How many MS1000 would Federer have won if there were 3 events on grass ?
- Thread starter TMF
- Start date
Federer and Del Potro
Bionic Poster
There should definitely at least be one M1000 Grass.
I'd go 36-40
I'd go 36-40
triplefault
New User
Probably close to 50.
Born Again
Rookie
Grass is for cows...
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
4 events on clay. 1 event on grass.
This is why the recently framed "Big Title" count by the #Molefarm has no meaning.
This is why the recently framed "Big Title" count by the #Molefarm has no meaning.
AceSalvo
Legend
Federer and Del Potro
Bionic Poster
Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil
Talk Tennis Guru
Too much
MajesticTennisManiac
Rookie
In addition to the 9 events , 3 more M1000 on grass or replacing some ?
In case of no replacement definitely 40+
And if its replacing one of the 9 M1000 on tour now then depends on which is shafted
In case of no replacement definitely 40+
And if its replacing one of the 9 M1000 on tour now then depends on which is shafted
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
LOL. But think of all the extra defeats he would've inflicted on The Virus.
Given that he has won 9 Halle, I believe he would have won quite a lot if there are 3 grass MS1000.
My prediction that he wins around 44 titles.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
In all seriousness he'd probably have won more than he has now, but if there were 3 MS events on grass there would be less on the other surfaces where he's won titles, and the ATP wouldn't cut out the clay, if anything they'd get rid of at least a couple HC events. They would never just throw 3 grass masters in an already packed calendar. Say they got rid of Cincinnati. That's 7? titles gone there so he'd have to win more at the grass masters to make that up, and against tougher competition. So he probably wins marginally more, but not some ridiculous number that most people like to think when this question comes up.
Backspin1183
Talk Tennis Guru
About the same number of WTFs Nadal would have won if the Tour Finals were played on (indoor) clay.
Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil
Talk Tennis Guru
I like your thinking! Those extra presents...LOL. But think of all the extra defeats he would've inflicted on The Virus.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Federer has won 11 Masters on slow HC (5 IW, 4 Miami, 2 Canada) so he'd have to make those up on grass first. And he probably takes it easy at one grass Masters to prime for Wimbledon so he has one where he has subpar results. Given that, let's say he wins 6 each at two of the grass masters and only 2-3 at the other one as a rough estimate. That only gives him about 5 more titles. It wouldn't give him that many more than he has now. Not 10+ for sure.
He'd probably lose a couple times to Djokovic post prime as well. Considering Djokovic doesn't play in Halle and would definitely play a grass masters, Federer would probably lose at least a couple times to him in the SFs/Finals in later years.
Night Slasher
Semi-Pro
Not the best timing for such thread, really.
But the point is good, Federer is a bit unlucky as there are no Masters 1000 events played on his favorite/best surface. But remember, if there were many big grass events, more players would be better on grass (like the majority of players today play their best tennis on hard courts - the most dominant surface) so it wouldn't be a cakewalk for Fed in any way.
But the point is good, Federer is a bit unlucky as there are no Masters 1000 events played on his favorite/best surface. But remember, if there were many big grass events, more players would be better on grass (like the majority of players today play their best tennis on hard courts - the most dominant surface) so it wouldn't be a cakewalk for Fed in any way.
Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil
Talk Tennis Guru
The thing is it's pretty unlikely he would dominate Halle to the same extent if it had a higher status. Obviously he would be the most successful at that event, but there are some other quality grass court players there nowadays, who proved themselves at the Holy Grail that is Wimbledon. Not bold to claim they would win some Masters too.
Rafa is lucky that 3 slams aren't on grass like tennis was supposed to be. Imagine if FO was on grass lol.
EloQuent
Legend
If instead of MC (a non mandatory event), Halle or Queens was a masters, Federer would still have all 28 of his masters. And while it's nice to think he'd have won Halle 9 times, realistically if it's a masters there's stronger competition so let's just say he wins it 7 times.
Count: Federer, 35
Djokovic: 32 (minus 2 in MC, plus 2 on grass)
Nadal: 22
But if there's 3 on grass? That changes the whole dynamic. Are they instead of Paris and Shanghai? Or are there 12 masters events now? Is grass season three months long? The entire tour looks completely different. With so many grass masters, you'd see grass specialists be a thing. Maybe Mischa is like the counterpart to Cecchinato?
Count: Federer, 35
Djokovic: 32 (minus 2 in MC, plus 2 on grass)
Nadal: 22
But if there's 3 on grass? That changes the whole dynamic. Are they instead of Paris and Shanghai? Or are there 12 masters events now? Is grass season three months long? The entire tour looks completely different. With so many grass masters, you'd see grass specialists be a thing. Maybe Mischa is like the counterpart to Cecchinato?
TheMaestro1990
Hall of Fame
A million
TheMaestro1990
Hall of Fame
Yet Djokovic is the only one of the players to actually take a bite out of the grass...
No, I don't think he is unlucky. It was known from the start which tournaments are where, it's his fault if he decided to be goon on a surface where there is only one masters. The same as Nadal is not unlucky that WTF is not on clay.
They are advantages and disadvantages of being good on certain surfaces and players know that, it's their fault which surfaces they choose to be good at.
The irony is that Federer is so smart that he made the same argument himself. I was surprised how intelligent Federer was that he understood the complexity of the argument. At the same time Nadal was making the same excuse that it's bad luck that WTF is on HC. This moment proved to me that Federer is a lot smarter than Nadal.
People are focused too much on colour, it's all tennis, so who cares which surface has something. Plus even the same surface is not the same surface. You have different HC speeds and also then you have different humidity, pressure, wind and so on, so different surfaces is just some arbitrary definition it means nothing. Even clay courts aren't the same. Besides it's still tennis, why should a surface matter?
MeatTornado
Talk Tennis Guru
Obviously he would have more. But some of you guys are acting like he'd win as many on grass as Nadal has on clay.
Not only is Rafa simply a better clay courter than Roger is grass court player, grass is much more prone to upsets.
Not only is Rafa simply a better clay courter than Roger is grass court player, grass is much more prone to upsets.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
Why do you hate Bull so much? You seem to be suggesting that, were the Tour Finals played on indoor clay, he would have won them more often than he has done. But that is an absurd suggestion that reveals how much you hate him. Bull has already won every iteration of the Tour Finals ever held, so it is a logical impossibility for him to improve on his record.
Hmm if we take out 3 HC events in this hypothetical. Let’s say Miami, Canada, Paris. That means he’s down 7 so has 21.
3 grass masters? At least 8-9 at Halle. Probably 5-6 minimum at the others as long as they play reasonably fast like Halle, Stuttgart.
Gonna go with 35-40.
More realistic is 1 grass masters in place of a Miami or Paris. In that scenario I’d fancy him to win 7-10 of that events leaving anywhere between 31-37 in that scenario.
3 grass masters? At least 8-9 at Halle. Probably 5-6 minimum at the others as long as they play reasonably fast like Halle, Stuttgart.
Gonna go with 35-40.
More realistic is 1 grass masters in place of a Miami or Paris. In that scenario I’d fancy him to win 7-10 of that events leaving anywhere between 31-37 in that scenario.
EloQuent
Legend
From 2003 through 2007 Roger did not lose on grass. Career wise, Nadal has a better record on clay, but peak wise I don't see a difference.
Deon Sanders
Legend
48 to 50
MeatTornado
Talk Tennis Guru
It's a thread about total titles. Peaks are extremely similar, but Nadal's clay peak inarguably lasted longer than Fed's grass peak. Therefore, Fed would have fewer grass titles.
If they made Halle a masters I think he’d win even more. I can’t see Fed dropping finals to Haas, Hewitt and Coric if there are 1000 points on the line.
Don’t fancy Nole’s chances vs Fed on the slick grass there either.
Realistically, say they made Halle and Queens a masters in place of Miami and Canada. He loses 6 titles. On the Wimbledon style queens grass I can see him winning 5-7 titles alone. Halle probably 8-10. Overall a net gain so I’d put him at 32-36 realistically. Not crazy numbers like 40+.
EloQuent
Legend
Nadal has average of 8 titles per grass tournament. Nadal also doesn't have as clear a peak.
If Fedr goes undefeated for 5 years, then wins 3 spread over a decade, that's 8.
Maybe that's too optimistic - how about winning 2/3 each year, then another 10 spread over the post peak? 20, fewer than Nadal's 24. Happy?
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
He could easily lose to Hewitt or Haas in older age. Only Coric was a real shocker. Not only that, he'd probably play tougher final opponents anyway, or he may have a tougher SF if it was a M1000. Also, I'm 100% confident Djokovic would beat Fed at least a couple times in his older age regardless of the speed of the grass. Djokovic is not being given near enough credit there.
All in all, I think it evens out for the most part. He'd win more, but it's not like he'd run away with the masters record. He'd still be neck and neck with Djokovic and Nadal.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
That also comes down to the fact that there are not as many grass court tournaments as clay court tournaments. Sure his grass dominance in 2003-2007 was impressive but the impressive part were the five Wimbledon in a row. That on top of that he won Halle a 250 with subpar competition is nice but not such a big deal in the grand scheme. Had there been three masters in grass on top I am pretty sure Federer would not go undefeated for these five years. In the end even peak wise it is Nadal in clay > Federer on grass imho.
EloQuent
Legend
It basically comes down to opinion, gut feeling really. But even tho it's "only" 10 tournaments, the 5 year undefeated steak on a surface is unmatched and underrated.
And even if you do think that peak for peak Nadal is better (I think you can argue that Nadal lucked out with weaker competition in later career), if there's 2 grass masters maybe it's not 24 like Rafa on clay, but still 20ish.
I just can’t see Djokovic easily beating Fed on slick grass. If it was Queens grass and slower like Wimbledon then can see him splitting 2014/2015 but on faster slick grass I think the result would be similar to their Shanghai/Cincy meetings.
Overall think you’re right, Fed gains and goes to about 32-34. If you take Cincy away then he probably wins more Canada titles too as the main USO prep so it’s a knock on effect.
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
Not sure but he'd definitely have the record. Probably not a crapton more though. Maybe like 5-6 more than now. I mean those grass Masters would replace HC ones and he's always done fine at those
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
If the grass of these hypothetical masters would be as fast as Halle I cannot see Roger loosing all that much to Djokovic, as he hs simply the better fast court player. Maybe he would loose one or two matches later in his career as upsets can happen in best of three, but even post prime Federer would be my favourite against prime Djokovic on Halle grass. However, if they play on slower grass more like Wimbledon, he would loose most matches against Djokovic at old age. Even in his prime he can be upset a couple of times by Nadal.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Definitely possible but not very likely in my opinion. 20 titles in just two masters would mean ten or more at both of them. He hasn’t even won Halle ten times and conditions are nearly perfect for him (very fast grass almost as in the 90s, little competition, zero competition from other big three). A grass masters which plays slower than Halle and has Nadal and Djokovic in the draw every year would most likely bring him less titles not more. With two grass masters my guess would be something around 15 titles for Roger. With three masters on grass I can see him maybe go to 20.
Point taken.
However Federer has many runner-ups on slow hard court and some are very tight finals. If it was on grass it would tip the balance in his favor.
Also the field are more adept on HC than on grass, and since grass is Federer's specialty, there's a greater gap in skills/abilities on grass than on HC between him vs. the field.
I'm not saying he would have won as much as Nadal on 3 clay MS, but he would have won more than enough to have way higher than 28 as of now.
EloQuent
Legend
Yeah, I meant 20 if there were 3, like OP asked.
CentreCourt
Rookie
I'd imagine, logistically, the best way to do it would be to incorporate one more M1000 into the calendar and to make both Queens and Halle a M1000 event taking place in June, similar to Miami/IW and then push Wimbledon a couple of weeks into mid July. Maybe squeeze the other into February and lose a Clay M1000 later in the year.
How many would he have won, if that was the case? I'd imagine he makes 7 M1000s, on average, from each of them. If it's Monte Carlo that you drop later in the year, his total M1000 wins only increases.
How many would he have won, if that was the case? I'd imagine he makes 7 M1000s, on average, from each of them. If it's Monte Carlo that you drop later in the year, his total M1000 wins only increases.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Sure, he'd have a higher total, but at most 5-6 more probably which means as of now he'd be pretty much even instead of 5 behind. Not really a big deal IMO. All of them are in the same general tier where M1000's are concerned, but I'm probably only saying because I don't care much for the masters if truth be told.
Fed’s not much worse on hard courts, so I don’t think this is some huge handicap. If there were three grass masters, more people would be better on grass since there are more points available. Fed would probably have a few more titles, but his grass record would also look a little less pristine since there’s no way he’d dominate four big grass tourneys the way, say, Nadal dominates clay. He’d have more losses for sure.
Similar threads
