| Reviewing 2007 ATP tour | |
|---|---|
| Dec 10, 2007 21:05 |   |
 | Let's review 2007 ATP tour together and see who is the real champion. No.1 Australia Open Tennis Championships in January. Federer claimed the champion. No.2 ATP Masters Series in Indian Wells in March. Nadal was the champion. No.3 ATP Masters Series in Miami in March. Novak Djokovic was the champion. No.4 ATP Masters Series in Monte Carlo in April. Champion: Nadal. No.5 ATP Masters Series in Roma in May. Champion: Nadal. No..6 ATP Masters Series in Hamburger in May. Champion: Federer. No.7 French Open tennis championships in May. Champion: Nadal. No.8 Wimbledon Championships in June. Champion: Federer. No.9 ATP Masters Series in Montreal in August. Champion: Novak Djokovic. No.10 ATP Masters Series in Cincinnati in August. Champion: Federer. No.11 US Open Tennis Championships in August. Champion: Federer. No.12 ATP Masters Series in Madrid in October. Champion: David Nalbandian No.13 ATP Masters Series in Paris in October. Champion: David Nalbandian No.14 Tennis Masters Cup in November. Champion: Federer. Total: Federer: 6 Nadal: 4 Novak Djokovic: 2 David Nalbandian: 2 After reading it, do you have anything to say? |
| Dec 10, 2007 21:07 | #1 |
| Roger Federer, holding US Open Cup. |
| Dec 10, 2007 21:08 | #2 |
| Nadal. |
| Dec 10, 2007 21:08 | #3 |
| Novak Djokovic |
| Dec 10, 2007 21:10 | #4 |
| David Nalbandian |
| Dec 11, 2007 23:23 | #5 |
| >>No.14 Tennis Masters Cup in November. Champion: Federer. Total: Federer: 6 Nadal: 4 Novak Djokovic: 2 David Nalbandian: 2 After reading it, do you have anything to say? << You made an interesting summary of the 2007 ATP tour. Although Federer still came out on top, most tennis aficionados would not use any Masters Series tournaments to judge the best players. Although a large number of Master Series tournaments wins would make an impressive resume for most professional tennis players, it really comes down to the number of Grand Slams that really matter in the end. Ivan Lendl was a great champion winning a huge number of tennis tournaments, but he fell way short of Sampras in Grand Slam totals. Ultimately this is how all the great champions are judged, by the number of Grand Slam events they win in their career. One reason for this is that you are guaranteed to have the greatest number of players and the toughest competition in any Grand Slam event. |
| Dec 12, 2007 18:59 | #6 |
| Quote: Although Federer still came out on top, most tennis aficionados would not use any Masters Series tournaments to judge the best players. Why? What are the differences between Masters Series? How many Grand Slams are there? I just heard of French Open, US Open and Australian Open? Do they have something to do with Grand Slams? Please forgive my innocence. |
| Dec 12, 2007 21:56 | #7 |
| >>Why? What are the differences between Masters Series? How many Grand Slams are there? I just heard of French Open, US Open and Australian Open? Do they have something to do with Grand Slams? Please forgive my innocence.<< Hi Katrina, No problem, I will explain the main differences. The most prestigious of all the professional tennis tournaments are the Grand Slams. There are four of them and they are chronologically; the Australian Open (hard court), the French Open (clay), Wimbledon (grass), and the U.S. Open (hard court). I have indicated the surface that they are played on in brackets. Some players are experts on one surface, for example Nadal on clay, and yet they have a difficult time on other surfaces. Pete Sampras is currently considered the greatest tennis player of all time and yet he was never able to win a French Open Grand Slam title. Ivan Lendl, a great player from the Czech republic was never able to win a Wimbledon title. There are nine Masters Series events on the pro tour. They are the next most prestigious tournaments after the Grand Slams. Only the best players are invited to play in them. While there is a lot of money to be made in the Masters Series and you will gain a lot of respect for winning any of those tournaments, they still don't carry the weight and importance that the Grand Slams have. Most players would gladly trade six or seven Master Series victories for just one Grand Slam victory. Grand Slam titles are also very lucrative for tennis players. Almost every player who wins a Grand Slam today goes on to signing endorsement deals with big name companies like Nike etc. These deals make them millionaires overnight. |
| Dec 18, 2007 19:22 | #8 |
| Haven't been here for a while. Thanks for your explanation, CANADAGUY. I guess that I understand why you say Grand Slams are superior to the Masters Series. If you can win Grand Slams, that means you are really a all-round tennis player since you can play well on grass, clay and hard tennis court. Quote: Grand Slam titles are also very lucrative for tennis players. Almost every player who wins a Grand Slam today goes on to signing endorsement deals with big name companies like Nike etc. These deals make them millionaires overnight. Yes, CANADAGUY. In today's professional sports arena, you can easily make money if you could become the champion. Take Yaoming for example, he is the richest sportsman in China. I guess that Liu Xiang (110-meter hurdler) is the second richest. |
| Dec 19, 2007 14:42 | #9 |
| Hi Katrina, >>I guess that I understand why you say Grand Slams are superior to the Masters Series. If you can win Grand Slams, that means you are really a all-round tennis player since you can play well on grass, clay and hard tennis court.<< Well, that's not quite what I meant. There are Master series events on different surfaces too. I simply wanted to let you know that the Grand Slams are played on different surfaces and that most players prefer one surface over another. But the main reason that the Grand Slams are more important than the Master Series events is because of their history. They have been around much longer. Wimbledon is over 100 years old! The French Open is close to 100 years old. The U.S Open and the Australian Open have been around for decades. The Master Series however is really quite new. It's only been around for about 15 years. Yes it's true, in any big sport, a champion can cash in with endorsements and become very rich today. The Olympics are another area where winning gold usually translates into lots of money! Well at least it does in the West. :) |
| Dec 20, 2007 20:10 | #10 |
| Quote: Wimbledon is over 100 years old! The French Open is close to 100 years old. The U.S Open and the Australian Open have been around for decades. Never knew it before. Thanks, CANADAGUY. "The Olympics are another area where winning gold usually translates into lots of money! Well at least it does in the West. :)" It does in China too. Once you become the Olympic champion, money will come to you. Except the rewards from the state, you can also make money by advertising. |
Post a Reply to: Reviewing 2007 ATP tour
Copyright © 1998-2024 All rights reserved.