Mens Tennis Forums banner
41 - 54 of 54 Posts
Without taking anything away from the recently 1000 winners, this says more about the current status of the 1000s and the top 10-20 over the past two years.

GSs: Alcaraz/Sinner: 8/8 won
Out of 17 MSs, Alcaraz has played... 4 finals, Sinner 5.
So 9/17.
And only 2 finals between them: Rome and Cinci 2025.

Alcaraz has missed 6 1000s out of the last 17.
Sinner has missed 7 (including 4 in 2025: IW-Miami-MC-Madrid ofc).

This alone shows that the number of MSs since 1990 is absurd, given the numerous MSs over two weeks recently, as it became when all the MSs had bo3 finals around 2007/2008.
These things are not comparable.
Alcaraz/Sinner are aged 22 and 24, not old players aged 30 or older, who have to work harder for a slim season... it's the circuit that guides them towards this.

The ATP wanted to bring its 1000s closer to the GSs with these "two weeks"... but in fact, the ATP has pushed them further apart... largely through its tour "reforms."

It will be interesting to see how long the ATP will have the nerve to count these tournaments as... "big titles." :oh:
 
Too many master's tournaments.
The competition is more exhausting physically and mentally than ever. You may think the Big 3 era was better quality and depth wise, but the truth is the overall competition has become so much stronger that even the top 200 players, let alone the top 100, can upset top 20 or even top 10 players regularly. I don't see this trend changing any time soon. A player ranked around the top 100 would have been ranked within the top 20 easily 20 years ago. You can tell the difference by watching videos of matches played back then. The play is faster and more powerful and has fewer errors today if not more variety. Like it or not, the sport evolves constantly and what we're seeing now is a better version of what we saw in the past.
 
Not true it seems, as i just enquired about Paris and it seems this body can't even enter....doubt about win!
This is rather funny, but silly answer, dear @ogre
Vacherot was not even on the list for Q in Shanghai, got in last minute and nearly lost QR2.
He showed us the margins are not big between the best and worst ranked player in an entry list.
Bar top 2, as I mentioned.
 
C'mon JG, we both know the much bigger 'shame' was what happened to Delpo's career after the historic 2009 season & though similar injuries, much earlier setbacks than what happened to Thiem.
All 3 had their careers cut short sadly
 
@florentine I do think the sheen of Masters was at its peak during the Big Four era (around 2010-2012 with some dominance still until around 2016 maybe) where Murray was practically a Masters merchant plus Nadal and Djokovic really dominating them AND the Slams IMO (and Federer maybe getting some once in a while)...now it seems Sinner and especially Alcaraz are fine to skip them from time to time although the surprise is it's not the likes of Zverev and Fritz capitalizing them at the moment IMO.
 
@florentine I do think the sheen of Masters was at its peak during the Big Four era (around 2010-2012 with some dominance still until around 2016 maybe) where Murray was practically a Masters merchant plus Nadal and Djokdovic really dominating them AND the Slams IMO (and Federer maybe getting some once in a while)...now it seems Sinner and especially Alcaraz are fine to skip them from time to time although the surprise is it's not the likes of Zverev and Fritz capitalizing them at the moment IMO.
ATP "invented" "big titles" for its 1000s in the second half of the 2010s, precisely in 2016, when the race became a Nadal/Djokovic affair, nothing else.
Image


So, the commercial promotion of its product.

I've already mentioned this point and the chronology of facts.
 
Discussion starter · #51 ·
ATP "invented" "big titles" for its 1000s in the second half of the 2010s, precisely in 2016, when the race became a Nadal/Djokovic affair, nothing else.
Image


So, the commercial promotion of its product.

I've already mentioned this point and the chronology of facts.
Speaking of the ATP Tour as a whole, Masters 1000s are the second highest tier tournaments overall along with the ATP Finals (not counting the Olympics here), so in my opinion the label of "big titles" for them is accurate. Maybe this term wasn't used as much before as it's used now, but the meaning has always been there. Going by the eras chronology, every era had one player with the most "big titles" next to his name:
  • 1970s -> Connors with 19 big titles
  • 1980s -> Lendl with 32 big titles
  • 1990s -> Sampras with 29 big titles
  • 2000s -> Federer with 35 big titles
  • 2010s -> Djokovic with 48 big titles
  • 2020s so far -> Djokovic with 17 big titles

While I agree with you that it was put more into the spotlight when the Big 3 rivalries were at their peaks, that doesn’t necessarily make it a manufactured narrative. It’s more like the ATP and media started highlighting an already existing hierarchy of tournaments once there were more players consistently competing for every Slam, Masters or ATP Finals title. The concept of "big titles" just gave us a clear framework to compare their dominance across eras.
 
Maybe this term wasn't used as much before as it's used now, but the meaning has always been there. Going by the eras chronology, every era had one player with the most "big titles" next to his name:
  • 1970s -> Connors with 19 big titles
  • 1980s -> Lendl with 32 big titles
  • 1990s -> Sampras with 29 big titles
  • 2000s -> Federer with 35 big titles
  • 2010s -> Djokovic with 48 big titles
  • 2020s so far -> Djokovic with 17 big titles
I understand that for intellectual comfort, it's easy and convenient to categorize these tournaments under the umbrella of "big titles" for the entire OE, but the fact remains that this is retroactive compatibility with no relation to the reality of the circuit at the time.

You can make what you will of my comment, but I can assure you that regarding Connors, Lendl, and McEnroe, the expression "big titles" was never used in real time.
I mention these 3 precisely because they have long been the leaders in the number of OE titles, only surpassed now by the "big 3" (Lend 94 remains slightly ahead of Nadal 92 however) and even then, only considering the titles recognized by ATP



Their number of GS was cited... and their total number of titles, nothing else.

And it's even more interesting to point this out, at a time when a WCT Dallas or Masters Grand Prix title (the real one) carried more weight than an AO... and I'm not even talking about OG.

Super9s, currently 1000s, have existed since 1990, but were never included in a "big titles" accounting system before 2016.
I challenge you to find this kind of table published by ATP before this period.

That said, I can understand the current use of this "accounting" by the younger generations, but it doesn't force me to comply with it, even though I've experienced a different reality firsthand... :hatoff:
and now with all the 1000s bo3 finals, almost all for two weeks... and soon... a... tenth 1000s... 😅
At its inception, if ATP had been forward-thinking, it would have called it... super9s... while we wait for the rest. 😌
 
Without taking anything away from the recently 1000 winners, this says more about the current status of the 1000s and the top 10-20 over the past two years.

GSs: Alcaraz/Sinner: 8/8 won
Out of 17 MSs, Alcaraz has played... 4 finals, Sinner 5.
So 9/17.
And only 2 finals between them: Rome and Cinci 2025.

Alcaraz has missed 6 1000s out of the last 17.
Sinner has missed 7 (including 4 in 2025: IW-Miami-MC-Madrid ofc).

This alone shows that the number of MSs since 1990 is absurd, given the numerous MSs over two weeks recently, as it became when all the MSs had bo3 finals around 2007/2008.
These things are not comparable.
Alcaraz/Sinner are aged 22 and 24, not old players aged 30 or older, who have to work harder for a slim season... it's the circuit that guides them towards this.

The ATP wanted to bring its 1000s closer to the GSs with these "two weeks"... but in fact, the ATP has pushed them further apart... largely through its tour "reforms."

It will be interesting to see how long the ATP will have the nerve to count these tournaments as... "big titles." :oh:
(4x slam + 8x MS1000) x 2 weeks = 24 weeks... You can't expect an athlete to be at peak performance half a year, every other individual sport is centered around periodization and fairly lengthy offseasons. Whoever thought they could milk the top players like that was sorely mistaken.
 
41 - 54 of 54 Posts