Edberg thinks the WTF is bigger than ever

The Blond Blur

Hall of Fame
It's important, but to say it's bigger than ever is just not accurate. It was a much bigger deal back in the day when it had BO5 finals and especially when it was held in MSG. Nowadays, most top analysts, commentators, and ex-pro players don't really talk about it much.

I was also never keen to all the name changes (I thought Tennis Masters Cup sounded the coolest though). To me it's a distant 5th most important title tied with the Olympics.
 

Bender

G.O.A.T.
Nadal fans avoiding this thread like the plague.

LMAO
Nah, we're wondering if the nedl could qualify for the WTA finals next year since apparently that's even bigger than the ATP Finals

Might have to bring out the inner prima donna vekic though
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
It's important, but to say it's bigger than ever is just not accurate. It was a much bigger deal back in the day when it had BO5 finals and especially when it was held in MSG. Nowadays, most top analysts, commentators, and ex-pro players don't really talk about it much.
Agree with you about BO5. IMO the finals of all big tournaments should always be in this format. But what sort of coverage do you think the event got back in 1989 that it doesn't get today? After all, we've just seen no less a player of the stature of Edberg state otherwise?

I was also never keen to all the name changes (I thought Tennis Masters Cup sounded the coolest though). To me it's a distant 5th most important title tied with the Olympics.
Masters Cup does sound cool but I guess the ATP wanted to avoid confusion with the Masters 1000 events after they started to promote them not long afterwards. I'm certainly not keen on the present name 'Nitto ATP Finals'. Just sounds naff somehow.
 
Nah, we're wondering if the nedl could qualify for the WTA finals next year since apparently that's even bigger than the ATP Finals

Might have to bring out the inner prima donna vekic though
Bigger than the slams as well if that's the logic here.
 

ibbi

Hall of Fame
He says in an interview with the ATP on the ATP's website, promoting the ATP's event? o_O

This is like that 'big titles' graphic the ATP keeps pushing to try and make out like any of their titles are remotely comparable to a major.
 

The Blond Blur

Hall of Fame
Agree with you about BO5. IMO the finals of all big tournaments should always be in this format. But what sort of coverage do you think the event got back in 1989 that it doesn't get today? After all, we've just seen no less a player of the stature of Edberg state otherwise?



Masters Cup does sound cool but I guess the ATP wanted to avoid confusion with the Masters 1000 events after they started to promote them not long afterwards. I'm certainly not keen on the present name 'Nitto ATP Finals'. Just sounds naff somehow.
BO5 is just better on every level. If I had my way MS1000s would all be BO5 finals as well. I think all the slems should have BO5 tie breaks at 6-6 from R1-SF. I think finals should be reverted to old school RG, Wimby, and AO finals.

As far as its status compared to the other big titles, I think the changing from BO5 finals along with constant name and venue changes really hurt it. I also think once the USO ends, a lot of people (and players for that matter) are ready for the season to end and get ready for the AO. The Olympics is a little different because it had BO5 finals (unfortunately, that's changing too :cry:) and it's in between Wimby and the USO so there's still a ton of buzz going around.

Edberg is the first dude in forever that I've heard even mention the WTF in this light.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
It used to be worth 750 points and it didn't screw up the rankings then. Anyway, the fact remains: it's worth zero points.
The last time was in 2012 because I distinctly remember Murray gaining 750 points for it. Sometime between then and 2016 the ATP decided to stop awarding ranking points for all non-ATP events other than the Slams. This included Davis Cup as well.
 
I think that WTF is bigger than the Masters because you get to see the top players play on a daily basis and not have to worry about the upset knocking them out of the tournament and get another chance to win the whole thing. I consider the World Tours Final event the "playoff tennis" similar to other sports where you have the whole year of regular season to make it to the WTF as a top 8. I however think that it should be a best of 5 for the whole tournament to have the 1500 points rewarded to have some merit. I also feel that the event should start on a Saturday to have a Friday off for the semi-final/final on an equal footing from the group stage.
 

TimHenmanATG

Professional
Of course, Edberg will exalt the London exho, because he has his finger in many lucrative post-career pies.

But, the proof is always in the pudding.

Stefan ATGberg never took the WTF exhibition tournament particularly seriously.
 

topher

Professional
I agree it's in fifth place, but 1500 points to an undefeated winner of the YEC beats zero points for the Olympics.
By that logic the Olympics mean less than a challenger event. But I’m you’re well aware that the points allotted to the Olympics by the ATP have zero to do with its prestige and everything to do with being a non-ATP event.
 

Aprilone

Rookie
The most important event after the Majors, and the points awarded reflect that. No easy draws. I preferred Tennis Masters Cup as well. It should go back to best of five.
 

Enga

Hall of Fame
It's important, but to say it's bigger than ever is just not accurate. It was a much bigger deal back in the day when it had BO5 finals and especially when it was held in MSG. Nowadays, most top analysts, commentators, and ex-pro players don't really talk about it much.

I was also never keen to all the name changes (I thought Tennis Masters Cup sounded the coolest though). To me it's a distant 5th most important title tied with the Olympics.
If youre gonna say it was bigger back in the day then dont use a comparison that has happened to all of the tournaments except for slams. If youre gonna say its bigger because its BO5, then that means ALL of tennis is smaller now. Not the case. Its different, yes but not smaller.
 

Enga

Hall of Fame
You guys are crazy arguing points and exhibition. Let me ask you, if youre a ranked top 8 player in the world and you got invited to the most exclusive event of the year with a huge crowd draw, youre just gonna drop your massive pride and ego and say "actually Im not the best player here", barely try and just collect the paycheck? If so, thats why youre here posting on a forum instead of out there playing.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
the Olympics don't rely on ATP points. they are big enough without them.

back in the day, there were no points awarded for the YEC either.
The funny part is that you have got it completely backwards: the Olympics weren't garnering nearly as much attention until they started rewarding points. As soon as they dropped them some top payers started skipping to "focus on their schedule" and that is in the current times of the inflation era, where the top 3 are basically profiting immensely from the lack of younger ATGs and are racing against themselves to complete the set of every imaginable title under the sun worth mentioning (so that "internal" fight raises the awareness towards the tournament, and as soon as it is over, it will get worse).

:cool:
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
so that "internal" fight raises the awareness towards the tournament, and as soon as it is over, it will get worse
I think the opposite will be the case: If the Big 3 are gone, then anyone will see a chance to become Olympic champion, and this will be a fast opportunity to be well-known forever.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
I think the opposite will be the case: If the Big 3 are gone, then anyone will see a chance to become Olympic champion, and this will be a fast opportunity to be well-known forever.
"Known forever". Can you tell me who was the Olympic champion from the tennis tournament in 1988 without looking it up?

:cool:
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
"Known forever". Can you tell me who was the Olympic champion from the tennis tournament in 1988 without looking it up?

:cool:
Yes, Miloslav Mecir.

And I could also tell you the first one from 1896, a certain John Boland from Ireland who according to a story came to Athens rather as a tourist and had to buy his tennis racquet in that city just before the tournament. ;)

Olympics was actually my first big interest concerning sports as small child of 7 years or so. Then later tennis and football/soccer followed in general, over the whole year.

But the Olympics are the biggest event in world sports, and a statistical freak (as I was as a child) will likely know the names of Olympic champions over others, apart from football where it is only an under-23-tournament at the Olympics.

Actually, if tennis wouldn't have become such a special interest for me, I guess I would think that someone like Rosset really belongs to the best players, and it's likely many general sport fans thought this way as well in the 90s.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
Yes, Miloslav Mecir.

And I could also tell you the first one from 1896, a certain John Boland from Ireland who according to a story came to Athens rather as a tourist and had to buy his tennis racquet in that city just before the tournament. ;)

Olympics was actually my first big interest concerning sports as small child of 7 years or so. Then later tennis and football/soccer followed in general, over the whole year.

But the Olympics are the biggest event in world sports, and a statistical freak (as I was as a child) will likely know the names of Olympic champions over others, apart from football where it is only an under-23-tournament at the Olympics.

Actually, if tennis wouldn't have become such a special interest for me, I guess I would think that someone like Rosset really belongs to the best players, and it's likely many general sport fans thought this way as well in the 90s.
Do you reckon that most people or even most tennis fans have followed the same development of interest towards the Olympics as you?

:cool:
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
Do you reckon that most people or even most tennis fans have followed the same development of interest towards the Olympics as you?

:cool:
Not tennis fans, but I meant what someone has to do to be well-known for as many people as possible, and THEN an Olympic gold medal is bigger than everything.

Because Olympics is what brings general sports fans together, and those who just watch everything in those 2 weeks (and who aren’t well-educated in the special features of the tennis world) will know this name even over a Wimbledon champion and will think he is the best tennis player in the world (just as the winner in table tennis or badminton is seen as such).
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
Not tennis fans, but I meant what someone has to do to be well-known for as many people as possible, and THEN an Olympic gold medal is bigger than everything.

Because Olympics is what brings general sports fans together, and those who just watch everything in those 2 weeks (and who aren’t well-educated in the special features of the tennis world) will know this name even over a Wimbledon champion and will think he is the best tennis player in the world (just as the winner in table tennis or badminton is seen as such).
You didn't directly answer my question, but I take your answer as a "No".

Also, if someone is such an avid sports fan and a researcher of the achievements in sports, he, apart from knowing names, will be acutely aware of the fact that the Olympics don't mean the same in all sports, in which case the very idea that the Olympic champion in sports like tennis will be remembered for his achievement there will be absurd in the eyes of exactly those people (being knowledgeable and all).

Your example alone brings up a controversy: you claim that there are people that are crazy about the Olympics but don't know ANYTHING outside of them. I find that hard to believe and you yourself are not a confirmation of such scenario, so why would you infer the most unlikely and erroneous suggestion about sports fans and pitch it to the audience? Also, even if that WAS true, do you think that such "knowledge" (Olympic champion over Wimbledon champion) is worth anything?

:cool:
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
You didn't directly answer my question, but I take your answer as a "No".

Also, if someone is such an avid sports fan and a researcher of the achievements in sports, he, apart from knowing names, will be acutely aware of the fact that the Olympics don't mean the same in all sports, in which case the very idea that the Olympic champion in sports like tennis will be remembered for his achievement there will be absurd in the eyes of exactly those people (being knowledgeable and all).

Your example alone brings up a controversy: you claim that there are people that are crazy about the Olympics but don't know ANYTHING outside of them. I find that hard to believe and you yourself are not a confirmation of such scenario, so why would you infer the most unlikely and erroneous suggestion about sports fans and pitch it to the audience? Also, even if that WAS true, do you think that such "knowledge" (Olympic champion over Wimbledon champion) is worth anything?

:cool:
Of course anyone who gets into it a bit deeper should know it, but my point was that most people will be casual watchers, but still have an opinion, even when it is wrong.

And being famous isn’t always about being rightfully famous.

Also I have to admit that if tennis wouldn’t have become my favourite sport anyway, then maybe I wouldn’t know that a Slam title is considered to be bigger than Olympic Gold. Because honestly I don’t know if there is something bigger in another Olympic sport apart from football as well. I don’t think so, but I’m not entirely sure.

Furthermore I admit that there is something about Olympics which isn’t totally logical, but rather about a special flair. Because it’s a bit unfair of course to always judge one winner in 4 years (who could have been just lucky) as the best in his sport. So of course it’s a valid opinion if you don’t rate the Olympics that high.

However, sadly most people don’t think too deeply about those things, and many people just want to be famous within a big number of mainstream people. I’m not this way by any means, but I still love the Olympics as a nostalgic memory of my childhood. Of course I know all the scandals about IOC (also FIFA etc.) to not be naive about it anymore.
 
Last edited:

LETitBE

Hall of Fame
Of course anyone who gets into it a bit deeper should know it, but my point was that most people will be casual watchers, but still have an opinion, even when it is wrong.

And being famous isn’t always about being rightfully famous.

Also I have to admit that if tennis wouldn’t have become my favourite sport anyway, then maybe I wouldn’t know that as Slam title is considered to be bigger than Olympic Gold. Because honestly I don’t know if there is something bigger in another Olympic sport apart from football as well. I don’t think so, but I’m not entirely sure.

Furthermore I admit that there is something about Olympics which isn’t totally logical, but rather about a special flair. Because it’s a bit unfair of course to always judge one winner in 4 years (who could have been just lucky) as the best in his sport. So of course it’s a valid opinion if you don’t rate the Olympics that high.

However, sadly most people don’t think too deeply about those things, and many people just want to be famous within a big number of mainstream people. I’m not this way by any means, but I still love the Olympics as a nostalgic memory of my childhood. Of course I know all the scandals about IOC (also FIFA etc.) to not be naive about it anymore.
i lost interest in Olympics when Ben Johnson got done
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
Of course anyone who gets into it a bit deeper should know it, but my point was that most people will be casual watchers, but still have an opinion, even when it is wrong.

And being famous isn’t always about being rightfully famous.

Also I have to admit that if tennis wouldn’t have become my favourite sport anyway, then maybe I wouldn’t know that as Slam title is considered to be bigger than Olympic Gold. Because honestly I don’t know if there is something bigger in another Olympic sport apart from football as well. I don’t think so, but I’m not entirely sure.

Furthermore I admit that there is something about Olympics which isn’t totally logical, but rather about a special flair. Because it’s a bit unfair of course to always judge one winner in 4 years (who could have been just lucky) as the best in his sport. So of course it’s a valid opinion if you don’t rate the Olympics that high.

However, sadly most people don’t think too deeply about those things, and many people just want to be famous within a big number of mainstream people. I’m not this way by any means, but I still love the Olympics as a nostalgic memory of my childhood. Of course I know all the scandals about IOC (also FIFA etc.) to not be naive about it anymore.
Well, as you also agree, that kind of "knowledge" is not much of a knowledge anyways, but the bigger point is, it is unlikely for the so called "casual" fan to know the names of past Olympic champions, exactly because for them it is about the moment. The only thing that works in favour of the Olympics is that they are a worldwide broadcasted event, but then again the tennis tournament competes against so many other sports in their most important event for the attention of the viewer that I am not entirely sure how much interest it garners as opposed to a standalone tennis event (which is limited by its broadcast, but is its own).

Putting the knowledge aside, the Olympics have always been a vehicle for politics with all the dirty side shows (scandals, corruption, drugs/doping).

The only reason why I watch a very limited number of sports is that some of my favourite athletes plan to hit peak form at that event and I want to see it. Those sports are least riddled with corruption maybe because they are relatively obscure/there isn't much TV money in them.

:cool:
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
i lost interest in Olympics when Ben Johnson got done
That was one Olympics before my time. I started in 1992 as a 6-year-old and was excited (although I remember that even then I heard a lot about the Johnson incident). I also liked the Winter Games very much.

Of course Johnson was only the tip of the iceberg and somwhat a scapegoat. Just look at the list of medalists of Beijing 2008 and London 2012, especially in athletics and weightlifting, and see how many "winners" were stripped of the medals after late tests were possible. It’s just too normal for the public to even speak about it anymore.

It must have been Bolt or Phelps today to create a scandal similar to Johnson.
 

ron schaap

Professional
Yes

In mostly every other sport, the Olympics are the highest competition.
There is a big difference between sports team competition, which means competing against a couple of other teams in the same region or country, and a tournament that lasts only 2 weeks and the best teams and players in the world can participate in it like the Olympics or a grandslam. Team competition tend to attract a lot of fans who arent always fans of true sports. Thats the difference that counts.
Why is team competition so important? Well because it is hyped by it sponsors who hope to get the attention of tv watchers to sell their products.
The fact that in America sponsors of baseball teams forbid their players to participate in the Olympics means that this isnt a serious sport, it is more a marketing tool.
 
Top