View Full Version : Do you think "BYE" system is Fair? (for Tier I & II)

Jul 15th, 2002, 07:12 AM
A lot of WTA Tournament providing a "BYE" system for the seeded players (Let say #.1-8) for Tier I or II

Do you think this system is fair enough? Because normally The seeded players are The TOP 10/20 Players....All of them have already on The TOP of the Ranking, and they still have an advantage to gain this BYE, How about for the Lower Ranking Player...???

What do you think, guys!

Jul 15th, 2002, 07:29 AM
Well the top players should be given bye's because if they weren't they'd still win the match like 6-1 6-1 so why play it? There's enough injuries from overplaying, why make the top players play a stupid first round when they'll win it blindfolded.

Jul 15th, 2002, 08:12 AM
i think in a 32-players draw should be no bye´s, cause i think you should win at least 5 matches to get the title.

Jul 15th, 2002, 08:17 AM
Originally posted by R. DIS
Well the top players should be given bye's because if they weren't they'd still win the match like 6-1 6-1 so why play it? There's enough injuries from overplaying, why make the top players play a stupid first round when they'll win it blindfolded.

but maybe the bye in the 1st round is the reason why few player play so many tournaments - like dokic.

Jul 15th, 2002, 08:18 AM
DEFINATELY IT IS FAIR-for instance, after Conchita wins the US Open she will be playing most likely in th tournament after-that means she will have to play the day or second day after her victorious 3 set thriller 20-18 over Jelena Dokic in the final. So it is natural that she be given a bye in the next tournament!


Jul 15th, 2002, 08:42 AM
Forget "fair" or "unfair"-it's bad for events because it means spoiled and pampered stars can arrive late(as late as Wednesday in some cases) and often don't play a match until Thursday. Yes, most tournaments don't really sell tickets until the semis anyhow, but it robs events of early momentum, excitement, and ticket sales.

Blame Evert and Navratilova for the current system. They were the ones who pushed for it in the mid 80s. Chris and Martina were great for the WTA, but the "bye" rule for the top seeds in regular tour events was not their finest moment.

Jul 15th, 2002, 08:45 AM
I think it's fair because generally the Top players goes far in the tournament so if one of them make the final the week #1, and it's not fair to play on Monday the first round of the week #2

Jul 15th, 2002, 08:48 AM
I think it's unfair.

Jul 15th, 2002, 08:52 AM
Even if they wern't given byes the top women wouldn't be playing on Monday. With 7 days the first 4 days are given over to the first 2 rounds.

Jul 15th, 2002, 10:43 AM
Rollo ......... even if they have byes they are still obliged to come early especially if they are gold exempt to perfom duties ;)

Still i would like no byes at all in draws of 32, giving 4 extra players a place in maindraw.

Williams Rulez
Jul 15th, 2002, 11:48 AM
I think it is generally fair... less matches... less injuries don't you think? ;)

Jul 15th, 2002, 11:59 AM
didn't grand slams also have first round bye's long before evert and nav were there? :confused:

Jul 15th, 2002, 02:32 PM
And how often has that rule been overlooked Boiled?

Yes Irma, slams gave out byes in the past to seeds, but that was because they limited the draw to numbers like 96 or 48. At Wimbledon byes were scattered, not just given to top seeds. There was an exception to that. In the 1972 French all the top women were given byes in the first two rounds!
If you go to the Blast From the Past Forum, me and Brian have put up many of the grand slam draws:)

It's only been since 1988 that all 4 slams have had nice set draws of 128.

Jul 15th, 2002, 03:31 PM
I don't like byes myself. It is a bit ridiculous if you're at a tournament all week and don't see Venus or Lindsay until Thursday night :( Plus, I think it's actually a disadvantage to the player receiving the bye sometimes. How many times have we seen the seed knocked out by a player who had a great first round and just kept on rolling? Even if the players had to all play first round, they still wouldn't see action until Tuesday at the earliest most likely, or maybe Monday night for a top player who wasn't in a final or semi the weekend prior. Plus, like Eggy said, that's four more players who would get a shot....even if they get bageled, it's all experience.

Jul 15th, 2002, 03:36 PM
Plus giving byes to players spolils the structure of the event when sometimes 1 QF is played on the Thursday even before some have even finished their 2nd rd match

thats what i hate.

Jul 15th, 2002, 03:44 PM
I think the bye system actually may help the lower ranked players. Think about it this way. You get 1 point for losing in the first round. If you meet even the #8 seed in the first round, you're most likely going to lose. That leaves you with 1 point. However, if all the top players have byes through the first round, you'll be meeting someone in the first round that is much more closely ranked to you and you have a better chance of beating them and earning second round points than if you'd played a seed.

Jul 15th, 2002, 03:50 PM
ITS AN ADVANTAGE for qualifiers and lower ranked players not to meet top players right away.

At least they can win First round.

I dont see any problem with BYE's

Jul 15th, 2002, 04:01 PM
no no no... byes are not good for the game, Eggy, i thought you would say that this way (no byes) there would be more room for lower ranked players... i mean, sometimes we see the #30 player in the world playing a qualifying draw, i think Barbara Schett will play qualifying in New Heaven! this is not right!

Jul 15th, 2002, 04:19 PM
If Thursday through Sunday schedules draw more top players, doesn't that do the most to support the tour? I know the question was about fairness, but since first round losses of the big-draws is the exception, not the rule, and since they play daily after that, and since there is some advantage to lower ranked players getting a real chance to get to the second round, then there is a pluses and minuses tally that works out best to bring dollars to the tour. If dropping the byes wouldn't decrease the number of tournaments that the top players play, then that certainly changes the balance of the tally. It would all come down to whether or not it is an advantage for lower ranked players, because I just can't see it as a protection for top-ranked players.

Jul 15th, 2002, 04:21 PM
Chris and Martina played virtually every weekend. They would never have days off if there were no byes. Finals Sunday, travel Monday, 1st round match Tuesday.

And these players don't get 2nd round points. If they lose their 1st match, they get 1 point. What it does is lower the number of matches the elite players play to more the level of everyone else. think about it. Serena played ten,matches at Berlin and Rome. It took Anna Kournikova SEVEN tournaments toplay 10 matches last winter. (Not to pick on Anna. I could have use 50 other players, she's just the most famous) Even with BYEs, the eleite players play more matches. (Well, not Serena. I don't think she's ever played 60 matches in a year.

Jul 15th, 2002, 04:38 PM
Volcana:Evert and Navratilova DID NOT play "Virtually every weekend". Go to tennis corner and check out how many events they were in in the mid 80s. On average it was very low. They lasted as long as they did because they knew how to make a sane schedule.

With large draws of 56 or 98 I see no problem with byes for seeds. When you get down to 28 though, that's 4 women won't earn a shot at money and points.

Brian Stewart
Jul 15th, 2002, 04:54 PM
I see nothing wrong with the byes. But, there are positives and negatives with every issue.

The top players get to play one less match. The good part is, for every 20 matches they play, that would be spread over 5 tournaments instead of 4. More tournaments played is more tournaments helped. Ask the tourney director for the 5th tourney if he'd rather have Player A from Thursday on, or not at all. Another positive, with the lightened singles load, more top players likely to play doubles.

Negatives: fewer spots available in main draws. And by playing that extra tournament, players more likely to play more tournaments in succession, increasing chance of injury. Of course, some (not mentioning any names) will play the extra events regardless.

If you look at the 64-draw tourneys, all have at least 8 byes, some as many as 16. If you took away those byes, would most of those events be likely to move up to 64 player fields, or drop to 32 player fields? I could say with relative certainty that the 2 California events in San Diego and Manhattan Beach would drop down, creating 16 fewer slots per tourney.

If you eliminated byes, many of the top players who play the occasional Tier III or lower events will skip them altogether. That would put a lot of these tourneys in financial jeopardy.

I say keep the byes. The tourneys can still start featuring top players as early as Tuesday in singles, and spread them out. Plus, there are enough recognizable names floating outside the seedings at any given moment to draw some fans to the first few days. And you can throw in some early round doubles matches to add star power. The successful tourneys have been able to work this out. Canada is a shining example, drawing 150,000+ fans for a 1-week event. Others can do it too. (Have successful tourneys, that is. Not necessarily drawing 150,000 fans. :))

As for the old slams, there were some tremendously goofy bye formulas. I think there was one that was set up as a 128-draw, with everyone getting a first round bye, and some getting a double-bye. Others would have two players playing in the first round, with the winner getting a bye in the second. Strange stuff indeed.

Jul 16th, 2002, 12:26 PM
BYEs are good for the top-players... I totally agree with Williams Rulez :)