[INFJ]

I guess you have to go with the length of the respective seasons so it would make sense for there to be the most hc Masters, then clay, and then grass.

But I think there should have been at least one grass Masters, 2 clay Masters, and the rest hc.

Or do you think the grass court season should have been longer so that there are 3 Masters on each surface?

And how would a difference split have affected the number of Masters titles the big 3 would have won?

Discuss.

 

[guitarra]

Regarding the number of masters per surface I think it's fine as it is. Grass season is too short to have a masters anyway.
However I would swop some locations. To my mind South America deserves 1 masters. For history, for the players they have and for the attendance they produce every year.

 

[bhdtl]

Clay has way too many masters considering they're all slow and high bouncing. At least the hard court masters are way unalike from one another. As for grass, I don't think it should have a masters, even though it would benefit my favorite player the most.

 

[SetPointDown]

2 slow HC
2 clay
2 grass
2 fast HC
1 carpet

 

[RocketMan70]

It's pretty good the way it is.
Queens being a Masters wouldn't be a bad idea though.

 

[WeakestTennisEra]

Halle should be a grass masters.
Then there should be a masters on Carpet.
Rest are fine as it is.

Maybe in the future we can have wooden courts back as a playing surface, and have a masters in that surface as well.
It certainly would add more surface and court variety to the tour.

I would also recommend changing one of the HC slams(USO/AO) to indoor hc, having installed a roof on each court. That way we would have one outdoor HC, one indoor HC, one clay, and one grass slam. Perfect for the tour with variation in masters and slams.

 

[Rrobba]

I enjoy variety in tennis; I'd prefer something like 3 medium-slow outdoor hardcourts, 2 fast indoor hardcourts, 2 claycourts and 2 grasscourts. However, given the length of the grasscourt swing and the more limited number of countries where they are suitable, I would accept just one grass Masters as a compromise - to replace either Monte Carlo/Madrid or one of the hardcourt tournaments (but be scheduled differently, obviously).

 

[INFJ]

Halle should be a grass masters.
Then there should be a masters on Carpet.
Rest are fine as it is.

Maybe in the future we can have wooden courts back as a playing surface, and have a masters in that surface as well.
It certainly would add more surface and court variety to the tour.

I would also recommend changing one of the HC slams(USO/AO) to indoor hc, having installed a roof on each court. That way we would have one outdoor HC, one indoor HC, one clay, and one grass slam. Perfect for the tour with variation in masters and slams.

I like the way you think. This is just about spot on. There just aren't enough indoor tennis on tour now which is the purest and my personal favorite form of tennis. I like the idea of a Masters with really fast conditions like the carpet one you mentioned as well.

Currently the tour is too tailor made for someone like Nadal to con his way into the GOAT debate.

With an indoor major, another indoor Masters, a grass Masters, a carpet Masters, and even a wooden Masters that would be much harder to do.

 

[Idemo]

For my liking:

6 on hard (1 or 2 being in-doors)
3 on clay
1 on grass

dont get why there are no grass masters.


and, yes, it would be really Nice to have a master in South America, but it would be logistically very dificult to fit it in the calendar i think.

 

[swissmaestro92]

i think 1 grass, 3 clay and 5 hard (1 indoor) IMO. Reflects the tour well.

As for the list of masters winners you have in the OP, it ignores people pre 1990 who won on the grand prix masters circuit which in my eyes counts so you'd have the likes of Lendl and Connors high on the list as well.

 

[Rrobba]

What if there were 3 grasscourt Masters instead of 3 claycourt Masters?

I conducted a quick analysis to estimate how many Masters titles the big 4 would have if there were three Masters 1000s events on grass each year instead of 3 on clay. The methodology was as follows: remove each player's clay titles from their totals (remove 6 for Federer, 2 for Murray, 25 for Rafa and 10 for Novak). Then, find out the number of claycourt Masters events played by each player over the course of their career: (Rafa: 46, Roger: 45, Novak: 38, Andy: 32) and convert these to grasscourt Masters tournaments played. Lastly, multiply the number of tournaments played by their Expected Success Rate at each grassocurt Masters, which is based on their actual success rate at Wimbledon (Federer: 8/21, Nadal: 2/14, Djokovic: 5/15, Murray: 2/12). This gives us the predicted number of masters events each player would have on grass based on their real performance at Wimbledon, and these are added to their total Masters count.

The results:
1. Federer: 39 titles
2. Djokovic: 38 titles
3. Murray: 17 titles
4. Nadal: 17 titles

Federer would have benefited significantly, and is significantly held back by the prevalence of claycourt masters. Djokovic and Murray would have benefited marginally, and Nadal would have suffered greatly in his Masters tally.

Before anyone gets upset, this is just an overly simplistic hypothetical estimate. I know that if there were this many grass tournaments and no clay masters, Rafa might have changed his playing style and had more success. I also know that Wimbledon performance would not be perfectly correlated with grasscourt Masters performance, or that this change may have reduced some players injury periods and extended others. I'm just a guy who enjoys tennis and enjoy statistics and likes to combine the two for fun.

 

[INFJ]

i think 1 grass, 3 clay and 5 hard (1 indoor) IMO. Reflects the tour well.

As for the list of masters winners you have in the OP, it ignores people pre 1990 who won on the grand prix masters circuit which in my eyes counts so you'd have the likes of Lendl and Connors high on the list as well.

That's interesting. I'd love to see that list. How many of those Masters were there?

 

[enlightenedth]

Not a single grass Masters is sickening and quite unfair.

 

[ballbashingmug]

I love grass court tennis, but so much of the world doesn’t have access to it growing up, I don’t really have a problem with the masters breakdown as is, other than some faster hardcourts.

 

[swissmaestro92]

That's interesting. I'd love to see that list. How many of those Masters were there?

I'm struggling to find the information, but I believe in terms of somewhat equivalent tournaments to the masters:

Lendl 22
McEnroe 19
Connors 17
Borg 15

I think however that these masters pre 1990 were not regarded in the same way they are now, very hard to standardise achievements across the whole open era let alone all time achievements

 

[Waz]

3 Fast HC
2 Medium-Slow HC
2 Clay
1 Grass
1 Indoor HC

 

[xdrewitdajx]

2 slow HC
2 clay
2 grass
2 fast HC
1 carpet

this would be interesting, for sure

and maybe even WTF rotating surfaces (at least every few years if not feasible yearly)