Most impressive Masters Series victory? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Most impressive Masters Series victory?

rocketassist
03-24-2010, 04:12 AM
There's one for slams, so how about AMS's. George brought up Willy Canas' Toronto victory in 2002, and it's certainly a candidate.

R64 Roger Federer (SUI) 10 7-6(10), 7-5
R32 Paradorn Srichaphan (THA) 60 6-2, 6-1
R16 Yevgeny Kafelnikov (RUS) 5 6-2, 6-2
Q Marat Safin (RUS) 2 7-5, 6-3
S Tommy Haas (GER) 3 6-4, 3-6, 7-6(5)
W Andy Roddick (USA) 12 6-4, 7-5

Can also think of the run Henman went on beating Davydenko, Grosjean, Kuerten, Federer, Roddick and Pavel, all TMS champions of their own right.

Sjengster
03-24-2010, 04:21 AM
Some suggestions were made by people in this thread of mine: http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=147845

Sri
03-24-2010, 04:31 AM
Doping is "most impressive"?

Fiberlight1
03-24-2010, 06:18 AM
What about Djokovic at the Roger's cup 2007

Kiefer
Nalbandian
Roddick
Nadal
Federer

CmonAussie
03-24-2010, 06:22 AM
...
What about `Fat Dave` Nalbandian winning Madrid & Paris back-to-back deafeating both Federer & Nadal twice each in 2007..!!

Allegretto
03-24-2010, 06:36 AM
I'll go for Henman in Paris 2003. Beat a former world #1 in Kuerten, Wimbledon champion Federer and US Open champion and world #1 Roddick back to back before taking care of Pavel in the final. Good achievement for a man with a game like Henman's.

Hola Mr. SK
03-24-2010, 06:39 AM
...
What about `Fat Dave` Nalbandian winning Madrid & Paris back-to-back deafeating both Federer & Nadal twice each in 2007..!!
absolutely the most impressive ones for me :worship:
This is not going to repeat again,which makes it more precious.

Ibracadabra
03-24-2010, 06:51 AM
ivan 2010 indian wells

Priam
03-24-2010, 08:31 AM
Nalbandian's amazing indoor run in 2007 by beating #2,3,1 in succession.

2007 Madrid Masters

R2 Berdych 4-6, 6-4, 7-6
R3 Del Potro 6-2, 6-4
QF Nadal 6-1, 6-2
SF Djokovic 6-4, 7-6
F Federer 1-6, 6-3, 6-3

Certinfy
03-24-2010, 09:02 AM
Nalbandian's amazing indoor run in 2007 by beating #2,3,1 in succession.

2007 Madrid Masters

R2 Berdych 4-6, 6-4, 7-6
R3 Del Potro 6-2, 6-4
QF Nadal 6-1, 6-2
SF Djokovic 6-4, 7-6
F Federer 1-6, 6-3, 6-3
I'll go with this one as well.

Noleta
03-24-2010, 05:02 PM
Djokoivc:Montréal 2007:)Beating #3 #2 #1 on the row to claim his 2d Master shield,i think only Becker did it before him:)

Everko
03-24-2010, 05:09 PM
Doping is "most impressive"?

haha:worship:

rocketassist
03-25-2010, 12:53 AM
Any top player winning a TMS nowadays isn't going to feature with no 5 set final and a first round bye- it's like playing Dubai.

Boris Franz Ecker
03-25-2010, 12:54 AM
It's a differen to beat Federer and Nadal or Roddick and Haas.

No doubts, Djokovic is more impressive.
But there may be others.

Boris Franz Ecker
03-25-2010, 12:55 AM
Nalbandian of course. did even beat Djokovic which is harder than beating roddick.

DJ Soup
03-25-2010, 12:56 AM
Nalbandian's amazing indoor run in 2007 by beating #2,3,1 in succession.

2007 Madrid Masters

R2 Berdych 4-6, 6-4, 7-6
R3 Del Potro 6-2, 6-4
QF Nadal 6-1, 6-2
SF Djokovic 6-4, 7-6
F Federer 1-6, 6-3, 6-3

This.

A Showdown of Perfect Tennis.

KoOlMaNsEaN
03-25-2010, 01:03 AM
The one that comes to mind firstly is 07 Montreal Djokovic.
Mostly because I saw every one of those matches and defeating the top three.

ZaZoo)
03-25-2010, 01:06 AM
When I saw thread title I instantly thought about Montreal '07.

rocketassist
03-25-2010, 01:24 AM
When I saw thread title I instantly thought about Montreal '07.

Not that impressive when you consider he had a bye in the first round.

Fiberlight1
03-25-2010, 06:34 AM
Not that impressive when you consider he had a bye in the first round.

How does having a bye take away the merits of beating the top three players in the world, in succession in a single tournament?

Clay Death
03-25-2010, 06:42 AM
How does having a bye take away the merits of beating the top three players in the world, in succession in a single tournament?


affirmative. beating the 3 top players in the world in 3 consecutive days at a same tournament is quite an accomplishment. it is rare and therefore quite bloody special. and it takes massive effort to be able to pull that off.

LocoPorElTenis
03-25-2010, 08:07 AM
Nalbandian's amazing indoor run in 2007 by beating #2,3,1 in succession.

2007 Madrid Masters

R2 Berdych 4-6, 6-4, 7-6
R3 Del Potro 6-2, 6-4
QF Nadal 6-1, 6-2
SF Djokovic 6-4, 7-6
F Federer 1-6, 6-3, 6-3

This is all the most amazing if you consider that Berdych was 6-4 4-0 up.

TeamID
03-25-2010, 09:09 AM
Nalbandian's amazing indoor run in 2007 by beating #2,3,1 in succession.

2007 Madrid Masters

R2 Berdych 4-6, 6-4, 7-6
R3 Del Potro 6-2, 6-4
QF Nadal 6-1, 6-2
SF Djokovic 6-4, 7-6
F Federer 1-6, 6-3, 6-3

A top three with Djokovic is much different than a top three with Roddick. Add in Del Potro and Berdych indoors and you have a recipe for the best week at an AMS/TMS ever.

leng jai
03-25-2010, 09:24 AM
This is all the most amazing if you consider that Berdych was 6-4 4-0 up.

It suddenly becomes a lot less impressive when you consider the tennis IQ of his opponent in that match.

LocoPorElTenis
03-25-2010, 10:09 AM
It suddenly becomes a lot less impressive when you consider the tennis IQ of his opponent in that match.

Even an utter headcase like Berdych doesn't often lose from 6-4 4-0 up indoors.

desigundah
03-25-2010, 10:38 AM
Nalbandian's amazing indoor run in 2007 by beating #2,3,1 in succession.

2007 Madrid Masters

R2 Berdych 4-6, 6-4, 7-6
R3 Del Potro 6-2, 6-4
QF Nadal 6-1, 6-2
SF Djokovic 6-4, 7-6
F Federer 1-6, 6-3, 6-3

Greatest run by far. Beating 4 grand slam winners in succession and only dropping 1 set and beating Nadal 1 and 2.

stebs
03-25-2010, 12:31 PM
Any top player winning a TMS nowadays isn't going to feature with no 5 set final and a first round bye- it's like playing Dubai.

Is this just a bias toward those times or do you have some further reasons to back this up other than the obvious ones? A first round bye is obviously going to mean one less match but the cumulative difficulty of defeating a bunch of top players to win an event is rarely going to be greatly increased by a first round opponent.

As for the five set finals, I hate that they are gone (I agree it takes away from TMS events) but actually does it make it a lot more difficult to win one? It's not like it is harder to win any given match over 5 sets than over 3. If you think it is, what is your logic for that? Two players have a likelihood to beat one another based on skill levels which do not change over 5 sets for the most part. Of course, some players are more adept over a 5 set format than others, but this can equally work for a player as it can against them.

rocketassist
03-25-2010, 04:35 PM
Is this just a bias toward those times or do you have some further reasons to back this up other than the obvious ones? A first round bye is obviously going to mean one less match but the cumulative difficulty of defeating a bunch of top players to win an event is rarely going to be greatly increased by a first round opponent.

As for the five set finals, I hate that they are gone (I agree it takes away from TMS events) but actually does it make it a lot more difficult to win one? It's not like it is harder to win any given match over 5 sets than over 3. If you think it is, what is your logic for that? Two players have a likelihood to beat one another based on skill levels which do not change over 5 sets for the most part. Of course, some players are more adept over a 5 set format than others, but this can equally work for a player as it can against them.

Because playing six matches in a week with no bye/best of 5 final is a test of fitness and physical conditioning as well, not just tennis IQ.

Roddick winning 12 matches in 2 weeks in Montreal and Cincinnati was a tremendous achievement.

marcRD
03-25-2010, 04:38 PM
Djokovic Canada 2007 is almost as impressive as Nalbandian:

R32 Nicolas Kiefer (GER) 254 W 6-3, 6-3
R16 David Nalbandian (ARG) 26 W 6-2, 6-3
Q Andy Roddick (USA) 3 W 7-6(4), 6-4
S Rafael Nadal (ESP) 2 W 7-5, 6-3
W Roger Federer (SUI) 1 W 7-6(2), 2-6, 7-6(2)

DJ Soup
03-25-2010, 04:50 PM
Djokovic Canada 2007 is almost as impressive as Nalbandian:

R32 Nicolas Kiefer (GER) 254 W 6-3, 6-3
R16 David Nalbandian (ARG) 26 W 6-2, 6-3
Q Andy Roddick (USA) 3 W 7-6(4), 6-4
S Rafael Nadal (ESP) 2 W 7-5, 6-3
W Roger Federer (SUI) 1 W 7-6(2), 2-6, 7-6(2)

ALMOST being the key word ;)

David was more impressive in the Q, S and F matches.

Priam
03-25-2010, 05:01 PM
What do you guys think about this one? He beat #3,1,2 in succession as well.

Becker 1994 Stockholm (Madrid) Masters

R2 Reneberg 7-6, 6-1
R3 Chesnokov 6-4, 6-3
QF [3]Stich 7-6, 6-3
SF [1]Sampras 6-4, 6-4
F [2]Ivanisevic 4-6, 6-4, 6-3, 7-6

tea
03-25-2010, 05:26 PM
Funny thing is that you'll never find any Federer's Masters victory impressive. Because from all the lists posted in this thread you just HAVE to beat Fed to have a chance. Talking about the current era. Mission impossible at its best. Poor Roger.:sad:

Ok, to be fair, you won't find Rafinito's Masters impressive because of the similar reason. When he beats Fed it's not like something impressive, and he can't outmoonball himself of course, because he's the one and only Piggy, roasting whom earns you bonuses.:p

stebs
03-25-2010, 08:19 PM
Because playing six matches in a week with no bye/best of 5 final is a test of fitness and physical conditioning as well, not just tennis IQ.

To a certain extent I agree but actually I think that for a well conditioned professional tennis player playing 5 matches in a week as opposed to playing 6 in a week is not a huge difference considering the extra match (being round 1) is likely to be a relatively easy opponent. The point is, the impressive part of a masters victory is not the fact that the player was able to win x amount of matches in a week, it is who that player defeated.

An example of this is Federer in Rome 2006. He played a 7-5 third set with Almagro in the QF, a 7-6 third set with Nalbandian in the SF and an epic 7-6 five setter with Nadal in the final. He also played 6 matches in that tournament (beat earlier Chela, Starace and Stepanek). Yet in the final, he was not beaten by exhaustion, just by Nadal. Playing the one extra match and the five set final isn't an obstacle comprable to playing better players imo.

laurie-1
03-25-2010, 08:47 PM
I'll go for Henman in Paris 2003. Beat a former world #1 in Kuerten, Wimbledon champion Federer and US Open champion and world #1 Roddick back to back before taking care of Pavel in the final. Good achievement for a man with a game like Henman's.

I was at the Kuerten match, probably the best I've seen Henman play.

rocketassist
03-25-2010, 08:49 PM
To a certain extent I agree but actually I think that for a well conditioned professional tennis player playing 5 matches in a week as opposed to playing 6 in a week is not a huge difference considering the extra match (being round 1) is likely to be a relatively easy opponent. The point is, the impressive part of a masters victory is not the fact that the player was able to win x amount of matches in a week, it is who that player defeated.

An example of this is Federer in Rome 2006. He played a 7-5 third set with Almagro in the QF, a 7-6 third set with Nalbandian in the SF and an epic 7-6 five setter with Nadal in the final. He also played 6 matches in that tournament (beat earlier Chela, Starace and Stepanek). Yet in the final, he was not beaten by exhaustion, just by Nadal. Playing the one extra match and the five set final isn't an obstacle comprable to playing better players imo.

Federer has always been physically fit though and that's one of the reasons he's won 16 slams- never gets injured/tired. Had he won that I probably would have selected it among the most impressive for sure.

I still maintain Masters were tougher to win before they changed the format in 2007.

Plus the first round match is never guaranteed to be easy, only 64 players qualify remember, and we've seen early round upsets like Mathieu def Roddick, Hrbaty def Federer under this format. Expecting them to just brush aside their opponent in less than an hour is not always the case. 16 seeds meant that a top player could easily draw, say the world number 17 in round one and face a tough test.

For example Nadal took two and a half hours to beat Massu 6-3 6-3 in Toronto 06, and ultimately he got booted out by Berdman a couple of days later. One extra match is always tougher and you need to be at excellent physical condition to win a 6 match inc best of 5 final- that's why Federer is so bloody good.

DJ Soup
03-25-2010, 08:59 PM
Federer has always been physically fit though and that's one of the reasons he's won 16 slams- never gets injured/tired. Had he won that I probably would have selected it among the most impressive for sure.

I still maintain Masters were tougher to win before they changed the format in 2007.

Plus the first round match is never guaranteed to be easy, only 64 players qualify remember, and we've seen early round upsets like Mathieu def Roddick, Hrbaty def Federer under this format. Expecting them to just brush aside their opponent in less than an hour is not always the case. 16 seeds meant that a top player could easily draw, say the world number 17 in round one and face a tough test.

For example Nadal took two and a half hours to beat Massu 6-3 6-3 in Toronto 06, and ultimately he got booted out by Berdman a couple of days later. One extra match is always tougher and you need to be at excellent physical condition to win a 6 match inc best of 5 final- that's why Federer is so bloody good.

you are missing the whole point

if it is tougher, it is equally tougher for everyone so in the end it is same level of difficulty.

it is like maths:

5 = 5

if I add +1 on each side, I'll get the same equality

5+1 = 5+1
hence
6 = 6

rocketassist
03-25-2010, 09:03 PM
you are missing the whole point

if it is tougher, it is equally tougher for everyone so in the end it is same level of difficulty.

it is like maths:

5 = 5

if I add +1 on each side, I'll get the same equality

5+1 = 5+1
hence
6 = 6

What about players with poor 5 set records who get to finals plus players who aren't the most physically strong come the end of the week?

TMSs are easier to win now, simple as that.

oranges
03-25-2010, 09:07 PM
you are missing the whole point

if it is tougher, it is equally tougher for everyone so in the end it is same level of difficulty.



It's not about whether it's more difficult for some than the others, but whether it was more difficult overall for anyone.

Masters have lost a lot of prestige with the changes. I assume that was the point of the OP. They were always second rate compared to slams, but that doesn't change the fact many people held them in higher esteem before.

laurie-1
03-25-2010, 09:10 PM
What about players with poor 5 set records who get to finals plus players who aren't the most physically strong come the end of the week?

TMSs are easier to win now, simple as that.

That's the point I was making in the other thread.

For instance, I don't know how much good Murray winning Miami last year in straight sets in the final prepared him for the slams. Against Roddick in Wimbledon he got his tactics all wrong and didn't deserve to win that match, against Cilic in the US Open he was totally passive and totally outplayed - and at the French, against Gonzalez he was thrashed, it was one forehand winner after another for Fernando, I was there and it was a great spectacle but Murray had no answer to that sort of power.

I want to see Masters finals become best of 5 again except the obvious like Canada and Cincinnati which is too close to the US Open.

rocketassist
03-25-2010, 09:11 PM
It's not about whether it's more difficult for some than the others, but whether it was more difficult overall for anyone.

Masters have lost a lot of prestige with the changes. I assume that was the point of the OP. They were always second rate compared to slams, but that doesn't change the fact many people held them in higher esteem before.

Nail on head.

For example Murray has 4 TMS and Henman has 1, but with the exception of Miami perhaps, Henman's title was FAR tougher to win and a much better achievement.

rocketassist
03-25-2010, 09:14 PM
That's the point I was making in the other thread.

For instance, I don't know how much good Murray winning Miami last year in straight sets in the final prepared him for the slams. Against Roddick in Wimbledon he got his tactics all wrong and didn't deserve to win that match, against Cilic in the US Open he was totally passive and totally outplayed - and at the French, against Gonzalez he was thrashed, it was one forehand winner after another for Fernando, I was there and it was a great spectacle but Murray had no answer to that sort of power.

I want to see Masters finals become best of 5 again except the obvious like Canada and Cincinnati which is too close to the US Open.

Beating an out of sorts Faker in two sets, while a fun result, was not going to prepare him for big best of 5 tests, whereas playing the Serb in a three out of five contest would have done.

The thing is, the ****s at the ATP had no basis or reason to remove IW/Miami/MC's five set final whereas at least at the Rome/Hamburg crossover where there were back to back events there was a slight, albeit a SLIGHT, case for doing it.

oranges
03-25-2010, 10:25 PM
That's the point I was making in the other thread.



Yeah, sorry. Was just reading that one and wondering where an entire series of posts has gone :o

ExcaliburII
03-25-2010, 10:31 PM
There's one for slams, so how about AMS's. George brought up Willy Canas' Toronto victory in 2002, and it's certainly a candidate.

R64 Roger Federer (SUI) 10 7-6(10), 7-5
R32 Paradorn Srichaphan (THA) 60 6-2, 6-1
R16 Yevgeny Kafelnikov (RUS) 5 6-2, 6-2
Q Marat Safin (RUS) 2 7-5, 6-3
S Tommy Haas (GER) 3 6-4, 3-6, 7-6(5)
W Andy Roddick (USA) 12 6-4, 7-5

Can also think of the run Henman went on beating Davydenko, Grosjean, Kuerten, Federer, Roddick and Pavel, all TMS champions of their own right.
This of course :worship:

stebs
03-26-2010, 02:29 PM
What about players with poor 5 set records who get to finals plus players who aren't the most physically strong come the end of the week?
What about them? It balances out, can't you see that. If some players are physically weak or poor in five sets, that makes it respectively easier for the players who don't have those problems doesn't it? You only ever play against the field, five set finals don't make it harder to win at all for the whole field, they just add a necessary attribute that makes it easier for some and harder for others.

Having to play an extra round, well that does make it slightly harder. A fair point, because more players in the draw means more obstacles. However, I don't think this added difficulty is really much when you think that the runs we are discussing here include victories over some great players sucesively.

TMSs are easier to win now, simple as that.

Do you think this constitutes an argument? :lol:

As far as the prestige thing goes, I agree with you, just your arguments for the five sets making it harder just don't make logical sense.

oranges
03-26-2010, 02:59 PM
Best of five is always a more impressive win IMO. The difference in quality, if there is any, is much more likely to play out throughout the match. Even if not, winning two sets you're only two thirds to victory

samanosuke
03-26-2010, 03:00 PM
Ivanisevic in Bercy 1993


R64 Bye N/A W
R32 Jonas Svensson (SWE) 32 W 3-6, 6-3, 7-6(3)
R16 Michael Chang (USA) 7 W 7-6(5), 7-5
Q Pete Sampras (USA) 1 W 7-6(3), 7-5
S Stefan Edberg (SWE) 6 W 4-6, 7-6(4), 7-6(3)
W Andrei Medvedev (UKR) 8 W 6-4, 6-2, 7-6(2)

stebs
03-26-2010, 07:57 PM
Best of five is always a more impressive win IMO. The difference in quality, if there is any, is much more likely to play out throughout the match. Even if not, winning two sets you're only two thirds to victory

Yes, the difference in quality is more likely to play out making it more difficult for the underdog for the most part. Overall though, there is simply no logical grounds upon which to claim that five set finals make winning the event more difficult as a generality. Maybe it's more impressive to watch, I would even agree that it is, but don't let your tendancy to be impressed by a certain type of victory fool you into thinking that victory is more difficult necessarily.

rocketassist
03-26-2010, 08:45 PM
Yes, the difference in quality is more likely to play out making it more difficult for the underdog for the most part. Overall though, there is simply no logical grounds upon which to claim that five set finals make winning the event more difficult as a generality. Maybe it's more impressive to watch, I would even agree that it is, but don't let your tendancy to be impressed by a certain type of victory fool you into thinking that victory is more difficult necessarily.

Players' five set records are a mental thing, the best players in the world can win over five sets and that's what makes a 5 set final vs Federer or Nadal miles harder. How many players have defeated either, or even both, in a best of 5?

leng jai
03-27-2010, 12:06 AM
Making it best of 5 sets in the final doesn't make it harder for everyone, it skews the advantage to better players.

Sjengster
03-27-2010, 12:30 AM
Players' five set records are a mental thing, the best players in the world can win over five sets and that's what makes a 5 set final vs Federer or Nadal miles harder. How many players have defeated either, or even both, in a best of 5?

On a trivia note, I believe the answer to this question is 3; Del Potro is the one who stands out as he did it back to back to win a Slam, and much earlier both Hewitt and Novak (Mellow Jiro that is, not the younger one).

cmorais24
03-27-2010, 01:07 AM
Nalbandian's amazing indoor run in 2007 by beating #2,3,1 in succession.

2007 Madrid Masters

R2 Berdych 4-6, 6-4, 7-6
R3 Del Potro 6-2, 6-4
QF Nadal 6-1, 6-2
SF Djokovic 6-4, 7-6
F Federer 1-6, 6-3, 6-3


And he was losing 6-4, 4-0 to Berdych in 1st round!

Certinfy
03-27-2010, 01:10 AM
And he was losing 6-4, 4-0 to Berdych in 1st round!Indeed, lovely choke by Tomas :yeah:

rocketassist
03-27-2010, 05:19 AM
Making it best of 5 sets in the final doesn't make it harder for everyone, it skews the advantage to better players.

Which in turn makes it more difficult to beat them, hence the achievements of guys who won TMSs pre-2007. Albert Portas coming through six tough ones including a best of 5 to win Hamburg, that kind of brilliant achievement.