|
By:
5/5 sets in 2 days against nr 1 & 2, not broken once...the slams will follow now that he knows he can win a big event. It took him a bit longer to mature, but many will never get there.
|
|
By:
it's similar to many professional sport disciplines that were put into the Games in the lat 25 years, an olympic win in cycling counts much less than a victory in the TdF for example.
|
|
By:
Slams are much harder to win than the olympics... but I dont take any merit away from him, he played great tennis and was clearly the better player
|
|
By:
It took him a bit longer to mature, but many will never get there.
I like that. |
|
By:
Hollywood is correct in as much as the likes of Djorkvic, Federer etc aren't part of the natural scenery . They have their own glory board at the 4 slams . I'm not sure a gold medal would mean as much to Murray as it would to say Pendleton or Helen Glover ,if i was Murray i would feel i was hijacking the occasion .
Nice to see BBC shining the spotlight on lesser known names (with the obvious exception of Bolt) but that's athletics , an integral part of this set up . Obviously you can pick 10s of holes in my argument (if it is one even) but tennis and football seem a little awkward . The joy of the olympics imo is about relatively unknown folk putting in the grueling hours and getting recognition at the end |
|
By:
tennis isn't that awkward but football is as it's like a youth tournament
what's the point if the best don't play |
|
By:
Football has no place at the Olympics.
Tennis is debatable. But at least there is a debate. |
|
By:
i agree the best should always play - but would you honestly say Federer tried his absolute hardest ? will he be gutted that he missed out on the gold ? will he be thinking feck,i have to wait another 4 years to get a chance to win that again ?
and there is this debate earlier about the Olympics being of lesser value to AM than a slam - that doesn't sit well - and yes ,it's true -Wimbledon will be a bigger prize of course . Do you see where i'm coming from ? |
|
By:
The biggest prize for Olympic sports should be the olympics
|
|
By:
Yes o course he'll be gutted. Federer has said it was his last ambition to win the olympics.
In other news, murray is up to 99% on the Murrayometer http://www.andymurrayometer.com/ |
|
By:
whether or not fed tried his hardest is irrelevant
he didn't get beaten narrowly, he was utterly destroyed a bigger beatdown than murray took to djokovic in oz and nobody questioned murray's effort the occasion has often got to murray, today it got to fed and his opponent was unplayable an irresistible combination that only leads to an utter maulication |
|
By:
fair enough ... what were the pre match odds on Murray winning in straight sets out of interest ?
|
|
By:
didn't look actually
i even thought fed was value but did assume the roof would be shut and got to lay it off |
|
By:
|
|
By:
the qualification rules are admittedly hit and miss Darlo -
Oh well, it serves a purpose and works well overall - nice to see winners who are not only humble but there for the joy of winning and not just a ££££ wage package . |
|
By:
I agree with your sentiments. And I don't think there's any argument in the likes of swimming, rowing, cycling, athletics what the bigger price is to the athlete. But for example, in the cycling there can only be one entrant per country in Chris Hoy's event so he wasn't selected; I don't know for certain but doubt that would be the same in the Cycling Worlds.
|
|
By:
I think the status of Olympics in tennis will rise during the next decades. A bit similarly as Australian Open which was not regarded so important just a few decades ago and many players did not enter it. Then since about 20-30 years ago when people began to focus on counting the GS win totals, AO became sort of equal with the other GSs. Olympics will after a few more tournaments gain some more tradition and then become even more respected.
|
|
By:
Olympic Gold is bigger than a Grand Slam
No, it's not. To win a GS you have to win 7 back to back best of 5 sets matches. To win Olympic Gold you have to win only 6 matches, and only the last one is best of 5 sets, with the first 5 matches being only best of 3 sets... It's as simple as that... |
|
By:
^^ completely agree with that - we all know murray can win best of 3 matches against anyone but during those grand slam semi final and finals where you have to beat djok, fed or nadal in 5 sets it is so much more difficult which is why a grand slam will mean so much more. Olympics is the highest prize outside the grand slams, bigger than the tour finals imo and until murray can win against the best for 5 sets for 2 weeks i can't see him as a great
|
|
By:
he could have beaten fed over 99 sets yesterday tbf
only reason he didn't win wimbledon last month was cos of the roof |
|
By:
Another thing to consider in the mix
Slams are viewed above Tier 1/masters series not only on endurance and field but relative scarcity. You only have 4 chances a year to win a slam (as opposed to numerous masters series) hence slams have more perceived value You only have one chance in 4 years to be Olympic champion, hence it has from that perspective greater perceived value. Also Murray now has the opportunity to complete a Golden Slam which Federer and Novak can not do. |
|
By:
This does not touch a grand slam.
|
|
By:
will be interesting to see how fed reacts to the biggest disappointment of his career
not beyond the realms that his last big final will be that maulication |
|
By:
was backed in to about 13/2 to win in straights by the start
|
|
By:
Of course it's not bigger than a slam, but it's the next best thing. Better than any Masters event and yes, better than the Davis Cup. All the talk of top players not caring is bollox. Fed's effort in the semi tells you all you need to know. Joker is a big patriot.
You just can't discredit Murray's victory here. He beat Joker and Fed, and he beat the GOAT on his favourite surface over 5 sets, not just beating him, taking him apart. To do it just a few weeks after the Wimbeldon final disappointment says a lot for Murray. |
|
By:
federer was almost crying and kissing the swiss badge when he beat delpo
never seen him react like that in a semi i think it just meant too much and all the pressure plus murray's perfection left him stunned |
|
By:
and delpo's reaction to winning bronze shows what it meant to him. plus he was in tears when he lost to fed.
http://www2.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Olympics+Day+9+Tennis+mxABFWthndUl.jpg |
|
By:
the players themselves may be delighted to win medals and fair enough
that though does not mean the competition has the same status as a slam it clearly does not and that's all there is to it |
|
By:
that's all there is to it
Well no that's not correct, because you're not taking into account the trend. Because tennis is relatively young as an Olympic sport in its present incarnation, its status has had to grow organically. But as Macenroe pointed out the trend indicates that its staus will at least equal if not pass slam status as time goes on. |
|
By:
****, it was played at Wimbledon, historic place in tennis history...like players will give a **** about it in Rio...get real
|
|
By:
phuck the trend
the OG is not and never will be as big as a slam |
|
By:
Ask the players if they'd rather win a slam or a gold and 99% at least would say a slam.
As I said earlier, the elation of winning it is born out of winning it as opposed to the desire to win it like in a slam. There's a few players who take great pride in representing their country but the pain of losing doesn't come close to that of a slam even if the pride of winning does. Murray said he took 5-6 days to get over Wimbledon, he would have been over yesterday by now if he'd lost probably |
|
By:
but the pressure was far greater at wimbledon
he was the focus of the country this time it's 500+ athletes and it showed by his tennis |
|
By:
more important? really? federer djokcovic and nadal if he had entered would have let murray win london olympics as they know he can never beat them in a grand slam
|
|
By:
Here is the way to figure it out: Think at your favorite player that does not have a GS yet. If you could pick between a GS or a gold medal for him/her what would you choose? GS of course! I don't think Nicolas Massu or Marc Rosset will be regarded as greater players than say Haas, Nalbandian, Roddick, Berdych. You will find one time slam winners on the Tennis Hall of Fame but no olimpic gold winners without GS. Still a big achievement.
|
|
By:
olympic gold back then and the eras meant it wasn't a big achievement
yesterday was wimbledon in one of the great eras you clearly have no idea about the prestige and what it meant to the players |
|
By:
phuck the trend
Gordon Brown selling the country's gold reserves at under 300usd per ounce. The trend since then has gold at over five times that. Trends dictate how the world develops and shifts, you can't ignore them on any level. the OG is not and never will be as big as a slam Ask the players if they'd rather win a slam or a gold and 99% at least would say a slam. It is not as big at the moment (though its status is just behind and ahead of Masters series) but it will be for Fundamental reasons. You cannot ignore the fundmentals in sport any more than you can ignore fundamentals in the commodity markets. If you chart the seriousness with which the big players value the Olympics since 1988 the trend is clear and indisputable. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
you're just a kid journeyman stfu there's a good chap
no matter how much you argue it will never be a slam and that's all now run along |
|
By:
no matter how much you argue it will never be a slam
I never said it was. You've run out of arguments so you resort to abuse and disingenuity. Case closed. |