"...maybe even tougher than a Grand Slam." - R.Federer
- Thread starter -NN-
- Start date
-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
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.
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.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
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.
"a" Grand Slam, not "the"
although he should've said "a Grand Slam tournament" to be precise.
SpinToWin
Talk Tennis Guru
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.
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
Ah, figures hahaHe 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.
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.
DreddyTennis45
Hall of Fame
He did not say those exact words
. You should add a C in front of your username because this is #FakeNews
Last edited:
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
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
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?
Also, why didn't you tag the thread? You can still edit that, yeah?
vive le beau jeu !
Talk Tennis Guru
'roger'... the same guy who said "please don't go rafa"
me thinks he's trolling us...
me thinks he's trolling us...
Last edited:
I must have been responding to another post and replied to yours by mistake. Sorry.
HipRotation
Hall of Fame
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.
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
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.
SpinToWin
Talk Tennis Guru
Ah ok, makes sense
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
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:
Tennis_Hands
Banned
There you have it.
The proof that everything the pros say should be taken at face value.
duaneeo
Legend
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.
Z
Zara
Guest
I feel too lazy to watch a Federer video. Would you like to explain it to me?
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.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Fed also said he played his best ever tennis at nearly 35 years old.
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
I've started to really like Roger's personality lately.
Gotta say he looks quite old though (facially)
Meles
Bionic Poster
#VeryFakeNewsHe did not say those exact words
Mainad
Bionic Poster
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!
Bukmeikara
Legend
Murray and Fed keep saying that Masters are as hard as Slams a lot of times but forum experts keep saying otherwise ...
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.
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
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.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
I guess you aren't that into sales...
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
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.
Similar threads
