Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 57 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,781 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Similar for Rafa too. While I’m obviously very pleased that Rogie prevailed today in south Florida (where I was born), I can’t help but be bothered by the fact that he stands now where boatovic stood at nearly a decade younger.

So what gives? Why the enormous chasm between them?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,583 Posts
Why bother posting? You are gone after Laver Cup.
Join a yoga center for mental peace.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,233 Posts
Multiple reasons...Masters became lot more prestigious from 2008,09 onwards (basically at the end of his prime years)...they weren't even mandatory before iirc..Roger used to skip multiple Masters during his prime years..he missed like 6-7 HC Masters during 2004-2006. Also, there have never been any Masters on grass & as time went on , surfaces started slowing up & we had more Masters on slow HCs. Novak is a definitely a better slow HC player than Roger..so not a surprise he won more than Roger. Roger's Masters final conversion hasn't been that good.. that's probably another reason.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,071 Posts
Because times are different and their career paths did not have the exact same circumstances.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
882 Posts
Because they are different human beings with different careers.

Federer had 6 World Tour Finals by the age of 30, Nadal has 0 by the age of 32. Give Nadal 50 years longer and he won't reach that total, let alone 9 years.

As some have suggested, previously Masters 1000s titles were not considered as valuable as they are today. This also explains why former greats like Sampras and Borg have relatively few Masters titles - they didn't focus on these so much. It is a similar story with the Olympics - many former top tennis players used to skip that event entirely, it only became an important part of this sport in the last 15 years or so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,581 Posts
...

As some have suggested, previously Masters 1000s titles were not considered as valuable as they are today. This also explains why former greats like Sampras and Borg have relatively few Masters titles - they didn't focus on these so much. It is a similar story with the Olympics - many former top tennis players used to skip that event entirely, it only became an important part of this sport in the last 15 years or so.
Borg has played till his 25.5 only, but he has still won 15 masters (grand prix super nine tournaments) till his 24.5, whereas 24.5 y.o. Federer and Djokovic have just won 9 and 10 masters respectively and also winning considerably less slam titles.

24 y.o. Nadal being an early bloomer like Borg has won the similar number of big titles, three masters titles more and couple of slams & WTF less.

Laver has won 5 masters titles in 1970, Connors 5 titles in 1976, Borg 4 titles in 1979, Lendl 4 titles in 1989 also several times winning three titles per season for his 22 masters titles resume (Federer amassed 17 masters by his 30th birthday, Lendl 22), also as the first player to win all nine masters.

So, masters (as the most prestigious nine tournaments after slams) were pretty important since its beginnings in the '70, likewise, many top players used to skip AO or RG or Wimb. despite its importance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,781 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Multiple reasons...Masters became lot more prestigious from 2009 onwards (basically at the end of his prime years)...they weren't even mandatory before iirc..Roger used to skip multiple Masters during his prime years..he missed like 6-7 HC Masters during 2004-2006. Also, there have never been any Masters on grass & as time went on , surfaces started slowing up & we had more Masters on slow HCs. Novak is a definitely a better slow HC player than Roger..so not a surprise he won more than Roger. Roger's Masters final conversion hasn't been that good.. that's probably another reason.
Agreed on the finals conversion rate, that definitely plays a big role. I mean this was his 50th final right? Should have over 30 based on that alone
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
469 Posts
It is a similar story with the Olympics - many former top tennis players used to skip that event entirely, it only became an important part of this sport in the last 15 years or so.
Olympics still isn't important. It doesn't even award points.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,233 Posts
Agreed on the finals conversion rate, that definitely plays a big role. I mean this was his 50th final right? Should have over 30 based on that alone
His Finals Conversion rate on HCs is ok...it was much better until 2017..he had 70% (21/30) conversion in HC finals until 2017, which is pretty good...but then lost 3 straight...his current HC Finals conversion rate is 65% which isn't excellent but not bad either. His finals conversion rate on clay is bad, especially Rome, MC where he is 0/8 in finals. 6 of those 8 losses must have been against Rafa...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,233 Posts
Borg has played till his 25.5 only and has won 15 masters titles till his 24.5, whereas 24.5 y.o. Federer and Djokovic have just won 9 and 10 masters respectively and also considerably less slam titles.

24 y.o. Nadal being an early bloomer like Borg has won the similar number of big titles, three masters titles more and couple of slams & WTF less.
I mean didn't Masters start only from 1990 onwards? I am not exactly sure how they were referred before 1990
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,581 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,202 Posts
It's a matter of a few months and you won't be missed.

Enjoy the little time you have left on MTF op.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,862 Posts
1-Masters finals were Bo5 so they were tougher to win and sometimes players would skip the following one after a tough final.
2-He used to skip or tank occasionally at his best at times. I remember him not playing some HC M1000 or losing very early when he was hardly losing matches (obvious tanks).
3-At his best he had several finals in clay against Nadal when he was almost unbeatable on clay.
4-He was comfortably #1 for a while so he didn't need extra points so he would play fewer tournaments than if he needed to defend points, keep another player at bay, etc.
5-At his best there weren't other players with many M1000, past or present, so he didn't see that as motivating factor. Just like Sampras got the GS record and didn't win much more, if the record had been in 16/17, etc. maybe he would have won more but he got comfortable and paid the price. Djokovic and Nadal are competing for the M1000 record so they keep winning.
6-Federer at his best always peaked at slams, sometimes at the extent of M1000. This is the case for Djokovic now as well, but at one point he was playing much better Bo3, if you check his results in 2013/2014, where he even went a year and a half without winning a slam, but was arguably the best at Bo3.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,781 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
1-Masters finals were Bo5 so they were tougher to win and sometimes players would skip the following one after a tough final.
2-He used to skip or tank occasionally at his best at times. I remember him not playing some HC M1000 or losing very early when he was hardly losing matches (obvious tanks).
3-At his best he had several finals in clay against Nadal when he was almost unbeatable on clay.
4-He was comfortably #1 for a while so he didn't need extra points so he would play fewer tournaments than if he needed to defend points, keep another player at bay, etc.
5-At his best there weren't other players with many M1000, past or present, so he didn't see that as motivating factor. Just like Sampras got the GS record and didn't win much more, if the record had been in 16/17, etc. maybe he would have won more but he got comfortable and paid the price. Djokovic and Nadal are competing for the M1000 record so they keep winning.
6-Federer at his best always peaked at slams, sometimes at the extent of M1000. This is the case for Djokovic now as well, but at one point he was playing much better Bo3, if you check his results in 2013/2014, where he even went a year and a half without winning a slam, but was arguably the best at Bo3.
Good analysis, always a reasonable poster
 
1 - 20 of 57 Posts
Top