Bypassing Masters Titles

[GameSetAndMath]

Since the beginning of 2004, there have been four Grand Slam Winners outside of
Big 4.

1. Gaston Gudio 2004 FO
2. Marat Safin 2005 AO
3. JMDP 2009 USO
4. Stan 2012 AO

The interesting thing is that except for Marat Safin the others have not won a
Masters (or equivalently ATP 1000) title. It looks like people are bypassing it to
win Grand Slams.

What could be the reason for it? Even though they are only three set matches,
in a ATP 1000 event, players do not get a day of rest in between. Is that what is
making the difference? Any thoughts.

Of course, Gaston has retired. The other two have still a chance of winning a
Masters title.

This is in complete contrast to, say for example Andy Murray, who won several
Masters title before picking up a GS.

 

[Front242]

Too many injuries these days imo. Stan had leg/thigh problems after both prior 5 set matches last year with Novak and Del Potro is continuously carrying some form of physical ailment. Ferrer of course won the Paris masters in 2012 and hasn't won a slam but has made the French Open final last year. Besides that I reckon it's just down to inconsistency and I'm sure Del Potro and Stan and others would gladly take a masters 1000 title if they could win one at this stage.

Del Potro's scheduling has been extremely poor which lead to the injury he has at present no doubt. Who the hell with half a brain plays a tournament within 3 days of the start of a slam. Moronic is an understatement. Hopefully Janowicz might win a masters title this year to break the trend.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Masters 1000s are tough tournaments. You can have an easy first round, but after that, you are playing quality opponents , one after another, without having day offs.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Too many injuries these days imo. Stan had leg/thigh problems after both prior 5 set matches last year with Novak and Del Potro is continuously carrying some form of physical ailment. Ferrer of course won the Paris masters in 2012 and hasn't won a slam but has made the French Open final last year. Besides that I reckon it's just down to inconsistency and I'm sure Del Potro and Stan and others would gladly take a masters 1000 title if they could win one at this stage.

Del Potro's scheduling has been extremely poor which lead to the injury he has at present no doubt. Who the hell with half a brain plays a tournament within 3 days of the start of a slam. Moronic is an understatement. Hopefully Janowicz might win a masters title this year to break the trend.

Oh. I guess you misunderstood me. Sure, they will take it if they can. I was just
wondering as to what factors influenced them winning GS before MS.

One facto that I mentioned is that there is no day off in MS.

Another factor that Murat alluded to is that you cannot play yourself into form
in Masters. It is always tough opponents. Need to be sharp everyday for six days.
in a row.

 

[Front242]

Tough opponents for sure but the lack of days off lead to injuries and I still think that's a large part of it. A lot of them aren't consistently fit enough to win them imo.

 

[Moxie]

It's an interesting question, GSM. Only JMDP and Stan are active players. Gaudio was a bit of a fluke Major winner over Coria, the favorite in that match, who did have MS 1000 wins. Safin won a major early, but did win a MS in Canada just prior to his USO win in 2000. 2009 was a banner year for Juan Martin, and he did make the finals in Canada, losing to Murray. Like the slams, the big guys have been really greedy about the MS. I agree with the point that there is no rest and nowhere to hide in a MS. And with a wider field, there's a great chance of a more favorable draw. In the MS, there really isn't a favorable draw.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Since the beginning of 2004, there have been four Grand Slam Winners outside of
Big 4.

1. Gaston Gudio 2004 FO
2. Marat Safin 2005 AO
3. JMDP 2009 USO
4. Stan 2012 AO

The interesting thing is that except for Marat Safin the others have not won a
Masters (or equivalently ATP 1000) title. It looks like people are bypassing it to
win Grand Slams.

What could be the reason for it? Even though they are only three set matches,
in a ATP 1000 event, players do not get a day of rest in between. Is that what is
making the difference? Any thoughts.

Of course, Gaston has retired. The other two have still a chance of winning a
Masters title.

This is in complete contrast to, say for example Andy Murray, who won several
Masters title before picking up a GS.

I don't understand...

Most of the Masters 1000 events in the past few years have been won by the big 4, so they're not exactly getting bypassed.

Unless you mean why is it that 3 of the above players were able to win slams but not masters events. Gaudio was a fluke -- a one slam wonder. He was never that good and happened to catch fire in one tournament, which, luckily for him, was a slam.

Del Potro has come close to winning Masters 1000 events twice last year (IW and Shanghai). Wawrinka's reached a final too (Madrid). I'd say it's just a matter of circumstances. I don't think they willingly bypassed Masters. Wawrinka only really played at a really great level of tennis since last year anyway. Before that, he wasn't good enough to win big tournaments. It is somewhat odd that Del Potro has yet to win a Masters event but again, it's a matter of circumstances: DP peaked in summer of 2009. He almost won the Montreal Masters that year, then went on to win the US Open. Unfortunately, the injury he sustained after that has really affected his entire career, and he hasn't been as good since. Hence the lack of titles.

 

[Moxie]

^ It's still an interesting question, and well-pointed out. I'm not sure what you don't understand. Why wouldn't GS winners hit a MS before? It seems that would be the more natural progression. I think that was the OPs point.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Couple of clarifications.

1. I guess the word "bypassing" is probably misleading. I am not saying that these
people voluntarily and willingly let go of Masters titles. I am sure they all wanted
that too and tried their best. But, they could not win it.

2. We also know that most of the Masters titles over the last 10 years were also
grabbed by members of the big four. I am talking only about the four
outside of big 4 winners of GS here.

I was just wondering as to why the few GS winners outside of big four did not have
success at the MS level before. In particular, I was wondering as to whether it is
just a coincidence or whether we can draw some inference from it.

Marat has 5 MS to his title, but seems to have only one before his first GS.

 

[brokenshoelace]

^ It's still an interesting question, and well-pointed out. I'm not sure what you don't understand. Why wouldn't GS winners hit a MS before? It seems that would be the more natural progression. I think that was the OPs point.

Didn't say I don't think it's an interesting question and my post explained what I don't understand.

I also highlighted in my post why the particular players in question failed to win Masters 1000 events before winning a slam.

Wawrinka played his best tennis of his career in January of 2014. It was a new year, he clearly worked hard in the off season, and started the season on fire. There were no Masters events that month. There was a major. He won it.

Del Potro's level started peaking at the FO in 2009 when he gave Federer a tough match in the semi. A month later, he was a tie-break away from winning his first Masters events, lost the tie-break, then completely gassed out in the scorching heat. A few weeks later he won the US Open. The fact that he didn't win the Masters first was a technicality that wouldn't impact his chances at a major (ie things wouldn't have been different had he won that tie-break to win the Montreal Masters). Sometimes things just happen, without any particular explanation.

Masters 1000 events, like slams, have been dominated by the big four. So not many players are getting the chance to win them.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Couple of clarifications.

1. I guess the word "bypassing" is probably misleading. I am not saying that these
people voluntarily and willingly let go of Masters titles. I am sure they all wanted
that too and tried their best. But, they could not win it.

2. We also know that most of the Masters titles over the last 10 years were also
grabbed by members of the big four. I am talking only about the four
outside of big 4 winners of GS here.

I was just wondering as to why the few GS winners outside of big four did not have
success at the MS level before. In particular, I was wondering as to whether it is
just a coincidence or whether we can draw some inference from it.

Marat has 5 MS to his title, but seems to have only one before his first GS.

Gaudio, on average, wasn't really good enough to win anything. He caught fire in one tournament in the biggest fluke of the past decade.

As far as Stan and DP go, I just think it's a coincidence. As I said, Del Potro played his best tennis over a 3 months period in which he came agonizingly close to winning his first Masters 1000 event, only to win a major a few weeks later, while Wawrinka hasn't been playing elite level tennis until last year (and even then he was still not at the required level). He caught fire this year, and it so happened that the AO was the first meaningful tournament of the year.

 

[El Dude]

Nice inquiry, GameSetAndMath. A few thoughts.

Every generation is different, and every era is even more different. This current era, dominated by Generational Nadal (which includes players born form around 1985 to 1989 or so, including Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, and Del Potro), has been marked by the dominance of four players in a way that has never occurred before, at least not in the Open Era and for such a long period of time. I think what you are talking about is a direct result of this dominance.

Periods of dominance by just a few players include:

2008-13 - Big Four. The first few years were "Big 2+2", 2011 was the Year of the Djoker, and 2012 was the only true Big Four year, with 2013 being "The Revenge of the Spaniard," and more like the Big 1+1+1 with Roger pushed out. But the six year span was utterly dominated by these four, with only 1 of 24 Slams won by someone else (Del Potro, 2009 USO), 1 of 6 ATP WTF (Davydenko, 2009), and 7 of 54 Masters.
2004-07 - Fedal. 2004 was all Roger, with Nadal a clear #2 from 2005-07, and Djokovic showing up in 2007, winning two Masters.

Both of the above "sub-eras" were dominated by two, then four, players like none other. From 1996-2003 a wide range of player won big tournaments. 1994-95 was pretty dominated by "Sampragassi," but even then four other players won big tournaments, with Muster being a clear third fiddle, and Bruguera, Medvedev, and Chang all winning some big tournaments.

The 1970s and '80s always had a handful of dominant players winning the majority of tournaments, but no era was like 2004-2013. This leads me to believe that once the hold of the Big Four on the big tournaments starts breaking up, we're going to see the field open up again, more players winnning Masters tournaments.

 

[El Dude]

OK, here's a fun chart I put together. This is the total number of players each year, from 1970 through 2013, who have won a "big" tournament - either a Slam, Tour Final, or Masters equivalent.

[/URL][/img]

(Click on the chart to see it larger)

As you can see, there isn't as much an overall trend as there are ups and downs and different eras. Last year had the lowest total ever - only three players won a big tournament.

The average, if you're wondering, is 7.3 per year. Let's round that down to 7 and call that average. That means the trend has been average or below from 2004 to the present. The most comparable era is 1983-89 when McEnroe, Wilander, Lendl, Edberg, Becker and, to a lesser degree, Connors dominated the tour. You also have 1978-80 when Borg, McEnroe, and Connors dominated.

For most of the 1970s, and from 1990 to 2003, except for two years (1994-95, when Sampras, Agassi, and Muster dominated) you had a wide number of different winners.

So again, the point is that it fluctuates over time. My guess is that this will begin to break up this year, with maybe 6 or 7 winners, and similar in 2015, and then a wider open field from 2016 for a few years at least until the next super-elites take over sometime around 2020 or so.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Dude, whatever you are saying is not relevant to my question. This is not to say what
you are saying is false or not interesting. I am just saying you are way off.

 

[brokenshoelace]

OK, I'll make it simpler for everyone:

GSM is asking how come Guadio, Del Potro and Wawrinka won a slam before winning a Masters 1000 event and what are the reasons?

There, now we can avoid the confusion.

 

[Front242]

Not meaning to take anything away from Stan but a good deal of it is the result of the favourite being poor against him (Novak) and therefore opening the draw right up, then he played a brilliant first set and 2 games in the final before his opponent became hobbled and we'll truly never know how he would have fared if Nadal wasn't injured from set 2 onwards. Good chance Stan would've won anyway but nobody knows.

Roger should never have lost that final to Del Potro either in 2009. That drop shot at the end of set 2 was just ugly. And that's not just sour grapes. Anyone who has watched that match more than once can see that Roger really threw that match away, especially the 5th set, no matter who you're a fan of. He has very poor 5th set records as we know and maybe he was gassed by then, who knows. Either way, that was more a monumental loss for Roger as opposed to a monumental win for Del Potro. He should've been up 2 sets to 0 and cruising and has only himself to blame there. So that's why Del Potro won a slam before a Masters 1000.

 

[Moxie]

Not meaning to take anything away from Stan but a good deal of it is the result of the favourite being poor against him (Novak) and therefore opening the draw right up, then he played a brilliant first set and 2 games in the final before his opponent became hobbled and we'll truly never know how he would have fared if Nadal wasn't injured from set 2 onwards. Good chance Stan would've won anyway but nobody knows.

Roger should never have lost that final to Del Potro either in 2009. That drop shot at the end of set 2 was just ugly. And that's not just sour grapes. Anyone who has watched that match more than once can see that Roger really threw that match away, especially the 5th set, no matter who you're a fan of. He has very poor 5th set records as we know and maybe he was gassed by then, who knows. Either way, that was a monumental loss. So that's why Del Potro won a slam before a Masters 1000.

Well, whether meaning to take anything away from Stan or not, you are, by laying it against Juan Martin's win, which you clearly find accidental.

Either way, Gaudio's must have been a fluke, as evidenced by the fact that neither the OP nor Broken can spell even his name correctly. :cover

 

[El Dude]

Dude, whatever you are saying is not relevant to my question. This is not to say what
you are saying is false or not interesting. I am just saying you are way off.

OK, I'll make it simpler for everyone:

GSM is asking how come Guadio, Del Potro and Wawrinka won a slam before winning a Masters 1000 event and what are the reasons?

There, now we can avoid the confusion.

No, I get that - and my posts went a bit sideways from GSM's question, admittedly. But the reason why (I think) it is relevant is that it points out how there are simply fewer players winning big tournaments, so the probability of winning a Masters first is lower.

In other words, Wawrinka might not have won a Masters first partially because no one (other than the Big Four, and a few others) was winning Masters--or Slams. It might not require any more explanation.

Gaudio and Del Potro can both be considered outliers because they are (so far) "one-Slam wonders" and there are plenty of players who the stars aligned for and won that single Slam: Johannson, Costa, Ferrero, Moya, Krajicek, etc. None of these guys were great players.

Finally, I think the question is based upon the assumption that there's a sequential nature to what tournaments are won. On one hand, most players win an ATP 250 before any other tournament, or at least an ATP 250 or 500, but there seems to be a big gap between 250/500 and 1000 - and a bigger gap than between 1000 and Slam, in terms of quality of competition. Many ATP 250s don't include elite players, and if they do its usually just one or two and they might be viewing the tournament as a warm-up for a bigger tournament. ATP 500s always seem to have someone, but again, they're less invested than in a Masters or Slam.

My point being, the Masters are roughly parallel to Slams in terms of quality competition, which is another reason why winning one doesn't always, or perhaps even usually, proceed a Slam.

 

[El Dude]

One more factor is that there are simply far more Masters tournaments - more than twice - so its simply more probably to win one first, then a Slam.

But let's do some investigation. Here are all Slam winners of the last 40 years, in two categories, whether they won a Masters title (or its equivalent) first, or whether they won a Slam first:

Masters Title first:
Murray, Djokovic, Nadal, Federer, Safin, Ferrero, Roddick, Costa, Hewitt, Johansson, Moya, Ivanisevic, Agassi, Bruguera, Muster, Gomez, Courier, Lendl, McEnroe, Tanner, Vilas, Connors, Borg, Orantes, Panatta

It should be noted that quite a few of the above players won their first Masters just before their first Slam, including Moya, Nadal, Roddick and Safin.

Slam win before Masters win (includes Slam winners with no Masters wins)
Wawrinka, Del Potro, Gaudio, Kuerten, Krajicek, Rafter, Chang, Sampras, Becker, Stich, Edberg, Cash, Wilander, Kriek, Noah, Teacher, Gerulaitis, Edmondson

Conclusion: While the first list is longer, it isn't so much longer to make it rare for a player to win a Slam first. In other words, more often than not a Slam winner will first win a Masters title, but it isn't unusual for the latter to happen. All factors taken into account and it isn't inherently more likely for a player to win a Masters first, except insofar as there are more than twice as many Masters tournaments, thereby increasing the probability.

 

[Front242]

Not meaning to take anything away from Stan but a good deal of it is the result of the favourite being poor against him (Novak) and therefore opening the draw right up, then he played a brilliant first set and 2 games in the final before his opponent became hobbled and we'll truly never know how he would have fared if Nadal wasn't injured from set 2 onwards. Good chance Stan would've won anyway but nobody knows.

Roger should never have lost that final to Del Potro either in 2009. That drop shot at the end of set 2 was just ugly. And that's not just sour grapes. Anyone who has watched that match more than once can see that Roger really threw that match away, especially the 5th set, no matter who you're a fan of. He has very poor 5th set records as we know and maybe he was gassed by then, who knows. Either way, that was a monumental loss. So that's why Del Potro won a slam before a Masters 1000.

Well, whether meaning to take anything away from Stan or not, you are, by laying it against Juan Martin's win, which you clearly find accidental.

Either way, Gaudio's must have been a fluke, as evidenced by the fact that neither the OP nor Broken can spell even his name correctly. :cover

LOL about Gaudio. A fluke alright that one, for sure. Re Stan's win versus Del Potro's, there's no real comparison imo as Stan was up a set and a break 2-0 2nd set before Nadal's unfortunate back injury, whereas Fed was serving for a 2 sets to zip lead over Del Potro and royally mucked it up. In Stan's match he was very much the undisputed underdog having never even won a set against Nadal but yet he was up a set and 2-0, but Del Potro was 2 points from 2 sets to zip, which is the way things normally would go as scripted with the favourite cruising. Fed lost that one more than Del Potro won it and it was a terrible loss imo as 6 consecutive US Open titles would've been an incredible record. Not that 5 isn't, but still...these guys are greedy and so are their fans

Anyway, the one good thing to come out of it is I'm sure if Del Potro hadn't won there we wouldn't have seen any classic matches from him since. Unfortunate for him that to win it he needed to hit the ball so hard he basically broke his wrist and lost a whole year on tour.