Originally Posted by Netspirit
It is an obscure feat, one step better than "winning all 500s". Masters are way behind Slams and WTF in terms of what players try to peak for; one of them is even optional. Nobody would trade a single Wimbledon victory for 9 Masters. Most people (excluding us, hardcore tennis fans & pundits) would be unable to name most of them, maybe except Indian Wells since the name is so catchy.
On the one hand, it is kinda awesome if you can say that you've won all the Masters and Grand Slams (which will probably be the case for novak) but on the other hand players don't think of it as that much of a record seeing that Federer isn't even trying to go for it.