Masters Events Still Second Rate [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Masters Events Still Second Rate

oldtimer
03-25-2010, 08:56 AM
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.

tea
03-25-2010, 09:09 AM
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.

LocoPorElTenis
03-25-2010, 09:19 AM
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.

simplet
03-25-2010, 09:44 AM
I'm pretty sure "second rate tournament" is the definition of a master? You know, the second-best type of tournament after the slams?

leng jai
03-25-2010, 09:46 AM
I long for the day when Masters events are as important as the slams.

tkr
03-25-2010, 10:04 AM
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.

tennisfaNo.1
03-25-2010, 10:06 AM
and YOU WANNT that MS be higher ranked than SLAMS????

Har-Tru
03-25-2010, 01:55 PM
Er... yes?

rocketassist
03-25-2010, 03:32 PM
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.

tkr
03-25-2010, 03:38 PM
Yeah, but you have to blame the whining players as well. They're always complaining about how tired they are etc.

rofe
03-25-2010, 03:46 PM
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.

l_mac
03-25-2010, 03:57 PM
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.

LinkMage
03-25-2010, 04:56 PM
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.

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:

laurie-1
03-25-2010, 08:04 PM
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.

BodyServe
03-25-2010, 08:45 PM
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.

Langers
03-26-2010, 03:22 PM
Final needs to back to best of 5, that's the main problem I have. Otherwise they are sensational.

Clydey
03-26-2010, 03:38 PM
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.

You mean to say that Masters events are not as important as the Grand Slams? Shocking revelation.

MS events are stil huge tournaments. Your objections are ridiculous. Everyone knows the majors are more important. Your points merely highlight that fact. They don't diminish the importance of the MS events. They are like the majors on a smaller scale. It's the same field, with the lower ranked players left out. All of the top players compete. I have no tolerance for people who think that the majors are the be all, end all. It's as if you people think that they play a different sport at the majors. It's the same sport, but on a larger scale.

By the way, Thomas Johansson won a major. Surprises happen in every tournament. Also, IW and Miami combine ATP and WTA. Why you think that's a good thing is beyond me, however. As a wise man once said on here, my favourite WTA player is the one who wins the first set. I'd rather watch an all ATP event than be forced to endure the WTA.

Clydey
03-26-2010, 03:41 PM
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.

Come off it, mate. Dubai generally has a good field (with the exception of the past 2 years), but it's not as hard as the Masters. The field is weaker and there are fewer matches.

rhinooooo
03-26-2010, 03:42 PM
This must be how Newton felt when he discovered gravity

legolandbridge
03-26-2010, 04:04 PM
Best of 3 final is fine with me, for consistency's sake. All rounds or nothing.