ATP Finals Myth Exposed

[Tennfan123]

I've been reading an interesting myth on here about ATP finals.
Apparently, it has the toughest competition because the top 8 are there (though often 1 or 2 are not there and we can end up with players outside the top ten, like Nalbandian in 05 who ended up winning ranked 12).
Meanwhile slams are not as tough because you can face players ranked outside of the top 8.
So, you're telling me that a player who reaches the slam quarters who's just won four Bo5 matches in a row in some of the sport's most brutal and intense, pressure filled conditions is worse competition than a player ranked top 8 in their opening match who might have not played in weeks?

Interesting!

 

[Kralingen]

Yes beating a top 8 player is tougher than beating Botic Van de Zandschulp in a Slam QF lol.

Of course it depends.

 

[Purestriker]

Yes beating a top 8 player is tougher than beating Botic Van de Zandschulp in a Slam QF lol.

Of course it depends.

Best of five does make a huge difference. But you don’t get any cupcakes at the YEF for the first two rounds and that also makes a difference.

 

[jindra]

Yes beating a top 8 player is tougher than beating Botic Van de Zandschulp in a Slam QF lol.

Of course it depends.

What about beating Novak Djokovic in a Slam QF lol.

 

[Kralingen]

Best of five does make a huge difference. But you don’t get any cupcakes at the YEF for the first two rounds and that also makes a difference.

What about beating Novak Djokovic in a Slam QF lol.

Well that’s just it, the level of player makes the difference.

If I’m playing Cristian Garin, Kyle Edmund or Marton Fucsovics, I don’t really think the Bo5 element of it makes a difference at all. If anything Bo5 makes it easier as you have more margin of error to beat these guys who are obviously inferior.

Obviously winning a Slam is tougher than winning the ATP finals, no arguing that. but the logic that EVERY Slam QF is tougher than an ATP finals match is totally false. It depends on the level of player and surface.

 

[TripleATeam]

It's a simple concept. Top 8 players are more likely to play high level tennis, since they're (by definition) the 8 people who played the highest quality tennis in the world over the last season. Non-top 8 players can have better performances than top 8 players, but they're at least less consistent at doing it.

For instance, yes, at AO 2022 I would rather play Rublev (who went out R3) than Felix Auger-Aliassime (#9 seed, who took #2 seed and finalist to 5 sets in the QF). But I'd also much rather play Tennys Sandgren at AO 2020 than any match against 2020 Zverev (who ended the year #7).

There's a reason we call some slam draws "easy". Different fanbases whine about other players getting it easy at slams. Why? Because they got easier opponents. If what you're saying is true, we should think that in 1987 Australia, Edberg and Cash had the same difficulty semifinal. Cash drew #1 seed Ivan Lendl while Edberg played Masur (who peaked at #15, won 3 career titles, and had a career win % of 53.7). Or that Wawrinka's 2014 AO is the same difficulty as Djokovic's 2018 USO.

After all, in 1987 both of those players had to go through someone who played 5 BO5 matches. Clearly Masur and Lendl were the same calibre of opponent.

 

[Texas Tennis Fan]

Obviously, there are some things that are harder and some that are easier. The difficulty of the slams will vary at every slam. Same is true of YEC though there is probably less variability. This YEC IMO, was not as challenging as the previous ones for obvious reasons: Alcaraz being out, Nadal being off form, previous winner Zverev being out, and Medvedev being below form.

I do think the format for YEC is harder for older players than slams because paradoxically, the B of 3 is easier to get upset, the potential back to back to back days is hard, and you are more likely to have one player who is in tip-top form for a few days (as opposed to 2 weeks) who is playing very well. I think these are some of the main reasons that before 2022, the oldest player to win was 30 years old.

I was very pleased to see Djokovic win this year because I think he is more likely to win several more slams than to win this again. Maybe I am wrong though.

 

[initialize]

Depends on the player.

It’s probably the hardest event for Nadal, easiest event for Djokovic

 

[duaneeo]

You will never see a player perform the difficult task of beating the #1, #3, #4, #5, and #7 ranked players at a slam (like someone did at 2010 ATP Finals).

 

[ChrisRF]

Of course it's always harder to win a tournament (and therefore be the last man standing) with the top 8 plus 120 others when it's compared to a tournament with ONLY that same top 8. That's really simple logic. At least for someone who easily qualifies for WTF year after year.

On the other hand for someone who must fight like a maniac to be in top 8 and qualify for maybe one year, it's obviously harder to win the WTF.

But after the moment when he had qualified, then obviously the WTF is easier again. Because then he is IN, and the 120 others are OUT and won't have to be beaten anymore (either directly or indirectly).

 

[joshuayuan]

Slow players will find it very hard to win ATP Finals because players have to react quickly on indoor fast courts.

 

[ghostofMecir]

Well that’s just it, the level of player makes the difference.

If I’m playing Cristian Garin, Kyle Edmund or Marton Fucsovics, I don’t really think the Bo5 element of it makes a difference at all. If anything Bo5 makes it easier as you have more margin of error to beat these guys who are obviously inferior.

Obviously winning a Slam is tougher than winning the ATP finals, no arguing that. but the logic that EVERY Slam QF is tougher than an ATP finals match is totally false. It depends on the level of player and surface.

It probably doesn’t to a Big 3 player, but even then, it’s tougher for one of these Garin types of players to beat a top 3 player in best of 5 and relatively “easier” in best of 3 since you can get hot/luckier over 2 sets vs. having to win 3 sets. This is why I’m betting sites, Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic have better odds of winning grand slam matches than they do best of three matches.

 

[Wander]

Winning a Major is easier than winning ATP Finals.

Some reasons for that:
-At Majors you have four shots each year
-You have to have a top 8 ranking (or close to that) to even get to play the ATP Finals
-Draws can "open up" more at the Majors
-You have Majors on different surfaces allowing for theoretical "surface specialist flukes" (think Gaston Gaudio, or Rafael Nadal*)

*It's a joke

 

[JasonZ]

Best of five does make a huge difference. But you don’t get any cupcakes at the YEF for the first two rounds and that also makes a difference.

but your opponent also plays best of five in a slam, so that argument doesnt make sense

 

[Fiero425]

Depends on the player.

It’s probably the hardest event for Nadal, easiest event for Djokovic

Obvious myth that the top 8 players are there! Never happens! Someone's always being left off or injured! Alternates are usually weak and lose 2 or 3 matches in the RR!

 

[Rosstour]

You will never see a player perform the difficult task of beating the #1, #3, #4, #5, and #7 ranked players at a slam (like someone did at 2010 ATP Finals).

Nadal is epic.

 

[Fiero425]

Nadal is epic.

But may never win even 1 YEC/WTF! That's either KARMA or a balance of power as he's the "clay GOAT!" Roger and Nole own the grass & HC's!

 

[Rosstour]

But may never win even 1 YEC/WTF! That's either KARMA or a balance of power as he's the "clay GOAT!" Roger and Nole own the grass & HC's!

Wait who won WTF in 2010??

I just assumed that only Nadal could defeat 1,3, 4, 5, 7

 

[Fiero425]

Wait who won WTF in 2010??

I just assumed that only Nadal could defeat 1,3, 4, 5, 7

Rafa's never won this tournament! He made 2 or 3 finals over the last decade or so, but that's been about it! He actually lost all 3 of his RR matches in 2009 OTTH! Novak defeated him in his best season of 2013 in the final in straight sets actually!

 

[Hypo Crisis]

I've been reading an interesting myth on here about ATP finals.
Apparently, it has the toughest competition because the top 8 are there (though often 1 or 2 are not there and we can end up with players outside the top ten, like Nalbandian in 05 who ended up winning ranked 12).
Meanwhile slams are not as tough because you can face players ranked outside of the top 8.
So, you're telling me that a player who reaches the slam quarters who's just won four Bo5 matches in a row in some of the sport's most brutal and intense, pressure filled conditions is worse competition than a player ranked top 8 in their opening match who might have not played in weeks?

Interesting!

It's nauseating how you post your light headed biased presumptions into - MYTH EXPOSED !
Only thing that is exposed is you.
Nadal vtured on fact that he doesn't have to play good players until semifinal and that is a fact.

 

[The Fedfather]

When a comparison is made for a small sample of matches, for accuracy it's surely best to compare players' level of play in the specific matches directly. Only when we compare stats and titles won over many years and hundreds of matches, we inevitably, for convenience sake, have to go by rankings, players' standing in the game and such to talk about level of play and how tough particular opponents were on average. But this way of evaluation can hardly be accurate for every specific match. Over hundreds of matches we'll more than likely see the trend, like the bell curve maybe, that top-8 players came to be tougher to beat, but it's not by any means a given that a top-8 player will be better than a lower-ranked player every single time.

 

[thrust]

Obviously, there are some things that are harder and some that are easier. The difficulty of the slams will vary at every slam. Same is true of YEC though there is probably less variability. This YEC IMO, was not as challenging as the previous ones for obvious reasons: Alcaraz being out, Nadal being off form, previous winner Zverev being out, and Medvedev being below form.

I do think the format for YEC is harder for older players than slams because paradoxically, the B of 3 is easier to get upset, the potential back to back to back days is hard, and you are more likely to have one player who is in tip-top form for a few days (as opposed to 2 weeks) who is playing very well. I think these are some of the main reasons that before 2022, the oldest player to win was 30 years old.

I was very pleased to see Djokovic win this year because I think he is more likely to win several more slams than to win this again. Maybe I am wrong though.

Also, Novak had to play three consecutive days. One, a very tough three hour three set match vs Medvedev. Then. in less than 24 hours had a tough 2 close set match vs Fritz, the the next day the final vs. Ruud. That was a very tough effort for a 35 year old player. In the slams, though 3 of 5, a player gets a least one day off between matches. Therefore, IMO, the WTF and some Masters are at least as tough to win as the slams.

 

[Robert F]

Slam Difficulty Factors:
BO5 vs. BO3
Can only lose once vs. 1-2 times at YEC, and might even 3 times in RR if something really weird goes wrong
Need to win 7 matches vs. Need to win minimum of 3, most likely need to win at least 4.

YEC Difficulty Factors:
Less days off vs every other day play in Slams.
Indoor-majority of tour outdoor vs. varired surfaces for the slam favoring some players over others depending on surface.
Guaranteed to play roughly a top 10 players in every match( depending on injury, I wonder what is the lowest rank player to play in YEC??)

I think the set up is much more difficult to win a slam especially due to single elimination.
But, the competition is usually going to be much harder in YEC, but being able to lose a match in the RR, again gives you a little wiggle room.
Fed out of Wimby after having a bad day vs. Anderson. At YEC, he could easily avenge a bad B03 match and still win the RR.

 

[Fiero425]

Slam Difficulty Factors:
BO5 vs. BO3
Can only lose once vs. 1-2 times at YEC, and might even 3 times in RR if something really weird goes wrong
Need to win 7 matches vs. Need to win minimum of 3, most likely need to win at least 4.

YEC Difficulty Factors:
Less days off vs every other day play in Slams.
Indoor-majority of tour outdoor vs. varired surfaces for the slam favoring some players over others depending on surface.
Guaranteed to play roughly a top 10 players in every match( depending on injury, I wonder what is the lowest rank player to play in YEC??)

I think the set up is much more difficult to win a slam especially due to single elimination.
But, the competition is usually going to be much harder in YEC, but being able to lose a match in the RR, again gives you a little wiggle room.
Fed out of Wimby after having a bad day vs. Anderson. At YEC, he could easily avenge a bad B03 match and still win the RR.

I just don't think people understand how the LEVEL of tennis ability has gone up exponentially over the decades! Going 5 sets "back in the day" is nothing like what players of today have to contend with! In the 70's, you could literally have a beer-belly and still win if you had a big serve! Playing with twigs and fish-string from the the ancient times of the 1800's forced more skill than anything! Today you have to be a real athlete to deal with the pace of shot and the leg-work entailed to survive 21st century tennis! I appreciate giving top players a break by going BO3 in Masters, but the abberation of Fedalovic made it seem more unfair allowing them to hoard the spoils of the last 20 years! After Nadovic retires, things will balance out and more winners will have bigger chances to take Majors and Masters events!

 

[Texas Tennis Fan]

Slam Difficulty Factors:
BO5 vs. BO3
Can only lose once vs. 1-2 times at YEC, and might even 3 times in RR if something really weird goes wrong
Need to win 7 matches vs. Need to win minimum of 3, most likely need to win at least 4.

YEC Difficulty Factors:
Less days off vs every other day play in Slams.
Indoor-majority of tour outdoor vs. varired surfaces for the slam favoring some players over others depending on surface.
Guaranteed to play roughly a top 10 players in every match( depending on injury, I wonder what is the lowest rank player to play in YEC??)

I think the set up is much more difficult to win a slam especially due to single elimination.
But, the competition is usually going to be much harder in YEC, but being able to lose a match in the RR, again gives you a little wiggle room.
Fed out of Wimby after having a bad day vs. Anderson. At YEC, he could easily avenge a bad B03 match and still win the RR.

B of 5 is easier for the Big 3 because it is harder for other players to get hot and win 3 sets versus 2. You have a day off at slams and you may have to play 3 days in a row at YEC. You can only lose once for all practical purposes. Theoretically, you can lose twice in the RR and advance, but it has never happened before. I think it is easier for the younger players because they are not as bothered by playing days in a row. Sure, you can have a bad day, but as I said, it is less likely to happen in B of 5.

 

[Rosstour]

Rafa's never won this tournament! He made 2 or 3 finals over the last decade or so, but that's been about it! He actually lost all 3 of his RR matches in 2009 OTTH! Novak defeated him in his best season of 2013 in the final in straight sets actually!

Sorry, false. I gonna call my PR person @octobrina10 and she gonna make sure you stop cheating the readers, okay?

 

[The_Order]

You will never see a player perform the difficult task of beating the #1, #3, #4, #5, and #7 ranked players at a slam (like someone did at 2010 ATP Finals).

Hmmm... so why did he lose to #13 Berdych at Wimbledon that year then?

People saying there's no difference between bo3 and bo5 really don't know what they're talking about.... especially when they come up with this more margin theory... you do realise it's more margin for the opponent too right?

The mental and physical requirement is another level... that's why women don't play bo5...

Plus there's added pressure at the slams... just ask lord Zed he'll tell you all about it...

 

[The_Order]

Rafa's never won this tournament! He made 2 or 3 finals over the last decade or so, but that's been about it! He actually lost all 3 of his RR matches in 2009 OTTH! Novak defeated him in his best season of 2013 in the final in straight sets actually!

Nadal was denied even the opportunity to win it on 8 occasions due to injury... chances are had he been fit for all those events he would have won it maybe even twice.

Imagine Fed and Djok being forced to skip 8 RGs due to injury... they likely wouldn't have won it in their career's either...

 

[duaneeo]

Nadal was denied even the opportunity to win it on 8 occasions due to injury... chances are had he been fit for all those events he would have won it maybe even twice.

 

[The_Order]

Ok laugh. Because that's all you can do. If Fed doesn't play RG09 which year does he win it? I'll wait for your answer, let's see if it ever comes

 

[D.Nalby12]

Bo3 format helps you in WTF. Otherwise with 5 BO5 matches in which you've to beat Top 8 player - I would definitely rate it above Slam. Right now as it stands it's definitely above masters or Olympics. Slightly behind the slams..

 

[duaneeo]

Ok laugh. Because that's all you can do.

People typically laugh at funny comments.

 

[D.Nalby12]

Nadal was denied even the opportunity to win it on 8 occasions due to injury... chances are had he been fit for all those events he would have won it maybe even twice.

Imagine Fed and Djok being forced to skip 8 RGs due to injury... they likely wouldn't have won it in their career's either...

In which year Nadal would have won WTF? Definitely not till 2016. After that we have got some weak winners thanks to inflation Era. But Nadal can lose to anybody indoors. It's not necessary he will able to vulture WTF in inflation era.

 

[tennis_error]

I've been reading an interesting myth on here about ATP finals.
Apparently, it has the toughest competition because the top 8 are there (though often 1 or 2 are not there and we can end up with players outside the top ten, like Nalbandian in 05 who ended up winning ranked 12).
Meanwhile slams are not as tough because you can face players ranked outside of the top 8.
So, you're telling me that a player who reaches the slam quarters who's just won four Bo5 matches in a row in some of the sport's most brutal and intense, pressure filled conditions is worse competition than a player ranked top 8 in their opening match who might have not played in weeks?

Interesting!

I mean, what you are thinking man? This is plain bs...

 

[The_Order]

People typically laugh at funny comments.

Yeah just as I thought... can't come up with an answer so run away as usual...

 

[The_Order]

In which year Nadal would have won WTF? Definitely not till 2016. After that we have got some weak winners thanks to inflation Era. But Nadal can lose to anybody indoors. It's not necessary he will able to vulture WTF in inflation era.

Impossible to know... but he would have had a good chance in 2008 and probably 2017 where he only played 1 match would have been another...

 

[Nole_King]

You will never see a player perform the difficult task of beating the #1, #3, #4, #5, and #7 ranked players at a slam (like someone did at 2010 ATP Finals).

To add .. beating all but one in straights, losing only 25 games in 8 sets to the final. Then a minor blip in second set of final before restoring normalcy with a breadstick. One of the most dominant performance ever.

 

[Nole_King]

Nadal was denied even the opportunity to win it on 8 occasions due to injury... chances are had he been fit for all those events he would have won it maybe even twice.

Imagine Fed and Djok being forced to skip 8 RGs due to injury... they likely wouldn't have won it in their career's either...

Who denied the opportunity? I find it hard to believe that it is luck only that is a factor in him skipping 8 WTFs but not even a single French. A lot has to do with how he managed his scheduling always giving the first half of the year more priority than second. He made sure he was fit for the French even if that required him to skip elsewhere.
As he inches closer towards the end of his career having won 2 AOs, tons of FO and leading the slam race, he turned his attention to the only missing thing in his cabinet and and hence prioritized it this year by skipping the tour after USO to return back in Paris masters. If we would have followed similar approach in past he would have surely ended up missing far less tour finals.

 

[The_Order]

Who denied the opportunity? I find it hard to believe that it is luck only that is a factor in him skipping 8 WTFs but not even a single French. A lot has to do with how he managed his scheduling always giving the first half of the year more priority than second. He made sure he was fit for the French even if that required him to skip elsewhere.
As he inches closer towards the end of his career having won 2 AOs, tons of FO and leading the slam race, he turned his attention to the only missing thing in his cabinet and and hence prioritized it this year by skipping the tour after USO to return back in Paris masters. If we would have followed similar approach in past he would have surely ended up missing far less tour finals.

He skipped RG in 2004 and withdrew in 2016...

Who cares what you find hard to believe... the facts don't care about your feelings. He was denied the opportunity through injuries which are unfortunate occurrences...

He didn't prioritise winning the YEC at all lmfao... he used it for match practice.

 

[mahatma]

He skipped RG in 2004 and withdrew in 2016...

Who cares what you find hard to believe... the facts don't care about your feelings. He was denied the opportunity through injuries which are unfortunate occurrences...

He didn't prioritise winning the YEC at all lmfao... he used it for match practice.

Ya, match practice for what? For the upcoming season break. ROFL.

 

[The_Order]

Ya, match practice for what? For the upcoming season break. ROFL.

Hey ROFL... he hasn't played much at all since Wimbledon... ROFL

 

[Texas Tennis Fan]

Who denied the opportunity? I find it hard to believe that it is luck only that is a factor in him skipping 8 WTFs but not even a single French. A lot has to do with how he managed his scheduling always giving the first half of the year more priority than second. He made sure he was fit for the French even if that required him to skip elsewhere.
As he inches closer towards the end of his career having won 2 AOs, tons of FO and leading the slam race, he turned his attention to the only missing thing in his cabinet and and hence prioritized it this year by skipping the tour after USO to return back in Paris masters. If we would have followed similar approach in past he would have surely ended up missing far less tour finals.

Bingo! Nadal misses tournaments or drops out sometimes due to injury and often because he knows he cannot win. Not the best sportsmanship in my opinion. Missing 8 YEC was a choice when you don't miss any FOs. That is not how injuries work (selectively only on one court surface).

 

[Texas Tennis Fan]

He skipped RG in 2004 and withdrew in 2016...

Who cares what you find hard to believe... the facts don't care about your feelings. He was denied the opportunity through injuries which are unfortunate occurrences...

He didn't prioritise winning the YEC at all lmfao... he used it for match practice.

As a physician, I have shown that this doesn't make sense. He entered 2016 and played so he did not skip this FO. I don't care about 2004; the truth is he has made like 18 FOs in a row. From a medical standpoint, when someone is constantly missing part of the year of an 11 month season due to 'injury' and never missing another part of the season which is his best court, it is called malingering when over a 20 year career. That is not how injuries work. You don't have to agree with me, but this is medical science, not mere opinion.

 

[Texas Tennis Fan]

As a physician, I have shown that this doesn't make sense. He entered 2016 and played so he did not skip this FO. I don't care about 2004; the truth is he has made like 18 FOs in a row. From a medical standpoint, when someone is constantly missing part of the year of an 11 month season due to 'injury' and never missing another part of the season which is his best court, it is called malingering when over a 20 year career. That is not how injuries work. You don't have to agree with me, but this is medical science, not mere opinion.

I meant to add, that I have no problem with Nadal skipping any tournament he wants. Federer skipped much of the clay season for the last several years of his career, largely because he knew he was not as competitive there, but he didn't say he was injured. What I have a problem with is Nadal fans using the injury excuse and then claiming that "oh, woe is me; If he had been healthy then he would probably have 1 or 2 wins." This is getting it backwards. He wasn't going to win and knew it, so he withdrew with an 'injury.' Maybe some were legit, but again, you don't magically get injured only in your weakest tournaments, but are always relatively healthy in clay season.

This is equivalent to the 10 year old who is sick from Monday through Friday to miss school and then 'magically' gets better for the weekend. Nadal strains credulity just as much.

 

[WeekendTennisHack]

IF Best of 5 is so important, doesn't this prove Fed's early WTF wins count for much more than those in the last 10 years.

 

[Nole_King]

He skipped RG in 2004 and withdrew in 2016...

Who cares what you find hard to believe... the facts don't care about your feelings. He was denied the opportunity through injuries which are unfortunate occurrences...

He didn't prioritise winning the YEC at all lmfao... he used it for match practice.

Match practice by participating in the last tournament of the season???

He didnt "skip" in 2016 which was the point of discussion - and had it not been FO, he would not have even participated. And 2004 ... seriously? Thats where your data point goes out to ....If this is your line of reasoning to define facts .... go ahead .. suit yourself.

Trust me, it is least of my concern whether you and your fellow trolls on this forum care about what i believe or not.

 

[Rosstour]

Nadal was denied even the opportunity to win it on 8 occasions due to injury... chances are had he been fit for all those events he would have won it maybe even twice.

Imagine Fed and Djok being forced to skip 8 RGs due to injury... they likely wouldn't have won it in their career's either...

Maybe even twice?

Why not 8-for-8?

 

[Rosstour]

IF Best of 5 is so important, doesn't this prove Fed's early WTF wins count for much more than those in the last 10 years.

*Pulls up chair*

You must be new here.

 

[The_Order]

As a physician, I have shown that this doesn't make sense. He entered 2016 and played so he did not skip this FO. I don't care about 2004; the truth is he has made like 18 FOs in a row. From a medical standpoint, when someone is constantly missing part of the year of an 11 month season due to 'injury' and never missing another part of the season which is his best court, it is called malingering when over a 20 year career. That is not how injuries work. You don't have to agree with me, but this is medical science, not mere opinion.

"As a physician"

 

[The_Order]

Match practice by participating in the last tournament of the season???

He didnt "skip" in 2016 which was the point of discussion - and had it not been FO, he would not have even participated. And 2004 ... seriously? Thats where your data point goes out to ....If this is your line of reasoning to define facts .... go ahead .. suit yourself.

Trust me, it is least of my concern whether you and your fellow trolls on this forum care about what i believe or not.

Well I stated the facts... as usual another Djokobot that doesn't like them so you need to change narrative again...

2016 he withdrew due to injury... so you can't say he doesn't get injured for RG...

Clay season is in the earlier last of the year so obviously makes more sense that he's fit for it more often...