PDA

View Full Version : Masters Events Trump Majors Im Sorry But Its True


Conquistador
10-14-2009, 03:33 PM
Your darn right it is. Before you guys become more critical of my stance, let my defend what i think

First off Masters events are 3 set matches. Anytime you play a 3 setter vs a 5 setter you always get more intensity in a shorter time span.

The matches seem closer. After watching this years Shanghai, more of the field comes into play. Look at Melzer and Ljubicic -even Jim Blake had a chance to win against the legend Nadal.

The major traditional bias should not come into effect. Just look at the Masters series vs lets say Wimbledon or the French, sure theres more history but theyre also playing for a lot of money in these Masters events.

Those are just some points I am making. The competiton is great the matches are more intense. The field is also opened up soo much more with the 3 set matches. When you have a small field event and closer competition the matches are better than the majors. That is becoming fact.

norbac
10-14-2009, 03:35 PM
Your darn right it is. Before you guys become more critical of my stance, let my defend what i think

First off Masters events are 3 set matches. Anytime you play a 3 setter vs a 5 setter you always get more intensity in a shorter time span.

The matches seem closer. After watching this years Shanghai, more of the field comes into play. Look at Melzer and Ljubicic -even Jim Blake had a chance to win against the legend Nadal.

The major traditional bias should not come into effect. Just look at the Masters series vs lets say Wimbledon or the French, sure theres more history but theyre also playing for a lot of money in these Masters events.

Those are just some points I am making. The competiton is great the matches are more intense. The field is also opened up soo much more with the 3 set matches. When you have a small field event and closer competition the matches are better than the majors. That is becoming fact.

No, it's actually your opinion.

bdon
10-14-2009, 03:38 PM
it d be better actually if matches were just one pro set. that way there would be so much intensity packed into one set. and then make tournys only 16 man draw. smaller field means more competition!!

Djokovicfan4life
10-14-2009, 03:40 PM
http://media.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/gay16.jpg

Breaker
10-14-2009, 03:49 PM
Who is Jim? Blake's Greek name?

statto
10-14-2009, 03:49 PM
What have been the best three matches this year for excitement and tension?

#1 Wimbledon final
#2 Australian Open final
#3 US Open Final

In fact, all the last three years Wimbledon finals have been amazing, probably the most memorable matches of the year.

Ask Murray how many of his masters shields he'd give up for a slam (including the money) and I bet he'd say all of them.

norbac
10-14-2009, 03:56 PM
What have been the best three matches this year for excitement and tension?

#1 Wimbledon final
#2 Australian Open final
#3 US Open Final

In fact, all the last three years Wimbledon finals have been amazing, probably the most memorable matches of the year.

Ask Murray how many of his masters shields he'd give up for a slam (including the money) and I bet he'd say all of them.

You forgot Nadal/Ferrer Montreal.

Conquistador
10-14-2009, 04:01 PM
What have been the best three matches this year for excitement and tension?

#1 Wimbledon final
#2 Australian Open final
#3 US Open Final

In fact, all the last three years Wimbledon finals have been amazing, probably the most memorable matches of the year.

Ask Murray how many of his masters shields he'd give up for a slam (including the money) and I bet he'd say all of them.

i disagree. All of the majors are put under a bigger microscope. Hardly anyone talks about a close tiebreaker match in a masters event. Thats the bias.

aphex
10-14-2009, 04:05 PM
i disagree. All of the majors are put under a bigger microscope. Hardly anyone talks about a close tiebreaker match in a masters event. Thats the bias.

majors is where men stand out from the boys

statto
10-14-2009, 04:06 PM
i disagree. All of the majors are put under a bigger microscope. Hardly anyone talks about a close tiebreaker match in a masters event. Thats the bias.

That reminded me, in all the slams (bar the US) there's no fifth set tiebreak. The masters lose loads of marks for that (it's why the US Open is my least favourite slam).

If there's ever going to be a place you'll get some agreement it's on here, where most people watch all the masters, but I think the vast majority will find the idea ridiculous.

Why don't we have best of three game matches? That would open stuff right up. :)

Conquistador
10-14-2009, 04:07 PM
majors is where men stand out from the boys

Whenever money is on the line everyone is playing hard. I dont care if it is Wimbledon or Umag. It is what it is. These guys are all playing for money. If they werent they wouldnt switch racquet brands.

aphex
10-14-2009, 04:09 PM
Whenever money is on the line everyone is playing hard. I dont care if it is Wimbledon or Umag. It is what it is. These guys are all playing for money. If they werent they wouldnt switch racquet brands.

you think federer, nadal, murray, roddick etc are playing wimbledon for the money????

svijk
10-14-2009, 04:16 PM
Wonder what makes the OP get a sudden hard-on about the Masters after watching a couple of matches.

This is just a badly written post..."i'm sorry but it's true"??? Are you serious man....making such conclusive statements instead of stating an opinion. Wake up tomorrow and and read your post again and ponder :)

IvanAndreevich
10-14-2009, 04:18 PM
What have been the best three matches this year for excitement and tension?

#1 Wimbledon final
#2 Australian Open final
#3 US Open Final

In fact, all the last three years Wimbledon finals have been amazing, probably the most memorable matches of the year.

Ask Murray how many of his masters shields he'd give up for a slam (including the money) and I bet he'd say all of them.

Don't forget the AO semi - Verdasco vs Nadal. Much better match than the USO final.

aphex
10-14-2009, 04:19 PM
Wonder what makes the OP get a sudden hard-on about the Masters after watching a couple of matches.

This is just a badly written post..."i'm sorry but it's true"??? Are you serious man....making such conclusive statements instead of stating an opinion. Wake up tomorrow and and read your post again and ponder :)

clearly you're not familiar with conquistador's threads...

this is actually one of his best---imagine how bad the others were...

Conquistador
10-14-2009, 04:25 PM
clearly you're not familiar with conquistador's threads...

this is actually one of his best---imagine how bad the others were...

Hey now. Lets give me credit. I backed up my facts. Im no Petros Sampras lacking a French title in this post, i got everything through....

Conquistador
10-14-2009, 04:26 PM
you think federer, nadal, murray, roddick etc are playing wimbledon for the money????

Well obviously the players that are facing the federers nadals murrays etc are. They are there because the ATP Tour is a grind. They make their living off of playing well. A sudden fall in the rankings and entry fees can force players bankrupt and not able to play any more. Thats why they play.

jamesblakefan#1
10-14-2009, 04:35 PM
Your darn right it is. Before you guys become more critical of my stance, let my defend what i think

First off Masters events are 3 set matches. Anytime you play a 3 setter vs a 5 setter you always get more intensity in a shorter time span.

The matches seem closer. After watching this years Shanghai, more of the field comes into play. Look at Melzer and Ljubicic -even Jim Blake had a chance to win against the legend Nadal.

The major traditional bias should not come into effect. Just look at the Masters series vs lets say Wimbledon or the French, sure theres more history but theyre also playing for a lot of money in these Masters events.

Those are just some points I am making. The competiton is great the matches are more intense. The field is also opened up soo much more with the 3 set matches. When you have a small field event and closer competition the matches are better than the majors. That is becoming fact.

It's James Blake jerk.

Oh yeah, this thread sucks.

TheFifthSet
10-14-2009, 04:37 PM
Oh great, another parody.

babolat15
10-14-2009, 04:38 PM
the majors besides the french have had some good quality this year

TheFifthSet
10-14-2009, 04:45 PM
Conquistador, can you just leave? That or stop posting these ridiculous threads. Please.

zagor
10-14-2009, 04:49 PM
Another sucky thread from Conquistador,what's new?

edmondsm
10-14-2009, 04:57 PM
Your darn right it is. Before you guys become more critical of my stance, let my defend what i think

First off Masters events are 3 set matches. Anytime you play a 3 setter vs a 5 setter you always get more intensity in a shorter time span.

The matches seem closer. After watching this years Shanghai, more of the field comes into play. Look at Melzer and Ljubicic -even Jim Blake had a chance to win against the legend Nadal.

The major traditional bias should not come into effect. Just look at the Masters series vs lets say Wimbledon or the French, sure theres more history but theyre also playing for a lot of money in these Masters events.

Those are just some points I am making. The competiton is great the matches are more intense. The field is also opened up soo much more with the 3 set matches. When you have a small field event and closer competition the matches are better than the majors. That is becoming fact.

First off, no. Second, "Jim" Blake doesn't need a shorter match to beat Nadal. He freaking owned him at the USO in 2005, remember?

Bud
10-14-2009, 05:24 PM
The Masters tournaments were much better when they were best of 5.

Conquistador
10-14-2009, 05:54 PM
First off, no. Second, "Jim" Blake doesn't need a shorter match to beat Nadal. He freaking owned him at the USO in 2005, remember?

Well whos more conditioned. Id guess it would be Nadal. Jim Blake in a 3 setter against rafael nadal would be a lot more competitive than in a 5 setter--everyone agrees on that.

Agassifan
10-14-2009, 06:03 PM
LOL. You're not right. But even if you are, nobody cares about the Masters anyway.

jamesblakefan#1
10-14-2009, 06:04 PM
IT's JAMES BLAKE! JAMES FREAKING BLAKE!!!!!!! JAMES! OK?

crawl4
10-14-2009, 06:18 PM
is this a joke?..Since when will anyone remember someone for winning a masters, its all slams buddy

haha..whats with jim blake??

lawrence
10-14-2009, 06:23 PM
While I don't particularly agree with this, it's a well known fact that Jim is the shortened name for James.

Like Dick for Richard, Larry for Lawrence/Laurence, etc.

But yes, I hate it when people call me Larry.

edmondsm
10-14-2009, 06:25 PM
Well whos more conditioned. Id guess it would be Nadal. Jim Blake in a 3 setter against rafael nadal would be a lot more competitive than in a 5 setter--everyone agrees on that.

You said it like it was amazing that Blake even had a chance against Nadal. He has owned Nadal at times. The worst ownage was like I said the 2005 USO.

Djokovicfan4life
10-14-2009, 08:08 PM
Conquistador, can you just leave? That or stop posting these ridiculous threads. Please.

He already "left", and made a big deal out of it to boot.

UsualSuspect
10-14-2009, 08:11 PM
This guy's threads are pure comedy.

Conquistador
10-14-2009, 08:14 PM
This guy's threads are pure comedy.

http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2009/09/08/1225770/443727-roger-federer.jpg

jamesblakefan#1
10-14-2009, 08:17 PM
While I don't particularly agree with this, it's a well known fact that Jim is the shortened name for James.

Like Dick for Richard, Larry for Lawrence/Laurence, etc.

But yes, I hate it when people call me Larry.

Well James has made a point throughout his career, through interviews and such, that his dad didn't like when people called him Jim, I think he says "My dad named me James for a reason, no one calls me Jim"

akv89
10-14-2009, 09:29 PM
Your darn right it is. Before you guys become more critical of my stance, let my defend what i think

First off Masters events are 3 set matches. Anytime you play a 3 setter vs a 5 setter you always get more intensity in a shorter time span.

The matches seem closer. After watching this years Shanghai, more of the field comes into play. Look at Melzer and Ljubicic -even Jim Blake had a chance to win against the legend Nadal.

The major traditional bias should not come into effect. Just look at the Masters series vs lets say Wimbledon or the French, sure theres more history but theyre also playing for a lot of money in these Masters events.

Those are just some points I am making. The competiton is great the matches are more intense. The field is also opened up soo much more with the 3 set matches. When you have a small field event and closer competition the matches are better than the majors. That is becoming fact.

Counter-intuitive thinking is genius when it's done right, but utterly idiotic when done wrong.

rommil
10-14-2009, 10:03 PM
Hey now. Lets give me credit. I backed up my facts. Im no Petros Sampras lacking a French title in this post, i got everything through....

Like I have been saying, you should have stayed away especially after trying to be dramatic with your farewell thread.

nfor304
10-14-2009, 10:27 PM
http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2009/09/08/1225770/443727-roger-federer.jpg

This guy choosing to skip the Shanghai event for no real reason automatically makes the masters a lower level than the slams.

If the number 1 doesn't care about it, then how is the rest of the tennis world meant to feel?

Blinkism
10-14-2009, 10:30 PM
Hey now. Lets give me credit. I backed up my facts. Im no Petros Sampras lacking a French title in this post, i got everything through....

Not this Petros stuff again!

LMFAO

norbac
10-14-2009, 10:49 PM
http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2009/09/08/1225770/443727-roger-federer.jpg

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x249/rampituptothemax/journeyband.jpg