Of players who came through to the top since 2000 - Federer, Nadal and Djokovic - are all in the 20's in their Masters 1000 totals, with still time to go to add to their totals. Lendl at 22 total was the only player of the earlier era to get into the 20's. But is the way of counting fair to Lendl and the older players? And are current players unfairly advantaged when compared to earlier players. After all most of the current players do the full complement of the 9 Masters 1000's a year, compared to Lendl, in the non-compulsory era, who only competed in 2 of the 9 in 1990. I have totalled, showing Prize Money and points, non-Masters 1000 tournaments of the 1990's that are at a similar level to the official masters 1000's. Take a look if you are interested:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=516777
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=516777
