There are over twice as many masters 1000 tournies than Grand Slam tournaments.
It feels like if Federer was able to win 17 majors that he should have far more than 21 masters (although the numbers look better if you add his 6 WTF's... and I think we can agree that at a MINIMUM winning the WTF is at least as prestigious as a masters... although probably like a masters+)
Anyway... I didn't follow tennis as closely before 2006 so... why wasn't he winning more masters 1000 tournies?
I realize that one of the reasons is the inordinate numbers of masters on clay and the fact that there are no masters on grass... that hurts....
But overall is this a case where there is more randomness to 3 set tournaments? or are there other reasons?
It feels like if Federer was able to win 17 majors that he should have far more than 21 masters (although the numbers look better if you add his 6 WTF's... and I think we can agree that at a MINIMUM winning the WTF is at least as prestigious as a masters... although probably like a masters+)
Anyway... I didn't follow tennis as closely before 2006 so... why wasn't he winning more masters 1000 tournies?
I realize that one of the reasons is the inordinate numbers of masters on clay and the fact that there are no masters on grass... that hurts....
But overall is this a case where there is more randomness to 3 set tournaments? or are there other reasons?