PDA

View Full Version : Death Sentence for U.S. Tournaments? / WTA Thinks Global.


tennisIlove09
Nov 14th, 2006, 12:10 AM
Death Sentence for U.S. Tournaments?
WTA Thinks Global. Kill Local?


By Matthew Cronin
The Sony Ericsson WTA Tour is making a headstrong charge to alter its makeup and its schedule by 2009 and it's possible that some U.S. tournaments - California events in particular - might be left out in the cold.
The USTA, which is heavily invested in American tournaments, is more than upset.
"We've told the WTA that if they persist with these plans that we will be forced to consider all alternatives," USTA president Franklin Johnson told IT.
With its Roadmap 2010 (which may actually come into play by '09), the tour is looking to streamline its tournaments and reduce its schedule. With mounting player injuries and a confusing calendar, there has been a consistent outcry for change, but some are worried that the tour is going too far in attempting to divide the tournaments from four tiers into two - "A's" and "B's" - and by changing the rules so that the stars will have a hard time playing anything but an occasional non-A level tournament.
The tour is pushing a reduced minimum required tournament schedule for top players (likely from 18 to 14), but will also mandate that they show up at the four Slams, four combined events (likely Indian Wells and Miami, potentially Rome or Madrid in the spring, and Shanghai or Beijing in the fall) and possibly another four to six "A" level tournaments.
Nothing is ground in stone yet, but the intention is to go with more star-studded, mega events and separate the tournaments that really want to put up the huge bucks to get the "A" designation from those on the borderline, or the small ones who don't have big enough sponsors.
In the U.S, the USTA is hoping to promote clay-court tennis and the WTA's potential move could diminish the successful clay-court events in Amelia Island and Charleston. The USTA is also worried that its U.S. Open Series is at risk, because tournaments like Stanford, Carson and New Haven are unlikely to put up a reported $4-5 million more for an "A" designation and may not be able to maintain their fans bases if they can't attract the stars. "B" level tournaments will be forced to reduce their prize money and points awarded to players.
The USTA has put an enormous amount of resources into developing the three-year-old U.S. Open Series, which is seen as a marked success. A group of U.S. tournament directors sent a letter to WTA Tour CEO Larry Scott earlier this year objecting to the plan and some have discussed legal action.
But Scott said nothing has been decided yet as to whether the "Bs" will be able to recruit a few top 10 players and the possibility exists that the "Bs" will be split into "Bs" and "B-plus." As IT went to press, Scott and a number of WTA tournament directors were about to sit down in Madrid and discuss the roadmap.
"It's premature to say we are headed in one direction with the 'As' and 'Bs.' Series 'B' is critical to the success of the tour," Scott told IT. "We all recognize that smaller events do need some marquee players to be successful. It's all about finding a balance. We all recognize the injury/withdrawal/fatigue issue, and we need to do whatever it takes to create a healthier calendar and to ensure that fans and tournaments are seeing top players play each other on our biggest stages on a consistent basis."
In '09, the only summer women's tournament that looks like a solid bet to become a mega-tournament is the Canadian Open, as it also stages a men's Tennis Masters tournament. Cincinnati may also try to stage a combined event, but with the price tag so high, they might decline.
By '09, the long popular San Diego tournament (which sold its Tier I designation back to the tour in September) will have folded, despite consistently selling out and being in one of the strongest tennis markets in the country.
Stanford, Carson and New Haven may be left with the impossible task of trying to sell seats on the backs of lesser, obscure players
"This could kill off the U.S. Open Series and wipe our spring clay-court tournaments, too," USTA president Franklin Johnson told IT. "The Grand Slams are united against the plan."
The tour is also considering mandating a three-week break after Wimbledon, which could might eliminate Stanford altogether (the Bank of the West Classic is in the last year of its title sponsorship). Interestingly, Stanford is owned by IMG, which also has Sony Ericsson as a client.
The tour is in a pickle because, over the past five years, some of its biggest tournaments (including San Diego and the Canadian Open) have been struck by massive pullouts, infuriating 'A'-level tournament directors who have put up millions. This year alone, top-10 player withdrawals from Tier I tournaments more than doubled (from 13 to 31 withdrawals). In the past five years, top-10 player withdrawals from the top tournaments increased by 72 percent.
"Fans and tournaments deserve to see the top players and to be able to count on them to show up, but injuries and withdrawals from a season that overtaxes our players is hurting the fan experience," said Scott. "
One thing has become increasingly clear since the Europe-based Sony Ericsson took over as the tours title sponsor - it wants to go global and going global doesn't mean staying hunkered down in the U.S., where the tour was founded some 34 years ago.
The WTA is committed to opening up new opportunities in Asia and also has huge deals in North Africa in Doha and Dubai. Sony has an interest in all those markets. "Tennis must look to Asia if it wants to continue to grow," WTA Tour president Stacey Allaster said recently. "The world is moving east."
However, while Sony Ericsson did buy and move the WTA Championships to Spain, they also just took over the sponsorship of the combined tournament in Miami, so they must have some interest in maintaining a substantial presence in the U.S. market.
While Asia and North Africa are attractive, potentially abandoning successful, upscale markets like Stanford, San Diego and L.A. (Carson) for unknown regions carry substantial risks.
If they lose their tournaments, the 130,000-some-odd fans who turned out in California during the summer to attend events may not bother to set VCRs to record a "star-studded' event some three time zones away. The tour's leadership might end up throwing its U.S.-born ("you've come a long way") baby out and innovative U.S. Open Series with the bathwater.

pierce0415
Nov 14th, 2006, 12:15 AM
interesting article
thanks for posting !!!

jazzfuzion
Nov 14th, 2006, 12:28 AM
i rather have it go global

JonBcn
Nov 14th, 2006, 12:39 AM
'could', 'could', 'may', 'might', 'could'...

CrossCourt~Rally
Nov 14th, 2006, 12:41 AM
'could', 'could', 'may', 'might', 'could'...

Exactly:lol: I think this article was published at the NationalEnquirer.com :bs:... :wavey:

Wannabeknowitall
Nov 14th, 2006, 12:43 AM
I think the tourni in Stanford should go.
LA has been a very strong tennis area for years and should stay.
I don't know why the USTA continues to invest in Indian Wells but it still continues to be a moneypit.

Again it's just annoying that the only area the WTA continues to want development in Africa is in North Africa.

goldenlox
Nov 14th, 2006, 12:48 AM
That was a good article.
Why should the US have so many Tier I's with no top 10 US players?
The tour has to change with the changing times.

Ferosh
Nov 14th, 2006, 12:50 AM
There are too many tournaments in California. I would really like it if they could move one those events to Chicago.

Wayn77
Nov 14th, 2006, 12:52 AM
There are too many tournaments in America full stop. I would like to see a couple go further south - Mexico, Brazil or Argentina.

JonBcn
Nov 14th, 2006, 12:53 AM
The thing that annoys me about this article is that the American tournaments did their best to kill of the European late summer clay tournaments with the US Open Series, but they're quick to harp on about how unjust it all is at the mere suggestion that it might be time to spread the wealth elsewhere.

Wannabeknowitall
Nov 14th, 2006, 12:56 AM
That was a good article.
Why should the US have so many Tier I's with no top 10 US players?
The tour has to change with the changing times.

Because we have the facilities unlike areas like Russia which has many top 10 players but few facilities.
There is a men's tourni in St. Petersburg and I think there should be a women's tourni there as well.
Other than that many Europeans continue to use either the American or Spanish facilities.
There should be more Spanish tournis and there should be enough US tournis to have a warm-up for the US Open.

Steffica Greles
Nov 14th, 2006, 12:57 AM
'could', 'could', 'may', 'might', 'could'...

Exactly.

And the WTA has lacked direction for several years now. They have this so-called plan when only last season they dropped bonus points in favour of an even more demanding ranking system.

I think the problem is that many of the top 6 or 7 players are thinking of retiring in a few years at any rate, so it's not a big issue to them. Henin, Clijsters, probably Mauresmo and Hingis. Davenport, usually voiciferous, is also going, as is Mary Pierce.

Sharapova is not one to become involved in the political side. She prefers to pull out of tournaments at the last minute which she probably never intended to play. Maria focuses very much on her tennis and never plays above 14 events anyway. She was savvy enough to have it worked out from the beginning.

The less consistent top players -- Kuznetsova, Petrova, Dementieva, Schnyder -- are reliant on heavy schedules in order to maintain their rankings, so they won't complain.

So this is the reason why the WTA has been so long sorting this mess out.

Wannabeknowitall
Nov 14th, 2006, 01:05 AM
The thing that annoys me about this article is that the American tournaments did their best to kill of the European late summer clay tournaments with the US Open Series, but they're quick to harp on about how unjust it all is at the mere suggestion that it might be time to spread the wealth elsewhere.

That should happen and that happened before the US Open Series became big.
There aren't enough clay court specialist on the women's tour to have an extended clay season from Feburary to July like the men.
Sopot was cancelled two years ago.
It had a great field but if the men were keeping the tourni afloat then there was no reason to have the women's tourni.

RenaSlam.
Nov 14th, 2006, 01:11 AM
Fuck that.

JonBcn
Nov 14th, 2006, 01:13 AM
To an extent I agree with you about the women's events, but my point was that these same tournament directors sniffing about unfairness here had no problem with trying to undermine tournaments (albeit mainly ATP ones) elsewhere in the world that they felt shouldn't exist.

goldenlox
Nov 14th, 2006, 01:14 AM
Because we have the facilities unlike areas like Russia which has many top 10 players but few facilities.
There is a men's tourni in St. Petersburg and I think there should be a women's tourni there as well.
Other than that many Europeans continue to use either the American or Spanish facilities.
There should be more Spanish tournis and there should be enough US tournis to have a warm-up for the US Open.There is plenty of money and facilities outside the US.
I see what Dubai sheiks spend on race hoses, hundreds of millions.

If I'm the WTA, I would want 2 week tournaments in Doha and Dubai.

Wannabeknowitall
Nov 14th, 2006, 01:35 AM
There is plenty of money and facilities outside the US.
I see what Dubai sheiks spend on race hoses, hundreds of millions.

If I'm the WTA, I would want 2 week tournaments in Doha and Dubai.

The WTA still needs to give their players more rest time during the year.
The way I feel that can be accomplished is by having Doha in Janurary since it is on rebound ace like the men.
They should make Dubai a Tier I and change Indian Wells to a joint Master Series/Tier II event with the women playing a week.
That would give players two weeks between Dubai and Indian Wells unless a player wants to play Acupulco.

Dawn Marie
Nov 14th, 2006, 02:11 AM
The Wta needs to do away with some of the hardcourts and have more clay court tourneys. This is why their own are getting injured. They base their entire game around the hard turf and by age 23 they start to break down.

I mean can a fan get a indoor tourney in America? LOL


I say go global. but keep the Cincinnati tourney and Miami. Do away with Indian Wells. Oh and fire Larry Scott. Hire a women.

Dawn Marie
Nov 14th, 2006, 02:12 AM
Oh and have more grass tourneys. And move wimbledon back a few weeks.

MH0861
Nov 14th, 2006, 02:14 AM
The WTA still needs to give their players more rest time during the year.
The way I feel that can be accomplished is by having Doha in Janurary since it is on rebound ace like the men.
They should make Dubai a Tier I and change Indian Wells to a joint Master Series/Tier II event with the women playing a week.
That would give players two weeks between Dubai and Indian Wells unless a player wants to play Acupulco.

They should do a Montreal/Toronto with Indian Wells and Miami - alternate between the two sites every year and have the men and women at seperate ones.

Wannabeknowitall
Nov 14th, 2006, 02:28 AM
The Wta needs to do away with some of the hardcourts and have more clay court tourneys. This is why their own are getting injured. They base their entire game around the hard turf and by age 23 they start to break down.

I mean can a fan get a indoor tourney in America? LOL


I say go global. but keep the Cincinnati tourney and Miami. Do away with Indian Wells. Oh and fire Larry Scott. Hire a women.

More clay courts?
You rarely see a player come off the clay court season without an injury and you think more is the right way to go?

Lindsay and Clijsters won't even play on the clay anymore because of the instability of the surface and how it reagrrevates previous injuries.
Sharapova won't play on green clay.
Serena seems to reaggrevate an injury days into playing on the clay.
I'm all for more grass court tournis.
There's no reason why the Hall of Fame tourni could not be a joint grass court tourni.

Dawn Marie
Nov 14th, 2006, 02:39 AM
More clay courts?
You rarely see a player come off the clay court season without an injury and you think more is the right way to go?

Lindsay and Clijsters won't even play on the clay anymore because of the instability of the surface and how it reagrrevates previous injuries.
Sharapova won't play on green clay.
Serena seems to reaggrevate an injury days into playing on the clay.
I'm all for more grass court tournis.
There's no reason why the Hall of Fame tourni could not be a joint grass court tourni.


You missed the point. America need to have MORE clay court tourneys and not so many hard courts. Like I said before these American players grow up on hard and by the time they're 23 they break down. Clay is LESS demanding on the body.

Lindsay is a hard courter. Has no clay court skills what so ever. Kim likes clay. Didn't hear her state anything about it but she's retiring and making babies. Sharapova and clay should never be in the same sentence. Serena has been injured the past two years and clay has nothing to do with her injuries. She had knee problems which were probably a result of her hard court hours on the court.

The WTA needs to have less hard courts and more clay and grass.


They are already thinking about starting a clay court series and teaching the young kids how to play the clay at an earlier age. We all know Americans have no clue how to slide naturally on the clay. This is why I said Maria and clay shouldn't be in the same sentence earlier. Clay doesn't cause more injuries it's just more demanding physically on the body. USTA has way to many hardcourts. All the clubs or public parks have about 1000000,000 hard courts to maybe 1 clay court. LOL

Dawn Marie
Nov 14th, 2006, 02:42 AM
Sure we see injuries after or during the RG this is becauseIMHO.

1. The two slams are just to close together and 2. Players don't train or schedule properly and get wore down by the second round at Wimbeldon.

Dawn Marie
Nov 14th, 2006, 02:43 AM
Sure we see injuries after or during the RG and Wimby this is because IMHO.

1. The two slams are just to close together and 2. Players don't train or schedule properly and get wore down by the second round at Wimbeldon.

stevos
Nov 14th, 2006, 02:48 AM
Thank god the Rogers Cup will for sure stay :worship:

But I think the tour shouldn't screw over the US Open series, I think it's a great thing, someone fire Larry Scott PLEASE!

DutchieGirl
Nov 14th, 2006, 02:55 AM
I don't like the idea of A and B tourneys... what happens after those? Just challengers for the lower ranked players or what? :scratch:

Ceze
Nov 14th, 2006, 06:55 AM
I don't like the idea of A and B tourneys... what happens after those? Just challengers for the lower ranked players or what? :scratch:good question :shrug:

DutchieGirl
Nov 14th, 2006, 08:02 AM
good question :shrug:

nothing's really clear, is it? They talk about the "A and B" tourneys, and they are getting rid of the tiers...so basically what they are doing is creating Tier 1's = A tourneys and Tier 2 = B tourneys, so what's left for tier 3 and 4? Lower ranked players are just gonna have to play challengers or? That's dumb!

supergrunt
Nov 14th, 2006, 11:06 AM
Well...as long as on-court coaching isn't implemented :erm:

saki
Nov 14th, 2006, 11:53 AM
The U.S.Open series should be scrapped. No-one took it very seriously this year - only Maria seemed to be even trying and she didn't care enough to commit to one more tournament to clinch it.

The WTA is so incompetantly managed. I don't even know where to start. Basically, they need to have a look at the tournaments that draw huge crowds and really think about why it is that those tournaments do so and others don't. Because it ain't just about the 'stars', it's more complicated than that. Some tournaments never get Sharapova or Serena or Venus but continue to do very well - look at Charleston which markets itself on good tennis, promotes players like Patty as well as Justine, or Toronto/Montreal which didn't get a good field this year but still sold tickets. Look at the type of people who attend WTA events.

Look at the schedule seriously. Wimbledon needs to be pushed a few weeks ahead - the weather would be better, it would enable players to play a decent grass season, they could have Rosmalen, Birmingham, Eastbourne all in separate weeks and probably add another tournament somewhere else. Extend the claycourt season a little - most of the top players are European, the European clay events are well-attended, popular with the players but there are only two Tier Is on the European red clay. Then the U.S. Open warmups would have more interesting fields because there would be fewer of them and the fields would be more competitive.

goldenlox
Nov 14th, 2006, 12:22 PM
The WTA can't control when Wimbledon is played, that's ITF.

It seems like the WTA and ATP want to build their own group of 2 week mega-events,
their own majors.

They are decieded where and when to have them.

Ryan
Nov 14th, 2006, 12:31 PM
Ugh, I don't like this idea very much. Making too many mandatory events is NOT cool for the players, and I doubt it will have them withdraw any less. If they can keep it to a minimum then I'd be ok with having 3 mandatory events outside of the Slams.

I don't think all the events in the States are a problem either. There are LOTS of open markets that will draw in a number of fans, if they keep the events that have history. I dont know if a new event in Chicago will do anything, but there's nothing wrong with Stanford or even Cincinatti's attendance is there? As a North American I don't like the idea of getting rid of USA events because it means I'll see less and less tennis, and I don't think european events are necessarily going to be any better.

matthias
Nov 14th, 2006, 12:41 PM
we will see - Larry Scott will make his best ;)

goldenlox
Nov 14th, 2006, 12:41 PM
I meant they are undecided where and when.
There is a lot of money out there, even though the sport seems to becoming smaller and smaller in the US.

The WTA and ATP are trying to build the sport around events they control.
That's why the USTA seems concerned about it.

lynnlovestennis
Nov 14th, 2006, 02:15 PM
I thought that Cronin article looked familiar (http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2006-10-10/97.php).

goldenlox
Nov 14th, 2006, 02:19 PM
"The problem for smaller events, like those in the US Open Series, is that the WTA wants to create a handful of mega-events in which all top players compete, getting that early-round competition going. To get the top players together at events and minimize the number they play, the WTA wants to place limits on how many lower-level stops they can compete in."


That's a good article too.

I agree with what the WTA is trying to do.
Right now, nobody cares about the non-majors.

I would create some WTA/ATP 2 week events, and link them together
with extra money for the players who do best in them.

And then sell worldwide tv rights, bring in sponsors. Sell them in a way that a Tier I or II can't.

Ryan
Nov 14th, 2006, 02:32 PM
I think A,B, and C level events would work well for the WTA. Like goldenlox said, have some big events (I dont know if the HAVE to be 2 week) events that are mandatory - those are A level. My suggestions - Miami, Rome/Madrid, and then Montreal and Toronto. I love the Canadian format of having the events in two separate cities, so I'd keep that and have the events back to back but promote it up anyway. You could have one in the fall - Beijing, Shanghai, whatever.

Every other event is a B or a C. You'd have the 4 slams and roughly 4 mandatory A events. Players pick the rest of their schedules from B and C events, but maybe top 10 players should only have 1 or 2 C events allowed?

goldenlox
Nov 14th, 2006, 03:04 PM
It doesn't have to be 2 weeks, but they need a "hook" to sell it, and to get non-tennis fans to notice it.

If they can get most of the big name players, and give big prizemoney,
they might be able to sell SF & final to a network, and get a cable network to show every day coverage.

And get it on tv in most of the world.

Ryan
Nov 14th, 2006, 03:21 PM
It doesn't have to be 2 weeks, but they need a "hook" to sell it, and to get non-tennis fans to notice it.

If they can get most of the big name players, and give big prizemoney,
they might be able to sell SF & final to a network, and get a cable network to show every day coverage.

And get it on tv in most of the world.



Definately. Two weeks works well though, especially if you want a big draw like the Nasdaq. I like the idea of making the A events different maybe? Miami - two weeks long, 128 draws like slams. Toronto/Montreal - two cities, back to back, top players all there. You could make one of them one week, pretty condensed, I dont really know. I think a hook is obviously important, but I think it could be cool if they can get 4 hooks for 4 events.

goldenlox
Nov 14th, 2006, 03:36 PM
I'm thinking a combined WTA/ATP event because the YEC was on Versus.
That's not good for such a big event.

If they have Federer and Nadal and Roddick and Mauresmo and JHH and Sharapova...
and they get sponsors who promote it...

Maybe they can get it out there to the public.

the cat
Nov 14th, 2006, 03:42 PM
That was a good article.
Why should the US have so many Tier I's with no top 10 US players?
The tour has to change with the changing times.

GL I'm glad you finally admit Maria Sharapiova is not American. :) Gotcha! :yeah:

And really GL you should be working in marketing because your mind is geared towards marketing and promotion.

goldenlox
Nov 14th, 2006, 03:47 PM
And really GL you should be working in marketing because your mind is geared towards marketing and promotion.My mind is geared towards sleep :cool:
The YEC being on Versus, with Ryan and Austin in NYC watching a monitor, is bad.

So at least the WTA is being proactive. Maybe they know what they're doing.

Ryan
Nov 14th, 2006, 03:51 PM
Yeah, having NBC or ESPN in the States and Eurosport 1/2 in Europe would be much better for big events. I'd personally be in favor of a combined YEC.

the cat
Nov 14th, 2006, 04:05 PM
America has put so much money into women's tennis over the years the WTA Tour better not mess this up. I find it hard to believe Europe could host Tier 1 and Tier ll WTA Tour tournaments like America can. Especially in the summertime.

And GL it is ridiculous that our American television coverage of the WTA Championships in Madrid is covered from America. :(

No.1Hingis
Nov 14th, 2006, 04:07 PM
I guess, they should bring tennis to America.. not just USA... I f they dont wanna to move of California.. maybe can move to here...

We have only a Tier 3 I guess.. which is Acapulco... and certainly is not one of best seasons cause is winter.. Febrary.. even is a beach place and is not cold there .. but ppl used to not go to Acapulco in Febrary...

Maybe.. if there exits some tourney in "Los Cabos".. for example.. a Tier 2 or 1 instead IW.. all american and mexican ppl that lives there will full the tourney.. is beach.. and is full of $$$ there.. and ppl from California would easily come down here.. cause will be just couple hrs down IW..

there's cities here that sure will receive that kind of events fulling stadiums... another can be Monterrey.. they had have a lot international events.. and the love the sports... and theres a lot lot $$$ too..

Just look at what ppl here does.. with NFL matches, 2 events in Champ Car.. NBA matches.. and if you bring more.. they go.. so.. raitings within MLB series... Golf torneys.. even.. guess ppl does the effort to go to Acapulco...

Maybe.. Argentine or Brazil can hold another tournament too..

So.. WTA.. we want PRO tennis and top players.. you want money $$$$ .. then you can come..

No.1Hingis
Nov 14th, 2006, 04:11 PM
I guess, they should bring tennis to America.. not just USA... I f they dont wanna to move of California.. maybe can move to here...

We have only a Tier 3 I guess.. which is Acapulco... and certainly is not one of best seasons cause is winter.. Febrary.. even is a beach place and is not cold there .. but ppl used to not go to Acapulco in Febrary...

Maybe.. if there exits some tourney in "Los Cabos".. for example.. a Tier 2 or 1 instead IW.. all american and mexican ppl that lives there will full the tourney.. is beach.. and is full of $$$ there.. and ppl from California would easily come down here.. cause will be just couple hrs down IW..

there's cities here that sure will receive that kind of events fulling stadiums... another can be Monterrey.. they had have a lot international events.. and the love the sports... and theres a lot lot $$$ too..

Just look at what ppl here does.. with NFL matches, 2 events in Champ Car.. NBA matches.. and if you bring more.. they go.. so.. raitings within MLB series... Golf torneys.. even.. guess ppl does the effort to go to Acapulco...

Maybe.. Argentine or Brazil can hold another tournament too..

So.. WTA.. we want PRO tennis and top players.. you want money $$$$ .. then you can come..

You cant imagine how much ppl will wanna to see Maria S, William S and Martina as those with popularity here.. and the other top ten players..

goldenlox
Nov 14th, 2006, 04:13 PM
To get top players, the tournaments have to give a lot of money.
The smaller tournaments won't get big names.

That's the problem right now.
The WTA wants mega-events, the established tournaments don't want to be looked at as second class.

crazillo
Nov 14th, 2006, 07:13 PM
America has too many tournaments. Green clay is absolutely usless. Indoors is because of the YEC. They should get rid of the spring indoor season and move the AO to a later date. Then Dubai, Doha, IW and Miami, then break (FC), clay tournaments, FO, grass tournaments (one more week of preperation would be good), break after Wimby (FC), fewer US tournaments, then the USOPEN, then a break and the indoor season. That would be much less in event,s but much more good tennis due to healthy players.

goldenlox
Nov 14th, 2006, 07:15 PM
Moving the AO to March would make the season much easier for top players, but TA doesn't want to move it.

johnoo
Nov 14th, 2006, 08:19 PM
Wimbledon needs to be pushed a few weeks ahead - the weather would be better.
Wimbledon have said they would have no problems moving 2 weeks forward so thats not them stopping that,the weather would be better? that was not the case this year or last year two weeks after wimbledon and if as your flag you live in britain you should know nobody can predict the weather in britain the last two years the best summer weather has been them 2 weeks during wimbledon.

saki
Nov 14th, 2006, 08:43 PM
Wimbledon have said they would have no problems moving 2 weeks forward so thats not them stopping that,the weather would be better? that was not the case this year or last year two weeks after wimbledon and if as your flag you live in britain you should know nobody can predict the weather in britain the last two years the best summer weather has been them 2 weeks during wimbledon.

On average, it seems to be better a bit later - but I don't live in London so maybe that's why I'm thinking that.

Fingon
Nov 14th, 2006, 08:51 PM
I find it really laughable how people say "oh, there should be tournament here and there" and fail to say how they are going to finance that, to build a tennis stadium that could cost 30-60 million dollars for just one week of the years is not always possible.

What I like about this is that if Scott keeps insisting with this bullshit he will be gone in no time, the Lawyers will be preparing their claws.

Fingon
Nov 14th, 2006, 08:52 PM
btw, it the GSs decide to break the tour and organize their own circuit, the WTA AND the ATP are history, good riddance.

TeamUSA#1
Nov 14th, 2006, 09:04 PM
America has too many tournaments. Green clay is absolutely usless. Indoors is because of the YEC. They should get rid of the spring indoor season and move the AO to a later date. Then Dubai, Doha, IW and Miami, then break (FC), clay tournaments, FO, grass tournaments (one more week of preperation would be good), break after Wimby (FC), fewer US tournaments, then the USOPEN, then a break and the indoor season. That would be much less in event,s but much more good tennis due to healthy players.

Europe has just as many if not more tournaments than the US. Leading into the French Open, you have The J &S Cup (Poland), Estoril Open, The German Open, The Italian Open, Strausbourg, The Instanbul Cup, plus tier 4s Prague and Rabat... that's 8 clay tournaments leading into the FO.

Leading into the US Open, you have Cincy, Stanford, Acura, LA, Montreal/Toronto, and New Haven.. that's 6 tournaments leading in.... If you are getting rid of some of those, the player will have virtually no prep for the hard courts and the Us Open.... which would probably be more injuries

Beyond the lead ins, Europe has tournaments between the AO and Indian Wells, plus all the indoor tournaments in the Fall (another 6). Plus the grass tournaments and Wimbly...

If they want to fix the calendar...

Start a couple of weeks later(mid Jan), have the AO lead ups adding Dubai and Doha and then move all the Asia Pacific tournaments after the AO(China Open, Tokyo, etc...), get rid of the Europe tournaments in Feb. (all on hard courts/rebound ace.) ASIA PACIFIC SWING

Continue the hard courts in the US (March)with 2 smaller tournaments and then Miami (get rid of Indian Wells-- having 2, 2 week large mandatory tournaments back to back is just STUPID). Get rid of Amelia Island and Charleston. SPRING HARD COURT SEASON

Then have 2 weeks no activity

Then the European clay swing (April)leading into the French Open. No tournaments the week after the FO. CLAY SEASON

Add a couple of grass tournaments to the the existing schedule and then have Wimbly. GRASS SEASON

Get rid of all of the summer clay tournaments (why have players prep on clay for the US Open???). Have the US Open series lead into the USO. No tournaments after the USO for 2 weeks (Sep) HARD COURT SEASON

Have a indoor season in Europe/Russia (4 weeks) and the YEC at the end of October. INDOOR SEASON

Players will then get November, December, and 2 weeks in Jan off...

The more they can combine the men's and women's events the better for promoting the sport. I also thing the Round Robin format used at the YECs may be worth exploring for certain events.

!<blocparty>!
Nov 14th, 2006, 09:13 PM
WTF. These are some of the dumbest ideas I have ever heard of. But that's hardly surprising considering it's the WTA & Co. coming up with them.

"A" and "B" tournaments?! :weirdo:

We need:

- A longer grass season
- Shorter clay season
- To scrap the stupid Spring hardcourt season
- The entire tier I II and III thing to be revamped into something "cool"

Blah I can't be bothered to think of anymore.

Also, scrapping/demoting successful, sell-out tournaments would be really, really stupid.

SpankMe
Nov 14th, 2006, 09:21 PM
A lot of these ideas have been discussed and even voted on by tennis organisations and tennis tournaments (including wimbledon who voted no over a decade ago now).

The problem is not that is should happen, because it needs to, but how to persuade the tennis organisations, such as the ITF, and the tournaments, such as wimbledon, to accept the changes.

Petitions? Campaign groups? Letter writng/emailing to newspapers, radio & tv stations when a major tournament is in your country?

Lots of local campaign groups to write to their national tennis federations, tournaments and their's sponsors around the world. The local groups could meet over the internet to share news so that it would be possible to co-ordinate internationally.

Other opportunities should be taken such as when a player has an online interview, which fans are invited to send in questions for, they should be asked for their views on the subject so that it remains firmly in the public arena and becomes a talking topic in the sports media. This also applies to ex-players, many of whom are still influential in their national federation.

Any other ideas?

goldenlox
Nov 14th, 2006, 09:41 PM
The ITF isn't going to change because the majors are goldmines, run by idiots.
Look at Kantarian, the CEO of the USTA.
He's real happy he can sell tickets and tv rights in the US.
But what happened to tennis in the US? He's clueless.
Where's tennis in England. People running majors have a cash cow,
but don't know what they're doing.

PLP
Nov 14th, 2006, 09:50 PM
Well, I REALLY hope they can streamline the schedule by 2009...I think Players like Hingis, Serena, Venus, Momo, Justine, etc, that are in their late 20's, 27-29, could continue, hopefully, to play, with the advantage of a shorter schedule and longer off-season. ;)

SpankMe
Nov 14th, 2006, 10:14 PM
The ITF isn't going to change because the majors are goldmines, run by idiots.

Where's tennis in England. People running majors have a cash cow,
but don't know what they're doing.
One of the long term arguments for moving the wimbledon time slot is that the children are still at school when the tournament is taking place so they see very little of it. Hence they don't get inspired by good matches. :rolleyes:
If it was moved then the kids would hopefull be able to see some of the matches and even attend the tournament. ;) That's the idea anyway.

DutchieGirl
Nov 15th, 2006, 01:15 AM
Moving the AO to March would make the season much easier for top players, but TA doesn't want to move it.

Why should they? Why don't we cut back the season at the end? :p

In 2 years, the season will end in October anyway - so the players will have at least 2 months off. Ao wouldn't work in March - it has been looked at ,and decided against. I think they could put it back a couple of weeks - that wouldn't be so bad. Then all players would have at least 2.5 months off, and most (except for those at YEC) another week too.

DutchieGirl
Nov 15th, 2006, 01:19 AM
Europe has just as many if not more tournaments than the US. Leading into the French Open, you have The J &S Cup (Poland), Estoril Open, The German Open, The Italian Open, Strausbourg, The Instanbul Cup, plus tier 4s Prague and Rabat... that's 8 clay tournaments leading into the FO.

Leading into the US Open, you have Cincy, Stanford, Acura, LA, Montreal/Toronto, and New Haven.. that's 6 tournaments leading in.... If you are getting rid of some of those, the player will have virtually no prep for the hard courts and the Us Open.... which would probably be more injuries

Beyond the lead ins, Europe has tournaments between the AO and Indian Wells, plus all the indoor tournaments in the Fall (another 6). Plus the grass tournaments and Wimbly...

If they want to fix the calendar...

Start a couple of weeks later(mid Jan), have the AO lead ups adding Dubai and Doha and then move all the Asia Pacific tournaments after the AO(China Open, Tokyo, etc...), get rid of the Europe tournaments in Feb. (all on hard courts/rebound ace.) ASIA PACIFIC SWING

Continue the hard courts in the US (March)with 2 smaller tournaments and then Miami (get rid of Indian Wells-- having 2, 2 week large mandatory tournaments back to back is just STUPID). Get rid of Amelia Island and Charleston. SPRING HARD COURT SEASON

Then have 2 weeks no activity

Then the European clay swing (April)leading into the French Open. No tournaments the week after the FO. CLAY SEASON

Add a couple of grass tournaments to the the existing schedule and then have Wimbly. GRASS SEASON

Get rid of all of the summer clay tournaments (why have players prep on clay for the US Open???). Have the US Open series lead into the USO. No tournaments after the USO for 2 weeks (Sep) HARD COURT SEASON

Have a indoor season in Europe/Russia (4 weeks) and the YEC at the end of October. INDOOR SEASON

Players will then get November, December, and 2 weeks in Jan off...

The more they can combine the men's and women's events the better for promoting the sport. I also thing the Round Robin format used at the YECs may be worth exploring for certain events.

:yeah: Sounds like some good idea's! :D

DutchieGirl
Nov 15th, 2006, 01:21 AM
Well, I REALLY hope they can streamline the schedule by 2009...I think Players like Hingis, Serena, Venus, Momo, Justine, etc, that are in their late 20's, 27-29, could continue, hopefully, to play, with the advantage of a shorter schedule and longer off-season. ;)

There's already a solution for these sort of players WITHOUT having to shorten the schedul that much: Smarter scheduling by players! DOn't p[lay 5 weeks in a row, don't schedule to play 5 weeks in a row, don't schedule tourneys on different continents the week after each other, that sort of stuff is not HARD!

iWill
Nov 15th, 2006, 04:52 AM
That was a good article.
Why should the US have so many Tier I's with no top 10 US players?
The tour has to change with the changing times.

there doesnt have to be top 10 americans when Sharapova can sell out an arena and Vee and Rena can sell out an arena when they arent even in the top 30 i dont think they should change it drastically i think the canadian tourneys should go and the american clay tourneys should go but thats about it the USO series is one of the best things the WTA and ATP have done and reducing it in America i think is pointless i knoe the canadian tourneys are included in that but is the USO series it should be in the US also if they make A and B tiers it takes all the fun out of slams because they'd be so predictable considering you prolly would have seen the same two square off twice before the slam even started idk but i do know that i dont like the idea to much though

Kunal
Nov 15th, 2006, 06:39 AM
i think they are just trying to adapt to the new conditions that keep on propping up all the time...

TheBoiledEgg
Nov 15th, 2006, 11:12 AM
one thing that wont be reduced is the indoor circuit
cos thats a guaranteed event where no weather can damage it and its good for TV.

TheBoiledEgg
Nov 15th, 2006, 11:14 AM
in fact after the US open the Asian circuit should be indoors
dont know why they play outdoors
especially Bangkok where they have an ATP event indoors and the week after, same city the WTA play outdoors :rolleyes:

the Asian outdoor circuit used to be pretty good when it was held during April time, should go back to it.

goldenlox
Nov 15th, 2006, 11:46 AM
I think Miami is wasted in the US.
If you are getting Federer, Nadal, Roddick, Blake,
JHH, Mauresmo, Sharapova, Hingis, all together,
there are countries who would pay well for that kind of event.

Ryan
Nov 15th, 2006, 12:14 PM
TBE - I don't see a single tennis event broadcasted in Canada after the US Open, it's like they stop playing after New York. :fiery: I think you should have a balance between the fans (moving the AO back is stupid in terms of timing, it's in the middle of their summer so everyone can go), the players (streamline the schedule so you dont have to fly willy nilly every week), and the organizers (get the big stars to the big paying events).

I think they should keep Miami where it is, it's obviously not struggling. I like shortening the clay season by a week or two. I think they could add another 2 weeks of grass events, and eliminate the stupid clay events afterwards. US Open Series is fine I think. They could really shorten the indoor season by moving the Asian events to earlier in the year (after Tokyo?) and moving Antwerp/Paris back, and having acouple of events a week.

TheBoiledEgg
Nov 15th, 2006, 12:34 PM
TBE - I don't see a single tennis event broadcasted in Canada after the US Open, it's like they stop playing after New York. :fiery: I think you should have a balance between the fans (moving the AO back is stupid in terms of timing, it's in the middle of their summer so everyone can go), the players (streamline the schedule so you dont have to fly willy nilly every week), and the organizers (get the big stars to the big paying events).

I think they should keep Miami where it is, it's obviously not struggling. I like shortening the clay season by a week or two. I think they could add another 2 weeks of grass events, and eliminate the stupid clay events afterwards. US Open Series is fine I think. They could really shorten the indoor season by moving the Asian events to earlier in the year (after Tokyo?) and moving Antwerp/Paris back, and having acouple of events a week.

there was about 7 hrs each day nearly for the indoor season here in Europe :angel: :bounce:
indoor season is too valauble to lose, as its great for TV.

Canada never shows much tennis anyway, thats your loss.

the clay events after Wimbledon arent that big a deal, they clash with the big tourns anyway, and only lower ranked players play them.

goldenlox
Nov 15th, 2006, 01:11 PM
I'm interested to find out exactly what this roadmap will be.
If it leads to a shorter season, there will be lots of exhibitions this time of year.

SpankMe
Nov 17th, 2006, 06:50 PM
I'm interested to find out exactly what this roadmap will be.
If it leads to a shorter season, there will be lots of exhibitions this time of year.
Can the fans have input into the roadmap? :confused: By that I mean none-US-TV-audience fans? :rolleyes:

MyskinaManiac
Nov 17th, 2006, 07:32 PM
I think they could add another 2 weeks of grass events, and eliminate the stupid clay events afterwards. US Open Series is fine I think. They could really shorten the indoor season by moving the Asian events to earlier in the year (after Tokyo?) and moving Antwerp/Paris back, and having acouple of events a week.

I couldn't agree more!! I think we could move Bejing right after Tokyo. In addition, tournaments after Beijing (formally the Paris tier II week should be pushed forward a week. This is what it should look like:

Jan 29 Toray Pan Pacific Open – Tokyo, JPN *** $1,340,000 28/32/16 CI I
Pattaya Open – Pattaya City, THA $170,000 32/32/16 HO IV
Feb 5 China Open – Beijing, CHN $600,000 28/32/16 HO II
Wismilak International – Bali, INA $225,000 30/16/16 HO III
Feb 12 Open Gaz de France – Paris, FRA $600,000 28/32/16 GSI II
Guangzhou International Women’s Open 2006 – Guangzhou, CHN $175,000 32/16/16 HOIII
Feb 20 Proximus Diamond Games – Antwerp, BEL $600,000 28/32/16 GSI II
Bangalore Open 2006 - Bangalore, IND $175,000 32/32/16 HO III
Feb 26 Dubai Duty Free Women’s Open – Dubai, UAE * $1,000,000 28/32/16 HO II
Sunfeast Open 2006 – Kolkata, IND $175,000 32/16/16 GSI III
Copa Colsanitas Seguros Bolivar– Bogota, COL $175,000 32/32/16 RCO III
Mar 5 Qatar Total Open – Doha, QAT * $600,000 28/32/16 HO II
Abierto Mexicano TELCEL presentado por HSBC– Acapulco, MEX* $180,000 32/32/16 RCO III
Regions Morgan Keegan Champ’s & the Cellular South Cup – $175,000 32/32/16 HI III
Memphis, TN, USA !*
Mar 12 Pacific Life Open – Indian Wells, CA, USA $2,100,000 96/48/32 HO I
Mar 19 Pacific Life Open – Indian Wells, CA, USA (2nd Week) *
Mar 26 NASDAQ-100 Open – Miami, FL, USA $3,450,000 96/48/32 HO I
Apr 2 NASDAQ-100 Open – Miami, FL USA (2nd Week) *
Apr 9 Bausch & Lomb Championships – Amelia Island, FL, USA $600,000 56/32/16 GCO II
Apr 16 Family Circle Cup – Charleston, SC, USA $1,340,000 56/32/28 GCO I
Apr 23 FED CUP I ^
May 1 J & S Cup – Warsaw, POL $600,000 28/32/16 RCO II

Ok. I've got some explaining to do. I'll start off with explaining Fed cup and the two major schedualing dates I've changed. The First fed cup tie will be pushed back a week. Not as many players play in fed cup for it to make a difference on when it's played, the main thing is, is that it has it's own week. The final fed cup tie, formally with the bali event will be moved to three days after the YEC. My explanation is, not enough big names play fed cup currently, so what's the difference - Im giving them three days to rest if they make the final and they only have to at least play one match.

Through this change, the girls that do not make the fed cup final will be given two extra weeks off!! Girls that do play will be glad to know that they get one extra week. (Remebering that I've collapsed two weeks after the US and pushed all events forward.

Ok, the Asian circut after the US, what will be of it? They stay. These events will remain partnered with their respective Tier II's and I. Soul, Tokyo, Bangkok and Tel Aviv (yes that's part of Asia) will remain. Memphis should be placed before Indian Wells to keep with the US events, this makes travelling for the girls easier!!!

The slams remain, and everything stays the same from April 30 to Sept 9. Got any suggestions?

goldenlox
Nov 17th, 2006, 07:37 PM
They are getting rid of Tier II's. Either they raise their prizemoney by a lot, or drop to B status.
So the whole schedule will look different.

tennisIlove09
Nov 17th, 2006, 07:39 PM
That was a good article.
Why should the US have so many Tier I's with no top 10 US players?
The tour has to change with the changing times.

So the country that has the most top 10 players should get the most tier 1 events? That makes no sense at all since the top 10 changes so regularly. This is the first time, maybe ever, that there is no American in the top 10 year end.

For year Americans had Evert near the top, then Navratilova (after she switched), then Seles, Capriati, Venus, Serena, Lindsay. Probably the strongest US team ever was the late 90's, early 00's when Lindsay, Monica, Jennifer, Venus and Serena were all top 10. That's HALF of the top 10 American. That they were like that for years. At least 4 of them in the top 10 between 98-03.

So because the injuries have hampered all of those players, the tour should pull tier 1 events out of America? What a slap in the face to the sponsors that supported the tour for years. Is the tour changing? yes, of course. But you're post makes very little sense.

goldenlox
Nov 17th, 2006, 07:47 PM
The YEC left the US.
Larry Scott is supposed to make an announcement next week, and we'll see how many A tournaments are in the US.

MyskinaManiac
Nov 17th, 2006, 07:54 PM
I predict 4... we're including IW, Miami, clay and the us open series right?

tennisIlove09
Nov 17th, 2006, 08:08 PM
The YEC left the US.
Larry Scott is supposed to make an announcement next week, and we'll see how many A tournaments are in the US.

And until this year, it was struggling to find a fan base again.
Moving the YEC from Maddison Square Garden was a HUGE mistake, IMO.

Put it back. Call it the "Race to the Chase", since it was called the Chase Championships. It was awesome.

goldenlox
Nov 17th, 2006, 08:15 PM
Madrid is ready for A tournament. So are Doha and Dubai.
It's time to spread out.
Stanford, SD, LA - those days should be over.
Just like IW, Miami, AI, FCC
Spread out the A tournaments

DutchieGirl
Nov 18th, 2006, 12:10 AM
Well I hope they don't put Tokyo as an A tourney the week after the AO - that's be silly.

goldenlox
Nov 18th, 2006, 12:12 AM
It already is a Tier I.
They probably won't make it a 2 week tournament, but that tournament has money.

Fingon
Nov 18th, 2006, 01:24 AM
it ain't happening, the GSs don't like it, end of story.

Somebody mentioned the GSs are managed by the ITF, they are not, they are managed by themselves, they are ITF events but it doesn't mean the ITF has a say, neither do the WTA and ATP.

The USTA owns the US Open, they won't let their tournaments go away, Roland Garros and Wimbledon have nothing to lose or gain, so they will support the US Open. The Australian tennis federation won't want Sydney demoted to "B" but they don't want to pay the money for it to be "A".

Plus, Larry Scott has fucked up a lot, if he had tried to do this at the beginning of his mandate then he could have possibly pull it off, now he has no credibility, he has showed he doesn't have the skills to manage the tour, period.

They want less injuries? they don't need a shorter season, they need LESS pressure on the players to play where they don't want to.

Stop the gold exemption list, stop mandatory commitments, each tournament should be able to prove they can attract players, if they can't, too bad.

Whether you call them tier 1, A or alpha, it doesn't change the fact that the problem is the relationships between the wta and the top players, poisoned since Larry Scott took over.

He is the problem, not the solution.

goldenlox
Nov 18th, 2006, 01:39 AM
This is Cronin, earlier today -

NOTES FROM ALL OVER
The Sony Ericson WTA's changes are not done yet. Next week there will be some clarification as to what will happen with the re-designation of tournaments into "A" and "B" categories. Hold on to your hats: It could much more dramatic than the on-court coaching and doubles announcements. BTW: There's been a tremendous amount of discussion of my Inside Tennis article on the subject on wtaworld.com. The article had a California-US slant because IT is based in California, but all those global fans who wrote that the US has too many tournaments anyway should realize that every Tier II is at risk, not just those in the states.

DutchieGirl
Nov 18th, 2006, 03:05 AM
It already is a Tier I.
They probably won't make it a 2 week tournament, but that tournament has money.

Are you blind? Or do you think I can't read? I KNOW that Tokyo is a tier 1 - I commented before that it's dumb to have a tier 1 right after a GS! :rolleyes: Please read before you make stupid statements.

Why would they make Tokyo a 2 week tourney? Who suggested they would? :scratch:

Good for the tourney having money. It's probably a very nice tourney, but it gets a shite field coz it's right after a GS. They would be better off using their money by changing the tourney date so they can get a better field!

DutchieGirl
Nov 18th, 2006, 03:07 AM
This is Cronin, earlier today -

NOTES FROM ALL OVER
The Sony Ericson WTA's changes are not done yet. Next week there will be some clarification as to what will happen with the re-designation of tournaments into "A" and "B" categories. Hold on to your hats: It could much more dramatic than the on-court coaching and doubles announcements. BTW: There's been a tremendous amount of discussion of my Inside Tennis article on the subject on wtaworld.com. The article had a California-US slant because IT is based in California, but all those global fans who wrote that the US has too many tournaments anyway should realize that every Tier II is at risk, not just those in the states.

Oh goodie - Cronin reads WTAWorld! :lol:

TheBoiledEgg
Nov 18th, 2006, 09:53 AM
Oh goodie - Cronin reads WTAWorld! :lol:

he's been doing so for ages
thats why he's now sending out his TR stuff by email only.

TheBoiledEgg
Nov 18th, 2006, 09:55 AM
Are you blind? Or do you think I can't read? I KNOW that Tokyo is a tier 1 - I commented before that it's dumb to have a tier 1 right after a GS! :rolleyes: Please read before you make stupid statements.

Why would they make Tokyo a 2 week tourney? Who suggested they would? :scratch:

Good for the tourney having money. It's probably a very nice tourney, but it gets a shite field coz it's right after a GS. They would be better off using their money by changing the tourney date so they can get a better field!

simple answer for Tokyo
play their PPO tournament in Sep, just after China Open.

and then play the mickey mouse Tokyo tourn the week after, or if they want, play the mickey mouse Tokyo the week after Aus.

goldenlox
Nov 18th, 2006, 10:49 AM
There is no point telling Scott where to put tournaments.
He has information we don't. Financial information.
I'm glad he's clarifying things this week.
It gives us time to analyze it before the year starts

DutchieGirl
Nov 18th, 2006, 07:41 PM
he's been doing so for ages
thats why he's now sending out his TR stuff by email only.

yah I know. ;)

DutchieGirl
Nov 18th, 2006, 07:45 PM
simple answer for Tokyo
play their PPO tournament in Sep, just after China Open.

and then play the mickey mouse Tokyo tourn the week after, or if they want, play the mickey mouse Tokyo the week after Aus.

Exactly - that'd be better, although I'm sure it won't happen. ;)

DutchieGirl
Nov 18th, 2006, 07:46 PM
There is no point telling Scott where to put tournaments.
He has information we don't. Financial information.
I'm glad he's clarifying things this week.
It gives us time to analyze it before the year starts

Yeah, I'm sure Scott reads WTAWorld and takes into account our opinions anyway! :lol: Doesn't mean we can't say what we think is better...and trust me, having a Tier 1 after a GS is not a good business move. ;)

goldenlox
Nov 18th, 2006, 07:55 PM
If they make the Pan Pacific a B, a Tier III, then they'll pay appearance fees to two or 3 players, and the prizemoney will stink for everyone else.
At least now there's some prizemoney for people in the draw.
And the doubles pays $25,000 to each winner.

DutchieGirl
Nov 18th, 2006, 07:58 PM
If they make the Pan Pacific a B, a Tier III, then they'll pay appearance fees to two or 3 players, and the prizemoney will stink for everyone else.
At least now there's some prizemoney for people in the draw.
And the doubles pays $25,000 to each winner.

:scratch: Please, can you explain to me how you went from us saying that Tokyo should be moved from the week after the Ao to thinking that we said ANYTHING about making it a B tourney, or a Tier 3 or something? We (TBE and myself) NEVER mentioned downgrading the tourney - just MOVING it to a better time of the season!

goldenlox
Nov 18th, 2006, 08:00 PM
I was commenting on this. A Tier III there is bad for the players, like Lena D, who lost early in Melbourne

Originally Posted by TheBoiledEgg http://imgsrv2.tennisuniverse.com/wtaworld/images/buttons/blue/viewpost.gif (http://www.wtaworld.com/showthread.php?p=9506756#post9506756)
simple answer for Tokyo
play their PPO tournament in Sep, just after China Open.

and then play the mickey mouse Tokyo tourn the week after, or if they want, play the mickey mouse Tokyo the week after Aus.

DutchieGirl
Nov 18th, 2006, 08:11 PM
I was commenting on this. A Tier III there is bad for the players, like Lena D, who lost early in Melbourne

Originally Posted by TheBoiledEgg http://imgsrv2.tennisuniverse.com/wtaworld/images/buttons/blue/viewpost.gif (http://www.wtaworld.com/showthread.php?p=9506756#post9506756)
simple answer for Tokyo
play their PPO tournament in Sep, just after China Open.

and then play the mickey mouse Tokyo tourn the week after, or if they want, play the mickey mouse Tokyo the week after Aus.

Yes, I CAN read - you obviously can't, because he in no way said to make PPO a Tier 3 - which is what you were talking about in your above post. TBE said to either move PPO as a Tier 1 to the Asian circuit in Sep, or SWAP the Tokyo tourney from there to after the AO - but that is not turning the PPO into a tier 3 - that is swapping tourneys!

And it affects Lena in no way, because there are plenty of other tier 1 tourneys she can play, and if she's THAT worried about it, she could always go play there in Sept! God, what are you, protector of players money rights? All you seem to care about it how much money the players make...you don't think Dementieva makes enough money already? It WOULD be better for the tourney if it was not the week after the AO - there is no doubt about it!

goldenlox
Nov 18th, 2006, 08:13 PM
There aren't many Tier I's after or before the AO.
Just this one.

DutchieGirl
Nov 18th, 2006, 08:15 PM
There aren't many Tier I's after or before the AO.
Just this one.

So what? There are enough throughout the year!

goldenlox
Nov 18th, 2006, 08:17 PM
So what? So that's my point.
Australia is robbing the players. TA is.
At least they can get paid in Tokyo. The more A tournaments, the better.

DutchieGirl
Nov 18th, 2006, 08:24 PM
So what? So that's my point.
Australia is robbing the players. TA is.
At least they can get paid in Tokyo. The more A tournaments, the better.

There you go with that robbing the players shit again. Do you know how many tier 1 tourneys there are in a year a total of TEN. Elena played SEVEN of those, so moving PPO is not gonna affect her. and how is TA robbing the players, when Australia has a freaking GRAND SLAM which pays a shitload more than a Tier 1 ever will!

There are no Tier 1 grass tourneys before Wimby either - is England ROBBING the players too? Perhaps they should make Eastbourne or Birmingham a Tier 1, or and A tourneys, or whatever.

You know what, the players who play in the top tourneys are making enough money as it is. And having a Tier 1 before or close after the AO isn't gonna affect what they earn, as hardly any play PPO anyway, and they can schedule other tier 1's (or a's) later in the year.

And again - I guess New Haven is ROBBING the players, because it has WAY better fields than Montreal, but it's only a Tier 2, while Montreal is a tier 1.

Sorry, but your arguments make no sense, other than mkaing out that the players are all money hungry and will die if the PPO is moved, which they won't because half the top players don't even play PPO anyway!

Come back when you have a new argument - ie not involving robbing the players. Because if the players were so hard done by, they wouldn't bother to play New Haven or Sydney, they'd just play AO, and save themselves for PPO, or they'd just play Montreal, and not New Haven before USO...

you have to have some lower tiered tourneys in the schedule too. You can't have all A tourneys and expect all the top players to play - they need weeks where they can have a rest too. As it seems you want every week to have an A tourney - how many injuries and pull outs do you think we will see then?

goldenlox
Nov 18th, 2006, 08:29 PM
There are going to be no Tier II's anymore, which is a very good thing.
If you want an elite field, then pay them.

Most of the tour is underpaid. The #44 in the world in most major sports is a multi-millionaire.
Vesnina is far from that.

goldenlox
Nov 18th, 2006, 08:39 PM
This whole thing is about money. This is business, for the WTA, the tournaments, and the players.

DutchieGirl
Nov 18th, 2006, 08:41 PM
There are going to be no Tier II's anymore, which is a very good thing.
If you want an elite field, then pay them.

Most of the tour is underpaid. The #44 in the world in most major sports is a multi-millionaire.
Vesnina is far from that.

Yes, and the #44 in the world in tennis can change from week to week, and also, the #44 in tennis will in most tier A's probably have to qualify, and then play a top player in the early rounds, therefore probably not earning so much more money! :lol: And how long has Vesnina been playing on the tour for? (She only just turned 20 right, so 3-4 years?) Not very long - she still has the change to become a multi millionnaire (and I just checked her results, and up until this year, she was ranked outside the top 100, hence the fact that she's not yet a multi millionnaire!). And if fact, the problem with what you are saying is that the tourneys should pay MORE, right? Well think about it... that just means the TOP players get richer, and the lower ranked players still have no change to get more money, because they won't make the cut for the draws!

And really - so the 44th best kayaker would be a multi millionnaire? Or the 44th best rower? 44th best netballer? There are PLENTY of sports where people who participate are NOT multi milionnaires. And yet we are on the freaking money issue again. OK - these tennis players have the opportunity to earn HEAPS more money than a hell of alot of other professional sports players do - so as I said before, come back when you have a NEW argument, that does not involve the players being robbed - or not having enough money.

And OMG how many times do I have to say that I UNDERSTAND there will be no Tier 2's anymore (well technically there WILL - that will be the "B" tourneys)...but NEXT YEAR there will be.

DutchieGirl
Nov 18th, 2006, 08:43 PM
This whole thing is about money. This is business, for the WTA, the tournaments, and the players.

Yes, and from what you want - the top players get richer, and the lower players get screwed! And as I said, if we put A tourneys every week = more pullouts, more injuries. :bigclap: GREAT idea! :D

goldenlox
Nov 18th, 2006, 08:43 PM
I don't know what you think the WTA is trying to get done,
but if you don't think it involves money, you are naive

DutchieGirl
Nov 18th, 2006, 08:46 PM
I don't know what you think the WTA is trying to get done,
but if don't think it involves money, you are naive

:rolleyes: What I think is that you want every tourney to pay out like $1 mill in prize money, when they can't afford it, and then we will have no tourneys.

Anyway, I'm sick of going over the same stuff over and over. You really sound like a money hungry person yourself - if the players cared so much about this, they'd be campaigning for more tourneys with better prize money. They don't.

Anyway, i'm bored with this convo, so see ya. :wavey:

goldenlox
Nov 18th, 2006, 08:50 PM
They don't voice it because the players who need more money don't have a public voice.
Anna C mentioned in an interview that the one change she wants is more prizemoney.

These 2 week A tournaments give a player like Vesnina a chance to get paid.
Playing a Tier III, especially when players like Kim are in them, give her no chance to get paid.

DutchieGirl
Nov 18th, 2006, 08:51 PM
:yawn: OK - for real last one - coz I'm about to go play tennis myself.

Top players are only allowed to play ONE Tier 3 tourney a year anyway, so don't be ridiculous.

And the lower ranked players have a voice, if they want more prize money, get out there and campaign about it.

And where was it said that all A tourneys are gonna be 2 weeks tourneys? Miamia and IW are at the moment. They are the only Tier 1's that are 2 week tourneys, AND so players like Vesnina already have the chance to "get paid" there as you said. Players like Vesnina also have the chance to get paid at GSs and at Tier 2's, 3's and 4's. You have to work your way up in tennis. How the hell can Anna C complain she doesn't have enough money? She's made almost $1 million dollars (most of it this year, when she's played well).

See again, the problem with what you are saying is: More top tourneys...top tourneys expect top players to play, that's why they are offering more prize money, coz they think they will get more fans as there are more top players. I agree that it would be nice for the players ranked 50-150 to get some more money (and even the players below that)...but what you have to realise is that tourneys don't just have money to pull from their asses. They are in it as a business too. Not just the players. If tourneys don't have some top players, people generally don't wanna pay much to go watch the tourney. This means the tourney loses money, can't afford to run the next year, and the players lose out too, because there are less tourneys.

You are looking at ONE side of the "business" - the players need MORE money side. But you have to look at keeping tourneys afloat too, or else the players will also lose out!

OK - off to play.

goldenlox
Nov 18th, 2006, 08:54 PM
Vera Z won 2 Tier III's and made 3 times the combined prizemoney when she won doubles in NYC.

It's a very unfair system right now.
At least big fields, like majors, give players outside the top 20 a chance to make a living.

The more Miami's, the better.

goldenlox
Nov 18th, 2006, 09:05 PM
I'm a tennis fan. I can watch a high school match and enjoy it.
But all these moves are about money.
Vesnina made most of her money at the AO.
She was in Lena D's section, and Lena lost.
So Vesnina beat 3 players outside the top 50, and made about $60,000.
And got direct entry into the next 3 majors.
That was over $100,000 to her. Just being fortunate with her AO draw.

Vera Z's biggest financial tournament was the US Open, because she won doubles.
She beat Serena in singles, but didn't get paid for it.

The more big fields, that pay for singles and doubles, the better for the rank and file.

The WTA also wants the big names at these events, and I want the big events to happen all year.

terjw
Nov 18th, 2006, 09:08 PM
They want less injuries? they don't need a shorter season, they need LESS pressure on the players to play where they don't want to.

Stop the gold exemption list, stop mandatory commitments, each tournament should be able to prove they can attract players, if they can't, too bad.

I couldn't agree more. Someone else mentioned that players needed to schedule better. But with all these crap rules and pressures on them and being told what they can and cannot do - it's difficult.

I'd like to see some prestige tournaments but as you say it's up to the tournament to attract the players. Miami always attracts most of the top players. Introducing the mandatory rule did nothing except put additional pressure on the players and made it more likely there would be very late withdrawals. Good idea that Larry - nice one.:rolleyes:

DutchieGirl
Nov 19th, 2006, 01:34 AM
I'm a tennis fan. I can watch a high school match and enjoy it.
But all these moves are about money.
Vesnina made most of her money at the AO.
She was in Lena D's section, and Lena lost.
So Vesnina beat 3 players outside the top 50, and made about $60,000.
And got direct entry into the next 3 majors.
That was over $100,000 to her. Just being fortunate with her AO draw.

Vera Z's biggest financial tournament was the US Open, because she won doubles.
She beat Serena in singles, but didn't get paid for it.

The more big fields, that pay for singles and doubles, the better for the rank and file.

The WTA also wants the big names at these events, and I want the big events to happen all year.

For the first sentence: It's only better for the "rank and file" IF the bigger players lose early, or IF they can score an upset win - which to be honest, doesn't happen THAT often in women's tennis.

For the second sentence: Yes, and this is the problem - they can't get the top players to play all of these big tournaments ALREADY, so how is adding MORE gonna help? Take a look at the injuries and pull outs - this is not ONLY about money.

goldenlox
Nov 19th, 2006, 01:58 AM
Sometimes you get placed in a soft part of the draw.
That's what happened to Vesnina in Melbourne. It made her whole year.

The WTA only wants to address the injury situation because they consider a handful of players "box office", and they want those players to show up at big events.
The injury situation is about ticket sales.

DutchieGirl
Nov 19th, 2006, 04:13 AM
Sometimes you get placed in a soft part of the draw.
That's what happened to Vesnina in Melbourne. It made her whole year.

The WTA only wants to address the injury situation because they consider a handful of players "box office", and they want those players to show up at big events.
The injury situation is about ticket sales.

Yes, so IF you are lucky with the draw you will get money - that's the same now anyway. If you are lucky at a GS and don't draw a top seed in the first round, it really helps your year...even better if you only get a lower seed in the 2nd r, coz you have more chance of an upset then, than against a 1-16 seed).

And what, you don't think the injury situation is bad? It's not just the box office players who are getting injured, AND if big players don't turn up, not as many people turn up, tourney has no money = bye bye tourney. As I have said before - then EVERYONE loses, including the lower ranked players!

Let's look at where Vesnina got most of her singles money from? It was the GS's...and mostly coz she got WAY lucky with the draw at the AO. She made over half her singles money from GS's this year. Which tells me that she had a couple of lucky draws, and basically didn't do a hell of alot else for the rest of the year.

Vesnina:

Tier 3 GC (qr1): $200
Hobart Tier 4 (r1): $1,035
AO (4th r): $58,550
Bangalore Tier 3 (r1): $1,300
Indian Wells Tier 1 (r1): $2,325
Miami Tier 1 (r3): $19,730
Amelia Island Tier 2 (r3): $3,370
Charleston Tier 1 (r1): $3,455
Estoril Tier 4 (r1): $1,035
Berlin Tier 1 (r1, quallie): $3,455
Strasbourg Tier 3 (qf): $4,270; $98,725
FO (r1): $16,150
Birmingham Tier 3 (r2): $1,125
Rosmalen Tier 3 (r2): $2,545
Wimby (r2): $24,350
San Diego Tier 1 (r2): $6,775
LA Tier 2 (r2): $6,775
Montreal Tier 1 (r1): $3,340
Forest Hills Tier 4 (qf): $3,400; $156,410
USO (r1): $16,500
Beijing Tier 2 (r2): $7,820
Guangzhou Tier 3 (r2): $2,275
Tashkent Tier 4 (r2): $1,995
Moscow Tier 1 (r2): $16,370
Linz Tier 2 (r2, quallie): $7,820
Hasselt Tier 3 (r1): $1,300

$210,490 in singles (26 tournaments)
From GS: $115,550

Now I hate to tell you, but the GSs ain't gonna be redone or anything with this new look tour. And so you using Vesnina to say there should be MORE bigger tourneys isn't really proving your point. It also tells me that by looking at my player of choice (Krajicek, I'll post her stuff in a min) that Vesnina really only had a couple of good tourneys to get her ranking, and is probably lucky to be ranked so high, because if you are playing well at some smaller tourneys, then you are getting paid too (as Vesnina did better than Misa at the Grand Slams, and they did the same at Miami)!

Krajicek:

Hobart Tier 4 (winner): $22,900
AO (3r): $35,900
Antwerp Tier 1 (r1): $4,175
Miami Tier 1 (r3): $19,730
Amelia Island Tier 2 (r1): $1,725
Warsaw Tier 2 (qr2): $1,195
Berlin Tier 1 (r1): $3,455
Istanbul Tier 3 (sf): $8,840; $89,080
FO (r1): $16,150
Rosmalen Tier 3 (winner): $28,000
Wimbledon (r1): $14,900
Palermo Tier 4 (r2): $1,925
Budapest Tier 4 (sf): $6,650; 156,705
Montreal Tier 1 (r1): $3,340
New Haven Tier 2 (qr1): $640
USO (r1): $16,500
Luxembourg Tier 2 (r1): $4,175
Stuttgart Tier 2 (qf): $15,400
Linz Tier 2 (r1): $4,175
Hasselt Tier 3 (sf): $7,700

$208,635 in singles (20 tourneys)
From GS: $83,450

So you can see that Misa made almost as much money in singles as Vesnina did (and by playing 6 less tourneys I might add!), but she didn't do as well at the GS's, so it CAN pay to play the lower tiered events and do WELL at them. So instead of having BIG tourneys every week, they need to space them out better, and have more smaller (Tier 2/3 sort of tourneys...dunno whatever they will call them when they switch to the letter system) tourneys inbetween - THIS will give the lower ranked players a chance to get into the draw and have a chance to WIN some matches. Because if you saw Misa's draws compared to Vesnina's draws, you would see that Vesnina had mostly MUCH better draws at GS's and top tourneys than Misa did, yet Misa still managed to earn almost as much as Vesnina in singles. So maybe if Vesnina was winning some more matches in the lower tourneys, she'd make some more money. I mean you don't really expect the #44 (or the #35) ranked player to go into tourneys such as Berlin, or Rome, or Moscow, draw a top seed in the first round and actually win some matches do you? OK, it might happen occasionally, but more often than not you will only win matches at a Tier 1 when you are ranked that low when you DON'T get a seed in the first round. If you play some lower tourneys, then you have a much better chance of winning more rounds, and therefore, making more money!

So it's not all about having heaps of bigger tourneys to give the lower ranked players more money, coz that's crap. They won't get more money most of the time because they will be playing higher ranked players, where they have more chances to lose.

You are right, the lower ranked players deserve more money, but having MORE Tier 1's...or A's whatever you want to call them, isn't particularly gonna help the players ranked below 50-60, becase MOST of the Tier 1's (at the moment, and i haven't seen that it's gonna change when they turn into A tourneys) are not BIGGER draws. That is only Miami and IW. And if you lose second round of IW, you get $4,650... make the QF of a tier 4 and you get $3,580 (make the semi's and you get $6,650)...and you are a hell of alot more likely to get a nicer draw at a Tier 4 (if you are ranked down at 50-60) than you would at an event like IW or Miami!

And if Misa can make almost as much money in singles as vesnina did by playing 6 LESS tourneys, and by not doing as well in the GS's as Vesnina did, then Misa had to be making money somewhere, and I can tell you, it sure as hell wasn't the top tourneys! Misa's draws at the top tourneys this year were pretty horrendous mostly.

goldenlox
Nov 19th, 2006, 11:52 AM
If your numbers are right, then both players made over $19,000 in Miami.
That's why Miami is good for the players. You get a slam payday.

Doha and Dubai want to have bigger events, and they have the money.
Madrid seems to have the money.

We will know this week what the WTA's plan is.

I can find better examples than Vesnina. I used her because I knew her career got a big boost by having a good draw in Melbourne.
Zvonareva is a better example. She won $250,000 in NYC.
That was a third of her full year.
She won a tournament with Sharapova in it, and one with Patty and Serena in it.
But the USO paid her more than 3 times what she earned in Birmingham and Cincy combined.

That's why I am against Tier III's. It doesn't pay the bills for these players.

terjw
Nov 19th, 2006, 01:26 PM
Most of the tour is underpaid. The #44 in the world in most major sports is a multi-millionaire.
Vesnina is far from that.

Name any women's sport and prove it with a link where the #44 woman earns more prizemoney than the #44 woman tennis player - let alone is a multi-millionaire.

TheBoiledEgg
Nov 19th, 2006, 01:33 PM
That's why I am against Tier III's. It doesn't pay the bills for these players.

you couldnt have a Tier 1 every week or so :rolleyes:
with the same players playing every week, you'd kill the players and kill the game.

next you'd say get rid of the ITF's cos they dont pay :rolleyes:

if you want regular pay........ simple get a 9-5 job

goldenlox
Nov 19th, 2006, 01:50 PM
Name any women's sport and prove it with a link where the #44 woman earns more prizemoney than the #44 woman tennis player - let alone is a multi-millionaire.I'm comparing to sports like the NBA, NFL, sports where average salaries are over $1 million per year.
Vesnina made a under $300,000, and is #40.
There is a lot of money in this sport, and it's not getting to enough of the players.

goldenlox
Nov 19th, 2006, 01:54 PM
you couldnt have a Tier 1 every week or so :rolleyes:
with the same players playing every week, you'd kill the players and kill the game.

next you'd say get rid of the ITF's cos they dont pay :rolleyes:

if you want regular pay........ simple get a 9-5 jobAre many of the players on the ITF circuit not broke?
Are they professional athletes If they don't earn back their expenses?

TheBoiledEgg
Nov 19th, 2006, 01:59 PM
Are many of the players on the ITF circuit not broke?
Are they professional athletes If they don't earn back their expenses?

thats not the point of the ITF Circuit. (some are pro, some not)
the reason its there and why the prize money hasnt increased ever is for players to better themselves and climb ranks and then play on the main tour.


what you saying basically is lets hand out 1M to everyone every few weeks by just doing nothing.

goldenlox
Nov 19th, 2006, 02:12 PM
I'm saying that the best chance for a player... like Galina V, like Vesnina..
is to draw a soft spot in the draw at a major.
And also Miami. Doubles in Miami pays very well, if you make the semis,
it's around $15,000 each.
These big money tournaments are the best chance for a Vesnina to have a payday, and to keep getting into the main draw of majors.

That's why I'm all for adding 3 more Miamis.
I know countries like Doha and Dubai can afford it, and pay a lot to bring sports there.

There are millions and millions in this sport. Sveta made over 2 milllion this year, and half was Miami and RG.

Every player in the top 100 benefits from big money events.

terjw
Nov 19th, 2006, 02:18 PM
I'm comparing to sports like the NBA, NFL, sports where average salaries are over $1 million per year.
Vesnina made a under $300,000, and is #40.
There is a lot of money in this sport, and it's not getting to enough of the players.

Are you are talking about men's sports? What women's sports pay better? Women are not yet major sports in terms of coverage and interest. That is why the #44 is paid less. The #44 woman's tennis player plays tennis because that is what drives her. It's not just money else she'd work elsewhere. And if you think can't make a living at tennis - just look at any other sport women take part in. How do you think they survive?

goldenlox
Nov 19th, 2006, 02:24 PM
They don't survive. The women's soccer league went bust.
The WNBA pays about $50,000 average salary.
Very few women's sports provide a living.

But there is money in this sport.
BJK and those women worked hard to bring in sponsors, like Virginia slims.

The money is there, and I'd like to see it get to the players.
Doha wanted to have a big money tournament in January, and TA stopped it.
Doha wanted IW too. They bought the German Open. Nadia won 2 Doha events this year.
Take Doha's money and give them a big tournament.

terjw
Nov 19th, 2006, 02:47 PM
They don't survive. The women's soccer league went bust.
The WNBA pays about $50,000 average salary.
Very few women's sports provide a living.

But there is money in this sport.
BJK and those women worked hard to bring in sponsors, like Virginia slims.

The money is there, and I'd like to see it get to the players.
Doha wanted to have a big money tournament in January, and TA stopped it.
Doha wanted IW too. They bought the German Open. Nadia won 2 Doha events this year.
Take Doha's money and give them a big tournament.

The players do survive. It was the soccer league that went bust not the players. LPGA player #44 gets less money - and that's been going on and on and is in no danger of going bust.

For someone who goes on and on about money - you are very naive about all this money that is around should be going to the #44's in the world. The bottom line is that the money is only there if the top players are there to bring in the crowds. And then the top players are rewarded for that. If the top players don't come - the crowds won't come and the money won't be there.

Lower level players need other tournaments to play tennis and develop their game apart from this hit and miss hope I'm lucky with the draw GS and tier 1 or A top tournaments - if they can even get in that is.

Let's have all types of tournaments. Top A tournaments and the tier 3 type standard tounaments. Give the top players freedom with no restrictions how many and what they can and cannot play. Just let the market decide what tournaments survive and what tournaments fall. And if #44 cannot make a living and is just concerned with money like you - has the thought never occurred to you it's strange that there hasn't been a mass exodus by the rank and file from the game.

goldenlox
Nov 19th, 2006, 02:52 PM
I'm surprised I have to dicuss paying the players. It's like people are against it or something.
It's very difficult to get into the top 100.
Once you are in the main draw of a major, you get a decent payday just to play your first round match.
That's the only place that happens.

I'll never agree that #44 should be struggling financially while #5 is making millions each year.

terjw
Nov 19th, 2006, 03:31 PM
I'm surprised I have to dicuss paying the players. It's like people are against it or something.
It's very difficult to get into the top 100.
Once you are in the main draw of a major, you get a decent payday just to play your first round match.
That's the only place that happens.

I'll never agree that #44 should be struggling financially while #5 is making millions each year.

Of course it's difficult to get to be a top player. And you think a player doesn't know the situation when she enters the game? It has and will always be the case that #5 will earn an inordinate amount more than #44. And if you want to campaign on that - good luck. But quite frankly that is the least of my concerns considering the lower ranked players aren't leaving in their droves and never have done. And even if I did I'd feel more sorry for the LPGA players first. Sure it would be nice for these players to have more money. It would be nice for me to get what I think I should be paid. Let's all have a pay increase.

What I don't like is that under the guise of trying to be nice to them - you are advocating a hit and miss pot luck approach and want to deprive them of tournaments where they can develop their game against players who are closer matched to themselves. This is really what they came into the game for - to play tennis and win matches where they have a chance - not the money yet.

goldenlox
Nov 19th, 2006, 03:38 PM
There are going to be plenty of B tournaments. They aren't disappearing.

DutchieGirl
Nov 19th, 2006, 04:54 PM
If your numbers are right, then both players made over $19,000 in Miami.
That's why Miami is good for the players. You get a slam payday.

Doha and Dubai want to have bigger events, and they have the money.
Madrid seems to have the money.

We will know this week what the WTA's plan is.

I can find better examples than Vesnina. I used her because I knew her career got a big boost by having a good draw in Melbourne.
Zvonareva is a better example. She won $250,000 in NYC.
That was a third of her full year.
She won a tournament with Sharapova in it, and one with Patty and Serena in it.
But the USO paid her more than 3 times what she earned in Birmingham and Cincy combined.

That's why I am against Tier III's. It doesn't pay the bills for these players.

:haha: Both players had to make the 3rd r in Miami to make $19,000 - you get almost that much if you lose in the 1st round of a GS. And btw, I never said there was anything WRONG with Miami - I'm just saying that you can't have tourneys like Miami EVERY WEEK as you seem to be suggesting they have!

And yeah, you don't get paid extra for beating the top players in ANY tourney (I mean other than the extra cash for reaching the next round) - just like you get no bonus points either.

If you wina tier 3, it pays the bills. DOn't be ridiculous - where the hell do you think tournaments are gonna come up with the money to all be the equivalent of Tier 1's or 2's? How many tournaments do you want to kill off - and then tell me how the players are gonna get paid...

DutchieGirl
Nov 19th, 2006, 04:56 PM
you couldnt have a Tier 1 every week or so :rolleyes:
with the same players playing every week, you'd kill the players and kill the game.

next you'd say get rid of the ITF's cos they dont pay :rolleyes:

if you want regular pay........ simple get a 9-5 job

:yeah: SOmeone who sees sense. ;)

DutchieGirl
Nov 19th, 2006, 04:57 PM
I'm comparing to sports like the NBA, NFL, sports where average salaries are over $1 million per year.
Vesnina made a under $300,000, and is #40.
There is a lot of money in this sport, and it's not getting to enough of the players.

Wait - women play ing the NBA and NFL? :scratch: Since when? Maybe in the WNBA - I dunno about the salaries in that, but you can't compare men to the women, because the men are always making more (which I think sucks more).

goldenlox
Nov 19th, 2006, 04:59 PM
If you wina tier 3, it pays the bills. DOn't be ridiculous - where the hell do you think tournaments are gonna come up with the money to all be the equivalent of Tier 1's or 2's? How many tournaments do you want to kill off - and then tell me how the players are gonna get paid...Like I said, Dubai and Doha have the money.
It's much better for the rank and file for those countries to host big events,
instead of Tier II's where they give a few top players appearance fees.

They're not killing off Tier III's. Soon they are B's.

DutchieGirl
Nov 19th, 2006, 05:00 PM
They don't survive. The women's soccer league went bust.
The WNBA pays about $50,000 average salary.
Very few women's sports provide a living.

But there is money in this sport.
BJK and those women worked hard to bring in sponsors, like Virginia slims.

The money is there, and I'd like to see it get to the players.
Doha wanted to have a big money tournament in January, and TA stopped it.
Doha wanted IW too. They bought the German Open. Nadia won 2 Doha events this year.
Take Doha's money and give them a big tournament.

There's my answer, and you just prooved that your point about the #44 WOMAN player in ANY sport probably earns LESS than the #44 in tennis. Thanks! :D

Yeah, I'm really sure TA stopped Doha all by itself. Doha already HAS a big tourney in Feb! Doha has 1 event. There is one in Dubai, and one in Doha...

DutchieGirl
Nov 19th, 2006, 05:03 PM
There are going to be plenty of B tournaments. They aren't disappearing.

Yeah - fantastic! That's gonne save the players rankned 50-100 from having to go back and play some challengers to win any matches! :rolleyes:

PLEASE, stop talking crap and making out that we don't want the players to get paid! I DO want the players to get paid, I have prooved that NUMEROUS times in my posts - what I am trying to point out is that your way will not work by getting rid of all lower tourneys - then they have no tourneys to play except challengers, which are worth LESS than Tier 3's or 4's are worth now. Players ranked 50-100 CAN'T survive on the hope that they will "get a soft draw" at Miami or and a GS!

DutchieGirl
Nov 19th, 2006, 05:05 PM
Like I said, Dubai and Doha have the money.
It's much better for the rank and file for those countries to host big events,
instead of Tier II's where they give a few top players appearance fees.

They're not killing off Tier III's. Soon they are B's.

OK, so that's even worse - they are killing off the tier 2's... yu can't go from having tier's 1, 2 and 3, to having only A and B tourneys without killing off some tourneys you know.

And yes, let Doha and Dubai have big tourneys - I don't mind that...but it would be stupid to pt then 1-2 weeks before the AO imho...just like it's dumb to have PPO the week after. Players want to peak for the GS's and Tier 1`s (or A's whatever)...having them all so close together isn't gonna help.

goldenlox
Nov 19th, 2006, 05:07 PM
I just went to http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/rankings/prizemoney/
Less than 45 women made over $300,000 this year.

I want more of the money available to players outside the top 20.

From what I've seen over the last few years, the majors and Miami and IW offer the best opportunities.

So more Miamis are good for the tour.
And we are going to have more.

Brooklyn90
Nov 19th, 2006, 05:09 PM
tennis in america is getting less and less :(

goldenlox
Nov 19th, 2006, 05:11 PM
tennis in america is getting less and less :(People aren't watching it in the US, but there is still a lot of money in the US for tennis.

HenryMag.
Nov 19th, 2006, 05:39 PM
Oow! Sammy is 9th in prize money list...I can see that doubles isn't so bad paid like I think.

DutchieGirl
Nov 20th, 2006, 02:18 AM
I just went to http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/rankings/prizemoney/
Less than 45 women made over $300,000 this year.

I want more of the money available to players outside the top 20.

From what I've seen over the last few years, the majors and Miami and IW offer the best opportunities.

So more Miamis are good for the tour.
And we are going to have more.

:rolleyes: STILL missing the point!

goldenlox
Nov 20th, 2006, 02:19 AM
I am totally on point.

DutchieGirl
Nov 20th, 2006, 02:28 AM
I am totally on point.

No - you are way off - please go back and re-read about the last 4 pages! :lol:

We don't KNOW that the new "A" tourneys are going to be BIG draws. Right now, not ALL Tier 1's are big draw (ie more than 32 players) tourneys, and when all the top players are playing these big tournaments, it's NOT going to help the lower ranked player. How much CLEARER can it be?

No one's saying don't have BIG tourneys - just that you seem to ONLY want big tourneys and then EVERY week - it's NOT POSSIBLE. It's never going to happen, and having A tourneys wth 32 player draws is NOT helping the lower ranked players like you say you want.

DutchieGirl
Nov 20th, 2006, 02:29 AM
Here's an idea - why don't you post out your idea of how the schedule should be? Then we can see EXACTLY what you mean by having more big tourneys! (With draw sizes and prize money too...)

goldenlox
Nov 20th, 2006, 02:31 AM
I want events that get on tv.
Believe it or not, the YEC in Madrid was seen by such a small amount of people in the US, that I don't know if it even got a rating.

Tennis in the US is not being watched.
It's time to move the tour to a new level.

I want to see what the WTA will do. Getting out of this current mush is a good start.

DutchieGirl
Nov 20th, 2006, 02:33 AM
Yeah - so post how you think the tour should look... tourney town, draw size and prize money by week...

goldenlox
Nov 20th, 2006, 02:35 AM
Like I said in a previous post, there is financial info we don't have.
Plus laws and lawyers are involved.
I'll wait and see what Scott announces this week.

DutchieGirl
Nov 20th, 2006, 02:36 AM
Like I said in a previous post, there is financial info we don't have.
Plus laws and lawyers are involved.
I'll wait and see what Scott announces this week.

Yes, but you don't need financial info to post how you THINK the tour should be. It has nothing to do with how it WILL look, but how YOU THINK it should be. Or are you too scared to post it?

goldenlox
Nov 20th, 2006, 02:38 AM
You definately need the financial info.
That's what this is. It's a business.
They are making business decisions.

Fingon
Nov 20th, 2006, 03:49 AM
You definately need the financial info.
That's what this is. It's a business.
They are making business decisions.

they are not,

if they were making business decisions, Larry Scott would not have a job, plain an simple, in any business, if the CEO fails to deliver, he/she gets fired, not in the wta/atp world.

This change will not work, for many reasons, the first being that the problem is Larry Scott, there is no solution with him involved, the players don't want him, the tournaments don't want him.

The schedule has been the same for decades (not the same tournaments, but the same # of weeks), but only since Scott is in charge the players get injured all the time, pull out of tournaments the way they do now. Whenever a player is forced by Scott's gang to play, they tank, and that applies to everyone.

Any single Scott's initiative hasn't worked, starting with the most pathetic ad campaing in history, and for the rest, the wta is unnoticed.

You won't get tennis on tv, not if the wta doesn't realize that a bunch of ex tennis players and tournament directors cannot design a marketing campaign, they need professionals to do that. Until they learn how to sell the tournaments to the networks, you won't get any tv coverage.

Tell me, you are complaining of Madrid lack of success on tv in the USA, that's a big tournament, how will it be different with others? let's say in Beijing, or Dubai, with inconvenient show times.

They want to improve? then get a CEO that understand the sport, and understands how marketing works, and doesn't think he can control the tour and the players with sets of regulations, and decide before hand how the money will flow, Scott is in LaLa Land, the tournaments happen in real life.

goldenlox
Nov 20th, 2006, 10:13 AM
I have to give most of the blame in the US to the USTA.
They are similar to the AELTA.
They make money off their major, and ignore what is important.
Building the popularity of the sport. Getting tennis on tv. Creating an interest in tennis.

The asset that needs to appreciated is tennis, not the major in their country.

I see what the ruling family in Dubai pays for young race horses.
They have incredible wealth, and a love of sports.

I think the only way to get on tv is combined events, like Miami.
Have almost all of the big name players there.

I think a tournament like Miami would be a big event in several countries.
The WTA and ATP have to work together.

DutchieGirl
Nov 20th, 2006, 05:01 PM
You definately need the financial info.
That's what this is. It's a business.
They are making business decisions.

What is hard to understand for you? You DO NOT need the financial info to make a schedule of how YOPU think the tour should be! It doesn't matter what the financial info is. Just how YOU THINK the tour should be - but obviously you are too scared to post what you think, because you are coming up with bullshit excuses as to why not to do it.

goldenlox
Nov 20th, 2006, 05:21 PM
I'm interested in the real schedule, not your goofy games.
Go make your own nonsensical schedule. Go make 20 of them.
I want to see what the tour is actually going to be playing.

DutchieGirl
Nov 21st, 2006, 02:38 AM
I'm interested in the real schedule, not your goofy games.
Go make your own nonsensical schedule. Go make 20 of them.
I want to see what the tour is actually going to be playing.

Yeah and I want you to realise that what you are saying is NOT going to happen coz it's not viable...how many people do you need to have tell you that in here before you will realise that?

And I was NOT playing a game. You keep banging on about how YOU want more top tourneys at the expense of smaller ones. You say you want Doha before the AO, and you say PPO should stay after AO - so why can you not come up with your own schedule? I mean you must have some idea how you want it to look, as you already want Doha before AO, and PPO to stay after...

You want to discuss how YOU think the tour should be, yet you're too scared to write up a tourney schedule, and now say you only wanna see what the WTA Tour will do - well the schedule for next year is out already - so you have a schedul to base it on.

goldenlox
Nov 21st, 2006, 03:00 AM
Larry Scott has to talk to people who want a big event in China,
who want a big event in Madrid.
The WTA has to make decisions based on a lot of factors.
One is that SonyEricsson probably wants the tour to be in China.
Another is how much China wants it.

I think more Miamis are the best situation for the players.
But I'm willing to look at whatever they decide.

DutchieGirl
Nov 21st, 2006, 04:15 AM
Larry Scott has to talk to people who want a big event in China,
who want a big event in Madrid.
The WTA has to make decisions based on a lot of factors.
One is that SonyEricsson probably wants the tour to be in China.
Another is how much China wants it.

I think more Miamis are the best situation for the players.
But I'm willing to look at whatever they decide.

But you don't have any say in what they decide and can't exactly change what they DO decide anyway - so what's your point exactly? OK - we KNOW you think they should have more BIG tourneys - but then you need to think HOW they can finance it, and if it's REALLY going to be better for the lower ranked players. Because if you can come up with those answers, then you should be e-mailing/contacting Larry...coz god knows he needs all the help he can get!

mattcronin
Nov 22nd, 2006, 08:52 PM
new story all

http://********************/wta_roadmap_112106.html

matt

yes_sir
Nov 22nd, 2006, 09:12 PM
USA events have poor livescoring, if they lose tournaments they won't be missed.

DutchieGirl
Nov 23rd, 2006, 03:23 AM
new story all

http://********************/wta_roadmap_112106.html

matt

link don't work. ;)

goldenlox
Dec 10th, 2006, 05:47 AM
link don't work. ;)Here it is -

The Sony Ericsson WTA Tour has voted to give future B-level tournaments some flexibility in attracting Top-10 players, but it may not be enough to satisfy the Roadmap 2010 detractors.
In addressing the most controversial part of WTA's Roadmap 2010, WTA CEO Larry Scott told ******************** that as long as the top players meet their commitments (11 A-level tour tournaments plus the four Grand Slams), the tour will not restrict them from playing downgraded B-level tournaments in 2009, when the new structure is supposed to take effect.
Scott said this was a "change of plans," but it does not mean that the top players will be mandated to play non-A-level tournaments. Currently, the tour guarantees a certain number of Top-10 players to Tier II tournaments. (There are currently 15 Tier II tournaments.)
Some owners of current Tier IIs don't believe that if they choose to go to a B-level (where they will have to chop prize money), that they will still be able to garner enough stars to sustain their events.
The USTA, which is a part owner of US Open Series summer tournaments in Los Angeles and New Haven, still isn't pleased with the direction of the roadmap, even though Scott said that America's leading tennis body is one of the tour's most important partners and that he wants to help ensure that the US Open Series continues to be a viable concept.
"This still doesn't work for us," one USTA official said on Tuesday. "The US Open Series needs a consistent TV schedule, with back-to-back, consecutive-weeks coverage of top tournaments and the roadmap takes away from that."
In a late August letter to Scott obtained by TR, the top USTA officials said that if the roadmap wasn't amended, it would consider all alternatives.
"Your plans put the TV package and the race for the US Open bonus prize money in jeopardy, intended or not, stand to damage this successful and highly praised initiative," the letter said. "How can the U.S. stand by and allow this to take place?"
TOP-10 PLAYERS DON'T PLAY VERY OFTEN
Only two members of the Top-5 (Amelie Mauresmo and Svetlana Kuznetsova) played more than 15 tournaments in 2006, and it's unlikely that marquee names like Maria Sharapova and Justine Henin-Hardenne will choose to play many more than the 15 and 13 tournaments they played in 2006, respectively.
However, every woman ranked between No. 6 and 20 played more than 15 tournaments in 2006, with many of them playing more than 20. So the possibility exists that some stars could play the Bs, if the tournaments come up with enough extra incentives (marketing fees/guarantees).
Scott said that the tour will not restrict players from competing in tournaments the week prior to the Slams, which appears to be good news for Sydney, Istanbul, Strasbourg, Eastbourne and New Haven, but that doesn't mean that the players will choose to compete if they don't have to.
According to the roadmap, in 2009, there will be only 11 A-level tournaments on the calendar, which in 2006 featured 60 events outside of the Slams. The top players will only be mandated to play the 11 A-level tournaments and the four Slams, leaving 75 percent of the tournaments up in the air as to their future.
The tour has vowed to slim down the calendar in order to give the players more breaks and enhance the viability of its products, where potentially healthier stars will meet each other more frequently. Over the past decade, the tour has been wracked by player injuries and withdrawals, which has led by widespread complaints by the tournaments that the tour isn't delivering enough on its player commitments.
The tour has opened up a new application process for tournaments that will be completed in March, 2007, in which tournaments can decide to stay at an A-level, bid up to an A-level, or be downgraded to a B-level. Going to an "A" status may be too pricey for events that are held in small- to medium-sized stadiums.

The tour is hoping that 11 tournaments step up and maintain their status or bid to become "A"s, but, as of now, there only appears to be seven reasonably sure bets: Tokyo, Dubai, Indian Wells, Miami, Rome, Canada and Moscow. The tour will almost assuredly sell an "A" designation to China for a fall tournament combined with the ATP, but current Tier I tourneys in Charleston, Berlin and Zurich seem to be on the bubble about maintaining an "A" status, which will cost them more in prize money.
Ion Tiriac and his TMS Madrid group might make a bid for a women's tournament and try for a combo event in the spring. There is also talk that a major sports agency is trying to buy both the men's and women's Cincinnati tournaments and hold a combined event there. Washington has also expressed interest in a combined event.
US TOURNAMENTS AT RISK
The USTA and its partner AEG are undecided as to whether to try to upgrade their Tier II LA summer tournament, but the USTA has clearly been unhappy that the longtime successful Tier II American tournaments at Stanford and Amelia Island, as well as New Haven, could be at risk.
"As the owner of two Tier II tournaments, we believe that the Roadmap plan is not economically feasible (for Tier II tournaments in particular)," the USTA wrote. "As you know, the plan proposes to upgrade or downgrade each of the North American summer Tier II tournaments. According to the Roadmap plan, an upgrade requires a second Tier II sanction, which would mean investing an additional $4-5 million on top of our existing sanctions, not to mention the investments made in permanent facilities, etc. In addition, we would be required to more than double the current prize money. Unfortunately, despite requiring a significant mandatory investment, the Roadmap plan does not provide for any guaranteed return (i.e., the delivery of player commitment or additional sponsor/international television revenue). As currently structured, given the exorbitant expense, the option to upgrade is simply not practical for our Tier II's or any others in the United States that we are aware of.
"Equally unattractive is the notion of downgrading from a Tier II to a level that would not provide any meaningful player commitment, and would therefore render these tournaments irrelevant to our fans, broadcasters and sponsors. Please take this as formal notice that for the tournaments owned or partially owned by the USTA, we have no intention of participating in this plan as currently structured."
SCOTT SAYS WTA HAS LISTENED
Scott reiterated that the tour has listened to all parties and will continue to work with tournaments through March. Although Scott is confident that the roadmap will be accepted in some form, the tour won't know who is willing to do what until all the applications are received and may be forced to make some further amendments if, for example, a dozen or so tournaments decide to fold, or not enough events decide to become "A"s.
If passed, the effect of the plan won't be fully felt until 2010, because in 2009 all players will start with a clean slate and will be able to enter as many tournaments as they want.
It won't be until 2010 that they could be prevented from playing the "B"s if they don't fulfill their commitments to the "A"s.
The USTA said in its letter that it doesn't want the tour to maintain the status quo, but is seeking a compromise.
"We understand the WTA's desire to reduce top player commitments," the letter said. "A reduction can be achieved, however, without such drastic action directed towards these events. The reduced player commitment could be spread among more events, thus maintaining their viability as well as offering more opportunities for lower ranked players.
"The USTA's proposed solution for the US Open Series event preserves the Roadmap's total number of top 10 player commitments during the North American summer (22) and simply redistributes them as follows: Stanford (3); San Diego (or other) (6); Los Angeles (5); Canada (6); New Haven (2). This would allow the success of the US Open Series to continue with five weeks on the women's side and five or six weeks on the men's side."
There are a number of unknowns if the plan does go into effect, but the Grand Slam nations are not pleased, as the British grass court tournament in Birmingham will be at risk, as will the Australian tournaments at Gold Coast and Hobart. France's Tier II winter tournament in Paris is also in a pickle.
But it appears that the US, where the tour was founded and where the tour's headquarters is still located, stands to lose the most among the Slam nations, which is why it's leading the charge against a radical change.
"Over the years, the USTA has demonstrated its unwavering support for women's tennis and has always been a strong partner," the organization said in the letter. "Our hope is to continue to have a productive and cooperative relationship. That will not be possible, however, if the WTA proceeds with these plans that will critically damage clay court tennis for American women and damage the highly important US Open Series. We are at a crossroads. We urge you to consider our thoughts and recommendations with the utmost care and seriousness. If the WTA is unwilling to re-evaluate the current Roadmap plan based on the concerns expressed in this letter, the USTA will have no option but to re-evaluate its exiting relationship with the WTA and explore other alternatives."

DutchieGirl
Dec 10th, 2006, 06:49 AM
Hmm thanks...still not seeing that the idea's looking that good.

goldenlox
Dec 10th, 2006, 04:55 PM
SCOTT SAYS WTA HAS LISTENED
Scott reiterated that the tour has listened to all parties and will continue to work with tournaments through March. Although Scott is confident that the roadmap will be accepted in some form, the tour won't know who is willing to do what until all the applications are received and may be forced to make some further amendments...

So this is obviously still a work in progress. If the USTA wants to keep it's USO series, they need to upgrade LA or Stanford to A.
New Haven will be a B the week before a major.

DutchieGirl
Dec 11th, 2006, 02:43 AM
I'm Australian - so I can't say I care that much about the USO series...but obviously they want to keep it going, which is fair enough.