Mens Tennis Forums banner
1161 - 1180 of 1183 Posts

·
Registered
Nadal
Joined
·
1,658 Posts
As a Nadal fan even I think number 3 is a stupid argument! They don't play Madrid on HC anymore so there's no way for Djokovic to improve on that.
Well one can say Djokovic had 5 years to win Madrid masters on hard courts 2004-08 that's lot of chance's to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,487 Posts
Djokovic has won four "Madrid masters", because Madrid indoor masters is Shanghai Masters since 2009, and was Stuttgart masters 1996-2001 etc.

Nadal is better at two HC big tournaments = 2/9 = 22,2 %

Federer is better than Nadal at Hamburg/Madid clay masters = 1 / 4 = 25 %
This proves that MS titles, and "big titles" have led to confusion, not only since 1990, but even more since big3 era.
Have to say "was Stuttgart masters 1996-2001 etc."
No
What was "big titles" (MS 1000) before 1990?


ATP itself would have a hard time specifying it.

Before Shanghai in MS 1000, that is, since 1990.
Stockholm
Essen
Stuttgart
Madrid indoor which is neither Madrid clay nor Shanghai

As Hamburg is not Madrid clay.

I warn that filling in to arrive at 9 number "big titles", in addition to the still existing events, (Mc-Rome-Canada-Cinci-Bercy) is an artificial retroactivity, to enhance and to the current repository, nothing else .
Especially since this could change from one season to another, depending on prize money, draw etc.
Especially with the presence of the WCT circuit.


It could have been plus or minus 9, 9 is just a number invented in 1990 for MS
and has no legitimacy, nor historical reality, except to make revisionism according to current standard, and don't tell me about the Grand Prix par equivalence you find on wiki, it's random filling there too, because the goal is only to bring together 9 events to arrive at today's benchmark, that's all.

It is an easy device to understand for the public today, but in no way, it speaks of the reality of that time.

"
Nadal is better at two HC big tournaments = 2/9 = 22,2 %

Federer is better than Nadal at Hamburg/Madid clay masters = 1 / 4 = 25 %"


I do not venture into these percentages of apothecary because you can also say that:

- Nadal and Federer won Hamburg and Madrid clay.

- Federer and Murray won Madrid ind and Shanghai.

- Federer, Nadal and Murray won Madrid ind and Madrid clay

And I don't add Madrid "blue clay", so as not to complicate the demonstration even more.

The MS 1000s change, but every event is different.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,487 Posts
Well one can say Djokovic had 5 years to win Madrid masters on hard courts 2004-08 that's lot of chance's to me.
Djokovic was certainly not 5 years to win Madrid indoor.
But he had at least 2, in 2007 when he was already top 3 and certainly in 2008, since Murray won Madrid indoor (and Cincinnati which was refused to Djokovic the following 10 years ..) and especially that Djokovic in 2008 is capable to win .. Masters Cup, indoor event ..

In addition to my other thoughts, this allows me to clarify the confusion sown by MS 1000, since I am evoking Cincinnati.

Djokovic won his 2nd title "Cinci" 2020 .. in Flushing Meadows stadium in NYC ...
Ok. :unsure:🤯o_O
Because ATP decided it was like that ... was going to explain this to someone who does not follow tennis closely ..



and I am not even talking about the frozen points evolving and changing without any coherence, 100% frozen , then another 50%, without going back to YEC 2020, which was played .. and 100% of YEC 2019 pts frozen .. still today.
 

·
Registered
Nadal
Joined
·
1,658 Posts
I
Djokovic was certainly not 5 years to win Madrid indoor.
But he had at least 2, in 2007 when he was already top 3 and certainly in 2008, since Murray won Madrid indoor (and Cincinnati which was refused to Djokovic the following 10 years ..) and especially that Djokovic in 2008 is capable to win .. Masters Cup, indoor event ..

In addition to my other thoughts, this allows me to clarify the confusion sown by MS 1000, since I am evoking Cincinnati.

Djokovic won his 2nd title "Cinci" 2020 .. in Flushing Meadows stadium in NYC ...
Ok. :unsure:🤯o_O
Because ATP decided it was like that ... was going to explain this to someone who does not follow tennis closely ..



and I am not even talking about the frozen points evolving and changing without any coherence, 100% frozen , then another 50%, without going back to YEC 2020, which was played .. and 100% of YEC 2019 pts frozen .. still today.
Clearly I was saying about 5 years Djokovic was on tour he could have played or won Madrid not that he played all 5 times LOL. 😛
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,487 Posts
Clearly I was saying about 5 years Djokovic was on tour he could have played or won Madrid not that he played all 5 times LOL. 😛
Djokovic has played Madrid indoor 3 times.
2006-2007-2008.

I wanted to say that as of 2007, Djokovic is a normal candidate to win a MS 1000.
He already won 2 that year.

And even more, in 2008, as already said in my post, since Murray in same age wins the tournament.
Djokovic loses against Karlovic.


Djokovic also plays in 2006 but it was normal that he does not win, he is still young and ATP 17.
I specify that he has an honorable path, he beats .... Murray in 1/4 (atp 19) and loses against Gonzales (atp 10) in 1/2.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
203 Posts
Djokovic has played Madrid indoor 3 times.
2006-2007-2008.

I wanted to say that as of 2007, Djokovic is a normal candidate to win a MS 1000.
He already won 2 that year.

And even more, in 2008, as already said in my post, since Murray in same age wins the tournament.
Djokovic loses against Karlovic.


Djokovic also plays in 2006 but it was normal that he does not win, he is still young and ATP 17.
I specify that he has an honorable path, he beats .... Murray in 1/4 (atp 19) and loses against Gonzales (atp 10) in 1/2.
Do you understand that Madrid masters was moved to Shangai but remained the same tournament? Us Open or AO was also played on different place in the past and on different surfaces but its still the same tournament.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,487 Posts
Do you understand etc
Thank you, but I don't need to understand what you're supposed to be explaining to me, because I'm not talking about that.

I say that Djokovic already had the level and the status to win in Madrid indoor in 2007 and 2008 (cf. Murray).

That Shanghai has replaced Madrid indoor since 2009 therefore has nothing to do with it.
And I can make the same observation for Hamburg before 2009.
That's all.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
62,257 Posts
A straightforward way of doing it would be to treat it like a race.

Everyone agrees the race #1 is the one who has taken most ranking points so far this year.

So the leader of the GOAT race would be the player who has taken the most ranking points overall. Everything included. Of course, older results would have to be converted to the present scale, which is a bit of a bother. But doable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,509 Posts
This proves that MS titles, and "big titles" have led to confusion, not only since 1990, but even more since big3 era.
Have to say "was Stuttgart masters 1996-2001 etc."
No
What was "big titles" (MS 1000) before 1990?


ATP itself would have a hard time specifying it.

Before Shanghai in MS 1000, that is, since 1990.
Stockholm
Essen
Stuttgart
Madrid indoor which is neither Madrid clay nor Shanghai

As Hamburg is not Madrid clay.

I warn that filling in to arrive at 9 number "big titles", in addition to the still existing events, (Mc-Rome-Canada-Cinci-Bercy) is an artificial retroactivity, to enhance and to the current repository, nothing else .
Especially since this could change from one season to another, depending on prize money, draw etc.
Especially with the presence of the WCT circuit.


It could have been plus or minus 9, 9 is just a number invented in 1990 for MS
and has no legitimacy, nor historical reality, except to make revisionism according to current standard, and don't tell me about the Grand Prix par equivalence you find on wiki, it's random filling there too, because the goal is only to bring together 9 events to arrive at today's benchmark, that's all.

It is an easy device to understand for the public today, but in no way, it speaks of the reality of that time.

"
Nadal is better at two HC big tournaments = 2/9 = 22,2 %

Federer is better than Nadal at Hamburg/Madid clay masters = 1 / 4 = 25 %"


I do not venture into these percentages of apothecary because you can also say that:

- Nadal and Federer won Hamburg and Madrid clay.

- Federer and Murray won Madrid ind and Shanghai.

- Federer, Nadal and Murray won Madrid ind and Madrid clay

And I don't add Madrid "blue clay", so as not to complicate the demonstration even more.

The MS 1000s change, but every event is different.
spot on thats why the significance of the golden masters is not that much of a deal beyond the pure masters count. It counts for something certainly and Novak's success there is meaningful, but when you look at the masters historically they are just events above the 500s and haven't been permanent fixtures like the slams.
 
  • Like
Reactions: florentine
1161 - 1180 of 1183 Posts
Top