Are Federer's Masters Seriest Tournaments Won Worth More Than Nadal's 21

McEnroeisanartist

Hall of Fame
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

Professional
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.
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
Nadal will overtake federer anyway so it doesn't really matter, but best of 5 is more prestigious no doubt.
 

NDFM

Rookie
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????
 
Last edited:

McEnroeisanartist

Hall of Fame
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.
 

Clarky21

Banned
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?
 

NDFM

Rookie
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.
 

McEnroeisanartist

Hall of Fame
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

G.O.A.T.
slightly OT, but does anyone think the number 1, in some scenarios, can be larger than the number 2?
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
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.
 

Clarky21

Banned
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.
 

6-1 6-3 6-0

Banned
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.
 

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
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

Professional
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.
 
Last edited:

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
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.
 

Clarky21

Banned
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.
 

RF20Lennon

Legend
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
 

Gonzo_style

Hall of Fame
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...
 
Top