[wannabeartist89]

(Original post by Sirocco11)
Before Murray came along she was widely considered to have that unfortunate moniker - I was always desperate for her to win one because she was one of my favourites and had so many crushing losses at the finals stages of majors. But I think Murray possibly surpasses her now because of the number of Grand Slam finals he's made as well as semi finals.

I hope he wins the Olympics gold like she did!

[TopHat]

The Olympics Gold is essentially a Slam, these days, in fairness. It'd be really touching if Murray won the Olympic Gold at Wimbledon.

[notnek]

(Original post by TopHat)
The Olympics Gold is essentially a Slam, these days, in fairness. It'd be really touching if Murray won the Olympic Gold at Wimbledon.

He's got a good chance and it would be amazing if he could win it but I sense that after the event I'd get the feeling, "why can't he do that at a slam?".

An Olympic gold is an incredible achievement, but in tennis it still ranks lower than a slam and probably won't make me as excited.

[TopHat]

You never know, it could trigger a "Djokovic's Serbia Cup"-like moment where Andy Murray finally cracks the mental barrier once and for all and goes on to absolutely dominate the forthcoming season.

I mean, hey.

It happened to Djo.

[Chief Wiggum]

(Original post by TopHat)
You never know, it could trigger a "Djokovic's Serbia Cup"-like moment where Andy Murray finally cracks the mental barrier once and for all and goes on to absolutely dominate the forthcoming season.

I mean, hey.

It happened to Djo.

This is certainly true, but I definitely wouldn't say the gold medal is "essentially a slam".

[Slumpy]

I figure olympics is basically the same as the WTF (even if it is half the points). Sort of in between the masters and slams.

[TopHat]

(Original post by Chief Wiggum)
This is certainly true, but I definitely wouldn't say the gold medal is "essentially a slam".

Why not? All the top people enter for the Olympic prestige, so you get all the best players there. The Career Golden Slam is seen as it's own achievement, and lumps the Olympic Gold with the four slams. I mean, what makes a slam so important in my view is that all the top quality players make a point of attending, and that huge numbers of people view. It's a focal point in the year. I'd argue the Olympics does fill those criteria.

[TopHat]

(Original post by Slumpy)
I figure olympics is basically the same as the WTF (even if it is half the points). Sort of in between the masters and slams.

Eh, I could accept that argument too.

[Chief Wiggum]

(Original post by TopHat)
Why not? All the top people enter for the Olympic prestige, so you get all the best players there. The Career Golden Slam is seen as it's own achievement, and lumps the Olympic Gold with the four slams. I mean, what makes a slam so important in my view is that all the top quality players make a point of attending, and that huge numbers of people view. It's a focal point in the year. I'd argue the Olympics does fill those criteria.

You could say the same about the World Tour Finals and some Masters 1000 tournaments, but I wouldn't say that they are "essentially a slam". (And of course, the olympics is actually just 750 points for the winner I think, whereas Masters 1000 are 1000, and WTF is 1500 I think.)

[aja89]

Seeing as the Olympics are being covered by the BBC can we hope to have all the regular Wimbledon commentators for the tennis?

[TopHat]

(Original post by Chief Wiggum)
You could say the same about the World Tour Finals and some Masters 1000 tournaments, but I wouldn't say that they are "essentially a slam". (And of course, the olympics is actually just 750 points for the winner I think, whereas Masters 1000 are 1000, and WTF is 1500 I think.)

I disagree; the coverage the WTF and Masters 1000 get pales in comparison to the coverage the Olympics gets. It's a big difference in magnitude.

[Chief Wiggum]

(Original post by TopHat)
I disagree; the coverage the WTF and Masters 1000 get pales in comparison to the coverage the Olympics gets. It's a big difference in magnitude.

Pales in comparison to the Olympics overall, yes. I wouldn't say it pales in comparison to coverage of Olympics Tennis. I don't really recall the tennis getting much coverage in 2008.

[TheMagicRat]

The Olympics aren't close to being a slam. It's best-of-three until the final so it can't be thought of in the same league as a slam.

Indian Wells, Miami and the Masters Cup are all probably more prestigious in the tennis world. Obviously an Olympic gold medal is special and I wouldn't argue otherwise but tennis in the Olympics lacks history and the 'magic' of, say, Miami. And of course there are some people who don't even think tennis should be in the Olympics.

[voodooshaman]

I agree, an Olympic Gold is nowhere near as prestigious as a GS. Its strange how you seem to get a lot more "freak" results at the Olympics. Although the women's Olympic results have not been as odd as the men's in the past 3-4 events. I think it's true that it comes down to 3-set matches Vs 5. Personally I would rank an olympic gold just above the tour finals and way below a GS.

[voodooshaman]

(Original post by notnek)
Caroline Wozniacki could steal the woman's crown if she stays near the top without winning one.

Dementieva was far more able to win a Slam than Wozniacki is. I would say Jankovic and Safina have been more unfortunate to be without a slam than Wozniacki.

[aja89]

I think it was big mistake for Anne Keothavong and Elena Baltacha to be given the WC entries for Team GB. Last night Heather Watson became British #1 with a first round victory at Stanford, Keothavong lost. Watson and Laura Robson would have been far more exciting choices IMO.

[voodooshaman]

(Original post by aja89)
I think it was big mistake for Anne Keothavong and Elena Baltacha to be given the WC entries for Team GB. Last night Heather Watson became British #1 with a first round victory at Stanford, Keothavong lost. Watson and Laura Robson would have been far more exciting choices IMO.

I guess it would be a real slap in the face to overlook Baltacha and Keothavong when they're the #1 and #2. Especially when they've worked so hard to raise the profile of British tennis. Baltacha and Keothavong are able to beat some pretty good players but they are frustratingly inconsistent.

At the end of the day none of the British women are going to win a medal - they'll win a round or 2 at most so the decision at least shows a bit of appreciation towards Elena and Anne, as well as giving Heather and Laura a bit of experience to build on and use in Vancouver, where they will almost certainly be British #1 and 2.

[notnek]

(Original post by voodooshaman)
At the end of the day none of the British women are going to win a medal - they'll win a round or 2 at most so the decision at least shows a bit of appreciation towards Elena and Anne, as well as giving Heather and Laura a bit of experience to build on and use in Vancouver, where they will almost certainly be British #1 and 2.

What's happening in Vancouver?

[ForensicShoe]

(Original post by KingGoonIan)
What are you trying to say? Perhaps you wish to discourage newcomers to tennis from enjoying the sport and discussing the play?

I have no problem with newcomers to tennis.

I have problems with people who think they know everything about the sport after watching three or four matches at Wimbledon.

[jhuntley93]

very dissapointing result for anna yesterday, loosing to an unranked college player, hopefully she can pick herself up for the olympics.