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

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...

The YEC tournaments Sampras won were all in round robin format too and, in his case, it was fortunate for him that they were because, in each of his 5 wins, he lost at least 1 match in the round robin stage.
 
Sunny014 said:
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.
Click to expand...
LOL
I tend to agree mostly not the 1 trick pony but that is ok!
This is not a Nadal hate here.
Out of the big three he has to work the hardest on hard courts and to a lesser extent grass.
That reason alone is why I consider his 2013 US Open series run one of the greatest hard court runs in tennis history. I do not care if Fed and Djokovic were both not at their best.
Took him years to get good,
The myth of pre 2010 Nadal as some all surface beast is false.
Finally in 2010 he leveled up outside of clay.
 
Mainad said:
The YEC tournaments Sampras won were all in round robin format too and, in his case, it was fortunate for him that they were because, in each of his 5 wins, he lost at least 1 match in the round robin stage.
Click to expand...
That moment when even Dimitrov won it undefeated and not Pete LOL.
 
MeatTornado said:
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.
Click to expand...

True, I mean, they're in their mid-'30s or even late '30s. It's logical that they'd lose to younger guys. What's crazy is that they still dominate the slams, not that they lose in Bo3. They also lost their dominance in Masters 1000 in the past few years.
 
swordtennis said:
LOL
I tend to agree mostly not the 1 trick pony but that is ok!
This is not a Nadal hate here.
Out of the big three he has to work the hardest on hard courts and to a lesser extent grass.
That reason alone is why I consider his 2013 US Open series run one of the greatest hard court runs in tennis history. I do not care if Fed and Djokovic were both not at their best.
Took him years to get good,
The myth of pre 2010 Nadal as some all surface beast is false.
Finally in 2010 he leveled up outside of clay.
Click to expand...

He was brilliant in Wimbledon 2008 and Australia 2009 already. He peaked on hard courts in the USO 2010, but on grass, he was already making Wimbledon finals since 2006. He was better in Wimbledon 2008 than Wimbledon 2010, he had a couple of scares early in 2010. USO 2010 was his best level on a hard-court slam and probably his best level outside of clay.
 
BauerAlmeida said:
He was brilliant in Wimbledon 2008 and Australia 2009 already. He peaked on hard courts in the USO 2010, but on grass, he was already making Wimbledon finals since 2006. He was better in Wimbledon 2008 than Wimbledon 2010, he had a couple of scares early in 2010. USO 2010 was his best level on a hard-court slam and probably his best level outside of clay.
Click to expand...
Those two title runs were great, No issue on that.
He killed himself winning that AO title tho. He needed to get better court positioning on hard courts and conserve more energy. Fed kinda folded in the 5th set as well.
 
Mainad said:
The YEC tournaments Sampras won were all in round robin format too and, in his case, it was fortunate for him that they were because, in each of his 5 wins, he lost at least 1 match in the round robin stage.
Click to expand...
1- Pete won all his titles in BO5, which was my point
2- MurryGOAT
 
It’s quite apparent that the big 3 don’t care about this tournament in recent years, and everyone in general is tired at the end of a long season.

Anyways, it should be played on carpet
 
They prioritised slams particularly as they got older, but the season and the rules allow players to prioritise. It is still the most important event after the slams.

RelentlessAttack said:
It’s quite apparent that the big 3 don’t care about this tournament in recent years, and everyone in general is tired at the end of a long season.

Anyways, it should be played on carpet
Click to expand...
 
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...
It's more about conditions... Indoor hard court... Plus being unlucky few times (spent his lucky at uso)...

That is biggest down for Nadal... Not that he failed to win one particular tournament (he didn't win Miami too) but the tournament that is played in specific conditions where he just can't play that great... So he is somehow specialist, lucky that most tournaments are outdoor, in contrary to Novak and Roger who are atgs both in outdoor and indoor conditions...
 
beard said:
It's more about conditions... Indoor hard court... Plus being unlucky few times (spent his lucky at uso)...

That is biggest down for Nadal... Not that he failed to win one particular tournament (he didn't win Miami too) but the tournament that is played in specific conditions where he just can't play that great... So he is somehow specialist, lucky that most tournaments are outdoor, in contrary to Novak and Roger who are atgs both in outdoor and indoor conditions...
Click to expand...
I think you are right.
Clay he could probably defeat all 1-7 ranked if he had a day off between matches.
I think it has to do with the effort he needs to put in off clay.
He can get overwhelmed out there.
One big match he is amazing.
When he has to string 2 or more together it wears him out or something.
 
DIMI_D said:
Laver never won this title and it doesn’t affect his legacy in the list of greatest players the slams carry much more weight so for me the last winners can’t really have a lasting legacy without a slam win. Say Medevdev racks up 3 ATP finals but fails to win a slam he will have a great career but won’t be as good as Del potros 1 US open?
Click to expand...

Uh, the tournament was introduced in 1970 and Laver was 32 by then.
 
Mainad said:

Nadal is on 56. :cool:
Click to expand...
Lol... If they changed "rules" it sucks... today OG are not big title, tomorrow they are... and no OG played in the meantime....
I found about 10 tables published by ATP where they compare big titles and no OG in those... Yours favorite Murray winning two Olimpics is great off course... Him destroying Fed in 2012 final was just masterpiece...

But, for Novak it doesn't matter, he was officially congratulated to have all Big titles, first and only. Even if they changed something it's of no importance. They can introduce Laver cup and Istanbul as slams lol, doesn't matter in Novak case...


And even if OG are Big event, Novak still has most of all, and is PROVED most vertisale player... EVER...



Just watch this video, its amazing, and read the article.
www.atptour.com

History: Djokovic Stands Alone | ATP Tour | Tennis

There are many words that could describe what Novak Djokovic did on Sunday when he captured his first Western & Southern Open title, but one stands out: historic.
www.atptour.com www.atptour.com
 
Yugram said:
Since 2017, it’s been won by:

Dimitrov, Zverev, Tsitsipas, Medvedev

Only 2 of them participated in a Slam final and none of them won a Slam. For example, list of Rome Masters champions in that time frame:

Zverev, Nadal, Nadal, Djokovic

Or Cincinnati Masters:

Dimitrov, Djokovic, Medvedev, Djokovic

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.

#Irrelevant ;)
Click to expand...

Nadal played all but the 2018 edition. If it is so irrelevant, why does he keep showing up?
Also Dmitrov, Zverev and Medvedev become bonafide winners if they win Rome and Cincinnati but are not if they win the ATP finals? You know that Zverev defeated Federer and Djokovic back to back to win his while Medvedev has had tremendous run against top 10s since winning Paris masters and ATP finals ...

Nadal not winning ATP finals is an anamoly. He is too good a player to not have won it once. Being indoors doesn't help. For your sake I really wish he wins it at least once so that trolls like you stop trashing the tournament.
 
PETEhammer said:
1- Pete won all his titles in BO5, which was my point
2- MurryGOAT
Click to expand...

Saying Pete won all his titles as BO5 is very misleading as it gives an impression that there was a choice to play a BO5 or BO3 ... It is like saying Novak's count doesnt matter because all his 5 wins are in BO3. You win/lose what is in front of you. And in my opinion it is far tougher to beat a top player in a BO5 format than BO3.

Also if you look at the stats for BO5 ATP finals :

Pete played 11, won 5 and runners up 1 time.
Federer played 5 ATP finals, won 3 and runners up 1 time.

Clearly Federer was equal if not a shade better than Pete till the time the tournament was BO5.
 
Nole_King said:
Nadal played all but the 2018 edition. If it is so irrelevant, why does he keep showing up?
Also Dmitrov, Zverev and Medvedev become bonafide winners if they win Rome and Cincinnati but are not if they win the ATP finals? You know that Zverev defeated Federer and Djokovic back to back to win his while Medvedev has had tremendous run against top 10s since winning Paris masters and ATP finals ...

Nadal not winning ATP finals is an anamoly. He is too good a player to not have won it once. Being indoors doesn't help. For your sake I really wish he wins it at least once so that trolls like you stop trashing the tournament.
Click to expand...
Med run in last few years has been most impressive, defeating all three slam winner and winning it without loosing single match
 
airchallenge2 said:
Anna Kournikova made a lot of money outside the tennis court, too
Click to expand...

Ya she qualifies in 1 parameter as a brand ambassador but fails in everything else by light years, infact she doesn't even qualify as an ATG..

She doesn't have even 1 Laureus Sportsman of the year award or even 1 grand slam let alone 22 or 23 to come close to Serena, she doesn't have any rank1 status any point of time, she doesnt have any WTF or any sort of dominance..... he tennis game was never the best

Federer on the other hand has held all the records for 11 years, he held most slams from 2009 till 2020, has most WTFs, had most weeks at 1, has most slams on 2 turfs out of 1 until recently when novak eclipsed his HC slam tally by 1.....

So Federer has been the ruler of Tennis for so long and along with that he holds the most Laureus awards + most money earned title which means he is the most popular tennis player on the planet

So he still is the GOAT until he is no longer the most popular tennis player on the planet....... Because most slams alone wont make anyone the best, in previous decades if people knew that most slams would be the crtiteria then Jimmy Connors would not have skipped AOs and FOs many years, he would have been on 11 or 13 slams by now.... even Bjorn borg skipped AOs and retired at 11 slams by 26, he too would have never done all this and reached 18-20 slams by then if he continued...... So slams race is UNFAIR ON THE OLD PLAYERS
 
Last edited:
Connors would have had something like 12 Slams if he did not skip the French+AOs for so many years.
Borg would have been on 17-18 Slams and Sampras himself would have never held the record for most slams or he would have had to reach 18+.

Then Federer would have been chasing 18-20 and the bar would already have been higher for Djokovic + Nadal than it is now.

It is unfair to create a Slam Race as GOAT race post 2000.
 
Yugram said:
Since 2017, it’s been won by:

Dimitrov, Zverev, Tsitsipas, Medvedev

Only 2 of them participated in a Slam final and none of them won a Slam. For example, list of Rome Masters champions in that time frame:

Zverev, Nadal, Nadal, Djokovic

Or Cincinnati Masters:

Dimitrov, Djokovic, Medvedev, Djokovic

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.

#Irrelevant ;)
Click to expand...

it is a matter of priority. for example nole already had 5 WTFs but he needed cinci first for the golden master and then for the double.
 
Last edited:
Yugram said:
Since 2017, it’s been won by:

Dimitrov, Zverev, Tsitsipas, Medvedev

Only 2 of them participated in a Slam final and none of them won a Slam. For example, list of Rome Masters champions in that time frame:

Zverev, Nadal, Nadal, Djokovic

Or Cincinnati Masters:

Dimitrov, Djokovic, Medvedev, Djokovic

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.

#Irrelevant ;)
Click to expand...
Its not ironic at all.

Anyone who knows the history of the WTF would know that.
 
CyBorg said:
Uh, the tournament was introduced in 1970 and Laver was 32 by then.
Click to expand...
Yes you have a valid point to a certain degree, but he did try very hard at one vs rosewall maybe pre WTF being officially called that and lost it was highly televised around the US. and one he missed out round robin format only was H2H vs Stan Smith might of been the first one ever played as ATP finals 1970’. But in saying that it’s not held against him in evaluating his career point is it gets lost amongst his career slam and dominance of his era. Only fanatics like us realise hey he doesn’t have one but regardless it’s not considered such a big deal when evaluating his entire career. As for being 32 at 31 he won all 4 majors 1969 so 1 yr later it’s not like he has declined massively and also he made slam quarterfinal in 1971.
 
Guess all the players do not have to face "the great" Donald Young these days. He seems to have a temporary absent from the tour even in the Challenger level circuit probably do to success and Covid.
 
Sunny014 said:
Ya she qualifies in 1 parameter as a brand ambassador but fails in everything else by light years, infact she doesn't even qualify as an ATG..

She doesn't have even 1 Laureus Sportsman of the year award or even 1 grand slam let alone 22 or 23 to come close to Serena, she doesn't have any rank1 status any point of time, she doesnt have any WTF or any sort of dominance..... he tennis game was never the best

Federer on the other hand has held all the records for 11 years, he held most slams from 2009 till 2020, has most WTFs, had most weeks at 1, has most slams on 2 turfs out of 1 until recently when novak eclipsed his HC slam tally by 1.....

So Federer has been the ruler of Tennis for so long and along with that he holds the most Laureus awards + most money earned title which means he is the most popular tennis player on the planet

So he still is the GOAT until he is no longer the most popular tennis player on the planet....... Because most slams alone wont make anyone the best, in previous decades if people knew that most slams would be the crtiteria then Jimmy Connors would not have skipped AOs and FOs many years, he would have been on 11 or 13 slams by now.... even Bjorn borg skipped AOs and retired at 11 slams by 26, he too would have never done all this and reached 18-20 slams by then if he continued...... So slams race is UNFAIR ON THE OLD PLAYERS
Click to expand...
I think it’s unfair to degrade one great players achievements by only signalling out the best all these players contributed a lot to the sport. Back then slams weren’t as sort after as they are today AO was just a logistical nightmare. But in saying that 90s onwards it has been clear that this is the barometer so the big 3 can definitely be evaluated on there slam record. Pre open era and with racquet technology evaluating who was better is very hard to say really only can see who dominated there respective era. It’s good to appreciate all the greats as they have left a lasting legacy to the sport.
 
DIMI_D said:
I think it’s unfair to degrade one great players achievements by only signalling out the best all these players contributed a lot to the sport. Back then slams weren’t as sort after as they are today AO was just a logistical nightmare. But in saying that 90s onwards it has been clear that this is the barometer so the big 3 can definitely be evaluated on there slam record. Pre open era and with racquet technology evaluating who was better is very hard to say really only can see who dominated there respective era. It’s good to appreciate all the greats as they have left a lasting legacy to the sport.
Click to expand...

No, you can evaluate DJOKER + NADAL with this
Not Federer

Yes slams were the barometer when Federer started winning slams but that doesn't equate for he being from the 90s and djokdal being from the 00s

I have posted many times on how when fed was 31 just 2 guys 30+ were ranked in top 20 and this is same for pete/lendl/boris at 31 as wel.... but for Djokodal there were 6 guys 30+ in top 20 when they were 31 and the number increased more in 2 years

So fed has not benefitted from the change of play as much as guys born 85-86 onwards did.

It is unfair to say 21 beats 20, at least 25 is needed to beat this 20. ... 22-25% rise just like to be beat 14 at least 17-18 would be needed ..... with 15 or 16 slams Federer would still have raised arguments with Sampras's 14.
 
Last edited:
Additional to Slams the Dallas WCT tournament can be considered on par.

It was best of 5 throughout from round of top 8 till the final.

John Mcenroe won it 5 times and is the all time leader in this.

Mcenroe should be a 7 + 5 = 12 Slams winner effectively

WTFs should always been like this, best of 5 in a 8 top men elimination scenario.
 
Yugram said:
Since 2017, it’s been won by:

Dimitrov, Zverev, Tsitsipas, Medvedev

Only 2 of them participated in a Slam final and none of them won a Slam. For example, list of Rome Masters champions in that time frame:

Zverev, Nadal, Nadal, Djokovic

Or Cincinnati Masters:

Dimitrov, Djokovic, Medvedev, Djokovic

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.

#Irrelevant ;)
Click to expand...
Disagrees heavily.
 
Yugram said:
Since 2017, it’s been won by:

Dimitrov, Zverev, Tsitsipas, Medvedev

Only 2 of them participated in a Slam final and none of them won a Slam. For example, list of Rome Masters champions in that time frame:

Zverev, Nadal, Nadal, Djokovic

Or Cincinnati Masters:

Dimitrov, Djokovic, Medvedev, Djokovic

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.

#Irrelevant ;)
Click to expand...
Troll attempt 3/10.
Very bad
 
Yugram said:
Nadal can leave it to conquerors of Marsielle and other bery bery important tournaments.
Click to expand...
Accept it fella, nadal basically served for the title against Medvedev last year and choked up big time. (And no, I don't trust thiem in a big final, certainly not vs nadal).
So cut it off with the BS that nadal doesn't care about wtf, that way you're only insulting the bull.
 
Sunny014 said:
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.
Click to expand...
By this logic Kournikova would be greater than a lot of slam winning women. Agassi would also be greater or at least equally great as Sampras.
 
DIMI_D said:
Yes you have a valid point to a certain degree, but he did try very hard at one vs rosewall maybe pre WTF being officially called that and lost it was highly televised around the US. and one he missed out round robin format only was H2H vs Stan Smith might of been the first one ever played as ATP finals 1970’. But in saying that it’s not held against him in evaluating his career point is it gets lost amongst his career slam and dominance of his era. Only fanatics like us realise hey he doesn’t have one but regardless it’s not considered such a big deal when evaluating his entire career. As for being 32 at 31 he won all 4 majors 1969 so 1 yr later it’s not like he has declined massively and also he made slam quarterfinal in 1971.
Click to expand...

I think you're confusing the year end masters with Dallas WCT (aka WCT finals). Completely different tournaments. Dallas was a huge event that doesn't exist anymore.
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
By this logic Kournikova would be greater than a lot of slam winning women. Agassi would also be greater or at least equally great as Sampras.
Click to expand...


Don't you understand that just having money and not being a GOAT candidate automaticaly disqualifies you???

Who is Kournikova ? People pay money to lust for her, not to see her win matches.

Is Agassi in the league of Sampras ???
If Agassi had 13 slams instead of Pete's 14 or 15 slams with all his records then he could have been a contender in his time.

Federer has held all the records for more than a decade, 2009 till 2021 ... 2-3 Full Generations of Athletes came after him and he was the slams leader....he still holds many recods like WTF, 2nd highest weeks at 1, most wimbledon titles, second highest HC slams.....

Kournikova? Agassi? Who r these people and were they ever GOATs at any point of their career ???

Popularity of Big 3 will be compared among them, not with kyrgios or some loser..... Comparison is always among equals
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

nolefam_2024
1 time masters winners in last 10 years
Replies
3
Views
420
ChrisRF
C
P
Can zverev become greater than wawrinka ?
Replies
5
Views
348
ChrisJR3264
C
DIMI_D
Current Big Title Holders (active players only)
2
Replies
58
Views
4K
DIMI_D
DIMI_D
Atennisone
  • Poll Poll
Who will win a Grand Slam first?
Replies
19
Views
1K
BGod
BGod
nolefam_2024
  • Poll Poll
Is 2019 a weak year or strong year
Replies
48
Views
2K
RS
RS
Back
Top