Why are Nadal's 8 consecutive Monte Carlo titles not the biggest story in tennis?

[smoledman]

I mean nobody else has won even 4 consecutive of another Masters-1000 event and Nadal has doubled that. This is the biggest record in tennis, bar none and should be hailed to the heavens as his crowning achievement.

[veroniquem]

It is one of the biggest stories along with 7 RG titles and just 1 loss. Actually, Rafa's records on clay are all front page material.

[DolgoSantoro]

Most of the world only cares about majors, win streaks and who is number one. Those of us here are able to appreciate Nadal's ridiculous clay resume in its entirety.

[Agassifan]

Because it is not a mandatory masters tournament and many top players skip it?

It is an impressive streak, no doubt

[The-Champ]

7 FO (record)
8 MC (record)
7 Barcelona (record)
6 Rome (record)

undefeated in 81 matches in row!! (record)

No doubt these numbers will be toppled sooner or later, but I wonder if we will be able to live long enough to see it.

[90's Clay]

I dont think those clay records will be topped my man.. Those numbers will stand the test of time.. At least our lifetime

That clay record is utterly ridiculous

17 slams, and a few calendar slams will be surpassed before Nadal's clay records are surpassed

[OddJack]

Because it has been more difficult for him to win 2 Australian opens thant 8 Monte Carlos.

[veroniquem]

I really don't think they will be toppled any time soon...

[Bartelby]

It's only recently been non-mandatory, I believe.

Originally Posted by Agassifan

Because it is not a mandatory masters tournament and many top players skip it?

It is an impressive streak, no doubt

[mariecon]

Originally Posted by Bartelby

It's only recently been non-mandatory, I believe.

Since 2009. That's four titles since it became a 500 status tournament.

[veroniquem]

It's not exactly a 500 status. It is not mandatory, true but it still gives 1000 points and is considered 1 of the 9 masters.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

It's not exactly a 500 status. It is not mandatory, true but it still gives 1000 points and is considered 1 of the 9 masters.

Mandatory event forces top players to show up(eg IW). Unlike MC, players can opt out to play on different surface rather than clay. The depth of the draw is depleted.

[NEW_BORN]

It was more impressive when Masters finals were best of 5, so since 2007 when it's been best of 3, it's become far less impressive.
That said 8 consecutive is still damn impressive

[mariecon]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

It's not exactly a 500 status. It is not mandatory, true but it still gives 1000 points and is considered 1 of the 9 masters.

It's treated like a 500 but awards 1000 points. It can fill in for a 500 tourney so that a player doesn't receive a zero-pointer for not playing the required 500 level tournaments. It makes no sense. Either it's a 1000 or a 500 but it shouldn't be both.

[Zildite]

Before/after non-mandatory change for Nadal

Average opponent ranking: 38.1 / 39.8
Number of top 10 players faced: 9 / 5

Maybe not too useful, but anyway.

[kishnabe]

Originally Posted by The-Champ

7 FO (record)
8 MC (record)
7 Barcelona (record)
6 Rome (record)

undefeated in 81 matches in row!! (record)

No doubt these numbers will be toppled sooner or later, but I wonder if we will be able to live long enough to see it.

Those Record will never be topped by any person.....it unconceivable.

[Sid_Vicious]

Originally Posted by TMF

Mandatory event forces top players to show up(eg IW). Unlike MC, players can opt out to play on different surface rather than clay. The depth of the draw is depleted.

2009- 9/10 top 10 players showed up to play. Including Federer, Djokovic, and Murray.

2010- was pretty weak. About 5 of the top 10 players ditched. They awarded the 16th and final seed to Baghdatis who was ranked 30th in the world.

2011- Pretty solid field. 8/10 top 10 players present. Simon got the 16th seed while being ranked 23rd.

2012- Again, pretty solid field. Some missing players, but all the high profile players, except Federer, were there.

So, I wouldn't call Nadal's MC titles from 2009-2012 worthless by any means.

Sometimes the fields are mediocre in mandatory events as well. Did you see Toronto last year?

[big ted]

wilander said its even more impressive that he won 8 monte carlos saying, paraphrase -'how can somebody be so motivated to win monte carlos that many times...amazing'

[Towser83]

Originally Posted by Sid_Vicious

2009- 9/10 top 10 players showed up to play. Including Federer, Djokovic, and Murray.

2010- was pretty weak. About 5 of the top 10 players ditched. They awarded the 16th and final seed to Baghdatis who was ranked 30th in the world.

2011- Pretty solid field. 8/10 top 10 players present. Simon got the 16th seed while being ranked 23rd.

2012- Again, pretty solid field. Some missing players, but all the high profile players, except Federer, were there.

So, I wouldn't call Nadal's MC titles from 2009-2012 worthless by any means.

Sometimes the fields are mediocre in mandatory events as well. Did you see Toronto last year?

yeah well said. Plus the fall masters are often weak in terms of players and the effort of players. And If MC always had the very top players so what? Nadal would still win most if not all the time anyway.

[MichaelNadal]

Originally Posted by Sid_Vicious

2009- 9/10 top 10 players showed up to play. Including Federer, Djokovic, and Murray.

2010- was pretty weak. About 5 of the top 10 players ditched. They awarded the 16th and final seed to Baghdatis who was ranked 30th in the world.

2011- Pretty solid field. 8/10 top 10 players present. Simon got the 16th seed while being ranked 23rd.

2012- Again, pretty solid field. Some missing players, but all the high profile players, except Federer, were there.

So, I wouldn't call Nadal's MC titles from 2009-2012 worthless by any means.

Sometimes the fields are mediocre in mandatory events as well. Did you see Toronto last year?

That's a very good, often-overlooked point.