Would Slamless Gold Please Federer?

2011 was a barren year for Federer in the Slams. 1 Slam final. 2 Semi finals and 1 quarter final.

2012 however offers another reward that would certainly be a career highlight for any tennis pro and that is Olympic Gold. Since Agassi achieved the Golden Career Slam in 1999, it has become a much desired achievement on the tennis players CV. Nadal achieved it in 2010 and Federer has had his sights set on Olympic Gold for years.

My question would be, would Federer be content with Olympic Gold and 0 Slams? Would his followers be content with that?

I think it would make him happy....I personally would not care much.

I doubt Federer would be content, but I would. Whilst he remains a threat at slams I think he'll struggle to win a slam this year unless everything falls right for him.

If Tenez is right and Fed's been injured for Wimbledon the last two years maybe he'll have a better chance there if he can get fit, but it's an outside one.

I think Roger would actually be fine with it. He has been talking about this olympics for a long time and he really seems to think the singles gold is one accomplishment he would like to add to his resume. I think Roger is bright enough to realize that the younger guys right now are going to be hard to beat in slams and afterall he already has the record for 16 slams and that is looking increasingly safe with Novak taking care of Nadal.

I'm with tenez; I think the Olympics is big with the media and maybe in terms of national pride interesting to the player, but as a tennis career goes it's a sideshow.

Slams

Year end Trophies

Master Series wins

weeks at #1

These, in no particular order, are the substance of great achievements.

Gold Medal win might persuade him to quit tennis next year.

I doubt he cares THAT much as he already has Gold from doubles.

Slamless gold - yeah, he should settle for that in my opinion. Let's add the Olympics into the slams and call it a big 5 (now 4 chances left). It's more likely for Federer to get 0 from 5 this season, than 2+ from 5, so settle for one.

By the way, the tickets for that Olympics tournament were a bit tricky. Sold out over a year in advance, even grounds passes priced at silly prices like £80 or something.

Federer Super D, has talked more about participating in the olympics than any other pro, he seems to really value the event. And i agree with Henman Bill, an olympic gold medal I think right after a slam has as much intrinsic value as any other win, up there with a Davis cup or a year end title.

Federer certainly seems to be keen on it, although in the past many top players either haven't bothered showing up, or not taken it very seriously.
With 2008/2012 it seems to have finally become important.

It has rarity value, of course, but I think it's probably an easier event to win than the top 2 or 3 Masters or the WTF.
And pity any player whose 3 years in the top 5 end up in between Olympic years.

All I'm saying is that Olympic Gold is Olympic Gold. No doubt he'd like another one but it's the only event where the doubles is on an even footing with the singles.

That is true, I mean a gold medal is a gold medal even if you had to ride wawrinka's coattails to get it. Just kidding.

socal1976 wrote:That is true, I mean a gold medal is a gold medal even if you had to ride wawrinka's coattails to get it. Just kidding.

Does it count if, like mine, the gold is wrapped around a circular piece of chocolate?

If talentless baseline bunny's like Massu and Nadal can achieve a gold in singles I don't see why Federer would actually want 1, to be associated with 2 mercenarial arrogant men could put him off going for such a title, as long as he has the gold in doubles with father of the year Sir Wawrinka then he should be content with his unchaseable accomplishments.

Massu was very talented....though a nutcase.

Tenez wrote:Massu was very talented....though a nutcase.

This is like saying Nadal is a good flat hitter. Cmon Tenez.

Massu was no moonballer. He was a promising junior.

well something is better than nothing, so he would certainly take that.

His performance in the past few seasons suggests that it's quite possible that Fed won't have scored a W by the time of the Olympics.

Nadal plays at Halle this year and Fed has not won a Spring Masters or Summer Slam since 2009, and 2007 before that. Fed's best chance of securing a W before the Olympics would seem to be one of Rotterdam or Dubai, which are both on his schedule for the first time for ages, and probably Rotterdam since the Dubai field is set to include Djoko and Murray, although Del Boy is currently lined up for Rotterdam.

barrystar wrote:
If Tenez is right and Fed's been injured for Wimbledon the last two years maybe he'll have a better chance there

Well according to Tenez Federer has been injured for pretty much every match he has lost.

amritia3ee wrote:

barrystar wrote:
If Tenez is right and Fed's been injured for Wimbledon the last two years maybe he'll have a better chance there

Well according to Tenez Federer has been injured for pretty much every match he has lost.

Come on Amrit, cheap shots are not good for the forum.

The honest answer to this question is the reason why tennis doesn't belong at the Olympics (along with golf and football), obviously a gold is a nice bonus, but the reality is, the slams (alongside the golf majors, football world cups and continental championships) are the ones that all competitors strive for.
They're the ones that will be remembered for years to come and only players who don't win the big events but win a medal, will ever class a gold medal as anywhere near equal to them.

ReallyReal, i agree a major is much larger career defining accomplishment for a tennis player than lets an olympic medal. But I actually think the event has grown in stature in the eyes of both tennis fans and the players on tour. The olympics got basically every great player that was healthy in 08, tennis is a relatively new event I think 88 was the first time it was an official non-exhibition event. Agassi and Graf have won it, so has Nadal. Fed has talked about its value non-stop. This year Djokovic is not going to play Davis Cup in order to be fit for the olympics. I think with lessening in value of Davis Cup compared to what it was in the 80s it just doesn't get the same attention, the olympics medal is rising in the estimation of tennis fans and players. I actually think if you asked a lot of tennis players they would prefer and olympic gold to a Davis Cup win. In terms of career accomplishment after a major, I think an olympic medal is as good an honor in terms of career accomplishment a tennis player can attain. And I think we will see that reflected by having all the big stars show up for the London games this summer.

An Olympic medal is definitely more important than the Davis cup, but that's probably as much to do with the simple fact that you work for yourself or just with a partner (doubles) at the Olympics, whereas you have to rely on others for the Davis cup ie it doesn't matter how weak your nation is, if you're good enough on your own you can win a gold medal, whereas, you need at least decent support for a Davis cup win.

In terms of big names winning the events, I just put that down to it being because the best players when fit will win, regardless of which tournament it is, though I suppose the bigger the names, the more the fans will enjoy it and the more they enjoy it, the more exposure the tournament will get and with increased exposure comes enhanced sponsorship deals for the winners, meaning everyone will want to win... or am I just too cynical?

ReallyREal, exactly an event has as much value today as the media, sponsors, and fans place on it. That goes for any sport. We live in commercial and globalized world and the olympics provides something that the sponsors can sell. I mean just doing a photo of Novak with and his gold medal has got to have value for the likes of Hed and Sergio. But, I think it is too cyncial to analyze it just from the perspective. I mean to the average person who may not be a tennis fan or a sports fan at all and doesn't understand the complexities of what tournament matters and what doesnt, everyone in the general public at large perks up when you say I am an olympic gold medalist. In fact, the general public may be wrong but they might value an olympic gold medal and wimbeldon as the two biggest accomplishments in tennis. They ascribe bigger value than it is, but it gives you name recognition and instant credibility. The olympics have a global appeal even beyond the mere sports aspect of it to the global general public at large. I certainly agree, that the tennis fan is not going to value it more than a grandslam and they shouldn't. But there is an intrinsic value to that gold medal to the public at large. And there of course is the cynical commercial part of it.