Is it harder to win GS or WTF? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Is it harder to win GS or WTF?

Mario000
08-13-2010, 11:55 AM
I'll say that is harder to win WTF because for GS you have to play your best for two weeks and have max. 3 toough opponents and for WTF you have be consitent whole year and win 4 or 5 matches against top 8 players in just one week. OK, teoretically you can win it with just 3 wins

EDIT
just asking what is harder to win,not what is more appreciated

Fedal2010
08-13-2010, 12:08 PM
IMO itīs definately harder to win a major than the WTF..

- at the WTF you play best of three

- a lot of (the betterplayers) struggle physically after such a long season at the WTF so thereīs a chance for lower ranked guys f/e the 8th ranked.

- with one loss or two you can still win the WTF .. at a major youīre immediately out

- at the WTF you play best of three, 5 matches (if you make it to the final), in one week.
at a major you play best of five, 7 matches (if you make it to the final), in two weeks.
Compared it looks like the same level of difficulty

- and the last one.. I mean letīs look at the Winner and Runner ups at the WTF in the past years.

2009: W: Nikolai Davydenko ; RU: Juan Martin Del Potro
2008: W: Novak Djokovic ; RU: Nikolai Davydenko
2007: W: Roger Federer ; RU: David Ferrer
2006: W: Roger Federer ; RU: James Blake

In the last 4 years there are 3 players as the Winner or Runner Up who didnīt even make it to a Slam final and James Blake didnīt even reach a Slam SF.. Djokovic is considered as a 1 Slam woner till he shows up again.

My 2 cents

MacTheKnife
08-13-2010, 12:14 PM
Technically it should be harder to win the WTF since you play all matches against the top 8 guys. But when you consider draws and the best of 5 scenario, it can be tougher to win a slam. Having said that, have seen some slam draws that were pathetically easy.

Persimmon
08-13-2010, 12:18 PM
GS, of course.

Players that never reached a slam final like Davydenko have won WTF.

alter ego
08-13-2010, 12:20 PM
Depends. If you're a hardcourt specialist then a slam will be harder to win. IF you're a clay court player then WTF.

alter ego
08-13-2010, 12:21 PM
GS, of course.

Players that never reached a slam final like Davydenko have won WTF.

That's crap logic because it works in both ways, i.e. Nadal has 8 slams but he has never played a WTF final.

Fedal2010
08-13-2010, 12:25 PM
That's crap logic because it works in both ways, i.e. Nadal has 8 slams but he has never played a WTF final.

Yeah but Nadal is a guy who canīt play such a long season and show up his best at the WTF not like Fed who seems to be fit pretty much anytime.

latso
08-13-2010, 12:30 PM
WTF

and i mean What The F...?

Is it harder to win the beach tennis gran prix or the 24H of Le Mans?

that would make more sense as a question

siloe26
08-13-2010, 12:33 PM
That's crap logic because it works in both ways, i.e. Nadal has 8 slams but he has never played a WTF final.

Like you said in your previous post, it depends on the surface players like to play on. Nadal is at his best on clay and his worst surface is Hard Courts, especially indoors. And since Hard Court players are the most rewarded in the rankings, Nadal generally plays the Masters with 6 or 7 players for whom the conditions are ideal or close to it.

alter ego
08-13-2010, 12:38 PM
Yeah but Nadal is a guy who canīt play such a long season and show up his best at the WTF not like Fed who seems to be fit pretty much anytime.

Wilander also has 7 slams but no WTF. Courier has 4 slams and 0 WTF.
Furthermore Coretja is the only spaniard that has ever won WTF.

Persimmon
08-13-2010, 12:46 PM
That's crap logic because it works in both ways, i.e. Nadal has 8 slams but he has never played a WTF final.

YEC is not what it used to be. Now with the BO3 it's like a glorified Masters Series.

paseo
08-13-2010, 12:49 PM
Wtf.

alter ego
08-13-2010, 12:55 PM
YEC is not what it used to be. Now with the BO3 it's like a glorified Masters Series.

One might say the same about Wimbledon. Once it was the holyland of S&v players, now it's green clay.
Is Wimbledon a less important slam nowadays ?

SaFed2005
08-13-2010, 02:13 PM
There is a reason why Nadal hasn't won a YEC yet.

gusavo
08-13-2010, 04:35 PM
its almost certainly harder for the best players to win wtf, the better you are the bigger difference in difficulty. and then you have people like nadal whos like 60 65% to win RG and like maybe 20 to win wtf in current form
GS, of course.

Players that never reached a slam final like Davydenko have won WTF.

wtf of course, players who have never reached wtf have won slams like thomas johansson
that argument doesent help

But when you consider draws and the best of 5 scenario, it can be tougher to win a slam.
well the more superior to the player you are playing the more you benefit from five sets over three sets and the weaker you are...

Priam
08-13-2010, 04:38 PM
GS. 7 matches bo5. In WTF you can lose a match (rr) and still win the tournament.

MacTheKnife
08-13-2010, 04:47 PM
GS. 7 matches bo5. In WTF you can lose a match (rr) and still win the tournament.

But in a slam you can play 6 of those matches without facing a top player. I believe in this year's FO Nadal did not face anyone above #15 until the finals. In WTF all your matches are against the best 8. SO, it is all dependent on the draw.

Priam
08-13-2010, 04:52 PM
It's still bo5 though versus bo3 now. You could reach the final by playing 3 straight 5 setters (such as on clay maybe) making it tougher I guess.

CCBH
08-13-2010, 04:52 PM
GS. Theoretically, since you play the top guys over the space of a week, the WTF seems more demanding, but 1. many of them play injured, so there are replacements like Stepanek when they can find nobody else 2. you can lose a match and still win (this can be considered a challenge as well, since it is tough to come out and maintain the intensity after losing)
3. best of 3 sets vs 5 at Slams
4. there are numerous distractions at Slams, unpredictable weather (vs indoors at WTF), draws

MacTheKnife
08-13-2010, 04:57 PM
It's still bo5 though versus bo3 now. You could reach the final by playing 3 straight 5 setters (such as on clay maybe) making it tougher I guess.

I agree and I am not saying one is tougher than the other. I am simply saying that the draw determines the level of difficulty.

On the surface you would think the WTF is easier because it is best of 3, but if you have a very easy draw in a slam that may not be true.

Priam
08-13-2010, 05:03 PM
Yeah I suppose it can be argued either way. Such as going the distance with each bo3 match against the top players. It will be interesting to ask one of the top guys which they feel is harder to win.

BigJohn
08-13-2010, 05:07 PM
There is a reason why Nadal hasn't won a YEC yet.


Let me guess... He was injured?

dodo
08-13-2010, 05:13 PM
Why are you all randomly pulling players' names and trying to link the number of slams to their likelihood of winning WTF/YEC?
If it were played on clay, Nadal would sweep it like any other big clay event, no question.
But its played on indoor carpet, and, BIG SHOCKER, it has been won by players who are good on indoor carpet. How come they have no slams? Well, there are no indoor carpet slams that I can recall. If there were, Davydenko and Nalbandian would likely have one of those as well.

CCBH
08-13-2010, 05:27 PM
The RR format really highlights the importance of match-ups, because if a player has his pseudo-pigeons in the field but also his nemeses, then if he is drawn in a group with 2 guys he is comfortable against, he has a good chance to make it through the play-offs and then play a good couple of matches to win it all.

Example: in 2005, Davydenko was drawn with Gaudio and Puerta, smoked them and then got mauled by Nalby. In 2006, he lost to Blake (whose pigeon he was) and Nadal. In 2007, he was beaten by Fed and Roddick, both his nemeses. 2008 and 2009, he showed grit, winning against Tsonga, delPo, Murray (tired, though) and Nadal (he'd beaten him routinely recently), Soderling, Federer. But in 2009, he was fresh after missing a good chunk of the season.

djb84xi
08-13-2010, 05:33 PM
Gotta agree a major is tougher to win, due to the various factors it holds over the World Tour Finals. It's played over 2 weeks, you have to win 7 matches, each match is best of 5 sets, and there is no survival if you lose. In the WTF, if you lose a match, it's still possible you can advance, so that gives you more opportunity that you won't get in a grand slam.

MacTheKnife
08-13-2010, 05:36 PM
Yeah I suppose it can be argued either way. Such as going the distance with each bo3 match against the top players. It will be interesting to ask one of the top guys which they feel is harder to win.

Yep, that would be an interesting question to see how they responded..

FormerRafaFan
08-13-2010, 05:45 PM
IMO itīs definately harder to win a major than the WTF..

- at the WTF you play best of three

- a lot of (the betterplayers) struggle physically after such a long season at the WTF so thereīs a chance for lower ranked guys f/e the 8th ranked.

- with one loss or two you can still win the WTF .. at a major youīre immediately out

- at the WTF you play best of three, 5 matches (if you make it to the final), in one week.
at a major you play best of five, 7 matches (if you make it to the final), in two weeks.
Compared it looks like the same level of difficulty

- and the last one.. I mean letīs look at the Winner and Runner ups at the WTF in the past years.

2009: W: Nikolai Davydenko ; RU: Juan Martin Del Potro
2008: W: Novak Djokovic ; RU: Nikolai Davydenko
2007: W: Roger Federer ; RU: David Ferrer
2006: W: Roger Federer ; RU: James Blake

In the last 4 years there are 3 players as the Winner or Runner Up who didnīt even make it to a Slam final and James Blake didnīt even reach a Slam SF.. Djokovic is considered as a 1 Slam woner till he shows up again.

My 2 cents

I agree with this. I definitely think winning a major is tougher than winning the WTF.. You have to be on top of your game the entire tournament in order to win, you also have to have endurance in order to survive 5-sets matches. WTF does not include 5-sets matches and you can even lose a few matches and win the toruney. However, losing a match in one of the majors and you lose the chance to win a slam.

dodo
08-13-2010, 05:52 PM
I agree with this. I definitely think winning a major is tougher than winning the WTF.. You have to be on top of your game the entire tournament in order to win, you also have to have endurance in order to survive 5-sets matches. WTF does not include 5-sets matches and you can even lose a few matches and win the toruney. However, losing a match in one of the majors and you lose the chance to win a slam.
Actually, you will have 3 chances left.

MacTheKnife
08-13-2010, 05:59 PM
Actually, you will have 3 chances left.

Good point. A lot more opportunity.

Ibracadabra
08-13-2010, 06:00 PM
WTF more top players, more often.

Jomp1
08-13-2010, 06:15 PM
Depends on the Slam draw. If you do the "normal" route to play a top16 in 1/8, top8 in 1/8 and top4 in semis and final it's definitely harder, but with a cake draw all you might need is a semi and final performance, sometimes just the final. I don't see why 3-sets or 5-sets is any difference, level of opponent is a more significant factor. I also prefer players winning on their play rather than endurance in a match, but maybe that's just me.

If you play bad in a WTF match you're loosing, easy as that. The level of play in most WTF matches is insane in comparizon to most GS matches. Looking beyond each GS as a single tournament, there are after all four per year, So I'd say a WTF event is harder to win, but there's more prestige in a GS victory.

Manequin75
08-13-2010, 06:15 PM
Dont think this is a fair poll. Obviosuly much lower ranked guy will probably say its easier to win a GS since he atleast gets in the draw LOL. How does he get into the Year ending Tour Finals with his ranking. And im sure its easier to win something if you get a chance :)

BigJohn
08-13-2010, 08:16 PM
This ^^^^

The requirement needed to make the draw at the WTF makes it more difficult to win overall.

Joao
08-13-2010, 11:07 PM
Depends on the Slam draw. If you do the "normal" route to play a top16 in 1/8, top8 in 1/8 and top4 in semis and final it's definitely harder, but with a cake draw all you might need is a semi and final performance, sometimes just the final. I don't see why 3-sets or 5-sets is any difference, level of opponent is a more significant factor. I also prefer players winning on their play rather than endurance in a match, but maybe that's just me.

If you play bad in a WTF match you're loosing, easy as that. The level of play in most WTF matches is insane in comparizon to most GS matches. Looking beyond each GS as a single tournament, there are after all four per year, So I'd say a WTF event is harder to win, but there's more prestige in a GS victory.

I agree. I think it's actually harder to win a Bo3 than a Bo5 in which you have the luxury to lose 2 sets and still win the match! Of course you need endurance, but physical ain't everything in a Bo5. In Bo3 you need to be on your toes from the get go, otherwise it's bye bye. And of course winning 4/5 matches in 7 days (with little rest) is much harder than winning 7 matches over 14 days. And it's not like we've seen anybody win a GS winning 7 5 sets matches anyway ...

Regarding the quality of players, there's no doubt that WTF is stronger than GS. You need to beat at the very least 3 top8 players to win a WTF (that's the extreme case if all players in the same group have a 1-2 record). But more often than not, winners of WTf have won at least 4 matches. For GS, well we've seen more than once players reach the finals without playing a top10 player let alone a top8. And playing 3 weak opponents in 1st 3 rounds of a GS can and usually helps the top players getting into form. They don't have that chance at the WTF!

And I don't buy the "it's the end of the season, players are tired". Even if it's true, the field is evened out as all players should be tired.

And whereas the top100 has a direct entry into a GS, only the top8 gets in at the WTF. You have to earn your place at the WTF, by either winning a GS and stay in the top20 or playing well and consistently all year to get enough points to get in!

Serenidad
08-14-2010, 12:17 AM
if Brands is in the draw the tournament is hard. Next.

Sapeod
08-14-2010, 12:18 AM
GS by far.
WTF is a glorified masters tournament.

Sapeod
08-14-2010, 12:20 AM
if Brands is in the draw the tournament is hard. Next.
This proves that GS is harder to win than WTF.

DrJules
08-14-2010, 10:07 AM
For the best players, Federer and Nadal, a GS should be easier.

Best of 5 sets favours the better player with fewer upsets and more difficult for the slightly lower ranked player to achieve upset.

Federer lost to Davydenko in best of 3 sets in WTF, but best of 5 sets favoured Federer in AO and always more likely to win over 5 sets rather than 3 sets.

.-Federers_Mate-.
08-14-2010, 12:31 PM
Roger Federer has done both.

twolf21
08-14-2010, 06:57 PM
It's way harder to win a Grand Slam, you have to be consistent and in top form for two weeks, instead of a week at the WTF. But, it's ten times harder to MAKE it to the WTF. That's where this debate will get iffy. You have to be in the top 8 to make the WTF, but only in the top 100 or so to make it in the main draw at a Slam.

I guess this answer may not make any sense