Why has Federer under-performed as Masters 1000 events?

zam88

Professional
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?
 

zam88

Professional
Sampras has 11.

Drastic under performance then... that's truly horrid.


By comparison it almost seems as if Nadal has over-performed in these tournaments.

One would think though if you could pick up 17 slams that picking up twice as many masters would be a reasonable expectation.
 

TJfederer16

Hall of Fame
21 masters 1000 tournaments 'under-performing', thats the craziest thing ive ever heard. Why by winning 17 majors should he have 'far' more masters, if the count was less than his majors count then i would understand but he has 21 to 17. Roger has set his sights mainly on the slams for a long time ever since he started winning slams thats why he perhaps hasn't got more.
 
M

monfed

Guest
Combination of reasons, I'll try -

- HC competition > Clay. Many contenders who could turn up the heat on a given day and since it's BOF3, bigger chance of upset. Before Nole burst on the scene, it was just Fed vs Nadal on clay, everyone else was swatted aside and since Fed was easy pickings for Nadal on clay, he capitalised. Which is why I feel Nadal's MS count is sorta inflated because it was pretty much a gimme, not the case with Fed.

- Slow HCs aren't suited to Fed's style. It's creditable he's won 2 Miami, 2 Canada and on his way to 5 IW titles.

- Grinders taking over the tour which meant its harder than ever for Fed to win a MS esp since 90% of them are slow HC cept Cincy and Indoors.

- Fed lost some close matches to Nalbandian indoors in his prime which may have given him a 2/3 more MS.

- Skipped Bercy far too much. I think he's skipped it for almost the entirety of his prime and that's a real pity since that court suits his style and could have easily bagged 3-4 titles.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

zam88

Professional
21 MS total and holds the record for most hc MS is not under-performed.

Nadal has 26 but has 4 less majors and Federer is a better tennis player. And I'm guessing by teh time their careers are over Nadal could have 10 more of these than Federer.

That's pretty significant.

I think the poster who described some of the issues is fairly spot on... I don't get why there are so many clay masters and zero grass masters.

I also don't understand why Federer has chosen to skip some of the ones he has skipped.

I recognize majors are way more important.. but these are clearly the 2nd most important set of tournies on the tour.

It's puzzling.. to me he should have 30
 

TJfederer16

Hall of Fame
The reason why Nadal has so many masters titles are because there are three on clay whereas for Roger there are none on grass, if their had been three on grass Roger would probably have around 30 by now
 
All the clay masters that Nadal owns, plus Federer skipped several he would have been the favorite in in his prime. He didn't play Paris at all between 04-06, and he didn't play Madrid indoors in 04-05. Also missed Montreal 05.
 

timnz

Legend
3rd best

Underperformed? He is third in the all time list behind Rafa (26) and Lendl (22) - that is not bad. And he has a good chance to add to the total this year.
 

Russeljones

Talk Tennis Guru
21 masters 1000 tournaments 'under-performing', thats the craziest thing ive ever heard. Why by winning 17 majors should he have 'far' more masters, if the count was less than his majors count then i would understand but he has 21 to 17. Roger has set his sights mainly on the slams for a long time ever since he started winning slams thats why he perhaps hasn't got more.

Only here man, only here. TW is the place where 2 Slam winners are called failures.
 

Midaso240

Legend
Underperformed? He is third in the all time list behind Rafa (26) and Lendl (22) - that is not bad. And he has a good chance to add to the total this year.
Lendl? I thought they always talked about Agassi as the leader in masters series titles when Nadal/Federer were in the low teens
 
Why do we think he ought to have more 1000 titles?

A) Because he got robbed?
B) Because he choked?
C) because other guys played better than him?
D) Or are we just extrapolating slam numbers to ms titles?
E) Or because he geared his schedule around slams and put forth a bit less preparation and emphasis on the 1000s, treating them as proving grounds leading into slams?
F) some combination of a and b.
G) some combination of d and e.
H) other.

Well, for me it's slams, davis cups, world tour finals and general dominance in terms of atp rankings and clutch wins in big matches regardless of surface.
 

ScottleeSV

Hall of Fame
He's never prioritised MS events, but's that the generation he's come from. Murray, djoko, and nadal are the generation are the trio who have really upped the ante in terms of maximising your MS 'potential'

Sums it up what fed said after losing to melzer in the 2011 monte carlo masters quarters (a guy he would kill at the french). "I was glad to get three matches under my belt". Says it all.

21 is still amazing though. And remember, nadal's 26 is a lot of exploitation of a surface where there are no other specialists, I.e. rome and monte
 

ledwix

Hall of Fame
Masters used to be harder to win when Federer was at his peak. Banning five-setters has slightly lowered the value of these events. So players like Murray and Djokovic are already on Sampras-type stats. This is a slight reason why maybe he isn't at 23 or 24. Nadal is still the Masters champ, though.
 

Flint

Hall of Fame
Masters used to be harder to win when Federer was at his peak. Banning five-setters has slightly lowered the value of these events. So players like Murray and Djokovic are already on Sampras-type stats. This is a slight reason why maybe he isn't at 23 or 24. Nadal is still the Masters champ, though.
But doesn't the 5 set format favor Murray and Djokovic?
 

OrangePower

Legend
He's never prioritised MS events, but's that the generation he's come from. Murray, djoko, and nadal are the generation are the trio who have really upped the ante in terms of maximising your MS 'potential'

This.

Fed is really good at managing his body and schedule, and prioritizes being in good shape for the slams. That has allowed him to appear in 57!! consecutive majors.

That being said though, he would have several more MS titles were it not for Nadal on clay.
 
He's never prioritised MS events, but's that the generation he's come from. Murray, djoko, and nadal are the generation are the trio who have really upped the ante in terms of maximising your MS 'potential'

Sums it up what fed said after losing to melzer in the 2011 monte carlo masters quarters (a guy he would kill at the french). "I was glad to get three matches under my belt". Says it all.

21 is still amazing though. And remember, nadal's 26 is a lot of exploitation of a surface where there are no other specialists, I.e. rome and monte

I am not certain muzz, rafa or djerko actually say that about their ms potential, but in general, great post. Spot on.

It reminds me of the spring of 1990 when andres gomez lost to tomas muster in rome and a few others, too, leading up to roland garros. He said something like ~you never give your very best in rome.~

As a young player who longed to play the qualies of a tournament like the italian open, I thought that was an odd thing to say. But i sort of understood it. I was a part of the 90% of the world tennis community celebrating two weeks later as he totally backed it up by winning roland garros over the heavily favored andre agassi. Just awesome. The type of thing pete, andre, roger, et al have taken to another level.

As much as we all love the italian open, monte carlo, the canadian open, indian wells, key biscayne, Cincinnati, bercy, madrid, etc, those titles will never be as key parts of a player's legacy as slams or davis cups. Or even WTFs.
 

Bud

Bionic Poster
It's Nadal

The biggest reason: Nadal

Federer has lost 7 MS1000 finals to Nadal and has a total of 12 MS1000 losses to Nadal.
 

tennisfan87

Rookie
The reason why Nadal has so many masters titles are because there are three on clay whereas for Roger there are none on grass, if their had been three on grass Roger would probably have around 30 by now

Oh, please. There are 6 and I repeat six! masters on hard and you're really trying to use this excuse for Roger not winning more :)

If anything, there should be less masters on hard; to be precise - 3 less, so there could be 3 masters on grass instead. Leave clay out of this. It's proportionally represented, exactly as it should be.

It's not Rafa's fault that he's more dominant on clay than Roger ever was on hard or grass :)
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Lol...21 Masters titles is underperforming?? :shock:

Fed and Rafa are the only 2 players in history to win 20+ Masters shields (with Djokovic not far behind).

They are also the only 2 active players in the Open Era to win double digit Slam titles.

They haven't exactly underperformed in anything (except for Rafa's inability to secure a WTF title)!

:)
 

spinovic

Hall of Fame
That is the craziest thing I've heard lately.

Perhaps he has "underperformed" because in the grand scheme of things, these tournaments are virtually meaninglessness with regard to Federer's legacy.

Case in point, Nadal won 5 Masters last year, yet it was the US Open outcome that determined whether he or Djokovic was viewed as the top player in 2013 because the winner of that match had two slams vs the other guy's one.

It is obvious that Federer knows how to stay fit and how to be ready to play his best at slams.

I also think of the difference between Federer and Nadal in that Nadal has always needed to get more match play and wins in for his confidence heading into slams. Federer's confidence is always there so he has never needed an inordinate amount of matches in that way. That could help explain why Nadal has done so well in these events.

In any case, Federer has done quite well in the 1000s. I just think, more than anything, Nadal has done exceptionally well in them. All credit to him for that.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Oh, please. There are 6 and I repeat six! masters on hard and you're really trying to use this excuse for Roger not winning more :)

If anything, there should be less masters on hard; to be precise - 3 less, so there could be 3 masters on grass instead. Leave clay out of this. It's proportionally represented, exactly as it should be.

It's not Rafa's fault that he's more dominant on clay than Roger ever was on hard or grass :)

Read post #6- it explains pretty well why Fed hasn't won even more Masters titles. And the fact is that Roger would've won more over the years if there had ever been Masters tournaments on grass so I'm not really sure what you're trying to say.
 

ctoth666

Banned
Because Federer never cared as much, among other reasons. Rafa has cared more about these events, not to mention the large distribution that has been on clay, as has Djokovic. It has to do with the rankings. Federer didn't need to win them to become number 1 or maintain that ranking for a while.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
The biggest reason: Nadal

Federer has lost 7 MS1000 finals to Nadal and has a total of 12 MS1000 losses to Nadal.

Yeah but those Monte Carlo and Rome were on clay. Lucky Nadal has 3 MS on his favorite surface but there's no MS on Roger's favorite surface.
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
Yeah but those Monte Carlo and Rome were on clay. Lucky Nadal has 3 MS on his favorite surface but there's no MS on Roger's favorite surface.

Clay this, clay that, legit surface this, deal with it that.

dx-i-just-kicked-stan-o.gif
 

insideguy

G.O.A.T.
Combination of reasons, I'll try -

- HC competition > Clay. Many contenders who could turn up the heat on a given day and since it's BOF3, bigger chance of upset. Before Nole burst on the scene, it was just Fed vs Nadal on clay, everyone else was swatted aside and since Fed was easy pickings for Nadal on clay, he capitalised. Which is why I feel Nadal's MS count is sorta inflated because it was pretty much a gimme, not the case with Fed.

- Slow HCs aren't suited to Fed's style. It's creditable he's won 2 Miami, 2 Canada and on his way to 5 IW titles.

- Grinders taking over the tour which meant its harder than ever for Fed to win a MS esp since 90% of them are slow HC cept Cincy and Indoors.

- Fed lost some close matches to Nalbandian indoors in his prime which may have given him a 2/3 more MS.

- Skipped Bercy far too much. I think he's skipped it for almost the entirety of his prime and that's a real pity since that court suits his style and could have easily bagged 3-4 titles.

This basically explains it all. End the thread now:)
 

timnz

Legend
Masters 1000 events weren't compulsory before 2000, and you could win a similar sort of ranking points at other events in the 1990s.

But weren't the Masters 1000's still the top 9 events outside the slams and the two season finals, in the 1990's, appreciating that some other events were close, but still not as much?
 

Blocker

Professional
Sampras has 11.

Go to the ATP website, you will see that players have to play in a certain amount of 1000s to be eligible for a ranking. Not so the case in Sampras' day. Stop comparing players of different eras with players of a preious era it's apples and oranges.
 

LazyNinja19

Banned
Fed unable to win Olympic singles Gold - Fed@rds say "He never cared about OSG"

Fed unable to win more Masters than Nadal - Fed@rds say "He never cared about Masters"

FACT•••> Federer has competed in more Olympics & Masters tournies than ANYONE in the history of the sport!


• Sure if there were Masters on Grass, it would have been most beneficial to Federer.
But there are 6 Masters on HC, no? And Roger is the All-time leader in HC titles -53. So what y'all cribbing about?! He got his share of chances!

Anyways, 22 Masters titles is in no way "underperformance"!
 

joeri888

G.O.A.T.
The percentage played on clay is greater while on grass is smaller.

The variance is bigger in best of 3, so more upsets happen.

Federer plays an average of about i think 6 ms a year? Certainly last few years he always skips 3 of monte Carlo Miami Rome paris shanghai..

Federer does not care as much about ms titles as he does about slams.

Hes still won 21
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Underperformed? What? Look at his peak years.

2004- 3 masters
2005 - 4 masters
2006- 4 masters
2007- 2 masters.

He won 13 masters in 4 years. I say that's pretty good.

He also has 4 titles at IW (and hopefully 5) 5 at Cincy and 6 at the 3rd clay masters.

He may be the leader at these 3 masters in terms of number of titles won.

Seriously underperforming? The fuy has also reached all 9 masters 1000 finals and won 7 of them. That is as good as Nadal
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
Because he knew that the majors were of most importance in terms of a player's legacy.

M1000s are merely footnotes.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
I agree that Federer has underperformed at 1000s with general inexplicable meltdowns over the years against the big three of the next generation, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray (though Nadal is Federer's fairly direct contemporary). Federer had a phase of loving to win first sets and then going on to mug the match in 3. Fortunately, 1000s aren't like massively critical to the legacy of a player.

Got to love dat meltdown shizzle.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Go to the ATP website, you will see that players have to play in a certain amount of 1000s to be eligible for a ranking. Not so the case in Sampras' day. Stop comparing players of different eras with players of a preious era it's apples and oranges.

Agassi won 17!

Don't act like MS are mickey mouse events.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
Agassi won 17!

Don't act like MS are mickey mouse events.

Blocker is right though. And the truth is, in comparison to slams (14 to 8 in favour of Sampras) MS are mickey mouse events. And that was even moreso the case in the 90's.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Blocker is right though. And the truth is, in comparison to slams (14 to 8 in favour of Sampras) MS are mickey mouse events. And that was even moreso the case in the 90's.

I agree slams are the holy grail, but one can't say 17 ms to 11 ms means nothing. All achievements count, but each one has different weight.
 

RF20Lennon

Legend
Federer used to not take it that seriously. Masters were not that big a deal back then. He treated it as practice and time to kill in between slams. Masters Roger and Slam Roger were two completely different people but now Masters have become a bit more important.
 
Top