Has anyone who has repeatedly skipped Monte Carlo won RG?

[Moxie]

^Gracious response.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

BTW, one player that came in to my mind, is the most obvious, is Murray. He has routinely opted out of Monter Carlo, and he has the poorest results, by far, of the big 4, at RG.

The problem is you get the feeling that he routinely skips MC as he flames out of the
tournaments well before it heats up. I don't think Murray "routinely" skips MC. I am telling
this off the top of my head, but have to check the actual details though.

If I am right, this is probably the first year Murray has skipped MC after it became
non-mandatory.

 

[Fiero425]

BTW, one player that came in to my mind, is the most obvious, is Murray. He has routinely opted out of Monter Carlo, and he has the poorest results, by far, of the big 4, at RG.

The problem is you get the feeling that he routinely skips MC as he flames out of the
tournaments well before it heats up. I don't think Murray "routinely" skips MC. I am telling
this off the top of my head, but have to check the actual details though.

If I am right, this is probably the first year Murray has skipped MC after it became
non-mandatory.

If you're over 28, I think you're nuts to play all those clay events before the FO; esp. Federer and Haas! They aren't going to win any of them, will use a lot of their stamina trying, then probably fizzle out early at the main event! Federer is about due for a nasty early round loss in Paris! He's been superhuman even making all those finals, but he's tempting fate each year he keeps trying! He finally holds the record for consec. majors over Wayne Ferreira's 56! Maybe Mirka will be in labor and he'll skip it; hopefully! :angel: :idea: :heart:

 

[Moxie]

^ I checked, though not results. He played in '06 (I didn't check prior,) he withdrew in '07 due to back injury. He played every other year, until this one. I don't know when MC became non-mandatory, but you're right, or close. Anyway, no…he hasn't skipped it a lot.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

MC became non-mandatory since 2009 and so I am right. You cannot accuse Murray
of routinely skipping it when he has played in it for five years in a row since it became
non-mandatory.

This year, he has mutliple issues. Recovering from back op, dealing with bad form
and dealing with coaching situation. I think he made a good decision in skipping MC.

 

[Moxie]

BTW, one player that came in to my mind, is the most obvious, is Murray. He has routinely opted out of Monter Carlo, and he has the poorest results, by far, of the big 4, at RG.

The problem is you get the feeling that he routinely skips MC as he flames out of the
tournaments well before it heats up. I don't think Murray "routinely" skips MC. I am telling
this off the top of my head, but have to check the actual details though.

If I am right, this is probably the first year Murray has skipped MC after it became
non-mandatory.

If you're over 28, I think you're nuts to play all those clay events before the FO; esp. Federer and Haas! They aren't going to win any of them, will use a lot of their stamina trying, then probably fizzle out early at the main event! Federer is about due for a nasty early round loss in Paris! He's been superhuman even making all those finals, but he's tempting fate each year he keeps trying! He finally holds the record for consec. majors over Wayne Ferreira's 56! Maybe Mirka will be in labor and he'll skip it; hopefully! :angel: :idea: :heart:

By "all those clay events," I guess you mean MC, Madrid and Rome. Never mind Haas, because he's injured. But Roger took a WC to be here at MC. It's one of two MS he's never won, and he's been playing well. Do you think that was a bad choice? He can skip Madrid, if he wants to, (I think, actually legally, given his status of number of ATP matches.) Since he's been playing well, why NOT try for MC and/or Rome? Plus, if he's healthy, they are good tune-ups.

 

[Front242]

BTW, one player that came in to my mind, is the most obvious, is Murray. He has routinely opted out of Monter Carlo, and he has the poorest results, by far, of the big 4, at RG.

The problem is you get the feeling that he routinely skips MC as he flames out of the
tournaments well before it heats up. I don't think Murray "routinely" skips MC. I am telling
this off the top of my head, but have to check the actual details though.

If I am right, this is probably the first year Murray has skipped MC after it became
non-mandatory.

If you're over 28, I think you're nuts to play all those clay events before the FO; esp. Federer and Haas! They aren't going to win any of them, will use a lot of their stamina trying, then probably fizzle out early at the main event! Federer is about due for a nasty early round loss in Paris! He's been superhuman even making all those finals, but he's tempting fate each year he keeps trying! He finally holds the record for consec. majors over Wayne Ferreira's 56! Maybe Mirka will be in labor and he'll skip it; hopefully! :angel: :idea: :heart:

Roger's clearly playing Monte Carlo for points and to get points in the race to London/secure a better ranking because he's taking an extended break when Mirka gives birth so he's likely to miss Toronto or some other big event. Hopefully not a slam. They say she's due in July. So there's method to the madness of playing here

 

[GameSetAndMath]

According to ATP rules, Roger can legally skip all the nine Masters events, if he
so chooses, without any penalty due to his stauts (No, I am not making this up, this is real. It is based on number of matches played, number of matches won, age, years in play etc).

 

[Luxilon Borg]

According to ATP rules, Roger can legally skip all the nine Masters events, if he
so chooses, without any penalty due to his stauts (No, I am not making this up, this is real. It is based on number of matches played, number of matches won, age, years in play etc).

Wow. That is very interesting. Do you have a link?

 

[Fiero425]

According to ATP rules, Roger can legally skip all the nine Masters events, if he
so chooses, without any penalty due to his stauts (No, I am not making this up, this is real. It is based on number of matches played, number of matches won, age, years in play etc).

I had heard they had initiated some new rules to insure another "Borg situation" wouldn't occur! That was without a doubt the stupidest thing to allow happen back in '82! Borg was a "rock star" with a status that no one has really achieved since! Federer and Tiger Woods have come close, but to this day most people think Borg left on his own or McEnroe ran him out of the game! That was the furthest thing from the truth and it ticks me off a myth is being perpetrated on people who think they're true historians of the sport! You never hear what really happened!

If memory serves we laud Laver and I give him all due props for his achievements, have sympathy for the lost years in his prime before Open tennis, but the man had his Rafa; Lew Hoad! I think I heard The Rocket was 0-7 against him at one time; maybe even worse off! It's never spoken of to save his legacy I guess, but it's still a fraud through omission! I'm sure there's a book out there with all these factoids, but I wish I could understand why commentators who probably know these truths almost never bring it up? That's how we learn things! :nono uzzled :huh: :idea:

 

[GameSetAndMath]

According to ATP rules, Roger can legally skip all the nine Masters events, if he
so chooses, without any penalty due to his stauts (No, I am not making this up, this is real. It is based on number of matches played, number of matches won, age, years in play etc).

Wow. That is very interesting. Do you have a link?

Here is a cut and paste of the rules in verbatim. Just observe that Roger has already met
all three criteria.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. A player’s number of ATP World Tour Masters 1000 commitment tournaments shall
be reduced by one (1) tournament for reaching each of the following milestones:
1) 600 matches* (as of 1 January of the commitment year);
2) 12 years of service;
3) 31 years of age (as of 1 January of the commitment year).
If all three (3) conditions are met then the player has a complete exemption
from the ATP World Tour Masters 1000 player commitment.
The first Year of Service shall be the first calendar year in which a player has
competed in at least twelve (12) tournaments offering ATP ranking points.
* From 2010 only main draw singles matches played in the following
events will be used in the player’s match count for purposes of this rule.
ATP World Tour
Barclays ATP World Tour Final
Grand Slams
Davis Cup
Olympics
Challenger and Futures matches played prior to 2010 will remain on the player’s
record as relates to this commitment reduction rule.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Moxie]

According to ATP rules, Roger can legally skip all the nine Masters events, if he
so chooses, without any penalty due to his stauts (No, I am not making this up, this is real. It is based on number of matches played, number of matches won, age, years in play etc).

Wow. That is very interesting. Do you have a link?

From the ATP rulebook:

1. Reduction of ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Commitment

A. A player’s number of ATP World Tour Masters 1000 commitment tournaments shall
be reduced by one (1) tournament for reaching each of the following milestones:
1) 600 matches* (as of 1 January of the commitment year);
2) 12 years of service;
3) 31 years of age (as of 1 January of the commitment year).

If all three (3) conditions are met then the player has a complete exemption
from the ATP World Tour Masters 1000 player commitment.

The first Year of Service shall be the first calendar year in which a player has
competed in at least twelve (12) tournaments offering ATP ranking points.

The bolding is mine. Here is the link:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Corporate/Rulebook.aspx

By these rules, I think Nadal is also exempt from 2 required MS. Not sure who else would be.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

According to ATP rules, Roger can legally skip all the nine Masters events, if he
so chooses, without any penalty due to his stauts (No, I am not making this up, this is real. It is based on number of matches played, number of matches won, age, years in play etc).

Wow. That is very interesting. Do you have a link?

From the ATP rulebook:

1. Reduction of ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Commitment

A. A player’s number of ATP World Tour Masters 1000 commitment tournaments shall
be reduced by one (1) tournament for reaching each of the following milestones:
1) 600 matches* (as of 1 January of the commitment year);
2) 12 years of service;
3) 31 years of age (as of 1 January of the commitment year).

If all three (3) conditions are met then the player has a complete exemption
from the ATP World Tour Masters 1000 player commitment.

The first Year of Service shall be the first calendar year in which a player has
competed in at least twelve (12) tournaments offering ATP ranking points.

The bolding is mine. Here is the link:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Corporate/Rulebook.aspx

By these rules, I think Nadal is also exempt from 2 required MS. Not sure who else would be.

Amazing. This is news to me...thanks GMS for digging it up and Moxie for bolding. Very interesting and I bet most fans are unaware of these rules.

 

[Fiero425]

According to ATP rules, Roger can legally skip all the nine Masters events, if he
so chooses, without any penalty due to his stauts (No, I am not making this up, this is real. It is based on number of matches played, number of matches won, age, years in play etc).

Wow. That is very interesting. Do you have a link?

From the ATP rulebook:

1. Reduction of ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Commitment

A. A player’s number of ATP World Tour Masters 1000 commitment tournaments shall
be reduced by one (1) tournament for reaching each of the following milestones:
1) 600 matches* (as of 1 January of the commitment year);
2) 12 years of service;
3) 31 years of age (as of 1 January of the commitment year).

If all three (3) conditions are met then the player has a complete exemption
from the ATP World Tour Masters 1000 player commitment.

The first Year of Service shall be the first calendar year in which a player has
competed in at least twelve (12) tournaments offering ATP ranking points.

The bolding is mine. Here is the link:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Corporate/Rulebook.aspx

By these rules, I think Nadal is also exempt from 2 required MS. Not sure who else would be.

Amazing. This is news to me...thanks GMS for digging it up and Moxie for bolding. Very interesting and I bet most fans are unaware of these rules.

I don't watch every match anymore; nowhere near, but I heard this mentioned once during a match a couple years ago; that's it! :nono :angel:

 

[Luxilon Borg]

According to ATP rules, Roger can legally skip all the nine Masters events, if he
so chooses, without any penalty due to his stauts (No, I am not making this up, this is real. It is based on number of matches played, number of matches won, age, years in play etc).

I had heard they had initiated some new rules to insure another "Borg situation" wouldn't occur! That was without a doubt the stupidest thing to allow happen back in '82! Borg was a "rock star" with a status that no one has really achieved since! Federer and Tiger Woods have come close, but to this day most people think Borg left on his own or McEnroe ran him out of the game! That was the furthest thing from the truth and it ticks me off a myth is being perpetrated on people who think they're true historians of the sport! You never hear what really happened!

If memory serves we laud Laver and I give him all due props for his achievements, have sympathy for the lost years in his prime before Open tennis, but the man had his Rafa; Lew Hoad! I think I heard The Rocket was 0-7 against him at one time; maybe even worse off! It's never spoken of to save his legacy I guess, but it's still a fraud through omission! I'm sure there's a book out there with all these factoids, but I wish I could understand why commentators who probably know these truths almost never bring it up? That's how we learn things! :nono uzzled :huh: :idea:

You speak of the Gods my son.

 

[Fiero425]

According to ATP rules, Roger can legally skip all the nine Masters events, if he
so chooses, without any penalty due to his stauts (No, I am not making this up, this is real. It is based on number of matches played, number of matches won, age, years in play etc).

I had heard they had initiated some new rules to insure another "Borg situation" wouldn't occur! That was without a doubt the stupidest thing to allow happen back in '82! Borg was a "rock star" with a status that no one has really achieved since! Federer and Tiger Woods have come close, but to this day most people think Borg left on his own or McEnroe ran him out of the game! That was the furthest thing from the truth and it ticks me off a myth is being perpetrated on people who think they're true historians of the sport! You never hear what really happened!

If memory serves we laud Laver and I give him all due props for his achievements, have sympathy for the lost years in his prime before Open tennis, but the man had his Rafa; Lew Hoad! I think I heard The Rocket was 0-7 against him at one time; maybe even worse off! It's never spoken of to save his legacy I guess, but it's still a fraud through omission! I'm sure there's a book out there with all these factoids, but I wish I could understand why commentators who probably know these truths almost never bring it up? That's how we learn things! :nono uzzled :huh: :idea:

You speak of the Gods my son.

That so called rivalry was a sham IMO as well since it had the same dynamics as Federer and Nadal! Borg had already been a pro since he was 15, was even seeded #5 or 6 at '73 Wimbledon due to men's strike/boycott! To me it just wasn't fair since McEnroe was so much younger and wasn't half as experienced and "burned out!" Borg's true rivals were Connors, Vitas, Vilas, Solomon, Dibbs, Orantes, Panatta, Gottfried, Tanner, Stockton, Nastase, and Fillol! Bjorn was only beating up on one old man of his era; Laver! They had some great matches, Laver even taking him to 5 sets in the semi-final of the old WCT championships in '75! We didn't get a chance to see it, but it was obvious Rod took a lot out of the kid! Ashe had little trouble with a visibly exhausted Borg in the final!

 

[GameSetAndMath]

According to ATP rules, Roger can legally skip all the nine Masters events, if he
so chooses, without any penalty due to his stauts (No, I am not making this up, this is real. It is based on number of matches played, number of matches won, age, years in play etc).

Wow. That is very interesting. Do you have a link?

From the ATP rulebook:

1. Reduction of ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Commitment

A. A player’s number of ATP World Tour Masters 1000 commitment tournaments shall
be reduced by one (1) tournament for reaching each of the following milestones:
1) 600 matches* (as of 1 January of the commitment year);
2) 12 years of service;
3) 31 years of age (as of 1 January of the commitment year).

If all three (3) conditions are met then the player has a complete exemption
from the ATP World Tour Masters 1000 player commitment.

The first Year of Service shall be the first calendar year in which a player has
competed in at least twelve (12) tournaments offering ATP ranking points.

The bolding is mine. Here is the link:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Corporate/Rulebook.aspx

By these rules, I think Nadal is also exempt from 2 required MS. Not sure who else would be.

Amazing. This is news to me...thanks GMS for digging it up and Moxie for bolding. Very interesting and I bet most fans are unaware of these rules.

I don't watch every match anymore; nowhere near, but I heard this mentioned once during a match a couple years ago; that's it! :nono :angel:

Oh Boy, you are controlling your emotions. I have never seen a post from you before with
anything less than three smileys.

 

[Moxie]

According to ATP rules, Roger can legally skip all the nine Masters events, if he
so chooses, without any penalty due to his stauts (No, I am not making this up, this is real. It is based on number of matches played, number of matches won, age, years in play etc).

Wow. That is very interesting. Do you have a link?

From the ATP rulebook:

1. Reduction of ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Commitment

A. A player’s number of ATP World Tour Masters 1000 commitment tournaments shall
be reduced by one (1) tournament for reaching each of the following milestones:
1) 600 matches* (as of 1 January of the commitment year);
2) 12 years of service;
3) 31 years of age (as of 1 January of the commitment year).

If all three (3) conditions are met then the player has a complete exemption
from the ATP World Tour Masters 1000 player commitment.

The first Year of Service shall be the first calendar year in which a player has
competed in at least twelve (12) tournaments offering ATP ranking points.

The bolding is mine. Here is the link:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Corporate/Rulebook.aspx

By these rules, I think Nadal is also exempt from 2 required MS. Not sure who else would be.

Amazing. This is news to me...thanks GMS for digging it up and Moxie for bolding. Very interesting and I bet most fans are unaware of these rules.

TBH, this was news to me, too. I knew Federer and Nadal had reached a level of being released from some obligations, but I had no idea that Roger was now released from all of the MS.

 

[Kieran]

That so called rivalry was a sham IMO as well since it had the same dynamics as Federer and Nadal! Borg had already been a pro since he was 15, was even seeded #5 or 6 at '73 Wimbledon due to men's strike/boycott! To me it just wasn't fair since McEnroe was so much younger and wasn't half as experienced and "burned out!"

Ah Fiero, me old mucka!

You didn't even give me props for showing you something yesterday. :nono

Maybe today you will: the Borg-Mac rivalry was nothing like Fedal. True, in both instances the younger leftie got the early win, but Borg actually got on top of Mac and by 1980 was 7-4 up. Mac only ran out the last three in Borg's final full year on tour.

Nadal has been ahead of Federer from Day One, even as a greenhorn.

So pray tell, where has this modern notion come from, the one that says Nadal is only beating Federer because Roger is old, experienced and burnt out? It's replaced all the other excuses that were used when Federer was in his prime and become the most common one to use these days... :gross::cover:cover:dodgy:

 

[tented]

I can't find it. But I'm sure I read it somewhere. Might be wrong, there's a first time for everything... :nono

Honey, you're wrong! :laydownlaughing :snigger They have at least a week before Queen, another free week, or addition of Birmingham before Wimbledon! No way have they ever played back to back in a major like that! :lolz: :nono

Perhaps you missed it, Fiero, but Kieran proved you wrong. Here, let me point it out for you:

http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=2198&pid=93531#pid93531

I'm sure you'll want to acknowledge your error now.