Masters vs. YEC

On average which one is harder to win?

  • Total voters
    43
Lleytonstation

Lleytonstation

Bionic Poster
Similar? Which one is harder to win?

Obviously there are different levels of draw throughout all the masters. But in order for the top guys to win they have to win 5 matches and can't lose.

Meanwhile, YEC you can lose and only win 4 matches and still win the title. But you will be playing better competition.

Rome Masters draw for Djoker on the way to the final:
caruso: 87
krajonivic: 29
koepfer: 97
ruud: 34
Rafa: 2

Average rank: 50

YEC draw for Tsits:
Rafa: 2 (loss)
Med: 4
Zverev: 7
Fed: 3
Thiem: 5

Average rank: 4

Now he lost one match and only won 4, but the caliber of players is much higher.
 
YEC because you’re practically guaranteed to play at least four (five if you don’t get the same guy twice) top eight players.

Although winning it without dropping a match is obviously better than winning it while dropping one.
 
Third Serve said:
YEC because you’re practically guaranteed to play at least four (five if you don’t get the same guy twice) top eight players.

Although winning it without dropping a match is obviously better than winning it while dropping one.
Click to expand...
Is it still better than a master's with one loss? Such as Tsits last year?
 
Nadal’s path to Rome title in 2018:

Dzumhur - Shapovalov - Fognini - Djokovic - Zverev

Much harder to complete than WTF, where you can be absolutely clueless in RR, like Zverev in 2018, and still win.
 
At the YEC you are guaranteed to play 5 of the best 8 players in the world, maybe 1 of them twice. A Masters can contain a draw where you may not have to meet any. This will always make the YEC harder to win hence its greater number of ranking points.
 
Yugram said:
Nadal’s path to Rome title in 2018:

Dzumhur - Shapovalov - Fognini - Djokovic - Zverev

Much harder to complete than WTF, where you can be absolutely clueless in RR, like Zverev in 2018, and still win.
Click to expand...
Or this:

Nadal’s path to Rome 2010:

Kohlschreiber, Hanescu, Wawrinka, Gulbis, Ferrer

Fed’s path to WTF 2010:

Soderling, Murray, Ferrer, Djokovic, Nadal

The WTF features consistently harder draws than Masters, with some exceptions. Surprised you didn’t mention Dimitrov’s meme draw, though.
 
TheNachoMan said:
So it should be easy to win, no?
Click to expand...
Ei36.gif
 
Third Serve said:
Or this:

Nadal’s path to Rome 2010:

Kohlschreiber, Hanescu, Wawrinka, Gulbis, Ferrer

Fed’s path to WTF 2010:

Soderling, Murray, Ferrer, Djokovic, Nadal

The WTF features consistently harder draws than Masters, with some exceptions. Surprised you didn’t mention Dimitrov’s meme draw, though.
Click to expand...

That’s medium to hard draw on clay btw. Nadal couldn’t afford himself a loose match there, Federer otoh could lose to both Soderling and Ferrer and still compete for the title.
 
Lleytonstation said:
You can make this argument at all the masters as well. No grass masters?
Click to expand...

Yes, you can. In theory, WTF! should be the most difficult tournament to win as you are playing against the best 8 players of the season. It however exactly isn't like this in practice as the tournament is held indoors and they don't get much time to practice on the courts. It helps the better indoor players far more just as it would greatly favour Nadal and Thiem if the tournament was held on clay for instance.
 
It’s like in video games. Having 1 life is by default harder and much more challenging than having 2 or 3.
 
Backspin1183 said:
Yes, you can. In theory, WTF! should be the most difficult tournament to win as you are playing against the best 8 players of the season. It however exactly isn't like this in practice as the tournament is held indoors and they don't get much time to practice on the courts. It helps the better indoor players far more just as it would greatly favour Nadal and Thiem if the tournament was held on clay for instance.
Click to expand...
Thiem is better on HC though.
 
Not even a question. M1000's at least have a few warmup rounds, and if you're lucky you can get through without facing any serious threats. At YEC everyone is an elite player and a serious threat.
 
Yugram said:
WTF is easier because you can lose a match or even two matches and still get away with it. A joke format for an individual sport.
Click to expand...
Tell me the last masters/Olympics won by beating 4 or 5 top 8 opponents,( sometimes with 3 top 5 players.)

WTF is a big thing, reading about it's history it was actually considered bigger than AO in early 90s.
 
Yugram said:
That’s medium to hard draw on clay btw. Nadal couldn’t afford himself a loose match there, Federer otoh could lose to both Soderling and Ferrer and still compete for the title.
Click to expand...
Not saying it’s an easy draw, but it should be clear which draw was harder.
 
Lleytonstation said:
Similar? Which one is harder to win?

Obviously there are different levels of draw throughout all the masters. But in order for the top guys to win they have to win 5 matches and can't lose.

Meanwhile, YEC you can lose and only win 4 matches and still win the title. But you will be playing better competition.

Rome Masters draw for Djoker on the way to the final:
caruso: 87
krajonivic: 29
koepfer: 97
ruud: 34
Rafa: 2

Average rank: 50

YEC draw for Tsits:
Rafa: 2 (loss)
Med: 4
Zverev: 7
Fed: 3
Thiem: 5

Average rank: 4

Now he lost one match and only won 4, but the caliber of players is much higher.
Click to expand...

Last two poll options are the same.
 
The WTF is obviously easier for a top player who has no problems to qualify year after year. He "only" has to beat 7 other top players. At a masters he has to beat those same 7 guys as well AND 48 others. You always beat full fields/draws in tennis of course. Of course it’s easier to be the one out of 8 than the one out of 56 if the Top 8 are also included in the Top 56 anyway.

For example someone like Nalbandian would have been a favourite in 2007 after his spectacular wins in Madrid and Paris, but he didn’t qualify. So Federer had it easier to win.

A masters is obviously easier for a mediocre player who must fight the whole year to maybe just reach the WTF once in his career.

All this only counts in theory if there were the same number of masters and WTF tournaments. The 9:1 factor for masters gives a different picture of course. Surfaces also play a role. If someone has indoor hardcourt as his worst surface (like Nadal) it's obviously harder for him to win the WTF than let's say a clay masters. :-D
 
Any tournament in which you can lose a match and then go on to win the event is a lot easier than a tournament in which if you lose then you are out.
 
ForehandCross said:
Tell me the last masters/Olympics won by beating 4 or 5 top 8 opponents,( sometimes with 3 top 5 players.)

WTF is a big thing, reading about it's history it was actually considered bigger than AO in early 90s.
Click to expand...
Anyone saying Masters, please tell me of ANY recent masters where someone won by beating 5 or 4 top 8 players, something that a WTF winner has to do every year.
 
WTF are the hardest tournaments to win between the two.

There is a reason why the pecking order has been Slams > WTF > Masters 1000 > ATP 500 > ATP 250
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Lleytonstation
  • Poll Poll
It is official: Thiem best surface is Hard Court
Replies
42
Views
3K
SonnyT
S
N
  • Poll Poll
Ruud on clay vs Thiem on clay
2 3
Replies
139
Views
6K
MichaelNadal
MichaelNadal
Lleytonstation
Save us Thiem... save us
2 3
Replies
142
Views
10K
Lleytonstation
Lleytonstation
Lleytonstation
  • Poll Poll
The #1: 2 Wins by Late April
2 3
Replies
106
Views
5K
MadariKatu
M
Lleytonstation
Time to move on: Djoker and Rafa are healthy
2
Replies
77
Views
5K
UnderratedSlam
UnderratedSlam
Back
Top