Win a Masters 1000 or Reach a Slam Final?

Slam Final or Masters 1000???


  • Total voters
    55

Third Serve

Hall of Fame
Take your pick. In any case, they're pretty close.

If you reach a Slam final, you pick up a cool 1,200 ATP Ranking points. You have to win six straight matches to get it, though, and the high probability is that you'll have to knock off a top 10 player in the semis (and maybe the quarters) to add to your resume with this win. The downside is that you do lose a match; it could be a five setter loss or a bagel beatdown, but it's still a loss. Also, Slams are Bo5 which is a significantly tougher prospect than Bo3.

If you win a Masters 1000, you pick up 1,000 ATP Ranking points. The number of matches won varies from as many as seven (IW and Miami w/o byes) to just five (MC, Paris, etc. w/ byes) and the strength of the field depends on the particular tournament. For example, Indian Wells typically has a good, strong field while Paris is constantly skipped by the top players so the field is greatly diminished. You're still likely to run into one of the top players which can boost your resume. Plus, you actually win the tournament.

So, what do we got? Perhaps both are of equal value?
 

Third Serve

Hall of Fame
Close to equal value. In most cases I think I'd take a slam final but there's a lot of hypotheticals here.

I think I'd rather win Indian Wells or Rome than lose a slam final, but I'd prefer a slam final over Paris Indoors or Madrid.
Those align closer to my thoughts, for sure. It's odd because each of the Masters 1000s are different in size of the draw, number of rounds, and attraction of top players yet they all count the same towards a player's legacy. An ATP 750 would resolve some of this, but it would raise more questions.
 

TripleATeam

Legend
Money-wise, pretty obviously winning a M1000. Plus you get remembered for winning something rather than losing a final. Of course, it all needs context. If you have 2 slams and a few masters already, then you'd rather lose the slam final because of the ranking points so you can retain #1 for longer.
 

Third Serve

Hall of Fame
I’d say that, as a whole, Masters 1000s are more important to your legacy but a Slam final is the harder achievement. I picked the Slam final because of personal preference to how hard an achievement is. They’re pretty near equal tho.
 
Slam final. That is why Thiem is still considered the second best clay court player. Without those finals he would not be seen as some great clay court player.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
To be fair, it's not Zverev's fault that Nadal didn't reach Madrid 2018 final.
Right... the same way it´s not Rafa´s fault Zverev hasn´t reached a whole bunch of clay finals in M1000 events...

Thiem beat Rafa 3-4 times. Zverev never did.

Check their H2H. Because discussing someone´s clayness-greatness has to factor in H2H vs Rafa on clay.

Also, Rafa-Zverev on M1000 clay 2-0. Including a finale.
 
Right... the same way it´s not Rafa´s fault Zverev hasn´t reached a whole bunch of clay finals in M1000 events...

Thiem beat Rafa 3-4 times. Zverev never did.

Check their H2H.
Ok, and? Clay greatness isn't defined by the number of times you beat Nadal. Without actually winning big titles it isn't worth much.
 

Third Serve

Hall of Fame
Ok, and? Clay greatness isn't defined by the number of times you beat Nadal. Without actually winning big titles it isn't worth much.
Exactly. It just shows that Thiem is good at that playing Nadal on clay. His clay resume should be the first thing to look out for when determining his overall level. Two straight RG finals helps his case a bit, but I’d like for him to get it together in one of the Masters.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Ok, and? Clay greatness isn't defined by the number of times you beat Nadal. Without actually winning big titles it isn't worth much.
We are speculating what M1000s on clay would mean for Thiem COUPLED with wins over Rafa on clay.

In this context, it is clear that wins over Rafa on clay are of PARAMOUNT importance. Hint hint: Clay GOAT.

Especially since he has beaten Rafa on clay FOUR times whereas Zverev never beat Rafa on ANY surface.

Nadal - Zverev 5-0 H2H
Nadal - Thiem 9-4 (8-4 on clay)

Any more questions, comments...?
 
Exactly. It just shows that Thiem is good at that playing Nadal on clay. His clay resume should be the first thing to look out for when determining his overall level. Two straight RG finals helps his case a bit, but I’d like for him to get it together in one of the Masters.
He had chances to win Madrid in 2017, 2018, 2019. Especially this year.
 
I understand RF fans hate H2H, I get it... To them it´s always irrelevant... Apparently, Thiem beating Serena´s daughter on his way to winning a M1000 is the same as beating Rafa...
It's about winning tourneys. Thiem has never won anything above a 500 on clay. Simple facts. Who cares if he beats Rafa on clay if he does not win the tourney. Tsits beat Rafa on clay. Fognini has done it. So what? He lost the three matches that mattered most.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
It's about winning tourneys. Thiem has never won anything above a 500 on clay. Simple facts. Who cares if he beats Rafa on clay if he does not win the tourney. Tsits beat Rafa on clay. Fognini has done it. So what? He lost the three matches that mattered most.
You´ll say anything now to "win" this argument, no?

Nobody is denying the fact that he lost the three biggest matches against Rafa.

But then again, so has RF - all 6 of them, yet he is FO champ... Stan never beat Rafa in FO yet he too is FO champ. So Thiem not beating Rafa on FO does NOT mean he does not deserve it equally as Stan or RF who got lucky they didn´t have to play Rafa in 2009/2015.

Thiem beats Rafa 4 times on clay and you want to make that seem irrelevant - in a discussion about CLAY greatness.

Surely you´re joking?

OK, you´re just kidding...
 
You´ll say anything now to "win" this argument, no?

Nobody is denying the fact that he lost the three biggest matches against Rafa.

But then again, so has RF - all 6 of them, yet he is FO champ... Stan never beat Rafa in FO yet he too is FO champ. So Thiem not beating Rafa on FO does NOT mean he does not deserve it equally as Stan or RF who got lucky they didn´t have to play Rafa in 2009/2015.

Thiem beats Rafa 4 times and you want to make that seem irrelevant - in a discussion about CLAY greatess.

Surely you´re joking?

OK, you´re just kidding...
Nope. Facts speak for themselves. But sure, keep arguing Thiem is some masterpiece clay court player with a first round loss to Lajovic, a first round loss to Djere, and a first round loss to Verdasco... all on clay... this year...:rolleyes:

No one is buying it, but continue...
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Nope. Facts speak for themselves. But sure, keep arguing Thiem is some masterpiece clay court player with a first round loss to Lajovic, a first round loss to Djere, and a first round loss to Verdasco... all on clay... this year...:rolleyes:

No one is buying it, but continue...
Now you are making up stuff.

Look, I´m not a fanboy like SOME people here...

I don´t even like Thiem.

I am simply giving you facts, and showing you the flawed logic you use on this thread.

You are saying Thiem hasn´t beaten Rafa to prove himself in FO, yet RF and Stan both lost all their matches to Rafa in FO BUT have FO titles.

You can spin all you want, I win this argument.
 
Now you are making up stuff.

Look, I´m not a fanboy like SOME people here...

I don´t even like Thiem.

I am simply giving you facts, and showing you the flawed logic you use on this thread.

You are saying Thiem hasn´t beaten Rafa to prove himself in FO, yet RF and Stan both lost all their matches to Rafa in FO BUT have FO titles.

You can spin all you want, I win this argument.
Hahaha, you are hilarious. Go back and look at my posts. Did I ever mention Rafa until your brought him up? Nope. You forced him into the conversation and said because he has wins against Rafa (others do as well) that he is a great clay player. But then when we talk about Thiem's losses to Rafa you point to other players?

Simple facts, Thiem is good, but not great on clay.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Hahaha, you are hilarious. Go back and look at my posts. Did I ever mention Rafa until your brought him up? Nope. You forced him into the conversation and said because he has wins against Rafa (others do as well) that he is a great clay player. But then when we talk about Thiem's losses to Rafa you point to other players?

Simple facts, Thiem is good, but not great on clay.
THAT´s what I wanted you to say...

This is tantamount to admitting you know nothing about tennis...

A guy who beats Rafa 4 times on clay, beats Djokovic several times at FO, and plays two semis and two finales at FO is merely "good" on clay?

So what does that make Goffin on clay? Garbage?

Stop. Just stop. It´s becoming cringey.
 
THAT´s what I wanted you to say...

This is tantamount to admitting you know nothing about tennis...

A guy who beats Rafa 4 times on clay, beats Djokovic several times at FO, and plays two semis and two finales at FO is merely "good" on clay?

So what does that make Goffin on clay? Garbage?

Stop. Just stop. It´s becoming cringey.
Man, how do you get through life like this. You can't even have serious discussions with people on this board. It is disturbing. I disagree and show facts, you instead just bash people. You know, it is possible to disagree with people and still have class.

Yes, after 20 years of watching tennis I know nothing about tennis... :rolleyes:

But even if I did not, you could have a respectful debate. But I get it, I know your type, the world has plenty of @UnderratedSlam likes in it. So I will give you want you want.

You win. Enjoy it. (y)
 

Third Serve

Hall of Fame
THAT´s what I wanted you to say...

This is tantamount to admitting you know nothing about tennis...

A guy who beats Rafa 4 times on clay, beats Djokovic several times at FO, and plays two semis and two finales at FO is merely "good" on clay?

So what does that make Goffin on clay? Garbage?

Stop. Just stop. It´s becoming cringey.
I think great in this context refers to just being an ATG on the surface. Muster would be an example of a player who is "great" on clay, as per @Lleytonstation's standards. I think you just disagree on where the bar is set.

In my opinion, Thiem isn't quite at that level yet. He's a very respectable player on the surface, but a French Open win would truly push him into the discussion, though. On the outside, his resume just isn't as convincing as those of Muster, Kuerten, and maybe even Federer and Djokovic (although in the case of the latter two, they've spent more years on the tour and Thiem has time to catch up).
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Man, how do you get through life like this. You can't even have serious discussions with people on this board. It is disturbing. I disagree and show facts, you instead just bash people. You know, it is possible to disagree with people and still have class.

Yes, after 20 years of watching tennis I know nothing about tennis... :rolleyes:

But even if I did not, you could have a respectful debate. But I get it, I know your type, the world has plenty of @UnderratedSlam likes in it. So I will give you want you want.

You win. Enjoy it. (y)
Now you´re playing the Righteous And Offended Card.

Instead of just explaining to me how Stan and RF are more deserving or FO titles than Thiem, when they too never beat Rafa at FO.

Thiem - Rafa FO 0-3
Stan - Rafa FO 0-2
RF - Rafa FO 0-6

So how do RF and Stan both deserve FO titles more than Thiem? Based upon what?

And answer HOW can a player beat clay GOAT 4 times on clay and reach two semis and two finales at FO and not be great? So if only being "good" is enough to achieve that, then how come 100 other players haven´t done it?

No more demagoguery. Answer these questions.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
I think great in this context refers to just being an ATG on the surface. Muster would be an example of a player who is "great" on clay, as per @Lleytonstation's standards. I think you just disagree on where the bar is set.

In my opinion, Thiem isn't quite at that level yet. He's a very respectable player on the surface, but a French Open win would truly push him into the discussion, though. On the outside, his resume just isn't as convincing as those of Muster, Kuerten, and maybe even Federer and Djokovic (although in the case of the latter two, they've spent more years on the tour and Thiem has time to catch up).
His "standards" are absurd. And his use of adjectives.

I have never heard of a player reaching 4 semis/finales at FO defined as being merely a "good" clay player. That would mean that everyone else who isn´t even close would be considered average or crap on clay. Goffin? Mediocre. Zverev? Garbage. Shapovalov? Utter trash.

Of course Thiem isn´t (yet) on the level of Guga or Djokovic. But that isn´t the subject we were discussing.

Or would you too agree that a player who does this well on FO and vs Rafa on clay is merely "good" on clay? And by what logic do Stan and RF deserve FO more than Thiem - based on the claim that Thiem has yet to beat Rafa on the FO to make himself "worthy"?
 
Now you´re playing the Righteous And Offended Card.

Instead of just explaining to me how Stan and RF are more deserving or FO titles than Thiem, when they too never beat Rafa at FO.

Thiem - Rafa FO 0-3
Stan - Rafa FO 0-2
RF - Rafa FO 0-6

So how do RF and Stan both deserve FO titles more than Thiem? Based upon what?

And answer HOW can a player beat clay GOAT 4 times on clay and reach two semis and two finales at FO and not be great? So if only being "good" is enough to achieve that, then how come 100 other players haven´t done it?

No more demagoguery. Answer these questions.
You keep changing the conversation. It started as a simple question. Slam final or masters win? I said slam final is better, but that Thiem really would not be considered great without them.

Then you changed it to about Rafa, then Fed and djoker, and now Wawa?

Did I mention any of those names? Any? I mentioned Rafa only when you brought him up. Never mentioned fed nor Wawa. Ever.

Djoker, Fed, and wawa all deserve FO titles because... wait for it... they have them.

And of course, people like you always use the "easily offended" card when in reality people just don't like being treated like crap for having conversations... about tennis...
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
You keep changing the conversation. It started as a simple question. Slam final or masters win? I said slam final is better, but that Thiem really would not be considered great without them.

Then you changed it to about Rafa, then Fed and djoker, and now Wawa?

Did I mention any of those names? Any? I mentioned Rafa only when you brought him up. Never mentioned fed nor Wawa. Ever.

Djoker, Fed, and wawa all deserve FO titles because... wait for it... they have them.

And of course, people like you always use the "easily offended" card when in reality people just don't like being treated like crap for having conversations... about tennis...
I expected this, of course...

No proper answer.

Nevermind... If 20 years of following the ATP haven´t taught you the difference between great and good, I sure as hell won´t be able to either...
 
I expected this, of course...

No proper answer.

Nevermind... If 20 years of following the ATP haven´t taught you the difference between great and good, I sure as hell won´t be able to either...
I did answer your condescending questions. My answer was simple.

You are not great if you lose to:
2019
Verdasco on clay in the first round.
Lajovic on clay in the first round.
Djere on clay in the first round.
Rublev on clay.
Schwartzman on clay (maybe I can let this one slide).
2018
Klizan on clay.
Jarry on clay.
Verdasco again on clay.
zverev on clay (I believe you said he was garbage?)
Tsits on clay.

Oh, and has zero masters titles on clay while Zverev (you said was garbage) has 2, and Fognini has one.

Now that I answered your questions. How do you explain so many losses in early rounds to much weaker opponents? Thanks.
 

Third Serve

Hall of Fame
His "standards" are absurd. And his use of adjectives.

I have never heard of a player reaching 4 semis/finales at FO defined as being merely a "good" clay player. That would mean that everyone else who isn´t even close would be considered average or crap on clay. Goffin? Mediocre. Zverev? Garbage. Shapovalov? Utter trash.

Of course Thiem isn´t (yet) on the level of Guga or Djokovic. But that isn´t the subject we were discussing.

Or would you too agree that a player who does this well on FO and vs Rafa on clay is merely "good" on clay? And by what logic do Stan and RF deserve FO more than Thiem - based on the claim that Thiem has yet to beat Rafa on the FO to make himself "worthy"?
I kind of agree with you, but I think he's using different criteria. For example, some posters say that Nishikori is some mug who always bends over for the Big 3. Nishikori's not a mug; he's a very accomplished player. They're just talking about Nishikori's level relative to the really really good players (not that I agree with them, but still).

It's the same case here. Goffin is not mediocre on clay... unless you compare him with ATGs on the surface, which is what I believe @Lleytonstation is shooting for. Same deal with Thiem. The reason he's being compared to ATGs in the first place is because he is the current frontrunner of the clay court season whose name is not Rafael Nadal.

Different scales.
 

oldmanfan

Hall of Fame
MS1000 is my pick. Masters are played when no other ATP events are played, which means by winning it, I would be the best player in the world for that week. I'm not Fedalovicray, former world #1's. ;)
 

alexio88

Hall of Fame
Мисс Бурпл в роли мисс Мурпл :-D:-D
ага, тоже узнал эту забавную передачку из детства:-Dтолько решил не отписываться тут, т.к. не очень то жалуют иностранную речь,..удивительно как только сильное, (ну ооочень сильное) правило наткнулся на эту гифку, если предположить что он иностранец, только бывший советский житель мог знать про каламбур:D
 
Last edited:

Red Rick

Talk Tennis Guru
Slam final

Honestly it's so not even close I'm really wondering what the hell is wrong with people

The only logic for why winning a 1000 would be better applies to a Future too.
 
Top