Respect for Federer for playing/winning ATP 250 Titles

M

McEnroeisanartist

Hall of Fame
Does anyone else have even more respect for Federer for playing and winning so many ATP 250 Titles in his career?

I think it shows his ambassadorship for tennis that he plays in smaller tournaments and passion for the sport that he has tried so hard to win them. Of course, I am sure he has received hefty guarantees to play them, but he could not give it his all at them.

He has won 25 ATP Tour 250 tournaments (29% of all his titles), compare that to Nadal (12%) or Djokovic (11%).
 
Don't be naive, the prize money must be huge for him to play these events especially at 34 yo (i mean what comes in addition to the prize money for the big stars like Nadal in Basel last year, don't know how you call it)
 
I respect your dedication for finding every possible way to make threads for the glory and splendor of Roger Federer.

This one, like many lately, is a bit weak I'm afraid.
 
Oh dear!


Federer wins more ATP 250 tournaments ----> fanboy "respect. ambassador. passion for the sport........."


Nadal & Djokovic win more Masters ----> fanboy "vulturing. majoring in minors......."







Unbelievable :mad:
 
LazyNinja19 said:
:lol: Oh dear! :lol:


Federer wins more ATP 250 tournaments ----> fanboy "respect. ambassador. passion for the sport........."


Nadal & Djokovic win more Masters ----> fanboy "vulturing. majoring in minors......."
Click to expand...

It is mind numbing is it not? Also astrology is always bad for them as well. Go figure. :neutral:
 
While the 250's directly translate to appearance money, what is important is 7 of these are from Halle , which a 500 now.

Add a few more like Brisbane which has top notch competition (better than some 500's like Vienna, DC, etc) , it is nothing to be ridiculed.

At the same time for a guy with a career like Federer, it is just a foot note.
 
McEnroeisanartist said:
Does anyone else have even more respect for Federer for playing and winning so many ATP 250 Titles in his career?

I think it shows his ambassadorship for tennis that he plays in smaller tournaments and passion for the sport that he has tried so hard to win them. Of course, I am sure he has received hefty guarantees to play them, but he could not give it his all at them.

He has won 25 ATP Tour 250 tournaments (29% of all his titles), compare that to Nadal (12%) or Djokovic (11%).
Click to expand...

He's won 24 actually. But he has certainly won more of them than any other active player. Hewitt is 2nd on 22 and Murray 3rd with 16.
 
tennisaddict said:
While the 250's directly translate to appearance money, what is important is 7 of these are from Halle , which a 500 now.

Add a few more like Brisbane which has top notch competition (better than some 500's like Vienna, DC, etc) , it is nothing to be ridiculed.

At the same time for a guy with a career like Federer, it is just a foot note.
Click to expand...

A further three is from Basel, also a 500 now. So that's 10 titles in later promoted places. And still he's got the ATP500 title record (shared with Nadal). Though, of course, Connors is the true record holder of both 500 and 250 size tournaments.
 
McEnroeisanartist said:
Does anyone else have even more respect for Federer for playing and winning so many ATP 250 Titles in his career?

I think it shows his ambassadorship for tennis that he plays in smaller tournaments and passion for the sport that he has tried so hard to win them. Of course, I am sure he has received hefty guarantees to play them, but he could not give it his all at them.

He has won 25 ATP Tour 250 tournaments (29% of all his titles), compare that to Nadal (12%) or Djokovic (11%).
Click to expand...


Keep in mind that 7 of those ATP 250 titles were at Halle on grass. There were only a few 250's and Wimbledon on grass so not only did federer make Halle a priority, he also was very good in them. Now Halle is an ATP 500. Unfortunately there was not a grass masters, although that may give Wimbledon more prestige and exclusivity than the other majors. Nadal was in Halle a few times and lost early.

Istanbul was the easiest competition rank wise although most were clay court specialists and federer despite being excellent at clay in his prime can lose in round 2 or reach the final like he did in Rome. In Brisbane he had a surging Raonic in the final.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
McEnroeisanartist said:
Does anyone else have even more respect for Federer for playing and winning so many ATP 250 Titles in his career?

I think it shows his ambassadorship for tennis that he plays in smaller tournaments and passion for the sport that he has tried so hard to win them. Of course, I am sure he has received hefty guarantees to play them, but he could not give it his all at them.

He has won 25 ATP Tour 250 tournaments (29% of all his titles), compare that to Nadal (12%) or Djokovic (11%).
Click to expand...

Aweeeeeesome!!!

Thomas Muster won 40 tournaments out of 44 career titles on clay! I think it shows his ambassadorship for clay that he played in clay tournaments and passion for playing on clay that he tried so hard to win them.
 
For the all-time greats, even the 500 series events don't really matter.

I mean, it's really about Slam titles, Runner-Ups, the WTF and the #1 ranking to begin with. Now the 1000 Masters get recognition when the accumulation of the former is close for two players.

After that, you're only looking at 500 events if there's an disproportionate amount when all things are even. But it's about context. I mean, if one player has fifteen 500 titles and the other has two, is it because they lost a lot of 500 tournaments or just skipped them?

Federer won 95 matches in 06 playing off smaller tournaments, but people don't really care and his 3/4 Slams and WTF win is what gets first look.

In scenario where you have the following spread:

Player A: 125 Weeks #1, 7 Slams/3 Finals, 2 WTFs, 5 Masters
Player B: 120 Weeks #1, 6 Slams/2 Finals, 2 WTFs, 6 Masters

Players B MIGHT Player A if he has 10-1, 500 titles. But that's a might.
 
Has the OP polished this turd enough already? Fed plays these events either for the fat appearance check they stuff in his shorts or when he feels he needs to get tourney sharp for an upcoming event
 
LazyNinja19 said:
Oh dear!


Federer wins more ATP 250 tournaments ----> fanboy "respect. ambassador. passion for the sport........."


Nadal & Djokovic win more Masters ----> fanboy "vulturing. majoring in minors......."







Unbelievable :mad:
Click to expand...

My reaction to the OP is a mix of my avatar and your avatar.
 
BGod said:
For the all-time greats, even the 500 series events don't really matter.

I mean, it's really about Slam titles, Runner-Ups, the WTF and the #1 ranking to begin with. Now the 1000 Masters get recognition when the accumulation of the former is close for two players.

After that, you're only looking at 500 events if there's an disproportionate amount when all things are even. But it's about context. I mean, if one player has fifteen 500 titles and the other has two, is it because they lost a lot of 500 tournaments or just skipped them?

Federer won 95 matches in 06 playing off smaller tournaments, but people don't really care and his 3/4 Slams and WTF win is what gets first look.

In scenario where you have the following spread:

Player A: 125 Weeks #1, 7 Slams/3 Finals, 2 WTFs, 5 Masters
Player B: 120 Weeks #1, 6 Slams/2 Finals, 2 WTFs, 6 Masters

Players B MIGHT Player A if he has 10-1, 500 titles. But that's a might.
Click to expand...

Well, Federer tops all of this anyway. :)
 
All titles have importance to me. Federer beat plenty of good players in those 250's and some of them were grass tune ups for example.
 
76378097.jpeg
 
LazyNinja19 said:
Oh dear!


Federer wins more ATP 250 tournaments ----> fanboy "respect. ambassador. passion for the sport........."


Nadal & Djokovic win more Masters ----> fanboy "vulturing. majoring in minors......."







Unbelievable :mad:
Click to expand...

Really? Where has there been criticism for Nadal and Djokovic winning Masters? Your alts banned?
 
Definitely agree, it's great that he competes at these smaller events. I live in Brisbane and it's always awesome when Fed comes here. I'm sure there's good money involved of course but it's still great that he plays these smaller tournaments.

I think people are being a bit judgemental about the money aspects. Just using Brisbane as an example. First tournament of the year along with Doha & Chennai.
Doha has a winners cheque of nearly 200k compared to Brisbane's 85k or Chennai's 72k.
All of these being ATP 250.

Yet Djoko & Nadal (who were number 1 & 3) along with Berdych & Ferrer played in Doha in 2015.
Brisbane did well to get Fed, Nishi and Raonic
Whilst Chennai only got Stan.

In 2014 same prize money.
Doha got Nadal, Ferrer, Murray, Berdych & Gasquet from top 10.
Brisbane only got Fed
Chennai only got Stan

Obviously money is a factor but acting like Fed is the only one who does it for money naive. Look at those players (Djokovic, Nadal, Murray) who go for the higher prize tournament or don't even bother going to any.
Djoko didn't compete in a single ATP250 in 2014, Nadal competed in 2 (he missed 3 months though), Murray in 4, Fed in 2.

I think it's great that players like Fed, Murray, Nadal travel to these smaller cities and treat the fans to an appearance as opposed to playing only the big tournaments....
 
Aussie Darcy said:
Definitely agree, it's great that he competes at these smaller events. I live in Brisbane and it's always awesome when Fed comes here. I'm sure there's good money involved of course but it's still great that he plays these smaller tournaments.

I think people are being a bit judgemental about the money aspects. Just using Brisbane as an example. First tournament of the year along with Doha & Chennai.
Doha has a winners cheque of nearly 200k compared to Brisbane's 85k or Chennai's 72k.
All of these being ATP 250.
Click to expand...
The winner of Brisbane gets around 30K of prize money I guess.
Do you really think Federer goes to Brisbane to win a potential maximum of 30K?
 
tipsa...don'tlikehim! said:
The winner of Brisbane gets around 30K of prize money I guess.
Do you really think Federer goes to Brisbane to win a potential maximum of 30K?
Click to expand...

I don't know where you're finding 30k? As I said about 85k. The ATP site says 80K for the winner of Brisbane
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Tournaments/Brisbane.aspx

And no I obviously know there will be additional perks for him but that's the case for many players. My point was that at least he travels to these smaller cities around the world unlike other players who only play in the big tournaments...
 
Aussie Darcy said:
I don't know where you're finding 30k? As I said about 85k. The ATP site says 80K for the winner of Brisbane
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Tournaments/Brisbane.aspx

And no I obviously know there will be additional perks for him but that's the case for many players. My point was that at least he travels to these smaller cities around the world unlike other players who only play in the big tournaments...
Click to expand...
sorry i thought 85k was the prize money in total, misunderstood
anyway yes, 85K is a small percentage of what he earned that week for sure
I have no idea how much but likely him playing the tournament costs way more than 85K
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

atptennis
Why is David Ferrer playing in Stockholm 250?
Replies
8
Views
1K
Death Master
Death Master
M
Federer 6 6 6 6 6
Replies
30
Views
2K
McEnroeisanartist
M
HunterST
James Blake needs to play a bunch of ATP 250 events of even Challengers!
Replies
22
Views
2K
jamesblakefan#1
jamesblakefan#1
tennisaddict
Federer sets sights on 100 titles but says will not go after 250/500's
Replies
9
Views
2K
roysid
roysid
M
How much importance do you place on winning 250 and 500 tournaments
Replies
23
Views
1K
Pcdozer413
Pcdozer413
Back
Top