PDA

View Full Version : Why only Miami is Mandatory? Why not all Tier 1??


rhz
Feb 9th, 2006, 06:02 AM
I mean it's not fair.. I know Miami is the strongest Tier 1 out there and it's like the 5th GS. but tournies like Tokyo, Montreal/Toronto, and Moscow need to be mandatory as well. Those Tier 1 tournies were always the ones that top players are skipping. Especially Tokyo, right after OZ open.

switz
Feb 9th, 2006, 06:16 AM
probably because it's got the most sponsors lined up, the WTA is very Florida, it's both men's and women's, and most players play anyway so making it mandatory will cause the least controversy.

The ATP makes the Masters Series events mandatory and it doesn't seem to make much difference - players still skip Monte Carlo, Madrid etc.

Life isn't fair :)

xin_hui
Feb 9th, 2006, 06:16 AM
if tokyo is constantly skipped by top players, why make it mandatory? isnt miami a better choice since most players play it anyway? this way it wont ruffle too much feathers

and making all tier 1s mandatory will just kill the players, and it will just end up like the tennis masters series on the ATP tour. all of them are mandatory, but do all players play them?

alwayshingis
Feb 9th, 2006, 06:19 AM
You can't make something like Tokyo/Moscow mandatory because the draw is so small. People in the 30's aren't going to want to play quallies and the #9 player is not going to want to play a tournament where she is not seeded.

switz
Feb 9th, 2006, 06:25 AM
and making all tier 1s mandatory will just kill the players, and it will just end up like the tennis masters series on the ATP tour.

agree with you on most things but the WTA tier I being like the Masters Series would be a very good thing IMO. they need for cohesion to get better coverage.

Zauber
Feb 9th, 2006, 06:50 AM
sure make everything compulsory.
make slaves out of our tennis players.
if they are not all-ready.

Volcana
Feb 9th, 2006, 06:56 AM
I mean it's not fair.. I know Miami is the strongest Tier 1 out there and it's like the 5th GS. but tournies like Tokyo, Montreal/Toronto, and Moscow need to be mandatory as well. Those Tier 1 tournies were always the ones that top players are skipping. Especially Tokyo, right after OZ open.The main reason is that the players would object, and they are by far the most powerful force in women's tennis. Making ANY tournaments mandatory is a change. And I wouldn't be surprised if some players skip Miami despite it's being mandatory. Davenport hasn't played it the last couple years. Players who often do badly on clay often skip Berlin and Rome. And of course, making Indian Wells mandatory is just asking for bad publicity.

Larry Scott has said publicly he intends to get up to five or six mandatory tournaments. But he didn't say how soon. It may well be a case of adding one per year. Rome is the next obvious candidate, from a practical perspective.

ns_Henin
Feb 9th, 2006, 10:06 AM
If I'm Larry Scott, I would pick at least one tier I on every surface to get the mandatory status.

Hard: Miami
Clay: Berlin (Rome is too near to RG's schedule)
Grass: Upgrade Eastbourne to be a tier I
Indoor: Zurich

So we would have 9 main events: 4 slams (january, may, june, september), 1 YEC (november) and 4 mandatory tournaments (march, may, june, october).

jonny84
Feb 9th, 2006, 11:26 AM
I think that there is a plan to make about 5 Tier Is compulsary for the top players.

Direwolf
Feb 9th, 2006, 04:15 PM
I think that they should also make FedCups mandatory..so that top players, i mean more top players play it.

mr_burns
Feb 9th, 2006, 04:32 PM
I dpn't think we need a Tier I on grass

i would say toronto instead of eastbourne

Volcana
Feb 9th, 2006, 05:22 PM
If I'm Larry Scott, I would pick at least one tier I on every surface to get the mandatory status.

Hard: Miami
Clay: Berlin (Rome is too near to RG's schedule)
Grass: Upgrade Eastbourne to be a tier I
Indoor: ZurichI think the decision is likely to be made in terms of finances, not logic. Giving it some thought though, I think you're right about Berlin, but not because Rome is too close to RG. If I'm not mistaken, the owners of Doha would liel to make that tournament a Tier I. They are also the owners of Berlin. Yet they made a public commitment to keep Berlin at the Tier I level. I imagine the WTA may have made certain promises in return for that commitment. Yet I haven't heard any word on adding another Tier I. But making Berlin mandatory would certainly be fair compensation for keeping the tournament at the Tier I level, which perhaps there really isn't the crowd support for.

Aimless speculation.

fammmmedspin
Feb 9th, 2006, 06:23 PM
Because there is no sense to whats a Tier 1, the Tier 1s don't reflect the future growth areas for the tour and the tour is set up so that only some top players play them.

If you made all tier 1s compulsory and added the Gs there would be hardly any time left for top players to play Tier 2s. That would undermine the Tier 2s fatally and would also leave players without warm up competitions for at least 2 GS. It would mean players all turning up where few wanted to be at odd times and places (Tokyo), lower ranked players never seeing or playing a top player for most of the year and the breeding ground for new players dying as crowds and TV deserted star-less lower tier tournaments.

Apart from that its unenforceable as players seem to be less motivated by ranking points at the top (everyone is number 1 at some point and no one is going to pile up Graf or Hingis totals for weeks at the top, so does it matter if you are 3 or 6?) and all it will produce is bigger and bigger heaps of sick notes....Indian Wells would produce a plague all on its own...

SAEKeithSerena
Feb 9th, 2006, 07:15 PM
"If you made all tier 1s compulsory and added the Gs there would be hardly any time left for top players to play Tier 2s. That would undermine the Tier 2s fatally and would also leave players without warm up competitions for at least 2 GS. It would mean players all turning up where few wanted to be at odd times and places (Tokyo), lower ranked players never seeing or playing a top player for most of the year and the breeding ground for new players dying as crowds and TV deserted star-less lower tier tournaments."


great point:)

wolfgang
Feb 10th, 2006, 01:32 AM
"If you made all tier 1s compulsory and added the Gs there would be hardly any time left for top players to play Tier 2s. That would undermine the Tier 2s fatally and would also leave players without warm up competitions for at least 2 GS. It would mean players all turning up where few wanted to be at odd times and places (Tokyo), lower ranked players never seeing or playing a top player for most of the year and the breeding ground for new players dying as crowds and TV deserted star-less lower tier tournaments."


great point:)

I think the point here is not that all Tiers 1's should be mandatory, but that Miami shouldn't be. Two mandatory events, on the same surface, in the same country? Doesn't that favour some players over others?

Martian Stacey
Feb 10th, 2006, 02:50 AM
You can't make something like Tokyo/Moscow mandatory because the draw is so small. People in the 30's aren't going to want to play quallies and the #9 player is not going to want to play a tournament where she is not seeded.
I agree completely. Miami is a big tournament with a lot of players, and it spans over 2 weeks, like a Grand Slam. The other Tier I tournaments are nowhere near the size of Miami, so whats the point of them being mandatory when its only going to apply to a few players.

Also i don't think Toyko should be mandatory, even if it had a larger draw, as it immediately follows a Grand Slam... why have two mandatory tournaments in a row?

iWill
Feb 10th, 2006, 04:21 AM
I mean it's not fair.. I know Miami is the strongest Tier 1 out there and it's like the 5th GS. but tournies like Tokyo, Montreal/Toronto, and Moscow need to be mandatory as well. Those Tier 1 tournies were always the ones that top players are skipping. Especially Tokyo, right after OZ open.
Its one of the few big events that host men and women its worth a ton more money then an average tier 1 cuz of the sponsors and so many players live in Florida its not that hard to drive down the road.

DutchieGirl
Feb 10th, 2006, 04:54 AM
I mean it's not fair.. I know Miami is the strongest Tier 1 out there and it's like the 5th GS. but tournies like Tokyo, Montreal/Toronto, and Moscow need to be mandatory as well. Those Tier 1 tournies were always the ones that top players are skipping. Especially Tokyo, right after OZ open.

eww no... I hate this mandatory tourney crap - do the WTA HAVE to do everything the ATP do? :scratch:

But I agree that it's unfair if they only make 1 tourney mandatory, but they are meant to be increasing the number each year for the next few years, I think.

Equipped
Feb 10th, 2006, 04:57 AM
eww no... I hate this mandatory tourney crap - do the WTA HAVE to do everything the ATP do? :scratch:

Heaven forbid they do anything else. :rolleyes:

DutchieGirl
Feb 10th, 2006, 05:01 AM
Heaven forbid they do anything else. :rolleyes:

:lol: Sorry - I forgot who's running the WTA Tour now! ;)

Timariot
Feb 10th, 2006, 12:01 PM
agree with you on most things but the WTA tier I being like the Masters Series would be a very good thing IMO. they need for cohesion to get better coverage.

WTA tournaments are not categorized as consistently as ATP tournaments, so such change would make little sense: in reality, some of the high-end Tier II's actually attract stronger fields than most Tier I's. Examples: Sydney, San Diego (now Tier I), Filderstadt/Stuttgart etc. Often, there tournaments have featured almost entire Top Ten. To estabilish WTA equivalent of Super9/Masters series, WTA would need to redo entire Tier system. Probably most of the tournament organizers aren't terribly eager to do that, if they're already doing fine.