Will the M1000 tournaments be important again for the Big 3?

Tennis_Hands · May 2, 2019

We know that recently the M1000 tournament receive a bad reputation due to the Big 3 trying to win predominantly the Majors. The thing is, all of them are poised to start sliding down the slope of the inevitable career sunset.

Will we see a change of heart amongst the fans that now sing the "M1000 are not important, only the Majors matter" song?

Moses85 · May 2, 2019

The opinion of people on this forum does not matter in the real tennisworld. If the structure of the tour remains the same, the master tournaments will continue to have the same importance as they have had for at least the last ten years. How the Big3 perform in them makes no difference.

Tennis_Hands · May 2, 2019

Moses85 said:
The opinion of people on this forum does not matter in the real tennisworld. If the structure of the tour remains the same, the master tournaments will continue to have the same importance as they have had for at least the last ten years. How the Big3 perform in them makes no difference.

I agree with everything you said, but I was curious whether the opinions of some fans will stand the test of time.

While the Majors have always been more important than the M1000s and the Big three were always going to try to peak for them, I have never seen such a disregard for the M1000, to the point of being announced by some fans as an afterthought.

Subway Tennis · May 2, 2019

The masters are only becoming more important in my opinion. Good to see threads like this addressing the recent "trend" of people declaring (or hoping?) that they are not important and pointing out how stupid that trend is.

My speculation is that a lot of the people on here who comment negatively on masters are not actually watching them, and are commenting without experiencing the quality of the tennis or having an appreciation of their importance.

Im(moral) Winner · May 2, 2019

When Fed takes the record

r2473 · May 2, 2019

Even though it has become a meme, I really don’t think the top 3 care about winning every M1000 tournament they enter as they seemed to in the past.

Tennis_Hands · May 2, 2019

r2473 said:
Even though it has become a meme, I really don’t think the top 3 care about winning every M1000 tournament they enter as they seemed to in the past.

Federer seems to care equally about any tournament he enters. The obvious difference is that he doesn't enter that many, but that is understandable at his age. Many of his fans also welcome M1000 tournaments/wins, so it seems that they keep it real too.

Azure · May 2, 2019

I think they genuinely like to give it their all but after so many years on the tour they just see the masters as preparation for the slams. Mandatory participation aside, the three set format does not, very often, translate to five set matches in slams either. Masters are of course very, very important; but for the big three, I really don't think it is the case now in their careers.

r2473 · May 2, 2019

Tennis_Hands said:
Federer seems to care equally about any tournament he enters. The obvious difference is that he doesn't enter that many, but that is understandable at his age. Many of his fans also welcome M1000 tournaments/wins, so it seems that they keep it real too.

That’s probably true. And I guess nobody has ever accused Nadal of lack of effort either, so my above post was pretty much completely wrong

Deon Sanders · May 2, 2019

Masters are nice

They just are not that important when you are trying to be the greatest of all time

Wimbledon, US Open, World Tour Finals. Those are the titles that make a career GOAT

BeatlesFan · May 2, 2019

Tennis_Hands said:
Will we see a change of heart amongst the fans that now sing the "M1000 are not important, only the Majors matter" song?

That's an inaccurate simplification of those holding this mindset.

Masters 1000 tournaments are important for ranking points and momentum for the big 3 (Raonic would be ecstatic to win one, we're not talking about lower tier players). Legacy-wise for any of the big 3, they are utterly superfluous. To illustrate this point: most reasonable tennis fans will instantly know how many slams Lendl, Agassi, Pete, Boris or Edberg have. Very few will know (or care) how many Masters 1000's they have. If that doesn't prove they are unimportant for a great player's legacy, nothing will. What's more important to Novak's legacy: 30 more Masters 1000's or two more slams? It's not even debatable.

smoledman · May 2, 2019

MS-1000 titles since March 2017:

Nadal 5
Fed 4
Zverev 3
Djoker 2

Djoker actually won 2 in a row last year(Cincy, Shanghai) and he's OMIGOSH not won in the last 4 held.

There is no 'crisis' in the Big 3 over any level of event. They are doing just fine.

Tennis_Hands · May 2, 2019

BeatlesFan said:
What's more important to Novak's legacy: 30 more Masters 1000's or two more slams? It's not even debatable.

I am not comparing the importance of the M1000 vs Majors (even for the Big three) for the legacy of the players. I am interested in what causes the shift of opinion in the fans of the same players regarding the same category of tournaments (M1000). Is it only the results that they achieve, or there is more to it?

Lleytonstation · May 2, 2019

It is not a hard process to understand the thinking of what you say is a "trend," when it happens to be reality for specifically the Big 3. At this point in their careers, they all have right around 30 masters. It is not that Masters never mattered or that they do not matter now, but at this point the Big 3 (specifically Djokovic and Federer) are now focusing all their energy on the slams.

Ask Federer or Djokovic if they care that Nadal has more Masters 1000's. The answer would be no. Ask Djokovic and Nadal if they care that Fed has more slams. The answer would be yes.

However, this is the trend with just the Big 3 because they all have won so many slams and so many masters. As soon as the Big 3 are gone, Masters 1000 will regain its importance because the rest of the field does find it important and noteworthy.

Tennis_Hands · May 2, 2019

Lleytonstation said:
It is not a hard process to understand the thinking of what you say is a "trend," when it happens to be reality for specifically the Big 3. At this point in their careers, they all have right around 30 masters. It is not that Masters never mattered or that they do not matter now, but at this point the Big 3 (specifically Djokovic and Federer) are now focusing all their energy on the slams.

Ask Federer or Djokovic if they care that Nadal has more Masters 1000's. The answer would be no. Ask Djokovic and Nadal if they care that Fed has more slams. The answer would be yes.

However, this is the trend with just the Big 3 because they all have won so many slams and so many masters. As soon as the Big 3 are gone, Masters 1000 will regain its importance because the rest of the field does find it important and noteworthy.

What if the big 3 cannot win Majors for extended time? Will the fans of some of them still think that the M1000s are not important?

Lleytonstation · May 2, 2019

Tennis_Hands said:
What if the big 3 cannot win Majors for extended time? Will the fans of some of them still think that the M1000s are not important?

I think as a fan of the big three you still obviously like your guy winning a masters, but at this point you would trade 5 masters for a slam. As a Fed fan, if you tell me he will end his career with 36 masters and 20 slams or 28 (current amount) masters and 21 slams, I would take option two.

Lleytonstation · May 2, 2019

I would be interested in knowing, if you are comparing two guys careers, how many masters 1000 would a guy that has zero slams have to win to match a guy with zero masters 1000 and 1 slam?

Tennis_Hands · May 2, 2019

Lleytonstation said:
I think as a fan of the big three you still obviously like your guy winning a masters, but at this point you would trade 5 masters for a slam. As a Fed fan, if you tell me he will end his career with 36 masters and 20 slams or 28 (current amount) masters and 21 slams, I would take option two.

I am of the opinion that the predominant attitude of many knowledgeable Federer fans towards the M1000 has been overwhelmingly positive and appreciative of winning them, even when Federer prioritised the Majors, so as a Federer fan I never saw that as a problem, nor was it a reason to choose.

I see a lot of people right now that announce that the M1000s are basically irrelevant as their favourites are concentrating on the Majors. That is a more controversial position, so I wonder will those people remain with it or will their opinion change, and if "yes" how/why?

Thundergod · May 2, 2019

Tennis_Hands said:
I am of the opinion that the predominant attitude of many knowledgeable Federer fans towards the M1000 has been overwhelmingly positive and appreciative of winning them, even when Federer prioritised the Majors, so as a Federer fan I never saw that as a problem, nor was it a reason to choose.

I see a lot of people right now that announce that the M1000s are basically irrelevant as their favourites are concentrating on the Majors. That is a more controversial position, so I wonder will those people remain with it or will their opinion change, and if "yes" how/why?

For decent amount of the fans, it's results dependent as seen by some of the same Djokovic fans pumping up the Career Masters Slam to be one of the greatest achievements of all time. This was even used by a few as an argument for Djokovic being ahead of Fed despite Djokovic being on 13 slams at the time.

kevaninho · May 2, 2019

I think the Masters titles probably matter most to Nadal as its the one thing he leads.
I think he hoped to have another 2 in the bag this clay season to extend that lead.
Djokovic im not sure, as hes lost so many finals against guys he shouldn't. Hes difficult to work out, and Federer I think most of his career has been pretty relaxed about Masters.
Don't think he was fussed either way if he racked up loads, although in latter years I think he has gone all out in them, which is shown in his many finals appearances.

Pistol10 · May 2, 2019

What about: NO, because there's NO time machine!

NBP · May 2, 2019

BeatlesFan said:
That's an inaccurate simplification of those holding this mindset.

Masters 1000 tournaments are important for ranking points and momentum for the big 3 (Raonic would be ecstatic to win one, we're not talking about lower tier players). Legacy-wise for any of the big 3, they are utterly superfluous. To illustrate this point: most reasonable tennis fans will instantly know how many slams Lendl, Agassi, Pete, Boris or Edberg have. Very few will know (or care) how many Masters 1000's they have. If that doesn't prove they are unimportant for a great player's legacy, nothing will. What's more important to Novak's legacy: 30 more Masters 1000's or two more slams? It's not even debatable.

Well that’s quite ridiculous. Slams aren’t the only thing that matters or the Big 3 would have literally stopped playing them when they all turned 31. To say it means nothing to a legacy is just plain wrong. Ask Djokovic what his favourite wins are and I can guarantee some of them include beating Nadal in Madrid and Rome or Fed in a final set breaker in Indian Wells or Montreal.

Centrius · May 2, 2019

Im(moral) Winner said:
When Fed takes the record

So never.

MajesticTennisManiac · May 2, 2019

Im(moral) Winner said:
When Fed takes the record

Like the mighty Davis Cup then which became irrelevant in 2014

Subway Tennis · May 2, 2019

kevaninho said:
I think the Masters titles probably matter most to Nadal as its the one thing he leads.
I think he hoped to have another 2 in the bag this clay season to extend that lead.
Djokovic im not sure, as hes lost so many finals against guys he shouldn't. Hes difficult to work out, and Federer I think most of his career has been pretty relaxed about Masters.
Don't think he was fussed either way if he racked up loads, although in latter years I think he has gone all out in them, which is shown in his many finals appearances.

I also think they mean a lot to him because he has reserved some of his greatest ever performances for M1000 - Rome in 2009 and 2006 and some of his incredible runs in monte carlo.

NBP said:
Well that’s quite ridiculous. Slams aren’t the only thing that matters or the Big 3 would have literally stopped playing them when they all turned 31. To say it means nothing to a legacy is just plain wrong. Ask Djokovic what his favourite wins are and I can guarantee some of them include beating Nadal in Madrid and Rome or Fed in a final set breaker in Indian Wells or Montreal.

Agree

Luka888 · May 3, 2019

It's not that they don't care per se but the thing is you have to prioritize and be smart. They are not that young any more. The big 3 are in a different category. You can't be everywhere. I mean how many master they won already. 92 in total.
Rafa 33
Novak 32
Fed 28
It's a lot

Tennis_Hands · May 3, 2019

Luka888 said:
It's not that they don't care per se but the thing is you have to prioritize and be smart. They are not that young any more. The big 3 are in a different category. You can't be everywhere. I mean how many master they won already. 92 in total.
Rafa 33
Novak 32
Fed 28
It's a lot

Will the narrative change, if in one year all they can win are M1000s and if "yes", why?

mwym · May 3, 2019

It is yet another oversimplfication to make possible inclusion of all the simpletons of the world as if they understand anything.

Masters are as important as ever - less than Majors. Once the Big 3 cannot win Majors they will HAVE TO focus again on Masters if they are still playing at that point in their careers. It's Djokovic's fault. Whatever the reason for his WTF18 finals loss, he is publicly and deliberately NOT playing any Masters to win - after that loss.

It would simply and only take Nadal winning another Masters or 2 without Djokovic winning any - for Djokovic to instantly reconsider his infantile behavior on Masters. Bad news is Nadal does not currently looks like winning one. However, if Nadal wins Madrid, I am positive Djokovic will die trying to win Rome. Let's see what happens.

Will the M1000 tournaments be important again for the Big 3?

Will we?

No, the Majors is where it is at from now on

No, because "once in denial, always in denial"

Yes, M1000s are still very important for their legacies

Yes, because I want to be always right and often "forget" what I have previously said

Banned

Rookie

Banned

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Banned

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Talk Tennis Guru

Banned

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

Banned

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Professional

Hall of Fame

Professional

Rookie

Legend

Professional

Banned

Professional

Similar threads