Tennis Forum banner
1 - 4 of 4 Posts

6,694 Posts
Yes, winning 3 or 4 "dink" tournaments _in a row_ is harder than winning a slam.

7 matches for a slam, at least 12, at most 16 for the others<br />top players _do_ go to these other events, and just because some lost early or because the winner of the tournaments didn't play them, it doesn't mean that the tournament is more crap. the field at the beginning was still good. if all the top players went into a slam and lost 1st round, the winner of that slam is just as legit in my eyes.<br />the winner of many tournaments in a row will have had to play 3 matches in 3 days 3 or 4 times, and have had other early round matches as well. they would have had to drive or fly for hours and hours after every sunday, get settled into a new hotel, get used to new courts, new stadiums etc, would have had to get a good chunk of rest, and then get fired up for another tournament from the beginning again after being on the high of winning the previous final. its not easy to have winning streaks lasting 3 or 4 consecutive weeks. I would prefer to play in the same location on the same surface, having my regular practices sorted, have the same home for 2 weeks - like what u get in the grand slam.

i'm not saying the grand slams are irrelevant, as that is obviously stupid - but saying that the other trournaments are worthless is just as dumb. winning them is an achievement, and winning them one after another for weeks is a huge one. Its not as good prestige wise, and grand slam winners should be praised and praised and praised - but numbers wise, and rankings wise, i am not surprised you get more points for a tier 1, 2 tier 2's and possibly a year end championships than you get for a grand slam.
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.