RAFAEL NADAL wins ESPY for best MALE Tennis Player

[NADAL2005RG]

Rafael Nadal is the 2014 ESPY Male Tennis Player of the Year
2013 US Open Champion
2014 Australian Open Finalist
2014 French Open Champion

 

[cezero]

well deserved

 

[nuraman00]

For completeness sake.

Also, that is some crazy reflection in the runner's up trophy!

 

[nuraman00]

LOL! Here are stories of the FO Finalists getting wrong trophies during the ceremony!

2014:

Novak Djokovic was given the wrong trophy at the French Open | For The Win

2011 (Women's):

Oops! French Open officials gave runner-up the winner?s trophy - Busted Racquet - Tennis Blog - Yahoo! Sports

 

[nuraman00]

What are the runners up trophies called at the majors? I can't find them.

Here's what I can find (Men's):

AO:

Champion: Norman Brookes
Runner's Up: ???

FO:

Champion: Coupe des Mousquetaires
Runner's Up: ???

Wimbledon:

Champion: Wimbledon Cup
Runner's Up: ???

US Open:

Champion: US Open Trophy
Runner's Up: ???



I guess none of the runner's up trophies have names. I just thought that if they looked different from the champion's, that they would have their own name too.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

^ Its funny how you wanted to know the name of the runner-up trophies.

 

[Old Lion]

Like the trophies mean something. Probably see them on eBay in a few years. I think the million dollar checks and endorsements mean quite a bit more. The title matters, not the trophy.


Nadal was probably the most consistent over the time period or at least an argument could be made for it.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

Before Wimbledon, Djokovic had won ONE of the last NINE slam events.
While Nadal had won FOUR of the last NINE slam events (and only needed to play in SEVEN of them).
That shows the tremendous difference between Nadal and the rest of the world.

 

[cezero]

Before Wimbledon, Djokovic had won ONE of the last NINE slam events.
While Nadal had won FOUR of the last NINE slam events (and only needed to play in SEVEN of them).
That shows the tremendous difference between Nadal and the rest of the world.

yep.

he's #2 in the world right now, and the defending us open champ.

when all's said and done, he'll be known as the most dominant #2 player of all time (a record he holds by a lot), and certainly a dominant #1 as well.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

^ Not "#2 player", rather "#2 ranked player".

We all know the slams define greatness above everything else.
Ranking is barely remembered by anyone, if we try to remember the number of weeks each player in the 1980s was ranked.
Same goes for masters shields etc.

Its all about the slams:
Federer = 17
Nadal = 14
Djokovic = 7

 

[nuraman00]

^ Its funny how you wanted to know the name of the runner-up trophies.

I really did think they would be named, lol.

If I were an athlete, even if I was disappointed that I didn't win the championship one, I would still keep the runner's up trophy. It still took a lot to get to the championship.

Looking at a Masters 1000 event, Djokovic has 4 Cincinnati losses, and Nadal has 4 Miami losses. They still have played well in those tourneys just to get there, and also in a few other years too.

 

[nuraman00]

^ Not "#2 player", rather "#2 ranked player".

We all know the slams define greatness above everything else.
Ranking is barely remembered by anyone, if we try to remember the number of weeks each player in the 1980s was ranked.
Same goes for masters shields etc.

Its all about the slams:
Federer = 17
Nadal = 14
Djokovic = 7

I like looking at a combination of Majors, Masters 1000s, and whether someone could win on multiple surfaces (whereas in the 60s and 70s most majors were on grass).

Then other subjective stats will come into play, like how consistent one was over a period of time, etc.

I think Masters 1000s are still impressive, since the late 90s, because the best players still play in them.

 

[nuraman00]

NADAL2005RG: Were you a fan of the Hornets during the Johnson, Mourning, Bogues days? The Baron Davis days?

Or did you become a fan of Charlotte teams when the Bobcats expanded to Charlotte in 2005, and then renamed themselves the Hornets for next year?

 

[nuraman00]

I can't believe a prestigious tourney like the FO could give out the wrong trophy twice in 4 years, lol.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

I really did think they would be named, lol.

If I were an athlete, even if I was disappointed that I didn't win the championship one, I would still keep the runner's up trophy. It still took a lot to get to the championship.

I agree, it takes a huge effort just to reach the final.
The fans tend to feel like its a horrible thing when their favorite loses the final.
But reaching it is a big accomplishment and I think the athlete senses that a lot more than the fans do.
However.....I've lost a final, and i don't like seeing any evidence of the loss, and I never want to think about it
Whereas there are some semi-finals I've lost that I enjoy the memory of, and proud of.
It probably depends on the personality of the athlete.

 

[nuraman00]

I also thought the Wimbledon and US Open championship trophies would have more distinct names, like the AO and FO ones do.

 

[nuraman00]

I agree, it takes a huge effort just to reach the final.
The fans tend to feel like its a horrible thing when their favorite loses the final.
But reaching it is a big accomplishment and I think the athlete senses that a lot more than the fans do.
However.....I've lost a final, and i don't like seeing any evidence of the loss, and I never want to think about it
Whereas there are some semi-finals I've lost that I enjoy the memory of, and proud of.
It probably depends on the personality of the athlete.

I heard a radio interview with Roddick about 2 years ago. He said in general, close losses hurt more, but then it depends. If he's getting dusted and can't even do anything, that hurts more. When he can't even make a shot. That can feel even worse.

I tend to agree with the latter, myself. If I can't do anything right, I consider it worse.

Especially for an athlete, obviously they practiced and trained hard to get to that point, so how can they play so badly and have that so for it? I think that feeling sucks.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

I like looking at a combination of Majors, Masters 1000s, and whether someone could win on multiple surfaces (whereas in the 60s and 70s most majors were on grass).

Then other subjective stats will come into play, like how consistent one was over a period of time, etc.

I think Masters 1000s are still impressive, since the late 90s, because the best players still play in them.

I agree, everything a player can win is impressive.

But the only thing the world agrees on is that the slams are bigger than the other events.

Everything else is debatable.

 

[NADAL2005RG]

NADAL2005RG: Were you a fan of the Hornets during the Johnson, Mourning, Bogues days? The Baron Davis days?

Or did you become a fan of Charlotte teams when the Bobcats expanded to Charlotte in 2005, and then renamed themselves the Hornets for next year?

Not quite.

I was a Chicago Bulls fan every year of my life until Michael Jordan joined the Charlotte Bobcats.

However, by coincidence the 90s Hornets were my 2nd favorite team (really because Larry Johnson was one of my favorite players).

 

[nuraman00]

OT: I wish more players played in the AO in the 70s and 80s.

I really like what it's become, especially since Melbourne Park opened. No weather delays, a lot of matches in one day. Great night crowds.

I think the relatively good weather leads to higher quality tennis, in general. (Minus the heat).