Can someone explain this Masters Slot vs. Venue thing?

Djokodalerer31

Hall of Fame
This is utterly confusing to the point, when i think i'm completely losing my mind here! So we all know there was a couple of serious venue switches going on during 00's decade alone on several occassions, up until 2009 there were masters played in Hamburg and Madrid was played on different date during fall season in indoors conditions, instead of on clay during Spring campaign! But as soon as Hamburg was eliminated year later Madrid indoors was moved to clay and ever since occupy the same masters slot, that Hamburg did before, while Shanghai (which earlier was Year-End Championships event) moved a couple of months back in the calendar and occupy the same slots that Madrid indoors event did prior to 2009, while YEC moved to London back then for the first time! The confusing part is how they keep tracking records for these past venues. For example ATP officially recognizes all of the Madrid masters title equally, despite moving to different surfaces and event changing the calendar slots, while Hamburg masters records are tracked separately independent of Madrid, that is currently played on clay! If that is the case, then it sholud be acknowledged that at one point in time there were 10 masters slots, instead of 9, because otherwise this doesn't make any sense (Djokovic would have to also win Hamburg in order to complete Golden Masters prior to 2009, which he missed out on!) and yet ATP acknowledges his Golden Masters status, despite Novak lacking title in Hamburg! Wouldn't that make more sense to consider Hamburg records and Madrid records as the same masters slot records, instead of counting all the Madrid indoors records (An event that was played on completely separate date in the calendar) together across all the venues and different dates in the calendar? It makes the whole thing messy and incosistent! If that was the case, then Nadal would have won "Shanghai" masters, because of his sole indoors title in Madrid prior to 2009 and Novak could have never achieved Golden Masters, because of missed opportunities in Hamburg prior to 2009! And Federer would be masters leader in Hamburg/Madrid (Clay) woith 6 titles ahead of Rafa's 5! Let's talk about this a little...
 

tsp_207

Semi-Pro
Since the masters series was set up in the 1990s, there have only been 9 masters played per season and hence 9 slots. However, the venues which have hosted a masters is more than 9 with switches between venues. But the key thing to keep in mind is the 9 masters slots per season remain consistent throughout.

So in Djokovic's case, he never won Hamburg so he's only won 9 different masters out of 10 played along with 9 masters slots as he's won Madrid on clay after it replaced Hamburg. Federer's won 8 different masters winning Hamburg and Madrid but only 7 masters slots as they were both in the same slot with Madrid replacing Hamburg. Nadal's won 7 different masters and 7 masters slots with his Madrid wins on indoor hard and clay effectively counting as the same event, his wins at Hamburg and Madrid clay count as the same slot, and his win at Madrid indoor hard counting as a slot which is occupied by Shanghai.

Hope that makes sense.
 

Djokodalerer31

Hall of Fame
Since the masters series was set up in the 1990s, there have only been 9 masters played per season and hence 9 slots. However, the venues which have hosted a masters is more than 9 with switches between venues. But the key thing to keep in mind is the 9 masters slots per season remain consistent throughout.

So in Djokovic's case, he never won Hamburg so he's only won 9 different masters out of 10 played along with 9 masters slots as he's won Madrid on clay after it replaced Hamburg. Federer's won 8 different masters winning Hamburg and Madrid but only 7 masters slots as they were both in the same slot with Madrid replacing Hamburg. Nadal's won 7 different masters and 7 masters slots with his Madrid wins on indoor hard and clay effectively counting as the same event, his wins at Hamburg and Madrid clay count as the same slot, and his win at Madrid indoor hard counting as a slot which is occupied by Shanghai.

Hope that makes sense.

It actually doesn't...it makes things all that much more confusing! If it's like you said and it counts as 9 out of 10 for Djokovic, then how does ATP acknowledge him completing so called "Golden Masters" (I preffer "Career Masters", much better term!)...
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
It actually doesn't...it makes things all that much more confusing! If it's like you said and it counts as 9 out of 10 for Djokovic, then how does ATP acknowledge him completing so called "Golden Masters" (I preffer "Career Masters", much better term!)...

Because there were only ever 9 Masters slots despite the odd change of venue and Djokovic remains the only player ever to win all 9 slots. Hamburg-Madrid (clay) count as 1 slot, Madrid-Shanghai (hardcourt) counts as another.
 

DSH

Talk Tennis Guru
Because there were only ever 9 Masters slots despite the odd change of venue and Djokovic remains the only player ever to win all 9 slots. Hamburg-Madrid (clay) count as 1 slot, Madrid-Shanghai (hardcourt) counts as another.
Why is it so difficult for some to understand?
:cautious:
 

Djokodalerer31

Hall of Fame
because they don't want a certain player to be the only one who has won them all! 2 times in addition with a hope of 3rd in MC.

If you follow these boards closely you should know by now i'm one of the biggest Novak fans and it doesn't make sense for me to argue this particular point against him...i'm simply legitimately confused by this because it's very confusing...i don't understand if this whole 9 masters slot thing is the reason Novak has completed Career Masters now without having to win Hamburg why the masters records for Nadal and Federer aren't shared for their respective masters slot and instead are tracked for the venue location it was played on? According to this 9 slot logic, thanks to which Novak has achieved Career masters now Federer should have 6 Masters titles from Hamburg and Madrid (clay) combined and Nadal's only title in Madrid (indoors) should be counted as Shanghai masters, despite the fact he never achieved it on Shanghai venue! The confusion stems from the fact that Novak didn't have to win Hamburg back in the day in order for it count, while for some reason Madrid (indoors) doesn't count for Nadal, despite the fact it is played on the same masters slot as Shanghai now!...This is why i am confused!
 
Last edited:

Mainad

Bionic Poster
If you follow these boards closely you should know by now i'm one of the biggest Novak fans and it doesn't make sense for me to argue this particular point against him...i'm simply legitimately confused by this because it's very confusing...i don't understand if this whole 9 masters slot thing is the reason Novak has completed Career Masters now without having to win Hamburg why the masters records for Nadal and Federer aren't shared for their respective masters slot and instead are tracked for the venue location it was played on? According to this 9 slot logic, thanks to which Novak has achieved Career masters now Federer should have 6 Masters titles from Hamburg and Madrid (clay) combined and Nadal's only title in Madrid (indoors) should be counted as Shanghai masters, despite the fact he never achieved it on Shanghai venue! The confusion stems from the fact that Novak didn't have to win Hamburg back in the day in order for it count, while for some reason Madrid (indoors) doesn't count for Nadal, despite the fact it is played on the same masters slot as Shanghai now!...This is why i am confused!

I'll try again.

Djokovic doesn't need Hamburg because he won it's successor, Madrid. As I said, Hamburg-Madrid (clay) are 1 slot.

Nadal doesn't need Shanghai because he won its predecessor, Madrid. Madrid-Shanghai (hardcourt) are 1 slot.

Federer has 7 Masters slots (lacks Monte Carlo and Rome).

Nadal has 7 Masters slots (lacks Miami and Paris).
 

ibbi

G.O.A.T.
It makes the whole thing messy and incosistent!
Yes, and do you know why? ...Because it doesn't matter. It's not important. The purpose of these tournaments is not to win them all. They're not Pokemon. There's no Infinity Gauntlet. That's just something for people to argue about online. As with every made-up thing that has no actual meaning you can apply whatever definition you like to it.
 

Djokodalerer31

Hall of Fame
I'll try again.

Djokovic doesn't need Hamburg because he won it's successor, Madrid. As I said, Hamburg-Madrid (clay) are 1 slot.

Nadal doesn't need Shanghai because he won its predecessor, Madrid. Madrid-Shanghai (hardcourt) are 1 slot.

Federer has 7 Masters slots (lacks Monte Carlo and Rome).

Nadal has 7 Masters slots (lacks Miami and Paris).

So what you're saying is that tournament records and masters slot records are tracked separately or what? Because otherwise all of Federer's title records in Hamburg would be shared with his Madrid tally and make up a total of 6 titles (which is a record over Nadal's 5 there!), because they are on the same masters slot, is it not? Same for Nadal's tally in Shanghai, because he already won in Madrid (HC indoors) he doesn't need to win Shanghai anymore for it to count as title there, right? So if that is the case why does every site i visit, that tracks masters tournaments records shows it being shared per venue and not per masters slot? I never seen any stat on any site mentioning anything about Nadal's title in "Shanghai" and Murray's title in Madrid (indoors) counting as one in Shanghai as well, officialy on every site, that tracks these stats Murray has 3 Shanghai titles, instead of 4 according to masters slot logic and Nadal has 0 instead of 1...this is what i don't get...
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
So what you're saying is that tournament records and masters slot records are tracked separately or what? Because otherwise all of Federer's title records in Hamburg would be shared with his Madrid tally and make up a total of 6 titles (which is a record over Nadal's 5 there!), because they are on the same masters slot, is it not? Same for Nadal's tally in Shanghai, because he already won in Madrid (HC indoors) he doesn't need to win Shanghai anymore for it to count as title there, right? So if that is the case why does every site i visit, that tracks masters tournaments records shows it being shared per venue and not per masters slot? I never seen any stat on any site mentioning anything about Nadal's title in "Shanghai" and Murray's title in Madrid (indoors) counting as one in Shanghai as well, officialy on every site, that tracks these stats Murray has 3 Shanghai titles, instead of 4 according to masters slot logic and Nadal has 0 instead of 1...this is what i don't get...

Titles are counted separately of course but, from the point of view of the Masters, while they individually make up a player's tally eg. winning Hamburg and Madrid makes 2 titles for Federer, from the point of view of the range of Masters won it is the slots that count.
 

kishnabe

Talk Tennis Guru
Tommy Haas has MS1000 in Stuttgart, which Madrid (Indoor HC edition) later replaced.

Tommy Haas has 1/9 Masters which is equivalent to Shanghai.

Stuttgart ----> Madrid ----> Shanghai
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Tommy Haas has MS1000 in Stuttgart, which Madrid (Indoor HC edition) later replaced.

Tommy Haas has 1/9 Masters which is equivalent to Shanghai.

Stuttgart ----> Madrid ----> Shanghai

That's right. The 8th Masters slot has moved from Stockholm (1990-4) to Essen (1995) to Stuttgart (1996-2001) to Madrid (2002-8) and has been in Shanghai since 2009. It has moved between more different venues than any other Masters slot.
 
Yes, and do you know why? ...Because it doesn't matter. It's not important. The purpose of these tournaments is not to win them all. They're not Pokemon. There's no Infinity Gauntlet. That's just something for people to argue about online. As with every made-up thing that has no actual meaning you can apply whatever definition you like to it.

Then you don’t understand the new fans of Djokovic who see tennis as a game of collecting the Pokémons, and then reading about it on ultimate tennis statistics
 
Last edited:

TripleATeam

G.O.A.T.
Here's the reason for it. Since Masters can change venue, get dropped/replaced, etc, it doesn't make sense to just talk about the tournament itself. It makes sense to talk about the slot.

If next year, someone unknown came out and won all the Masters, then retired, they would've completed the entire set of Masters. This would be true regardless of the changes made to the tournaments before or after that time. They won the whole set, so their victories should still count. It's similar to the Hamburg Masters. Hamburg was a Masters, so the victories of previous victors were over a M1000-level field, not a 500-level field. Thus, those wins should carry over to the Madrid Masters that replaced its slot.

Likewise, a victory on the indoor hard court of Madrid in the early 2000s should not count as a victory on the clay courts of Madrid now. It should carry over to the successor tournament of Shanghai. It keeps consistency for each player - there's only 9 M1000 level tournaments to win. If someone came on the scene right as Hamburg was played the final time as a M1000, didn't win it, then won every other Masters after that, they would forever be punished for never having won the Hamburg Masters in their first ever year on tour. Not reasonable.
 

Djokodalerer31

Hall of Fame
Here's the reason for it. Since Masters can change venue, get dropped/replaced, etc, it doesn't make sense to just talk about the tournament itself. It makes sense to talk about the slot.

If next year, someone unknown came out and won all the Masters, then retired, they would've completed the entire set of Masters. This would be true regardless of the changes made to the tournaments before or after that time. They won the whole set, so their victories should still count. It's similar to the Hamburg Masters. Hamburg was a Masters, so the victories of previous victors were over a M1000-level field, not a 500-level field. Thus, those wins should carry over to the Madrid Masters that replaced its slot.

Likewise, a victory on the indoor hard court of Madrid in the early 2000s should not count as a victory on the clay courts of Madrid now. It should carry over to the successor tournament of Shanghai. It keeps consistency for each player - there's only 9 M1000 level tournaments to win. If someone came on the scene right as Hamburg was played the final time as a M1000, didn't win it, then won every other Masters after that, they would forever be punished for never having won the Hamburg Masters in their first ever year on tour. Not reasonable.

This is not what i was asking, i understand all of that! I just find this whole thing about keeping records for the venues, these masters were played on separately from masters slot (date it is played) it was on very confusing and misleading...for example every record you will find, any data on the internet has Nadal's and Federer's titles in Hamburg tracked separately from it's Madrid (clay) counterpart introduced since 2009! You won't see a stat anywhere saying Nadal has 5 titles and Federer has 6 and thus holds the record there over Nadal, every data you find shows Nadal is a title leader in Madrid masters, despite the fact that collectively Federer won more between Hamburg and Madrid on clay! Instead they keep tracking records for the venue itself (disregarding type of surface or conditions!), which clearly shows all the winners in the history of the venue itself, instead of masters slot it was part of, so Nadal's indoor title in Madrid counts as the same record as his 4 titles on clay played on different masters slot! Same thing with pre-2009 results in Madrid indoors masters in fall, Nadal and Murray both had one title each there, but it never shows and tracked for Shanghai masters in any data...This is what i don't understand, how can you keep doing both of those things - keep tracking records for the location instead of the masters slot and yet have Novak completing career masters despite never winning in Hamburg...i understand the logic of masters slots themselves just fine, i don't understand why then they won't track the records for each player as a masters slot, instead of venue!
 
Last edited:
Top