Nalbandian has got "CUP without Masters".

Aykhan Mammadov

Hall of Fame
Unfortunately, my thread " Are u happy that Nalbandian won" was deleted by TW by advice of Marius Hancu. From here, from Baku really sometimes hard to keep in mind - have people in America watched the match already or not, so sometimes when I see some posters already are speaking about results of a match I forget also to add "Spoiler".

So my apologies to everyone for whom I created any inconvenience.

Anyhow I want to repeat that thread here.

Many people are happy that Fed lost. But are u happy that just Nalbandian won Masters Cup? I'm not. I don't like sudden results. Say I can accept when Nadal beats Fed, because it is happening and Nadal proved his consistency in many matches. But when Gasquet won Fed I didn't find it as a rule, it was sudden day only as his further results showed.

IMO Nalbandian didn't deserve to get Cup of Masters as year-long result, as his exhibition during season and especially in absense of Nadal, Agassi, Roddick, Hewitt.

Below is the list of people who won Masters Cup in the open era:

Corretja
Agassi
Borg
Becker
Vilas
Kuerten
Nastase
Lendl
Connors
McEnroe
Hewitt
Orantes
Stich
Sampras
Federer
Edberg.

Recordsmen are Lendl and Sampras - 5 times both, but only Lendl won MC 3 times consequitively.

The list at a glance showes that only Corretja is somebody sudden here ( in 1998) because every player in the list won somewhen at least 1 time Grand Slam tournament, but Corretja- not. Now Nalbandian joined to Corretja , but if Corretja won in 1997 and 2000 two Masters series tournaments then Nalbandian didn't win even one Masters.

I find this fact ashaming for ATP. It means something wrong with method of the calculation of rankings, schedules and etc.. that there are so many injuries and etc...

If I could make decision in ATP I wouldn't let players who never win at least one Masters Series tournament to participate in the MC. Because theoretically if 8 players who deserved these 8 places during whole season are tired to the end of the season, then somebody 15-th who is comparatively fresh may win MC. Again it'd not be problem if it were ordinary Masters, but this is Cup of Masters.

I call it to get "cap without head", the same "Cup of Masters without Masters".

Who shares ?
 

Matthew

Professional
Well there is no denying that it would have been a more difficult tournament for Nalbandian to win had Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, etc. been there. However, he played great, and thats all that really matters. The fact that he beat Federer also balances out the weight there.

Nalbandian is a top 10 player who was injured last year and has struggled a bit to regain form. He is someone who should always be in the run for the Masters Cup tournament at the end of year, and even a threat at the tournament. I know the idea behind the TMC is that the player who wins is capping off a great year, but it just so happened that a lot of people withdrew, and now a player who wasn't in the top 10 and wasn't have a great year has a chance to win a big tournament, and he did just that. Soo good for him, he played fantastic and derserved the win.
 

NalboRulz

New User
Aykhan Mammadov said:
But are u happy that just Nalbandian won Masters Cup? I'm not. I don't like sudden results... IMO Nalbandian didn't deserve to get Cup of Masters as year-long result... Who shares ?
Not me for sure!

With all due respect, it doesn't matter if you like or dislike sudden results. Matches are played to see who wins and to give lower ranked players the chance to beat the tops and thus improve their ranking. Otherwise there wouldn't be tournaments at all: The top guy would simply show up and collect the prize.

The Masters is supposed to be a "final shootout" between the best year-long players: it is not Nalbo's fault if four guys decided not to show up. And in any case, he beat the very best of them all, so those excuses make no sense. (I can imagine if Nalbo had beaten Roddick instead, the chorus would be chanting "Duh, that's just because Fed didn't play").

And what do you call "year-long result"? The year's #1 is still Federer. This is just one tournament, and why is that Nalbo didn't deserve to win it? Was he favored by the ump calls? (clearly not) Did he get any walkover?

Get your facts straight, buddy.
 

Kevin Patrick

Hall of Fame
Majors are all that matters. Corretja's masters cup isn't remembered. If he won the French, it would be remembered.

The 2005 Masters Cup had the lowest ranked field in event history. And Nalbandian is the lowest ranked player to ever win that event.
 

callitout

Professional
Well it would be a really exciting Masters cup if you restricted it to the guys who won either slams or masters titles. So this year you'dve had Berdych, Safin, Nadal, and Federer. But since 2 were injured you wouldve seen a fabulous week long event in which Berdych and Fed played every day. I can just imagine the excitement. Maybe the requirement should be more stringent: only the #1 player can compete in the Masters cup. You would get to see Federer stretching, warming up against himself of course, and then trying to play--but ultimately realizing that tennis requires an opponent other than oneself--and hence defaulting.

I think its pretty good to have a few guys in the tournament not just the best player.
 

tennis555

New User
why do you not like that Nalbandian upset Federer is it because Nalbandian
is origanally Armenian? -Aykhan Mammadov
 

Aykhan Mammadov

Hall of Fame
callitout said:
Well it would be a really exciting Masters cup if you restricted it to the guys who won either slams or masters titles. So this year you'dve had Berdych, Safin, Nadal, and Federer. But since 2 were injured you wouldve seen a fabulous week long event in which Berdych and Fed played every day. I can just imagine the excitement. Maybe the requirement should be more stringent: only the #1 player can compete in the Masters cup. You would get to see Federer stretching, warming up against himself of course, and then trying to play--but ultimately realizing that tennis requires an opponent other than oneself--and hence defaulting.

I think its pretty good to have a few guys in the tournament not just the best player.
callitout, I didn't mean winners of Masters only in the year 2005, I mean whenever. If u are among 8 and whenever won Masters - please come, if somebody is injuried next 9-th, 10-th and etc.. are examined if they won Masters in their career. If u are among 8 and didn't win Masters in yr life - sorry we can't accept u - this is championship for winners of Masters.
 

Aykhan Mammadov

Hall of Fame
tennis555 said:
why do you not like that Nalbandian upset Federer is it because Nalbandian
is origanally Armenian? -Aykhan Mammadov
Not at all. His victory was very unexpected, he didn't deserve if u look at his previous results. The man never won Masters series tournament in his life, and I'm as a fan of tennis is not ready to such surprises and don't really like them. If somebody shows consistency - OK. If somebody has lucky day and at that day he wins Federer ( as Gasquet before) I'm really upset. Let it be consistent result , let it be rivalry for years - then OK, I'll accept.

Agassi has also Armenian origin ( 50%) but I like his mastership.
 

gonzalocatalino

Hall of Fame
Aykhan Mammadov said:
Many people are happy that Fed lost. But are u happy that just Nalbandian won Masters Cup? I'm not. I don't like sudden results.
Ok. I made a call to the atp authorities and TMC promotors: I tell them that you´re sad for the result of the masters, but sorry, they can´t replay the tourney to make you happy, is very difficult reorganize that kind of event.
 
Aykhan Mammadov said:
IMO Nalbandian didn't deserve to get Cup of Masters as year-long result, as his exhibition during season and especially in absense of Nadal, Agassi, Roddick, Hewitt.
He beat Federer!! Of course he deserves it.
 

Matias

New User
Aykhan Mammadov said:
His victory was very unexpected, he didn't deserve if u look at his previous results.
oh my god, if someone would win tournaments based on previuos results, no one would win anything ever!!! You would neved diserve to win a tournament for the first time because you neved did it before... anybody else see something wrong here?

See this as a "brake-trough" win for nalbandian. Or at least, that's what i hope for him.

Aykhan Mammadov said:
The man never won Masters series tournament in his life, and I'm as a fan of tennis is not ready to such surprises and don't really like them.
If next year nalbandian wins a slam and/or a tms, what would you think? He's still young you know...

Aykhan Mammadov said:
If somebody shows consistency - OK. If somebody has lucky day and at that day he wins Federer ( as Gasquet before) I'm really upset. Let it be consistent result , let it be rivalry for years - then OK, I'll accept.
I think gasquet proved himself after that victory, he had very good results and climbed to the top15 before an injury tooked him out.

I don't agree with you at all. I mean, i can understand that you like to see the favorites in the finals, but from that to say that the champion didn't diserve to win... c'mon..
 
O

ondray

Guest
This guy's logic is totally flawed. Maybe he's just from another dimension.
 

Chadwixx

Banned
Lets not forget he also beat Lube. Its not like he worked his way through the other group. Coria is also a big match for him due to their feelings towards each other.

Its not like agassi, roddick or nadal could have beaten him, so who is left that you would consider a master? Safin played well at the begining of the year, but even before his injury he was playing bad.

Hewitt was the only strong player that didnt make the trip.
 

gugafanatic

Hall of Fame
Aykhan nice title but you cannot take away credit where it is due. Nalbandians achievement particularly stands-out as he is an exception to most Argentine players who can only play well on clay courts. He has reached a Wimbledon final and a Masters Cup winner on 'foreign' surfaces. The guy is a quality player.
 

bb47

Rookie
It was a great match, Nalby won deservedly ( and I don't even mean those two points that line judges robbed him of in the 1st and 2nd tie-break) overall it's good for today's tennis.
 
I think you guys are misinterpretting Aykhan because of his wording. I don't think he has anything against Nalbandian per se. He's just saying that winning a Master's Cup event should be a prerequisite for being in this tournament. In golf, if you allowed someone to play in the Masters that hadn't won a tournament all year, you'd hear lots of crying too, regardless of what his ranking was.
 

janipyt05

Professional
i can understand wat the poster is saying the result is kinda random but it doesn't mean D.N doesn't deserve it i mean so others dropped out he took his chances and he won plain and simple. As far as results D.N has a winning record over feds. I dont think its an unexpected vicotry if u are a tennis fan u would know D.N is a great player and well his taken that step that most of us know he could take, he had to take it some time what better time than the end of year champs beating the world number 1.
 

VamosRafa

Hall of Fame
Also, this event was made up of highly ranked players. It's not as if No. 50 somehow made his way in there. And David had the toughest draw, with Federer and Ljubicic in his side of the draw.

Assuming he was able to get into the draw (he just made it in because Roddick pulled out), I think he would have had a good chance against any of the higher ranked players. As Ljubicic said, this is David's best surface, and David took it to Ivan (arguably the hottest player coming into th event) in the match they played.

I think the biggest effect of this win, though, is that it will give David confidence in other big matches he plays. He's been a bit of an underachiever until now, and this may change.
 

opiate

Semi-Pro
VamosRafa said:
Also, this event was made up of highly ranked players. It's not as if No. 50 somehow made his way in there. And David had the toughest draw, with Federer and Ljubicic in his side of the draw.

Assuming he was able to get into the draw (he just made it in because Roddick pulled out), I think he would have had a good chance against any of the higher ranked players. As Ljubicic said, this is David's best surface, and David took it to Ivan (arguably the hottest player coming into th event) in the match they played.

I think the biggest effect of this win, though, is that it will give David confidence in other big matches he plays. He's been a bit of an underachiever until now, and this may change.
:D

True. Maybe his achievements can change for the better, along Federer's storyline, after winning Wimby 03, I think. That he can overcome this overachiever's-complex and realise that he really can win. Good boost to the confidence, I think.

What's for sure though, is that the expectations placed upon him will definitely change. He said himself that with this win, he is ready to be counted along with the current top players. That sure as anything puts a lot of expectations on him: he's expected to win big, win more often, and prove that this win isn't just a fluke. It's not even a one-slam wonder, if he doesn't. It'll be a one cup wonder (no pun intended to the fairer gender so to speak).

Let there be light, I say.

(hmmm... what was I on?)
 
L

laurie

Guest
An incredible ending. Think about it. First Amelie Mauresmo, now David Nalbandian...Two underacheivers making a big breakthrough. Two very talented players.

I think of Nalbandian as a male version of Hingis. Very strategic player. Sets points up brilliantly. Plays tennis like chess, is always one move ahead in the mind. He's one of my favourite players.

Amelie, an updated version of Jana Novotna. Athletic, excellent volleyer, solid technique, stylish player. My favourite female player

Both have overcome mental frailties by coming from behind to win in a big final.

What price either of them bagging their first (long awaited) slam in 2006?

Interpretation or misinterpretation, I often wonder what Aykhan looks for in tennis. Everyone is different. I do have a problem with people who belittle hard work and achievements. Unfortunately there are a few on this board who do just that on a very regular basis.
 
Aykhan Mammadov said:
callitout, I didn't mean winners of Masters only in the year 2005, I mean whenever. If u are among 8 and whenever won Masters - please come, if somebody is injuried next 9-th, 10-th and etc.. are examined if they won Masters in their career. If u are among 8 and didn't win Masters in yr life - sorry we can't accept u - this is championship for winners of Masters.
Hmm that would have disqualified Federer from TMC 2003 wouldnt it?
Or perhaps he did win a Masters Shield before that..
 

callitout

Professional
Steve Huff said:
I think you guys are misinterpretting Aykhan because of his wording. I don't think he has anything against Nalbandian per se. He's just saying that winning a Master's Cup event should be a prerequisite for being in this tournament. In golf, if you allowed someone to play in the Masters that hadn't won a tournament all year, you'd hear lots of crying too, regardless of what his ranking was.
I dont get it. I posted earlier. If winning a Masters Cup or Slam were a prerequisite, this year 4 guys would qualify. Two are injured. Do you just keep going back and put in 6 guys who had good years in 04 but didnt finish top 8 in 05. Not sure why people would find it better to see this years #15 player who won a Masters cup in 04 play Federer, than to see Ljubicic play Federer.
If you went back one year to fill the empty positions this year you would've added Moya if you went back two years you'd add Ferrerro and Henman. These guys were great players at their peak, but I'd much rather watch guys playing well now like Ljubicic, than guys who used to be amazing.
 

opiate

Semi-Pro
callitout said:
I dont get it. I posted earlier. If winning a Masters Cup or Slam were a prerequisite, this year 4 guys would qualify. Two are injured. Do you just keep going back and put in 6 guys who had good years in 04 but didnt finish top 8 in 05. Not sure why people would find it better to see this years #15 player who won a Masters cup in 04 play Federer, than to see Ljubicic play Federer.
If you went back one year to fill the empty positions this year you would've added Moya if you went back two years you'd add Ferrerro and Henman. These guys were great players at their peak, but I'd much rather watch guys playing well now like Ljubicic, than guys who used to be amazing.

I think what Aykhan meant wasn't a the Cup, but one of the 9 MS tourneys up for grabs in a year (e.g. Paris, Rome, etc). I think so. I don't know. But I'm guessing that's what he meant.

Problem arrives when, like this year, only 3 people won 9 (you know who). If Fed and Nadal did attend Paris, there's a huge possibility that we would only have two contenders for the Cup. Oh and Safin (for the AO). That will be a three way tussle.

I don't know whether that'd be a good thing or a bad thing.
 

NalboRulz

New User
laurie said:
Interpretation or misinterpretation, I often wonder what Aykhan looks for in tennis. Everyone is different. I do have a problem with people who belittle hard work and achievements. Unfortunately there are a few on this board who do just that on a very regular basis.
At first I thought Aykhan did not really mean what he said, but instead his ideas were somehow distorted because of the language barrier. But after he repeated them over and over again, I have to conclude he's plain incoherent. Sorry. Maybe the racial theory (Nalbandian=Armenian) is not so wrong.
 

Aykhan Mammadov

Hall of Fame
Guys, either u really didn't understand me or u don't want.

I DON'T STATE THAT Nalbandian didn't deserve his victory during this Masters Cup tournament, yes he faced Ljubicic, yes he beat Fed.

I ask another question: where was he during 9 Masters series tournaments in 2005, during another 9 Masters in 2004, during another 9 in 2003 and etc...

Isn't it strange that the man couldn't win in all listed 27 Masters during say 3 years ( or 36 during 4 years and etc...) and suddenly just he won this CUP. Doesn't it seem to u that there is something wrong with schedules, rankings and etc.. in ATP. Real players are tired, many injuried and etc.. and both victories of Nalbandian and Mauresmo don't reflect real situation, their real place among others during last 2-3 years.

Yes if he did won some Masters I'd not have anything against. But this is Masters "CUP", unofficially it is world championship. And IMO people who never won Masters must not be allowed to this tournament.

Some of u tell that before first victory everyone has won nothing. OK, I agree. But if u didn't pass through challengers, qualifications and etc.. u are not allowed to Grand Slam. My opinion is that without winning Masters ( and not necessarily in the same year) players must not be allowed to MC regardless of rankings.
 
L

laurie

Guest
Aykhan Mammadov said:
Guys, either u really didn't understand me or u don't want.

I DON'T STATE THAT Nalbandian didn't deserve his victory during this Masters Cup tournament, yes he faced Ljubicic, yes he beat Fed.

I ask another question: where was he during 9 Masters series tournaments in 2005, during another 9 Masters in 2004, during another 9 in 2003 and etc...

Isn't it strange that the man couldn't win in all listed 27 Masters during say 3 years ( or 36 during 4 years and etc...) and suddenly just he won this CUP. Doesn't it seem to u that there is something wrong with schedules, rankings and etc.. in ATP. Real players are tired, many injuried and etc.. and both victories of Nalbandian and Mauresmo don't reflect real situation, their real place among others during last 2-3 years.

Yes if he did won some Masters I'd not have anything against. But this is Masters "CUP", unofficially it is world championship. And IMO people who never won Masters must not be allowed to this tournament.

Some of u tell that before first victory everyone has won nothing. OK, I agree. But if u didn't pass through challengers, qualifications and etc.. u are not allowed to Grand Slam. My opinion is that without winning Masters ( and not necessarily in the same year) players must not be allowed to MC regardless of rankings.
So what? You are getting worked up for absolutely nothing. Rafter won the US Open in 1997. That was only his second title as a pro after 6 years on the tour. There does not have to be a natural progression to win trophies.
 

Hops

Rookie
Steve Huff said:
He's just saying that winning a Master's Cup event should be a prerequisite for being in this tournament. In golf, if you allowed someone to play in the Masters that hadn't won a tournament all year, you'd hear lots of crying too, regardless of what his ranking was.

actually the Masters has the weakest field of all the golf majors because they grandfather in previous winners (e.g. Palmer/Nicklaus) who have absolutely no shot at winning. And it is not a prereq to win a tournament to gain entry, there are many other ways to qualify.
 

callitout

Professional
As Laurie said Sampras at 19 won USO, Guga won FO while staying in a pensione as an unranked player, and Gaudio too was unheralded. If you really stunk you wouldnt just sneak through and win.
Nalbandian made quarters of 3/4 majors this year, he's not the best player on the planet, but he's not a scrub either. I guess you'd come closer to your ideal just having the top 2 guys play a match or something else. But Im not sensing a whole lot of support for your theory that something terrible has happened. Sure, the years best player didnt win the final event of the year. Ok, so what. It is a year end championship, but as has been well chronicled, virtually all of the top players were injured. Hardly a surprise, given the injuries, that none of the top 5 won.

Additionally, the TMS Cup produced at least 2 really good matches: Fed-Nalbandian and Fed-Ljubicic.
 

Kevin Patrick

Hall of Fame
Aykhan,
you should look at the list of masters series over the years & the lists of players that qualify for Masters Cup. They don't always fit your theory. Guys like Albert Portas have won masters series & guys like Kafelnikov who never won a masters series. Who deserves to be there more? Who is the better player?

This year is very unusual with Fed & Nadal winning 8 of 9 masters series. There have been many low ranked journeyman type (Chris Woodruff?) winners of those events over years.

And I think you may be too caught up in the fact that the event is called the Masters Cup. That name only started in 2000. From 1990 to 1999 it was called the ATP World Championship. The event is promoted as the 8 best players in the world. Just cause you have masters series & masters cup doesn't mean there is any sort of correlation between the events.
 

Aykhan Mammadov

Hall of Fame
laurie said:
So what? You are getting worked up for absolutely nothing. Rafter won the US Open in 1997. That was only his second title as a pro after 6 years on the tour. There does not have to be a natural progression to win trophies.
laurie, Yes u are right, but u miss one very important thing. GS tournaments are called otherwise Open tournaments, US Open, French Open and etc... To win there having nothing in yr portfolio is regarded good because u are in open huge draw of 128.

Masters Cup unofficially called World championship and it is absolutely "closed" tournament only for 8. Laurie, compare 8 and 128 !!!

IMO in the first order winners of masters 2005 must be included in the list of 8 what means Berdych, Fed and Nadal. Then other contenders are being examined by rankings and those who never won Masters must be excluded. If I'd director in ATP the list would be:

1.Fed
2.Nadal
3.Berdych

then

4. Roddick ( rank 3 and winner of 3 Masters - admitted)
5. Hewitt ( rank 4 and winner of 2 Masters)

Davydenko is exculed ( rank 5 but never won masters)

6. Agassi ( rank 6 and winner of 17 Masters)
7. Coria ( rank 7 and winner of 2 Masters)

then Ljubicic is exculed ( rank 8 but never won Masters)

8. Gaudio ( rank 9 , won tournament higher category than Masters - FO - so admitted)

and .... in the case of withdrawals... similar approach because it is closed tournament for CUP of Masters, for those who have something already in portfolio.

Laurie, as I remember BTW u were from UK. Why don't u indicate this anymore ?
 
I'm not defending Aykhan in his position. I still give him the benefit of the doubt that he was being misinterpretted, and the comments seemed to reflect that. Even with my interpretation, I disagree with his reasoning, although I understand it. If, as you say. (Aykhan) the schedules were so grueling for the guys that had good results that they allowed a "fresher" Nalbandian to win, then you could make the same agruement for Sampras in the last years of his career. He rarely played tournaments other than the slams. So, would you say that he didn't deserve his last few slams because he did not play a complete schedule, and was therefore fresher when it came to the grand slam tournaments?
 
S

ser_dc

Guest
u certainly don't have a point buddy...
The rules are clear: Best 8 in champions race will play, if there's some withdraws due injuries next qualified alternates will play: Gaudio, Nalbandián, Puerta, Gonzalez, Thomas Johansson, David Ferrer. You don't write the rules, nobody here does, these rules are equal to every player playing ATP.
Nalbandian cleary deserved to win and he was the best of 8 QUALIFIED masters, even the very Roger Federer was outplayed by David, while everybody know Federer Express didn't loose a final on fast surface since May 2002 (Against Agassi).



Aykhan Mammadov said:
laurie, Yes u are right, but u miss one very important thing. GS tournaments are called otherwise Open tournaments, US Open, French Open and etc... To win there having nothing in yr portfolio is regarded good because u are in open huge draw of 128.

Masters Cup unofficially called World championship and it is absolutely "closed" tournament only for 8. Laurie, compare 8 and 128 !!!

IMO in the first order winners of masters 2005 must be included in the list of 8 what means Berdych, Fed and Nadal. Then other contenders are being examined by rankings and those who never won Masters must be excluded. If I'd director in ATP the list would be:

1.Fed
2.Nadal
3.Berdych

then

4. Roddick ( rank 3 and winner of 3 Masters - admitted)
5. Hewitt ( rank 4 and winner of 2 Masters)

Davydenko is exculed ( rank 5 but never won masters)

6. Agassi ( rank 6 and winner of 17 Masters)
7. Coria ( rank 7 and winner of 2 Masters)

then Ljubicic is exculed ( rank 8 but never won Masters)

8. Gaudio ( rank 9 , won tournament higher category than Masters - FO - so admitted)

and .... in the case of withdrawals... similar approach because it is closed tournament for CUP of Masters, for those who have something already in portfolio.

Laurie, as I remember BTW u were from UK. Why don't u indicate this anymore ?
 

jhhachamp

Hall of Fame
There is absolutely no way Berdych belongs in the Masters Cup this year. The guy had one good tournament all year and did not even finish in the top 20! Big deal, he won a Master's Series event. Nalbandian had a considerably better year and it is ridiculous that anyone would think that Berdych is more deserving than Nalbandian of a spot.
 

Hops

Rookie
Aykhan Mammadov said:
4. Roddick ( rank 3 and winner of 3 Masters - admitted)
5. Hewitt ( rank 4 and winner of 2 Masters)

why in the world should results from before 2005 have any bearing on who gets into the 2005 Masters Cup? Can I nominate Lendl? He won a bunch of Canadian Opens.
 

Aykhan Mammadov

Hall of Fame
Hops said:
why in the world should results from before 2005 have any bearing on who gets into the 2005 Masters Cup? Can I nominate Lendl? He won a bunch of Canadian Opens.
Both ranking in 2005 and victory in Masters play role. Lendl has no ranking in 2005.
 
Top