Had enough, what is it with the complete and utter devaluation of Masters Series?

[Tennis_Maestro]

...and i'm talking about fans on this board... How can you base the overall performance of a player's year on 4 tournaments?

Tennis exists for more than simply 8 weeks in a year, Masters Series may be only the best of 3 set matches and contain less players in the overall main draw of the tournament but they are still contested by every top pro. (and contested competitively)

Majors are definetely a cut above the rest but i believe its a little short sighted to refer a Masters Series Event a tournament such that "no one cares about".

 

[deltox]

...and i'm talking about fans on this board... How can you base the overall performance of a player's year on 4 tournaments?

Tennis exists for more than simply 8 weeks in a year, Masters Series may be only the best of 3 set matches and contain less players in the overall main draw of the tournament but they are still contested by every top pro. (and contested competitively)

Majors are definetely a cut above the rest but i believe its a little short sighted to refer a Masters Series Event a tournament such that "no one cares about".

gotta agree here. to me masters are worth about 1/2 a slam for each shield

 

[Breaker]

They were important until Federer stopped winning them all apparently.

 

[Tennis_Maestro]

gotta agree here. to me masters are worth about 1/2 a slam for each shield

The points system suggests this as well, ATP are definetely not "not caring" about it.

 

[Tennis_Maestro]

They were important until Federer stopped winning them all apparently.

Thats harsh on *******s, i think the more accurate one your looking for is, they were important until "Murray, the pusher started winning them"

 

[Tennis_Maestro]

The lack of replies on this thread validates my point but why does the average tennis fan on here not care about them?

 

[DarthFed]

The lack of replies on this thread validates my point but why does the average tennis fan on here not care about them?

Agassi has more Masters than Sampras....yet Sampras is the GOAT candidate..

that should explain it

 

[jukka1970]

...and i'm talking about fans on this board... How can you base the overall performance of a player's year on 4 tournaments?

Tennis exists for more than simply 8 weeks in a year, Masters Series may be only the best of 3 set matches and contain less players in the overall main draw of the tournament but they are still contested by every top pro. (and contested competitively)

Majors are definetely a cut above the rest but i believe its a little short sighted to refer a Masters Series Event a tournament such that "no one cares about".

Well anyone who refers to a Masters Series as "a tournament that no one cares about", knows very little about tennis. They are very important hence the amount of points given. I mean they are 1/2 the amount of slams. To go even further, if a person won all 9 masters while a different player won all 4 slams, it's the person with the masters that would be leading point wise.

I don't agree with the philosophy of only the # of slams and ranking as being the only factors in how a tennis athlete is performing.

 

[viduka0101]

They were important until Federer stopped winning them all apparently.

yes thats true

 

[viduka0101]

Agassi has more Masters than Sampras....yet Sampras is the GOAT candidate..

that should explain it

how so?:-?

 

[bluetrain4]

...and i'm talking about fans on this board... How can you base the overall performance of a player's year on 4 tournaments?

Tennis exists for more than simply 8 weeks in a year, Masters Series may be only the best of 3 set matches and contain less players in the overall main draw of the tournament but they are still contested by every top pro. (and contested competitively)

Majors are definetely a cut above the rest but i believe its a little short sighted to refer a Masters Series Event a tournament such that "no one cares about".

I think you're overreacting. I read a lot of TW threads and a lot of people highly value Masters Series in assessing a player's year.

Of course, Slams are valued more, but that's to be expected.

 

[DarthFed]

how so?:-?

When people bring up candidacy for greatness it's usually down to slam count, which slam and years at number one.

 

[Moose Malloy]

When I first started following tennis, there was a very big event on tour called the WCT finals. Some players of the time even called it as big as winning a major. Guess what, the WCT finals ceased to exist in 1989. Now it truly is an 'event that no one cares about.'

I wonder with today's economic climate(hamburg got downgraded, who's next?) if the masters series will even be around in 20 years. or what name they will be called(aren't they called 1000's now? and they used to be called super 9's)

Somehow I think Roland Garros & Wimbledon will still be around. and not have a different name.

also the ms events weren't always required events(see Sampras, Pete. He skipped many ms's in his time & never got 0 pointers for that)

read this recently on peter bodo's blog, interesting to see how the atp itself doesn't seem to take much care in counting them:

A number of readers complained that I was wrong to write that Tommy Haas hasn't won a Masters Shield - he bagged on at Stuttgart, 2001. I did check that stat while writing: the ATP media guide has a grid-graph clearly charting each player's performance in majors and Masters. Stuttgart does not appear on Haas's chart.

I re-checked after repeated complaints, and found some fine print below the chart, which credits him with a Stuttgart victory (and a 7-4 record, which I assume is a career tally there), but leaves it at that. His overall Stuttgart stats (round achieved, year-by-year), and that pleasing, bold-faced W appear nowhere on his graph Upon double-checking with other sources, I see that Stuttgart was indeed an AMS (the former shorthand for ATP Masters Series, now Masters 1000 events), Tommy did indeed win it in 2001, so I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing out the oversight. And to whoever was in high dugeon that a "professional" tennis write could make such a towering error I can only say, I'm glad I gave you an opportunity to fling out your chest and crow a bit.

I assume that the ATP is ignoring results from defunct Masters tournaments, and that's a mistake. What if Miami or Paris disappeared tomorrow - do Agassi or Federer's accomplishments there get excised from history? Well, at least there's that fine print, but for someone like me that's an invitation to error.

 

[FedFan_2009]

I think Federer will refocus himself to win a few more Masters to break Agassi's record.

 

[viduka0101]

When people bring up candidacy for greatness it's usually down to slam count, which slam and years at number one.

you do realise that not everyone on the tour isn't federer or sampras right
how did Davydenko do in 2008?
oh terrible he didn't win a single slam just the friggin Miami with a 128 people draw
ergo Davydenk cannot be the GOAT
and please don't use the word greatness it's making me sick

 

[viduka0101]

I think Federer will refocus himself to win a few more Masters to break Agassi's record.

do you think about anything else than federer?

 

[prattle128]

I think Federer will refocus himself to win a few more Masters to break Agassi's record.

Federer and Nadal are going to break that no problem.

 

[egn]

Because up until now you never had to play them all. For example the 6 years Sampras was no.1 here is how it went

93: 7/9
94: 5/9
95: only year when he played all in his whole career
96: 5/9
97: 7/9
98: 8/9

the years before and after number 1 he played 7 in 92 and 5 in 99 I agree they are important, but it is reflected through ranking. You can use weeks and years as number 1 to evaluate performance in those events because you will have the ranking for a long period of time if you consistently play strongly there. However when you break it down upon top candidates you look into titles, but remember master series have only been around since 1990 and they have only been really being made mandatory over the past 3 or 4 years. Fed in his best years played usually 5-7 same goes for Sampras.

 

[Claudius]

Hate to say this, but Masters Series tournaments means jack for Federer. He loses in the 1/4 finals of Cincinnati, no one cares no one knows. It's only gonna affect his points. That's all

Players are known for their majors!

 

[thetheorist]

lol, with everyone harping over fed's slam accomplishments (15 majors, 7 wimbly final, 6th straight gs final, 21st straight gs sf, 20 gs finals), i knew a thread like this was coming

nice try

 

[NamRanger]

Because slams are more important then Master Shields. By a SIGNIFICANT margin.


Murray could win ALL the Shields this year for all I care. Roger still is the guy coming up with the goods when it really counts.

 

[Tennis_Maestro]

When I first started following tennis, there was a very big event on tour called the WCT finals. Some players of the time even called it as big as winning a major. Guess what, the WCT finals ceased to exist in 1989. Now it truly is an 'event that no one cares about.'

I wonder with today's economic climate(hamburg got downgraded, who's next?) if the masters series will even be around in 20 years. or what name they will be called(aren't they called 1000's now? and they used to be called super 9's)

Somehow I think Roland Garros & Wimbledon will still be around. and not have a different name.

also the ms events weren't always required events(see Sampras, Pete. He skipped many ms's in his time & never got 0 pointers for that)

read this recently on peter bodo's blog, interesting to see how the atp itself doesn't seem to take much care in counting them:

Interesting insight, thank you.

 

[Tennis_Maestro]

Well anyone who refers to a Masters Series as "a tournament that no one cares about", knows very little about tennis. They are very important hence the amount of points given. I mean they are 1/2 the amount of slams. To go even further, if a person won all 9 masters while a different player won all 4 slams, it's the person with the masters that would be leading point wise.

I don't agree with the philosophy of only the # of slams and ranking as being the only factors in how a tennis athlete is performing.

I agree, but thats what i've been hearing from some foolish posters recently.

 

[joeri888]

Only tennis diehards like us care for the other events really. Master series hardly end up on our teletext pages, let alone in a newspaper. I like MS a lot, but for the absolute top pro's who want to be legends, it should be all about majors. I bet Murray would trade is 12 atp titles for 1 major.

 

[Tennis_Maestro]

Because up until now you never had to play them all. For example the 6 years Sampras was no.1 here is how it went

93: 7/9
94: 5/9
95: only year when he played all in his whole career
96: 5/9
97: 7/9
98: 8/9

the years before and after number 1 he played 7 in 92 and 5 in 99 I agree they are important, but it is reflected through ranking. You can use weeks and years as number 1 to evaluate performance in those events because you will have the ranking for a long period of time if you consistently play strongly there. However when you break it down upon top candidates you look into titles, but remember master series have only been around since 1990 and they have only been really being made mandatory over the past 3 or 4 years. Fed in his best years played usually 5-7 same goes for Sampras.

So fans because of the short history of Masters Series and them only recently being made compulsory, fans haven't found a love for them as yet...

Understandable in that case, although i believe they should be looked @ with more respect as years pass.

 

[zagor]

Masters matter but slams simply matter much more and most top players always try to peak for them.It's just a simple truth.

If you think a player's career will be evaluated based on his masters performance then you're free to do so.

I bet Rios would have given up all his MS shields for one slam title and Kafelnikov couldn't care less he never won masters given that he has 2 slams.

 

[Tennis_Maestro]

lol, with everyone harping over fed's slam accomplishments (15 majors, 7 wimbly final, 6th straight gs final, 21st straight gs sf, 20 gs finals), i knew a thread like this was coming

nice try

Oh please, i'm pleased Federer broke the record and all of that crap, i just think way too many fans put too much emphasis on Grandslams and not enough on Masters Series.

I am a supporter of tennis not individual players altho i will cheer on Murray whenever he plays in major events.

 

[EtePras]

It's much harder to win all of the Masters Series in a year than it is to win all the majors in a year.

 

[cueboyzn]

Hate to say this, but Masters Series tournaments means jack for Federer. He loses in the 1/4 finals of Cincinnati, no one cares no one knows. It's only gonna affect his points. That's all

Players are known for their majors!

This is true.

Do you see all this global fuss over him winning Hamburg, Cincinnati or Madrid?

 

[Tennis_Maestro]

^This discussion doesn't have anything to do with Federer specifically, its about player's in general.

I admire Federer's game, good player yes, but must everyone believe i made this thread in relation to him? LOL

I'm not stuck in that stupid bubble.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

Agassi has more Masters than Sampras....yet Sampras is the GOAT candidate..

that should explain it

you explain a fact with it's outcome?

 

[Claudius]

The point is that majors are way, way more important than ms tournaments. Point-wise they're twice as big, but they're much more than that. I"m sure Murray would trade all his ms titles for one major title. Careers are defined at the majors. Not too many people know that Agassi has the most ms titles, because in the end, nobody really cares. No one in the future is gonna discuss the number of ms titles a player has when discussing who the GOAT is

 

[AAAA]

Some of the main reasons:


1) Slams are hosted by France, Australia, the USA and England. The four 'founding' fathers of modern tennis.

2) Slams have the biggest draw and best draws usually. For men all matches are 5 sets.

3) Slams are televised globally and in many cases on non-subscription TV channels. Masters or Supernine or what ever they are called next do not reach such a large audience.

4) The name changing of the series, rebranding, is indicative of a product with a popularity or marketability problem with the majority of tennis fans and/or sponsors.

5) Masters series do not have the permanance of slam events. Some change name, some are demoted or promoted in status.

6) The are not showpiece events of the sport.

7) Plus other reasons given enough thought.

 

[batz]

It's much harder to win all of the Masters Series in a year than it is to win all the majors in a year.

By several orders of magnitude.

What I do find interesting is that nobody (as in nobody) has ever won 3 back to back MS.

 

[Al Czervik]

They should devalue Masters series even more by making slams worth 2500. Requiring guys to play all of these idiotic Masters events like Madrid or the post US Open circuit is killing the tour. Then, they do dumb things like having Cincy and Canada back to back, so guys only play hard in one or the other.

 

[rafan]

...and i'm talking about fans on this board... How can you base the overall performance of a player's year on 4 tournaments?

Tennis exists for more than simply 8 weeks in a year, Masters Series may be only the best of 3 set matches and contain less players in the overall main draw of the tournament but they are still contested by every top pro. (and contested competitively)

Majors are definetely a cut above the rest but i believe its a little short sighted to refer a Masters Series Event a tournament such that "no one cares about".

I follow every tournament I can whether it is the five setters or not. In fact if I were rich I would attend as many as I could. The smaller tournaments are vastly important for the practice / performance of the individual player. You can get an insight into how a player will perform (or not) during the larger matches. I cannot understand anyone not following the so called lesser matches because this IS what tennis is all about. You have to follow the circuit if you are a real fan

 

[batz]

They should devalue Masters series even more by making slams worth 2500. Requiring guys to play all of these idiotic Masters events like Madrid or the post US Open circuit is killing the tour. Then, they do dumb things like having Cincy and Canada back to back, so guys only play hard in one or the other.

Do you really mean that? It would be better if the season finished in September and there was no more meaningful tennis from then until the Aussie Open?

If you REALLY wanted to kill the tour then go go ahead - because not having MS events in China, Paris and London would substantially decrease revenues and profile.

 

[roysid]

It's not the true test. First they're only of 3 sets. Plus any good player can win there.
- If a top player is tired as matches are played daily, he can lose. In slams, top players have a break to recover.
- Berdych,Robredo has won masters series. Davydenko, Nalbandian two. Tsonga one. Mostly because top players are finished by that time. So where is the credibility.

ATP gives them good points to promote them. That's because they are ATP's baby. Slams do not fall under ATP. And slams need no marketing.

 

[batz]

It's not the true test. First they're only of 3 sets. Plus any good player can win there.
- If a top player is tired as matches are played daily, he can lose. In slams, top players have a break to recover.
- Berdych,Robredo has won masters series. Davydenko, Nalbandian two. Tsonga one. Mostly because top players are finished by that time. So where is the credibility.

ATP gives them good points to promote them. That's because they are ATP's baby. Slams do not fall under ATP. And slams need no marketing.

Your 1st 2 points seem to be mutually exclusive - in your 1st point you say MS are not 'true test' i.e. they are not hard enough then your 2nd point implies that slams are easier because players don't get tired due to the extra rest. You can't really have it both ways.

Kraijeck and Johanssen (sp?) have both won slams in the last 10 or 15 years - does that mean slams aren't credible?

For the record - I'm not arguing that MS are equal to slams - they're not; not even close. But I do think the OP is on to something.

 

[Lsmkenpo]

Half of the masters tournaments are simply warmup events for the slams, only the up and coming players take these matches seriously.

The top players who really have a chance to win majors do not give their full effort at tournaments 1-3 weeks before slams, it is blatantly obvious to anyone who attends.

 

[FedFan_2009]

Actually if a player skipped the slams, winning all 9 Masters could be possible. However, it's true that Federer & Nadal will shatter Agassi's 17 Masters shields. I think Fed might end up with 22 and Nadal 26.

 

[S H O W S T O P P E R !]

I freaking love Master's events but now they are only used to say that player X (Nadal, Federer, Murray, Djoko, you get it) is washed up and then a flame war ensues.

 

[CountryHillbilly]

They are not completely devaluated. Madrid Masters is actually very important and highly valued.

Sorry.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Players are known for their majors!

Some still do not get it; the slams are the greatest, most definitive prize in the sport, with innumerable critics and fans marking history by slam winners--not the other tournaments. Whether the complaining gang likes it or not, the slams are the prime motivtor for the vast majority to become tennis professionals. Anything else is gravy...if that.

 

[tacou]

Half of the masters tournaments are simply warmup events for the slams, only the up and coming players take these matches seriously.

The top players who really have a chance to win majors do not give their full effort at tournaments 1-3 weeks before slams, it is blatantly obvious to anyone who attends.

I'd say Fed and Rafa were trying in their 06 clay master's meetings, wouldn't you?

Top players want slams more than anything, so fans of Fed/Nadal and any other contenders for slams don't value the master's as much.

 

[vbranis]

I agree with the OP, Masters Series should be valued since all the top players are required to play. It might not mean as much to the top 4 guys, but to everyone else they are just as important as any Slam.

Many dream of holding a Masters trophy at least once in their career. Just because Federer or Nadal don't care too much doesn't make them any less important, IMO. Also, some of the best matches of the year take place in Masters (see '05 & '06 Rome finals, '09 Madrid SF)

 

[batz]

Half of the masters tournaments are simply warmup events for the slams, only the up and coming players take these matches seriously.

The top players who really have a chance to win majors do not give their full effort at tournaments 1-3 weeks before slams, it is blatantly obvious to anyone who attends.

So Rafael Nadal wasn't trying 100% during MC, Rome and Madrid?

OK.

 

[Lsmkenpo]

So Rafael Nadal wasn't trying 100% during MC, Rome and Madrid?

OK.

Clay season is at the beginning of the year, players are still fresh and want a good start.

Hardcourt season you will see top players tanking quite often, rest becomes more important than winning masters events.

Go to Cincinnati a week before the USopen and watch how much effort Federer, Nadal and Djokovic expend there, it is a damn joke, the results speak for themselves. If they don't have points to defend they tank.

Think Nadal was trying 100% when he lost to Monaco there? how about Federer losing to Hrbaty?

 

[Antonio Puente]

Wow, the British homers are attention starved. Let's see if we can create another pointless thread so we can talk about our hero.

 

[jetlee2k]

Master Series used to be prestige after the Grand Slams but since they change the format to best of 3 sets, it became less & less distinctive like a Grand Slam.. I remember the old days, Sampras, Agassi and etc, Master Series events were alot more important now adays.. You got to appreciate the old guys that they play every tourney were best out of 5 rather than now adays almost everything best out of 3.. !!