Why??? WTF is in fact worth in points even more than the Olympics... You have to beat the best of the best there to take the title... Since when WTF a minor tournament??? You are starting to sound a lot like Shankar...
Sent from my Optimus 2X using Tapatalk 2
The problem with this whole argument is the underlying agenda as always. For example, if either Djokovic or Federer had won the Olympics, then you would have taken this into account as well Ė as either as big a tournament as WTF or perhaps bigger.
But letís take a look anyway - other than the points, what else makes WTF bigger than the Olympics? All the top players apart from Nadal were there at the Olympics. In fact, the semi-final lineups at the Olympics were just as good as WTF; in fact, the line up at the Olympics were better than the WTF one, where we saw Murray vs Djokovic & Federer vs Del Potro. On the other hand, WTF offered Federer vs Murray & Djokovic vs Del Potro. Del Potro is never a good matchup for Djokovic.
If you want to avoid being accused of having an underlying agenda, then you can link to an old post where you state a similar claim, long before Murray got his gold medal.
Strength of draw is not a strong argument, not unless you also think Indian Wells and Miami are more prestigious than WTF. They had lineups without holes in them. In IW, Roddick was 30th seed and he was also ranked 30 in the world the week before. Doesn't get any better than that.
WTF offers more points and thatís all it offers. I absolutely fail to see how itís more prestigious than the Masters. All the Masters (and GSs) have knockout system and similar fields therefore, as Iíve mentioned already, the risks/stakes are much higher. And if you say ďStrength of draw is not a strong argumentĒ then you lose the argument right there. It is essentially the single most valid argument there is.
WTF also offers five top-10 encounters for those who want to win, which you will not get anywhere else.
Claiming I have lost the argument? I am sorry if I overestimated you. I thought anyone would understand that if Indian Wells have the strongest draw possible, then the draw will no longer be a relevant factor in determining which tournaments are yet more prestigious. You'll have to look at other factors. But it you disagree, please feel free to inform me why you think the OG draw was stronger than the IW one.
Everyone here is pulling out arguments based on a fine line from previous contrary posts... First of all, I for one am not saying the Olympics is a minor tournament.. But Emma, you were the one who said WTF is even a lesser tournament than Olympics.. THIS is where I disagree... And it's the same thing all over again... First of all, GS>WTF>Olympics/Masters ... I am not saying that the Olympics is just another 500 tournament, of course it's a big event just as the other MS.. Your argument about the draw at the Olympics is not as valid as you would think.. IW has a bigger draw and all the top guns are at 90% of the MS on tour, so, when you say that the draw is what makes it valid and even more important than WTF that is where you are mistaken, you can have any draw you want but you very unlikely will have the best 8 in the world in the quarter finals. In this tournament only the best of the best meet at WTF and battle to prove who is the rightful best player in the world. So, then we should also assume that IW is better than the Olypmics? and than ANY other Masters?? Because from your post you are saying exactly this and it doesn't hold ground, at least not where I am standing.
I was glad Murray took the gold at the Olympics, I actually like Murray, but not just because Murray won the Olympics we should take this tournament to the next level.. It is what it is... and it was the first major break Murray got before going on to take USO. So, I do understand why every Murray fan are ready to jump anybody who says something about the Olympics, but to be honest USO is by far a greater accomplishment than the Olympics. And you are making it sound like Murray got 2 GSs last year, as if The Olypmics will make everyone forget that Murray did not win ANY tournament last year but the Olympics, USO and 250 points Brisbane...
Now, assuming you are going to reply with your theory about tanking all tournaments cause he had a schedule and a goal that was to take the first GS, I would only say that to be a top dog and to call Murray on the same level as Djokovic, Murray has to be ready to prove he is a consistent player and win tournaments and not just by winning 1 GS and another important event will put him in the same league as Djokovic... _HE is on in the right path, and he will make it, but why and I repeat my question from my old post. Why are you so urgently eager to place Murray in a spot he doesn't deserve yet?
Let's take Nadal and Federer aside, let's say Nadal doesn't count cause he is injured and don't know where his form is and if he is going to return at full speed, let's say that Federer is way past his prime and he is just fighting to stay with the younger guns. Or let's just simply say that both of them are not on the same League as Djokovic for whatever reason, I don't care. You are talking about a 17 GS winner, an 11 GS winner and a 6 GS winner, regardless of their situation right now, you are putting Murray in the same league as Djokovic with just 2 titles in ONE YEAR?? Where are you all coming from? When was the last time Nadal, Federer or Djokovic won ONLY 2 tournaments in one year??
For Federer it was 2002
For Nadal it was 2004 (not even last year, missing more than half the season)
Djokovic surprisingly enough was in 2010!!!!!!
Murray in 2012 and in 2010.
And again... to say Murray is in the same league as Djokovic and that BOTH of them are leading the pack is misleading. Wherever you see it.. and again, Murray in 2013 can be an amazing year for him, but to say he is ahead of the pack? Come on... NOT YET..