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

Another thread descends into chaos

Jubba

In tennis terms, an Olympic gold medal will matter as much to a player's legacy as winning an MS1000 event - that is, not very much when looking back at the end of a career (unless you have something freakish like Rafa's streak of Monte carlo wins). Nice to win at the time, and nearly unique in that it is about representing your country in a way that the main tour events aren't (although there is also Davis Cup for the patriotic players), but does Agassi's or Rafa's gold medal really add much to their 8 and 11 GS titles? Likewise, does anyone really care about their umpteen Masters Series tournament wins?

Grand Slams are the main thing, with reaching the #1 ranking also being a signiificant positive.

People will always have their own definition of greatness and what brand of tennis qualifies for that category. Nothing will change that opinion.

If it grates with you that your favourite player is not seen by posters on forums as anything special or not destined to become a great of the sport then there are ways to take solace. Listen to the others - the greats of the sport from yester-year and some of the present who laud praise on Andy - the likes of Stefan Edberg, John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors, Novak Djokovic, Boris Becker, Ivan Lendl, Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer. Their opinion is worth far more in all honesty - men that have been there and done it and know what greatness is all about and what qualifies. As for forum posters just enjoy the fun of the debate and don't stress out as at the end of the day you will never win anybody around who has already made their mind up.

To the OP Andy has a fantastic chance barring injury and a dramatic loss of form. It is critical Lendl remains his coach for him to go further

CaledonianCraig wrote:People will always have their own definition of greatness and what brand of tennis qualifies for that category. Nothing will change that opinion.

If it grates with you that your favourite player is not seen by posters on forums as anything special or not destined to become a great of the sport then there are ways to take solace. Listen to the others - the greats of the sport from yester-year and some of the present who laud praise on Andy - the likes of Stefan Edberg, John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors, Novak Djokovic, Boris Becker, Ivan Lendl, Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer. Their opinion is worth far more in all honesty - men that have been there and done it and know what greatness is all about and what qualifies. As for forum posters just enjoy the fun of the debate and don't stress out as at the end of the day you will never win anybody around who has already made their mind up.

Craig

I seem to recall some discussions last year with SoCal staking a claim for Djokovic as already having reached the level of Greatness (my capitalised G being intentional there - he was clearly already a great player, as is Andy)- at that time my opinion was that he was close but not quite there yet. Looiking now, with him having added another slam and a couple of other runners up spots he's borderline, and I think most of us would be surprised if he does not add at least one or two slams to his count in the next couple of years and shift himself well up in to the Greats of the game (8 slams would put him on a level with Connors, Lendl and Agassi, which is very high quality company).

Now obviously Andy is a bit behind that sort of career legacy so far - 2 slams, Olympics and 7 MS 1000 titles and not having reached #1 in the rankings show a world class player but not one that is (yet?) a true Great of the Open era. Whether he will ever make it to the level of the true greats (say 6+ slams) is pure speculation at this point. At 26 years old, he's probably got about 3 or 4 more years of being truly competetive given the current playing conditions that favour more experienced and physically developed players, and a game that makes him one of the realistic contenders for 3 of the 4 slams.

Add to that the apparent lack of great players coming through the ranks (Andy and Novak were winning tournaments at 18/19 and big tournaments by 20/21 - since then, only Del Potro has come close to their level, and the 'up and coming' players now are already 22/23 and haven't got the results. Perhaps they just aren't that good) and the aging and inevitable decline of Federer as a consistent threat plus the on-going question marks over Rafa's knees and so his effectiveness away from clay, and there is a window of opportunity for Andy to take another handful of slam titles if he is good enough.

So that is now the question Andy has to provide an answer to - is he an outstanding player on the level of (for example) Courier or can he push on to become a genuine Great of the game. Either way, his achievements over the last 12 months have moved him up from being a player where 95% of pros would be envious of his achievements to it being 99%. Not a bad place to be...

dummy_half wrote:Jubba

In tennis terms, an Olympic gold medal will matter as much to a player's legacy as winning an MS1000 event - that is, not very much when looking back at the end of a career (unless you have something freakish like Rafa's streak of Monte carlo wins). Nice to win at the time, and nearly unique in that it is about representing your country in a way that the main tour events aren't (although there is also Davis Cup for the patriotic players), but does Agassi's or Rafa's gold medal really add much to their 8 and 11 GS titles? Likewise, does anyone really care about their umpteen Masters Series tournament wins?

Grand Slams are the main thing, with reaching the #1 ranking also being a signiificant positive.

Your points are well made, but pays no heed to the fact that all the players who had already won majors, saw last years Olympics as the most important event of the year, i.e, Federer and Del Potro. Novak probably thought the French and Rafa probably wasn't bothered as he'd already won one.

But if we add on Murray's obvious motivation then we had at least four of the top players seeing it as an important as a Slam

You can fall for the old "well it's less than a Masters win so must be less of an event" as much as you want, after all the reason why it is so low is obviously for political reasons (i.e. they don't want the Masters appearing as a third tier) - but those are actual facts, backed up by player statements before, during and after

Hence people will, when looking back, see the Olympic gold in 2012 as more or less a slam, simply because of who was beaten in the final and the fact that four former / future winners of a slam were in the semi's.

dummy_half, great post. My sentiments exactly.

The obstacle to Andy becoming a "Great with an uppercase G" is that he was a late bloomer.

To rack up the kind of statistics for all time greatness, a player needs to be winning slams for probably at least 4 or 5 years. Andy has been at this level for about a year. Will he sustain this until he is 29/30? It's possible but very tough.

Djokovic is in a similar position with his pursuit of 10 slam/Legend status.

Both only need 4 more slams for the respective 10 and 6 totals. This seems like a small number but if they win one slam a year, they will be 30 by the time they reach those totals. Both are capable of winning more than one slam in a year but that's tough to do! And it's very rare when a player is in their late 20s.

I have to disagree with that banbrotam. I think slams will always be more important to players than an Olympic gold. An Olympic gold simply doesn't have the history and the prestige that a slam has. It was only 4 years ago, I think, that players such as Roddick and Fish skipped the Olympics to prepare for the USO, and I don't think the Olympics has gained that much since then.

The most widely asked question now is how many can Andy win?

Well he already has two and he perhaps has three/four years at his prime left at the top. I can never see him being a French Open winner but he will be there or thereabouts at the three other slams as evidence shows:-

Australian Open:-

Three times runner-up
1 semi-final

Wimbledon:-

2013 Champion
One time runner-up
3 semi-finals

US Open:-

2012 Champion
One time runner-up
1 semi-final

Evidence is there in how consistent he is at those slams. Now he has re-inforced self-belief and a winning mentality. Who realistically stands in his way as we stand? Novak Djokovic the world No.1 and Rafael Nadal (providing he stays fit and rediscovers the knack of winning a slam away from clay) immediately spring to mind. Apart from that there is genuinely nobody for Andy to fear so he perhaps has 9 or 12 more realistic cracks at slams (perhaps less or perhaps more but that depends). I'd be surprised now as things stand if he never won another slam but if that is the case he has already achieved so much so I'd still be delighted watching him blossom from a scrawny teenage kid prone to cramp into a multiple slam winner.

Banbro

As I said a few comments before the one you quoted, in terms of Andy's career development, the Olympics were very significant, and when people look back on his career it may be seen as a turning point. I also agree that last year's Olympic tennis tournament was of better quality than some, in part because it was played at a prestigious venue and in part because it fit better into the season than did (for example) Beijing or Sydney. The next OG will see the tennnis tournament drop in prestige again, especiallly if it is played on clay - wrong court surface for the time of year and disruptive to the schedule with players having to travel from Europe to South America and then back to North America.

However, in terms of what winning Olympic gold will add to any claims of greatness for Andy by the end of his career, I stand by my comment that it won't be more than a minor footnote - nice to have won and an important stepping stone in Andy's development into a GS-winning player, but no more than that.

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.

Banbro, the thing that gives the Olympics its value - its rarity - is what undermines its status in assessing legacy.

As an event, it's structurally a Masters. Six rounds, BO3 with a BO5 final.

The field of competitors is actually WEAKER than a Masters for two reasons:

1)There is limit on the number of competitors from each country.

2) Entrants had to have played a certain amount of Davis Cup matches.

For these reasons Dolgopolov, Granollers, Anderson, Andujar, Ferrero, Ramos, Llodra, Chardy, Paire and Mayer (all in the top 64 at the time) were not allowed to enter!

The only thing that makes it stand out is the fact it is held once every 4 years.

I just can't accept that an event that is really a Masters with a weakened field is counted as even similar to a slam just because it is not held very often.

I totally accept that the players would all love to win it. But I think it's anadequate as a measure of greatness.

I'd expect 6 to 8 slams from Andy and 10/11 from Novak, i.e. 9 more from the two of them

I question why it's seen as tough winning slams at 29/30, considering that the average peak age is now obviously 28

I think we're in danger of using the old rules to predict the future

Remember, Rafa is the only teenage winner of a slam since Sampras and the average age of winners, are creeping up all the time

_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       

I think the Olympics holds more sway with the players and the wider sporting public than tennis fans in general.

We know it means a heck of a lot to the players as Rafa did talk about his distress of not only missing Wimbledon but the Olympics as well. See the reaction of Roger Federer losing (the man who has won it all) to see what it meant to him and had him insisting he wouldn't give up on his quest for Olympic Gold.

When you mention Olympic Champion to the wider sporting public those words command respect unlike telling them you were a World Tour Final winner or a Masters Cup winner.

However, to tennis fans who know the set up of tennis many will put World Tour Finals first before the Olympics and perhaps the same with Masters Cups.

One thing is sure (to me) that the Olympics meant a lot more to Andy in the sense that it saw him cross the threshold and since then his career has not looked back. In short the Olympics have meant much more to his career than a Masters Cup win which he has had multiple wins at. Hope that all makes sense.

banbrotam wrote:I question why it's seen as tough winning slams at 29/30, considering that the average peak age is now obviously 28

Because it's only happened 26 times since 1968!

Put another way, only 14% of slams since 1968 have been won by a player older than 28.

As for the age range creeping up, the number of times a player older than 28 has won a slam since the start of 2009 is 2 (Federer both times).

If look at the last 10 years, only 3 players older than 28 have won slams.

It really doesn't happen very often!

HM Murdoch wrote:

banbrotam wrote:I question why it's seen as tough winning slams at 29/30, considering that the average peak age is now obviously 28

Because it's only happened 26 times since 1968!

Put another way, only 14% of slams since 1968 have been won by a player older than 28.

As for the age range creeping up, the number of times a player older than 28 has won a slam since the start of 2009 is 2 (Federer both times).

If look at the last 10 years, only 3 players older than 28 have won slams.

It really doesn't happen very often!

But that could change in the coming few years. As has been pointed out many times on this forum the youngsters just aren't breaking through so who exactly is going to win slams in the coming two or three years if it isn't Djokovic, Murray and Nadal bearing in mind the ages of Berdych, Tsonga and Ferrer. That only leaves Del Potro so he'll need to up his consistency. Apart from him we are then looking at one of the youngsters making that breakthrough.

Craig, fair point, but there's one angle you may have overlooked.

We're not necessarily looking at someone stepping up.

It would only take Andy, Novak and Rafa's levels or consistency to drop a bit and suddenly they are in the sights of those below them.

Even recently, Wawrinka and Del Potro have taken Novak to the brink. Verdasco took two sets off Andy on grass. Darcis and Rosol beat Rafa.

We don't need a dominant force to emerge. We just need the top guys to be vulnerable to a given player on a given day. I can only see that becoming more common as they get older.

Yes that is a fair point HM - one I never considered.

Considering that though and you'd need Djokovic and Murray's levels to drop and the likes of Del Potro (first and foremost) would be in business but again you'd need his consistency to improve as well.

There is a certain irony to HM's post though in that all of those players bar DP are older than Djokovic and all have produced tennis probably beyond them earlier in their careers to challenge the top guys.

Born Slippy wrote:There is a certain irony to HM's post though in that all of those players bar DP are older than Djokovic and all have produced tennis probably beyond them earlier in their careers to challenge the top guys.

Very true! These are strange times.

I think the gap between the top and the rest has closed somewhat. It only takes a player ranked 5-20 playing his very best against a top player not quite at the races and things become very tight. The days of all the top players waltzing through to the semis have probably passed.

HM

The issue there is that the top 4 that was so dominant is:
A - No longer the top 4
B - Has players in Federer and possibly Nadal who are not as good as they were.

Djokovic has reached at least the semi final of every slam since USO 2010 while Andy has reached his last 4 slam finals (OK, missing RG this year) and has only failed to make the SF once since the start of 2011 (RG 12). So the top 2 are still playing to the same level of dominance as a couple of years ago.

Yes, Stan pushed Djokovic frighteningly close, as Verdasco did with Andy, but in the end they still managed to find a way to win (and go on to win the tournament).

Yes, the players ranked #5 to #20 (hell, to #100 - Rosol v Nadal last year) can have their days and when they do it's tough for even the top guys to beat them, but these are still only 1 in 5 or 1 in 10 matches (with a few exceptions, such as Berdych seeming to be a particularly bad match up for Andy).

Certainly for the foreseeable future you'd make Djokovic and Murray the two favourites for any hard court event, with Nadal, Del Potro and perhaps Federer if his new raquet works well, as best of the rest.

dummy_half wrote:HM

The issue there is that the top 4 that was so dominant is:
A - No longer the top 4
B - Has players in Federer and possibly Nadal who are not as good as they were.

Djokovic has reached at least the semi final of every slam since USO 2010 while Andy has reached his last 4 slam finals (OK, missing RG this year) and has only failed to make the SF once since the start of 2011 (RG 12). So the top 2 are still playing to the same level of dominance as a couple of years ago.

Yes, Stan pushed Djokovic frighteningly close, as Verdasco did with Andy, but in the end they still managed to find a way to win (and go on to win the tournament).

Yes, the players ranked #5 to #20 (hell, to #100 - Rosol v Nadal last year) can have their days and when they do it's tough for even the top guys to beat them, but these are still only 1 in 5 or 1 in 10 matches (with a few exceptions, such as Berdych seeming to be a particularly bad match up for Andy).

Certainly for the foreseeable future you'd make Djokovic and Murray the two favourites for any hard court event, with Nadal, Del Potro and perhaps Federer if his new raquet works well, as best of the rest.

Spot on - as for Federer and a new racquet - I don't think it will start making him a slam winner again or getting that coveted Gold in Brazil!

HM Murdoch wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:There is a certain irony to HM's post though in that all of those players bar DP are older than Djokovic and all have produced tennis probably beyond them earlier in their careers to challenge the top guys.

Very true! These are strange times.

I think the gap between the top and the rest has closed somewhat. It only takes a player ranked 5-20 playing his very best against a top player not quite at the races and things become very tight. The days of all the top players waltzing through to the semis have probably passed.

Born Slippy makes the crucial point and where I think your answer to me was too buried in the stats of the past. We all know that it used to be a young mans game. I watched Becker, Chang win and the 18 year old Mac reach the Wimby semi's

The question is now given all the evidence to the contrary, can we still assume that 28-30 is where a player is on the slide

To me, it's quite simply due to sports science, which has boomed in recent years (look at the cyclists) players can get more out of their bodies but it takes longer, so they look 'unsensational' as teenagers, but better in their late 20's

Murray does less running now than he did in 2010 which was less than he did in 2008. Hence, he's already conditioning himself to ply a 5% more efficent game later in his career. That an his variety - should be enough

We will see

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.

dummy_half wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:People will always have their own definition of greatness and what brand of tennis qualifies for that category. Nothing will change that opinion.

If it grates with you that your favourite player is not seen by posters on forums as anything special or not destined to become a great of the sport then there are ways to take solace. Listen to the others - the greats of the sport from yester-year and some of the present who laud praise on Andy - the likes of Stefan Edberg, John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors, Novak Djokovic, Boris Becker, Ivan Lendl, Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer. Their opinion is worth far more in all honesty - men that have been there and done it and know what greatness is all about and what qualifies. As for forum posters just enjoy the fun of the debate and don't stress out as at the end of the day you will never win anybody around who has already made their mind up.

Craig

I seem to recall some discussions last year with SoCal staking a claim for Djokovic as already having reached the level of Greatness (my capitalised G being intentional there - he was clearly already a great player, as is Andy)- at that time my opinion was that he was close but not quite there yet. Looiking now, with him having added another slam and a couple of other runners up spots he's borderline, and I think most of us would be surprised if he does not add at least one or two slams to his count in the next couple of years and shift himself well up in to the Greats of the game (8 slams would put him on a level with Connors, Lendl and Agassi, which is very high quality company).

Now obviously Andy is a bit behind that sort of career legacy so far - 2 slams, Olympics and 7 MS 1000 titles and not having reached #1 in the rankings show a world class player but not one that is (yet?) a true Great of the Open era. Whether he will ever make it to the level of the true greats (say 6+ slams) is pure speculation at this point. At 26 years old, he's probably got about 3 or 4 more years of being truly competetive given the current playing conditions that favour more experienced and physically developed players, and a game that makes him one of the realistic contenders for 3 of the 4 slams.

Add to that the apparent lack of great players coming through the ranks (Andy and Novak were winning tournaments at 18/19 and big tournaments by 20/21 - since then, only Del Potro has come close to their level, and the 'up and coming' players now are already 22/23 and haven't got the results. Perhaps they just aren't that good) and the aging and inevitable decline of Federer as a consistent threat plus the on-going question marks over Rafa's knees and so his effectiveness away from clay, and there is a window of opportunity for Andy to take another handful of slam titles if he is good enough.

So that is now the question Andy has to provide an answer to - is he an outstanding player on the level of (for example) Courier or can he push on to become a genuine Great of the game. Either way, his achievements over the last 12 months have moved him up from being a player where 95% of pros would be envious of his achievements to it being 99%. Not a bad place to be...

Nicely put

HM Murdoch wrote:Banbro, the thing that gives the Olympics its value - its rarity - is what undermines its status in assessing legacy.

As an event, it's structurally a Masters. Six rounds, BO3 with a BO5 final.

The field of competitors is actually WEAKER than a Masters for two reasons:

1)There is limit on the number of competitors from each country.

2) Entrants had to have played a certain amount of Davis Cup matches.

For these reasons Dolgopolov, Granollers, Anderson, Andujar, Ferrero, Ramos, Llodra, Chardy, Paire and Mayer (all in the top 64 at the time) were not allowed to enter!

The only thing that makes it stand out is the fact it is held once every 4 years.

I just can't accept that an event that is really a Masters with a weakened field is counted as even similar to a slam just because it is not held very often.

I totally accept that the players would all love to win it. But I think it's anadequate as a measure of greatness.

But then the World Tour final is worth even less, as apart from the top 8, no-one else is allowed to entre

I disagree there Risky. In the WTF you have to play at least 3 out of the top 8, and 4 or 5 to win it - that's unique in the sport.

I was being a little tongue in cheek there :-)

Riskysports wrote:I was being a little tongue in cheek there :-)

Ah, OK - we need a tongue in cheek emoticon!

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Riskysports wrote:I was being a little tongue in cheek there :-)

Ah, OK - we need a tongue in cheek emoticon!

That tends to look like a blow job - which would sent this thread in a different direction

banbrotam wrote:I'd expect 6 to 8 slams from Andy and 10/11 from Novak, i.e. 9 more from the two of them

I question why it's seen as tough winning slams at 29/30, considering that the average peak age is now obviously 28

I think we're in danger of using the old rules to predict the future

Remember, Rafa is the only teenage winner of a slam since Sampras and the average age of winners, are creeping up all the time

Agree with that banbro, Agassi won his last slam 33 and Federer won a slam at almost 31. I mean if David Ferrer can have his best season at age 31 why do we think that Djokovic and Murray will stop winning like this in a year or two when they will still be in their late 20s. Forecasting the future is difficult, I won't get as specific as you do with the projections but I think it is clear that Novak, Andy, and Nadal if he is healthy will take the lion's share of the slams over the next few years as the next generation simply don't match up to the class of 05-07 guys who broke on the tour. (berdy, Tsonga, novak, nadal, murray, gasquet, and Del Po)

It really doesn't matter for me as I classify both murray and Novak already as legends of the game and all time greats. Everyone is entitled to their own definition of great or legend, mine is a bit more inclusive. I mean I would probably add about 8-10 names to the lists others have provided over the course of the entire open era that spans 45 years, so my categorization is hardly cheapening the definition of great in my mind.

As on the subject of the Olympics, I am torn between ranking it as the 5th or 6th biggest prize in the sport. I think the Olympics is probably 5th in the mind of the players and most importantly in the mind of the advertisers and corporate sponsors. Sure you win more points and a lot more money for WTF, but financially speaking if a player is from a large market like the UK, USA, Australia, Germany, France etc. winning a gold medal will up your profile and increase your endorsement power more than winning the WTF. Outside of tennis fans nobody even knows what the WTF is and what it symbolizes. In terms of PR, and name recognition one could argue that an Olympic gold in the sports world and world at large carries as much public relations worth as any slam short of wimbeldon. In terms of name recognition and notoriety one could argue that the Olympic gold is very, very valuable in a real sense of giving the player a marketing niche within his home nation for life, in a manner that a WTF or masters win simply can't do. Within the tennis world WTF is way more lucrative and resume building, but outside of diehard tennis fans nobody else really knows or cares.

socal1976 wrote:As on the subject of the Olympics, I am torn between ranking it as the 5th or 6th biggest prize in the sport. I think the Olympics is probably 5th in the mind of the players and most importantly in the mind of the advertisers and corporate sponsors. Sure you win more points and a lot more money for WTF,  but financially speaking if a player is from a large market like the UK, USA, Australia, Germany, France etc. winning a gold medal will up your profile and increase your endorsement power more than winning the WTF. Outside of tennis fans nobody even knows what the WTF is and what it symbolizes. In terms of PR, and name recognition one could argue that an Olympic gold in the sports world and world at large carries as much public relations worth as any slam short of wimbeldon. In terms of name recognition and notoriety one could argue that the Olympic gold is very, very valuable in a real sense of giving the player a marketing niche within his home nation for life, in a manner that a WTF or masters win simply can't do. Within the tennis world WTF is way more lucrative and resume building, but outside of diehard tennis fans nobody else really knows or cares.

Very good post socal.

If you asked me if I would swap Murray's Olympic gold for last years WTF the answer is no. Not even close. You could argue that's because it was a home Olympics and it was the turning point for Murray.... But if the Rio Olympics were next year and you offered me the same deal, gold medal or WTF winner, I'd choose the Olympic gold again.

I love the WTF, I think they are definitely the 5th biggest prize in most seasons. Ranking wise and the kudos of saying you are the best of the best is great to watch and great to win. But if I were a tennis player I'd choose Olympic gold over it.

I understand a lot of fans are different though, especially if you're a Federer fan and your player has notched up 17 slams. It's important to him, but not to his fans maybe... Unless we're talking his swiss fans.

Roger was in tears after beating DelPo in the semi of the Olympics knowing he was into the final - the rest is history.

However some of his fan (as usual) played it down because he didn't pick up the gold!

Never mind with the new racquet I am sure they will be looking for him to pick up the only trophy he has yet to win when they next hold it ( in three years) time in Brasil!!!

I think (again) people confuse the emotion of the Olympics as an event itself, with the sport of tennis.

For a few weeks these guys get to step into another, bigger World. They get to represent their country, rub shoulders with the elite from other sports. It would be bizarre indeed if they did not become quite enraptured with the thing.

Then they go back to their sport, and attend to what really matters. Slams, making and winning the WTF (how anyone can question the quality of an event where to win you have to play five matches against the elite is quite baffling - Federer even beat the other four of the top five one year!), and Masters.

I'm personally not confusing anything. As a fan I'd rather the player I support won the Olympics than WTF. In my opinion the players that were involved view it equally as highly at least as the WTF, and perhaps more important.

Some fans differ from that though, and fair enough.

sportslover wrote:Roger was in tears after beating DelPo in the semi of the Olympics knowing he was into the final - the rest is history.

However some of his fan (as usual) played it down because he didn't pick up the gold!

Never mind with the new racquet I am sure they will be looking for him to pick up the only trophy he has yet to win when they next hold it ( in three years) time in Brasil!!!

SL, good to see you back and around, I also have a sneaking suspicion that fed fans would value the Olympics more if Roger had won the gold in one of the last two Olympics.

bogbrush wrote:I think (again) people confuse the emotion of the Olympics as an event itself, with the sport of tennis.

For a few weeks these guys get to step into another, bigger World. They get to represent their country, rub shoulders with the elite from other sports. It would be bizarre indeed if they did not become quite enraptured with the thing.

Then they go back to their sport, and attend to what really matters. Slams, making and winning the WTF (how anyone can question the quality of an event where to win you have to play five matches against the elite is quite baffling - Federer even beat the other four of the top five one year!), and Masters.

It is not about emotion BB, you are a business man, it is about cold hard cash. Being an Olympic gold medalist, especially if you are in a wealthy and large market nation has a real dollar value that probably outweighs the value of the prize money and points given to you by a WTF. The top players today care more about endorsements and sponsorships than they do about a masters title as prestigious as it is. In the states an advertising firm basically stated that winning a gold medal gave you about 2.5-3.5 million more in career earning power for the average US gold medalist.

You and I know how tough it is to win a WTF title or a master's title but 60 million other people in Britain and 300 million other people in the states don't have any clue as to what either of these distinctions mean, but they sure recognize the accomplishment of being an Olympic gold medalist. This is not about emotion or patriotism, it is about cashing in and what is more valuable. A real argument could be made that in the world of advertising and corporate sponsorship that an Olympic gold dwarves the value of WTF or masters title.

Danny_1982 wrote:

socal1976 wrote:As on the subject of the Olympics, I am torn between ranking it as the 5th or 6th biggest prize in the sport. I think the Olympics is probably 5th in the mind of the players and most importantly in the mind of the advertisers and corporate sponsors. Sure you win more points and a lot more money for WTF,  but financially speaking if a player is from a large market like the UK, USA, Australia, Germany, France etc. winning a gold medal will up your profile and increase your endorsement power more than winning the WTF. Outside of tennis fans nobody even knows what the WTF is and what it symbolizes. In terms of PR, and name recognition one could argue that an Olympic gold in the sports world and world at large carries as much public relations worth as any slam short of wimbeldon. In terms of name recognition and notoriety one could argue that the Olympic gold is very, very valuable in a real sense of giving the player a marketing niche within his home nation for life, in a manner that a WTF or masters win simply can't do. Within the tennis world WTF is way more lucrative and resume building, but outside of diehard tennis fans nobody else really knows or cares.

Very good post socal.

If you asked me if I would swap Murray's Olympic gold for last years WTF the answer is no. Not even close. You could argue that's because it was a home Olympics and it was the turning point for Murray.... But if the Rio Olympics were next year and you offered me the same deal, gold medal or WTF winner, I'd choose the Olympic gold again.

I love the WTF, I think they are definitely the 5th biggest prize in most seasons. Ranking wise and the kudos of saying you are the best of the best is great to watch and great to win. But if I were a tennis player I'd choose Olympic gold over it.

I understand a lot of fans are different though, especially if you're a Federer fan and your player has notched up 17 slams. It's important to him, but not to his fans maybe... Unless we're talking his swiss fans.

I concur with Danny socal that it is a very good post - that's not to say that I agree entirely  

I think the OG means more to this generation of players than it did in the past, so it is hard to look at its significance historically in terms of measuring greatness.  As the format stands, it is much more of a lottery than a masters for all the reasons others have put in this thread, and timing your peak for OG is more problematic as it only occurs every 4 years.  Perhaps also historically players have concentrated their efforts on the major immediately before the Games or afterwards because of the greater prestige of the slams, but also more pragmatically because tennis players are professionals they are playing for the money - not every generation has managed their consistency throughout the summer as well as the top four of the last few years.

I think because Federer made clear his desire for gold first, followed by Nadal's delight at scooping it in 2008, Novak's patriotic desire to win for Serbia and Murray's enjoyment of being part of Team GB and being one of the gold medals, it has assumed much more significance over the last few Games.  You make a very good point about the gold probably being financially rewarding for the players in terms of attracting sponsorship, though I would be interested to know what sponsorship Murray attracted in the wake of his OG win, whereas his portfolio is set to soar as Wimbledon champion.  And there is the rub, Wimbledon is the most valuable trophy that British Murray could ever hope to win in terms of sponsorship deals, but for the next slam winning US player, it will probably be the USO because of the recognition in the players' home markets.
I think to put the OG into perspective is something I think Craig may have said earlier in the thread (apologies CC if it wasn't you) something about a player might not be so bothered about winning a gold once they already had done so - at the end of the day it is not the blue riband event for tennis as it is for athletics but it is a wonderful competition to be part of, a larger world of atheletes.

I agree the WTF is valued more by players and tennis pundits than by the general British public who probably weren't aware that it existed pre London 2009, but that might well change if London holds the tournament for another few years - it is hugely popular. It is marketed as a blue riband tournament with the top 8, hugely valuable with ranking points of 1500 for an undefeated champion and a hefty cash prize.  I just don't buy that players who willingly pack a few lucrative exhibitions into their crowded schedules are as blase about the rewards on offer at the end of year championships!

Very good post by you as well time please  

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.

I've got to side with BB here.

However popular the Olympics are, or how lucrative, they have little bearing on the "greatness" of the player.

Before Andy had won a slam, did you all think that Nicolas Massu, Marc Rosset or Miroslav Mecir were greater players than him? They each had an Olympic Gold.

I'm pretty certain nobody did. Andy's record of Masters wins would have trumped those Olympic golds.

This prestige of the Olympic gold is reverse engineering. I can almost guarantee that nobody would mention it if Rafa hadn't won it. Nobody was using it to acclaim Kafelnikov!

Sigh..... I suppose the good posts couldn't last forever!

That's not aimed at you Murdoch by the way.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

banbrotam wrote:I question why it's seen as tough winning slams at 29/30, considering that the average peak age is now obviously 28

Because it's only happened 26 times since 1968!

Put another way, only 14% of slams since 1968 have been won by a player older than 28.

As for the age range creeping up, the number of times a player older than 28 has won a slam since the start of 2009 is 2 (Federer both times).

If look at the last 10 years, only 3 players older than 28 have won slams.

It really doesn't happen very often!

But that could change in the coming few years.

You see, he made a very very valid point backed up by statistical facts, and you came back at him with theoretical possibilities based on hope.  Why can't you just accept it isn't likely?  Why does everything have to come back to "Well, yeah all facts point to it, but I don't like it so I won't accept it."?

He is right.  Post 27 years of age is old in tennis terms and only the very best have managed a slam past that age.  Post 30 is even more unlikely. There seems to be a lot of people about who really think a baseliner like Murray is going to compete in later years like Federer.  It's just so unlikely as to be ridiculous to think it.

I feel sorry for some of the fans here, because they are going to get the "Federer treatment", where other fans and media start writing as if they are still in their prime as they get beaten by players they never would have in their prime.

Murodoch's point about low percentages of slams for players older than 28 is a well researched and valid piece of analysis.

What Craig is trying to get at is that the game seems to have changed quite a bit in the last 10-15 years. 6 or 7 years ago Djokovic, Nadal and Murray were teenage top ten players. All players that have reached the top 10 in their teens have gone on to win slams.

Does anyone know the last teenage top 10 player? I can't think who it was. It may even have been Murray. Is there even a teenage player in the top 100 now? The point is that the days of a kid breaking through to win a slam at 17 seem to have gone.

At the same time, players approaching or over 30 are in great form. 25% of the top 100 are over 30. A stat which has surely never been the case before.

So there is some merit in saying that the average age of slam winners, certainly for the foreseeable future, may be higher than history tells us they usually are.

The penny has just dropped on why I don't rate the Olympics:

It's not important to a player's greatness.

A player cannot possibly be considered a great without slam wins.

A player with slam wins but no weeks at number 1 can be great but their claim is weaker.

Anything else is just froth. If you have enough slam wins and weeks at 1, you are definitely a Great.

Master titles, Olympics, even WTF don't matter much. If a player's claim to greatness rests on these events, they are not truly a great.

Great titles to win, without a doubt. But they are just decoration to a player who is already a great. They count for little in their own right. It doesn't matter how many Masters, Olympics or WTF a player wins. Without slams and weeks at 1, there is no claim to greatness.

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.

HM Murdoch wrote:The penny has just dropped on why I don't rate the Olympics:

It's not important to a player's greatness.

A player cannot possibly be considered a great without slam wins.

A player with slam wins but no weeks at number 1 can be great but their claim is weaker.

Anything else is just froth. If you have enough slam wins and weeks at 1, you are definitely a Great.

Master titles, Olympics, even WTF don't matter much. If a player's claim to greatness rests on these events, they are not truly a great.

Great titles to win, without a doubt. But they are just decoration to a player who is already a great. They count for little in their own right. It doesn't matter how many Masters, Olympics or WTF a player wins. Without slams and weeks at 1, there is no claim to greatness.

That's just about all that's worth saying on this.

dummy_half wrote:Jubba

In tennis terms, an Olympic gold medal will matter as much to a player's legacy as winning an MS1000 event - that is, not very much when looking back at the end of a career (unless you have something freakish like Rafa's streak of Monte carlo wins). Nice to win at the time, and nearly unique in that it is about representing your country in a way that the main tour events aren't (although there is also Davis Cup for the patriotic players), but does Agassi's or Rafa's gold medal really add much to their 8 and 11 GS titles? Likewise, does anyone really care about their umpteen Masters Series tournament wins?

Grand Slams are the main thing, with reaching the #1 ranking also being a signiificant positive.

My point is that as far as the history books will illustrate players careers, those who managed to win a Gold Medal and all 4 of the other slams will go down as a Golden slam. Its been talked about ever since tennis was reintroduced into the games, its the best accolade you can have, a calendar Golden slam, not a career Golden slam, but the very best title a tennis player can have, holding all 4 slams and the Gold medal in one year.

As you know only two people have done that, and I am sure (my house I would bet on it) Federer would want that title. He can't of course now, but he could get a Golden career slam if he was successful in Rio. Its that lucrative to a players perception of their status that someone like Federer continues to dream about it.

HM Murdoch......

Say what you like about master etc, a gold Medal is worth a lot more to players than you or me (the public !), and whatever people say on here to demean its worth, I for one can't deny the allure of gold that makes players proudly display their patriotism and continue their dogged pursuit of Olympic Glory that they know will add to their prestige. That does not happen in the WTF or any Masters event. Davis cup winners get nothing apart from the accolade and is not perceived as prestigious enough to warrant medals as you win a cup, and they get paid for taking part too.

If a player only wins an Olympic gold, are there really people who can say on here that it is worthless. Of course they won't go down as greats who's saying that, I'm not, but they do go down in the record books, and those record books will state the obvious, good enough to beat every other country and win an Olympic gold medal, an athletes highest award.

Say what you will, but Olympic gold is made of metal not froth, there is a huge difference between being a multiple slam winner and being a Calendar golden slam winner, because to win all 4 slams in one year is an amazing feat, not many players are good enough to do that and are multiple slam winners anyway, and to win gold too, makes their record even more reputable.

Where is the mystery in why Olympic gold is a very important addition to any players mantelpiece ?