Has anyone who has repeatedly skipped Monte Carlo won RG?

[Luxilon Borg]

Have any players that have repeatedly snubbed Monte Carlo ever won Roland Garros?

I know historically Americans have skipped Monte Carlo. There was a bunch of years where I remember that Todd Martin was the only American in the draw.

One really stands out:

 

[Riotbeard]

I think it's fair to say Federer has repeatedly skipped Monte Carlo.

 

[tented]

I think it's fair to say Federer has repeatedly skipped Monte Carlo.

Since winning RG, he has frequently skipped it. Prior to that, however, he was there almost every year, including 2005-2009.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Roger-Federer.aspx?t=pa&y=0&m=s&e=410#

I wouldn't put him in the category of having won RG while repeatedly skipping MC.

 

[Fiero425]

I think it's fair to say Federer has repeatedly skipped Monte Carlo.

It wasn't as much a snub as being realistic and not overplaying on clay! He did well to make final after final in other clay Masters! It's not the same as someone like Borg who won Wimbledon 5 times, playing 6 straight finals after skipping all grasscourt warmups like Queens! :angel:

 

[Luxilon Borg]

I think it's fair to say Federer has repeatedly skipped Monte Carlo.

No, not until after he won RG.

 

[tented]

I think it's fair to say Federer has repeatedly skipped Monte Carlo.

It wasn't as much a snub as being realistic and not overplaying on clay! He did well to make final after final in other clay Masters! It's not the same as someone like Borg who won Wimbledon 5 times, playing 6 straight finals after skipping all grasscourt warmups like Queens! :angel:

See my post above. Roger has played there 10 times, reaching the final 3 times, so your interpretation isn't accurate. He wasn't "being realistic and not overplaying on clay" since he has gone 10 times, and he didn't only reach the final in other clay Masters.

 

[Fiero425]

I think it's fair to say Federer has repeatedly skipped Monte Carlo.

It wasn't as much a snub as being realistic and not overplaying on clay! He did well to make final after final in other clay Masters! It's not the same as someone like Borg who won Wimbledon 5 times, playing 6 straight finals after skipping all grasscourt warmups like Queens! :angel:

See my post above. Roger has played there 10 times, reaching the final 3 times, so your interpretation isn't accurate. He wasn't "being realistic and not overplaying on clay" since he has gone 10 times, and he didn't only reach the final in other clay Masters.

:sleepy:

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I think it's fair to say Federer has repeatedly skipped Monte Carlo.

Since winning RG, he has frequently skipped it. Prior to that, however, he was there almost every year, including 2005-2009.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Roger-Federer.aspx?t=pa&y=0&m=s&e=410#

I wouldn't put him in the category of having won RG while repeatedly skipping MC.

It is not so much to do with winning RG. All of you should realize that MC became
non-mandatory since 2009 allowing people to skip. Before that everybody has to
play it whether they like it or not.

As 5 years of history is too less a sample space, I would not want to venture
any answer to the question posed.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

I think it's fair to say Federer has repeatedly skipped Monte Carlo.

Since winning RG, he has frequently skipped it. Prior to that, however, he was there almost every year, including 2005-2009.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Roger-Federer.aspx?t=pa&y=0&m=s&e=410#

I wouldn't put him in the category of having won RG while repeatedly skipping MC.

It is not so much to do with winning RG. All of you should realize that MC became
non-mandatory since 2009 allowing people to skip. Before that everybody has to
play it whether they like it or not.

As 5 years of history is too less a sample space, I would not want to venture
any answer to the question posed.

You might be missing the bigger picture..NOT showing up for MC to me has always signaled that there really is not a true dedication to the clay season, and no real belief at RG.

I was mystified when Sampras, and a bunch of other player would just show up in Paris not having played a tour level match on clay since the previous years RG.

Agassi was a strange bird..he would practice on hard court in Vegas early in his career then just show up the night before in France and win a few matches.

 

[Kieran]

Pete usually played the World Team Cup, in dusseldorf, I think. Funny enough, his best year in Paris, he only played the WTC and went through some great clay courters on his run to the semis. Before that, he played a few MS tourneys before Paris. After 1997, he more or less gave up on it...

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Pete usually played the World Team Cup, in dusseldorf, I think. Funny enough, his best year in Paris, he only played the WTC and went through some great clay courters on his run to the semis. Before that, he played a few MS tourneys before Paris. After 1997, he more or less gave up on it...

I believe he won one red clay title in his entire career. Rome. Becker in the final?

 

[Fiero425]

Pete usually played the World Team Cup, in dusseldorf, I think. Funny enough, his best year in Paris, he only played the WTC and went through some great clay courters on his run to the semis. Before that, he played a few MS tourneys before Paris. After 1997, he more or less gave up on it...

I believe he won one red clay title in his entire career. Rome. Becker in the final?

I saw that final and thought it ridiculous that both were in the final! lol! They both played like it wasn't clay, serve and volleying, with Becker "all at sea" vs Sampras in that match!

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Pete usually played the World Team Cup, in dusseldorf, I think. Funny enough, his best year in Paris, he only played the WTC and went through some great clay courters on his run to the semis. Before that, he played a few MS tourneys before Paris. After 1997, he more or less gave up on it...

I believe he won one red clay title in his entire career. Rome. Becker in the final?

I saw that final and thought it ridiculous that both were in the final! lol! They both played like it wasn't clay, serve and volleying, with Becker "all at sea" vs Sampras in that match!

Well guess what, it still burns Beck to THIS day that he NEVER won a clay title.uzzled

 

[Fiero425]

Pete usually played the World Team Cup, in dusseldorf, I think. Funny enough, his best year in Paris, he only played the WTC and went through some great clay courters on his run to the semis. Before that, he played a few MS tourneys before Paris. After 1997, he more or less gave up on it...

I believe he won one red clay title in his entire career. Rome. Becker in the final?

I saw that final and thought it ridiculous that both were in the final! lol! They both played like it wasn't clay, serve and volleying, with Becker "all at sea" vs Sampras in that match!

Well guess what, it still burns Beck to THIS day that he NEVER won a clay title.uzzled

Well I do believe he still led his Davis Cup team well on clay over the US and other countries regardless! :clap :angel:

 

[Tennis Miller]

Pete usually played the World Team Cup, in dusseldorf, I think. Funny enough, his best year in Paris, he only played the WTC and went through some great clay courters on his run to the semis. Before that, he played a few MS tourneys before Paris. After 1997, he more or less gave up on it...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but those clay court Masters tourneys were not mandatory when Pete was playing, were they? Wasn't ranking just based on the "Best of" a certain number of tourneys, taking the best results? I don't think you got zero mandatory points for not showing up at the clay court Masters events.

If I recall, it made sense for Pete to play more non-clay events like Tokyo and Hong Kong for the rankings. If nothing else, I believe that early exits at the clay court Masters events didn't hurt his ranking because of the format they used back then. And the #1 streak meant a lot more to him than the clay masters. Does that sound [about] right?

Cheers

TM

 

[Fiero425]

Pete usually played the World Team Cup, in dusseldorf, I think. Funny enough, his best year in Paris, he only played the WTC and went through some great clay courters on his run to the semis. Before that, he played a few MS tourneys before Paris. After 1997, he more or less gave up on it...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but those clay court Masters tourneys were not mandatory when Pete was playing, were they? Wasn't ranking just based on the "Best of" a certain number of tourneys, taking the best results? I don't think you got zero mandatory points for not showing up at the clay court Masters events.

If I recall, it made sense for Pete to play more non-clay events like Tokyo and Hong Kong for the rankings. If nothing else, I believe that early exits at the clay court Masters events didn't hurt his ranking because of the format they used back then. And the #1 streak meant a lot more to him than the clay masters. Does that sound [about] right?

Cheers

TM

Another reason for players like Sampras to skip those clay Masters was that they were best of 5 finals back then; even Hamburg! It just made no sense for serve and volleyers to go and wear themselves out, esp. if they wanted to attend the FO!

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Pete usually played the World Team Cup, in dusseldorf, I think. Funny enough, his best year in Paris, he only played the WTC and went through some great clay courters on his run to the semis. Before that, he played a few MS tourneys before Paris. After 1997, he more or less gave up on it...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but those clay court Masters tourneys were not mandatory when Pete was playing, were they? Wasn't ranking just based on the "Best of" a certain number of tourneys, taking the best results? I don't think you got zero mandatory points for not showing up at the clay court Masters events.

If I recall, it made sense for Pete to play more non-clay events like Tokyo and Hong Kong for the rankings. If nothing else, I believe that early exits at the clay court Masters events didn't hurt his ranking because of the format they used back then. And the #1 streak meant a lot more to him than the clay masters. Does that sound [about] right?

Cheers

TM

It really ticked off a lot of people when Sampras (and Agassi) insulted Muster when he got to No1 saying he "won all his points on clay", showing disdain for the surface. And Muster retorted, yeh they won all their points on hard court.

Europeans were livid when Wimbledon (and the US Open) one year tried to change the seedings according to "surface". Alex Coretjja and a bunch of others threatened not to play. I think one year Wimbledon had to redo the draw.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Pete usually played the World Team Cup, in dusseldorf, I think. Funny enough, his best year in Paris, he only played the WTC and went through some great clay courters on his run to the semis. Before that, he played a few MS tourneys before Paris. After 1997, he more or less gave up on it...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but those clay court Masters tourneys were not mandatory when Pete was playing, were they? Wasn't ranking just based on the "Best of" a certain number of tourneys, taking the best results? I don't think you got zero mandatory points for not showing up at the clay court Masters events.

If I recall, it made sense for Pete to play more non-clay events like Tokyo and Hong Kong for the rankings. If nothing else, I believe that early exits at the clay court Masters events didn't hurt his ranking because of the format they used back then. And the #1 streak meant a lot more to him than the clay masters. Does that sound [about] right?

Cheers

TM

Another reason for players like Sampras to skip those clay Masters was that they were best of 5 finals back then; even Hamburg! It just made no sense for serve and volleyers to go and wear themselves out, esp. if they wanted to attend the FO!

Sorry, but the No.1 player in the world is fit enough to play a five set final. There is no danger of "wearing out". It was best of 5 in Masters even through the Nadal Federer rivalry. They played a 5 hour final in one and Rafa still went on to win RG.

 

[Fiero425]

Pete usually played the World Team Cup, in dusseldorf, I think. Funny enough, his best year in Paris, he only played the WTC and went through some great clay courters on his run to the semis. Before that, he played a few MS tourneys before Paris. After 1997, he more or less gave up on it...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but those clay court Masters tourneys were not mandatory when Pete was playing, were they? Wasn't ranking just based on the "Best of" a certain number of tourneys, taking the best results? I don't think you got zero mandatory points for not showing up at the clay court Masters events.

If I recall, it made sense for Pete to play more non-clay events like Tokyo and Hong Kong for the rankings. If nothing else, I believe that early exits at the clay court Masters events didn't hurt his ranking because of the format they used back then. And the #1 streak meant a lot more to him than the clay masters. Does that sound [about] right?

Cheers

TM

It really ticked off a lot of people when Sampras (and Agassi) insulted Muster when he got to No1 saying he "won all his points on clay", showing disdain for the surface. And Muster retorted, yeh they won all their points on hard court.

Europeans were livid when Wimbledon (and the US Open) one year tried to change the seedings according to "surface". Alex Coretjja and a bunch of others threatened not to play. I think one year Wimbledon had to redo the draw.

It may not have been fair, but it made sense to drop the seeds of a lot of clay court specialist when you knew they would be toast on grass or HC! The courts are more consistant now, even grass so they don't need to "monkey" with the seedings anymore!

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Pete usually played the World Team Cup, in dusseldorf, I think. Funny enough, his best year in Paris, he only played the WTC and went through some great clay courters on his run to the semis. Before that, he played a few MS tourneys before Paris. After 1997, he more or less gave up on it...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but those clay court Masters tourneys were not mandatory when Pete was playing, were they? Wasn't ranking just based on the "Best of" a certain number of tourneys, taking the best results? I don't think you got zero mandatory points for not showing up at the clay court Masters events.

If I recall, it made sense for Pete to play more non-clay events like Tokyo and Hong Kong for the rankings. If nothing else, I believe that early exits at the clay court Masters events didn't hurt his ranking because of the format they used back then. And the #1 streak meant a lot more to him than the clay masters. Does that sound [about] right?

Cheers

TM

It really ticked off a lot of people when Sampras (and Agassi) insulted Muster when he got to No1 saying he "won all his points on clay", showing disdain for the surface. And Muster retorted, yeh they won all their points on hard court.

Europeans were livid when Wimbledon (and the US Open) one year tried to change the seedings according to "surface". Alex Coretjja and a bunch of others threatened not to play. I think one year Wimbledon had to redo the draw.

It may not have been fair, but it made sense to drop the seeds of a lot of clay court specialist when you knew they would be toast on grass or HC! The courts are more consistant now, even grass so they don't need to "monkey" with the seedings anymore!

The players were upset were right. They EARNED their seed positions and they were supposed to mirror the world rankings in practice.

What if RG decided to seed Sampras No.7, or Roddick No. 20 (when he was top 5), or Rafter No. 8 (when he was No.1) There would have been a massive outcry.