"...maybe even tougher than a Grand Slam." - R.Federer

-NN-

G.O.A.T.
I think on the surface perhaps it does look a crap point, but doesn't Federer have a point? I wonder if we undervalue the Masters 1000 events. I mean, given how Slam obsessed everybody is, it's like the Masters 1000s are becoming glorified exhos, but they are serious events. Just wish they had Bo5 finals. They are really hard events to win in terms of them being more or less Full Field events just as the Slams are.
 

Red Rick

Bionic Poster
I think on the surface perhaps it does look a crap point, but doesn't Federer have a point? I wonder if we undervalue the Masters 1000 events. I mean, given how Slam obsessed everybody is, it's like the Masters 1000s are becoming glorified exhos, but they are serious events. Just wish they had Bo5 finals. They are really hard events to win in terms of them being more or less Full Field events just as the Slams are.
How hard it is doesn't matter, prestige matters. And the fact that he says it at IW, where you have rest days, makes it complete crap
 

-NN-

G.O.A.T.
How hard it is doesn't matter, prestige matters. And the fact that he says it at IW, where you have rest days, makes it complete crap
Naturally I agree, there's more to an event than the size of the draw and how hard it is on paper. Slams have an edge in format (bo5) and inherent prestige (ITF Majors). About his specific IW comment, it might be related to the specific draw he was handed? He might be thinking of his current task ahead in isolation.
 
It's obviously concerning this draw of death.
"a" Grand Slam, not "the" ;) although he should've said "a Grand Slam tournament" to be precise.
 

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
Naturally I agree, there's more to an event than the size of the draw and how hard it is on paper. Slams have an edge in format (bo5) and inherent prestige (ITF Majors). About his specific IW comment, it might be related to the specific draw he was handed? He might be thinking of his current task ahead in isolation.
That and are you sure he meant THE Grand Slam and that he didn't accidentally refer to a slam as A Grand Slam? (Can't watch the video atm)
 

-NN-

G.O.A.T.
That and are you sure he meant THE Grand Slam and that he didn't accidentally refer to a slam as A Grand Slam? (Can't watch the video atm)
He meant one Grand Slam tournament. Come on, man. I know my trolling is sometimes subtle but yeeesh. ;)

I'll forgive because you haven't watched the vid.
 

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
He meant one Grand Slam tournament. Come on, man. I know my trolling is sometimes subtle but yeeesh. ;)

I'll forgive because you haven't watched the vid.
Ah, figures haha

Well depending on the draw, he has a point.

Certain slem winning runs *ahem* have been particularly void of top players, whereas some masters runs have been immensely tough (quoting the age old Nalby now).
 

killerboi2

Hall of Fame
Lmao did Federer really say that winning M1000's were harder than winning slams? Nah I can't believe that. Murray is living proof that this is nonsense.
 

thrust

Hall of Fame

Federer says that winning a Masters 1000 might be harder than winning all four Majors in one year.
Roger is comparing IW and other Masters 1000 to a slam. Officially Wimbledon, USO, FO and AO are slams but referred to, incorrectly, as a grand slam. Winning a Masters 1000 cannot be compared to winning the 4 slams in a calendar year, which would be a Grand Slam
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
Ah, figures haha

Well depending on the draw, he has a point.

Certain slem winning runs *ahem* have been particularly void of top players, whereas some masters runs have been immensely tough (quoting the age old Nalby now).
IW and Miami are different from the other Masters in that they are played over a 10 day period, so there is a day off between most matches. In the other Masters, there are no days off between matches because they are played in a 6 or 7 day period of time.
 

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
IW and Miami are different from the other Masters in that they are played over a 10 day period, so there is a day off between most matches. In the other Masters, there are no days off between matches because they are played in a 6 or 7 day period of time.
.... So?

How is this at all relevant to the points I made?
 

Tennisanity

Legend
He's only saying that because he's at a M1000 now. It's like at IW it's the best M1000, then a few months later in Cincinnati, it becomes the best, and so on. It's like every damn famous person praises the other, ad infinitum.
 
D

Deleted member 743561

Guest
You're saying if he wins this thing, suddenly RG '17 looms as #23?

Also, why didn't you tag the thread? You can still edit that, yeah?
 

Nadalgaenger

G.O.A.T.
Naturally I agree, there's more to an event than the size of the draw and how hard it is on paper. Slams have an edge in format (bo5) and inherent prestige (ITF Majors). About his specific IW comment, it might be related to the specific draw he was handed? He might be thinking of his current task ahead in isolation.
I've always felt that IF all the top players are present, it is definitely harder for a top player to win a Masters.
4reasons:
1.Field less diluted. First three opponents often a cakewalk at slam unless we are talking about Nadal at Wimbledon.
2. Less rest and more fatigue
3. Less prestige than a slam, problems getting motivated
4. Best of 3 format means it is easier to get knocked out by a random opponent having a good day

For me, this makes Djokovic's dominance at Masters all the more impressive. Even if he only had 8 GS he'd be an ATG in my book for his amazing run at Masters.
 

Nadalgaenger

G.O.A.T.
There might be some truth in it, look at del Potro and Wawrinka. Murray obviously has a mental block when it comes to slams considering the amount of finals he's made.
In fairness to Murray, he is 1-0 in Slam finals against non ATGs. Guy had hardest path imaginable, contending with three of the five greatest open era players in every slam final but one.
 
Last edited:

duaneeo

Legend
1.Field less diluted. First three opponents often a cakewalk at slam unless we are talking about Nadal at Wimbledon.
The top players get a bye at the Masters, and like at the slams, how difficult the first 3 opponents are depends on the draw.

And else you said about the Masters can be said about the 500 and 250 tournaments..less rest/more fatigue, problems getting motivated, BO3 format.
 

NGM

Hall of Fame

Federer says that winning a Masters 1000 might be harder than winning all four Majors in one year.
Yeah it's the same man who said that he played his best tennis ever in 2015 when he was 33 years old.

You should collect his quotes. Some of them are really fun.
 

NGM

Hall of Fame
Is Nadal ready to die to win Indian Wells? Or will Federer accept to risk his health for the next 6 months to win this harder than GS tournament? No they won't. Because they invest much less so the difficulty is limited.

It's not worth for.
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest

Federer says that winning a Masters 1000 might be harder than winning all four Majors in one year.
I've started to really like Roger's personality lately.

Gotta say he looks quite old though (facially)
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Federer says that winning a Masters 1000 might be harder than winning all four Majors in one year.
Sampras once said something similar.

These guys know a thing or two about what it takes to win these events because they are the ones who had to play them. Something that some of the more sniffier "Only the Slams matter' brigade might learn to appreciate more!
 

BVSlam

Professional
It isn't that crazy a statement in the sense that, the fields are often as deep as in a slam, many players are much better in a BO3 format and can get hot with far fewer chokes and you can't come back anymore after losing two sets. However, there are of course nine chances each year to win a Masters 1000 compared to four slams. And winning a slam is easily much more difficult for lower ranked players because they are not as good at keeping up a high enough level for seven BO5 matches compared to the top players.

Then again, considering the amount of Masters 1000 tournaments and the general variety of winners...it really isn't greatly better. It's still always the top guys that win them, aside from a few exceptions.

Nevertheless, even though they are the ones with experience, I can't really agree with it. In a slam you need to win more matches and more sets than in a Masters in the end, and mentally it should be tougher knowing how few chances you get each year. Anyway, all I know is, the chances of me winning either are exactly the same. :)
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Sampras once said something similar.

These guys know a thing or two about what it takes to win these events because they are the ones who had to play them. Something that some of the more sniffier "Only the Slams matter' brigade might learn to appreciate more!
Makes little sense given they are best of 3 sets. The best of five set final(s) is probably what Sampras is referring to, and the fact you can meet very different players in Masters than in Grand Slam matches.

Best of five finals was eliminated in 2007 so it's a moot point. Fed is just building up today, much like he did when he realized it was weak in 2015 -- so he used himself as a stalemate.
 

Nadalgaenger

G.O.A.T.
The top players get a bye at the Masters, and like at the slams, how difficult the first 3 opponents are depends on the draw.

And else you said about the Masters can be said about the 500 and 250 tournaments..less rest/more fatigue, problems getting motivated, BO3 format.
Obvious difference in those small tournaments is that it is very rare to see a stacked field. Sometimes you'll have Fed and Djokovic at Basel but not many other top players.
 

smoledman

G.O.A.T.
Considering Nole is the MS-1000 GOAT and Fed is #3 in that count he has a point. For Fed, winning MS-1000 is much harder than GS.
 
Top