So If the masters had been split evenly.....

[Flint]

Some posters were bringing up the topic of a grass masters again in another thread earlier.

Which made me wonder, If there was (and had always been) a true equal split in the masters, 3 hard court, 3 clay court and 3 grass, how different would the resumes of todays top players (mainly the big 4) look in terms of masters?

Obviously some others have snuck a masters here and there but they have been mostly won by the big 4.

I'm guessing Federer would be the biggest winner of this with Murray also gaining a lot from this. Nadal I imagine would be mostly the same as before with Djokovic being the player negatively affected (not that he wouldn't get any grass masters at all just probably not as many as he does from 6 hard court masters).

I'm interested to hear you're thoughts on how their masters resumes would look if this were the case.

(Also not sure what the tour would look like, perhaps 1 HC masters before US Open, 1 in the fall and 1 before AO. Then the 3 clay before the FO and then the 3 grass before Wimbledon.)

 

[Freddy Cat]

If there was a M1000 grass -- or a few for that matter -- there would probably be a lot more people coming out of nowhere winning. You might see people like Milos, Querrey, or Karlovic snag one even. I think it'd be a lot more dynamic than what you see in HC and clay events. Even when you look at Wimbledon, you have people like Berdych and Milos making finals, Querrey beating Djokovic, Dimitrov beating Murray, Tsonga with multiple SF's.

Yes, Djokovic would probably be most affected by this, in my opinion.

 

[Tennisanity]

Given how Fed has dominated Halle, Fed would be the leader now in Master1000 titles.

 

[Artist]

Federer would have more, Nadal about the same and Djokovic less, but how big the impact off it would be on their resumes would depend on which HC masters would get replaced by grass.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Given how Fed has dominated Halle, Fed would be the leader now in Master1000 titles.

I agree that we can easily add at least 4 Masters for Fed, but at the same time, we can't assume that he would have won every Halle that he has, as the field would have been denser there. He would have dealt more with the top players and probably would have lost a couple of times.

 

[Tennisanity]

I agree that we can easily add at least 4 Masters for Fed, but at the same time, we can't assume that he would have won every Halle that he has, as the field would have been denser there. He would have dealt more with the top players and probably would have lost a couple of times.

Maybe, but you also have to consider not only Halle, but Wimbledon where he has won 7 with the deepest fields possible.

 

[metsman]

Another reason why masters counts aren't the most instructive figure.

 

[metsman]

So to actually take a look at this:
To actually have an even split you'd need a split in the HC surfaces. So Cincy stays, Shanghai/Madrid slot stays, and either IW/Miami stays. Paris, Canada, and IW/Miami are history. So for each player we have to split the difference in their IW/Miami titles

So Federer loses 7 masters, probably wins at least 12-15 at the 3 grass court masters so he gains big time.
Djokovic loses around 13 masters, I can see him winning around 6 on grass but not many more. So he loses big time.
Nadal loses 3 masters, probably gains around 5-6. So a little gain for him.

 

[KINGROGER]

Lets just say you make Miami, Canada and Paris grass (1 out of every set of 2 HC masters played together.)

Take away 3 Miami, 2 Canada and 1 Paris from Fed leaving him with 20 masters titles.

Now add in minimum of 6 for each grass masters. That's 20 + 18 = 38. And that is conservative.

Djokovic would be the big loser, as would Nadal. Fed would likely lead Nole by a lot H2H and be much closer with Rafa.

 

[KINGROGER]

I agree that we can easily add at least 4 Masters for Fed, but at the same time, we can't assume that he would have won every Halle that he has, as the field would have been denser there. He would have dealt more with the top players and probably would have lost a couple of times.

If there were 3 grass masters between 03 - 09 (6 years) Fed would win between about 12 - 15 masters on the surface. Then he'd win a load more between 2010 - 2015. We can easily add on another 10, but it's likely more.

 

[SinjinCooper]

If that were the case, then Federer would have 18 slams and be the GOAT.

 

[noobforehand20]

as the other poster said, you would have more mixed results in grass, even as fed has said himself, on grass if you encounter a big serving guy on a hot day there is not much you can do, contrary to clay its "easier" to get on a roll on grass without stopping so i think federer would lead all the way on that but maybe there would be a few non big 4 winners and more split finalist, im very sure that the "best results in masters by players outside the big 4" would be benefitted the most by that

 

[TheAssassin]

If he managed to win three Wimbledon titles, I am sure Djokovic would have been successful at mandatory grass Masters as well. Not as much as on those on hard courts obviously but still he would have done impressive things.

 

[Tennisanity]

as the other poster said, you would have more mixed results in grass, even as fed has said himself, on grass if you encounter a big serving guy on a hot day there is not much you can do, contrary to clay its "easier" to get on a roll on grass without stopping so i think federer would lead all the way on that but maybe there would be a few non big 4 winners and more split finalist, im very sure that the "best results in masters by players outside the big 4" would be benefitted the most by that

Except this is kinda contradicted by the data. Fed has encountered tons of big servers over the years on grass. I mean just consider W2016 against Cilic for example. Cilic was crushing him at the start. And we saw what happened. And that was past prime Fed.

 

[mike danny]

Well if they were to do a split, they should keep IW after the AO, keep Cincy before the USO and keep an indoor masters event before the WTF. This is the best possible split IMO.

Federer's masters count would increase significantly between 2003-2007.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

If there were 3 grass masters between 03 - 09 (6 years) Fed would win between about 12 - 15 masters on the surface. Then he'd win a load more between 2010 - 2015. We can easily add on another 10, but it's likely more.

Sorry, I misunderstood the thread and assumed that Halle were a M 1000.

I agree that if Fed had played 3 Masters a year from 2003 to now then he would have won at least 10-12 more (and that's a conservative estimate). Of course, he was also dominant on HC in his prime.

The fact that we don't have a single Masters on grass is still a great mystery for me.

 

[KINGROGER]

as the other poster said, you would have more mixed results in grass, even as fed has said himself, on grass if you encounter a big serving guy on a hot day there is not much you can do, contrary to clay its "easier" to get on a roll on grass without stopping so i think federer would lead all the way on that but maybe there would be a few non big 4 winners and more split finalist, im very sure that the "best results in masters by players outside the big 4" would be benefitted the most by that

True but he would still dominate. He would be in contention for all 3 grass masters between 2003 - 2015. That's a very big period of dominance. We can assume he'd win 2/3 on average between 04 - 09 (sweeping all 3 in any one of 04-06 most likely) which would be about 12 masters. Then he would win about 6-8 between 2010 - 2015 so thats about 18 - 20 most likely if we are being conservative. Minus 2 Canada, 1 Paris, 3 Miami for a final total of 38-40 masters.

Nadal wouldn't be affected too much. He'd win a handful on grass (5-6 maybe) between 07 - 11 and only lose a handful from HCs. He'd probably have a net gain as 0 Miami, Paris lost, 3 Canada lost but 5-6 additional on grass so he'd have 30-31 masters total.

Nole would be affected the most. Think how many masters titles he's racked up on HCs, especially the slow ones. 6 Miami titles 4 Canada and 4 Paris lost leaving him with 16 masters. I think he could win like 7-8 grass masters in total over 3 tournaments so that's about 23-24 final total.

 

[mike danny]

True but he would still dominate. He would be in contention for all 3 grass masters between 2003 - 2015. That's a very big period of dominance. We can assume he'd win 2/3 on average between 04 - 09 (sweeping all 3 in any one of 04-06 most likely) which would be about 12 masters. Then he would win about 6-8 between 2010 - 2015 so thats about 18 - 20 most likely if we are being conservative. Minus 2 Canada, 1 Paris, 3 Miami for a final total of 38-40 masters.

Yeah, I can see Fed winning all 3 grass masters + Wimb once in one of his unbeatable years on grass. But I don't see him doing it more than once. Even Nadal managed to win all 3 clay masters + RG only once in his career and he is the clay GOAT.

It's very difficult to win everything even for the very best.

 

[KINGROGER]

Yeah, I can see Fed winning all 3 grass masters + Wimb once in one of his unbeatable years on grass. But I don't see him doing it more than once. Even Nadal managed to win all 3 clay masters + RG only once in his career and he is the clay GOAT.

It's very difficult to win everything even for the very best.

I agree. Would likely be one of 04 - 06, probably 06 where the field was weaker.

I wonder how they would work a grass calender though. There isn't really enough time between RG - Wimbledon to have a continuous grass season, unless you push RG back to middle of May and have the grass season starting last week of May - July.

 

[mike danny]

I agree. Would likely be one of 04 - 06, probably 06 where the field was weaker.

I wonder how they would work a grass calender though. There isn't really enough time between RG - Wimbledon to have a continuous grass season, unless you push RG back to middle of May and have the grass season starting last week of May - July.

You can push Wimb a bit further. Cincy begins in late august so there should be a month break before that event, which would be the USO warm-up.

 

[KINGROGER]

You can push Wimb a bit further. Cincy begins in late august so there should be a month break before that event, which would be the USO warm-up.

Nice yeah so Wimbledon could start mid - end July rather than the first week.

Also I think Fed's advantage on grass was far superior to his HC advantage in his prime. On HCs everyone trains on them, it's more of a neutral surface.

Fed is probably the only elite grass player in this period and I think he'd dominate everyone with his serve, net game and elite baseline game. Especially if a couple of the masters were similar to Halle (fast grass).

Nadal was great too but his overall elite game translated over well to the modern Wimbledon grass rather than being especially suited to it. Same as Djokovic really in 2011-2015. His overall game is that good that is translates across the surfaces.

 

[mike danny]

Nice yeah so Wimbledon could start mid - end July rather than the first week.

Also I think Fed's advantage on grass was far superior to his HC advantage in his prime. On HCs everyone trains on them, it's more of a neutral surface.

Fed is probably the only elite grass player in this period and I think he'd dominate everyone with his serve, net game and elite baseline game. Especially if a couple of the masters were similar to Halle (fast grass).

Nadal was great too but his overall elite game translated over well to the modern Wimbledon grass rather than being especially suited to it. Same as Djokovic really in 2011-2015. His overall game is that good that is translates across the surfaces.

But if there were more big events on grass, more people would train to become elite on it too.

 

[Noelan]

Let's give players imaginary titles , why not? .We don't have enough hypotetical, shoulda coulda woulda mumbo jumbo..(There are computer games for it)
To OP and all wishful, there is no chance to have grass Masters, in the bigger picture surface is to expensive to maintain , inevitably wears down as tournament proggresses.. is suitable to smaller draws unlike masters which have 96 /56/ 48 to Halle 32, Queens 32, Stuttgart 28, St Bosh 28, Eastbourne 28...

 

[KINGROGER]

But if there were more big events on grass, more people would train to become elite on it too.

With the skillset required for it, Federer would still be the clear best player at the event/s. Similar to his dominance of Wimbledon, Cincinatti and USO.

 

[mike danny]

Let's give players imaginary titles , why not? .We don't have enough hypotetical, shoulda coulda woulda mumbo jumbo..(There are computer games for it)
To OP and all wishful, there is no chance to have grass Masters, in the bigger picture surface is to expensive to maintain , inevitably wears down as tournament proggresses.. is suitable to smaller draws unlike masters which have 96 /56/ 48 to Halle 32, Queens 32, Stuttgart 28, St Bosh 28, Eastbourne 28...

Isn't that what this forum is all about, after all?

 

[Qubax]

Roddick would have had a better resume that is for sure.

Perhaps would have had more weeks at #1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 etc.,

but yah, Great for Fed, good for Murray, meh for Nadal, puke city for the Djoker.

and yes, some rando Grass wins.

That said Fed would have tons of these.

 

[Noelan]

Isn't that what this forum is all about, after all?

Yeah I know , but I thought we are here to discuss about facts ,things that happened in tennis, not to create our own sport
That was my hypothetical rant

 

[ByakuFubuki]

Yeah I know , but I thought we are here to discuss about facts ,things that happened in tennis, not to create our own sport
That was my hypothetical rant

Not too many things go the way they're supposed to. True for Tennis Matches, true for Forums.

 

[BGod]

Everything has been said. I'll just chime in on how they'd be split.

Halle and Queens would be the obvious upgrades and I think Paris and Canada would be downgraded.

I can say from going to Rogers Cup over a decade it feels every bit like a 500 event. I believe they keep it around for history.

Anyway, I'm being as realistic as possible here about grass season. Halle & Queens would have to be different weeks but keep the week break between Wimbledon.

I don't think you'd get a 3rd grass Nasters ever. Frankly I think we'd just have 10 Masters events with Paris being the downgrade.

 

[TripleATeam]

So to actually take a look at this:
To actually have an even split you'd need a split in the HC surfaces. So Cincy stays, Shanghai/Madrid slot stays, and either IW/Miami stays. Paris, Canada, and IW/Miami are history. So for each player we have to split the difference in their IW/Miami titles

So Federer loses 7 masters, probably wins at least 12-15 at the 3 grass court masters so he gains big time.
Djokovic loses around 13 masters, I can see him winning around 6 on grass but not many more. So he loses big time.
Nadal loses 3 masters, probably gains around 5-6. So a little gain for him.

It's possible that since the US has currently 3 HC masters, they take away Cincinnati instead of Canada.

In that instance, Fed loses 4 from Miami/IW and 7 from Cincinnati- making 11 lost, 12-15 gained. Slight win.
Djokovic loses 5 from Miami/IW and 0 from Cincinnati- making 5 lost, 5-6 (although I see a few more, I won't argue) won for Djokovic. He breaks even.
Nadal loses 1 from Miami/IW and 1 from Cincinnati- making 2 lost and 5-6 gained. Slight win.

I think Nadal is the greatest benefactor in this case. Very difficult for Fed to do better at any masters than he has done at Cincinnati, but he would make up for it in the 2 other grass mastes. Much like your own scenario, this is only 1 way the situation could unfold. However, by now Djokovic would likely have the Career Golden Masters.

 

[-NN-]

It's possible that since the US has currently 3 HC masters, they take away Cincinnati instead of Canada.

In that instance, Fed loses 4 from Miami/IW and 7 from Cincinnati- making 11 lost, 12-15 gained. Slight win.
Djokovic loses 5 from Miami/IW and 0 from Cincinnati- making 5 lost, 5-6 (although I see a few more, I won't argue) won for Djokovic. He breaks even.
Nadal loses 1 from Miami/IW and 1 from Cincinnati- making 2 lost and 5-6 gained. Slight win.

I think Nadal is the greatest benefactor in this case. Very difficult for Fed to do better at any masters than he has done at Cincinnati, but he would make up for it in the 2 other grass mastes. Much like your own scenario, this is only 1 way the situation could unfold. However, by now Djokovic would likely have the Career Golden Masters.

I think this is too specific and it's better to just look at the general proficiency of the players across the conditions and how often they produce them. Nadal and Federer are great "natural surface" players on aggregate and there's less grass than clay. It follows then that the likely biggest beneficiaries in order would probably be Federer over Nadal over Djokovic.

 

[timnz]

Sorry, I misunderstood the thread and assumed that Halle were a M 1000.

I agree that if Fed had played 3 Masters a year from 2003 to now then he would have won at least 10-12 more (and that's a conservative estimate). Of course, he was also dominant on HC in his prime.

The fact that we don't have a single Masters on grass is still a great mystery for me.

The primary reason that there has been no Masters 1000 on grass is the shortness of the grass season. They made a good move when they increased the gap of the FO to Wimbledon to 3 weeks (formerly 2) a couple of years ago. What they really need to do is:

1/ Make the French Open just 1 week earlier - that would create a whole month of grass warmups. A huge gain for making Roland Garros just 1 week earlier.
2/ Scrap either Madrid or Shanghai as a Masters 1000 - then raise back up to Masters 1000 status - Hamburg- but change its surface to grass. And place it in a time slot between the FO and Wimbledon. Obviously Hamburg can handle the Masters 1000 infrastructure, because they were a M1000 until recently. Alternatively create a new Masters 1000 tournament on the East Coast of the US (so not too long a flight to Europe) called the 'US Grasscourt Championships'.

I just don't understand why they put a Stuttgart 250 tournament on the calendar. That was the opportunity to create a Masters 1000 on grass then.

 

[metsman]

It's possible that since the US has currently 3 HC masters, they take away Cincinnati instead of Canada.

In that instance, Fed loses 4 from Miami/IW and 7 from Cincinnati- making 11 lost, 12-15 gained. Slight win.
Djokovic loses 5 from Miami/IW and 0 from Cincinnati- making 5 lost, 5-6 (although I see a few more, I won't argue) won for Djokovic. He breaks even.
Nadal loses 1 from Miami/IW and 1 from Cincinnati- making 2 lost and 5-6 gained. Slight win.

I think Nadal is the greatest benefactor in this case. Very difficult for Fed to do better at any masters than he has done at Cincinnati, but he would make up for it in the 2 other grass mastes. Much like your own scenario, this is only 1 way the situation could unfold. However, by now Djokovic would likely have the Career Golden Masters.

making it canada wouldn't be a truly even split as then there would be no faster hard court masters. It would be 2 medium and one slow.

 

[-NN-]

When looking at this on the surface, Federer does likely gain and Djokovic does likely lose out with Nadal remaining about the same, but if they arrived onto the scene in such conditions -- and this is something I've wondered about before -- the grass seasons might have been greatly affected. What we see today is great windups for the HC Slams (despite the off-season) and for Roland Garros, but not much of a buildup for Wimbledon. Imagine a long grass season where players have a period of months to groove their grass games...

 

[KINGROGER]

The primary reason that there has been no Masters 1000 on grass is the shortness of the grass season. They made a good move when they increased the gap of the FO to Wimbledon to 3 weeks (formerly 2) a couple of years ago. What they really need to do is:

1/ Make the French Open just 1 week earlier - that would create a whole month of grass warmups. A huge gain for making Roland Garros just 1 week earlier.
2/ Scrap either Madrid or Shanghai as a Masters 1000 - then raise back up to Masters 1000 status - Hamburg- but change its surface to grass. And place it in a time slot between the FO and Wimbledon. Obviously Hamburg can handle the Masters 1000 infrastructure, because they were a M1000 until recently. Alternatively create a new Masters 1000 tournament on the East Coast of the US (so not too long a flight to Europe) called the 'US Grasscourt Championships'.

I just don't understand why they put a Stuttgart 250 tournament on the calendar. That was the opportunity to create a Masters 1000 on grass then.

Some great thoughts.

My own idea was to change Madrid into a grass masters but your change Hamburg into grass idea is a better one I think.

Then you could have Hamburg 1000. Then staying in Germany Halle 500/Stuttgart 250. Then a week in Britain Queens 500/ Eastbourne 250 following by either a week off before Wimbledon, or players can play that Dutch 250 or the new Turkey one.

I'd keep Shanghai though. Scrap Paris Indoors.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

If there was a Grass Masters then Tomic would be 100%, undoubtedly be a Masters winner.

Don't @ me.

 

[GabeT]

If the Masters distribution were different players would adapt and train for that. So your question is ultimately unanswerable.

 

[Technology Ruined Tennis]

Wouldn't an even split (like the slams) be:
4 hard
2 clay
2 grass
1 extra
?

 

[ByakuFubuki]

Some great thoughts.

My own idea was to change Madrid into a grass masters but your change Hamburg into grass idea is a better one I think.

Then you could have Hamburg 1000. Then staying in Germany Halle 500/Stuttgart 250. Then a week in Britain Queens 500/ Eastbourne 250 following by either a week off before Wimbledon, or players can play that Dutch 250 or the new Turkey one.

I'd keep Shanghai though. Scrap Paris Indoors.

If Queens has the right infrastructure (I don't know about it), I wouldn't mind seeing it upgraded to 1000 and have Eastbourne switched at the following week. With Halle 500/Stuttgart 250/s'Hertogenbosh 250 + Hamburg 1000 + Queens 1000 + Eastbourne 250/Turkey 250 the Grass Season's Schedule would start looking like the Clay Season's.

 

[Gary Duane]

Some posters were bringing up the topic of a grass masters again in another thread earlier.

Which made me wonder, If there was (and had always been) a true equal split in the masters, 3 hard court, 3 clay court and 3 grass, how different would the resumes of todays top players (mainly the big 4) look in terms of masters?

Obviously some others have snuck a masters here and there but they have been mostly won by the big 4.

I'm guessing Federer would be the biggest winner of this with Murray also gaining a lot from this. Nadal I imagine would be mostly the same as before with Djokovic being the player negatively affected (not that he wouldn't get any grass masters at all just probably not as many as he does from 6 hard court masters).

I'm interested to hear you're thoughts on how their masters resumes would look if this were the case.

(Also not sure what the tour would look like, perhaps 1 HC masters before US Open, 1 in the fall and 1 before AO. Then the 3 clay before the FO and then the 3 grass before Wimbledon.)

It would be rather useless with the WTF still on HCs every year and two slams on HCs...

 

[Rafa the King]

But to have these grass masters we would have to have them after Wimbledon as the clay season needs good weather, just like the Grass season, so unless after RG, we get 8 weeks of Grass including WIM which would mean the season would be done midway August.