Tennis Random, Random (On Court)

[Owendonovan]

I'll never understand what's wrong with playing a lot of 250/500s for whatever reason - to boost one's ranking, rake in some money, or get in a ton of matches, if that's what some players prefer.

Egos are what's wrong with playing a bunch of 250's and 500's. It's a completely distorted view of them by most players for some likely penile reason.

Can you elaborate? What is their distorted view?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Seems when you're a top 10, these lower point tournaments are attended as a kind of "courtesy" because you're "too good" for them. Yet, when coming back from injury or some other break, those same players absolutely need them to get back into form and get ranking points, courtesy turns to necessity. The perception of their value changes as you rise in rankings. The tournaments don't change, the players perceptions of those tournament change.

[Suliso]

Some of those tournaments are not that weak at all and serve as a valuable practice before Slams. Queens/Halle for example.

[meganfernandez]

Some of those tournaments are not that weak at all and serve as a valuable practice before Slams. Queens/Halle for example.

Especially 500s. They don't belong in this conversation.

[ponchi101]

Some of those tournaments are not that weak at all and serve as a valuable practice before Slams. Queens/Halle for example.

Especially 500s. They don't belong in this conversation.

And some players play a specific tournament because they are their hometown. Roger played Basel always, Novak of course played the tournaments in the region, solely for tradition and playing to their public.
I remember Connors once saying he played a lot of the smaller tournaments in the USA to play in front of his people. Nothing wrong with that.

[ti-amie]

Whelp.

Then again these are Challengers held during/after Madrid. A lot of these players will withdraw. The site I use for Entry Lists also posts Challenger lists but they're volatile to say the least.

[ashkor87]

What about Tsitsipas on clay? I’d put Gauff in the Top 10 on the strength of making the French final.

He is looking good again.. just beat Zverev !

[ashkor87]

i have always wondered.. in a given year, there are (max) 10 Masters tournaments, and 4 majors. Looking at the records of the great players like Djokovic, I would expect them to win about 2.5 times (or at least 2 times) as many Masters as majors. Hasnt happened..
Djokovic - 40 Masters, 24 majors
Nadal 36 Masters, 22 majors
Federer 28 Masters, 20 majors -
one excuse I can find for Federer is that there is no Masters on grass, and he has 8 Wimbledon titles..
but still, a bit unbalanced? They are all (relatively) underperformers at Masters events..I would have expected the opposite..all 3of them must have played most of the majors, harder to win them..

[Fastbackss]

i have always wondered.. in a given year, there are (max) 10 Masters tournaments, and 4 majors. Looking at the records of the great players like Djokovic, I would expect them to win about 2.5 times (or at least 2 times) as many Masters as majors. Hasnt happened..
Djokovic - 40 Masters, 24 majors
Nadal 36 Masters, 22 majors
Federer 28 Masters, 20 majors -
one excuse I can find for Federer is that there is no Masters on grass, and he has 8 Wimbledon titles..
but still, a bit unbalanced? They are all (relatively) underperformers at Masters events..I would have expected the opposite..all 3of them must have played most of the majors, harder to win them..

This was like the bat signal to me - love excuse to fall into a data hole.
Possibility as you said - more on a surface they don't prefer?
But I think there's more to it - they actually skip 1000 more than you think. They don't actually play all of them generally should be 2.5 more (10 vs 4) and it's not.
There's also fact it's 3 sets not 5.


So let's go!
Fed GS - 20/81 or 25%
Fed 1000 - 28/138 or 20%
1.7 1000 played for every grand slam.

Nadal GS - 22/67 or 32%
Nadal 1000 - 36/128 or 28%
1.9 1000 played for every grand slam

Djokovic - 24/73 or 33%
40/128 or 31%
1.75 1000 for every grand slam. (Let's remember if he wins this tournament he will have won every 1000 three times, maybe the craziest of the statistics)

Sampras 14/52 or 27%
11/89 or 19%
1.7 1000 played for every GS

The below makes me think the 3vs 5 set format argument has some merit.
(Also shows for how long the women did not have the same calibre of tournaments available to them)

Serena 23/81 or 28%
23/85 or 27%

Steffi 22/54 or 41%
18/36 or 50%

[ashkor87]

Yes, interesting take on it...their win rate is certainly higher at majors..maybe, as you say, the 5 sets format means the 'best' players win more often..but how does one define 'best '?

[Suliso]

I think it's players caring about Slams the most and that's all there is to it. Like NBA regular season and NBA playoffs.

[ashkor87]

Could be, yes..the big players are 'big match,' players

[ponchi101]

i have always wondered.. in a given year, there are (max) 10 Masters tournaments, and 4 majors. Looking at the records of the great players like Djokovic, I would expect them to win about 2.5 times (or at least 2 times) as many Masters as majors. Hasnt happened..
Djokovic - 40 Masters, 24 majors
Nadal 36 Masters, 22 majors
Federer 28 Masters, 20 majors -
one excuse I can find for Federer is that there is no Masters on grass, and he has 8 Wimbledon titles..
but still, a bit unbalanced? They are all (relatively) underperformers at Masters events..I would have expected the opposite..all 3of them must have played most of the majors, harder to win them..

This was like the bat signal to me - love excuse to fall into a data hole.
Possibility as you said - more on a surface they don't prefer?
But I think there's more to it - they actually skip 1000 more than you think. They don't actually play all of them generally should be 2.5 more (10 vs 4) and it's not.
There's also fact it's 3 sets not 5.


So let's go!
Fed GS - 20/81 or 25%
Fed 1000 - 28/138 or 20%
1.7 1000 played for every grand slam.

Nadal GS - 22/67 or 32%
Nadal 1000 - 36/128 or 28%
1.9 1000 played for every grand slam

Djokovic - 24/73 or 33%
40/128 or 31%
1.75 1000 for every grand slam. (Let's remember if he wins this tournament he will have won every 1000 three times, maybe the craziest of the statistics)

Sampras 14/52 or 27%
11/89 or 19%
1.7 1000 played for every GS

The below makes me think the 3vs 5 set format argument has some merit.
(Also shows for how long the women did not have the same calibre of tournaments available to them)

Serena 23/81 or 28%
23/85 or 27%

Steffi 22/54 or 41%
18/36 or 50%

Love your data crunching.
We talk a lot about the BO3 Vs BO5 format. One thing that I believe it is even more important is the day off. At slams, you get one day off all the time (except the USO for some time). At MS1000, you don't. And sometimes, with a late Wednesday start, you may get to play 5 days in a row.
That is tough, regardless of the sets format.

[ashkor87]

one more data point - Coco beat Kostyuk at the AO, the fastest of the courts they play on these days, and lost to her at Stuttgart, on clay. Which is exactly whatt I would have (and did) predict... Coco's biggest strength is her foot speed, which isn much of a differentiator on a slow court. Kostyuk's strength is her power, and that is in fact useful on a slow court.

[meganfernandez]

Muguruza announced her retirement. She's young enough to come back (30), but I wouldn't count on it.

[ponchi101]

I say she overachieved. With her game, two slams, one WTA Finals and two more slam finals was pretty good.
Loved her, but I guess I won't miss her.
And 30 is much to young.