playing a limited number of tournaments??? - TennisForum.com
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 18 (permalink) Old May 22nd, 2002, 10:16 PM Thread Starter
country flag arn
Senior Member
 
arn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Bxl
Posts: 16,242
                     
playing a limited number of tournaments???

Carl Maes, the coach of Kim Clijsters will propose a plan to the WTA to change some things.

First he proposes to let 13 tournaments count for the ranks instead of 17. A not so surprising idea...

The next proposal is he wants to set limits to the number of tournaments a player can play during the year, that number would be 22. So after #22 you can't enter a tournament anymore.

Is that last idea a good one or not??? I see some advantages but maybe also some practical problems...
arn is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 18 (permalink) Old May 22nd, 2002, 11:55 PM
Moderator - BFTP
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 21,551
                     
While limiting events sounds good on paper, I'm afraid that history shows that those who want the money will simply play exhibitions.

I wonder Arn-do you think this means Clijsters feels the same way? She's been VERY sensible about her scedule IMO since her arm problems earlier this year.
Rollo is offline  
post #3 of 18 (permalink) Old May 22nd, 2002, 11:58 PM
I'm so current, I'm tomorrow.
 
AjdeNate!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: The City by the Lake.
Posts: 49,163
                     
I don't think that setting a maximum is very good. I mean, some players may lose early in a lot of events, and thus are physically able to play more. As far as the rankings system... I think leave it alone. They seem to tweak it every year. They need to stick to one system for awhile and let it work out.
AjdeNate! is offline  
post #4 of 18 (permalink) Old May 23rd, 2002, 12:21 AM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,701
                     
Nah. I like the 17 minimum. You don't have to play all 17 to be a top five player. Venus made it to #1 with only 14 tournaments. But it does force the elite players to support the tour, or pay a penalty in points. And hey, I'm a Williams fan. My faves are the ones most hurt by the current system, but I think it strikes a balance between the needs of the players and the needs of the tour.

Kim is good enough to be a top five player while only playing 13 tournaments a year. She just needs to cut out those inexplicable opening match losses. She isn't being FORCED to play 22 tournaments. 13 is almost a protection racket for elite players, like the 32 seeds.

I might impose an upper limit on the top fifty. The others players need all the match play they can get.
Volcana is offline  
post #5 of 18 (permalink) Old May 23rd, 2002, 01:45 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: aka TennisPower
Posts: 3,453
                     
Let's take a happy medium between 13 and 17, say, 15. That sounds like a good number to me. I'm sure there are all kinds of competing factors leading to the adoption of a number.

Factors that call for a large number: money, worldwide dispersion (every region wants a tourney), ... please, guys, add the rest.

Factors restricting the number: physical wear and tear on players (ie, health), audience saturation, logistics, ... add the rest.

Short of an exhaustive data reduction through computerized analytical tools, I'll take 15 as this suits my faves and, more importantly, that explodes into a lot of matches for players that reach semis and finals consistently.

Quick calculations:
- For those who go a long way in each tourney, say, 4 matches on avg (eg Hingis, Vee, ...):
15 tourneys x 4 matches per tourney = 60 matches

- For those who take a hike on avg after the second round (eg Anna K, ...):
15 x 2 = 30 matches

So the last group may have to enter about 30 tourneys in order to accumulate the same 60 matches. Now, you get the picture given that the physical wear and tear is not related to tourneys but to number of matches.

I'd better stop here, the powers to be are not listening anyway.

** TP for Topaz or TennisPower **

"Playing aggressive tennis ... that's always the way to go, if you ask me." - Venus Williams, May/2002
"Some shots I will hit hard but not every ball. I'm not just using my power." - Serena Williams, Oct/2002
"Topaz" is offline  
post #6 of 18 (permalink) Old May 23rd, 2002, 08:33 AM Thread Starter
country flag arn
Senior Member
 
arn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Bxl
Posts: 16,242
                     
I have no idea if Clijsters feels the same way, but she always said the WTA forces players to play too much. It's pysically soooo heavy and players are already very happy the tour was shortened last year.

Maube an alternative is during auguste or somewhere in the middle of the year, a 2-week period of no tournaments or maybe even 2 times a year a period without tournaments (outside the normal winterbreak)
arn is offline  
post #7 of 18 (permalink) Old May 23rd, 2002, 08:38 AM
Senior Member
 
irma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: the netherlands
Posts: 13,635
 
I think the 22 is a good idea, there are players who need to be protected from themselfs and 22 is still rather a lot, steffi was number 1 or 2 for 10 years and she never played more then 16 tournaments(and that only once in 89) so it's possible!
Venus and Serena are other examples of that!

In the middle of the night
I go walking in my sleep
Through the desert of the truth
To the river so deep
We all end in the ocean
We all start in the streams
We're all carried along
By the river of dreams
In the middle of the night
irma is offline  
post #8 of 18 (permalink) Old May 23rd, 2002, 12:42 PM
Keeper of Venus & Serena
 
VSFan1 aka Joshua L.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Charlotte, North Carolina
Posts: 27,297
                     
If you look a past history, most of the #1's played very few events until Hingis in 1997 when the ranking system changed that favored "quantity" over "quality".

In my opinion....14 or 15 events should be enough.

4 Grand Slams
1 Championships
5 Tier I's
5 Tier II's
______
15 events

What do you think?


Loves of my life....
Venus Ebone Starr Williams
Serena Jamica Williams
a lifelong and devoted fan since 1996

Official Life Coach of the Royal Court
VSFan1 aka Joshua L. is offline  
post #9 of 18 (permalink) Old May 23rd, 2002, 12:53 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sometimes U.S./Sometimes Asia
Posts: 1,536
                     
Irma, Steffi was able to stay #1 playing so few events because the ranking system was completely different then. Back then, all of the player's points were divided by the number of tournaments she played (the divisor was 14 for players who played less than 14 events).

What that meant was that someone who played who played 25 events had no advantage over someone who played only 14 or 15 (completely different from the current system). If that system was still around, Venus would almost surely have been #1 for the last couple of years.

I think 16 is a good minimum number for all the players. Also, I feel like the Tour is overextending itself with too many tournaments. There's a Tier 1 or 2 event seemingly every week, and sometimes 3 different events a week, and that's just too much for the players and maybe for the fans as well. It's the quality, not the quantity, WTA should remember.
tommyk75 is offline  
post #10 of 18 (permalink) Old May 23rd, 2002, 01:12 PM
Jem
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,285
                     
I personally like the averaging system for ranking myself -- it makes each tournament count. Unfortunately, it's also easy to abuse. Pam Shriver, for example, hardly ever played the French Open because she was suspectible to any early round loss, which would have hurt her ranking average. The men were notorious for that as well. You had many in the top 10 who skipped the French or Wimbledon to avoid an unfavorable surface and protect their ranking. As for the minimum number of tournaments, I don't 17 is asking too much of the players, but I'd be willing to see it dropped to 16. Below that is too few in my opinion. 13 is ridiculously low. As for whether there are too many tournaments, I'm inclined to disagree. If you have promoters willing to run tournaments, then I say let them run them. I guarantee if you eliminate tour tournaments, they'll just pop up as meaningless exhibitions, and there will be a line of top players waiting to play for big bucks with nothing on the line. It's very easy to schedule breaks for yourself during a 10-month season and play a sensible tournament schedule that gives you time for training and rest. Injuries are a fact of the game, and most occur not because of accidents -- not playing time. There are exceptions, of course. Kournikova probably has overplayed; she was certainly doing that when she got hurt in 2001. Seles (my favorite by the way) shows a penchant for overscheduling herself. Her schedule at the beginning of the year was absolutely crazy. My preference would be to have ranking system that requires a minimum of 16 tournaments (including the Grand Slams if a player is eligible for the main draw) and averages the results of all tournaments played. People should be allowed to play as many tournaments as they want, but an average would make every tournament count. You might also consider reducing the divisor by 1 for players who supported the tour with 20 tournaments, or by reducing by 2 for those who played 24.
Jem is offline  
post #11 of 18 (permalink) Old May 23rd, 2002, 01:42 PM
Senior Member
 
irma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: the netherlands
Posts: 13,635
 
tommy I know that, they should go back to the old rankings now the reason that they changed is gone anyway

In the middle of the night
I go walking in my sleep
Through the desert of the truth
To the river so deep
We all end in the ocean
We all start in the streams
We're all carried along
By the river of dreams
In the middle of the night
irma is offline  
post #12 of 18 (permalink) Old May 23rd, 2002, 02:30 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sometimes U.S./Sometimes Asia
Posts: 1,536
                     
Irma:

You said that Steffi was number 1 one for 10 years playing 16 or less events, so "it's possible!" I merely pointed out that it was possible only because the ranking system was completely different, which you failed to acknowledge.

As for your next comment, you said that the reason for the change is "gone." Uh... let's see. The change was done to make the top players play more. Yeah, it's true that they're playing more, but guess why? It's because the ranking system virtually requires it from them to stay at the top. So if WTA takes your idea and goes back to the old system, do you really think the players will keep playing so much? Of course not, the stars would go back to what they used to do under the old system: play less tour events and either rest more or play bigger-money exhibitions. That would lead WTA right back to the problem they had in the first place.

So, before you roll your eyes at anybody else, you might want to roll them at the mirror first. If your points are illogical and inarticulate, you can't blame other people for not understanding you.
tommyk75 is offline  
post #13 of 18 (permalink) Old May 23rd, 2002, 02:37 PM
Team WTAworld
Senior Member
 
veryborednow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: here
Posts: 10,772
                     
no. because the tour must rely upon those who play 20-30 tournaments a year, purely so some tournaments have enough people in them.

If they cut down on the number of tournaments that can be played, the number of tournaments held will be cut.

This is bad -

- for the fans, as less people can watch tennis live
- tour must lose out on money
- companies that sposor lose money
- players don't get as much money (so play exhibitions)
- for the game.

and where they produce desolation, they call it peace
veryborednow is offline  
post #14 of 18 (permalink) Old May 23rd, 2002, 02:38 PM
Senior Member
 
irma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: the netherlands
Posts: 13,635
 
my was for the wta who changed to rankings because it would be a disadvantage my fav(and this is true) not for you!
peace

In the middle of the night
I go walking in my sleep
Through the desert of the truth
To the river so deep
We all end in the ocean
We all start in the streams
We're all carried along
By the river of dreams
In the middle of the night
irma is offline  
post #15 of 18 (permalink) Old May 23rd, 2002, 02:48 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sometimes U.S./Sometimes Asia
Posts: 1,536
                     
My bad...

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Piece of love right back at you.
tommyk75 is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TennisForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome