Slam runner up vs Masters titles?

[TheSlicer]

Let me put it this way.

A casual tennis fan will remember who won which title no matter the level of importance.

No one except the Player themselves will remember you as a runner up or give you any accolades or awards for going far in a Major/Masters.

It doesn't seem like it's a popular opinion but that's how I feel about this discussion.

Ok, without looking It Up, Who won auckland this year? Do you remember? And Who Lost the australian open final? I get what you are saying but i dont think its very normal to reach a slam final and not win any title in your career, now, if you havent won a masters and you have only one slam final, there can be a case, but if you already got a masters, to me a slam final makes It better than another masters

 

[Jonas78]

Definetly a lot of different opinions here i see.

From what i get its not as easy as slam runner up > masters title because its more points. Winning titles counts as well as level of opposition. Everyone remember Soderling for beating Nadal and then falling for Federers career slam.

Personally, if i had 0 Masters and 5 slam runner ups, id prefer to exchange some of the runner ups with a few Masters titles.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Let me put it this way.

A casual tennis fan will remember who won which title no matter the level of importance.

No one except the Player themselves will remember you as a runner up or give you any accolades or awards for going far in a Major/Masters.

It doesn't seem like it's a popular opinion but that's how I feel about this discussion.

Casual fans don’t watch tennis outside of slams

 

[buscemi]

Definetly a lot of different opinions here i see.

From what i get its not as easy as slam runner up > masters title because its more points. Winning titles counts as well as level of opposition. Everyone remember Soderling for beating Nadal and then falling for Federers career slam.

Personally, if i had 0 Masters and 5 slam runner ups, id prefer to exchange some of the runner ups with a few Masters titles.

Good points. I'll also add that someone like Söderling ticks both boxes b/c he's a Major finalist (x2) and a Masters Series winner.

Where this question really becomes more pertinent, IMO, is when a player has only a Major final (or two) or a Masters Series title (or two).

As I noted before, that's players like Guy Forget, Tommy Haas, Tim Henman, Nikolay Dayvydenko, Sébastien Grosjean, and Andrey Rublev (Masters Series title(s), but no Major finals) vs. players like Todd Martin, Kevin Anderson, MaliVai Washington, Alberto Berasategui, Arnaud Clément, and Rainer Schüttler (Major final(s) but no Masters Series title).

Personally, I'd rather have a Masters Series title or two vs. a Major final or two, but no tour titles above the 500 (or maybe even 250) level.

 

[airchallenge2]

Everyone remember Soderling for beating Nadal and then falling for Federers career slam.

What Master title would be better than this example?

 

[Jonas78]

What Master title would be better than this example?

I think @nolefam_2024 is right that one single slam runner up > one single Masters title. Problem comes if you for example compare 3 runner ups vs 3 masters titles, then i think id exchange at least one runner up to a Masters title.

 

[Barton]

I think I'd rather be a Slam finalist than a Masters champion. Especially Wimbledon finalist. But if it was a prestigious Masters like Rome, then I'd maybe lean there.

Wimbledon finalist vs Rome champion would be a good discussion.

 

[buscemi]

What Master title would be better than this example?

The two that come the closest are Tsonga winning the Canadian Open with wins over Djokovic, Murray, and Federer + Nalbandian winning Madrid with wins over Berdych, del Potro, Nadal, Djokovic, and Federer.

But Söderling, Tsonga, and Nalbandian all won Masters series titles and made Major finals, so they're not hugely pertinent to this discussion.

 

[GrassMasters]

Wimbledon > RG > AO > USO > YEC > OG > Indian Wells > Masters > Halle > 500 > 250 >>>>>>>>>>>> RU of ANY tournament

 

[airchallenge2]

I think I'd rather be a Slam finalist than a Masters champion. Especially Wimbledon finalist. But if it was a prestigious Masters like Rome, then I'd maybe lean there.

Wimbledon finalist vs Rome champion would be a good discussion.

A very good discussion indeed. I'd still pick a GS final because of best of 5 matches.

 

[airchallenge2]

The two that come the closest are Tsonga winning the Canadian Open with wins over Djokovic, Murray, and Federer + Nalbandian winning Madrid with wins over Berdych, del Potro, Nadal, Djokovic, and Federer.

But Söderling, Tsonga, and Nalbandian all won Masters series titles and made Major finals, so they're not hugely pertinent to this discussion.

Tsonga and Nalbandian got those incredible victories in best of 3 matches. We all know that best of 5 is tennis from another planet.

 

[Jonas78]

Wimbledon > RG > AO > USO > YEC > OG > Indian Wells > Masters > Halle > 500 > 250 >>>>>>>>>>>> RU of this list

I think most would agree with that. Question is slam final loser vs Masters champion.

 

[nolefam_2024]

I think @nolefam_2024 is right that one single slam runner up > one single Masters title. Problem comes if you for example compare 3 runner ups vs 3 masters titles, then i think id exchange at least one runner up to a Masters title.

I like this sentiment but I would still say 3 finals of slams > 2 finals + masters personally.

 

[boredone3456]

I Mean I think Generally I'd say making a Major final > over 1 masters title (point wise, money wise, plus you have to win 6 best of 5 matches to make the major final where masters are now best of 3).

It does get more complicated depending on the situation...I mean...I'd probably say Zverev>>Ruud right now, for example.

 

[nolefam_2024]

I Mean I think Generally I'd say making a Major final > over 1 masters title (point wise, money wise, plus you have to win 6 best of 5 matches to make the major final where masters are now best of 3).

It does get more complicated depending on the situation...I mean...I'd probably say Zverev>>Ruud right now, for example.

You are very right. But Zverev is not just a 3 times masters winner and bust at every other major category. You are giving into bias of his 7 masters, 2 olympics, 2 atp finals and 3 slam finals vs Ruud 3 slam finals.

 

[Jonas78]

I like this sentiment but I would still say 3 finals of slams > 2 finals + masters personally.

I just think at some point you want a big title (master or better).

Casper has 3 lost slam finals, 1 lost YEC, and 2 lost masters titles. He also has several SFs in big tournaments.

 

[buscemi]

Tsonga and Nalbandian got those incredible victories in best of 3 matches. We all know that best of 5 is tennis from another planet.

OTOH, there are several Masters Series winners who won BO5 set finals, which compares favorably to players who lost Major finals.

And then there's Mečíř at the 1987 Lipton, who won seven BO5 matches to take the title.

 

[Mainad]

OTOH, there are several Masters Series winners who won BO5 set finals, which compares favorably to players who lost Major finals.

And then there's Mečíř at the 1987 Lipton, who won seven BO5 matches to take the title.

Just a shame he couldn't do seven at a Slam.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Tsonga and Nalbandian got those incredible victories in best of 3 matches. We all know that best of 5 is tennis from another planet.

Tsonga also had incredible victories at slams

 

[Mainad]

Not quite relevant but I believe Kafelnikov is the only multiple Slam champion never to win a Masters title.

 

[airchallenge2]

OTOH, there are several Masters Series winners who won BO5 set finals, which compares favorably to players who lost Major finals.

And then there's Mečíř at the 1987 Lipton, who won seven BO5 matches to take the title.

Wow, I had no idea that almost 40 years ago a Masters could be as tough as a GS. Much respect to Miloslav!

 

[timnz]

Just a shame he couldn't do seven at a Slam.

He got 2 Runnerups - 1986 US Open and 1989 AO. He also won the 1987 WCT Finals.

He is one of my lifetime favourite players.

 

[gamelovergold]

It hurts to be a slam runner up but
people remember more for loosing in slam final rather than winning masters.
BO3 is in no way as good as BO5.

 

[Subway Tennis]

If I were a current day player, and I had won other titles at lower tiers, if I could only add 1 of either a major final or a m1000 title to my achievements I would choose a major final. 1000%.

 

[Terenigma]

You get 4 times a year to make the final of a slam, you have to win 6 B05 matches against the best players in the game whom are ALL trying to win, no-one is tanking a slam match. It's the peak of tennis and gets global coverage. Objectively and in terms of a players skill and public attention, it's much more impressive than winning any other title in the game.

However, From a personal perspective, no-one likes losing a final and I think most players would prefer to win something, even a 500 or 250 than lose a slam final. This is especially true if they go on to never win a slam title in their career because then what do you have to look back on? No trophies, nothing to show off or be proud of and no-one shows off losing a final. For me personally, I would take winning 2-3 masters over losing a slam any day of the week.

 

[timnz]

You get 4 times a year to make the final of a slam, you have to win 6 B05 matches against the best players in the game whom are ALL trying to win, no-one is tanking a slam match. It's the peak of tennis and gets global coverage. Objectively and in terms of a players skill and public attention, it's much more impressive than winning any other title in the game.

However, From a personal perspective, no-one likes losing a final and I think most players would prefer to win something, even a 500 or 250 than lose a slam final. This is especially true if they go on to never win a slam title in their career because then what do you have to look back on? No trophies, nothing to show off or be proud of and no-one shows off losing a final. For me personally, I would take winning 2-3 masters over losing a slam any day of the week.

I disagree. Saying you were a Wimbledon finalist is still a great thing to say about your career . I am sure Chris Lewis and Malivai Washington must feel this

 

[DerekNoleFam1]

It hurts to be a slam runner up but
people remember more for loosing in slam final rather than winning masters.
BO3 is in no way as good as BO5.

Yes you’re right, even if there were some surprise and nondescript finalists from years ago.
Paris Bercy has had some surprise winners too.

 

[gbc08]

I don’t usually remember 2nd place, even Grand Slams. I would rather win a Masters 1000. Something to be said about completing a tournament and finishing on top.

 

[Jonas78]

If I were a current day player, and I had won other titles at lower tiers, if I could only add 1 of either a major final or a m1000 title to my achievements I would choose a major final. 1000%.

I agree.

But i dont know if i agree with Casper Ruuds father Christian. Casper has now lost 3 slam finals, 1 YEC final and 2 Masters finals. At some point you want a Masters title rather than yet another slam final loss.