How much importance do you place on winning 250 and 500 tournaments

[McEnroeisanartist]

How much importance in assessing a player's greatness do you place on him winning 250 and 500 level tournaments.

For example: of Federer's 84 tournament wins, 46 (54.76%) of them have come at Grand Slams, Year End, and Tennis Masters Series. Compare that to Nadal, 41 of 65 (63.08%), or Djokovic 33 of 50 (66%).

Nadal will likely overtake Federer in total slams and Novak will likely overtake Federer in total Tennis Masters Series tournaments.

However, Federer with 38 tournaments at 500 and 250 level, will most likely not be eclipsed by Nadal (23) and Djokovic (17).

Does Federer winning all those "mickey mouse" tournaments mean something to his career valuation?

 

[spirit95]

Depends why he's won more. Is it just that he played more?

 

[tennisaddict]

Just majors and WTF count.

Everything else is gravy. No one really thinks Connors is great just because of his 100+ titles.

 

[Mainad]

Just majors and WTF count.

Masters 1000 count as well because the top players are usually present. I rate all tournaments above 500 status as important events.

 

[JanowiczJ]

Just majors and WTF count.

Everything else is gravy. No one really thinks Connors is great just because of his 100+ titles.

Same here.

Edit: Oh. The masters, as well. 1000 and above counts.

 

[tennisaddict]

Masters 1000 count as well because the top players are usually present. I rate all tournaments above 500 status as important events.

Some masters count not all.

Miami, Montreal, Paris and Shanghai are just meh these days.

 

[Djokovic2011]

250 tournaments are the only ones I don't really place much importance on. As well as 500 ones on clay.

 

[NatF]

Depends on the fields, some 250's even had decent fields. In the end all titles are good, though obviously the value goes up. Federer's played a lot of top 10 players so it's not like he vultured.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

250 tournaments are the only ones I don't really place much importance on. As well as 500 ones on clay.

Miami has a pretty good field though.

 

[Mainad]

Some masters count not all.

Miami, Montreal, Paris and Shanghai are just meh these days.

Actually, for me it really depends on the quality of the draw and how many top players are present! Even the odd 250 such as Queens (now a 500 from this year) has had quite impressive draws in the past (and, in fact, already has 5 top tenners signed up for this year). But as a rule, only the Slams, WTF, Masters and Olympics are guaranteed a plurality of top players in their draws.

 

[Mainad]

250 tournaments are the only ones I don't really place much importance on. As well as 500 ones on clay.

I'm sure you made an exception for Queens? :wink:

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

The only 250s that were important were the grass warm-up tournaments, because it was the only chance to find form for the World Championships of tennis. They have been rightly promoted to 500 status.

 

[Djokovic2011]

I'm sure you made an exception for Queens? :wink:

Yes, I do. I didn't even know until a couple of years ago that Queens was a 250 tournament - always just assumed it was a 500.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Yes, I do. I didn't even know until a couple of years ago that Queens was a 250 tournament - always just assumed it was a 500.

Part of the assumption probably came from the fact that it was just about the only warm up event for Wimbledon, with Halle running concurrently.

 

[Mainad]

Yes, I do. I didn't even know until a couple of years ago that Queens was a 250 tournament - always just assumed it was a 500.

Well, as of this year, your assumption will be well founded!

Considering the kind of draws Queens often gets, it's astonishing that it has taken so long for the ATP to promote it!

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Queens just seemed like an obvious one to upgrade.

I wish Federer would play Queens instead of Halle.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Queens just seemed like an obvious one to upgrade.

I wish Federer would play Queens instead of Halle.

I'm hoping Novak plays Queens this year too!

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

I'm hoping Novak plays Queens this year too!

I bet he will, and then we'll have Nadal, Djokovic and Murray at Queens.

Federer should enter Queens, but he has an agreement with Halle.


Honestly I'd prefer Queens to be upgraded to a 1000 event and the problem would be more or less solved, but I guess they simply lack the infrastructure.


Just add a Masters event to the schedule and make it 10.

 

[Mainad]

Queens just seemed like an obvious one to upgrade.

I wish Federer would play Queens instead of Halle.

Alas, Federer has signed a lifetime contract to play at Halle. They rely on him. They've even named a street after him!

Unlike Nadal, Halle has been good for Federer and he has completed the double with Wimbledon several times. Maybe he thinks it's a bit too late to mess with a winning formula? After all, look what happened to Rafa? :wink:

 

[Deleted member 688153]

For me, I rate Slams, WTF, and (yeah that's right I'm going to say it) Olympics.

Masters are nice, but as tennisaddict said, gravy.

I rate Dubai as a MS, and the other 500s/250s are also nice for someone with plenty of slam achievements, but unnecessary.

Also this certainly does not affect Fed's career.

All it shows is that the others have less titles, Fed still has the most slams.

 

[tennisaddict]

Actually, for me it really depends on the quality of the draw and how many top players are present! Even the odd 250 such as Queens (now a 500 from this year) has had quite impressive draws in the past (and, in fact, already has 5 top tenners signed up for this year). But as a rule, only the Slams, WTF, Masters and Olympics are guaranteed a plurality of top players in their draws.

Many Top players do play the masters but one needs to see what level they bring in.

Players focus on IW but tired by the time they reach the final stages of Miami.

MC, Madrid,Rome and FO all happen in a hurry and you see typically MC and Madrid are where players dont give it their all.

Right after FO and Wimbledon players need a break and Canadian open is more a practice ground for Cinci/USO.

All post USO masters are a blur with top 10-30 players carrying injury. It is only those who have a proper playing style that are able to take the grind the whole year.

IW, Cinci, Rome are the true highlights.

 

[Gary Duane]

If you're going to rate tournaments, it makes sense to rate them by who is in tournaments.

We had the top players in IW, so that's a strong 1000. But Dubai was almost as tough. It was shorter, but otherwise it felt to me more like a 1000.

Miami will not feel like a true 1000 to me because #2 in the world will not be there.

A slam does not feel the same to me if a couple of the top seeds get knocked out early. Something like that 2014 USO is different, because the finalists took out top seeds. That's no empty victory.

But to me to rate all 250s and all 500s equally does not make sense.

 

[Strobe Lights]

It really depends on the field.

It is not always as simple as the ranking points.

Federer's Basel 250 titles have fields comparable to and at times superior to Nadal's Barcelona 500 titles.

Nadal's own 2008 Queens 250 is probably more impressive than those Barca titles.

Nadal's Olympic Gold may have only got him 800 points but it adds far more to his legacy than any individual Masters.

Dubai 500 has been treated just as if not more seriously over the years by top players than the Paris-Bercy Masters.

As a simple example, look at the past two ATP 500 Series events that run concurrently one month ago.

The seeds for Acapulco held world rankings of 5, 9, 10, 15, 24, 29, 33 and 40.

The seeds for Dubai held world rankings of 1, 2, 4, 8, 13, 14, 16 and 20.

Should we hold these tournaments to the same standard? Of course not.

 

[Pcdozer413]

Extremely UNPROFESSIONAL to count out any tournament's significance. Just look at these guys...you can see them playing their best even at the ATP250 and ATP500 events. They're so disciplined! Let's not depreciate achievements like they aren't worth a dime...Nadal's written in his book that if he's signed up for a tournament (even Bangkok) he's bound to show his finest game no matter what. Murray on the other hand said he really wanted/needed to improve his consistency outside the slams (after Giraldo loss in Madrid). Evidently all tournaments you play matter. A loss is a loss! It doesn't matter where/at what level, the sole fact that you've been outplayed by someone hurts.