The difference in success in proportion in the masters 1000 of the big three

[Winner Sinner]

Federer
Slam= 20
Masters 1000= 28
Ratio= 1.40

Titles won= 103
Masters 1000= 28
Percentage= 27.2%

Nadal
Slam= 22
Masters 1000= 36
Ratio= 1.63

Titles won= 92
Masters 1000= 36
Percentage= 39.1%

Djokovic
Slam= 24
Masters 1000= 40
Ratio= 1.66

Titles won= 99
Masters 1000= 40
Percentage= 40.4%

The ratio between slam titles and masters 1000 is nothing more than the frequency with which a member of the big three has won a masters 1000 title in relation to a slam title, for example if it is 2 it means that a player wins two masters 1000 for every slam won.
The percentage instead is how many masters 1000s have won as a percentage of all the titles won.

All this to say that from these data it is even better understood that if Djokovic and Nadal in the masters 1000 have maintained a similar trend, on the contrary Federer in the masters 1000 has obtained much less success in proportion to the success he had in other tournament categories.
The problem is understanding the causes;

1) The fact that he never had the chance to play a single Masters 1000 on grass certainly disadvantaged him more than the other two.
In the Big Three era, grass occupies 25% of the 4 majors, while 0% in the Masters 1000.
On the contrary, the percentage of tournaments on hard and clay increases in the Masters 1000 compared to the majors.

2) I thought of Murray, that is, a type of opponent that Federer suffered a lot especially between 2007 and 2010 (8-5 in favor of Murray).
Well, Murray with his 14 Masters 1000 won compared to only 3 Slams has a disproportionate ratio of 4.66, while instead his percentage of Masters 1000 won compared to the overall titles (46) is 30.4%, much lower than that of Djokovic and Nadal, but still higher than that of Federer.
In short, could Murray have unbalanced Federer's ratio in Masters 1000s compared to Nadal and Djokovic?

Final question;

Did Djokovic and Nadal win more Masters 1000s than they should have, or did Federer win less than he should have?

 

[Hitman]

Federer
Slam= 20
Masters 1000= 28
Ratio= 1.40

Titles won= 103
Masters 1000= 28
Percentage= 27.2%

Nadal
Slam= 22
Masters 1000= 36
Ratio= 1.63

Titles won= 92
Masters 1000= 36
Percentage= 39.1%

Djokovic
Slam= 24
Masters 1000= 40
Ratio= 1.66

Titles won= 99
Masters 1000= 40
Percentage= 40.4%

The ratio between slam titles and masters 1000 is nothing more than the frequency with which a member of the big three has won a masters 1000 title in relation to a slam title, for example if it is 2 it means that a player wins two masters 1000 for every slam won.
The percentage instead is how many masters 1000s have won as a percentage of all the titles won.

All this to say that from these data it is even better understood that if Djokovic and Nadal in the masters 1000 have maintained a similar trend, on the contrary Federer in the masters 1000 has obtained much less success in proportion to the success he had in other tournament categories.
The problem is understanding the causes;

1) The fact that he never had the chance to play a single Masters 1000 on grass certainly disadvantaged him more than the other two.
In the Big Three era, grass occupies 25% of the 4 majors, while 0% in the Masters 1000.
On the contrary, the percentage of tournaments on hard and clay increases in the Masters 1000 compared to the majors.

2) I thought of Murray, that is, a type of opponent that Federer suffered a lot especially between 2007 and 2010 (8-5 in favor of Murray).
Well, Murray with his 14 Masters 1000 won compared to only 3 Slams has a disproportionate ratio of 4.66, while instead his percentage of Masters 1000 won compared to the overall titles (46) is 30.4%, much lower than that of Djokovic and Nadal, but still higher than that of Federer.
In short, could Murray have unbalanced Federer's ratio in Masters 1000s compared to Nadal and Djokovic?

Final question;

Did Djokovic and Nadal win more Masters 1000s than they should have, or did Federer win less than he should have?

Federer certainly won less than he should have.

Dude should have been the first player ever to complete the career golden masters, but completely blew it by losing that Rome 2003 final to Mantilla and then that MC 2014 final to Wawrinka.

Djokovic deserved to end with the most though, because he was just more solid in them. Nadal deserves his numbers for simply being so good on clay.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Federer is problem playing on clay, and also never prioritized Paris where he has 6 masters deficit vs Djokovic. Total 11 deficit on these two venues.

Fed prioritized Besel and Halle due to personal interests. But competition in these two was much less sharp.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Nadal as always is not a right comp for Fedkovic. He is very clay heavy guy. A clay specialist.

 

[Third Serve]

Fed didn't take Masters as seriously earlier in his career as he did post-2009 IMO. In 2007-2009 in particular he was all about preserving his energy for the Slams, and it showed with the 10 and 8 consecutive finals streaks. Remember when he just half-assed Cincy 2006 because of his busy schedule? It's kind of a similar situation to Djokovic these days. Djokovic hasn't been much good at the Masters since 2015 (usually good enough to score one or two but not more), but he's been saving himself for the Slams where he's enjoyed much greater success.

And it was tough to play a lot of them back in the day because the biggest ones had Bo5 finals up until like 2007. Fed skipped a bunch of Masters in 2005, and he probably wouldn't have skipped Hamburg 2006 if the Rome final was Bo3. This was even more of an issue for 90's players, which is partly why you have weird stats like Murray having more Masters than Sampras, and Agassi skipping about 50 Masters events across his career.

Part of it's just because he wanted to play in Dubai/Halle/Basel basically every year for personal reasons, and he was willing to sacrifice results in some of the Masters for this. Neither Djokovic nor Nadal have taken on such consistent obligations (except for Nadal with Barcelona).

And obviously he's the type of player that would most benefit from having grass court representation in the Masters. Even just one would help prop the numbers up a bit.

Edit: One other factor I didn’t mention but is probably very relevant is clay. Fed’s Masters tallies on HCs are quite good (not too far behind Novak), it’s just clay that’s lacking. He couldn’t really break through the Nadal barrier except in Hamburg/Madrid (and even then only twice) which are probably the only clay conditions that are more favorable to his game than Nadal’s. He made a solid amount of Masters finals on clay but he just couldn’t convert against Nadal. Djokovic was better in the Masters events on clay and especially against Nadal (albeit a slightly declined Nadal from the light speed version that gave Federer the most trouble). His massive success in Rome and moderate success in MC are probably the two biggest difference-makers between the two.

 

[Third Serve]

Federer certainly won less than he should have.

Dude should have been the first player ever to complete the career golden masters, but completely blew it by losing that Rome 2003 final to Mantilla and then that MC 2014 final to Wawrinka.

Djokovic deserved to end with the most though, because he was just more solid in them. Nadal deserves his numbers for simply being so good on clay.

Weird to mention the Mantilla final before the 2006 one with Nadal. Fed was still really green back then, and he hadn't developed the consistency he would later become famous for during the late-2003 to 2007 period. That match was a straight-setter, albeit a close straight-setter.

On the other hand, while I can't really blame him too much for losing to a prime Nadal on clay, Fed was much closer to a win in 2006, and that win probably would have given him some much-needed confidence ahead of RG.

I think Fed would have also had an outside shot at the 2008 edition if he hadn't gotten mono. The Stepanek match was not great.

 

[Hitman]

Weird to mention the Mantilla final before the 2006 one with Nadal. Fed was still really green back then, and he hadn't developed the consistency he would later become famous for during the late-2003 to 2007 period. That match was a straight-setter, albeit a close straight-setter.

On the other hand, while I can't really blame him too much for losing to a prime Nadal on clay, Fed was much closer to a win in 2006, and that win probably would have given him some much-needed confidence ahead of RG.

I think Fed would have also had an outside shot at the 2008 edition if he hadn't gotten mono. The Stepanek match was not great.

Because Federer himself said that he felt pressure and the expectation of him winning got to him, and he basically lost the match before it started. He was the favorite to win it also, especially after the performance he put into Hamburg the year before.

 

[duaneeo]

2004-2006 Federer won 11 of 18 Masters played (61%). Very dominant, but he skipped many tournaments.
2007-2009 Federer won 4 of 26 Masters played (15%). A huge drop-off...likely due to his focus on achieving the slam record.

 

[Third Serve]

Because Federer himself said that he felt pressure and the expectation of him winning got to him, and he basically lost the match before it started. He was the favorite to win it also, especially after the performance he put into Hamburg the year before.

Huh, I haven't read this!

 

[Hitman]

Huh, I haven't read this!

He said it. He said that he felt mental pressure and that it being a best of five strangely got to him also. He spoke about how that loss helped him to then focus his mind when he got to the grass and win Wimbledon.

So maybe in the long run that loss NEEDED to happen for him, because it gave him a valuable lesson, but I clearly remembering him mentioning it, and how he told himself that he wasn't going to let himself down like that again.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Nadal as always is not a right comp for Fedkovic. He is very clay heavy guy. A clay specialist.

Put that work in bestie

 

[DSH]

Federer
Slam= 20
Masters 1000= 28
Ratio= 1.40

Titles won= 103
Masters 1000= 28
Percentage= 27.2%

Nadal
Slam= 22
Masters 1000= 36
Ratio= 1.63

Titles won= 92
Masters 1000= 36
Percentage= 39.1%

Djokovic
Slam= 24
Masters 1000= 40
Ratio= 1.66

Titles won= 99
Masters 1000= 40
Percentage= 40.4%

The ratio between slam titles and masters 1000 is nothing more than the frequency with which a member of the big three has won a masters 1000 title in relation to a slam title, for example if it is 2 it means that a player wins two masters 1000 for every slam won.
The percentage instead is how many masters 1000s have won as a percentage of all the titles won.

All this to say that from these data it is even better understood that if Djokovic and Nadal in the masters 1000 have maintained a similar trend, on the contrary Federer in the masters 1000 has obtained much less success in proportion to the success he had in other tournament categories.
The problem is understanding the causes;

1) The fact that he never had the chance to play a single Masters 1000 on grass certainly disadvantaged him more than the other two.
In the Big Three era, grass occupies 25% of the 4 majors, while 0% in the Masters 1000.
On the contrary, the percentage of tournaments on hard and clay increases in the Masters 1000 compared to the majors.

2) I thought of Murray, that is, a type of opponent that Federer suffered a lot especially between 2007 and 2010 (8-5 in favor of Murray).
Well, Murray with his 14 Masters 1000 won compared to only 3 Slams has a disproportionate ratio of 4.66, while instead his percentage of Masters 1000 won compared to the overall titles (46) is 30.4%, much lower than that of Djokovic and Nadal, but still higher than that of Federer.
In short, could Murray have unbalanced Federer's ratio in Masters 1000s compared to Nadal and Djokovic?

Final question;

Did Djokovic and Nadal win more Masters 1000s than they should have, or did Federer win less than he should have?

Djokovic won more Masters 1000s than he should have and Federer was smart between 2004 and 2006 (his peak years) in prioritizing GS tournaments over Masters 1000s.
He could have won 3, 4 more Masters 1000s if he had wanted to.

 

[Hitman]

Djokovic won more Masters 1000s than he should have and Federer was smart between 2004 and 2006 (his peak years) in prioritizing GS tournaments over Masters 1000s.
He could have won 3, 4 more Masters 1000s if he had wanted to.

Did Nadal win more than he should have? 36 is a lot also.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Djokovic has higher win rate in his worst slam RG, than in his best masters/ATP Finals/Olympics etc.

Masters have almost as hard a draw but with BO3, its much less forgiving. 1 mistake and you are gone.

 

[ND-13]

Basel, Halle and Dubai are way better than Paris and Toronto .

And imagine having to win 5 matches from Wed to Sunday everyday playing late night because that is when most crowds can come

 

[The Guru]

Roger's lesser masters numbers are mostly a function of him not being as strong on clay combined with him playing during the period where Nadal was healthy for every clay tournament. His HC masters numbers are good it's the clay that drags him back.

 

[RS]

It was unfair the courts weren't fast enough for Federer.

 

[Daniel Andrade]

Federer
Slam= 20
Masters 1000= 28
Ratio= 1.40

Titles won= 103
Masters 1000= 28
Percentage= 27.2%

Nadal
Slam= 22
Masters 1000= 36
Ratio= 1.63

Titles won= 92
Masters 1000= 36
Percentage= 39.1%

Djokovic
Slam= 24
Masters 1000= 40
Ratio= 1.66

Titles won= 99
Masters 1000= 40
Percentage= 40.4%

The ratio between slam titles and masters 1000 is nothing more than the frequency with which a member of the big three has won a masters 1000 title in relation to a slam title, for example if it is 2 it means that a player wins two masters 1000 for every slam won.
The percentage instead is how many masters 1000s have won as a percentage of all the titles won.

All this to say that from these data it is even better understood that if Djokovic and Nadal in the masters 1000 have maintained a similar trend, on the contrary Federer in the masters 1000 has obtained much less success in proportion to the success he had in other tournament categories.
The problem is understanding the causes;

1) The fact that he never had the chance to play a single Masters 1000 on grass certainly disadvantaged him more than the other two.
In the Big Three era, grass occupies 25% of the 4 majors, while 0% in the Masters 1000.
On the contrary, the percentage of tournaments on hard and clay increases in the Masters 1000 compared to the majors.

2) I thought of Murray, that is, a type of opponent that Federer suffered a lot especially between 2007 and 2010 (8-5 in favor of Murray).
Well, Murray with his 14 Masters 1000 won compared to only 3 Slams has a disproportionate ratio of 4.66, while instead his percentage of Masters 1000 won compared to the overall titles (46) is 30.4%, much lower than that of Djokovic and Nadal, but still higher than that of Federer.
In short, could Murray have unbalanced Federer's ratio in Masters 1000s compared to Nadal and Djokovic?

Final question;

Did Djokovic and Nadal win more Masters 1000s than they should have, or did Federer win less than he should have?

Perhaps Federer won more than he should have

 

[messiahrobins]

Djokovic had 6 Masters 1000s on his best surface. Federer 0. Nadal had 3 on his best surface.

The numbers simply reflect that reality. If there were equal M1000s on each surface, i.e 3 each, Federer almost certainly would have had the most. In his heydey he was almost as dominant on grass as Nadal was on clay.

 

[Bride of Alcaraz]

Djokovic had 6 Masters 1000s on his best surface. Federer 0. Nadal had 3 on his best surface.

The numbers simply reflect that reality. If there were equal M1000s on each surface, i.e 3 each, Federer almost certainly would have had the most. In his heydey he was almost as dominant on grass as Nadal was on clay.

Exactly, the biggest problem is Djokovic and Federer weren't talented enough to win on clay as much as Nadal.
They were more reliant on their serves than Nadal, and that's why Nadal is the superior all-around tennis player.
You need maximum talent to win on clay, you can't just serve-bot your way to tiebreakers...

And even in the volley department, as early as 2010-
"Why is Nadal number one?" said McEnroe. "I think because he volleys better, I think better than Federer now."
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-...reer-slam-says-mcenroe-idUKTRE67I07820100819/

 

[Tennfan123]

Oh lord. OP you’re relatively new but this has all been done to death on here. Keep on with the sinner stuff lol.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Perhaps Federer won more than he should have

Federer and Nole are very similar players with minute difference on clay where Nole is better being a 2 hander baseline god.
So both didn't win more than they should. The difference is 12 - 6 from Paris and 5 from clay tournaments.

If Fed won more then Djokovic won more , otherwise neither.

Who really won more than should have is RUBLEV and maybe just maybe Hurkacz. Not big 3.

 

[NatF]

On Federer in no particular order...

1) Masters were more physicality demanding in his best years, this meant he often skipped several or gave less than full intensity at the ones he entered.
2) In Federer's formative years masters events weren't mandatory (the change happened in 2000), I think Federer had a different mindset for them compared to some later players where he saw them more as tune-ups for the slams rather than big tournaments in their own right. This ties into 1), there are obvious examples where Federer tanked or skipped masters to be fresh for slams.
3) Nadal. Federer basically had to contend with Nadal at the peak of his consistency on clay, this was a substantial roadblock to winning several more masters on clay.
4) No grass masters. The lack of masters level grass tune-up for Wimbledon likely robbed Federer of several more (at least) masters. Considering his success at Wimbledon and Halle, if there had been even one grass masters Federer would have been a major contender for it for 15+ years and likely wins considerably more there than Djokovic and especially Nadal.

 

[Daniel Andrade]

On Federer in no particular order...

1) Masters were more physicality demanding in his best years, this meant he often skipped several or gave less than full intensity at the ones he entered.
2) In Federer's formative years masters events weren't mandatory (the change happened in 2000), I think Federer had a different mindset for them compared to some later players where he saw them more as tune-ups for the slams rather than big tournaments in their own right. This ties into 1), there are obvious examples where Federer tanked or skipped masters to be fresh for slams.
3) Nadal. Federer basically had to contend with Nadal at the peak of his consistency on clay, this was a substantial roadblock to winning several more masters on clay.
4) No grass masters. The lack of masters level grass tune-up for Wimbledon likely robbed Federer of several more (at least) masters. Considering his success at Wimbledon and Halle, if there had been even one grass masters Federer would have been a major contender for it for 15+ years and likely wins considerably more there than Djokovic and especially Nadal.

Poor Fed he's so unlucky, it's so unfair

 

[Third Serve]

Poor Fed he's so unlucky, it's so unfair

I think you can fault Fed for not winning even a few more clay Masters than he did but none of the above was exactly wrong was it?

 

[SonnyT]

2004-2006 Federer won 11 of 18 Masters played (61%). Very dominant, but he skipped many tournaments.
2007-2009 Federer won 4 of 26 Masters played (15%). A huge drop-off...likely due to his focus on achieving the slam record.

2010-retire, Federer won 5 of 59 (.08%).

As usual, Federer made his killing in '04-06, when Nadal and Djokovic were teenagers!

 

[MeatTornado]

I've always been very impressed with how Djokovic dedicated himself to the full calendar.

Even at his physical peak, Fed was clearly following the Sampras model of prioritizing the slams over everything. And Nadal was always building his schedule around the clay season.

But Novak shot out of the gate early in Australia every January and managed to stay strong all the way to the end of the Tour Finals in November. I think he really helped raise the importance of a lot of the Masters, treating them as more than just slam warm-ups.

 

[NoleFam]

Masters won vs entered:

Federer - 28/138 = 20.3%
Nadal - 36/130 = 27.7%
Djokovic - 40/131 = 30.5%

So saying Federer won less because he played less of them is just flat out false. Why is so hard for some to just admit somebody else was better at something than the guy they support?

 

[nolefam_2024]

I've always been very impressed with how Djokovic dedicated himself to the full calendar.

Even at his physical peak, Fed was clearly following the Sampras model of prioritizing the slams over everything. And Nadal was always building his schedule around the clay season.

But Novak shot out of the gate early in Australia every January and managed to stay strong all the way to the end of the Tour Finals in November. I think he really helped raise the importance of a lot of the Masters, treating them as more than just slam warm-ups.

He is something like 24-4 or 27-4 vs fedal+Murray+stan in first 3 big events.

Combined winning 21 big titles in just 3 months. Like you said , shot out of the gate early.

Plus he is equally as menacing in year end post usopen. While more vulnerable in Shanghai, in Paris and Tour finals again owns all the best players including Federer. So 14 titles in last 2 events as well.

Combined 35 of his 72 come from start and end of the year.

 

[Third Serve]

Masters won vs entered:

Federer - 28/138 = 20.3%
Nadal - 36/130 = 27.7%
Djokovic - 40/131 = 30.5%

So saying Federer won less because he played less of them is just flat out false. Why is so hard for some to just admit somebody else was better at something than the guy they support?

Fed was actually more prolific with his attendance of Masters after he left his prime, which reflects the standardization of the tour beginning in 2009. Masters tournaments weren’t mandatory before then, and he skipped or didn’t put 100% in them (e.g. Cincy 2006) a bunch in his prime years—when he would have had the best shot at adding to his tally. Back then (and this is even more relevant for the 90’s), Masters weren’t necessarily treated as separate goals, mainly warm-ups for the Slams.

Fed skipped seven Masters tournaments in total from 2004 and 2005. Djokovic on the other hand rarely skipped Masters in his prime. Between 2011 and 2015 he had only three or four skips in total, I think. This reflects the growing participation rate of Masters going into the 2010’s. You might as well blame Pete for not getting as many Masters as even Andy Murray—they just weren’t as relevant to player legacies as they are today. The standardization of the tour starting in 2007 (when they got rid of bo5 in finals) and ending in the 2009 shakeup really changed things.

And besides, no one’s saying that’s the only reason. Most of the people who have brought it up, like myself, have it as just one out of a string of bullet points. I think this is only one of the reasons that Fed’s Masters tally is behind the other two but it’s definitely a valid reason. He probably missed out on a few winning opportunities in the Masters he skipped. It wouldn’t be enough to account for 10-12 Masters or so, but it would shorten the difference. The biggest factor is probably clay.

 

[NoleFam]

So let's put what you're saying to the test. At the of 2009, Federer had played 78 Masters. Compared to Nadal at the end of 2014 who had played 83 and Djokovic who had played 85 at the end of 2015. So he did play less up until the time when they all ended the seasons at 28 years old. Now let's see how they performed in those tournaments.

Federer - 16/78 = 20.5%
Nadal - 27/83 = 32.5%
Djokovic - 26/85 = 30.5%

No movement in percentage for him and Djokovic in their career averages, and only Nadal's percentage went down. This already puts him way behind them because of that. He needed to win 24 of those 78 to be on par with them, which would have put him within striking distance.

So even if he played more, this still isn't enough to be better at them than Djokovic or Nadal because he wasn't as good even up to that point in sealing the deal and taking those titles. If you want to blame that on him tanking them (which I don't believe considering how dominant he was in his prime when he was reeling off 90%+ win percentage seasons) then ok that's your prerogative.

 

[nolefam_2024]

So let's put what you're saying to the test. At the of 2009, Federer had played 78 Masters. Compared to Nadal at the end of 2014 who had played 83 and Djokovic who had played 85 at the end of 2015. So he did play less up until the time when they all ended the seasons at 28 years old. Now let's see how they performed in those tournaments.

Federer - 16/78 = 20.5%
Nadal - 27/83 = 32.5%
Djokovic - 26/85 = 30.5%

No movement in percentage for him and Djokovic in their career averages, and only Nadal's percentage went down. This already puts him way behind them because of that. He needed to win 24 of those 78 to be on par with them, which would have put him within striking distance.

So even if he played more, this still isn't enough to be better at them than Djokovic or Nadal because he wasn't as good even up to that point in sealing the deal and taking those titles. If you want to blame that on him tanking them (which I don't believe considering how dominant he was in his prime when he was reeling off 90%+ win percentage seasons) then ok that's your prerogative.

Just not that good

 

[Born_to_slice]

Federer prioritized slams. If Novak did that he'd have several more slams on his tally now.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Federer prioritized slams. If Novak did that he'd have several more slams on his tally now.

Fed did not prioritized slams thats another lie

He prioritized grass tournaments and basel for appearance money

 

[Third Serve]

So let's put what you're saying to the test. At the of 2009, Federer had played 78 Masters. Compared to Nadal at the end of 2014 who had played 83 and Djokovic who had played 85 at the end of 2015. So he did play less up until the time when they all ended the seasons at 28 years old. Now let's see how they performed in those tournaments.

Federer - 16/78 = 20.5%
Nadal - 27/83 = 32.5%
Djokovic - 26/85 = 30.5%

No movement in percentage for him and Djokovic in their career averages, and only Nadal's percentage went down. This already puts him way behind them because of that. He needed to win 24 of those 78 to be on par with them, which would have put him within striking distance.

So even if he played more, this still isn't enough to be better at them than Djokovic or Nadal because he wasn't as good even up to that point in sealing the deal and taking those titles. If you want to blame that on him tanking them (which I don't believe considering how dominant he was in his prime when he was reeling off 90%+ win percentage seasons) then ok that's your prerogative.

That’s counting 1998-2003 though (and the equivalent pre-prime periods for Nadal and Djokovic). If you read my posts, my argument has always been that Fed missed out on shots at titles during his prime, which is quite evident by his skipping seven in two years (and not giving 100% in tournaments like Cincy 2004 and 2006). Djokovic on the other hand had a near-perfect attendance record during his prime. Everything else is noise in this argument and doesn’t address the point I’m making.

And I don’t know why you’d be averse to the fact that Fed didn’t give it all in some tournaments. It’s pretty well established Cincy 2006 was a strategic tank because of Fed’s busy season. And in 2007-2009 he was even more obvious about saving his best for the Slams. The disparity between his Masters and Slam results in those years cannot simply be explained by him just not being that good. It’s why he sucked against Murray in bo3 but crushed him in the biggest matches.

 

[Born_to_slice]

Fed did not prioritized slams thats another lie

2004-2007 Federer wasn't present at 9 masters and had 1 R1, 4 R2 and 3 R3 exits. Won 11 slams.
2011-2016 Djokovic wasn't present at 5 masters and had no R1, 3 R2 and 2 R3 exits. Won also 11 slams.
Keep in mind it's a 4 year period for Fed compared to 6 years period for Nole. Difference is drastic.
It's easy to see how Federer prioritized slams in his heyday while Djokovic wasted his energy for masters.

 

[nolefam_2024]

2004-2007 Federer wasn't present at 9 masters and had 1 R1, 4 R2 and 3 R3 exits. Won 11 slams.
2011-2016 Djokovic wasn't present at 5 masters and had no R1, 3 R2 and 2 R3 exits. Won also 11 slams.
Keep in mind it's a 4 year period for Fed compared to 6 years period for Nole. Difference is drastic.
It's easy to see how Federer prioritized slams in his heyday while Djokovic wasted his energy for masters.

That Federer won 11 in 2004-07 is just product of his era. Just like Djokovic won 12 in 18-23.

But Federer won total of 15 Mickie mouse tournaments in these 4 years. Let's never forget that. Not slams/Masters/ATP finals.
But random 250s and 500s where he was getting huge appearance fees.


Djokovic won 8 MM in 6 years. Keep in mind. Difference is drastic.

 

[Third Serve]

2004-2007 Federer wasn't present at 9 masters and had 1 R1, 4 R2 and 3 R3 exits. Won 11 slams.
2011-2016 Djokovic wasn't present at 5 masters and had no R1, 3 R2 and 2 R3 exits. Won also 11 slams.
Keep in mind it's a 4 year period for Fed compared to 6 years period for Nole. Difference is drastic.
It's easy to see how Federer prioritized slams in his heyday while Djokovic wasted his energy for masters.

Yeah there was a meme a while back about Djokovic “majoring in minors” during that time period. While it’s definitely an uncharitable take, one does wonder if the mandatory Masters requirements (+ Djokovic’s insistence on trying 100% in most of these events) cost him a few Slams. But then again I think his failures in Slam finals during that period were more mental than physical so I dunno.

He has changed up this strategy in his post-prime years though, sacrificing some Masters for Slams. He straight-up hasn’t tried to win IW or Miami since 2016. Fed and Nadal have done this too in their late careers.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Nadal being the masters king for so long just felt right

 

[Born_to_slice]

That Federer won 11 in 2004-07 is just product of his era. Just like Djokovic won 12 in 18-23.

But Federer won total of 15 Mickie mouse tournaments in these 4 years. Let's never forget that. Not slams/Masters/ATP finals.
But random 250s and 500s where he was getting huge appearance fees.


Djokovic won 8 MM in 6 years. Keep in mind. Difference is drastic.

Novak missed on 16 masters in the 18-23 period, not counting the ones not held. He absolutely prioritized slams. Wish he was a bit smarter in his prime.

Yeah there was a meme a while back about Djokovic “majoring in minors” during that time period. While it’s definitely an uncharitable take, one does wonder if the mandatory Masters requirements (+ Djokovic’s insistence on trying 100% in most of these events) cost him a few Slams. But then again I think his failures in Slam finals during that period were more mental than physical so I dunno.

He has changed up this strategy in his post-prime years though, sacrificing some Masters for Slams. He straight-up hasn’t tried to win IW or Miami since 2016.

Physical and mental are intertwined. Mandatory requirements are easily bypassed with early round exits and "injuries".

 

[nolefam_2024]

Novak missed on 16 masters in the 18-23 period, not counting the ones not held. He absolutely prioritized slams. Wish he was a bit smarter in his prime.

That's stupid.

He prioritized slams because he had turned 31 , the age where EVERY SINGLE player ever in history of the sport played shorter season.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Djokovic missing on winning 12 slams is not a product of focusing on masters but how hard the era was. Only slam that I wish he could get to play once again was USO 14 where he came unprepared and got beaten by freaking Nishikori. No one loses to Nishikori at Novak's level. Fed has never lost to someone like Nishikori in his prime.

 

[NoleFam]

That’s counting 1998-2003 though (and the equivalent pre-prime periods for Nadal and Djokovic). If you read my posts, my argument has always been that Fed missed out on shots at titles during his prime, which is quite evident by his skipping seven in two years (and not giving 100% in tournaments like Cincy 2004 and 2006). Djokovic on the other hand had a near-perfect attendance record during his prime. Everything else is noise in this argument and doesn’t address the point I’m making.

And I don’t know why you’d be averse to the fact that Fed didn’t give it all in some tournaments. It’s pretty well established Cincy 2006 was a strategic tank because of Fed’s busy season. And in 2007-2009 he was even more obvious about saving his best for the Slams. The disparity between his Masters and Slam results in those years cannot simply be explained by him just not being that good. It’s why he sucked against Murray in bo3 but crushed him in the biggest matches.

So that also includes 2003-2008 for Nadal and 2004-2009 for Djokovic right? Also, the tournament director flat out said he was skipping Paris Masters in 2004-2006 because he didn't like carpet which Federer himself told him. Even so, his strike rate just wasn't as good as theirs all things considered.

Maybe because he won 26 tournaments that were 250 or 500 level up to the end of 2009. That's 26/82 which is 31.7% strike rate in 250/500 tournaments compared to 20.5% strike rate at Masters during that time. Are you seriously going to tell me he prioritized low level tournaments over Masters too? The easiest explanation is he was really good at them but Djokovic and Nadal were great at them, and better than he was. Point blank.

 

[nolefam_2024]

So that also includes 2003-2008 for Nadal and 2004-2009 for Djokovic right? Also, the tournament director flat out said he was skipping Paris Masters in 2004-2006 because he didn't like carpet which Federer himself told him. Even so, his strike rate just wasn't as good as theirs all things considered.

Maybe because he won 26 tournaments that were 250 or 500 level up to the end of 2009. That's 26/82 which is 31.7% strike in 250/500 tournaments compared to 20.5% strike at Masters during that time. Are you seriously going to tell me he prioritized low level tournaments over Masters too? The easiest explanation is he was really good at them but Djokovic and Nadal were great at them, and better than he was. Point blank.

Point blank
Discussion over

 

[Third Serve]

So that also includes 2003-2008 for Nadal and 2004-2009 for Djokovic right? Also, the tournament director flat out said he was skipping Paris Masters in 2004-2006 because he didn't like carpet which Federer himself told him. Even so, his strike rate just wasn't as good as theirs all things considered.

Maybe because he won 26 tournaments that were 250 or 500 level up to the end of 2009. That's 26/82 which is 31.7% strike rate in 250/500 tournaments compared to 20.5% strike rate at Masters during that time. Are you seriously going to tell me he prioritized low level tournaments over Masters too? The easiest explanation is he was really good at them but Djokovic and Nadal were great at them, and better than he was. Point blank.

What does “and the equivalent periods for Nadal and Djokovic” mean if not that? I feel like you don’t actually read the other person’s arguments a lot of the time.

Here’s the thing about that Paris statement—it pretty much suggests that Fed’s regard for the Masters wasn’t that high to begin with. He fought tooth and nail to play the 2005 YEC—which was held on carpet—even though he had an injury. It’s true that Fed didn’t much care for carpet but if he viewed Masters tournaments in the way that players view them nowadays he’d have played them anyway like he did with the YEC (because that was an very important tournament). Remember that this was before players started getting big penalties for skipping Masters (except MC).

And honestly the fact that he played so many small tournaments at the expense of Masters also shows his level of interest in sub-YEC events. Back then players felt like they could sort of pick and choose events, and Fed decided to go with those ones for various reasons. The tour was way more Slam and YEC-heavy. That’s not really the mindset players have today.

I think a lot of people are understating the difference between the value of Masters pre-2009 and post-2009.

 

[The Guru]

What does “and the equivalent periods for Nadal and Djokovic” mean if not that? I feel like you don’t actually read the other person’s arguments a lot of the time.

Here’s the thing about that Paris statement—it pretty much suggests that Fed’s regard for the Masters wasn’t that high to begin with. He fought tooth and nail to play the 2005 YEC—which was held on carpet—even though he had an injury. It’s true that Fed didn’t much care for carpet but if he viewed Masters tournaments in the way that players view them nowadays he’d have played them anyway like he did with the YEC (because that was an very important tournament). Remember that this was before players started getting big penalties for skipping Masters (except MC).

And honestly the fact that he played so many small tournaments at the expense of Masters also shows his level of interest in sub-YEC events. Back then players felt like they could sort of pick and choose events, and Fed decided to go with those ones for various reasons. The tour was way more Slam and YEC-heavy. That’s not really the mindset players have today.

I think a lot of people are understating the difference between the value of Masters pre-2009 and post-2009.

I think you're making a little too broad of a claim about the status of masters pre 09. Maybe the category itself had less meaning but that doesn't mean the tournaments themselves had less meaning. I think at the very least Miami, IW, MC, Rome, and Cinci had as much weight as they have a couple of them probably had more. The standardization of the masters really elevated the bottom more than gave more weight to the top. Kinda like the standardization of slams boosted the AO. It's mostly Madrid and Paris that got more primacy imo.

 

[NoleFam]

What does “and the equivalent periods for Nadal and Djokovic” mean if not that? I feel like you don’t actually read the other person’s arguments a lot of the time.

Here’s the thing about that Paris statement—it pretty much suggests that Fed’s regard for the Masters wasn’t that high to begin with. He fought tooth and nail to play the 2005 YEC—which was held on carpet—even though he had an injury. It’s true that Fed didn’t much care for carpet but if he viewed Masters tournaments in the way that players view them nowadays he’d have played them anyway like he did with the YEC (because that was an very important tournament). Remember that this was before players started getting big penalties for skipping Masters (except MC).

And honestly the fact that he played so many small tournaments at the expense of Masters also shows his level of interest in sub-YEC events. Back then players felt like they could sort of pick and choose events, and Fed decided to go with those ones for various reasons. The tour was way more Slam and YEC-heavy. That’s not really the mindset players have today.

I think a lot of people are understating the difference between the value of Masters pre-2009 and post-2009.

I did read it but I'm wondering if you actually read mine since you keep circling back to "if he viewed Masters tournaments in the way players view them nowadays he'd have played them anyway". The point I made is he played less of them but played enough of them, and if he won them at the same rate that Djokovic and Nadal did through 2009, he'd have won 24 of them instead of 16. That means he only would have been 2 or 3 behind them instead of 10 or 11 behind.

Also, he hated carpet and was one of the main advocates for its removal from the tour. He only had to play one YEC on carpet, and even if he hated the surface he wasn't going to skip that particular tournament because it was the 5th biggest tournament on the tour. The Paris Masters tournament director actually changed the surface for him so he'd play it again so let's not omit that fact.

I refuse to believe he gave more in 250/500 level tournaments than Masters considering the percentages won, but the fact is more top players play Masters; that makes the competition tougher and they're BO3 so you have less time to recover when you get down in a match. When it comes to these topics, I just struggle to understand why some just can't say "well he was quite good but Djokovic and Nadal actually just performed better at them than he did". There is always some excuse other than his level of tennis not being quite enough.

 

[Third Serve]

I think you're making a little too broad of a claim about the status of masters pre 09. Maybe the category itself had less meaning but that doesn't mean the tournaments themselves had less meaning. I think at the very least Miami, IW, MC, Rome, and Cinci had as much weight as they have a couple of them probably had more. The standardization of the masters really elevated the bottom more than gave more weight to the top. Kinda like the standardization of slams boosted the AO. It's mostly Madrid and Paris that got more primacy imo.

Maybe so, but there was definitely an issue across the board with Masters attendance which is why the ATP adopted those changes in 2009. But I do agree that some had a ton of prestige back then. Rome might have had even more. I think I’d contest Cincy.

But I do think that the standardization elevated Canada, Hamburg/Madrid, and the last two Masters on the schedule.

And it didn’t really change MC that much because it still isn’t technically mandatory for players IIRC. Fed actually continued to skip that one regularly even though he played the others more.

 

[The Guru]

Maybe so, but there was definitely an issue across the board with Masters attendance which is why the ATP adopted those changes in 2009. But I do agree that some had a ton of prestige back then. Rome might have had even more. I think I’d contest Cincy.

But I do think that the standardization elevated Canada, Hamburg/Madrid, and the last two Masters on the schedule.

And it didn’t really change MC that much because it still isn’t technically mandatory for players IIRC. Fed actually continued to skip that one regularly even though he played the others more.

Toronto and Cinci were in the middle and I think still are tons of history and good spot on calendar but not the cache of the true top dogs. I think Cinci had extra juice for being in America and America being a tennis powerhouse through the start of the Fed era so that's why I put it on that level. Agree Hamburg/Madrid/Paris were for sure elevated.

As you alluded to the true top dogs were maybe drug back to the pack a bit. Miami and Rome used to feel enormous. Miami kinda did it to themselves and IW overtook them as well but Rome definitely lost some of its swag even though I think most people would still rank it as at worst a top 3 master.

 

[Third Serve]

Toronto and Cinci were in the middle and I think still are tons of history and good spot on calendar but not the cache of the true top dogs. I think Cinci had extra juice for being in America and America being a tennis powerhouse through the start of the Fed era so that's why I put it on that level. Agree Hamburg/Madrid/Paris were for sure elevated.

As you alluded to the true top dogs were maybe drug back to the pack a bit. Miami and Rome used to feel enormous. Miami kinda did it to themselves and IW overtook them as well but Rome definitely lost some of its swag even though I think most people would still rank it as at worst a top 3 master.

I agree.