Do you know which player first started not to care...

Centrius

Semi-Pro
Because if there was one or two he would be a lot closer to Novak and Rafa in MS1000's count.

Both Ralph and Novak get MS on their favorite surfaces but not Rog.
6 out 9 M-1000 are on hard courts.I heard Federer is pretty good on that surface too.
 

beard

Professional
Don't quote me and then misrepresent what I was saying, you sasquatch.
Haha, sorry but you wrote:
"for me, i think federer doesn't care that much about masters events. he continues to peak at the slams"
What I misrepresented here? :unsure:

North (Internet) remembers!

You... You... Big Foot ;)
 

Cup8489

G.O.A.T.
Haha, sorry but you wrote:
"for me, i think federer doesn't care that much about masters events. he continues to peak at the slams"
What I misrepresented here? :unsure:

North (Internet) remembers!

You... You... Big Foot ;)
You acted as if it was just an excuse for him performing poorly at the masters at the time. He was hyper focused on the slams and so he was not as invested in the masters events. Another poster in this thread outlined exactly what inferential proof there is for that. Do not lump me in as someone making excuses for bad losses. It was clear as water at the time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

BorgTheGOAT

Professional
From what I've read Pete was pretty much the first guy to systematically build his career around peaking for the big ones, even though the tour was quite different back then(did masters even exist?). But I don't know. Maybe it goes back even further.
Sampras was the epitome of a player who peaked for the big ones and prioritized slams and maybe WTF way over anything else. His 14-4 in slam finals and 5-1 in WTF speaks volumes, even more so considering that in all his WTF wins he lost a round robin match and on more than one occasion beat exactly the player he lost to in the subsequent final. He could really raise his level when it counted most. However, he was not the first player to not care about masters. Actually absolutely nobody before him cared about masters they weren’t even seen as anything special. Players in Borgs era and before did care more about specific tournaments like Wimbledon, YEC, USO, Davis Cup etc. than about number of wins in some type of tournaments like slams ore masters. The “hype” around masters and the ridiculous idea of tslking about who holds the record of most master wins was started with Nadal and Djokovic.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
Sampras was the epitome of a player who peaked for the big ones and prioritized slams and maybe WTF way over anything else. His 14-4 in slam finals and 5-1 in WTF speaks volumes, even more so considering that in all his WTF wins he lost a round robin match and on more than one occasion beat exactly the player he lost to in the subsequent final. He could really raise his level when it counted most. However, he was not the first player to not care about masters. Actually absolutely nobody before him cared about masters they weren’t even seen as anything special. Players in Borgs era and before did care more about specific tournaments like Wimbledon, YEC, USO, Davis Cup etc. than about number of wins in some type of tournaments like slams ore masters. The “hype” around masters and the ridiculous idea of tslking about who holds the record of most master wins was started with Nadal and Djokovic.
The players from Borg's time cared about money, and here and there about "home" tournaments/national representation. Not even the Majors were as big if money were on the line. Here and there a bruised ego contributing to wanting to win something in particular was the reason for certain goals. Only when the money started to increase significantly and the top players could make a comfortable living did the focus shift from only money.

:cool:
 

beard

Professional
You acted as if it was just an excuse for him performing poorly at the masters at the time. He was hyper focused on the slams and so he was not as invested in the masters events. Another poster in this thread outlined exactly what inferential proof there is for that. Do not lump me in as someone making excuses for bad losses. It was clear as water at the time.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well, you confirmed my point exactly, you wrote years ago same thing in same context Novak fans write right now... Ans that was my point...
 
Top