BGod
G.O.A.T.
An undefeated champions winning 5 matches gets 1,500 points. So in this sense it's certainly worth more than a Masters in terms of rankings. All matches are Bo3 however and many past champions won the tournament with 4 match wins.
At 4 match wins, that's a 250 tournament requirement (and many lower ranked players need 5 to win one).
The biggest sticking point for supporters is how you're looking at the Top 8-10 players on the year, HOWEVER that doesn't necessarily mean they're in that form come that time if most of their points came say, before the USO hard court season for example. Furthermore from a Slam Quarter onwards you're typically facing a Top 10 opponent in a Bo5. So you need to win 9 sets as oppose to 8 sets (in a 4-1 WTF champion). This is my sticking point as I think that's where the WTF credibility breaks down.
The point totals serve more of a guarantee for top players to bring up their gap for the following season and to justify sponsorships and ticket prices for the event. With lame duck matches the tournament itself without Bo5 for the last two rounds appears as a glorified exhibition and 3 prize money matches.
I have come to rate Indian Wells and Miami ahead of the WTF in terms of a player's resume. Winning 6 rounds where most of the Top 10 players participate in at least 1 of the 2 is a greater performance than winning 4 matches at the WTF.
So if I have to make a comparison I'd say making a Slam Final is above the level of a WTF champion. Yes some players luck out with a draw to make a Final but the same happens with the WTF in RR play and who your SF opponent is. Upsets are more common in Bo3 tournaments with top players losing early than at the Slams. But most importantly in recent times the victories of Davydenko (who made two final appearances), Dimitrov and Zverev confirm that it's easier to win a WTF than making a Slam Final.
At 4 match wins, that's a 250 tournament requirement (and many lower ranked players need 5 to win one).
The biggest sticking point for supporters is how you're looking at the Top 8-10 players on the year, HOWEVER that doesn't necessarily mean they're in that form come that time if most of their points came say, before the USO hard court season for example. Furthermore from a Slam Quarter onwards you're typically facing a Top 10 opponent in a Bo5. So you need to win 9 sets as oppose to 8 sets (in a 4-1 WTF champion). This is my sticking point as I think that's where the WTF credibility breaks down.
The point totals serve more of a guarantee for top players to bring up their gap for the following season and to justify sponsorships and ticket prices for the event. With lame duck matches the tournament itself without Bo5 for the last two rounds appears as a glorified exhibition and 3 prize money matches.
I have come to rate Indian Wells and Miami ahead of the WTF in terms of a player's resume. Winning 6 rounds where most of the Top 10 players participate in at least 1 of the 2 is a greater performance than winning 4 matches at the WTF.
So if I have to make a comparison I'd say making a Slam Final is above the level of a WTF champion. Yes some players luck out with a draw to make a Final but the same happens with the WTF in RR play and who your SF opponent is. Upsets are more common in Bo3 tournaments with top players losing early than at the Slams. But most importantly in recent times the victories of Davydenko (who made two final appearances), Dimitrov and Zverev confirm that it's easier to win a WTF than making a Slam Final.
)) Look at this year’s AO open and tell me how difficult it was for Rafa to reach the final, and Nole to win it. Just say you don’t like Bo3 and be done with it, why torture us with this nonsense?
