PDA

View Full Version : Are GS tournaments that much harder . . .


Nuke
06-23-2009, 10:55 AM
. . . than the typical one-week tournament? Yes, the GS tourneys are best of five sets while the smaller tournaments are best of three, but I don't think it's such a big deal when the GS are played over the course of two weeks.

The finalists in the GS tournaments will have played seven times in 14 days, while in the smaller tournaments, six matches in 7 days. While the matches are shorter in the smaller tournaments, they are playing almost every day, instead of getting a day off between matches like in the GS tournaments.

A lot of recreational players play every day and playing two matches in one day isn't so uncommon, so why do the pros think playing one match every other day is tough? Yeah, I know they are playing at a much higher level against the toughest fields, but for crying out loud, they're world class athletes and ought to be able to play all day long without belly-aching when a million dollars is up for grabs.

So why do players say the GS tournamets are harder, besides the fact that they want to win them more than the smaller tournaments?

Max G.
06-23-2009, 11:10 AM
Best-of-five sets.

You're completely dismissing the fact that they're playing at a higher level. Yeah, they're more fit than rec players - but they're also running more per point than rec players. And, remember, it's a competition - what matters isn't some absolute measure of how fit they are, it's how fit they are relative to how much their opponents are making them run. And, believe me, pros are MUCH better at making their opponents run than amateurs are.

Better entry fields. Everyone wants to play in Grand Slams, while minor tournaments rarely get more than one or two top players.

RafaN RichardG
06-23-2009, 11:13 AM
maybe not for the women since they play best 2 of 3 anyway, and for the men best 3 of 5 can be like playing two matches in one day if it goes the distance, especially since theres a potential (not high of course) but tiebreaks that can go 14-12 in the 5th set and stuff, then it can be wearing, and the longer the match (since 3 of 5 are longer than 2 of 3) the more chance for injury and comebacks
plus everyone is in the mindset of "it's a grand slam" because they are worth more points and have more historical value so its more mental than a regular tournament too
so yes, Grand slams are harder imo

Moose Malloy
06-23-2009, 11:14 AM
Yes, the GS tourneys are best of five sets while the smaller tournaments are best of three, but I don't think it's such a big deal when the GS are played over the course of two weeks.


Theoretically they are played over 2 weeks. There have been many majors where, due to weather, players ended up playing 4 or 5 straight days. See Nadal & Djokovic at '07 Wimbledon. Playing best of 5 that many days in a row is pretty tough.
I think Becker played 6 matches in 7 days at '91 Wimbledon.
Even with the roof, this may still happen(everyone can't play on Center)

So why do players say the GS tournamets are harder, besides the fact that they want to win them more than the smaller tournaments?

Uh, that sounds like a really big difference to me. Do you play this same in a friendly match than you do in a league match? When something matters more, you generally exert more energy, etc.

FYI majors in the early to mid 70s were played over only 12 (sometimes 10) days And they had no tiebreaks, night matches, etc.

Nuke
06-23-2009, 11:46 AM
Theoretically they are played over 2 weeks. There have been many majors where, due to weather, players ended up playing 4 or 5 straight days.

It still comes out to seven matches over 14 days. If scheduling gets messed up to the point where a player has three matches in three days, then he probably had three days off at some point. I would guess that the players get to do a lot more sightseeing during GS tourneys than during the regular weekly grind.

galactico
06-23-2009, 11:54 AM
no three set matches are harder because you have more of a chance than losing.

OMG i was joking, if GS were easy, everyone would win at leats one

jms007
06-23-2009, 12:05 PM
It still comes out to seven matches over 14 days. If scheduling gets messed up to the point where a player has three matches in three days, then he probably had three days off at some point. I would guess that the players get to do a lot more sightseeing during GS tourneys than during the regular weekly grind.

Even if the amount of matches over 2 weeks is the same, playing consecutive days is obviously more tiring and affects your next outing. I don't think playing every other day and playing 3-4 days straight and getting a rest period afterwards is the same.

Also as someone said, pro level are generally way more grueling.

joeri888
06-23-2009, 12:45 PM
best of three is more prone to upsets. It's not even important what's harder to win. GS are obviously most prestigious and everybody is going to try and peak there. It's a different ball game and people tend to have more profit of experience in GS, than in best of 3 matches.

Harder to win I wouldn't know, more important defenitely

kOaMaster
06-23-2009, 01:28 PM
...
double post

kOaMaster
06-23-2009, 01:35 PM
in other tournaments not all the pros are in....in a GS, every not currently injured player is participating. that makes it a lot harder.

how many top20 players do you have to play in a normal tournament? a lot less I'd say...

OrangeOne
06-23-2009, 01:52 PM
Even been on a tournament trip? 3 or 4 days of the same, monotonous life is very hard, challenging.

Try 3-7days of preparation, hell, playing a whole tournament or two where you're really praying to stay fit for the GS in a week or 2. Then try 14 days, where the matches get tougher every 2 days. Where the media intensity gets greater every day. Where the fans put more pressure, every day. Where the benefits to your career (money, but moreso points) have higher stakes, every 2 days.

It's a pressure-cooker, and then there's the physical aspects.

Federer's 20 semi-finals and 14 of 15 finals, etc etc, are just insane statistics....

GameSampras
06-23-2009, 01:58 PM
Obviously for 98 percent of the tour. LOL. Since no one outside of Nadal and Fed are even capable of winning slams:)

canuckfan
06-23-2009, 02:02 PM
Best of 5 is a different animal. What if baseball only had 2 strikes? What if hockey only had 2 periods? If you look at it mathematically, winning 3 sets instead of 2 is 50% more work. It's tough to get that last set.

bruce38
06-23-2009, 02:46 PM
Playing in a slam compared to a best of 3 is like comparing the hockey playoffs to the regular season. Everyone just tries harder because it's a slam.

Dutch-Guy
06-23-2009, 02:48 PM
Obviously for 98 percent of the tour. LOL. Since no one outside of Nadal and Fed are even capable of winning slams:)

Welcome back GameS.
Back to the topic: playing best of 5 is much harder than playing best of 3.

tacou
06-23-2009, 03:08 PM
if you play 5 sets every match it sure is

charliefedererer
06-23-2009, 03:36 PM
So much is at stake, the players know it, and the pressure builds with each round.
There's the uncertainty of coming up against the 09 FO Soderling or the 08 AO Tsonga who is playing out of their minds. There's the running out of daylight at the FO and Wimbledon. If you're really unlucky with the weather, you'll have to play on seven consecutive days like Nadal did at Wimbledon in 2007.
But the most insane aspect of the slams is having to serve in 5 set matches every other day (or more often because of the weather) for two weeks straight. The swing weight of a racquet is way more than a baseball, but major league baseball players start games no frequently than every 5 days. How these guys shoulders survive a long run at the slams is unbelievable.