Andy Murray.. on a path to greatness?

First topic message reminder :

In the last 12 months, Andy Murray has done something most of us would not have thought possible (even us Murray fans).

He has become a multi slam winner with a shinny gold olympics medal too.

Wow

On top of that he has reached every major final in the last 12 months (except the French where he was injured) and moved himself to number 2 in the world

With all the negative comments that follow him around, I really just wanted to give him a shout out to say well done for the last 12(ish) months

3 Slam finals in a row
2 Slam wims
One Olympic Gold
Number 2 in the world

Impressive in anyones book

Now, does this mean he is destined to be a all time great? - not yet imo - but if he can keep going like he is, and gets to 5 or 6 slams, he truly will be one of the greats of tennis (not up there with Nadal or Federer, but still a great)

So well done Andy Murray and I keep my fingers crossed you can keep going

Jubba, have you read Agassi's book? The Olympic gold barely gets a mention.
I don't think anyone's saying it's worthless, but I was a big Agassi fan and I don't consider it a particularly great part of his legacy.
I don't actually think tennis should be in the Olympics - that should be for sports where an Olympic gold really is the highest award. That's certainly not the case in tennis.

Julius, I have read it and barely mentions does not say no mention. From memory alone, he doesn't say its worthless, couldn't be bothered either way or that it didnt make a difference to his career.

You really need to talk to the guy to find out what it means to him.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/tennis/9382257/Andre-Agassi-Olympic-tennis-gold-matters-more-than-any-Grand-Slam.html

Fair enough, but that link backs up what I said previously - it matters much more to the players.
It could be a 3 round, best of 1 set tournament and it would still matter to them, purely because of the Olympic name. But of you look at it in terms of difficulty of achievement, it's far easier to win than a slam, and it doesn't have the history and the prestige that the slams have, in tennis terms and it's less important to their legacy.
I wonder if Massu would rather have a slam than his OG?

HM Murdoch wrote:The form of older players can be looked at in two ways.

1) Training and recovery has developed to the point where careers are being lengthened.

2) The younger generation are not good enough. The natural displacement of older players that would normally occur is therefore not happening.

It could also be both!

There is also a bit of trick in the statistics. The age of winners is getting older, not because older players are getting better... it's the better players getting older! All we are seeing is Novak, Andy, Rafa and Roger getting older!

As much as we talk about Ferrer, Wawrinka and Haas etc playing well, they're not really genuine challengers for the biggest titles.

In his pre-Wimbledon interview for the BBC, Roger Federer himself said he felt players now look after themselves far more professionally. Nearly every player has dietician's and a range of specialists and fitness coaches working with them and he felt that is why players are producing better tennis at a later age.

As for point one I agree.

As for point two that has to be agreed as well. That being the case then I fail to see a surprise contender for slams crashing the party in the next two to three years. Del Potro can but is not consistent enough for my liking so unless Murray and Djokovic begin to fall apart it looks like they will be strong slam contenders for the forseeable future.

It will be interesting to see if golf starts hyping the Olympics up toward the standing of the majors from 2016.

Like I said earlier with the Olympics it depends on your stance. Socal later posted something similar as to its importance.

In worldwide sporting terms everyone knows of the Olympics and the term Olympic Champion is held very dear and is a title to be proud of. Tell someone in the sporting world you are/were an Olympic Champion and the reaction would be something like: 'Wow. Really?' On the other hand tell them you won the World Tour Finals they'd give you a blank look and say: 'What's that?' Similarly, if you said you had won six Masters Cup they'd have no idea what you were talking about.

In tennis circles I'd say fans put World Tour Finals and Masters Cups as possibly more important but I would certainly say the players wouldn't see it that way.

Its not just the players who hold an OG in high esteem. Each country's Olympic committee do everything in their power to contrive more medals at each games. Australia did really badly in London, but they see the publicity that a gold medal generates as worth spending public money on their participation in future games. A host nation derives immense prestige from holding the games and know that international sporting success improves their international standing.

The public turn up in their droves to witness athletes performing for just two weeks every 4 yrs, its such a spectacle that the games are broadcast to all corners of the globe, not so with the WTF or Davis Cup or Masters events, and more people watch the Olympics than a grand slam event.

Like it or not, The Olympics are worth a lot more than just a trinket, tennis is a sport and has been included as an event since 1896 apart from being dropped for 60 years (although to be fair there were only 16 sports in 1928, the first year it was dropped and 27 in modern times) and making a comeback in 1988. Its here to stay as a sport in the games and continues to grow support for its inclusion by players and countries alike because the Olympics has always been about personal effort since the Greeks invented it.

Nothing much has changed in the ethos of the Olympics......

"The Greeks valued Olympic success even more highly than we do. Each polis or city-state gave its Olympic victors, for life, free meals in its town hall and free front-row tickets for its own local games. These were the highest honours which the Greeks could give. They were otherwise only rewarded to victorious generals and other public benefactors of the highest order. That they were given to victorious Olympians puts beyond doubt that the Greeks believed that such victors benefitted their city-states significantly"

Nowadays its "the key to the city" which provides no benefit to the holder apart from prestige.

But the idea is there to show accolade to the medallist. So to me, its not just the players that think its important, but the rest of the world too.

Yes, they all turn up. It's a big event.

Because of the tennis? No.

HM Murdoch wrote:dummy - yes, they are and will probably remain the favourites.

Extending your figures though, Novak has made 13 semi finals in a row. That's fantastic. But it translated to "only" 5 slams.

Andy has made at least the semi on 9 occasions since the start of 2011 but that translated into "only" two slams.

To get to 10 and 6 slams we're pretty much asking them to repeat their form of the last 3 years (in Andy's case improve it). In other words, get the same results or better between the ages of 26-29 as they did from 23-26.

Even if we accept that Roger and Rafa are not at the same levels opposing them, it also likely that such physical players as Andy and Novak will not be as effective at 28 as they are at 25.

Or to look at it another way the rest of the field has precisely one win over them at a slam in nearly three years. If they repeat that form over the next three years and Rafa and Roger are no longer there to stop them then four more slams each starts to look slightly pessimistic.

I'd also strongly disagree they will be less effective at 28. Of course, one or both could pick up a significant injury but if they don't then the likelihood is they will be as strong if not stronger than now. They manage their schedules already in a way that's far superior to past players (Murray may as well be classed as part-time he plays so few tournaments). If lesser players like Berdych or Ferrer are as good if not better why would great players fade? The usual reason is a lack of incentive but given that Djokovic and Murray are only taking complete pre-eminence relatively late in their careers that seems unlikely. I can't think of any mainstream sport now where a 28 year old would be regarded as anything other than at their absolute peak. Look even at squash - a far more intense sport. The ages of the top 5 are 25, 30, 29, 32 and 31.

The other question is who will challenge them. Del Potro may do but he's had terrible difficulty with injuries and consistency. JJ is very raw and none of the other guys in the 21-24 bracket have yet shown real signs of stepping up. Anyone currently in the 17-19 bracket will have to burst onto the scene like a supernova to be in a position to be winning slams before Djokray turn 30. Rafa and to a lesser extent Roger remain the most likely flies in the ointment.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Like I said earlier with the Olympics it depends on your stance. Socal later posted something similar as to its importance.

In worldwide sporting terms everyone knows of the Olympics and the term Olympic Champion is held very dear and is a title to be proud of. Tell someone in the sporting world you are/were an Olympic Champion and the reaction would be something like: 'Wow. Really?' On the other hand tell them you won the World Tour Finals they'd give you a blank look and say: 'What's that?' Similarly, if you said you had won six Masters Cup they'd have no idea what you were talking about.

In tennis circles I'd say fans put World Tour Finals and Masters Cups as possibly more important but I would certainly say the players wouldn't see it that way.  

So ignorance is the main plank of your argument.

Incidentally, the players are pretty much inside the tennis circle I'd say.

My point is as far as sporting spectacles go the Olympics V WTF - no contest. Only in tennis parlances would someone understand what a WTF win was whereas the vast majority of the world knows what an Olympic Champion is.

_homogenised_ wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

_homogenised_ wrote:He won't win 5.  I had him down for 2 (didn't think he was going to win Wimbledon, but he got lucky as I've said).  Winning 5 is well beyond him, he simply isn't that good.  Making WN1 is also beyond him.  He may win another slam, or 2 at a push.

You had him down for 2, but he might win 4 - but winning 5 is well beyond him       

Yeah, it's called being wrong. I once had him down for 2, but see, I now changed my mind given available facts.  It isn't hard to understand unless you are are thick.  When is the moderation going to do something about these posts, or is the clique fine to do as it pleases yet again?

I never had him down for 5, not now, not ever.  In my view he has been extraordinarily lucky to win 2.  It isn't beyond the realms of possibility that another may open up for him, but 3 more slams approaching old age (in tennis terms) is not very likely (and consider how long it has taken him to win 2).  Of course, you don't seem to understand biology so probably think Murray will be gunning for Slams at 55.

Thanks for the measured clarification  

JuliusHMarx wrote:Fair enough, but that link backs up what I said previously - it matters much more to the players

Then that makes winning it, even more remarkable if you beat the best players out there on your way to the Gold. Hence the value of the Gold is always high, after all it's an Olympic medal - it must be in the stratosphere if the field entering is good

So that something that's important to the players, must prove how hard the medal is to win. Therefore, depending on the field it can be seen as equivalent or just under a slam

Some of you might not think the Olympics is important, but I can almost guarantee you that in 40 years time they will be seen as such

It's quite simply since 2008 when both Rafa and Roger stated it was a holy grail the value leaped one hundred fold. Following the very good semi's and finals from last year and the superb crowds the value has gone up even more

Novak, will see it as his target in 2016 (assuming he's fit) - future 'greats' will follow

History will say that whilst it took a while to get going as soon as all the top players entered, it then became as important as a Slam

Remember the importance or not of something is shaped by what happened in the past and what happens in the future

Dismissing it because, it's only been taken seriously a third of the time is missing the point

RE: The Olympics.

At the time at the event it must mean everything given the euphoria that goes with it. Look at what Andy has achieved since. I am pretty sure he would value his Wimbledon win above any other title he has won. To me his victory serves as a footnote to what launched his belief into winning big titles. That's what the press and pundits touch on all the time. Not the importance of the title in value but what it did for Andy in terms of changing his belief when entering the Slams.

Has Nadal really mentioned his Gold Medal triumph since he won in 2008?

Well lk, Rafa certainly remarked (during his injury) how gutted he was to miss the chance to defend his Olympic title. Hunt around I am sure you will find it somewhere or perhaps Rafa fans will remember it? We visually saw what it meant to Roger reaching the final and how he made a point he'd still hope to get gold in Brazil which raised a few eyebrows.

One thing for me that harms the WTF's is that every year we seem to get one or more of the entrants turning up injured or knackered after a full season of tennis - not great for the event. The Round-Robin bit doesn't work for me either as it gives players a second life should they lose a match and it allows players to play strategically if they know what sort of results may knock a danger out as a result. The make-up of it makes it all very elitist and in that way with such a small field it almost brings it across as an exhibition event.

PS. Found this with regards Rafa missing the Olympics:- http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/19/sport/tennis/nadal-olympics-withdrawal-tennis

In that Rafa calls it 'one of the saddest days in his career' having to pull out of the Olympics.

Five years ago, even Murray didn't take it seriously. It wasn't about the tennis, it was about being part of the event, meeting all the other athletes etc. Roddick skipped it because he felt the USO was what mattered and he'd already been part of the Olympics.
I don't think it changed that much from 2008 to 2012.

Yes JHM and that has always been a source of great regret to Andy. I have heard him many times regretting that he never prepared properly for it and he spoke about it in the lead up to last year's Olympics. Look at Roger's reaction to winning the semi (has he ever been so emotional at a win at that stage of a tournament?), look at Rafa's statements having to miss the Olympics and you get the idea what the Olympics mean to the players.

Well of course Rafa was sad to pull out from the Olympics, he has also mentioned somewhere that he is targeting the WTF this year - when I can find I will post. It is just ridiculous to suggest that the top players are not too bothered about turning up there CC - how very careless of them to be so sanguine about the points and the money.

I think particularly for countries like Spain, who do scoop some medals at the Olympics but are not one of the major medal winning countries then it generates double the aura around the tennis gold as it is a significant part of the haul. Similarly for Switzerland - Fed's silver in 2012 was one of very few medals, and I believe his and Wawrinka's doubles gold in 2008 was one of 7 medals, and one of the two golds that year. Ditto Novak squared!   Clearly these medals are going to be really celebrated in their respective countries.

In Atlanta in 1996, Great Britain won 15 medals: 1 gold, 8 silver and 6 Bronze.  Tim Henman won one of the silvers in the doubles - a significant proportion of the haul and yet we are not touting that as a major achievement on this thread, and how many people in Britain remember that Henman is an Olympic medallist? Perhaps because that was a terrible year for us in athletics but as a country we are naturally more focused on producing athletes for the games and we still see Wimbledon as the holy grail for tennis players!

tp - Twenty or thirty years down the line can you picture Andy Murray telling his grandchildren he was an Olympic Champion? That holds far more water than if he were to tell them he had won the WTF (unless they were well versed in tennis that is).

The title of Olympic Champion is permanent but don't misinterpret me as it is not the pinnacle of achievement of tennis - that is held by winning slams. Where it comes in the importance scale is what is being debated here. Amongst the tennis fraternity of fans more credence is put on WTF's and some say even Masters Cups but from a wider sporting viewpoint the Olympics would usurp those.

We all have to see what history says. I think 2012 became significant simply because all the big players coveted it

If that continues for the next 10 olympics then it is almost as big as a Slam

Often events enter legendary status only thought their history

Agassi thought his '96 Gold was important for sure... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/tennis/9382257/Andre-Agassi-Olympic-tennis-gold-matters-more-than-any-Grand-Slam.html

It can't be denied that Murray is starting to amass good titles, but is he on a path to greatness? Who knows...maybe but he needs a few more slams yet. Safin or Rafter, even Courier, aren't held up as greats of the game despite their similar hauls. It seems to start with Becker/Edberg upwards so the question is whether he can win 4 more. Time is on his side, Federer and Nadal aren't the potent force they once were and we see little challenge from behind so this is the perfect time for Murray to make hay whilst the sun shines.

CaledonianCraig wrote:tp - Twenty or thirty years down the line can you picture Andy Murray telling his grandchildren he was an Olympic Champion? That holds far more water than if he were to tell them he had won the WTF (unless they were well versed in tennis that is).

The title of Olympic Champion is permanent but don't misinterpret me as it is not the pinnacle of  achievement of tennis - that is held by winning slams. Where it comes in the importance scale is what is being debated here. Amongst the tennis fraternity of fans more credence is put on WTF's and some say even Masters Cups but from a wider sporting viewpoint the Olympics would usurp those.

I agree with your first sentence because obviously the Olympic Games has universal recognition and appeal.  Of course that would mean more to any child.  Simiarly to Andy Murray in terms of being part of something bigger than just his sport, being an Olympic champion and bringing home a gold for his country as well as himself - yes, of course it means far more years down the line in emotional terms than a WTF win.

There are two arguments going on here, and I am not disputing the greater emotional fulfillment of winning Olympic gold, nor do I think you will find anyone else is.

I would, however, strongly argue against using terms like 'exhibition' about the end of year championships because by devaluing one competition, you completely lose any impact you are trying to make.  I think you will find if Murray were to win the WTF this year, it would further raise the ever growing profile of the competition in Britain - I've got many friends in London who only watch tennis at Wimbledon but apply for tickets at O2 because 'you see only the best'. You can bet your bottom dollar that former champion Lendl wants it badly and doesn't think it is more or less 'an exhibition'.  In fact if Murray were to win that, he is much more likely to achieve Lendl's stated aim for him of being No 1.

In terms of Andy's Olympic win, it has double the significance to him beating Federer over b05 on Centre Court a few weeks after his Wimbledon heartbreak to the same player.  It was the first time, Murray had come out fighting after such a loss and avenged it so quickly and it clearly helped that he wasn't the main focus of attention. But Ennis' gold is the pinnacle of her career, Wimbledon is Murrray's - that's the difference.

No banbro -it will never be a fifth slam unless it completely changes its format! It is simply not the same test in any shape or form, whereas the Olympic hepthalon is, along with the WC, the greatest test of endurance and skill for Ennis.

OG is awarded 750 pts by ITF...less than a Masters and 50% of WTF. That's how they see it...if the points start to go up then we know its being seen more seriously.

I'm still unsure whether tennis should be an OG sport anyway...along with many others they've bundled in these days. It seems strange that multi-multi millionaires walk alongside some unknown discus thrower from Tonga (not Tsonga) who can barely scrape a living together yet they both compete to win a gold medal. Anyway, different discussion.

Sorry tp but for want of a better word that is how it comes across in its present format. The Round Robin thing has no place in tennis in my opinion and should be binned. Also I'd move it to perhaps the beginning of the year when players are fresh but that is just my opinion. I would expand it to the top 16 players in the world in the year and just play it as tennis should be - a straight knock-out competition through to the final with the top eight being seeded. If pointing out what I see as flaws in the WTF's are seen as me devaluing it then so be it but that isn't the intention.

If you offered a player at the start of their career the choice of two Olympic Golds or one slam, does anyone really think the player would choose the gold medals?

Does anyone think Del Potro or Roddick would trade their one slam for an Olympic gold?

Slams are the currency of greatness. Olympic gold is nowhere near the same importance to the player's legacy.

And, to be honest, it bugs me that a brilliant achievement like the Career Slam has to be diminished by the false construct of 'The Golden Career Slam'.

"Sorry sir, you may have won each of the four biggest prizes in our sport but I'm afraid that's not the pinnacle anymore. You didn't win that 6 round, BO3 event with a reduced field that was held 2 years ago"

"But I was injured 2 years ago"

"Sorry sir, I don't write the rules. Everyone loves the Olympics, so we had to pimp up the Career Slam"

"I guess I'll have to wait another two years then. Winning the Olympics sounds tough though, I bet only the best players win it".

"That correct sir. Nadal, Agassi, Murray... Rosset...erm.. Massu... Mecir... well, maybe not always the best players. But the Olympics has great heritage. It's been held for over a century"

"When did tennis become part of it?"

"1988. But everyone loves the Olympics, sir. You should see the players' faces, it means so much"

"They must get a shed load of ranking points for winning?"

"Oh yes sir, it's one of the great events in our sport. The only events you get more points for are the four slams. Oh, and the Tour Finals. And the nine masters tournaments. But everyone loves the Olympics, sir. You should see the faces."

"So let me get this straight. Despite winning all the slams in a calendar year, that's not the ultimate achievement because I didn't win an event that a) wasn't held this year, b) has a reduced field c) is BO3, d) is only six rounds e) is a lesser event that tournaments I did win?"

"But the faces, sir. You should see them"

Actually I think the RR format should have a greater place in tennis competition but that's just my opinion.

No one is saying they'd swap winning a slam for Olympic Gold. Heck if Murray was still waiting to win a slam now it is a given he'd still be craving a slam even more. And of course slams are the currency of greatness - I don't see anyone posting on here arguing otherwise. Personally, I don't buy the Golden Slam thing myself in any case.

As for the dialogue part (not sure where you got it from)   but because some relative unknowns won Olympic Gold that does not demean it. The best players in the world at a given time don't always win slams either but it doesn't devalue the feat.

lydian wrote:Actually I think the RR format should have a greater place in tennis competition but that's just my opinion.

Ah right - a format that allows a match loser still go on to claim the title.  

What's with the "doh" smiley...you think the use of that automatically grants you superior status or something? Oh I feel so chastened and diminished now, lol.

I see no problem with RR formats. A decathlete may have come last in one discpline and yet still won Olympic Gold. The Premier League runs via RR format effectively. The RR format irons out rough/off days to ensure the most complete player comes through to the latter stages. Besides which, I dont advocate the use of RR format to determine the actual event winner, it can be an effective means of determining who goes through to the knock-out QF/SF/F phase. Plus I'm not saying it should be used ubiquitously either, I actually believe it has a place in the lower echelons of the game and some other areas.

I don't really get the argument that the Olympics is diminished in some way because Massu won it. Gaudio won the French that year but no one is suggesting that de-values the French Open.

The Olympics isnt as big as a slam. No player would swap a Wimbledon title for a gold medal. However, I suspect most would prefer to win the Olympics than the WTF. This thrrad even emphasises the prestige associated with it. Massu and Rosset are remembered for winning the Olympic title. Im not sure Corretja is remembered in the same way for winning the YEC.

The RR format is good for the crowds and suits the exhibition feel of the WTF. I wouldn't want to see it used more widely though. It devalues the event slightly that a player can theoretically win with a 3-2 win loss record.

Nor do many remember Kuerten winning WTF either. At the end of the day it is about the slams...they have 128 of the best ranked players (barring WCs) entering in Bo5 format. TMS are also a tough challenge with their day after day playing format. However, they are now Bo3. When we judge a players career we still do it by slam count and always will.

Yes lydian Round Robin formats have their place but just not in tennis in what is a much-sought after title - that is my point. Tennis has always been a sport run on the premise of the player who beats EVERYONE else he faces in a given tournament wins but the Round Robin bucks that trend and offers nothing. Well except for giving players the chance to strategically knock out a dangerous opponent depending on how many games he wins/loses in a match. A dangerous and unwanted avenue to go down in my opinion. If it floats your boat then fine but it doesn't work for me.

I think RR is good for the lower echelons as mentioned, e.g. at Futures and Challengers, so that players who live and die by their results in the lower rankings get a fair crack of the whip at getting to the Q/SF/F. They ensure a player can be allowed an off-day or slight illness and still make it through to the finals stages if they're good enough. RR formats do not by and large promote "losers".

Born Slippy wrote:I don't really get the argument that the Olympics is diminished in some way because Massu won it. Gaudio won the French that year but no one is suggesting that de-values the French Open.

The Olympics isnt as big as a slam. No player would swap a Wimbledon title for a gold medal. However, I suspect most would prefer to win the Olympics than the WTF. This thrrad even emphasises the prestige associated with it. Massu and Rosset are remembered for winning the Olympic title. Im not sure Corretja is remembered in the same way for winning the YEC.

I agree. It's about slams and, to a lesser extent, weeks at #1.

WTF, Masters and, yes, Olympics don't really come into it, except as 'extras'.

But there are comments on this thread that the Olympics is almost the equal of the slam, which I strongly disgree with.

Well not from me HM. The slams stand alone in the mark of greatness and always will.

As for the rest of the tournaments people will have their own ideas where they stand in importance and prestige.

Tennis has always been a purely knock-out event? I think not CC, do check your facts.

The rotational aspect of 'Round Robin' (an interesting term in its own right) within tennis tournaments originates in the USA at the end of the 1800s. The Official Lawn Tennis Bulletin, issued in New York in 1895 stated..."The so-called round-robin tournament, where each man plays every other, furnishes the best possible test of tennis skill."

Don't worry I won't add a doh symbol

Oh sorry lydian I am too young to remember 1895.  

Like I say if Round Robin floats your boat then fine but it is not my cup of tea thanks and I have explained why.

It floats my boat in limited circumstances. However, this RR discussion arose because its being used to beat the WTF down vs OG (to ensure I guess that Murray's OG is seen as better than winning WTF which he hasn't done).

RR formats actually weed out the weaker players, they ensure the strongest go through...and for that reason I'm actually AGAINST using them for major, large draw tournaments as they'll only result in even more dominance from the top 4-8 players in the QFs onwards. However, for WTF, the format tends to ensure the strongest, not weakest, players win through within the indoor conditions.

Just like people use past Olympic winners not deemed great players as a stick to beat the Olympic Games you mean?

I have went into this in detail lydian and in sporting terms the Olympic Champion tag in sport holds far more sway in the sporting world than a WTF title. On the other hand in tennis the WTF holds more points for the winner and is therefore seen as more valuable.

If you are intimating that would the WTF hold more sway for me if Murray had won it before? I am not certain at all of that for the reasons that I have given ie Round Robin format and the time of the season it is played which always guarantees players arriving for it tired or injury-ridden. That leaves any win open to it being tainted by people saying he only won because Player A was knackered or Player B was injured. That is my take on it. In short - yes a great title to have on your CV like an Olympic Gold is but not in the same league as a slam win.

The WTF is played at the end of the season because it is the end of the season championship of the top players of the year.

Bit pointless to schedule it anywhere else.

time please wrote:The WTF is played at the end of the season because it is the end of the season championship of the top players of the year.

Bit pointless to schedule it anywhere else.

Yes I understand that. How about knocking it back until the end of the year so it is almost a season opener for the new season. Have it start on say Boxing Day - that way it would ensure fitter and healthier players which would only enhance the tournament. Just a thought.

The WTF is what it is, it's the culmination of the years points race with the top 8 going through - and as such also tries to ensure there is an incentive for players to try their best through the year. It's unlike other tennis events. OG tennis is still just another 56 man knockout event at the end of the day. Whether WTF is held in Nov or Dec makes no difference to me but I think the players want it done even sooner if they had the chance so they get a proper off-season before the merry go round starts in January again.

Anyway, comparing WTF to OG is like comparing apples with oranges. Pointless IMO.

Definitely agree on your last point lydian.  

It's amazing how much heat this thread seems to be drawing when nearly everyone has pretty much the same opinion:
For a career legacy of a Great, winning slams is the main thing. Getting to #1 in the rankings also holds some merit.

The rest, whether Olympic gold medals, WTFs, Masters Series events, is just some icing on the cake.

Now, over time the Olympic tennis event may become more important - certainly having some Great winners (Agassi and Rafa) and some very good winners like Murray (at this stage of his career) helps the reputation of the event, but say the next Olympics is won by Almagro out of a somewhat depleted field and the reputation drops again. If on the other hand, Federer wins as a swansong, beating Rafa and Djokovic, the reputation will be further elevated. It's clearly an event that is still trying to find a level and an identity within the tennis community.

dummy_half wrote:It's amazing how much heat this thread seems to be drawing when nearly everyone has pretty much the same opinion:
For a career legacy of a Great, winning slams is the main thing. Getting to #1 in the rankings also holds some merit.

The rest, whether Olympic gold medals, WTFs, Masters Series events, is just some icing on the cake.

Now, over time the Olympic tennis event may become more important - certainly having some Great winners (Agassi and Rafa) and some very good winners like Murray (at this stage of his career) helps the reputation of the event, but say the next Olympics is won by Almagro out of a somewhat depleted field and the reputation drops again. If on the other hand, Federer wins as a swansong, beating Rafa and Djokovic, the reputation will be further elevated. It's clearly an event that is still trying to find a level and an identity within the tennis community.

Spot on dummy_half.  

CaledonianCraig wrote:

time please wrote:The WTF is played at the end of the season because it is the end of the season championship of the top players of the year.

Bit pointless to schedule it anywhere else.

Yes I understand that. How about knocking it back until the end of the year so it is almost a season opener for the new season. Have it start on say Boxing Day - that way it would ensure fitter and healthier players which would only enhance the tournament. Just a thought.

Because that would 1) interfere with preparation for AO.  I think playing 5 rounds (for the winner) against top 8 players is probably potentially more draining than a warm up 500 event where they have a buy for the 1st round.

Being competitive at the end of a hard season, to scoop the championship, is also a great testament to some of our greatest champions in terms of their consistency and the meticulousness of their preparation, as the list below testifies:


Singles
Location Year Champion Runner-up Score

ATP World Tour Finals

London
2012 Novak Djokovic def  Roger Federer 7–6(8–6), 7–5
2011 Roger Federer def Jo-Wilfried Tsonga 6–3, 6–7(6–8), 6–3
2010 Roger Federer def Rafael Nadal 6–3, 3–6, 6–1
2009 Nikolay Davydenko def Juan Martín del Potro 6–3, 6–4

Tennis Masters Cup
2008  Novak Djokovic def Nikolay Davydenko 6–1, 7–5
2007  Roger Federer def David Ferrer 6–2, 6–3, 6–2
2006  Roger Federer def James Blake 6–0, 6–3, 6–4
2005  David Nalbandian def Roger Federer 6–7(4–7), 6–7(11–13), 6–2, 6–1, 7–6(7–3)
2004  Roger Federer def Lleyton Hewitt 6–3, 6–2
2003  Roger Federer def Andre Agassi 6–3, 6–0, 6–4
2002  Lleyton Hewitt def Juan Carlos Ferrero 7–5, 7–5, 2–6, 2–6, 6–4
2001  Lleyton Hewitt def Sébastien Grosjean 6–3, 6–3, 6–4
2000  Gustavo Kuerten def Andre Agassi 6–4, 6–4, 6–4

ATP Tour World Championships

1999  Pete Sampras def Andre Agassi 6–1, 7–5, 6–4
1998  Àlex Corretja def Carlos Moyá 3–6, 3–6, 7–5, 6–3, 7–5
1997 United States Pete Sampras defRussia Yevgeny Kafelnikov 6–3, 6–2, 6–2
1996 United States Pete Sampras def Boris Becker 3–6, 7–6(7–5), 7–6(7–4), 6–7(11–13), 6–4
1995 Boris Becker def Michael Chang 7–6(7–3), 6–0, 7–6(7–5)
1994 Pete Sampras def Boris Becker 4–6, 6–3, 7–5, 6–4
1993 Michael Stich def Pete Sampras 7–6(7–3), 2–6, 7–6(9–7), 6–2
1992 Boris Becker def Jim Courier 6–4, 6–3, 7–5
1991 Pete Sampras def Jim Courier 3–6, 7–6(7–5), 6–3, 6–4
1990 Andre Agassi def Stefan Edberg 5–7, 7–6(7–5), 7–5, 6–2

Masters Grand Prix

1989 Sweden Stefan Edberg def Boris Becker 4–6, 7–6(8–6), 6–3, 6–1
1988 Boris Becker def Ivan Lendl 5–7, 7–6(7–5), 3–6, 6–2, 7–6(7–5)
1987 Ivan Lendl def Mats Wilander 6–2, 6–2, 6–3
1986 Ivan Lendl def Boris Becker 6–4, 6–4, 6–4
1985 Ivan Lendl def Boris Becker 6–2, 7–6(7–4), 6–3
1984 John McEnroe def Ivan Lendl 7–5, 6–0, 6–4
1983 John McEnroe def Ivan Lendl 6–3, 6–4, 6–4
1982 Ivan Lendl def John McEnroe 6–4, 6–4, 6–2
1981 Ivan Lendl def Vitas Gerulaitis 6–7(5–7), 2–6, 7–6(8–6), 6–2, 6–4
1980 Björn Borg def Ivan Lendl 6–4, 6–2, 6–2
1979 Björn Borg def Vitas Gerulaitis 6–2, 6–2
1978 John McEnroe def Arthur Ashe 6–7(5–7), 6–3, 7–5
1977 Jimmy Connors def  Björn Borg 6–4, 1–6, 6–4
1976 Manuel Orantes def Wojtek Fibak 5–7, 6–2, 0–6, 7–6(7–1), 6–1
1975 Ilie Năstase def Sweden Björn Borg 6–2, 6–2, 6–1
1974 Argentina Guillermo Vilas def Ilie Năstase 7–6(8–6), 6–2, 3–6, 3–6, 6–4
1973 Romania Ilie Năstase def Tom Okker 6–3, 7–5, 4–6, 6–3
1972 Romania Ilie Năstase def  Stan Smith 6–3, 6–2, 3–6, 2–6, 6–3

Anyway, I fully agree with Lydian that comparing the OG and the WTF is like comparing apples to oranges, but I simply can't let you get away with your assertion that the WTF is little more than an exhibition (look at how hard fought some of those finals are at the end of a long season), nor the inference that most top players can't be bothered to really try for 1,500 ranking points and £1,000,000 ++ in prize money because they are a little fatigued!  

Anyway, I've said all I want to add to this thread now. If I go on, it will be condemning other posters to my own particular brand of water torture!!

I am a fan of RR and wish they would bring it into use during the qualifiers for Slams and TMS's.

Mines was a mere suggestion which I realise will never happen time please. In any case dummy_half has just hit the nail on the head about how I feel.