PDA

View Full Version : Master Series now and 2-3 years ago


AprilFool
03-26-2009, 05:10 AM
Another factor when considering Federer's potential Goathood: He was the most dominant player in history during the time when Master Series events were best of five. We all know how well Roger does in Slams. Is there a connection between Rogers slide and the "wimpification" of the Master Series?

l_gonzalez
03-26-2009, 05:19 AM
I do think it's taken a bit of the prestige out of winning a Masters Series... however i do not think there is a link between the "wimpification" of Masters Series events and Federer's drought of said titles.... well maybe he could have beaten Djokovic in Canada 07 and Nalbandian in Madrid 07 had those been best-of-5-set matches, but that's neither here nor there.

AprilFool
03-26-2009, 05:27 AM
I do think it's taken a bit of the prestige out of winning a Masters Series... however i do not think there is a link between the "wimpification" of Masters Series events and Federer's drought of said titles.... well maybe he could have beaten Djokovic in Canada 07 and Nalbandian in Madrid 07 had those been best-of-5-set matches, but that's neither here nor there.

But you have to consider how well he does in all slams, excluding finals involving Nadal.

VictorS.
03-26-2009, 05:52 AM
Very good point. But he's been losing many of the master series tourneys before even advancing to the finals. It is kind of interesting though that he's performed so much better at the grand slams than the Masters Series events.

I personally think that just shows that the guy may in fact be a bit burnt out. He's still obviously hungry to do well & win slams. But winning an event in Cincinnati just doesn't do it for him anymore.

veroniquem
03-26-2009, 08:01 AM
To op: Are you serious? Then we can also say that master series during Fed's prime were not compulsory for top players, so the field was less competitive.
2007, when the tour established radical penalties for skipping master shields and made them completely compulsory for top players is when those tournaments became the most competitive. 3 set finals took some drama out of the final but didn't make the tournament on the whole easier to win. What makes masters difficult to win (more difficult than slams according to some players) is the fact that you have to play every day (as opposed to every other day) and you face the best players more quickly than in a slam where the first rounds are usually vs qualifiers or very low ranked players. The final in 3 sets actually makes the victory almost harder to ahieve: no second chance if you happen to start the match badly, you have to be sharp right from the first point, which some players have a hell of a time to do.

veroniquem
03-26-2009, 08:13 AM
Very good point. But he's been losing many of the master series tourneys before even advancing to the finals. It is kind of interesting though that he's performed so much better at the grand slams than the Masters Series events.

I personally think that just shows that the guy may in fact be a bit burnt out. He's still obviously hungry to do well & win slams. But winning an event in Cincinnati just doesn't do it for him anymore.
If slams were in 3 setters, Federer would have lost AO 2009 in R16 and AO 2008 in R32. 5 setters make it easier to win through a bad day, not harder. That's why players tend to have more counterperfs in non slam events than in slams.

AprilFool
03-26-2009, 10:29 AM
To op: Are you serious? Then we can also say that master series during Fed's prime were not compulsory for top players, so the field was less competitive.
2007, when the tour established radical penalties for skipping master shields and made them completely compulsory for top players is when those tournaments became the most competitive. 3 set finals took some drama out of the final but didn't make the tournament on the whole easier to win. What makes masters difficult to win (more difficult than slams according to some players) is the fact that you have to play every day (as opposed to every other day) and you face the best players more quickly than in a slam where the first rounds are usually vs qualifiers or very low ranked players. The final in 3 sets actually makes the victory almost harder to ahieve: no second chance if you happen to start the match badly, you have to be sharp right from the first point, which some players have a hell of a time to do.

Yes, I am serious. And I disagree with you. Changing the finals to three sets didn't just "take some of the drama" away. I do agree with you on other elements of what makes the Master Series events difficult to win. But I am not about tp agree that a Master is harder than a slam, or that a three setter is more difficult to win than a five.

bluetrain4
03-26-2009, 10:46 AM
I also really think the Masters Series lose something when the finals are not best of five.

I do understand having best of three for some of the finals. For example,Monte Carlo, Rome, Hamburg (which may not all be Masters Series anymore). It would make sense to maybe have Hamburg best of 3, so that players who make it to multiple finals during this stretch aren't tired out for the French. Any time there are three Masters that close together, maybe one should be best of 3,

I see no problem with Indian Wells and Miami being best of 5, even though they are back to back, because there is a 6 day break between the end of one and the beginning of the other.

In the summer, again, Toronto/Montreal and Cincinnati, if there is a week inbetween, then go with best of give sets for both. If not, keep have Cincy be best of 3. I don't ever remember Canada being best of five though.

And finally, the indoor tournaments in the fall - best of give really made them matter. The conditions are benign, no harsh sun, no wind, no crazy temperatures, so they really should be best of five sets.

But, keep in mind, the change to best of 3 was most likley a result of TV producers wanting a shorter match for broadcasting purposes, as well as more predictability in how long a match lasts. Of course, it's impossible to predict no matter what, but it's easier to estimate when the only options are a 2 set or 3 set match vs. a 3 set, 4 set, or 5 set match.

veroniquem
03-26-2009, 10:46 AM
Yes, I am serious. And I disagree with you. Changing the finals to three sets didn't just "take some of the drama" away. I do agree with you on other elements of what makes the Master Series events difficult to win. But I am not about tp agree that a Master is harder than a slam, or that a three setter is more difficult to win than a five.
And yet you have to admit that if the AO matches vs Berdych and Tipsy had been 3 setters, Federer would have lost them...
That being said, I miss the 5 set finals too, I'm totally nostalgic of the spectacular 5 set master finals we got in the past.

tkramer15
03-28-2009, 05:56 PM
I also really think the Masters Series lose something when the finals are not best of five.

I do understand having best of three for some of the finals. For example,Monte Carlo, Rome, Hamburg (which may not all be Masters Series anymore). It would make sense to maybe have Hamburg best of 3, so that players who make it to multiple finals during this stretch aren't tired out for the French. Any time there are three Masters that close together, maybe one should be best of 3,

I see no problem with Indian Wells and Miami being best of 5, even though they are back to back, because there is a 6 day break between the end of one and the beginning of the other.

In the summer, again, Toronto/Montreal and Cincinnati, if there is a week inbetween, then go with best of give sets for both. If not, keep have Cincy be best of 3. I don't ever remember Canada being best of five though.

And finally, the indoor tournaments in the fall - best of give really made them matter. The conditions are benign, no harsh sun, no wind, no crazy temperatures, so they really should be best of five sets.

But, keep in mind, the change to best of 3 was most likley a result of TV producers wanting a shorter match for broadcasting purposes, as well as more predictability in how long a match lasts. Of course, it's impossible to predict no matter what, but it's easier to estimate when the only options are a 2 set or 3 set match vs. a 3 set, 4 set, or 5 set match.


I think the elimination of five set Masters Series finals was mostly a result of the top players urging for less wear and tear over the long tennis season. Some of the tournament directors may have pushed for the switch as well. I remember that the Hamburg tournament got screwed in both 2005 and 2006 with last minute withdrawals from Nadal and Federer after playing marathon five set finals in Rome. Nadal pulled out of Hamburg both years after beating Coria in the '05 Rome final and Federer in the '06 final. Each match lasted five sets and over five hours. The Hamburg tournament director was really outraged in '06 when Federer and Nadal both withdrew after their epic Rome final. I really think that that had a lot to do with the decision to make all of the Masters finals best of three sets. Tournament directors didn't want their event drastically affected by a long five set final ending a day before their tournament begins.

egn
03-28-2009, 06:03 PM
To op: Are you serious? Then we can also say that master series during Fed's prime were not compulsory for top players, so the field was less competitive.
2007, when the tour established radical penalties for skipping master shields and made them completely compulsory for top players is when those tournaments became the most competitive. 3 set finals took some drama out of the final but didn't make the tournament on the whole easier to win. What makes masters difficult to win (more difficult than slams according to some players) is the fact that you have to play every day (as opposed to every other day) and you face the best players more quickly than in a slam where the first rounds are usually vs qualifiers or very low ranked players. The final in 3 sets actually makes the victory almost harder to ahieve: no second chance if you happen to start the match badly, you have to be sharp right from the first point, which some players have a hell of a time to do.

Who skipped Master Series in 2004-2006 besides Fed in the top 10? At the same time you can say Nadal wins more because he has to play more of them as Fed could opt out. I think Master Series should really not be counted towards legacy as they are just tournaments. They worth more for rankings but not much outside of that. They are good to look at but you can't compare them now to them 2 to 3 years ago as players could skip them and use that to schedule more liberally. This is an era now where everyone has to play the same tournaments and frankly it is plain boring.

Mansewerz
03-28-2009, 06:04 PM
If slams were in 3 setters, Federer would have lost AO 2009 in R16 and AO 2008 in R32. 5 setters make it easier to win through a bad day, not harder. That's why players tend to have more counterperfs in non slam events than in slams.

Why do you always mention this about Federer? The same could be said for Rafa at wimby 06 and 07.

Mansewerz
03-28-2009, 06:06 PM
At least keep the Masters cup 5 sets. I can understand the change though. maybe if it was done in alternating tournaments or something. Maybe just for clay (3 sets here).

veroniquem
03-28-2009, 06:18 PM
Why do you always mention this about Federer? The same could be said for Rafa at wimby 06 and 07.
The obvious difference is that Rafa lost those 2 finals, the # of sets wouldn't have changed the final outcome. The 2 matches I quoted from Fed (Tipsy and Berdych at AO) are 2 matches that he WON in 5 that he would have LOST in 3. Capisci?

veroniquem
03-28-2009, 06:20 PM
Who skipped Master Series in 2004-2006 besides Fed in the top 10? At the same time you can say Nadal wins more because he has to play more of them as Fed could opt out. I think Master Series should really not be counted towards legacy as they are just tournaments. They worth more for rankings but not much outside of that. They are good to look at but you can't compare them now to them 2 to 3 years ago as players could skip them and use that to schedule more liberally. This is an era now where everyone has to play the same tournaments and frankly it is plain boring.
Is it? I find them much more competitive than they used to be with all the best players in them. At least now we have beautiful quarters.

svijk
03-28-2009, 06:47 PM
Is there a connection between Rogers slide and the "wimpification" of the Master Series?

So you are saying that since the Masters series are relatively easier, that has resulted in Roger's decline. sounds like an illogical argument.

Also in 2004, when Fed began dominating, only the MS finals were best of 5 and that too not in all venues...so don't see too much wimpification. Your theory is utter nonsense.

Mansewerz
03-28-2009, 08:12 PM
The obvious difference is that Rafa lost those 2 finals, the # of sets wouldn't have changed the final outcome. The 2 matches I quoted from Fed (Tipsy and Berdych at AO) are 2 matches that he WON in 5 that he would have LOST in 3. Capisci?

I'm not talking about the finals, but those are also relevant.

I'm talking about Nadal losing the first two sets to Youzhny and Kendrick.

TheNatural
03-28-2009, 11:20 PM
Isn't that an advantage to play the 5 setters while he was at his best and younger and then play the 3 setters when hes a bit older say from 27-35?

Besides Fed has a big serve so hes one of the guys the 3 setters should favor.On average Nadal may take a few more sets to show his superiority since he doesn't have a big serve so it would be better for him if they were 5 setters now when hes coming into his best so he's being disadvantaged.

Anyways the greats adapt to whatever the conditions are.

Another factor when considering Federer's potential Goathood: He was the most dominant player in history during the time when Master Series events were best of five. We all know how well Roger does in Slams. Is there a connection between Rogers slide and the "wimpification" of the Master Series?