Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
73 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I hear people all the time say that a players Masters 1000 record doesn't mean very much in terms of judging their career and it's all about the majors. Before Andy Murray won the 2012 US open people described him as someone who had never won a major, not someone who had won 8 masters 1000 events beating the likes of Federer, Djokovic and Nadal multiple times.

If the Masters 1000 events really are just warm ups to the main event, surely their is something seriously wrong with the calendar. The masters 1000 events schedule is pretty taxing on the Body - usually played back to back weeks and a player can sometimes play Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday.

Plus the ranking points on offer are huge, Djokovic could potentially not win a Major in 2014 and yet still finish the year number 1 by cleaning up on the masters 1000 events, the so called warm up tournaments.

Isn't the ATP better off finding an alternative to the masters 1000 events that actually impact on a players career, like having their own Major in Indian Wells or Shanghai? Or are people happy with the current schedule??

Thoughts??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,832 Posts
Spot on, Evita. Also it gives most points on the calendar after majors, so they are important for rankings.

I think BO5 finals should be back. We would have plenty of crazy 5 setters between Rafa and Novak last few years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,553 Posts
What do you mean by impact? ATP established a certain hierarchy of tennis tournaments: from Masters 1000 down to ATP 250, the least prestigious ones.
M1000 are usually characterized by strong field , since the majority of top tier players take part in this sort of events.
In recent years, GS winners coincide strongly with M1000 winners, that should say a lot. The best of X sets factor is probably decisive here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,771 Posts
Masters matter but not nearly as much as slams. Committing equal physical, if not mental, effort to both the Masters and slams might be fine for younger players but you should be prioritizing more and more the older you get.
 

·
Onwards and Upwards!
Joined
·
46,335 Posts
They do matter. Slams are obviously far above them in terms of prestige and career impact, but masters are also important. If they weren't, the Big 4 wouldn't have so many of them under their belts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,469 Posts
What's the point of 500s?
What's the point of 250s?
What's the point of Challengers?
What's the point of Futures?
What's the point of life?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,009 Posts
Only trolls and tards with an agenda claim that Masters 1000 titles are not important for a player's career.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,092 Posts
They serve several purposes:

(a) warm-up for Slams
(b) helping to rankings/determine seedings for Slams
(c) important points for WTF qualification
(d) we as fans need some tournaments to follow during the 44 non-Slam weeks of the year, no?

They might be 'irrelevant' in and of themselves, but they still serve a big purporse in the tennis calendar. If anything it'd be cool if AO and Wimbledon had also some M1000 build-up to them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
73 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
I'm not saying the Masters 1000 events are not important tournaments, their part of the tour like ATP 500 and ATP 250 events, etc, but I'm suggesting we should have a few more majors on the calendar instead of the Masters 1000 events. Indian wells and Miami do not lead into a major and the clay season is huge. Their is room for 2 more grand slams played between the Australian and the french open
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,771 Posts
They serve several purposes:

(a) warm-up for Slams
(b) helping to rankings/determine seedings for Slams
(c) important points for WTF qualification
(d) we as fans need some tournaments to follow during the 44 non-Slam weeks of the year, no?

They might be 'irrelevant' in and of themselves, but they still serve a big purporse in the tennis calendar. If anything it'd be cool if AO and Wimbledon had also some M1000 build-up to them.
I don't consider any Masters 'irrelevant', but I especially don't look that way at the classic events in MC and Rome. Queen's as a Masters would also be very special.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
73 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
You're kidding, right? :)
Not Im not kidding.Indian wells already has 2 weeks on the schedule and could easily be converted to being a major and not affect the tour. If you played Indian wells as major in Late February you could have 4 weeks off then another major (maybe Miami on clay or Madrid)then 5 weeks off before the french.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,838 Posts
Doubtless Djokvoic is winning too many pointless master titles considering his poor slam record
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,151 Posts
I hear people all the time say that a players Masters 1000 record doesn't mean very much in terms of judging their career and it's all about the majors.
I don't know any real tennis fan, that thinks that. They are very important, granted not as important as they were with five set finals. Who thinks Indian Wells, Monte Carlo, and Rome don't factor into historical greatness? Give Indian Wells a five set final, I would take it over the U.S. Open.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,667 Posts
Masters are to prepare players for upcomining slams and WTF. And even if there are no slams or WTF coming, then to promote the game (IW, Miami, Shanghai).

Masters also have a big effect on ranking with 9,000 points available. Missing Madrid may have cost Nole getting to #1.
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top