What Is The Greatest Masters Achievement?

What is the greatest achievement at Masters Level? Winning the most titles or winning all the current titles. Nadal V ... well no one yet   There is another record waiting to be broken. Winning all the Masters titles in a calender year   If anyone manages to do that it should perhaps be given a special name.

It should be noted that both records are difficult to keep track of and be used as an historical comparison between players because even in a relatively short space of time tournaments delegated to be Masters have changed, five set finals have been abolished and rules about compulsory participation have been introduced.

Just for the record, all records are waiting to be broken.

I'm really struggling to understand the point in this? What is the greatest achievement with one of the two options available having not actually been acheived?

Therefore I can only assume the purpose was to highlight that Nadal has won the most Masters.

In that case, duly noted.

I'll do a poll I think, what's the better achievement, winning three of the Majors at least 4 times, or winning each of them 3 times.

^ lol I could also have done a poll about what is the better achievement - winning the most Masters titles or winning the most consecutive Masters but since that would have featured Nadal V Nadal   it wouldn't be very competitive   

I'm sure most 606v2 posters are aware that next week Djokovic will get a chance to win Cincinnati (the only Masters title missing from his collection)

Should Djokovic win Cincy next weekend, I'd personally be more impressed by his 20 titles across all 9 tournaments than Rafa's 27 across 6 of them.

Rafa's record is a by-product of his incredible clay prowess. 33% of Masters are on clay but the surface accounts for 70% of his titles.

Which isn't to say Rafa's record is not amazing.It is. I'm just more impressed by a breadth of titles.

I will add, however, that Rafa's 8-in-a-row at Monte Carlo is one of the most incredible records on the books.

Maybe that should have been in the OP then?

I wouldn't so that both records are difficult to keep track of. Especially the most Masters titles. We all know how to count. But using Masters as a historical comparison between players is much much harder I agree.

Nadal has most Masters. But when did Masters count become so important? I don't recall in the 80s and 90s it being such a thing (or whateverever the corresponding version of masters was then).

Winning all the titles for me, if pushed, would be the better acheivement. But it's very close. And kind of an after thought when looking at anyones standing in the game.

Winning more masters is a more impressive feat. Winning all the Masters is impressive in its own right, but well, it doesn't mean a jot to me.

Also though, holding more masters also doesn't appeal to me as much... I think if a player won something like six or seven of masters in a year, that would eclipse both.

Johnyjeep wrote:And kind of an after thought when looking at anyones standing in the game.

Like head-to-heads or number of calendar years in which a slam was won...

Johnyjeep wrote: But when did Masters count become so important?

It feels like Masters Count has become LESS important. I can remember not so long ago the media often showing a chart with the top players and their current Masters count. In Masters tournaments the players used to sit behind a name plate with a masters shield to represent each of their titles. It stopped around the time when they changed the name from Masters titles to "1000" titles.

Maybe the cardboard name plates for Nadal and Federer were getting so big they would have tripped over them and that had something to do with it   I knew Nadal had the most but I have to admit I had no idea how many so it is not talked about so much now.

Winning all demonstrates greater mastery of the circuit. Winning the most as Rafa has done shows he's incredible on clay, and can play elsewhere.

It's exactly the same as his Slam record, including that daft 10 consecutive seasons of Slams thing, which was really 9/10 RGs plus an AO in the year he missed RG.

At the end of his career Djokovic will end up with the most and will have won all of them IMO.

hawkeye wrote:

Johnyjeep wrote: But when did Masters count become so important?

It feels like Masters Count has become LESS important. I can remember not so long ago the media often showing a chart with the top players and their current Masters count. In Masters tournaments the players used to sit behind a name plate with a masters shield to represent each of their titles. It stopped around the time when they changed the name from Masters titles to "1000" titles.

Maybe the cardboard name plates for Nadal and Federer were getting so big they would have tripped over them and that had something to do with it   I knew Nadal had the most but I have to admit I had no idea how many so it is not talked about so much now.

Less important? That's not correct. It certainly hasn't become less important. I unfortunately don't have any empirical data but my gut feeling is that players take these events more seriously than they did a decade ago or even further back. With the media's obsession to quantify everything and say that 'everything today is the best ever', there has been increased promotion/advertising/sponsorship of these events leading to greater prize money (relatively speaking) and therefore higher participation rates from the best players (in these second tier competitions).

This has partly come about because of the increase of media channels by which to stream tennis (or any sport for that matter). Basically there are more ways to get tennis to main stream public. This doesn't mean more people are watching tennis but I would wager that tennis is watched by a wider cross-section of the public than a couple decades ago which gives it greater reach. Added into this there are now rules on compulsory attendance. Even in your OP you acknowledge this re compulsory attendance.

This is why I think Master's are now more important to players now than they were previously. And why, as such, cannot be viewed as any comparison between players. I agree with HMM about Nadal. His Masters title count is a by-product of his extraordinary and peerless talent on clay. Nadal is the best ever on clay by virtue of his 9 RG. All these other little additions just feed off that rather than add anything else. It's flogging a dead horse.

Both tremendous accomplishments/"would be" accomplishment(s).

Were a player to have the "most" Masters titles, but "only" spread between3, 4 or 5 of the events, then it perhaps could "lack" some weight as an accomplishment, comparing it to similar others.

But Nadal's "only" having won 7 of the 9 possibilities (taking 9 total, regardless of their "changing" locations/surfaces, etc., ) isn't a negative or weakness for me. His 27 outranks Djokovic's 20, should he win Cinncinati next week, for me. Were Djokovic to finish with a total within a couple of Nadal, that might well change things for me.

A player can only play the events that are "around" whilst he is playing his career, if there are 5 on one surface, or 1 on one surface - it's details, "shmetails."

Nadal hasn't won Miami, but he's been in 4 finals; losing one in 3rd set TB, and one after holding MP v Federer - hardly a "poor performance" event, even if he hasn't won it.
Paris Open, he's also made the final, so again, whilst he hasn't won it, it's not like he's never been past the 3rd round.

Agreed Djokovic's game I think is more "well rounded," and to date, he's been less affected by injuries where Nadal has been "more affected" - what he's achieved has been amazing with the congenital foot problems, etc., but it doesn't mean his 14 is better than 17 because of the trials and tribulations he's been through with injuries.

Winning all 9 TMS titles, won't assuage the "frustration" of never winning the French Open, should that end up being the case and I am sure Djokovic would rather win the French Open title, than have 3 of every TMS title, in his career. Or give away a handful of them, for that elusive French Open. I think he will win the French at some point, he seems to good not to, but also he wouldn't be the first to have a "bête noire" in terms of a title chase, in his career; it may come to pass that the French remains his, and elusive.

Fully agree with Johnnyjeep Today's comment that the current media's wanting accomplishments to seem "superlative" and, have commonplace the "bandying" around of "best ever," etc, ad nauseum, has created an environment where things are "made up" to be bigger than they really are. Calling a Major event, a "Grand Slam" is probably the biggest one for me - a Grand Slam means only one thing, and one thing only. I am not interested in hearing that term unless a player has won all four MAJORS in the same discipline in ONE calendar year.

If they take away a 2nd serve from the game at some point, do we then have two lists for Major holders, No 1 rankings based on that, World Number 1 year end, according to that, etc., etc., ?

Lastly, Nadal has won 7 of the TMS titles, not 6. Players records can't be held to the current "edition" of those titles, as they move around from location, surface, etc., If someone's won the title in an "edition" at a certain "location" then they've won that "event," wherever it happened. Otherwise, again, we'll have a new list, each time any TMS event gets moved, or shifted to another surface.

Moving on, hasn't it been great to see Venus playing to the level she has, this week? LOL!

Winning all of the masters for my vote, it demonstrates great proficiency across surfaces, especially if you have added in the WTF for good measure.

Johnyjeep wrote:



Less important? That's not correct. It certainly hasn't become less important. I unfortunately don't have any empirical data but my gut feeling is that players take these events more seriously than they did a decade ago or even further back. With the media's obsession to quantify everything and say that 'everything today is the best ever', there has been increased promotion/advertising/sponsorship of these events leading to greater prize money (relatively speaking) and therefore higher participation rates from the best players (in these second tier competitions).

My comment about being "less important" was a specific reference to talk about the Masters count. ie who has the most and the tally for other players. With slams most know the totals for Federer and Nadal and where other players stand. Not so with Masters. But I remember there was a time when the Masters totals were often refereed to. As I said during Masters tournaments the players sat behind a cut out showing a shield for each of their titles. Visual evidence that was impossible to ignore.

My opinion is that as long as the quality of tournaments is similar the overall tally will always be more important than the spread of titles. Having one win at each is nice but personally given the choice I would prefer 3 x Rome to 1 Rome and 1 Shanghai. In fact given the choice I would prefer 2 x Rome to 1 Rome and 1 Shanghai  

Henman Bill wrote:Winning all of the masters for my vote, it demonstrates great proficiency across surfaces, especially if you have added in the WTF for good measure.

I thought all surface were the same now days  

Henman Bill wrote:Winning all of the masters for my vote, it demonstrates great proficiency across surfaces, especially if you have added in the WTF for good measure.

But not ALL surfaces as there are no Masters 1000 tournaments on grass.   

Will you write a "What is the greatest achievement at Wold Tour Final level" Hawkeye? I personally would be glad if you'd do so for the sake of completeness! Or regarding consecutive years at number 1 vs actual time holding the n1 spot; a Federer vs Lendl for a change. Just few ideas to further leverage on your  nice article template.......

Precisely JK. But unfortunately that would highlight that there are many other players who have acheivements in tennis that are greater than or equal to that of Nadal's.

I'm half expecting a story about a congenital wrist disorder to be unleashed at any moment...

lol - I am not holding my breath for it either.........

Johnyjeep wrote:Therefore I can only assume the purpose was to highlight that Nadal has won the most Masters.

In that case, duly noted.

Correct. It's a record that we all know and appreciate (and rightly so), hardly needing pointing out.

Hawkeye, you are by far the most boring poster on this board. Find something decent to write about.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Will you write a "What is the greatest achievement at Wold Tour Final level" Hawkeye? I personally would be glad if you'd do so for the sake of completeness! Or regarding consecutive years at number 1 vs actual time holding the n1 spot; a Federer vs Lendl for a change. Just few ideas to further leverage on your  nice article template.......

  Federer has a great record at the WTF (indoor conditions suit his style) and personally I wouldn't put him in a contest against Lendll no matter what the records may say as IMO Federer is way too good for that. As well as holding the record for the number of slams Federer is also in 2nd place for Masters records and 500 tournaments and jointly 2nd for 250 tournaments as I pointed out in another recent article. Federer holds lots of records... He is a great player. Possibly the best ever   but he does have a rival to that claim   even if some would prefer it if everyone pretended that he didn't.

How about we discuss some more interesting stats too

1]10+GS winner to have not defended any GS win outside clay

2]Multiple year end number 1 to have never defended the year end no.1

3]20+ Masters winner to have never won a WTF

4]Multiple year end no.1 to have played a no win WTF event.

There is only one holder for all this stats I guess   

^ lol DirectView2! You should get together with Silver and Jeremy_Kyle and maybe a few others to discuss your interesting stats. Maybe if you all hold hands in a circle and repeat them over and over you will feel better  

Nah, I like Rafa just fine.

Your boring, witless, unimaginative and repetitive articles, on the other hand...

DirectView2 wrote:How about we discuss some more interesting stats too

1]10+GS winner to have not defended any GS win outside clay

2]Multiple year end number 1 to have never defended the year end no.1

3]20+ Masters winner to have never won a WTF

4]Multiple year end no.1 to have played a no win WTF event.

There is only one holder for all this stats I guess   

never holding #1 for one full 52 week season- start to finish is one that boggles my mind for a guy who has won as much as he has.

Silver wrote:Nah, I like Rafa just fine.

Your boring, witless, unimaginative and repetitive articles, on the other hand...

  So you object to any mention of who has won the MOST masters titles but at the same time have just posted this little "boast" about Federer on another thread

Silver wrote:

And because it's worth saying/someone needs to say it, well done Federer on making yet another final. 120 finals, 299 MS1000 wins

Some here say that if Djokovic win's Cincy it will be a greater achievement than Rafa's 27 masters titles let alone Federer's lesser count  

hawkeye wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:Winning all of the masters for my vote, it demonstrates great proficiency across surfaces, especially if you have added in the WTF for good measure.

I thought all surface were the same now days  

Arguably the range of speeds across the 9 masters is greater than the 4 slams, we have Paris and maybe 1 or 2 others being faster than any slam.

hawkeye wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Will you write a "What is the greatest achievement at Wold Tour Final level" Hawkeye? I personally would be glad if you'd do so for the sake of completeness! Or regarding consecutive years at number 1 vs actual time holding the n1 spot; a Federer vs Lendl for a change. Just few ideas to further leverage on your  nice article template.......

  Federer has a great record at the WTF (indoor conditions suit his style) and personally I wouldn't put him in a contest against Lendll no matter what the records may say as IMO Federer is way too good for that. As well as holding the record for the number of slams Federer is also in 2nd place for Masters records and 500 tournaments and jointly 2nd for 250 tournaments as I pointed out in another recent article. Federer holds lots of records... He is a great player. Possibly the best ever   but he does have a rival to that claim   even if some would prefer it if everyone pretended that he didn't.

what about this one:

What is the greatest achievement?

Federer has the most weeks at number one (302)

Sampras has the  most year-end at number one (6)

Sampras v Federer  

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

what about this one:

What is the greatest achievement?

Federer has the most weeks at number one (302)

Sampras has the  most year-end at number one (6)

Sampras v Federer  

You will have to write an article on it! I know nothing about Sampras. I just have to hear his name and I.... Zzzzzzz.

Nadal has won Masters at Indian Wells, Monte Carlo, Rome, Hamburg, Madrid on clay, Montreal, Toronto, Cincinnati and Madrid Indoors. That's 9 different surfaces at 9 different venues


Djokovic has won Masters at Indian Wells, Miami, Monte Carlo, Rome, Madrid on clay, Toronto, Montreal, Shanghai and Paris. That's 9 different surfaces at 9 different venues.

Looks very similar to me  

YE >>> weeks

Weeks greater than YE. Being YE1 is really no greater an achievement than being number 1 on 1st july - both require 12 months results for the same set of tournaments.

hawkeye wrote:Nadal has won Masters at Indian Wells, Monte Carlo, Rome, Hamburg, Madrid on clay, Montreal, Toronto, Cincinnati and Madrid Indoors. That's 9 different surfaces at 9 different venues


Djokovic has won Masters at Indian Wells, Miami, Monte Carlo, Rome, Madrid on clay, Toronto, Montreal, Shanghai and Paris. That's 9 different surfaces at 9 different venues.

Looks very similar to me  

  

@ hawkeye: I praised both finalists in that post, Tsonga moreso than Federer. You know, the two finalists at Toronto? That tournament that Rafa wasn't attending? No need for me to mention his Masters record, then.

Unlike you, I'm a (fairly!) balanced poster and don't feel like nearly every post needs to be about Nadal. It's your repetitiveness that irritates, not the subject matter. You might want to seek help, your obsession with him is very worrying.

@kingraf: Interesting stuff, why do you feel YE#1 is the superior stat to hold? It's certainly an indicator of greatness judging by the calibre of players that have done it multiple times.

"Golden" Master Slam?? Huh?

Olympics are played to win the ultimate prize of a gold medal - the Olympic Champion.
Whilst on the subject of Djokovic's attempt to win the 9th TMS 1000 event, I don't understand what contributes the "golden" part here? Sensationalism I know, because there ain't no "golden" part to this.

OK, I get it - a career Masters set - but guess that's not superlative enough for the media?

Whatever....

Silver - Simply because, I feel Year end #1 carries a greater gravity of the occasion. I mean, you get called the world champion of tennis! There is truth to the fact that it's not actually a harder task tram reaching #1 at the end of July, but I've never seen a player take the rest of June and July because they're assured of July end #1.

Silver wrote:@ hawkeye: I praised both finalists in that post, Tsonga moreso than Federer. You know, the two finalists at Toronto? That tournament that Rafa wasn't attending? No need for me to mention his Masters record, then.

Unlike you, I'm a (fairly!) balanced poster and don't feel like nearly every post needs to be about Nadal. It's your repetitiveness that irritates, not the subject matter. You might want to seek help, your obsession with him is very worrying.

@kingraf: Interesting stuff, why do you feel YE#1 is the superior stat to hold? It's certainly an indicator of greatness judging by the calibre of players that have done it multiple times.

Silver. If you hadn't noticed this article is about Masters records and is topical because of Djokovic's chance to add Cincinnati to his list of titles. There is a big feature on the ATP site about it. It isn't about Federer or the year end number one or the WTF or last weeks final in Canada. It is specifically about Masters Records. In that context it would be very difficult not to mention Nadal because he holds the most  

yloponom68 wrote:
"Golden" Master Slam?? Huh?

Olympics are played to win the ultimate prize of a gold medal - the Olympic Champion.
Whilst on the subject of Djokovic's attempt to win the 9th TMS 1000 event, I don't understand what contributes the "golden" part here? Sensationalism I know, because there ain't no "golden" part to this.

OK, I get it - a career Masters set - but guess that's not superlative enough for the media?

Whatever....

Couldn't agree more. I saw the same and thought eh?

Nonsense.

Regarding the Y/E vs weeks @ No.1. This is tough. I see the argument for both. It depends how you view the ranking system/tour. Do you view it is a 'league' to determine the best player or do you view it is as a method by which to determine seedings for tournaments.

View it as a league/season - then yes, Y/E does mean 'more'. You have a start and an end to a season. You can't have players determining their own 12 month rolling period in which to be determined the best. For example you don't see Chelsea saying to Man City (who won the league last year and are therefore Champions), well we won more points between Feb - Jan so we are the best team. No idea if they did but hopefully it demonstrates my point.

View it as a means of determining seedings at tournaments and then I think weeks at No.1 is just fine.

I think being an individual sport rather than a team sport the weeks at number 1 has been the 'go to' figure. Players in individual sports are described as World No. 1 rather than Champions i.e. referring to their standing in terms of last year.

In fact you rarely hear someone who gets deposed as y/e No.1 the following year as the 'Champion of 2013'. Nadal is the currently the World No. 2. Not Champion of 2013 (or the 'Universe of all that is Holy and Good' as some posters would like).

I've convinced myself therefore..weeks at Number 1 for me is more important. Because it's an individual sport.

If someone would like to write an article on YE number 1 I wish they would do it because this article is about Masters records  

Indeed. How dare a conversation evolve.

Stick to this.

Nadal is the best.

Must flog a dead horse.

Nadal is the best.

Must find meaning in some meaningless stat to prove Nadal is the best.

Nadal is the best

In some slams he has a positive H2H record against all opponents in the draw.

Nadal is the best

Look at his H2H record vs top 20.

Nadal is the best.

He's never lost a game where he wasn't injured.

Nadal is the best.

 

yloponom68 wrote:
"Golden" Master Slam?? Huh?

Olympics are played to win the ultimate prize of a gold medal - the Olympic Champion.
Whilst on the subject of Djokovic's attempt to win the 9th TMS 1000 event, I don't understand what contributes the "golden" part here? Sensationalism I know, because there ain't no "golden" part to this.

OK, I get it - a career Masters set - but guess that's not superlative enough for the media?

Whatever....

I believe it is the "Career Golden Masters" because the ATP aren't allowed to use the word 'slam'. The ITF has some sort of copyright over how that word is used!

You're quite right though, 'golden' has nothing to do with the accomplishment at all.

I have a vague recollection of there being a fan competition last year to name the feat but I may be mistaken on that.

Johnyjeep wrote:Indeed. How dare a conversation evolve.

Stick to this.

Nadal is the best.

Must flog a dead horse.

Nadal is the best.

Must find meaning in some meaningless stat to prove Nadal is the best.

Nadal is the best

In some slams he has a positive H2H record against all opponents in the draw.

Nadal is the best

Look at his H2H record vs top 20.

Nadal is the best.

He's never lost a game where he wasn't injured.

Nadal is the best.

  But what are we meant to talk about if not the best. No one gets upset if his rival for the best gets the odd mention

https://www.606v2.com/t55043-happy-33rd-b-day-roger

https://www.606v2.com/t54919-simon-with-different-surfaces-federer-would-only-have-won-half-his-titles

https://www.606v2.com/t54968-fed-s-racquet-finally-gets-launched-properly

https://www.606v2.com/t54666-how-important-was-the-racquet-to-federer-s-improvement

https://www.606v2.com/t54650-federer-defined-by-defeat

https://www.606v2.com/t52274-how-high-can-roger-fly

That's just a sample of recent articles about Federer. Check the author of the last one   606v2 is saturated with articles about Federer. And why not   I wonder why people get shouted at if Nadal is so much as mentioned? Or maybe I don't     

Anyway it is Djokovic with the potential to get his Golden Masters Slam that is the subject of this article too. Rafa with his Masters record is just an also ran  

The problem is HE is that your posts/opinions are:

a) nearly always about Nadal (and I'm being generous by including the word nearly)

and

b) either directly or indirectly making a point that Nadal is the best.

It is sickly. There is no balance. Which is why, on the face of it, you have managed to turn what should have been an interesting and topical OP, into a Nadal is the best thread. Even twisted around some facts about winning to make out that infact, Djokovic's potential acheivement is the same as Nadal.

We dare drift off topic which is perfectly normal and bam, can we please stick to Nadal's acheivements as he has the most Masters. Like there are only so many things to say about that.

This post is based on Nadal right? Let's try something. Please list 5 reasons why Nadal should not be considered the best, either within his generation or 'of all time'.

See if you can list 5 genuine negative things about Nadal?

FYI none of those links above are anything to do with Roger's achievements or standing in the game. Why? Because we are all aware of it and don't need it pointing out.

Interesting that Djokovic, the apparent focus of the article, fails to merit a mention within it. In contrast, despite being an also-ran Rafa gets a nice mention as having won most Masters.

@HE... you seem to have answered your own poll very authoritatively, by choosing the title of thread with the word 'greatest'. Greatestness (vis-a-vis Greatness) seems to lie in numbers.  Did any one mention this Greatestness?

Djokovic has worked very hard to be in sight of a unique achievement, which others may achieve in the future. I agree with BS, that Djokovic is a mere footnote in this thread, rather than at the center of it, which is a bit under the belt for him.

It does not matter if the player achieving a record is your favorite or not, but each one is a very laudable and unique one, whether it is the most Masters, or having one of each Masters.

He seems to be struggling at the moment, and it is questionable whether he will get the record or not, perhaps due to his family situation. I recall Nadal suffering through his parents' divorce.

Please be gentle with your dislikes, militancy is rarely laudable. I will remember to write an article on Nadal's B'day next year, perhaps if it achieves some semblance of balance in your eyes.

Djoko will have to wait to next year to complete the set. Respite for HE.

laverfan wrote:@HE... you seem to have answered your own poll very authoritatively, by choosing the title of thread with the word 'greatest'. Greatestness (vis-a-vis Greatness) seems to lie in numbers.  Did any one mention this Greatestness?

Djokovic has worked very hard to be in sight of a unique achievement, which others may achieve in the future. I agree with BS, that Djokovic is a mere footnote in this thread, rather than at the center of it, which is a bit under the belt for him.

It does not matter if the player achieving a record is your favorite or not, but each one is a very laudable and unique one, whether it is the most Masters, or having one of each Masters.

He seems to be struggling at the moment, and it is questionable whether he will get the record or not, perhaps due to his family situation. I recall Nadal suffering through his parents' divorce.

Please be gentle with your dislikes, militancy is rarely laudable. I will remember to write an article on Nadal's B'day next year, perhaps if it achieves some semblance of balance in your eyes.

I think I made it clear that IMO the whole "golden" masters "slam" was a bit silly. I like Djokovic but he isn't given any favours by the media and the ATP who persist in hyping him up by creating "holy grails" as extra pressure. I also like Federer   but he doesn't need me to point out how good he is... unlike his biggest rival   who upsets many even when his name is mentioned. 

I will remember your promise to write an article next year to celebrate Nadal's Birthday. But until it happens it's difficult for me to imagine such a thing here on 606v2...

It's Andy's birthday first HE. Perhaps you could set a precedent for laverfan?