YEC (WTF) is the Most Prestigious Yearly Tournament Category [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

YEC (WTF) is the Most Prestigious Yearly Tournament Category

masterclass
05-14-2012, 07:57 AM
The Year End Championship (YEC) in it's current incarnation known as the World Tour Finals (WTF) appears to be the most prestigious yearly tournament category (according to the ATP) (http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Novak-Djokovic.aspx?t=rb).** ++

**Olympics not included and Davis Cup is considered a 500 tournament by ATP.
++ Note to mods/admins, though this is similar to the Rank tournaments in order of Prestige (http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=191546) thread, it's more exclusive and more slanted to the ATP's opinion of the events. Please don't merge it with that thread. Thank you.
---------------------------------------

Even though it's possible top ranking points (1500) are currently not as high as a major (2000), the World Championship category is placed higher than the Grand Slams in the category listings (see link above).

So do you agree with the ATP?

Poll options for Most Prestigious Yearly Tournament Category:

1. World Championship
2. Grand Slam Events (majors)
3. Equivalent for different reasons

Please give your reasoning for your choice.

Also, if you believe the World Championship falls short of or is equivalent to the majors, please explain how you would change it * to elevate it to the higher level, as I believe the clear intent of the tournament is to determine whom among the best players of the year is the World's best player, after all events of the year have been played, no matter who won the majors or other tournaments.
* Examples: Include 2 or x more players, make it more demanding, change from round robin to knock out, have it played on different surfaces, etc.

Respectfully,
masterclass

green25814
05-14-2012, 08:03 AM
I really enjoy the WTF, mostly because its the only tournament where every match seems to matter. It does have a few problems, and doesn't feel as special as the slams mostly because its best of 3, I still like it though.

To me its lower than the slams, but above most master series.

lucyfur
05-14-2012, 08:06 AM
That link doesn't mention wtf, it goes to the Nole player profile.:confused:

Arkulari
05-14-2012, 08:08 AM
Below GS and above MS.

viruzzz
05-14-2012, 08:08 AM
IMO, if I have to do the list of prestigious tournaments would be something like this:

1. Wimbledon
2. Other Grand Slam event.
3. Year-end championship - Olympic Gold Medal (tied)
4. Masters series.

My reasoning... Wimbledon is where pro-tennis started, that gold trophy is just too much.
No Argentinian player won Wimbledon yet, so it's like a sacred jewelry... A quest for the golden trophy our players need to do. Maybe in time...
Then, the other 3 slams, because of history, that made em prestigious, the 5-setter matches made em even more important, every match is like a noble title in a Grand Slam.
To qualify to a grand slam is really important to an semi-pro player.

Year End Championships is a really important tournament, the big players are always in, so, you have guaranteed 4 of the top 8 players in the Semis. That means the best players of the year every year, such an important event.

The Olympic gold medal is important, but not that much for the player but for the nation. You're not playing for yourself, you're playing for your country.
It's true that it is really important to have the gold medal. But tennis hasn't got a big olympic history, so, you can't consider this the most important thing here.
And, like you're playing for your country and not for yourself, I see every medal with the same value (men, women, M/W doubles and mixed too).

Davis cup is a totally team event.
It doesn't add anything to a player's career, but it's the most important team event, so, it's really important for your country.

masterclass
05-14-2012, 08:09 AM
I really enjoy the WTF, mostly because its the only tournament where every match seems to matter. It does have a few problems, and doesn't feel as special as the slams mostly because its best of 3, I still like it though.

To me its lower than the slams, but above most master series.

Green25814, good summation, thanks for your thoughtful response. I also think they should make it best out of 5, but I think there was consensus that many players were exhausted by the end of the year. I think a good compromise would be to keep the best out of 3 format during the round robin phase, and make the semifinal and final best out of 5.

Respectfully,
masterclass

masterclass
05-14-2012, 08:11 AM
That link doesn't mention wtf, it goes to the Nole player profile.:confused:

It should go to the rankings breakdown list - listed by categories, and the top category is World Championship followed by Grand Slams.

Respectfully,
masterclass

Time Violation
05-14-2012, 08:11 AM
That link doesn't mention wtf, it goes to the Nole player profile.:confused:

Links about being prestigious naturally lead to Nole :angel:

lucyfur
05-14-2012, 08:12 AM
The ATP calling an Atp event more prestigious sounds biased, the slams are an ITF event.

ssj100
05-14-2012, 08:14 AM
For me, I think winning the WTF is harder in some ways than winning a Grand Slam. This is because all your matches are against top 10 (actually top 8!) players. However, I never understood why they made the final from a best of 5 to a best of 3. We would never have seen Nalbandian's epic comeback against Federer in 2005 if it was the case back then - I think it was only the 3rd loss of the entire year for Federer too.

The early rounds of Grand Slams can be a bit of a joke - for top players, the first three rounds are often against "nobodies" or "has beens". By the 4th round, you may get a decent player, but often that player is no where near the top 8. Often it's not until the quarter-finals where you have to play a very good player.

I think this is why Federer has that Grand Slam quarter-final streak - it's actually not very surprising and not unexpected if you think about it. I'm just surprised that decent all court players like Nadal or Djokovic don't have such a streak. In saying that, both Djokovic and Nadal are on track to rival or surpass Federer's Grand Slam quarter-final/semi-final/final streaks.

The WTF is a very hard tournament to win. From memory, Nadal has never won it and Djokovic has only won once. This shouldn't be that surprising, as they have to play decent (top 8) players the whole way through. Of course, many people also argue that the courts are way too fast or that players are all too tired by the time they have to play the WTF tournament. This is probably one of the the most common excuses (or at least it's implied heavily) given by players (and their supporters) when they fail to do well.

So it's incredible that Sampras won 5 WTF-equivalent events, but it's even more incredible that Federer has won 6.

rickcastle
05-14-2012, 08:15 AM
Where does it say that WTF is most prestigious?

Anyway, for me it's definitely below slams. But above Master Shields by a huge margin.

lucyfur
05-14-2012, 08:15 AM
Links about being prestigious naturally lead to Nole :angel:

Sounds logical.:yeah:

masterclass
05-14-2012, 08:16 AM
IMO, if I have to do the list of prestigious tournaments would be something like this:

1. Wimbledon
2. Other Grand Slam event.
3. Year-end championship - Olympic Gold Medal (tied)
4. Masters series.

My reasoning... Wimbledon is where pro-tennis started, that gold trophy is just too much.
No Argentinian player won Wimbledon yet, so it's like a sacred jewelry... A quest for the golden trophy our players need to do. Maybe in time...
Then, the other 3 slams, because of history, that made em prestigious, the 5-setter matches made em even more important, every match is like a noble title in a Grand Slam.
To qualify to a grand slam is really important to an semi-pro player.

Year End Championships is a really important tournament, the big players are always in, so, you have guaranteed 4 of the top 8 players in the Semis. That means the best players of the year every year, such an important event.

The Olympic gold medal is important, but not that much for the player but for the nation. You're not playing for yourself, you're playing for your country.
It's true that it is really important to have the gold medal. But tennis hasn't got a big olympic history, so, you can't consider this the most important thing here.
And, like you're playing for your country and not for yourself, I see every medal with the same value (men, women, M/W doubles and mixed too).

Davis cup is a totally team event.
It doesn't add anything to a player's career, but it's the most important team event, so, it's really important for your country.

Mr. viruzzz, thoughtful as always and I agree with almost all that you say, but I'm purposely excluding the country level, non-yearly Olympics event, and the Davis Cup (considerered 500 level by ATP). So by eliminating those, it seems like you believe the slams are more prestigious than the World Championship.

What would you do (if anything) to elevate the World Championship above the slams in your mind?

Respectfully,
masterclass

masterclass
05-14-2012, 08:21 AM
Links about being prestigious naturally lead to Nole :angel:

Good one Taejin ;).. But, in this case, I just used Mr. Djokovic because he was 1st on the rankings list, to get to the specific rankings categories. I'll look for a more unbiased link if I can find one... :)

Respectfully,
masterclass

masterclass
05-14-2012, 08:24 AM
Where does it say that WTF is most prestigious?

Anyway, for me it's definitely below slams. But above Master Shields by a huge margin.

Hi rickcastle, even if it may not explicitly say it, the implication is there by the way they order the rankings categories. It's also the featured tournament in the ATP site's Tournament menu drop down, and is quite obviously the ATP's featured tournament in other places on the website.

Respectfully,
masterclass

Sheitan
05-14-2012, 08:25 AM
IMO, if I have to do the list of prestigious tournaments would be something like this:

1. Wimbledon
2. Other Grand Slam event.
3. Year-end championship - Olympic Gold Medal (tied)
4. Masters series.

My reasoning... Wimbledon is where pro-tennis started, that gold trophy is just too much.
No Argentinian player won Wimbledon yet, so it's like a sacred jewelry... A quest for the golden trophy our players need to do. Maybe in time...
Then, the other 3 slams, because of history, that made em prestigious, the 5-setter matches made em even more important, every match is like a noble title in a Grand Slam.
To qualify to a grand slam is really important to an semi-pro player.

Year End Championships is a really important tournament, the big players are always in, so, you have guaranteed 4 of the top 8 players in the Semis. That means the best players of the year every year, such an important event.

The Olympic gold medal is important, but not that much for the player but for the nation. You're not playing for yourself, you're playing for your country.
It's true that it is really important to have the gold medal. But tennis hasn't got a big olympic history, so, you can't consider this the most important thing here.
And, like you're playing for your country and not for yourself, I see every medal with the same value (men, women, M/W doubles and mixed too).

Davis cup is a totally team event.
It doesn't add anything to a player's career, but it's the most important team event, so, it's really important for your country.

I usually don't like those "quote and agree" posts, but I have to agree completely here.

Wimbledon was always a special tournament and will most likely always be more important than the other slams. WTF is underrated by most tennis fans and deserves to be ranked higher than any Masters tournament. The Olympics, as you wrote, aren't that important to a tennis player, but you only get a shot at winning them every four years.

Davis Cup might be the least important tournament for a singles player but its value lies in being a great team event. Of course that also means that people like Federer or Murray will never win it because they are the only players of their team who can beat everyone.

viruzzz
05-14-2012, 08:25 AM
Mr. viruzzz, thoughtful as always and I agree with almost all that you say, but I'm purposely excluding the country level, non-yearly Olympics event, and the Davis Cup (considerered 500 level by ATP). So by eliminating those, it seems like you believe the slams are more prestigious than the World Championship.

What would you do (if anything) to elevate the World Championship above the slams in your mind?

Respectfully,
masterclass

That's a difficult question Masterclass...

In terms of history, it's impossible to do anything, since the YEC is played since 1970 and the slams since so much longer time than that.
I think a best of 5 sets in every match would make it more prestigious, but it'd never be accepted because it's the end of the year and the players are usually tired.
ATM, i'm really OK with the surface and the venue.
London is the city of tennis, and the O2 arena is a really beautiful place to hold a big thing.
The surface is ok, because there's not an indoor slam, and indoor hardcourt is important for tennis history too.

These are the things I think would make the Year end championship more prestigious:

- Best of 5 sets in all matches.
- Nadal winning it.
(That might sound a little weird, but Nadal is one of the biggest players in history, if Rafa manages to win this tournament, another big name would be written there).
- More media coverage outside tennis related media.
The non-tennis fans know about the slams but not about the YEC. I don't know why.
Really, I don't have any idea why... But that should be a really important topic in order to make the YEC more prestigious.
- The best 4 players of the world in semis every year.
Yeah, that's probably crap for tennis, but it would attract more people... Brutal semifinals with (in nowadays) the big 4 will always make the tournament bigger (WTF 2010 for example).

That's what I can think about right now...

Time Violation
05-14-2012, 08:25 AM
What would you do (if anything) to elevate the World Championship above the slams in your mind?


To make it more prestigious, you would basically have to make it 5th Slam of the year, with everything that goes with it, I don't think anything else would cut it :)

masterclass
05-14-2012, 08:26 AM
The ATP calling an Atp event more prestigious sounds biased, the slams are an ITF event.

I don't disagree with this. It's certainly possible that they are biased as it is the top ATP event.
Perhaps if we check the ITF site, we'll find a different bias. ;)

Respectfully,
masterclass

duong
05-14-2012, 08:32 AM
Grand slams of course. That said, the WTF is discreditted by Nadal and Djokofans recently whereas it's been a big tradition in tennis since the 80s (it was less important in the 70s), and it's a pity :sad:

And as for the "yearly" precision, and few declarations in the media recently, I'm irritated by the way the Olympics are spoken so highly recently.

I still consider the Olympics in tennis as a minor event : the Olympics are a great event for OTHER SPORTS which have nothing else, I don't like how people speak so highly of tennis in the Olympics Games.

Although I will probably watch very little of the Olympic Games in tennis and I can't speak of it like an important tournament like slams and even MS1000s which I watch a lot.

And in the past, the Olympics in tennis were definitely a minor event, young people who think the opposite don't know how it was in that time.

masterclass
05-14-2012, 08:35 AM
That's a difficult question Masterclass...

In terms of history, it's impossible to do anything, since the YEC is played since 1970 and the slams since so much longer time than that.
I think a best of 5 sets in every match would make it more prestigious, but it'd never be accepted because it's the end of the year and the players are usually tired.
ATM, i'm really OK with the surface and the venue.
London is the city of tennis, and the O2 arena is a really beautiful place to hold a big thing.
The surface is ok, because there's not an indoor slam, and indoor hardcourt is important for tennis history too.

These are the things I think would make the Year end championship more prestigious:

- Best of 5 sets in all matches.
- Nadal winning it.
(That might sound a little weird, but Nadal is one of the biggest players in history, if Rafa manages to win this tournament, another big name would be written there).
- More media coverage outside tennis related media.
The non-tennis fans know about the slams but not about the YEC. I don't know why.
Really, I don't have any idea why... But that should be a really important topic in order to make the YEC more prestigious.
- The best 4 players of the world in semis every year.
Yeah, that's probably crap for tennis, but it would attract more people... Brutal semifinals with (in nowadays) the big 4 will always make the tournament bigger (WTF 2010 for example).

That's what I can think about right now...

Interesting suggestions, Mr. viruzzz. Thanks! I wonder if a knockout format would tend to favor getting the big 4 to the semis over the round robin? Or would this be not practical with such a small field? I think the field has to be kept relatively small, as I think it is the main point of the tournament to decide the best from the best, but adding some players into the mix might allow a change in format, maybe 16 total?

Respectfully,
masterclass

Topspindoctor
05-14-2012, 08:40 AM
WTF will never be as important as slams, whoever thinks otherwise is smoking quality weed.

masterclass
05-14-2012, 08:40 AM
Grand slams of course. That said, the WTF is discreditted by Nadal and Djokofans recently whereas it's been a big tradition in tennis since the 80s (it was less important in the 70s), and it's a pity :sad:

And as for the "yearly" precision, and few declarations in the media recently, I'm irritated by the way the Olympics are spoken so highly recently.

I still consider the Olympics in tennis as a minor event : the Olympics are a great event for OTHER SPORTS which have nothing else, I don't like how people speak so highly of tennis in the Olympics Games.

And in the past, the Olympics in tennis were definitely a minor event, young people who think the opposite don't know how it was in that time.

Yes, yes, Mr. Duong, can't find much to disagree with you here, :) but what would you do (if anything) to change the WTF to make it more prestigious than the slams in your mind? I believe that is the intent of the World Championship, to make it a "decider" for the year's best and as such elevate it above each individual slam tournament/winner.

Respectfully,
masterclass

lucyfur
05-14-2012, 08:45 AM
I don't think winning it means a player was the best of the whole season.

Time Violation
05-14-2012, 08:50 AM
I don't think winning it means a player was the best of the whole season.

Yup, the last time the winner was also the best of the whole season was in 2007 I think :)

feuselino
05-14-2012, 09:59 AM
I love the WTF tournament, especially since it is in London, great venue. Some players and their fans claim they have nothing left in the tank, but that is just their problem, really.

By the way, would it be feasible to move the WTF to the beginning of January, let's say one or two weeks ahead of the Australian Open? So it would serve at the same time preparation for Melbourne for the Top 8 instead of going to a small 250 tournament in Doha or Brisbane for example. Leave prize money and ranking points the same, everyone would be motivated and fresh (again, if you are too tired by the end of the year, in my opinion that's just the player's problem and they just have to deal with it)...

ServeVolley
05-14-2012, 10:07 AM
Most prestigious? No... Most difficult? Yes. :)

Ace Pounder
05-14-2012, 10:12 AM
Slams
.
.
.
.
.
.
WTF
.
Olympics
.
.
Masters 1000

Time Violation
05-14-2012, 10:21 AM
By the way, would it be feasible to move the WTF to the beginning of January, let's say one or two weeks ahead of the Australian Open? So it would serve at the same time preparation for Melbourne for the Top 8 instead of going to a small 250 tournament in Doha or Brisbane for example.

That would probably downgrade it even more, everybody would be saving themselves for AO :)

feuselino
05-14-2012, 10:32 AM
That would probably downgrade it even more, everybody would be saving themselves for AO :)

I am not so sure about that. Everyone is taking Rome seriously, and it is just one week before RG.

masterclass
05-14-2012, 10:35 AM
I love the WTF tournament, especially since it is in London, great venue. Some players and their fans claim they have nothing left in the tank, but that is just their problem, really.

By the way, would it be feasible to move the WTF to the beginning of January, let's say one or two weeks ahead of the Australian Open? So it would serve at the same time preparation for Melbourne for the Top 8 instead of going to a small 250 tournament in Doha or Brisbane for example. Leave prize money and ranking points the same, everyone would be motivated and fresh (again, if you are too tired by the end of the year, in my opinion that's just the player's problem and they just have to deal with it)...

Very interesting that you mention that Fueselino. :yeah: . The 1977 through 1985 editions of the Masters Grand Prix, as it was known then, were held in early-mid January. I think it was put back to the end of the year as the Australian Open was being moved to January. It might not be a bad idea..:scratch:.

Respectfully,
masterclass

duong
05-14-2012, 10:44 AM
Yes, yes, Mr. Duong, can't find much to disagree with you here, :) but what would you do (if anything) to change the WTF to make it more prestigious than the slams in your mind? I believe that is the intent of the World Championship, to make it a "decider" for the year's best and as such elevate it above each individual slam tournament/winner.

The word "world championship" is just a marketing word :shrug:

I prefer much more the old word "Masters" which is precisely what the WTF is about : making one tournament where the top-players do meet, and they can meet several times.

It's great like that, and it's much better when it's round-robin in first round than not, I can tell you that during the few years when it was not round-robin in the 80s, it was definitely less interesting.

It's not a "world championship", but it should definitely be a "Masters".

The problem now is that the current top-two players (or well, number 1 and number 3 at least for one week :lol: ) Nadal and Djokovic are not interested in it :shrug:

But well look at Nadal's plan : he wants to get rid of the whole indoor season in the end of the year, stop the year after the US Open, then it's perfectly understandable that from his view, he will never be really interested except rpobably to win it once as he and his uncle are so hungry for records contrary to what they said sometimes.

I loved the "Masters" when it meant the "Masters", not a "world championship" neither a "minor indoor event".

There's no need for a "world championship" in tennis, we are fortunate that there are not only one but four major events in one year, that's much more pleasure for us than in many sports :)

And there are the rankings which say in an objective and nearly always good way who's the best player (usually when the rankings are criticized it's those who criticize who are wrong, not this objective ranking).

duong
05-14-2012, 10:45 AM
I don't think winning it means a player was the best of the whole season.

it was never intended to mean that in the past, yet it was a greatly important event :shrug:

Time Violation
05-14-2012, 10:48 AM
I am not so sure about that. Everyone is taking Rome seriously, and it is just one week before RG.

Yup, but I think that would put WTF on par with Masters level, not on slam, and certainly wouldn't make it the most prestigious event, which is the question here :)

duong
05-14-2012, 10:51 AM
I love the WTF tournament, especially since it is in London, great venue. Some players and their fans claim they have nothing left in the tank, but that is just their problem, really.


it's not that they have nothing left in the tank, it's just that they're not interested, that's all :shrug:

These players had as many weeks to rest before the WTF as they had before the Australian Open (Nadal had even more weeks before the WTF as from his words he couldn't practice for several weeks before the Australian Open), and they were in great form in the Australian Open :shrug:

They're not interested, all the rest they said was just lobbying for their ideas about how the Tour should be in the future.

lucyfur
05-14-2012, 10:51 AM
The Year End Championship (YEC) in it's current incarnation known as the World Tour Finals (WTF) appears to be the most prestigious yearly tournament category (according to the ATP) (http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Novak-Djokovic.aspx?t=rb).** ++

**Olympics not included and Davis Cup is considered a 500 tournament by ATP.
++ Note to mods/admins, though this is similar to the Rank tournaments in order of Prestige (http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=191546) thread, it's more exclusive and more slanted to the ATP's opinion of the events. Please don't merge it with that thread. Thank you.
---------------------------------------

Even though it's possible top ranking points (1500) are currently not as high as a major (2000), the World Championship category is placed higher than the Grand Slams in the category listings (see link above).

So do you agree with the ATP?

Poll options for Most Prestigious Yearly Tournament Category:

1. World Championship
2. Grand Slam Events (majors)
3. Equivalent for different reasons

Please give your reasoning for your choice.

Also, if you believe the World Championship falls short of or is equivalent to the majors, please explain how you would change it * to elevate it to the higher level, as I believe the clear intent of the tournament is to determine whom among the best players of the year is the World's best player, after all events of the year have been played, no matter who won the majors or other tournaments.
* Examples: Include 2 or x more players, make it more demanding, change from round robin to knock out, have it played on different surfaces, etc.

Respectfully,
masterclass

It was implied in this post.

Mystique
05-14-2012, 10:54 AM
WTF is an ATP event, Slams are ITF. so its fair to call WTF the most prestigious (and hardest to win) ATP event.
But generally on the tennis tour, Slams are supreme and it is not close.

I do agree though that there is a case to be made that WTF is(was?) maybe harder to win than slams sometimes, especially when it had BO5 finals.

TigerTim
05-14-2012, 10:58 AM
1. Wimbledon
2. French/USO
(gap)
3. Australian
(small gap)
4. WTF
(big gap)
5. Masters series

if there was more grass court play then Wimbledon would not be above French/USO imo. Australian is clearly the least major slam, WTF is pretty close imo and more exciting often.

masterclass
05-14-2012, 11:13 AM
The word "world championship" is just a marketing word :shrug:

I prefer much more the old word "Masters" which is precisely what the WTF is about : making one tournament where the top-players do meet, and they can meet several times.

It's great like that, and it's much better when it's round-robin in first round than not, I can tell you that during the few years when it was not round-robin in the 80s, it was definitely less interesting.

It's not a "world championship", but it should definitely be a "Masters".

The problem now is that the current top-two players (or well, number 1 and number 3 at least for one week :lol: ) Nadal and Djokovic are not interested in it :shrug:

But well look at Nadal's plan : he wants to get rid of the whole indoor season in the end of the year, stop the year after the US Open, then it's perfectly understandable that from his view, he will never be really interested except rpobably to win it once as he and his uncle are so hungry for records contrary to what they said sometimes.

I loved the "Masters" when it meant the "Masters", not a "world championship" neither a "minor indoor event".

There's no need for a "world championship" in tennis, we are fortunate that there are not only one but four major events in one year, that's much more pleasure for us than in many sports :)

And there are the rankings which say in an objective and nearly always good way who's the best player (usually when the rankings are criticized it's those who criticize who are wrong, not this objective ranking).

Yes. But, I don't think your bolded statement is accurate. Despite their lackluster performances last year, both players have stated in the past that it is one of the most important tournaments of the year. I think Mr. Djokovic said it is, besides,or along side the slams, the most important tournament of the year. Nadal has made similar statements about it's importance, the honor of being able to qualify for it, etc... Just because Nadal hasn't won it yet(though he had a wonderful run in 2010), and Djokovic has won it once, doesn't make it less important to them. I believe if it were played on a different pace/bounce characteristic surface or perhaps outdoors (it wasn't always played indoors-Houston 2003-4, Melbourne, depends on the venue location), their performances might be different.

Respectfully,
masterclass

duong
05-14-2012, 11:21 AM
Yes. But, I don't think your bolded statement is accurate. Despite their lackluster performances last year, both players have stated in the past that it is one of the most important tournaments of the year. I think Mr. Djokovic said it is, besides,or along side the slams, the most important tournament of the year. Nadal has made similar statements about it's importance, the honor of being able to qualify for it, etc... Just because Nadal hasn't won it yet(though he had a wonderful run in 2010), and Djokovic has won it once, doesn't make it less important to them. I believe if it were played on a different pace/bounce characteristic surface or perhaps outdoors (it wasn't always played indoors-Houston 2003-4, Melbourne, depends on the venue location), their performances might be different.

I remember the interviews last year after Shanghai : they were both talking about next season and the Australian Open already, and the way they looked prepared in the WTF considering all the weeks they had to prepare showed that they didn't care about it last year imo.

I don't take the "they had nothing left in the tank" argument at all, as they showed in what a great form they were in Australia with as many or less for Nadal weeks for practice.

Also look at Nadal in Monte-Carlo despite being able only to practice on friday before the tournament :eek: because of his injury before.

I don't buy the surface argument at all either : the surface now in London has nothing in common with what it used to be in the Madison Square Garden where Borg and Lendl were able to win (Lendl 5 times I think).

It's slow indeed and the bounce is not low at all as it was in the Madison Square Garden. Nadal showed in 2010 that he could prefectly play great here. And Djokovic has won Basel and Bercy, he has no problem at all with such conditions.

The whining about the WTF indoor conditions is one of the ones with which I'm most fed-up because Nadal already got a great gift from the ATP with the surface they put in London comparing to the past conditions. Borg or Lendl never complained like that :shrug: and believe me even for Lendl it was not easy to beat a serve-and-volley player like Edberg, Becker and McEnroe in WTF in the past.

They just didn't care, that's my resolute opinion :shrug:

Further possibility about "'they didn't care" is that it helped their lobbying for the year ending right after the US Open and squeezing the whole indoor year-end season (well Nadalfans no need to remind me that they just wanted to make it not mandatory anymore, because it basically means the same imo).

masterclass
05-14-2012, 11:54 AM
I remember the interviews last year after Shanghai : they were both talking about next season and the Australian Open already, and the way they looked prepared in the WTF considering all the weeks they had to prepare showed that they didn't care about it last year imo.

I don't take the "they had nothing left in the tank" argument at all, as they showed in what a great form they were in Australia with as many or less for Nadal weeks for practice.

Also look at Nadal in Monte-Carlo despite being able only to practice on friday before the tournament :eek: because of his injury before.

I don't buy the surface argument at all either : the surface now in London has nothing in common with what it used to be in the Madison Square Garden where Borg and Lendl were able to win (Lendl 5 times I think).

It's slow indeed and the bounce is not low at all as it was in the Madison Square Garden. Nadal showed in 2010 that he could prefectly play great here. And Djokovic has won Basel and Bercy, he has no problem at all with such conditions.

The whining about the WTF indoor conditions is one of the ones with which I'm most fed-up because Nadal already got a great gift from the ATP with the surface they put in London comparing to the past conditions. Borg or Lendl never complained like that :shrug: and believe me even for Lendl it was not easy to beat a serve-and-volley player like Edberg, Becker and McEnroe in WTF in the past.

They just didn't care, that's my resolute opinion :shrug:

Further possibility about "'they didn't care" is that it helped their lobbying for the year ending right after the US Open and squeezing the whole indoor year-end season (well Nadalfans no need to remind me that they just wanted to make it not mandatory anymore, because it basically means the same imo).

Ok, Mr. Duong, I guess we won't agree on this one. :shrug:
I think the segment of opinions that support the "they don't care about the tournament" opinion, are simply interpreting the player's attitude through a prism of their lackluster performances in 2011.

To me, it was obvious that Mr. Nadal cared very much about this tournament as he scraped his way, tooth and nail, to a finals meeting in 2010 with Federer, on what Nadal has acknowledged as a difficult surface for him, and where he said he has to be at his very best to be able to compete well. And I would think that Djokovic cared very much when he won in 2008.

I'll leave you with this Djokovic quote after his 2008 Masters Cup victory: "I would put it in the same league as a Grand Slam because the best eight players in the world are participating here. "

Make no mistake Mr. Duong, it's a very important event for them. I think Mr. Djokovic and Mr. Nadal tried everything they could do to recover from an intense first 8 months of the 2011 year in time for the World Tour Finals, but were simply unable to do it. Maybe they rested, but didn't have enough match play, maybe their injuries, niggling or otherwise weren't completely healed, I don't know, but they definitely looked out of sorts in last year's event.

Respectively,
masterclass

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
05-14-2012, 12:11 PM
nadal's draw in the 2010 was easier than the WTF - except for a half assed performance from nole in the final

the WTF is worth at least 2 masters for me

Adri89
05-14-2012, 12:47 PM
The problem now is that the current top-two players (or well, number 1 and number 3 at least for one week :lol: ) Nadal and Djokovic are not interested in it :shrug:



You're a bit hard with Djokovic in my opinion. He did two bad appareances here because he has nothing in the tank (2007 and 2011).
He won it in 2008 and did a SF in 2010 with the final of DC in his own country just after. Even in 2009 when he lost before the SF, he still won two matchs. A win and a SF in five participations isn't very good for his standard, but not that bad. Murray didn't even reach the final here.

Nadal also used to get bad results, but no surprise his game isn't efficient in indoor conditions (you saw it in Madrid where the conditions are close to indoor clay), especially against the best players of the world.

Anyway, the WTF used to be very late (too late I think) in the season, when some players aren't in their best forms anymore. I find logical that players like Djokovic or Nadal give more importance to the final of the DC just after than to it.

Of course, WTF is far more prestigious than Olympics.

Chase Visa
05-14-2012, 12:51 PM
It goes....

Slams (Wimbledon, RG, US, AO)
WTF
Olympics
Masters
the rest