Agassi's masters count still the most impressive?

Agassi was the previous record holder for most ATP masters titles won before being surpassed by Nadal and then by Federer. When Agassi won his masters titles, the finals were best of 5, making them more difficult. Indeed the finals of masters sometimes compared to the finals of slams in quality of tennis and excitement. Many of Federer and Nadal's masters titles have come after the finals were changed to a best of 3 format thus making them easier to win back to back and perhaps devaluing them slightly. I would suggest that as Agassi's record hasn't exactly been destroyed his record is still the most impressive and that overall he went through more to get his total. That's not to say that this can't change but as things stand at this moment in time.

Federer also won the majorty of his masters in BO5.

The Nadull has won something like 14 on clay.

It changed in 2007. Nadal's won at least 9 in the best of 3 format given all the clay masters he's won since then. Feds won 5 in the best of 3 format I think and he's only ahead of Agassi by 1 title.

I suspect the results would not have been much different.

break_in_the_fifth

If Nadal and Federer had not won so many Grand Slam and Davis Cup matches between them you might have a point. So I'm with bogbrush on this one.

I suppose they both made for convincing finalists whenever they made it there but 5 sets gives the opponent a chance to come back and if the event was just before say a slam then maybe that would make them think twice about going all out to ensure their victory if their opponent was not letting up.

The number of sets makes little difference and could even be argued in the reverse. Some of Nadal's losses in Indian Wells or Miami or Canada or the clay losses to Roger may not have happened in 5-setters.

We can only speculate with presumptions which is why the debate would be rather pointless.

break_in_the_fifth

Even if it was just before a slam, the slam organisers would arrange it so they had as long as possible to recover by being one of the last matches in r1. Also r1 opponents are normally easy warm-up matches for the top guys.

To try to take away from presumptions I'll forget about results going a different way and try and focus on something more certain. It was more work and effort to win 5 set finals which would have had more significant implications for the other tournaments on the tour particularly if you're reaching most of the finals. So based on the extra it took to win and the lasting effect and impact it would have on say the next tournament, more effort was spent winning the BO5 and there was more sacrifice in terms of available energy reserves for other tournaments. That's why I think there's an argument for Agassi's still being the more impressive though I doubt it will last long.

erictheblueuk wrote:break_in_the_fifth

Even if it was just before a slam, the slam organisers would arrange it so they had as long as possible to recover by being one of the last matches in r1. Also r1 opponents are normally easy warm-up matches for the top guys.

The way players push each other these days perhaps its more significant as look at the Madrid semi in 2009 that's blamed for ruining Nadal for the French open. He still cruised the first 3 rounds.

break_in_the_fifth

Even if that were true I think he's won enough French titles so he could let one slide.

5 in a row would have meant a lot. He could have let the next one slide. Anyhow in general if that were true as you said I can't see players wanting it to happen that often and this effect would be amplified by having a BO5 final.

I agree with Bogbrush, the BO5 thing is not huge. Masters weren't much bigger in Agassi's day.