The 1000 Challenge

It's long been said of Del Potro that he hasn't won a Masters, a criticism which on the one hand doesn't seem much of an issue to a slam champion, but on the other hand seems to imply that his slam was, while not an outright fluke, at least a coming together at the right moment and a seizing of an opportunity, rather than the mark of a truly great player.

But who does win a Masters? Not many. Ferrer, Berdych and Tsonga, the fellow members of the 5-8 club (Ferrer will still be ranked 4 if Rafa loses today, but we all know which of those is really the big 4 player), only have one each. Glancing at the rankings, I think if I haven’t missed anything no-one from 9 to 40 in the current rankings has ever won one either although there are a collection of players recently retired or not far off that have done so (such as Robredo, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Ljubicic, Roddick).

Berdych won Paris out of the blue in 2005 in a Janowicz-esque run. He had never been past R3 of any slam or masters before and the year before he had not even been ranked highly enough to even qualify for masters events, despite his shock win over Federer at the 2004 Olympics. Berdych beat Gaudio in the QF, Stepanek in the SF and Ljubicic in the F (he beat Coria in an earlier round) and this propelled him from a ranking of 50 up to 25, but he has not been able to repeat a masters triumph since then.

Tsonga won Paris in 2008, defeating Roddick in the QF, Blake in the SF and Nalbandian in the F. It was his home tournament and he did do well to beat Djokovic in an earlier round, athough in 2008 Djokovic was not the same player he was today. However Tsonga has not repeated his Masters success either.

Ferrer won Paris in 2012, defeating Tsonga in the QF, Llodra in the SF and Janowicz in the F. Like the others, it was his first Masters. He had previously spent a whole career as a top ranked player without winning one.

Let's compare the records of semis and finals achieved at 1000 level. Del Potro has 5 semis masters defeats and 1 final defeat and no wins. Ferrer has 6 semis defeats, 3 finals defeats and 1 win. Berdych has 8 semis defeats, 2 finals defeats and 1 win. Tsonga has 2 semis defeats, 1 final defeat and 1 win (and a ton of quarters). Del Potro's overall masters record is similar to the others especially when we consider age and time out with injury (all the 5-8 club also have also achieved 1 WTF final, except Berdych). The only difference is he hasn't had the draw fall open for him like the others have, with no disrespect to Ljubicic, Nalbandian, Janowicz and the others, good players all.

If we compare the solitary wins of the other players in the 5-8 club, 2 things stand out:
1) No victories against big 4 players, except for Tsonga beating Djokovic in 2008. Then again, this was never Djokovic's best surface, he hadn't peaked yet, and, in any case, despite winning Paris once, he has rarely had the energy or desire to focuse on it most other years, and has more early exits there by far than any other Masters tournament, with players like Paul Henri Mathieu, Fabrice Santoro, Michael Llodra and Sam Querrey getting victories over him that they would have struggled to repeat at any other Masters.
2) They were all at Paris. Let's be honest here. Paris is hard to win and still a big tournament but compared to the others Masters it is the easiest. All the others usually get at least 2 or 3 of the big 4 taking them seriously and playing at 90% or more of peak. Paris is the one where the big 4 are either too tired after all the matches they play throughout the season, or just need a convenient tank to get ready for the more important World Tour Finals in London. Berdych, Ferrer and Tsonga have never managed to win a Masters outside of Paris.

As for Indian Wells, that's a different matter. Far from being the poor cousin of the masters, it has arguably eclipsed Miami as the top Masters, now boasting the biggest stadium, best top player participation, biggest draw (equal with Miami), highest prize money (the only thing counting against it is the lack of history) and so on. Winning Indian Wells in practice is not that much easier than winning a slam. And here Del Potro has come and, well, some say beat 2 of the big 4, yes, but actually he has beaten not just 2 of the big 4, he has, despite Federer's current ranking, arguably beaten 2 of the top 2 - on recent form or say results since Wimbledon there is little argument - and certainly beaten the top 2 players on hardcourt. Not only that, he has done it on slower hard courts that favoured his opponents, giving them that critical extra half second to retrieve his bludgeoned forehand hammers. Ending Djokovic's winning streak and recovering from 0-3 down in the final set was impressive. In fact, I am tempted to argue that Del Potro's achievement in reaching the final is on a par with Berdych, Tsonga and Ferrer's achivement in actually winning a Masters. And, of course, the other three are slamless.

For me, Del Potro is the no 5 player in waiting, and I'm not just bandwagoning here, I've been saying it on and off for a year or two, and this tournament has clarified that situation which wasn't so clear a week ago. Del Potro needed wins against top players for sure (they had been lacking), well now he has them. Really a contrast to Ferrer’s recent performances against Djokovic at the Australian Open, and Rafa in Acapulco, where he was really outclassed. If Federer’s recent form/physical issues continue or even worsen, then, given his slightly diminishing calendar, Del Potro could yet even have a chance of reaching the #4 slot before the year end, which would obviously help with quarter final draws in masters and slams in 2014, should he achieve this.

As to today’s match, I think Del Potro has been the better player in the tournament so far, and is playing at a higher level than Rafa at the moment. On the other hand, Rafa is the big game player with his experience and has won more masters than Del Po has had hot dinners. And Delpo has been playing above himself, there's no guarantee you can keep this up, and he has used up more emotional energy than Rafa. However what really worries me about Del Potro is the way he collapsed physically in the final set of his previous masters final in 2009 against Murray. He also physically wasn’t strong enough to beat Davydenko in the final of the world tour finals at London (wasn't an issue in a 5-set slam final to be fair). This could be an area of his game he needs to improve, i.e. he needs to get fitter. For this reason, I have to make Rafa favourite, especially if it goes to a final set. However if Del Potro loses he still deserves a lot of credit for this tournament so well done to him and congrats to his fans.

Very good points I agree, I feel like a masters win doesn't get the notoriety or credit it deserves, sure it isn't a slam but because of the stakes and the full field it is important and die hard fans take notice. For example even after two slams and 40 some odd tournament wins the one knock on Kafelnikov is that he never won a masters. And the same has been said about Del Po and people will continue to say it if he doesn't win today. A very well researched post. I have always viewed him as the player in the next group whose game and moxy demanded that he be in the top echelons with the big 4 winning and competing for the biggest trophies. Now imagine how great he will be if he gets a killer down the line backhand.

Fantastic article

I've always though that the absence of a Masters win is a not insignificant gap on Del Boy's record - I have him a step above the likes of Ferrer, Tsonga, and Berdych but the latter two have also both made slam finals and if he can't win another slam any time soon a win in a Masters tournament would say more about his consistency and put clear blue water between him and the rest of 5-8.

You could not say that the draw fell open for Del Boy at USO 2009 - but he faced an undeniably below par Nadal in the first SF on Super Saturday and Federer played possibly the most tactically stupid GS final of his career when his stubbon anger persuaded him to abandon a winning strategy in favour of trying to out-hit Del boy from the baseline. I always accept that a slam is a slam and Del Boy gets enormous credit for that win of course, but it does look better on paper than as it materialised in practice. He needs another big win to really separate him from the rest.

I agree that Paris is probably the weakest link of the Masters and has been since the late 1990's - it was also the only Masters won by Henman, Grosjean, Soderling, and Rusedski.

I may be biased but Henman beat Roddick and Federer, the best 2 in the world at that time, in straight sets, while the two of them were battling for number one and needed the wins against Henman for year end no 1. So I'm going to say that it got weak after that!

I think you're a bit harsh on Del Potro - beating Nadal and Federer back to back in a slam is very credible always. Although I diidn't watch the Nadal match and the Federer match was through the haze of poor quality internet streaming which kept failing.

I think what this shows is just how dominant the top 4 (we can call them that again after today's rankings come out can't we?) have been over the last 5 years or so with regard to both Slam and MS1000 events.

From 2008 onwards (and including Monte Carlo despite it's idiosyncratic status and the Tour finals):
Djokovic - 12 MS and 6 Slams
Federer - 9 MS and 5 Slams
Murray - 8 MS and 1 Slam
Nadal - 13 MS and 8 slams

So 42 Masters of the last 46(?) and 20 of the last 21 slams. Doesn't leave much for the rest of the tour to fight over does it?

That Del Potro won the other slam and has had such a good run last week in beating the two current hard court slam champions before losing a competetive final certainly shows that when he's on his game he is comfortably the best of the rest. The Masters title will come at some point, and it's just a bit of an oddity that his Slam title came first.

Henman Bill wrote:I may be biased but Henman beat Roddick and Federer, the best 2 in the world at that time, in straight sets, while the two of them were battling for number one and needed the wins against Henman for year end no 1. So I'm going to say that it got weak after that!

I think you're a bit harsh on Del Potro - beating Nadal and Federer back to back in a slam is very credible always. Although I diidn't watch the Nadal match and the Federer match was through the haze of poor quality internet streaming which kept failing.

I agree with Henman Bill here it is a bit harsh, if Nadal was having a bad day or fed picked the wrong tactic that isn't Del PO's fault he beat those two when both were at near peak form for that season overrall in terms of play and health. I actually view del po's win as very impressive in terms of the quality of the opposition. But I do agree his lack of masters is hole in the resume and this year he was so close to getting through but couldn't hold his serve a couple of times more in the second set when needed.

socal1976 wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:I may be biased but Henman beat Roddick and Federer, the best 2 in the world at that time, in straight sets, while the two of them were battling for number one and needed the wins against Henman for year end no 1. So I'm going to say that it got weak after that!

I think you're a bit harsh on Del Potro - beating Nadal and Federer back to back in a slam is very credible always. Although I diidn't watch the Nadal match and the Federer match was through the haze of poor quality internet streaming which kept failing.

I agree with Henman Bill here it is a bit harsh, if Nadal was having a bad day or fed picked the wrong tactic that isn't Del PO's fault he beat those two when both were at near peak form for that season overrall in terms of play and health. I actually view del po's win as very impressive in terms of the quality of the opposition. But I do agree his lack of masters is hole in the resume and this year he was so close to getting through but couldn't hold his serve a couple of times more in the second set when needed.

With Nadal it was not a question of on the day, he was not at or near peak form during that part of the season, he was playing his third tournament after missing Wimbledon with knee injury. He remained a very formidible opponent, but he was not the same Nadal as had played on HC's early that season or the Nadal who won the USO a year later (I acknowledge that Del Boy had beaten Nadal at Miami in 2009, but Nads had won Aus Open and IW and was a different proposition on HC in early 2009 from late 2009). As for Fed, he played a dumb game and should have stuck to the plan that was putting Del Boy in all sorts of trouble in the first half of the match, but Del Boy had to weather the storm and held sufficient belief to beat him when almost everyone else would have folded. I acknowledge a degree of nit-picking, I have accepted that when all is said and done a slam is a slam and agree that Del Boyo's win was a huge achievement (first to win a slam beating Fedal), but you can compare it with Djoko's feats in the Final and Semi-Finals of 2011 and the latter run was unquestionably achieved against both players operating at a higher standard.

But tactical stubborness has always been a fault of federer's it wasn't like that is the first time or first slam opponent that Roger played stubbornly against. I think it was a major fault of his early on in his rivlarly against Nadal. I think Del Po took it away from Roger and to out hit him on his forehand side was quite an accomplishment. And as you say how many players on tour would have the moxy to fall behind Roger in a grandslam final and comeback to win it. So far only two have done it in slams, Djoko and Nadal. Novak never in a final because they always met in the semis for quite some time.

socal1976 wrote:But tactical stubborness has always been a fault of federer's; it wasn't like that is the first time or first slam opponent that Roger played stubbornly against. I think it was a major fault of his early on in his rivlarly against Nadal. I think Del Po took it away from Roger and to out hit him on his forehand side was quite an accomplishment. And as you say how many players on tour would have the moxy to fall behind Roger in a grandslam final and comeback to win it. So far only two have done it in slams, Djoko and Nadal. Novak never in a final because they always met in the semis for quite some time.

The marginal difference with the 2009 US Open final is that Fed had the match totally on his racquet in a rivalry when he'd never lost before (despite having a pretty tense RG SF that year); it really did feel as if the match went Del Boy's way more because of Fed's dumb tactical decision when he was angry but had a better working alternative available than because of what Del Boy did, whereas Nadal & Djoko's wins from behind vs. Fed have been more balanced matches in more balanced rivalries at the times. Fed has avoided losing to Nadal when he had him on the rack at 2-0, and when Djoko came back from 0-2 in 2011 he was a multi-slam winner and holder who was having one of the great years of all time, which he has shown was not a flash in the pan.

Correct, I agree you can't compare Del Po to the fed/djoko or fed/Nadal rivalry in general. But the tactical stubborness point I was making is to show that Roger does that at times against other players as well. Still I think you realize yourself you are nitpicking a bit. One thing you have to consider is that Del Po's forehands and his stick to itness may have been the things that got under fed's skin. We saw it again in the matches against Novak and Andy at IW were despite being on the losing end of things the guy keeps trying to pound you into submission. A lot of players falling behind fed like that in a slam final would crumble like a cookie how many times have we seen that?

I just realised that I screwed up and misremembered the match - Fed did not lose "a game of two halves" from 2-0, he lost the 2nd set in a tie-breaker, and took the 3rd losing the 4th in a tie-break and 5th 2-6.

Funny how the memory can play tricks, and I may have to give Del Boy a bit more credit.

It was v. windy and Fed's 1st serve was only at 50%, he also had his chances and converted a frustrating 5/22 BP's. Afterwards he said the loss would be easy to get over, he'd done what he could and Del Boy had beaten him.

Great article HB

socal1976 wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:I may be biased but Henman beat Roddick and Federer, the best 2 in the world at that time, in straight sets, while the two of them were battling for number one and needed the wins against Henman for year end no 1. So I'm going to say that it got weak after that!

I think you're a bit harsh on Del Potro - beating Nadal and Federer back to back in a slam is very credible always. Although I diidn't watch the Nadal match and the Federer match was through the haze of poor quality internet streaming which kept failing.

I agree with Henman Bill here it is a bit harsh, if Nadal was having a bad day or fed picked the wrong tactic that isn't Del PO's fault he beat those two when both were at near peak form for that season overrall in terms of play and health. I actually view del po's win as very impressive in terms of the quality of the opposition. But I do agree his lack of masters is hole in the resume and this year he was so close to getting through but couldn't hold his serve a couple of times more in the second set when needed.

Barrystar had a fair point and one that I wrote an article on at the time - Fed's performance was easily his most brainless of any of his Slam defeats

I think there's a good reason why DP doesn't win Masters and it's nothing to do with the Top 4. It's because he often fails before the QF's because he hasn't got the conditioning to be consistent

And I'm still unconvinced - I stated he'd beat Murray simply because the Scot was undercooked

Back to the article - for me it shows that the Masters have always had a certain quality to them

barrystar wrote:The marginal difference with the 2009 US Open final is that Fed had the match totally on his racquet in a rivalry when he'd never lost before (despite having a pretty tense RG SF that year); it really did feel as if the match went Del Boy's way more because of Fed's dumb tactical decision when he was angry

100% spot on. Fed basically decided to show who was the forehand boss, rather than simply who was the boss

And lost

I can only imagine what Fed was thinking..

'No 6'6, right handed, flat-hitting, short-haired-yet-bandana-wearing Argentinian vegeterian has a better forehand than my liquid vapour!!'

barrystar wrote:I just realised that I screwed up and misremembered the match - Fed did not lose "a game of two halves" from 2-0, he lost the 2nd set in a tie-breaker, and took the 3rd losing the 4th in a tie-break and 5th 2-6.

Funny how the memory can play tricks, and I may have to give Del Boy a bit more credit.

It was v. windy and Fed's 1st serve was only at 50%, he also had his chances and converted a frustrating 5/22 BP's. Afterwards he said the loss would be easy to get over, he'd done what he could and Del Boy had beaten him.

Nadal was weak at the time, but the scoreline was nontheless impressive. People don't do that to him.

Barrystar, I can distinctly remember watching the online odds and at one point Del Potro was 20-1 to win the match. That may have been in the 2nd set. Perhaps when Federer had 6-3 5-3. He also had 6-3 6-7 (5-7) 6-4 6-5.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/8255926.stm - live text

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcVHvh55bP0 - part 1 highlights
4:45 for perhaps the crunch moment of the match? Federer serving for 2-0 at 6-3 5-4 30-30. Del Potro hits a shot that looks just wide, but gets a Hawkeye knick off the outside edge of the line.
0:34 to just watch a great point

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2QdlkapgUY - part 2 highlights

Federer lost the 5th set comfortably. On the other hand, like his AO 2009 final, it's a match he could have lost 3-1.

Then again, he could easily have lost to Tommy Haas at the French Open, Del Potro at the French Open, or Roddick at Wimbledon. So 2 slams was about fair for Federer in 2009.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIvZLONhJTw - full match

Henman Bill wrote:


.......................................................................................................................................

As for Indian Wells, that's a different matter. Far from being the poor cousin of the masters, it has arguably eclipsed Miami as the top Masters, now boasting the biggest stadium, best top player participation, biggest draw (equal with Miami), highest prize money (the only thing counting against it is the lack of history) and so on. Winning Indian Wells in practice is not that much easier than winning a slam. And here Del Potro has come and, well, some say beat 2 of the big 4, yes, but actually he has beaten not just 2 of the big 4, he has, despite Federer's current ranking, arguably beaten 2 of the top 2 - on recent form or say results since Wimbledon there is little argument - and certainly beaten the top 2 players on hardcourt. Not only that, he has done it on slower hard courts that favoured his opponents, giving them that critical extra half second to retrieve his bludgeoned forehand hammers. Ending Djokovic's winning streak and recovering from 0-3 down in the final set was impressive. In fact, I am tempted to argue that Del Potro's achievement in reaching the final is on a par with Berdych, Tsonga and Ferrer's achivement in actually winning a Masters. And, of course, the other three are slamless.

..................................................................................................................................................................................

Great article HB

And specifically on your points in support of Indian Wells being "not that much easier than winning a Slam" (given the quality and size of field, inter alia) I would just add to the mix that the roll-call of honour for the last ten IW titlists makes for an interesting - though hardly surprising - read :

- Roger Federer x 4

- Rafa Nadal x 3

- Novak Djokovic x 2

which leaves the tenth trophy (in 2010), and the less-celebrated name of Ivan Ljubicic.

BUT ..... lest we dismiss him as a fluke winner, worth remembering that he took out the World Numbers 2 & 3 in the shape of the above-mentioned Djokovic and Nadal en route to his solitary Masters and best career title .......