Mainad
Bionic Poster
For the umpteenth time, what other tournament would have kept Nadal in it after he lost his opening match?
4 years in a row WTF title goes to a non-Big-3 player. Conclusions?
- Thread starter UnderratedSlam
- Start date
For the umpteenth time, what other tournament would have kept Nadal in it after he lost his opening match?
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Of course it is and we should all just ignore this constant b******t nonsense from disgruntled Nadal Fans that keep trying to tell us otherwise.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
It should be renamed the LTP Cup. ie, the "Least Tired Player" Cup.
The winners are now relative underachievers on tour, for being top players. Don"t make slam finals, aren't always going deep in tournaments. By the time the WTF comes round, they are fresh as daisies to make a winning run, while the real best players of the year on tour are out on their feet and not fully at their best (Medvedev being a prime example).
The winners are now relative underachievers on tour, for being top players. Don"t make slam finals, aren't always going deep in tournaments. By the time the WTF comes round, they are fresh as daisies to make a winning run, while the real best players of the year on tour are out on their feet and not fully at their best (Medvedev being a prime example).
ForehandRF
Legend
The tired thing cannot be used an excuse or something.If Djokovic and Federer were able to win it so many times after playing so many matches in those seasons ( Fed for example played more than 80 matches before the YEC in 2006), then every top player should be capable of winning it at least one time. Djokovic even won the Paris masters and the YEC back to back multiple times and he is human too.
I think all tennis pros would laugh at your words.
Also people who look at facts without "fanboy" bias.
You do understand that accumulating enough points to be top 8, and not going deep in tournaments is mutually exclusive, don't you.
P.S.
If you think that to defeat 4 out of top 8 opponents within 5 matches during one week, all you need is to be an average player, but fresh... you're quite wrong.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
All I said was that Nadal wasn't good enough this year in his group, not in general.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
At AO it isn't bad luck. It is a curse.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
When the idiots who run the ATP (guided by the Rolex Mafia) declare clay as non-tennis, then we can do this. Otherwise... no.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
Unlike some people here... hint hint... I am not a fanboi. I'd say the same if RF won two RRs and didn't advance to semis. Or Djokovic. Or anyone else.
I posted another thread about WTF BEFORE Nadal won his two matches and addressed the flaws in the RR. I didn't wait for Nadal to win two and then complain. So your fanboi theory goes out the window.
You denying how stupid it is that a no1 player wins two matches in a row and still doesn't advance proves that you are the one with the fan agenda, because any non-biased fan would have to agree that the RR offers us a very dumb system that is more about maths than who needs to play the semis.
Or do you actually believe that RR is a peRFect system?
It is not. It is stupid. It creates many problems in other sports too, except that for example in the World Cup the last two matches are played AT THE SAME TIME.
RR needs to go. It is dumb. You can't deny its flaws, try hard as you might.
point is your comment lacks logic.
there are rules, known in advance.
Rafa lost one match -> there were 3 folks tied at 2 wins each, while only 2 players can advance -> hence rules are enforced.
It's not the case that Rafa won 3 matches, and was denied semi final spot in favor of players with less wins.
P.S.
ATP ranking is one of the criteria how to split the tie. Just read the rules.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
The whole point is that the rules are stupid, as a result of a deeply flawed RR system...
I mean, for the 100th time.
How many more times need I explain it to you?
I didn't deny the maths, I denied the NEED for maths, and that need wouldn't exist without a dumb RR system.
well, you can accept the rules, or deny them, it's up to you.
fact is, Rafa lost first match, and unlike at RG for example, he didn't go home, but remained in the competition.
fact is, tennis has enough tournaments with a knock-out type of draw.
fact is, RR system is being widely used in many sports and competitions.
fact is, ATP ranking is one of criteria to sort out the tie, shall more players pretend for less spots in semi final.
P.S.
you can disagree with the rules, nobody denies you this possibility
metsman
Talk Tennis Guru
Holiday exho is an opportunity for fed, djokovic, rafa to socialize, drink overpriced champagne, and collect all the sponsor bought and paid for awards. Therefore, it's not a surprise that, after such hedonistic excursions, they feel guilty and choose to give back and let the short yellow school bus people win the event and collect the winning prize. They choose to focus on the slams (of course rafa and djokovic have a difference definition of slams than Federer does, but that's a separate point).
Mark-Touch
Legend
Sorry I can't cast a vote.
How about adding another answer?
IN TIME the BIG 3 will no longer dominate at slams.
How about adding another answer?
- It's become an Exho hence why slam champs haven't been winning it since 2017
- It's a sign that the Big 3 will not dominate anymore
- Both
- None of the above
IN TIME the BIG 3 will no longer dominate at slams.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
It's about time you learn to respect the Swisso-German slams, Halle and Basel.
Until you do, you will never understand pro tennis.
RF is GOAT because he has won almost TWICE the slams as the other two. Altogether 38 or 39, I believe.
Basel and Halle, slams that are underrated.
They are underrated slams.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
metsman
Talk Tennis Guru
Dubai as well and Cinci until 2018.
ForumMember
Hall of Fame
And interestingly none of them are upset about not winning it.
Nadal happy that he got YE#1.
Fed happy that he got a rare win on Djoko that he'll remember for rest of his life
Djokovic not very happy but that is because he couldn't finish year as no. 1. Doesn't seem particularly upset about not winning it.
Nadal happy that he got YE#1.
Fed happy that he got a rare win on Djoko that he'll remember for rest of his life
Djokovic not very happy but that is because he couldn't finish year as no. 1. Doesn't seem particularly upset about not winning it.
Mark-Touch
Legend
Hawaiian grip
Professional
Easy conclusions:
- The Big 3 are more and more vulnerable in BO3 tennis.
- The Big3 id algo getting old, and the season is becoming too long for them.
- The Big 3 are more and more vulnerable in BO3 tennis.
- The Big3 id algo getting old, and the season is becoming too long for them.
HetTheGreaterer
Banned
Nikal laude
aditya123
Hall of Fame
Kya hua? Getting frustrated?
I Am Finnish
Bionic Poster
If WTF is an exho than the laver cup is the 5th slam
Last edited:
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Federer and Djokovic already hold 11 titles between them to soften the blow whilst Nadal is just happy to have walked away with the Y/E #1 trophy (and probably has accepted by now that this title will forever be beyond his grasp).
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
So the Big 3 are immortal and will play top level tennis for another 15 years? 150?
Nah. Next year will give us a new champ.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
Username checks out
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
Yes, I am a Fedfan, after all. All doubts are removed.
van_Loederen
Professional
i think that this could really become a trend.
stringertom
Bionic Poster
Stick with January-September season...only four of 84 titles in October or November.
stringertom
Bionic Poster
It was as simple as winning his RR1 match against a guy who was top 7 with one lousy ATP250 RG warmup tournament title. He came in undercooked with one perfunctory tournament appearance since USO, an abbreviated appearance at that.
After the league format/RR group stage in "Nadal's" group the performance data on which advancement is empirically determined was as follows:
Nadal 2 match wins out of 3 drawing with Tsitsipas and Zverev on the highest precedence metric. The order of these wins is totally irrelevant.
As it's a draw the next most important metric is used thus:
Nadal won 4 sets and lost 4 for a sets won-loss ratio of 1.0 (that's 4 ÷ 4). Tsitsipas scored a 2.5 ratio (5 ÷ 2) and Zverev 2.0 ratio ( 4 ÷ 2). In English Tsitsipas won more sets than Nadal and lost fewer sets than Nadal. Zverev won the same number of sets as Nadal but also lost fewer sets than Nadal so Tsits' and Zverev were more dominate overall in their matches. At this point Nadal is empirically the 3rd best performer with the lowest sets win-loss ratio and as the top two performers from each group advance Nadal is by a finer margin out of the event.
Simply put Nadal lost because when the performances were quantified with data he was worse. You saying it's more about 'maths' is you tricking the lazy reader into thinking some obsure voodoo equation unrelated to performance dealt Nadal an unfair decision.
He won fewer sets than Tsitsipas and he lost more sets than Tsitsipas and while equalling Zverev in sets won Nadal lost more sets than Zverev = no advancement.
The WTF league format is objective but "who needs to play the semis." is not.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
I have no idea why you wasted all this energy on explaining the maths to me.
The maths is clear.
The point is that maths shouldn't decide. The decision should always be after the MP. RR is garbage, especially for tennis.
"He won fewer sets than Tsitsipas and he lost more sets than Tsitsipas nd while equalling Zverev in sets won Nadal lost more sets than Zverev "
So you think Nadal winning fewer sets and losing more sets than his group rivals is a better performance.
All tennis matches have a scoring system which is 'maths'. You clearly lack the comprehension to understand the WTF rules.
HetTheGreaterer
Banned
Yep...
That guy is one of the most hypocrite persons on TTW
jackdaw
Rookie
utterly and absolutely impossible, no one is beating drug fuelled muscle man Nadal next year.
Forehanderer
Professional
The key word is it has "become" an exho since the last few years. It wasn't the case before. Which means the big3 are old and focus their energies on the slams rather than other tournaments including the WTF. Which also means the non-big 3 haven't stepped upto the plate. The usual suspects made to the SF of most of the slams this year. Roger didn't make it to the AO and USO and Novak missed the USO. Rafa made it to the SF on all slams this year.
WTF had more prestige until 2016 when Murray won. The calendar year ended with the USO ever since because the big 3 can't compete for a full year. Tsistsi may bring it back if he manages to win a slam or two this year. Otherwise it will be a revolving door of new gens after another
WTF had more prestige until 2016 when Murray won. The calendar year ended with the USO ever since because the big 3 can't compete for a full year. Tsistsi may bring it back if he manages to win a slam or two this year. Otherwise it will be a revolving door of new gens after another
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
2015 , Fed beats world #1 & then current holder of 3/4 slams in straights in the round-robin only to have to go through hell & beat the best tennis player on the planet TWICE in order to lift the trophy ...
Which other tournament grants such cruel possibilities?
Just in case you needed to know , Freddy failed.
His opponent The Djoker!
Conclusion , WTF = GOAT! (T in in this acronym stands for Tournaments , not Time)
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Interesting play on words.
2016, Murray was very much known to be part of the big 4, and was a fully deserved winner of the title. I don't think you can take anything away from what he did, he played three slam finals across three different surfaces, won Wimbledon, and a plethora of other titles that year including the Olympics and then straight out beat Djokovic in the final, after having a very tough battle with Raonic early on. He ended the year world number one also, so Murray winning is hardly detrimental to the WTF.
2017 - No Djokovic, no Murray, Nadal injured and Federer burnt out. This was understandable considering both Fed and Rafa were in their 30s, Fed in mid 30s and they played a lot of tennis. On top of that Dimitrov may not have beaten either of them for the win, but he had his best year on the tour to date, took Nadal to the edge in AO and also win his first masters title in Cincy
2018 - Zverev had already established himself as a solid player in best of three events by the time WTF happened, he'd won Rome 2017 beating Djokovic in the final, he'd won Montreal beating Federer in the final, and then during the 2018 clay season he had a bit of run, and was one set away from winning three straight best of three events on clay, after beating Thiem in Madrid and pushing Nadal all the way in Rome. The problem with Zverev is that he was just as bad in Bo5 matches, which overshadowed at times what he did in best of three. The WTF format was ideal for him, and he beat two very decent playing forms of Djokovic and Federer, both who held at the time three of the four slams between them. I hardly think Zverev thought it was an exho. Also, Federer now in late 30s and Djokovic in 30s too, younger players would start to take scalps at this stage.
2019 - I have to say Thiem played some of the best tennis I have seen from him indoors, nearly pulled off what Zverev did the year before. Rafa played well also, there was a lot of competitive tennis from many of them. Tsitsipas ultimately went through, him beating Federer and Thiem back to back was still very good, also considering he beat Federer back in AO and made his first semi in a grand slam.
The events are showing a natural progression of the younger guys steadily taking over, and that is how it actually should be, the big 3 shouldn't still be dominating with an iron fist at this stage, and soon this will creep into grand slams.
2016, Murray was very much known to be part of the big 4, and was a fully deserved winner of the title. I don't think you can take anything away from what he did, he played three slam finals across three different surfaces, won Wimbledon, and a plethora of other titles that year including the Olympics and then straight out beat Djokovic in the final, after having a very tough battle with Raonic early on. He ended the year world number one also, so Murray winning is hardly detrimental to the WTF.
2017 - No Djokovic, no Murray, Nadal injured and Federer burnt out. This was understandable considering both Fed and Rafa were in their 30s, Fed in mid 30s and they played a lot of tennis. On top of that Dimitrov may not have beaten either of them for the win, but he had his best year on the tour to date, took Nadal to the edge in AO and also win his first masters title in Cincy
2018 - Zverev had already established himself as a solid player in best of three events by the time WTF happened, he'd won Rome 2017 beating Djokovic in the final, he'd won Montreal beating Federer in the final, and then during the 2018 clay season he had a bit of run, and was one set away from winning three straight best of three events on clay, after beating Thiem in Madrid and pushing Nadal all the way in Rome. The problem with Zverev is that he was just as bad in Bo5 matches, which overshadowed at times what he did in best of three. The WTF format was ideal for him, and he beat two very decent playing forms of Djokovic and Federer, both who held at the time three of the four slams between them. I hardly think Zverev thought it was an exho. Also, Federer now in late 30s and Djokovic in 30s too, younger players would start to take scalps at this stage.
2019 - I have to say Thiem played some of the best tennis I have seen from him indoors, nearly pulled off what Zverev did the year before. Rafa played well also, there was a lot of competitive tennis from many of them. Tsitsipas ultimately went through, him beating Federer and Thiem back to back was still very good, also considering he beat Federer back in AO and made his first semi in a grand slam.
The events are showing a natural progression of the younger guys steadily taking over, and that is how it actually should be, the big 3 shouldn't still be dominating with an iron fist at this stage, and soon this will creep into grand slams.
D
Deleted member 771911
Guest
It's their age. They just don't have the stamina anymore to turn up so late in the year and deal with that level of competition over five matches. They are more vulnerable in best of 3 as well. Their age and the day's rest actually benefits them in slams. Their age gives them that experience of playing and winning all those slams.
Similar threads
