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

SonnyT

Legend
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.
Keep in mind that Federer's glory years were in '04-07, when his rivals, Nadal & Djokovic, were still teenagers. Federer's years of '08-retirement were less than satisfactory, with him winning one post-'11 slam with a healthy Djokovic!

Djokovic's glory years were in '11-18, when all of Djokovic were in their primes, and Djokovic had proven he was the best! Djokovic's '19-23 were in insignificant, because he had proven himself!
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
The biggest reason is there's no a single MS1000 on grass which is Roger's pet surface. Had Halle and Queen were a MS1000 scheduled at different time, Roger would have won many more titles.

Also Djokovic inflated many of his MS1000 during the weakest era of all time(CIE)
 

RS

Bionic Poster
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.
How is NBA this season?
 
Top