WTF ironically has become a Big tournament with the weakest winners?

Yugram said:
Nadal can leave it to conquerors of Marsielle and other bery bery important tournaments.
Click to expand...
2f7.jpg
 
Only Nadal fans try to discredit the event. It's obviously a huge event, if not players like Federer, Sampras and Djokovic wouldn't have prioritized it so much. The reason it had some lesser winners in recent times is that the final became Bo3 instead of Bo5, that's why it didn't correlate so much with some of the slam winners. Nonetheless, guys like Tsitsipas or Medvedev will win slams eventually, it's not so much that they overachieved at TMC rather than they underachieved at slams, mostly because they lack the mentality to beat the Big 3.
 
Let's see, who are the dudes that won most YEC/WTFs. Fed, Novak, Sampras and Lendl, what a bunch of journeymen.

Nadal fans should just be happy he's playing in an era where every slam is high bouncing instead of crapping on one big tourney where the ball stays low and you can't get cakewalk draws.
 
I wonder if Agassi was called a weak winner when he won it in 1990, and had lost two slam finals at that point.

You know Agassi right? The only guy in history to win all four slams, SOG and WTF. Likely to stay that way. ;)
 
I don't see it as an unimportant tournament. But it is obvious that it favours certain players, the same way it would favour others if it would be held on clay. The biggest problem of it it's the few rotations it has. If the old3 are gonna play it in Italy this year it's because of the rare longevity of their careers. Otherwise it'd been some years in Shangai and more than a decade in London. I wouldn't want it to be hosted in a given venue for longer than 5 years. I'd find it awesome fot it to change surfaces from time to time and have it also on clay and grass, but I know it's not gonna happen.

Hitman said:
I wonder if Agassi was called a weak winner when he won it in 1990, and had lost two slam finals at that point.

You know Agassi right? The only guy in history to win all four slams, SOG and WTF. Likely to stay that way. ;)
Click to expand...
If neither Djokovic nor Federer win the olympics this year, very likely, but they both have a chance. Until Fed proves it otherwise, Djokovic has way more chances for that.

When it comes to weak winners, having an incredible career afterwards is not needed. Dimitrov won it in 2017, and he played great and deserved it. Didn't do much later on, but it doesn't mean that he wasn't a worthy and strong competitor.
 
MadariKatu said:
I don't see it as an unimportant tournament. But it is obvious that it favours certain players, the same way it would favour others if it would be held on clay. The biggest problem of it it's the few rotations it has. If the old3 are gonna play it in Italy this year it's because of the rare longevity of their careers. Otherwise it'd been some years in Shangai and more than a decade in London. I wouldn't want it to be hosted in a given venue for longer than 5 years. I'd find it awesome fot it to change surfaces from time to time and have it also on clay and grass, but I know it's not gonna happen.


If neither Djokovic nor Federer win the olympics this year, very likely, but they both have a chance. Until Fed proves it otherwise, Djokovic has way more chances for that.

When it comes to weak winners, having an incredible career afterwards is not needed. Dimitrov won it in 2017, and he played great and deserved it. Didn't do much later on, but it doesn't mean that he wasn't a worthy and strong competitor.
Click to expand...
Dimitrov is literally the only one to win the WTF with a weak draw. Before him, I never thought it was possible.
 
Good points on both sides.

WTF stopped bring predictive of subsequent slam performances in recent years is the best that can be said.

The 'why' is more complicated...
 
Lol typical Nadal fans.
Love the guy but he's attracted some of the most obsessed and clueless fans in tennis.

Edit: Yikes! Wrong account.
 
Last edited:
Backspin1183 said:
Lol typical Nadal fans.
Love the guy but he's attracted some of the most obsessed and clueless fans in tennis.
Click to expand...
What triggers you so much in this thread? The fact that WTFs winners in the last 4 years have been weaker than average Masters winners? That’s not my problem.
 
Yugram said:
What triggers you so much in this thread? The fact that WTFs winners in the last 4 years have been weaker than average Masters winners? That’s not my problem.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if it is won by Jack Sock or Karatsev. It is still a World Tour Finals where 8 best players of the season compete against one another. And the best indoor or most prepared player usually wins the tournament. Nobody is going to question RG tomorrow if it's won by Sonego or Wimbledon if it's won by Zverev (Mischa).
 
This argument where winners of a tournanent determine its prestige is stupid. It's like saying Roland Garros is irrelevant because 1 guy has been winning it for the past 16 years, i mean, are the others even trying to win that "Mickey Mouse tournament"?
 
Just like Cincy, around 2016 WTF became irrelevant. Unfortunately for Ralphaholics, before then it was still very very important.
 
Street said:
This argument where winners of a tournanent determine its prestige is stupid. It's like saying Roland Garros is irrelevant because 1 guy has been winning it for the past 16 years, i mean, are the others even trying to win that "Mickey Mouse tournament"?
Click to expand...
It's hard to communicate with these dunderheads that don't understand how tough it is to win an event where EVERY opponent is in the Top 10. Let them show even a single tournament where the winner had to face ALL top 10 opponents in order to win. Show just one. A bunch of bafoons these folks are.
 
Sunny014 said:
Of course Federer is the GOAT, at least in the open era he definitely is and will remain so.

He leads everyone else in most out of the 5 parameters which are the most important :p

01. Most money earned (the guy still has the most endorsements despite not being in the top 2 or 3 anymore, tells a lot on how he is seen by the crowd, he is the most popular athlete by far)
02. Most Laureus Sportsman awards ( This is the award which a Tennis player win in an year competing against other sportspersons )
03. Slams won
04. Weeks at 1
05. World Tour Finals won

Even if he loses the slams record he will have 3 out of 5 records, beat that.
Click to expand...
1 and 2 are irrelevant, 3 and 4 is simply wrong. So only correct statement about an achievement that is somehow relevant is 5. Was this post any kind of joke I don’t get?
 
Yugram said:
Me being or not being Nadal fan has no connection to 2019 winner of "the 5th most prestigious event" in tennis not being able to win even 500 title.
Click to expand...
Well, Nadal, a winner of twenty grand slams can't win the 5th most prestigious event even once. Therefore, slams are just an exhibition.
 
Back in 2014:
"USO ironically has become a big tournament with the weakest winners.

Since 2012, it’s been won by:

Murray, Nadal, Cilic

Only 2 of them have multiple slams and only 1 has more than 3. For example, list of Rome Masters champions in that time frame:

Nadal, Nadal, Djokovic

Or Cincinnati Masters:

Federer, Nadal, Federer

An event, which should supposedly be won by the best of the best, has become a joke and indicates less than an average Masters title. "


Yugram, just because an event has weaker winners than another event at a given time, it doesn't mean the event is easier to win. For instance, take Basel 06-2011. It had Federer winning it 5 times and Djokovic once. In the same time frame, the USO had weaker winners (5 Federers vs 3 Federers, Djokovic, Nadal and Djokovic 09 vs Delpo 09), and Shanghai/Paris were far weaker.
 
Ah. I see. So when no players step up to win big titles this is proof that it's a weak era because only a handful is winning big titles. But then when somebody else does step up and win big titles that suddenly proves the tournament is irrelevant and not big anymore, so the weak era remains.

Just no way to win with you guys is there. I honestly had no clue who your favorite player is before reading this OP, but now I know perfectly well who it is :D I suggest you read his book and take a few lessons from him.
 
What we already knew: this tourney has been a joke asterisk cakewalk invitational ever since it went B03 years ago. Its major function is to serve as a hole that Fedfans can point out in Nadal's resume
 
The missing WTF is not a critical issue.
However it does point out Nadal is not the greatest when he has to face consecutive high ranking opponents in draws.
It is not new news really I thought.
Djokovic and Fed are better at that.
Let us be frank Nadal has had the most favorable draws and scheduling out of the big 3 4 or 5 even.
It is ok.
Strengths and weaknesses.
 
zagor said:
Let's see, who are the dudes that won most YEC/WTFs. Fed, Novak, Sampras and Lendl, what a bunch of journeymen.

Nadal fans should just be happy he's playing in an era where every slam is high bouncing instead of crapping on one big tourney where the ball stays low and you can't get cakewalk draws.
Click to expand...
Sampras won a tournament with a BO5 final. Please refrain from comparing Pistol's world class wins to the round robbin invitational Fed has excelled at for over a decade
 
norcal said:
Someone needs to remind Nadal how crappy these WTF guys are so he will quit losing to them.
:unsure:
Click to expand...
If they're winning it, he's not the only one losing to them. Not like Djokovic and Federer have been absent the last years...

swordtennis said:
The missing WTF is not a critical issue.
However it does point out Nadal is not the greatest when he has to face consecutive high ranking opponents in draws.
It is not new news really I thought.
Djokovic and Fed are better at that.
Let us be frank Nadal has had the most favorable draws and scheduling out of the big 3 4 or 5 even.
It is ok.
Strengths and weaknesses.
Click to expand...
On an indoor, fast&low-bouncing hardcourt sure they are.
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
1 and 2 are irrelevant, 3 and 4 is simply wrong. So only correct statement about an achievement that is somehow relevant is 5. Was this post any kind of joke I don’t get?
Click to expand...

No Joke.

1 means popularity
2 means dominance across all sports at his peak.

Both are important for me, the player has to be a worldwide brand ambassador, that is important, otherwise we r comparing apples and oranges with every player having his strong points and case for being the GOAT.

What differentiates them is 1+2 which shows who is the alpha.
 
PETEhammer said:
Sampras won a tournament with a BO5 final. Please refrain from comparing Pistol's world class wins to the round robbin invitational Fed has excelled at for over a decade
Click to expand...

Federer also won 3 of his 6 WTFs with a BO5 final.

Plus Federer has made the finals of WTFs a whoopin 10 times in 13 years, out of 10 he has won 4.

He is greater than that Sampras who just made 6 finals there

Federer is the GOAT of WTFs ..... nobody comes close !
 
swordtennis said:
The missing WTF is not a critical issue.
However it does point out Nadal is not the greatest when he has to face consecutive high ranking opponents in draws.
It is not new news really I thought.
Djokovic and Fed are better at that.
Let us be frank Nadal has had the most favorable draws and scheduling out of the big 3 4 or 5 even.
It is ok.
Strengths and weaknesses.
Click to expand...

Nadal's dominance is directly proportional to the height of the bounce on a tennis court.
Plus u r right, he needs favorable draws, present him a few all time greats back to back and he would get eliminated outside Clay, he will have excuses like injury and what not....

Lower the bounce like the WTFs everywhere and he wins nothing.

He is a 1 trick pony with brute force just like Pete Sampras who was the opposite of Nadal, his success inversely proportional to bounce.

Compared to them Federer, Agassi and Djokovic are complete players for multiple eras.
 
BauerAlmeida said:
The reason it had some lesser winners in recent times is that the final became Bo3 instead of Bo5, that's why it didn't correlate so much with some of the slam winners.
Click to expand...
Hard to blame it on that though. Between Novak, Roger and Rafa, there's only been 1 finals appearance in 2017-20. Novak made the final in 2018, other than that they all lost in the round-robin or semis.

I think it has more to do with them simply getting older and being exhausted by November while the young guys are still fresh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
1 time masters winners in last 10 years
Replies
3
Views
452
ChrisRF
C
P
Can zverev become greater than wawrinka ?
Replies
5
Views
398
ChrisJR3264
ChrisJR3264
DIMI_D
Current Big Title Holders (active players only)
2
Replies
61
Views
5K
DIMI_D
DIMI_D
Atennisone
  • Poll Poll
Who will win a Grand Slam first?
Replies
19
Views
1K
BGod
BGod
N
  • Poll Poll
Is 2019 a weak year or strong year
Replies
48
Views
2K
RS
RS
Back
Top