ATP WTF tournament versus Master Series Tournaments: Which carries the greater weight!

Please feel free to contribute your thoughts on the relative merits of the ATP World Tour Final and Master's series tournaments. It has been suggested in another thread that winning the ATP World Tour Final essentially trumps the record at the Masters Series Tournaments.

We all probably agree that winning a grand slam tournament trumps a players Master Series record. If Murray wins Wimbledon or the US Open we won't be listing Murray's Master record as the most outstanding achievement of his career. However would an ATP World Tour Final victory be listed on top of his Masters Series records? Is it as clear cut as winning a slam tournament?

Now when looking at past winners of the ATP WTF tournament I notice that Nadal has only appeared once in an ATP "WTF" final while Murray hasn't even appeared in a Final. Federer has an impressive record in the WTF, as do Pete Sampras, Ivan Lendl and Ilie Natasie amongst others. David Ferrer, Sebastian Grosjean and the mighty James Blake have an equivalent record compared to Nadal (one-time runner up), while all these have a better record than Murray. David Nalbandian and Nikolay Davydenko have a better record than Nadal (they have won it - Nadal hasn't).

Now in comparing, the ATP WTF tournament with a players Masters Series record we must note the differences in their formats and other factors. Now it seems to me that the ATP WTF tournament is an indoor tournament played on a hard court, whereas Masters tournaments are played mainly outside and on various hard courts and clay courts. The ATP WTF occurs at the end of the year during a so-called "ATP rest period" (end of season tournament), whereas Masters tournaments occur during the in-season, and throughout the year. The ATP WTF currently only has the top 8 players in the world as ranked at the end of the ATP season (the ATP race), whereas Masters tournaments are currently a 6-round knockout involving the top 48 ranked players (give or take a few wild cards), with the top 16 receiving a bye through to the second round.

To cut a long story short my own view is that the ATP WTF tournament favours hard court "specialists" who play more conservatively relying on versatility and shot play rather than a more powerful/attritional style of play. The reasons being that a) the ATP WTF tournament is a hard court tournament and b) it relies on end of season performance levels. It should also be noticed that players who have had a "good rest" before the ATP WTF tournament would also be in a favoured position.

So overall I believe (IMVHO) that an ATP WTF tournament win is probably better than a "few" Masters series tournament wins on a hard court, but cannot be compared satisfactorily with a Masters tournament win on clay. Perhaps a single ATP WTF tournament win is equivalent to three Masters tournament wins on a hard court. That is my best effort over to you!


ps I am on holiday shortly so won't be able to contribute to the discussion.

The format of WTF allows a more competitive set of matches (no elimination till the SF stage).

Surface differences are a factor as referenced, but the counter argument of surface homogeneity can also be made. Clay has a higher bounce than WTF @London.

Current players have moved away from a 'surface' specialization to a more 'all-surface' game. There are individual surface preferences that players might have, e.g., Murray, Soderling on HC vs. Nadal on Clay.

Federer can play well on all three surfaces so can Nadal. Ferrer is good on both, but Blake may prefer HC.

It is hard to apply a 'weight' to normalise WTF vs. Masters. IMVHO, both provide players the opportunity to win a title.

Points wise, 1500 points for a WTF winner vs. 1000 points on MS is also a factor to be considered.

Factor in that the WTF comes right at the end of the season and that inevitably there are players laccking form, fitness or motivation. Based on this and the unusual format, I'd say that the ranking points available are rather generous and that it is probably no more prestigious than the better MS events (Indian Wells, Miami) but probably carries a greater kudos than winning Cincinatti for example.

After all, although all the Slams are of equal status in terms of ranking points, I think you'd not find many people who would consider an Aus Open win as prestigious as either the USO or Wimbledon. Similarly, not all Masters Series events are created equal.

dummy_half wrote:Factor in that the WTF comes right at the end of the season and that inevitably there are players lacking form, fitness or motivation.

Which makes the deduction possible, that pacing oneself to perform well at WTF does show a higher level of maturity and planning compared to MSes during the regular season. It also possibly shows that the players @ WTF are a cut 'above' the regular season players.

Tennis is played on different surfaces and is played both indoors and outdoors. It is also usually played as a knock out tournament.

Much as I like watching match ups involving the top 8 players the WTF isn't representative of the way tennis is played for the rest of the year. It favours players who are good in particular conditions above others. Also its possable to win after a loss. Some matches are played when the outcome is unimportant or worse the result will only affect one of the players. Sometimes IMO it has the feel of an exhibition rather than a competative event.

Still when the top 8 are involved there will be some great matches. Also to win it will involve beating top players. This may not always be the case in other tournaments... including slams.

I don't know how a year end masters title becomes as valuable as three hardcourt masters, that is frankly an odd calculation. At most the year ender is moderately more valuable than a regular masters. Something like a factor of 1.5 or `1.25 times greater than a regular masters, not 3 times as important that is a big stretch. In fact, a champion with one loss only gets 1000 points the same as a regular master's event I believe, not too clear on the exact scoring value of the year ender to be honest.

socal1976 wrote:In fact, a champion with one loss only gets 1000 points the same as a regular master's event I believe, not too clear on the exact scoring value of the year ender to be honest.

I think Time Please has an article on here about the regular MS and points per round.

WTF - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Rankings-FAQ.aspx#points

Edit: Barclays ATP World Tour finals 1500 for undefeated Champion (200 for each round robin match win, plus 400 for a semi-final win, plus 500 for the final win).

Only fans of The Nadull would try to diminish the importance of the WTF because of his abysmal record there. No doubt, these are the same people who think that an olympic singles gold medal is more important than the WTF.

It is much more important than a regular masters title not least because there are 9 masters tourneys each year and only one WTF.

It also pitts the best against the best. The competition is much tougher than a regular masters.

It has more ranking points.

All the greats have pretty much won it.

It is considered the fifth most important tourney after the slams.

In a sense, it is the indoor slam. When you consider that in the northern hemisphere most of the tennis is probably played by regular club players on indoor courts, then it is only fitting that there should be a big indoor tourney to rival the outdoor slams.

All the greats have tried to win it.

Yes emancipator all that is true it still isn't worth 3 times a regular master's event, it is the 5th most important tournament of the year no more and no less, ahead of a regulars masters but not 3 times as important that would make it the virtual equivalent of a grandslam, which it isn't.

socal1976 wrote:Yes emancipator all that is true it still isn't worth 3 times a regular master's event, it is the 5th most important tournament of the year no more and no less, ahead of a regulars masters but not 3 times as important that would make it the virtual equivalent of a grandslam, which it isn't.

Yes, I agree socal - of course it is nowhere near as difficult to win as a grandslam, not because of the players that you might be drawn against - clearly you could face fierce competition in every match at WTF and have a lovely draw at a major, but it still would never demand so much from a player mentally or physically as a slam where an athlete has to pace themselves for potentially 7 best of 5 matches over 2 weeks.

WTF though is, I think, rightly weighted by the ATP in ranking points as higher than a Masters because it is the final end of year test against players who are in the select group of the best 8 of the year. All the top four have proven records over all surfaces (Murray's performance at this years RG qualifies him to be regarded as an all court player too imo) so I don't think the surface argument is particularly pertinent.

Timeplease, I don't even think it is worth twice as much as a regular masters. In the masters series you don't get to lose and keep playing, and to win a masters you have to play pretty exclusively against the top players on tour. Players that get into slams don't get into the masters events, to win it you could have to win 5 straight matches against top 30 players each and everyday. The WTF is more important but not so dramitically more important than a regular master's event.

socal1976 wrote:Timeplease, I don't even think it is worth twice as much as a regular masters. In the masters series you don't get to lose and keep playing, and to win a masters you have to play pretty exclusively against the top players on tour. Players that get into slams don't get into the masters events, to win it you could have to win 5 straight matches against top 30 players each and everyday. The WTF is more important but not so dramitically more important than a regular master's event.

No, I don't either. For one thing, to win two Masters events shows a player is capable of excellence on more than one occasion. Also take your point about losing (though you are extremely unlikely to go through losing more than one, unless everyone else is dire!) Can I just be a Fed fan and say to last year, undefeated and had to win against Andy, Novak and Rafa as well! Thank you - glories few and far between now, so good to remember that one

I'll say the WTF is an exhibition event and nothing more. Masters are easily more important in a players career than them.

Simple Analyst while I agree that individual masters are very important I would say that the yearender isn't important. An undefeated champ can win 1500 ATP points and close to 2 mil. It is the 5th most important tourney, and it is valued pretty fairly in my opinion.

Socal the WTF is heavily marketed and giving many points and more money to draw more interest and comitment from the top players who let us be honest will rather be taking a break at season's end.

socal1976 wrote: I would say that the yearender isn't important.

Is or is not?

At WTF, a player has 3 RR matches, a SF and a F = 5 matches against the year's top players.

At Masters, perhaps with a Bye, 5 matches. Some of the players may be qualifiers.

The WTF is a tougher competition than Masters, IMVHO.

At WTF, 1500 points vs. MS being 1000 points. ATP has points to show relative importance.

laverfan wrote:

socal1976 wrote: I would say that the yearender isn't important.

Is or is not?

Sorry typo, it is important. Absolutely it is important, and I think it is weighted properly as the 5th biggest tourney of the year.