Winning "Masters Mini-Slams" - Nadal Amazing

[McEnroeisanartist]

Senior Tennis Magazine writer, Peter Boto, described winning Indian Wells and Miami back to back as a "Masters mini-slam."

As we all know there are three other "Masters mini-slams" throughout the season - Monte Carlo-Rome-Hamburg/Madrid, Canadian Open-Cincinnati, and First Indoor-Paris Indoor.

In the 24 years of Masters Series tournaments, the following players have won a "Masters mini-Slam."

Chang
Sampras
Agassi (2)
Federer (2)
Djokovic (3)
Muster (2)
Kuerten
Nadal ( 8 )
Rafter
Roddick
Safin
Nalbandian

It is remarkable that Nadal has done it so many times. Novak is impressive as he is the only one to do it during three different parts of the years.

 

[kishnabe]

Clay..........

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

.... Is a tennis surface that exists and that all the players have to play on.........

 

[NatF]

Senior Tennis Magazine writer, Peter Boto, described winning Indian Wells and Miami back to back as a "Masters mini-slam."

As we all know there are three other "Masters mini-slams" throughout the season - Monte Carlo-Rome-Hamburg/Madrid, Canadian Open-Cincinnati, and First Indoor-Paris Indoor.

In the 24 years of Masters Series tournaments, the following players have won a "Masters mini-Slam."

Chang
Sampras
Agassi (2)
Federer (2)
Djokovic (3)
Muster (2)
Kuerten
Nadal ( 8 )
Rafter
Roddick
Safin
Nalbandian

It is remarkable that Nadal has done it so many times. Novak is impressive as he is the only one to do it during three different parts of the years.

Wasn't his point more that Miami and Indian wells together specifically are a masters mini-slam? Not that any 2 back to back masters are...

Consider that Miami and IW are arguably the 2 most prestigious masters titles.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

...unfortunately.

 

[kishnabe]

LOL NN and Whiskey!

 

[McEnroeisanartist]

Wasn't his point more that Miami and Indian wells together specifically are a masters mini-slam? Not that any 2 back to back masters are...

Consider that Miami and IW are arguably the 2 most prestigious masters titles.

yes, true. I was looking at back to back Masters Series tournaments on same surface and same time of year.

 

[mr_eko]

I've always questioned this. Yes winning Indian Wells and Miami back to back is impressive, but does it compare to winning a slam. I don't think so.
It's two different tournaments so when you win one, a lot of pressure is off when you go the next tournament, possibly making it easier to win the next one.
Nadal's stats are impressive but they took place on clay not Indian wells-Miami, or Rogers Cup, Cincinnati.

 

[jg153040]

Cool. Rafa is the master of masters. And the master of nr.2 ranking.

He is the goat of 2nd tier events. Although Connors is not bad either.

 

[Chanwan]

Senior Tennis Magazine writer, Peter Boto, described winning Indian Wells and Miami back to back as a "Masters mini-slam."

As we all know there are three other "Masters mini-slams" throughout the season - Monte Carlo-Rome-Hamburg/Madrid, Canadian Open-Cincinnati, and First Indoor-Paris Indoor. .

How do you define the minislam in the clay season? All three? Any two consecutive? I.e. MC + Madrid or Madrid + Rome. Or simply two of them?

 

[TheMusicLover]

Pete Bozo. Okay.

 

[McEnroeisanartist]

How do you define the minislam in the clay season? All three? Any two consecutive? I.e. MC + Madrid or Madrid + Rome. Or simply two of them?

Two consecutive.

 

[tacou]

I've always questioned this. Yes winning Indian Wells and Miami back to back is impressive, but does it compare to winning a slam. I don't think so.
It's two different tournaments so when you win one, a lot of pressure is off when you go the next tournament, possibly making it easier to win the next one.
Nadal's stats are impressive but they took place on clay not Indian wells-Miami, or Rogers Cup, Cincinnati.

Of course there are differences but there are a lot of similarities. Both have major-sized draws, relatively close to one another, both slow to medium outdoor hard courts, and as a "mini-slam" they bring an end to the first hard court season.

 

[Fed_Djoker_Fan]

Clay..........

I hear its very difficult to win on clay this era. Even more impressive.

 

[NatF]

I hear its very difficult to win on clay this era. Even more impressive.

It's not difficult if you're Nadal...

 

[urundai]

Pete Bozo. Okay.

Lol. My thoughts exactly.

 

[octobrina10]

I've always questioned this. Yes winning Indian Wells and Miami back to back is impressive, but does it compare to winning a slam. I don't think so.
It's two different tournaments so when you win one, a lot of pressure is off when you go the next tournament, possibly making it easier to win the next one.
Nadal's stats are impressive but they took place on clay not Indian wells-Miami, or Rogers Cup, Cincinnati.

Rafa won Rogers Cup (Canada Masters) & Cincinnati in 2013.

Last year, Rafa won also USO. It means that he achieved a 'Summer Slam' (Canada Masters & Cincinnati Masters & US Open). Patrick Rafter did the same in 1998 and Andy Roddick in 2003.

Winning Monte Carlo & Rome & Madrid Masters and French Open is called a 'Clay Slam'. Only Rafa has achieved this.

 

[cluckcluck]

I guess it could be so if it were best of 5 sets instead of the current 3. Bodo is getting old.

 

[merlinpinpin]

Senior Tennis Magazine writer, Peter Boto, described winning Indian Wells and Miami back to back as a "Masters mini-slam."

As we all know there are three other "Masters mini-slams" throughout the season - Monte Carlo-Rome-Hamburg/Madrid, Canadian Open-Cincinnati, and First Indoor-Paris Indoor.

First of all, I consider the idea to be on the ludicrous side, but even if we agree it's valid, there are two obvious flaws in your reasoning and five M1000's (or, at the very least, three) that naturally drop off the list.

* First of all, the clay season. You're considering that three clay M1000's (one of which is non-mandatory) create *two* clay mini-slams, ie Madrid is counted twice, a it enables to "build" a clay mini-slam both with MC and Rome, which obviously skews things quite a lot. Dropping MC from the list is the obvious choice here, especially since:
- it's non-mandatory (ie weaker field, not really an M1000)
- it's followed by two weeks of lesser tourneys--non-consecutive M1000's=no mini-slam, obviously

* Second, the fall M1000's. Once again, there are two weeks between Shanghai and Paris Bercy. How can you consider these as part of the same "mini-slam" if they are non-consecutive?

Imho, dropping MC, Shanghai, and Bercy from the list is the minimum you can do. Also, although they're technically both on clay, playing conditions are quite different in Madrid and Rome (and were much more so in Hamburg and Rome a few years back), so it's arguable whether they should be considered or not.

Also, it's quite possible (probable, actually) that Bodo singled out IW and Miami as their draws are bigger than the other M1000's, which would automatically disqualify the rest of the bunch.

And as I said, the whole notion is pretty ludicrous anyway. We're not going to add a couple of majors to Federer's tally of 23 just because he won them both in 2005 and 2006 and Bodo says it's a "mini-slam", let's be serious here.

 

[octobrina10]

...We're not going to add a couple of majors to Federer's tally of 23 just because he won them both in 2005 and 2006...

All 'slams' are called differently and they are kept separately.
Federer has achieved:
- a Career Slam (he has won all four Grand Slam events during his career);
- a Channel Slam (won the French Open and Wimbledon titles back to back).

 

[Gonzo_style]

Cool. Rafa is the master of masters. And the master of nr.2 ranking.

He is the goat of 2nd tier events. Although Connors is not bad either.

Rafa is Fedmaster

 

[coloskier]

.... Is a tennis surface that exists and that all the players have to play on.........

But was originally for pigs to play in.

 

[octobrina10]

But was originally for pigs to play in.

Cows came first.
"Grass is for the cows,” said Ivan Lendl, while deciding to give the Wimbledon a miss in 1982 and go holidaying instead.

 

[clayqueen]

Clay..........

If clay was such a non surface, more players should be winning on it like they do on h/c.

 

[clayqueen]

I've always questioned this. Yes winning Indian Wells and Miami back to back is impressive, but does it compare to winning a slam. I don't think so.
It's two different tournaments so when you win one, a lot of pressure is off when you go the next tournament, possibly making it easier to win the next one.
Nadal's stats are impressive but they took place on clay not Indian wells-Miami, or Rogers Cup, Cincinnati.

Why not so impressive because it's on clay? Also, did Nadal not win Canada and Cincy back to back last year?

 

[jg153040]

If clay was such a non surface, more players should be winning on it like they do on h/c.

Clay is a surface. Just you need different skills for it than non clay.

Clay you need defense/fitness.
Non clay you need skills/shotmaking.

I think most experts agree that Fed is better tennis player, but Rafa is better tennis athlete and competitor.

Also Fed's game is designed to dominate in Fed era, Rafa's game is designed to dominate today's era.

It's tough to compare.