Big 3 Masters 1000 info(when they each won different ones)

[smoledman]

Djokovic

1/9 - 2007(Miami Masters), 19
2/9 - 2007(Canadian Masters), 20
3/9 - 2008(Indian Wells), 20
4/9 - 2008(Rome), 21
5/9 - 2009(Paris), 22
6/9 - 2011(Madrid), 24
7/9 - 2012(Shanghai), 25
8/9 - 2013(Monte Carlo), 25

Nadal

1/9 - 2005(Monte Carlo), 18
2/9 - 2005(Rome), 18
3/9 - 2005(Canada), 19
4/9 - 2005(Madrid), 19
5/9 - 2007(Indian Wells), 20
6/9 - 2008(Hamburg), 21
7/9 - 2013(Cincy), 27
8/9? - 2017(Miami?), 30

Federer

1/9 - 2002(Hamburg), 20
2/9 - 2004(Indian Wells), 22
3/9 - 2004(Canada), 22
4/9 - 2005(Miami), 23
5/9 - 2005(Cincy), 24
6/9 - 2006(Madrid), 25
7/9 - 2011(Paris), 30

Fastest to 3/9 - Nadal at 19 years old
Fastest to 5/9 - Nadal at 20 years old
Fastest to 7/9 - Djokovic at 25 years old

Notes:

1. Clearly Nadal was more prolific in terms of winning different ones at an earlier age. Djokovic ended up winning the most different ones so far(8/9). Nadal can tie that on Sunday though.

2. Fed has no chance to get to 8/9 or 9/9 because he can't win Monte Carlo or Rome!

3. Amazing it took Feds 6 years to go from 6/9 to 7/9. I blame the ridiculous success at the slams in 2005-2007 that made him lose interest in Paris for years.

4. Djokovic was a steady march through the progression, with not huge time gaps.

5. Rafa also had a 5 year gap beteween 6/9 and 7/9. Perhaps Djokovic to blame?

 

[KINGROGER]

I don't think Federer really rated masters that highly after 07 til about 2011 when he found motivation again.

He was also injured a lot between 04-06 at the end of the year which caused him to miss Madrid and Paris a couple of times, and he missed Hamburg 06 after that gruelling Rome final.

 

[smoledman]

I don't think Federer really rated masters that highly after 07 til about 2011 when he found motivation again.

He was also injured a lot between 04-06 at the end of the year which caused him to miss Madrid and Paris a couple of times, and he missed Hamburg 06 after that gruelling Rome final.

2008 also was hampred by the mono affecting his training. By the time his form was peaking again winning the US Open he had a back problem heading into the indoor season. Again 2009, lack of motivation after getting the slam record. 2010 affected by the lung infection. However he did lose a very close 3-setter to Monfils that year in Paris indoors. So he was getting closer by that point. I also think that by fall 2010 Roger was suspecting the slams were going to get much harder to win, so he should focus again on trying to win Masters.

 

[KINGROGER]

2008 also was hampred by the mono affecting his training. By the time his form was peaking again winning the US Open he had a back problem heading into the indoor season. Again 2009, lack of motivation after getting the slam record. 2010 affected by the lung infection. However he did lose a very close 3-setter to Monfils that year in Paris indoors. So he was getting closer by that point. I also think that by fall 2010 Roger was suspecting the slams were going to get much harder to win, so he should focus again on trying to win Masters.

Good post.

Yeah funnily enough he lost to Murray quite a lot in that sort of period. I've watched those 2010 masters finals back and his tactics are just awful. He keeps hitting to Andy's BH throughout the entire matches and just gets dominated from the baseline.

He needed to add the 2012- aggression and variety earlier on.

 

[smoledman]

Good post.

Yeah funnily enough he lost to Murray quite a lot in that sort of period. I've watched those 2010 masters finals back and his tactics are just awful. He keeps hitting to Andy's BH throughout the entire matches and just gets dominated from the baseline.

He needed to add the 2012- aggression and variety earlier on.

Yeah it's amazing to me how hapless Roger was against Murray late 2008 to early 2009. Also Shanghai 2010 was a blowout for Murray as well. Now Fedr has won 5 straight with totally different tactics. Amazing how stubborn Fedr was in those days.

 

[Waspsting]

Why no Murray on the list?

He's on 7/9 just like Federer and Nadal. I can understand excluding him from a slams list for obvious reasons, but surely he belongs on a Masters list ...

 

[Waspsting]

(Adding Murray to @smoledman 's great list)


Murray

1/9 - 2008 (Cincy), 21
2/9 - 2008 (Madrid), 21
3/9 - 2009 (Miami), 21
4/9 - 2009 (Canada), 22
5/9 - 2015 (Madrid*), 27
6/9 - 2016 (Rome), 28
7/9 - 2016 (Paris), 29

(* refers to Madrid clay, which was previously Hamburg)





Djokovic

1/9 - 2007(Miami Masters), 19
2/9 - 2007(Canadian Masters), 20
3/9 - 2008(Indian Wells), 20
4/9 - 2008(Rome), 21
5/9 - 2009(Paris), 22
6/9 - 2011(Madrid), 24
7/9 - 2012(Shanghai), 25
8/9 - 2013(Monte Carlo), 25

Nadal

1/9 - 2005(Monte Carlo), 18
2/9 - 2005(Rome), 18
3/9 - 2005(Canada), 19
4/9 - 2005(Madrid), 19
5/9 - 2007(Indian Wells), 20
6/9 - 2008(Hamburg), 21
7/9 - 2013(Cincy), 27
8/9? - 2017(Miami?), 30

Federer

1/9 - 2002(Hamburg), 20
2/9 - 2004(Indian Wells), 22
3/9 - 2004(Canada), 22
4/9 - 2005(Miami), 23
5/9 - 2005(Cincy), 24
6/9 - 2006(Madrid), 25
7/9 - 2011(Paris), 30

 

[GabeT]

In the open era there are several players with career slams, two held all four slams at the same time, and one held all four in the same calendar year. But no one has come even close to doing that for M1000s. As players break records those that follow always look for new horizons. I suspect the relative importance of winning M1000s is only going to increase over time.

 

[smoledman]

It's interesting that Fed/Nadal/Murray of them had a point where getting to win the next different one took a lot of years. Only Djokovic kept marching through the progression year upon year.

 

[KINGROGER]

Fed was blocked by Nadal 3 times in a row at MC (06 - 08) then choked a winning lead vs Wawrinka in 2014.

At Rome he was the better player in 06 but choked MPs then was undone by lucky passing shot at 3-1 up in the 5th set tie breaker. Lost to absolute mugs in 07 - 08 and blew a leading position vs Nole in 09. Had a 40/60 chance of taking out Rafa in either 07 or 09 and would be huge favourite in 08 but I suspect he was still suffering from mono.

 

[Waspsting]

Amazing it took Feds 6 years to go from 6/9 to 7/9. I blame the ridiculous success at the slams in 2005-2007 that made him lose interest in Paris for years.

He gave it a miss during his peak 04-06... does anyone know why?

Maybe he didn't like the carpet? He returned to the event as soon as it shifted to hardcourt

 

[Gazelle]

He gave it a miss during his peak 04-06... does anyone know why?

Maybe he didn't like the carpet? He returned to the event as soon as it shifted to hardcourt

Obviously too close to WTF, where he wanted to arrive fresh. Also that late in the year, he usually had number one position wrapped up, so he didn't need the points.

He's not like MUrrovicdal, who seem to think winning a number of masters 1000 is an achievement on itself.

 

[Waspsting]

Corresponding list for first time reaching the finals (win or lose)

(Note - I've rounded age to the nearest year)

Federer
1/9 - 2002 (Miami), 21
2/9 - 2002 (Hamburg), 21
3/9 - 2003 (Rome), 22
4/9 - 2004 (Indian Wells), 23
5/9 - 2004 (Canada), 23
6/9 - 2005 (Cincy), 24
7/9 - 2006 (Monte Carlo), 25
8/9 - 2006 (Madrid), 25
9/9 - 2011 (Paris), 30


Nadal
1/9 - 2005 (Miami), 19
2/9 - 2005 (Monte Carlo), 19
3/9 - 2005 (Rome) 19
4/9 - 2005 (Canada), 19
5/9 - 2005 (Madrid), 19
6/9 - 2007 (Indian Wells), 21
7/9 - 2007 (Hamburg), 21
8/9 - 2007 (Paris), 21
9/9 - 2013 (Cincy), 27

Djokovic
1/9 - 2007 (Indian Wells), 20
2/9 - 2007 (Miami), 20
3/9 - 2007 (Canada), 20
4/9 - 2008 (Rome), 21
5/9 - 2008 (Cincy), 21
6/9 - 2009 (Monte Carlo), 22
7/9 - 2009 (Paris), 22
8/9 - 2011 (Madird), 24
9/9 - 2012 (Shanghai), 25


Murray
1/9 - 2008 (Cincy), 21
2/9 - 2008 (Madrid), 21
3/9 - 2009 (Indian Wells), 22
4/9 - 2009 (Miami), 22
5/9 - 2009 (Canada), 22
6/9 - 2015 (Madrid*), 28
7/9 - 2016 (Rome), 29
8/9 - 2016 (Paris), 29
9/9 - ???? (Monte Carlo), ??


Note Nadal's early rising star. He'd completed 8/9 finals by the age Federer was playing 1/9!

As with titles, so with finals. 5-6 year gaps for a particular final # for Fed, Nadal and Murray, while Djokovic smoothly rolled through from start to finish.

A final tidbit demonstrating the curious tough initiation/torch passing nature of Masters 1000s finals.

Federer's first finals was against Agassi, which he lost. Agassi went on to lose his last final to Nadal.
Nadal's first final was against Federer, which he lost
Djokovic's first final was against Nadal, which he lost
Murray's first final was against Djokovic, which he won