PDA

View Full Version : Do you want the WTA to go back to Tier system.


Steadyniacki
Jun 7th, 2010, 12:03 PM
A good year and a half on and i still really miss Tiers, not a fan of the roadmap system.

AnomyBC
Jun 7th, 2010, 12:15 PM
Dear god! Yes! Please bring the tier system back! This Premier, Premier 5, Premier Mandatory business is ridiculous :sad:

Josh.
Jun 7th, 2010, 12:35 PM
Yeah, I'm up for the Tier system. Much easier to follow.

Droolv
Jun 7th, 2010, 12:36 PM
Yeah, I liked the tier system :yeah:

goldenlox
Jun 7th, 2010, 12:38 PM
Its just a different name.
But its easy to remember Tiers

claypova
Jun 7th, 2010, 12:39 PM
all these different Premiers are too confusin.

Tier I, II, III and so on are just easier.

jimbo mack
Jun 7th, 2010, 12:45 PM
Good thread

It doesn't make much difference to me as it's pretty much the same meaning, just different names. Although I do not think that IW, Madrid and Beijing should be mandatory - they should be equal with Rome, Canadian Open, Tokyo etc. Making these tournaments mandatory have not benefited the tour in having increased rivalries at the top, madrid is a perfect example of this.

And there are areas of the schedule that definitely need cleaning up, particularly between AO and IW and also US Open to YEC is a mess. There's room for improvements and I think improvements are slowly happening already, for example Cincinatti and Birmingham are re-branding their stadiums. Another issue is drawing in more crowds, it's horrible to see so many empty stadiums. Tournament directors should all communicate with each at meetings on how this can be improved, for instance stuttgart could certainly give madrid, rome and beijing some advice!

mckyle.
Jun 7th, 2010, 12:55 PM
Who cares? Tournaments are tournaments.

TennisFan66
Jun 7th, 2010, 01:03 PM
Who cares? Tournaments are tournaments.

:yeah:

LCS
Jun 7th, 2010, 01:05 PM
I never know the importance of what's being played :confused:

Derevko
Jun 7th, 2010, 01:07 PM
Premier Mandatory --> Tier I
Premier 5 --> Tier II
Premier --> Tier III
International --> Tier IV/V

:)

Corswandt
Jun 7th, 2010, 01:08 PM
I never know the importance of what's being played :confused:

Any tournament your fave wins= the 5th Slam

Any tournament your fave sux balls at = MM

Meelis
Jun 7th, 2010, 01:12 PM
Premier Mandatory --> Tier I
Premier 5 --> Tier II
Premier --> Tier III
International --> Tier IV/V

:)

Premier Mandatory --> Super Tier I
Premier 5 --> Tier I
Premier --> Tier II
International --> Tier III/IV

Kworb
Jun 7th, 2010, 01:14 PM
Premier Mandatory --> Tier I
Premier 5 --> Tier II
Premier --> Tier III
International --> Tier IV/V

:)

No it's more like

Premier Mandatory / Premier 5 --> Tier I
Premier --> Tier II
International --> Tier III/IV/V

Steadyniacki
Jun 7th, 2010, 01:17 PM
The gap between Premier Mandatory and Premier 5 is so small then there is a huge gap to Premier and then there are the internationals which are also very diverse and deserve 2 tiers.

The 4 tier system worked really well imo

sammy01
Jun 7th, 2010, 01:18 PM
Premier Mandatory --> Tier I
Premier 5 --> Tier II
Premier --> Tier III
International --> Tier IV/V

:)

Premier Mandatory --> Super Tier I
Premier 5 --> Tier I
Premier --> Tier II
International --> Tier III/IV

No it's more like

Premier Mandatory / Premier 5 --> Tier I
Premier --> Tier II
International --> Tier III/IV/V

this just goes to show us womens tennis followers still don't get the importance of these tournaments with the new system or at least have diffeerent ideas on there importance.

bring back tiers, it was so simple. the ATP has the tier system only it is 1000, 500, 250, not tier 1, 2 and 3, why the wta needs to over complicate things god knows.

PhilePhile
Jun 7th, 2010, 01:18 PM
Point Distribution/Ranking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Tennis_Association#Ranking)

goldenlox
Jun 7th, 2010, 01:30 PM
So just remember Premier, and M5
M is Super Tier I
5 is Tier I
without M or 5 its a Tier II
without Premier its Tier III IV

edificio
Jun 7th, 2010, 01:36 PM
I had to say yes to the old system simply because the new names are incomprehensible, not immediately logical: Premier, Premier, Premier, International, and whatever. Why not simply I, II, III, IV, V? Much easier. Dumb.

The 2nd Law
Jun 7th, 2010, 01:51 PM
this just goes to show us womens tennis followers still don't get the importance of these tournaments with the new system or at least have diffeerent ideas on there importance.

bring back tiers, it was so simple. the ATP has the tier system only it is 1000, 500, 250, not tier 1, 2 and 3, why the wta needs to over complicate things god knows.

Yep, the ATP system is so much easier to comprehend. Think in the shoes of a young fan, or new fan, Tier I, II, III, IV is much easier for them to distinguish between the level of tournaments.

Sammy Stones
Jun 7th, 2010, 02:30 PM
there aren't tiers anymore? :unsure: I'm out of the loop. I don't get them premium deals

danieln1
Jun 8th, 2010, 01:14 AM
I was introduced to tennis at the tier system, it was a shock when it changed it...

But now Im used to roadmap, but I really liked the tier system

MH0861
Jun 8th, 2010, 01:18 AM
I liked the Tier system more, but not enough to really miss it TBH.

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Jun 8th, 2010, 02:36 AM
I liked it

hurricanejeanne
Jun 8th, 2010, 02:41 AM
I still refer to the tournaments as by the tier system, it's far easier to keep track.

Roadkill = Fail.

delicatecutter
Jun 8th, 2010, 02:44 AM
It took awhile to get used to but I realized the equivalent of the old Tier Is are the ones that Wozniacki never wins.

CrossCourt~Rally
Jun 8th, 2010, 02:45 AM
Yeah, i preferred the tier system :bounce:

kiwifan
Jun 8th, 2010, 05:49 AM
Tier's were :yawn:

What makes a tourney is who's playing in it, not some silly rating they paid for...

Temperenka
Jun 8th, 2010, 05:53 AM
I much preferred the Tier system

Volcana
Jun 8th, 2010, 06:06 AM
Premier Mandatory --> Tier I
Premier 5 --> Tier II
Premier --> Tier III
International --> Tier IV/VSomething like, but there were NINE Tier I's. I prefer to equate the money. Let's face it, a two million dollar tournament is NOT a Tier II.

'Super' Tier 1 = Premier 4.5 million (What Miami was, in the Tier system)
Tier 1 = Premier 2.0 million (Charleston, Rogers Cup, TPP, Rome, etc. under the Tier system)
Tier 2 = Pemier 1.0 million - Premier $500,000 (Paris, Antwerp, etc)
Tier 3 = Internationale

Caralenko
Jun 8th, 2010, 06:23 AM
Who cares? Tournaments are tournaments.

:yeah:

The gap between Premier Mandatory and Premier 5 is so small then there is a huge gap to Premier and then there are the internationals which are also very diverse and deserve 2 tiers.

The 4 tier system worked really well imo

Were you even born when the tier system was in effect? :rolleyes:

TheBoiledEgg
Jun 8th, 2010, 07:19 AM
and the limitations of top 10 players where they can/cant play is :o

they should not be those rules for the grass season as there's only 3 tourns (2 of them MM), so if players wanna get some grass matches in they should be allowed to do so without them getting that stupid "You've played a MM tourn this half of yr, you cant play :nerner:"

iGOAT
Jun 8th, 2010, 08:12 AM
Well I preferred the Tier system as far as names go, but I have to say they shouldn't go back, because I like how with this any top player can play any event if they want to, whereas before top ten wasn't allowed to play Tier IV, which was dumb.

But seriously, who really cares what they're named :shrug:.

AnnaK_4ever
Jun 8th, 2010, 10:46 AM
Well I preferred the Tier system as far as names go, but I have to say they shouldn't go back, because I like how with this any top player can play any event if they want to, whereas before top ten wasn't allowed to play Tier IV, which was dumb.

What are you even talking about?

Slutiana
Jun 8th, 2010, 11:04 AM
What are you even talking about?
:happy: Was just about to post the exact same thing.


But seriously, as Sean said in another thread, the biggest aim of this Roadmap (apart from them being greedy fuckers and wanting more money) was to have the top players playing each other this year... There have been about 3 matches between top five players all year. Of course the Belgians have something to do with this, but that's still pretty ridiculous.

GeeTee
Jun 8th, 2010, 11:25 AM
It doesn't matter what ppl on here think - they are already tennis tragics.

To market the sport it should be simple enough for the average Joe to understand the difference.

ie:

1) Grand Slam
2) Gold Tournament (Mandatory)
3) Silver Tournament (Premier)
4) Bronze Tournament (International)

AnnaK_4ever
Jun 8th, 2010, 11:39 AM
:happy: Was just about to post the exact same thing.


But seriously, as Sean said in another thread, the biggest aim of this Roadmap (apart from them being greedy fuckers and wanting more money) was to have the top players playing each other this year... There have been about 3 matches between top five players all year. Of course the Belgians have something to do with this, but that's still pretty ridiculous.

To be precise, there have been 2 matches between top-5 players this season. Both at Sydney:
#5 Dementieva def. #2 Safina in QF
#5 Dementieva def. #1 Serena in F

sammy01
Jun 8th, 2010, 11:41 AM
To be precise, there have been 2 matches between top-5 players this season. Both at Sydney:
#5 Dementieva def. #2 Safina in QF
#5 Dementieva def. #1 Serena in F

roadmap :worship::worship::worship:

AnnaK_4ever
Jun 8th, 2010, 12:01 PM
All matches between top-10 players at WTA events (18 matches total):

Sydney - 4 matches
2R - Safina [2] def. [10] Radwanska
QF - Dementieva [5] def. [2] Safina
SF - Dementieva [5] def. [7] Azarenka
F - Dementieva [5] def. Serena [1]

Australian Open - 2 matches
4R - Azarenka [7] def. [9] Zvonareva
QF - Serena [1] def. [7] Azarenka

Dubai - 2 matches
SF - Azarenka [6] def. [9] Radwanska
F - Venus [5] def. [6] Azarenka

Indian Wells - 3 matches
QF - Radwanska [8] def. [7] Dementieva
SF - Wozniacki [4] def. [8] Radwanska
F - Jankovic [9] def. [4] Wozniacki

Miami - 2 matches
4R - Stosur [10] def. [8] Jankovic
QF - Venus [5] def. [9] Radwanska

Rome - 2 matches
QF - Jankovic [7] def. Venus [4]
SF - Jankovic [7] def. Serena [1]

Madrid - 1 match
QF - Venus [3] def. [8] Stosur

Roland Garros - 2 matches
QF - Stosur [7] def. [1] Serena
SF - Stosur [7] def. [4] Jankovic

No all top-10 encounters occurred at Premier events in Paris, Charleston, Stuttgart and Warsaw.

Hardiansf
Jun 8th, 2010, 12:31 PM
To be precise, there have been 2 matches between top-5 players this season. Both at Sydney:
#5 Dementieva def. #2 Safina in QF
#5 Dementieva def. #1 Serena in F
OMG :eek:
Roadmap = fail :sad:

ClijstersGOAT
Jun 8th, 2010, 12:42 PM
There should be more mandatory events, 10 or even 12, like on ATP.

Current ranking system rewards mediocre players playing many MM events.

TennisFan66
Jun 8th, 2010, 12:54 PM
There should be more mandatory events, 10 or even 12, like on ATP.

Current ranking system rewards mediocre players playing many MM events.


10-12 mandatory events, where injured players will then be forced to play or if not severely punished 1)monetary 2)ranking points wise.

Doesn't sound like a great idea to me.

goldenlox
Jun 8th, 2010, 12:55 PM
They had both Williams sisters and Justine in Madrid and Paris.
Rezai and Schiavone won.
You can get the best players in the same tournament, that's all you can do.
Then let it play out.

ClijstersGOAT
Jun 8th, 2010, 12:57 PM
10-12 mandatory events, where injured players will then be forced to play or if not severely punished 1)monetary 2)ranking points wise.

Doesn't sound like a great idea to me.

They get injured because they play 20 MM events per year. Besides, if you don't know how to stay healthy, you shouldn't be an athlete.

PS. I meant including the slams of course, so 2-4 more.

Talula
Jun 8th, 2010, 01:38 PM
So just remember Premier, and M5
M is Super Tier I
5 is Tier I
without M or 5 its a Tier II
without Premier its Tier III IV

:eek::scratch: it will take me forever to work that one out. That reminds me of one of those old questins you used to get at school:

if 5 men, 1 with one leg, 2 with one arm and 2 who are visually imparied dig a hole 4 feet wide and 3 feet deep in 33 minutes, how long would it take 4 men, 1 with one leg, 2 with one arms, but only 1 who is visually impaired.

Give me the Tier system any day.

FORZA SARITA
Jun 8th, 2010, 01:41 PM
Premier Mandatory --> Tier I
Premier 5 --> Tier II
Premier --> Tier III
International --> Tier IV/V

:)

failed as always :p;)

goldenlox
Jun 8th, 2010, 01:55 PM
:eek::scratch: it will take me forever to work that one out. That reminds me of one of those old questins you used to get at school:

if 5 men, 1 with one leg, 2 with one arm and 2 who are visually imparied dig a hole 4 feet wide and 3 feet deep in 33 minutes, how long would it take 4 men, 1 with one leg, 2 with one arms, but only 1 who is visually impaired.

Give me the Tier system any day.If it doesn't say Premier, then its Mickey Mouse.
So all you have to remember is M and 5
M is Super Tier I
5 is Tier I
its not hard.
Just Premier is Tier II

Chorophyll
Jun 8th, 2010, 02:10 PM
What are you even talking about?

Basically, yes.

meteor
Jun 8th, 2010, 02:31 PM
absolutely. the new roadmap is too confusing, and almost every player has complained about the rules. plus, under the tier system, eurosport was obligated to show all tier ii events and above :devil:.

to give you a prime example, they used to show amelia island every year. now, they do not cover ponte vedra beach (essentially the same tournament) at all :sad:.

darrinbaker00
Jun 8th, 2010, 03:54 PM
10-12 mandatory events, where injured players will then be forced to play or if not severely punished 1)monetary 2)ranking points wise.

Doesn't sound like a great idea to me.
If they don't like it, they can always hang up their racquets and go get a real job.

erschloy214
Jun 8th, 2010, 05:29 PM
I wish they'd take the same approach as the ATP...their categorization of tournaments is easy to understand and makes sense!

TheBoiledEgg
Jun 8th, 2010, 05:37 PM
ATP also has this rule where you can play as many MM events as you want but only 2 count, (depends on your rank but top players its 2)

goldenlox
Jun 8th, 2010, 05:42 PM
The WTA doesnt want Sharapova playing Memphis type tournaments all year.
They want the tournaments to pay the WTA, and then they guarantee the big names.

Otherwise little tournaments would just pay 1 big name player

sakya23
Jun 8th, 2010, 05:51 PM
I voted no because I feel the WTA should adopt a format similar to the ATP.
I would combine the Premier Mand. and Premier 5 so they are all Mandatory.
Then leave Premier as second tier, and international as third tier.
So we'd only have
Mandatory or 1000
Premier or 500
Inter. or 250

narutos
Jun 8th, 2010, 05:52 PM
It's not like the WTA is listening to you anyway.

Matt01
Jun 8th, 2010, 06:07 PM
Yes, i prefered the tier system and i miss it.


absolutely. the new roadmap is too confusing, and almost every player has complained about the rules. plus, under the tier system, eurosport was obligated to show all tier ii events and above :devil:.

to give you a prime example, they used to show amelia island every year. now, they do not cover ponte vedra beach (essentially the same tournament) at all :sad:.


They don't show that tournament anymore since it has become a Mickey Mouse tournamnent now :sad:, which makes it a different one of course.


I wish they'd take the same approach as the ATP...their categorization of tournaments is easy to understand and makes sense!


The ATP system is even worse. 8 Mandatory tournaments, lots of them back to back, a certain amount of 500s you have to play, season way too long. It's horrible :sad:

And I don't find the categorisation of the WTA tournaments difficult to understand at all. What I find difficult to understand is the ranking system and what exactly and which tournaments count towards a player's ranking.

Derek.
Jun 8th, 2010, 06:34 PM
I still don't even understand the new system. :shrug:
But I haven't really taken the time. :o

Corswandt
Jun 8th, 2010, 06:37 PM
The ATP system is even worse. 8 Mandatory tournaments, lots of them back to back, a certain amount of 500s you have to play, season way too long. It's horrible :sad:

Some people in the ATP actually envy the WTA for having been able to make its season shorter.

Matt01
Jun 8th, 2010, 07:02 PM
Some people in the ATP actually envy the WTA for having been able to make its season shorter.


Yep. That's one of the few good things about the new Roadmap :lol:
Actually I think that the WTA season now is a bit too short. :p WTA should make the season 1-2 weeks longer and ATP 2-3 weeks shorter.

DefyingGravity
Jun 8th, 2010, 07:14 PM
Honestly, the Roadmap could have left the Tier System alone, don't know WHY they got rid of that. It made it really easy to follow how important these events were.

meteor
Jun 8th, 2010, 07:20 PM
They don't show that tournament anymore since it has become a Mickey Mouse tournamnent now :sad:, which makes it a different one of course.






yeah, well, that's kind of my point. if not for the roadmap, it would have remained a tier ii, and eurosport would still be covering it. now, however, as you mentioned, it's a mickey mouse, hence, no coverage.

Sammo
Jun 8th, 2010, 09:10 PM
It was better...

terjw
Jun 8th, 2010, 09:30 PM
ATP also has this rule where you can play as many MM events as you want but only 2 count, (depends on your rank but top players its 2)

Excellent rule.

GeeTee
Jun 8th, 2010, 09:36 PM
^ Yes

Doc
Jun 8th, 2010, 09:48 PM
I don't suppose Tournaments wish to be known as lesser events. hence the elimination of Tiers, 2,3,4 etc. Its much better to publicise an "International" WTA tournament tan a "Tier 3" WTA event.

We just have to get used to the new names.

The division of the Tier 1s into two levels seems to serve no good purpose though. And the change has coincided with the destruction of much of the European Indoor Autumn season, which is a negative. .

goldenlox
Jun 8th, 2010, 09:53 PM
They wanted to put a big tournament in China.
And Tiriac wanted one in Madrid.
There are a lot of business reasons to do that.

So now there are 4 Super Tier I's, Premier Mandatory

IW, Miami, Madrid, Beijing

Matt01
Jun 8th, 2010, 10:28 PM
Excellent rule.


WTA rule is better. 2 MM tourneys per year for the Top Players is more than enough.

ClijstersGOAT
Jun 8th, 2010, 10:52 PM
WTA rule is better. 2 MM tourneys per year for the Top Players is more than enough.

:confused:

On WTA top players can count 6 MM events (they have to count 4 slams, 4 premier mandatory and 2 premier 5).
16-10=6

Matt01
Jun 8th, 2010, 11:02 PM
:confused:

On WTA top players can count 6 MM events (they have to count 4 slams, 4 premier mandatory and 2 premier 5).
16-10=6


Most of the other Premier tournaments, like Stuttgart, Sydney or San Diego, are not MM events.

ClijstersGOAT
Jun 8th, 2010, 11:05 PM
Most of the other Premier tournaments, like Stuttgart, Sydney or San Diego, are not MM events.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think top players can count 6 International events, they don't have to be Premier.

meteor
Jun 8th, 2010, 11:16 PM
They don't show that tournament anymore since it has become a Mickey Mouse tournamnent now :sad:, which makes it a different one of course.






also, if i'm not mistaken, the same thing happened to linz and luxembourg, thus ruining the european fall season :sad:.

goldenlox
Jun 8th, 2010, 11:20 PM
They want that fall season in Beijing and Tokyo

Matt01
Jun 8th, 2010, 11:21 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think top players can count 6 International events, they don't have to be Premier.


Top 10 players can only play up to 2 Internationals per year. Other players can play more.


also, if i'm not mistaken, the same thing happened to linz and luxembourg, thus ruining the european fall season :sad:.


Last year, Eurosport was still showing a little bit from Linz.
The number of tournaments had to be reduced somehow and they decided to minimize the European fall season :sad:

fouc
Jun 8th, 2010, 11:22 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think top players can count 6 International events, they don't have to be Premier.

you're wrong. one every half a year.

Caipirinha Guy
Jun 8th, 2010, 11:24 PM
One every half a year for those who finished a season in top10.

ClijstersGOAT
Jun 8th, 2010, 11:40 PM
Thanks for answers.
So, 11-20 players can count 6 International events :help:

and ATP 1-30 can count only 2 250s

ATP >> WTA

rafaelkafka
Jun 16th, 2013, 10:37 PM
Dear god! Yes! Please bring the tier system back! This Premier, Premier 5, Premier Mandatory business is ridiculous :sad:

Doha pays 2,168,400 and it is a Premier 5, Dubai pays 2 million and it is just a Premier like 667k tournaments! It is a mess! Please, WTA, change that! Keep it simple!

J.J.Kelly
Jun 16th, 2013, 10:40 PM
Yeah wtf is the reason so call it all these weird names. I remember I think it was Myskina who said "its a f**king joke that they do this just to make us have to go to the events". Myskina was so right :)

Halepsova
Jun 16th, 2013, 10:44 PM
I can't even tell the difference between the Premiers and anything else the called. :o

LightWarrior
Jun 16th, 2013, 10:47 PM
Go back to the tier system or use the ATP system. And stop with the bullshit names "International" or "Premier"...It makes me cringe.

J.J.Kelly
Jun 16th, 2013, 10:48 PM
Go back to the tier system or use the ATP system. And stop with the bullshit names "International" or "Premier"...It makes me cringe.

The ATP uses "International" :D

LightWarrior
Jun 16th, 2013, 10:57 PM
The ATP uses "International" :D

No it uses 250 / 500 / 1000.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tournaments/Tournament-Landing.aspx

J.J.Kelly
Jun 16th, 2013, 10:59 PM
No it uses 250 / 500 / 1000.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tournaments/Tournament-Landing.aspx

Right but that's so new. Nobody complained about "International" like 3 years ago.

rafaelkafka
Jun 17th, 2013, 12:04 AM
No it uses 250 / 500 / 1000.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tournaments/Tournament-Landing.aspx

Much better! I would love a Masters 5000 level with Indian Wells, Miami, Beijing and every tournament in IW level of money except the Slams, of course.

Panther24
Jun 17th, 2013, 12:11 AM
Loved the Tier system :sad:

And agreed with some other posters here.. Either go back to the tier system or use something similar to the ATP.

The current system is beyond awful :facepalm:

KournikovaFan91
Jun 17th, 2013, 12:23 AM
Easier to understand for everyone, bring back the Tiers.

torto14
Jun 17th, 2013, 12:26 AM
Whoever thought it was a good idea to have a category of tournament named "Premier" and make it the 3rd tier? :o

KournikovaFan91
Jun 17th, 2013, 12:31 AM
I know the names are horrendous, Premier Mandatory is hardly PR friendly, like any casual fan knows what the fuck that means.

duhcity
Jun 17th, 2013, 12:32 AM
It makes sense to me. Maybe not as clear as the Tier system, but if you're not taking the 5 minutes to find out the distinctions of Premier and International, you probably don't care too much anyway.

babsi
Jun 17th, 2013, 12:33 AM
What is more easier to understand than 1,2,3 and 4?

Qrystyna
Jun 17th, 2013, 12:40 AM
The WTA made a huge mistake by abandoning the Tier system. I also like how the season actually made sense before - Australian outdoor season, short indoor swing, IW & Miami, Clay, Grass, American HC, European indoors.

Wiggly
Jun 17th, 2013, 12:42 AM
It makes sense to me. Maybe not as clear as the Tier system, but if you're not taking the 5 minutes to find out the distinctions of Premier and International, you probably don't care too much anyway.

The ATP has 1000, 500 and 250 with matching Gold, Silver and Bronze.
Every 5 years can be smart enough to get ir right away.

The WTA probably hired a PR firm who came up with this BS and charged them 100K or something.

Lisickinator
Jun 17th, 2013, 12:48 AM
The current terms are just :confused: :confused:

They don't need to copy the ATP or go back to the old tiers but please WTA, use names everyone understands immediately, like platinum, gold, silver, bronze.

KournikovaFan91
Jun 17th, 2013, 01:36 AM
Equestrianism uses stars like the way hotels do to rank competitions. Also easy for people to understand that a 4 star event trumps a 3 star event. Another alternative if the WTA didn't wish to copy ATP or return to Tiers.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App (http://www.verticalsports.com/mobile)

J.J.Kelly
Jun 17th, 2013, 01:42 AM
Equestrianism uses stars like the way hotels do to rank competitions. Also easy for people to understand that a 4 star event trumps a 3 star event. Another alternative if the WTA didn't wish to copy ATP or return to Tiers.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App (/mobile)

This is completely irrelevant and doesn't measure up to a tennis tour in any way.

iWill
Jun 17th, 2013, 01:51 AM
Equestrianism uses stars like the way hotels do to rank competitions. Also easy for people to understand that a 4 star event trumps a 3 star event. Another alternative if the WTA didn't wish to copy ATP or return to Tiers.


That isn't a bad alternative to me. It also makes it uniquely WTA, for example if they replace Premier with "5 Star" then winning titles like Miami, Beijing, Toronto, etc....http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_levxodhKwZ1qcvthoo1_500.gif

This is completely irrelevant and doesn't measure up to a tennis tour in any way.

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view/360320/ur-not-a-5-star-chick-o.gif

J.J.Kelly
Jun 17th, 2013, 02:05 AM
Please use words instead of pictures lol.

On another note.....can someone please explain the difference in the challengers circuit between the men and women? Meaning challengers, future, "satelites" (aren't those things that fly in space...? wtf).

iWill
Jun 17th, 2013, 02:09 AM
http://cdn3.teen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/harry-styles-one-direction-you-must-be-new.gif

J.J.Kelly
Jun 17th, 2013, 02:11 AM
http://cdn3.teen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/harry-styles-one-direction-you-must-be-new.gif

I am new.

Why don't you explain it to me then? It's just a simple question, no need to make fun. Not all of us follow the challenger circuit.

killerqueen
Jun 17th, 2013, 02:28 AM
I don't think the names are really that difficult to grasp if you actually take a minute and look at them. At first they are obviously a bit confusing, but I can't think of a situation where confusing your Premier Mandatory and your Premier Five would really effect anything.

What does piss me off is the fact that so many crummy tournaments have been given top billing, while long-running and successful events fall by the wayside or get pushed into a lower level than they once were, effectively ruining the chances of getting a decent field. That of course, and the rules imposed on the Top 10 preventing more than one of them playing an International event. If two top ten players want to go to the same event, I don't see how that has any negative effect for the WTA in any way.

tommyk75
Jun 17th, 2013, 04:48 AM
The whole rule is to make sure that higher-level events (Premier whatever) get better fields than International events. For example, let's say that Charleston and Marrakech are played in the same week. Charleston offers $1,000,000 in prize money (say $200,000 to the winner) and expects the stars to show up. Marrakech only offers $225,000, but then the promoter offers Serena, Maria, and Vika $250,000 each in guarantees to play. The stars accept since they'd get more money. So then you'd see the three biggest stars on the tour playing for a Mickey Mouse event in Marrakech while Charleston would be stuck with Radwanska as the top seed (no offense) and no stars. Since guarantees are now legal, the WTA made the rule to prevent situations like this from happening.

Anyway, I liked the Tier system better, and I don't like the idea of mandatory events at all. The players should be given more freedom in choosing when and where to play, and mandatory events suck up the players and reduce the number of top-level events. Back in the day, Tier 1 events used to have 5 Top 10 players. That sounds about right. Instead, the WTA pulled the mandatory crap to make Indian Wells, Miami, Madrid, and Beijing pay just as they do to the men ($4.5 mil). Then they had to divide Premier Mandatory to Premier 5 because other promoters simply couldn't match all that money (Rome, Charleston, Toronto/Montreal, etc.). They need to make them all the same level (with a minimum prize money of $2 mil) and ask the players to play seven or eight our of the nine events.

And finally, that whole fall calendar is just a mess. Asia then Europe then Asia again? The scheduling is just a big old mess, much of it because so many events have aligned themselves to ATP events. Another mistake, IMO. :(

DefyingGravity
Jun 17th, 2013, 05:00 AM
I want quality points back as well.

miffedmax
Jun 17th, 2013, 05:06 AM
Any tournament your fave wins= the 5th Slam

Any tournament your fave sux balls at = MM

In Jo-La World, there are no slams.

But yes, I much prefer the Tier system, combined with some sort of schedule rationalization.

duhcity
Jun 17th, 2013, 05:45 AM
The ATP has 1000, 500 and 250 with matching Gold, Silver and Bronze.
Every 5 years can be smart enough to get ir right away.

The WTA probably hired a PR firm who came up with this BS and charged them 100K or something.

Tell the 5 year old Premier is better than International.

That's the only distinction that matters doesn't it? There are plenty of rules that make the ATP system just as convoluted as the WTA one, so the praise of the ATP system is :rolleyes:

What's easier to explain:

These Premier Mandatories are Mandatory. If you qualify and do not play, you get a 0 pointer.

or

These are the Masters Series, they are mandatory. If you qualify and do not play, you get a 0 pointer. Except Monte Carlo. And also you don't have to play all of them if you meet three conditions for exemption.

Marcus1979
Jun 17th, 2013, 07:06 AM
Tell the 5 year old Premier is better than International.

That's the only distinction that matters doesn't it? There are plenty of rules that make the ATP system just as convoluted as the WTA one, so the praise of the ATP system is :rolleyes:

What's easier to explain:

These Premier Mandatories are Mandatory. If you qualify and do not play, you get a 0 pointer.

or

These are the Masters Series, they are mandatory. If you qualify and do not play, you get a 0 pointer. Except Monte Carlo. And also you don't have to play all of them if you meet three conditions for exemption.

not to mention on the ATP the players have to play at least 4 500 events or 0 pointers apply and one must be after the US Open or a 0 pointer applies.

My gripe is when this new tier came in some great events were either killed off or downgraded

No Berlin, No Amelia Island, No Zurich, No Los Angeles,

Moscow was a Tier I, now its a Premier (I think Premier is supposed to be Tier II on old system)

Linz was a Tier II and now a international

San Diego was a Tier I now a Premier

Brisbane should never of been made a Premier event as its effecting the draws in Sydney which is a much older event.

Jajaloo
Jun 17th, 2013, 08:02 AM
not to mention on the ATP the players have to play at least 4 500 events or 0 pointers apply and one must be after the US Open or a 0 pointer applies.

My gripe is when this new tier came in some great events were either killed off or downgraded

No Berlin, No Amelia Island, No Zurich, No Los Angeles,

Moscow was a Tier I, now its a Premier (I think Premier is supposed to be Tier II on old system)

Linz was a Tier II and now a international

San Diego was a Tier I now a Premier

Brisbane should never of been made a Premier event as its effecting the draws in Sydney which is a much older event.


And this is what people think but aren't saying properly.

"Going back to their Tier system", what does that mean? Either, renaming the current tour events Tier I, Tier II, Tier III etc. OR, bringing back all the old events. And I think a lot of people just want the old events back because they liked them, so they say having "tiers" was easier.

Premier Manadatory and Premier 5 etc. isn't convoluted. Everyone just wants the old tour back. Which is just pointless complaining. It's not coming back. Just be thankful that there is a tour and watch the tennis!

Skochko
Jun 17th, 2013, 09:06 AM
And this is what people think but aren't saying properly.

"Going back to their Tier system", what does that mean? Either, renaming the current tour events Tier I, Tier II, Tier III etc. OR, bringing back all the old events. And I think a lot of people just want the old events back because they liked them, so they say having "tiers" was easier.

Premier Manadatory and Premier 5 etc. isn't convoluted. Everyone just wants the old tour back. Which is just pointless complaining. It's not coming back. Just be thankful that there is a tour and watch the tennis!
No. I don't have a problem with the new tournaments. Sure, I preferred the European indoor tournaments over the new Asian ones, but it's not the end of the world.
However, tiers made more sense. All PM and P5 tournaments should be Tier 1, all Premier tournaments Tier 2 and Internationals should be split into Tier 3 and 4, because some are stronger than others (WTA 125s can be Tier 5 if they want, but I don't care about that).

However, I can live with these names if they could just rename "Premier Mandatory" to "Mandatory" and "Premier 5" to something else, so, when someone says "Name has won a Premier-level title", you know it's actually a Premier title, not P5 or PM.

clutchplay
Jun 17th, 2013, 10:32 AM
the fall indoor season in europe really was one of the most interesting parts of the season and was respected and taken seriously by all top players. tokyo as the carpet tournament post-australia made so much more sense too as players were still "hanging out" in that region of the globe.

but srsly, 2006/2007 is such a good example of how great that part of the season was. zurich, linz, filderstadt/stuttgart, moscow and the indoor YEC at madrid to top it off. was so much fun and didn't make the whole tour feel like a big dud between the uso and YEC. it's 2 months after all.. beijing and tokyo (2009-present day) are just embarrassing. have to give it to beijing last year, sharapova and azarenka made it look relevant at least by reaching the final

oh and during the clisjters days she used to hog a lot of tournaments in benelux territory right? those were fun too

Z1988
Jun 17th, 2013, 12:19 PM
The tier "system" and the current roadmap "system" are basically the same; it is just different names :shrug: .

They can (if they want) bring back the older tournaments with the current roadmap, obviously; and it has nothing to do whether the tournament is called Premier/International or Tier 1/Tier 2/Tier 3 etc.

crescentmoon
Jun 17th, 2013, 12:44 PM
I prefer the Tier System because it was what I was familiar with.

Geisha
Jun 17th, 2013, 01:00 PM
Premier Mandatory --> Tier I
Premier 5 --> Tier II
Premier --> Tier III
International --> Tier IV/V

:)

Any title with 'Premier' makes it seem like itis an importan or significant tournament. This is confusing.

Simugna Help
Jun 17th, 2013, 01:09 PM
They should just follow ATP's tournament branding, simple and easily understandable.

Grand Slam (2000)
Premier 1000
WTA 500
WTA 250

Give the press guides to retroactively call former tier 1/PM/P5 as Premier 1000, Premier or tier II events as WTA500 etc. The consistency between the tours would be awesome.

Z1988
Jun 17th, 2013, 02:16 PM
Premier Mandatory --> Tier I
Premier 5 --> Tier II
Premier --> Tier III
International --> Tier IV/V

:)

I think both PM and P5 are "Tier I". PM tournaments are mandatory while P5 tournaments have a bit of flexibility for the players to choose. In this sense, scheduling-wise it is better than the ATP (for the players) because each player can choose which tournament (and, consequently, "when") they would like to skip.

But yeah, I can understand the naming can cause some confusion though :shrug: .

They should just follow ATP's tournament branding, simple and easily understandable.

Grand Slam (2000)
Premier 1000
WTA 500
WTA 250

Give the press guides to retroactively call former tier 1/PM/P5 as Premier 1000, Premier or tier II events as WTA500 etc. The consistency between the tours would be awesome.

I don't think they should follow (or "copy") ATP just like that, as if the WTA hasn't been "accussed" for "taking advantage" of the ATP with all the joint events... :shrug: . I understand that probably WTA should make the tournament categories "clearer" (less confusing) just by the names, but I would oppose the use of similar names to what ATP uses.

$uricate
Jun 17th, 2013, 02:23 PM
The new system bugs me.

Why have 3 different groupings called Premier?

So and so won a Premier could mean they won Miami, or equally Brussels. Brussels being extremely poor even by tier 2 standards.

The system in the mens game works so much better. It's a lot more rigid.

Thiudans
Oct 2nd, 2013, 11:03 PM
I think both PM and P5 are "Tier I". PM tournaments are mandatory while P5 tournaments have a bit of flexibility for the players to choose. In this sense, scheduling-wise it is better than the ATP (for the players) because each player can choose which tournament (and, consequently, "when") they would like to skip.

But yeah, I can understand the naming can cause some confusion though :shrug: .



I don't think they should follow (or "copy") ATP just like that, as if the WTA hasn't been "accussed" for "taking advantage" of the ATP with all the joint events... :shrug: . I understand that probably WTA should make the tournament categories "clearer" (less confusing) just by the names, but I would oppose the use of similar names to what ATP uses.

But you have to admit that the ATP system is really good. It tells you the level of the tournament at the same time as telling you how many points you win. The winning point distribution is linear and simple, too (250, 500, 1000). Perhaps I'm lazy, or maybe it's indicative of the convolutedness of the system, but I'm not sure of the current winning point ditribtion. I'm pretty sure that Premier mandatory is the top level, and gives 1000 points(?), but beyond that...

Tampering
Oct 2nd, 2013, 11:07 PM
Just name them something easy for the average person to understand

Platinum, Gold, Silver, Bronze. Works for me and thousands of other businesses selling different grades of something.

Thiudans
Oct 2nd, 2013, 11:13 PM
Just name them something easy for the average person to understand

Platinum, Gold, Silver, Bronze. Works for me and thousands of other businesses selling different grades of something.

True. Anything that's straightforward would work (but that said, the ATP system is still particularly good in that regard).

Wiggly
Oct 3rd, 2013, 12:27 AM
True. Anything that's straightforward would work (but that said, the ATP system is still particularly good in that regard).

The ATP's system is the best you can get.
There's the 1000, 500 and 250s combined with Gold, Silver and Bronze. Any idiot can understand that.

The Premier Mandatory, Premier 5 and Premier 470 are impossible to understand for the casual fan and they all have the same logo. Fail. Whoever was responsible of the Roadmap should've though about that.

Vincey!
Oct 3rd, 2013, 12:31 AM
There's not a big difference tbh...they will never change the mandatory tournament system so at the end of the day, the change is only the names. Which doesn't take much to get used to.

dencod16
Oct 3rd, 2013, 12:38 AM
The ATP's system is the best you can get.
There's the 1000, 500 and 250s combined with Gold, Silver and Bronze. Any idiot can understand that.

The Premier Mandatory, Premier 5 and Premier 470 are impossible to understand for the casual fan and they all have the same logo. Fail. Whoever was responsible of the Roadmap should've though about that.

I agree i think Premier and International names are fine. They should have named Premier 5/Mandatory with another name or Premier 470. One of them should just be Premier, the other should be another.

Just Do It
Oct 3rd, 2013, 12:41 AM
Any title with 'Premier' makes it seem like itis an importan or significant tournament. This is confusing.

Exactly! Does WTA ever listen the fans? I guess not. Tier system was so much easier, I still mix all those premier tournaments.

Sam L
Oct 3rd, 2013, 12:55 AM
The great thing about the tier system is that it was easier to remember and easy to differentiate. You also understand the prestige level easily. For instance, top players rarely played below Tier IIs. Now it's just confusing.

leftbrian
Oct 3rd, 2013, 01:31 AM
Shamefully I also couldn't make out the differences among the 3 Premiers until I started reading this thread. Maybe call them P1, P2, and P3?

iGOAT
Oct 3rd, 2013, 01:31 AM
Tier system was great but there are too many levels now for it.

The issue now is that the names don't make sense. Premier and International aren't related in any way :confused:. then Mandatory, 5, and 470 aren't at all memorable. It could be like Premier Silver, Gold, and Mandatory and then International Gold for the ones that give extra prize money I guess but they should still come up with a better name for Internationals :o.

djb84xi
Oct 3rd, 2013, 05:10 AM
I definitely miss the Tier system. It was much easier to identify most tournaments under the whole "Tier" structure. For example, I clearly remember most of the Tier I events being: IW, Miami, Charleston, Tokyo, San Diego, Rome, Berlin. Some of the Tier II events were Warsaw, Los Angeles, Amelia Island, Antwerp, Paris (Indoors), and Philadelphia. I definitely remember Cincy and Quebec City being Tier III events at one point. Under this current naming scheme, I wouldn't even remember what's what. That's just how ridiculously silly it is.

Mike.
Oct 3rd, 2013, 05:17 AM
I definitely miss the Tier system. It was much easier to identify most tournaments under the whole "Tier" structure. For example, I clearly remember most of the Tier I events being: IW, Miami, Charleston, Tokyo, San Diego, Rome, Berlin. Some of the Tier II events were Warsaw, Los Angeles, Amelia Island, Antwerp, Paris (Indoors), and Philadelphia. I definitely remember Cincy and Quebec City being Tier III events at one point. Under this current naming scheme, I wouldn't even remember what's what. That's just how ridiculously silly it is.

However it's easier to remember internationals than Tier III-V events, as sometimes some of them were going up or down in a price money.
I get used to roadmap, I just wish that each week players could play WTA125 events :oh:

Morning Morgan
Oct 3rd, 2013, 05:51 AM
As people said it was stupid to give the Tier Is the same name "Premier" as Tier IIs. They could easily call the Tier Is "Elite" (doesn't Elite 5 and Elite Mandatory sound much better?", and this would make the situation so much better already.

Wiggly
Apr 6th, 2014, 10:42 PM
Ben Rothenberg and Courtney Nguyen touched on that subject on their latest podcast and agreed that the Premiers don't work at all as it is too confusing.

disco_rage
Apr 6th, 2014, 10:59 PM
I hate to say this but I like the ATP system.
Simple 250, 500, 1000 and you get that amount of points for winning it

TennisGhost
Apr 6th, 2014, 11:08 PM
Yes. Of course.

fnuf7
Apr 6th, 2014, 11:54 PM
No, what I want them to do is just clear up this Premier thing, why not just lump all the mandatory ones & the Premier 5's into one group & treat them as equivalents to the ATP Masters 1000? In fact call them Premier 1000, give champions 1000 points (keep prizemoney the same as is currently if need be, don't need to force what is currently a P5 to up $ to PM standard just for sake of making tournament groupings more clear).

Tournaments that are currently Premiers (below PM & P5) could be called Premier 500 (equivalent to ATP 500) & the Internationals could be Premier 250 or International 250 (equivalent to ATP 250). Just simplify it all, have those tournaments just be grouped by 1000 points, 500 points & 250 points for champions & ignore grouping different premier ones dependent on how much prize money is etc etc.

The specific differences between say Miami & Rome are not important to the general fan, just lump them together as a Premier 1000 & say to the players you have to play 8 out of 9 of these Premier 1000 events (which is what they do anyway as it is, the 4 Mandatory tournaments & at least 4 of the 5 P5 tournaments) The way I group all 9 together & say they have to play 8 just gives them more leeway to perhaps skip what is currently a mandatory so eg:Serena could skip IW with no problems whatsoever & play the other 8.

I don't mind the actual grouping of tournaments as it is right now but the naming of them & promotion of them is over-complicated & unclear as to which tournaments are the biggest & best to win. Simplify things & lump them in as Premier 1000, Premier 500 & Premier 250. Done.

LefandePatty
Apr 7th, 2014, 12:03 AM
The great thing about the tier system is that it was easier to remember and easy to differentiate. You also understand the prestige level easily. For instance, top players rarely played below Tier IIs. Now it's just confusing.

Tell me about it! I can barely make the difference between a Premier and an International tournament :tape: :o

Chrissie-fan
Apr 7th, 2014, 12:19 AM
I hate to say this but I like the ATP system.
Simple 250, 500, 1000 and you get that amount of points for winning it
I agree. They should just call the premier mandatorys and premier5's masters 1000's, the premiers masters 500's and the internationals masters 250's. Nobody except the seriously devoted understand the shit they have going on now. 1000, 500 and 250 is as simple as it gets.

Hugues Daniel
Apr 7th, 2014, 12:39 AM
I hate the Tier system.

duhcity
Apr 7th, 2014, 12:48 AM
The premier system is literally not difficult at all. And the ATP system isn't any better - if anything it has more intricacies and exceptions that are just never explained to fans. Neither system is perfect, but the Premier/International System is fine.

Marcus1979
Apr 7th, 2014, 12:57 AM
The problem is not necessarily the premier tier per say but the changes that occurred at same time.

Restricting top players from playing Internationals, killing off events with history, moving every second event to Asia etc etc

Not to mention restricting how many top players can be in a premier or International Draw.

Roadmap has killed what we all loved about the tour prior to 2008


Sent from Verticalsports.com App (http://www.verticalsports.com/mobile)

Madoka
Apr 7th, 2014, 01:03 AM
the problem is not premier or tiers...

the problem is that players ( top 10 ) are not allowed to play the tournaments they want, the problem is that there are retrcitions for the number of top10 players when it is about Internationals or small Premiers.

top 10 ATP players can play all the 250 they want, even 2 or 3 of them in a same tournament...

CrossCourt~Rally
Apr 7th, 2014, 01:05 AM
I'm glad to see most people prefer the tier system :bounce:

aloirt
Apr 7th, 2014, 05:57 AM
The premier system is literally not difficult at all. And the ATP system isn't any better - if anything it has more intricacies and exceptions that are just never explained to fans. Neither system is perfect, but the Premier/International System is fine.

I don't get how the ATP system is confusing.

1,000, 500 and 250 are the points you get for winning the tournament.

With WTA, you have to explain that the Premiers are the most prestigious, but there are 4 mandatories and 5 other ones. Also, there is just regular premier which are not as prestigious. Then international tournaments that can also take place in America. You get 1000 points for mandatories. You get 470 points for just the regular premiers but there are 5 premier tournaments that you get 900 points from called the Premier 5. Also, the International tournaments get you 280 points.

Which one was harder to explain?

Marcus1979
Apr 7th, 2014, 06:02 AM
Well ATP has a restriction that players must take part in 4, 500 events across the year and 2 must take place post US Open or 0 pointers apply.

Then there is the issue that Monte Carlo is a masters series event but is not mandatory unlike the others.


Sent from Verticalsports.com App (http://www.verticalsports.com/mobile)

Panther24
Apr 7th, 2014, 06:06 AM
I'm glad to see most people prefer the tier system :bounce:

Seriously. Bring the old format back. :tears:

Marcus1979
Apr 7th, 2014, 06:10 AM
Seriously. Bring the old format back. :tears:


And the rules that existed In that era also.

I miss the days where most top 10 would enter a regular Tier II equivalent tournament just because they like the event :)

Remember in 2003 when both Henin and Venus entered Tier III Gold Coast. Stacey won't let that happen these days :fiery:


Sent from Verticalsports.com App (http://www.verticalsports.com/mobile)

Chaesaw
Apr 7th, 2014, 11:55 AM
Explaining the Premier system is bothersome. Try explaining that shit to someone completely new to tennis. Good luck.

The ATP system is a lot better. :shrug:

dos Santos
Apr 7th, 2014, 12:04 PM
International --> Tier III/IV/V

WTA 125 ---> Tier V ?

*Jool*
Apr 7th, 2014, 12:14 PM
^^ kinda , as the Tiers V used to offer about 110k $ back then ;)
(Tiers IV were 170k or something)

Sammo
Apr 7th, 2014, 12:53 PM
I don't think it's that bad now, I mean, a Tier I could go from $1,340,000 to $4 million. And who cared about the difference between Tier III, Tier IV or Tier V? They were all Mickey Mouse tournaments. I feel like it makes more sense now.

Banditoo
Apr 7th, 2014, 01:22 PM
I'm a fan since 2010 and that tiers system is confusing for me :lol:

verdegreen
Apr 7th, 2014, 02:19 PM
I liked Tier system, Premier is ok, but i do'nt like the Mandatory/5 stuff.
Playing ''Tennis Elbow'', i made a sistem of my own and would love if something like that happen.
1 YWC/WTF
2 ''team'' competitions (Olympics and two week long Davis/Fed Cups held every second year with Hompan being in between as a part of it)
4 Grand Slam
8 Premier Masters 1000
16 Premier 500
32 International 250.

The main statistic would be like:
Titles won (GS+YEC/WTF+MASTERS+PREMIER+INTERNATIONAL+CHALLENGER+ITF+O G)
Premier tour titles (GS+YEC/WTF+PREMIER+OG

TennisGrandSlam
Apr 7th, 2014, 02:55 PM
Tier I II III IV V

ozza
Apr 7th, 2014, 05:17 PM
The thing is fans don't really need to know the intricacies of the system. They don't need to know an international event can only have 1 top 10 player.

It is far better promotion and gives far greater clarity if your names actually explain anything about what is bigger. This is where the WTA system is useless and ATP system is far better. International is just a word with no context whatsoever which could be used to describe any event. And 3 tiers of premier causes people to not even care to learn the difference, or just tag them along as one. Even on this forum, how often do you see people tag together premiers as one, and say how x player has won x premiers. Would you ever see an ATP forum lump together ATP 1000's and 500's, no, because they are different tiers of events.

They don't have to go back to the tier system or even copy the ATP system, they just need something that the basic structure is easy to understand. This isn't the case right now.

Wiggly
Apr 7th, 2014, 05:25 PM
Yes, the fans don't need to know the entire rulebook.

This is all about basic branding and all these tournaments would become instantly more prestigious with the right name.
It could create more storylines as well.

You never head any journalist talk about how player X only need to win tournament A and tournament B to have the complete "set" and it's way too confusing and the tournaments' location change every year or so.

pov
Apr 7th, 2014, 06:11 PM
Ben Rothenberg and Courtney Nguyen touched on that subject on their latest podcast and agreed that the Premiers don't work at all as it is too confusing.

:confused: How is "Premier" any more confusing than "Masters"?

The premier system is literally not difficult at all. And the ATP system isn't any better - if anything it has more intricacies and exceptions that are just never explained to fans. Neither system is perfect, but the Premier/International System is fine.
:yeah:

People just like to gripe. And since the things that do need improvement have already been discussed they come up with all sorts of nonsense.

vma
Apr 7th, 2014, 06:23 PM
Why even ask tennis fans about their opinion when WTA never seems to take any notice and just do what they want :shrug:

coolfish1103
Apr 7th, 2014, 06:40 PM
They don't even have to copy the ATP system, just go back to Tier I-V and award each category with points accordingly. Also please kill off the useless WTA 125K and just put Tier V in it's place.


GS - 2,000
YEC - 1,500
I - 1,000
II - 800
III - 600
IV - 400
V - 200


If it's possible, also get rid of Beijing and Madrid's mandatory status and make the road map and schedule correctly! :oh: Yeah I know that's impossible...

Wiggly
Apr 7th, 2014, 06:54 PM
:confused: How is "Premier" any more confusing than "Masters"?


:yeah:

People just like to gripe. And since the things that do need improvement have already been discussed they come up with all sorts of nonsense.

Masters 1000 (gold logo), ATP 500 (silver logo) and ATP 250 (bronze logo) vs Premier Mandatory (same logo), Premier 5 (same logo), Premier (same logo) and International (same logo but with International written under it).

One is MUCH clearer.

Tracer
Apr 7th, 2014, 07:25 PM
I guess I am on the Tier system wagon as well. Much easier to understand, but I do understand why they probably want to separate the tournaments by renaming them.

The Premier Mandatory are big tournaments that are shared with both the Men's and Women's tennis players. The prize money is much larger then the Premier 5 tournaments. 5.4 million to 2 million. Ranking points they are about the same 1000 for a Mandatory and 900 for a Premier 5. Premier prize money can be up to 2 million and 470 ranking points while an International has 250,000 to 500,000 and 280 ranking points.

It gets very confusing for people when they see the draws since you can have a Mandatory and a Premier 5 with the same number of players playing. So why is there a difference? Money is the real difference and the Mandatory plays with the Men, so obviously the tournament is only going to be a bigger event.

What the WTA should do is re-haul how ranking points are awarded and make it simpler so an average follower of the WTA can understand it better. The ATP are ahead of the curve here.