Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
We'll have to agree to disagree I'm afraid.
Where does WTF stand?
- Thread starter Omega_7000
- Start date
We'll have to agree to disagree I'm afraid.
So you think that it's easier to win because it's only once every 4 years?
D
Deleted member 3771
Guest
the WTf stands behind every event that has a best of 5 format or best of 5 final.
Frequency has nothing to do with difficulty to win. If an event is rare it means it takes more luck to win. I mean what ever player is hot once in 4 years, wins it.
If we go by frequency, Olympic games and WTF would be above majors.
What makes WTF difficult to win is tough draw. You don't get an easy opponent.
One guy can't get hot and have a good draw and win it. One guy has to be consistent for an entire year to even qualify. And even if one guy out of top gets "hotter" even after that, he still needs to beat the toughest draw.
In Fed's prime masters and WTF was 5-set finals. So, does that mean Fed is greater?
But now that your logic makes Fed look good, I expect you will change the rules.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Oh so now you win events purely based on luck? I see.
Less frequent = less opportunities to win (in other words, harder to win) and more prestigious.
If the olympics were held every year it wouldnt mean as much.
6
6-3 6-0
Guest
Oh so Olympics > WTF > Grandslams according to you? I see. Since there is 4 grandslams per year and only 1 WTF.
KillerServe
Banned
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
But by the same token one could argue that its prestige is reduced precisely because it is only every four years. Either way it's a circular argument and no one will ever agree one way or the other.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
See: Nadal in 2012. He qualified playing only half the year. The point being, the top players have no problem qualifying, it is easy for them.
Federer with his awful year in 2013 still qualified.
KillerServe
Banned
Awful year by his standards you moron.
Yes, I've been "owned". Oh no! What are we in junior high? Let's talk like adults, guys.
Each GS is a different tournament and occurs only once per year, just as WTF, it is best-of-5, and if you lose a match you are out. Ask Davydenko or Nalbandian which is harder to win.
Either way, ever heard of rules with exceptions? Obviously grand slams are more prestigious, but it's true that there are more opportunities to win one, though the surface differences mean you have one chance a year to win on that particular surface, just like WTFs. I thought the argument was just about WTF vs. olympics.
You realize Fed is extending his career based on the timing of the next olympics? Seems important to me.
Yes, exactly, that's why I said the top players qualify easy. An "awful" year for Fed still landed him in the WTFs.
Can we not resort to name-calling please?
6
6-3 6-0
Guest
Why? Look at the first option in the poll GS is also included.
If you tell me to ask other players, I will ask you to do the same. Go ask Marc Rosset or Rafael Nadal.
Nobody said Olympics is meaningless just like some RNadal fanboys refer WTF as glorified exhibition. But under no circumstances, Olympic OG > WTF. To beat top 8 players consecutively is a HUGE task.
I don't think WTF is an exhibition but I do have a problem with how people commonly refer to it now. It can't be a measure of overall greatness and being able to consistently beat top players, when it's only on one surface, which you could call a specialized surface when looking at the tour today. It certainly shows indoor greatness, though. For example, I don't see how Fed having 6 WTFs vs. Nadal having 0 would show that Federer is better at beating the top players, because its simply not true. Beating the best players indoor, yes, indoor hard suits Fed's game.
That's what hurts the WTFs for me in terms of overall greatness, and why I view it just slightly above an indoor masters. Put it this way, would Nadal have struggled significantly more at Monte Carlo if it was top-8 RR format?
heninfan99
Talk Tennis Guru
I mis-voted...really wanted choice two. WTF is 5th most important after the 4 slams and I love the round robin format for variety.
KillerServe
Banned
Marc Rosset, LOLLLLLLLL, nuff said. That says it all there. Olympics is effectively meaningless for tennis legacy.
6
6-3 6-0
Guest
There is no indoor slam, so its justified that WTF is played on indoor hard. Would RNadal have won 8 RG had it been played on grass or hard? You get the point.
Plus, there's a reason why ATP awards 750 to winner of Olympics and double of that to (undefeated) winner of WTF. You can't dispute ATP, neither can I. It happens that I agree with them.
No, you're missing the point. Roland Garros isn't an individual category for greatness, there are other slams. Today, there are slams on grass, hard, and clay. Whether its more homogenized or not, different styles have the opportunity. There are no grass masters, but there are clay masters and hard masters (outdoor and indoor) of all different speeds and compositions. The Olympics have been held on all surfaces. There are ATP 500s on all surfaces. Weeks at No.1 is determined by performance on all surfaces. Year-end No.1 is determined by all surfaces. H2H against main rivals takes into account all surfaces.
Yet, we have this other category for greatness, WTFs, that recently only measures indoor hard court prowess on one court. Where is the opportunity for different styles? Do you see how this is different? If it is to be a separate category for determining greatness it needs to allow for different styles.
You don't think the choice of surface is a little lucky for Federer and a little unlucky for Nadal?
Last edited:
Every tournament is 'just one surface'
Every tournament is just one surface. Wimbledon is 'just one surface'. Roland garros is 'just one surface'. Because the French Open is 'just one surface' is it not a measure of overall greatness and being able to consistently beat top players?
Indoor is becoming less. But that is just a anomoly of the past decade. For most of tennis history it was one of the main surfaces/conditions.
Every tournament is just one surface. Wimbledon is 'just one surface'. Roland garros is 'just one surface'. Because the French Open is 'just one surface' is it not a measure of overall greatness and being able to consistently beat top players?
Indoor is becoming less. But that is just a anomoly of the past decade. For most of tennis history it was one of the main surfaces/conditions.
NatF
Bionic Poster
This. Indoor tennis has a long tradition and has always been very important. It's not even a quick indoor court. The surface is fairly neutral IMO.
Refer to my post above (#126), yes all of the slams are on one surface, but they are all slams. There are slams on every surface. WTFs is not.
Slams and greatness
But people do look at individual slams, not just slam totals. Why is Sampras' lack of a Roland Garros title brought up so often? (Unfairily in my opinion).
But people do look at individual slams, not just slam totals. Why is Sampras' lack of a Roland Garros title brought up so often? (Unfairily in my opinion).
Yes it's neutral, that's why the Nadal-Federer H2H is 1-4 at the WTFs, and 21-6 everywhere else. Cmon, dude, it clearly favors a certain style.
The most neutral would be outdoor hard, because that is the biggest chunk of the tour today.
Last edited:
Because the grand slams are the pinnacle of the sport and he is missing one from his resume.
Yes, people look at individual slams, they look at Nadal's titles at RG and claim him to be the best CLAY player. Not the best grand slam player. That's my argument, the WTFs shows indoor greatness, not some different level of domination over the top opponents that is necessary for someone's overall career. If it represented multiple surfaces, then it could have a different significance.
NatF
Bionic Poster
It's changed surface between those meetings. Shanghai obviously favored Federer alot more. Even if it does favor a certain style all tournaments do that anyway. I really can't see what's so difficult about the WTF surface for Nadal, it's not particularly low bouncing, it's a pretty slow court which doesn't hurt his style of play. I don't see the issue.
The fact is the YEC is a major tournament (beneath the slams) and has been for 40 years. It's important to win it.
But if it's beneath the slams and above masters then it is in it's own category and it does not have fair representation of the surfaces. Why not have the same kind of tournament on other surfaces as well? I get that indoor hard is tradition, but if WTFs is not a slam, then it's function is not to make up for the lack of a slam on indoor hard.
I'm not saying its not an important tournament, my problem is when people talk about it as beating the best of the best because its only the top 8. And therefore, since Federer has won it a bunch, he is the best at beating the best. I don't think that statement rings true in his career overall (certainly not past his prime years 2004-2007). It shows he's the best at beating the best on indoor hard. Unfortunately, this is the only surface where you have a chance to "beat the best of the best".
Last edited:
5th biggest event after the slams.
The majority of players would rather win Wimbledon than any other slam but that doesn't mean that Wimbledon is more important.
The majority of players would rather win Wimbledon than any other slam but that doesn't mean that Wimbledon is more important.
It means that to a good number of people on this forum... Not me, but there are a good number of people, mostly fans of Fed or Pete. It's been referred to as the "holy grail".
Yes, and the French Open and slow outdoor hard (most of the Federer/Nadal matches) also favour a particular style. Not sure what your point is here.
Outdoor hard is a problem because most of the Outdoor hards these days tend to be at near clay speeds - heavily favouring Clay court players.
A poster said that the WTFs in neutral, my point was that its not. I didn't say that other tournaments don't favor a particular style, all I said was that the WTFs do favor a particular style, which is significant to me because it is in its own category.
Last edited:
Does neutral exist? And why pursue it? If it is achievable, then why don't all the slams adopt that 'neutral' surface/conditions?
I'm not advocating or saying that there are neutral conditions. I'm just advocating a fair chance for all playing styles. If the WTFs is in a category to itself, which most people seem to believe, then it would be unfair for it to favor a certain style.
Balance
I am sympathetic to what you are saying. I used to feel the same up to around 10-15 years ago. Something has happened in that period to change my mind. That is the complete extreme skewing of the surfaces, across the board and calendar year, in favour of the baseline, slow court player. Fast court tennis (and actually medium-fast court tennis) has completely disappeared - and all we have now is slow, medium-slow and medium - with the first 2 making up 90% of the calendar year. Having the WTF indoor now has become even more necessary as a kind of balance, in a small way, to the extremes of slowness that have happened in 90% of events.
I am sympathetic to what you are saying. I used to feel the same up to around 10-15 years ago. Something has happened in that period to change my mind. That is the complete extreme skewing of the surfaces, across the board and calendar year, in favour of the baseline, slow court player. Fast court tennis (and actually medium-fast court tennis) has completely disappeared - and all we have now is slow, medium-slow and medium - with the first 2 making up 90% of the calendar year. Having the WTF indoor now has become even more necessary as a kind of balance, in a small way, to the extremes of slowness that have happened in 90% of events.
I hear what you're saying too. Then they need to incorporate fast courts more into the current tour. Not as a stand alone tournament that only allows players in the top 8, who qualified mostly due to outdoor results. It's kind of like they're cheating everyone else out of a chance for indoor greatness. Players outside of the top 8 only really have Paris Indoors.
The Dark Knight
Legend
There's a few people who would disagree with you .....even your own idol:
Last edited:
PMChambers
Hall of Fame
GS>MS>WTF>Olym.
I personally don't think tennis needs the Olympics and vise verse, it was put in just like football to get more money and viewers to watch. It should never have been re-instigated just like football the sports bigger than the event. It's become the defacto Davis Cup which has become a non-event with top players not turning up.
The WTF should not be worth points, it's an exhibition event. But, I doubt the top players would turn up if it was not worth points. It does not have much real value other than an exhibition. Unfortunately it's worth so many points that the top eight have little choice but to turn up. Some of the players where turning up after "long" breaks indicating they did not think it was worthy of a build up. In the 80's it was basically an exhibition only event with big $$$, and no one other than the host nation thought it very worthy. Top players went for the cash as it was worth more than a GS in $$$ but other wise not an important event.
I personally don't think tennis needs the Olympics and vise verse, it was put in just like football to get more money and viewers to watch. It should never have been re-instigated just like football the sports bigger than the event. It's become the defacto Davis Cup which has become a non-event with top players not turning up.
The WTF should not be worth points, it's an exhibition event. But, I doubt the top players would turn up if it was not worth points. It does not have much real value other than an exhibition. Unfortunately it's worth so many points that the top eight have little choice but to turn up. Some of the players where turning up after "long" breaks indicating they did not think it was worthy of a build up. In the 80's it was basically an exhibition only event with big $$$, and no one other than the host nation thought it very worthy. Top players went for the cash as it was worth more than a GS in $$$ but other wise not an important event.
The Dark Knight
Legend
I'm gonna side with Federer,Nadal , djokovic ,Murray and Agassi on this one .....no offense .
The Olympics has been big since 2008 ie twice.
Some of those same players can be quoted (and I have quoted them in the past) detailing that the WTF is very important ie quotes can be marshalled in many ways.
The Olympics has risen in prestige since Nadal won it in 2008. Before that it wasn't regarded with as much esteem. (Except by Agassi in 1996 who really valued it when no one else did).
PMChambers
Hall of Fame
And yet historically it has not represented the best of tennis. If these were the winners of ATP1000 then you'd say it took a long time to become accepted or considered valuable to players. I took the rankings at the end of the year, if there was where ranking points originally in Olympic then it's even worse. You are right that these plays Federer, Nadal, Djokovic & Murray have been given it some credibility but it's not up to some of the majors like Indian Wells and Rome to me but then I'm older then these player and remember things differently.
1988
Miloslav Mečíř - No.13
Tim Mayotte - No.10
Stefan Edberg & Brad Gilbert - No.5 & Out side 20
1992
Marc Rosset - Out side Top 20
Jordi Arrese - Who?
Goran Ivanišević & Andrei Cherkasov - No.4 & Outside Top 20
1996
Andre Agassi - No.8
Sergi Bruguera - Outside Top 20
Leander Paes - Who, yes that doubles player.
2000 -
Yevgeny Kafelnikov - No.5
Tommy Haas - Out side Top 20
Arnaud Di Pasquale - Out side top 20
2004 - Mmmmmm were the Top 10 go.
Nicolás Massú
Mardy Fish
Fernando González
2008 - At last top players winning
Rafael Nadal
Fernando González
Novak Djoković
2012 - Yay the Olympics where someone cares.
Andy Murray
Roger Federer
Juan Martín del Potro
The Dark Knight
Legend
Lets face it most people don't even know what the wtf is. ..... In fact more people know the WWF than the wtf.
