[Adrian]

In a surprise, the Australian Media has lambasted the Masters, the very tournament that gave Hewitt the number 1 spot.

The event was attacked for it's sickening amount of money, it's criteria and the "Uselessness" of the tournament over all.

The Event consisted of 2 players who had rarely won a match indoors, let alone a tournament. It also consisted of Agassi, sorely short of match play.

The media also claimed the event was tailor made for Hewitt and was never in danger of him losing it.

Added to that Gugu's shocking form coming into the tournament left the tournament short of any excitement or spark

The event is also expected to of been run at loss.

<br /> Neither Tennis Australia nor the ATP have commented on the scathing assessments of the tournament

 

[Crazy Canuck]

Adrian: unrelated, but just out of curiosity, how does the Austalian media like Hewitt now? I had hear that his relationship with the media there was terrible, and that he was more appreciated abroad. Is that still the case?

Now on topic, I rather disagree with their assesment.<br />Yes, the terrible form Guga was in was a dissapointment. Funny how they fail to mention the terrible form of Rafter, though understandable, being dissapointing - which it was.

However, I felt that the late season surge of Grosjean, who qualified by winning what could have been the last match of his season, and Kafelnikov's great late season form, helped make up for this.

Also, one of the players who had practically not won a match indoors all season (I'm too lazy too look, but I'm thinking Ferrero had only won two), made a run to the semi finals. Granted, one of his wins came over and out of form Guga. But his close match against Kafelnikov (where BOTH players were rusty) and win over Goran, were impressive for a guy who had barely won a match since a dissapointing US Open.

However, I fail to see how having one of their own become the yougest number one ever, was "useless", and not interesting. It sounds like the media are trying to taint his achievements, though perhaps I misunderstood.

Heck... Hewitt made the front page of several newspapers here in Canada. The last time that happened, there was some historical event going on.. oh yes, the all Williams final.

Mind you, I tend to agree that Hewitt was never really in trouble of losing it. It was his to lose from the start.

 

[Adrian]

Becca, I think it's a 50-50 thing with the media, they praised him over the last week, but pointed out some tricky comments here made during some of his interviews. You get the impression that one "C'mon" too many and they will be all over him again.

<br />I think the main gist the media was trying to get out was the obscene money involved in the tournament (Subs were paid $140000 for doing nothing) and they seem to be pointing at the Sanex season-ender as a more appropiate type of Tournament then the current Masters. There were even some suggestions that the tournament should be cancelled all together. They left Rafter alone because of his obvious Injury, one he bought into the tournament and like the US open a few years ago, should not of taken his place in the tournament and kept a fit player out of it.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

Personally I feel turning the Masters Cup format into one similar to the Sanex Championships is a god awful idea.

The format for the ATP event is far superior to the one of the WTA. If anything, I think the WTA should play round robin matches like the men. This way, there is less luck of the draw, and you truly have to beat the best in the world to win.

As for cancelling the event altogether.. I'm pretty sure whoever is having it next year (Shanghai?) is just thrilled <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

I kind of felt that Rafter should have sat out and let Hass play. But he likely didn't know his injury was that bad going in. I'm sure that if he had known he wasn't going to wn a set, he'd have rested.

 

[Adrian]

The bottom line is, no matter which way you look at it, the top 8 players of the year were not represented at the masters, the top 16 fit players were present at Sanex.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

I disagree.

The top 8 men WERE represented. All slam winners were represented - Agassi, Guga, Goran, Hewitt.

As for the rest:

Kafelnikov: had good slam results. Reached the quarters at OZ, and Roland Garros. Reached the semis at the US Open. Lost early at Wimbledon.<br />At two of the slams, he lost to the eventually champion (FO and US), and in OZ he lost to an eventual finalist (Clement).<br />He also won 2-3 titles..I can't recall, and reached a masters series final.

Rafter: reached the WImbledon final, Oz Semis, US Open 4th round. ALso reached countless finals in the summer hard court season. My only grip is that while he was clearly top 8 for the year, Hass should have played since he wasn't fit at all.

Ferrero: tore up the clay season, winning three titles on that surface, and was in two more finals. Won a masters series title, and in the final of another one. Also won a hardcourt title in Dubai.<br />Had a decent showing in Montreal, where he lost in three to Rafter in the quarters. Granted, from Cincinnatti on, his season was pretty forgettable. But when you sum it together, there WERE NOT 8 players better than his this year.

Grosjean: started the season with a bang, reaching two grand slam semis. Got injured, and suffered a forgettable middle part of the season. Ended it with a bang, by winning a masters series title.

In fact that only guy in the field who didn't win a big tournament this year, was Kafelnikov. But he plays enough, and is consistent enough, that he surely deserved to be there.

<br />I fail to see how the top 8 men were't represented, aside from Rafter playing over Hass.

<br />As for the so-called-fit women who were represented:

-Serena Williams who hadn't played in months, came along and whipped them off the court. She was certaintlythe fittest one there.

-jennifer lost her match, and the number one ranking, due in part to a cold. Would Sandrine have beat her anyhow? Perhaps. However, she was hardly fit.

-Davenport was in good form going in to the competition..the best active player. However, I find it hard to say a tournament was well represent by players in top shape, when the final was cancelled due to an injury. At least the Masters Cup HAD an injury.

-Venus Williams, the best player on tour, was NOT playing. ALL the top men, were.

<br />We just don't agree. But I have a lot of time on my hands and thought I'd argue my case.

Cheers <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

 

[Crazy Canuck]

rr..I meant "HAD a final" not "HAD an injury"

tee hee. Mind you it did have a few injuries..but thats not what I meant <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

 

[Scotso]

I think the Masters cup is great compared to the Sanex Champs. Having Davenport withdraw in the final was infuriating. The Sanex can just be luck of the draw. You actually have to beat the top players to win the Masters... as Becca said. And Hewitt played well to win.

No offense to the Australians, but it seems the Aussie media is as bad if not worse than the British... at least the British media would not have attacked one of their players if they won a tournament in their home country (most likely).

 

[Adrian]

They didn't attack him Anjelica, they attacked the concept of the masters.

I would suggest the whole thing comes down to the fact the media percieved this years tournament as boring, a lot was expected, but as they see it not much happened.