PDA

View Full Version : Are Federer's Masters Seriest Tournaments Won Worth More Than Nadal's 21


McEnroeisanartist
10-22-2012, 06:07 AM
In his 21 Masters Series tournament wins, Federer had to win 8 three out of five set finals. Whereas, Nadal had to win 5 three out of five set finals. I would weight Federer's tournaments wins as more than Nadal's. Just as I weight Lendl's 5 ATP World Tour Finals (Masters) as more than Federer's 6, because Lendl had to win 5 three out of 5 set finals compared to only 3 for Federer.

zam88
10-22-2012, 06:32 AM
eh.. you can only win in the format that's available.

they should've never had 5 set finals... just harder on the guys that are already playing a lot more tennis than their peers who donk out in the QF's.

RF20Lennon
10-22-2012, 06:39 AM
They're worth the same but federers is more diverse

Towser83
10-22-2012, 06:40 AM
Nadal will overtake federer anyway so it doesn't really matter, but best of 5 is more prestigious no doubt.

cknobman
10-22-2012, 07:13 AM
They're worth the same but federers is more diverse

This.

Federer has a much more diverse portfolio of titles.

NDFM
10-22-2012, 07:19 AM
Federer has the more diverse set of masters that's true, i always wondered why they changed the best of five format in the finals to best of three, does anyone know why????

McEnroeisanartist
10-22-2012, 07:21 AM
Federer has the more diverse set of masters that's true, i always wondered why they changed the best of five format in the finals to best of three, does anyone know why????

Mostly because Federer and Nadal played an epic 5 set final in Rome 2006 and then didn't play Hamburg. I think most of the players, except for Federer, don't have the grace, stamina and toughness to player 3 out of 5 over the course of a year.

Seventeen
10-22-2012, 07:26 AM
eh.. you can only win in the format that's available.

Good point - it's hard to disagree with this.

Clarky21
10-22-2012, 07:30 AM
More *******ism,I see. Fed's masters wins are not "worth more" than Nadal's. Nadal does not make the rules and had zero say over how many sets the finals he played had. It is what it is and nothing more.


Also,we could say that Nadal's are worth more since he is 5 years younger than Fed,and has the same amount of masters titles,winning several of them against the GOAT and the Baby Goat. Nadal actually made it to 21 before Fed did. How about that,OP?

tennisaddict
10-22-2012, 07:31 AM
Could someone post the breakup of Hard, clay, Indoor breakup ?

NDFM
10-22-2012, 07:39 AM
More *******ism,I see. Fed's masters wins are not "worth more" than Nadal's. Nadal does not make the rules and had zero say over how many sets the finals he played had. It is what it is and nothing more.


Also,we could say that Nadal's are worth more since he is 5 years younger than Fed,and has the same amount of masters titles,winning several of them against the GOAT and the Baby Goat. Nadal actually made it to 21 before Fed did. How about that,OP?

Exactly, the ATP must have had their reasons to change the finals format. And if the reason was because players felt tired and skipped other masters then reducing it to the best of three format was made to benefit the whole tour.

Agassifan
10-22-2012, 07:59 AM
LOL at this thread. Give it up.

DoubleDeuce
10-22-2012, 07:59 AM
8 monte carlo is a joke. It should be a 250

McEnroeisanartist
10-22-2012, 08:01 AM
More *******ism,I see. Fed's masters wins are not "worth more" than Nadal's. Nadal does not make the rules and had zero say over how many sets the finals he played had. It is what it is and nothing more.


Also,we could say that Nadal's are worth more since he is 5 years younger than Fed,and has the same amount of masters titles,winning several of them against the GOAT and the Baby Goat. Nadal actually made it to 21 before Fed did. How about that,OP?

How is it *******ism when I just said that Federer's 6 ATP Tour Finals aren't worth as much to me as Lendl's 5 ,because all of Lendl's were 3 out of 5 set finals, where as Federer "only" won 3 3 out of 5 set finals. At least, I am consistent.

tacou
10-22-2012, 08:01 AM
slightly OT, but does anyone think the number 1, in some scenarios, can be larger than the number 2?

NadalAgassi
10-22-2012, 08:26 AM
8 monte carlo is a joke. It should be a 250

LOL the real joke is Federer's Hamburg titles. Hamburg now actually is a 250 event. Monte Carlo, one of the oldest and most prestigious non Slams in tennis, being demoted in favor of the crappy Madrid clay event is the other joke.

kalyan4fedever
10-22-2012, 08:35 AM
Maybe due to lack of grass masters ;)

RF20Lennon
10-22-2012, 08:39 AM
Nadal didn't get a say of how the final should be played lol. Fed has more diverse MS1000 but their worth the same :)

kishnabe
10-22-2012, 08:45 AM
21 Masters Series=21 Master Series.

Nadal is clay inflated while Federer is hardcourt inflated.

Clarky21
10-22-2012, 08:46 AM
Nadal didn't get a say of how the final should be played lol. Fed has more diverse MS1000 but their worth the same :)


No he doesn't. Fed has 6 clay masters with the rest being on hardcourts. Nadal has 5 hardcourt masters,with the rest being on clay. Sounds about even to me.

McEnroeisanartist
10-22-2012, 08:46 AM
21 Masters Series=21 Master Series.

Nadal is clay inflated while Federer is hardcourt inflated.

Federer's would be even more inflated if there were more grass court Masters Series tournaments.

6-1 6-3 6-0
10-22-2012, 08:51 AM
Not at all. It's not a question of whether or not Federer's are worth more than Nadal's, but how much more Nadal's are worth than Federer's. And Federer's are worth far less.

zam88
10-22-2012, 08:55 AM
it's a damn shame there isn't ONE grass masters and one less hard court masters

Gonzo_style
10-22-2012, 08:58 AM
If we had 6 masters on clay and 3 on hard court, how many title would have Nadal?

Agassifan
10-22-2012, 09:00 AM
If we had 6 masters on clay and 3 on hard court, how many title would have Nadal?

If most players were clay court specialists instead of hard court specialists, how many titles would Nadal have?

McEnroeisanartist
10-22-2012, 09:01 AM
If we had 6 masters on clay and 3 on hard court, how many title would have Nadal?

if we had 3 masters on clay, 3 on hard court, and 3 on grass. How many titles would Federer have?

merlinpinpin
10-22-2012, 09:04 AM
LOL the real joke is Federer's Hamburg titles. Hamburg now actually is a 250 event. Monte Carlo, one of the oldest and most prestigious non Slams in tennis, being demoted in favor of the crappy Madrid clay event is the other joke.

Here we go again, yet another funny post which is about as far from the truth as it is entertaining. You're talking about two jokes, so I guess you were refering to your post:
- Hamburg is certainly not at ATP250
- In fact, it's even older than Monte Carlo

Oh well. Nice try, I guess. :roll:

smash hit
10-22-2012, 09:05 AM
What lengths Federer fans will go to in order to discredit Nadal. There are claims that Federers' are more valid because they are more diverse, which is nonsense, a masters title is a masters title.

Federer has won 15 masters title on hard court and 5 on clay

Nadal has won 16 masters on clay and 5 on hard.

What is surprising is that they are equal in number of masters titles, when Federer has twice as many opportunities on his favoured surface.

Hood_Man
10-22-2012, 09:05 AM
If we had 2 Masters on Clay, 3 on Hard Court, 2 on Grass and 2 on Carpet, would it make a sound?

Gonzo_style
10-22-2012, 09:06 AM
if we had 3 masters on clay, 3 on hard court, and 3 on grass. How many titles would Federer have?

It's impossible to have 3 masters on grass...

sunof tennis
10-22-2012, 09:08 AM
Not at all. It's not a question of whether or not Federer's are worth more than Nadal's, but how much more Nadal's are worth than Federer's. And Federer's are worth far less.

Only to you...

Gonzo_style
10-22-2012, 09:09 AM
If we had 2 Masters on Clay, 3 on Hard Court, 2 on Grass and 2 on Carpet, would it make a sound?

In this case we have two tournaments on slow surfaces and 7 tournaments on fast surfaces. Is that right? :???:

merlinpinpin
10-22-2012, 09:09 AM
In his 21 Masters Series tournament wins, Federer had to win 8 three out of five set finals. Whereas, Nadal had to win 5 three out of five set finals. I would weight Federer's tournaments wins as more than Nadal's. Just as I weight Lendl's 5 ATP World Tour Finals (Masters) as more than Federer's 6, because Lendl had to win 5 three out of 5 set finals compared to only 3 for Federer.

Yet another point you might make for this "case" is that Nadal's last four MC titles are non-mandatoty M1000's with depleted fields. This is pretty shaky ground, however, as they are counted as legit by the ATP (Lendl's 22 equivalent tournaments aren't, though, which is more of a problem as far as I'm concerned), and in the end, a win is a win is a win.

Agassifan
10-22-2012, 09:13 AM
a masters title is a masters title.


unless the masters title is Monte carlo, which is non-mandatory.

RF20Lennon
10-22-2012, 09:14 AM
MC isn't mandatory is it ?

Gonzo_style
10-22-2012, 09:16 AM
MC isn't mandatory is it ?

Until 2009 it was...

RF20Lennon
10-22-2012, 09:17 AM
Until 2009 it was...

No I don't think cause fed was considering pulling out that year but then took a wild card

Clarky21
10-22-2012, 09:21 AM
No I don't think cause fed was considering pulling out that year but then took a wild card



2009 was the first year MC wasn't mandatory. It is still recognized as a masters tournie(much to the chagrin of the Fedites around here),and therefore counts every bit as much as any other masters does.

Gonzo_style
10-22-2012, 09:22 AM
No I don't think cause fed was considering pulling out that year but then took a wild card

Check it, but I think I'm right...

Agassifan
10-22-2012, 09:22 AM
MC has been a non-mandatory event for the past 4 years.

Aneto
10-22-2012, 09:23 AM
8 monte carlo is a joke. It should be a 250

Win against Federer and Djokovic in several matches/finals is a joke?

Gonzo_style
10-22-2012, 09:23 AM
If most players were clay court specialists instead of hard court specialists, how many titles would Nadal have?

In top 10 we have Nadal, Ferrer, Monaco and Almagro...:???::???:

RF20Lennon
10-22-2012, 09:25 AM
2009 was the first year MC wasn't mandatory. It is still recognized as a masters tournie(much to the chagrin of the Fedites around here),and therefore counts every bit as much as any other masters does.

Of course it counts!! But I was Just checking

Agassifan
10-22-2012, 09:25 AM
So will Rafa win 4 more mandatory masters to overtake Fed's record of 21 mandatory masters shields?

Gonzo_style
10-22-2012, 09:28 AM
So will Rafa win 4 more mandatory masters to overtake Fed's record of 21 mandatory masters shields?

Remains to be seen, no one can predict it! Lendl have a record, 22 tournaments...

Clarky21
10-22-2012, 09:28 AM
So will Rafa win 4 more mandatory masters to overtake Fed's record of 21 mandatory masters shields?



Ridiculous question. Too bad for you all of Nadal's masters wins count,and that includes each and every single one of his MC titles.

Agassifan
10-22-2012, 09:30 AM
Remains to be seen, no one can predict it! Lendl have a record, 22 tournaments...

If Madrid keeps its fast surface, then Rafa may not get there since only Rome will be automatic.

Gonzo_style
10-22-2012, 09:33 AM
If Madrid keeps its fast surface, then Rafa may not get there since only Rome will be automatic.

Next year Madrid will be on red clay...

Agassifan
10-22-2012, 09:35 AM
Next year Madrid will be on red clay...

yeah.. but Rafa never did well (by his clay standards) on the madrid courts. Red or Blue.

Gonzo_style
10-22-2012, 09:41 AM
yeah.. but Rafa never did well (by his clay standards) on the madrid courts. Red or Blue.

I don't know, he played 3 consecutive finals, losing to Federer after longest match in open era, next year he beat Federer and lost vs GodNovak last year! But i agree, Madrid is faster than MC or Rome...

NadalAgassi
10-22-2012, 09:43 AM
If most players were clay court specialists instead of hard court specialists, how many titles would Nadal have?

Still probably about the same. Clay court GOAT >>>>> run of the mill clay court specialists. You as a **** who argues Federer as the 2nd or 3rd best clay courter ever shoudnt even be speculating on some imagined clay court speicalist cutting into Nadal's title count on clay. :lol:

If Madrid keeps its fast surface, then Rafa may not get there since only Rome will be automatic.

Rome and Monte Carlo, in fact Monte Carlo is a bigger automatic for Nadal than Rome is, he could probably win Monte Carlo when he is 35, and Madrid is changing its surface to normal clay after the complaints not only from ATP players but by WTA players too.

Agassifan
10-22-2012, 09:46 AM
Still probably about the same. Clay court GOAT >>>>> run of the mill clay court specialists. You as a **** who argues Federer as the 2nd or 3rd best clay courter ever shoudnt even be speculating on some imagined clay court speicalist cutting into Nadal's title count on clay. :lol:



Rome and Monte Carlo, in fact Monte Carlo is a bigger automatic for Nadal than Rome is, he could probably win Monte Carlo when he is 35, and Madrid is changing its surface to normal clay after the complaints not only from ATP players but by WTA players too.

I know.. just messing with kids around here. That is all.

Steve0904
10-22-2012, 10:35 AM
Could someone post the breakup of Hard, clay, Indoor breakup ?

Off the top of my head:

Fed won IW from 04-06, and this year. Miami in 05 and 06. He won Hamburg in 02, 04, 05, and 07, Canada in 04 and 06, Cincy in 05, 07, 09, 10, and 12, Madrid in 06 (indoor HC), 09, and 12, (clay), and Paris (indoor HC) last year.

So that's 13 on hardcourt, 6 on clay, and 2 on indoor hardcourt for Fed.

Nadal won IW in 07, and 09, MC from 05-12, Rome from 05-07, then 09-10, then this year. He won Madrid in 05 (indoor HC), and '10 (clay). Hamburg in 08, and Canada in 05, and 08.

So that's 16 on clay, 4 on HC, and 1 on indoor HC for Nadal.

To answer the question. No. The players can't really control the format. Nadal will probably surpass Fed in MS/1000 titles eventually anyway. I would've liked there to be at least 1 1000 level tournament on grass, but history can't be changed now.

Agassifan
10-22-2012, 10:47 AM
Monte Carlo, Shanghai and Paris are the three worst Masters on tour.

MC: Non-mandatory
Shanghai: USO hang-over
Paris: Too close to the WTF

RF20Lennon
10-22-2012, 10:49 AM
Monte Carlo, Shanghai and Paris are the three worst Masters on tour.

MC: Non-mandatory
Shanghai: USO hang-over
Paris: Too close to the WTF

LOL at your sig!!

Gonzo_style
10-22-2012, 10:53 AM
Monte Carlo, Shanghai and Paris are the three worst Masters on tour.

MC: Non-mandatory
Shanghai: USO hang-over
Paris: Too close to the WTF

Shanghai was played 4 weeks after USO.

smoledman
10-22-2012, 10:58 AM
LOL the real joke is Federer's Hamburg titles. Hamburg now actually is a 250 event. Monte Carlo, one of the oldest and most prestigious non Slams in tennis, being demoted in favor of the crappy Madrid clay event is the other joke.

Agreed Nadal's 21 is worth far more then Fed's.
But Fed does have 6 YEC to ZERO for Nadal.

RF20Lennon
10-22-2012, 11:00 AM
Masters is masters why would one be worth more???

Gonzo_style
10-22-2012, 11:09 AM
Masters is masters why would one be worth more???

Logical questions are not allowed! :)

merlinpinpin
10-22-2012, 11:12 AM
Masters is masters why would one be worth more???

None is. However, should you win 9, for example, getting one of each would obviously be more impressive than winning 9 of one and underperforming in the other 8. ;)

Towser83
10-22-2012, 11:24 AM
LOL the real joke is Federer's Hamburg titles. Hamburg now actually is a 250 event. Monte Carlo, one of the oldest and most prestigious non Slams in tennis, being demoted in favor of the crappy Madrid clay event is the other joke.

both Hamburg and MC should have been lest as they were. Hamburg got dumped for crappy Madrid and MC should never have been demoted to a non mandatory masters. That idea makes no sense, if you want one non mandatory masters, let each player decide which one they don't want to play.

Towser83
10-22-2012, 11:27 AM
So will Rafa win 4 more mandatory masters to overtake Fed's record of 21 mandatory masters shields?

come on dude, Federer will proabably have the most slams, why does he have to have the most masters as well? Just accept nadal will have that record. Nadal is a great player, it wouldn't be right if he didn't have a few top records of his own.

TMF
10-22-2012, 12:01 PM
If we had 6 masters on clay and 3 on hard court, how many title would have Nadal?

Consider Nadal is lucky to have 3 MS on his best surface and Fed has zero MS on his best surface.

DoubleDeuce
10-22-2012, 12:04 PM
Win against Federer and Djokovic in several matches/finals is a joke?

Fallacy,

Out of 8, how many wins over Djok and Fed?

TMF
10-22-2012, 12:07 PM
MC isn't mandatory is it ?

No, that's why players can opt out to play ATP500 as a replacement, which MC draw will never be as competitive as other MS(eg IW, Cinci).

kragster
10-22-2012, 01:39 PM
Consider Nadal is lucky to have 3 MS on his best surface and Fed has zero MS on his best surface.

Or you can say Fed has 6 MS on his 2nd best surface - hardcourt(assuming grass is his best) and Nadal has 6 MS on his worst surface.

(Please don't mention indoor, indoor is not a surface, it is a tournament condition. I think Nadal would do quite alright in an indoor clay tournament).

Towser83
10-22-2012, 01:43 PM
Fallacy,

Out of 8, how many wins over Djok and Fed?

3 finals with Federer, 2 with Djokovic. 5 out of 8 is pretty good..

Towser83
10-22-2012, 01:48 PM
Or you can say Fed has 6 MS on his 2nd best surface - hardcourt(assuming grass is his best) and Nadal has 6 MS on his worst surface.

(Please don't mention indoor, indoor is not a surface, it is a tournament condition. I think Nadal would do quite alright in an indoor clay tournament).

you mean 6 on his worst - clay. Federer has 15 on hardcourt I think. Nadal and Federer have similar numbers. I do think Federer would have more if there were grass masters but to have grass masters you'd probably have to remove some hardcourt ones to fit them in, and if that was the case he wound't gain that much.

NadalAgassi
10-22-2012, 02:09 PM
both Hamburg and MC should have been lest as they were. Hamburg got dumped for crappy Madrid and MC should never have been demoted to a non mandatory masters. That idea makes no sense, if you want one non mandatory masters, let each player decide which one they don't want to play.

I agree, I am just going by **** logic that MC being a non mandatory now makes it a joke, then what would that say for Hamburg which is now a 250. I agree they shouldnt have changed anything. The ATP had an idea which was a really bad one, and then tried to rearrange it and it looks like even more of a mess.

I do wonder if the Hamburg demotion was due to the Seles stabbing, but probably not as it was so many years in the future. I would have elminated Hamburg from hosting any mens or womens tournament ever again after that right after it happened. However as that didnt happpen, and it is many years into the future, and there hasnt been a safety or security problem yet at the Hamburg tournament for either men or women, it should have stayed as its current status I suppose.

NadalAgassi
10-22-2012, 02:10 PM
Consider Nadal is lucky to have 3 MS on his best surface and Fed has zero MS on his best surface.

Federer's best surface is hard courts so he has 6 on his best surface. Indoors is not a surface.

Federer is definitely not better on grass than hard courts. He just has more competition on hard courts. That he is considered the best hard court player and is not considered the best grass court player ever also indicates this.

kragster
10-22-2012, 02:21 PM
you mean 6 on his worst - clay. Federer has 15 on hardcourt I think. Nadal and Federer have similar numbers. I do think Federer would have more if there were grass masters but to have grass masters you'd probably have to remove some hardcourt ones to fit them in, and if that was the case he wound't gain that much.

Yeah I was talking only about Masters, sorry. I think having more grass and reducing HC would give Fed a little bit more advantage in the post Djokovic/Murray era as those guys would win less on grass. It would funnily also be beneficial to Nadal who has lost many HC finals to those two but as of now is clearly (past results wise) a better grass court player than those two.

Fed is such a great player that no matter what surface distribution, he would do really well since even on his worst surface clay, he pretty much lost to only 1 guy from 2005-2010. Having a majority hardcourt year most favors Djokovic/Murray these days. Of course to be fair, the reality is that during their formative years, players adapt to whatever surface distribution there is. So perhaps Djokovic would be a better grasscourter if he had grown up in the 80s.

Steve0904
10-22-2012, 02:28 PM
Federer's best surface is hard courts so he has 6 on his best surface. Indoors is not a surface.

Federer is definitely not better on grass than hard courts. He just has more competition on hard courts. That he is considered the best hard court player and is not considered the best grass court player ever also indicates this.

I think Federer's best surface is grass, that case could be made rather easily, it's just that there's only one really important tournament on grass each year. The thing about this is that Fed's best surface could be argued to be either HC or grass because he's great on both of them so the point that there are no 1000's on grass is a moot one at best because he's so good on HC as well.

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 02:32 PM
Federer's best surface is hard courts so he has 6 on his best surface. Indoors is not a surface.

Federer is definitely not better on grass than hard courts. He just has more competition on hard courts. That he is considered the best hard court player and is not considered the best grass court player ever also indicates this.

Relative to the field, Federer's best surface is grass. So he'd love it if there were 2 less HC Masters and 2 more GC Masters. Like you said, he'd be winning more Masters that way, even if it's due to a weaker field.

Having said that, Nadal would benefit almost as much, if not more, from this change, seeing that the difference between Federer on Grass and Federer on Hards is lesser than the difference between Nadal on Grass and Nadal on Hards.

Mainad
10-22-2012, 02:32 PM
I agree, I am just going by **** logic that MC being a non mandatory now makes it a joke, then what would that say for Hamburg which is now a 250.

Hamburg is a 500, not a 250.


I do wonder if the Hamburg demotion was due to the Seles stabbing, but probably not as it was so many years in the future.

I can't imagine there was any connection. The Seles stabbing occurred in 1993, Hamburg's demotion from Masters to 500 didn't occur until 2009.
It seems Hamburg was sacrificed to make way for the new clay Madrid Masters while Shanghai was created a Masters to compensate for the loss of the WTF to London and took Madrid's old spot. It's always been a surprise to me how apparently lacking in influence with the ATP the German tennis authorities were considering the past strength of German tennis. They did sue the ATP but to no avail.


I would have elminated Hamburg from hosting any mens or womens tournament ever again after that right after it happened. However as that didnt happpen, and it is many years into the future, and there hasnt been a safety or security problem yet at the Hamburg tournament for either men or women, it should have stayed as its current status I suppose.

There have been major security failures at other big tournaments too. I recall a guy running onto the court at Roland Garros when Federer was playing just a few years ago. He managed to approach Federer and tried to put a hat on his head. It took some minutes before security arrived and chased him away. As it turned out, he was harmless but it could just as easily have been as serious and nasty as with Seles in Hamburg.

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 02:37 PM
Yeah I was talking only about Masters, sorry. I think having more grass and reducing HC would give Fed a little bit more advantage in the post Djokovic/Murray era as those guys would win less on grass. It would funnily also be beneficial to Nadal who has lost many HC finals to those two but as of now is clearly (past results wise) a better grass court player than those two.

Fed is such a great player that no matter what surface distribution, he would do really well since even on his worst surface clay, he pretty much lost to only 1 guy from 2005-2010. Having a majority hardcourt year most favors Djokovic/Murray these days. Of course to be fair, the reality is that during their formative years, players adapt to whatever surface distribution there is. So perhaps Djokovic would be a better grasscourter if he had grown up in the 80s.

Yeah, the players are a product of the tour. Not sensible to say, "this benefits him and that is unfair to him."

timnz
10-22-2012, 03:08 PM
Federer's best surface is hard courts so he has 6 on his best surface. Indoors is not a surface.
.

Why do people comment on how people play on different surfaces? It is because the differing conditions influence play considerably. Indoor may not be a surface but it completely influences play. So in that regard it is highly significant. Compare Nadal/Federer over outdoor hard vs indoor hard to see what I mean.

Indoors is Nadal worst 'surface' (conditions) it possibly is Federer's best.

Surface/Conditions is one of the primary determining factors in head to head. (Would you say the McEnroe Borg head to head would be exactly the same for the 14 matches they played if they had played them all on clay?)

Agassifan
10-22-2012, 03:53 PM
Indoors is definitely a surface

Towser83
10-22-2012, 05:29 PM
I agree, I am just going by **** logic that MC being a non mandatory now makes it a joke, then what would that say for Hamburg which is now a 250. I agree they shouldnt have changed anything. The ATP had an idea which was a really bad one, and then tried to rearrange it and it looks like even more of a mess.

I do wonder if the Hamburg demotion was due to the Seles stabbing, but probably not as it was so many years in the future. I would have elminated Hamburg from hosting any mens or womens tournament ever again after that right after it happened. However as that didnt happpen, and it is many years into the future, and there hasnt been a safety or security problem yet at the Hamburg tournament for either men or women, it should have stayed as its current status I suppose.

Yeah I get you. And I agree, MC is still a top event, and though potentially it could have a weaker field, so could outher masters like Canada in olympic years or Paris or Shanghai each year where players pulling out is common due to where they are in the calendar. Most years either Djokovic or Federer have been in MC along with Nadal and they are the only guys with even a shot at beating him, though he is most likely winning it whoever shows up. In a situation where a lot of the top 8 didn't play MC I would look at it in a lesser way, ut that hasn't happened so it's not an issue at present.

Yeah I was talking only about Masters, sorry. I think having more grass and reducing HC would give Fed a little bit more advantage in the post Djokovic/Murray era as those guys would win less on grass. It would funnily also be beneficial to Nadal who has lost many HC finals to those two but as of now is clearly (past results wise) a better grass court player than those two.

Fed is such a great player that no matter what surface distribution, he would do really well since even on his worst surface clay, he pretty much lost to only 1 guy from 2005-2010. Having a majority hardcourt year most favors Djokovic/Murray these days. Of course to be fair, the reality is that during their formative years, players adapt to whatever surface distribution there is. So perhaps Djokovic would be a better grasscourter if he had grown up in the 80s.

I'm sorry, I totally misunderstood. You mean there are 6 masters on hardcourt which is Fed's 2nd best surface and Nadal's worst. I thought you meant Fed had won 6 masters on his 2nd best surface and Nadal had won 6 on his worst. Federer has won 6 on clay and Nadal has won 5 on HC but I thought it was 6, so I got really confused :lol:

I think Fed might have gained a few masters if some harcourt ones had been replaced with grass. Nadal might have gained too, although he only won one queens/Halle title and has been down 2 sets to 0 a few times at Wimbeldon, which would be a loss in a best of 3, but I think he would find it less taxing on grass so perhaps that would benefit him later in the season. All in all I would like grass masters.

NadalAgassi
10-22-2012, 05:31 PM
Why do people comment on how people play on different surfaces? It is because the differing conditions influence play considerably. Indoor may not be a surface but it completely influences play. So in that regard it is highly significant. Compare Nadal/Federer over outdoor hard vs indoor hard to see what I mean.


Well in that case it is not true there are no Masters on Federer's "favorite" surface if we presume that to be indoors.

timnz
10-22-2012, 06:19 PM
Well in that case it is not true there are no Masters on Federer's "favorite" surface if we presume that to be indoors.

Yes and that is the great shame and pity of modern tennis. Indoor used to be one of the main surfaces throughout the year. Until the 90's it had two whole seasons a year (Autumn - Philly, Milan etc and Autumn - Stockholm, Tokyo etc). Instead tennis has gone the way of progressively slowing things down as much as possible.

Federer has one chance to shine indoor - the WTF which is rated above the Masters 1000 - and he has taken that chance (6 titles).

timnz
10-22-2012, 06:21 PM
I'm sorry, I totally misunderstood. You mean there are 6 masters on hardcourt which is Fed's 2nd best surface and Nadal's worst.

Hardcourt isn't Nadal's worst surface. Indoor is. See my comments about Indoor in this thread.

Gonzo_style
10-22-2012, 06:22 PM
Consider Nadal is lucky to have 3 MS on his best surface and Fed has zero MS on his best surface.

Federer has 6 Masters on HC and you are still not satisfied?

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 06:33 PM
Federer has 6 Masters on HC and you are still not satisfied?

Nadal has 6 Masters on HC too. The tour is the same for everybody.

Gonzo_style
10-22-2012, 06:36 PM
Nadal has 6 Masters on HC too. The tour is the same for everybody.

TMF said Nadal was lucky that 3 Masters is on clay, his best surface!

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 06:37 PM
TMF said Nadal was lucky that 3 Masters is on clay, his best surface!

TMF is just being a fanboy. Or maybe it was just his way of saying, "The tour is what it is."

Gonzo_style
10-22-2012, 06:39 PM
TMF is just being a fanboy. Or maybe it was just his way of saying, "The tour is what it is."

Yeah whatever...

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 06:41 PM
Yeah whatever...

Whatever what? Should Football be played in water because Michael Phelps isn't good enough to make the team on Grass?

Gonzo_style
10-22-2012, 06:54 PM
Whatever what? Should Football be played in water because Michael Phelps isn't good enough to make the team on Grass?

LOL TMF complaining about 3 masters on clay, he thinks it's too much!

TMF
10-22-2012, 06:58 PM
Or you can say Fed has 6 MS on his 2nd best surface - hardcourt(assuming grass is his best) and Nadal has 6 MS on his worst surface.


(Please don't mention indoor, indoor is not a surface, it is a tournament condition. I think Nadal would do quite alright in an indoor clay tournament).
Grass is part of tennis and there should be MS on this surface.

Of the 9 MS, I think they should have 2 on hc, 2 on clay, 3 on hc, and 2 on indoor. Hc gets 3 MS because it's mainly played on the tour and the most neutral surface. By spreading out 9 events throughout different conditions, this makes it fair for everyone since certain player have his own favorite surface(eg Nadal-clay, Roddick-grass).

Federer's best surface is hard courts so he has 6 on his best surface. Indoors is not a surface.

Federer is definitely not better on grass than hard courts. He just has more competition on hard courts. That he is considered the best hard court player and is not considered the best grass court player ever also indicates this.
Whether if hc or grass is his best is not the point. The tour have varieties of surfaces/conditions and it's best to have all MS play on every surfaces. Currently, there's no grass MS and the players who's hurts are the one who enjoy playing on it, and clay specialists benefit for have 3 MS. The hc MS is a neutral surface, because it's play on most of the time and players are use to it. Plus, it's been slow down and adding high bounce which helps pusher/defensive players rather than all court player like Roger.

Federer has 6 Masters on HC and you are still not satisfied?
As I just mentioned above...grass is part of tennis and it makes no sense to ignore it. Because of tradition, I think grass should have more precedence over clay but strangely enough we have 3 clay but 0 grass.

Also, just because there's 6 hc MS doesn't mean every player including Roger plays all 6 events. They skip a few of them, or some of them just don't give a 100%(tank job) and lose early.

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 06:58 PM
LOL TMF complaining about 3 masters on clay, he thinks it's too much!

Nothing is too much, the tour is what it is. It might be a good move to have a couple of Grass masters (not to benefit Federer or anything) just because Grass was the original surface for Tennis. I'm shocked Wimbledon is the only Grasscourt tournament right now. It just seems wrong. But I guess that's why Wimbledon is so special.

TMF
10-22-2012, 07:01 PM
TMF said Nadal was lucky that 3 Masters is on clay, his best surface!

LOL TMF complaining about 3 masters on clay, he thinks it's too much!

I told you there's 3 clay and 0 grass which shouldn't be this way. Let say grass was Nadal's best and clay is Roger's best, I'm sure you guys would scream for HOW UNFAIR IT IS FOR NADAL!

Gonzo_style
10-22-2012, 07:02 PM
Nothing is too much, the tour is what it is. It might be a good move to have a couple of Grass masters (not to benefit Federer or anything) just because Grass was the original surface for Tennis. I'm shocked Wimbledon is the only Grasscourt tournament right now. It just seems wrong. But I guess that's why Wimbledon is so special.

Grass is the most expensive and most difficult surface for maintenance, finals and semi-finals of the tournaments will be played on clay anyway :)

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 07:04 PM
Grass is the most expensive and most difficult surface for maintenance, finals and semi-finals of the tournaments will be played on clay anyway :)

That sounds like you wrote two lines, and gobbled up the middle part to make it one.

Netspirit
10-22-2012, 07:04 PM
I'm shocked Wimbledon is the only Grasscourt tournament right now.

I am shocked by your ignorance.

Gonzo_style
10-22-2012, 07:04 PM
I told you there's 3 clay and 0 grass which shouldn't be this way. Let say grass was Nadal's best and clay is Roger's best, I'm sure you guys would scream for HOW UNFAIR IT IS FOR NADAL!

See post #92

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 07:05 PM
I am shocked by your ignorance.

What are we talking about here? Grand Slams and Masters 1000. I'm shocked by your irrelevance.

Steve0904
10-22-2012, 07:31 PM
I am shocked by your ignorance.

Because Halle, and Queens are SO important right? Let's not forget Eastbourne and Hertsogenbosch or however the hell you spell it. :roll:

Gonzo_style
10-22-2012, 07:34 PM
Because Halle, and Queens are SO important right? Let's not forget Eastbourne and Hertsogenbosch or however the hell you spell it. :roll:

Then what do you suggest?

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 07:41 PM
Because Halle, and Queens are SO important right? Let's not forget Eastbourne and Hertsogenbosch or however the hell you spell it. :roll:

Thanks! :)

Steve0904
10-22-2012, 07:52 PM
Then what do you suggest?

I never suggested anything??? PoB said there was only one GC tournament, and while technically incorrect, there is only one of any importance at all. I was simply being sarcastic saying that the other tournaments are of little value. If I was to suggest something I'd say there should be at least 1 1000 level GC tournament. I know the main reason why there isn't one, but that doesn't mean I can't dream right?

smoledman
10-22-2012, 07:55 PM
Imagine Monaco relegated to 500 status and Halle elevated to 1000? Suddenly Nadal would have only 13 and Federer would have 26.

Clarky21
10-22-2012, 08:12 PM
Imagine Monaco relegated to 500 status and Halle elevated to 1000? Suddenly Nadal would have only 13 and Federer would have 26.



It's nice to have a dream. :lol:

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 08:12 PM
Imagine Monaco relegated to 500 status and Halle elevated to 1000? Suddenly Nadal would have only 13 and Federer would have 26.

Imagine Cincinnati relegated to 500 status?

Towser83
10-22-2012, 08:13 PM
Imagine Monaco relegated to 500 status and Halle elevated to 1000? Suddenly Nadal would have only 13 and Federer would have 26.

yeah but what's the point of imagining that? If anything there's too much hc tennis.

3 clay, 3 grass, 2 hardcourt, 1 indoor hard/carpet and indoor hard/carpet YEC would seem a fair spread or maybe just 2, clay, 2 grass, 2 outdoor hard, 2 indoor hard/carpet

ps imagine the French Open relegated to a challeger event and Basel made into a slam! :lol:

merlinpinpin
10-22-2012, 10:14 PM
delete post

Wilander Fan
10-23-2012, 05:43 AM
The masters series is relatively new in terms of historic records and pretty flawed. IMO, its never going to be a serious factor in debating GOAT and the system may not even be around in 20 years. You cant even really compare records today from the players of the 80s during the golden age other than GS.

Talker
10-23-2012, 02:27 PM
Because Fed won more 5 setters it would seem it's a tougher road and worth more.
But in 3 sets there's more chance of a player getting hot for a couple sets and causing an upset. So that's a definite danger too.

The slams during the time the masters were 5 sets would seem to be more valuable.
With all those 5 set masters it would be hard to have enough long term endurance to play strongly through the slams.