Olympic Gold or a Grand Slam

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/04052012/58/nadal-olympics-bigger-grand-slams.html

In ths article Nadal gives his views on what is more important to him.
Do you agree?

Is it more prestigious to win a gold for your country as opposed to the financial rewards and personal acclaim of winning a Grand Slam ? Assuming you had to make that choice of course

In terms of what I would call 'difficulty of achievement' nothing has ever convinced me that an Olympic Gold is better than a Slam. And not even this pronouncement by the mighty Rafa will change my view.

Let's not forget that tennis at the Olympics has remarkably little historical status. It has only begun featuring at the Games relatively recently, only starting in 1988 after a total absence of around 80 years (since back in the 1920's)

- It has half the draw of the Slams - 64 for the singles

- Played over B of 3 (except Final itself)

- The depth of the field has often been much, much weaker than the Slams.

Apart from Nadal and Agassi, the roll call of past winners includes names that are hardly up there with the legends of tennis :

Gold :

- Mecir
- Rosset
- Massu

Silver :

- Mayotte
- Arrese
- Bruguera

I do understand Rafa's comments from the personal perspective of representing your country. And of course in the wider world a non-tennis follower would perhaps be much quicker to recognise an Olympics Gold as a more valuable 'currency' than one of the Slam trophies. But to me that just underlines the rationale for Olympics Gold as an achievement based more on emotion than on true sporting excellence.

Fair comment lags. I asked just to get posters views on the subject.. its a very "individual" thing.. for non professional tennis players its probably easier to answer.
But slams after all, for the most part, are what every professional tennis player seeks to achieve. It rather mirror´s Rafa´s views about playing the Davis Cup as you know he often plays in the middle of what is already an overloaded schedule. Though this year he came to his senses.

Thanks for your response

Both. It's a separate tournament. Players should try to win each tournament they enter. Of course being a current Olympic champion lasts four years, whereas the current grand slam tournament champion last for a single year. They should be trying to win both slam tournaments and the Olympic gold medal.

Of course Nadal has both and will try again for more. Andy Murray has neither. If Murray finishes his career without a grand slam win but with an Olympic gold medal - well his career will still seem to be limited. However, if Andy Murray wins a grand slam tournament and doesn't win an Olympic gold medal - well his career will be reflected in a much better light - a grand slam winner.

ps: When Nadal rubs shoulders with Spanish diplomats, Spanish government officials, Spanish royalty etc, then he can say he won "something for Spain" - an Olympic Gold medal. So it comes with its own prestige separate to the prestige of a grand slam win.

If Andy was beginning really honest about it (he recently claimed winning a gold medal would be as good sa a slam win) then he surely would have to admit that whilst an olympic Gold might come close to either the Aussie, US or French Open it would pale into insignificance compared to the Wimbledon title.

It'e easy for those who already have slams to talk up the Olympics as a a way to complete their collection in the case of Federer and (potentially by late Summer anyway) Djokovic.

Nadal has point though as it's a special honour that only comes around every four years but surely nearly all tennis purists need to be convinced it's up there with slam status.

Nore Stat as far as Rafa is concerned .. here in spain he IS a diplomat..
King Juan Carlos is extraordinarily proud of him.. and whenever he meets Rafa he gives him a huge Spanish "hug".
Patriotism is his middle name .. maybe it is different for players of different countries.
The honour of playing Davis cup seems to "escape" some countries... but I think the Spaniards are like the US any excuse to waive the flag

I agree with what you say Newballs about Andy... if he could win Wimbledon it would be the epitome of his career and in doing so it would be an enormous win for GB too.. so it would be a double wammy for him

Here's the thread I did a while back - https://www.606v2.com/t23470-tennis-at-the-olympics-yay-or-nay

Olympic Golds, imho, are nowhere near the worth of a slam. I don't think Agassi even mentioned winning the OG in his book - maybe a paragraph in passing.

As for the US waving the flag in Davis Cup - it's not the nation, it's the individual player. Take a look at Connors or Sampras as examples - neither was particularly bothered about the Davis Cup.

Amazing how things have changed over the years. The status of tennis at Olympics has improved dramatically since 2004 when it was without question ranked well below a slam - with no dissenters to this opinion - and almost certainly ranked by most players and commentators as below other tour events, at the very least below Miami and the world tour finals and probably on a par with tour events like Monte Carlo, Cincinatti etc.

Averaging all opinions I've seen, it looks like, although there are some players who put it on a par or even above the Olympics, most would still put it below. In threads I've done or seen in recent years people would argue about what was higher Olympics, Davis Cup or WTF but there seems little doubt that the average opinion puts Olympics above all MS and below all slams.

Looking at recent Murray and Nadal comments I might be tempted to put it 5th at the moment, behind slams but ahead of all others at the moment.

What I meant was the nation as a whole takes pride in their flag... Ive been to US on umpteen occasions North and South they never fail. Neither do Spain..
perhaps I shouldn´t have associated that fact necessarily with the Davis Cup.
(As far as Connors is concerned that doesn´t surprise me in the least as JMc
went to great lengths in his autobiography to tell you so).

By the way, in ranking point terms, according to the wikipedia article and what I remember from the last tournament as well, Olympics is 750 points for the winner. I guess they don't feel fully comfortable giving it full tour event status, but for me the winner should get either 1000, 1500, or somewhere in between to recognise its true status. (Or..less likely..retain 750 but allow someone to hold the points for 4 years.)

750 points for the winner ranks it as I think the 15th biggest event on tour, which it clearly isn't.

HB

I confess I wasn´t aware of the fact that they were awarded points at all .
But I agree if they are going to award points then certainly 750 is something of nothing.
I rather like the idea of the medalists retaining their points for 4 years. I cant see any reason why this couldn´t be the case .. its not as though they have a chance to defend those points in less than that time it might then give the event a little more status than it has

Why award points at all? Maybe they should just play for prestige and a gold medal.

HE

I thought they did if Im honest.. it didn´t occur to me that there were points awarded. But somehow prestige isn´t enough for some players do you think?
I do know that Roger would love that medal.. points or no points it would complete his trophy cabinet

Slams >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olympics.

Some of the players may proclaim that OG is just as important to them as a slam but I doubt very much that deep down they truly believe this.

Put it this way, if Federer and Nadal had not already won multiple slams, would they really value OG above a slam? erm... I don't think so.



emancipator

emancipator

I think I would agree... if you had to make a choice either/or..... I do not think that it would be such an easy choice to make.

I think 99% of the tour would take a slam over OG in a heartbeat. Not a difficult choice at all. A slam winner is remembered in tennis circles forever. OG brings very little kudos.

The case of Fed, Nadal and Djokovic is only different because they already have multiple slams. Even then if they were given the choice of only one further slam in their careers or an OG, I'm pretty sure they'd go for the former.



emancipator

Olympic recurrence (once every four years) vs a four-slams-a-year also plays a role in the relative importance of the OG vs Slam.

Winning OG at 2012 Olympics at W, could be considered important, but relatively speaking, more for national prestige.

PS: Perhaps, one slam, in a round-robin manner could be skipped, every four years to accommodate the Olympics, if it needs to be given equal importance.

laverfan wrote:PS: Perhaps, one slam, in a round-robin manner could be skipped, every four years to accommodate the Olympics, if it needs to be given equal importance.

Oh I think this cleared up any lingering doubts I may have had about my feelings on the relative importance of the olympics and slams. I shudder at the thought and, if forced with the choice, would much much rather ditch the olympics altogether than go this route.

I think deep down if you were to pin Murray and Nadal down to it they'd take a slam win over Olympic Gold. All they are doing is making sure they don't devalue the Olympic Games and I see no harm in that.

CaledonianCraig wrote:... All they are doing is making sure they don't devalue the Olympic Games and I see no harm in that. ...

O' I think the Olympics has already been devalued, the money grabbing event it has become, with all those backhanders, expensive seats, prawn sandwiches, hotels, designated sponsors, ground to air missiles, chemical enhancements etc.

Bring back the tug o' war and cinder tracks I say!

CC

I think certainly that Murray would opt for a slam doubtless IMO

Rafa no.. I think he believes what he says and he has spoken many times about the "Value" of the trophies in his cabinet... his prize possessions are his Wimbledon cup and his gold medal.

However it has been interesting to hear posters views on this subject.
For my part I have to say Im not a tennis player and if I was I certainly would not be good enough to aspire to either a slam or a medal..
Maybe once upon a time I could think of no higher accolade than a Gold Medal "to lay down my life for my country " so to speak
But now I see that with winning a slam it can be a doubly wammy .. albeit the player reaps the financial rewards but your country too can share in the glory.

So in summary I say it remains with the individual and how patriotic and dedicated you are to your homeland
Rafa is, without a doubt, as I believe most of the Spanish Armada are. But Rafa has two Slams to play before that time.. we will have to see what he has left in the tank I think