What is considered a full time schedule? - TennisForum.com
View Poll Results: What is considered a full time schedule?
11-15 3 10.34%
Any 16 7 24.14%
16 w/GS, YEC if qualified 3 10.34%
16 w/GS, YEC, PM if qualified 3 10.34%
16 w/Current WTA Ranking Rules 6 20.69%
17-21 6 20.69%
Other 1 3.45%
Voters: 29. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 25 (permalink) Old Dec 20th, 2012, 08:12 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
coolfish1103's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 13,459
                     
What is considered a full time schedule?

We have many debates on TF on players not playing full time schedule so they create lopsided rankings. Therefore, what is considered a full time schedule?

1. Any 11~15 Tournaments
- 11 being max tournaments counted for doubles

2. Any 16 Tournaments
- 16 being max tournaments counted for singles

3. 16 Tournaments including GS/YEC if qualified

4. 16 Tournaments including GS/YEC/PM if qualified

5. 16 Tournaments based on current WTA rules to include GS/YEC/PM/P5/P700 depending on rankings

6. 17-21 Tournaments

7. Other

Currently, the number of tournaments played by top players in singles are:

13 - Serena
14 - Sharapova
17 - Li
18 - Azarenka, Kvitova
21 - Kerber
22 - Radwanska
23 - Errani, Stosur, Wozniacki
25 - Bartoli

Players in bold satisfied current WTA ranking requirements and did not receive penalty zeroes.

So what happens when a friend or partner holds a different opinion against your favorite?
- Agree to disagree, don't hold grudges for someone else

Historic #1: FITD S / Tipping S&D / Tennis Tipping D
coolfish1103 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 25 (permalink) Old Dec 20th, 2012, 08:18 PM
Senior Member
 
Sammo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Self-made gilded cage
Posts: 33,119
                     
Re: What is considered a full time schedule?

How many tournaments has Julia Cohen played this year? 140?

The belief that man is an irresolute creature pulled this way and that by two forces of equal strength, alternately winning and losing the battle for his soul; the conviction that human life is nothing more than an uncertain struggle between heaven and hell; the faith in two opposed entities, Satan and Christ - all this was bound to engender those internal discords in which the mind, excited by the incessant fighting, stimulated as it were by the constant promises and threats, ends up by giving in and prostitutes itself to whichever of the two combatants has been more obstinate in its pursuit. Life isn't black and white, it's gold.
Sammo is online now  
post #3 of 25 (permalink) Old Dec 20th, 2012, 08:20 PM
bans for poster insolence
 
duhcity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 9,872
                     
Re: What is considered a full time schedule?

16 Tournaments based on current WTA rules to include GS/YEC/PM/P5/P700 depending on rankings

duhcity is offline  
post #4 of 25 (permalink) Old Dec 20th, 2012, 09:14 PM
Tennis 'toonist
 
bobito's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,217
                     
Re: What is considered a full time schedule?

The WTA have outlined the requirement, anything less is surely not a full season.

Here's another question. Since the rules require players to participate in 16 tournaments including 4 GS, 4 PM, 4P5, YEC and 2 P700, if a player makes no effort to abide by those rules in order to be in better physical condition than her rivals at grand slams, is she cheating?
bobito is offline  
post #5 of 25 (permalink) Old Dec 20th, 2012, 09:26 PM
Senior Member
 
NashaMasha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 11,624
                     
Re: What is considered a full time schedule?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony. View Post
16 Tournaments based on current WTA rules to include GS/YEC/PM/P5/P700 depending on rankings
this

definitely 4GS + 4PM + at least 2 P5 are compulsory and total shouldn't be less than 16

Maria Sharapova
Career Grand Slam Winner
Wimbledon 2004 ~ US Open 2006 ~ Australian Open 2008 ~ French Open 2012 and 2014

WTA Championships 2004
London Olympics silver medallist

35 WTA titles , including 14 Tier I titles
21 weeks #1 player
NashaMasha is offline  
post #6 of 25 (permalink) Old Dec 20th, 2012, 09:32 PM
Senior Member
 
JustPetko's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,338
                     
Re: What is considered a full time schedule?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammo View Post
How many tournaments has Julia Cohen played this year? 140?
Only 36.





I am shocked too


TT Singles: (CH: #40) W ITF Biella'10, W ITF Nantes'10, W ITF Dubai'12 | TT Doubles: (CH: #1) ITF Nantes'10, ITF Bucharest'10, Marbella'11, Washington'11, Linz'11, YEC'11, ITF Opole'11, Pattaya'12, Tashkent'12, ITF Pune'12, Memphis'13, Carlsbad'13, Marrakesh'14, Washington'14 | Suicide: (CH: #2) W Luxembourg'12, W Luxembourg'13 | Tipping: (CH: #2) W YEC'11, W Acapulco'13, W Brisbane'14, W RG'14 | FITD: (CH: #1) W Wimbledon'14, W USO'14, W Antwerp'14[/RIGHT]
JustPetko is offline  
post #7 of 25 (permalink) Old Dec 20th, 2012, 09:50 PM
*Sesil*
 
KournikovaFan91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Éire
Posts: 19,595
                     
Re: What is considered a full time schedule?

16 under WTA rule requirements. I mean that is what the WTA kinda outlines as a season in terms of ranking so anything less could be considered not a full season.
KournikovaFan91 is offline  
post #8 of 25 (permalink) Old Dec 20th, 2012, 09:51 PM
Isha > Your fave
 
Miss Amor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Posts: 26,662
                     
Re: What is considered a full time schedule?

Its upto the players. What matters more is what they think is a full schedule for their body.
Miss Amor is offline  
post #9 of 25 (permalink) Old Dec 20th, 2012, 10:47 PM
Senior Member
 
iWill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 15,641
                     
Re: What is considered a full time schedule?

I'm torn on this issue because on one hand I do think the tour should set a standard for what is considered a full season. It makes the rankings system moderately fair. But I don't think they should be able to mandate players to play anything other than the slams. If someone doesn't want to fly to Beijing or Los Angeles for whatever reason they shouldn't have to.

I don't like the fact that the rankings reward quantity over quality because if a player can show up with little preparation and go deep in the Slams they shouldn't be penalized because they chose not to play Madrid or Toronto.

To answer the question I said any amount between 11-15 tournaments because it equates to at least 1 event per month and many players do much more than that. If someone wanted to play 26 tournaments than great but they should cap how many results will count towards a player's ranking. That way someone that makes it to the QF or better of 19 events in the year would only see points from 16-18.

Lastly I miss the quality point system from the WTA. I think there is added value if you beat any player ranked between 1-10. How this could be added into the current system I'm not entirely sure but if you win a tournament defeating world number 4, 3, and 1 that should count for way more than winning a tournament defeating players ranked 15, 26, and 30.

*********************

Jameka the G.O.A.T
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrProdigy555 View Post
*inserts a couple fingers into you*
iWill is offline  
post #10 of 25 (permalink) Old Dec 20th, 2012, 11:15 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,038
                     
Re: What is considered a full time schedule?

I personally feel 13-14 tournaments is pushing it. Especially if you are successful.

Follow Me! @CedricEarl
SerenaSlam is offline  
post #11 of 25 (permalink) Old Dec 20th, 2012, 11:25 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 4,645
                     
Re: What is considered a full time schedule?

The obvious answer is the 16 events. But being a bit subjective, I think it really varies depending on how far you go in the events you play. I don't think anyone would argue someone who enters 36 events, losing R1 in most or all of them played a fuller schedule than someone playing only 14, but making QF-SF-F or winning all of them. Just look at Justine Henin, who IIRC played exactly 16 events in 2007(off the top of my head, I could be way off,) with SFs or better in every one of them I think, and winning 10 of them. She basically had nothing left in the tank after that season, leading to mediocre results and an early retirement. So if a player is playing excellent tennis and dominating(which is every player's goal) 16 events might be pushing it. I'd prefer if they do away with the mandatory events and just keep the best of 16 rule. Especially with mandatory events being flops like Madrid or Beijing.

XIX
Alejandrawrrr is offline  
post #12 of 25 (permalink) Old Dec 20th, 2012, 11:39 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 18,396
                     
Re: What is considered a full time schedule?

A "full schedule" varies by player. A full schedule for a 30 year old top 5 player will probably be mid teens or so. But if some player ranked 50 or so and is 23 years old, 16 tournaments would most likely be too little. Players are the ones who know their bodies, know how much they can take, know how many tournaments they need to peak at the important events, etc. It's up to them to decide what a full, optimal schedule is. Armchair tennis experts who say a player is playing too little or too much usually has no idea what they're talking about.
dybbuk is offline  
post #13 of 25 (permalink) Old Dec 20th, 2012, 11:55 PM
Senior Member
 
faboozadoo15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: united states
Posts: 22,101
                     
Re: What is considered a full time schedule?

I think it would be interesting to see the the number of matches played versus the number of tournaments.

I'm sure Maria and Serena competed more often than almost any player on tour.

The real reason Azarenka is #1 is because she has no 0 pointers. She has good endurance and also played at a high level all year.
faboozadoo15 is online now  
post #14 of 25 (permalink) Old Dec 21st, 2012, 12:05 AM
Senior Member
 
Achernar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 700
                     
Re: What is considered a full time schedule?

To answer the question, I'll go with "16 Tournaments based on current WTA rules to include GS/YEC/PM/P5/P700 depending on rankings". It's the minimum requirements, so...Besides, I don't blame the players if they play less but, as a fan, I wish to see my favorites as often as possible.

However, the real question would be: how come so many "fans" show nothing but contempt for those players who are dedicated to their work and try to play more than the minimum required? How come they expect a young and healthy player to follow the same schedule than a semi-retired player who has achieved everything she wanted and is now playing mainly for her personal glory?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobito View Post
Here's another question. Since the rules require players to participate in 16 tournaments including 4 GS, 4 PM, 4P5, YEC and 2 P700, if a player makes no effort to abide by those rules in order to be in better physical condition than her rivals at grand slams, is she cheating?
Obviously not

In any event, the players have their own needs and strategy. Some need to play as often as possible to be at their best, others seek to preserve their energy.

However, if they were all playing only a handful of tournaments a year, we would have a lot less tournaments than we currently have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ivanw2008 View Post
I don't like the fact that the rankings reward quantity over quality because if a player can show up with little preparation and go deep in the Slams they shouldn't be penalized because they chose not to play Madrid or Toronto.
This is a myth. The most important ranking points are provided by the biggest tournaments, starting with the Grand Slams. If you're going to reach the top10, you have to make your way into several QF, SF and finals at the Slams, Mandatory and P5 events. And to do so, you have to beat the best players, since they are the ones you meet at these stages. The WTA is not favoring "quantity over quality". Instead, the top ranked players have to combine quantity and quality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ivanw2008 View Post
To answer the question I said any amount between 11-15 tournaments because it equates to at least 1 event per month and many players do much more than that. If someone wanted to play 26 tournaments than great but they should cap how many results will count towards a player's ranking. That way someone that makes it to the QF or better of 19 events in the year would only see points from 16-18.
This is already the case, since only 16 tournaments are included in the ranking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ivanw2008 View Post
Lastly I miss the quality point system from the WTA. I think there is added value if you beat any player ranked between 1-10. How this could be added into the current system I'm not entirely sure but if you win a tournament defeating world number 4, 3, and 1 that should count for way more than winning a tournament defeating players ranked 15, 26, and 30.
I have nothing against the quality points, but it has been demonstrated many times that this system has little impact on the ranking and it induces some rather unfortunates bias.
Achernar is offline  
post #15 of 25 (permalink) Old Dec 21st, 2012, 12:12 AM
Senior Member
 
Achernar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 700
                     
Re: What is considered a full time schedule?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Williamsova View Post
The obvious answer is the 16 events. But being a bit subjective, I think it really varies depending on how far you go in the events you play. I don't think anyone would argue someone who enters 36 events, losing R1 in most or all of them played a fuller schedule than someone playing only 14, but making QF-SF-F or winning all of them.
Well said. We should also take into account the fact that the vast majority of players simply don't know how far they'll go in every tournament at the beginning of the year.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dybbuk View Post
A "full schedule" varies by player. A full schedule for a 30 year old top 5 player will probably be mid teens or so. But if some player ranked 50 or so and is 23 years old, 16 tournaments would most likely be too little. Players are the ones who know their bodies, know how much they can take, know how many tournaments they need to peak at the important events, etc. It's up to them to decide what a full, optimal schedule is. Armchair tennis experts who say a player is playing too little or too much usually has no idea what they're talking about.
Achernar 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









Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.

Registration Image

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