mention Nadal, Djoko and Federer give it it's credence and as a fan isn't the highlight on my calendar, but I recongnise it as a legit achievement and something that can be brought to the table when debating player greatness.

Yet most of the greats did not have the opportunity to play in the Olympics and some of them chose not to.

I agree with you JHM. I don't think tennis should be in the Olympics. There are are already 4 slams in the year which are much more important. The Olympics should for athletics, swimming, judo, rowing, cycling etc. where as you say its the pinnacle of someones career to win.

Only doubles is a good olympic sport! Why?

1 - Its a team work....important when representing a nation, which is what the Olympics are all about.
2 - The only tournament where top tennis players take this doubles seriously.
3 - Federer won it! enough said.

Tenez wrote:Only doubles is a good olympic sport! Why?

1 - Its a team work....important when representing a nation, which is what the Olympics are all about.
2 - The only tournament where top tennis players take this doubles seriously.
3 - Federer won it! enough said.

Is that a bit tongue-in-cheek Tenez? I'm not sure Usain Bolt would prefer the 4x100 gold over the individual 100m

Not a big fan of any sport being at the Olympics when the Olympics isn't the main competition for that sport, ie tennis, golf, road cycling, football, etc. For me, there's no point in tennis at the Olympics, you've already got four main events per year, having an extra one every four years is a bit daft IMO.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Is that a bit tongue-in-cheek Tenez? I'm not sure Usain Bolt would prefer the 4x100 gold over the individual 100m

A bit of T-I-C...but some truth in it too. The tennis singles Olympics is just another TMS....if fact more of a ATP 500 isn't it, in terms of number entries?

However what makes a tournament important is how the top seeds fight for it. It sems teh Olympics are an excellent marketing tool nowadays players are desperate to have.

yay

So Julius you know better than the top players like Djokovic who has the Olympics and FO as top priority for the year.
What has Roddick pulling out of the Olympics got to do with anything?

Simple_Analyst wrote:So Julius you know better than the top players like Djokovic who has the Olympics and FO as top priority for the year.
What has Roddick pulling out of the Olympics got to do with anything?

Once again you completely mis-understand what I write, and have me saying things I never said and 'knowing' things I've never claimed.

Julius you wrote the article and the raised points about the credibilty as the Olympics so your fair minded Murray fan opinion will make for a suitable answer?

Simple_Analyst wrote:Julius you wrote the article and the raised points about the credibilty as the Olympics so your fair minded Murray fan opinion will make for a suitable answer?

Er, is that a statement or a question? (It's actually a statement with a question mark at the end, which makes it difficult to understand).
Yes, I raised the article and made some points - well spotted! Other posters have read it, understood it and commented on it. Please read it again and then comment with your viewpoint, as you seem to have mis-understood my initial points.

Let's hope someone like Baghdatis wins Olympics this year, to give it back its proper stature.

i wrote a similar piece on whether footy shouldnt be in it either.
http://richard-mills-sports.blogspot.com/2012/01/football-has-no-place-at-olympic-games.html

LuvSports! wrote:i wrote a similar piece on whether footy shouldnt be in it either.
http://richard-mills-sports.blogspot.com/2012/01/football-has-no-place-at-olympic-games.html

Yes, I agree with that, too.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

LuvSports! wrote:i wrote a similar piece on whether footy shouldnt be in it either.
http://richard-mills-sports.blogspot.com/2012/01/football-has-no-place-at-olympic-games.html

Yes, I agree with that, too.

thanks man, I felt stronger about footy being out of the games, but the way i argued it I think Tennis has to go as well, regrettably.
Soz but did ya read ma article? what did ya tink of it?

Julius perhaps you can explain to me. So you also know better that the Olympics committee? So they should scrap the Tennis at the Olympics because you don't think it should be there and because Roddick withdrew from it?

In general I think that the olympics has been diluted by having so many events not all of which appear to fit. Tennis and Football both come into this category. There are loads of events at which an olympic win represents the pinnacle of achievement and those are the ones that should remain.

thanks man, I felt stronger about footy being out of the games, but the way i argued it I think Tennis has to go as well, regrettably.

Agreed about football, they either need to bring video technology and make it a REAL sport, or stay where they are on the terraces and stop bothering the real Olympians.

Tennis unfortunately is all about the slams, so what is the point in having it in the olympics if the olympics is not their biggest goal like it is for normal olympians?

Mats Wilander had to pull out of the Olympics in 1988 with injury, but said he was not really interested in playing in it anyway
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=336&dat=19880914&id=fBYpAAAAIBAJ&sjid=DYQDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4854,6347352

I think it has more place now than it did say 20 years ago now that just about all Olympic sports are pretty heavily professional.

Whether an Olympic gold medal is worth more to a player than say the US Open is completely down to the individual player. To some players being up on that podium receiving the gold could actually be the proudest moment of their whole career, even if they've won slams, we just don't know.

(I'm not talking which win gives more credence to the player you have a crush on being named the GOAT. I'm talking personally for the player.)

It's all a money making scam at the expense of British taxpayers

... or maybe not you the esteemed members of 606 v2 can decide:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-olympics/article-23977777-olympic-village-sold-to-qatari-firm-for-pound-557m.do

Nore Staat wrote:It's all a money making scam at the expense of British taxpayers

... or maybe not you the esteemed members of 606 v2 can decide:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-olympics/article-23977777-olympic-village-sold-to-qatari-firm-for-pound-557m.do

Sick!

So Julius Borg not bothering to play the AO and Sampras etc also not showing up means it's a worthless event which should be scrapped now?

Simple_Analyst wrote:So Julius Borg not bothering to play the AO and Sampras etc also not showing up means it's a worthless event which should be scrapped now?

No, once again you've mis-understood. You're not doing it deliberately by any chance? I hope it's deliberate, otherwise I might start to doubt your powers of reasoning. Heaven forbid!
My objection to tennis at the Olympics is not who does and doesn't play, it's a matter of the principle of limiting the Olympics to sports where the Olympic games are the pinnacle of that sport. If you look at the athletes who are against football being in the Olympics (from LuvSports blog), the same principle applies to tennis, in my view.

As for it's importance to players, as I have previously stated (but I'll say it again, as you don't seem to quite grasp things the first time), it seems to be gradually becoming increasingly important, but even in 2008 several top 20 players just didn't bother to show up, as they didn't feel it was important enough e.g. Roddick, who skipped it to prepare for the US Open. In that sense, it is nowhere near as important as a slam, and is unlikely to ever be.

Is there any chance you'd be willing to state your own view, or do you just plan to ask lots of questions that I've already answered?

He won't answer you, he will just to turn it round to another bunch of dead end questions.

Nore Staat wrote:It's all a money making scam at the expense of British taxpayers

... or maybe not you the esteemed members of 606 v2 can decide:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-olympics/article-23977777-olympic-village-sold-to-qatari-firm-for-pound-557m.do

Seems like a good deal to me.

Did you think it was likely that they could recoup all the building costs buy selling it on?

I disagree with Julius if you take tennis, football, and basketball out of the olympics I think most people would lose a lot of interest. Under your criteria we should take boxing out as well. Yes the gymnastics and track and field events are great, but you apply your criteria and it would basically neuter what is left of the olympics.

I think in tennis the olympics is only grow in value, in terms of marketing and pride for the top guys it is already there. The average person who may not be a sports or tennis fan gives a lot of creedence to an olympic medal, maybe even more than lets say an Australian open championship. Of course tennis fans know the grandslams are worth more. But I think with the increasing value of the olympics and the continued decline of prestige of the Davis cup, I think most players do want to participate and want to take home a medal. It isn't a grandslam but in the last few years I think if you asked a lot of the players and fans if after a grandslam what would be the next biggest event they would want to win they would say an olympic gold.

Of course every one should disagree with Julius, how hard could that be?

Good point there Socal. Basketball especially is a huge Olympics event which is fiercly contested. Is the Olympics Gold the pinnacle of basketball? No. We have the NBA Championships, FIBA, Other European Championshs as well as South American ones but that takes no importance out of the Olympics. The Dream team of America is alwags expected to win Gold and you'll see greats like Kobe, Wade, Rose, Lebron etc this year and in the past Jordan, Shaq, Marlone, Kidd, Barkley etc all had it a top priority. Infact countries like Spain, Greece, Czech etc all have the Olympics a top priority for basketball so tell us Julius, should it be scrapped because it's not the pinnacle of the sport?

Tennis at the Olympics can only grow and it's only good for the game every 4 years it takes center stage on the most watched free to air event in the world where a poor kid from Africa or Asia for example will get the chance to watch a tennis match, a chance he will hardly get with no satelite TV in other times of the year but Julius wants that taken away. What better way to promote tennis to new audience than the Olympics?

Back to the point about Sampras for example missing the event in the past, we know Sampras. He wasn't bothered to even show up for some AOs, certainly wasn't too bothered about winning it either, who knows how many he would have won? Remember the same Sampras shrugged off his slam record in 2002 and did not see the count as important. Fast forward with the new internet age and the new fan boys of other players will write you an essay on number of slam wins. Simply, using Sampras is a very poor example Julius.

The ATP does not make much money from the Olympics, if they were, they'll have posters of it every where from 2 years ago. A fate the Davis Cup also suffers despite it having mote quality of competition like events like WTF and even some masters.

Comical SA.

You coudl have a point if you were not contradicting yourself so much.

Being the biggest fan of Sampras you may know he has won zero, zilt Olympic medals...not even a bronze one! However he has won 5 Year end masters but strangely enough you call this a joke tournament despite being about the best players of the year.

Just compare the olympic winners list with the Masters', then I suggest, you take a breath, reflect a bit and come back a sensible post for once...

Sampras only played in the Olympics once. It's not like he was desperately trying every 4 years and losing like Federer. The WTF threw more money at him and he could turn up unprepared and still win so why not.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Sampras only played in the Olympics once. It's not like he was desperately trying every 4 years and losing like Federer. The WTF threw more money at him and he could turn up unprepared and still win so why not.

Good. At least you used my advise of pause and reflect before posting....but to no avail unfortunately. The fact Pete coudl have taken part in 2 or 3 Olympics but just tells you how little he cared about it. And I suspect he participated once under pressure of sponsors.

The WTF money is as good now as it was then, if not better and it's called the 5th slams. But for some strange reasons top players seem to be just 100% of their ability....no more.

socal1976 wrote:I disagree with Julius if you take tennis, football, and basketball out of the olympics I think most people would lose a lot of interest. Under your criteria we should take boxing out as well. Yes the gymnastics and track and field events are great, but you apply your criteria and it would basically neuter what is left of the olympics.

I think in tennis the olympics is only grow in value, in terms of marketing and pride for the top guys it is already there. The average person who may not be a sports or tennis fan gives a lot of creedence to an olympic medal, maybe even more than lets say an Australian open championship. Of course tennis fans know the grandslams are worth more. But I think with the increasing value of the olympics and the continued decline of prestige of the Davis cup, I think most players do want to participate and want to take home a medal. It isn't a grandslam but in the last few years I think if you asked a lot of the players and fans if after a grandslam what would be the next biggest event they would want to win they would say an olympic gold.

Boxing shouldn't be ejected as they are amateurs who play in the games. As I said i'm my article only 1/4 of footy tickets have been sold which doesn't show much interest does it? just 1 of 3 sports that hasnt filled its allocation. The other events stick to the amateur principles and the big events such as the olympics and the worlds are still the biggest event for them.

Absolutely nay for two reasons:

a. The Olympics should be the pinnacle of any sport, not packed out with events designed to draw in crowds and greenbacks because of the presence of "stars" who have made their name outside the Olympics

b. The Olympics should fit in with the "rythmn" of the sport - once every four years does not fit in with the rythmn of individual pro tennis because so much can change from year to year, nor does an emphasis on the national identify of the competitor, save perhaps in doubles.

There's one reason and one reason only for the Olympics having tennis - money.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Simply, using Sampras is a very poor example Julius.

That's the bit I like. Talk about putting words into other people's mouths. I never once mentioned Sampras, yet apparently it's now a 'very poor example' on my part.

LuvSports! wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I disagree with Julius if you take tennis, football, and basketball out of the olympics I think most people would lose a lot of interest. Under your criteria we should take boxing out as well. Yes the gymnastics and track and field events are great, but you apply your criteria and it would basically neuter what is left of the olympics.

I think in tennis the olympics is only grow in value, in terms of marketing and pride for the top guys it is already there. The average person who may not be a sports or tennis fan gives a lot of creedence to an olympic medal, maybe even more than lets say an Australian open championship. Of course tennis fans know the grandslams are worth more. But I think with the increasing value of the olympics and the continued decline of prestige of the Davis cup, I think most players do want to participate and want to take home a medal. It isn't a grandslam but in the last few years I think if you asked a lot of the players and fans if after a grandslam what would be the next biggest event they would want to win they would say an olympic gold.

Boxing shouldn't be ejected as they are amateurs who play in the games. As I said i'm my article only 1/4 of footy tickets have been sold which doesn't show much interest does it? just 1 of 3 sports that hasnt filled its allocation. The other events stick to the amateur principles and the big events such as the olympics and the worlds are still the biggest event for them.

Amateur principles in the olympics please. Are you telling me usain bolt doesn't make money from running track? Do you think the olympics want to lose basketball? Please, I agree with simple Analyst, the olympics is a big global event and judging by the comments of Roger Federer he is dying to participate. djokovic has decided to not participate in Davis Cup, and we know how important Davis cup is to him in order to participate in the olympics. Obviously, the top guys are really placing a big value on the olympics and I bet that every single match is going to draw big ratings and a big crowd.

socal1976 wrote: I agree with simple Analyst, the olympics is a big global event and judging by the comments of Roger Federer he is dying to participate. djokovic has decided to not participate in Davis Cup, and we know how important Davis cup is to him in order to participate in the olympics. Obviously, the top guys are really placing a big value on the olympics and I bet that every single match is going to draw big ratings and a big crowd.

OK - the top guys want to win the Olympics. Give them a choice of the Olympics or another slam and I think you know exactly what they'd do. Your reference to ratings and crowds should be irrelevant - the IOC know that bringing top tennis players in looks good for their brand, but that's not the point in my view.

The last Olympic tennis competition was the most credible yet, the next one played at the tennis holy of holies likely more so. We'll see how Rio keeps the interest up. On the plus side South America is all too wrongly deprived of a big tournament so they'll be up for it, on the down side it's a long way to travel for a tournament and pro's tend not to bother going there. Does anyone know what surface they'll play it on there, it should be clay?

I don;t think it's teh players who are as keen to participate to the Olympics.....as their sponsors.

I've never wanted it in. When it was an exhibition event in 1984 I was hoping it wouldn't get into 1988, so it's not something I've suddenly decided.

It might be a good commercial decision to have tennis at the Olympics, but it's not that important to either tennis or the Olympics. Both would carry on perfectly well without each other.

The players want to play it because it's there. If tennis were taken out of the Olympics, I suspect some players might grumble a bit, some would be happy and most would just shrug their shoulders. Now imagine removing a slam event or the WTF or even Miami, Indian Wells or Monte Carlo or the Davis Cup.

It is interesting that only fed fans on this site seem to be opposed to the value of the olympics, while Roger himself has over and over again discussed how important the event is to him. Tenez mentions how the sponsors are the ones who really care about the event, that only makes the event financially viable and important to the top players that in no way lessens the event. And judging by the immense field of talent the olympics will draw and the intrinsic value of the olympic medal it seems that the fed apologists are out on limb by themselves, again. According to them unless the olympics is tops in the sport we should eliminate it from the games. So there goes boxing, basketball, football, and tennis. Maybe these drastic and unsupportable measures are really just a weak cover for the fact that Nadal has a singles gold and roger doesn't. In the words of Tenez doubles is the only olympic tennis event that matters because Fed happened to win. I guess that is the real metric of analysis being applied by all fed fans at least Tenez has the cajones to admit it. If Fed wins it I bet most of the Fed fans will start talking about how valuable that gold medal is, plain sad if you ask me.

socal1976 wrote:

LuvSports! wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I disagree with Julius if you take tennis, football, and basketball out of the olympics I think most people would lose a lot of interest. Under your criteria we should take boxing out as well. Yes the gymnastics and track and field events are great, but you apply your criteria and it would basically neuter what is left of the olympics.

I think in tennis the olympics is only grow in value, in terms of marketing and pride for the top guys it is already there. The average person who may not be a sports or tennis fan gives a lot of creedence to an olympic medal, maybe even more than lets say an Australian open championship. Of course tennis fans know the grandslams are worth more. But I think with the increasing value of the olympics and the continued decline of prestige of the Davis cup, I think most players do want to participate and want to take home a medal. It isn't a grandslam but in the last few years I think if you asked a lot of the players and fans if after a grandslam what would be the next biggest event they would want to win they would say an olympic gold.

Boxing shouldn't be ejected as they are amateurs who play in the games. As I said i'm my article only 1/4 of footy tickets have been sold which doesn't show much interest does it? just 1 of 3 sports that hasnt filled its allocation. The other events stick to the amateur principles and the big events such as the olympics and the worlds are still the biggest event for them.

Amateur principles in the olympics please. Are you telling me usain bolt doesn't make money from running track? Do you think the olympics want to lose basketball? Please, I agree with simple Analyst, the olympics is a big global event and judging by the comments of Roger Federer he is dying to participate. djokovic has decided to not participate in Davis Cup, and we know how important Davis cup is to him in order to participate in the olympics. Obviously, the top guys are really placing a big value on the olympics and I bet that every single match is going to draw big ratings and a big crowd.

I meant it as in it was their biggest goal the olympics. sorry my bad. I didn't mention basketball as it has sold out its allocation but footy hasn't. But you ignored most of my post i.e. boxing and number of tickets.

socal1976 wrote:It is interesting that only fed fans on this site seem to be opposed to the value of the olympics

and Murray fans
Just think the Olympics should be the pinnacle of the sport. In tennis they aren't, so don't really believe in tennis as an Olympic sport. In fact, I didn't even apply for tickets to the tennis for this year's Olympics (applied for pretty much everything else) because I figured the only good thing about it would be that it's at Wimbledon, in which case I might as well just go to Wimbledon.

No, the Olympics have become corrupted and there is no clear purpose except to grab everything.

Plus Marcus makes a good point, they are a sideshow for tennis and football whereas they should be the pinnacle (as the name suggests) or not there.

Darts, Snooker, Monopoly; why not?

LuvSports! wrote:

I meant it as in it was their biggest goal the olympics. sorry my bad. I didn't mention basketball as it has sold out its allocation but footy hasn't. But you ignored most of my post i.e. boxing and number of tickets.

You don't add that although Football is the only sport not to have sold out, it has also sold the highest amount of tickets (due to the vast number of tickets available).

The football is expected to sell a load more tickets once the draw comes out in April and people know which teams they are buying the tickets for.

socal1976 wrote:It is interesting that only fed fans on this site seem to be opposed to the value of the olympics, while Roger himself has over and over again discussed how important the event is to him. Tenez mentions how the sponsors are the ones who really care about the event, that only makes the event financially viable and important to the top players that in no way lessens the event. And judging by the immense field of talent the olympics will draw and the intrinsic value of the olympic medal it seems that the fed apologists are out on limb by themselves, again. According to them unless the olympics is tops in the sport we should eliminate it from the games. So there goes boxing, basketball, football, and tennis. Maybe these drastic and unsupportable measures are really just a weak cover for the fact that Nadal has a singles gold and roger doesn't. In the words of Tenez doubles is the only olympic tennis event that matters because Fed happened to win. I guess that is the real metric of analysis being applied by all fed fans at least Tenez has the cajones to admit it. If Fed wins it I bet most of the Fed fans will start talking about how valuable that gold medal is, plain sad if you ask me.

Idiocy.

You really need to think more carefully before you vomit this nonsense all over the forum.

boxing - the Olympics are the pinnacle of amateur boxing, so it stays.
basketball - the Olympics are the pinnacle unless you're American.
football and tennis shouldn't be at the Olympics.

I don;t ususally read Socal's posts so this one also went unoticed until you brought it up BB.

Indeed I was being sarcastic for most of my thread, though I liked the fact that doubles was played by all top players to get a gold medal...cause frankly that's what the olympics are all about isn't it? The famous Gold Medal. Whether you win it at curling or 100m..you want that famous Gold.

Luv Sports, if it is so worthless why is Novak dropping out of Davis Cup to play the olympics? Why has Roger not stopped talking about the olympics for years? The sponsors will make it worth their while to play and the fans have shown great interest in the olympic tennis events. But I know Roger apologists since Roger has flamed out of the singles twice it just isn't important. So predictable, but so sad. Mad for Chelsea I bet the opinion of a lot of Murray fans will change if Murray wins. And this idea that if the olympics isn't the pinnacle than the sport should not be in the games would elimate 70 percent of the most popular events. I guess everyone in the world and the olympic comittee just disagrees with you and so do I.

socal1976 wrote: judging by the immense field of talent the olympics will draw and the intrinsic value of the olympic medal it seems that the fed apologists are out on limb by themselves, again. According to them unless the olympics is tops in the sport we should eliminate it from the games. So there goes boxing, basketball, football, and tennis.

The top 10 will be there, like any slam, the WTF, and at least 6 of the Masters Tournaments (excepting MC, Paris, and Shanghai).

Otherwise the draw is 64 made up of 56 qualifiers and 8 ITF wild cards. It is less than IW, Miami, and each of the Slams. Furthermore, there is a maximum on the number of nationals of any particular country, I think 4, and they are drawn apart wherever possible. On today's rankings 5 Spaniards and 3 Frenchmen who would expect to be present at a Masters Tournament on the strength of their ranking would have to make way for weaker players purely on grounds of the latters' nationality. The winner gets less rankings points than a Masters Series.

I am not saying it is an irrelevance, but quite clearly it is not even the 10th most difficult tournament to win of the year and it has an artificially tweaked draw - many early-round opponents will be laughably weak. Federer can say what he likes about it and I don't doubt for a moment that he'd genuinely like to win it at Wimbledon (he might not be so interested at some soulless concrete arena in a city with no tennis heritage), but on any objective view winning the Olympic Tennis Singles is not a serious criterion by which the most successful players will be judged by history. It's well below the Slams and Masters Series tournaments in significance.