Harder to Achieve? Grand Slam Final or ATP Masters 1000 Title

Harder to get?

  • Grand Slam Final

    Votes: 65 87.8%
  • Masters 1000 title

    Votes: 9 12.2%

  • Total voters
    74

OKUSA

Hall of Fame
From the looks of it, it seems like a no brainer (Only 4 Grand Slams a year, as opposed to 9 Masters 1000 events). But in reality to get to a Grand Slam final there can be 8 different people, and only 9 different people can win a Masters 1000 event.

Grand Slam finals are over the course of 6, 5-set matches and 2 weeks.

A Masters title will take 6, 3-set matches and a week and a half.

Now there are players who have a Masters title (multiple in some cases) but no Grand Slam Final appearance. There are ones who have reached Grand Slam Finals but never achieved a Masters 1000 title

Masters 1000 title winners, but no Grand Slam Final (Currently Active):

Ljubicic (1), Davydenko (3), Haas (1), Berdych (1), Canas (1)

Grand Slam Finalists, but no Masters 1000 title

Baghdatis, Del Potro, Soderling, Gonzo, Schuttler, Puerta, Gaudio

That's all I could find and/or remember, by that it seems like it's harder to win a Masters title (Del Po and Soderling could very well win a Masters in their Career, Gonzo and Baghdatis are long shots, and the others are on the verge of retirement). Davy and Berdych could make it to the finals of AO or USO, but I would say it's more likely that Del Po or Soderling win a Masters.

It's a tough call
 

batz

G.O.A.T.
From the looks of it, it seems like a no brainer (Only 4 Grand Slams a year, as opposed to 9 Masters 1000 events). But in reality to get to a Grand Slam final there can be 8 different people, and only 9 different people can win a Masters 1000 event.

Grand Slam finals are over the course of 6, 5-set matches and 2 weeks.

A Masters title will take 6, 3-set matches and a week and a half.

Now there are players who have a Masters title (multiple in some cases) but no Grand Slam Final appearance. There are ones who have reached Grand Slam Finals but never achieved a Masters 1000 title

Masters 1000 title winners, but no Grand Slam Final (Currently Active):

Ljubicic (1), Davydenko (3), Haas (1), Berdych (1), Canas (1)

Grand Slam Finalists, but no Masters 1000 title

Baghdatis, Del Potro, Soderling, Gonzo, Schuttler, Puerta, Gaudio

That's all I could find and/or remember, by that it seems like it's harder to win a Masters title (Del Po and Soderling could very well win a Masters in their Career, Gonzo and Baghdatis are long shots, and the others are on the verge of retirement). Davy and Berdych could make it to the finals of AO or USO, but I would say it's more likely that Del Po or Soderling win a Masters.

It's a tough call
Only at IW and Miami. The rest of them only require 5 wins. This, allied to the fact that there isn't a GS version of Paris, makes a GS final a harder thing to do.

That said, Roddick has been to more GS finals than he has won MS. Although Murray has twice as many MS titles as he does slam finals.
 

OKUSA

Hall of Fame
Think I put this in the wrong board, wanted it in the General Discussion, oh well

Also, I put 6 because you actually need 7 wins in Indian Wells an Miami if you are unseeded and have to play the first round. 6 wins if you are unseeded in the other Masters events
 

Berlioz

Banned
A Masters title is harder to achieve, because you probably have to defeat several top players back to back. It certainly means more, because you actallu can show a trophy. Being a GS finalist is nice, but in the end it doesn't mean that much.
 

piece

Professional
Masters 1000 title winners, but no Grand Slam Final (Currently Active):

Ljubicic (1), Davydenko (3), Haas (1), Berdych (1), Canas (1)

Grand Slam Finalists, but no Masters 1000 title

Baghdatis, Del Potro, Soderling, Gonzo, Schuttler, Puerta, Gaudio

That's all I could find and/or remember, by that it seems like it's harder to win a Masters title (Del Po and Soderling could very well win a Masters in their Career, Gonzo and Baghdatis are long shots, and the others are on the verge of retirement). Davy and Berdych could make it to the finals of AO or USO, but I would say it's more likely that Del Po or Soderling win a Masters.

It's a tough call

I would say that "by that", it looks dead even. You can't just compare the number of players in the first list to the number of players in the second. You have to factor in those players who have achieved 'it' (the slam final or masters win) more than once. This is because each time 'it' is achieved gives data as to which is easier, regardless of whether or not it is the same player. Davydenko seems to be the only one, so that means there's been 7 instances of an active player who's never reached a GS final winning a masters, compared to 7 instances of an active player reaching a GS final who's never won a masters.
 

Andy G

Semi-Pro
I think a MS title can be harder actually. No one comes back from 2 sets down at a MS event. If GS were like this, Fed would have won the 2009 US Open.
 

OKUSA

Hall of Fame
How is it less pressure? If you were someone who could never win a Grand Slam, unless you had an amazing run and the draw crumbled. Wouldn't there be a lot of pressure for you to at least get a masters title?

I mean what's the point if you make 50 Grand Slam finals if you never can take home a trophy that said you actually WON, not coming 2nd best
 

OrangeOne

Legend
A Masters title is harder to achieve, because you probably have to defeat several top players back to back. It certainly means more, because you actallu can show a trophy. Being a GS finalist is nice, but in the end it doesn't mean that much.
You are not serious, you cannot be serious!

To just even be there to play on a GS final day... ludicrously amazing. I've been to the AO finals a few times, and the atmosphere is incredible. The country partly stops that night to watch. The tennis world stops to watch.

I barely ever bother to hunt out & stay up for a MS final, I stay up for almost every slam final.

I could barely name a solid list of MS winners, I could rattle off most of the last 15 years of GS finalists.

People forever quote you as a GS finalist, people don't necessarily quote you as the winner of Miami in whenever....

Finally: Everyone shows up to GS's with their A-game, especially the top 5. The top 5 are just as likely to dump a masters or whatever if they are in any way unfit and there's a slam soon. You're almost guaranteed to have a higher quality, more hungry field at a slam than at a MS.
 

Tennis_Crazed

Semi-Pro
Definitely a GS final. Everyone tries harder in GSs and given MS events are best of 3 sets, you have better chances of taking top guys out. Look at the Aussie open - if it were best of 3 sets fed would have lost to davyd in straight sets. this is a no brainer. Maybe ask the question:

Which is harder: Masters Series or semi of GS
 

statto

Professional
I don't think this is as clear cut as most people here are making it out to be.

2009
Five GS finalists (Federer, Nadal, Soderling, Roddick, Del Potro)
Five MS winners (Nadal, Murray, Federer, Davydenko, Djokovic)

2008
Five
GS finalists (Federer, Murray, Nadal, Djokovic, Tsonga)
Five MS winners (Djokovic, Davydenko, Murray, Nadal, Tsonga)

2007
Four
GS finalists (Federer, Gonzalez, Nadal, Djokovic)
Four MS winners (Nadal, Djokovic, Nalbandian, Federer)

Seems like a toss of a coin to me over which is harder. I guess the best answer is that it depends on who the player is.
 
This thread is ridiculous. It's grasping at straws that just aren't there. There could be one Masters tournament a year, and a GS Final would still be more difficult to make it to.

EVEN SO, there are NINE Masters Series tournaments and only 4 GSs.

As for the comment above, just because there are relatively the same amount of GS finalists as there are Masters Series winners DOES NOT mean it is "a toss of the coin." There's only one 3.5 yearly champion at my club each year, but there are many more GS finalists each year. Does that mean it's more difficult to achieve a championship at my club than it is to get to the final of a GS? Absolutely not.
 
Last edited:
This thread is ridiculous. It's grasping at straws that just aren't there. There could be one Masters tournament a year, and a GS Final would still be more difficult to make it to.

EVEN SO, there are NINE Masters Series tournaments and only 4 GSs.

As for the comment above, just because there are relatively the same amount of GS finalists as there are Masters Series winners DOES NOT mean it is "a toss of the coin." There's only one 3.5 yearly champion at my club each year, but there are many more GS finalists each year. Does that mean it's more difficult to achieve a championship at my club than it is to get to the final of a GS? Absolutely not.
Okay.

Now take into account sets.

Grandslam matches are the best of 5 sets. Meaning when you get to the Quarter Finals for instance you'll have to win 3 sets against Davydenko, Nadal, Cilic, Del Potro, Federer ...

Winning 3 sets against Nadal? Hmmmm. Winning 2 sets against Nadal? A good streak of shots, its easier.
 

OKUSA

Hall of Fame
We've seen it possible, Soderling beat Nadal on clay which everyone thought he was unbeatable but only had to play Gonzo and Davydenko both not very adept on clay to get to the finals. Do you think that was more impressive or Ljubicic beating Djokovic/Nadal/Roddick ?
 

kaleidoskope

Professional
Am I off here? I thought GS were 7 best of 5 matches while MS were (at most) 6 best of 3 matches?

If that is the count then I don't get where is the argument :D
 
overall a slam final is harder to achieve but we have to consider the draws too.
Its not the same if we speak about Nalbandian draw in wimbledon 2002 -easy- or Gonzalez in Australia 2007 -difficult - or Nalbandian wins in Paris 2007 -difficult- and Robredo in Hamburg 2006 -difficult-.
 

Jane_Keating

New User
I voted for GS as this is the most significant tennis events of the year in terms of world ranking points, tradition, prize-money awarded, and public attention.

The Tournaments involve are:
• Australian Open
• US Open
• French Open
• Wimbledon
 
Top