Has anyone who has repeatedly skipped Monte Carlo won 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

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.

I agree, but it seems like the ATP is catering to the top players so they don't have it as tough as the previous era; few best of 5 finals! I didn't mind when IW went best of 3, but Miami is supposed to be the 5th major and I wasn't happy about that change!

 

[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.

I agree, but it seems like the ATP is catering to the top players so they don't have it as tough as the previous era; few best of 5 finals! I didn't mind when IW went best of 3, but Miami is supposed to be the 5th major and I wasn't happy about that change!

I agree. But it had nothing to do with the players. It was TV. The American viewing public developed a zero attention span, and unlike trash sports like basketball, you can't cut away every three minutes for a commercial. Then you have idiots like Mary Carillo saying 3 out 5 is too long a match.

 

[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...

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

Kutzbuhel too, I think...

 

[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?

Kutzbuhel too, I think...

Wow, good call! 1992.

 

[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...

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

That's right, the whole concept of MS titles wasn't so codified back then. Now they're organised and promoted and protected to an extent that didn't exist before. They were always prestigious but not so much as they are now, where they've become mandatory, which I think has been a good move for the sport...

 

[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

That's right, the whole concept of MS titles wasn't so codified back then. Now they're organised and promoted and protected to an extent that didn't exist before. They were always prestigious but not so much as they are now, where they've become mandatory, which I think has been a good move for the sport...

I would think mandatory or not, with a slam approaching on clay, I would want a minimum of 4 weeks on the surface to prepare, and maybe even more. The whole point is if you look at the winners of RG going back decades, they have had success at MC..(Champion, Finals, Semis etc)

Not playing MC because it is not"mandatory" shows me where the player stands on the surface.

 

[Front242]

Minimum 4 weeks?! They play 1 week before Wimbledon Djokovic rarely plays any grass prep. I'd say 4 weeks is way too much myself. Historically Nadal's been amazing at all the clay events but physically playing that many events isn't the brightest for most players.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Minimum 4 weeks?! They play 1 week before Wimbledon Djokovic rarely plays any grass prep. I'd say 4 weeks is way too much myself. Historically Nadal's been amazing at all the clay events but physically playing that many events isn't the brightest for most players.

First, remember if you schedule 4 weeks of clay, only a handful of players are going to go deep every week. There is a particular kind of physical conditioning required for clay. I am training on red clay now, it is biatch....

The short period of time between the French and Wimby is a layover from when ALL top tier amateur tennis and 75% pro tennis up until 1975 was played on grass.

It is ultimately about commitment. Nadal and Fed up until 2010 went deep into RG, with 4 finals, and yet still managed to play 3 times in the final at Wimbledon

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Minimum 4 weeks?! They play 1 week before Wimbledon Djokovic rarely plays any grass prep. I'd say 4 weeks is way too much myself. Historically Nadal's been amazing at all the clay events but physically playing that many events isn't the brightest for most players.

First, remember if you schedule 4 weeks of clay, only a handful of players are going to go deep every week. There is a particular kind of physical conditioning required for clay. I am training on red clay now, it is biatch....

The short period of time between the French and Wimby is a layover from when ALL top tier amateur tennis and 75% pro tennis up until 1975 was played on grass.It is ultimately about commitment. Nadal and Fed up until 2010 went deep into RG, with 4 finals, and yet still managed to play 3 times in the final at Wimbledon

French Open was always played on clay. So, the short gap is not a remanant from old times.
If somebody reads your post, they will think that prior to 1975 FO was played on grass and
so they did not need long transition period; that just was not the case.

An interesting tidbit. For couple of years, the FO was actually held after Wimbledon.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I agree. But it had nothing to do with the players. It was TV. The American viewing public developed a zero attention span, and unlike trash sports like basketball, you can't cut away every three minutes for a commercial. Then you have idiots like Mary Carillo saying 3 out 5 is too long a match.

:nono

 

[Luxilon Borg]

I agree. But it had nothing to do with the players. It was TV. The American viewing public developed a zero attention span, and unlike trash sports like basketball, you can't cut away every three minutes for a commercial. Then you have idiots like Mary Carillo saying 3 out 5 is too long a match.

:nono

Heheh..I knew I would get some heat for that one...

 

[Front242]

Minimum 4 weeks?! They play 1 week before Wimbledon Djokovic rarely plays any grass prep. I'd say 4 weeks is way too much myself. Historically Nadal's been amazing at all the clay events but physically playing that many events isn't the brightest for most players.

First, remember if you schedule 4 weeks of clay, only a handful of players are going to go deep every week. There is a particular kind of physical conditioning required for clay. I am training on red clay now, it is biatch....

The short period of time between the French and Wimby is a layover from when ALL top tier amateur tennis and 75% pro tennis up until 1975 was played on grass.

It is ultimately about commitment. Nadal and Fed up until 2010 went deep into RG, with 4 finals, and yet still managed to play 3 times in the final at Wimbledon

Well the guys who are guilty of overplaying on clay are the guys who play their best matches all year on clay so it's not the dumbest move in the world either. That said, for older players 4+ (as you said minimum 4 weeks! :s ) weeks on clay prior to RG is absolutely nuts unless you plan on losing in the 1st or 2nd round in each. Slams are way more important than the events prior to them. Even younger guys like Fognini who are improving all the time on clay would be wise to not play anywhere near 4 weeks on clay if they want to stand a chance at RG. What's the point of coming in all tired with dead legs.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Minimum 4 weeks?! They play 1 week before Wimbledon Djokovic rarely plays any grass prep. I'd say 4 weeks is way too much myself. Historically Nadal's been amazing at all the clay events but physically playing that many events isn't the brightest for most players.

First, remember if you schedule 4 weeks of clay, only a handful of players are going to go deep every week. There is a particular kind of physical conditioning required for clay. I am training on red clay now, it is biatch....

The short period of time between the French and Wimby is a layover from when ALL top tier amateur tennis and 75% pro tennis up until 1975 was played on grass.It is ultimately about commitment. Nadal and Fed up until 2010 went deep into RG, with 4 finals, and yet still managed to play 3 times in the final at Wimbledon

French Open was always played on clay. So, the short gap is not a remanant from old times.
If somebody reads your post, they will think that prior to 1975 FO was played on grass and
so they did not need long transition period; that just was not the case.

An interesting tidbit. For couple of years, the FO was actually held after Wimbledon.

Thanks for clarifying. I never meant that RG was played on grass. I really meant that hard court had not taken hold yet. The Aussie, US, and Wimby were grass, as were most of the smaller tournaments.

That is interesting..what time period was that?

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Minimum 4 weeks?! They play 1 week before Wimbledon Djokovic rarely plays any grass prep. I'd say 4 weeks is way too much myself. Historically Nadal's been amazing at all the clay events but physically playing that many events isn't the brightest for most players.

First, remember if you schedule 4 weeks of clay, only a handful of players are going to go deep every week. There is a particular kind of physical conditioning required for clay. I am training on red clay now, it is biatch....

The short period of time between the French and Wimby is a layover from when ALL top tier amateur tennis and 75% pro tennis up until 1975 was played on grass.

It is ultimately about commitment. Nadal and Fed up until 2010 went deep into RG, with 4 finals, and yet still managed to play 3 times in the final at Wimbledon

Well the guys who are guilty of overplaying on clay are the guys who play their best matches all year on clay so it's not the dumbest move in the world either. That said, for older players 4+ (as you said minimum 4 weeks! :s ) weeks on clay prior to RG is absolutely nuts unless you plan on losing in the 1st or 2nd round in each. Slams are way more important than the events prior to them. Even younger guys like Fognini who are improving all the time on clay would be wise to not play anywhere near 4 weeks on clay if they want to stand a chance at RG. What's the point of coming in all tired with dead legs.

So, that being said, how many weeks has Nadal played on clay traditionally and how many RGs has he won? Novak is committing to at least 4 weeks, so is Fed, Wawrinka, etc.

I also find interesting that players who play 5 weeks of hard court tennis before the USO don't get accused of over playing.

 

[Front242]

Minimum 4 weeks?! They play 1 week before Wimbledon Djokovic rarely plays any grass prep. I'd say 4 weeks is way too much myself. Historically Nadal's been amazing at all the clay events but physically playing that many events isn't the brightest for most players.

First, remember if you schedule 4 weeks of clay, only a handful of players are going to go deep every week. There is a particular kind of physical conditioning required for clay. I am training on red clay now, it is biatch....

The short period of time between the French and Wimby is a layover from when ALL top tier amateur tennis and 75% pro tennis up until 1975 was played on grass.

It is ultimately about commitment. Nadal and Fed up until 2010 went deep into RG, with 4 finals, and yet still managed to play 3 times in the final at Wimbledon

Well the guys who are guilty of overplaying on clay are the guys who play their best matches all year on clay so it's not the dumbest move in the world either. That said, for older players 4+ (as you said minimum 4 weeks! :s ) weeks on clay prior to RG is absolutely nuts unless you plan on losing in the 1st or 2nd round in each. Slams are way more important than the events prior to them. Even younger guys like Fognini who are improving all the time on clay would be wise to not play anywhere near 4 weeks on clay if they want to stand a chance at RG. What's the point of coming in all tired with dead legs.

So, that being said, how many weeks has Nadal played on clay traditionally and how many RGs has he won? Novak is committing to at least 4 weeks, so is Fed, Wawrinka, etc.

I also find interesting that players who play 5 weeks of hard court tennis before the USO don't get accused of over playing.

The other guys besides the one time big four aren't as good as these guys so they need to be as fresh as possible to stand a chance of winning. Overplaying on clay not only reduces your chances at RG but also Wimbledon.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Minimum 4 weeks?! They play 1 week before Wimbledon Djokovic rarely plays any grass prep. I'd say 4 weeks is way too much myself. Historically Nadal's been amazing at all the clay events but physically playing that many events isn't the brightest for most players.

First, remember if you schedule 4 weeks of clay, only a handful of players are going to go deep every week. There is a particular kind of physical conditioning required for clay. I am training on red clay now, it is biatch....

The short period of time between the French and Wimby is a layover from when ALL top tier amateur tennis and 75% pro tennis up until 1975 was played on grass.

It is ultimately about commitment. Nadal and Fed up until 2010 went deep into RG, with 4 finals, and yet still managed to play 3 times in the final at Wimbledon

Well the guys who are guilty of overplaying on clay are the guys who play their best matches all year on clay so it's not the dumbest move in the world either. That said, for older players 4+ (as you said minimum 4 weeks! :s ) weeks on clay prior to RG is absolutely nuts unless you plan on losing in the 1st or 2nd round in each. Slams are way more important than the events prior to them. Even younger guys like Fognini who are improving all the time on clay would be wise to not play anywhere near 4 weeks on clay if they want to stand a chance at RG. What's the point of coming in all tired with dead legs.

So, that being said, how many weeks has Nadal played on clay traditionally and how many RGs has he won? Novak is committing to at least 4 weeks, so is Fed, Wawrinka, etc.

I also find interesting that players who play 5 weeks of hard court tennis before the USO don't get accused of over playing.

The other guys besides the one time big four aren't as good as these guys so they need to be as fresh as possible to stand a chance of winning. Overplaying on clay not only reduces your chances at RG but also Wimbledon.

I don't see the logic. If the other guys "aren't as good" then they will be out the first week of RG which means plenty of practice on grass and rest.

 

[Front242]

Well Ferrer pushes himself way too hard all year round and at 32 it's finally beginning to catch up on him. Semis at RG in 2012 and final last year thanks to a favourable draw but before that you have to go back to 2008 for his next best result at RG, 1/4 final. I'm no fan of him but I can tell you this...he's clearly of the the best players out there on clay and imo he's overplayed a ton on clay all his career and should've made more 1/4 finals at least and probably semis too. Going deep in every tournament on clay formed the bulk of his points but it's also hurt him badly at RG besides the semis and final appearances.

There's no way a guy as good as Ferrer on clay should have 4 losses in just the 3rd round, one in the 4th round and 2 2nd round losses.

Edited 'cos I see he made 1/4s in 2005 too but he's had some bad losses there and imo because he concentrated too much on the pile of inferior tournaments before the big one. And way too many players do this before the slams but given how good he is on clay, that's a glaring example.

Tommy Haas has royally ****ed his chances for the year already by playing too much and it's only April.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Well Ferrer pushes himself way too hard all year round and at 32 it's finally beginning to catch up on him. Semis at RG in 2012 and final last year thanks to a favourable draw but before that you have to go back to 2008 for his next best result at RG, 1/4 final. I'm no fan of him but I can tell you this...he's clearly of the the best players out there on clay and imo he's overplayed a ton on clay all his career and should've made more 1/4 finals at least and probably semis too. Going deep in every tournament on clay formed the bulk of his points but it's also hurt him badly at RG besides the semis and final appearances.

There's no way a guy as good as Ferrer on clay should have 4 losses in just the 3rd round, one in the 4th round and 2 2nd round losses.

Edited 'cos I see he made 1/4s in 2005 too but he's had some bad losses there and imo because he concentrated too much on the pile of inferior tournaments before the big one. And way too many players do this before the slams but given how good he is on clay, that's a glaring example.

Agree concerning Ferrer, but he is also unique among the top ten. He cannot end points with one shot in most instances, and it is full on grind with him, match in match out. The guys who play way less than him, like Almagro and Roberdo have very similar results at RG overall.

 

[Front242]

Well Ferrer pushes himself way too hard all year round and at 32 it's finally beginning to catch up on him. Semis at RG in 2012 and final last year thanks to a favourable draw but before that you have to go back to 2008 for his next best result at RG, 1/4 final. I'm no fan of him but I can tell you this...he's clearly of the the best players out there on clay and imo he's overplayed a ton on clay all his career and should've made more 1/4 finals at least and probably semis too. Going deep in every tournament on clay formed the bulk of his points but it's also hurt him badly at RG besides the semis and final appearances.

There's no way a guy as good as Ferrer on clay should have 4 losses in just the 3rd round, one in the 4th round and 2 2nd round losses.

Edited 'cos I see he made 1/4s in 2005 too but he's had some bad losses there and imo because he concentrated too much on the pile of inferior tournaments before the big one. And way too many players do this before the slams but given how good he is on clay, that's a glaring example.

Agree concerning Ferrer, but he is also unique among the top ten. He cannot end points with one shot in most instances, and it is full on grind with him, match in match out. The guys who play way less than him, like Almagro and Roberdo have very similar results at RG overall.

Almagro's problem is he's a headcase often blowing matches he should win and is a major underachiever imo as he has big weapons unlike Ferrer and Robredo. Tommy's done well at RG considering the lack of weapons but Ferrer is a better player on clay and overplaying hurt his chances many, many times at RG and I think he should've had similar QF appearances to Robredo when in fact he lost in the 2nd, 3rd or 4th rounds many times. Going deep in the events before RG tired him out too much and though he's had some good results in the clay events prior to RG, I'm sure he'd trade a few finals at Barcelona for a few more quarters or semis at RG instead of the dismal 2nd and 3rd round losses as a result of overplaying.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Minimum 4 weeks?! They play 1 week before Wimbledon Djokovic rarely plays any grass prep. I'd say 4 weeks is way too much myself. Historically Nadal's been amazing at all the clay events but physically playing that many events isn't the brightest for most players.

First, remember if you schedule 4 weeks of clay, only a handful of players are going to go deep every week. There is a particular kind of physical conditioning required for clay. I am training on red clay now, it is biatch....

The short period of time between the French and Wimby is a layover from when ALL top tier amateur tennis and 75% pro tennis up until 1975 was played on grass.It is ultimately about commitment. Nadal and Fed up until 2010 went deep into RG, with 4 finals, and yet still managed to play 3 times in the final at Wimbledon

French Open was always played on clay. So, the short gap is not a remanant from old times.
If somebody reads your post, they will think that prior to 1975 FO was played on grass and
so they did not need long transition period; that just was not the case.

An interesting tidbit. For couple of years, the FO was actually held after Wimbledon.

Thanks for clarifying. I never meant that RG was played on grass. I really meant that hard court had not taken hold yet. The Aussie, US, and Wimby were grass, as were most of the smaller tournaments.

That is interesting..what time period was that?

Let me paraphrase your statement so that it becomes more accurate. The LONG
warm up season on clay before the French Open begins is probably a remnant from old
times when everything other than FO was played on grass (necessitating a long
warm up season of clay tournaments).

p.s. It was in 1946 and 47 when FO was held after Wimby as per wiki, but I don't know the reason.