Fedal Stole All The Big Trophies And Claimed An Era

by hawkeye Mon 18 Feb 2013, 2:55 pm

By "big" trophies I mean really big. I'm certainly not saying that other titles are meaningless but in tennis most would agree that the ultimate prizes are Wimbledon and the French Open. Since 2005 Nadal and Federer between them have bagged the lot bar one. That's eight years (forever in tennis terms) that they've held a teflon like grip on the trophies that matter the most.

2005. Nadal FO, Federer Wimbledon

2006 Nadal FO (Federer runner up), Federer Wimbledon (Nadal runner up)

2007 Nadal FO (Federer runner up), Federer Wimbledon (Nadal runner up)

2008 Nadal FO (Federer runner up), Nadal Wimbledon (Federer runner up)

2009 Federer FO, Federer Wimbledon

2010 Nadal FO, Nadal Wimbledon

2011 Nadal FO (Federer runner up), Djokovic Wimbledon (Nadal runner up)

2012 Nadal FO, Federer Wimbledon

I'm sure most here are familiar with these statistics. But I reckon they still look impressive when listed. Over this 8 year span Nadal has won 9 FO/Wimbledon titles and has been runner up 3 times. Federer has 6 FO/Wimbledon titles and has been runner up 5 times. In real life that's about as near to a lock in that you can get. The one "flaw" is Djokovic's 2011 Wimbledon win over Nadal. That surely must be a very precious win for him. But in 2012 the Fedal dominance returned.

by **JuliusHMarx** Mon 18 Feb 2013, 3:19 pm

Why would you put the FO as bigger than the USO?

by sportslover Mon 18 Feb 2013, 3:33 pm

A bit of history there unlikely ever to be repeated by them.

And the USO comes way before a "Dirt" slam!

by hawkeye Mon 18 Feb 2013, 4:06 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:Why would you put the FO as bigger than the USO?

Is it really necessary for me to "prove" these are the most prestigious slams? They just are. But if you want me to attempt to put it into words...

Wimbledon and RG are generally regarded as the most prestigious slams for a number of reasons. History, traditional playing surface, difficulty of winning, but probably most of all they are the slams that most players will have dreams of winning. Give most players the choice of one slam and they would generally choose one of these two (unless their playing style was such that they had to limit their dreams to something obtainable or they were particularly patriotic Americans or Australians).

Also having two of the best players to play the game target these two particular slams is a reflection of their prestige.

The ultimate challenge in tennis is the FO/Wimbledon double. Winning both tournaments back to back when they are played so closely together on two very different an challenging surfaces. Both Federer and Nadal have past this ultimate test. Federer in 2009 and Nadal in 2008 AND 2010.

by User 774433 Mon 18 Feb 2013, 4:06 pm

Depends on your point of view.
Some people see as USO as more important, others like the French Open.

For me, all of them should be treated equal.

by Danny_1982 Mon 18 Feb 2013, 4:20 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:Why would you put the FO as bigger than the USO?

I think we all know the answer to that one! Laugh

by HM Murdock Mon 18 Feb 2013, 4:31 pm

hawkeye wrote:Also having two of the best players to play the game target these two particular slams is a reflection of their prestige.

Well, Nadal targeted those slams.

5 USO and 4 AO would suggest that Federer was rather broader in his targets.

by lags72 Mon 18 Feb 2013, 4:43 pm

I suppose I have an admiration of sorts for the seemingly endless variety of ways you find to write articles which basically serve to tell us the same thing : that Federer and Nadal have been the two stand-out players of the last ten years or so.

Few rational observers would dispute the fundamental premise ; but equally, I think we've all got the message by now HE.......... Rolling Eyes

by socal1976 Mon 18 Feb 2013, 5:06 pm

hawkeye wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:Why would you put the FO as bigger than the USO?

Is it really necessary for me to "prove" these are the most prestigious slams? They just are. But if you want me to attempt to put it into words...

Wimbledon and RG are generally regarded as the most prestigious slams for a number of reasons. History, traditional playing surface, difficulty of winning, but probably most of all they are the slams that most players will have dreams of winning. Give most players the choice of one slam and they would generally choose one of these two (unless their playing style was such that they had to limit their dreams to something obtainable or they were particularly patriotic Americans or Australians).

Also having two of the best players to play the game target these two particular slams is a reflection of their prestige.

The ultimate challenge in tennis is the FO/Wimbledon double. Winning both tournaments back to back when they are played so closely together on two very different an challenging surfaces. Both Federer and Nadal have past this ultimate test. Federer in 2009 and Nadal in 2008 AND 2010.

What are you talking about Hawkeye, no way Roland Garros is as big a title as winning the USO or bigger as you claim. USO is older, typically pays out more prize money, and being the slam of the largest market still in the planet is much bigger in legacy building and notoriety building than the FO, which is won mainly by defensive specialists.

It is funny, your opinion doesn't just make RG more prestigious than the USO because you say so. It isn't and never has been. At most it can claim 99 percent parity with the USO. Just like the USO is not as big as winning wimbeldon. The AO is the least prestigious of the slams and I am Novak fan. But for the most part the slams now that they get a full field are all for the most part equally important. But in terms of prestige arguments the hierarchy has been set for century or more. Wimby is the oldest and most famous, the USO #2, RG #3, AO #4. There really isn't a debate and I doubt anyone would even argue the point.

Fedal are great enough on their own you don't need to come up with nonsensical arguments about how superior their slams are to other players slams. Slams for the most part in the modern game are equivalent with some slight differences in perception between the 4 that involve history and prestige.

by socal1976 Mon 18 Feb 2013, 5:09 pm

Nadal targets the FO because it suits his game. Fed targets wimbeldon for the same reason. And I doubt they work any less hard for the other slams their games just suit those sufaces better. A very silly thread indeed.

by User 774433 Mon 18 Feb 2013, 5:51 pm

These days players just try their best in every slam.

by hawkeye Mon 18 Feb 2013, 6:07 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:These days players just try their best in every slam.

With Federer and Nadal hogging Wimbledon and the FO for the past eight years no doubt other players have continued to try their best. But the most they have been able to win is the odd "loose" AO or US Open. The dreams of holding those two particularly shiny trophies have remained just that "dreams" for a whole tennis generation. Apart from Djokovic with his sole Wimbledon trophy. He must be very proud.

by Chydremion Mon 18 Feb 2013, 6:09 pm

Luckily Wimbledon still exists. I rue the day a mudpot tournament gets declared the biggest in the world.

by hawkeye Mon 18 Feb 2013, 6:18 pm

lags72 wrote:I suppose I have an admiration of sorts for the seemingly endless variety of ways you find to write articles which basically serve to tell us the same thing : that Federer and Nadal have been the two stand-out players of the last ten years or so.

Few rational observers would dispute the fundamental premise ; but equally, I think we've all got the message by now HE..........

lags72. I know that what I'm saying is obvious but I am always shocked by how many rational observers do dispute this fundamental premise. Instead of preaching to the converted I feel like a rebel with new and innovative views...

by carrieg4 Mon 18 Feb 2013, 6:26 pm

hawkeye wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:These days players just try their best in every slam.

With Federer and Nadal hogging Wimbledon and the FO for the past eight years no doubt other players have continued to try their best. But the most they have been able to win is the odd "loose" AO or US Open. The dreams of holding those two particularly shiny trophies have remained just that "dreams" for a whole tennis generation. Apart from Djokovic with his sole Wimbledon trophy. He must be very proud.

As Socal pointed out, these are the slams that particularly suit Nadal and Federers playing styles. Given the exceptional talent both players have it stands to reason that they would have excellent results on the slams that suit their games. However, them winning those slams does not in itself imbue the slams with additional prestige. The slams have all have a great history earned over many years and generations of players. If a ranking has to be made then Wimbledon is the clear winner on longevity alone. Until relatively recently AO suffered as it was too far to travel for many so would be 4th IMHO. It is a close run thing between USO and FO. The only objective measure I can think of is when they were recognised as a major championship, USO wins this by a year as it was recognised in 1924 and the FO in 1925. Very, very close anyway.

by lags72 Mon 18 Feb 2013, 6:29 pm

Well fair enough HE.

Just as long you're not expecting to be short-listed for a Nobel Prize in the Creative & Original Thinking category (or anything similar ...... Erm

)

by hawkeye Mon 18 Feb 2013, 6:39 pm

carriage4. I agree. I wasn't trying to say that Federer and Nadal winning all the Wimbledon an FO titles for 8 years was what made these two particular slams special. They were special before and will be special after both have hung up their racquets.

The FO and Wimbledon are played on two contrasting surfaces. Surfaces that test the full range of a players skills. I would say it's difficult to have the talent to do so well on both. Federer and Nadal have exceptional talent to have the flexibility to succeed on both surfaces. Both have won the ultimate prize the channel slam.

by hawkeye Mon 18 Feb 2013, 6:43 pm

lags72 wrote:Well fair enough HE.

Just as long you're not expecting to be short-listed for a Nobel Prize in the Creative & Original Thinking category (or anything similar ...... )

Ha ha! For saying Nadal and Federer are both great? Maybe not. Maybe the Noble Prize for Peace?... Nah maybe not again.

by socal1976 Mon 18 Feb 2013, 7:26 pm

Nobel prize

by Danny_1982 Mon 18 Feb 2013, 7:27 pm

Noble prize is more likely I'd suggest.

by HM Murdock Mon 18 Feb 2013, 8:13 pm

I really don't buy into this idea of grading the slams. It's the same field at all of them, same difficulty in winning.

A long history may bring a level of prestige but it's not necessarily a mark of quality. A listen to the recent work of the Rolling Stones, Rod Stewart or Elton John will prove that!

by carrieg4 Mon 18 Feb 2013, 8:18 pm

HM Murdoch wrote:I really don't buy into this idea of grading the slams. It's the same field at all of them, same difficulty in winning.

A long history may bring a level of prestige but it's not necessarily a mark of quality. A listen to the recent work of the Rolling Stones, Rod Stewart or Elton John will prove that!

Fully agree HM, they are all prestigious. I was just musing about an objective way of ranking them but I wouldn't actually want to do so.

by bogbrush Tue 19 Feb 2013, 9:13 am

This subject was irrefutably concluded here;

https://www.606v2.com/t39899-normalised-slam-record-service

by Guest Tue 19 Feb 2013, 12:23 pm

Chydremion wrote:Luckily Wimbledon still exists. I rue the day a mudpot tournament gets declared the biggest in the world.

by lydian Tue 19 Feb 2013, 4:25 pm

All the top pros enter all the slams these days. So they're all important.

They also all carry 2000 pts for the winner with similar prize money.

So what's the difference between them besides surface?

In terms of who wants to win what ... how many players grow up wanting to win SW19 vs RG vs USO vs AO as their 1st slam?

I'd say 80% : 15% : 4% : 1%

by R!skysports Tue 19 Feb 2013, 4:48 pm

Wonder where this came from

Ah yes Murray won the US so it must be meaningless and the true greats do not even bother with it

Yawn

Federer and Nadel records speaks for itself, they are the best around and maybe Federer the best ever

by **laverfan** Tue 19 Feb 2013, 5:11 pm

Riskysports wrote:Ah yes Murray won the US so it must be meaningless and the true greats do not even bother with it

Borg tried several times, as did Nadal (and he did eventually win one, unlike Borg).

by banbrotam Tue 19 Feb 2013, 10:15 pm

hawkeye wrote:I'm certainly not saying that other titles are meaningless but in tennis most would agree that the ultimate prizes are Wimbledon and the French Open

Hilarious stuff, from the queen of these boards. I'm not certain that two tournaments that only certain players can perform on is more of an 'ultimate prize' than two others that is the favoured surface of most of the players

HE sounds like Sue Barker!!

It's quite simple, have a look at the winners of the US Open and compare the quality over, say the last 30 years, to that at Wimbledon and certainly The French

Case rested!! Right I'm off - I've a Wembley final to prepare for Yahoo

by R!skysports Thu 21 Feb 2013, 4:32 pm

Order in the real world is Wim, US, French, Oz - although not much difference between them now

In world of Hawkeye

Wim, French, Oz, any 1000 event Murray has not won, any 500 event Murray has not won, any 250 event Murray has not won, West bongar tiddlwinks open, then US Open (especially 2012)

by socal1976 Thu 21 Feb 2013, 8:20 pm

That is a great post Riskysports, apparently the USO has been devalued in Hawkeye's view because it was unfortunate enough to have murray win it. Very funny the USO is worth less than any 500 or 250 event that Murray hasn't won. The Brasil open must be more prestigious than the USO!

by User 774433 Thu 21 Feb 2013, 8:30 pm

socal1976 wrote:The Brasil open must be more prestigious than the USO!

No, that is true actually.

by hawkeye Fri 22 Feb 2013, 12:20 am

lydian wrote:

In terms of who wants to win what ... how many players grow up wanting to win SW19 vs RG vs USO vs AO as their 1st slam?

I'd say 80% : 15% : 4% : 1%

A bit harsh on RG but apart from that maybe about right. Although it is of course difficult to ascribe numbers to things like this... I've heard of lot's of players admitting to childhood dreams of winning Wimbledon, a few of winning RG and I'm struggling to think of any talking of "an above everything else" desire to win the US or AO Opens.

bogbrush wrote:This subject was irrefutably concluded here;

https://www.606v2.com/t39899-normalised-slam-record-service

I will quote you:

I therefore present a sensible and balanced scheme to apply to Slam wins, based on the following;

Australian: a great tournament and worthy Slam event, it recovered after being an optional event 30 years ago. Not exactly steeped in history but a top event. Slam weight : 1.

US Open: in contrast this event has lightly lost its way, but has incredible history. Slam weight : 1.6

French: self-consciously trying to rebrand as Roland Garros to emulate that which is to come, but it retains great value as the sole representative of the important clay surface. I think it's moved to #2 status. Slam weight : 1.7

Wimbledon: obviously the great tournament of all, it has everything from history, surface, everything. The one the players all want. Slam weight : a miserly 2

Bogbrush. Have to agree with your broad analysis although I might be tempted to argue with the finer details.. Although my article wasn't meant to be about what are the most prestigious slams because to me it is obvious. It was about Fedal stealing them all bar one. Impressive? I would say crazy impressive!

banbrotam wrote: Hilarious stuff, from the queen of these boards.

Queen? Ha ha! You are making me blush...

Riskysports

If some didn't say such silly things about Murray I wouldn't be tempted to answer back. This article is about Fedal and how they have dominated at Wimbledon and RG over a very long period of time.

by Guest Fri 22 Feb 2013, 1:08 pm

I would never rate the French Open above the US Open. Prestige and history aside, the FO and AO struggle against each other to generate any real prestige. What does the FO actually have that really sets it apart? Nothing. Wimbledon has the imaculate dress code and history. The US Open has the night matches which in itself is theatre and unique even if the AO has tried to emulate in recent times. If it hadn't become the media/corporate lady of loose morals of a tournament with it's dumbass saturday I think it would be held in even higher esteem.

The French don't strike me as ones who actually give a toss about the French Open. Mediocre scheduling hasn't helped the tournament and it's fans aren't the most endearing either.

The AO is playing catch up. They have had surface changes, players skipping it, calendar changes. I think only in time it will gain some prestige. They are however doing all the right things early on with their scheduling and facilities. It will always remain the "4th Slam"

by R!skysports Fri 22 Feb 2013, 3:45 pm

hawkeye wrote:
lydian wrote:

In terms of who wants to win what ... how many players grow up wanting to win SW19 vs RG vs USO vs AO as their 1st slam?

I'd say 80% : 15% : 4% : 1%

A bit harsh on RG but apart from that maybe about right. Although it is of course difficult to ascribe numbers to things like this... I've heard of lot's of players admitting to childhood dreams of winning Wimbledon, a few of winning RG and I'm struggling to think of any talking of "an above everything else" desire to win the US or AO Opens.

bogbrush wrote:This subject was irrefutably concluded here;

https://www.606v2.com/t39899-normalised-slam-record-service

I will quote you:

I therefore present a sensible and balanced scheme to apply to Slam wins, based on the following;

Australian: a great tournament and worthy Slam event, it recovered after being an optional event 30 years ago. Not exactly steeped in history but a top event. Slam weight : 1.

US Open: in contrast this event has lightly lost its way, but has incredible history. Slam weight : 1.6

French: self-consciously trying to rebrand as Roland Garros to emulate that which is to come, but it retains great value as the sole representative of the important clay surface. I think it's moved to #2 status. Slam weight : 1.7

Wimbledon: obviously the great tournament of all, it has everything from history, surface, everything. The one the players all want. Slam weight : a miserly 2

Bogbrush. Have to agree with your broad analysis although I might be tempted to argue with the finer details.. Although my article wasn't meant to be about what are the most prestigious slams because to me it is obvious. It was about Fedal stealing them all bar one. Impressive? I would say crazy impressive!

banbrotam wrote: Hilarious stuff, from the queen of these boards.

Queen? Ha ha! You are making me blush...

Riskysports

If some didn't say such silly things about Murray I wouldn't be tempted to answer back. This article is about Fedal and how they have dominated at Wimbledon and RG over a very long period of time.

No that is not what you are saying. You are saying that these are the only two slams worth considering - which is very different

The reason is as usual you discount anything either DJ or Murray do, by saying they won slams that and not important

by Guest Fri 22 Feb 2013, 3:57 pm

Think you find RS it is a bid to position Nadal on the same footing as Federer.

Nadal 7 FO + 2 Wim v Federer's 7 Wim + 1 FO.

She managed to try and discredit AO and UO as 'un-important' in Slam rankings.

It is boring. Zzzzzzzzzzzz

by socal1976 Fri 22 Feb 2013, 5:22 pm

The USO simply because it is played in the biggest market still for the sport and how visibility in the US market is very important for a global tennis star in my mind trumps the FO every day of the week and twice on sunday. Look at the list of FO champions in the 10 years before Nadal came around and look at the list of USO champions in that period. A lot of specialists who don't perform that well on other surfaces winning their lone slam or both their slams on the FO. If you compare the list of winners of the USO to that of FO in the modern era it isn't even close which list is more prestigious.

That being said I think post mid 80s all the slams have pretty much attained parity in terms of worth. But in areas of subjective prestige one could weight them really in only one way. Wimby, USO, FO, and RG.

by Sponsored content

Fedal Stole All The Big Trophies And Claimed An Era

Fedal Stole All The Big Trophies And Claimed An Era

Re: Fedal Stole All The Big Trophies And Claimed An Era

Re: Fedal Stole All The Big Trophies And Claimed An Era

Re: Fedal Stole All The Big Trophies And Claimed An Era

Re: Fedal Stole All The Big Trophies And Claimed An Era

Re: Fedal Stole All The Big Trophies And Claimed An Era

Re: Fedal Stole All The Big Trophies And Claimed An Era

Re: Fedal Stole All The Big Trophies And Claimed An Era

Re: Fedal Stole All The Big Trophies And Claimed An Era

Re: Fedal Stole All The Big Trophies And Claimed An Era

Re: Fedal Stole All The Big Trophies And Claimed An Era

Re: Fedal Stole All The Big Trophies And Claimed An Era

Re: Fedal Stole All The Big Trophies And Claimed An Era

Re: Fedal Stole All The Big Trophies And Claimed An Era

Re: Fedal Stole All The Big Trophies And Claimed An Era

Re: Fedal Stole All The Big Trophies And Claimed An Era

Re: Fedal Stole All The Big Trophies And Claimed An Era

Re: Fedal Stole All The Big Trophies And Claimed An Era

Re: Fedal Stole All The Big Trophies And Claimed An Era

Re: Fedal Stole All The Big Trophies And Claimed An Era

Re: Fedal Stole All The Big Trophies And Claimed An Era

Re: Fedal Stole All The Big Trophies And Claimed An Era

Re: Fedal Stole All The Big Trophies And Claimed An Era

Re: Fedal Stole All The Big Trophies And Claimed An Era

Re: Fedal Stole All The Big Trophies And Claimed An Era

Re: Fedal Stole All The Big Trophies And Claimed An Era

Re: Fedal Stole All The Big Trophies And Claimed An Era

Re: Fedal Stole All The Big Trophies And Claimed An Era

Re: Fedal Stole All The Big Trophies And Claimed An Era

Re: Fedal Stole All The Big Trophies And Claimed An Era

Re: Fedal Stole All The Big Trophies And Claimed An Era

Re: Fedal Stole All The Big Trophies And Claimed An Era

Re: Fedal Stole All The Big Trophies And Claimed An Era

Re: Fedal Stole All The Big Trophies And Claimed An Era

Re: Fedal Stole All The Big Trophies And Claimed An Era

Re: Fedal Stole All The Big Trophies And Claimed An Era

Re: Fedal Stole All The Big Trophies And Claimed An Era