Easier to win - a major or a Masters?

[Paul Murphy]

TV commentator Jason Goodall has said several times that the quality of the field in a Masters means it's generally tougher to win than a major.
(I doubt he'd say that about Toronto this year).

His argument is that there are few easy matches in a Masters while in a major the top guys usually face relatively easy opposition in the first few rounds at least and they get a chance to "acclimatise", rather than play a decently-ranked player first up.

Opinions?

 

[Paul Murphy]

He also uses in his argument that in majors players only play every two days.

 

[Fedex]

He also uses in his argument that in majors players only play every two days.

There's also a scheduling issue in Slams.
Players starting Monday have an advantage over players starting Wednesday.
Masters don't offer that same advantage so more of a level playing field from that regard.

 

[soleil]

They should keep the draw size then change it to 5-sets. That would be pretty true if those were the conditions IMO. But yeah in the masters you get better opponents during earlier rounds

 

[Hawkeye7]

I think winning a Masters title is harder because usually most of the potential opponents are capable of playing great Tennis. It's also much harder to play every day, sometimes even more than that depending on the weather etc. and therefore it requires better fitness. You also have less time to recover from a tough match and less time to get into a match. Losing the first set in BO3 can be crucial while in a BO5 match you still have a good chance of coming back.

 

[kiki]

TV commentator Jason Goodall has said several times that the quality of the field in a Masters means it's generally tougher to win than a major.
(I doubt he'd say that about Toronto this year).

His argument is that there are few easy matches in a Masters while in a major the top guys usually face relatively easy opposition in the first few rounds at least and they get a chance to "acclimatise", rather than play a decently-ranked player first up.

Opinions?

The Masters should have the WCT format, then, it would be the toughest event to win.Not with a RR system.

in 1982 to 1985 it was ran like the WCT finals, direct elimination and with the top 16 players in , instead of the top 8.

 

[TMF]

They are all very tough to win. Once in awhile a master will be a weak draw(e.g. Toronto, last year Shanghai) when the top players are missing. But often they have a full field especially a popular one like IW & Miami.

 

[TMF]

The Masters should have the WCT format, then, it would be the toughest event to win.Not with a RR system.

in 1982 to 1985 it was ran like the WCT finals, direct elimination and with the top 16 players in , instead of the top 8.

The top 8 draw requires to play 5 matches to win it all. If the top 16 draw having to play the same amount of matches(5), it doesn't make it anymore difficult.

The WCT requires to win only 4 matches.

 

[TheF1Bob]

Ask Andrew Murray. :lol:

 

[TheF1Bob]

Masters

• Best of 3
• Top 4 don't always show up

Majors

• Best of 5
• Top 4 show up

I think that answers your question OP.

 

[kishnabe]

Not in terms of pressure.....that would always put Majors at the peak!

 

[TeflonTom]

TV commentator Jason Goodall has said several times that the quality of the field in a Masters means it's generally tougher to win than a major.
(I doubt he'd say that about Toronto this year).

His argument is that there are few easy matches in a Masters while in a major the top guys usually face relatively easy opposition in the first few rounds at least and they get a chance to "acclimatise", rather than play a decently-ranked player first up.

Opinions?

on paper - mebbe. in reality - athletes manage their trainin/preparation in order to peak for the most important events

in general, everybody plays better at slams than masters (or intends to). djok n fed will be intendin 2 ramp up durin cincy, hittin their best tennis about the middle of the USO. same goes for most of the top players

 

[Hawkeye7]

We are talking about the masters where all top 4 players are in the draw.

And that Murray argument is weak since del Potro won a Major and no Masters.

 

[smoledman]

Well if you're lucky and hang around long enough you might win a Masters like Gasquet this week, but he'll never win a slam.

 

[Hawkeye7]

That's only due to the weak field though. If the top 4 were all injured or not playing a slam, someone else would be bound to win it. But I'm still counting on Novak to win this. So no late-bloomers allowed this year either, probably.

 

[kragster]

I think the proof is in the pudding. If winning a Major were easier, then you would find that on average people have more Major titles than Masters and you would find a lot more people with a major title and no Masters rather than the other way around. I must however qualify that if we are looking at it as a per event difficulty and account for the fact that the reason people may have more Masters is because there are 9 Masters ( to 4 slams) then they get pretty close for some players.


For example , Nadal 11 slams, 21 Masters. However if you adjust his masters count for the relative frequency of masters compared to slams, you 9.33 as his adjusted Masters count i.e. fewer Masters than Slams)

Similarly Djokovic, 5 slams, 11 Masters. (Masters adjsuted 4.8 )fewer Masters when adjusted for relative frequency.

And Federer 17 slams 20 Masters. (Masters adjusted 8.8 )fewer Masters when adjusted for relative frequency.

You could make the argument that the reasons top players dont have at least twice as many Masters as they have slams is not down to difficulty but rather down to focus. Make the Masters prize money $20 MM and you will see top players winning a lot more of those!

 

[smoledman]

That's only due to the weak field though. If the top 4 were all injured or not playing a slam, someone else would be bound to win it. But I'm still counting on Novak to win this. So no late-bloomers allowed this year either, probably.

Tipsy will beat Djokovic, just like in Madrid.

 

[smoledman]

I think the proof is in the pudding. If winning a Masters were easier, then you would find that on average people have more Masters titles than Majors. I must however qualify that if we are looking at it as a per event difficulty and account for the fact that the reason people may have more Masters is because there are 9 Masters ( to 4 slams) then they get pretty close for some players.


For example , Nadal 11 slams, 21 Masters. (Masters count adjusted for frequency = 9.33) i.e. fewer Masters when adjusted for relative frequency.

Djokovic, 5 slams, 11 Masters. (Masters adjsuted 4.8 )fewer Masters when adjusted for relative frequency.

Federer 17 slams 20 Masters. (Masters adjusted 8.8 )fewer Masters when adjusted for relative frequency.

You could make the argument that the reasons top players dont have at least twice as many Masters as they have slams is not down to difficulty but rather down to focus. Make the Masters prize money $20 MM and you will see top players winning a lot more of those!

Federer would have won 30-40 Masters already if he didn't care about the slams. But it is what it is.

 

[Hawkeye7]

Tipsy will beat Djokovic, just like in Madrid.

Here's to hoping. Would be great if he lost more points.

 

[smoledman]

^ Here's to hope.

Oh I'm much happier that he's won 17 slams and 20 Masters AND 6 YEC.

 

[World Beater]

i think there is more chance of an upset in masters than in slams due to bo3 format and no rest.

Easier to catch a top guy on an off day.

Also some masters are b2b ...like toronto - cincy.

 

[Hawkeye7]

Huh? I'm not even rooting for Novak. lol

 

[NadalDramaQueen]

It is harder for a top guy to win a Master's because, as was said, it is easier to be upset in a best of three format. That makes it easier for some of the lesser players to pull through.

In a major, it is very difficult for anyone to win except for the top few guys.

 

[tennisplayer1993]

masters i think

 

[jokinla]

Winning a major is of course much more difficult.

 

[cork_screw]

Well Jason Goodall stole that from me because I mentioned that maybe a year ago. I'm pretty sure these commentators read these forums to find things to talk about during their air time. In that regard, I agree to some extent. I mean, you do play a match the following day and you don't get a day to break. Even if you do play best of 3 instead of 5.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

A masters event would be easier to win than a major. Why? Simple. It's best of three instead of best of five.

 

[SQA333]

The possibility of being upset early in a Masters is greater than at the majors. So in that sense it is tougher. But as the tournament progresses and you have to play the top guys, majors become tougher.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

The possibility of being upset early in a Masters is greater than at the majors. So in that sense it is tougher. But as the tournament progresses and you have to play the top guys, majors become tougher.

Can you explain why, please?

 

[SQA333]

Higher ranked opponents. Take a look at this week's Cincy draw for instance. Toronto finalist Richard Gasquet is unseeded, and could very well have drawn a top seed in the 2nd round. Obviously due to 32 seeds at majors, a top player would never have to play a high ranked opponent so early.

 

[tank_job]

Ask Andrew Murray. :lol:

Ask Juan-Martin Del-Potro.

 

[Hawkeye7]

^ Are you two different people?

 

[absurdo]

it is a matter of perception. what do you mean by 'easier to win'? more easy to whom?

as many pointed out, in a masters there are more upset chances, so this means a masters is easier to win for the 'weaker' player THAN a grand slam. still very difficult.

in a grand slam, there are fewer upset chances, since it is a best of 5 sets format, so the better player has more time to adjust. this makes things more difficult for the lesser player and easier for the better player. so this means it is very likely on of the top players will win it.

so, sure it is easier for a top 5 player to win a grand slam, statisticly, but it is extremely difficult becoming a top 5 player, so...

 

[ctoth666]

I think the proof is in the pudding. If winning a Major were easier, then you would find that on average people have more Major titles than Masters and you would find a lot more people with a major title and no Masters rather than the other way around. I must however qualify that if we are looking at it as a per event difficulty and account for the fact that the reason people may have more Masters is because there are 9 Masters ( to 4 slams) then they get pretty close for some players.


For example , Nadal 11 slams, 21 Masters. However if you adjust his masters count for the relative frequency of masters compared to slams, you 9.33 as his adjusted Masters count i.e. fewer Masters than Slams)

Similarly Djokovic, 5 slams, 11 Masters. (Masters adjsuted 4.8 )fewer Masters when adjusted for relative frequency.

And Federer 17 slams 20 Masters. (Masters adjusted 8.8 )fewer Masters when adjusted for relative frequency.

You could make the argument that the reasons top players dont have at least twice as many Masters as they have slams is not down to difficulty but rather down to focus. Make the Masters prize money $20 MM and you will see top players winning a lot more of those!

This. A Major might not be "easier" in some regards, but statistically it's easier to win than a Masters. The only way to know for certain would be for Masters to become the most prestigious events, but that isn't the case.

 

[Hayduke]

The quality of the competition is usually the same, as all the top players are there, and you eventually have to go through them, but players try harder at the slams. At least the top players do, while sometimes their effort at the masters tournaments is a little halfhearted, and sometimes they even skip them if they can. For every one, particularly for the top players who get a bye in the first round of masters tourmaments, it’s always going to be more difficult to win 7 matches best of 5, than 5 matches best of 3. The day of rest in between at the slams benefits everyone equally. The best of 5 format benefits the top players more because it provides a little insurance against freak results against an opponent that is hot for a couple of sets. Considering all things, I don’t think it’s easier to win a masters than a slam.

 

[tennis_pro]

Ask Murray.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Ask Murray.

There's more competition these days, that's why Murray's finding it harder to win one. His career isn't over yet, though.

 

[Mustard]

Nadal, Federer and Djokovic have won 29 of the last 30 majors. Other players get more bites of the cherry in Masters Series events.

It's a different mentality, for sure. In the majors, you usually have a day off in between the best of 5 sets matches, unless the weather comes into play, whereas in the Masters Series, you have to play best of 3 sets matches on many consecutive days if you are going to win the title. However, the best players bring out their best form at the majors, which is why they've gobbled up almost every major since 2005.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

The question imply that the point of vue of the heavy favorite is taken.

In masters, the field is packed, the matches are played in best of 3. They have not the same value than majors, and sometimes the top players use them to warm-up. Thus, upset are more likely to occur.

In major, the best of 5 format, and the easier early round, allow the better player to enter quietly the tournament and the matches. Upset are less likely.

Thus, the major are "easier" to win for the heavy favorite, while the master are easier to win for the outsider, as they can win it all, providing some opening in the draw and two good set.

However, if we don't take the point of view of the top players, then the major are harder to win. To win one, you have to beat more opponents, some of them who can't enter master 1000, but are playing great nonetheless (Rosol, Fallah, etc.). You have to be the better player for 3 set, which give more opportunity for the leading player to lose his mind and the matches. in this regard, an opening of the draw and two hot set are not enoug: Slams are harder to win.

 

[Steffi-forever]

For men, imo no but for the top women it is definitely easier to win 7 matches in 13 days than to win 5 in 6 days (for a Tier 1).

 

[Rhino]

Federer would have won 30-40 Masters already if he didn't care about the slams. But it is what it is.

Also if there were two or three Masters on grass instead of zero.

 

[Blocker]

Slams are harder than masters.

Need to win 21 sets as opposed to 15.

2 week event so there is alot of scheduling and sitting around doing nothing in between matches. So you need to manage your time.

Slams have all the pressure. Spotlight of the world is on the slam for the 2 weeks. More pressure, more to play for.

When you sum it all up, the slams are tougher to win.

 

[Goosehead]

Masters

• Best of 3
• Top 4 don't always show up

Majors

• Best of 5
• Top 4 show up

I think that answers your question OP.

i agree..also the majors have 100% effort in at least 3 out of 5 sets..

where as a player might not always put everything into a masters match (e.g paris).

 

[abmk]

The question imply that the point of vue of the heavy favorite is taken.

In masters, the field is packed, the matches are played in best of 3. They have not the same value than majors, and sometimes the top players use them to warm-up. Thus, upset are more likely to occur.

In major, the best of 5 format, and the easier early round, allow the better player to enter quietly the tournament and the matches. Upset are less likely.

Thus, the major are "easier" to win for the heavy favorite, while the master are easier to win for the outsider, as they can win it all, providing some opening in the draw and two good set.

However, if we don't take the point of view of the top players, then the major are harder to win. To win one, you have to beat more opponents, some of them who can't enter master 1000, but are playing great nonetheless (Rosol, Fallah, etc.). You have to be the better player for 3 set, which give more opportunity for the leading player to lose his mind and the matches. in this regard, an opening of the draw and two hot set are not enoug: Slams are harder to win.

this ......

/thread

 

[tacou]

I think winning a masters is harder than a slam 90% of the time, but to win a slam semi and final is about 1000x harder than winning a masters final

 

[Bobby Jr]

Majors win this argument by miles for the simple reasons of mental pressure and expectation.

The mental attributes needed to take out a tournament with as much history and reverence as a major is miles above that of any masters.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Majors require more mental toughness, Masters not so much.

 

[Tony48]

Paris final.

Nuff said