PDA

View Full Version : USTA, roadmap, and B-YEC


goldenlox
Dec 8th, 2006, 07:29 AM
From Cronin -

I've promised more from the WTA 2010 Roadmap so here's previously unpublished paragraph from the USTA's letter to the tour:
"The Roadmap plan mistakenly suggests that overhauling the entire Tour calendar and incorporating 'interim breaks' into the calendar is essential to growing women's tennis. The notion of seasonal breaks, however, strikes us as nothing more than a convenient way to present the Roadmap's calendar in a manner that might appeal to players (albeit only the top players). If the WTA wants to meaningfully address player injury and overplay, it must shorten the calendar and create a true off-season (as is the case in every other sport). Moreover, modifying the calendar in a way that concentrates top player appearances at a handful of tournaments only serves to limit visibility of the sport's lower ranked players (and future stars) and prevent the type of widespread exposure required to grow the game. Instead, we need to increase visibility and marketing beyond just the top players."
Speaking of lower-ranked players, here's a small nugget for the WTA 2010 Roadmap document: the proposed Series B Championships in India will be a 16-player draw, with the players ranked Nos. 11-25, plus one national wildcard. Time to ring up Sania and Mumbai.

goldenlox
Dec 8th, 2006, 07:30 AM
USTA - "modifying the calendar in a way that concentrates top player appearances at a handful of tournaments only serves to limit visibility of the sport's lower ranked players (and future stars) and prevent the type of widespread exposure required to grow the game."

Lower ranked players get no attention now. So I don't know what the USTA is talking about.

DutchieGirl
Dec 8th, 2006, 08:07 AM
And this is part of what I have been trying to say. ;)

PLP
Dec 8th, 2006, 09:04 AM
From Cronin -

I've promised more from the WTA 2010 Roadmap so here's previously unpublished paragraph from the USTA's letter to the tour:
"The Roadmap plan mistakenly suggests that overhauling the entire Tour calendar and incorporating 'interim breaks' into the calendar is essential to growing women's tennis. The notion of seasonal breaks, however, strikes us as nothing more than a convenient way to present the Roadmap's calendar in a manner that might appeal to players (albeit only the top players). If the WTA wants to meaningfully address player injury and overplay, it must shorten the calendar and create a true off-season (as is the case in every other sport). Moreover, modifying the calendar in a way that concentrates top player appearances at a handful of tournaments only serves to limit visibility of the sport's lower ranked players (and future stars) and prevent the type of widespread exposure required to grow the game. Instead, we need to increase visibility and marketing beyond just the top players."
Speaking of lower-ranked players, here's a small nugget for the WTA 2010 Roadmap document: the proposed Series B Championships in India will be a 16-player draw, with the players ranked Nos. 11-25, plus one national wildcard. Time to ring up Sania and Mumbai.

I feel bad for the players ranked #9 and #10

kittyking
Dec 8th, 2006, 09:05 AM
I feel bad for the players ranked #9 and #10

Remember there are 2 alternates that also go to the YEC Championship though......

I pressume players ranked 26 and 27 will be the B YEC Championship alternates

saki
Dec 8th, 2006, 09:22 AM
It is pretty unfair for the players ranked #9 and #10 because the players ranked on either side of them will be getting ranking points whereas they, unless there's a withdrawal/injury, won't get any points.

controlfreak
Dec 8th, 2006, 09:52 AM
I feel bad for the players ranked #9 and #10

:lol: To make it more interesting they should offer an end-of-season bonus of $100,000 to the players ranked 3, 11, 27, 78 and 151. That would change the way players look at their ranking.

Andy T
Dec 8th, 2006, 11:03 AM
This built in breaks thing is all bollocks. In a GS, the quarters are played on the Tuesday. That means only 8 women play singles in the final week. The others could, theoretically, all be ready & willing to play an event in the week after a major. This is particularly true after Oz (when many have only played a couple of events/matches all year) and RG (when they may want to get into training on grass). After Wimbly and the US Open, the situation might be a bit different.

There's no reason whatsoever why a couple of lower tier events couldn't be planned for the week after a major.

Ryan
Dec 8th, 2006, 12:01 PM
I really love the idea of a B-YEC. Players 9 and ten will presumably be alternates, making money for doing nothing, so I feel no sympathy for them at all. India's a good choice, especially with the Sania ticket they can ride all the way to big money. ;)

TheBoiledEgg
Dec 8th, 2006, 12:39 PM
alot of top players have breaks after slams, especially Wimbledon and US Open.
you can PICK your schedule, no one forces you to play 40+ weeks per yr :rolleyes:

you pick your break when you want as well.

its a load of bollocks to shorten the season, thats not the problem

Hard courts are.

Season was more or less 52 weeks in the 80's.

frenchie
Dec 8th, 2006, 02:13 PM
I like the idea of a B-level YEC!!!!

Andy T
Dec 8th, 2006, 02:32 PM
alot of top players have breaks after slams, especially Wimbledon and US Open.
you can PICK your schedule, no one forces you to play 40+ weeks per yr :rolleyes:

you pick your break when you want as well.

its a load of bollocks to shorten the season, thats not the problem

Hard courts are.

Season was more or less 52 weeks in the 80's.

:worship:

goldenlox
Dec 8th, 2006, 02:33 PM
I want to see the points and prizemoney for B-YEC. It's huge for the YEC.

Piotr'ek
Dec 8th, 2006, 06:12 PM
What a bulshit :yawn:

DutchieGirl
Dec 8th, 2006, 07:42 PM
alot of top players have breaks after slams, especially Wimbledon and US Open.
you can PICK your schedule, no one forces you to play 40+ weeks per yr :rolleyes:

you pick your break when you want as well.

its a load of bollocks to shorten the season, thats not the problem

Hard courts are.

Season was more or less 52 weeks in the 80's.

:yeah:

goldenlox
Dec 8th, 2006, 09:58 PM
It seems like every player is in full training mode now. They take very few days off in a year.

DutchieGirl
Dec 8th, 2006, 10:22 PM
It seems like every player is in full training mode now. They take very few days off in a year.

Yeah - and that's up to them. No one forces them to play 25 or so tourneys (and alot of the top players don't), and they don't have to train every day of the week (alot of the top players don't), and alot of the top players do take a break after GSs so making breaks after the GSs is only hurting the lower ranked players (again)...

goldenlox
Dec 8th, 2006, 10:33 PM
If they play the YEC, and they want to be ready for Jan 1, there isn't much time to relax and unwind.

DutchieGirl
Dec 8th, 2006, 10:38 PM
If they play the YEC, and they want to be ready for Jan 1, there isn't much time to relax and unwind.

Not all top players are playing in the first week of January, and they can take breaks through out the year - they don't have to play every week - and you can see they don't...alot of the top 20 played under 20 tourneys for the year. And making no tourneys the week after a GS does hurt the lower rankedp layers who might wanna play then. No one's forcing the top ranked players to play then either...

goldenlox
Dec 8th, 2006, 11:50 PM
I'm all for a B every week, except during majors and 2 week mega-A's.
They should always have tournaments for the rank and file.

tennnisfannn
Dec 9th, 2006, 12:35 AM
the players who seem to play week in week out with decent showing rarely get injured anyway, look at the likes of patty, stosur(in singles & doubles) jelena Jankovich etc

Tennace
Dec 9th, 2006, 12:45 AM
I just want tennis televised here in the US :o

Wannabeknowitall
Dec 9th, 2006, 01:37 AM
Speaking of lower-ranked players, here's a small nugget for the WTA 2010 Roadmap document: the proposed Series B Championships in India will be a 16-player draw, with the players ranked Nos. 11-25, plus one national wildcard. Time to ring up Sania and Mumbai.

They had this before earlier this decade.
It was called Pattaya City.
I think Patty won it once.

karin1492
Dec 9th, 2006, 02:18 AM
You guys naturally assume that more tournaments played means more matches played. Look at the differences between Henin-Hardenne v. Kuznetsova in singles.

JHH played 13 tournaments, reached ten finals (including YEC), two semis, and lost in the first round(second round really) of Miami, plus two rounds of Fed Cup (which equals four singles matches). Kuznetsova played 22 tournaments. She reached the finals of five tournaments, semis of eight tournaments, the quarters of four tournaments, the fourth rd of two tournaments, the third rd of one tourney, the second rd (her first round) of one tournament, and lost two out of three at the YEC.

It sounds like Kuznetsova played more tennis, right? In fact, she barely played more tennis. Kuznetsova's record was 60-20, while JHH's record was 60-8. Kuznetsova played 9 more tournaments than JHH. They have the same number of match wins, yet Kuznetsova only played twelve extra matches.

If that's not enough, look at JHH v. Patty Schnyder. Schnyder played in 24 tournaments. She reached two finals, six semis, seven quarters, the fourth round three times, the third round once, the second round (her first round) three times, and lost in the first round twice. Her record was 45 - 24.

Schnyder played in eleven more tournaments yet JHH played one less match than Schnyder.

If you force the top players to play more tournaments, then you force them to play a lot more tennis than the lower ranked players. Top ranked players play more matches per tournament than the lower ranked players, and lower ranked players get more rest time between singles matches. It doesn't make sense to make them play more tournaments. It's fine to have tournaments, but don't make the top ranked players play all of them.

DutchieGirl
Dec 9th, 2006, 05:01 AM
You guys naturally assume that more tournaments played means more matches played. Look at the differences between Henin-Hardenne v. Kuznetsova in singles.

JHH played 13 tournaments, reached ten finals (including YEC), two semis, and lost in the first round(second round really) of Miami, plus two rounds of Fed Cup (which equals four singles matches). Kuznetsova played 22 tournaments. She reached the finals of five tournaments, semis of eight tournaments, the quarters of four tournaments, the fourth rd of two tournaments, the third rd of one tourney, the second rd (her first round) of one tournament, and lost two out of three at the YEC.

It sounds like Kuznetsova played more tennis, right? In fact, she barely played more tennis. Kuznetsova's record was 60-20, while JHH's record was 60-8. Kuznetsova played 9 more tournaments than JHH. They have the same number of match wins, yet Kuznetsova only played twelve extra matches.

If that's not enough, look at JHH v. Patty Schnyder. Schnyder played in 24 tournaments. She reached two finals, six semis, seven quarters, the fourth round three times, the third round once, the second round (her first round) three times, and lost in the first round twice. Her record was 45 - 24.

Schnyder played in eleven more tournaments yet JHH played one less match than Schnyder.

If you force the top players to play more tournaments, then you force them to play a lot more tennis than the lower ranked players. Top ranked players play more matches per tournament than the lower ranked players, and lower ranked players get more rest time between singles matches. It doesn't make sense to make them play more tournaments. It's fine to have tournaments, but don't make the top ranked players play all of them.

Who said we assume anything? I don't assume that if you play more tourneys you play more matches - I wasn't even talking about that - what I was talking about is that it's unfair for the lower ranked players to miss out on not being able to play a tourney the week after a GS because the WTA wantas to cater to the few top players and give then a rest those weeks... ;) And as I mentioned above - no one's forcing the top players to play the week after a GS, and I am against mandatory tourneys anyway. ;)

Junex
Dec 9th, 2006, 05:27 AM
alot of top players have breaks after slams, especially Wimbledon and US Open.
you can PICK your schedule, no one forces you to play 40+ weeks per yr :rolleyes:

you pick your break when you want as well.

its a load of bollocks to shorten the season, thats not the problem

Hard courts are.

Season was more or less 52 weeks in the 80's.


The thing is even when you chose not to play tournaments week-in week-out, you still have to work your ass out training within the season...even when not playing tournaments, players are still in danger of getting injured or exhausted while training...

And we know for a fact that the games of today are demanding and if you really want to succeed you really have to work over your limits, because if you won't you get left behind!

If the Season will be cut shorter, say make the break longer from 6 weeks to 8 then, then the WTA would have given the players a month of free schedule without the pressure of training to prepare for upcoming tournament.

More time for rest and recuperation.

You may argue that the players in fact even in off-season still plays exhibition....Well that is the point because playing Exhos is not sanctioned by WTA and that it is the players choice, therefore the blame of injuries would then be lifted from WTA....

Cutting the schedule short is giving the real players on the tour a choice, because in the current scenario, the players really dnt have a choice, wether you agree or not.......

Junex
Dec 9th, 2006, 05:31 AM
The point of the matter is that making the season shorter is what the players wanted in the first place...

DutchieGirl
Dec 9th, 2006, 08:13 AM
The point of the matter is that making the season shorter is what the players wanted in the first place...

No - the TOP players want the season shorter. I didn't hear many of the lower ranked players asking for that. They are going to make the season end by the end of October anyway in 2009 - so that IS at least 8 weeks off, 9 for most players (as they won't play YEC). And as I also mentioned before, alot of the top players don't play the first week of Jan either.

jimbo mack
Dec 9th, 2006, 09:05 AM
if the players are so tired and want an extra off season so they can 're-cuperate' then why are they playing exhibitions?

so many players have themselves to blame for injuries. i mean lindsay (as much as i love her) sometimes play 4 tournaments in a row

clijsters played stanford, san diego, los angeles and canadian open last year, look how knackered she was by yec

jankovic retired in guanzhou and quebec city, her schedule is ridicilous

i don't think the wta can be entirely blamed for players fatigue and injuries, (though they should reduce the hard courts and put around more grass and carpet which are kinder to the body) and i hope the players shut up moaning about how tired they are once the 8 week break is implemented. it's not like they don't take the odd break here and there anyway'

i think too many players are getting too big for their boots and have resorted to gold digging (exhibitions, appearance fees...hello world ranked 17 bartoli?) players need to realize that their tennis is a career not a hobby. which is why i'm glad mandatory events have been chosen.

i'm a nurse and i can't pick which patients i choose to look after, my boyfriend works in insurance and he can't choose which customers to speak to, so why shouldn't players be told where to play?

jas_aussie
Dec 9th, 2006, 09:09 AM
the players who seem to play week in week out with decent showing rarely get injured anyway, look at the likes of patty, stosur(in singles & doubles) jelena Jankovich etc

yeah i agree with you but stosur will play say 5 or 6 tournaments straight and then will have a 2weeks break or so and she hasn't been getting injuries but i guess out of them 5 or 6 tournaments she might play a max of 15singles and say 20 to 25 doubles

MrSerenaWilliams
Dec 9th, 2006, 10:23 AM
if the players are so tired and want an extra off season so they can 're-cuperate' then why are they playing exhibitions?

so many players have themselves to blame for injuries. i mean lindsay (as much as i love her) sometimes play 4 tournaments in a row

clijsters played stanford, san diego, los angeles and canadian open last year, look how knackered she was by yec

jankovic retired in guanzhou and quebec city, her schedule is ridicilous

i don't think the wta can be entirely blamed for players fatigue and injuries, (though they should reduce the hard courts and put around more grass and carpet which are kinder to the body) and i hope the players shut up moaning about how tired they are once the 8 week break is implemented. it's not like they don't take the odd break here and there anyway'

i think too many players are getting too big for their boots and have resorted to gold digging (exhibitions, appearance fees...hello world ranked 17 bartoli?) players need to realize that their tennis is a career not a hobby. which is why i'm glad mandatory events have been chosen.

i'm a nurse and i can't pick which patients i choose to look after, my boyfriend works in insurance and he can't choose which customers to speak to, so why shouldn't players be told where to play?

:worship: :worship: :worship: EXACTLY! I was thinking the same thing. It's almost like they've whored themselves out to the WTA et. all just so they can make as much money as possible. Don't blame the WTA, blame your own greed. Some of the lower players HAVE to play 30+ tourneys JUST to break even. Why screw them up, just because you want to make as much money as possible? :shrug:

goldenlox
Dec 9th, 2006, 09:26 PM
I saw this in a 2005 article -

Total prize money for the entire Sony Ericcson WTA Tour this year is $58.7 million. Prize money for the men’s tour is almost $80 million.

DutchieGirl
Dec 9th, 2006, 09:32 PM
I saw this in a 2005 article -

Total prize money for the entire Sony Ericcson WTA Tour this year is $58.7 million. Prize money for the men’s tour is almost $80 million.

Yeah - that's no surprise...everyone knows the men get paid more.

goldenlox
Dec 9th, 2006, 11:12 PM
The test for this roadmap is how much prizemoney the women get, compared to the men. And how much prizemoney the women ranked outside the top 40 earn, compared to now.

DutchieGirl
Dec 10th, 2006, 02:40 AM
The test for this roadmap is how much prizemoney the women get, compared to the men. And how much prizemoney the women ranked outside the top 40 earn, compared to now.

:scratch: You won't learn that the roadmap is NOT ONLY about money will you? It's also about rescheduling to *supposedly* make the season better for the players, it's about making tourneys mandatory for some players, and doing away with Tiers 1-4. That's NOT ONLY money stuff.

goldenlox
Dec 10th, 2006, 06:10 AM
It's mostly about money. And shortening the tour by a week or 2, which is almost meaningless. They can make these tournaments as mandatory as they want. If a high profile player wants to skip a few of them, she will.

DutchieGirl
Dec 10th, 2006, 06:53 AM
It's mostly about money. And shortening the tour by a week or 2, which is almost meaningless. They can make these tournaments as mandatory as they want. If a high profile player wants to skip a few of them, she will.

Yes, alot of it comes down to money, but not all of it. And I'm sure if the top players had a choice of taking 2 extra weeks off, or not, they would go for the 2 extra weeks. But I don't see why the lower ranked ones who might want to play should be penalized, which is what these changes seem to be doing. I'm sure if the top players wanna skip certain events they will - they have done in the past, I don't think this new layout is gonna change that at all. (Also another reason why I think the whole idea is bad).

goldenlox
Dec 10th, 2006, 01:28 PM
There should be more B's after the 2 YEC's. But I guess there will be ITF 100k's and 75k's

LDF
Dec 10th, 2006, 01:44 PM
alot of top players have breaks after slams, especially Wimbledon and US Open.
you can PICK your schedule, no one forces you to play 40+ weeks per yr :rolleyes:

you pick your break when you want as well.

its a load of bollocks to shorten the season, thats not the problem

Hard courts are.

Season was more or less 52 weeks in the 80's.

:yeah: