Masters Events Still Second Rate - MensTennisForums.com
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 20 (permalink) Old 03-25-2010, 09:56 AM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 29
                     
Masters Events Still Second Rate

The Masters events have a long way to go to be recognised as important in a player's resume.
The Australian Open used to be viewed with similar status but with the depth of comeptition its
status has steadily grown. The same thing is true to a certain extent for the Masters but my
opinion is that there will never be a time when Masters events would be considered more than a footnote
in player's resumes. I don't think the same would happen if we had a 5th Grand Slam in the long term
and here is why I'm placing little importance on Master events:

1. Masters events have only been around in some form since 1970. In its current format 1990.
2. They have a smaller field than Majors.
3. They are by nature ATP-specific whereas Grand Slams is a spectacular joint event between ATP and WTA
4. Masters have been downgraded to best of 3 sets whereas Grand Slams for ATP is a titanic best of 5.
5. All the top players enter Grand Slams primarily for the prestige whereas the ATP has been forced to slap a mandatory level of attendance for the Masters after players would be consistently citing tiredeness especially at the end of the year. If the players can't be bothered, why should we be.
6. There is no consistency with the location or date of the Masters events. Grand Slams rarely move location and certainly never change the dates (week). Hamburg does not exist with Masters status, Shanghai has replaced it.
Madrid has changed both surface and date. Way too much tinkering, albeit with some good reasons. This makes it difficult to take seriously for both players and fans.

Some examples to illustrate how relatively meaningless winning a Masters event is:

Example 1:

Sampras won 14 slams and 11 Masters, a total of 25 wins.
Agassi won 8 slams and 17 Masters, the same total of 25 wins.

Nobody in the their right mind would suggest Agassi is a greater player than Sampras
despite the career Grand Slam.

Therefore you might as well discard the Masters wins from the resume, it would make no difference.

Proof 2:

Tommy Robredo is a Masters winner.

On the other hand Masters events is a good thing for tennis.
Before 1970 the only worthwhile tournaments worth seeing were the Grand Slams (aside from the AO) as this
was the only chance you could see all the top male players.
At least the ATP is attempting to force players to make the Masters worth watching by making them attend.
The mistake they made was to downgrade the event to 3 sets. This prevents even a joint event from being regarded
in the same light.

Having said that I wouldn't lose sleep over missing a Masters tournament whereas I would have to be hospitalised to miss a Grand Slam.

I am interested to hear thoughts and opinions on whether or not you think Masters events are important.
oldtimer is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 20 (permalink) Old 03-25-2010, 10:09 AM
country flag tea
Banned!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Age: 32
Posts: 443
                     
Re: Masters Events Still Second Rate

Basel, Estoril and Halle alone are more important than all the Masters combined.

And yes, they killed all the beauty of these events by canceling best of 5 finals.
tea is offline  
post #3 of 20 (permalink) Old 03-25-2010, 10:19 AM
Registered User
 
LocoPorElTenis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,605
                     
Re: Masters Events Still Second Rate

Well of course they're second rate compared to grand slams. Nobody ever suggested otherwise. Even with all the interest of the ATP in promoting them, they still get only half the ranking points of GS. Not sure what your point is.
LocoPorElTenis is offline  
post #4 of 20 (permalink) Old 03-25-2010, 10:44 AM
Registered User
 
simplet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,701
                     
Re: Masters Events Still Second Rate

I'm pretty sure "second rate tournament" is the definition of a master? You know, the second-best type of tournament after the slams?
simplet is offline  
post #5 of 20 (permalink) Old 03-25-2010, 10:46 AM
Registered User
 
leng jai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Oxford (at heart)
Age: 29
Posts: 24,606
                     
Re: Masters Events Still Second Rate

I long for the day when Masters events are as important as the slams.

WARNING: This signature may contain extreme traces of bullying and glory hunting
TOMMY HASS
0 slams () and 0 finals
0 consecutive weeks at world no. 1
0 consecutive Laureus World Sports Awards
0 times qualified for YEC
3-13 H2H against Rogi Featherer
0-5 H2H against Rafito Nadal
Career low ranking: 1,241 (26.06.1995)
0 fake mullets flaunted in Roland Garros finals.
0 double bagels consumed against Raonic on grass
1 first name in common with Tommy Robredo
leng jai is offline  
post #6 of 20 (permalink) Old 03-25-2010, 11:04 AM
country flag tkr
Registered User
 
tkr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Age: 34
Posts: 125
                     
Re: Masters Events Still Second Rate

It is as simple as saying that the slams wouldn't be what it is if it wasn't for the masters. You can't have highlights without smaller tournaments. The slams are identified in the light of the smaller tournaments.
tkr is offline  
post #7 of 20 (permalink) Old 03-25-2010, 11:06 AM
Banned!
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 43
                     
Re: Masters Events Still Second Rate

and YOU WANNT that MS be higher ranked than SLAMS????
tennisfaNo.1 is offline  
post #8 of 20 (permalink) Old 03-25-2010, 02:55 PM
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
Har-Tru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 30
Posts: 20,524
                     
Re: Masters Events Still Second Rate

Er... yes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by philosophicalarf View Post
Armstrong says in-competition testing will never catch anyone, only out-of-competition testing and the blood passport can.

Tennis has no blood passport system, and does basically no out of competition testing.

The methods and drugs used by Armstrong in 1999 would work in tennis right now, with zero chance of being caught (not slightly surprising to anyone familiar with the topic, btw).
Har-Tru is offline  
post #9 of 20 (permalink) Old 03-25-2010, 04:32 PM
.
 
rocketassist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 29,135
                     
Re: Masters Events Still Second Rate

Well it's De Villiers and the fucking ATPs fault Masters are second rate- scrapping 5 set finals and giving the top players byes.

Winning an MS used to be an immensely tough challenge- six matches in a week and then a best of 5 final, if you think this is second rate you must be on crack. But the changes make them no tougher to win than, say, Dubai.

unbiased analyst extraordinaire
rocketassist is offline  
post #10 of 20 (permalink) Old 03-25-2010, 04:38 PM
country flag tkr
Registered User
 
tkr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Age: 34
Posts: 125
                     
Re: Masters Events Still Second Rate

Yeah, but you have to blame the whining players as well. They're always complaining about how tired they are etc.
tkr is offline  
post #11 of 20 (permalink) Old 03-25-2010, 04:46 PM
Registered User
 
rofe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,789
                     
Re: Masters Events Still Second Rate

They killed MS as a serious event when they moved to a best of 3 format in finals. At least with best of 5, there was a perception that it was close to a GS but now it is no different than a 250 or a 500 event.

Oh, and introducing byes for the top players killed it as well.

Need ideas for a new signature...
rofe is offline  
post #12 of 20 (permalink) Old 03-25-2010, 04:57 PM
I DON'T LIKE DJOKOVIC
 
l_mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 41,189
                     
Re: Masters Events Still Second Rate

Masters series are different to 250s and 500s because the top players are obliged to attend.

I'm not sure of the point of this thread? Has someone argued that Masters are more important than Slams? No, they haven't.
l_mac is offline  
post #13 of 20 (permalink) Old 03-25-2010, 05:56 PM
Registered User
 
LinkMage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Buenos Aires
Age: 30
Posts: 11,328
                     
Re: Masters Events Still Second Rate

Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketassist View Post
Well it's De Villiers and the fucking ATPs fault Masters are second rate- scrapping 5 set finals and giving the top players byes.

Winning an MS used to be an immensely tough challenge- six matches in a week and then a best of 5 final, if you think this is second rate you must be on crack. But the changes make them no tougher to win than, say, Dubai.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rofe View Post
They killed MS as a serious event when they moved to a best of 3 format in finals. At least with best of 5, there was a perception that it was close to a GS but now it is no different than a 250 or a 500 event.

Oh, and introducing byes for the top players killed it as well.

+10000000000

Fuck the ATP and the crybaby players. :retard:

Schweni

Lahm

Kroos :fuck you:
LinkMage is offline  
post #14 of 20 (permalink) Old 03-25-2010, 09:04 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 526
                     
Re: Masters Events Still Second Rate

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtimer View Post
The Masters events have a long way to go to be recognised as important in a player's resume.
The Australian Open used to be viewed with similar status but with the depth of comeptition its
status has steadily grown. The same thing is true to a certain extent for the Masters but my
opinion is that there will never be a time when Masters events would be considered more than a footnote
in player's resumes. I don't think the same would happen if we had a 5th Grand Slam in the long term
and here is why I'm placing little importance on Master events:

1. Masters events have only been around in some form since 1970. In its current format 1990.
2. They have a smaller field than Majors.
3. They are by nature ATP-specific whereas Grand Slams is a spectacular joint event between ATP and WTA
4. Masters have been downgraded to best of 3 sets whereas Grand Slams for ATP is a titanic best of 5.
5. All the top players enter Grand Slams primarily for the prestige whereas the ATP has been forced to slap a mandatory level of attendance for the Masters after players would be consistently citing tiredeness especially at the end of the year. If the players can't be bothered, why should we be.
6. There is no consistency with the location or date of the Masters events. Grand Slams rarely move location and certainly never change the dates (week). Hamburg does not exist with Masters status, Shanghai has replaced it.
Madrid has changed both surface and date. Way too much tinkering, albeit with some good reasons. This makes it difficult to take seriously for both players and fans.

Some examples to illustrate how relatively meaningless winning a Masters event is:

Example 1:

Sampras won 14 slams and 11 Masters, a total of 25 wins.
Agassi won 8 slams and 17 Masters, the same total of 25 wins.

Nobody in the their right mind would suggest Agassi is a greater player than Sampras
despite the career Grand Slam.

Therefore you might as well discard the Masters wins from the resume, it would make no difference.

Proof 2:

Tommy Robredo is a Masters winner.

On the other hand Masters events is a good thing for tennis.
Before 1970 the only worthwhile tournaments worth seeing were the Grand Slams (aside from the AO) as this
was the only chance you could see all the top male players.
At least the ATP is attempting to force players to make the Masters worth watching by making them attend.
The mistake they made was to downgrade the event to 3 sets. This prevents even a joint event from being regarded
in the same light.

Having said that I wouldn't lose sleep over missing a Masters tournament whereas I would have to be hospitalised to miss a Grand Slam.

I am interested to hear thoughts and opinions on whether or not you think Masters events are important.
Well you have made some interesting points. I also think it was a terrible decision to make the finals best of 3 sets. Now most finals finish in an hour which is quite frankly dull.

I like the tournaments, I like watching Rome, Cincinnati,Indian Wells and Miami. The problem I have is since 2001 I haven't seen much Masters matches because ISL did that mega contract to take the Masters series to pay television. ISL soon went bust but still these tournaments are on pay TV. Before then, the Mercedes Super nines used to be on Eurosport so more people had access. I've been watching a lot more womens Tennis than mens because I have Eurosport and I have no intention of paying for Masters tournaments, certainly not on the ATP website.

I also used to think that winning a Super Nine / Masters series event was good preparation for players winning a future slam. I don't have that feeling in the last two years.
laurie-1 is offline  
post #15 of 20 (permalink) Old 03-25-2010, 09:45 PM
Registered User
 
BodyServe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Age: 28
Posts: 4,199
                     
Re: Masters Events Still Second Rate

Agreed that the bye in first rounds are a joke. But shortening the final is a good move, it's stupid to have a whole tournament but the final in best of 3.
Someone who made his way through a tough draw would find himself hopeless in a Best of 5 final whereas he would still have chance in a best of 3.
BodyServe is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the MensTennisForums.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome