Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 80 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,130 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
for how many M1000s would Fedalovic trade one of their Slam titles?

recently i've seen Djokovic tards suggesting that a M1000 title is worth 20% or even 30% of a Slam title.
i doubt that very much.
do you believe that Fed/Nadal/Djokovic would give one of their Slam titles for just 5 or 8 M1000s ? :scratch:
they wouldn't even start thinking before you offer them 9 or 10, i would say.
but for actually and seriously sealing the deal with them i reckon you will eventually have to put something like 20 or even 30 M1000s on the table. :cool:

the prize money is close to irrelevant for them.
they would only trade at some point as so many more M1000s almost guaranteed the no.1 ranking.
but before calculating how many M1000s exactly, you might better offer them weeks at no.1 directly then. :shrug:

in interviews they understandably usually don't say something that could harm the ATP tour,
but from biographies it's pretty clear to me that the top players only think about Slams and the no.1 ranking (well, and Olympics and the WTF).
that's what motivates them to give their best every day when they wake up
as it's what the vast majority of spectators (= casual tennis followers) only care about
and what makes a player ultimately popular.

for the top players, M1000s are rather just useful for maintaining a ranking (seeding), reaching no.1
and yeah, also for training/preparation. i mean, you cannot play only 5 events per season and expect to excell in them.


are M1000s even scheduled by the ATP itself as preparation tournaments for the Slams?

for me there's no doubt about that.
5 of the 9 M1000s per year are directly scheduled (in the calendar) as preparation for the Slams.
cause breaks of just one week or no break at all between tournaments is just clearly subpar for playing at your best.
(the fact that the best of the best still sometimes manage to win back to back events hardly suggests that the scheduling aids the matter.)

longer breaks as well as ATP500 events prior to the Slams instead would theoretically make more sense for increasing the M1000s' value,
but the top players would not like it at all.
cause, as mentioned, they focus on the Slams. and they have training schedules(/units) and they badly need (extended) resting periods between them.
that means, during the weeks prior to the Slams they are fitter.
stretching the M1000 calendar out and trying to make top players excell every third week would lead to many more upsets.

years ago the ATP already tried to downgrade MonteCarlo, but lost in court.
remember that MonteCarlo and Shanghai (2 of the 4 non-Slam preparation M1000s) are still the M1000s where some top players sometimes opt not to play.


what Second-Tier event means:

the level of the Canada Masters is even closer to ATP500 events in Olympic years.
but even all top players being lined up doesn't mean they all are in good form at every M1000.
remember it's mandatory events. they are not allowed to skip them,
but noone can reach top form on 10-12 occasions per year (through training and motivation that is, not referring to upsets)
and as mentioned, half the M1000s are even scheduled back-to-back.
but however you schedule, the sheer amount of M1000s in the calendar seals their fate as tier-2 events.
(btw, that's maybe why there's meanwhile talk about some "Super1500" or so series.)

and tier-2 events are just generally regarded far below main events.
i've even heard people say they just count as tiebreaks for comparing top players' achievements. i disagree.
however, if you want to weigh them against the main events i think you better prepare to handle somewhat bigger numbers.



EDIT: my new insight after 65 posts:
Masters become less important the more Slams a player has won.








don't let yourselves blind by the shiny gold.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,622 Posts
Many players used to skip some GS also e.g. AO, as well as RG if you were grass specialist or vice versa, or would just use those slams for a couple of matches or as a preparation for the other.

Were those slams then overrated too ?

Overrated or not, it was not easy to win masters in Fedalovic era.

Wawrinka+Delpo+Cilic amassed five slams + two masters titles, so far.

At least men's slams are bo5, unlike women's bo3.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,031 Posts
ATPs propaganda campaign is also quite impressive in this regard. Notice how the masters 1000 are underlined and right in the center where their eyes are and painted gold while slams are a strange green. The entire narrative of "big titles" has also been created to clam together and equalize slams and master 1000s. Clever.

 

·
Banned
Joined
·
15,396 Posts
Masters are greatly underrated on MTF.

This unnecessary and false thread is an undeniable proof of that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,731 Posts
The first one or two are huge - look what a big deal they are to the second-tier players, who've basically had almost no chances at them over the last decade.

Once you have 10 though? An extra one is basically nice, but not terribly meaningful.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,736 Posts
I don't really think they are overrated...

Its a great achievement, its not the best thing you can win in Tennis but there is not many bigger things (Slams, WTF, Olympics only things more meaningful to majority of players). It deserves to be valued, only you start winning more than 10 okay it just feels like "another masters for xxx" for a lot of fans but imagine if something completely random happens like Gasquet wins Miami or IW (lol, just a random hilarious example I thought up). He would go crazy for the best thing he has achieved in Tennis... it would mean so much to win just one for so many players.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,209 Posts
Fedtards - massively overrated.
Fakertards - massively underrated.
Dulltards - underrated as is one surface domination.
Mugraytards - who cares, Olympics is the most important anyway.
Stantards - mickey mouse tournaments.
Botnictards - San Jose is the real slam anyway.
Dimitards - Don't forget about us pls.
 

·
Bring it Home
Joined
·
20,320 Posts
M1000 and WTF are overrated on MTF. Those are important titles, but it's nowhere near that important as a slam.

1 GS > 15 M1000

Just look at Murray, how he wasn't much respected before winning his maiden slam, despite his huge success in M1000 events.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,618 Posts
Slams are a tad overrated among the fan world - saying this as a Fed fan. But of course the prestige difference is greater than the rankings one. Let's say 1 major title is equal to 4 masters titles in that regard. Djokovic still needs to win more majors, because he is not winning 18 more masters.
 

·
Bring it Home
Joined
·
20,320 Posts
Slams are a tad overrated among the fan world - saying this as a Fed fan. But of course the prestige difference is greater than the rankings one. Let's say 1 major title is equal to 4 masters titles in that regard. Djokovic still needs to win more majors, because he is not winning 18 more masters.
:spit:
@Featherer, here is your answer. :devil:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
806 Posts
ATPs propaganda campaign is also quite impressive in this regard. Notice how the masters 1000 are underlined and right in the center where their eyes are and painted gold while slams are a strange green. The entire narrative of "big titles" has also been also created to clam together and equalize slams and master 1000s. Clever.

It is laughable, they can put out whatever propaganda they like but there is nobody in the world who thinks Masters 1000 events are in the same league as Grand Slams.
 
  • Like
Reactions: duarte_a

·
Federer Fan & Dull Hater
Joined
·
11,399 Posts
ATPs propaganda campaign is also quite impressive in this regard. Notice how the masters 1000 are underlined and right in the center where their eyes are and painted gold while slams are a strange green. The entire narrative of "big titles" has also been also created to clam together and equalize slams and master 1000s. Clever.

Yeah, some weak-minded users here started using that "Big Titles" narrative after ATP came up with that highly subjective graphic.

ATP has no say to what a tournament is worth, a masters 1000 isn't worth half a major as some troll claimed here some time ago because of the points awarded.

Of course ATP used this shenanigan narrative to try and inflate the masters 1000 tournaments value and worth.


Truth of the matter is a major title is worth much more than a masters 1000 title. It is subjective, sure. We can't put a number and say a major title is worth x masters 1000 titles. It's also down to the person. For some players the Olympics have a higher value than others.


At the end of the day though I think we can all agree that a major is worth much more than a masters 1000. Just watch a player's celebration when winning a major vs a masters 1000.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
21,091 Posts
Fedtards - massively overrated.
Fakertards - massively underrated.
Dulltards - underrated as is one surface domination.
Mugraytards - who cares, Olympics is the most important anyway.
Stantards - mickey mouse tournaments.
Botnictards - San Jose is the real slam anyway.
Dimitards - Don't forget about us pls.
Basically all one needs to know
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,618 Posts
:spit:

@Featherer, here is your answer. :devil:
Making all other tournaments completely worthless also makes them unnecessary, which is ridiculous. It also implies that slamless players are basically tennis hobos, whose career deserves infinitesimal respect compared to the greats of the game, meaning none at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,618 Posts
Truth of the matter is a major title is worth much more than a masters 1000 title. It is subjective, sure. We can't put a number and say a major title is worth x masters 1000 titles. It's also down to the person. For some players the Olympics have a higher value than others.
Now that's the point of the matter. Obviously it is folly to say 2 masters = 1 major because of the points, and it is also foolish to say 1 major > 15 masters either, since a 15-time masters winner is a great of the game on that stat alone, whereas a one-slam wonder may be a relatively rarely remembered fluke (e.g. Korda, Johansson, Gaudio).

I'd say 1 major can be equalled to 3-5 masters prestige-wise, but the perception constantly varies, so no "exact" number exists. It doesn't make sense to me to make a major worth 6+ masters more, it's just too tough to win so many of them for it to be put under a lone slam win.
 

·
Bring it Home
Joined
·
20,320 Posts
Making all other tournaments completely worthless also makes them unnecessary, which is ridiculous. It also implies that slamless players are basically tennis hobos, whose career deserves infinitesimal respect compared to the greats of the game, meaning none at all.
Nobody said the other tournaments are worthless, but the big tournaments in tennis are the Grand Slams. The rest are the rest.

Compare the slams with M1000 is like compare the 100m event in the Olympic Games with 100m events in the Diamond League.

Your assumption 1 GS = 4 M1000 is absolutely bizarre. Make this question to any tennis player in the world: if they prefer 4 M1000 or 1 GS. They will laugh at you.
 
1 - 20 of 80 Posts
Top