Where do you rank YEC in importance?

egn · 05-04-2009, 06:48 PM

I am wondering where people feel it ranks in importance. Is it above or below master series?

I feel it goes above the master series and right below the grandslams. I feel it is a very difficult tournament to win as you have to beat at least 3 other top 10 players to win it..usually 4 on average.

Any opinions?

marc45 · 05-04-2009, 06:55 PM

but you can lose as well and still win the championship.....i always thought it was a more important tourney than regular masters, but i'm not sure the players think so....yes, you're facing nothing but top eight players but you can lose and get days off in between whereas fed and nadal often have to win five days in a row at some masters

soyizgood · 05-04-2009, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marc45

but you can lose as well and still win the championship.....i always thought it was a more important tourney than regular masters, but i'm not sure the players think so....yes, you're facing nothing but top eight players but you can lose and get days off in between whereas fed and nadal often have to win five days in a row at some masters

At the same time there are nine Master's, but only one Cup. Easier to win multiple Master's, but when playing the eight best it's not so easy to get through the draw and end the year with an explanation mark. The ATP should have kept the points scale the same as last year and made the Cup worth 1250 or 1500pts. That way the slams keep the prestige, yet ATP makes it quite clear the Master's Cup is the prize goal of the elite (golf does such a thing even with their 4 majors).

seffina · 05-04-2009, 07:10 PM

I think the YEC is more important. Mainly because it's once a year and you're guaranteed a great draw.

BorisBeckerFan · 05-04-2009, 07:13 PM

The fact that it's a roun robin format which allows for someone to lose a match and still win the tournament automatically knocks it down a peg from the masters tournaments. If these were best of five sets, one loss and you're out and is still just top eight in the world, then it would be a just a notch below the slams, but with the current setup it just isn't as impressive to me to be able to lose and still win the tourney. Money wise there's a lot on the line though.

bluetrain4 · 05-04-2009, 08:17 PM

It's a prestigious title to win, no doubt, but I never got the feeling that if a player doesn't win it, it's that big of a deal.

Bloodshed · 05-04-2009, 08:48 PM

I would rank it higher than MS but below a GS. And like bluetrain4 said, I feel like most players don't care that much when they play their matches.

Chelsea_Kiwi · 05-04-2009, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bloodshed

I would rank it higher than MS but below a GS. And like bluetrain4 said, I feel like most players don't care that much when they play their matches.

Yeah I agree alot of players seem to pull out of it due to "injuries" aswell.

Bud · 05-04-2009, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BorisBeckerFan

The fact that it's a roun robin format which allows for someone to lose a match and still win the tournament automatically knocks it down a peg from the masters tournaments. If these were best of five sets, one loss and you're out and is still just top eight in the world, then it would be a just a notch below the slams, but with the current setup it just isn't as impressive to me to be able to lose and still win the tourney. Money wise there's a lot on the line though.

Exactly... you hit the nail on the head.

This is why the 'Cup' will never be as prestigious as the Shields or the Slams... and the reason no one (including the players) makes a big deal of it.

Safinator_1 · 05-04-2009, 09:34 PM

I feel it is more important than MS 1000 but no where near slams. Just a little bonus for the top of the field at the end of the year

Bloodshed · 05-04-2009, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bud

Exactly... you hit the nail on the head.

This is why the 'Cup' will never be as prestigious as the Shields or the Slams... and the reason no one (including the players) makes a big deal of it.

So if there was no Round Robin, it would have more prestige than a regular MS?

mandy01 · 05-04-2009, 09:35 PM

Personally,for me it ranks above the masters..

Bud · 05-04-2009, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bloodshed

So if there was no Round Robin, this would have more prestige than a regular MS?

No, but it would be closer. The format is so vastly different it's hard to compare the year end championship with any other tournament.

IMO, tournaments with a large pool of participants are more difficult than a single tournament containing only the top 8 (especially in RR format).

Bud · 05-04-2009, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mandy01

Personally,for me it ranks above the masters..

Would you mind telling us why you feel this way?

mandy01 · 05-04-2009, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bud

Would you mind telling us why you feel this way?

I would say due to its prestige...A lot of players strive hard to qualify for the top 8..While its true that the format is a little different from other masters , you only have the best of the best competing at YEC.That was my line of thought.The gap in my eyes would've been even more had they stuck to having best of 5 sets finals.

jamesblakefan#1 · 05-04-2009, 09:52 PM

I don't think it's above the Masters, because the whole year is comprised of single elimination format tournaments, and the MS changes that up. Maybe if every player played each other at the Masters, it'd be different. But due to the difference in format, it's hard for me to place it above the Masters. Maybe on the same level, maybe.

timnz · 05-04-2009, 09:58 PM

I feel it should be equivalent to making a Grand Slam final.

My relative points idea:

Grand Slam tournament Win = 2 x points of Grand Slam runner-up placement

YEC Win = Grand Slam runner-up points

Master level win = Grand Slam semi-final points

regular ATP tournament win = Grand Slam quarter finals.

We all intuitively rate the Grand Slam tournaments well above anything else. Hence, I think those kinds of ratio would give clearer and more worthy rankings.

jamesblakefan#1 · 05-04-2009, 10:01 PM

I think putting too much weight on it could be dangerous, because guys do get hurt over the course of the season, and aren't at as close to 100% as they are when the slams come around. The injuries are more prevalent at the end of the year, and guys are more likely to pull out due to injury at the TMC than at a Slam or even a regular MS event. Just look at Nadal and Roddick last yr.

pabletion · 05-04-2009, 10:01 PM

Are u kiddin??? I love it! Its the best tennis there is in the year... well, besides the times the top players have to drop out due to injury/exhaustion etc. But in theory it should always be the best tournament in the year. I love it now that it wont be in China every year.... I hardly got to see matches the last years, if I didnt record them.

I guess the tournament would be bigger if it was a bit earlier and if the tour calendar was somehow easier on the players. Like I said, in theory, it should be the highest level tournament.

jamesblakefan#1 · 05-04-2009, 10:05 PM

Maybe they should move it to the start of the year? It'd be a good kickoff to the season, would give guys a chance to prepare for Australia, and less guys would pull out due to injury.

Just throwing it out there, for the sharks to feed on.

05-04-2009, 08:48 PM	#7
Bloodshed Professional Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Orléans, Canada Posts: 1,131	I would rank it higher than MS but below a GS. And like bluetrain4 said, I feel like most players don't care that much when they play their matches. __________________ Pain is only temporary but victory is forever.

05-04-2009, 09:34 PM	#10
Safinator_1 Professional Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 1,204	I feel it is more important than MS 1000 but no where near slams. Just a little bonus for the top of the field at the end of the year __________________ Rafa will not beat Novak in 2012, This sig will not come down guaranted (UPDATED! changed 2011 to 2012)

05-04-2009, 09:35 PM	#12
mandy01 G.O.A.T. Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 10,590	Personally,for me it ranks above the masters.. __________________ Our character is defined ,not by others but by ourselves.Peek into your conscience.It tells you everything.

05-04-2009, 09:58 PM	#17
timnz Hall Of Fame Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 2,729	Relative Importance I feel it should be equivalent to making a Grand Slam final. My relative points idea: Grand Slam tournament Win = 2 x points of Grand Slam runner-up placement YEC Win = Grand Slam runner-up points Master level win = Grand Slam semi-final points regular ATP tournament win = Grand Slam quarter finals. We all intuitively rate the Grand Slam tournaments well above anything else. Hence, I think those kinds of ratio would give clearer and more worthy rankings.

05-04-2009, 10:01 PM	#19
pabletion Professional Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Court No. 1 (or No. 5, when not available) Posts: 971	Are u kiddin??? I love it! Its the best tennis there is in the year... well, besides the times the top players have to drop out due to injury/exhaustion etc. But in theory it should always be the best tournament in the year. I love it now that it wont be in China every year.... I hardly got to see matches the last years, if I didnt record them. I guess the tournament would be bigger if it was a bit earlier and if the tour calendar was somehow easier on the players. Like I said, in theory, it should be the highest level tournament. __________________ "I agree with you in theory. In theory communism works..., in THEORY" - H. J. Simpson